this guy is giving a perspective that needs to be heard
Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.
First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of his grassroots support is not just excellent; it is remarkable, by historic and global measures. His ability to raise money from actual voters is second to none. His appeal to independents and swing voters is an order of magnitude greater than that of his competitors. Secondarily, he has more support from military personnel than all other candidates put together, if measured by donations; he has the most consistent voting record; he has the magical quality of not coming off as a politician; he oozes integrity and authenticity, and, as far as we know, he has a personal life and marriage that reflects deep stability and commitment.
To believe that Ron Paul's victory is a long shot in spite of all standard indicators that directly contradict this claim is to throw out all norms with which we follow our nation's politics -- and that is a huge thing to do. The only way it can be done honestly is to present another set of contradictory reasons or metrics that are collectively more powerful than all those that you are rejecting. I am yet to find them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe … 39993.html
Who was the last member of the House who won a Presidential election against an incumbent?
Never happened. Garfield was the only sitting U.S. Rep to go directly to being elected President. Hayes was the would be incumbent but did not seek renomination, while Grant, the previous chief exec was upset in the nomination process by Garfield.
It is even less likely in the 21st century because the political machines that produce great successes, like Barrack Obama, are being unwound by the ready access to communication and information. When Garfield was elected, political machinery did almost all the work. Much less so today.
Him or any other Republican means an end to abortion rights for women.
We are on a backward spiral. And it is unbelievable to me.
Try getting an abortion here in the "free" USA.....it is nigh impossible.
It is an attack on women.
Back to barefoot and pregnant.
Sex is immoral and wrong...unless you are married.
And marriage is between a man and a woman.
Who makes these rules? I'm sick of living under them.
I would try to get an abortion and I bet I wouldn't get one, they would turn me away on sight. But that's just because I'm a man. As for women I'm sure they would accept you as long as you are pregnant and have the money, I hear its quite a big business. Now if you are talking about government subsidized abortion I would hope that it doesn't exist, I don't want to pay for your bad choices.
Hyde amendment...no gvt pay for abortions. Been around a long time. Even though we the people paid for his wife's brain surgery...guess some Americans are more deserving of entitlments, huh?
as far as Land of the Free...pulleeze. UK is much more grown-up, leaving the decision to the woman herself. Gvt intrusion in its highest form!!!
"•An Ohio Republican state senator will introduce a bill tomorrow intending to make abortion illegal after a heartbeat is detected – usually around 18 days post conception. (If you’re doing the math, that’s about 4 days after a woman misses her period.) Created by the president of Faith2Action, the bill is intended to be a model for other states. I’m not sure why they didn’t just write a bill outlawing abortion completely, since the bill has practically the same effect. Well, they wouldn’t get to use cutesy heart-shaped balloons while lobbying.
•Let’s add the Mercury News to the growing list of news sources running articles questioning the anti-choice bills currently in Congress, as well as the Charleston Gazette, which questions reviving social issues such as abortion during times of economic struggle, as well as the BBC.
•Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CA) have spoken up in opposition to the two horrible anti-abortion bills currently in the House of Representatives – Rep. Joe Pitts’s “Protect Life Act” and Rep. Chris Smith’s “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” In a piece for EMILY’s List, the two Senators wrote:
“This week, the GOP House is considering H.R. 3, a bill so restrictive it would limit a woman’s access to reproductive care even when her life was in danger,” the two senators write. “We know a woman’s right to make her own health decisions must be protected. But this is about even more than choice, this is about making sure women and families can get the care they need when they need it.”
•You know how those of us who think pharmacists should fill legal, not-contraindicated prescriptions without judging women have said it’s a slippery slope. Well, a podiatrist – yes, a foot doctor – in the UK is in hot water for refusing to treat, and delaying treatment, to men he thought were gay and to one who was HIV positive. The doctor cites his Christian faith for his actions."
Another example of the hypocritic oath in action.
It may all be true, I don't know. What I do know is that we had a republican president for 8 years and abortion is still legal. The house and senate was republican from 1992 until 2006 and abortion is still legal. What about Roe Vs Wade not being overturned after all that do you not understand?
I was commenting on the UK podiatrist who refused to treat gays.
All these bills are intended to erode the strength of Roe v. Wade.
If they can't actually overturn it, then attack it in practical ways, like making it impossible for the women who need reproductive health care the most (ones who can least afford to bear and raise children) to access it.
It's also, as stated above, a common social issues distraction the GOP pulls consistently. Flood Congress with abortion related bills but let the unemployment rate climb and climb and the stock market plummet -- just until they get Obama out.
Can't you see this for what it is??/
What good is legal, if there is no where to obtain one?
And, these anti-abortion people do it through state elections, local races.That is why they are all so gung-ho on states rights....they don't WANT choice to be a universal right for women at the Federal level, they want it to be decided on a state-by-state basis...like gay marriage.
Gvt is there to protect us from people like that.
What happened to individual rights?
You give a fetus more rights than a living breathing female human being.
OF WHICH the fetus cannot survive without.....errrr, unless you anti-abortion women want to volunter YOUR uterus?
Since YOU feel that fetus has more rights than me.
Put your organs where your mouth is. It MUST be a simple procedure....take the zygote from me, and place it in you....voila! YOUR beliefe are intact, as are my 4th and 8th amendment rights.
If living under these laws is such a burden, perhaps leaving is the answer for you. If getting pregnant is such a hardship, perhaps having sex should not be an option for you. As my GrandMama used to say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen." The moment you conceive, it ceases to be "your" body; you now share it with ANOTHER PERSON. And if another person is there, what gives you the right to end that life? Again, if you wish to live in a country that does not hold people accountable for their actions; ie. getting pregnant, then go to one that serves your purpose better.
If my being pregnant is such business of yours, perhaps you should pay for my care?
"The moment you conceive, it ceases to be "your" body;"
Is that so? So, it then belongs to the State?
Gotta hand it to ya, Jaymye, I think that's well said.
Seems to me I DO live in a country that doesn't hold SOME people accountable for their actions while trying to deprive others of the opportunity to make their own decisions.
LMC, you have repeatedly ignored the fact that you're wrong about Paul's views on Abortion.
He doesn't want to make abortions illegal, he wants it to be a state issue. If you can't wrap your head around that, then please stop discussing it.
Why a state issue? Why not a federally recognized right?
I have seen him speak at Pro-Life rallies, Evan. He is anti-abortion, and having him as pres would lend itself to that ideology.
On the other hand, it will draw the Christian Conservatives to his side.
Why not a federally recognized right?
Because it's not in the Constitution.
If you want it in there, you need to either
1) get 3/4ths of the states to --independently of Congress-- agree to amend the Constitution, or
2) Get 2/3rds of all the Senators AND 2/3rds of all the Representatives to vote for an amendment.
Aside from that, it's a state's issue. No matter what any judge says.
Anyone want to place bets that Ron Paul will get the GOP nomination?
...can we just get back to discussing the issue of Ron Paul's electability and the subversions of the media and government
this whole concept of "phase change"...this author is actually implying it is a subconscious shift...that we make decisions on things we are not fully conscious of...
that is really incredible when you give that some thought...to me its saying that our souls do know better than our minds...
Ron Paul is not the candidate that so many think he is. He will not get the nomination and its a waste of a vote to try.
...read my post again...
also, Ron Paul does not speak out against abortion (as far as judging someone in that situation), he says Constitutionally it should be left up to the states and their populations decisions
I reiterate that it is just bad case law according to many in the legal profession...it should never have come up to a Supreme court decision and is just another indication of how our system of government has been hijacked
"He will not get the nomination and its a waste of a vote to try." That's what is wrong with this countries political 2 party system. There is no wasted vote and your lucky you get to vote. Because you don't tow the party line and vote mainstream is why this country is so screwed. Great the lesser of two evils.
It's a waste of time to go voting for anyone BUT Ron Paul.
Why is it a "waste of a vote" to try to get someone worth voting for, but NOT a "waste of time" to vote for a sinister man who's the lesser of two evils?
Get over this notion of "it's a waste of a vote to vote for a man of conviction" nonsense because it's not only a waste of time to vote for Obama or RomneyPerry, but it's a LOSS to society to vote for them.
...back to Ron Paul and what he is really saying, not what you all want to think he is saying just to complain...
it is not the governments job to pay for abortions...there are more than enough people out there that are willing to pay for someone elses abortion...not one should be legally made to pay for someone else's abortions
He is fervently anti-abortion.He just hides it well.
That makes him persona non grata to me. And Hardly a true Libertarian!
That is the truth, he is no libertarian and libertarians who think he is are wrong. He is also not a Texan and it aggravates me that people think he is.
You seem to have very, very strong negative feelings about Ron Paul.
Would you care to elaborate on your views?
I'm not debating or questioning, just curious to learn more.
