Any Ron Paul supporters here?

[KG4JYD]

I was curious if anyone here supports Dr. Ron Paul for President?

[n0jaa]

Ron Paul supporter, right here!

[kc2orw]

There are a bunch here

[KG4JYD]

Excellent.

I think this fellow Ron Paul supporter needs some Ham help before he ends up going to jail and/or getting fined:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=11893

[n2nh]

I like what he's saying and I'd like to see more. After the Democratic debacle a few months ago, I'm a bit jaded. We'll see if he has the horses to go the long haul and if his voting history is consistent with his positions now. So far so good.

Until then, he and anybody else will have to earn my vote.

[K6BBC]

I love him! He is a Goldwater Republican like me.

bbc

[N3ATS]

Yup!

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Aug. 11 2007,10:07)]I like what he's saying and I'd like to see more. We'll see ...if his voting history is consistent with his positions now.
You can watch videos of Ron Paul speaking here:
http://youtube.com/user/ronpaul2008dotcom

You can read his policy papers here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

and

You can check his voting record here:
http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=296

- He has never voted to raise taxes.
- He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
- He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
- He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
- He has never taken a government-paid junket.
- He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

- He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

- He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

That's why I support Ron Paul.

[w4rot]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 11 2007,13:56)]Yup!
Ditto

[N3ATS]

Queuing Marty's "nutter" comments in.... 5...4...3...2...

[w2amr]

I have found that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

[w4rot]

Wasted vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jhk5RtXJd0)

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (w4rot @ Aug. 11 2007,12:51)]Wasted vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jhk5RtXJd0)
Ya gotta love Pete's windmill. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N4AUD]

I'm looking at Ron Paul. I'm not rabidly interested in politics and I'm not locked on anyone yet.

There's no such thing as a wasted vote...my vote goes for the candidate I want in office, and even if that person will probably lose my vote does count.

[KP3FT]

I'm leaning heavily towards Ron Paul, but his stance about Israel makes me a bit nervous; he seems to indicate he wants to cut ties with them, although I might be reading too much into what he wrote.
73 Jeff KP3FT

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,12:49)]I have found that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Have you checked his voting record? He is absolutely consistent.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KP3FT @ Aug. 11 2007,13:59)]but his stance about Israel makes me a bit nervous; he seems to indicate he wants to cut ties with them
Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He is against giving our tax dollars to foreign governments. He isn't for cutting off relations with any country, in fact he wants to expand our diplomatic relations. He is however against entangling alliances that George Washington warned us about.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 11 2007,13:20)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,12:49)]I have found that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Have you checked his voting record? He is absolutely consistent.
Now compare his voting record to his earmark requests.

He's exactly the same kind of consistent as any of the other congress critters: He does what he can to maximize federal funds into his district -- which is the opposite of his claimed anti-big-government claim.

He's even gone out of his way to push the pentagon not to close useless facilities in his district.

Sorry, he's no different than the rest of them.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 11 2007,16:07)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 11 2007,13:20)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,12:49)]I have found that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Have you checked his voting record? He is absolutely consistent.
Now compare his voting record to his earmark requests.

He's exactly the same kind of consistent as any of the other congress critters: He does what he can to maximize federal funds into his district -- which is the opposite of his claimed anti-big-government claim.

He's even gone out of his way to push the pentagon not to close useless facilities in his district.

Sorry, he's no different than the rest of them.
For the most part I agree with you. At the same time we have to understand the appeal of Ron Paul. In a world that has been repeatedly white washed by the rhetoric of 2 major parties there is an appeal to anyone who speaks something that sounds different au contrare to the status quo.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 11 2007,11:34)]Queuing Marty's "nutter" comments in.... 5...4...3...2...
If you insist. . .

Ron Paul's a gold standard nutter. He's also got whacked ideas about what the problems are with the health care system. Oh, and it's interesting that none of the spending bills he's voted against have ever been challenged as unconstitutional, by him or anyone else.

If he's really that certain that he's voting against unconstitutional stuff, why doesn't he challenge in in court when it's signed into law?

Then there's his trick for asking for earmarks that go into spending bills that he knows he can safely vote against because they'll pass.

And, of course, he tends to be pretty weak on what he will do.

