Ron Paul wins Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls

  And he won them huge with 81% and 73% percent of the vote.  Mitt Romney came in second, and everyone else pretty much failed to show.  It looks like Ron Paul is starting to flex that vaunted internet grassrooots muscle his supporters have been talking about.

   Sure, get real.  The two polls between them had less than 500 voters, and at least one of them was a taxpayers organization picnic. I can’t seem to find what the event was in Alabama so I’ll surmise it was the annual incest, beer, and bar b q get together at the Hog Waller saloon.

   These tiny straw polls work well for a grassroots organization.  It’s easy for the average militia or right to life group to overpower the vote tally just by getting blood reletives involved.  I’m not trying to denigrate the victories, but I’m curious as to why the awesome change in direction the campaign has taken since Iowa.  If numbers are to be believed Ron Paul is now enjoying a surprising polularity cushion over second place also ran Mitt.

The contestants had this to say:

   It’s rumored that Mitt, while in his  cups down at the leather room in Mistress Trina’s House of Worship was heard to

exclaim ruefully “all it takes is free food to get Ron Paul’s bloggers to vote.”

  A representative for the Tancredo camp, appearing to suffer from shock stated “To hell with Iran.  We should nuke Alabama. I’ve never seen more house shoes and mumu’s, and less teeth in my entire life.”

Fred Thompson:  In what appears to be a Christian Coalition inspired hypnotic trance “Straw polls are bad law and bad medicine.”

Mike Huckabee:  while sucking his thumb “but god’s supposed to be on my side, what a gyp.”

Rudy Giuliani:  “you mean I kissed all these dirty smelly little peasants for nothing”

so there you have it.  Todays straw poll with just the hint of reality they deserve.

Advertisements

39 Responses to Ron Paul wins Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls

  1. On my website, CommonConservative.com, I wrote a piece about the Iowa Straw Polls where I single out Ron Paul’s 5th place finish as evidence that the Iowa Straw Poll shouldn’t be taken seriously. That one paragraph has already elicited responses from the Ron Paul Fanclub, including condescending posts about how I’m “a stooge” or “ignorant” and that I need to “wake up.” Usually, I get those kinds of comments from faux liberals or egotistical faux conservatives who think they know more than they actually do, so I’m used to comments like that.

    What I wasn’t prepared for was a flashback to 2003-2004. I seem to remember another politician who had a lot of early support, was deemed to be the savior of his party, and was thought of as the real deal. That was before a fateful January when the candidate dropped to third at the Iowa Caucuses due in part to his snapping at an elderly gentleman and political machinations behind the scenes. Then, there was “the scream.”

    Yep, I’m talking about Howard Dean.

    Judging from how defensive Ron Paul’s supporters are about their candidate, I am reminded of how Dean’s supporters were whenever anyone would question him. And after his comments at one of the Republican debates where he still unsure of what happened on 9/11, I think we’ve found a good reason to question him. His approach to the war on terrorism leaves a LOT to be desired because I don’t think he gets it. He may be okay on other issues, but when you consider we’re hip deep in an international war against people who want us dead for being us, you kinda need to have a handle on that, and I’m not confident Paul has that.

    I have a hypothesis about Paul’s support base, and it’s only a hypothesis. Given how loose the Iowa Straw Poll and the Iowa Caucuses to a lesser degree are, it’s entirely possible that Democrats are registering as Republicans so they can try to weaken top-tier candidates and knock them out, thus giving Hillary Clinton a much easier road to the White House. Then, surprise surprise, they “come to their senses” and reregister as Democrats. And all they have to do is talk up Ron Paul enough that people think he’s viable.

    But as we saw with Dean, being popular in the early going means nothing if you can’t pick up the votes when it counts.

    http://thomaslindaman.blogspot.com

  2. hey tom…they can be a little visceral wouldn’t yuh say?

  3. JanieBelle says:

    It’s because he was on “Wait. Wait. Don’t Tell Me” today.

    He actually sounded fairly reasonable, and seemed to have a decent sense of humor, so after seeing his name on eleventy billion posts of yours in my blog surfer, I decided to check him out.

    Ron Paul’s Statement of Faith

    In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

    Anti-freedom-of-choice religious zealot.

    Sorry, deal breaker right there.

    So much for that whole “Get the government out of our lives” schtick. What he really means is make the government give his religious mythology free reign and the force of law over the rest of us, and just get the government out of his life.

    Buh bye Mr. Paul, you have earned a big ol’ scratch on the JanieBelle ticket of possibilities.

  4. oh geeze janie…don’t blame me. i mentioned that fruity abortion stance weeks ago. Great comment. you jsut sort of summed it all up in about a paragraph.

