Money Looking Good For Paul Camp

ninetysixcavy said:
Hannity and Colmes
Re- Fox(y) News -
I can't watch a single minute of "staged debate", long blonde hair or otherwise :1orglaugh

Fox "news" actually had the audacity to allow some knucklehead to call him "certifiablly insane" on Hannity and Colmes one night. A sitting Congressman... "certifiably insane." When I heard it I had to do a double take it was so outrageous. I was like, WTF?
It sells tickets (Arbitron Ratings)
thank God for the internet. Free, unbiased media, truly "for the people." :)
OTOH - Sometimes we can get cozy at home sending deletable emails to "our represenatatives" at a time when we would be better suited at the state capitol . . in face -n- flesh ! :thumbsup:
 
I think Libertarians can hold Premium Link Upgrade of the abortion issue.
 
I think the right to control what happens to your own body to be so basic to human liberty that I consider it personally one of the rare 9th Amendment rights. That's also why I think things like people have a right to die among other things that dictate what happens to their very life. Also if you had no entrenched liberties guaranteeing the right for that the government would theoretically be able to make you do anything it wanted to it, like ***** you do donate an organ to somebody that's sick just because your healthy when your still alive for example, or ***** you to donate yourself to science.

As far as abortion goes, I think life begins at conception, but a person begins at birth. Just because something is living, or even living and having the potential to become a person later doesn't make it a person.
 
I think Libertarians can hold Premium Link Upgrade of the abortion issue.

I do too, jerr.

I believe the issue is nothing more than an obligatory one when it really has little importance with respect for the majority. i.e. politcal football.



Why I like Ron Paul is the fact that he's not ******** of the greater establishment. In fact, it would appear as if he's somewhat ostracized by his contemporaries. (good for U.S.)

Paul is known to be a grass roots statesman, not an ambitious politicon. He's not likely to be approached by the special interests. His record reveals such.

Paul is an official that intrigues both political ideologies.

More tomorrow . . .:sleep:
 
As far as abortion goes, I think life begins at conception, but a person begins at birth. Just because something is living, or even living and having the potential to become a person later doesn't make it a person.

The only part of that equation that bothers me are those late term abs. Where will that line be drawn (?)
It pisses me off to no end how individuals could procrastinate as such. :(

:wave2:
 
Re- Fox(y) News -
I can't watch a single minute of "staged debate", long blonde hair or otherwise :1orglaugh

I think being a gorgeous blonde gal is a prerequisite for anchoring any of the Fox news programming. :dunno: That's certianly one reason to keep watching their channel.:

Megyn Kelly
Kirsten Powers
Laurie Due
Juliet Huddy :banana:
Martha MacCallum
Michelle Malkin

And the list goes on...:1orglaugh


It sells tickets (Arbitron Ratings)

They plant a bunch of phonies in the post-debate feedback forums. All of the people that slander the candidates (like the good Dr. Paul) are paid by media outlets like the NY Times, CNN and so forth; all with agendas. Certainly you or me are not welcome to voice our concerns at such forums.

OTOH - Sometimes we can get cozy at home sending deletable emails to "our represenatatives" at a time when we would be better suited at the state capitol . . in face -n- flesh ! :thumbsup:

People love their plasma screen TV's, AC, Pizza Hut delivery, etc. Eventually it will catch up to this country, if it hasn't already.
 
I think Libertarians can hold Premium Link Upgrade of the abortion issue.

Well I guess Paul could not run as a Libetarian without them changing their platform as he is in disagreement with this from your link.

"The U.S. Libertarian Party platform[4] states that "abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides". It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question"."
 
He is running for president and the question was asked in a debate and rightly so I think most would say.When you pose "why are we dealing with a hypothetical"

There is absolutely no reason to ask a hypothetical when the answer is already known.

I think that would not be acceptable for someone running for that office to try to ignore or duck the question and they won't and can't.

