Ron Paul articulates a strong pro-life message, among other things

CorporateWhore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eronpaul2008%2Ecom%2F

People forget that Ron Paul is very pro-life, but he also won't allow government to exceed it's constitutional limits.

His record is consistent, seeing as how he has voted against immoral killing in the form of the Iraq War and abortion.

Jeanie

You confuse me.

It's ok to own a gun and "defend" yourself against a "criminal" but you think abortion and the Iraq war is immoral?

Maybe you think Ron Paul is consistent but from where I'm sitting you sure as hell aint so guess I'll blow this guy off as a waste of hot air.

godpt3

I will give Paul credit for not only opposing abortion, but the death penalty as well. You see a lot of conservative hypocrites out there who claim to be "pro-life" while at the same time supporting the death penalty.

I am confused about why he would vote to limit stem cell research but not research into human cloning.

DriftingByTheStorm

The right to bare arms is a CONSTITUTIONAL right,

and the states' soverign right to make it's OWN law is ALSO a CONSTITUTIONAL right (we're talking about abortion and the right to make decisions about the legality thereof) also, remember that the RIGHT to LIFE is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.

That makes Ron Paul CONSISTENT.
you may not AGREE with it, but he IS being constitutionaly CONSISTENT.

?

CorporateWhore

Jeanie wrote:

You confuse me.

It's ok to own a gun and "defend" yourself against a "criminal" but you think abortion and the Iraq war is immoral?

Maybe you think Ron Paul is consistent but from where I'm sitting you sure as hell aint so guess I'll blow this guy off as a waste of hot air.

Would you let the criminal kill you? That's suicide.

Jeanie

CorporateWhore wrote:

Would you let the criminal kill you? That's suicide.

Who said anything about "letting" the criminal kill me?

And supposing he did I'd hardly call that suicide.

But then I have no problem with suicide either in that I believe it's a person's right to choose their own death should they feel inclined.

But then you don't really care about my life so I'm not really sure why you give a shit anyway.

Rushlimbo

CorporateWhore wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGGOiv7sA4w&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eronpaul2008%2Ecom%2F

People forget that Ron Paul is very pro-life, but he also won't allow government to exceed it's constitutional limits.

I dont think it is so much that people forget he is very pro-life as much as people dont give two shits.

Abookamongstthemany

So he's for women having the right to an abortion? That's pro choice.

ArmsinaV

As of today, I'm voting for Paul.

jeffbr

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So he's for women having the right to an abortion? That's pro choice.

Exactly. That's why I like Paul. He may have his personal, moral beliefs about abortion, but those won't interfere with this belief that it is not the prerogative of the federal government to interfere.

Jeanie

Well he's about as clear as mud as far as that interview goes.

I'm wondering if his stance on handing abortion legislation back to the states is actually as much about "personal freedom" as it is maybe more about divide and conquer.

DriftingByTheStorm

Jeanie wrote:

Well he's about as clear as mud as far as that interview goes.

I'm wondering if his stance on handing abortion legislation back to the states is actually as much about "personal freedom" as it is maybe more about divide and conquer.

I feel sorry for you that you have such distrust for Dr. Ron Paul.
I distrust just about every politician currently on the scene ... but Mr. Paul seems to have distanced himself from nearly every one of those political figures. He stands on his own, far to the side (and many would say -- of in the shadows, on the fringe) ... supporting YOUR RIGHTS ...

your right to a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT,
run as our founding fathers established it and intended for it to be run ...

the fact that he has delivered over 3,000 babies, and clearly has some personal compasion for infant and pre-infant life is not the marking of a ruthless psychofant who wants to "divide and conquer" ... he's actually trying to protect you and get YOUR RIGHTS back.

???

Jeanie

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I feel sorry for you that you have such distrust for Dr. Ron Paul.
I distrust just about every politician currently on the scene ... but Mr. Paul seems to have distanced himself from nearly every one of those political figures. He stands on his own, far to the side (and many would say -- of in the shadows, on the fringe) ... supporting YOUR RIGHTS ...

your right to a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT,
run as our founding fathers established it and intended for it to be run ...

the fact that he has delivered over 3,000 babies, and clearly has some personal compasion for infant and pre-infant life is not the marking of a ruthless psychofant who wants to "divide and conquer" ... he's actually trying to protect you and get YOUR RIGHTS back.

???

He ain't doing jack for my rights Drifting coz Australia still has it's own government. Might not seem like it but at this point we haven't been sucked up completely by the American political machine.

No need to feel sorry for me and my rights. I can take care of them myself thanks.

jeffbr

Jeanie wrote:

Well he's about as clear as mud as far as that interview goes.

I'm wondering if his stance on handing abortion legislation back to the states is actually as much about "personal freedom" as it is maybe more about divide and conquer.

Hi Jeanie,

He's a constitutionalist. Our country was set up to be a federation of states. The federal government was never supposed to be the huge, monolithic moster it has become. We were never supposed to have a central command and control type of government. We were supposed to be a union of separate states. Some of us still believe that the federal government is the wrong place to address the needs of people. The federal government exists to provide for our common defense and regulate interstate commerce.

