Rand Paul recently tried to filibuster the passage of the continuation of completely tyrannical aspects of the Patriot Act. But both the House and the Senate were able to end it and pass the bill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-201 … e_facebook
Obama signed it into law just a few minutes before the law would have expired.
Obama lied to us - he said he would end the Patriot Act, end the wars, and shut down Guantanamo Bay.
http://rt.com/usa/news/broken-promise-o … authorize/
I hate W. But EVERYONE must agree that Obama is just Bush Jr. Jr.
Vote him out, vote for Ron Paul.
Good for Rand Paul. I applaud his efforts. I wish it would have worked.
I actually am rooting for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination. I disagree with many of his actual policies (though agree with others, such as his stances on the wars, the Patriot Act, etc.) but I think he'd be just the shot of new ideas this country needs to get a real debate going.
Of course, for that reason alone, the Republican establishment will never let him get anywhere near the nomination.
I just can't get into a guy who believes that we should inspect meat, should end public education, and the Department of Energy, as well as any regulation. Deregulation of the markets has led to an escalating crisis every few years. However, I support some of his stances.
And he's pro-life.....does not believe in freedom really---I mean really. Freedom for all. As a woman, pro-life is my litmus test.
Cause all it really means is--we will force you to have that baby, then you are on your own.
Technically, I think he believes the question should be returned to the states, but I agree that it's a cop-out. Not everybody is free to just pick up and move across state lines if they think they might ever need an abortion, and by the time you actually need one, it's pretty much too late. Plus, if there's no doctors left in your state who perform them and you need one for bona fide medical reasons, you're completely screwed. Someone shared a horrible story just the other day on LiveJournal about being left bleeding in an emergency room for hours due to placental abruption because the baby wasn't actually dead yet and none of the doctors on call would perform abortions. Complete nightmare!
Yes--they are criminally charged, I think.
The anti-abortioners are such sadists...wonder if they enjoy others suffering?
Bottom line: They want to dictate what I do with my own self.
They criminalize decent doctors who swear an oath to help others.
They stick their noses where they don't belong, and where they can really help--they bail!
No tax money for poor kids. Only corporations and the top 2%, thank you.
"They want to dictate what I do with my own self"
Actually, Ron Paul does NOT want to "dictate" anything. her der.
You clearly have never looked into his arguments. He wouldn't write laws -- BECAUSE HE'D BE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT -- and he would leave the issue up to the state where you live -- WHERE YOU HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THE LAWS.
If it was up to the states, we'd still have slavery and children working in coal mines.....
Who knows WHAT they would do now, to "save a buck".
"Red States Making Legal Abortion Nearly Impossible"
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011 … impossible
It's already happening...states are already denying women a Constitutionally guarenteed medical procedure because they don't agree with it.
States trump individual liberty and personal freedom. That is NOT libertarian, it is ideology-driven control.
You're right, states ARE denying the practice. But not all of them.
And that, at the very least, let's people choose where to live. If you're anti-abortion, go live in such a state. If you're pro-abortion, then go live in such a state.
See how "leaving it up to the states" helps everyone be happier?
Nope. See above. (Or below, for your convenience.)
"Not everybody is free to just pick up and move across state lines if they think they might ever need an abortion, and by the time you actually need one, it's pretty much too late. Plus, if there's no doctors left in your state who perform them and you need one for bona fide medical reasons, you're completely screwed. Someone shared a horrible story just the other day on LiveJournal about being left bleeding in an emergency room for hours due to placental abruption because the baby wasn't actually dead yet and none of the doctors on call would perform abortions. Complete nightmare!"
Also bear in mind that some states have already tried to make it illegal for a woman to cross state lines to get an abortion, and that, even if you are personally opposed to abortion and think you'll never need one, you can't always predict what will happen during pregnancy. The woman I mentioned with the placental abruption was married, financially secure, and already had two children - I doubt she ever dreamed she might need an abortion before her pregnancy started going wrong.