  5. JanieBelle says:

    Sorry CJ, I musta missed that in the pile of stuff, and with the whole Aunt Helen thing, I admit I skimmed most of the political stuff.

    Apologies and Kisses

  6. no apology necessary….faux online kisses always accepted. *s*

  7. Dion says:

    OMG, what kind of deluded world are you guys living in?

    Ron Paul personally is against abortion, but he believes that it is not his role or the Federal Governments to decide weather you can or cant get an abortion. He wants to leave that up too the States i.e. The People

    Im watching this unravel from Australia, and i stumbled across this page. If you cant see what is happening behind the scenes, then you ARE an “Ignorant” “Stooge” who needs to “Wake Up”

    Even I can see that from here. Sheesh the mentality of some people.

  8. hi dion. so why is it better for me to have the state determine abortion and other rights vice the federal government? Nice easy question that you can’t possibly answer because it isn’t better. It just changes the perpetrators of the tyranny.

    thanks for coming by.

  9. Dion,

    My right to do as I wish with my own body is not open to vote by the majority, by the state, by the federal government, by the local school board or the local church.

    If you can’t see that, then you’re a blind tool of fascist propaganda who needs to get your “Fucking” “Head” out of your “Fucking Ass”.

    Have a nice fucking day down under.

  10. Big Jer says:

    Is he the Libertarian that wants the voters to think he’s a conservative Republican?

    This vulgar language posted in your comment section, will really help your cause..well done!

  11. hi Big Jer…ummmm…what cause is that? I post any comment that doesn’t include threats. I haven’t seen a noticeable prude problem, so i’ll continue with that as my guideline.

    thanks for coming by

  12. JanieBelle says:

    Way to go Big Jer. (I think you musta forgot the K at the end. You should proofread.)

    Don’t address the issues, just whine because you don’t like the verbiage.

    Typical.

    Lookee here. I can’t speak for CJ, but as far as I’m concerned, he is a conservative Republican, and that’s exactly why he will not get my vote. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re implying he’s some sort of liberal in disguise.

    His “Statement of Faith” shows that he is a misogynistic, fascist, credulous Bible thumper with the intellectual capacity of a box of rocks. He’s one of your kinda guys, so I’m not sure why you would imply that he’s not really a conservative Republican. As far as I can tell, the only thing he lacks is the name.

    Put another way, my problem is not that he’s a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, it’s that he’s a Republican pretending to be human.

    CJ, I was unaware that you had a “cause” here myself. From what I’ve seen, you’ve presented what you thought were both positive and negative points about Congressman Paul. Had Big Jer(k) spent 30 seconds actually reading, he’d have known that. Hell, I could see that while I was just skimming during my recent familial loss, before I even bothered to go back and read it all thoroughly. (I’m still in the process of that, btw – you sure do have a lot to say about him… Man crush?)

    Instead, he saw “fuck” and stuck his fingers in his ears and began to recite hail Marys and the memorized talking points he heard in Sunday School.

    Again, typical.

    Kisses to you, CJ.

    But no lips for drips.

  13. Braden says:

    As a citizen of Alabama with an avid interest in politics, I’d just like to say that this “victory” in Alabama for Ron Paul means absolutely nothing. This is the first I’ve heard of it.

    I resent the incest comment by the way. We leave that to Georgia and Mississippi. Besides, if we were all drunk and incestuous, what would that say for Ron Paul?

  14. Kristofor says:

    With regard to Dion’s comment, I think there needs to be a clarification. The FEDERAL government is supposed to be very limited in its powers. There are large cultural differences in different parts of the country. If the voters in California want it to be OK for gay people to marry, so be it. If the people of Alabama don’t, then fine. Either way, it shouldn’t be a federal issue.

    At least this way you can pick a state that suits your tastes. It’s getting to the point that none of them will suit anyone’s tastes because of the FEDERAL government’s intrusion in our lives.

    I can understand why Paul has his take on abortion. He’s an OB/GYN. He knows that if you hurt an unborn child, it’s a crime, but only if it was a child that was WANTED. Personally, I’m pro-choice, but the man has demonstrated too much honesty and good sense for people not to think carefully about him, regardless of your views on abortion.

    For most freedom loving people, morality has to do with what you do to OTHER people, not yourself, and that’s a libertarian view that it appears Dr. Paul supports. And he’s got the history to prove that he does what he says.

    All I’m saying is that there are very good reasons for the enormous support he has. Think about that the next time you watch virtually any other candidate “tailor” their speech to the audience they are talking to at the time.

