<p>“Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans say that the next President should meet with the heads of nations such as Iran, Syria, and North Korea without setting any preconditions. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% disagree while 24% are not sure”</p>
<p>dosn’t mean much won’t be a voting issue among the D votes…</p>
<p>Yeah, but look at the numbers among Dems. It may not mean anything votingwise, but it definitely DOES mean that H is not invulnerable, that she makes errors in judgment, and in debate, and that her factoid spin machine may not be all that it is cracked up to be. </p>
<p>(And, perhaps, bringing out Madam apologist for mass child murder likely didn’t help…)</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>Rasmussen used a different boxing analogy in the same round of analysis from their daily tracking polls:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BTW, I think you will find that Clinton scored huge points for the general election with her response to the question about immediate summit meetings without precondition with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Assad, and Kim Jong Il.</p>
<p>The fundamental threshold any candidate must cross, and especially any Democratic candidate, is being perceived as serious and tough enough on national security issues.</p>
<p>Any week where the headlines includes the quote “irresponsible and naive” is NOT a good week for recent state legistlator Barack Obama.</p>
<p>@mythmom</p>
<p>“afruff23: Until Paul has the opportunity to personally face the issue of whether or not to have an abortion, I feel quite confident that he doesn’t know as much about abortion as I do. One of the sad things about wanting to reverse Roe v. Wade is that the only victims will be those not rich enough to find different access to the procedure.”</p>
<p>Oh, and I suppose the other candidates have had that opportunity. Give me a break. He’s written 2 books on it, is an OB-GYN, and has served several terms in Congress. He knows more about this issue than anybody on this forum or anybody running for President.</p>
<p>In case you forgot your history class, I’ll remind you that the Constitution changes with time. This is the same Constitution that gave us the 13th Amendment (abolishment of slavery).</p>
<p>A good case of how the Constitution best reflects the views of the country is the prohibition amendment and subsequent amendment which repealed prohibition.</p>
<p>Also, please don’t refer to people seeking abortions as victims. Victims of what? Victims of their own stupidity for not using protection?</p>
<p>“People are individuals and members of groups last time I peeked into sociology.”</p>
<p>That is what is fundamentally wrong with how people are treated. People come up with arbitrary groupings of people and expect something of them simply because they belong to a group.</p>
<p>Paul is saying that while the blatant racists are bad (i.e. KKK), people propagating these divisions are also bad (i.e. NAACP). The NAACP even refers to its grouping right in the name (“colored”)!! If people are just treated for who they are and not expect anything more (i.e. AA), then everybody would be happy.</p>
<p>Also, if you’re so wary of the Constitution, why are you posting? Your first Amendment guarantees your right to talk and post on forums.</p>
<p>Well, I never said I was against the Constitution, just that I questioned the value of strict interpretation. As you pointed out yourself, it is an evolving document.</p>
<p>I stand by my point that Paul doesn’t understand abortion as well as women facing this decision. You heated assertions don’t convince me. I don’t think men should make decisions about what women do with our bodies. </p>
<p>Butt why are you sooo angry? We’re all just talking; you remarks are in the attack mode.</p>
<p>Mythmom:</p>
<p>Candidates like Ron Paul and George Wallace appeal to angry white voters. The underlying premise is that “they” are stealing the country from “us” and more people would understand is it weren’t for the vast conspiracy to cover up the evil intentions.</p>
<p>“Oh, please. Even Karl Rove doesn’t believe that nonsense he’s been spouting this week.”</p>
<p>Then why did Lieberman trounce the anti-war candidate in Conn? You nominate a candidate who runs his campaign centered on pullinng out of Iraq and see what happens. You folks admire the Chavezs, Kims, and Castros of the world or at least give them credit for being leaders with values that would not be completely out of sync with the average American’s. </p>
<p>I don’t know if you do that because you are fools or totalitarians at heart. I’d like to think the former. But whatever the reason your thinking is way out of sync with the average voter whose native impulses are profoundly conservative. The average American has found a world he can function if not thrive in. He needs to be convinced that change will have a positive result and his first inclination is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. He will shake his head yes if you ask him if something is broke but that doesn’t mean he will agree with your solution - or any other solution for that matter.</p>
<p>“Also, please don’t refer to people seeking abortions as victims. Victims of what? Victims of their own stupidity for not using protection?”</p>