He's a congress critter. He does what's good for his district, at the expense of the overall greater good, and says what his constituents want to hear so he can get re-elected.

To misquote Gertrude Stein: There's no there there.

[K3XR]

I listened to him speak at the Straw Poll today. #He seems to have a mix of good ideas and some that are a little off the chart. #My question is this...assume he were to be elected, what are the odds there will be, or would, in the near future be, sufficent numbers of like minded people, in either party, in Congress, that would go along with his programs. #If you are one of his supporters, it's nice to dream, however, you need to touch base with reality from time to time.

[kd5kfl]

Pardon my honesty, but he doesn't have an icicles chance. He looks too much like Alfred E. Neuman. Merits, record and intelligence aside, he's just too goofy looking to get elected in this TV age.

Don't shoot the messenger. Honesty is the best policy when there is no other choice.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Aug. 11 2007,17:37)]Pardon my honesty, but he doesn't have an icicles chance. He looks too much like Alfred E. Neuman. Merits, record and intelligence aside, he's just too goofy looking to get elected in this TV age.
Excuse me?

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/bush-goofy75.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/C/9/bush_goofy_small.jpg

[NV5E]

He has long standing ties to the "patriot" and white supremacist movements. He's also a big conspiracy nut.
Link (http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_white_.html)
This guy would make Bush look like Churchill by comparison.
Rob
NV5E

[K3XR]

When I listened to him speak, today, I thought he reminded me of Don Knotts on steroids.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107064/MyImages/don-knotts.jpg

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 11 2007,17:59)]When I listened to him speak, today, I thought he reminded me of Don Knotts on steroids.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107064/MyImages/don-knotts.jpg
He's a medical doctor XR -- would you mind telling us where you got your medical degree?

bbc

[K3XR]

Sorry guys, dream on...

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/ames.php

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (NV5E @ Aug. 11 2007,19:51)]He has long standing ties to the "patriot" and white supremacist movements. He's also a big conspiracy nut.
Link (http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_white_.html)
This guy would make Bush look like Churchill by comparison.
Rob
NV5E
A link to a blog that links to other blogs as sources. Sorry, not a credible source of info.

He has supporters from some fringe groups, that's true, but does that make him a ham too?

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 11 2007,19:30)]My question is this...assume he were to be elected, what are the odds there will be, or would, in the near future be, sufficent numbers of like minded people, in either party, in Congress, that would go along with his programs.
Close to zilch is my guess. But do YOU really want someone in office who is going to go along with THIS congress? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

He's a good candidate with good ideas. Not the perfect candidate, but who is?

He won't win, but that's okay by me. I will have the satisfaction of voting for someone who I think is the best man for the job, rather than who I think will win.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 11 2007,20:27)]Sorry guys, dream on...

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/ames.php
He placed 5th. But he beat out Tommy Thompson, Fred Thomson, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, and John Cox.

[al2n]

Can someone cite a source against Ron Paul other than a blog?

Marty, can you give specific examples to the things you cite?

I don't care if he has the backing of congress or not. It is congress that needs to learn to play ball with the man with the veto power, not the other way around.

The British parliment ignored Churchill's warnings about the Nazi's for years, called him daft. Look what happened. Pat B warned about the coming problem of illegal immigration many years ago, you called him a nut. Look what happened.

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 12 2007,00:01)]Can someone cite a source against Ron Paul other than a blog?

Marty, can you give specific examples to the things you cite?

I don't care if he has the backing of congress or not. It is congress that needs to learn to play ball with the man with the veto power, not the other way around.

The British parliment ignored Churchill's warnings about the Nazi's for years, called him daft. Look what happened. Pat B warned about the coming problem of illegal immigration many years ago, you called him a nut. Look what happened.
Who called Pat a nut? I voted for him twice and would do it again.

bbc

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 11 2007,15:07)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 11 2007,13:20)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,12:49)]I have found that when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Have you checked his voting record? He is absolutely consistent.
Now compare his voting record to his earmark requests.

He's exactly the same kind of consistent as any of the other congress critters: He does what he can to maximize federal funds into his district -- which is the opposite of his claimed anti-big-government claim.

He's even gone out of his way to push the pentagon not to close useless facilities in his district.

