Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election”.
Tucker, a self-professed fan of Ron Paul discusses liberty with former stripper, and current libertarian county chairman, Michelle Shingal. They regard Hillary Clinton as the candidate of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”
His colleague asks, “Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul”, to which Tucker responds, “That’s the question I think millions of Americans are beginning to ask themselves.”
Share This
Comment by Mike | August 28th, 2007
thanks for letting me know about this video
Pingback by Brushfires of Freedom » Blog Archive » Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] | August 29th, 2007
[…] of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”read more | digg […]
Comment by Fielding J. Hurst | August 29th, 2007
Love it.
“Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul after that”? Bill
“That’s the question, I think, that millions of Americans beginning to ask themselves.” Tucker
Comment by Fielding J. Hurst | August 29th, 2007
Which of the following does Tucker Carlson love more?
A) RON PAUL
B) STRIPPERS
C) STRIPPERS FOR RON PAUL
D) ALL OF THE ABOVE. STRIPPERS FOR RON PAUL AND RON PAUL
Comment by al | August 29th, 2007
The crawl at the bottom of the screen obscured the view.
Comment by Eric | August 29th, 2007
Ron Paul? Yeah right, he better not win. That would do a great service to the country. He says a few different things and all of a sudden he’s a savior? Please…I’ve read his platform and it sounds ridiculous to me. Like some hard right-wing nut job, quite frankly, I’m happy that he barely registers on the polls.
I’m hoping Giuliani wins the republican nomination, that way we can have an easy democratic victory in 2008.
Comment by Freddy | August 29th, 2007
Candidate of Freedom? LOLZ! OK, strippers. Where will you get your abortions when Anti-Choice Ron Paul outlaws abortion? That’s right. Your beloved “freedom” candidate opposes abortion rights. What a joke. How do you libertarians justify that as freedom?
Comment by Jason | August 29th, 2007
“How do you libertarians justify that as freedom?”
Any federal laws that are not bound by the constitution are left for the states, it’s the 10th amendment. He may be Anti-Choice, but he is also against regulating anything that is out of bounds of the constitution whether it be for or against abortion.
Comment by Kevin | August 29th, 2007
Freddy,
I like how you morons call wanting to snuff out human life a “right”.
In fact you call anything you want a “right” no matter how stupid it is.
I want the right to get rid of the a kid up to 5 years after he is born, why don’t I have that “right”?
Jeez…
And if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states, as it well should be in federalism. But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the D on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.
Comment by yeah right | August 29th, 2007
It not about any one issue personal freedom is what it about stop putting labels and ideologies to ever thing based on your ego and your fears look up Mouseland. If you want abortions legal go to the Northern States if not go to a Southern States but get the issue out of the federal government control wake up take control of your own life or this will be the last free election with real choices think how ridiculous it is to spend the amount of money to elect these millionaires does it give you power to cast one vote come on think for your self make your one vote count for every one vote for integrity read Ron Paul’s take on the economy based on common sense look up the Mises theory learn what motives a man to go against the mainstream for over twenty years. Think for your self-stop listing to sound s bites
Comment by Freddy | August 29th, 2007
Kevin, thanks for exposing the ignorance that is rampant on your side- the side that believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.
OK, Kevin, cough up your evidence. PROVE that life begins at conception. Use actual science, not the pathetic far-right politics that Bush has tried to substitute for science in virtually every aspect of public life- food safety, mining, evolution, etc. Can’t do it, huh? Oh well. Anti-choicers fail again.
Oh, wait, your RELIGION tells you so (Jesus sure didn’t tell you so, HE never mentioned abortion.It’s only poor Jesus’ more ignorant followers who are obsessed with abortion, not Jesus Himself.). So what we have here is you ESTABLISHING STATE RELIGION even though the Constitution says you can’t. You fail.
Kevin, since you and your ilk have whimsically and arbitrarily GUESSED when human life begins, it is equally justifiable for some other equally ignorant group to whimsically and arbitrarily GUESS that human life begins BEFORE conception. That would make every sperm cell or egg that you are packing a human being. Your every emission or menstruation makes you a murderer. What’s that you whine? Not fair? Well neither is your shrill bleating about abortion being murder.
Kevin goes on to lie “if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states”
Well, Kevin, if you actually knew much of anything about your precious anti-abortion candidates, you would know that you just LIED. Ron Paul DOES NOT LEAVE IT UP TO STATES. Ron Paul supports restrictions on abortion at the Federal level, and has already voted to take away women’s right to abortion.
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
There you have it, Kevin. How you do justify your ignorant lie?
Given the chance to use Federal power to restrict a woman’s Constitutional right to a safe, medical abortions, Ron Paul BETRAYED libertarian principles and voted in favor of big-governemnt in your bedroom fundamentalists. Also:
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Furthermore, if you knew much of anything, you’d know Ron Paul has aborted lots of fetuses when he thought a woman’s health could be at risk. If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?
Kevin, all you have done is prove your ignorance. And that you spoke to yourself when you said “But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the [R] on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.”
It’s very Freudian that you said “repubic” instead of republic. Like the rest of you anti-choicers, you are very re-pubic minded.
Comment by Freddy | August 29th, 2007
“Any federal laws that are not bound by the constitution are left for the states, it’s the 10th amendment. He may be Anti-Choice, but he is also against regulating anything that is out of bounds of the constitution whether it be for or against abortion.”
Jason, thanks for a reasoned answer, unlike poor ignorant Kevin.
But as you can see from the answer above, Ron Paul betrayed that libertarian ideal by trying to regulate abortion at the Federal level when he voted to outlaw the so-called (pejoratively named) “partial birth” abortion. What do you say to that?
Comment by Matt | August 29th, 2007
How do I know life begins before birth? Because I have seen a child in the womb and heard its heart beat. It can move. To me that is life. Maybe it’s not at conception but it is shortly there after. I have a perfect solution. As soon as a baby’s heartbeat is discernible by medical means, it is declared a human being with all protection provided as such.
Comment by Burdell | August 29th, 2007
The problem is that there is too much dogma on both sides of the aisle. Freddy, banning any funding for foreign aid abroad and voting against federal funding for stem cell research (it is perfectly legal to destroy a fetus to experiment on embryonic stem cells) is very libertarian, because libertarians do not believe that the federal government should be a charity or the nation’s R&D fundraiser.
Now, on Ron Paul voting to outlaw late term abortions, you are right, this is against pure libertarian principals, which Ron Paul even admits. Now, it should be noted that the ban only applies to babies that are viable, meaning that it you just deliver the whole baby, instead of killing it while it is still partially in the woman, or just deliver it by C section, then the baby is far enough along to live on its own. Now, while I personally am still against the ban, saying that the ban erodes a woman’s right to abortion is like saying that outlawing slander limits our right of freedom of speech.
Freddy, even if Ron Paul is wrong on this one issue (which I agree with you that he is), does that make him a worse candidate than Obama or Clinton who voted for and continue to vote for the Iraq war, and would love to go into Darfur if given the chance. Republicans may be known as the party of big business (which they are), do you think that the Democrats are not as well. I mean lawyers and the HMOs would love for the Democrats to be elected. How about how the Democrats continue to push the broadcast flag and the DMCA, those really further my civil rights while not helping big business. The point is that both parties stink, they both are all about big government, big business, and war; their only difference is which form of big government, big business, and war each party endorses. So please, would both sides stop pushing the koolaid and let us actually talk about the issues to make our country better.
But Freddy, instead of calmly taking Kevin’s points on head on, you just simply blasted him as ignorant, perverted, and were completely intolerant of his religious beliefs (no matter how dumb they may or may not be). Sounds to me like you are a better Republican than a Democrat, what do you have to say about that … ?
Comment by Kevin | August 29th, 2007
Freddy
>>>Kevin, thanks for exposing the ignorance that is rampant on your side>the side that believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.>>OK, Kevin, cough up your evidence. PROVE that life begins at conception. Use actual science, not the pathetic far-right politics that Bush has tried to substitute for science in virtually every aspect of public life- food safety, mining, evolution, etc. Can’t do it, huh? Oh well. Anti-choicers fail again.>Oh, wait, your RELIGION tells you so (Jesus sure didn’t tell you so, HE never mentioned abortion.It’s only poor Jesus’ more ignorant followers who are obsessed with abortion, not Jesus Himself.). So what we have here is you ESTABLISHING STATE RELIGION even though the Constitution says you can’t. You fail.>>Kevin, since you and your ilk have whimsically and arbitrarily GUESSED when human life begins,>>Kevin goes on to lie “if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states.>>* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)>>* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)>>* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)>>Furthermore, if you knew much of anything, you’d know Ron Paul has aborted lots of fetuses when he thought a woman’s health could be at risk. If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?>>Kevin, all you have done is prove your ignorance. And that you spoke to yourself when you said “But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the [R] on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.”>>It’s very Freudian that you said “repubic” instead of republic. Like the rest of you anti-choicers, you are very re-pubic minded.
Comment by Kevin | August 29th, 2007
Freddy
——-
Kevin, thanks for exposing the ignorance that is rampant on your side
——-
My side? How do you know what “my side” is? I am a constitutionalist/libertarian. I’m not sure what “side” that puts me on in your book.
——
the side that believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.
——
So since I am against destroying unborn human life, I worship corporations? I’m not even sure how to respond to that knucklehead statement.
—–
OK, Kevin, cough up your evidence. PROVE that life begins at conception. Use actual science, not the pathetic far-right politics that Bush has tried to substitute for science in virtually every aspect of public life- food safety, mining, evolution, etc. Can’t do it, huh? Oh well. Anti-choicers fail again.
—–
There you go again mistaking me for a far right neo con. I am anything but that. Bush is a moron, just like Hillary and ther other status quo demopublicans and republicrats. Take your “I love the D’s and I hate the R’s nonsense somewhere else.
And to respond to your statement, I DON’T KNOW that life begins at conception. But you DON’T KNOW that it doesn’t. So instead of taking that chance and butchering unborn children, how about we just play it on the safe side, what do you think?
Hell, you can’t prove that life doesn’t begin until a child is 1 year old. So how about when someone decides a 6 month old is a pain in the rear, make it legal to take them out back and put a bullet in their head.
—–
Oh, wait, your RELIGION tells you so (Jesus sure didn’t tell you so, HE never mentioned abortion.It’s only poor Jesus’ more ignorant followers who are obsessed with abortion, not Jesus Himself.). So what we have here is you ESTABLISHING STATE RELIGION even though the Constitution says you can’t. You fail.
—–
Idiocy. You automatically assume because I don’t want to butcher babies I must be religious. I am an atheist. But not being religious doesn’t make me think it’s ok to murder unborn children any more than it makes me think it’s ok to murder 1 year olds.
—–
Kevin, since you and your ilk have whimsically and arbitrarily GUESSED when human life begins,
—–
More goofiness. Whose the idiot? The guy that says “Hmmm I assume life hasn’t started yet if the baby isn’t born, so let’s rip it to shreds and kill it” or the guy like me that says “We don’t really know and since that is a little human in there, let’s play it on the safe side and not kill it.”
—–
Kevin goes on to lie “if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states.
—–
Ron Paul has stated many times that even though he is against abortion, if he were president he would support leaving it to the states to decide, as the Constitution requires.
—–
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
—–
And?
Since most idiots in this country (both voters and politicians) don’t understand federalism and ignore the Constitution by making it a federal issue, I don’t think he had a choice but to vote with his feelings on the matter.
—–
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
—–
And?
That is very consistent with libertarian principles. The federal government has no business confiscating my income to do such things.
—–
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
—–
Although I might be wrong here, although I don’t think I am. That vote wasn’t to NOT ALLOW it, it was to not federally fund it, again, very libertarian.
—–
Furthermore, if you knew much of anything, you’d know Ron Paul has aborted lots of fetuses when he thought a woman’s health could be at risk. If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?
—–
You are trying to turn around and rant AGAINST what you want here. Just plain silly. Nowhere in anything I said did I say if the mother’s life were at risk that abortion not be an option. I personally see that as entirely different than abortions simply in order not to have the responsibility of children.
—–
Kevin, all you have done is prove your ignorance. And that you spoke to yourself when you said “But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the [R] on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.”
—–
No. Wrong. BZZZT. I am neither Republican or Democrat so I am afraid you are wrong there.
—–
It’s very Freudian that you said “repubic” instead of republic. Like the rest of you anti-choicers, you are very re-pubic minded.
—–
Oh how cute, after calling me ignorant over and over you throw in one more ad hominem attack. How about maybe I just spelled that wrong, huh?
Anti choice huh? How about we let the fetus decide. Watch the little fella when they reach in there to rip him to shreds and see if you can get an idea on how he feels about the matter.
I’ll never understand you people that get so wound up about folks like me simply saying “Hey, until we know more about when life begins, lets not be so quick to want to kill these little guys.”
Then after getting throwing a fit for the “right” to kill a human fetus, your kind will scurry off, tie yourself to a tree and holler and cry about saving some idiot owl.
Comment by kyle | August 29th, 2007
Hey, Freddy. He does vote no on it at the federal level but he is for leaving it up to the states to decide…He is pro-life though. He has delivered 4000 babies…Do some research before making a silly attempt to demonize Dr. Paul.
Comment by the oak | August 30th, 2007
Too bad Freddy and Erics’ mothers didn’t practice their right to choose abortion. Then, they wouldn’t be here to slander the only good candidate that we have for president.
Put a doctor in the Whitehouse to cure an ailing country…….Ron Paul!
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Yeah right said: “If you want abortions legal go to the Northern States if not go to a Southern States but get the issue out of the federal government control”
Wrong. The rights of southern women do not end at the Mason Dixon line.
Why should women be denied their Constitutional right to access to abortion just because they are born in the south?
If certain southern states will not allow them their rights, the Federal government has every right to step in and guarantee their rights. Or are you one of those who say the Federal government should not have guaranteed the Constitutional rights of blacks in the south?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Matt says “How do I know life begins before birth? Because I have seen a child in the womb and heard its heart beat. It can move. To me that is life.”
A sperm cell can move too. Is that a human life? Your definition fails.
Matt says: “Maybe it’s not at conception but it is shortly there after.”
Note that you do not know. So why restrict women’s rights based on things you don’t know. Is that libertarian?
Matt says “I have a perfect solution. As soon as a baby’s heartbeat is discernible by medical means, it is declared a human being with all protection provided as such.”
Wrong. That’s an arbitrary and whimsical guess on your part. Not science. And if the fetus has full human protection at that point, what right does abortionist Ron Paul have to ALWAY kill the fetus rather than the woman when one of them must die to save the other?
I would not be surprised if you don’t actually answer. Not one person on this board has had the courage to actually answer these questions.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Hi Burdell. Thanks for reasoned answers, unlike the likes of Kevin, who fail to actually address any questions. You make a fine point that “banning any funding for foreign aid abroad and voting against federal funding for stem cell research (it is perfectly legal to destroy a fetus to experiment on embryonic stem cells) is very libertarian” I just think it makes a worse world if we don’t assist the world in controlling the population explosion. People around the world WANT to limit their families, but their messed-up governments try to prevent them so they have lots of cheap labor and cannon fodder. So overseas contraception is NOT charity. It’s enlightened self-interest. And I see medical R&D as essential to the nation, since preventing pandemics is a national priority.
Burdell “Now, on Ron Paul voting to outlaw late term abortions, you are right, this is against pure libertarian principals,”
Thank you.
Burdell: “which Ron Paul even admits.”
Then he should stop. He should stop being a hypocrite.
Burdell “Now, it should be noted that the ban only applies to babies that are viable,”
WRONG! Who told you that? Ron Paul? If so, he lied. The anti-choice fanatics? They lie all the time. Just look at Kevin, who lies all the time.
From wiki: “This statute deals with a method of abortion in the United States usually used in the second trimester,[5] from 18 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Now that you know you are wrong, do you condemn Ron Paul for his hypocrisy on the abortion issue?
Burdell “Freddy, even if Ron Paul is wrong on this one issue (which I agree with you that he is), does that make him a worse candidate than Obama or Clinton who voted for and continue to vote for the Iraq war, and would love to go into Darfur if given the chance.”
First of all, two wrongs don’t make a right, so this is no defense of Ron Paul, even if you were right about Obama, which you are not.
Second, I’m calling BS on you. Obama did NOT vote for the Iraq Resolution of 11 October 2002. On January 30, 2007, Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 into Congress. So where are you getting your disinformation? Fox News? Tucker Carlson? Now that you know you are wrong about Obama, do you support him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
Burdell “Republicans may be known as the party of big business (which they are), do you think that the Democrats are not as well.”
No. They are not. This is a cynical lie by the Repubs to make the pro-people Democrats seem as filthy as the Repubs. Repubs are nothing but pro-multinational conglomerates. The Democrats try to balance the interests of people and business.
Burdell “I mean lawyers and the HMOs would love for the Democrats to be elected.”
You have a partial point about trial lawyers, but they are only a tiny piece of corporate power. The rest of the mega-multinational corporations HATE trial layers, because trial lawyers often hold them accountable. You are flat wrong about HMOs. HMOs HATE the Democrats because the Democrats want real reform of the financing of health care.
Burdell “How about how the Democrats continue to push the broadcast flag and the DMCA,”
They are as wrong as the Repubs who do the same. But overall, the Dems do not support the rapacious control of the US by the multinationals, as Bush and the Repubs do.
Burdell: “both parties stink, they both are all about big government, big business, and war; their only difference is which form of big government, big business, and war each party endorses.”
I disagree. Clinton really did put people ahead of multinational corporations in many ways. Bush put multinationls ahead of people all the time, even when he had to lie and pervert science to funnel money to his mega-rich cronies.
Burdell “But Freddy, instead of calmly taking Kevin’s points on head on, you just simply blasted him as ignorant,”
Wrong. I did both. I absolutely used facts to destroy his proven ignorance. And I called him ignorant, too.
Burdell: “were completely intolerant of his religious beliefs (no matter how dumb they may or may not be).”
I disagree. I tolerate his right to ignorant beliefs. I simply refuse to allow him to establish his religion via Federal Government power. He may invent a non-provable religious-based time that human life begins, but I won’t let him inflict in on America’s women.
Burdell: “Sounds to me like you are a better Republican than a Democrat, what do you have to say about that … ?”
You’ll have to explain that, since I am an Independent who is disgusted with all the Republicans and looking for a Democrat to support this year. I would like to like Ron Paul, since he makes a lot of sense, but the use of Federal power to restrict abortion rights stinks of pandering to anti-choice fundamentalists.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for ignorantly and mistakenly reposting my comments without any rebuttal. How embarrassing for you.
That must be your Freudian way of admitting that you know I proved that I am right and you are wrong.
Next I’ll address your follow-up rebuttal post which actually rebuts nothing.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin proves that ignorance can persist despite facts, thus explaining that Bush might actually have won an election, instead of stealing both.
Kevin: My side? How do you know what “my side” is?
Because you TOLD us, genius. You told us you are on the side of the anti-abortion forces when you said “I like how you morons call wanting to snuff out human life a “right”.” and ““right” to murder unborn children.”
Kevin: “So since I am against destroying unborn human life, I worship corporations?”
Your anti-abortion side put Bush in the White House (OK, Diebold put Bush in the White House) and put Republicans into the House and Senate, making corporation-worship rampant. So even if you claim to not worship corporate power, your side (anti-abortion) continually votes for and elects the worshipers of corporate power. My statement stands. I said that your anti-abortion side “believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.” That is absolutely true about your anti-abortion side, even if you don’t like it about your anti-abortion side.
Kevin, are you saying you reject corporation-worshiping Bush and the Republicans and vote against them?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
I challenged Kevin to provide evidence and he fails:
Kevin “There you go again mistaking me for a far right neo con.”
Liar! I never called you a neo-con. Now you get to get to apply your “knucklehead” comment to yourself.
Kevin “to respond to your statement, I DON’T KNOW that life begins at conception. But you DON’T KNOW that it doesn’t.”
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Kevin ” So instead of taking that chance and butchering unborn children, how about we just play it on the safe side, what do you think?”
Kevin, it is refreshing to see you admit your ignorance. However, informed people do not ban things based on their ignorance. Only you and your anti-abortion side ban things based on your ignorance. The rest of us require evidence and facts and proof before we tamper with the Constitutional rights of actual human women.
And you call yourself a “constitutionalist” Ha ha ha!
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin goes on to embarrass himself with this: “You automatically assume because I don’t want to butcher babies I must be religious. I am an atheist. But not being religious doesn’t make me think it’s ok to murder unborn children any more than it makes me think it’s ok to murder 1 year olds.”
Then answer my question, and PROVE when human life begins.
Oh, wait, you admitted that you are ignorant about that. So instead you whimsically guess a time that human life begins with no religious or scientific guidance and you want the Federal government to take away women’s Constitutional rights based on your ignorance and whim. Ha ha ha! You are a funny kind of “constitutionalist”
What can we look forward to under President Ron Paul? Federal government bans of Constitutional rights based on whimsical ignorance?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin’s public self-embarrassment continues: “More goofiness. Whose the idiot? The guy that says “Hmmm I assume life hasn’t started yet if the baby isn’t born, so let’s rip it to shreds and kill it” or the guy like me that says “We don’t really know and since that is a little human in there, let’s play it on the safe side and not kill it.””
Kevin, Kevin. YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER LEFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION OR NOT! So you have no proof that a fetus is the equivalent of a human life! Yet here you are again, ignorantly assuming a fetus is a human life.
Even after you admit your ignorance, you are back to stating your ignorance as a fact. Why?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Here’s Kevin’s original lie, and the heart of the issue:
Kevin: “Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states.”
I pointed out that Ron Paul already HAS taken away a woman’s right to abortion at the Federal level with his vote against intact D&E (mistakenly called “partial birth” abortion).
All Kevin can muster in defense of Ron Paul is the everyone-is-a -hypocrite defense, which is no defense at all.
Kevin: “Since most idiots in this country (both voters and politicians) don’t understand federalism and ignore the Constitution by making it a federal issue, I don’t think he had a choice but to vote with his feelings on the matter.”
Bwah-hah-ha! Ron Paul did not have a choice to violate his principles? Ha ha ha! Some president he’d make!
Funny you say he didn’t have a “choice”, since he voted to take away “choice” from women.
No choice? Vote with his feelings? Ha ha ha!
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin “Although I might be wrong here,”
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Starting to crack from having your ignorance pointed out so often, Kevin? Of course you are wrong. Let’s prove it.
Kevin “Although I might be wrong here, although I don’t think I am. That vote wasn’t to NOT ALLOW it, it was to not federally fund it, again, very libertarian.”
Kevin is wrong. Again. The FACTS:
“Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[88] Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[89][90] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of … reproduction” from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[91]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Do you admit your ignorance now, Kevin?
Explain how that is a “libertarian” principle, and not more big government intrusion into private lives and personal decisions (given that it is based on non-science and non-facts).
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin: “Nowhere in anything I said did I say if the mother’s life were at risk that abortion not be an option.”
Kevin, again you fail to deal with what I actually said. I said “If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?”
Try answering the actual question about your hero, abortionist Ron Paul.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kyle “He does vote no on it at the federal level but he is for leaving it up to the states to decide”
That speaks for itself.
How is that “leaving it up to the states to decide” when the Federal government bans Constitutional rights?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
The Oak gives us this bit of hate in support of Ron Paul: “Too bad Freddy and Erics’ mothers didn’t practice their right to choose abortion. Then, they wouldn’t be here to slander the only good candidate that we have for president.”
I’ll let your hate pass and actually treat you like an adult. Where did I slander Ron Paul?
Just because you don’t like facts does not make the facts slander. Do you fail to see that?
Comment by jamie | August 30th, 2007
Let me get this straight freddy, you are going to vote on one issue? You will vote for a canidate that will fight an unconstitutional war just so women can have abortions? Then you have the nerve to point your finger at Ron Paul for not being a libertarian.
How about some important issues.
Stop our crazy foriegn policy.
Stop the Federal Reserve.
Abolish an illegal IRS.
As far as the above comments go, you are assuming that life dont begin until birth. That is as big of an assumption as life begins at conception. Where are your facts?
I feel the more important issues in the election are my rights not to be spied on by the govt., not having a NAU, not fighting wars that are not declared.
This whole abortion issue is created to divide voters based on “feelings” and redirect American focus from corruption that is the democrats and republicans.
Call Kevin all the names you want, I think he has better reasoning than you.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Jamie: “Let me get this straight freddy,” OK. Let’s see if you get my points straight at all. I’m thinking you may not.
Jamie: “you are going to vote on one issue?” No.
If you want to get this straight, my point is that Ron Paul’s hypocrisy in violating his libertarian principles by sucking up to Fundamentalist anti-choice anti-constitution forces shows he is a hypocrite and NOT some kind of Folk Hero that Tucker Carlson would like to make him.
Kevin’s lies about Obama show that Obama is far more of “folk hero” and far more intellectually consistent than Ron Paul.
“You will vote for a canidate that will fight an unconstitutional war just so women can have abortions?”
No. I will vote for a candidate who will BOTH end this unconstitutional war AND preserve existing Constitutional rights of women. I don’t have to choose one or the other. Why would you?
Jamie: “you are assuming that life dont begin until birth. That is as big of an assumption as life begins at conception.”
WRONG! I am saying that if you have no proof that a one-celled zygote is a fully human being with full rights, don’t take away Constitutional rights of women based on your whims about when life begins. Do you see the difference? If you don’t have proof you can’t arbitrarily use Federal power to take away our rights.
“I feel the more important issues in the election are my rights not to be spied on by the govt., not having a NAU, not fighting wars that are not declared.”
I’m with you on spying and the war. So are many of the Democratic candidates. And they have a chance of being elected. So you support them on that, right? And you see they are better than any Republican who can win, right?
Jamie: “This whole abortion issue is created to divide voters based on “feelings” and redirect American focus from corruption that is the democrats and republicans.”
Part right. Anti-choicers like Kevin have created this issue to divide Americans. The pro-choice majority did not go looking for this fight but we will not allow the destruction of Constitutional rights here any more than we will allow Bush’s destruction of our privacy rights in his Unconstitutional wiretapping program. Republicans are so horribly corrupt there is no viable choice than any of the Democratic candidates.
Jamie: “Call Kevin all the names you want,”
Thanks. I will. But only names he has earned. Since I have proved him ignorant of the things he shot off his mouth about, how does “ignorant” not apply to him?
jamie: “I think he has better reasoning than you.”
Yet you provide no proof. I think you can do better. After all, you are not ignorant like Kevin.
Comment by yeah right | August 30th, 2007
Freddy,You have tunnel vision how about if you want to gamble one can go to a state where its allowed Nevada or New Jersey or a Native America casino but if you go to new York city you get busted live where you are comfortable. States will in act law that the true majority want that a fact we have no right to impose our will on others just because we can person freedom that all Ron Paul defends I like it leave me alone and I will do the same if we can respect each other as humans we all win vote the man not the party
Comment by cowbot | August 30th, 2007
It is worth mentioning that the beginning of life in the sense of a human’s unique dna composition does occur within minutes after conception.
In other words, even an embryo is a unique human being from the genetic standpoint.
While I support abortion during early pregnancy, declaring the termination of a pregnancy a ‘right’ requires denying the fact that the unborn child is a unique human being (in development).
To paraphrase Dr. Paul (an Ob/Gyn fer chrissakes) ‘what makes a baby not-human one second before birth and human one second after birth?’
This issue, as most contentious social issues has good arguments put forth by both sides, as well as misrepresentations. In such cases social policy is best left to the states. And Dr. Ron Paul - exceptions notwithstanding - is the leading champion of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government in Washington, and he has been that for three decades.
None of these niggling points-of-distraction his detractors make can change this fact.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
yeah right says: “Freddy,You have tunnel vision”
How so?
Yeah right says: “how about if you want to gamble one can go to a state where its allowed Nevada or New Jersey or a Native America casino but if you go to new York city you get busted live where you are comfortable.”
So what? Do you have a point? What are you saying? That we all have a right to gamble in any state? That we should not have right to gamble in any state? I don’t think your point is very clear.
yeah right said “States will in act law that the true majority want that a fact we have no right to impose our will on others just because we can”
So why is Ron Paul imposing his will on women by denying their Constitutional right to an Abortion? How is that libertarian or constitutionalist?
yeah right said: “person freedom that all Ron Paul defends”
Not in action he doesn’t. I just proved to you that Ron Paul does not defend women’s Constitutional rights to safe access to the medical procedure of abortion. So how is that defending “person freedom”?
Yeah right said: “If you want abortions legal go to the Northern States if not go to a Southern States but get the issue out of the federal government control”
Wrong. The rights of southern women do not end at the Mason Dixon line.
Why should women be denied their Constitutional right to access to abortion just because they are born in the south?
If certain southern states will not allow them their rights, the Federal government has every right to step in and guarantee their rights. Or are you one of those who say the Federal government should not have guaranteed the Constitutional rights of blacks in the south?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Hi Cowbot. Good to hear a reasonable voice join the fray. A relief after the endless, incurable ignorance of the likes of Kevin.
Cowbot: “It is worth mentioning that the beginning of life in the sense of a human’s unique dna composition does occur within minutes after conception. In other words, even an embryo is a unique human being from the genetic standpoint.”
So what? Every one of your trillion cells ALSO has “a human’s unique dna composition.” So by your logic, every one of your trillions of cells is “a unique human being from the genetic standpoint.” Which makes you a mass murder for shaving or skinning your knee or just living.
Cowbot: “While I support abortion during early pregnancy, declaring the termination of a pregnancy a ‘right’ requires denying the fact that the unborn child is a unique human being (in development).”
So prove that a fetus is a human being.
Ans if you are certain that a fetus is a full human being, why do you support abortion during early pregnancy?
Cowbot: “To paraphrase Dr. Paul (an Ob/Gyn fer chrissakes) ‘what makes a baby not-human one second before birth and human one second after birth?’”
Ron Paul, like the rest of his anti-abortion ilk, is a liar.
That is not the argument of the pro-choice majority of this nation. Because the moment of personhood has never been proved by facts, we imperfect humans have derived an imperfect system. Abortion is legal when the fetus is clearly not the same as living, breathing human (early pregnancy) and becomes more controlled as pregnancy develops.
Fanatics and Fundamentalists cannot stand ambiguity, so they scream extremist slogans about murder. So Ron Paul cannot defend his hypocrisy, so he invents his opponents argument rather that actually listening to what most Americans believe.
Is that really the kind of president you want? One who lies about his opponents positions?
cowbot: “This issue, as most contentious social issues has good arguments put forth by both sides, as well as misrepresentations.”
Like the misrepresentation Ron Paul committed. Right?
cowbot: “In such cases social policy is best left to the states.”
Wrong. Civil rights was also a contentious social issue. But the Fundamentalist far right was WRONG then, right?
Leaving it to the states would have been WRONG then, right?
Same thing with women’s rights as with civil rights. When states try to take away Constitutional rights, it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED job of the federal government to stop the states and restore those rights. Right?
Comment by Kevin | August 31st, 2007
Jamie there is no reasoning against these people that are convinced that killing unborn human life is somehow a “right”. That is their only way to argue it. Declare it a right and then go nuts crying that not being able to do it is a violation of their imaginary “right”.
I am willing to admit I am not qualified to determine when “life begins. But neither is Freddy. He offers no evidence of when it ISN’T life, and therefore perfectly ok to snuff it out.
I accept that things such as the morning after pill that terminate the pregnancy early on when it is merely a cluster of cells, or even abortions at that stage might be acceptable.
BUT at some point that cluster of cells turns into a little human that has legs, arms and other recognizable body parts. How any reasonable human being cannot question ripping that little human into shreds possibly being VERY wrong is just beyond me. Take that position and you are automatically accused of being some right wing religious loon who wants to take away peoples “rights” and automatically vote for idiots like Bush and his corporate cronies.
Nope.
Not me.
I am a libertarian.
I vote libertairan.
I despise corporate corruption.
I am against undeclared wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
I think anyone of any sex should be able to marry anyone of either sex.
I don’t want the government pushing any religion.
Basically I support anyone’s right to do whatever they want as long as they are not infringing on others’ rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But nothing can convince me that a little person with eyes, legs and hands being ripped to shreds isn’t being deprived of his/her rights to the same things.
Is there a gray area? Sure. I don’t think any of us know exactly where that gray area between conception and actual life is. But the pro abortionists seem ignore the fact that they don’t know either.
But I do feel in my heart that the best approach is to play it safe and not simply declare it’s a woman’s right to kill the body that is growing inside her at any stage of it’s development when nothing is wrong with said little body inside her. Folks like Freddy are obviously consumed with the idea of the woman’s “rights” but never seem to consider the little guy/girl inside her and it’s rights.
If not feeling comfortable ripping viable perfectly developed fetuses to shreds for the simple reason that someone doesn’t want the responsibility of a child is the one area of my political beliefs that people have problems with, then so be it.
I’m done with commenting here. I noticed Freddy’s email address in one of his comments being at the made up domain of “kevinisabigfatliar” so that confirms my belief that I am dealing with an idiot here.
Also, I am only going to be called ignorant so many times in a place where the person calling me ignorant is totally safe from me stomping a mud hole in him.
Keep barking little dog. Someday you will make the mistake of doing it when the “fence” of the internet isn’t protecting you from who you are barking at.
Comment by KevinM | August 31st, 2007
Jamie there is no reasoning against these people that are convinced that killing unborn human life is somehow a “right”. That is their only way to argue it. Declare it a right and then go nuts crying that not being able to do it is a violation of their imaginary “right”.
I am willing to admit I am not qualified to determine when “life begins. But neither is Freddy. He offers no evidence of when it ISN’T life, and therefore perfectly ok to snuff it out.
I accept that things such as the morning after pill that terminate the pregnancy early on when it is merely a cluster of cells, or even abortions at that stage might be acceptable.
BUT at some point that cluster of cells turns into a little human that has legs, arms and other recognizable body parts. How any reasonable human being cannot question ripping that little human into shreds possibly being VERY wrong is just beyond me. Take that position and you are automatically accused of being some right wing religious loon who wants to take away peoples “rights” and automatically vote for idiots like Bush and his corporate cronies.
Nope.
Not me.
I am a libertarian.
I vote libertairan.
I despise corporate corruption.
I am against undeclared wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
I think anyone of any sex should be able to marry anyone of either sex.
I don’t want the government pushing any religion.
Basically I support anyone’s right to do whatever they want as long as they are not infringing on others’ rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But nothing can convince me that a little person with eyes, legs and hands being ripped to shreds isn’t being deprived of his/her rights to the same things.
Is there a gray area? Sure. I don’t think any of us know exactly where that gray area between conception and actual life is. But the pro abortionists seem ignore the fact that they don’t know either.
But I do feel in my heart that the best approach is to play it safe and not simply declare it’s a woman’s right to kill the body that is growing inside her at any stage of it’s development when nothing is wrong with said little body inside her. Folks like Freddy are obviously consumed with the idea of the woman’s “rights” but never seem to consider the little guy/girl inside her and it’s rights.
If not feeling comfortable ripping viable perfectly developed fetuses to shreds for the simple reason that someone doesn’t want the responsibility of a child is the one area of my political beliefs that people have problems with, then so be it.
I’m done with commenting here. I noticed Freddy’s email address in one of his comments being at the made up domain of “kevinisabigfatliar” so that confirms my belief that I am dealing with an idiot here.
Also, I am only going to be called ignorant so many times in a place where the person calling me ignorant is totally safe from me stomping a mud hole in him.
Keep barking little dog. Someday you will make the mistake of doing it when the “fence” of the internet isn’t protecting you from who you are barking at.
Comment by Russ | August 31st, 2007
i like how the newsmen keep mentioning that she is a former stripper, as if by saying that.. people will disregard what she says, based on her past.
reminds me of opposing political parties “digging up dirt on the other runners”. its a bunch of bull.. and if people are detered by the media they are a bunch of ignorants. unfortunately thats how much of this country operates, and after the election, most of them go back on their words, or dont do exactly what they said they would… all the people care about is the election, and the ideas… but hardly anybody does a thing seeing that the proposed political reforms happen.
Comment by Russ | August 31st, 2007
oh also.. in response to all you pro choice noobs.
regardless if its a “right to choose” or when the right time to choose is… the point is.. that if the abortion didn’t happen in the first place.. the fetus/embryo/whatever WILL develop into a full fledged human just like you and i .. and an abortion will allow that to never happen.
Comment by Freddy | August 31st, 2007
Russ chimes in with “regardless if its a “right to choose” or when the right time to choose is… the point is.. that if the abortion didn’t happen in the first place.. the fetus/embryo/whatever WILL develop into a full fledged human just like you and i .. and an abortion will allow that to never happen.”
So?
Even if true, so what?
Of course, like the rest of the talking points of the extremist anti-abortion minority, your “facts” are not exactly factual.
Russ said “the point is.. that if the abortion didn’t happen in the first place.. the fetus/embryo/whatever WILL develop into a full fledged human”
“WILL develop”? Wrong. Try “MIGHT develop”. 15%-20% of known pregnancies spontaneously abort just in the first 30 weeks. And far more spontaneously die before the woman even knows she’s pregnant– failure to implant, etc.
So you are flat wrong.
Further, since according to you they are all “full fledged humans,” we need to arrest all those women for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide. Right?
Comment by eaglescout | September 1st, 2007
“Candidate of Freedom? LOLZ! OK, strippers. Where will you get your abortions when Anti-Choice Ron Paul outlaws abortion? That’s right. Your beloved “freedom” candidate opposes abortion rights. What a joke. How do you libertarians justify that as freedom?”
[l]ibertarians are divided when it comes to abortion, but since he is leaving such a complex issue to the states - where it belongs - and not the federal government, even pro-choicers can feel comfortable voting for Ron Paul.
Comment by Nathan | September 1st, 2007
Freddy, it is amazing what you have done here. You first bash states rights by making up lies. For example, saying abortion is a “libertarian” principle. Not necessarily true. The abortion issue is TRICKY!
“Same thing with women’s rights as with civil rights. When states try to take away Constitutional rights, it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED job of the federal government to stop the states and restore those rights. Right?”
This sort of talk has racism in its undertone. Racism is an ugly form of collectivism. There is no such thing as “women’s rights” or even “civil rights.” It’s called HUMAN RIGHTS asshole. Women shouldn’t get special privileges. Nor should minorities. Everyone should be equal. But to say one gets special privileges under the law = equality totally bastardizes the term “equality.”
Also, WRONG! It is NOT the states job to restore rights. I will only concentrate on the bill of rights. The bill of rights DOES NOT under any circumstance, give the feds the right to stop state law if it is taking away human rights. But you have to note Freddy, the constitution didn’t GRANT us any rights at all. The constitution is NOT the source of our rights. Read the fuckin document. Where does the language suggest that we have these particular rights? I mean, the first amendment for god’s sakes. It says CONGRESS can not take away these rights. It is legal under the US constitution, for a state to give state dollars to a local church. This is because a state is SOVEREIGN! The federal government can not interfere with most(if not all) state affairs. The federal government is designed to work for you…not have the states WORK for the feds.
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Eaglescout shows his lack of reading skills by droning on with the same argument I have already debunked. But I’ll go through it again, to be kind.
Eaglescout: “[l]ibertarians are divided when it comes to abortion, but since he is leaving such a complex issue to the states - where it belongs - and not the federal government, even pro-choicers can feel comfortable voting for Ron Paul.”
WRONG! I have just PROVED to you with Ron Paul’s own voting record that Ron Paul IS NOT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES!
Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!
He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.
How is that “leaving it to the states?”
How come no Ron Paul fans can answer this simple question?
Pingback by Ron Paul’s Digg Fame » The Truth @ The Spin Factor | September 2nd, 2007
[…] 6. Hillary can’t compete with strippers 4 Ron Paul. […]
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Nathan says: “Freddy, it is amazing what you have done here.”
Thank you. Yes, it is amazing that even the most fanatical Ron Paul follower could think that Federal laws against abortion are the same thing as “leaving it to the states.”
Yes, it is amazing to get actual truth across to those whose libertarianism is faith-based rather than rational.
So thanks.
Nathan: “You first bash states rights
1) Wrong. Prove it. I never bashed states rights. There are some issues that are appropriate to states and some that are necessary for Federal action. When state governments violate the Constitution, the Federal government has an essential role in fixing it. Do you agree or disagree?
Nathan: “by making up lies. For example, saying abortion is a “libertarian” principle. Not necessarily true. The abortion issue is TRICKY!”"
2) Prove I lied. Your “Not necessarily true” is a pathetic waffle and undercuts your ugly and unfounded accusation that I lied. Where is your proof that I “lied”?
3) “Abortion is indeed a libertarian principle, even if some so-called libertarians wish it was not. Just like Bush and the so-called conservatives on Congress violated their supposed conservatism with budget-busting spending, some so-called libertarians violate true libertarian principles of freedom by trying to imposed state and federal restrictions on women.
Let’s check with the Cato Institute:
“B1. What is the libertarian position on abortion?
Most libertarians are strongly in favor of abortion rights (the Libertarian Party often shows up at pro-rights rallies with banners that say “We’re Pro-Choice on Everything!”). Many libertarians are personally opposed to abortion, but reject governmental meddling in a decision that should be private between a woman and her physician.”
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B1
How about the Libertarian Party on abortion?
“we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright
I said “Same thing with women’s rights as with civil rights. When states try to take away Constitutional rights, it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED job of the federal government to stop the states and restore those rights. Right?”
Nathan replied” This sort of talk has racism in its undertone.”
4) Prove it. What a cynical lie. So when whites and blacks worked together to end hateful state laws against minorities, that was racist? Prove it.
Nathan: “Racism is an ugly form of collectivism.”
5) What a joke. Where do you find any support for such drooling idiocy?
Nathan “There is no such thing as “women’s rights” or even “civil rights.”
6) Good thing Nathan is so much smarter than every encyclopedia in the universe. From wiki:
“…all constitutional protections are considered within the US as civil rights.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights
So Nathan doesn’t believe we have civil rights? Then Nathan does not believe we have constitutional protections. Right?
“Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to freedom of movement and the right of equal protection.”
So you don’t believe we have those civil rights? Or do you just believe that government has no role in making sure those civil rights are not trampled by the powerful?
Nathan: “It’s called HUMAN RIGHTS asshole. Women shouldn’t get special privileges. Nor should minorities.”
7) This is one of the biggest fallacies committed by the loony far-right. Women’s rights are NOT “special privileges.” Women’s rights is the term for making sure that the rights that MALES enjoy are not stolen from FEMALES. What’s so hard to comprehend about that?
Nathan: “Everyone should be equal.But to say one gets special privileges under the law = equality totally bastardizes the term “equality.”
9) Are you saying that women and minorities are treated “equally” by the powerful in this country? If not, would you do nothing about that?
Nathan: “Also, WRONG! It is NOT the states job to restore rights. I will only concentrate on the bill of rights. The bill of rights DOES NOT under any circumstance, give the feds the right to stop state law if it is taking away human rights.”
10) The Constitution DOES give the federal government power to stop state laws that violate the Constitution. It’s spelled out in Article 6. Did you read that part?
11) Nathan, are you ignorant like Kevin, or deceitful like Cheney? When you “concentrate only” on the Bill of Rights, you omit the main body of the Constitution. Did you commit an intentional attempt to deceive? Or are you ignorant? Either way, I await your apology.
Nathan: “But you have to note Freddy, the constitution didn’t GRANT us any rights at all. The constitution is NOT the source of our rights. Read the fuckin document. Where does the language suggest that we have these particular rights? I mean, the first amendment for god’s sakes. It says CONGRESS can not take away these rights. It is legal under the US constitution, for a state to give state dollars to a local church. This is because a state is SOVEREIGN! The federal government can not interfere with most(if not all) state affairs. The federal government is designed to work for you…not have the states WORK for the feds.”
12) Nathan, you fail reading comprehension 101. Go back and read the actual Constitution. Pay careful attention to Section 6, Clause 2 and 3:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
From Wiki:
Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be upheld. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution
If libertarians get this as wrong as you do, no wonder libertarianism can’t catch on outside of a few cranky get-off-of-my-property types.
Comment by Janie | September 2nd, 2007
Freddie:
Do you have “scientific proof” of when life starts?
You are a hypocrite!
Comment by eaglescout | September 2nd, 2007
“Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!”
The absence of a federal law that permits abortions isn’t the same as outlawing abortions.
Comment by Nathan | September 2nd, 2007
“He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.”
Wow, a constitutional right?! Holy fuck! I would LOVE to see where it says in the constitution that women have a right to a safe medical intact D & E abortion. Can you cite it?
About the sanctity of life act…it would JUST tell the feds that they believe that life is started at conception. THAT IS FUCKIN IT! Nothing more. The rest of the stuff is believing that will be the CONCLUSION of states under this idea. Of course, states can just easily ignore these federal laws.
What bothers me the most Freddy, is that you believe that women have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to an abortion. GIVE US PROOF IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IT IS THERE! Where is the language that the bill of rights PROTECTS abortion.
Comment by Nathan | September 2nd, 2007
“He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.”
How is this leaving it to the states? First off, you didn’t read the law itself. All it would do is the feds would all agree that life begins at conception. For any abortion law to work, we need to have a consistent view of when life begins. According to you, life begins once the baby pops its head out. You need scientific proof of that too. You are using the old “if the other guy has no proof..then my side is AUTOMATICALLY correct. All facts need reason to back it up. Explain why a baby at 7 months(which all it is doing now…is growing). I would say a baby at the third-trimester…is human life. The baby is practically just growing during the last 3 months within the womb. It is a complete human being. But to say in your extreme view Freddy(that life begins outside the womb) is saying a second before the baby gets out of the womb, it is killable without punishment, then afterwards, it has punishment is very inconsistent.
Comment by Nathan | September 2nd, 2007
Freddy, your ideals would lead to something like this:
Let us say the woman is in labor. The OBGYN doctor is working on her but all of a sudden, the drugs that he orders to give her aren’t the right ones. The baby dies because of this while she is in labor. The doctor goes to court and claims that this was an “accidental abortion” and that he did not kill anything. The woman can not charge the doctor with murder of her child…since the child was never alive. So are you saying women would agree that if this situation occured, her “child” that was ready to come out wasn’t “alive?”
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Janie says:
“Freddie:Do you have “scientific proof” of when life starts?
You are a hypocrite!”
Nice job putting the cart before the horse, Janie. Are you a libertarian? If so, all you are proving here is that libertarians are desperate to use federal power to take away our rights. I’ll explain it again. I’ll type more slowly, in hopes that this time you can follow along.
A woman is indisputably a living human with full protection under the Constitution. Agreed?
So before you libertarians can use the power of the Federal government to take away any of her rights, you libertarians must have complete and overwhelming proof that such a massively unconstitutional violation is not only required but is the the only possible solution. And even that might not be enough.
Without absolute and complete proof of your contention “life begins at conception,” you’ve got no argument, and the rights of U.S. women remain inviolate.
Which is just as the rational, constitutionally-treasuring majority of Americans agree should be the case.
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Eaglescout continues to FAIL to answer any of the tough questions that poke holes in his fallacious argument. What are you scared of, Eaglescout?
Instead, all Eaglescout can manage is this:
“The absence of a federal law that permits abortions isn’t the same as outlawing abortions.”
Well, duh.
Do you have a point, Eaglescout?
Planning on making that point anytime soon?
Meanwhile, I’ll repost what Eaglescout is afraid to answer:
Eaglescout shows his lack of reading skills by droning on with the same argument I have already debunked. But I’ll go through it again, to be kind.
Eaglescout: “[l]ibertarians are divided when it comes to abortion, but since he is leaving such a complex issue to the states - where it belongs - and not the federal government, even pro-choicers can feel comfortable voting for Ron Paul.”
WRONG! I have just PROVED to you with Ron Paul’s own voting record that Ron Paul IS NOT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES!
Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!
He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.
How is that “leaving it to the states?”
How come no Ron Paul fans can answer this simple question?
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Hey Nathan.
More questions from you? I’ll be glad to patiently continue explaining to Constitution to alleged libertarians who seem unable to read it for themselves.
But I’ll also point out how you have squirmed out of answering just about every question I have put to you.
What’s it going to be, Nathan? Will you man up and actually answer? Or will you flee from direct questions like Bush fled from service in Vietnam?
The questions are all back there. Or do you need hand-holding like little Eaglescout and need them re-pasted here?
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Nathan continues to hide from answering direct questions by asking more questions.
Nathan: “Wow, a constitutional right?! Holy fuck! I would LOVE to see where it says in the constitution that women have a right to a safe medical intact D & E abortion. Can you cite it?”
13) Are you playing semantics, Nathan? You are asking for those exact words in the Constitution? And if those exact words are not there, would you say there is no such protection under the Constitution? Are you sure you understand how the Constitution works?
14) The burden of proof is on the pro-liberty people like me, but the anti-liberty people like you who would use the government to take away essential rights. Read the Ninth Amendment and weep:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Are you unaware of the fact that we have many rights that are not numerated in the Constitution?
15) Since you are the proponent of intrusive big-government intervention into US citizen’s private lives, it is YOUR BURDEN to show how ANY restriction of a woman’s control of her body and life is any of your business or falls within the Federal government’s power.
16) Also, I will remind you that the US libertarian party certainly agrees that the government should NOT be legislating against abortion, “leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Cato agrees. So why is the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute wrong about abortion rights?
Nathan “About the sanctity of life act…it would JUST tell the feds that they believe that life is started at conception. THAT IS FUCKIN IT! Nothing more.”
17) Uh… and that would make it Constitutional?
18) So if we just “told the feds” that “they believe people who post online under the name Nathan have no right to make their own reproductive decisions and attempts” is that all it takes? Nothing more? There is no need for a little thing like a test of Constitutionality? The feds can begin policing your reproduction decisions and all attempts thereof?
Nathan: “The rest of the stuff is believing that will be the CONCLUSION of states under this idea. Of course, states can just easily ignore these federal laws.”
19) Chuckle. Guffaw. Chortle. OK, let’s try to pretend you might actually believe that. Did you read anything I posted about how all state legislators are bound by the Constitution? The states are not free to violate the Constitution any more than the Federal Govt.
You could check it out. It’s in this thing called… The US Constitution. Have you heard of it?
Comment by Freddy | September 3rd, 2007
Nathan desperately tries to pretend that Ron Paul passing Federal laws about abortion is somehow “leaving it up to the states.” Let’s see how he does with this impossible task:
Nathan: “How is this leaving it to the states? First off, you didn’t read the law itself.”
20) Liar. Prove I didn’t read the law. Don’t you ever get tired of being embarrassed when your baseless accusation are exposed?
Nathan “All it would do is the feds would all agree that life begins at conception.”
21) Again, that’s NOT “all it would take.” There’s still this unpleasant document called the Constitution that would have to be considered. If the “feds agreement” were found to violate the Constitution, the law falls. You libertarians should look into this this thing called the Constitution. It’s very cool. Have you heard of it? It’s the thing that says passing a law is NOT “all it takes.”
Nathan: “For any abortion law to work, we need to have a consistent view of when life begins.”
22) Prove it. We’re waiting. Still waiting…
Nathan: “According to you, life begins once the baby pops its head out.”
23) Prove I said that.
Nathan “You need scientific proof of that too. You are using the old “if the other guy has no proof..then my side is AUTOMATICALLY correct.”
24) The “old”… Yeah, it’s as old as the Constitution. If you have no proof that there is an overwhelming need for the Federal government to violate a living human’s rights, the Federal government does not get to violate a living human’s rights. Were you not aware of that? It’s in this thing called the Constitution. As a so-called libertarian, you might want to get familiar with it.
Nathan: “All facts need reason to back it up. Explain why a baby at 7 months(which all it is doing now…is growing). I would say a baby at the third-trimester…is human life. The baby is practically just growing during the last 3 months within the womb. It is a complete human being. But to say in your extreme view Freddy(that life begins outside the womb) is saying a second before the baby gets out of the womb, it is killable without punishment, then afterwards, it has punishment is very inconsistent.”
25) Nathan has found a way to finally win an argument. He will make up his opponent’s argument. Nice try. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
And then get busy answering all these question that you have been hiding from.
Meanwhile, Tucker’s so-called “folk hero” Ron Paul is a hypocrite who pretends to be libertarian but has already voted to use the federal government to take away the self-determination rights of living humans. He does NOT “leave it to the states” or even “leave it to the individual.”
Ron Paul is just pandering for religious right votes as shamelessly as any other Republican. Except the other Republicans don’t try to pretend they are libertarians.
Poor Strippers for Ron Paul (is this really a group of more than one?) Where will they get their abortions once Ron Paul is in power?
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
“Are you playing semantics, Nathan? You are asking for those exact words in the Constitution? And if those exact words are not there, would you say there is no such protection under the Constitution? Are you sure you understand how the Constitution works?”
No, I am not saying that, but I doubt even the 9th amendment would include abortion. But the bill of rights doesn’t give the government the right to create laws. But it is true states have MORE POWER than the federal government. In reality, if a state wanted to, they could outlaw abortion and JUSTIFY it under the 10th amendment. The states have the right to do this, and the feds couldn’t do shit about it.
““The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Are you unaware of the fact that we have many rights that are not numerated in the Constitution?”
I doubt you could argue that abortion could be protected under the 9th amendment. You first have to argue having an abortion is a RIGHT! That it is a “natural right” that is derived from nature(which is what the first amendment rights are). You must first prove this.
“Chuckle. Guffaw. Chortle. OK, let’s try to pretend you might actually believe that. Did you read anything I posted about how all state legislators are bound by the Constitution? The states are not free to violate the Constitution any more than the Federal Govt.”
You are stupid. You don’t know the 10th amendment…do you? Or even the “principles of 98.” State legislators are NOT bound by the constitution. If the state feels that a federal law to them is unconstitutional, they have the right to override it and not follow it within their state.
About his bill Freddy, care to fuckin read the bill?
“Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.”
Hmm…it seems to also take the federal government out of abortion issue altogether. Hmm..under a republican congress, I wonder why this didn’t pass(I mean, this was in 2005). Probably because of this measure.
Also, from the text of the sanctity of life act 2005:
a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Hmm…according to the act, human life would be considered at conception ONLY WHEN scientific evidence is found. God, Freddy, read the fuckin bill!
“http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776″
” `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.”
Read this part too. I see it “very libertarian to me.” It seems to take out the federal courts on issues concerning abortion. How is this similar to banning abortion? The feds have no say in it.
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
“Nathan “You need scientific proof of that too. You are using the old “if the other guy has no proof..then my side is AUTOMATICALLY correct.””
Um…no? You basically said a woman has the right to an abortion of any kind. But there is the argument of where life begins. This is why states themselves should decide. But you are against this too. Because certain states MAY allow it, while others won’t. This to you, is wrong. I believe this because you also refer to civil rights..in which certain states did not grant it, while others did.
“WRONG! I have just PROVED to you with Ron Paul’s own voting record that Ron Paul IS NOT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES!”
No, you haven’t..since you haven’t read the bill. God, I hate those websites that say “ron paul voted yes to ban stem cell research.” Um…blocking federal funding for stem cell research is NOT the same as saying you are against stem cell research.
You still have to prove Freddy, that abortion is a right given from “nature.” Or as ron paul puts these rights…from our “creator.”
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
“Meanwhile, Tucker’s so-called “folk hero” Ron Paul is a hypocrite who pretends to be libertarian but has already voted to use the federal government to take away the self-determination rights of living humans. He does NOT “leave it to the states” or even “leave it to the individual.””
Under what, that life act of 2005? One, it got rejected. Two, I don’t understand how it happened to GET rejected….since it was in 2005, when republicans controlled the house and senate. How did it NOT get passed? Hmm…..read the bill to find out.
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
Also Freddy, Dr. Paul was not the only one who introduced the bill. There was Barrett of New Jersey, as well as Bartlett of Maryland. There was certain part that Paul agreed with(like the federal courts having no say on the abortion matter) and probably something he disagreed with(courts defining life). But this bill contradicts itself. The CONGRESS realizes that Life begins at conception…SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE COURTS! But the federal courts can’t rule on abortion cases either with this law. So how is this federal ruling on abortion?
Comment by Freddy | September 4th, 2007
So far Nathan has been UNABLE to explain how Ron Paul’s use of the Federal government power to prohibit abortion is “leaving it to the states.”
So far Nathan is hiding from virtually all of my direct questions to him about this and other Ron Paul hypocrisy, like how using the federal government to invade reproductive decisions can be libertarian. Is evasion a libertarian ideal?
So far Nathan is afraid to address why the two main libertarian sources in the US- the US libertarian party and the libertarian Cato Institute BOTH agree that the government should stay out of policing abortion.
What does Nathan have to say? More stuff he makes up without any verification. Like this:
Nathan: “I doubt even the 9th amendment would include abortion.”
Ha ha ha ha ha!
26) Prove it.
27) The 9th Amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Where does that exclude abortion rights?
28) Do you just make up facts? Why would the 9th NOT include reproductive rights?
Nathan “But the bill of rights doesn’t give the government the right to create laws.”
29) Are you so ignorant that you don’t know which part of the Constitution conveys the law making powers of the Federal government has the power to create laws? (Hint: look at Article 1)
30) If you don’t know that, do you think you could pass the US citizenship test?
31) Are libertarians allowed to be so unclear about something as basic as Article 1 of the US Constitution?
Nathan: “. But it is true states have MORE POWER than the federal government. In reality, if a state wanted to, they could outlaw abortion and JUSTIFY it under the 10th amendment. The states have the right to do this, and the feds couldn’t do shit about it.”
32) How could you be ignorant of the fact that the US Constitution states that The Laws of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the land? Only idiots don’t know that when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law preempts the state law. How is it you don’t know?
33)
Nathan: “But it is true states have MORE POWER than the federal government. In reality, if a state wanted to, they could outlaw abortion and JUSTIFY it under the 10th amendment. The states have the right to do this, and the feds couldn’t do shit about it.”
34) Wow. You really are shockingly ignorant. Go read Article VI, section 2, and see what the facts really are. Constitutional Federal law is supreme over state law. Are all Ron Paul voters this deluded?
Nathan: “I doubt you could argue that abortion could be protected under the 9th amendment.”
35) Nathan is wrong again. I can argue that abortion rights, like all other rights not enumerated in the Constitution, are still fully protected under the 9th Amendment, along with all other reproductive rights. The burden is on big-government libertarians (snicker) like you to explain why they would not be. So far, you fail.
Nathan “You first have to argue having an abortion is a RIGHT! That it is a “natural right” that is derived from nature(which is what the first amendment rights are). You must first prove this.”
36) Why? Why would abortion rights have to prove their “natural rights” when all other rights under the 9th do not have to? Where in the Constitution does it say such a double standard exists only for abortion rights and no other rights?
Nathan “You are stupid. You don’t know the 10th amendment…do you? Or even the “principles of 98.” State legislators are NOT bound by the constitution.”
37) Nathan, you have just lied. Or are you just ignorant? Too bad for you that the Constitution says otherwise:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
Article Six of the United States Constitution
Nathan, I have proved you WRONG! State legislators ARE bound by the constitution. Admit your error or forever hang your head in shame.
I’ll be glad to finish shooting down your other arguments in favor of Ron Paul’s anti-libertarian hypocrisy after you deal with YOUR COLOSSAL ERROR.
Comment by Freddy | September 6th, 2007
Nathan was WRONG on just about everything he said about the Constitution. Are all libertarians that ignorant of the actual facts?
Now that Nathan has been proved to be ignorant beyond a shadow of a doubt, he has fled like a little coward.
The facts: Ron Paul is a hypocrite who claims to be a libertarian who support our rights. But he opposes reproductive freedom and uses big government interference in our lives to restrict our rights.
I say it again, stripper-lady. Where will you and your other Strippers for Ron Paul go to get your abortions when President Paul outlaws abortion?
There are lots of Democrats that will end the Iraq war AND defend our privacy rights. So Ron Paul is NOT a folk hero.
Barak Obama is the real folk hero of this election. And he’s not a hypocrite like Ron Paul and all Republicans in the race.
Comment by Freddy | September 7th, 2007
No word from Nathan? Guess Nathan opted to forever hang his head in shame for being so clueless about the Constitution.
Nathan could never justify how Ron Paul could use big-government intervention against citizen’s privacy rights to make our own decisions about abortion.
Ron Paul is NOT the folk hero of the election, despite Turcker Carlson’s fevered fantasies. Ron Paul is the candidate of big-government intervention, not Hillary Clinton.
No, Hillary Clinton will end the war, like Ron Paul has promised, but HILLARY WILL ALSO PRESERVE OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS!
And Barak Obama is far more a “folk hero” than Ron Paul could ever be.
Comment by Freddy | September 9th, 2007
Huge failure by Nathan and other libertarians to justify Ron Paul’s BIG-GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN OUR LIVES!
Ron Paul is every bit as much a hypocrite as any other politician. He’ll suck up the fanatical religious right for votes and betray libertarian principles by ramming through anti-abortion laws in Congress.
Funny how Tucker Carlson does not have the courage to ask tough questions to the stripper or to Ron Paul.
Or is Tucker Carlson as ignorant of libertarianism as Nathan and Kevin and Oak.
How can people who call themselves libertarians be so ignorant of the Constitution?
Comment by Mick Russom | September 12th, 2007
Ron Paul is the only hope for America. Every other candidate will seal the casket on this country. This republic will die without him.
RON PAUL:
This may be the only revolution that doesnt require a Gun.
Washington needs a doctor not a politician.
Legalize the constitution, vote Ron Paul.
Vote against the authoritarian totalitarian regimes of the Democrats and Republicans. This is AMERICAAAAA, kick those criminal beltway thugs down the well.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Comment by Freddy | September 17th, 2007
Congratulations, Mick Russom, on committing SPAM! Your crap post completely misses the point.
Mick Russom FAILS to address a single poing.
Mick is so worshipful of Ron Paul that his ability to read at a third grade level has failed him.
Mick Russom, what part of “Ron Paul voted for big government intervention in our private lives” can you not read?
Mick Russom, you fail Poli Sci 101, Forum posting 101, and third grade reading.
Again, after the so-called libertarian Ron Paul outlaws abortion rights, where will Strippers for Ron Paul go to get their abortions?
And there have been plenty of revolutions that don’t require guns. Like the revolution that created public schools. Though clearly those public schools could not teach Mick Russom to actually learn to read before opening his yap.
Comment by Freddy | September 24th, 2007
Cowardly supporters of Ron Paul ran away when the facts arrived.
Proved: Ron Paul has ALREADY used big government to restrict our Constitutional rights, and is creating more rights-destroying bills.
Sorry, but Ron Paul is no libertarian. Any Democrat will end the war as Ron Paul promised, but the Democrats will also defend our Constitutional rights.
Comment by Robert Eckerson | October 3rd, 2007
Ron Paul does not approach abortion from a biblical perspective, but rather as an obstetrician. He points out that as a doctor he has a legal and ethical obligation to protect the life of the fetus.
I myself am pro-choice and believe in open borders but I’m not supporting Ron Paul on the basis on any one specific issue. It goes much much deeper than that.
Pingback by Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] « Us Elections | October 4th, 2007
[…] read more | digg story […]
Comment by Thomas E. Doyle | October 11th, 2007
As a Christian, an American, a patriot and conservative, I will vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because he is the only one who seeks peace (a Biblical stance) No other candidate wants peace. They all seek to go fight (with our kids, not their own) Every president should be the first to actually go to the war zone and fight since he is commander. Maybe then he would decide we should live peacefully. Count the cost of Iraq. 30,000 injured, 4000 dead. From a who won perspective, we have lost miserably. Bring all of our kids home- from every country and begin to take care of America.
Comment by Joe Michaels | October 14th, 2007
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on the abortion issue , but since I agree with him on just about EVERYTHING ELSE, I’ll vote for him. Not one of the candidates that I’ve voted for since I turned 18 has been with me on ALL the issues. The Democrats and Repubs are only differ on one thing :HOW MUCH of WHO’S wealth should go to WHICH people? Ron Paul represents a total break from that mentality, and that total break is MANATORY if we are to move forward as a nation.
Comment by Joe Michaels | October 14th, 2007
Whoops, I meant MANDATORY, not MANATORY!! My bad.
Pingback by Digg Loves Ron Paul - Karma Rogue | October 14th, 2007
[…] Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] […]