<p>When males can be raped and impregnated, then they can talk about ‘knowing more’. I certainly hope you weren’t insinuating that rape victims can’t be victims because they didn’t use protection and became pregnant. And before anyone starts quoting numbers of how rare it is, I knew of two friends (met them later in life) who were raped and subsequently got pregnant. I’m fairly certain (based on our conversations) that had abortion not been legal, they would have sought out any number of underground movements in operation to provide it. It’s not an experience that women speak openly about, so I guess that for every story I hear, there are a number of people I know, who have had it happen, but have been shamed into keeping it quiet. I’m suspect those numbers of rape victims ending up pregnant are more than statistics show.</p>
<p>Although I would hope that my daughters (or future granddaughters) would never find a reason to contemplate an abortion or need to consider one due to health reasons, I do want to know that if the need arose, this would be available to them. </p>
<p>Sorry to stray off topic.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to drift off topic from this, but I find it hard to</p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<p>Have you ever heard of election-time slander? </p>
<p><a href=“ron paul ghostwriter[/url] - Google Search”>ron paul ghostwriter - Google Search;
<p>According to all those links, Ron Paul was probably not even the writer of that, but he just chose to live with it as it would be too confusing for potential voters.</p>
<p>@mythmom</p>
<p>Why do you think a woman knows better? Does she have a medical degree? Why can’t a man legislate for a woman when women can legislate for men?</p>
<p>“I don’t think women have a firm grasp of pederasty, so they shouldn’t make decisions regarding child predators. A man on the other hand understands it completely.”</p>
<p>I can’t understand how you would believe somebody doesn’t know much about an issue simply because he opposes your viewpoint. He’s written 2 books on this subject, which clearly shows he has done his research. But no, he’s a man.</p>
<p>Feminism is just like racism; you place people into groups and expect one group (women or a certain race) to be treated better than another group (men or a certain race).</p>
<p>@Everybody</p>
<p>Get your priorities straight for your election. What’s more important? Abortion or foreign policy? It’s pretty hard for a president to change abortion laws, but he/she can start a war overnight.</p>
<p>I disagree with Ron Paul’s isolationist foreign policy as much as I do his anti-abortion position, his racism, and his anti-semitism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you get that from Jerry Falwell or something? Feminism is about equity, period.</p>
<p>@teriwtt</p>
<p>That’s just your personal experience. While they are noteworthy, they are not representative of the whole population.
<a href=“http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rape_incest_and_abortion.asp[/url]”>http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rape_incest_and_abortion.asp</a></p>
<p>“But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.”</p>
<p>You already mentioned how rare pregnant rape victims are, but add that to the fact that only 15 to 25% chose to have an abortion.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/20/health/main537243.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/20/health/main537243.shtml</a></p>
<p>"76 percent support abortion rights when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. "</p>
<p>Hmm, does this make any sense to you? Rather than say anti-abortionists are “out-of-touch”, maybe you should consider that the pregnant rape victims feelings and that most are pro-life in their circumstances.</p>
<p>I saw a pretty interesting homemade documentary on YouTube.</p>
<p>Guy went to an abortion protest and asked the protesters if they thought abortion should be illegal. (They all did). Then he asked them how long a sentence the women should get…None of them could come up with an answer. They all wanted vague things like to pray for her or she get get counseling.</p>
<p>But it’s obvious, if abortion is a criminal act, the women who chooses it should be penalized…unless one subscribes to the view that women are too mentally defective to be legally responsible for their actions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but no. Writing a book does not prove one has done research. This isn’t meant as a comment about Paul’s books, but on the rather fallacious leap of logic in the post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s interesting about the “anti-abortionists” is the # of them who, when they find themselves or a dependent pregnant, seek out the abortions they would prevent other women from having available.</p>
<p>@conyat</p>
<p>You’re thinking of feminism before 1990. The current iteration demands special treatment for women.</p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<p>Don’t forget his stance on the Constitution!</p>
<p>Racism by a ghost-writer that I already explained in my post before my previous post.</p>
<p>His Antisemitism? That’s a new one. That is the most illogical argument ever. He is against funding Israel for several reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It is fueling “blowback” from the Middle East</p></li>
<li><p>It is an unconstitutional waste of taxpayer money</p></li>
<li><p>He is not in the pockets of the AIPAC lobby (AIPAC is the Zionism lobby).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Disliking or cutting funds to Israel is not Antisemitism.</p>