I can't imagine a true "libertarian" being elected POTUS. Ever.
Does Ron Paul promote himself as a Texan? That has not been the image I've seen of him. Rick Perry = Texan. Ron Paul = Could be from anywhere.
Now this answer is not to be taken the wrong way. Paul could never call himself a Texan. Its sort of a culture thing. I have lived here for many years, the old I was not born here but got here as soon as I could thing. I would not be accepted as a Texan. So I always say I am unique, I am a NY Texan. I gets a few laughs. My kids grew up here. It is instilled in them constantly Texan Pride. It is really something to see for the people who live here truly have it.
Why Paul gets elected in his little circle is sort of a mystery. He is not well liked here. Mostly because we see him all the time and see him for who he is.
Yes, I understand your explanation of having to identify yourself as a NY Texan.
How many years do you have to live there before you can drop the "NY" part? 20? 25? 40? 100?
Texas definitely is one of those STATE PRIDE with a capital "SP" states.
What's the saying, "Don't Mess with Texas"?
Strange that "he is not well liked" -- he keeps getting re-elected.
Actually, he wants to simply get the federal government OUT of the abortion business.
So... quit mis-characterizing him.
No we call it as it is, you need to quit mis-characterizing him. He may be against abortion, but he has done nothing but talk about it. Action speak louder than words, and that is all Paul has are words, 20+ as you say
You've never read one of his books.
I know responding to you is a waste of time. This will be the last.
So now reading a book written by someone on themself is really a way to go. I rely on reading the facts, you could learn something doing that. try researching his ACTUAL accomplishments, not ones he claims he had, not ones people like you inaccuratly claim about him, then maybe you might get what we all tell you that you do not see. I guess you ignored his CNN interview I told you about. I saw it as it happened, and it has been on the local news here. As I said He is not liked here in Texas other than that little section that elected him. And after your last post I did wonder why he was elected and looked it up. He was the reciepiant of the redistricting that occured about 16 years ago. He is a extremely heavy blue district. There is nearly no way a democrat could ever win that district.
So if we don't pay for poor women's abortions we end up paying for her poor children and the host of social problems that come with being a welfare kid.
Since economics are (purportedly) a keystone of the conservative agenda,
it seems to me they would recognize the truth:
funding abortions is a much more FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE policy than not funding them!!!
I don't think so. I beleive it is much more fiscally responsible to help women in that situation than to just pass them along to the abortinist, expecially after hearing the continuing research on the effects abortions have on women
Whatever it is, Ron Paul would simply get the federal government out of abortion legislation, thus making it a state issue.
most recent research on the effects of abortion on women
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyVRC34 … embedded#!
Nice to know, not to make laws over.
Excuse me, but I do think I have the ability to make my own decisions....you know, even if all women are just so careless that they cavalierly consider abortion...cause you know, all we care about is having sex and taking the easy way out!
Then we can get drunk and do it again!!!
I wholly support your right to be anti-abortion. I don't support you forcing it on me.
Once again - there is no "utilitarian" argument for or against abortion. To attempt to make one is disgusting.
"We should abort babies because unaborted babies commit crimes" is a disgusting argument.
I agree with you on this, LMC. I applaud your vigor.
But just quit saying that Ron is going to make abortions illegal - He's simply going to get the federal government out of the abortion legislation.
This is why:
Paul: “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”
His states’ rights take on abortion law is purely opportunistic “It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level.”
This is HOW they got rid of abortion in so many places in the "land of the free"... They use stealth campaigning. They don't tell you what their real goal is, and they get power and them Wham! You find that getting rid of abortion is all of a sudden the issue with a lot of attention.
That, and the terror tactics of Operation Rescue.
I would respect him if he said, "I will fight to defend a woman's right to choose her own destiny, as is guarenteed in our Constitution"
1.The right to be secure in her own person
2.The pursuit of her own happiness
3.The right to her privacy
But no, he's saying: "I will leave it up to the states".....so, it's NOT guarenteed in our Constitution, and women do not have the right to make decisions on their own reproductive lives....if the State should tell them NO!
That is not Libertarian, he is mischarecterizing himself. Or you are mischarecterizing him.
Freedom is freedom IS FREEDOM!
His view on abortion as a state's right is NOT opportunistic - he has a 20+ year voting record to disprove you.
I'm gonna go with his ENTIRE HISTORY OF POLITICS over your random assertion. Ron Paul is passionate about our Constitution - as am I (thanks to him) - and abortion is a state issue.
