The IMM Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins

Ron Paul should begin every speech with "I have a dream."

Scripture teaches: Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Republicans since 1980 have called for a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn human being. I would like to see these Libertarian ladykillers stand up to Phyllis Schlafly and tell her that she should back off. :laugh: :laugh: What a bunch of Romeos.

http://www.rnclife.org/

Yeah, the Libertarians think that the states should be allowed to legalize prostitution, drugs, and same-sex marriage if they like. Live and let live. By the way, drugs were legal once until we had addicts all over the place--been there, done that.

None of these Libertarian ideas have ever been a part of the GOP, which does not resemble historically modern-day Libertarianism.

Nor has the GOP been isolationists since 1940. In fact, the GOP supported the Democrat foreign policy during World War II. Here again the libertarians depart from both political parties.

Indiana has only gone for the Democrats seven times in presidential elections since 1856. Indiana will not vote for Hillary in 2008. In the 20th century, the only Democrats to carry Indiana for a presidential election were Woodrow Wilson in 1912, Franklin Cad Roosevelt in 1932 and 1936, and LBJ in 1964. Those who dismiss the Hoosier GOP just don't know us very well.

 

1) So anyone who doesn't believe in the death penalty is not a Christian?

2) So, what were Republicans before 1980? Libertarians?

3) And I believe you'll find Dr. Paul a states' righter on these issues. Get the Feds out and allow the states to and their citizens to make their own laws regarding such things. I have no issue with that.

4) So now, Republicans don't believe in states' rights? Does this view change with every other election or something?

5) Neither is Dr. Paul an isolationist. Read his words, not the words of Fox News. He doesn't believe in unfettered interventionism in every internal schism in the world, but he is not an isolationist. Didn't we hear this same view from GWB when he first ran in 2000? Again, has something changed in the GOP since then?

6) And, how many times has Evan Bayh been elected to the Senate? He's actually a Republican, isn't he?

 

Well cmg,what do you say to those that are neither libertarians or republicans? Just americans who want the "brilliant " folks in DC to get back tot he US Constitution? What are we? Do you think that they are going to leave any America to your children,or grandkids?
They won't if they have their way,but take the red pill,go back to sleep,believe what you have been taught to believe,"you certainly were not taught to think"
I'm sorry that sounded harse,please forgive me,
but don't belittle those of us that have a genuine concern,that to is unfair and very very sad.

 

DITTO! Ken

 

Well today it happened TODAY!,your POTUS has invited the DOLLY LAMA(intentionaly mis-spelled) to the whitehouse to give him the medal of honor! (HUH?)

and reconize him as a "GREAT SPIRITUAL LEADER"(HUH?)

Yes president Bush is also a "CHRISTIAN" (HUH?)

 

I think that they invited him to DC because he does not believe in capital punishment and they are trying to pave the way for the Rodney King crowd who will show us all how to get along together and live by the constitution and never amend the constitution to save the life of the unborn child.

 

Congratulations! You just morally indicted the conservative position on economics. What's it like to be a materialist?

 

I though posting obscene pictures was against the rules. :laugh:

 

Seriously, the caption should be, John Kerry/Ann Coulter love child. I nearly fled the room when I saw that picture.:laugh:

 

Evan Bayh is a Democrat. He has been twice elected to the US Senate from Indiana, in 1998 and 2004, and is currrently in office. His father, Birch Bayh, was also elected to the Senate three times, (1962, 1968, 1974) and is also a Democrat.

Ed

 

Why would the Institute for Molecular Medicine (IMM) be "smearing" a physician in (I presume) good standing (Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul, M.D.) unless that organization suddenly came up with a good reason to oppose something that physician is or was doing? That makes no sense.

Ed

 

Are you saying that I did material damage to the libertarians? Ron Paul's position on economics is the same as Queen of France Marie Antoinette's (1755 - 1793). :laugh:

By the way, Ron Paul is an old enemy of the Bush Family. He ran against the GOP in 1988 and now he is attacking the GOP in 2007. You don't win elections by attacking the President of the USA during a war.

 

This is irrelevant as we are not in a state of war since the U.S. Congress has not declared war.

 

Sure seems to be working for the Democrats.

Which party came out the big winners of the 2006 Congressinal elections? I forget.

 

Which election is Ron Paul winning?

 

None, yet.

Nobody's winning.

We won't know until the primaries are over (for the party nod) and the November election is over (for the President).

 

The following announced candidates face almost overwhelming historic odds of becoming President of the United States - Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA), Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH), Rep. Ron Paul (TX), and Rep. Tom Trancredo (CO).

Only one time in our nation's history has a sitting Congressman been elected as President of the United States, in 1880 when James A. Garfield was elected as President. That is one election out of a total of 55 so far, and none in the last 31 elections. I simply do not expect that it will become 2 out of 56, for any of these four candidates.

FTR, the office of Senator is not too hot, either, as a total of 4 Senators were elected President, over the same 55 elections.

Governor fars a bit better, as 12 of 33 individuals held the office of Governor (or last held it as their 'highest' political office), when elected President, including 4 of the last 5 Presidents.

Ed

 

church mouse guy, I dare say (HOPE!!!) you have more in common with Paul's economics than Bush and his deficit spending which has been emphatically, systematically denounced by both party's flagships: The New York Times and The Wallstreet Journal. So, branding libertarians materialists is counterintuitive unless you consider yourself materialistic as well. But feel free to elaborate as to how your defense of the free market is ethically superior to ours. I await your querulously taking the moral high ground. I hope for (but do not await) your admission that you really don't have a pragmatic, working definition of the term 'materialist' any more than you have a theological construction for measuring monetary policy. In fact, there's a more probable chance of your miraculously defining "career politican" than "materialist." Epiphanies, axiomatically, are forbidden to the paritsan.

 

<God's intercom> Paging Richard Nixon... is there a Richard Nixon in the house?

Also paging Bill Clinton... is there a Bill Clinton in the house?

</God's intercom>

 

I say, Ivon, that libertarians are materialists because their platform, and Ron Paul's also, deals mostly with material issues. Materialists believe that the material world is the measure of all things. Now a Christian also believes that the material world is good because God said that the world was good after He made it. However, it is not the yardstick by which man should live because man does not live by bread alone.

Ron Paul does not consider Scripture of overwhelming importance in government as shown by two of his positions. One of the most glaring is that he will not execute federally murderers in spite of God's commandment that all murderers be executed. Secondly, although Scripture teaches that one should not murder, Ron Paul teached that the federal government should not amend the constitution to stop the murder of the unborn child. On the issue of government spending, libertarians want especially to limit spending for law enforcement by legalizing certain crimes to install what they call on their party website a "live and let live" society, or an even more permissive society than we have now. A person could become a drug addict with legalized drugs and the money-loving libertarian would rejoice at the savings in public government.

Now the charge is being made that Bush spent a lot of money. However, that was best answered by President Reagan who noted that the Democrats accused him of spending a lot of money and replied that he never spent a dime--only the Congress has the power to spend money.