Sorry, he's no different than the rest of them.
I'm calling complete BS on Marty again. He could not find anything on Ron Paul despite what I am sure is massive Google action.

In fact, Martin only came up with some arcane congressional struggles between politicians. If Ron Paul and the other Texas politicians did not represent Texas, you can bet your last dollar that Alaska's Ted Stevens would have every federal dollar that Texas ever got redirected up here. In fact, Stevens manages to do this anyway. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Of course it is easy for Martin to besmirch Ron Paul because he will not provide a candidate of his own choosing for comparison. It takes about 0.03 seconds for Google to come up with thousands of examples of hypocrisy for your average politician. Until Martin provides the candidate of his choice, he is to be ignored for the BS artist that we know he is.

Ron Paul is not some nutter ham trying desperately to prove how smart he is to other hams on a BBS and holding a grudge against someone who proved him less than amazingly intelligent. In direct contradistinction, Dr. Paul is a thoughtful man who decided to tell it like he sees it and give Americans a genuine choice for once.

Martin knows every word I have spoken here is true, and it wounds him greatly to see the simple truth shared. I would not do this to his ego if he had shown simple decency at various times in the past.

Ron Paul has no chance of being elected of course, but that is not the point. If you think your one vote will sway the election, feel free to vote for the lesser of two evils. If you think your support should go to the finest human being, vote Ron Paul.

That's the truth, and I stand by it.

Dave/al2i

[k9kjm]

Ron Paul is (By FAR) The best choice for 2008.

His odds of winning? #Slim at best. But you can bet I will vote for him!!!!! #

If EVERYONE voted for him, Guess what, He would win!

To say your vote is "wasted" by voting for your own choice is burying your head in the sand. (Or some other dark place) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Aug. 11 2007,15:13)]At the same time we have to understand the appeal of Ron Paul. In a world that has been repeatedly white washed by the rhetoric of 2 major parties there is an appeal to anyone who speaks something that sounds different au contrare to the status quo.
Ron Paul is definitely NOT the candidate for you OM. You and I share the same Metaphysics and Epistemology, but we diverge in Ethics and are miles apart on Politics. It is in the area of economics that we differ most strongly, the very place where I agree with Ron Paul the most.

Of course, I can always hope you change! Try reading some Galbraith and then some Friedman to see which view of economics you prefer. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Aug. 11 2007,09:07)]I like what he's saying and I'd like to see more. After the Democratic debacle a few months ago, I'm a bit jaded. We'll see if he has the horses to go the long haul and if his voting history is consistent with his positions now. So far so good.

Until then, he and anybody else will have to earn my vote.
You are another person that I think has a greatly different view of the nature of the World from Ron Paul's view. Knowing how Ron Paul views things and how you have viewed things I think that you and Ron Paul are very different in your economic perspectives.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,17:45)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Aug. 11 2007,17:37)]Pardon my honesty, but he doesn't have an icicles chance. He looks too much like Alfred E. Neuman. Merits, record and intelligence aside, he's just too goofy looking to get elected in this TV age.
Excuse me?

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/bush-goofy75.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/C/9/bush_goofy_small.jpg
What ? Me worry ?

[K3XR]

Paul "flames out"...

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/11/open-thread-the-ames-straw-poll/?print=1)

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,07:18)]Paul "flames out"...

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/11/open-thread-the-ames-straw-poll/?print=1)
Dan:

Just who do YOU support? YOU spend your time trashing everyone else...

Let's get an answer...

[N1LAF]

Quote[/b] (NV5E @ Aug. 11 2007,17:51)]He has long standing ties to the "patriot" and white supremacist movements. He's also a big conspiracy nut.
Link (http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_white_.html)
This guy would make Bush look like Churchill by comparison.
Rob
NV5E
I followed your link, and it was disturbing. But everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. When I dug into the next layer of links, what I found was even more disturbing, fringe groups. My own search and research so far does not back up claims from your link.

[NV5E]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 11 2007,13:16)]Quote[/b] (NV5E @ Aug. 11 2007,19:51)]He has long standing ties to the "patriot" and white supremacist movements. He's also a big conspiracy nut.
Link (http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/ron_paul_white_.html)
This guy would make Bush look like Churchill by comparison.
Rob
NV5E
A link to a blog that links to other blogs as sources. Sorry, not a credible source of info.

