Oh, so a group of "voters" decide what a woman does with her pregnancy? Yeah, so much better. A group of predominately EVANGELICAL WHITE MALES and their submissive wives get to decide. And don't tell me that you are so ignorant that you don't realize that THESE ARE THE MAJORITY of people around our area. Because you do know it. Hell, half of 'em are still "closet racists" and this is a fact with all the anti-Mexican and "n jokes" I hear consistently, not to mention a vehement hatred of gays. If it were left up to some states, they would be for "Right Wing Jesus" like Iran is for the Ayatollah!
Agreed. Ron Paul is manipulating the voters and playing both sides to get votes from everyone; look like everyone's best friend, and its WORKING. Do your research people! Don't just jump on the bandwagon!!
Awesome argument. Ron Paul is a liar and a manipulator. He's manipulating the people and getting just what he wants. If he becomes President we'll all see his promises are just a bunch of lies.
yep thanks to all them federal court rulings on equality, not to mention the first and ninth amendments, we have no choice under federal mandate but to let them assemble.. your really not helping your argument against states rights much with that one. its federal laws that require us to issue them a permit if they sign the proper paperwork and you know it. graspin at straws aint ya..
nope not sayin that at all. nor do i think it will be a issue for a woman to get a abortion if she chooses,she may have to go to another state,an the federal goverment wont pay for it,but she will be able to get one if she wants. do people actually think that every state in the union will go right wing bible thumping wacko ? that is so fucking ludicrous it aint even funny.
I love this whole stance on "womens rights to the womb" So what ever is created from male sperm is his choice? whatever is created out of the hands of whom ever is at the disposal of the creator? That the mass population has no say in what they believe as a majority would be best for them to live by. Just so you understand I am for the right to abortion but I am also for the right of a father if he had no desire to have kids and the woman wishes to keep her baby then the male forfeits all rights to the child and also has no obligation for the support of the child. It takes two to play but seems only one is asked to pay.
Nope. Simply proving a point. You want to talk about right-wing wacko, JUST LOOK AT WHO OUR NEIGHBORS ELECT FOR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN GOVERNMENT FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS!!!! Hello? Look at what issues THEY FOCUS ON... "Evolution", "School Prayer", "Abortion", etc. Just look at what THESE LEADERS HAVE DONE FOR THE WORKING POOR. Why are The RED STATES the poorest and most ignorant? Because of who we get to "lead" us. It's just a sick fucking cycle that goes on and on... Do I have "faith" in these people? FUCK NO. Nobody in their right mind would.
People don't want to wake up. They want to jump on the bandwagon. That's why we keep getting social conservative ASSHOLES running the country!
Can't you see that his platform trades certain rights for legalizing marijuana and ending the war? That's called pandering the young vote. When someone tells you what you want to hear, DON'T LISTEN!
Does Ron Paul have any redeeming qualities? Yep. He opposes the war, he opposes the Patriot Act, he opposes the War on Drugs. So, let's all vote for him, right? Think about it. RONALD REAGAN once said that "we need more leaders like Ron Paul" and Paul has a tendency to resurrect the ghost of Reagan and his ideology. Do we need that? How does Ron Paul stand on other issues? CIVIL RIGHTS Ron Paul voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999). Ron Paul stated that "Don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Ron Paul takes issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does that mean that when Ron Paul and his supporters say they are for individual liberty, are they including the ability to discriminate based on group identities such as race? Makes one wonder. OR HOW ABOUT THIS: In 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, his “Ron Paul Survival Report” newsletter, had an article titled “Los Angeles Racial Terrorism.” In it, Paul described African-Americans as "barbarians" and called the rioters "thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization". And... "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin." And... "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational." And on and on... Ron Pauls 3700 word racist tirade was taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,Houston, TX 77058. Ron Paul is revealed in his own words, including the full original, so it cannot be said his statements were taken out of context at: RON PAUL'S STATEMENTS What about gays? Ron Paul says "Let The States Decide." So that a gay couple can marry in one state and be declared illegal and criminal in another? What is this? Anti-Gay State or Free State? Kind of reminds one of "Slave State/Free State?" So, the Federal government shouldn't determine what goes on your bedroom (AND THEY SHOULDN'T), but the State has a right to? A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE • Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating an anti-choice voting record. (Dec 2003) Ron Paul says "Let the States decide." When is the last time a STATE got pregnant? Who controls a woman's womb? Her or the State? Who should make decisions about her pregnancy? Her or the State? SCIENCE & MEDICAL PROGRESS • Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) • Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) Ron Paul has publicly stated that he supports encouraging the presentation of "scientific facts" that contradict the theory of evolution and support creationism in schools? Ron Paul support Bush-type mixing of "faith-based" bullshit such as tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) HUH??? ENVIRONMENT • Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003) • Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) • Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) • Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Ron Paul believes that so-called "property rights" are more important than the air we breathe and the water we drink. How far does it go? Would Ron Paul believe you had a right to throw garbage out in your front yard even if it affected the neighborhood? FAMILY VALUES • Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) • Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition. Ron Paul. He ought be ashamed. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURE/REFORM • Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) • Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) • Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) YEAH, Ron Paul SAYS nice stuff, but look at his VOTING RECORD. Such a mixed bag! MEDICARE/MEDICAID • Abolish federal Medicare/Medicaid entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000) So, poor states like West Virginia's working poor and elderly can just DEAL WITH IT and DIE, because they can't afford the proper care and their states can't afford to help them. WORKER'S RIGHTS/LABOR • Voted NO on increasing minimum wage. Paul has a LESS than 50% rating from the AFL/CIO again, indicating a mixed bag.
