ron paul

[MeCajunboy]

He should win but won't. This country wants Clinton.

What's wrong with Clinton?

A better question would be what's right with her?

She has a great platform on Stem Cell Research, she supports a women's right to choose BUT puts emphisis on rare occation abortions. She has a great plan to make adoption more affordable and an easier option for women. She supports teen abstainence and family planning.

She supports paying down national debt and cutting taxes within a balanced budget. She supports civil rights of homosexual partnerships, such as domestic partnership benefits. She supports tax cuts for student aid. She addresses the teacher shortage and supports salary increases for teachers.

She supports ending this ridiculous war in Iraq. She supports cutting fund for Iraqi use, but not for troops. Supports helping Israel in finding and securing peace.

Aside from her openess on abortion, i ask again, what's wrong with Clinton?

Now Ron Paul.....

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide.

Im not trying to lobby for Clinton. It seems to me you made that statement without really knowing her stance on certain issues, or even most issues. I've seen way too many christians oppose Clinton because she's a democrat, because she's married to Bill Clinton, and because she's a woman. The decision for president of our country is too important to be left up to political affiliation. Don't vote Republican JUST because you're a republican. Vote Republican because you believe in a Republican Canidate's stance on issues. Know them inside and out. Know your opposition, know how the Democrats vote. Know what their stances are. Make an informed decision.

Stance and action are totally different. It's going to take a stronger leader than "her" to get this country back on track. It's going to take someone whio is .........possibly.........being led by God! She is not!

[kat8585]

It's going to take someone whio is .........possibly.........being led by God! She is not!

Obviously.

[undone]

Ron Paul

I saw a little bitty sign on the side of the road today that simply said, "Ron Paul for President". I had no idea who the guy was and thought it would be amazing if this guy won the presidency with a campaign comprised of a bunch a little signs posted all over the country.

[kat8585]

Stance and action are totally different. It's going to take a stronger leader than "her" to get this country back on track. It's going to take someone whio is .........possibly.........being led by God! She is not!

How do you know? Did you talk to her? Did she tell you she doesn't believe she's being led by God? Or do you assume that based on her stances on things. Or even worse based on the fact she's a Democrat, and there's no such thing as a Christain Democrat.

How awful to just assume that about someone. So anyone you disagree with is not being led by God, right? Because if they were, then your morals and views would line up. Sick.

You know them by their fruits. Her fruits don't line up with Scripture. She's for killing babies on demand, all the way thru the 9th month, and even partial birth abortion. That's a biggie, but by no means is it all. She's for illegal immigration, gay marriage, lies thru her teeth, and that's for starters.

[kat8585]

What has she lied about? And actually, she does not support partial birth abortion. She supports a women's right to choose, but doesn't support abortion. Two totally separate things. She also supports illegal immegrants right to citizenship. Which doesn't mean she supports illegal immegrants. She actually has a very similar platform on border control that the current administration does.

What about Bush, who has said countless times that he is a Christian. Is it right to lie to America to fund a war purely for oil? ,

Even ron paul. Going back to just the examples i gave, he voted no on banning physician assisted suicide. Seriously? How is that godly?

She's like her husband, if her lips are moving, she's lying. If she supports "a woman's right to choose", she supports abortion. It's supporting a woman's right to kill her baby. They are not two different things. She wants to give drivers licenses to criminals. She voted for amnesty.

As for Bush and the war, she voted for the war, and was all for it, as were many other Dems. Now they are singing a different tune, trying to look like they were against it all along. That's one lie.

I've never said I support Ron Paul. His vote on assisted suicide was wrong. How did Hillary vote on it?

[kat8585]

I think you mean driver's licenses to immegrants... right?

No, I meant illegal immigrants.

I think its a HUGE generalization to say she's like her husband, who, by the way, was a much better president than Bush turned out to be.

Supporting a women's right to choose and supporting abortion are different, politically.

Politically, maybe, but not morally.

Maybe not to the Christian audience but politically, there is a huge difference between the two. And yes, many Democrats did vote for the war, but voted for the war based on the information given, which turned out to be a lie.

Not a lie. Bad info, maybe. But Bush got the same info on it that Congress did.

Of course they would change their minds now, wouldn't you?