He has supporters from some fringe groups, that's true, but does that make him a ham too?
The blogs had links to source material, if you don't want to be bothered to do any in depth reading that's fine. Ignorance is bliss. His populist, libertarian rhetoric may appeal to some of those disenfranchised by the current political state that exists in this nation, but the fact remains that he is a racist, far right ideologue that would be a disaster if elected president.
Rob
NV5E

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Aug. 12 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,07:18)]Paul "flames out"...

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/11/open-thread-the-ames-straw-poll/?print=1)
Dan:

Just who do YOU support? YOU spend your time trashing everyone else...

Let's get an answer...
That is a VERY good question. Can't wait to hear the answer. tick tick tick.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (NV5E @ Aug. 12 2007,09:18)]but the fact remains that he is a racist
The old race card eh? Why is it that people try to discredit others by calling them "a racist" ?


Paul being a racist has been debunked many times over. Just search the web.

Try starting here:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721
and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
then
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (NV5E @ Aug. 11 2007,17:51)]He has long standing ties to ... white supremacist movements. He's also a big conspiracy nut.
More FUD http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif


Which conspiracies does he subscribe to? Which white supremacist group is he a member of?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 11 2007,16:13)]says what his constituents want to hear so he can get re-elected.
No. He keeps getting elected because his constituents like him and he has delivered over 4000 babies in his home district. That's a huge home court advantage.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 11 2007,16:07)]He's even gone out of his way to push the pentagon not to close useless facilities in his district.
Source?

[N3ATS]

The racism stuff is from people on the left that are afraid RP will "Nader" their candidate in the elections. That's it, plain and simple.

RP has a pretty good following from the left and I think that scares some of them. They feel a vote for RP is one that could be spent on a Democrat.

Unfortunately this is typical. People vote to keep the "other guy out" rather than to get their candidate in. If people would step up, and not be afraid to lose, even if its to send a message, the major parties would start to think a little.

But, as long as the left votes to keep out the right, and the right votes to keep out the left, rather than to vote to put someone they feel is decent, in. The same old pathology will be played out over and over again.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2n @ Aug. 11 2007,23:01)]Marty, can you give specific examples to the things you cite?
Let me preface my comments by pointing out that I've found no evidence that Paul's a racist. My objections are based entirely on the difference between the way he represents his district and the way he claims government should go:

1) Look at his voting record. The man misses a lot of votes.

2) Take a look at his press releases (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_press.htm) and count how many are about him asking for earmarks. Do a little leg work and notice that some of those earmarks ended up in bills he voted against, but that passed overwhelmingly.

3) Check out his attempt to overrule the DoD (http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2005/pr042605.htm) on the closure of an unneeded base, because it was in his district.

4) Another example: He's supposedly against big government, but he jumped on the chance to get federal relief money for Texans affected by Rita (http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2005/pr111505.htm)

Understand that these are all things that a congressman does for his district. But also understand that they're exactly the reason we have big government. I don't see Ron Paul behaving any different that any other congress critter.

And I'm confused why, if he thinks so much of this legislation is unconstitutional, he's never asked the courts to rule so.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 12 2007,00:34)]I'm calling complete BS on Marty again. He could not find anything on Ron Paul despite what I am sure is massive Google action.

"Massive Google action" consisting of looking at Ron Paul's voting record on one web site, his congressional web site, and his campaign web site. Everything I've posted about him stems from his own information.

Quote[/b] ]In fact, Martin only came up with some arcane congressional struggles between politicians. If Ron Paul and the other Texas politicians did not represent Texas, you can bet your last dollar that Alaska's Ted Stevens would have every federal dollar that Texas ever got redirected up here. In fact, Stevens manages to do this anyway.

He went against his anti-big-government stance by attempting to overule th DoD's choice to close a naval facility that 'just happened to be' in his district. That's hardly arcane.

He asks for earmarks and then votes against the bills they get put in because he knows that those bills will pass anyway -- or if he's not certain, he doesn't vote at all.

But yes, I've said all along that Paul acts just like Stevens when it comes to feeding at the federal earmark buffet. I'm glad you're starting to see that.

