Ron Paul...
aaaaaaaadftdf...@googlemail.com
Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Has never taken a government-paid junket.
Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
Returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the
U.S. treasury every year.
Voted against the Patriot Act.
Voted against the Iraq war.
Don
<aaaaaaaadftdf...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1191576007.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Does he derive benefit from stolen money?
HeyBub
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:20:07 -0700,
> aaaaaaaadftdf...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> Has never voted to raise taxes.
>> Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
>> Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
>> Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
>> Has never taken a government-paid junket.
>> Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
>> Does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
>
>
> Same could be said for Ru Paul!
>
> http://www.rupaul.com/gallery/index.shtml
Libertarians are much like the Celtic warriors hired by the English kings of
old; fierce, brave, loyal as hell. You just don't want them actually running
things.
h
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13gccmr...@news.supernews.com...
Why? Because they actually expect people to be responsible for themselves?
Benj
<h> wrote:
> > Libertarians are much like the Celtic warriors hired by the English kings
> > of old; fierce, brave, loyal as hell. You just don't want them actually
> > running things.
>
> Why? Because they actually expect people to be responsible for themselves?
Well, yeah. You know. Shit happens. The problem is society, not
criminals. It's all about racism and antisemitism. It's about
homophobia and reaching under a stall and being misunderstood.. It's
about the poor being abused and "immigrants" being discriminated
against. It's about crime caused by citizens having "easy access" to
guns and taxes caused by the other party. People aren't responsible
for events. It's just the times we live in, right?
ray
Sounds pretty negative to me. What HAS he done.
Bob F
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1191596869.4...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> It's about
> homophobia and reaching under a stall and being misunderstood..
Unless you already have a history of such behavior. Suddenly, it's not
"misunderstood".
Bob
jJim McLaughlin
condones Usenet abuse as a campaign tactic.
Michael Ejercito
restrictions on gun ownership, congressional pay raises, government-
paid junkets, increasing the power of the executive branch, the
Patriot Act, and the Iraq War?
Those who oppose all of these things should vote for Paul. Those
who oppose even MOST of those things should vote for Paul.
Michael
Bama Brian
Oh? Why? Even the 'murrican pipples want their pollytishuns to do what
they say they'll do. "Read my lips. No new taxes." said Bush the
elder, who then raised taxes, and lost his reelection.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
John McWilliams
> is supported by an asshole anonymous spammer and apparently
> condones Usenet abuse as a campaign tactic.
fu set
John McWilliams
Whatever. fu set
Herb Kauhry
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/ in all.
Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT ALL on
20% of the things he should have.
--
<aaaaaaaadftdf...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1191576007.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
George Grapman
> Yeah, I looked up his voting record. He's missed 20% of the votes
> http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/ in all.
> Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT ALL on
> 20% of the things he should have.
>
Proclaims his devotion to the market place yet voted against
allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Leon Baker
"George Grapman" <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:MXeOi.5096$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
Could that be because the government has no business being in the healthcare
business???
John McWilliams
Debatable. fu set.
--
lsmft
George Grapman
negotiated prices, it works for the VA
By the way do you also oppose government funding of education?
John McWilliams
Somewhat.
lsmft
George Grapman
private schools that received no government funding and you paid cash
one can assume the government paid for your education.
Doug Miller
> Care to tell us how your education was financed. Unless you went to
>private schools that received no government funding and you paid cash
>one can assume the government paid for your education.
Nonsense. "The government" never paid a dime for his education, or yours, or
mine, or anyone else's. The *taxpayers* paid for it.
"Government money" is a myth.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Dick Adams
I am a conservative Republican and have always voted as one.
If Ron Paul were elected President, my advice is to sell all
of your equity securities (stocks) and invest everything in
debt securities (bonds) because the stock market will drop
and interest rates will rise. IMRHO this guy is several
fries short of a Happy Meal.
Dick
George Grapman
> In article <H%fOi.5108$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Care to tell us how your education was financed. Unless you went to
>> private schools that received no government funding and you paid cash
>> one can assume the government paid for your education.
>
> Nonsense. "The government" never paid a dime for his education, or yours, or
> mine, or anyone else's. The *taxpayers* paid for it.
>
> "Government money" is a myth.
>
of this opponent of taxpayer financed health care?