  15. Sarah says:

    Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because it was a federal decision. The constitution says that anything not specifically outlined *in* the constitution should be left to the states. Like it or not, Ron Paul’s political stance on abortion is correct.

    And by the way, overturning RvW would not make abortion illegal because every state already has laws that make it legal. All you would probably see is some states maybe putting restrictions on abortion. They might, for example, restrict late term abortions or partial birth abortions.

    I like what Dion had to say. Have a nice day, folks.

  16. hi sarah and kristophor…well made point. Take it further. If alabama decides not to pay for schools, thats their choice. If Ohio decides not to inoculate children, again, thats the states call. It affects everyone, as communicable diseases refuse for whatever reason to ignore borders. In a society this advanced, with this rapid and easy access coast to coast…a state by state determination of what is right and wrong is not only counterproductive, it is dangerous.

    I do however respect your desire to think otherwise.

  17. that was levity braden. Southern white folk and poltiticains are the only two groups its still ok to talk bad about in public. Relax, I’ve been to alabammy…great folks.

    good take on what it means.

  18. no Janie…not a man crush. He happens to be the most interesting and dangerous candidate in the race…I can write one post about the rest, change the name at the top and post it 17 times…dems and republicans, they’re virtually all the same…the only real differences are on abortion, and then lying about what to do about iraq, healthcare, and immigration.

  19. […] Ron Paul wins Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls   And he won them huge with 81% and 73% percent of the vote.  Mitt Romney came in second, and everyone else pretty […] […]

  20. […] Ron Paul wins Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls And he won them huge with 81% and 73% percent of the vote. Mitt Romney came in second, and everyone else pretty […] […]

  21. Braden says:

    It’s all good. But I have to say I was shocked to see that Ron Paul won ANYTHING in Alabama. Most people in Alabama haven’t heard of Ron Paul…or Mitt Romney! We know McCain b/c he’s visited our state and bragged on our governor. And we know Fred Thompson because he was born in Alabama and he’s on Law & Order.

    It sounds like every single Ron Paul fan in the state of Alabama got together and said “Hey! Let’s take a poll and not tell anyone about it!” The votes that went to Romney must’ve been Paul fans that realized that Ron Paul has the chances of a snowball in hell so they had to go with a more electable candidate.

  22. hi braden, like i said, get one militiamen and his card carrying john birch friends and you have a quorum at these pie social events…if you here what the event was, could you let me know?

  23. JanieBelle says:

    Agreed, well made point Sarah and Kristofor.

    And if Vermont decides it should be illegal to proselytize door to door for invisible people who live in the sky, well then so be it. Don’t like that? Move to another state.

    And if North Carolina should decide that all families should have a minimum of 15 children, well, who’s to argue? There was a vote after all, right?

    Good logic there.

    There are some things that are simply not open for your approval, and what I do with my body is one of them.

    Ron Paul’s stance on abortion is most certainly not correct, it’s inane. Nobody, not the federal government, not the state government, not you, not me, is allowed to force their religious opinion on anyone else, and THAT is why Roe v. Wade is Constitutional. Your objection to my abortion is based on your religious opinion, nothing more.

    When you have science and fact to back up your case for a soul entering a body at conception, come on back and we’ll talk. Until then, keep your god damned rosaries off my ovaries.

  24. Trivium says:

    Why is it that Straw Polls are discredited as grassroot ploys to get attention while the “scientific” national media polls are considered a consensus of the population’s opinion. I for one see much more credibility in a poll that charges a fee and requires participents to travel to the event. As opposed to a poll that designates a pre ordained group of people to give their opinion over the telephone.

    It’s easy to say Paul supporters are a small group of internet spammers who are doing whatever it takes to sway these polls but it seem more like unbridaled enthusiam by people who care about the elections. Why isn’t there this kind of support for the other candidates?

    As far as the abortion issue is concerned; Every other candidate has given the Religious answer as well. So do you want the decision in their hands when they could outlaw it on a federal level. At least Paul would allow the states and their people to choose like they already have done. I’m Pro liberty and believe it is absolutely the womens right to choose but not because I believe the fetus is not a living entity. Our laws even conclude that by prosecuting a the death of a pregnant women as two counts of murder.

    And with the argument that the states would do these outlandish things, what do you think about what the federal government could do in the same regard? Citizens have much less chance of having there opinion heard at the federal level than the state. Like how the Federal government gives tax breaks to the biggest green house gas producing industry.

    And a final note, the southern stereotype joke attempt is both outdated and horribly inconsiderate.

  25. Hi Trevium

    1. Unlike the Iowa Straw Poll, one of these was a small anti-tax group (big surprise Paul did well) and they both had samplings so small that any meet up group could flood a poll.