<p>As for his foreign policy. If you’re so against Isolationism, then why don’t YOU join the military and serve at an outpost?</p>
<p>Isolationism does not accurately reflect Paul’s views though. He is for free trade and supports defensive wars (which Iraq War and possible Iran War are not).</p>
<p>It makes a lot of sense. If you mind your own business, then you can preserve lives (especially American lives). Starting senseless wars will cause the world to hate us.</p>
<p>Have you not noticed the cycle of history? The biggest empires always fall because they make enemies with too many people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heck no. I’m too busy duckin’ those damn black helicopters to worry about the cycles of history.</p>
<p>@conyat</p>
<p>“What’s interesting about the “anti-abortionists” is the # of them who, when they find themselves or a dependent pregnant, seek out the abortions they would prevent other women from having available.”</p>
<p>I was referring to specific people posting here. You just made a strawman argument, a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>So you really think that he just wrote 2 entire books without ever looking up facts, statistics, and other things? Maybe he could get away with that with a children’s book, but had he made unjustified claims in his books, then the other Presidential nominees’ stooges would have sent the excerpts to the media.</p>
<p>@interesteddad</p>
<p>“Heck no. I’m too busy duckin’ those damn black helicopters to worry about the cycles of history.”</p>
<p>So I’m guessing you don’t care about the future?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I didn’t. My statement about the # of anti-abortionists getting abortions had nothing to do with your post. I brought it up because I thought it was interesting, just as I said. </p>
<p>And it’s certainly not a “fallacy” given that it’s a fact that some anti-abortionists have abortions. By definition, a fact cannot be a fallacy.</p>
<p>You may have been confused by my putting “anti-abortionists” in quotes. I put it in quotes because I have to question how anti-abortion someone is who seeks one out, not because you used the term. </p>
<p>Also, I question whether they are really against abortion, given that they also tend to be against interventions that lower the abortion rate and in favor of interventions that raise the abortion rate. To me, anyone who wants more abortions rather than fewer is not against abortion per se.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really, really hate to be the one to tell you this. But at this point, the other candidates are not taking Ron Paul seriously. Neither is the media. At one point, ABC was throwing out any votes people cast for him in their online polls, because they didn’t think the votes were legitimate. </p>
<p>Myself, I think Paul has a pretty good chance of getting the Republican nod or being a spoiler as an Independent if he can bring in enough money to keep his campaign going for the long haul. But it is way, way too early yet for the other candidates to take Paul seriously enough to pour over his books like that or for the media to publish it if they did. There are bigger fish to fry and it would be left till near the end, when Paul had little chance to defend himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s quite possible for an author to do so, yes. Additionally there is the question of whether the sources an author looked up are reputable and whether the author faithfully represents the source. Ann Coulter has pages and pages of footnotes to one of her books, but many of the sources she cites say something very different from what she pretends they do. And many of her other sources are themselves unsourced pieces from the popular press, including op-eds.</p>
<hr>
<p>Out of curiousity, how many peer-reviewed journal articles does Ron Paul cite for his book, and are these citations used to bolster the main points of his argument or just side issues? What’s the % of peer-reviewed journal articles compared to other sources?</p>
<p>Thanks interesteddad: I’ve noticed that I very vulnerable to this kind of anger so I am trying to confront it and deal with it.</p>
<p>Re isolationism: With multinational corporations, outsourcing, and economic interdependency I think nationalism is a form nostalgia. We do live in a global economy and we require leaders who can acknowledge this and not manipulate us through our nostalgia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m more worried about the communist conspiracy behind flouridated water. I’m sure that, as the candidate of the John Birch Society, Ron Paul has a plan to save us all.</p>
<p>Well, he sure has a plan to get his manuscripts published. I didn’t realise his tomes on abortion were published by his own organization (<a href=“free-nefl.com - This website is for sale! - free nefl Resources and Information.)%5B/url%5D”>free-nefl.com - This website is for sale! - free nefl Resources and Information.)</a>. I can’t figure out if you call this self-publishing or vanity press.</p>
<p>By the way, afruff, have you actually read either of these “books”? Are you aware that one of them is only 43 pages long and is marketed as an essay rather than a book? Pretty crucial distinction there. </p>
<p>(The other, I just don’t know about, even Paul’s own organization isn’t distributing it any more).</p>