So hearing Paul say that an issue should be left to the states to decide really doesn't have to do with "divide and conquer" for him. It has to do with his (and my) understanding of the constitution and the intent of the founders.

DriftingByTheStorm

jeffbr wrote:

Hi Jeanie,

He's a constitutionalist. Our country was set up to be a federation of states. The federal government was never supposed to be the huge, monolithic moster it has become. We were never supposed to have a central command and control type of government. We were supposed to be a union of separate states. Some of us still believe that the federal government is the wrong place to address the needs of people. The federal government exists to provide for our common defense and regulate interstate commerce.

So hearing Paul say that an issue should be left to the states to decide really doesn't have to do with "divide and conquer" for him. It has to do with his (and my) understanding of the constitution and the intent of the founders.

Thank you Jeff.
Sometimes (ok, a LOT) i let my heart speak in front of my head ...
and it comes out sounding sensationalistic.
(maybe Alex Jones could use some help from me?)

Jeanie

jeffbr wrote:

Hi Jeanie,

He's a constitutionalist. Our country was set up to be a federation of states. The federal government was never supposed to be the huge, monolithic moster it has become. We were never supposed to have a central command and control type of government. We were supposed to be a union of separate states. Some of us still believe that the federal government is the wrong place to address the needs of people. The federal government exists to provide for our common defense and regulate interstate commerce.

So hearing Paul say that an issue should be left to the states to decide really doesn't have to do with "divide and conquer" for him. It has to do with his (and my) understanding of the constitution and the intent of the founders.

Hi jeff.
Thanks for that. A good explanation, which makes a lot more sense now.

I guess this is the first I've seen of the fella, because you know I'm on the other side of the world and all, and I have a natural suspicion of politicians anyway, so if it turns out that he's elected and his intent is the right of each individual then perhaps he's not so sinister. I guess only time will tell though right?

DriftingByTheStorm

Jeanie wrote:

Hi jeff.
Thanks for that. A good explanation, which makes a lot more sense now.

I guess this is the first I've seen of the fella, because you know I'm on the other side of the world and all, and I have a natural suspicion of politicians anyway, so if it turns out that he's elected and his intent is the right of each individual then perhaps he's not so sinister. I guess only time will tell though right?

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8201117796365456721&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=ron%2Bpaul%2Bfiat%2Bempire&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dji_G0MqAqq8&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-8201117796365456721%26q%3Dron%2Bpaul%2Bfiat%2Bempire%26total%3D20%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H22NgjyJ-NCOySUqs0GP63HczQmUvQ

Does it get any more sincere?

jeffbr

Jeanie wrote:

Hi jeff.
Thanks for that. A good explanation, which makes a lot more sense now.

I guess this is the first I've seen of the fella, because you know I'm on the other side of the world and all, and I have a natural suspicion of politicians anyway, so if it turns out that he's elected and his intent is the right of each individual then perhaps he's not so sinister. I guess only time will tell though right?

I harbor no illusions. Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination. I only hope that he jumps to a 3rd party if that's the case. Ron's been around for a long time. He ran for president as a Libertarian in the '88 election and I voted for him then, too.

Unfortunately 2008 will again be a choice between dumb and dumber. In 2008 I will again vote for none of the above when it comes to the major parties.

BTW, your natural suspcion of politicans is a healthy thing!

norm

jeffbr wrote:

I harbor no illusions. Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination. I only hope that he jumps to a 3rd party if that's the case. Ron's been around for a long time. He ran for president as a Libertarian in the '88 election and I voted for him then, too.

Unfortunately 2008 will again be a choice between dumb and dumber. In 2008 I will again vote for none of the above when it comes to the major parties.

BTW, your natural suspcion of politicans is a healthy thing!

all this is true.......i wish for once i could vote for a candidate that has a snowballs chance in hell of winning....:(

DriftingByTheStorm

jeffbr wrote:

I harbor no illusions. Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination. I only hope that he jumps to a 3rd party if that's the case. Ron's been around for a long time. He ran for president as a Libertarian in the '88 election and I voted for him then, too.

Unfortunately 2008 will again be a choice between dumb and dumber. In 2008 I will again vote for none of the above when it comes to the major parties.

BTW, your natural suspcion of politicans is a healthy thing!

unfortunately, jeff,
ron paul has openly stated with much candor that he has no plans to run as an independent if he does not get the republican nomination.

of course, we can only HOPE that he FLIP FLOPS on this issue.

Jeanie

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8201117796365456721&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=ron%2Bpaul%2Bfiat%2Bempire&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dji_G0MqAqq8&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-8201117796365456721%26q%3Dron%2Bpaul%2Bfiat%2Bempire%26total%3D20%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H22NgjyJ-NCOySUqs0GP63HczQmUvQ

Does it get any more sincere?

Well he does sound sincere. But I'm wondering how he's planning to achieve some of this stuff.

Is he even in the presidential race? And supposing he is and he gets elected, how does anyone shut down the big banks and get them to play nice?

Just musing.