George Grapman
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:48:23 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Care to tell us how your education was financed. Unless you went to
>> private schools that received no government funding and you paid cash
>> one can assume the government paid for your education.
>
> and my parents still had to pay school taxes.
> I have no real problem with public funding of education, it is the
> government operation of the schools itself that is the problem
Did you go to college? How was that financed?
>
> Lee County Florida public school system is taxing us $20,000 a student
> (annual budget 1.7 billion) for a school system that still produces
> mediocre results. The best private school in town is cheaper. The main
> problem with the public school system, and education in general in the
> US, is it is run by people who went to school at 4 or 5 years old and
> never left.
clams casino
You're assuming he's educated.
Allen
chain, Ron Paul is against it; if it will hurt that same group, he is
for it. He should re-read the Hippocratic Oath and decide whether to
continue to call himself a physician.
Allen
clifto
> I have no real problem with public funding of education, it is the
> government operation of the schools itself that is the problem
I have no problem with about 5% of education funding. The local high school
is spending $100,000 to put Astroturf on the tennis courts, and I'm searching
behind the couch cushions for change.
--
One phrase that explains 99% of all idiot driving:
"You can't block traffic if you're not in the way."
Bama Brian
> Yeah, I looked up his voting record. He's missed 20% of the votes
> http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/ in all.
> Eighth worst in the entire house. Truth is, Ron Paul never voted AT ALL on
> 20% of the things he should have.
Anybody ask him why he did not vote on those issues?
Lorenzo L. Love
wrote:
The VA charges $8.00 for the same prescription drugs you can get at
Walmart for $4.00. But VA doctors will not write normal prescriptions,
just ones good only good at the VA pharmacy, so we are stuck with the VA
overpriced drugs. Negotiated drug prices at the VA are a joke. If Bush and
his masters really believed in free enterprise, they could just order the
VA doctors to issue normal prescriptions like every other doctor does that
could be filled at the patients choice of pharmacy.
Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy.”
James Madison
John McWilliams
--
sldktk. Please BE SURE to capitalize IMPORTANT WORDS in case you think
your audience is NOT very bright, or you have a limited vocabulary.
>
>
>
>
Leon Baker
I oppose the federal government sticking their noses into education. That is
a function of the states. We do have a constitution in this country, you
know? Try reading it and the writings of those who wrote it sometime...
George Grapman
George Grapman
> federal money.
>
>
But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
others.
Leon Baker
It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with no
federal money.
Kurt Ullman
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with no
> > federal money.
> >
> >
> But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
> others.
First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.
George Grapman
was you rather than the system.
George Grapman
are due.
Kurt Ullman
gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> Good point, that federal money comes with mandates the money will not
> cover.
Always do. Why do think the drinking age everywhere is 21 and
there are mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Kurt Ullman
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> > In article <VFAOi.631$LD2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
> > George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with
> >>> no
> >>> federal money.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
> >> others.
> >
> > First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.
> If you reaped no benefits from years of education I think the problem
> was you rather than the system.
You reaped benefits from the FEDERAL money "given" to the
schools? You would certainly be among the first.
George Grapman
With both examples a state could negate those laws by losing federal
funding but even the strongest advocates of states rights are rarely
ready to do that.
George Grapman
> In article <JDOOi.2822$y21....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
> George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>> In article <VFAOi.631$LD2...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with
>>>>> no
>>>>> federal money.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
>>>> others.
>>> First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.
>> If you reaped no benefits from years of education I think the problem
>> was you rather than the system.
>
> You reaped benefits from the FEDERAL money "given" to the
> schools? You would certainly be among the first.
As I said if one got no benefits from that education the fault most
likely lies with the individual.
AustinMN
> >>> George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> It should have been financed by my state and local school district, with
> >>>>> no
> >>>>> federal money.
>
> >>>> But it was and you reaped the benefits that you now want to deny to
> >>>> others.
> >>> First of all you would have to FIND some benefits.
> >> If you reaped no benefits from years of education I think the problem
> >> was you rather than the system.
>
> > You reaped benefits from the FEDERAL money "given" to the
> > schools? You would certainly be among the first.
>
> As I said if one got no benefits from that education the fault most
> likely lies with the individual.
When you compare the money the federal government gives to education
to the cost of what it requires states and school districts to do to
get that money, it is doubtful that there is much benefit for anyone.