According to you and Ron Paul, if she happened be unlucky enough to live in a state (region, really - you know the entire South and most of the Midwest would outlaw it within weeks) where abortion isn't possible to get when her pregnancy was diagnosed as high risk, she should have to drop everything and move her entire household to a different state within a matter of a few weeks - screw jobs, mortgages, and other local commitments - while somehow simultaneously avoiding all unnecessary physical exertion and stress as prescribed by her doctor. Yeah, right.
what would you rather have to do? Pack up and move to a new STATE to get an abortion? or Pack up and move to a new COUNTRY to get an abortion?
You would NOT be making the same argument if the Supreme Court ruled that Abortions are unconstitutional.
... now can we agree that letting states make the rules would be a much better solution?
(please also realize that you are advocating anarchy in your arguments! "Why should I have to move to do that which I wish?!" ... THAT'S MY ARGUMENT!!! i'm merely trying to show that decentralization is a much better alternative to centralization.
Fair enough. I personally believe that the consequences of making abortion illegal are such* that its availability should be protected at the federal level, but you are correct that doing it state by state would be preferable to making it outright illegal at the federal level.
* Western Europe, where abortion is easily available for any reason in most countries, has the lowest abortion rate in the world, half that of the Middle East and North America, which are second and third lowest respectively. Aside from China (with state enforced abortions) and Eastern Europe (where abortion is easily available but birth control is not), the highest rates of abortion in the world are in Africa and Latin America, where abortion is illegal in most countries. We are talking abortion rates up to five times higher than Western Europe and more than double that of North America. If birth control remained widely available in the US, our abortion rates would probably remain fairly comparable to what they are at present, but of course many pro-lifers want to outlaw various types of birth control too.
In addition to the possibility of higher abortion rates from outlawing abortion, the rate of fatal complications to the mother goes from about 1 per 100,000 for legal abortions to 1 per 300 for illegal ones, and the rate of non-fatal complications is also much, much higher. In practice, "pro-life" people fighting to outlaw abortion are fighting for more lives to end, not fewer.
I don't think that it's safe to draw a connection to the legalization of abortions and the rate of abortions. Each area of the world has its own issues to deal with, and a complex web of them at that.
However, I can argue with confidence that making abortions illegal would NOT prevent them from happening, and it would make the act much more dangerous.
This is why I'm so on the fence with this issue - they're going to happen whether it's legal or not, and it would be safer with them being legal.... but, the damned thing IS a human (or at least it looks enough like it to fool me. I don't think I've ever seen a couple so excited to see an ultrasound of their liver.)
"Safe, legal, and rare" is my goal. Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop them happening and everything to make them more dangerous. Improving sex education and access to effective birth control, as most of Western Europe has done, is a much more effective means of reducing the number of abortions. Add in better social support systems for single mothers and women in abusive relationships, better prenatal care for women with high risk pregnancies, and a society that universally condemns rape instead of victim blaming, and abortion could be nearly eradicated.
Mr. Rogers (couldn't resist) what Ron Paul says, his people obey.
It's not a cop-out!! that's what the damned constitution says!!!
It's a medical procedure. A controversial one, granted, but nevertheless one that can save lives. By your logic, perhaps we should start letting states decide whether to allow quadruple bypass heart surgery. After all, people who spend their lives eating junk food need to take responsibility for their actions, too. Why should the rest of us have to pay higher premiums because they're too stupid to keep their mouths shut?
Don't forget people who drink alcohol.Perhaps alcohol should be out-lawed? It kills for sure.
And we MUST outlaw WAR, as it kills people--too many to count. Kills babies too. Lots of em.
Let's see...what else......old people who drive--we MUST butt in and force them to walk or take a bus--as they are known to just drive into people and buildings...killing at random.
Meat! Ooohhh, that's a huge killer.
Fluoride...proven to poison. Cell phones! Cause cancer, which equals death....How much more do we need the "freedom-loving" libertarians to be involved in telling us what and what not to do?
I am not sure where your being sarcastic or when you are being serious. First, particularly old men have a hard time giving up the drivers license and needs to have the DMV (RMV) revolk it. My mother after 2 rearends, volunteered to give hers up, but my father I-L, let's just say he scares the bejesus out of his passagers. So far, no one has been injured or died.
My point being, when it comes to social issues, there needs to logic, reasoning, and knowlable sense in play. Oh, and by the way "Freedom-Loving Libertarian" in the same phrase is an oxymoron. Freedom to fit personal interests, pleasures, and what-nots, is more accurate of a Libertarian, not what is good for social structure.
last time I checked you weren't removing any potential-future-individuals from a heart during heart surgery.
(Please note, I'm not sure which side of the debate I fall under. i just know damned well that heart surgery and abortions shouldn't really be compared in the way you suggest)
Lovemychris, you really have not listened to me correct you on this "pro-life" thing.
He states his position clearly in just about every one of his writings:
No matter what his belief is, he will likely leave it to the states individually to decide what to do, unless it is a truly federal issue.
Sure, he's pro-life, but not only does he admit that the president is NOT the king, he admits that, as president, he would only ENFORCE the laws, not WRITE them.
So, keep trying that "he's pro-life, and thus will make abortions illegal" nonsense. It only shows that you haven't actually looked into his ideas.
I'll let him speak for himself:
In 1981, he went on to argue, "Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."
Lest you think it's just a minor issue for him, consider the obscure fact that Ron Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. And lest you think he has since changed his views on abortion, ponder what he's saying now. On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described "the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."
Other such quotes aren't hard to find. On March 29, 2005: " I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." Jan. 31, 2006: "The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court." On that note, he has referred to a "federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn." Just before the Ames straw poll, he came out with an Iowa ad touting his pro-life credentials, although in slightly more subdued terms: "I find it difficult not to defend a life a minute before birth just as I would defend that life a minute after birth. To me, it's recognizing the importance of life."
Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a standard Christian Right viewpoint.
He does NOT believe I have the right to an abortion! I DO NOT want that man as president!
So, all that you've quoted is in complete agreement with what I've written. Good job on that one.
He would still leave it to states, and would not write the law unless he were in a state legislative governing body.
Yes, he's against abortions. No, he won't cram it down your throat.
Unlike Obama's health care.
Hell, I bet that if a pro-life piece of legislation went through US Congress, he'd veto it on grounds that such an issue is not a Federal issue.
I'll let that one sink in a bit: If the Paul's were president, they would VETO Pro-life legislation because it is not a federal issue.
No--he would veto it because MY Constitutionally guarenteed rights, he would leave up to the gvr of a state to decide!!
NO THANK YOU! Rights are not delineated state by state...they are THERE FOR ALL, ALWAYS.
I don't know if you knew this, but the phrase "right to have an abortion", or anything similar, is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Constitution.
Thus, with the 10th Amendment, your "constitutional right" is that abortion is up to the states.
Yep. That's how it works. Reading.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
I have the right to be secure in MY PERSON. As in---YOU not forcing me to give birth.
If you look at the English language, you'll learn that a thing called a "comma" exists. A comma is a break in the reading of a sentence, and is used when listing things. That which follows a series of commas is NOT separate from that which comes before. In fact, the part before the comma is almost always DIRECTLY connected to that which comes before it.
Hence, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons.... AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES" would imply that this passage has nothing to do with anything OTHER than searches and seizures.
Having an abortion illegal has nothing to do with "searching a person" or "seizing a person".
For more information on commas, here is a decent website: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
The usage of the English language has further clarified an incorrect argument and, hopefully, shed some light on the issue.
You most certainly ARE seizing me when you force me to carry a fetus to term and deliver it....
You are taking possession of my body!
Now, see, this is just nonsense.
I'm sure that this is what the USSC actually used to make the decision in Roe v. Wade, but this is just nonsense.
The right to an abortion is at most a state's issue.
On top of that, I AGREE with your argument: people want abortions, need abortions, etc. People do not have the right to make something like that illegal when others might want such a thing - it's very similar to the drug war problem.
But don't give me this cockamamie "You're free from searches and seizures" argument. It's just nonsense. The constitution grants the federal government NO such power to make abortions legal or illegal.
It's a state issue.
Oh sure. I oppose many of his domestic policies pretty strongly, I just think things need to be shook up a bit in Washington, and if he managed to get the nomination we might actually get some decent policy debates instead of the usual circus.
(I used to think you were completely insane)
Or else it's more complicated than you are willing to accept.
"Obama signed it into law just a few minutes before the law would have expired."
Actually according to the news it was a machine called an auto-signer that did it.
Fitting a machine signed it.
He didn't cave in
http://www.unelected.org/democrat-harry … atriot-act
sorry to burst your bubble. The Paul's actually hate tyranny.
Evan, I think it could be said the Pauls also hate government. I guess I have never understood why so many, mainly conservatives and Neo-Libertarians, are so attracted to a "profession" that they hate - at least philosophically. Clearly, a true Neo-Libertarian, once in government, would do his or her best to dismantle the very aparatus of government much like the last stage of communism where leadership disappears and anarchy steps in to take its place. There are both wonderful ideas, but they are both, in my opinion, "unworkable fantasy."
I like the Pauls personally, I have real issues with laissez-faire capitalism.
Ron and Rand Paul are not anarchists.
That being said, I'm glad that no one is denying that Obama has failed to deliver the most important parts of his campaign promises.
No, Obama's .... No, I couldn't do it with a straight face.
This is indefensible, and it looks like Congress might just cede its most important check on Presidential power: the power to declare war and conclude peace. The House just recently approved a bill to let the president prosecute the so-called War on Terror anywhere in the world, including the USA, that the Prez decides to send the troops.
This is worse than the Patriot Act, and I don't say that lightly.
If the Senate doesn't block it, Obama will probably sign it, and we'll be royally screwed.
But I thought everybody liked Obama ? We were warned and didn't listen. And in the meantime Hillary is giving our bestest buddies in Pakistan a boatload of money we borrowed from China so they can buy Chinese fighter Jets. Ask Hillary herself !
We were warned back in 2001, before the 1st unpatriot act was passed.
Plenty of people on the right said; "Give the president whatever he wants, he's saving us from terrorists."
You are getting exactly what you asked for, only it's not the president you expected.
There are dozens of people on here who essentially fight with each other, Evan and I being two.
However, of all the people I disagree with, Evan is nearly the only one I actually like as a person, based upon what I have read. The cat is as linear in his thinking as they come, always informed and honest.
Hats off to you Evan...for all the junk I give you, you are a solid guy. I still disagree most of the time though, but informed and consistent guy for sure.
If Rick Perry runs for prez he'd make history - the 1st major-party candidate hoping to run a country he wants to leave.
As a guy from Texas, I am telling you, this guy is the dangerous. He could win. When you hit a point that the actual voter means nothing, as there aren't 10 people in the state who like him, but he wins by landslides. The day they announce we have a higher debt than California, he goes on live TV and tells the state we have a surplus. This guy will stab you in the face, and then look you right in the eye, and tell you he is here to save you from whomever stabbed you, while he is still holding the knife. It is incredible. He is the definition of power insider, very dangerous, and he can win.
Yeah--he's got the Romney "look' thing going....handsome, debonaire....and just as rotten inside.(imo)
Romney is dangerous too.
Kofer Black was his advisor....NUFF SAID.
Perry--selling off the highways to foreign countries? How much of a cut did he get?
Tejas...big oil, big corruption. And I agree...dangerous to kids and all living things.
Romney scares me because he actually believes he is going to be a God of a planet. He scares me because he actually believes that there is a living prophet, which he must and I mean must, follow instruction. Mormons are much more into forming an entire society based upon religion than even Catholics are. I know this because I was Mormon. This isn't a misconception. Romney believes he is going to run a planet, and be their Jesus. I can't trust a guy who believes that, or that magical underwear will protect him from evil spirits....or that Joseph Smith was anything but a con artist. It is like the black thing though...yes, I can say this because technically, if you ask the Mormon church, I am still a Mormon. I can talk about my peeps like that.