You're kidding right? I would hope you get to know Dr. Paul's positions better, because there is absolutely no ducking anything. He has been saying the very same thing for ages. His position on abortion is absolutely nothing new, and he has never been shy about it, or private. He's always said the same thing. If you watch age old videos (+20 years), you'll be amazed at how he has not changed. Make no mistake...there's no ducking questions when it comes to Dr. Paul.

I beleive no legislature federal or state should be able to decide on this or any other basic right.

Technically, a state can make anything law that does not contradict the constitution. The constitution gives states the right to decide things like abortion, even though you believe abortion is an intrinsic right.

By the way, the privacy argument for abortion is a complete sham, and extremely unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade is one of the most unconstitutional cases of all time, regardless of what our personal views on abortion are. You wouldn't appreciate me, as a Supreme Court justice, saying that abortion should be ******* everywhere, would you? Of course not.

Abortion, like everything else that the federal government is not allowed to legislate, based on the constitution, is a state issue.

Really besides the war he sounds pretty much like all the other pubs

That is absolutely not true. Take the following as examples.

1. He would not support any federal legislation banning *********.
2. He voted against the Patriot Act.
3. He is for bringing back all troops overseas (not just Iraq), except those, of course, who are looking for Usamah Bin Laden. He supported the Afghanistan invasion.
4. He is for the legalization of hemp.
5. With the exception of Huckabee, I believe Dr. Paul is the only Republican calling for getting rid of the IRS.
6. He is the only one on the Republican side who vigorously defends all of the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the constitution, of course), and especially the first and fourth amendment (i.e. search, seizure, etc.).
7. He is against the Real ID.
8. He is against ******* NSA wiretapping (wiretapping without a warrant).

There's more, but I think eight examples is more than just the war.
 
There is absolutely no reason to ask a hypothetical when the answer is already known.



You're kidding right? I would hope you get to know Dr. Paul's positions better, because there is absolutely no ducking anything. He has been saying the very same thing for ages. His position on abortion is absolutely nothing new, and he has never been shy about it, or private. He's always said the same thing. If you watch age old videos (+20 years), you'll be amazed at how he has not changed. Make no mistake...there's no ducking questions when it comes to Dr. Paul.



Technically, a state can make anything law that does not contradict the constitution. The constitution gives states the right to decide things like abortion, even though you believe abortion is an intrinsic right.

By the way, the privacy argument for abortion is a complete sham, and extremely unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade is one of the most unconstitutional cases of all time, regardless of what our personal views on abortion are. You wouldn't appreciate me, as a Supreme Court justice, saying that abortion should be ******* everywhere, would you? Of course not.

Abortion, like everything else that the federal government is not allowed to legislate, based on the constitution, is a state issue.



That is absolutely not true. Take the following as examples.

1. He would not support any federal legislation banning *********.
2. He voted against the Patriot Act.
3. He is for bringing back all troops overseas (not just Iraq), except those, of course, who are looking for Usamah Bin Laden. He supported the Afghanistan invasion.
4. He is for the legalization of hemp.
5. With the exception of Huckabee, I believe Dr. Paul is the only Republican calling for getting rid of the IRS.
6. He is the only one on the Republican side who vigorously defends all of the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the constitution, of course), and especially the first and fourth amendment (i.e. search, seizure, etc.).
7. He is against the Real ID.
8. He is against ******* NSA wiretapping (wiretapping without a warrant).

There's more, but I think eight examples is more than just the war.

The only thing I would say is that until I heard him say what he said in that debate I had no idea what his stand on the abortion issue was.So it was for me at least not just repeating what was already known.I would have assumed he held the stand the libetarian platform states which was referenced by me a couple posts up.Which was it should be legal but not funded and that gov't should stay out it.And was kinda shocked he said what he said which is very different than that.
 
It's all likely academic that we discuss Mr Paul now but what the he!!

What he would do early in "his" Presidency is to cut rope on that complete money skim scam "The War On *****" .

As I understand, this "Program" really isn't (It's in name only) and billions of our friggin tax dollars simply get pilfered i.e. stuffed in pockets 'round the Fed. Govt.