    2. There is no doubt about the unbridled enthusiasm of his small core of supporters. I remember reading about a drive to get a million bloggers. 1,000,000 isn’t going to get it done.

    3. No democratic candidate opposes abortion.
    You have this part backwards. The state doesn’t grant me my rights. I and everyone else grants the states powers. No government organizartion should be involved in this decision. As far as if you kill a pregnant mom you get charged with rwo murders. I’m sorry, that’s wrong as well. You can’t use bad law to bring the other into question.

    4. Certain states would be so poor that they would almost immediately have to cut funding for health and safety issues such as medical programs, inoculations, work place safety, to say nothing of environmental issues. In The incredibly small world in which we live, states have to much impact on each other to grant them carte blanche in agenda setting.

    5. Everyone is a critic. the funny tag means funny to me not you. I’m sorry you were offended and you get to exercise your right to mot come hear anymore.

    thanks for stopping in.

  26. Trivium says:

    Whats up CJ,

    There were also no Diebold (Premier) voting machines in Al, NH, or NC straw polls unlike Iowa. And no Romney buying tickets for pledges to vote either. I know straw polls are nothing but party fundraisers. I’m not arguing that. I just don’t like this discrepancy between big media, Gallup polls, online polls, straw polls, stripper polls,.. oh wait…anyway. My point is that if straw polls mean nothing because of the small group polled in relation to all possible voters then none of the aforementioned polls should matter because none of them exceed 4,000 participants out of a pool of millions of registered republican voters. And, sure a large meet up group could sway a straw poll but I hardly think having a meet up group that large at this stage of the election is a negative.

    No a million bloggers wont do it but the more intelligent, open minded supporters you have the more campaigners you have and that starts a real life web of information to connect with the people in those million’s lives.

    Politically they don’t oppose abortion but theologically they do. “I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available,” Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech two days after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And I’ve never actually met anyone who is pro-abortion only pro-choice. And that is what I believe as well. But one of the key principles of the American founders was that of limited federal government interference in state affairs stated in the constitution. One of those issues is murder and I have yet to hear any of the two major party candidates state they believe abortion is anything but. And not to get Paulistinian on you but Congressmen Paul’s main platform is Individual Liberty.

    Yes, we the people grant the politicians the power to govern us using your intelligence, great forethought, or whatever will make you the most corporate lobby money. Sure we give them the power but once they have it our opinions mean very little in the grand scheme of things. That is until they need to get elected again.

    The finance issue is a whole other elephant to tackle. And really boils down to cutting down all the unnecessary big governments’ tax spending programs that look great from far away but once you get close are atrocious (Fema, Homeland Security, DEA, Department of Education, Unnecessary Wars). Once we get rid of those burdens we could start evenly distributing that wealth, cutting deficit, and maybe even setup some kind of Universal Health Care although I would rather just see reform in the programs that help those who truly need assistance. But what makes this country great is the different options that you get when states are allowed to tailor their laws and infrastructure to best suit their population (Utah:polygamy; California, Vermont, Connecticut: Civil Unions).

    I was born in Alabama and grew up in Florida but I wasn’t offended. I have just never understood this consensus belief that the one socio- economic stereotype that is okay to make without backlash is the redneck reference. But I did find it quite funny after the fact when I read that the North Carolina Straw Poll took place at Alfred and Charlie’s BBQ House. Ironic indeed.

    Peace and thanks for reading

  27. Brian Horsfield says:

    Kristofor sums up the Paul/abortion issue pretty well for me. I support pro-choice, but admire that Ron Paul isn’t afraid to express unpopular views – and he always qualifies it to say the Federal Government should not infringe on the State and individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. His stand on the Federal Reserve is truly courageous! The only candidate to speak to this issue. As Mayer Rothschild put it “I care not who controls the country so long as I can control it’s money”. That’s it in a nutshell!

  28. I’m suddenly getting comments from the educated wing of the pauliac party…how cool.

    The point I keep trying to make is that no matter what you say, giving federal authority to control me to the states so they can control me does not improve my liberty…it merely changes the jailer.

    abortion is simply not an issue that the state should be involved in…period. If churches wish to excommunicate members and if giod wants to send them to hell, fine. George Bush, Ron Paul, nor anyone else should be allowed to infringe on a womans right to choose. I’m for safe, legal, and rare. Unfortunately, the government deems sex education to be evil, thereby increasing the number of abortions performed each year.

    thanks for coming by

    as far as the fed…its a non issue. It won’t change, and will have no impacto n the election.

  29. JanieBelle says:

    I’m suddenly getting comments from the educated wing of the pauliac party…how cool.