About Perry - good lord! Yes, this guy sold potentially the most important and well traveled highway in Dallas, one that was ALREADY BUILT, made it into a toll rode and sold it to an Italian company. He HAD to have made millions personally of that one.
I think we have to do it
I'm glad to see some of the liberal side angry at these actions of Obama.
Please remember these deeds of his when it next November comes around.
If there is a more liberal candidate than President Obama on the ticket in November, I will vote for him/her.
If the choice is between President Obama and any of the announced GOP candidates, I will vote for our president. He's a moderate, but that's better than a lunatic.
Yep, even me. Obama is actually quite centric on the political spectrum. It is just that our political spectrum has shifted away from the standard, to the far right over the last 30 years. Line it up on a sheet of paper, and he isn't too far off of Reagan actually. So, no...he is not the left wing savior by any means. I like him though. This was a horrible decision.
I know he isn't perfect, but all in all, I fully support Obama still. He has done several things I disagree with, but I know my President isn't going to follow exactly what I personally want. I fear Ron Paul more than I like him.
Rand Paul defender against tyranny. I thought King GeorgeIII died. Are we still at war w/ britain? Aren't we overstating things...like just a smidge?
I fully support him too.
Anyone that the right hates so much has got to be good.
If his ideas get implemented,and have a chance to seed, we as a country will soar.
We have to remember we are all in this together.
We had that feeling once...I remember it!
It has stayed with me all my life.
We can get it back again.
We are SO much better than what we have become.
We no longer have a sense of country or humanity, only the worship of a dollar or what it buys.
This was interesting:
Donald Trump is way scarier. Rand looks like my grandfather. I geuss that could be scary. President candidates are always promising more than they can deliver. PR They are limited by congress and the supreme court. Some things they can do, some they know they can't.
"We have to remember we are all in this together..."
This quote was brought to you by the same person who, just a few hours earlier, said:
"I fully support him too. Anyone that the right hates so much has got to be good."
Brilliant. Utterly brilliant.
I'm not trying to pick on lovemychris, but this is the kind of demagogue-ing that should make all liberals realize that they've been lied to.
You just can't make this stuff up, folks!
What is the problem you have with what I said?
The right does not think we are in this together--they think it is one for oneself, screw the other guy.
They don't think they owe their fellow citizens anything.
"The right does not think we are in this together -- they think it is one for oneself, screw the other guy"
I love it, she thinks she's digging up, but she's going down!!
How can "we be in this together" if you keep singling "them" out and talking about how evil "they" are?
Your argument is clearly nonsense.
Liberals are in this country to help each other AS a country.
One for all, and all for one.
Righty's are in it for themselves. "Let me make as much money as I can, pay the least taxes, and let me be free from regulations."
"I don't give a hoot about my neighbor--just as long as he leaves me alone."
Nothing nonsense about it--it's obvious.
"WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER"
directly followed by
"GOD DAMN I HATE RIGHT-WINGERS!!!"
Your side always brings the Hate word into it....as if no one can disagree with you without hate.
No where did I say hate. You did.
And right-wingers are not in it for everyone...that is the message they have forgotten, and liberals have not.
Is it really so hard for you to grasp this ?
"Your side" is exactly what people say when they don't believe they are in it together.
How can you "be in it together" when you constantly segregate a group of people and belittle them?
BTW - you know I'm not a "right wing" individual. "My side" is one of personal liberty and freedom - "we" bring hate to no one.
Yeah, but I can take what you say and call it hate just as easy as you do.
And you are voting for a Republican...you are on their side.
And-- how many times I can do this with you?
We are all in this together....that is what I believe, how I was raised....what our country used to espouse.
Righty's don't follow this philosophy.
It is not belittling to point this out...it is stating the truth about the matter.
Now, if I said they really weren't Americans, really weren't born here and really are not who they say they are---that would be belittling...
and maybe people who are anti-abortion and say they are not haters should go to an operation rescue event.....the hate is palpable there.
This is just classic crap. I'm loving it.
"We need to be in this together"
followed IMMEDIATELY by: "YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!!"
I also love that "them" is defined as some artificial tag that is given to someone.
