The people powering the Paul phenomenon

I know you do but I have no problem with a person being a liberal. I prefer that a person be a liberal to being a neo-con any day of the week.

 

Oh great. My hero invaded Puerto Rico on faulty intelligenge. I guess we started both of our last two centuries with neocon administrations. Of course I also believe Puerto Rico was in better shape after the invasion, then what would have transpired if the "none of our business" crowd was running things.

Respectfully, I hope.

A major miliary backed democracy in the mideast helps us in trade, helps European security, I argue it is in our best interests to keep our aid up, even if you eliminate any biblical reasons.

 

It seems that the longer you try to reason with CMG the more ridiculous he gets.

 

No wonder we almost lost!

BTW, are you of Polish decent?

 

You said that foreign aid was unconstitutional, and then watched Ken and I wrestle over it, Ken was not only unable to prove your point, he stated the opposite.

Hurts the ctredibility of your statement, unless you can offer up something that Ken didn't think of.....

 

I haven't jumped down any fellow poster's throat in a while on this board. Not aiming to do so.

As I said, I have no problem with well placed military aid, just with foreign welfare.

I don't believe that the end justifies the means.

 

Poncho, shouldn't the USA, the city on the hill, apologize to the rest of the world for more than 35 years of abortion, the murder of the unborn child, without any legal foundation except that a majority of the supreme court ordered it once?

 

No. The rest of the world practices abortion, too.

 

I got your reply, Ken. You are saying that majority rules, right? But lately you have adopted--if I may use that word--the Libertarian Party view that abortion is okay as long as the federal government does not amend the constitution to stop it. So, of course, you think that George Will's recent report that California has a culture of abortion and would continue the practice is okay because what California does is okay as long as they don't support a constitutional amendment to stop abortion.

Pancho, Ken has answered this question twice. What do you think of Ken's answer, Pancho? How would you answer this question, Pancho?

 

Absolutely not. I think that all abortions should be banned. You are the one who doesn't support banning all abortions.

 

Tell us please where did you get this from?
I've never heard anything so idiotic in my life.......

 

There you go again, Ken. :laugh:

I have said that I support the constitutional amendment to protect human life, although it does not represent my personal opinion which includes exemptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. I think that it is more important to stop abortion than to worry about ½ of 1 percent. OK?

Now Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is against a constitutional amendment and his idea is to allow states to decide so the effect becomes that states like California, as George Will recently pointed out, can and will continue the culture of death and of abortion.

You say that the USA should not apologize for murdering more than 40,000,000 citizens and Pancho so far has not answered the question about an apology. Here again, I differ with you because it is clear that the USA is guilty of crimes against humanity, although that expression loses its meaning when you apply it to tens of millions of babies, doesn't it? We, too, have a sewer of blood running under our national government.

 

See, Congressman Ron Paul says the culture of abortion is okay as long as it is done by a state and not prevented by a constitutional amendment. So he would never apologize but has explained that the Libertarian Party slogan of "live and let live" is really "live and let die."

 

Compared to the Republican Party slogan of what? "We are Republican. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

 

Poncho, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between Congressman Paul and Senator Clinton. :tonofbricks:

 

If you read the source article and didn't pick up on it, you may be beyond help.

 

Your statement would be correct, cmg, if you sais that there is not a nickel's worth of difference betweeen Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton.

If you can't see the stark differences between Paul and Clinton then you don't really know where the two stand on the issues. But I think you do and were just trying to
be cantankerous in your usual cute way.