So I get this email a couple weeks back about Ron Paul being in DC, and the locals taking a bus down. I figure I ought to support this, and turns out it was the big Values Voter Summit. So I was in an element I was familiar with.

Only attended Sat sessions, word was Cain did well the day before.

Paul did very well in his address, articulate, to the point, well constructed. Very much defining the principles which guide him, and how they tie to this group. It was a good speech.

He had very vocal support, loud and active. Lots of standing ovations, lots of support.

William Bennett spoke. Not bad, typical Bennett.

Then Jay Sekulow whored for Mitt Romney. I'm not a big Sekulow fan, personally I think he's a bully. You talk about your dominionists, to me that's what Sekulow is. But he was all for Romney (and Israel).

Romney spoke, and it felt very smarmy. He was polished and technically sound, but it was very much tactical on what he'd do: exempt all 50 states from Obama care. Restore DoD funding. And often vague: Never apologize for America. Put in a plan to "benefit" the economy. Support Israel.

Lots of digs on Obama, yet he's an equally proud interventionist. Just a matter of flavor.

When he said he'd restore the DoD budget, someone yelled, "Bring the troops home!"

Ok, it was me.

Romney got frequent applause too, but clearly less boisterous than Paul's.

Good time, lots of good conversation w/ the local limited government people on the way home. Hope to have pix later.

PS. GTS, really surprised to to run into you there!

Update: Paul won the Straw Poll by a landslide: 37%

Texas Rep. Ron Paul won the Values Voter Summit straw poll Saturday, with the libertarian presidential candidate taking 37 percent of votes at a gathering organized by social conservatives.

In second place was Herman Cain with 23 percent of the vote, followed by Rick Santorum with 16 percent.
Continue Reading

Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann were tied for fourth place, with 8 percent each. Rounding out the pack were Mitt Romney with 4 percent,

Nice win. The people who organize it are upset, lol: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...03544.html

(10-09-2011 04:04 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  Nice win. The people who organize it are upset, lol: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...03544.html

Every right wing values voter nutjob I know when they're not thumping their Bible they're fondling pictures of Rick Santorum.

(10-09-2011 04:10 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 04:04 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  Nice win. The people who organize it are upset, lol: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...03544.html

Every right wing values voter nutjob I know when they're not thumping their Bible they're fondling pictures of Rick Santorum.

You need to get out more.

(10-09-2011 04:04 AM)Dak10 Wrote:  Nice win. The people who organize it are upset, lol: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...03544.html

I emailed them about their inappropriate comments. Also trying to get others to do same.

I think it's amazing that the GOP candidates actually compete to appease the theocratic right.

(10-10-2011 09:24 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I think it's amazing that the GOP candidates actually compete to appease the theocratic right.

I think it's amazing that you come here and insult people who's views differ from your own, w/ no evidence that you understand or have ever sought to understand their position, including it's history and philosophy.

(10-10-2011 10:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 09:24 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I think it's amazing that the GOP candidates actually compete to appease the theocratic right.

I think it's amazing that you come here and insult people who's views differ from your own, w/ no evidence that you understand or have ever sought to understand their position, including it's history and philosophy.

I made no such insult. If you took it as a negative, that's your own interpretation of a neutral comment.

I am surprised that the people who wish to be president of these United States of America, a nation with no official religion, feel compelled to woo religious fringe groups who seek to use religion to influence legislation.

Now if you assume that referring to groups as religious is somehow negative, then that shows your own bias, not mine.

(10-10-2011 10:24 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 10:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 09:24 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I think it's amazing that the GOP candidates actually compete to appease the theocratic right.

I think it's amazing that you come here and insult people who's views differ from your own, w/ no evidence that you understand or have ever sought to understand their position, including it's history and philosophy.

I made no such insult. If you took it as a negative, that's your own interpretation of a neutral comment.

"theocratic right" is not neutral.

Quote:I am surprised that the people who wish to be president of these United States of America, a nation with no official religion, feel compelled to woo religious fringe groups who seek to use religion to influence legislation.

You prove you know little of demographics, history or ethical philosophy.

(10-10-2011 10:25 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 10:24 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 10:10 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 09:24 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I think it's amazing that the GOP candidates actually compete to appease the theocratic right.

I think it's amazing that you come here and insult people who's views differ from your own, w/ no evidence that you understand or have ever sought to understand their position, including it's history and philosophy.

I made no such insult. If you took it as a negative, that's your own interpretation of a neutral comment.

"theocratic right" is not neutral.

Quote:I am surprised that the people who wish to be president of these United States of America, a nation with no official religion, feel compelled to woo religious fringe groups who seek to use religion to influence legislation.

You prove you know little of demographics, history or ethical philosophy.

The GOP is on the "right", no?
Wishing to use religion as a framework for governing decisions is theocracy, no?
The US has no official relgion, no?

What have I said that is inaccurate and negative?

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wishing to use religion as a framework for governing decisions is theocracy, no?

No.

So, you don't know the meaning of the words you use, and thus you use them antagonistically.

Being the majority, Christians aren't fringe.

(10-10-2011 10:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-10-2011 10:30 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Wishing to use religion as a framework for governing decisions is theocracy, no?

No.

So, you don't know the meaning of the words you use, and thus you use them antagonistically.

Fair enough. An actual theocracy requires control by religion, not just influence. Directionally however, they are the same.

(10-10-2011 10:48 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Being the majority, Christians aren't fringe.

I never said Christians were fringe. I said religious groups that want to use religion to influence legislation are fringe.