Same rules as with the Democratic Primaries, except I have excluded one Presidential candidate, Mark Klein, to keep the options under 15 and because I've never heard of him and because he hasn't actually announced. If you really feel like you want to vote for him, make a comment and a moderator might add him on.

 

Select the one candidate you you would support as nominee for President of the United States from the Republican Party. Vote for the candidate you could honestly support.

 

I back McCain. Post who you support if you wish.

Voted Ron Paul because I want the democrats to win.

'Michael Charles Smith Richard Michael Smith' is a drinking game waiting to happen.

I just don't get the appeal of Ron Paul, which is quite strong among supposedly intelligent scientists and engineers. He's completely whacked! I vote against him as often as I can, which is every two years since having been gerymandered into his Congressional district.

 

Voted Ron Paul because I want the democrats to win.

 

I guess that counts as a valid reason for voting for Ron Paul.

I like Ron Paul because he's not a sellout. He has firm convictions rooted in the foundation of our nation. However, he doesn't help form a consensus, and that is a major stumbling block to someone holding an office such as POTUS.

I like Ron Paul because he's not a sellout. He has firm convictions rooted in the foundation of our nation. However, he doesn't help form a consensus, and that is a major stumbling block to someone holding an office such as POTUS.

 

He's also a bit of an isolationist, which frightens us minions of globalism (he's on to us!).

 

A completly irrelevant fact that an ultra-conservative friend of mine pointed out to me today: Does he not remind you of the Kebler elf? It's freaky. Someone needs to make a photoshop of him carrying a box of cookies out of a tree.

Seems a bit like being presented with a list of all the inmates in an asylum and being asked to chose one to be head nurse. No, wait, unfair to lunatics. Perhaps they just all seem like people I would put into a leaky lifeboat and send them off to row the Atlantic (but not towards England, please, we already have a surfeit of nutters).

A completly irrelevant fact that an ultra-conservative friend of mine pointed out to me today: Does he not remind you of the Kebler elf? It's freaky. Someone needs to make a photoshop of him carrying a box of cookies out of a tree.

 

Irrelevant, indeed. By your logic, Mitt Romney is the only electable Republican candidate, and that's a rather frightening proposition. He reminds me of a kid in high school who will say anything to try and get a seat at the cool kids table. He's inexperienced and doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to work through the major issues we face. But, according to the ladies, he sure is handsome, so we absolutely should elect him.

Fred Thompson is taller, though. I say we should elect him. We love tall Presidents. They look so ... Presidential. Lincoln, for example, was one ugly SOB, but he was very tall.

Irrelevant, indeed. By your logic, Mitt Romney is the only electable Republican candidate, and that's a rather frightening proposition. He reminds me of a kid in high school who will say anything to try and get a seat at the cool kids table. He's inexperienced and doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to work through the major issues we face. But, according to the ladies, he sure is handsome, so we absolutely should elect him.

 

It's not "my" logic or anything. Just a humorous observation.

After watching last night's debate, I must concede that Paul is a bit too isolationist for me. This world is getting more global, not more national. He seems unable and unprepared to handle this evolution.

 

If I were forced to vote for one of the republican candidates, it would probably be John McCain. I respect him very much, I see him as an experienced and prinicipled gentleman who genuinely wants to improve this country. I do not agree with his stance on Iraq, nor his lack of policy for matters specific to US citizens, but I see him as the best of the worst.

 

Again, I like Paul, and think he's arguing on the principles on which this government was founded, but after watching the debate I realize that many of those same principles ignore the complete interconnectedness of today's world.

 

We need a leader who brings people together. I don't think ANY of the republican candidates under consideration are that person.

But, according to the ladies, he sure is handsome, so we absolutely should elect him.

 

Hey, didn't they do a study on that? I think they found that you could guess who would win an election 70% of the time by looking at the candidates for a tenth of a second? Twas a small study, though. Newscientist

Speculations assert that this is why JFK won. Also, why Nixon polled better when the debate was on radio, but worse when on television.

