WSJ: The uniter, Mike Pence for president?

[AxisMundi]

A Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage wouldn't increase the size of government in any way. It would simply prohibit the government from becoming more involved in marriage then it is now. And like Ron Paul has said, "groups" don't have civil rights. It's only individuals that have rights. The gay lobby is one of the biggest special interest groups in Washington D.C, and yet people here don't seem to have much of problem with that special interest group dictating policy in Washington. Also, Ron Paul voted for the fence along the U.S. Mexico border. Does the fact that Ron Paul doesn't support open borders make him a "statist?"

"A Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage wouldn't increase the size of government in any way"... but permitting same-gender marriage would increase the size of government. Gotcha.

And I agree with Paul. Groups don't have rights, individuals do. And ATM individual gays are being denied the simple Civil Right of marriage.

And the "gay lobby" doesn't come close to the anti-pot lobby, Big Quitters (the smoking cessation lobby), Big Religion, or any number of Big Corp lobby groups. Apparently some aren't bothered with Big Quitters lobbying various local, state, and the federal government to help build smoking cessation into a billion a year industry.

As far as Ron Paul voting for the fence?

Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?

PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

 

[Brett85]

As far as Ron Paul voting for the fence?

Q: You voted to support that 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. Is there a need for a similar fence along the border with Canada?

PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we’ve talked about amnesty, which I’m positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Well Ron has simply said that he would prefer that the border be secured by the military rather than by a fence. But he still supports physically securing our borders. But Rand has said that he supports the border fence, so it's not an unreasonable position for a liberty minded person to have. Border security is something that's authorized by the Constitution.

 

[TheeJoeGlass]

It makes no sense that Pence is getting this much press. That guy has zero chance at anything. I'm shocked he made it to the House to begin with.

 

[TNforPaul45]

Here we go, we know their early choice for one of the positions. I have a feeling that it will be Romney/Pence on the republican ticket.

He is too much of an unknown to get a shot at the bit spot, but sounds like he would make a "great" vp for the tea-o-cons

 

[Brett85]

Here we go, we know their early choice for one of the positions. I have a feeling that it will be Romney/Pence on the republican ticket.

He is too much of an unknown to get a shot at the bit spot, but sounds like he would make a "great" vp for the tea-o-cons

So if Pence ends up being the GOP nominee in 2012, are libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives supposed to vote for Obama instead? I don't agree with Pence on everything, but what exactly would the alternative be?

 

[agar]

So if Pence ends up being the GOP nominee in 2012, are libertarians and Constitutional Conservatives supposed to vote for Obama instead? I don't agree with Pence on everything, but what exactly would the alternative be?

lesser of two evils is still evil.

the "alternative" for me is to sit back, light up a cigar, watch the whole damn system collapse.....and then gloat my ass off as I laugh at all the fools who refused to listen to us.

I get to say: "Dont blame me. I didnt vote for these clowns."

 

[Matt Collins]

Who?

 

[Brett85]

lesser of two evils is still evil.

the "alternative" for me is to sit back, light up a cigar, watch the whole damn system collapse.....and then gloat my ass off as I laugh at all the fools who refused to listen to us.

I get to say: "Dont blame me. I didnt vote for these clowns."

I would rather not give Obama the opportunity to nominate two more Supreme Court justices who will vote to abolish the 2nd amendment. Another Obama term will be a disaster for those who support liberty.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

It makes no sense that Pence is getting this much press. That guy has zero chance at anything. I'm shocked he made it to the House to begin with.

Yes he does... AIPAC Pence has big lobby and money quietly using their connections to pump up this puppet. If they can do it with the RINO puppet John McCain/Palin they can do it with anyone.

The game is rigged... many articles marginalizing the true American representation as radicals and extremeists, and plenty of articles to pump up their puppets.

TPTB see to it that their livelihood and rackets are not comprised. Watch it all develop slowly before your eyes.

 

[sailingaway]

This is the Obama for Repubs and Teaocons.

Pure deception and bullshit.

Really? Who is he supposed to inspire? I mean, we knew better, but at least we knew why Obama was drawing in the lazy brained people. I don't see it with Pence, at all.

That is one of the problems with these manufactured 'moderate' candidates, no one at all can really get excited about them.

 

[cindy25]

as a governor he might be ok; the problem is it would make him more viable, even the front runner for 2016 if Obama or Hillary wins

 

[cindy25]

it can't be Romney because of Romneycare

Christie/Pence is who MSM want

 

[devil21]

I would rather not give Obama the opportunity to nominate two more Supreme Court justices who will vote to abolish the 2nd amendment. Another Obama term will be a disaster for those who support liberty.

I heard that same spiel back in 2008 about why I should just hold my nose and vote for McCain. NO THANKS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

 

[sailingaway]

I heard that same spiel back in 2008 about why I should just hold my nose and vote for McCain. NO THANKS!

Yeah. They are finally paying SOME attention because their 'moderates they swore were electable' were shut out in primaries. If they can get away with forcing people on us, they'll never take our views into account. We NEED to show them we won't vote if we aren't represented. I'm not saying our very favorite will always get the nomination, but if they don't speak for us, we shouldn't vote for them.

 

[Brett85]

Yeah. They are finally paying SOME attention because their 'moderates they swore were electable' were shut out in primaries. If they can get away with forcing people on us, they'll never take our views into account. We NEED to show them we won't vote if we aren't represented. I'm not saying our very favorite will always get the nomination, but if they don't speak for us, we shouldn't vote for them.

But what Republican other than Ron Paul would actually get your vote? There's even people here who don't like Gary Johnson because he's too "pro Israel."

 

[Agorism]

Definitely not Mike Pence.

I think Constitution party tends to have better candidates if Paul doesn't run.

 

[cindy25]

vote for Obama, and work like hell to elect a Republican senate; that solves judicial appointee problem.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well Ron has simply said that he would prefer that the border be secured by the military rather than by a fence. But he still supports physically securing our borders. But Rand has said that he supports the border fence, so it's not an unreasonable position for a liberty minded person to have. Border security is something that's authorized by the Constitution.

Absolutely agreed. Border security is indeed important. But I'm sure you would agree (as does Ron Paul perhaps) that a multi-billion dollar fence isn't going to stop anyone.

 

[AxisMundi]

Definitely not Mike Pence.

I think Constitution party tends to have better candidates if Paul doesn't run.

My problem with the Constitutional Party is that they apparently don't get the First Amendment and support intrusion of religious doctrines into US secular law.

If I am mistaken, please let me know.

 

[AxisMundi]

vote for Obama, and work like hell to elect a Republican senate; that solves judicial appointee problem.

Our Nation has indeed seen it's best days when the "Three Houses", so to speak are, apportioned among the different major parties. We have clear examples of what occurs when both parties have all Three Houses. Progressive drag conservatives along into modern times kicking and screaming, and conservatives put the brakes on the progressives so they don't drive our country into the ditch.

However, the Bush43 administration loaded up SCOTUS and the DOJ for the express purpose of having Roe v Wade overturned. I think what a lot of people, including our Elected Employees don't understand, is that judges might rule on a case by the rule of law, not their political affiliations.

Remember, the only dissenting votes in Roe v Wade were one conservative judge and one liberal judge. And no matter what the physical make-up, the Supreme Court has upheld that ruling as well.

I believe much too much is made of a potential Justice's political affiliations, and not enough emphasis is placed on how they have ruled in the past.