10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul
-
To: 1zapa...@yahoogroups.com; Ear...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007
Subject: [zapatista email group]
And Ron Paul on women, minorities, sexual orientation, etc.
thanks for this judie, i will forward.
And Ron Paul on women, minorities, sexual orientation, etc.
Here's another that applies, sent by a friend.
Judie
http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul-159
10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul
Written by Summer Ludwig at 5:36 pm on 12/9/2007
As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron
Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. Although we
are a progressive blog and both William and I support Democratic candidates,
vocally, we are constantly barraged with pleas and "stories" to win us over.
The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are
giving some credence to Ron Paul's campaign and message. He somehow comes
across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling
the Republican ticket.
a..
I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and
policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing
that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support
the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons
NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
1.. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has
sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from
investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying
entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown
versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US
if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863,
H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
2.. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive
rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v.
Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human life
shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and
precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
3.. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports
abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to
repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal
devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it
mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make "coverage completely optional
for both present and future workers", and would "freeze benefit levels". He
has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and
the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the
federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate
"kick backs." Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604,
H.R.736, and H.R.2720
4.. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit
those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the
tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at
10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations,
repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and
other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more
information: H.R.05484 Summary
5.. Ron Paul's policies would cause irreparable damage to our already
strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling,
building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the
production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a
"Federal obstacle" to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought
to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of
1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to "restrict the
jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill
material to discharges into waters". To see for yourself the possible extent
of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration
please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393,
H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
6.. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative
image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from
the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US
withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any
funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any
UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill
calling for us to "terminate all participation by the United States in the
United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of
the United Nations."
7.. Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental
ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with
Bush's plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that
the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President
Clinton's signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court
is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the
following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665,
H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
8.. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not
provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that
Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal
government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed
by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he
is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the
House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation
placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state
borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not
allow judges to come up with "new definitions" of marriage. Paul is a very
religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record
shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a
particularly bigoted bill entitled "A bill to strengthen the American family
and promote the virtues of family life." or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the
legislation "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization
which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life
style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style." shows that he
is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
9.. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul's loudest
gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In
fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn't
true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of
semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would
repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just
missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal
the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I'm pretty damn certain that when the
Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be
walking around the streets with AK47's and "large capacity ammunition feeding
devices." (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has
been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant
in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his
needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their
parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he's
from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking
to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place
after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy.
Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407,
H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
10.. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is
that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where
we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care
system) that this doesn't work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced
legislation that would keep the Federal Government "from planning, developing,
implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of
certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational
agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification." In a
separate piece of legislation he seeks to "prohibit the payment of Federal
Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of
private schools or private school teachers." So basically the federal
government can't regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require
them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea
teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to
discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these
proposals!
11.. Remember his "bill to strengthen the American family and promote the
virtues of family life." or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for
segregation in schools once again. It "Forbids any court of the United States
from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of
race, color, creed, or sex." Without thinking about this statement it doesn't
sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done
by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in
Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would
no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation
based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty
bigoted guy don't you think?
12.. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason
is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul's
positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on
religion, he stated "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural
indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our
nation that religion must be driven from public view."1 Though he talks a good
talk, at times, Ron Paul can't get away from his far right, conservative
views. He would support "alternative views" to evolution taught in public
schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We've already taken a look at his "bill to
strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life." or
H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many
other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America,
exactly what he would do as president.
So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the
time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you
know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the
war but he's not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is
pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video
that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he
says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH!2
[10-mn. video on site: RON PAUL IOWA STRAW POLL AUG, 11 2007]
1.. Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My
President [?]
2.. Orcinus: Ron Paul's Record in Congress [?]
Geo
> To: 1zapati...@yahoogroups.com; Ear...@yahoogroups.com
Besides misstating his position on a few of these you just listed 12
reasons that I will be voting for him.
Angry Dave
> To: 1zapati...@yahoogroups.com; Ear...@yahoogroups.com
>
> read more >>
I thought these were going to be reasons NOT to vote for him... my
bad.
Bob Eld
"-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4760c9c3....@news3.isomedia.com...
These are a list of important reasons to avoid Ron Paul but there is another
and that is the general Libertarian philosophy. It is a philosophy of don't
tax and don't spend which sounds good to the simple minded but it is really
a euphemism for don't build anything and don't fix anything.