And quit acting like "states rights" was a "tactic" employed to outlaw abortions: States rights was how the united States were originally set up - it was point 0, the origin, the alpha. This is what is written in the Constitution.
Once more, he has not been in office for over 20 years
her der, he was elected into office for the first time in 1976.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#E … nal_career
let's see... 2011 minus 1976 is....
WHY! Look at that! 35 years!
That's two of the three Rs you didn't do so well in: Readin, and 'rithmetic.
Or wait, will you just chalk this up to "my crazy Liberal math-usage"?
Oh well. You can't admit your wrong.
LMC said: "I would respect him if he said, "I will fight to defend a woman's right to choose her own destiny, as is guarenteed in our Constitution""
That's fine, if you don't want to respect him, that's fine -- JUST QUIT LYING ABOUT HIS POSITIONS (yes, lying. I've explained his positions to you NUMEROUS times before)
But going even further, your claim is incorrect. "A woman's right to choose her own destiny" is NOT "guarenteed [sic] in our Constitution". A man's right to choose his own destiny is ALSO NOT GUARANTEED in our Constitution. Nor is any random grouping of people's right to choose their own destiny guaranteed in our Constitution.
IF you're looking for inalienable rights, you seek Thomas Jefferson's "The Declaration of Independence".
And finally, LMC said:
"That is not Libertarian, he is mischarecterizing himself. Or you are mischarecterizing him."
I agree. It is not very Libertarian of him. But it IS very libertarian of him.
He's demanding a reduction in central planning, which is very libertarian. However, it might not be Libertarian.
... y'know, the same way that Republicans aren't republican and Democrats aren't democratic.
what concerns me is that pro-choice people are ignoring the research that abortion is harming women
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvpSC9C … re=related
But I can tell you categorically from personal interaction with women who have borne lots of kids they never, ever should have (read: the kids are ALL in child protective custody/foster care), there's plenty of non-aborters whose heads and lives are mighty messed up.
But hey, if you're worried about mental illness, don't have an abortion.
But as LMC says, it is their choice. I do not approve of abortion, but I respect a woman's right to choose. Who am I to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. It goes against core American Principles.
Yes it does. Which proves it's not the principle that matters to people, it's the ideology.
Really, societies tell their members what they can and cannot do all the time. It is the basis of social order. It is the means by which a society advances and preserves its culture. It is the preservation of knowledge emerging from reliable and predictable conduct. When does any society say, "Do anything you want. It isn't our place to tell you know." How well would parenting work? How well would law work?
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do to their bodies. Masturbating in a public place, injecting heroin, killing yourself - all of these are things you do to yourself but are illegal and socially unaccepted. Why should the willful murder of another human be acceptable?
Ask a soldier.
Or a gvr who orders an execution.
Oh well now, Geeeeee! Rick Perry comes to mind!
It is okay. Sometimes it is hard to see the difference between a man who has cut the throat of a grandmother after raping her and an unborn child. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a Jihadist with an RPG and a baby in the womb. These things are challenging. Perhaps flash cards would help.
I have no problem with it...you do.
Life is life.
If you take it, it's taking it.
You only have a problem when it's a woman doing it...to save herself.....you have no problem when a man does it.
I just threw those stats out to point out that there is proof on both side of the issue and that Ron Paul ( which is what this thread is suppose to be about ) has the middle ground by staying focused on the Constitutional understanding of the whole situation...legally.
No, he has written anti-abortion legislation.
And he wants to leave it up to the states...just like slavery and civil rights.....
My body is mine to care for. That should be universally recognized, not subject to people's religious and ideological whims.
For gods sakes, how can anyone say they are for freedom, when they want to control my body?
"You will have that baby by order of the State!"
And MM is right...what kind of a life is being a ward of the state? PARTICULARLY when the same anti-abortion crowd is also anti-gov services for poor people!!!
Worry about the kids who are here....as Ghost said; they are homeless and hungry enough already. Why add more?
Funny anti abortion people do not adopt these kids, just an observation. I am not sure Paul wrote that legislation, he never does but takes credit when a bill passes. He usually is just a co-sponser, someone who jumps on the bandwagon. Paul will say anything people want to hear, he is a true politician
Straight out of Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined":
"Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed... counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery..."
"...I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider [abortion] a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states."
And, to discuss the "anti-abortion legislation" that you claim he wrote/signed:
"Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion. Legislation of this sort would probably allow state prohibition of abortion on demand..."
