Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[lord_casek]

ron paul blasts neo-cons

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958

[lord_casek]

vote now

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3444367&page=1

[vanfullofretards]

Are they going to show the debate again?

[lord_casek]

Are they going to show the debate again?

 

not clear on that. when there is video on the interweb, i'll post it.

[lord_casek]

fox news interview

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/08/05/just-come-home-ron-paul-gives-best-interview-yet-on-fox-news/

[boogie hands]

he has a lot of great ideas. its really a bummer he is against the reproductive rights of women and writes nauseating drivel like this....

 

 

The War on Religion

 

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

 

As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

 

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. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

 

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

 

December 30, 2003

[boogie hands]

oh, if i didnt make it clear, i wont be listening to anything ron paul has to say from here on out. you cant be "for the people" while simultaneously parading under such an elitist, exclusionary banner as christianity.

[lord_casek]

oh, if i didnt make it clear, i wont be listening to anything ron paul has to say from here on out. you cant be "for the people" while simultaneously parading under such an elitist, exclusionary banner as christianity.

 

he's a christian, get over it.

he's not against womens rights,

he is for leaving it up to the states...

as originally intended by our founding

fathers.

[boogie hands]

id get over it if he were my neighbor or a co-worker but he is running for the highest office in our nation! are you kidding? anyway, christianity (and obvious disdain for anyone who may be uncomfortable around his religion [also, quick note, it is suspected and in some cases confirmed that many of the founding fathers of mr pauls great christian nation were in fact athiests and diests. whoops!]) aside this leaving it up to the states is fucking garbage. i know you guys are dazzled by mr. government of the people here but you need to realize statements like that are made as to not set off the radar of people who could be turned off by such an idiotic stance. his websites statement pretty much proves my point....

 

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

 

Life and Liberty

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

 

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

 

wow, so either he was really lucky and never saw a potentially life threatening situation in all of his 40 long years as a doctor, he was putting the lives of undeveloped beings above those of living, breathing women, or the majority of doctors are wrong and situations like this simply dont exist. amazing.

 

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

 

wait...its seems like that would essentially turn abortion into murder huh? no, no. hes taking a passive role. its the people decision after all....just as the founding father would want it to be.

 

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

 

yes, once again, quite passive. he is obviously more concerned with leaving it up to the state than he is about his cause. luckily it still works out for him since many states are working to ban abortion or place increased, unreasonable restrictions on the practice.

 

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

 

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

 

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

 

as your naive statement proves casek, he is playing you guys hard and i have no doubt this is and isolated incident. ill be interested to see how the reaction to him changes as time goes on and the newness wears off.

 

also, if you dont consider a self proclaimed hardline pro-lifer someone who is against womens reproductive rights then who exactly would be?

[lord_casek]

you obviously have some sort of whitewash about you. it says, "hey! i'm intelligent."

but you aren't. you're just a sheep following in the words of eugenicists.

 

of course some of the founding fathers weren't "christians" as it is termed today. jefferson, for example. he was all about a higher power, he just wasn't for the monotheistic b/s that gets people into fights.

 

 

dr. paul has never voted for anything unconstitutional. he has never done anything in his political career that is unconstitutional. by leaving such things as abortion and marijuana legalization up to the states, he is doing what our founding fathers had in mind when they

penned the constitution of the united states.

[lord_casek]

here's dr. paul's voting record

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

[the sun y el sol]

ru paul stands no chance, since he is against immigration,and america is a country of immigrants,every last one of you,unless you are native american.

[lord_casek]

ru paul stands no chance, since he is against immigration,and america is a country of immigrants,every last one of you,unless you are native american.

 

 

i'm part native american. but that doesn't matter.

 

dr. paul isn't against immigration, he is against illegal immigration.

btw: all the straw polls say differently about dr. paul and his chance.

 

 

p.s.: take a long look. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

all the polls look like this.

[the sun y el sol]

i'm part native american. but that doesn't matter.

 

dr. paul isn't against immigration, he is against illegal immigration.

btw: all the straw polls say differently about dr. paul and his chance.

 

 

p.s.: take a long look. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

all the polls look like this.

 

so am i

 

lol @ republicants.

[lord_casek]

so, you're gonna vote for someone who will do nothing for you or this country?

i won't lie to you, dems are going to keep us in this war, they are going to raise taxes, they are going to further the agenda of this administration.

 

it's all about power for most of these fools.

[boogie hands]

you obviously have some sort of whitewash about you. it says, "hey! i'm intelligent."

but you aren't. you're just a sheep following in the words of eugenicists.

 

of course some of the founding fathers weren't "christians" as it is termed today. jefferson, for example. he was all about a higher power, he just wasn't for the monotheistic b/s that gets people into fights.

 

dr. paul has never voted for anything unconstitutional. he has never done anything in his political career that is unconstitutional. by leaving such things as abortion and marijuana legalization up to the states, he is doing what our founding fathers had in mind when they

penned the constitution of the united states.

 

first of all, thank you for the kind assessment of my character via internet. i always find those cute, especially when it comes from someone whom im disagreeing with. second, im not saying that ron paul have ever done anything unconstitutional. what i am saying is that from what i have seen it seems that each time he pulls this "leave it to the state as the constitution would have it" card, the majority of the current states rulings are in line with his views. abortion, marijuana, stem cell research...if left to the states this is not a battle ron pauls side would be on the losing side of. to restate myself in a less combative tone, i find it a little dubious. that coupled with his obvious religious undertones and what seems to me to be a willingness to bring faith based beliefs into politics makes me very wary of this whole ron paul celebration that is going on, regardless of how solid many of his views are.

 

if you want to say im wrong, say im wrong, but please refrain from personal jabs at my intelligence. its fucking garbage.

[angelofdeath]

ron paul did introduce federal legislation to say that life begins at conception. it is however quite clear that he is supportive of simply overturning roe v wade, which is a horrible decision from a standpoint of liberty. it goes down to the very basic core beliefs of someones philosophy. do you believe in a huge centralized government or a federal decentralized body of states. which do you support?

 

to not support ron paul because he is a christian, shows the extreme hypocrisy of liberals. they claim to be for diversity, and freedom of religion, as long as christianity isnt involved. everyone should be allowed to practice the religion they want to as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone else. that is what ron paul supports.

 

all of ron paul's votes fall totally 100% inline with the constitution. with such a document as the supreme rule of law in the US, there is no one in our history who has a voting record as clearly consistent with liberty as dr paul's.

 

you are 100% dead wrong in your assessment that ron paul uses the stance of an anti federalist (decentralism, strong states rights) because it supports his views. he is simply for as small a government as humanely possible, existing soley for protection of life, liberty and property.

 

an issue as divisive as abortion must be left up to the states. there is no other alternative. federalism, the founding fathers best contribution to western civilization, the bulkwark against tyranny and monarchy, must be used whenever possible. can a central government in DC, really make 300 million people of 50 states happy? it cant. why should a body as big and diverse as the US be governed by the same central government? if federalism was upheld (the 10th amendment to the f;ing bill of rights) alabama could have abortion banned and massachussetts would have it legal. most abortions take place in blue states anyway, so what is the big deal? there is no right to kill your child any more than there is a right to free healthcare or entitlements.

 

a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.

[thinksmall]

ron pauls cool with gays. i gueess that kinda kinda shows what he values more. liberty than his religion.

 

you can argue about abortion for years, and i guess youd still get no where. i know i know.. its hard to compare freedom of a brand new life with the recklessness of a sexually active person.

 

and its not really even about abortion though. so ><

 

but..

1% of abortions are caused by rape. everyone else just didnt use a condom and/or doesnt take sex srsly enough. =/

[thinksmall]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

[lord_casek]

i agree, we could talk about abortion for ages...but you knwo where it all leads back to?

 

eugenics.

 

i suggest everyone look into that more. very very scary.

 

what's even more scary is that some of the major black leaders are into that shit

[thinksmall]

dude! i noees. scary

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

[fermentor666]

Eugenics? What the hell are you talking about?

 

I would never vote for someone who is pro-life or in favor of overturning Roe Vs. Wade. I think Paul's foreign policy is sound but his domestic policy is a nightmare that sounds really cool and scary-anti-establishment on paper but in reality would destroy the union. You might as well be voting for the break-up of the U.S.

[Juan Fuentes]

Eugenics? What the hell are you talking about?

 

I would never vote for someone who is pro-life or in favor of overturning Roe Vs. Wade. I think Paul's foreign policy is sound but his domestic policy is a nightmare that sounds really cool and scary-anti-establishment on paper but in reality would destroy the union. You might as well be voting for the break-up of the U.S.

 

how do you know? (you dont know)

dont be so nagative about it, the system he is down for is better than the one now...

it will destroy the union? i dont know about that, maybe you mean the north american union, yes it will eliminate its chances of taking place... now the states breaking up into pieces? i dont know why you see it as so bad, If it were to happen its because people want it.

[vanfullofretards]

Not to mention the union wouldn't break up over something like abortion.

[angelofdeath]

"You might as well be voting for the break-up of the U.S."

 

AWESOME!

 

even though that wouldnt happen, and the full force of DC's armies would rain down hard on any states that full out tried to secede, why is the idea of secession so repulsive? the michael moore crowd was advocating it right after the 2004 election. i wish they all would of left. would of been of great and voluntary benefit to everyone involved.

 

northern states in antebellum america used state powers and threats of secession to not enforce the horrible fugitive slave law. new england states almost seceded over calling the militia forth for the war of 1812.

 

but the real reason why the left hates the idea of secession, liberty, federalism and decentralization is because they cant mind thier own business. they cant possibly allow free people to govern themselves without having a hand in thier pocket, regulations tied around thier neck, telling them that all men are rapists, governments are benevolent and businesses create oppression, basically telling them how to live thier lives, and that atm fees are to high but taxes are too low.

 

there is no way that they would allow anyone to live how they want to when it is possible for them to run every aspect of thier lives for them. society doesnt need a central plan.

[boogie hands]

ron paul did introduce federal legislation to say that life begins at conception. it is however quite clear that he is supportive of simply overturning roe v wade, which is a horrible decision from a standpoint of liberty. it goes down to the very basic core beliefs of someones philosophy. do you believe in a huge centralized government or a federal decentralized body of states. which do you support?

 

to not support ron paul because he is a christian, shows the extreme hypocrisy of liberals. they claim to be for diversity, and freedom of religion, as long as christianity isnt involved. everyone should be allowed to practice the religion they want to as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone else. that is what ron paul supports.

 

all of ron paul's votes fall totally 100% inline with the constitution. with such a document as the supreme rule of law in the US, there is no one in our history who has a voting record as clearly consistent with liberty as dr paul's.

 

you are 100% dead wrong in your assessment that ron paul uses the stance of an anti federalist (decentralism, strong states rights) because it supports his views. he is simply for as small a government as humanely possible, existing soley for protection of life, liberty and property.

 

an issue as divisive as abortion must be left up to the states. there is no other alternative. federalism, the founding fathers best contribution to western civilization, the bulkwark against tyranny and monarchy, must be used whenever possible. can a central government in DC, really make 300 million people of 50 states happy? it cant. why should a body as big and diverse as the US be governed by the same central government? if federalism was upheld (the 10th amendment to the f;ing bill of rights) alabama could have abortion banned and massachussetts would have it legal. most abortions take place in blue states anyway, so what is the big deal? there is no right to kill your child any more than there is a right to free healthcare or entitlements.

 

a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.

 

im not really 100% sure how ron paul can introduce legislation which states life begins at contraception and then turn around and "leave it up to the states". do you see why that would strike me a being completely suspect and contradictory? i think his strategy is quite intelligent and makes him stand out amongst the other candidates but deep down he is still a republican and is still pumping their social, faith based agenda. the website below does a good job of showing the transparency of his seemingly hands off approach when it comes to social issues he does not agree with.

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

 

my favorite jewel is his vote to ban gay adoption in DC, a state he has nothing to do with!!! how am i supposed to believe he will leave social issues up to the states when its documented that he has taken an active role to force his bigoted beliefs on others.

 

as far as not supporting ron paul due to his faith, i would feel the same were he muslim or a member of any other absurd religion. im personally suspect of anyones ability to make a decision if they freely admit the believe in words of the bible and a god who takes an active role in our life. its insanity and i think the fact that this regard we hold for the sanctity of peoples religious beliefs is cowardly and harmful. in my mind it is just as important a factor as someones political record. faith is a very strong force and i dont believe that it can exist in a person without affecting their decisions.

 

i was definitely in a reactionary, irrational mood when i stated that i wouldnt be listening to ron paul. i will be listening to ron paul because he has some good ideas. im just not willing to blindly jump on the ron paul bandwagon because of this adherence to the constitution that he is pimping these days. im just not convinced it is that cut and dry for him.

[Juan Fuentes]

 

as far as not supporting ron paul due to his faith, i would feel the same were he muslim or a member of any other absurd religion.

 

you are mixing religion and politics, ron paul is not, he has a different mind due to his beliefs ,yes, but that cant cancel everything out because of your faith does not go along with his......what you want guliani,mccain,hillary? satanists?....out of all the choices ron paul is the best...or you think is another candidate? state it then!!

 

 

 

 

 

the breaking up the states things sounds like some will lose an image of what their are, their pride, will feel small, no more amuuurrrica #1 yuppies....

 

the smaller the area the easier for the citizens to control it, the larger the area the easier a government can control it.

[boogie hands]

you put it best..."he has a different mind due to his beliefs". that is what i am wary of. as i said earlier, his actions lead me to believe he makes some political decisions based the teachings of his religion. maybe not nearly as many as george bush and his horrible administration of religious zealots, but the underlying views are there. now, if i happen to strongly disagree with the teaching of said religion, which i do, then it would stand to reason that i am not going to be very supportive of anyone who i feel could use those "values" in their decision making process. its that cut and dry. if he actually kept his faith to himself then he wouldnt be publishing insulting articles like the one above, he wouldnt be in support of bigoted policies such as "dont ask, dont tell" which only exists to cater to the moronic homophobia of christians (please, show me a homophobic atheist), he wouldnt be voting for vouchers for parochial schools....see what my big problem is here?

 

as i said above, he is a smart guy with some good ideas but im not going to trumpet him as the great savior in this race because, in my eyes, he has glaring flaws. as far as another candidate who i feel would be a better choice? how about kucinich since we are on the topic of long shots. maybe even nader if he decided to run.

 

look, you guys dont have to agree with me but your all sitting here acting like you cant understand why im not throating this guy. i honestly dont get it.

[angelofdeath]

i've been on the ron paul bandwagon since 2001. so im no fly by night supporter.

ron paul has the only 100% pro liberty pro constitutional voting record in all of american history. no if's, ands, or buts about it.

 

ron pauls abortion stance comes from a deep reguard for life as well as a deep reguard for liberty in that all people have the right to life, liberty and property, not just some. but im not gonna argue this with you. i guess since RP is just a dirty republican, you gloss over his support for legalizing drugs nationally? those damn strong social republican values. 'only using 'leave it to the states' when it is in his interest?

[angelofdeath]

"look, you guys dont have to agree with me but your all sitting here acting like you cant understand why im not throating this guy. i honestly dont get it."

 

eh, i think your just throating the guy because he isnt for mandatory forced, coercive programs, wars, foreign aid, interventions, etc. in your view because he doesnt support any group rights, only individual rights he is some sort of quasi racist. i could go on, but.......