America needs to get back into the business of repairing its crumbling
infrastructure and building for the future. It needs to find solutions to
the energy problem and whole host of other important things. It cannot do
this if it withdraws into a shell like a third world country without a
vision for the future where nothing is done and nothing is repaired.
America needs to spend on America not on Iraq, Afghanistan or other
warmongering endeavors. Domestic spending creates wealth and the general
circulation of money in the economy. It provides countless business and job
opportunities and builds the nation. Furthermore it increases the tax base
and improves the balance of payments.
Libertarians like Paul do not believe this yet history is very clear for
anybody who cares to look. America was always at its best when it cared
about itself and spent accordingly building itself. There are many examples.
It's basically what created and maintained the middle class from the 1940's
through the 1970's. We should return to that model. But libetarians will not
do it.
Sanders Kaufman
news:0a5c9c4a-b82a-4679...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 13, 12:59 am, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>>
>> 2.. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive
>> rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal
>> Roe v.
>> Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human
>> life
>> shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
>> current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws
>> and
>> precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
>
> reasons that I will be voting for him.
So this, small-government Republican will start out by expanding government
to outlaw abortion?
Geo
> "-" <jazzerci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4760c9c3....@news3.isomedia.com...
>
>
>
> > To: 1zapati...@yahoogroups.com; Ear...@yahoogroups.com
That's not the Libertarian philosophy. Which makes it unnecessary to
read the rest of your commentary, which too is wrong.
Jim E
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9A0550CD23...@66.250.146.128...
> In message news:4760c9c3....@news3.isomedia.com, - sprach forth the
> following:
>
>> 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul
>
> and prays (s)he won't have to run against an honorable, principled
> statesman like Dr. Paul.
Ron who ?
Jim E
Geo
> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Nope, leaving it to the states where it belongs. In other words,
reducing fed govt involvement.
English-Elephant
I think America needs a shock to the political system, and he can
supply that shock, looking a the mess things are currenlty in, he's
worth a shot.
Thanks
Sanders Kaufman
news:28c19767-280c-44c5...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think America needs a shock to the political system, and he can
> supply that shock, looking a the mess things are currenlty in, he's
> worth a shot.
That's called a "fight or flight" response.
You don't KNOW what to do - so you panic.
Me - I'd rather have a president who's more focused on making things work,
than just shaking them up.
glw82664
> "English-Elephant" <mancm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Sometimes one needs to shake things up to make them work properly.
Right now, things aren't working properly.
Sanders Kaufman
news:441d4837-5f19-4a4c...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
They aren't working properly because they've already been shaken so
severely.
But you Ron Paul Swingers don't really care about shaking things up.
You just want someone who will promise you things, even though he can't
possibly deliver.
Geo
> "glw82664" <glw82...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Would that be like your republicans like Bush, Hastert, Lott, etc. who
promised to deliver balanced bugets? Or promised to deliver lower
debt? Or promised to deliver no nation building? Or promised to
deliver secure borders? Really Sanders, how'd all those promises work
out for ya? And you can't blame one bit of it on Paul.
Sanders Kaufman
I didn't vote for any of those people.
It's notable that you don't even *consider* any of the Democrats - who
actually stand FOR something.
All you consider is Republicans who want to wreck what we have.
Geo
> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I don't *consider* them because they stand FOR higher taxes, the stand
FOR bigger govt, they stand FOR increased govt spending, they stand
FOR war, and on and on and on. Paul stands for the opposite of all
that. And you're right. I do want to wreck what we have because
what we have right now is worth wrecking. I'd like to wreck the debt,
I'd like to wreck our need to send young men and women to die overseas
because people like the democrats have a need to stick their noses in
every corner of the globe, I'd like to wreck the concept of larger and
ever increasing govt. How's that?
Rich Keebler, Child Molester
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:avc8j.3881$Vq....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
That and privacy in general.
Larry Hewitt
So you bought into the repuglicon rhetoric rather than the truth?
Truth is. the greatest growth in govt, govt spending, deficits, nanny govt,
war, etc have happened in the last 50 yrs under repug govts
Yeah, democrats are for _some_ increased spending, for ex, but for
relatively small ticket _productive_ items like people and infrastructure,
not massive weapons systems
Repug spending for star wars, for ex, a weapons system that after THIRTY
YEARS STILL DOESN:T WORK, now exceeds 30 billion dollars.