Austin
George Grapman
Kurt Ullman
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >
> Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
In much the same way (any more) that a junkie is free to refuse heroin
or a smoker is free to refuse a cigarette. In all three cases, there is
a very nasty withdrawal period....
George Grapman
By the way, this comment should not be needed but it is refreshing
to have a discussion like this where all the participants are civil as
the disagree with each other.
Kurt Ullman
George Grapman <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
Me, too. Enjoy it while we can (g).
Leon Baker
I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. As if I had a choice...I'm
not denying anyone anything. It's not the feds duty to school people or
provide for their health care or retirement. Until the socialists elite like
yourself realise this, things will never get better in this country. Sooner
or later you'll see that it's just another way for those in power to stay in
power.
Scout
Oh, but that's not the least of it. The loss of the money is the least of
it, they also generally make demands whatever sum of money previously given
in grant also be returned.
Even when that money was given in a grant with no strings attached.
George Grapman
congress who enjoy taxpayer financed health care while they rail against
employer mandated insurance.
George Grapman
George Grapman
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:49:39 GMT, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> When you compare the money the federal government gives to education
>>> to the cost of what it requires states and school districts to do to
>>> get that money, it is doubtful that there is much benefit for anyone.
>>>
>>> Austin
>>>
>> Fine, your state and district are free to refuse that money.
> mandates
Which mandates are you talking about?
George Grapman
> correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
> trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
> have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
> community it serves.
None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.
George Grapman
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:58:41 -0700, George Grapman
> <sfge...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>>> Free breakfast and lunch, Curriculums that are packed with politically
>>> correct subjects instead of basic education, busing and generally
>>> trying to make all schools everything for everybody. School boards
>>> have no flexibility to tune a particular school to the needs of the
>>> community it serves.
>> None of which are forced on states if they refuse federal funding.
>
>
> child left behind" lets see how that goes.
They are suing over a provision that requires students under
performing schools to be bused to better schools.
The law allows a state to opt out if it refuses federal funding.
Two of the Legislature's top Democrats are launching a new effort to get
New Hampshire to withdraw from the national No Child Left Behind program.
They say Washington is making demands that it doesn't pay for. They
complain about losing local control.
But this year New Hampshire is not alone.
New Hampshire Public Radio's political correspondent, John Milne, reports:
Some academics suggest it will be a significant issue in this fall’s
election.
But that debate begins sooner in New Hampshire.
Towns throughout the state are debating school budgets now and for the
next few weeks.
And Democrats are telling voters to blame President Bush and the
Republicans if No Child regulations demand more school spending and
higher taxes.
Senate Democratic Leader Lou D’Allesandro of Manchester connects the
political and fiscal dots:
(nochild1)
It’s time to revisit this issue. We need to tell Washington that our
property taxpayers are not going to pay the bills. The bill without
money is not acceptable. Show me the money!
School administrators say tests mandated by the law are far more costly
than the funds Washington provides. That’s 66 million dollars for all
schools in the state.
Steve Spratt is on the Mascenic Regional school board in New Ipswich. He
complains that the federal money comes with too many restrictions:
(nochild 2)
NCLB is punitive. It’s all stick. There are very few carrots in the
bill. If you don’t make the grade, you’re forced to lower the standards.
There are 40 measurements in the bill, and if you miss any one of them,
you’re classified as need improving.
The New Hampshire House passed a bill last year to refuse No Child
money. The state Senate tabled the bill. There’s been no action this year.
Mike Sentance is the regional representative of the U-S Department of
Education. He says the No Child program is fully funded. It would have
no effect on local spending, and therefore no increase in property taxes.
(nochild4)
In fact, I would be arguing that you’re getting more bang for your buck
out of your property tax. I mean, if you know that now the people have
the appropriate level of qualifications to be in the classroom, your
school should be more effective. I mean, one of the things that always
confuses me about the conversation in New Hampshire is why people defend
having thoroughly unqualified people in classrooms as being a good
investment of local tax dollars.
Sentance blames politics for why 14 states other than New Hampshire are
protesting the No Child law.
In Utah, for example, the Republican-led House voted 64 to 8 to scrap
the No Child mandates. Utah’s Senate hasn’t acted.