He'll never end the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs", because #1 he won't be elected, and #2 those issues would be minor on his list of conservative "values" to implement.
looks to me like he is standing for a constitutional government. logically anyone that looks at his platform knows why he voted no or yes on these issues you refer to. 1 reason and 1 reason only, its not the federal governments job to fund all these programs, nor is it there job to decide issues that under the constitution is the states business. i must ask,why would one teach the theory of evolution without teaching the theory of creationism side by side? seems logical for a well rounded education as they both are theories.as far as tax credits,shouldnt one have the choice of how there child is educated,whether you agree with it or not? while i applaud you for making his stance on spending for these unneeded programs known,i would think that any informed voter would already be aware of these facts and understand the reasoning behind these votes. one would think that the only questionable vote would be allowing funding for doctors to distribute information on options besides abortion. as far as the racism accusations,i always love when someone takes little bits and pieces out of context in a attempt to twist someones words. its standard practice here,as well as all over the web,anyone with any sense will look up the complete context(thanks for providing the link makes life easy) and see for themselves. its really sad that people have been so trained into having the federal government do and decide every issue for them that when they have the chance to elect someone to stop the out of control spending and save our government that they resort to digging up crap like this. ron paul votes no on anything that has to do with undo spending,that is his platform.. why should any of this shock a educated voter? this is not a socialist government.simply because youve watched it progress that way your entire adult life does not mean that was our founding fathers intentions and it must stop now. you seem to just have a fear of not being taken care of,plain and simple.. take care of yourself and those around you,its not the governments job.. oh BTW. im sure you will shock some ron paul supporters,as i stated the other night,i doubt many here knew what the band wagon they were on truly stands for. not that you aint doin your best to skew that stance,but hey people should be informed. if they want to continue on with out of control spending,with the government printing money or borrowing it from china to continue to fund all these programs then by all means keep the status quo.. when your old and grey an this country is reduced to the level of 3rd world country and none of these programs are available in the united states anyway because it no longer exists as we know it,remember this election. a parting thought,this is a representative republic,not a dictatorship. while he may have a agenda to completely abolish all this unneeded crap from federal funding all changes will still have to go through the process making change slow and tedious. its not like he will go in and drop the hammer and the 600 plus elected politicians in the legislative branch will just cowl down and let him and his administration run rough shot over them. im amazed at the fear you ooze.
if he wont be elected,then why do you feel the need to commit to this witch hunt your on? seems like your time could be better spent promoting your candidate rather than slandering one whom you say you believe wont even be elected.
Why, YES I would like my STATE to have much more power... why do you right off assume each state would be sent into anarchy? Would it not run much the same as it does now, but with INFINITELY more focus put on the people? Instead of taking orders from somenoe who has spent all of a few weeks in your state on the campaign trail, and honestly doesn't care about your specific needs.... why not empower YOURSELF to make decisions that concern YOURSELF. Obviously slavery wouldn't pop back up in the south, to say otherwise is ridiculous. GIving states more power gives the *people* more power... if someone doesn't like the way their state runs, they could simply MOVE to another one, or take part in their politics. In either instance, you get a true majority rule, instead of the INC rule of today. Please inform why you wish the entire country to be handed to a few people. Please inform me how that works better than handing more power to smaller regional governments, who are merely held in check by the federal government.... not chained down. Ron Paul wants the power to be handed back to the *people*, not large INC's... as long as there is a fed reserve, aslong as billion dollar "defense" contracts are handed out, the power is not just slightly tipped, its heading to the direction of *entirely* controlled by powers that YOU DO NOT ELECT. You want someone you don't eleect to run the country? I hope not.
If you believe this about Ron Paul, you must believe it about every presidential candidate. I did my research, I wonder if you have.
