Ron Paul will stay in until the bitter end, I’m sure. I intend to give him my vote. But he’s clearly out of the running for the nomination.

I agree. I still think there is a remote chance he will go third party, which could potentially shake things up no matter who gets the Republican nomination. However, I believe the impact of such a move would be weakened if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. But if it’s McCain (not likely in my estimation) or Romney, Clinton, and Paul his chances would look remarkably well. Honestly though, I think the GOP would have a better shot at winning the presidency if they nominate Huckabee. Most of the Paul people I know are Democrats who will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination and Paul does not, baring of course the possibility that Paul runs on a third party ticket.

You aren’t just saying that because Ann Coulter threatened to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets nominated, are you? Just kidding.

If it comes down to a brokered convention I sincerely hope Huckabee or Paul win because I cannot stand Romney or McCain.

I will not vote for Romney because of his fee-taxes and mandating of socialist Universal Healthcare garbage in MA. Universal Healthcare is NOT a Republican platform — its a Democratic platform. Altruism
has no place in government.

McCain is a liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican, as well as a horrible flip-flopper. If it comes down to him vs. Hillary, I will vote for her holding my nose, because she is a better Democrat than McCain, and she is the most conservative candidate viable.

1. Ron Paul
2. Barack Obama (because of his opposition to torture and the war)
3. John McCain (because of his opposition to torture)
4. Mitt Romney
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Mike Gravel

It’s a moot point though. Every candidate except Ron Paul is unacceptable to me.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU3OWUxOTM5NGZhZmYzODM2ZTI4ODhiYzU1NjdkNzE=

1. Ron Paul
2. Mike Gravel
3. Barack Obama

I’m not voting for anyone else. If Ron Paul doesn’t go third party and Obama doesn’t get the nomination, I will have to write in Ron Paul.

Polls are fluid, but that’s not true right now.

“McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.”

“Hillary Clinton leads Romney 47% to 42%. Barack Obama leads Romney 47% to 38%”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obama

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mitt_romney_match_ups/election_2008_romney_vs_clinton_and_obama

Coward, it’s easy for McCain to lead the polls when everything is going his way while the Dems beat each other up. He doesn’t have a prayer once all eyes are turned on him and people really see his dismal record for what it is. In a general election, the Dems will vote for Hillary, while they’ve been voting for McCain in the primaries to push him over Romney. Anyone wonder why liberals love McCain but hate Romney???? Think about it for a second…

He would be a last resort. Honestly, I just think he’s a likable guy. But I’d bet you would vote for him too if he got the nomination. But I’m gonna pull a flip flop on this one. I couldn’t vote for Huck; I would just write in Ron Paul instead.

Darius - it’s easy for McCain to lead the polls when everything is going his way while the Dems beat each other up. He doesn’t have a prayer once all eyes are turned on him and people really see his dismal record for what it is.

You may be right, or you may be wrong. Depending on how you look at it, I can make a hand-waving case either way - and it will be convincing.

It’s not about feelings, but hard data. The only hard data I’ve seen has McCain beating both Democrats, and Romney losing to both.

Polls are fluid, but Rasmussen is beginning their match-up polls soon, and we’ll begin to see trends.

Furthermore, you can’t remove this debate to merely theory. In practice, terrorists have plenty of rights. They get housed, fed better than convicts in our penal system, and generally treated quite well, according to all or almost all non-partisan reports on Guantanamo.

1. Ron Paul

—–

2. Barack Obama (opposition to war, protections of civil rights, proponent of trade, less overbearing “universal” healthcare)
3. Mike Gravel
4. John McCain

—–

5. Mitt Romney
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Mike Huckabee

oh wait, i’m canadian.

Darius wrote:
“interpretation of the treaty”???? It clearly doesn’t include terrorists, and is obviously written to exclude them. Has nothing to do with one’s interpretation, but what was originally intended.

I’d suggest working on your reading comprehension. Jew fully agrees that torture of “unlawful combatants” is not covered by the Geneva convention. What he is saying is that we ought to unilaterally commit to treating all prisoners under the conduct rules of the convention. Ideally, these prisoners would be returned to their home nations for imprisonment under local laws, considering that they are not legal combatants of their home nations. The home nations could then be held diplomatically responsible for their handling of “unlawful combatants” from their countries. For us to capture foreign nationals and imprison them without openly specified charges makes us look badly to the world, regardless of our legal or moral rights to do so, or how well we are treating the prisoners.

