<p>Breaking news!</p>
<p>(excerpt from USA Daily)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>from
[Ron</a> Paul passes 12 million dollar mark for quarter](<a href=“http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=201280]Ron”>http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=201280)</p>
<p>tsk tsk deceptive title don’t you think…should have mentioned it was all about the benjamins</p>
<p>Well, Lealdragon, He does give a strong message to the GOP’s apparatus. I am tired of having the Neo’s and Theo’s ignore the basics of common sense, level of corruption, the lies, the incompetence, and pure idiocy of this administration and “running dogs” of the Republican Congress. I’ve voted Libertarian before and as far as I’m concern, The GOP deserves to die and to die badly.</p>
<p>Thats what I love about politics. Give it a few days, another poll, or someone putting their foot in their mouths and the candidated in the lead will change. We are a long way off from the elections.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By far a ridicilious statement. Every SCIENTIFIC poll, not the Internet ones, that the Ron Paul Amen Crowds swarm too, shows him under 5 percent everywhere. He doesn’t have a shot in hell, so spare us the propaganda.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I Love Ron Paul. I hope he runs as a 3rd party after he loses the Republican nomination (I’ll bet on that) and becomes a thorn on their side.</p>
<p>Well, I still think the Party of Family Values is going to nominate Rick Perry.</p>
<p>What do you mean by ‘benjamins?’ I didn’t think the title was deceptive. I found a news article and it said as much in the article. I was merely passing it on.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla: Historically, the winner of the party nomination has ALWAYS been the candidate with the most cash at the end of Dec. (Documented in The Buying of the Presidency by Charles; Benes, Alejandro; O’Brien, Meredith Lewis)</p>
<p>You are choosing to believe the mainstream media, who continue to skew results because they are pushing their own agenda, rather than letting the people decide. Proof of this is that whenever they’ve had debates, they direct more questions to their choice of candidates, even early in the game. The assumption is that people will vote for whichever candidate they are fed the most steady diet of in the media.</p>
<p>Why Rick Perry?</p>
<p>do we really need more guns?
[Ron</a> Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings - Josh Kraushaar - Politico.com](<a href=“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3556.html]Ron”>Ron Paul: More Guns Will Deter Shootings - POLITICO)
[Ron</a> Paul - Congresspedia](<a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul]Ron”>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul)</p>
<p>Why Rick Perry?</p>
<p>Or as we call our belove-ed Gub’ner- Gub’ner Goodhair. ;)</p>
<p>Not MORE guns…but private citizens have a right to guns. It’s not about guns; it’s about reducing federal control over private citizens…it’s about FREEDOM and LIBERTY.</p>
<p>Ron Paul presidency would mean LESS WAR and more negotiation with the rest of the world.</p>
<p>Think about the bottom line.</p>
<p>leal, while I agree with you in some ways about the time disparities given to different candidates in the debates (though this is understandable - there’s limited time; when you’re a debate moderator whose mission is to expose the differences between candidates, with the limited time you have aren’t you more likely to focus on differentiating candidates who people seem to care most about?), you’re wrong about the polling issue.</p>
<p>Ron Paul has, as a proportion, more vocal and active supporters than other candidates. But they have more supporters in general, and scientific polling shows this. Ron Paul wins a lot of polls that are not scientific, and that don’t correct for the bias in motivation that differentiates Paulites from other political supporters.</p>
<p>Will Ron Paul win eventually? I don’t know. But what I do know is that it’s inaccurate to suggest that his low polling numbers in national scientific polls are suggestive of a conspiracy.</p>
<p>* about FREEDOM and LIBERTY.*</p>
<p>Oh I see- Freedom of Choice then?
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
– He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.
Introduced similar bills SEVEN times. He is consistent. ( or stubborn- oh don’t we already have one of those in the White House?)
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01095:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01095:)
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00777:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00777:)</p>
<ul>
<li>He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:)
Introduced bills on the above FOUR times.
–* He would deny the use of the Federal court system – and even Federal precedent – to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the “We the People Act”.*
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00300:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00300:)
Introduced similar legislation Seven times.</li>
</ul>
<p>More</p>
<p>A GUN FREE-FOR-ALL
– He would allow more guns in schools and National Parks, repeal requirements for background checks and gun-locks, use Federal authority to nullify state laws regarding concealed weapons, and eliminate many other regulations including prohibitions on gun possession by minors, recent felons, fugitives, addicts, and domestic abusers, and prohibitions relating to semiautomatic weapons.
