AlpsStranger

If he was fooling us I may take back that view about supporting Santorum over him

I'll take a look.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Rick Santorum. He doesn't even have a libertarian streak. Most politicians at least give lip service to liberty. Rick Santorum basically says "Screw liberty." And he absolutely loathes Ron Paul. While I would still feel a moral obligation to support Johnson (Its a libertarian thing, when faced with two authoritarian candidates I can't really tell anyone to vote for either one) if I were forced to choose between Santorum and Obama, I'd hold my nose and pick Obama. And I'd have done so far more quickly than I did between Obama and Romney.

If I had to pick between Santorum and Ace99, I'd support Santorum. Santorum to my knowledge hasn't supported regulating speech

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the GOP, but they aren't about restricting speech, obscenity yeah, but while bad that's not nearly as bad as actually censoring political views. Then again, that's just IMO, but attacking the political process itself is worse than banning swearwords.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/converse.php?u=26681&u2=181060

Here Form tells me I'm a theocrat.

I love how his logical reasoning would make the Kenyan Socialist Atheist (Yes I'm being sarcastic) President Obama himself a theocrat since he justifies redistribution of wealth on religious grounds. Does this make him a theocrat? No.

He doesn't believe in religious law, even if he believes in laws based on religion. My opposition to abortion, likewise, may have some BASIS in faith but my reasoning is not because I want to enforce Christianity on the populace at large (I don't.)

BTW: Ace99 is a living, breathing manifestation of the conservative fears about the liberal left. They are perhaps unjustified about Obama, but there are people that they have reason to fear:crazyeye:

My extended family is apparently already starting to complain that Obama and not Romney won the election. I wonder if my grandmother will actually follow through and move to Italy (I doubt it.)

If it means anything, I actually marginally preferred Obama. Don't get me wrong, I think he's going to drive our country into the ground economically, and if a state ever does pass a personhood amendment he will probably enforce Roe v Wade, but at least he's less likely to kill innocent people in Iran.

I think foreign policy first these days. War is the health of the state's excess (The original line is "War is the health of the state" but I'm not a downright anarchist. Dennis Kucinich is a radical leftie and a gun grabber, but since he's against bombing the innocent, I'd sooner vote for him than George W. Bush. Pat Buchanan might be overly socially conservative, but since he's against the global empire, I'd vote for him.

Just check my VM conversation with him. I asked him what his definition of "Theocrat" was since he was going off about theocrats, and he said "You cross that line yourself."

If wanting abortion and gay marriage to be decided by the individual states (And opposing both at a state level) is theocratic than you really need a different word to describe Rick Santorum

Form just called me a theocrat

I may be occasionally inconsistent, a tad socially conservative even while not being politically conservative (I admit that my social views are conservaitive but I believe the use of force to change culture is generally wrong) but theocratic?

I hope they block the wasteful spending at least.

Congrats

I for one, am just as ticked off as I would have been otherwise. I just wish it were closer. I wanted to actually SEE Bush v Gore again

Hope the next four years are better than the last four.

Nah, it's okay man. I'm pretty off the rails sometimes so I understand.

What jokes are you talking about, btw? I don't clearly recall them from all the confusion.

Hey man, know it's been a long/stressful campaign season and I've had a few jokes at your expense. No hard feelings?

I suspect it will probably be a done issue by the time I have kids if I ever do. I suspect that they will therefore support its legality like everyone else. I don't really care if they do, actually, I care far more about their faith and morality than I do about their politics anyway, but even if I did care about their politics, I probably wouldn't care much if they supported (Legalized) SSM.

But you've got to realize I was raised a conservative. I haven't 100% shaken the fact. Nor am I sure I necessarily want to, even if I disagree with conservatives on a lot of stuff.

His response surprised me actually. I actually got the response of, "No, that's not even an issue for me, its not hurting anyone so let God deal with it." I was actually surprised to see that view exist in my family, somewhat pleasantly surprised to see that someone agreed with me that this was NOT the issue that was going to lead America to fiery death or some other nonsense or whatnot. When I pressed him what his second issue was, he said "How we take care of our poor" (His personal response to that problem was decentralization.)
I've actually been thinking about the issue since that conversation. I'm not really "For it" per say but compared to most of the rest of my family I'd say that only he and POSSIBLY one other member of my family is closer to that position than I am.

Awhile ago I was chatting with my grandfather about politics, he was agreeing with me on a lot (Although not all) issues, but he said he was going to vote for Mitt Romney because he said he felt it was his duty to vote based on social issues and that he could trust God with the rest. He said the life issue was the most important social issue to him and that was his reason for voting with Romney (I agree that that's a flimsy reason considering Mitt's record, but that's not the point of this message.)

Note that my grandfather is an Evangelical Christian much like I am. When I asked him what his second social issue was, assuming two pro-life candidates, he didn't know at first, but I then asked him specifically if it was traditional marriage (Believe it or not, while I was expecting him to say yes, I was planning to disagree with him if he did.)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11948855#post11948855

This thread might be of interest to you, even though admittedly the OP is a bit "All over the place."

What's up?

OK, THIS makes Romney the lesser evil.

I'll admit that there are times when the lesser of two evils is the best one can do. I guess if you are really as freaked out by Romney as you say, an Obama vote only makes sense. I mean, if one candidate said he was going to lynch all the Christians in the country, and the other candidate was George W. Bush, yeah, I wouldn't be happy about it but I'd vote for Bush. If Obama was running against Hitler, I wouldn't like Obama any better than I do now, but I'd vote for him because of the sheer order of magnitude of difference between the two.

My problem isn't that you're voting for a lesser evil so much as I think that you're voting in a one-party election when you vote between Romney and Obama. The difference between the two is just so small.

I just think you overestimate the level of theocracy in the GOP. Yes, they defend their positions on religious grounds. Both parties do actually. The Democrats just use it to justify forced charity (Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up for debate, but they still do it) while the GOP uses it for moralizing. I usually reject both, although I'm not 100% perfectly consistent (I don't consider 100% consistency a good thing, it can get you to some absurd conclusions. Just read a few things from Walter Block). But the majority of them aren't true theocrats. I don't even think Bachmann truly wants a Christian Iran, although the accusation is admittedly funny.

I get why, although I don't get why you're so afraid of Romney, at least for that reason. I know what your stated reason is, that you don't want a guy wearing the "R" jersey. But I really don't see why that matters. Just to give you a comparison, Ron Paul wears "R". Randall Terry wears "D". It really doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Is Romney wearing the right color jersey? Yeah, he's a Republican. But he's not terribly concerned with social issues.

Oh, I'd be shocked too. But extremely happy. I'd be thinking thank god I'm not going to get drafted next year, raped by a government official, or arrested on trumped up charges

And no, I don't think those things are likely, but the first one is very possible if Mitt is stupid enough to attack Iran, and the last two are already happening around the country.

I really, really don't get why the TSA and NDAA actually managed to happen. You'd think liberals would agree with libertarians on those types of civil rights issues. The sad thing is that they do, but are still voting for a guy who doesn't.