In Virginia, the House of Delegates passed a resolution criticizing the
law. Patricia Wright is superintendent for instruction of the Virginia
Board of Education:
There are some technicalities in the No Child Left Behind law that would
be counterproductive to our own reform. And it expressed some concern
with the federal intrusion into state’s rights.
So far no state has rejected the program.
One reason is that a state that rejects the federal law would also have
to turn down millions of dollars in federal aid.
From a political perspective, the debate reverses traditional partisan
positions in the state.
The Democrats say No Child Left Behind will increase taxes and destroy
local control.
The Republicans say the federal program calls for improvements in
reading, math and science that all parents would want.
But the “little democracies” of New Hampshire towns are famous for their
independence. Their votes may offer a nonpartisan analysis of No Child
Left Behind
George Grapman
>
>
Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act it
simply implemented the 14th Amendment.
Kurt Ullman
gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify most of
> their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for medical marijauna
> even when the state says it is legal.
Actually that is much better through the Interstate Commerce clause.
It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with the
FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current state of
the literature in medical marijuana makes the research behind Vioxx,
etc., look pristine in comparison.
Most of the people in favor of medical mj would be howling at the
moon if Big Pharm tried to push through a "regular medication" with such
iffy backing.
> They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or
> underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal funding.
> The fact still remains that there is really no such thing as federal
> funding. It is OUR money. This is particularly true in the case of
> gasoline taxes
Especially since that brings out transportation bills that are ALWAYS
pork laden. I have been saying since the end of the original interstates
in the early 80s, that the Fed gas taxes should be rolled back to enough
to fund safety and materials research. Let the states, if they decide
they want, increase their own taxes and decide where THEY want to spend
the money.
HEMI-Powered
> it simply implemented the 14th Amendment.
>
> most of their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for
> medical marijauna even when the state says it is legal.
> underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal
> funding. The fact still remains that there is really no such
> thing as federal funding. It is OUR money. This is
> particularly true in the case of gasoline taxes
>
basically correct. The 14th is primarily concerned with rights
afforded to ex-slaves extended to all citizens. A so-called "due
process" clause got slipped in somehow either to bolster the
original purpose or perhaps to avoid the need for a separate
amendment.
Unfortunately, what is supposed to be a PROTECTION is turning out
these days to be more of a TAKEAWAY of our freedoms and rights.
Let's keep the Rebublican vs. Democrat debate clear of this, but
what you're really referring to seems to be known as "activist
judges legislating from the bench". It has been going on for
decades but has decidely accelerated during the current
Administration. Since you mention a medicine issue, I'll give a
scary way the 14th is being used: more and more hospitals are
using it as a way to FORCE their patients to accept ANY and ALL
treatment no matter what they patient wishes. No, I'm not talking
about patients with Alzheimer's, I'm talking about fully
competent patients. The 14th is being used to suggest that
refusing medical treatment constitutes defacto proof that the
patient is trying to commit medical suicide, which is a crime.
As to budgets, you are spot-on, as the Brits say! ALL
governmental levels from towns/cities to counties to states to
the Federal government have zero.zero dollars except that which
is willingly given to them by their citizens or extorted somehow.
Worse, since ANY budget, whether it be you and your wife, a
business, or any level of government, is by definition what I
call a "zero sum game". Meaning that at any given time, there is
only so much money available, no matter how it got there. So,
absent an increase of revenue from either growing the economy or
increasing taxes, the BEST that can be hoped for is to cut
spending in one area in order to increase it in another and/or
increase the deficit by putting the burden on our children and
grandchildren.
Perhaps the most powerful amendment, even more than the 1st, 4th,
or 5th, is the 10th, which essentially says that ANY power not
speecifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to
the states or the people. Seems simple enought to understand,
right? And, while thinking people can easily comprehend that the
REAL intent of the ENTIRE Constitution is really to LIMIT the
power of the Federal government while PROTECTING the freedoms and
rights of the people, it has sadly turned into shysters - most
lawmakers are attorneys - and judges into looking for loopholes
that allow them to alter something as simple as medicinal use of
a joint. If the 10th really applied, Roe v Wade would not be an
issue nor would medical joints.