 

 

So shallow, we.

I can see it now, but I think he's a bit overboard on the conservatism, plus, some of his ideals in his first tenure seem kind of sketchy, and he still promotes them in two of his webpages.

 

He also was a key member of the Gold Commission, advocating a return to a gold standard for our currency (not sure what benefits there would be to this). He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

 

After watching last night's debate, I must concede that Paul is a bit too isolationist for me. This world is getting more global, not more national. He seems unable and unprepared to handle this evolution.

Isolationist? Not really. More like non-interventionist.

 

He wants to trade and talk with all nations... but impose our military will on none.

 

I think it's a sad day when we associate foreign policy primarily with war.

 

Hey! I voted agin Ron Paul, and I'm from Texas!

 

 

Not that it matters much. He garnered 70% of the vote or so last time. He appeals to bible thumpers and to engineers and scientists. This neck of the woods is full of both. I just do not get his appeal to supposedly smart people, but I've seen it happen over and over again, right here in his Congressional district and right here at SFN.

I can see it now, but I think he's a bit overboard on the conservatism, plus, some of his ideals in his first tenure seem kind of sketchy, and he still promotes them in two of his webpages.

Paul won't get rid of the Fed, but probably let it die out on it's own, by letting the US mint legalize and mint gold and silver-backed tender that can compete with Federal reserve notes.

 

Hey! I voted agin Ron Paul, and I'm from Texas!

 

 

Not that it matters much. He garnered 70% of the vote or so last time. He appeals to bible thumpers and to engineers and scientists. This neck of the woods is full of both. I just do not get his appeal to supposedly smart people, but I've seen it happen over and over again, right here in his Congressional district and right here at SFN.

We want the government to leave us alone?

 

Why would you libertarian type principles aren't common amoung intelligent peoples. Fallacy or source?

He certainly is a libertarian. He even ran for President once before as the Libertarian candidate. Ron Paul isn't just a libertarian. His stance is a mix of libertarian, antebellum, and antedilivian ideals. Some are just stupid, some are downright dangerous.

 

I expect intelligent people to look beyond single issues and to inject some realistic into their thinking. Libertarianism is simplistic, shallow idealism.

 

Libertarianism is a knee-jerk response to a bloated and overly intrusive government. Yes, I want the government to leave us alone. There are many things about our government that I don't particularly like. That doesn't mean I think we should throw it out and go back to square one. It means we have to be diligent. That requires thinking. Decimating the federal government is not a realistic solution.

He certainly is a libertarian. He even ran for President once before as the Libertarian candidate. Ron Paul isn't just a libertarian. His stance is a mix of libertarian, antebellum, and antedilivian ideals. Some are just stupid, some are downright dangerous.

 

I expect intelligent people to look beyond single issues and to inject some realistic into their thinking. Libertarianism is simplistic, shallow idealism.

 

Libertarianism is a knee-jerk response to a bloated and overly intrusive government. Yes, I want the government to leave us alone. There are many things about our government that I don't particularly like. That doesn't mean I think we should throw it out and go back to square one. It means we have to be diligent. That requires thinking. Decimating the federal government is not a realistic solution.

 

Libertarianism is not a knee-jerk response. It also is not a single issue ideology, but rather a single themed ideology - freedom and liberty. You can disagree with the amount of freedom and liberty being advocated, but to assume that a shift of focus from solving problems using the government to solving problems using the free market of persuasion is simplistic and shallow then you're being...well simplistic and shallow.

 

Please support the notion that government and legislation should be the playing field for civil engineering. I don't believe it should be, and I don't believe it was intended to be.

 

In terms of reality, how about ethics and morality? How can I support the status quo when I believe the status quo to be wrong - even it means it's not realistic to expect a change, I have an ethical inclination - if not responsibility - to advocate that change.

Please support the notion that government and legislation should be the playing field for civil engineering. I don't believe it should be, and I don't believe it was intended to be.