In the last 6 yrs repugs have presided over the largest increase in the
federal budget in history, the largest increase in discretionary spending in
history, the largest increase in the size of he federal government in such a
short time periods,, the largest deficits in history, and a ballooning debt,
all reverses of democratic initiatives started under Clinton
It is repugs, lead by their neocon/religious Reich extreme right that are
sticking their noses into everyone else's business, trying to mold both the
US and the world to their own image.
It is they who want tog et into our bedrooms, dictate medical procedures,
decide who you can and cannot love, what religious artwork is hung in our
classrooms, who manages our charitable orgs, , which big businesses get to
reap the benefits of public resources, who gets to ride in an airplane, ....
It is repugs who are out adventuring in the world, trying convert countries
(well, those countries that can provide a profit for their big business
buddies) into malleable subservient states, spending the blood and money of
the working class to do so.
All of which were fought by democrats, but they were steamrollered by the
large repug majority voted in by incompetents, like you.
Larry
Sanders Kaufman
> On Dec 15, 2:16 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> It's notable that you don't even *consider* any of the Democrats - who
>> actually stand FOR something.
>> All you consider is Republicans who want to wreck what we have.
>
> I don't *consider* them because they stand FOR higher taxes, the stand
> FOR bigger govt, they stand FOR increased govt spending, they stand
> FOR war, and on and on and on.
So many slogans;
So little substance.
Vandar
The SDI (Star Wars) was planned to defend against a nuclear attack from
Russia. "Star Wars" died when the Soviet Union collapsed. In the 90s, it
morphed into the National Missile Defense program. It's the largest
single expense in the Pentagon budget and has projected costs of over
$50 billion dollars in just a 5 year span (2004-2009).
> In the last 6 yrs repugs have presided over the largest increase in the
> federal budget in history, the largest increase in discretionary spending in
> history, the largest increase in the size of he federal government in such a
> short time periods,, the largest deficits in history, and a ballooning debt,
> all reverses of democratic initiatives started under Clinton
>
>
> It is repugs, lead by their neocon/religious Reich extreme right that are
> sticking their noses into everyone else's business, trying to mold both the
> US and the world to their own image.
>
> It is they who want tog et into our bedrooms, dictate medical procedures,
> decide who you can and cannot love, what religious artwork is hung in our
> classrooms, who manages our charitable orgs, , which big businesses get to
> reap the benefits of public resources, who gets to ride in an airplane, ....
Don't fool yourself into thinking it's only one side of the aisle that
wants to do that.
> It is repugs who are out adventuring in the world, trying convert countries
> (well, those countries that can provide a profit for their big business
> buddies) into malleable subservient states, spending the blood and money of
> the working class to do so.
>
> All of which were fought by democrats, but they were steamrollered by the
> large repug majority voted in by incompetents, like you.
Yeah... list every Democrat currently seeking the nomination who voted
against the authorization to use force in Iraq.
I'll get you started:
Kucinich.
Larry Hewitt
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Fld9j.486$Sa1...@news02.roc.ny...
I'm not.
But reality is that democrats have been more antagonistic to big business
than repugs. It is dems who have passed what little consumer protection,
regulatory, adn environmental legislation that exists.
>> It is repugs who are out adventuring in the world, trying convert
>> countries (well, those countries that can provide a profit for their big
>> business buddies) into malleable subservient states, spending the blood
>> and money of the working class to do so.
>>
>> All of which were fought by democrats, but they were steamrollered by the
>> large repug majority voted in by incompetents, like you.
>
> Yeah... list every Democrat currently seeking the nomination who voted
> against the authorization to use force in Iraq.
> I'll get you started:
> Kucinich.
>
Well, you fell into the repugs trap.
The AUF was not a green light for invasion, and when passed it did not
anticipateBush would lie usinto a unilateral invasion.
In fact, at the time it was passed (9/18/01) only the white house was
focused on Iraq --- note the resolution is only for terrorists and does not
list a specific country.At that date Al Qaeda was only suspected. And Bush
has _never_ been able to link Iraq to either 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
Larry
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
Vandar
It was most definitely a green light for invasion.
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United
States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:
1) Defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
2) Enforce all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
> In fact, at the time it was passed (9/18/01)
October 16, 2002.
> only the white house was
> focused on Iraq --- note the resolution is only for terrorists and does not
> list a specific country.
Iraq is mentioned 40 times in the six page document.
"Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002"
> At that date Al Qaeda was only suspected. And Bush
> has _never_ been able to link Iraq to either 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
>
> Larry
>
> http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
Wrong law. That's the authorization for our response to 9/11. The Iraq
resolution is a completely different law.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Larry Hewitt
And this resolution still put primacy in a peaceful resolution in
conjunction with international and UN efforts.
If Bush hadn;t lied his way into justification (imminent threat of nuclear
strike, flying biological delivery systems, rockets capable of delivering
chemical weapons, etc) then the resolution would have done as intended.
Permission to do perform an action if required is not an order to do it.
Larry
Vandar
He was authorized, not ordered. Concerning the military, the POTUS can't
be ordered to do anything.
Tim Crowley
he's REALLY not running. It's just a ploy to sell books. Bill Bonde
has as much chance of being the next President of the US as Paul.
richar...@gmail.com
> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in messagenews:Xns9A0550CD23...@66.250.146.128...
>
> > following:
>
> >> 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul
>
> > .... by a far left nutjob who fellates an inflatable Hitlery every night
> > and prays (s)he won't have to run against an honorable, principled
> > statesman like Dr. Paul.
>
> Ron who ?
>
> Jim E
Too bad you know the top GOP fund-raiser for the fourth quarter.
- Rich
richar...@gmail.com
> "English-Elephant" <mancm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
You mean by doing EXACTLY what has continued to be going on now? Go
ahead and name ONE candidate whose programs won't cause the deficit to
grow ever-larger, or won't result in more tax increases beyond what is
going on now.
So far you keep having this non-existent candidate you support you
keep bringing up besides Paul. The are non-existent, because you fail
to name them over and over when asked.
Go ahead and name which of the presidential candidates you currently
are supporting.
- Rich
richar...@gmail.com
A ploy to sell books? Do you even know what books are done by
presidential candidates. Do you? Let's see, you will say the book
about Rudy, Fred, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc... are really about
their candidacy, but you see Ron Paul is merely in this to sell books?
- Rich
Geo
> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:853b33be-a966-4af8...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 15, 2:16 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> >> It's notable that you don't even *consider* any of the Democrats - who
> >> actually stand FOR something.
> >> All you consider is Republicans who want to wreck what we have.
>
> > I don't *consider* them because they stand FOR higher taxes, the stand
> > FOR bigger govt, they stand FOR increased govt spending, they stand
> > FOR war, and on and on and on.
>
> So many slogans;
> So little substance.
>
The substance is their voting records. Which item in my list is
wrong?
Larry Hewitt
My point exactly.
Sole responsibility for the invasion resides with POTUS.
Larry
Sanders Kaufman
news:8c0b509c-de5a-4c33...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> and the #1 reason not to vote for Ron Paul?
>
> he's REALLY not running. It's just a ploy to sell books. Bill Bonde
> has as much chance of being the next President of the US as Paul.
I'm beginning to think that's true of a LOT of the GOP candidates.
Most don't seem to be running a campaign at all - just a shell of one.
Sanders Kaufman
news:75029054-5547-4f15...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 2:46 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> Me - I'd rather have a president who's more focused on making things
>> work,
>> than just shaking them up.
>
> You mean by doing EXACTLY what has continued to be going on now?
You *honestly* think that Hillary would do EXACTLY as Bush has done, eh?
Wow - the ignorance of you swing voters is *amazing*.
Vandar
Hillary would do much less than Bush has done, but it will cost you more.
Vandar
That's not what we were discussing.
Without Congressional authorization, the invasion would not have happened.
Sanders Kaufman
> Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> Sole responsibility for the invasion resides with POTUS.
>
> That's not what we were discussing.
> Without Congressional authorization, the invasion would not have happened.
Oh, it still would have happened - the GOP would have just found another way
to do it.
Anyone who thinks Bush would have let Congress stand in the way of that
doesn't know Bush.
Sanders Kaufman
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> You *honestly* think that Hillary would do EXACTLY as Bush has done, eh?
>> Wow - the ignorance of you swing voters is *amazing*.
>
> Hillary would do much less than Bush has done, but it will cost you more.
This from the same people who said that if we don't kill the Iraqis
children, they'll nuke us.
richar...@gmail.com
> <richardhut...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hillary say American will remain in Iraq until at least 2012. That
differs from Dubya how?
