The IMM Smearing Of Ron Paul Begins

No, all that I ever said was that I was leaning toward Rudy. He is a Nine Eleven hero and America's Mayor. He favors small government and reduced taxes. Also, he promises to fight the war against terror to victory. He is a good candidate and outpolls Hillary, the likely Democrat nominee. I have written his campaign that he should promise to run on the Reagan social issues and set aside his personal views and do what the majority of Republican want--support a constitutional amendment to protect human life.

I don't know why you accuse me of distortions of Ron Paul's record. Even his supporters are admitting that he is against the constitutional amendment to ban abortion, against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, against capital punishment for murder by the federal government, and for withdrawal from Iraq on the basis that it is an illegal war. Afterall, Ron Paul has run for President before--in 1988--and he is not a full-fledged Republican but merely caucuses with the GOP in Congress. So it is no surprise that older Republicans, who remember 1988, do not care for Ron Paul's policies or previous actions.

I want to make it clear that Ron Paul opposes Phyllis Schafly and the Republican National Coalition For Life.

 

1) Can you elaborate on this point?

2) CNN Poll: Clinton leads by 2 points,
Fox News Poll: Clinton leads by 4 points.
Rasmussen Poll: Cllinton leads by 7 points.
NPR Poll: Clinton leads by 3 points.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

 

Well, I thought he led before Fred Thompson got into the race. He is within the margin of error in some of those polls that you have posted, Ken.

"Rudy is the real fiscal conservative in the race. He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes and enjoyed their lowest tax burden in decades, while the economy grew and city government saw its revenues increase from the lower tax rates. Rudy Giuliani believes in supply-side economics, because he did it and he saw it work."

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/

 

Bottom line question: Did the New York City government spend less money per capita at the end of Giuliani's mayoralty than at the start of his mayoralty? If the answer is "Yes" then you are correct, cmg.

 

Cutting taxes actually gives government more income to a point; also, you would have to adjust for inflation.

Here is some stuff that says that Rudy could beat Hillary:

"Hillary Vs. Rudy
They're leading in polls for their parties' nominations, and so I think we have to regard this as the likeliest pairing in the 2008 presidential race, at least for now. Last July, pollster Jay Leve of SurveyUSA did surveys in 50 states and the District of Columbia of several pairings of candidates. You can see the electoral vote results with a few clicks. They show Giuliani ahead of Clinton 354 to 184."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/2/23/newt-vs-hillary.html#read_more

 

If government per capita spending increases that is not smaller government - that is bigger government.

 

Rudy could never be trusted. Rudy is a flip flopper on abortion and gay marriages. Rudy is no differant than Clinton, he will wet his finger and stick it in the wind to see which way the wind blows and change course. In short Rudy has never been consistant in how he carries out his beliefs. Ask the firemen in New York City what kind of 9-11 hero he was and I'm sure you would get a differnt perspective on Rudy's heroism.
Ron Paul is consistant. He is pro-life even though you do not like his approach to finding solutions for murder of the unborn, over 33 years of legalized abortion and when the Republican controlled house and the Republican administration could have steam rolled on this issue they procastinated. Abortion issues is that carrot on a stick that , sadly, Republicans will always need to get the Christian vote.. The GOP need to get real and take on what can be accomplished instead of having unrealistc idealisms as their goals. As for the older Republicans dislike for Ron Paul, I can understand that because the truth can really really hurt sometimes.
So CMG are you willing to admit that Ron Paul is pro-life or do uyou want to still use this ploy of a constitutional amendment to paint a different picture of Ron Paul?

 

I really don't understand what you are saying on this abortion issue. The truth is that Ron Paul is 100% opposed to the Republican National Coalition For Life and Phyllis Schafly and Ronald Reagan's idea of a constitutional amendment to protect human life. Ron Paul says that he is against the constitutional amendment and all of his supporters say that he is against the constitutional amendment. There is no distortion of this point as you have incorrectly claimed.

 

One can oppose a constitutional amendment and still be pro-life. One can support alternative strategies to stop abortion and still be pro-life.

 

Yeah, yeah and if Phyllis Schafly was Queen of the world she could make up all the silly little rules she wanted and we would have to do as she says but Phyllis isn't the Queen of the world except maybe for your world CMG. Ron Paul has presented better altenatives than some of the other candidates in the Republican field. Do away with Rudy, Mitt and McCain they're are just vulture food for Hillary anyway and let the rest of the candidates bring forth better and fresher ideas to the forefront.

 

Aren't you for Hillary? Phyllis Schafly, as we all agree, did not originate the idea of a constitutional amendment--that came from Ronald Reagan. I would like to see Ron Paul and his ladykillers take on the Republican National Coalition For Life. That would be a laugh. People are not fooled by Ron Paul because we remember him from 1988. I don't begrudge him his last hurrah but he is just no fun and would be a terrible candidate for the GOP because he is so poor on the stump and because he is so far from the mainline Republicans. He is just too Libertarian still. He personally is against the death penalty, although those leaning toward him say that he will allow it in state cases but not federal cases. I am surprised that the IFBs tolerate this in him as Jesus said that if you loved Him, then keep His commandments and we are commanded to shed the blood of those who shed man's blood because man is made in the image of God by God Himself.

 

Early 1970s
The first Human Life Amendments

Roe v. Wade was the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a Texas anti-abortion law, which had the effect of legalizing abortion throughout the United States. Even before Roe, several Human Life Amendments were drafted and proposed in Congress to protect life due to the encroachment of legalized limited abortion in a few states. One main version1 became popular in the early 70s with two other popular versions, the Paramount1 and the Unity Human Life Amendment1 being drafted over the next decade. The target of these amendments were the United States Constitution. (view early HLAs)

- www.humanlifeamendment.info

 

Nope, not for Hillary. Have I ever said that I was?
Where in the New Testament did you read that we are to shed man's blood. Jesus gave us a new commandment that we are to love one another including our enemies. Remember Saul was a murderer but Jesus did not allow Saul's blood to be shed. Saul Was forgiven and as Paul the Apostle did great things in Christ's name.
You are of course quoting Genisis 9:6. At that time Jesus was not manifested into flesh and blood.

 

Jesus also opted against enforcing civil laws when a woman was caught in the act of adultery. Do you care?

 

Where was the law overthrown?

 

You're skirting the question. Was it right for Jesus to not enforce the law in this instance?

 

Allowing for states to allow for abortions doesnt stop abortions. What that really is is a form of worship at the alter of states rights which is put in a higher position thant the life of the unborn child. It is flawed tragically. Those who would seek an abortion and live in a state that doesn't allow them would go to a state that does. No abortions would be inhibited and abortion doctors in those states would get fat and rich. It really is a shame that the llife of the unborn child takes a back seat to anything including states rights. This is a genocide. Maybe the Dems could pass a resolution condemning that.

 

Allowing for states to ban abortions is a start.

 

It is a bandaid on a shotgun wound.

 

I thnk that state bans on abortion will do lots of good. Anything that makes it more difficult to get an abortion and lengthens the time that it takes to get one gives more opportunities for a change of heart.

I thnk that we should get behind this idea initially and after it is accomplished then we can work on a human life amendment.