Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?

Dixie said:
Am I delusional? Or am I a frickin genius? Palin is as credible as the buffoon who is currently VP, she's 10x smarter and makes 100x fewer gaffes. When Palin's bus spontaneously shows up in Any Town, USA, she is greeted by tens of thousands of screaming fans, like a fucking rock star. She writes a book and it shatters sales records, they can't keep it on the shelf. She posts something on her Twitter, and by 6 o'clock, it's the only thing the news media is talking about.

Yeah... Libertarians don't like her, establishment republicans can't stand her, and she makes liberals heads explode at the mention of her name. But the people who do LOVE her, are the people who simply did not turn out to vote for Mitt Romney, and probably wouldn't turn out to vote for Rand Paul, unless she is on the ticket.

You can "think outside the box" all you like, abandoning social conservative issues is not thinking outside the box, that's been tried the past two elections. McCain refused to be seen with a Christian, Mitt was pretty much a social liberal. It's time for thinking INSIDE the box, the box of CORE Conservatism, which includes both social and fiscal conservative values. THAT is what America wants, and THAT is what people will turn out in droves to vote for. Anything else, is going to be a hard sell.

Now, that doesn't mean the GOP needs to go out there and blather about abortion, gay marriage, guns and god. They have to find a way to incorporate these social conservative beliefs in their message, in a way that explains why they are fundamentally important to conservatives. It's not the social conservative issues that is the problem, it is how GOP candidates have mishandled them and allowed the media to define the dialogue. The GOP has to take control of the dialogue, and this is where Rand Paul seems to excel.

Palin as VP would not shape administration policy, just like Biden as VP hasn't shaped Obama policy, Gore didn't shape Clinton policy, or Dan Quayle didn't shape Bush policy. The VP is pretty much a figurehead, who presides over Congress and sits behind the president during the State of the Union speech. As I stated earlier, if Biden is smart enough to handle it, I think Palin is too.

Okay, I'm going to try this again... You're a Libertarian-type Rand Paul fanatic... he wins the nomination, and picks Palin as his running mate, what would you do? Forget about tearing down Palin here, and think about my question. I understand you don't like Palin, I understand she is not who you'd prefer, but would you NOT vote for Paul if Palin were on the ticket?
Click to expand...

You have to understand that the child who you are responding to is a neophyte with no,life experience who,has been propagandised by the public school system. He probably thinks Sarah Palin uttered the words "I can see Russia from my house". He is too stupid to believe that he has been manipulated by the elites to believe she is "stupid". Sarah Palin represents the biggest threat to the social order of inside the beltway bullshit that the liberals and establishment republicans had to join forces to destroy her. The pseudo libertarians with their Johnson bromances are nothing but political posers
 
Dixie said:
But gay people are given the same individual rights as straight people, there is no discrimination against gays who want to marry, but marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman, and has nothing to do with gay or straight.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Just like everybody had the “SAME” right to marry whoever they wanted as long as their skin color was the same fucking shade as defined by the authoritarian Democrat’s KKK, right cupcake? It was OK for white men to fuck black girls but marrying them was a fucking no-no and a black man better never even think about fucking a white woman let alone marrying one without being assured of being lynched, right Goober.

So, no... gay marriage is certainly NOT covered, nor is there a provision which allows you to alter what things mean, in order to make something a right. If this is what you wish to do, you need to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

On the contrary Goober the constitutional amendments already exist that guarantee everybody’s right to marry whoever the fuck they want. They’re the 9th and the 14th which you have no rational argument in opposition. If you did, you would present it but instead you choose to ignore them and present pathetic grumblings about what you want the definition of marriage to be just like the old Democrat’s KKK of yesteryear.



it to be, but it's the matrimonial joining of a male and female, regardless of sexuality.
Click to expand...

Again Goober your contradiction is duly noted! A matrimonial joining of ”ONLYa male and female by law as you desire has total regard for “sexuality”/b] by identifying the sexual gender of both partners and you sure as hell can’t argue that all marriages are celibate even though some might claim to be and you sure as hell can’t prove that a marriage is not a contract.

But the constitution does not give us the freedom to enter into (or create) ANY contract, as long as we consent. We are confined by the laws and what is legally allowed.
Click to expand...