Well, Christians like Rick Santorum and Dr. Dobson believe Romney is more than talking. And I do believe that Romney has painted himself into too much of a political corner to abandon those conservative values that he’s espoused so much on the campaign trail. Yes, he still has weaknesses regarding some issues where he still talks a little too much like a liberal. However, McCain doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body. He’s informed COMPLETELY by his emotions, and whatever feels good is how he votes (thus his co-authorship of bills with Feingold and Kennedy, two of the skunkiest liberals alive).

I’d suggest working on your reading comprehension. Jew fully agrees that torture of “unlawful combatants” is not covered by the Geneva convention. What he is saying is that we ought to unilaterally commit to treating all prisoners under the conduct rules of the convention. Ideally, these prisoners would be returned to their home nations for imprisonment under local laws, considering that they are not legal combatants of their home nations. The home nations could then be held diplomatically responsible for their handling of “unlawful combatants” from their countries. For us to capture foreign nationals and imprison them without openly specified charges makes us look badly to the world, regardless of our legal or moral rights to do so, or how well we are treating the prisoners.

Atanamis, I was referring to Jew implying that it was merely the current administration that interprets the GC as not applying to terrorists. But that’s beside the point, because any honest person who has the reading skills of a 5th grader cannot deny that the GC does NOT apply to foreign terrorists who don’t fight under a flag. I realize that Jew thinks the GC is wrong. That’s fine. But he didn’t start there (at least he didn’t make clear that he understood that the GC purposely didn’t apply itself to enemy combantants who don’t fight for any particular government or country). As for returning terrorists to their home nations and holding those nations “diplomatically responsible”… how does one do that with a country like Iran or Syria, who won’t listen to “world opinion?” Bomb them? You say above that you can’t stand Ron Paul’s untenable “military and diplomatic ideals,” yet you yourself are now pushing us to do the same by returning terrorists to their home countries to get released. For more on the ultimate foolishness of this idea, read up on what happened to the Bali terrorist, Abu Bakar Bashir.

1.James Dobson dedicated an entire program to endorsing Bush’s “case” for war.
2. His co-host embarrassed him and the entire FOTF cult by having a public affair.

Apparently Dobson has an ability to judge a man’s character that we can all trust!

We should expect as much from a man with no character.

Same with Santorum, he’s a straight shooter.

Pathetic when you speak of someone you obviously have no clue about.

Apparently Dobson has an ability to judge a man’s character that we can all trust!”

So you expect his co-hosts to be sinless? FOTF cult huh? You do realize with your little brain that Focus on the Family serves millions of people worldwide? You just proved yourself an idiot with that comment. I just that you didn’t like adding useful things to the conversation, now I know you’re an imbecile to boot.

Clinton won the big states and more delegates, but Obama won more states. In the state where I reside, Kansas, Obama beat Clinton quite soundly. Clinton won the big states, however. According to NPR about half of the California votes were absentees, and were cast shortly after the New Hampshire results were made available.

I’m awaiting how the Paul campaign is going to respond to the results. Paul did get some delegates. I’m not sure how many, but he got a second place showing in Alaska. In my opinion he should go third party ASAP. We’ll see what happens.

I wouldn’t say he doesn’t have a chance. With the delegates he has gotten he has proven himself to be a force to be reckoned with. If they join forces, the Republicans might actually have a chance of winning the election. If Obama gets the nomination, they can kiss it goodbye either way.

Regarding Huckabee: he appeals to some conservative voters. I’m not quite sure why. Maybe it’s because he’s a pastor and he’s seen as a solid supporter of conservative Christian values–unlike McCain. But Huckabee has too many potential downsides and not enough positives. We can talk about balancing the ticket, so that Huckabee’s conservative appeal balances out McCain’s liberal image, but the reality is that citizens vote for the President and largely ignore the VP candidate. The downside is that Huckabee is pretty unappealing to the moderate and liberal demographics that support McCain. Plus, Huckabee has said (and still says) a lot of really dumb things.

On the other hand, McCain heaped praise on Huckabee after the Super Tuesday results came in, so that could indicate that he’s considering Huckabee as a running mate. I don’t find it very likely, but McCain is probably just keeping his options open.

gurr8 is obviously ignorant regarding FotF. Calling that wonderful group a “cult” is one of the most low and Satanic things I’ve ever heard. They train our youth to be good Christians, they train parents to be godly fathers and mothers, and they provide many services to the downtrodden in our society. Gurr8 knows not of what he judges so harshly.