Quote[/b] ]Of course it is easy for Martin to besmirch Ron Paul because he will not provide a candidate of his own choosing for comparison. It takes about 0.03 seconds for Google to come up with thousands of examples of hypocrisy for your average politician.

I see you're starting to understand that Paul is no more than "your average politician." There's hope for you yet.

Quote[/b] ]Until Martin provides the candidate of his choice, he is to be ignored for the BS artist that we know he is.

Sorry, I don't support any of them.

Quote[/b] ]In direct contradistinction, Dr. Paul is a thoughtful man who decided to tell it like he sees it and give Americans a genuine choice for once.

He's a "thoughtful" man who is a gold standard nutter.

Quote[/b] ]Martin knows every word I have spoken here is true, and it wounds him greatly to see the simple truth shared. I would not do this to his ego if he had shown simple decency at various times in the past.

There goes another Mark VI irony meter. You are so often so far from the truth (as when you accused me of heavy google searching and described Paul's interference with the DoD as "arcane") that I'm surprised you're ever able to recognize it.

Quote[/b] ]Ron Paul has no chance of being elected of course, but that is not the point. If you think your one vote will sway the election, feel free to vote for the lesser of two evils. If you think your support should go to the finest human being, vote Ron Paul.

He's a fine congress critter. He does great things for his district. That makes him exactly the opposite of what you think he is.

Quote[/b] ]That's the truth, and I stand by it.

You can't even recognize an ordinary congress critter who has written a couple of opinion pieces you happen to agree with is just another congress critter. That's not 'truth', not even with a small t, that's simple wishful thinking and self delusion on your part.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 12 2007,15:08)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 11 2007,16:07)]He's even gone out of his way to push the pentagon not to close useless facilities in his district.
Source?
Ron Paul's congressional web site, in which he has press releases describing the attempt.

[AE6IP]

The Ron Paul Political Report

There's been some discussion in this thread about whether Ron Paul is a racist. I decided to do the google searching I've been accused of in an attempt to get at the core of the matter.

Here's what google turned up:

In the late 1980s, and early 1990s, Ron Paul published a bulletin called The Ron Paul Political Report. In 1992 he changed the name of that report.

One can find copies of the report offline, but you're going to have to go to a library and request copies. There is, however, one article from the Ron Paul Report available in total at The Shofar FTP archive (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793)

Ron Paul himself does not deny that this article appeared in the Ron Paul report. Rather, he says Quote[/b] ] "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” (apparently in Texas magazine in 2001.

So, what we have is a racist article in a Ron Paul newsletter, which Ron Paul is now trying to distance himself from.

Make of it what you will. I'm ignoring it because he's been nutty enough in words he doesn't try to distance himself from to not be a candidate I would support.

[N9XR]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 12 2007,03:38)]Quote[/b] (nx6d @ Aug. 12 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Aug. 12 2007,07:18)]Paul "flames out"...

http://hotair.com/archive....print=1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/11/open-thread-the-ames-straw-poll/?print=1)
Dan:

Just who do YOU support? YOU spend your time trashing everyone else...

Let's get an answer...
That is a VERY good question. Can't wait to hear the answer. tick tick tick.
The perfect candidate for Danno to support is my old Kansas neighbor, Sam Brownback.

1. He's dumber than a fencepost.
2. He totally supports Bush failed policy.
3. His favorite line is, "Something should be done about (fill in the blank). I am clueless about what should be done, but something should be done about it."
4. He won his seat in the US senate by campaigning that his opponent was unfit because she was raped one time.
5. He is against abortion BECAUSE if we had more people in the country, our GNP would be higher.

I am sure Danno would love Sam Brownbackside.

[KG4JYD]

AE6IP:

The racism thing is bogus, I can tell you that for a fact.

However I will research the other points you have made and get back to you.

[KG4JYD]

First off, the budget is already set by the time earmarks are divvied out. The amount of federal spending is the same regardless of where those earmarks are spent. Calling for earmarks doesn't change the size of the government or the budget. Earmarks just change what gets funded, the money will be spent somewhere regardless.


Also Paul consistently says that we need to close military bases on foreign soil first before closing domestic military bases. So his course of action is not out of line with his values.

And finally, Paul wasn't looking for aid from the federal government for Rita victims, he was looking for tax relief and tax breaks. Those are hardly one in the same.