Ron Paul is as much a "Republican" as Palin is intelligent.
Your argument is the same idiocy used by racists and other overly discriminating folk: attach a label to someone, and then hate them because of it.
You've outdone yourself in backwards logic, and I commend you for showing me how hard it is to argue with someone who has absolutely NO consistent view towards social issues.
OH man, I want to take this conversation and frame it for my wall.
I will be voting for the candidate who has a track record of following through with his promises. There is one. Look for that.
What has Obama done that is in any way different then W.?
I just WATCHED them!
Here is their plan:
End Medicare.....end it.
Lower taxes on corporations.
Cut spending, while keeping the Bush tax cuts.
Obama said he wants to invest in America...they said, Not a chance in Hell.
Here's an article that shows a direct relationship to government intervention in the health care market and a dramatic rise in prices.
http://mises.org/daily/5320/How-the-Exp … Healthcare
Obama says he wants to "invest in America", but every time that the government steals money from part of its population to give to another part, things just end up more expensive and complicated.
If you look at the third chart, you can see that health care costs were rising SLOWER than the CPI. But right around 1965, when medicare legislation was signed, the rate of the cost of health care begins to rise sharply.
The CPI includes costs of medical services, and thus the rate of change of CPI inflation would actually be LESS if it didn't include the medical costs.
Bull. We need to invest in infrastructure, green energy, and education--just take the gd banks out of it, and we'll be fine.
Medical costs are high because of greed. Same reason for the high cost of everything.
You know, I work with a woman from Moldava....she said today was "Childrens Day" in her country. Parades, dances, ice cream, festivals...and the parents take the day off to celebrate kids.
I had to laugh at that ever happening here...a day off? For what? You saw the STINK the R's caused for CHIPS. For anything that costs money.
We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem....and the R's will make it 100,000 times worse on 95% of us.
What will people do when there's no money for the Nursing Home? What of a disabled person? Who will quit work and watch them? How will they pay for the meds---since the COST is astronomical...due to GREED.
Money is their God, not mine.I personally could shove it down Boehner/Cantor/Ryan's throats....but they are too busy COLLECTING it to care!
GREED!! GREED!! GREED!!!
Show me one person in this world who isn't greedy, and I'll know you're a liar.
My mother....but you'll have to take my word for it.
All the churches around here....but you'll have to take my word for it.
My high-school English teacher.....but you'll have to tkae my word for it.
Plenty of people are not greedy. In fact, it used to be looked down on!!
But we've had 30 years of "greed is good" philosophy bs.
It is not how I was raised.
Nor my fellow generation.---Until they killed off all the idealists, then we lost our way, IMO.
$197,000 a year, cheap, high-quality medical for them and their families.
Tax cut for them continued.
Iron Dome for Israel we'll pay for, along with that Iron Wall.
But YOUR mother? Out on her Keester!
by Doug Hughes 8 years ago
"Following a week of unsparingly critical press coverage, Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is now seeking to limit his national exposure.A spokesperson for the Tea Party-endorsed candidate informed NBC News late Friday afternoon that an exhausted Paul was canceling his interview...
by Barefootfae 5 years ago
Despite what you may think Rand Paul was speaking out against the drone program.After having heard so much dismay and grief from the left about this program and how much they disagreed with it I can only wonder why some of the Democrats did not join him?Or is the word bipartisan just a tool to you?
by Superkev 3 years ago
Do you think Rand Paul will run for President in 2016? Would you vote for him?
by SparklingJewel 8 years ago
someone at the huffington post has vision to see the truthhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-sc … 81296.html
by Doug Hughes 7 years ago
from Politics Daily http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/03 … contest%2F"As reported by Details magazine, Paul, while campaigning recently in Kentucky's coal country, maintained that there should be no federal regulation of the mining industry: "If you don't live here, it's none of...
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
With candidates like Rand Paul, Karen Angle, Ken Buck, Rubio and wrestling impresaria Linda McMahon, possibly joining Michelle Bachman in Congress, the GOP is scraping the bottom of the...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|