 

Civil engineering?? Building canals, post-roads, interstate highways? Please!

 

The Constitution supports the notion, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce ... among the several states

 

Chief Justice Marshall reiterated the support in Gibbons v. Ogden' date=' 22 U.S. 1 (1824),

If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations and among the several states is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government, having in its constitution the same restrictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the United States.

 

Chief Justice Waite explicitly addressed how new technologies that aid in commerce but were obviously never discussed in the Constitution are captured under the Commerce Clause in Pensacola Telegraph v. Western Union, 96 U.S. 1 (1877),

The powers thus granted are not confined to the instrumentalities of commerce' date=' or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted, but they keep pace with the progress oif the country, and adapt themselves to the new developments of time and circumstances. They extend from the horse with its rider to the stage-coach, from the sailing-vessel to the steamboat, from the coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from the railroad to the telegraph, as these new agencies are successively brought into use to meet the demands of increasing population and wealth. They were intended for the government of the business to which they relate, at all times and under all circumstances. As they were intrusted to the general government for the good of the nation, it is not only the right, but the duty, of Congress to see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of intelligence are not obstructed or unnecessarily encumbered by State legislation.[/quote']

 

To say the the Interstate Highway System is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not explicitly address Interstate Highways is exactly the knee-jerk kind of silliness I expect from libertarians. The internal combustion engine was over 100 years in the future when the Constitution was written. Of course the Interstate Highway System isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Should we dismantle that, too?

Civil engineering?? Building canals, post-roads, interstate highways? Please!

 

The Constitution supports the notion, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

 

 

Chief Justice Marshall reiterated the support in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824),

 

 

Chief Justice Waite explicitly addressed how new technologies that aid in commerce but were obviously never discussed in the Constitution are captured under the Commerce Clause in Pensacola Telegraph v. Western Union, 96 U.S. 1 (1877),

 

 

To say the the Interstate Highway System is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not explicitly address Interstate Highways is exactly the knee-jerk kind of silliness I expect from libertarians. The internal combustion engine was over 100 years in the future when the Constitution was written. Of course the Interstate Highway System isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Neither is the Air Force. Should we dismantle that, too?

 

Oh my. This is funny, yet not. Totally my screw up - I meant Social engineering, not civil engineering. I'm so sorry. I have no issues with civil engineering at all - hell, that IS what the government should be doing.

 

So yeah, you're quite right about it - haha! Again, so sorry to waste your time like that.

I like Ron Paul because he's not a sellout.

 

He's in the pocket of big shrimp!

Some libertarians (I'm from Ron Paul's home district; I'm surrounded by them) do argue against the Interstate Highway System as an example of something the federal government should not be doing. I thought that is where you were going.

 

As far as the federal government's role in social engineering -- that is a horse of a different color. (Good oops, by the way. You can't quite blame that on a typo. A Freudian slip of the fingers?) Keeping the federal government from meddling in our behavior is one of the best arguments for the "fair tax". The federal government does a lot of social engineering through the tax code.

 

Unfortunately, prior government social engineering is what makes the fair tax dead-on-arrival. What are all the tax benefits regarding home ownership other than social engineering? Those benefits are built into the value of our homes. Switching from the income tax to the fair tax would have drastic consequences on housing values. The fair tax is DOA.

You're probably right about the fair tax. I've always enjoyed the idea of a sales tax over an income tax - although, to think it wouldn't be abused and made complex and misunderstood over time would be folly. Nowadays, I'm not so sure about the sales tax alternative. I know, however, that I do not like the income tax solution in place today.

 

Libertarians are a strange bunch, in that they come in so many flavors and extremes. Really, every ideology is like that, but it's far more noticeable with libertarians. Some want a private police force, private armies and so forth - and that's just way too far in my opinion. Extreme positions like that are not considering really ANY role for government. So then, what's the point? They're going to advocate swapping out total government control to total private business control? In my opinion, they're totally missing the point.