Santorum wins OK?!?!

[SoonerATC]

Obama v. Santorum is the intellectual equivalent of Stephen Hawking v. Larry the Cable Guy

Except when you turn the power off to Stephen Hawking's wheelchair, Stephen Hawking is still smart.

Or if you prefer...

What do Stephen Hawking and Barack Obama have in common? Turn the power off to their machines and neither one can speak coherently.

 

[skyydiver]

Although I put on my Wookie Suit and voted for Dr. Paul, I'm with George Will. What we really need is for Republicans to control the house and senate. If that can happen, it might be best to have the big O stay and get some more of that good gridlock. Kind of handcuff all of the scumsuckers.

 

[henschman]

Yeah, you'd think that Christians would make a bigger deal of the fact that unlike Islam, their holy text (the New Testament) does not contain anything about using force/government to promote the faith... it just says stuff about going forth and making disciples, being ambassadors of Christ and living as good examples, bringing up children in the way they should go, boldly advocating the faith, and stuff like that. But instead, a lot of them just support the same type of stuff Muslims do, with the government forcing their idea of good morals on people, with no concept of natural rights. Their idea of natural rights is that you have a right to do whatever you want... within the limits of the requirements of their particular interpretation of holy scriptures, of course.

I really don't know what I would do if Ron Paul wasn't in this election. How do you decide between:

1) A guy who voted for every unbalanced government budget during his time in the Senate, voted for the largest "entitlement" increase since the 1960s, voted for the largest expansion of the federal government's role in education since the very founding of the Dep't of Education, says that while some of these votes violated his principles, sometimes you have to "take one for the team," and wants everyone in this country to have to get the government's permission to have a job;

2) A guy who supported individual mandates for health insurance, worked for Freddie Mac and helped lobby for the expansion of the housing bubble and supported the bailout when it popped, and engineered the passage of the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act and the Lautenberg Amendment; or

3) A guy who got government run health care passed in his state, signed an "assault weapons ban" in his state, supported the bailout, and was pro choice when running for the governorship of a liberal state and then miraculously changed his mind when running for the Republican nomination;

and all of which will probably get us in more multi-trillion dollar undeclared wars and will continue to expand the deficit?

I mean, what possible criteria would you use to determine which is better or worse than the others?

 

[WTJ]

You guys are arguing about the smartest politician?

 

[SoonerATC]

But instead, a lot of them just support the same type of stuff Muslims do, with the government forcing their idea of good morals on people, with no concept of natural rights. Their idea of natural rights is that you have a right to do whatever you want... within the limits of the requirements of their particular interpretation of holy scriptures, of course.

I'm tired, but what aspect of the Christian Right has the government forcing their idea of good morals on people?

Having Christianity influence your politics is not the same as having a ruling theocracy. Someone else mentioned something in another thread that I agreed with. The purpose of prohibiting a government-established religion wasn't to keep religion out of government, it was to keep government out of religion.

I do agree with you about all the candidates having baggage, though. Romney is a liberal. Paul has good ideas, but I don't think he's the right person get them done. Newt wants it too bad, which is always a bad sign.

 

[JB Books]

The problem is when they use their religion as an excuse to pass clearly unconstitutional laws as we have seen our own state legislature continue to do.

 

[henschman]

I'm tired, but what aspect of the Christian Right has the government forcing their idea of good morals on people?

By legislating morality, I am referring to things like government licensed and defined marriage, the war on (some) drugs, "sin" taxes, usury laws, the prohibition of prostitution and gambling, our liquor laws, and so on and so forth. None of these prohibited activities involve anyone infringing on the rights of anyone else... but that doesn't concern the Christiano-fascists, who have no concept of self-ownership or the right to free association.

 

[1fast8]

People that are terrified of Obama better hope to God that Romney gets the nod. There is no way any of the other candidates could pull even 35% against Obama. Romney is the only one with half a chance.

you are prob right and the sad part is the reason he has the best chance to beat him is because he is the one that is the most like nobama. it just makes me sad that most of the country disagrees with oklahoma and wants some one like nobama or robama

 

[Mr.357Sig]

JB, if you hate Oklahoma so much, why the hell do you live here? If you hate and despise everyone around you, move. We don't need you.

 

[Mr.357Sig]

I voted for Gingrich. Not because I love the guy. But, because he will kick Obama's hypocritical, Saul Alinsky-kissing ass in the debates. Romney is the Neville Chamberlain of our time. Santorum is not quick enough on his feet to out-fox the liar-in-chief. Paul doesn't resonate with enough voters.

In the long run, I see Romney winning the nomination. If he adds Marco Rubio or Rand Paul as VP on the GOP ticket, I think he can take the White House. Despite being wimpy and not nearly aggressive enough against Obama, I think he could pull it out with the right VP choice. Romney is a McCain republican, aka a POS RINO, and adding a true conservative to the ticket is his only play if he wants to relocate to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.