All Comments

  • Posted by plusaf 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, usually the accusation is "Judeo-Christian Principles" and many of the Founding Fathers reported themselves not as Christians, but Deists.
    ... Believers in 'some kind of Supreme Being,' but not necessarily JC and his troupe.

    ah, whatever....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    True, but I would bet my life savings that no atheist (or Atheist) will be President in my lifetime and probably not in any of yours, either!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Both parties pay lip service to religion but generally don't embrace an evangelicalism like a demagogic preacher.

    ... wow, the all got ME fooled, then!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Read the Comments under the video at The Blaze...
    The Fans Loved It!

    We're totally fucked.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The Puritans were hunted down by the elitist Brits and nearly didn't make it to USA. Collectivist? You need to put up a new post proving it vice hijacking this post.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    As long as you vote as the statists want you to there will not be any chance of victory for a liberty candidate. You clearly believe your method is right in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
    You have given no facts to support your position.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    We choose from among those who have a chance to win the election. Refraining from voting "for" one of them does not make any of them go away. Attempting to influence the outcome of what we have to live under, knowing fully well what the limitations are and that it does not change the current corrupt system, does not endorse or sanction either of the candidates or the current parties and system. I understand your frustration, but accusing people who vote as sanctioning statism regardless of their reasons is false and offensive, in addition to remaining off topic in this thread.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You choose to vote for a DemRep instead of another candidate. You choose the candidate from a party with a history of false promises and statist expansion of government. If you want less government intrusion don't vote for statist looters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    A vote is NOT a "sanction". People who vote are NOT responsible for who is on the ballot.

    Your repetitive accusations are unresponsive, off topic and offensive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    There is a big difference between someone who harbors politically correct religious beliefs versus someone who throws it in your face in an evangelical fit in the name of a presidential campaign.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Does it matter? They are both part of the left wing Government Party. Comedy like the two masks smiling and frowning, same actor same stage same play. i see no evidence the Republicans have moved to the center much less the right. they are still believers in government controlling people. the rest is just street theatre and meaning once the sun replaces the lamp posts. Lesser of two evils only means the voter chose to support evil.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TomSwift 10 years ago
    He looks like a freakin' pervert. I can visualize him leering at strippers in a dingy dive bar or furtatively buying magazines in brown wrappers. He also reminds me of Heinlein's Nehemiah Scudder. The scary thing is that Heinlein predicted that Scudder would be elected in 2012. He also predicted that when that happens, there would be no election in 2016. I doubt he has a prayer (see what I did?) of being elected but that people can see him as a credible candidate is scary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Bush was a disaster, arguably exceeded by Obama, but that remains to be seen. Bush started an endless war on false pretenses, and destroyed what remained of the Bill of Rights. The Bush administration will likely be remembered as the worst in the history of the republic to date, definitely worse than all in the 20th century Congratulations on your magnificent voting record. You are welcome to vote as you wish of course but as long as you encourage others to waste their votes I will speak out against doing so. You claim you do not "sanction or philosophical endorse" statists, but your voting consistently for statists and encouraging others to vote for statists in spite of the horrid record of doing so conflicts with your statement. It appears that you are exactly the mindset that the GOP needs to retain power since their claims to defend liberty against statism is similarly conflicting.

    I will not refrain from speaking what I believe is right regardless of your wishes.
    Ted Cruse is running for POTUS as a Republican, the statist party that lies about that fact. History shows how well the GOP has grown the state and destroyed the Bill of Rights and pandered to large corporate looters. I invite you to state the record and prove the value of voting for the GOP.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago
    Why has every single comment disappeared from this article?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    No one who knows what is going on believes that voting for either side is a vote to restore freedom. Casting a vote within the alternative available, when it makes a difference, is not a wasted vote and not a "vote for evil". It is recognition of reality and the fact of a what a vote does in determining which of the two possibilities you will have to live under. Bush, the moderate manager of existing statism, was no Obama, Kerry or Gore. Voting "for" Bush was not a sanction of evil for anyone other than those who actually liked his political philosophy. A vote is not a sanction or philosophical endorsement. Please refrain from misrepresenting this.

    We are discussing in this thread Ted Cruz's choice to launch his campaign in the Republican primary with a deliberate diversion into frenzied religion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree that one should do more than vote.

    I completely disagree that one should vote for evil. Both Dem and Rep has proven to be far worse than promised and the GOP continue to rely on voting for the lesser of two evils to keep them in power. GOP is a fraud in my view because they pretend to be anti-state. If you continue to waste your vote on one of two evil choices there will never be anything but evil choices with a realistic chance to win.
    Look at results and voting for the lesser of two evils has proven repeatedly to be disasterous for liberty. Continuing to do so after looking at results is an irrational waste.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If you want to stop evil choices and fight their consequences once in office you have to do a lot more than either voting or refraining from voting every four years. That is not the cause of evil choices. An election and the limits of the choices you are in fact confronted with at any point in time are only a consequence of the culture and politics of the nation -- and those actively engaged in politics for good or bad.

    At the time of an election one can only try to stop the worst, when there is a significant difference, from among the choices we are in fact limited to and which cannot be changed. But there is much, much more to do the rest of the time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 10 years ago
    I can recall an interview with someone who admired Ayn Rand (don’t recall who that was) and being asked if he would run as an Objectivist. His answer was that he would never be elected. He knew that once the media got wind of being an atheist, that would spell the end of his chances. Whether we like it or not, most Americans expect a candidate to be a Christian. Recall the speculation early in Obama’s campaign as to was he Christian or Muslim. He quickly stated he was a Christian (even if he is not) because that would have ended his chances at getting elected. So all this talk about religion to me is background noise. I look to see what values the person stands for (ethical and honest), and will he stand for our Constitution, promote a smaller government, and protect this country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If you continue to waste your vote on one of two evil choices there will never be anything but evil choices with a realistic chance to win.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    An obsession with religion is against what the country stands for. Much of his constitutional views are against everything the left stands for. There will be many candidates in the primaries, but most likely only two opponents in the general election with a realistic chance to win.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think it's good PR for someone to openly admit he's running on blind faith. Even Cruz hasn't acknowledged that that is what he is doing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    And very disappointing for someone who previously looked like he could be one of the better Republican candidates.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You'll never get these folks here to admit it, despite the fact that only two of the delegates didn't list their religion as explicitly Christian, nor the references in both the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. That's fine - let it go. Those who do their homework on the matter know the real history.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo