So Ron Paul wants government out of our lives EXCEPT FOR

50 hypocritical policy positions

I think women that eat 6 slices of pizza at a time should be stopped. That should be a law.

is up in iowa paul!
jump from 2% to 9,5%


Iowa Straw Poll Results
8/11/07

Mitt Romney4,516 / 31.5%

Mike Huckabee2,587 / 18.1%

Sam Brownback2,192 / 15.3%

Tom Tancredo1,961 / 13.7%

Ron Paul1,305 / 9.1%

Tommy Thompson1,039 / 7.3%

Fred Thompson203 / 1.4%

Rudy Giuliani183 / 1.3%

Duncan Hunter174 / 1.2%

John McCain101 / 1.0%

John Cox41 / .1%

14,302 Total Votes

26,000 Total Tickets SoldSource: Cyclone Conservatives
http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul...traw-poll.html

WOW watch the pol
If the Iowa Caucuses were held today, whom would you support?

Brownback, Sam (Kansas) 2% 89
Cox, John (Illinois) 0% 6
Gingrich, Newt (Georgia) 1% 25
Giuliani, Rudy (New York) 2% 74
Huckabee, Mike (Arkansas) 9% 352
Hunter, Duncan (California) 1% 45
McCain, John (Arizona) 1% 23
Paul, Ron (Texas) 65% 2,672
Romney, Mitt (Massachusetts) 10% 418
Tancredo, Tom (Colorado) 2% 91
Thompson, Fred (Tennessee) 4% 148
Thompson, Tommy (Wisconsin) 1% 28
Other Republican 0% 4
Generic Democrat 2% 68
Bloomberg, Michael (New York) 0% 14
Hagel, Chuck (Nebraska) 0% 12
Keyes, Alan (Maryland) 0% 12
Nader, Ralph (Connecticut) 0% 9
Other 0% 9
None 1% 25

4,124 votes total

haha.. arent you the guy that take his facts from email newsletter and never bother to checkout if theres more to "it"... ?

Money WILL be spent anyway if it isnt earmarked.. The bureaucracy will.. So instead of giving it to them.. the money goes to the people he represents.. He also sometimes vote againts its own earmarks when he doesnt agree...

What was this from?

Cyclone Conservatives
http://cycloneconservatives.blogspot...traw-poll.html

Oh, the online results. Ron has the young computer nerds like us under his thumb so he will always win those.

I'm neither a democrat or a republican. I like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich personally... but the truth is that Ron Paul is like Dr. Pepper in a Coke and Pepsi marketplace.

And if they had those 3-4-5 and even 6 kids, what sort of mothers do you suppose they would be?

If it ain't broken don't "fix" it

so is this mean that most of the US voter are archaic bunch of non computer user lol

Unfortunately, yes.

portable computeur

I'm not sure I agree with your there.

This is what bothered me about Ron Paul at the beginning too.

Then I heard a speech of his where he talks about as a medial doctor once being in the room while a late-term abortion was being performed.

He talks about how the doctors took out a small but crying and breething 'fetus' and it was placed in a bucket in the corner of the room while doctors ignored it until it stopped making sounds then threw it away.

Honestly, im pro-choice but I think if I witnessed something like that first hand it might change my mind. Ive always seen abortion as something wrong, but we should have the right to make wrong desicions.

THIS IS ALL OUTWEIGHED BY THE FACT HE'S STOOD AGAINST ALL NEW INTERNET REGULATIONS.

Don't fuck chicks who arnt on birth control and LETS PROTECT OUR FUCKING INCOME.

Don't be an idiot - Ron Paul 2008.

Rudy Guliani supports censorship and could care less about our rights.

Hillary is a feminist womans rights psycho and we're in the fucking porn business.

WAKE UP. Damn this industry is full of idiots.

What he said...

There are still a few issues I'm debating myself over the whole thing... and I do realize that a Paul Presidency could act as a catalyst to do more harm than good in the long run - provided he's a 1-term President, leaves the "job" half done, and doesn't have someone with the same convictions follow him in office...

But the U.S. is supposed to be a Republic, and lately it's been feeling more and more like a monarchy.

The Constitution has become more of a "suggestion" in recent Presidential terms (especially this last Presidential Term), than something we actually adhere to as a nation... and even before this last term, there are countless areas where I've thought "The nation has no business dealing with that issue - it's, per the constitution, reserved for the States."

Not to mention, in regards to our foreign policy as of late, I do feel we've taken a wrong turn somewhere along the lines. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. warned of foreign entanglements... and Iraq's been nothing if an illustration of why we should not, imho.

I'm a believer in our constitution. I think it's, hands-down, the best civil contract in all of human history.... and I think it'd be a good thing to get a President in office who I feel takes his oath to protect and uphold the ideals in that Constitution seriously.


Bringing more power to the states is one step closet to bringing more power to the individual. Sure, there'll be states that outlaw abortions, or pot, say there's no alcohol allowed - or loud music - or whatever....

But, in that case, the majority of the people in that state share those opinions... I'll say it again: I feel that people should have a right to live in their conception of the ideal environment.

If Miss Suzie wants an abortion - Miss Suzie still has the Freedom to, because she can go to another state and receive that abortion.

If Bobby, the 18-year-old wants some whiskey... he can still get whiskey, but he needs to drive 400 miles to cross a couple of states over.

And if there's a need to be filled anywhere in the world - the private sector has a greater freedom to fill it.

And if you really don't like the laws of where you live - either lobby to change them in the lstate legislature, or move to another state that has laws that shares your like-minded ideals.

That's freedom. Freedom to up your own set of laws in the community, but still giving freedom to the citizenry at large to do whatever it is that they want to do.

And I honestly feel this kind of system would get the average American off their ass and more active in their government - something that not much seems to be able to do these days.

And if there is a big enough issue (as in the case with civil rights, etc), we write a new Constitutional amendment about it - (as we already have done with civil rights issues, woman's suffrage, etc).

Well, I'm not for the banning of guns, either - but that's another discussion for another time.

Regarding isolationism - Like I said earlier, I'm not too sure all of our interference the dealings with other nations these days has been upstanding and correct.

And while I see what you're saying, I don't think that a return to Constitutionalist motives would be a terribly bad way to go. I feel the Private sector will continue to fill the need of our international commercial contribution, and spreading our "good will" across the land without the drumming of a military march in tow.

Where did you get that quote from?

It wasn't from davidd's video link (the one you quoted). I listed to the whole thing, and he never said that.

I'll say it for the second time this string, you really need to state your sources.

You've yet to show where this is a hypocritical policy position, imho. Abortion is simply an issue that Paul feels should be reserved for the States to decide, and the Federal government should have absolute zero say-so in.

So, the way I see it, either you're about the drama and disinformation, or you aren't the brightest crayon in the box. One of the two.

YAWN.


http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/


Is his own website a good enough source? Or do you think his webmaster made it up in a conspiracy to fuck him over with pro choice voters?

I stated my sources before, you chose not to read my entire post.

So I'll say it again, it is a hypocritical policy position because he doesn't say he wants it to be a state's rights issue, he wants it outlawed nationally and has authored legislation to do so.

Quit drinking the fucking kool aid.

Once again...

YOU'LL THROW OUR INDUSTRY, AND YOUR INCOME DOWN THE DRAIN SO WHORES CAN ABORT BABIES???

Ron Paul is the candidate who protects the things WE need to stay in business!

- Less internet regulations (has a record of opposing ALL of them!)

- Strong supporter of FREE SPEECH, you know that 1st ammendment thingie that protects us from the psycho religious right-wing and feminist left wing?

Wake up!!! A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for our industry and others who depend on internet freedom!

That pisses me off something fucking fierce!!!! how dare it be anyone elses business than the woman and her doctor

that is one area that the goverment should not have an opinion on.

it is the WOMANS choice no one elses

Not to mention Ron Paul would leave the abortion issue up to the states.

I'm in California, it won't become illegal.

So dumb teenage sluts in redneck christian states who had sex without birth control will have to take a bus ride to the nearest abortion-friendly state, oh well.

It really scares me that people in the porn industry would vote for a feminist woman president, further proof its too easy to make money in this industry and we've got a lot of idiots here with fat wallets and small brains.


WE MAKE MONEY SELLING IMAGES OF NAKED WOMEN ONLINE - And you want a feminist president, who supports regulating the internet.

We're doomed.

I had a thought that I don't think anyone else has expressed here.
Giving the states the "power" doesn't really mean anything. The states have plenty of "power", but they DON'T have the power of the purse. If the federal govt. wants the states to follow what they want, they merely attach federal funding to it. In other words IF the states had the rights over abortion and the feds did NOT want it. Then they could still just cut off funding to that state. Then, once that state raises taxes on it's people to make up for the lost ill-gotten goods from the feds...the next politician in line will promise to do what the feds say and restore the fed money and lower taxes. The feds always decide.
I hate them. And I hate the state govt. too. Put me in the "personal freedom" category.

YAWN.

I'm not throwing anything anywhere.
Ron Paul isn't gonna win anything anyways. IF he actually had a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected I might choose him as the lesser of two evils.

HOWEVER, if you insist on supporting someone who has no chance of winning, because you're standing on PRINCIPLE, then vote Libertarian. At least they're consistent in their platform.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I've only posted this about 6 times in this thread yet every Ron Paul supporter seems to magically not see it and revert to the argument that he doesn't want to outlaw it, he just wants it to be a state issue

I didn't realize being a Ron Paul supporter fucked up your eyesight.

because of this thread I may or may not vote for Ron Paul.

So what..? Many believes that life begins at conception but are still pro-choice...

What the legislation also says is "(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."

That seems to go along with his philosophy that this is a matter for the States to decide.. And as President, thats what hell push for..

That's ridiculous.
If federal law states that life begins at conception, then a state cannot allow abortion without committing infanticide.

His bill would be a defacto outlaw of abortion nationwide, regardless of how you're trying to spin it.

Guys, this conversation is moot. Ron Paul isn't even in the running.

Ron Paul is the choice of the internet natives. The majority of the voters don't give two shits about him. Even the majority of people online aren't really proficient with the Net so they aren't feeling our enthusiasm for him.

This tech grass roots support for him is real cute and all but it doesn't amount to bupkes.

We are still about 2 election cycles away from when the candidate that has the most online support wins the election. 2016 is the one to watch. Maybe 2012 if we are lucky.

Then why bother to write "2) Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State." ..if the intention of this legislation is to have federal law prohibiting abortion..?

And you know this legislation is symbolic..