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02424:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02424:)
15 similar bills</p>
<p>ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
– He would limit or try to repeal various environmental protection laws and regulations, including the Clean Air Act, the Soil and Water Conservation Act, and the use of devices that protect the “bycatch” of sea life.
[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.j.res.104:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.j.res.104:)
6 similar bills</p>
<p>Oh and he is interested in education too!
He wants to amend the constituition
</p>
<p>He’s not so concerned about the working man
He would deny the prevailing wage to employees of federal contractors, and remove prohibition on kickbacks in Federal projects
<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:h.r.736:[/url]”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bd...z?d106:h.r.736:</a> </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[HaloScan.com</a> - Comments](<a href=“http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davidneiwert/2437105258191203346/#294637]HaloScan.com”>http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davidneiwert/2437105258191203346/#294637)</p>
<p>“Why Rick Perry?”</p>
<p>Because I don’t think any of the current batch will be able to win the nomination outright. The deadlocked convention with look for a candidate who is acceptable social and Christian conservatives, the business elite (and oil companies), the neo-cons, and the law-n-order crowd. None of the current candidates can do all four - Rick Perry can. And from where I sit, other than possibly Jeb Bush, Rick Perry is the only one out there.</p>
<p>hmmm…emerald, you are picking and choosing. If you are going to give us a rundown of his policies, why don’t you list all of them?</p>
<p>You have completely missed the point. ALL the other candidates, ALL of them except Kucinich & Gravel, are in favor of extending the Iraq war and won’t take the Iran war off the table.</p>
<p>I’m an environmentalist. Environmentalists know that nuclear war is bad for the planet (not to mention humans and other living things).</p>
<p>As for the ‘right’ to kill her baby, well, sorry, but the baby’s rights as a person override the woman’s ‘right’ to convenience.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is consistently for freedom and liberty of ALL people.</p>
<p>Holy cow-- doesnt take long for these threads to turn to discussions of abortion. Here we go.</p>
<p>I was responding to emerald’s post indicating Ron Paul’s position on abortion was a negative. But you’re right - there are already plenty of threads on abortion. So I won’t make any more comments on it in this thread. emerald: how about we not go into it, ok?</p>
<p>mmm…emerald, you are picking and choosing. If you are going to give us a rundown of his policies, why don’t you list all of them?</p>
<p>I gave links to what he was sponsoring- I thought it was rather tedious to link to every single thing- sorry-</p>
<p>I also disagree that politicians should dictate what is between a patient and their doctor, I would argue that workers should have a right to unionize, & to have a national safety act protect them in the workplace & to be paid a decent wage.</p>
<p>I believe that citizens of the united states should have the same rights no matter what state they are in, if it is illegal to fire me because of my religion in Washington, it should be illegal in Kansas, and if I am anyway, I want the backing of my national govt to stand behind me.
Do environmentalists want more refineries?
</p>
<p>Ill steal my own quote from another thread.
ttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/431970-nasty-attacks-political-candidates-14.html</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and lealdragons response-
</p><p>You seem to be implying that there is a contradiction.</p>
<p>There isn’t.</p>
<p>You are pro-choice, I am pro-life.</p>
<p>The difference is clear: I believe it’s a PERSON whose right to life is being violated; you don’t.</p>
<p>Please, there is no point in debating this further. We can debate other elements of the candidate’s views, but to imply that I’m contradicting myself is simply inaccurate. You seem unable to apply the same principles (of rights) to the unborn baby, and so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.</p>
<p>As for state vs federal jurisdiction, Ron Paul has the view that the federal govt. exists primarily to ensure civil rights & liberties for ALL citizens (regardless of their race, religion, age or place of residence) and national defense. THOSE rights are inviolable and cannot ever be taken away by the states. However, cases of violence, such as murder, rape, etc. are traditionally handled at the local level. Please understand that pro-lifers consider abortion to be an act of violence. So, again, there is no contradiction.</p>
<p>
Leal, thought you weren’t gonna continue to take this thread down the abortion road… What happened??? (that’s a rhetorical question. Please don’t answer it) :D</p>
<p>*** addendum*** the best way to prevent the continuation of something you don’t wish to discuss is to ignore. If you feel you are being baited, don’t bite. JMO</p>