Lastly, yes, unfunded mandates are exeedingly dangerous, but what
is FAR worse is off-budget items and what are commonly called
"entitlements", such as Social Security and Medicare. If one
examines the Federal budget in summary fashion, a positively
frightenly large perentage are entitlements, which by their very
definition are sacrosinct and not open to discussion. No matter
how you may feel about the war in Iraq, the ENTIRE military
budget for this country is only about 4% of the discretionary
spending, actually a reasonable number. Military spending is also
at relatively low levels even compared to Viet Nam and certainly
lower than at the height of the Cold War. Problem is, though,
that the size of the discretionary spending part of the budget is
so small that 4% of it actually looms as an alarmingly HUGE
number, and the root cause of a trillion dollars of spending, all
financed by borrowing. As bad as borrowing money is concerned,
another truly frightening factoid is that we're getting it from
what is almost certain to become our enemy quite soon - China.
All of that said, I don't want to engage in anything at all to do
with Ron Paul. I will say only this: the Democrats have/had
Dennis Kuchinich as their nutbag, Paul is the Republican nutbag.
It isn't that being a strict constructionist is so wrong, I
actually like the idea, but Ron Paul comes across as a crazy man
when he advocates such absurd notions as abolishing the entire
IRS without any compensating revenue source and abolishing the
FBI, to name just a few. Fix them, yes, get rid of them in the
first 100 days of your administration is so wildly foolhardy that
nobody can possibly take him seriously.
But, to get an feeling for why he has out-raised campaign funds
in the entire race, rent the old Richard Pryor movie "Brewster's
Millions" where he needs to spend $1,000,000.00 in 30 days and
decides to mount a political campaign he dubbed "vote for none of
the above" to simply waste some of the million. So, by
analogy/metaphor, people contributing to Ron Paul don't really
believe he can win, they want to send a message to ALL the
Republicans that "business as usual" in WashLincoln DC isn't
nearly good enough. This "message" also extends to the Democrats.
Gross disatisfaction with Congress fulfilling its role to
initiate and approve appropriations in the House and exercise
separation of power responsibilities through Congressional
oversight is working no better since the Democrats regained a
majority in both houses than prior to 2006 mid-terms. So, while
President Bush is actually enjoying a bump in his rather dismal
approval ratings as the surge appears to be succeeding at least a
little, Congress as a whole - both parties - are at the historic
LOW of only 11%. Can you believe it? Only 11% of voters think
they are doing a good job
And that, sir or madame, is all I have to say about "vote for
none of the above". I have stayed clear of this thread because I
don't want to encourage this NG becoming bogged down in political
infighting, but your comments resonated with some strong feelings
I have in general. So, let me apologize for breaking my own rule,
but perhaps it would be wise for us to let this thread die and
try to stick to the burning issues of the day in digital
photography, and there are plenty of them.
Good luck in what you think you need to do in Decision 2008 and
try to have a good week!
--
HP, aka Jerry
Bert Hyman
news:kurtullman-67365...@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net:
> It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with
> the FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current
> state of the literature in medical marijuana makes the research
> behind Vioxx, etc., look pristine in comparison.
Which of course explains why the sale of thoroughly bogus
"homeopathic medicines" is legal in the US.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Rico Yungblud
> < Ron Paul gibberish snipped )
>
> I am a conservative Republican and have always voted as one.
> If Ron Paul were elected President, my advice is to sell all
> of your equity securities (stocks) and invest everything in
> debt securities (bonds) because the stock market will drop
> and interest rates will rise. IMRHO this guy is several
> fries short of a Happy Meal.
>
> Dick
Yeah, only a loon would actually promise to keep his oath of office
instead of doing the opposite.
I predict that no matter who is elected, at some point the stop market
will drop and interest rates will rise.
AA
Joe
referring to Peter Paul...
The guy the Clintons are so unhappy with.
See: http://tinyurl.com/2v4avg
Joe in Northern, NJ - V#8013-R
Currently Riding The "Mother Ship"
http://yunx.com/valk.htm
Ride a motorcycle in or near NJ?
http://tinyurl.com/5apkg
Political Video:
http://tinyurl.com/2v4avg
<aaaaaaaadftdf...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1191576007.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Has never voted to raise taxes.
> Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
> Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
> Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
> Has never taken a government-paid junket.
> Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
> Does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
> Returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the
> U.S. treasury every year.
> Voted against the Patriot Act.
> Voted against the Iraq war.
>
> http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
>
Bob F
"Rico Yungblud" <audio...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1192049136.8...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
And they'll blame it all on Bill Clinton?
Bob