    Who knew there was one? If all I ever saw were the comments you’d had up until recently, I’d never have guessed.

    I just have a few things I’d like to bandy about in one of Trivium’s paragraphs.

    Politically they don’t oppose abortion but theologically they do. “I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available,” Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech two days after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And I’ve never actually met anyone who is pro-abortion only pro-choice. And that is what I believe as well. But one of the key principles of the American founders was that of limited federal government interference in state affairs stated in the constitution. One of those issues is murder and I have yet to hear any of the two major party candidates state they believe abortion is anything but. And not to get Paulistinian on you but Congressmen Paul’s main platform is Individual Liberty.

    Let’s start at the beginning of this:

    Politically they don’t oppose abortion but theologically they do.

    Were that the actual case, I’d have no problem. “They” can believe whatever silly thing they want, but where we part company is the place where “they” give their silly religious ideas the force of law. Hence my vehement opposition to Congressman Paul, and anyone with an (R) after their name. I’m not so big on theocratic rule by the federal government, the state, Dr. Bob Jones, my next door neighbor, or my best friend.

    “I for one respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available,” Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech two days after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

    Yes, and if such people believe that abortion at any time for any reason is murder, then by all means, they have the right to never ever get one. If that’s as far as it goes, then I too have the utmost respect for them for sticking to their beliefs. Again, the problem ensues when they take their religious beliefs and force them on me. The belief that abortion is murder is nothing more than a religious belief unless and until such time as there is scientific evidence to the contrary.

    And I’ve never actually met anyone who is pro-abortion only pro-choice.

    Semantic game. There are certainly circumstances where an abortion is the only sane alternative to an unwanted pregnancy. While I would never force anyone to have an abortion, I also would never force anyone to not jump into a vat of radioactive waste. Does that mean I’m not pro don’t-jump-into-radioactive-waste? I’m fairly certain I’m very pro-don’t-jump-into-radioactive-waste, but if you really want to, I won’t stop you. I guess you’re right, I’m pro choice on that, too.

    But one of the key principles of the American founders was that of limited federal government interference in state affairs stated in the constitution.

    One of the other key principles of the American founders was that the people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they didn’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do exactly the same. In fact, I’d say this is THE key principle of the American founders, and it’s really the entire reason for government in the first place. This is precisely why the Constitution was set up the way it was. As CJ has pointed out, changing the jailer doesn’t make me any more free.

    Taking your very limited view of the Constitution, it would be quite legal for the state of New York to declare Flying Spaghetti Monsterism the official state religion, and force all citizens to wear Pirate regalia in Her worship. After all, the First Amendment very clearly states “Congress shall make no law…”

    There are certain rights of individual liberty that are simply not subject to the opinion of the majority. My religion or lack thereof is one of them, so long as I don’t use it to violate the principle I mentioned above. When my religion says I should sacrifice 42 virgins on the altar on Sunday, I’ve violated their right to do whatever they want.

    What I do with my body is another of those rights not open for majority approval. As long as I don’t use it to violate anyone else’s right to do whatever they choose, then I can do as I please. If someone wants to make the case that an abortion does exactly that, then they have to do more than make an unfounded assertion. Otherwise, I could just as easily make the unfounded assertion that all organized religion is brainwashing and theft, and it should be outlawed by the State of North Carolina. Actually, I have a better case for that than the anti-choice nutters have. I can actually produce evidence to that effect.

    One of those issues is murder and I have yet to hear any of the two major party candidates state they believe abortion is anything but.

    And you were actually doing so much better than the regular Pauliacs right up to this point.

    I also haven’t heard them say they believe that eating bananas is murder, but I think it’s fair to infer that because they aren’t advocating banning banana eating, they don’t believe that eating bananas is murder. Sorry, but your implication that the pro-choice candidates believe that abortion is murder is both unfounded and asinine in the extreme.

    And not to get Paulistinian on you but Congressmen Paul’s main platform is Individual Liberty.

    Let me correct you, given the entirety of my comment thus far.

    Congressman Paul’s main platform is Individual Liberty for those who think like him and believe in his particular version of his particular invisible person who lives in the sky. The rest of us can go pound sand, as far as he’s concerned, and his continuing attempts to enforce his religious opinion concerning medical care on the rest of us demonstrates that quite effectively.

    He’s just a Republican with a slight of hand gimmick.

  30. Trivium says:

    “Were that the actual case, I’d have no problem. “They” can believe whatever silly thing they want, but where we part company is the place where “they” give their silly religious ideas the force of law. Hence my vehement opposition to Congressman Paul, and anyone with an (R) after their name. I’m not so big on theocratic rule by the federal government, the state, Dr. Bob Jones, my next door neighbor, or my best friend.”