The law Goober is confined by the constitutional rule of law i. e. all law is subordinate to the confines of the Constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” {Amendment 9, United States Constitution)

The people have a right to do whatever they want and the only possible disclaimer for that guarantee is that whatever the people do it cannot violate any right of somebody else. To deny the right of a free and agreeable marriage contract between some adults is a violation of those adults constitutional rights under amendment 9. To allow free and agreeable marriage contracts between adults is in total keeping with constitutional principle because such contracts violate nobody’s rights even though gay marriage offends your authoritarian busybody religious radicalism.

This is everybody's business, because we establish the laws. There is no such thing as unfettered freedom, we don't live in that world. We are a nation of laws, we have limits on what individuals can and can't do.
Click to expand...

Correct! We live under CONSTITUTIONAL law and ”THE PEOPLE” have no constitutional authority to make unconstitutional law.

I've already shown you there is no violation of the Constitution in denying gay marriage. Last I checked, the 10th Amendment is still part of the Constitution, perhaps you should read it again? The States and People, respectively, have the ULTIMATE power to decide, on ANYTHING!
Click to expand...

Horseshit!!! The States and the People cannot violate the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. Prohibition of marriage contracts between someagreeable adults, i. e. proposition 8 are a violation of the 9th & 14th amendments. Try making a rational argument in opposition to that fact Goober if you can.
 
Dixie said:
But that isn't what marriage is. You can't redefine marriage to make it include something that isn't marriage, just because that's what you want, or because you don't give a fuck what people do. What if someone wants to change the meaning of "free speech" to include walking around naked, masturbating in public? Hell, strike down all laws against public indecency, they are unconstitutional! I don't give a fuck, it's not bothering me, they should be free to do as they please!

Now, "free speech" is a broad and diverse freedom which covers a lot of things, including pornography, and in some cases, even including public nudity, if the community has agreed on these standards. But it doesn't change the fact that most people don't consider public nudity and masturbation to be what is meant by "freedom of speech." The Constitution simply doesn't give you the authority to decide what is or isn't appropriate for everyone else, or change the definition of things to fit your actions.

I am the only person on this board to have offered a solution to this issue, which basically gives every side exactly what they claim to want, and ends the entire debate forever. It is continually rejected by people who would rather keep the issue as a political bludgeoning device. Ironically, it is very much a Libertarian idea, and one that any respectful Libertarian would support.

We begin with the Libertarian philosophy of limited government, and we remove the government from recognizing ANY domestic partnership. What is the purpose of this? Why does government need to know who is living as a domestic partner with someone else? What makes this information of relevance to the government? Taxes, insurance, property? Let's resolve those entanglements, and either divorce government from having to sanction any kind of partnership, or in such rare cases where that may be needed, adopt a generic civil union contract, available to any two consenting adults, regardless of sexuality or anything else. The word "marriage" simply disappears from the lexicon, there is no more government recognition made on this basis. This ends the debate, it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it gives homosexual couples every advantage of married couples, and dis-involves government from sanctioning religion or sexual behaviors.
Click to expand...

Yada, Yada, Yada!!! Go babble your fucking horseshit to somebody else Goober Your right-wing neo-con endless editorials are boring the hell out of me!!!!!
 
Dixie said:
Because none of those are a coalition. The point of the OP was to suggest a coalition between Tea Party conservatives and libertarian conservatives. The TP delivers the social conservative vote, the Libertarian delivers the fiscal conservative vote, and the right defeats the left.

I admit, I intentionally used Palin in my example because she is controversial. I had no idea she would cause such an emotive response from so-called "libertarians" like CL. I guess it just shows how good the left is at stigmatization and destroying people's credibility in the public eye. Still, you can't deny, Palin is a rock star to the social conservatives, and no matter how much you can't stand her, she could still garner considerable support from others.

No... I am not making a prediction. As I said before, I don't think there is a chance in hell of this, I am just offering it as a "what if?" for discussion sake.
Click to expand...


I'd like to add that Paul / Palin would also make a good domestic energy ticket because Palin is huge on ANWAR and Paul wants to get out of the ME.

The key to our independence is domestic energy and Palin is a big supporter of breaking the environmental greenies (reds) blocking the Alaskan oil bonanza for America.

The establishment republicans will do everything they can to block either getting the nomination. They want eastern progressives as their candidates and now they're trying to get amnesty for the illegals as their priority issue.
 
philly rabbit said:
I'd like to add that Paul / Palin would also make a good domestic energy ticket because Palin is huge on ANWAR and Paul wants to get out of the ME.
Click to expand...

