Posted on 05/07/2012 7:45:57 AM PDT by IbJensen
Ron Paul supports the use of RU-86, also known as the abortion pill. Ron Paul thinks abortion is a States Rights issue. Ron Paul is a fraud who has sent all kid of goodies back home to his friends in Galveston.
Keep that in mind.
Ron Paul supports the use of RU-86, also known as the abortion pill. Ron Paul thinks abortion is a States Rights issue. Ron Paul is a fraud who has sent all kid of goodies back home to his friends in Galveston.
Keep that in mind.
Oddly enough, a Ron Paul ping.
Surrendering to the Islamo-Nazis is Conservative conviction ?
Since when ?
—Surrendering to the Islamo-Nazis is Conservative conviction?
Since when ?—
I think you meant to respond to someone else. I didn’t post that.
Ron Paul has NEVER voted FOR an expansion of government. Ever.
Keep that in mind.
Period.
The fact, however, is that Ron Paul **HAS** managed to take control of a number of district and state conventions and has racked up a bunch of delegates. His people are well-organized and now that everyone else has suspended their campaigns, he could possibly conduct an under-the-radar campaign that successfully causes serious trouble.
It shows just how bad things have gotten that Ron Paul — who is the Lyndon LaRouche of the Republican Party in 2012, not Ronald Reagan in 1976 or George McGovern in 1972 — has more ability to damage Romney right now than any credible Republican candidate.
The main thing this would do would be to de-legitimize the Republican Party by making us look like the chaos of the last national convention of the Reform Party when Pat Buchanan managed to get the nomination.
Some people may think total chaos at the convention with national media wall-to-wall coverage is a good thing. As long as a parliamentary brawler like Newt Gingrich with a legitimate record of parlaying backbench politics into top leadership as Speaker was in charge, I was willing to go along with the argument that a chaotic convention could be defended as “democracy in action.” After all, while I wasn't a Gingrich supporter, he had more than two decades of legitimate leadership work, knows his American political history up one side and down the other, and could make a case for a brokered convention.
At this late date, show me how utter chaos caused by Ron Paul supporters would help anyone except Barack Obama and I'll listen. I don't see it.
Oops. Sorry, FRiend.
“His States Rights stance is exactly correct.”
No, it’s a 1000% WRONG. States cannot use the 10th Amendment to skirt the Contitution, and they damn well do NOT have the power to snuff out innocent babies.
Ron Paul isn’t exactly pro-life, either.
“In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an ‘addendum’ in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position
Ron Paul also earmarks like a stoned liberal:
“
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Speaking of a lot of money, the battle about the money they’re spending on Capitol Hill and, ironically, this guy is being targeted as maybe spending the most or at least earmarking the most for his constituents. He says it isn’t fair.
But we thought it only fair to give him his due and explain what is going on. I’m talking about Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.
But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that’s the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don’t save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.
CAVUTO: Well, then, who — who — who proposes the bridge or the highway or the school? How does that even get in there?
PAUL: I have no idea. But the most important thing is to have transparency.
If you don’t earmark something, then somebody else spends it and there’s no transparency. So, the principle of the earmark is very crucial. But we need more earmarks.
The reason that we don’t have — didn’t have earmarks, you know, in that $350 billion on TARP funds...
CAVUTO: Right.
PAUL: We needed to earmark every single thing. We need to earmark every single thing the Fed does. So, this whole thing, this charade — this is a charade.
CAVUTO: No, no, I understand.
But you know what? It just strikes people as a little weird, Congressman, because, you know, you champion and rail against government waste. And I know you rejected and voted against this package. But, yet, your constituents are going to benefit to the tune of more than $73 million in various projects from this package.
So, it’s kind of like you’re having your cake and eating it, too.
PAUL: But — but, Neil — Neil, you’re — you’re missing the whole point.
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that.
But, because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever.
CAVUTO: But would you argue, then, sir, that, when John McCain was here saying the whole earmark thing itself is what’s out of control?
PAUL: Oh, no, no. He — he — he totally misunderstands that. That’s grandstanding.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don’t cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We’re talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I’m saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: You’re right about...
PAUL: OK. But then I’m right about the whole issue.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: But are you saying, then — are you saying, then, Congressman, that the moneys that you appropriated, whether for the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Texas City Channel, Wallisville Lake, the City of Bay City, that rehab center — that that’s money in the aggregate that you would have called waste?
PAUL: It’s the kind I don’t vote for, because I don’t think the federal government should be doing it. But, if they’re going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people.
If they say, hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in. I put in all their requests, because I’m their representative.
But, if you put an earmark for a bridge in Iraq, it’s not called an earmark. If you build military equipment in somebody’s city...
CAVUTO: So, you don’t think their requests are wastes? You don’t think their requests are wastes?
PAUL: Well, no, it’s — it’s — it shouldn’t be done. There’s a better way to do it.
CAVUTO: Right.
PAUL: But, if you’re going to spend the money, the Congress has the responsibility. It’s better to spend it on a bridge here than spend it on a bridge in Iraq, and blow it up, and then build it up again.
Those are the kind of earmarks they don’t count.
CAVUTO: All right.
PAUL: So, you have to count...
CAVUTO: All right, Congressman.”
Ron Paul is to Conservative like kitten is defensive tackle.
Absent said Amendment, that RP supports in your own quote, there is no Federal power to regulate abortion. For, or against. This is why Murder statutes are State crimes. You are also obfuscating his expressed desire to over turn Roe V Wade which removes the FedGov from the question of States passing their own bans on murdering the unborn.
There is no need to lie about RP to come up with unappetizing stuff about him. His isolationist stance for our military for starters...
But just keep showing yourself for being a troll. It's funny in a pathetic and sad kind of way.
Well, I am glad you think that name calling will win your argument.
I despise abortion. Right now, all 50 states are required to allow abortion.
If you allow the states to decide, then you will save millions. This is an easier argument to win, since abortion IS NOT in the Constitution
Or, you can stick to your dream that somehow the federal government has this authority and therefore allow millions of unborn babies to die while you stick to your dream.
Please tell me how you plan on manipulating the U.S. Constitution to find a loophole for abortion.
The Constitution allows sovereign states to do some pretty stupid things. Even slavery was legal until the 13th amendment. However, it restricts those stupid ideas to the states. If you give those powers to the federal government, then we are all doomed to those ideas.
Like I said, you are either for the Constitution or against it. Choose wisely.
Let me guess this straight: You support a guy who advocates surrendering to the Islamo-Nazis, supported allowing mentally ill homosexual perverts to serve openly in the US military, and supports allowing states to slaughter unborn babies , and yet I’m the troll ?
Newsflash: FRee Republic is a Conservative site, not a liberaltarian site. If you haven’t noticed, Jew hater Ron Paul isn’t very popular around here. Just ask all of the Paultards Jim Robinson banned.
You mean Romney? Well, Romney disagrees on one of those, but he makes up for it by declaring he's afraid to cut government spending because "it will hurt the economy."
Look, when you finally get at least one point factually correct, come on back and talk. As it is, you haven’t stated one accurate fact yet...
As for who’s getting banned lately, ask yourself this Romneybot... Do you feel lucky? Well? Do ya? Punk....
I’m mad at Paul over his stupid “shot of estrogen” remark but I’m pretty sure that may family (2 new voters - 9 to go) will be casting 4 votes for Paul in KY on 22 May. Rand Paul in 2016!
The States should enforce laws against murder not the Federal government. Any State that violates the Constitution by not prosecuting murder should be dealt with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court and the administrations and legislatures and that have built it and therefore our nation have been in horrific breach of their duty since 1973 and God will judge us all
Newt is no longer running. Ron Paul is. If he (Ron Paul) can get enough delegates to keep Romney from getting the nomination, then all bets are off, and Newt Gingrich, or anyone else could be nominated.
So, you might want to rethink your strategy.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Slow down.
I have never once said I support Romney. I simply refuse to support Jew hater Ron Paul simply because he doesn’t know when to end his pointless campaign. If you want to support Dr. Newsletter an his Code Pinko allies, go ahead. Count me and the vast majority of Conservatives who voted AGAINST the Stormfront candidate out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.