They aren't saying they are changing their minds. They are trying to make out like they were against it all along. And that Bush lied, which is itself a lie, and they know it.

And they've each admitted to voting Yes on the war in the beginning, but because of how poorly it has been handled, they're voting no.

Hillary voted Yes on banning assisted suicide. The only reason i pick on Ron Paul is that's the topic of this thread, the origional one anyway. I could pick on others if you like.

[ted]

Thoughtful:

How do you know? Did you talk to her? Did she tell you she doesn't believe she's being led by God?

Thoughtful:

What about Bush, who has said countless times that he is a Christian. Is it right to lie to America to fund a war purely for oil?

How do you know he lied? How do you know he started a war "purely for oil"?

Have you talked with him about it? Did he tell you these things? Personally, I can't remember seeing any quote from him in the news about these things...

t.

[other one]

Now Ron Paul.....

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide.

Thoughtful, Ron voted no on these issues because the Constitution does not give the Senate or the House of Representitives the authority to do these things. If the constitution does not give the authourity to do so, he votes no (just as should every other member of either of the houses).

He will also vote no when it comes to banning abortion, for that should be the authority of each state to make that decision and not the Federal Government (per the Constitution of the United States of America).

Ron would limit the powers of the Federal Government to what our Constitution gives them..... the rest are the responsibility of each State and their people.

Sam

[kat8585]

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.

Other one did an excellent job in his response.

But why should we pay for grants or subsidies? Are they in the constitution? Why should we pay farmers to let crops rot in the fields?

In my former line of work (printing industry), there are good times and bad times. No one gave me a subsidy in the bad times (tho I'm surprised liberals haven't come up with this), nor would I expect one.

[ted]

Thoughtful:

How do you know? Did you talk to her? Did she tell you she doesn't believe she's being led by God?

Thoughtful:

What about Bush, who has said countless times that he is a Christian. Is it right to lie to America to fund a war purely for oil?

How do you know he lied? How do you know he started a war "purely for oil"?

Have you talked with him about it? Did he tell you these things? Personally, I can't remember seeing any quote from him in the news about these things...

t.

Alright t, i understand.

Interesting though, that the quarterly reports from Halliburton show a rise in profit since the war started, and has shown a rise in profit during.

It'll also be interesting to see how Halliburton's stock performs when we pull out of Iraq.

I know he lied about the reasoning behind the war because of the fact that he was told there were no WMD's, and he also knew Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11. They released government reports proving this. Yet we charged right into Iraq to stop Saddam and his regim of terror, and take away his WMD's. But then we didn't find any. Yet we kept on fighting. Then we toppled Saddam, and we kept on fighting. Then we get two reports of where Osama might be, yet we didn't move on it, instead, we focused on setting up a Democracy in a country not built for Democracy.

I shouldn't have made the claim that he started the war purely for oil. I will never know for sure.

Just picking a little. I apologize for that, but it helped to show that we have to be careful when we make absolute claims without the entire knowledge of these events.

Interesting though, that the quarterly reports from Halliburton show a rise in profit since the war started, and has shown a rise in profit during.

It'll also be interesting to see how Halliburton's stock performs when we pull out of Iraq.

You bring up a great point here, and it looks even more suspicious when we understand that Dick Cheney was once a part owner in Haliburton. He gave his position with the company up when he was chosen to run as Vice President with Bush, and I think he sold all of his stock, too.

But, was Haliburton picked simply because he had an interest in them? Well, possibly, but there is another reason, as well: No other comapny in the world could have provided the support we needed at the time of the invasion. KB&R (Kellogg, Brown & Root), which is owned by Haliburton, was chosen, for the most part, because no other single company in the world at the time was able to immediately take on such a role as they did when the war started. Everything from food service, to tent maintenance, to lighting, electrical, and generator service, to structure building was provided by them. There was no other comapny out there that could even come close to providing all of those services back then, and I'm not sure there is one out there today that could do it.

Yes, there are several thousand that could provide those services seperately, but to bring all of them together and co-ordinate their services on such short notice would have been logistically impossible. There is simply no way anyone else could have provided all of those services like they did.

That's the biggest reason why they were chosen to provide them, and were able to be hired without the normal bidding process that comapnies go through when attempting to get Government contracts.