When did Palin want to “get out” of the ME? She’s on record supporting America’s Military Industrial Complex, The American World Police Force & America’s Authoritarian Imperialist Foreign Policy.

The key to our independence is domestic energy and Palin is a big supporter of breaking the environmental greenies (reds) blocking the Alaskan oil bonanza for America.

The establishment republicans will do everything they can to block either getting the nomination. They want eastern progressives as their candidates and now they're trying to get amnesty for the illegals as their priority issue.
Click to expand...

What’s the difference between the Republican Party’s NE Neo-Conservative progressives & the Republican Party’s NW neo-conservative progressives like Palin? Both want to produce domestic oil including ANWAR. Both have a fair share of theocratic religious rightist. All Support the unconstitutional violent Drug War. All are strong supporters of the Military Industrial Complex. All support America’s authoritarian Imperialist foreign policy. All support America’s Global Police Force and Nation Building.

Anybody that thinks America’s Immigration policy doesn’t need a serious overhaul hasn’t paid attention to America’s Immigration policy.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Yeah! Just like everybody had the “SAME” right to marry whoever they wanted as long as their skin color was the same fucking shade as defined by the authoritarian Democrat’s KKK, right cupcake? It was OK for white men to fuck black girls but marrying them was a fucking no-no and a black man better never even think about fucking a white woman let alone marrying one without being assured of being lynched, right Goober.
Click to expand...

No, it's not "just like" that, we've already covered this. I explained why it wasn't "just like" that, in every fundamental way. But your emotive reflexes want to draw you back to something that has simply been debunked. You do this because you think it somehow demeans me or what I have said, to compare the two things, but the two things have no basis for comparison. Removing racial (and purely racist) barriers did not change marriage from being between a man and woman.

On the contrary Goober the constitutional amendments already exist that guarantee everybody’s right to marry whoever the fuck they want.
Click to expand...

No, they simply don't. If this were the case, I'd be married to Christie Brinkley.

They’re the 9th and the 14th which you have no rational argument in opposition. If you did, you would present it but instead you choose to ignore them and present pathetic grumblings about what you want the definition of marriage to be just like the old Democrat’s KKK of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore them, I responded that you had the correct interpretation of the 9th and 14th, and the incorrect interpretation of the word "marriage." I stand by that reply. Nothing in the Constitution gives you permission to alter the meanings and definitions of things, in order to make something Constitutional. If I want to shoot people in the head, I can't just call it "marrying" them, and go do it! That's not what "marriage" means, so I don't have the right to shoot people in the head and call it "marriage!" This is precisely what you are wanting to do, except instead of shooting people in the head, it's homosexuals having homosexual relationships.

The Constitution simply doesn't allow you to do this. If homosexual people were not being allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, it would be an 'equality' issue, and the 9th and 14th would apply, but that isn't being denied to them. They are also not being denied anything on the basis they are homosexual. Hetrosexuals are not being allowed something homosexuals are not. There is no sexuality prerequisite in obtaining a marriage license, there are many other restrictions and requirements, but sexuality is not one of them.

Again Goober your contradiction is duly noted! A matrimonial joining of ”ONLYa male and female by law as you desire has total regard for “sexuality”/b] by identifying the sexual gender of both partners and you sure as hell can’t argue that all marriages are celibate even though some might claim to be and you sure as hell can’t prove that a marriage is not a contract.
Click to expand...


Gender has nothing to do with sexuality! MORON! Marriage in Western culture, since the days of Martin Luther, has been a largely religious tradition, generally accompanied by a ceremony known as a wedding, where a male and female join in holy matrimony for the intention and purpose of raising a family. The only governmental requirement has been, they be consenting and legal age, and not too closely related, because that produces retards like you.

The law Goober is confined by the constitutional rule of law i. e. all law is subordinate to the confines of the Constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” {Amendment 9, United States Constitution)
Click to expand...

Which is what you are wanting to VIOLATE and FORCE your immoral perversions of marriage on us against our will.

The people have a right to do whatever they want and the only possible disclaimer for that guarantee is that whatever the people do it cannot violate any right of somebody else. To deny the right of a free and agreeable marriage contract between some adults is a violation of those adults constitutional rights under amendment 9. To allow free and agreeable marriage contracts between adults is in total keeping with constitutional principle because such contracts violate nobody’s rights even though gay marriage offends your authoritarian busybody religious radicalism.
Click to expand...