Now GoogleBot, that was uncalled for…

This made me lol

Paul - 13 votes
Romney - 12
Huck - 10
McCain - 5

And what surprised me the most was almost all of the Paul voters were elderly folks. There was like two young guys and all of these old people with Paul stickers. Interesting contrast. However, when it came to electing delegates, the Paul people didn’t get voted in. This was primarily because most of the elderly left after the straw vote.

Fortunately the opposite happened most other places - Ron Paul got a lot more delegates than his vote totals.

Now you may have a point with the “low” comment (considering your obvious respect for the group)…but Satanic? C’mon, Darius. Unless you were practicing the extremes of hyperbole, that’s a pretty ignorant comment. Disagreeing with a popular Christian group does not equal “Satanic”.

Personally, FOTF drives me bonkers. Once Dobson started getting political and acting more like a Rush Limbaugh than the original intention of the group, I stopped listening and caring. Besides, I’m pretty sure the “cult” comment by gurr8 was meant as a derogatory statement regarding their size and status, and not “literally” calling them a cult.

We should expect as much from a man with no character.

Does even one word of that judgmental drivel of a comment sound like something a Christian (perhaps I’m assuming too much) should say about another GODLY Christian??????

Maybe not. But wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself. You’ve written similar things about Christians. Pat Robertson comes to mind.

“Are you not to judge those inside [the church]?”

I can’t say the same thing about Dobson; I’ve never seen him do anything to bring the Church into disrepute (beyond defending the gospel of Christ, that is). And I am certain from gurr8’s ignorant statement that he hasn’t either.

No. I’m saying that it is no more your place to judge Robertson than it is for gurr8 to criticize Dobson. And all the scripture and reasoning you use to justify your criticism of him is meaningless, because it is being used to back up your personal opinion. Plus, you take that verse about judgment within the church completely out of context.

What I’m saying is that we SHOULD judge Dobson, Robertson, Graham, etc. ON THEIR FRUIT. But what gurr8 did was judge Dobson on someone else’s fruit or even perhaps a (slight) misstep in judgment. Judged on his own fruit ONLY, Dobson is clean and, assuming something isn’t hidden from us, will hear “Well done, good and faithful servant” when he leaves this earth.

Now, contrast that to Robertson or Hinn or Jesse Jackson (wide spectrum, I know)… Robertson has done a lot of good, but he has also brought some levels of disrepute to the Church. Hinn and Jackson… well, their travails are myriad and obvious. We have to hold them account to their failings (though Jackson and Hinn are so far outside of the Church as to make that difficult). If Dobson were to screw up, then he should be held accountable.

The scripture Darius quoted is 1 Corinthians 5:12.

12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

Paul’s question suggests that he was addressing the church’s question about how they should deal with a particular situation within the church, namely some perverted guy who was involved in unholy relations with his father’s wife. But here is the verse in it’s central context.

11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

The type of judgment mentioned here is excommunication, and it is used in reference to those who are unapologetically involved in gross moral failure. To apply this verse to Pat Robertson or Mr. Dobson, for that matter, would be quite a stretch. Judging those within does not involve personal criticism on the internet.

There is a principle here that we can apply in other situations, but we have to be careful how they are applied. Keep in mind that Paul was writing to one church, and he was reluctantly addressing the affairs within that local body. I say reluctantly because of the first question he poses in verse 12.

If we are always pointing the finger at this one or that, we are heaping judgment upon ourselves. I know because I have been there. I have done it. I know that its not my place to judge everyone - only those “within” my sphere of influence with whom I have a personal relationship. In these cases we should be in a position such that we would be able to restore the individual in due time, under the circumstances.

If we are talking false teachers and false prophets, that is quite another matter and is dealt with differently.

I believe gurr8 made a legitimate point when he called into question Dobson’s judge of character. If Dobson has exhibited a pattern of misjudging people (and I’m not claiming he has) then we should be wary of any further endorsements he makes. The two examples gurr8 brought up should be examined to see if Dobson really did misjudge their character. That’s a legitimate point to make, and we should grant that to gurr8, even though we disagree with his meanspirited jab at Dobson’s character.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8196972?source=rss