(italics were not added, but the bold characters were added by myself).
So, as we can see - clearly - he just wants the federal government out of the issue.
Y'know, like the Constitution demands?
So based on yours and Pauls words, since murder is not in the constitution, we should no longer arrest and prosecute them. After all, we want government out and to follow the constitution. Unreal
You fail at reading again, good sir.
I recommend you teach your children more about State's rights so that they can actually call themselves Texans when they grow up.
I can read just fine, perhaps you cannot read what you write you posted
"Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed... counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery"
So again by your words, murder is not a crime because it is not listed in the constitution.
Federal murder charges are brought against those who directly commit a crime against agents of the federal government. The killing of an FBI agent will bring a federal murder charge in addition to a state murder charge. One can argue that this is a violation of Constitutional limits. I would probably agree with Ron Paul on this.
Ron Paul is unlikely to win for many reasons beyond policy positions. In addition, most people would find the notion of a nuclear armed Iran more disturbing than does Ron Paul. That point can be easily made, supported by Paul's own words and used against him. His candidacy is doomed by his own naivete regarding what the American electorate will accept in a President as opposed to a gadfly.
All I wanted to show with the post that you responded to was that "because murder isn't in the constitution, it's legal" is clearly a dumb argument.
Awesome, there is no better way to get people to take your views seriously than to call them dumb. Winning!
AV won't be won over to RP's views, I am merely demanding that he quit lying about Paul.
The US HAS been involved with the Middle East since 1914
Ron Paul HAS a voting record of 30+ years. Amongst other mistakes.
Is it so hard to see the difference between "demanding a lie be corrected" and "trying to woo one to my point of view"?
The US has been involved with Muslim terrorists since the Barbary Pirates - that would be around 1800. Islam has been antagonistic to non-Muslims since the 7th century. Ron Paul is cut from a long and old bolt of cloth - American isolationism. His naive opinions regarding the Middle East spell disaster for the West not just the US. His antipathy toward Israel smacks of the antisemitism of the white supremacists whose money he loves.
Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of being President.
Besides the Progressive RNC will continue to toss jerk-off Progressives up their to dillute the vote till we end up with someone like Perry or Romney... and if that is the case you may as well leave Obama and his idoits tard crew in the office.
Besides... the first thing Ron Paul would do is grab his tin-foil and make a hat on the way to Area 51, with all the world news and every camera he could get to follow him, to show the world the Alien Tech we have hidden there.
And then the whole world would know...
He's only trailing Obama by 2% points.
So, actually, you're wrong. He has a strong chance.
For someone who's always railing against "liberal propaganda", you sure to spout a lot of propaganda yourself!
PS - A51 has an awesome history. IT was actually the US trying to find a way to communicate over long distances using a channel of low pressure air stuck between two higher pressure areas. The noise would bounce back and forth and be able to be communicated over thousands of miles.
recent Ron Paul news on specific points
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTLHGDAl … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJr7TEIN … re=related
Ron Paul on economic policy--just tell the truth !
by kirstenblog 9 years ago
I just stumbled on this story and am really impressed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 09102.htmlThe story is about Ron Paul's stance that the fed should take a hands off approach to medical marijuana, that it should be down to the states. My only worry is that Obama campaigned...
by steveamy 8 years ago
Is Ron Paul's "mission" hurting the Republican Party ....?
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Aside from his unrealistic views on the role of the government, on the economy and the courts, the revelations of the despicable racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic views expressed in Paul's name in his newsletter should be enough to disqualify him from high public office. Even if he should win in...
by Simon Cook 9 years ago
Ron Paul will be 77 if he wins the Presedential Election (assuming he gets the Republican's nod) - will this be an issue? The job is a very difficult one for a young man in his prime, what will it do to Ron Paul?I'm not commenting on his ability to rule - I just wonder what an 81 year old Paul will...
by Susan Reid 9 years ago
I just had to share this WTF? Ron Paul supporter moment. I was in a store called Sacred Space in Durango, CO the other afternoon.The proprietress is a seer/healer. Does readings. Sells crystals and tinctures/herbs and other assorted spiritual sundries.The decor is sort of neo-fairy, if you get my...
by Charles James 8 years ago
I am not an American, but American politics can affect us Europeans so it makes sense to follow American politics to se what might be coming down the line.Ron Paul generates an intellectual and political excitement I have not seen in the USA for quite a long time. He is refreshingly honest about...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|