    I completely concur and with the provision of Separation of Church and State apparently the founders felt the same. And in my personal view the perfect state is one in which each individual governs themselves and the only time an overseeing official steps in is the case of a persons actions negatively affecting another individuals life.

    “The belief that abortion is murder is nothing more than a religious belief unless and until such time as there is scientific evidence to the contrary.”

    Maybe in most cases (especially political) but not all. As an agnostic I believe it is murder for the same reasons you don’t. Science has not accurately shown me when after conception a life becomes a life. I believe the mother is a host to the fetus and until it leaves the womb it is a part of the mother. Therefore she has the right to do what she desires no matter her reasoning. With that same reasoning I disagree with the other accepted form of murder, the Death Penalty. No man should have the right to sentence another to death no matter his atrocities committed.

    “One of the other key principles of the American founders was that the people should be allowed to do whatever they want so long as they didn’t interfere with anyone else’s right to do exactly the same. In fact, I’d say this is THE key principle of the American founders, and it’s really the entire reason for government in the first place. This is precisely why the Constitution was set up the way it was. As CJ has pointed out, changing the jailer doesn’t make me any more free.”

    Certainly true, not practiced however. If I choose to go to my local heroine dealer and buy product we could both be imprisoned; conversely If I go to my doctor and ask for an Oxycontin prescription (“hillbilly heroine”) it’s nothing but business for him and medication for me. If attempt to commit suicide I could be jailed and institutionalized not because it would affect those around me but because I’m a danger to myself. And like I said earlier if I had my choice I’d govern myself but since that is not an option and I have to choose between the Federal or State/Local Government I will always choose the latter because at least my opinion has a chance to be heard and factored into the decision. Not the just the corporate lobbyist opinion. And while I except your argument that given power the states could do some wacky things but I have two points 1) You are not giving the people of this country enough credit to think that they would not allow these things nor accept them and 2) The Federal Gov. could do the same thing. What if the Fed decides that as a means of population control we need to implement forced abortion (China) or what if they decide that to protect the people they need the power to spy on and incarcerate anyone they deem fit without just cause…..um didn’t that already happen, Yes that oh so patriotic Patriot Act.

    “Taking your very limited view of the Constitution”

    That is a complete assumption that you made based on the comment I made regarding the Constitution giving the right to the States to deal with murder. When the Constitution was framed, it recognized only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. Through the amendment process more infractions have been added to the Fed. Gov. Jurisdiction one of which is multiple murders across state lines but it still holds that the proscription of murder is a core function of the state police power, reserved to the states by the Constitution. Local law enforcement has a well-developed expertise, based upon more than 200 years of practice, in investigating and solving homicides. As a Constitutionalist I resent your assumption and unless you can prove otherwise would like an apology.

    “I also haven’t heard them say they believe that eating bananas is murder, but I think it’s fair to infer that because they aren’t advocating banning banana eating, they don’t believe that eating bananas is murder. Sorry, but your implication that the pro-choice candidates believe that abortion is murder is both unfounded and asinine in the extreme.”

    I find it ironic that you accuse me of being asinine when your comment is filled with these wild outlandish scenarios of what would happen if we let states choose. Fair enough on the unfounded assertion but you sort of helped me make my point when you said “The belief that abortion is murder is nothing more than a religious belief”. So while it was wrong for me to assume; if this is your belief then they all believe abortion is murder because I’m not aware of any non-Christian candidates. If you can show me otherwise then please do.

    “Congressman Paul’s main platform is Individual Liberty for those who think like him and believe in his particular version of his particular invisible person who lives in the sky.”

    Please look up Paul’s stance on the issue of Marijuana. Going by what you are saying and with the knowledge that the Evangelical Christian belief states that no man should consume any product that is harmful or altering to the body God granted then Paul whould completely disagree with legalize the “Devils Weed” movement but quite the contrary he would even go so far as to abolish the DEA. Because after all civil liberties should be given to all without restriction, it is the individual’s responsibility to be accountable for there actions.

    With all that being said Ron Paul is my candidate because his stance on the most important issue to date, The War on Terror. Everything else is a secondary issue for me and he is the only other candidate (Kucinich to some degree) that has opposed the war from the beginning (not Clinton,Romney,Guiliani etc) and has stated that he would begin to implement a non-interventionist foreign policy (Obama would pull from Iraq only to invade Pakistan). Call me a hippie pigeon all you want but just like our government has no right to abolish abortion even more importantly they have absolutely no right to kill 1 million Iraqis, 3700 US troops, and create 2 million Iraqi refuges (while only allowing under 2000 to come to US) unless absolutely necessary to protect the American people.