Ahh, so you are a Hillary supporter. Almost no body would of bungled
Iraq as bad as Dubya has, but that still doesn't mean it won't be much
different.
- Rich
Sanders Kaufman
news:0782432f-5fc3-404e...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 17, 10:04 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>> You *honestly* think that Hillary would do EXACTLY as Bush has done, eh?
>> Wow - the ignorance of you swing voters is *amazing*.
>
> Hillary say American will remain in Iraq until at least 2012. That
> differs from Dubya how?
I'm sorry, but if you can't already tell the difference between the Bush and
Clinton, nothing I write can possibly help you out there.
I'm a good educator; a damned, good educator - but I ain't that good.
And lemme tell ya - those of us who *can* tell the difference are simply
*amazed* that folks like you exist.
Vandar
I never said any such thing.
MasterChief
represent the majority of americans nowdays,From the left or from the right
it doesn`t matter you will sink this former great nation in the gutter you
so much admire,my consolation is you`ll get the goverment you fools deserve
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:VBU8j.70556$RX.4...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> "glw82664" <glw8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:441d4837-5f19-4a4c...@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 14, 2:46 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
>>> Me - I'd rather have a president who's more focused on making things
>>> work,
>>> than just shaking them up.
>>
>> Sometimes one needs to shake things up to make them work properly.
>> Right now, things aren't working properly.
>
> They aren't working properly because they've already been shaken so
> severely.
Marinus van der Lubbe
> Can`t deliver?Not to the brainwashed more goverment assholes that seems to
> represent the majority of americans nowdays,From the left or from the right
> it doesn`t matter you will sink this former great nation in the gutter you
> so much admire,my consolation is you`ll get the goverment you fools deserve
Whenever I hear something like this, I always image someone like
yourself screwing their face up tight and saying the most disproved
brain-washing pablum: gobment is bad!
A government by the people can't be bad. Such a form of government is a
servant of the people. It is a collective way of making our lives
healthier, wealthier, and more fulfilling.
Our government does not really try to do that. It makes some people
wealthier, but just a few at the top. What do they at the top do to make
certain things stay that way? They control the media, all channels, all
messages, and those messages say, "you are individuals, not a people,
everything that happens to you is what you deserve and what happens to
us is due to our hard work and talent."
4. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly
benefit those with the highest incomes.
Every single Repug at the Iowa debate had a flat tax or fair tax plan.
No working man should support these slackers.
Sanders Kaufman
news:MGiaj.216$lo5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> 4. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly
> benefit those with the highest incomes.
Could you expand on that, please?
Sanders Kaufman
news:GpadncKIUsf2PfTa...@comcast.com...
> Can`t deliver?Not to the brainwashed more goverment assholes that seems to
> represent the majority of americans nowdays,From the left or from the
> right it doesn`t matter you will sink this former great nation in the
> gutter you so much admire,my consolation is you`ll get the goverment you
> fools deserve
Locos like you have been making *that* prophecy since the dawn of the
nation.
Larry Hewitt
Paul is advocating a flat tax as outlined in gory detail at www.fairtax.org
Basically, their proposal is to eliminates all payroll and income taxes, as
well as a few excise taxes and all business taxes,and replace that with a
federal sales tax on consumers. The logic is that after taxes are removed on
corporations they will reduce their prices by exactly their tax savings,
resulting in a wash for consumers.
In truth, it is a rather complicated, unwieldy proposal. For ex., all tax
collections would be the responsibility of the states, uncompensated, and
the 4 states without a sales tax would need to set up a collection
infrastructure. Used items are tax exempt, as well as all purchases for
business. The way that purchases are vetted is left up to the states, that
is, each state must set up its own procedure for hoe to determine if it is
a resale or a sale, and whether or not, for ex., the purchase of a PC at
Office Depot really is for the office and not for the kids. The paperwork
required is staggering.
Included in the fair tax are many exempt items now --- all services (doctor,
lawyer, car repair, maid, etc) rent, new homes!! and cars.
They propose a 22% tax rate, which is in fact a 29% rate. An item that today
costs $1 costs $1.29 under Fairfax --- the proponents say that the tax is
22% of the purchase price.
But not even Bush believes this. His commission that reviewed tax structure
in 2005 looked at this and said a $38% rate would be needed to stay revenue
neutral.
The "fair" part of this is that each and every taxpayer would receive a
check from the feds every month for the taxes paid on income up to the
poverty level for your status.
That is, a family of 4 would get monthly checks for the taxes on their first
$19k of income.
Where the unfairness comes in is, the tax is not progressive.,. Second,
costs for the lower incomes are radically shifted. For ex, rent will
immediately go up 38%, regardless of tax burden The reduction in prices they
propose as businesses "give back" tax savings does not apply to many
purchase, especially rent, doctor;s visits, and the like, squeezing lower
income families as they shift dollars from other items to pay for these
costs.
Their tax stricture pushes social engineering. For ex, even though both
families are the same size, a single mother with 2 kids gets a lower tax
exemption than a couple with a kid. All deductions for child support,
alimony, etc disappear
Another advantage for the wealthy is that taxes on imports disappear. SO a
fatcat, for ex., can go to Canada to buy a luxury car, saving the 38% sales
tax, more than paying for the trip.
And, as you can imagine, the cross border traffic for everything from food
to toilet paper would be enormous, given a 38% savings.
Larry
Sanders Kaufman
news:fkcl6i$oq$1...@news04.infoave.net...
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>> 4. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly
>>> benefit those with the highest incomes.
>>
>> Could you expand on that, please?
>
> Paul is advocating a flat tax as outlined in gory detail at
> www.fairtax.org
Ooooh. One of thooose.
Bleeechhh.
Verily - that's one win that the hillbillies would *quickly* regret.
They *think* that rich folks don't pay much taxes.
Just like they think Mexicans make too much money.
steve
> To: 1zapati...@yahoogroups.com; Ear...@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007
> Subject: [zapatista email group]
> And Ron Paul on women, minorities, sexual orientation, etc.
>
> thanks for this judie, i will forward.
>
> And Ron Paul on women, minorities, sexual orientation, etc.
>
> Here's another that applies, sent by a friend.
>
> Judie
>
> http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul-159
> 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul
>
>
> As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron
> Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. Although we
> are a progressive blog and both William and I support Democratic candidates,
> vocally, we are constantly barraged with pleas and "stories" to win us over.
> The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are
> giving some credence to Ron Paul's campaign and message. He somehow comes
> across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling
> the Republican ticket.
> a..
> I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and
> policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing
> that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support
> the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons
> NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
>
> 1.. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has
> sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from
> investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying
> entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown
> versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US
> if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863,
> H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
>
> 2.. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive
> rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v.
> Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human life
> shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
> current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and
> precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
>
> 3.. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports
> abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to
> repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal
> devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it
> mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make "coverage completely optional
> for both present and future workers", and would "freeze benefit levels". He
> has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and
> the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the
> federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate
> "kick backs." Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604,
> H.R.736, and H.R.2720
>
> 4.. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit
> those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the
> tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at
> 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations,
> repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and
> other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more
> information: H.R.05484 Summary
>
> 5.. Ron Paul's policies would cause irreparable damage to our already
> strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling,
> building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the
> production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a
> "Federal obstacle" to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought
> to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of
> 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to "restrict the
> jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill
> material to discharges into waters". To see for yourself the possible extent
> of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration
> please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393,
> H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
>
> 6.. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative
> image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from
> the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US
> withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
> Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any
> funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any
> UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill
> calling for us to "terminate all participation by the United States in the
> United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of
> the United Nations."
>
> 7.. Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental
> ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with
> Bush's plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that
> the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President
> Clinton's signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court
> is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the
> following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665,
> H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
>
> 8.. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not
> provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that
> Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal
> government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed
> by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he
> is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the
> House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation
> placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state
> borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not
> allow judges to come up with "new definitions" of marriage. Paul is a very
> religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record
> shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a
> particularly bigoted bill entitled "A bill to strengthen the American family
> and promote the virtues of family life." or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the
> legislation "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization
> which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life
> style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style." shows that he
> is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
>
> 9.. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul's loudest
> gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In
> fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn't
> true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of
> semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would
> repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just
> missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal
> the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I'm pretty damn certain that when the
> Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be
> walking around the streets with AK47's and "large capacity ammunition feeding
> devices." (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has
> been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant
> in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his
> needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their
> parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he's
> from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking
> to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place
> after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy.
> Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407,
> H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
>
> 10.. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is
> that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where
> we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care
> system) that this doesn't work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced
> legislation that would keep the Federal Government "from planning, developing,
> implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of
> certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational
> agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification." In a
> separate piece of legislation he seeks to "prohibit the payment of Federal
> Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of
> private schools or private school teachers." So basically the federal
> government can't regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require
> them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea
> teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to
> discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these
> proposals!
>
> 11.. Remember his "bill to strengthen the American family and promote the
> virtues of family life." or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for
> segregation in schools once again. It "Forbids any court of the United States
> from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of ...
>
> read more >>
vote ron paul in 08, the only presidential candidate that shaves his
ass so he wont get dingleberries.
Geo
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>
> news:S1kaj.71165$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >news:MGiaj.216$lo5...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> 4. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly
> >> benefit those with the highest incomes.
>
> > Could you expand on that, please?
>
> Paul is advocating a flat tax as outlined in gory detail atwww.fairtax.org
>
No he is not. That said, there's no reason to go any further.
Geo
> "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@comporium.net> wrote in message
Given that Larry made an incorrect statement about Paul's tax plan you
should take the rest of his fairtax analysis with a grain of salt.
That too is filled with error after error.
Friendly Xenu
>Can`t deliver?Not to the brainwashed more goverment assholes that seems to
>represent the majority of americans nowdays,From the left or from the right
>it doesn`t matter you will sink this former great nation in the gutter you
>so much admire,my consolation is you`ll get the goverment you fools deserve
Oh man, agreed on all points. Ron Paul is no different than all
the rest of the Republinazi and Democrap traitors -- it's the nature
of fascism instigated by a corporate State.
---
Still spending all your time sniffing Bill Clinton's penis as your
country collapses?
Friendly Xenu
>MasterChief wrote:
>> Can`t deliver?Not to the brainwashed more goverment assholes that seems to
>> represent the majority of americans nowdays,From the left or from the right
>> it doesn`t matter you will sink this former great nation in the gutter you
>> so much admire,my consolation is you`ll get the goverment you fools deserve
>Whenever I hear something like this, I always image someone like
>yourself screwing their face up tight and saying the most disproved
>brain-washing pablum: gobment is bad!
>A government by the people can't be bad.
We don't have a "governmeny by the people," idiot. If we did then
the 2006 elections which were supposed to have been to remove the
Republinazi fascists from our government would have actually have
done something about the Bush regime and its crimes and abuses by now.
If we had a representitive government, the Christian terrorists in
Iraq would have been recalled long ago, the USA Patriot Act and the
other fascist dictates would have been nullified.
The USofA isn't a representitive government. It's a theofascist
corporate dictatorship, if it's anything identifiable.
Friendly Xenu
>"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
>news:fkcl6i$oq$1...@news04.infoave.net...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>>>> 4. Ron Paul's tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly
>>>> benefit those with the highest incomes.
>>> Could you expand on that, please?
>> Paul is advocating a flat tax as outlined in gory detail at
>> www.fairtax.org
>Ooooh. One of thooose. Bleeechhh.
>Verily - that's one win that the hillbillies would *quickly* regret.
A number of nations down through the centuries have tried to
instigate a "flat tax," including Britannia, and around 460 BCE
within Rome itself (even before the Visigoths saked Rome for the
first time.) In all cases within 20 years the governments,
kingships, fiefdoms et al. down through recorded history where
such records have been kept (and Roman records are good!) the
result has been economic collapse.
It's a buttfuckingly stupid idea, one that doesn't work, and one
that results in economic suicide.
MasterChief
And you are afraid of losing that control and i say with good reasons.
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:grx9j.30667$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
MasterChief
I think not..
"Friendly Xenu" <Xe...@aol.COM> wrote in message
news:13mm98n...@corp.supernews.com...
MasterChief
masses are stupid.they will fall for anything,They are been offered liberty
and the fucks choose slavery.
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4972e394-8c10-4018...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Gunny Freedom
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> "Geo" <taxpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0a5c9c4a-b82a-4679...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 13, 12:59 am, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
> >>
> >> 2.. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive
> >> rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal
> >> Roe v.
> >> Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human
> >> life
> >> shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
> >> current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws
> >> and
> >> precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
> >
> > Besides misstating his position on a few of these you just listed 12
> > reasons that I will be voting for him.
>
> So this, small-government Republican will start out by expanding government
> to outlaw abortion?
No, Ron Paul's plan is to allow the various state governments to do as
they please, and remove any and all federal laws on the books with
regards to abortion. He is personally opposed to abortion, but believes
that the question belongs on the local level, and not the federal level.
--
Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/
Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price"
Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/
Gunny Freedom
"Rich Keebler, Child Molester" <uncle_...@nambla.com> wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote in message
> news:avc8j.3881$Vq....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > "Geo" <taxpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:0a5c9c4a-b82a-4679...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Dec 13, 12:59 am, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2.. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive
> >>> rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal
> >>> Roe v.
> >>> Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that
> >>> human life
> >>> shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
> >>> current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws
> >>> and
> >>> precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
> >>
> >> Besides misstating his position on a few of these you just listed 12
> >> reasons that I will be voting for him.
> >
> > So this, small-government Republican will start out by expanding
> > government to outlaw abortion?
>
> That and privacy in general.
Actually, it is the neoconservative movement, along with the radical
liberal movement which are the greatest danger to privacy in our nation
today. Laws such as HR1955 the so-called "Thought Crimes Act" would
never survive a Ron Paul Presidency. The Patriot Act, Patriot II,
Military Commissions Act, and the John Warner Defense Appropriations Act
which have all but destroyed privacy and civil rights in the Unites
States, were supported by all the current candidates except for one:
Ron Paul.
Gunny Freedom
"Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> "English-Elephant" <manc...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:28c19767-280c-44c5...@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I think America needs a shock to the political system, and he can
> > supply that shock, looking a the mess things are currenlty in, he's
> > worth a shot.
>
> That's called a "fight or flight" response.
> You don't KNOW what to do - so you panic.
>
> Me - I'd rather have a president who's more focused on making things work,
> than just shaking them up.
There is no Presidential Candidate more focussed on making things work
than Ron Paul, and he has a very detailed plan to do just that.
What you do not understand, is that the people who are so passionately
supporting Ron Paul, do so because we have done hours, days, weeks,
months of research into his positions and his plans. We are more
familiar with his positions, plans, and goals than any other supporters
in the nation today.
We do not support him so passionately because we want blind change, we
support him so passionately because we KNOW where he stands, we KNOW his
positions in great depth and detail. We KNOW his plans for our nation,
and those are the plans we want to see implemented in America today.
Gunny Freedom
"MasterChief" <1...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> How you imbeciles can survive is a wonder.You just proved my point , the
> masses are stupid.they will fall for anything,They are been offered liberty
> and the fucks choose slavery.
I am sickened to no end about all the blatant misrepresentations and
outright lies which people offer up as their rationale to oppose Ron
Paul. I do have a shred of sympathy remaining for them, however -
because this is what the media has told them, and they are more
brainwashed than culpable.
But people need to do their due diligence.
Do we not know that MSNBC is owned by GE - one of the largest military
contractors in the world? Do we not know that CNN's biggest rvenue
stream comes from Lockheed Martin?
Do we not know that Rupert Murdoch has publicly declared himself a
political activist for the neoconservative movement?
If the war ends, nearly every news media company in America loses
hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in annual revenues. How
is that not a conflict of interest?
Seethis Pass
wrote:
>In article <avc8j.3881$Vq....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
>> "Geo" <taxpa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0a5c9c4a-b82a-4679...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Dec 13, 12:59 am, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2.. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive
>> >> rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal
>> >> Roe v.
>> >> Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human
>> >> life
>> >> shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
>> >> current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws
>> >> and
>> >> precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
>> >
>> > Besides misstating his position on a few of these you just listed 12
>> > reasons that I will be voting for him.
>>
>> So this, small-government Republican will start out by expanding government
>> to outlaw abortion?
>
>No, Ron Paul's plan is to allow the various state governments to do as
>they please, and remove any and all federal laws on the books with
>regards to abortion. He is personally opposed to abortion, but believes
>that the question belongs on the local level, and not the federal level.
That's exactly right Who else says otherwise?
salinesal
> > rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v.
> > Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human life
> > shall be deemed to exist from conception." This, of course, goes against
> > current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and
> > precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
>
> bad.
Wow, Ron Paul seems to have some pretty good ideas. Wasn't this
supposed to be an anti Ron Paul blog?