On top of all of that, there were and still are several other companies out there who provide services overseas with the military. Lockheed Martin, Vertex (the old Raytheon, and now L3), DS2 (the old DynCorp) and several others provide maintenance and aerospace services. AT&T was chosen to provide phone services over their competitors as well, because they were able to move there faster than anyone else and do it cheaper. Of course, once there, they jacked the prices of their rates way up...but still....

Some of these contracts were born out of necessity, but people take them as dirty contracts simply because they don't know what they are talking about and assume the worst.

Now that things are a bit more stable, you will find that other companies are able to get in on the normal bidding process, and are making their way over there. Indeed, many companies do not wish to be considered and have taken themselves out of the bidding process.

I know he lied about the reasoning behind the war because of the fact that he was told there were no WMD's, and he also knew Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11. They released government reports proving this. Yet we charged right into Iraq to stop Saddam and his regim of terror, and take away his WMD's. But then we didn't find any. Yet we kept on fighting. Then we toppled Saddam, and we kept on fighting.

Bush was also told that they were there. Congress agreed with those same assessments, as did the UN at the time. They all had the same intelligence reports as Bush did. If they say they didn't then they are flat out lying to your face. They can hem and haw all they want, but they had access to the same reports that Bush did, and they all made pretty much the same exact speeches leading up to the war.

There were conflicting reports concerning just what was there, and to what degree a safety and security risk that these weapons may have posed. To heave all of the responsibility on the shoulders of Bush is dishonest, as they were all saying the same thing up until the last few weeks before the invasion. I have a theory of why many of them suddenly switched gears toward the end, but that's not for this tread.

Personally, I think he made the right decision at the time. The UN Inspectors for years were denied access to the places they wanted to inspect, only to be let in days or weeks later to find that the buildings were now completely emptied, much to their dismay. They even left a few times out of frustration with Saddam's behavior as it applied to his honoring the surrender agreements he signed after the first Gulf War.

Saddam was the one who played the cat and mouse games and kept everyone wondering just what he might have had. The blame for this rests squarely on his shoulders, in my opinion.

The issue of Saddam having much to do with 9/11 never really entered into the decision to go into Iraq. We knew that he didn't have anything to do with it. The only connection Bush tried to make was that Saddam was sympathetic to the terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11. and was concerned that he would help further oprations that may be carried out via funding and external support for them. Saddam was no dummy, and did not have a relationship with Al-Qaida. He would not have allowed them access to his country because he kept strict control over his enviroment. He was a dictator who did not want their brand of terrorism within his borders. But, he did like the results they brought against us, and was willing to help them out. In that way, we thought he would pse a great risk to us.

Then we get two reports of where Osama might be, yet we didn't move on it, instead, we focused on setting up a Democracy in a country not built for Democracy.

Actually, we have had literally thousands of reports of where Osama might be, and have acted on many of them. The trouble is, he's smart, and has the support of the surrounding tribes in the area we think he is hiding in. Despite the common misperceived idea that the war in Iraq has had an adverse effect on our persuit of Osama, it has not. We feel that he is somewhere in the bordering region in the mountains which Afghanistan and Pakistan share. It is worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack, it's more like trying to find a needle in a needlestack!

On top of this, Pakistan itself has little control over the region. Although it's hard for us to realize, that area has been very much isolated from it's host nation for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is a region which is very self-sustaining and has little use or contact with the central government of modern-day Pakistan. Many of the tribes there could care less about what goes on outside of it, with the exception of the cause that Osama is fighting for. They are fiercely loyal to Osama, and taking him out of there would involve much more than we can bring upon them.

So, we decided to wait him out and take out his top followers as they make their mistakes. There's really no other viable way to do it at the moment, due to the terrain, the current situation in Pakistan, and a host of other factors. He's contained for the moment quite nicely, and risks a lot when he pokes his head out of the mountains.

That's the thing with these islamic terrorists: They don't mind a bit when their words cause others to go out and blow themselves up for the cause, but when it comes to their leaders themselves taking a risk, they conveniently find a way to protect themselves.

But anyway, back to Ron Paul. Pesonally, I don't trust him any more than the rest of them.

t.