    “I’m suddenly getting comments from the educated wing of the pauliac party”

    “Who knew there was one? If all I ever saw were the comments you’d had up until recently, I’d never have guessed.”

    Maybe so, but as we’ve seen with recent elections it’s not about how many educated followers you have.

    Peace and thanks for reading

  31. hi janie…hi trivium

    its funny how not far apart we can be, and yet be light years different…

    what a great country.

  32. JanieBelle says:

    I completely concur and with the provision of Separation of Church and State apparently the founders felt the same. And in my personal view the perfect state is one in which each individual governs themselves and the only time an overseeing official steps in is the case of a persons actions negatively affecting another individuals life.

    Yes, we seem to be on the same page here. In fact, I would say that overall we have much in common.

    The next paragraph, you’ll have to explain, I’m afraid.

    While

    Maybe in most cases (especially political) but not all. As an agnostic I believe it is murder for the same reasons you don’t. Science has not accurately shown me when after conception a life becomes a life.

    at first appears to be an argument in the form of “it’s a human until proven otherwise by science”, the following sentences,

    I believe the mother is a host to the fetus and until it leaves the womb it is a part of the mother. Therefore she has the right to do what she desires no matter her reasoning.

    would lead me to believe you hold my own view.

    Perhaps you could clarify, as the arguments appear to be contradictory.

    With that same reasoning I disagree with the other accepted form of murder, the Death Penalty. No man should have the right to sentence another to death no matter his atrocities committed.

    My only exception to that is spammers. I wouldn’t be terribly overwrought to see spammers put to death. (Hyperbole, of course.)

    Certainly true, not practiced however…

    Indeed, not practiced. I’m all for practicing that principle in the examples you cite, as well. If someone wants to stick a needle full of death into their arm, the government has no business preventing that person from eliminating themselves from the gene pool.

    On the other hand, I would do what I could personally to prevent that. Again, my issue is with the government (at any level) intervening with criminal charges.

    And assuming I take your final sentence correctly as sarcasm, I agree that the “Patriot” Act is both unconstitutional and detrimental to a free society, and should be struck down in its entirety immediately.

    That is a complete assumption that you made based on the comment I made regarding the Constitution giving the right to the States to deal with murder.

    Your comment to which I was responding was,

    But one of the key principles of the American founders was that of limited federal government interference in state affairs stated in the constitution. One of those issues is murder…

    which seems to imply that because the Constitution doesn’t specifically say that murder is illegal, the federal government has no power to make murder illegal (as an example).

    While it is true that the Constitution does in fact say that powers not granted specifically to the federal government are outside its jurisdiction, it can reasonably be inferred that general principles granted to or restricted from the federal government can be extended to cover the states as well. I cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as an example.

    If indeed you did not mean to imply that at all, perhaps you should restate or clarify your argument.

    As a Constitutionalist I resent your assumption and unless you can prove otherwise would like an apology

    I am proudly a Constitutionalist, as not only have I seen it, I believe strongly in its contents. I refuse to allow you to engage in what is normally a tactic of the religious right nutters, that of redefining words to suit your rhetorical needs. Further, I have provided reasonable evidence that my assumption logically followed your statement.

    I find it ironic that you accuse me of being asinine when your comment is filled with these wild outlandish scenarios of what would happen if we let states choose.

    And I find it ironic that you are so very vocal about personal freedom (except when you’re not).

    You sir, overestimate both the charity and intelligence of the American populace by several orders of magnitude. If I may,

    “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

    That’s exactly why we have a republic, rather than a democracy. Tyranny of the majority is no more palatable on a state level than it is on a federal level.

    By removing the keys to the jail from the federal government and handing them to the states, the only thing that can be accomplished is to give the new jailer more power than the old. The new jailer can quite easily say, “that power is only restricted from the federal government.” I’m not good with giving the jailer more power.

    At least with the keys in the hands of the federal government, I have the hope that the good citizens of Massachusetts and New Jersey will stop the Bible thumpers of North Carolina from instituting Sharia over me.

    So while it was wrong for me to assume; if this is your belief then they all believe abortion is murder because I’m not aware of any non-Christian candidates. If you can show me otherwise then please do.

    While I would be tickled pink (about the shade of an invisible pink unicorn, to be precise) to be able to show you a non-Christian candidate, we both know that’s not possible at the moment. Where you fall off the logic train is the point where you assume that all Christians believe abortion is murder. Believe it or not, this is not the case. You are conflating Christianity at large with the very public face of the vocal minority of the Fundy Whack Job movement. Just because Pat or Bob or Oral say that “Christians believe…” doesn’t make it so. Most Christians are actually mostly sane.