Hopefully that clears things up for you.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 13 2007,10:11)]AE6IP:

The racism thing is bogus, I can tell you that for a fact.

However I will research the other points you have made and get back to you.
The racism thing is troublesome because Ron Paul admits he let others write in his name words he claims he'd never utter. He's not even accepting accountability for it.

I don't know if he's a racist or not. I do know that it's a good example of him saying what he thinks the constituency wants to hear, and it's troublesome that he doesn't accept responsibility for it.

But then, he is just another congress critter, so I wouldn't expect any more from him.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 13 2007,10:54)]First off, the budget is already set by the time earmarks are divvied out. The amount of federal spending is the same regardless of where those earmarks are spent. Calling for earmarks doesn't change the size of the government or the budget. Earmarks just change what gets funded, the money will be spent somewhere regardless.

Um no, it doesn't work like that. But even if it did, an anti-big government purist wouldn't take any pork. Paul's proud of the pork he gets for his district.

Quote[/b] ]Also Paul consistently says that we need to close military bases on foreign soil first before closing domestic military bases. So his course of action is not out of line with his values.

It's inconsistent with his anti-big government stance and it's a classic example of the congress interfering in ways that make the budget larger.

Quote[/b] ]And finally, Paul wasn't looking for aid from the federal government for Rita victims, he was looking for tax relief and tax breaks. Those are hardly one in the same.

It's money that he was trying to get into the hands of his constituents at the expense of the rest of the country, as he's not offered to reduce spending in his district to cover the lost tax reveune.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 13 2007,12:29)]Um no, it doesn't work like that. But even if it did, an anti-big government purist wouldn't take any pork. Paul's proud of the pork he gets for his district.

It's inconsistent with his anti-big government stance and it's a classic example of the congress interfering in ways that make the budget larger.

It's money that he was trying to get into the hands of his constituents at the expense of the rest of the country, as he's not offered to reduce spending in his district to cover the lost tax reveune.
Paul has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget. That is the most conservative you can get.


And as previously mentioned, after the budget is set, he can't control how much money is spent, he can only have a slight say as to where it is spent.

You are making him out to be some evil monster which he is not. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He also returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Shall we compare him to the rest of Congress?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 13 2007,13:39)]Paul has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget. That is the most conservative you can get.

Sure he has: in 2000 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2215&can_id=296)

He's also voted for tax cuts without voting for spending reductions to match, which is another way of unbalancing the budget.

Quote[/b] ]And as previously mentioned, after the budget is set, he can't control how much money is spent, he can only have a slight say as to where it is spent.

Actually, that's not correct. Budgeted money that's not spent goes back into the general fund at the end of the fiscal year. By calling for earmarks for his district, he's merely helping make sure that it gets spent.

You also can't get an earmark unless there's money in the budget for it. That's why the earmark requests are made before the budget is voted on.

Quote[/b] ]You are making him out to be some evil monster which he is not.

No I'm not. I'm making him out as a rather ordinary congress critter, who, as far as I can tell has been good for his district.

It's just that ordinary congress critters who work hard to see that more federal money goes into their district than comes out are a large part of why the budget's a mess.

Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why he's never challenged in court any of the legislation he claims to have been unconstitutional that passed.

I don't think he's evil. I also don't think that his campaign rhetoric is matched by his voting record.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 13 2007,15:36)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 13 2007,13:39)]Paul has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget. That is the most conservative you can get.

Sure he has: in 2000 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2215&can_id=296)
And according to this:
http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif

and this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000....surplus (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/)

There was actually a surplus that year in the budget so technically it was balanced.

[al2i]

We are all waiting patiently for Mr. Google Failure to explain what is wrong with another candidate other than Ron Paul -- a guy who is NOTHING like what Mr. Google Failure says he is....

Waiting... Waiting.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

The focus on Ron Paul is awesome. Let him be known by his enemies, and let the Reader judge. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 13 2007,16:59)]We are all waiting patiently for Mr. Google Failure
Who is "Mr. Google Failure" ?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 13 2007,12:23)]The racism thing is troublesome because Ron Paul admits he let others write in his name words he claims he'd never utter. He's not even accepting accountability for it.
Why should he if they are not his words?