Free Money ! Those f'en robber barons ! Yep ! time to do a thread on this monumental fraud that just won't go away.

Since what ? The Reagan Administration, this has been going on ?

They Don't Call "it" (Wash D C) The District of Criminals for nothing !
 
says he'll continue as long as the people keep supporting the message. came out on top in fund-raising amongst republicans 4th quarter:

Premium Link Upgrade

but in the polls and mainstream media he doesn't even register a blip.

i wonder what will happen to the republican party after this cycle.
 
Well I guess Paul could not run as a Libetarian without them changing their platform as he is in disagreement with this from your link.

"The U.S. Libertarian Party platform[4] states that "abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides". It holds that abortion should be legal but neither state-funded or required because "the government should be kept out of the question"."
Yes. Which explains why Premium Link Upgrade :rolleyes:

"The Libertarian Party" does not speak for all "libertarians" (or even for that matter, all "Libertarians") in the US.

As a "libertarian", I certainly doesn't agree with the Libertarian party on multiple issues. Also note - Dr. Paul is still a "lifetime member" of the Libertarian Party.... now why would he be one (and indeed earn their nomination for Presidential Candidate in 1988) if he held opinions contrary to the "official LP stance on the issues" ??

Nice try.
Better luck next time - might help if you read/understood the "why" behind the political stance of Dr. Paul on pertinent issues. Please don't fall for media soundbytes.


cheers,
a libertarian who is not completely decided on abortion but who supports Dr. Ron Paul.
 
If I hear one goddamn thing about religious bullshit or ****** values out of him, though, it's over.
I'm genuinely curious Petya - why?

I can understand your apprehension of a "Republican talking about ****** values" - believe you me, I always shudder when I hear a typical pub mouth off.

But Dr. Paul is no neo-lib/con Republican.
Hell, he considers Sen. R. Taft as an 'ideal'.
He actually respects the 9th and 10th Amendments.

You know what's the three underlying sentiments of his core political campaign?
Ron Paul said:
“I don’t want to run your life. We all have different values. I wouldn’t know how to do it, I don’t have the authority under the Constitution, and I don’t have the moral right.” Second: “I don’t want to run the economy. People run the economy in a free society.” And third: “I don’t want to run the world.…We don’t need to be imposing ourselves around the world.”

Why would such a stance turn you off? :confused:

cheers,
 
says he'll continue as long as the people keep supporting the message. came out on top in fund-raising amongst republicans 4th quarter:

Premium Link Upgrade

but in the polls and mainstream media he doesn't even register a blip.

i wonder what will happen to the republican party after this cycle.

Which is why I can't understand why I haven't seen one commercial of him. I saw no less than a half a dozen Obama commercials on my local news cast last night, in a span of about an hour. Also commercials from, I believe, every other candidate still in the race, but I have yet to see any RP commercials. Something fishy....
 
military contributions breakdown:
Premium Link Upgrade

his message of "out of iraq now" resonates with the people actually fighting, rather than the boosters at home, whose only patriotic duty is to spend liquid assets.

why hasn't he done better? is there a media conspiracy? brown out the anti-establichment candidate? his commercials have sucked, and he didn't capitalize on what newsworthy developments that he had, like the money bombs and whatnot. now he has planned a march on washington dc.
with romney finally releasing his delegates and making mccain even more of a lock, ron paul probably won't even get a chance to speak at the convention. i think the republican party is going to fracture. whatever happens, it's going to be interesting.
in my opinion, this is the most important election cycle in the last 40 years, so i'm watching everything. i think the most important thing is that whoever becomes president needs to reverse the huge powers swing to the executive branch. as it stands now, anyone who holds the presidency holds dictatorial powers. the president has his/her own secret army: the cia. rule by decree: powers granted by the patriot act. the ability to intimidate the populace: see valerie plame, dixie chicks etc. . .
caesar could do no better.
so i'm naturally attracted to the candidate that talks about reversing this shift, also talking realistically about the economy and our dangerous empirical foreign policy.

:2 cents:
 
Back
Top