Again, it's NOT a violation of the Constitutional rights to deny a marriage licence to two people who aren't marrying. Two gay males can't enter into holy matrimony and produce a family, so what they want to do is not marriage. You want to try and change the definition of marriage to include this behavior, which is a purely sexual behavior. The Constitution grants you no such right.

Horseshit!!! The States and the People cannot violate the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. Prohibition of marriage contracts between someagreeable adults, i. e. proposition 8 are a violation of the 9th & 14th amendments. Try making a rational argument in opposition to that fact Goober if you can.
Click to expand...

We don't have a "National Constitution." We have a United States Constitution. It establishes our freedoms and rights in pretty definitive terms, and it does not give homosexuals the right to pervert the meaning of marriage or anything else, in order to legitimize their sexual behaviors and lifestyles. It clearly DOES give power to the people and states respectfully, for anything that isn't specifically enumerated as a power of federal government. Since the Federal Government is not granted the power to change and alter the definitions of words to accommodate homosexuals, this power resides in the people and states respectively, according to the Constitution.
 
Dixie said:
Gender has nothing to do with sexuality!
Click to expand...


For once, you're right.

Let's take this a little further...

SEXUALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE.

MARRIAGE IS ABOUT LOVE, NOT SEX.




sex·u·al·i·ty noun \ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tē\

Definition of SEXUALITY

: the quality or state of being sexual:
a : the condition of having sex
b : sexual activity
 
Threedee said:
Marriage is the familial relationship of a husband and wife. other familial relationships include brotherhood and sisterhood, etc.
Click to expand...

Wrongo. Welcome to the 21st Century.

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
 
Like that of traditional marriage? No husband or no wife = no marriage.

A man cannot be your sister, or is that merely traditional brotherhood? Perhaps roundness is merely the traditional meaning behind a sphere, and the illiterate 21st century allows for square spheres?
 
Threedee said:
Like that of traditional marriage? No husband or no wife = no marriage.

A man cannot be your sister, or is that merely traditional brotherhood? Perhaps roundness is merely the traditional meaning behind a sphere, and the illiterate 21st century allows for square spheres?
Click to expand...

More Dixie babbling, 3D?

Sober up and try again.
 
Dixie said:
No, it's not "just like" that, we've already covered this. I explained why it wasn't "just like" that, in every fundamental way. But your emotive reflexes want to draw you back to something that has simply been debunked. You do this because you think it somehow demeans me or what I have said, to compare the two things, but the two things have no basis for comparison. Removing racial (and purely racist) barriers did not change marriage from being between a man and woman.
Click to expand...

More of your yada, yada, yada insanity. You’ve thus far “debunked” nothing!

The correlation of prohibition on interracial marriages & same sex marriages seems perfectly evident to most everybody except you. Since you have a problem digesting it, I’ll spell it out for you. Prohibition of interracial marriages PREVENTED SOME MEN AND WOMEN FROM MAKING FREE & AGREEABLE MARRIAGE CONTRACTS WITH PEOPLE THEY WANTED TO MARRY. PROHIBITION OF GAY MARRIAGES PREVENTS SOME MEN AND WOMEN FROM MAKING FREE & AGREEABLE MARRIAGE CONTRACTS WITH PEOPLE THEY WANT TO MARRY.

No, they simply don't. If this were the case, I'd be married to Christie Brinkley.
Click to expand...

Of course who would expect you of all people to understand the concept of AGREEABLE I also respect the right of everybody to refuse to marry an idiot.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't ignore them, I responded that you had the correct interpretation of the 9th and 14th, and the incorrect interpretation of the word "marriage." I stand by that reply. Nothing in the Constitution gives you permission to alter the meanings and definitions of things, in order to make something Constitutional. If I want to shoot people in the head, I can't just call it "marrying" them, and go do it! That's not what "marriage" means, so I don't have the right to shoot people in the head and call it "marriage!" This is precisely what you are wanting to do, except instead of shooting people in the head, it's homosexuals having homosexual relationships.
Click to expand...

So now in your troubled little pea-brain free and agreeable homosexual marriage contracts are akin to “shooting people in the head and calling it marriage?” Your fucking insanity never ceases to amaze me Goober!
 
Dixie said:
They are also not being denied anything on the basis they are homosexual.
Click to expand...

Except free and agreeable marriage contract, huh Goober? Maybe you should try some “thinking” before you type out your fucking insane horseshit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top