    It is indeed possible to be a Christian and be pro-choice, it’s just not usually a high-profile stance, as it doesn’t rake in the dough.

    To rephrase, while all Christians would likely agree that murder is a sin, not all Christians would likely categorize abortion as murder.

    Please look up Paul’s stance on the issue of Marijuana.

    No, thanks. I’ll all for legalizing the ganja, but as I’ve already said, his theocratic stance on abortion is a deal breaker. Also as I’ve already said, his particular version of the invisible people who live in the sky which allows him to pick and choose his favorite chapters and verses from his ancient fairy story is virtually indistinguishable from any of the others. What he promises now is subject to change at any time based on whatever his imaginary friend has to say from day to day (commonly referred to as “conviction of The Holy Spirit”).

    While this flaw is inherent in the religion, it is seemingly less likely to occur in the candidates currently running for the Democratic nomination.

    Call me a hippie pigeon all you want…

    Should I do that, consider it the highest of compliments. I’m pretty good with hippies. The world needs more of us.

    I’m completely in agreement with your stance on war, but until we have an educated public that is once again free to express its dissent, until we have the civil rights and individual freedoms restored that were stolen from us by the Republican party in general and His Holiness, The Glorified Houseplant Who Would Be Caesar in particular, that is my most important issue.

    If we cannot protest the actions of the government, if we cannot hold the rulers responsible for their actions, if we cannot get uncensored information from those in power, if we continue to live in a society approaching the one postulated in Fahrenheit 451, then we have nothing to which we can look forward but the Orwellian nightmare of 1984.

    Ron Paul’s stance on abortion is indicative of his complicity in the drive to that society, despite his protestations.

    He simply will not get my vote.

    You and I disagree on some important things, but I hope we can find common cause on those things on which we agree.

    Peace and Kisses to you.

    —–

    Hi CJ.

    Sadly, this country is losing its greatness, and the keys to that greatness are the freedom to dissent and the freedom to call those in power onto the carpet. I will not rest until they are restored in full.

    Kisses

  33. JanieBelle says:

    Crap. Boogered up the blockquote tags. Could you fix that for me, CJ?

  34. Trivium says:

    A wonderful country indeed. I just hope we can keep it that way.

  35. hi janie, hey Triv…you both should do a pro/comn blog…i’ve never read so much sense in such a short time on my blog.

    i’d fix it janie but I have no idea of which you speak.

  36. JanieBelle says:

    Hi CJ,

    There should be a /blockquote tag just after “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

    That’ll fix the formatting of my comment.

    As interesting and enlightening as the idea of a joint blog between Tri and I might be, I’m afraid I’d have to decline.

    I just have too much on my plate at the moment, blogs and articles and a novel are already cutting deeply into my fun time, which consists of running around the blogosphere poking fundy whack jobs in the eye.

    It’s my one real vice.

    🙂

    Kisses

  37. JanieBelle says:

    Oh, and do forgive my rudeness – Thank you very much for the compliment.

    Kisses

  38. Trivium says:

    Hey Janie,

    While reading your response I found myself nipping at the bit to prepare a rebuttal, until I read this, “If we cannot protest the actions of the government, if we cannot hold the rulers responsible for their actions, if we cannot get uncensored information from those in power, if we continue to live in a society approaching the one postulated in Fahrenheit 451, then we have nothing to which we can look forward but the Orwellian nightmare of 1984.”

    And thats when I realized that we could be of better service to our country having this conversation with the large sector of naive citizens who disagree with your thoughts in this paragraph. Those same citizens that call anyone who questions government Un-American or a conspiracy theorist. Until we can get back to a thorough system of Checks and Balances no other issues matter because if we continue down the road we are on eventually this free thinking conversation we’ve had wont exist nor will it matter.

    As I said previously, At this point in time Ron Paul will get my vote in ’08 because of his unwavering stance on the war and all the other candidates, both Dem. and Rep., seem like greedy, corporate mouthpieces. As things are now Paul has a slim chance at best of even getting his parties nomination, but regardless of that notion if his presence in the race does nothing more than get people thinking and to educate themselves on the real ongoings of American Politics then I’m content. He is a good example of how the two party system just muddies and convoludes the whole process.

    It’s been fun exchanging thoughts and ideas with you.

    Now I must go write my first paper of Law School.

    Peace and many Kisses back at you

  39. JanieBelle says:

    Good luck on your paper, Tri.

    I’ve rather enjoyed our conversation myself.

    Perhaps I’ll consider that blog. Someone needs to do it, and if not us, then who?

    Many, many kisses to you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: