Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, more conservative hyperbole. If that's all you can resort to when presented with some common sense like people should advance based on their own merits not whats been given for them, or being held down by being in a lower socioeconomic class, then you have shown how weak your arguing points really are.
Your mother should have told you that, in this country, you can be anybody you want to be - do anything you want to do, with your life. It's up to you.
If you are dependent upon the government to take from others to provide for your welfare - you suck. That is not kindness, it is pity, so you are in essence pitiful, and calling yourself helpless. Not a winning philosophy. If you are a loser, you have only yourself to blame.
For a libertarian who claims to defend individual liberty and freedom, he sure likes to butt into people's private lives a lot, doesn't he?
Maybe he has spent too much time in Texas or in the south where people are accustomed to sticking their noses into other people's business. Maybe I have lived in the Southwest for too long where we don't appreciate meddling by anybody.
you made that up. Show proof he likes to butt into peoples lives.
Ask liberals who they like more, Barack Obama or Ted Kennedy and I bet most of them will say Barack Obama. Especially the young, Black, and Hispanic liberals.
There is no way the majority of the liberal youth and the Nonwhite vote would choose Ron Paul over Barack Obama. An old White guy like Ron Paul has zero appeal to most of them. While Obama is young, Black and listens to hip hop. They can relate to that.
Maybe you disagree and that's fine by me. However, to me, he's sticking his nose in people's private lives on account of his religious views.
The top of one bill says "To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts" that right there tells you the opposite of what you claimed.
the title you specifically refer to-----Family Protection Act - States as the purpose of this Act the abolition of Federal governmental policieswhich interfere with the freedom of the American family.
that does the opposite of what you claim also
Can you show me specifically a part that does and why you think that? Where do you think that is imposing into private individuals lives?
In a nut shell he is getting the federal government OUT of peoples lives. That's why I do not understand why you made the statement you did. Also he is excellent in keeping his religion to his private life and not use it for government EXCEPT to allow for freedom and liberties that should be accorded ALL religions. That is a pillar of liberty.
How else is society going to grow? It's not going to grow by government. Government is not moral. They've shown that time and time again.
Ron Paul will be on Chris Wallace this afternoon. In fact the first one is running now: again at 5pm and I think at 2am. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about several things. I think we can all learn something, supporters or otherwise..
Wrong
Wrong WRONG. Ron Paul is FOR LIBERTY which means you can have whatever lifestyle, religion, marriage, and say anything controversial you want as long as it doesn't harm others! He is FOR extricating ourselves from involvement with other countries and FOR minding our own business.
You are RIGHT about his withdrawing federal funding from businesses but not for the reasons you say. Why should taxpayers be FORCED to help HUGE corporations????? Taxpayers shouldn't be involved in helping business at all. Let the business take the risk.
I'm interested as to what you think are lies. Every one of these links is a vote Paul made, a bill Paul introduced or sponsored, an article Paul wrote, or something he said in a video on YouTube. I'll admit some of these are older and his views may have changed since 2000, but these are all things Paul has publicly stated or advocated.
So you agree with Paul that the Panama Canal should be US property?
Any bill that advocates the Federal Government forcing a certain social value down someone's throat Ron Paul is going to vote against -- whether he is personally in favor of or against the bill. His entire approach is a HANDS OFF approach which is what it should be. The federal government should not be involved in 99% of the things it is now. He advocates, as per the Constitution, leaving those issues up to the states to decide.
Ron Paul supporters are dreaming. Paul doesnt give the corporations and industries a reason to support him and donate to his campaign. Without this support, he can not gain enough financial support to run a serious campaign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron Paul supporters: watch him on Chirs Wallace.