Read this:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

[kl7aj]

Perhaps we should prelude this by asking if anyone knows who Ron Paul is?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 13 2007,15:58)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 13 2007,15:36)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 13 2007,13:39)]Paul has NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget. That is the most conservative you can get.

Sure he has: in 2000 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2215&can_id=296)
And according to this:
http://www.headybrew.net/images/content/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif

and this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000....surplus (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/)

There was actually a surplus that year in the budget so technically it was balanced.
There was no surplus in 2000. The only way you can get the appearance of a surplus is to put the borrowing from the social security funds "off books".

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 14 2007,13:34)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 13 2007,12:23)]The racism thing is troublesome because Ron Paul admits he let others write in his name words he claims he'd never utter. He's not even accepting accountability for it.
Why should he if they are not his words?

Read this:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Um, because he allowed them to be published in a bulletin with his name on it and no other author mentioned?

Paul allowed certain constituents to believe he was a racist, until such time as it no longer served him to appear to be a racist and then he pretended he had no responsibility because, although he funded, published, and put his name on it, he didn't actually write it.

That makes as facile and as much a user of 'plausible deniability' as any of the rest of them.

[N3ATS]

Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. Ain't that right?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 14 2007,15:00)]Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. Ain't that right?
Nope. Can't see a democrat candidate that I'm interested in voting for, and can't see how Paul will take votes away from anybody but maybe McCain.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 14 2007,16:43)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 14 2007,15:00)]Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. #Ain't that right?
Nope. #Can't see a democrat candidate that I'm interested in voting for,
I can. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 14 2007,15:00)]Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. Ain't that right?
No. My icon irritated him because he sees me as an enemy.

If you don't believe me, just ask him, and mark my words: he will deny it, while denying that he is denying it.

If really pushed, he will cry "Ad hominen, ad hominen", which is weird, because there is a mating song of a local bird that has the same tempo. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 14 2007,20:14)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 14 2007,16:43)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 14 2007,15:00)]Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. #Ain't that right?
Nope. #Can't see a democrat candidate that I'm interested in voting for,
I can. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You can see a "democrat candidate" that Martin is interested in voting for?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ Aug. 14 2007,14:37)]Perhaps we should prelude this by asking if anyone knows who Ron Paul is?
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

and then this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign%2C_2008

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 15 2007,02:50)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 14 2007,15:00)]Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. Ain't that right?
No. My icon irritated him because he sees me as an enemy.

If you don't believe me, just ask him, and mark my words: he will deny it, while denying that he is denying it.
Actually, I have my account configured so I don't see any QRZ icons. I don't know what your icon is.

As far as "enemies": this is the intarweb. We're on a discussion forum. Anyone who takes it seriously enough to 'make enemies' or to think someone sees them as an enemy has gotten too personally involved and needs to work on their sense of perspective.

Of course I'm going to deny that I see you as an enemy. I don't see anyone on any web forum as an enemy. I choose my enemies the same way I make my friends: face to face in real time.

Oh, and the last time I checked, my 'enemies list' was empty. Life's too short and the world's too big for wasting time on such things.

and no, I'm not going to deny that i'm denying it.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,10:36)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 15 2007,02:50)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Aug. 14 2007,15:00)]Marty is just afraid that Paul will take votes away from one of the Democratic candidates. Ain't that right?
No. My icon irritated him because he sees me as an enemy.

If you don't believe me, just ask him, and mark my words: he will deny it, while denying that he is denying it.
Actually, I have my account configured so I don't see any QRZ icons. I don't know what your icon is.

As far as "enemies": this is the intarweb. We're on a discussion forum. Anyone who takes it seriously enough to 'make enemies' or to think someone sees them as an enemy has gotten too personally involved and needs to work on their sense of perspective.

Of course I'm going to deny that I see you as an enemy. I don't see anyone on any web forum as an enemy. I choose my enemies the same way I make my friends: face to face in real time.

Oh, and the last time I checked, my 'enemies list' was empty. Life's too short and the world's too big for wasting time on such things.

and no, I'm not going to deny that i'm denying it.
Perfect confirmation. He is at level two denial just like I predicted. My MartinOmeter is calibrated to a high precision. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

When he has an enemy/victim, like PIU, Martin stalks. Of course he will deny that he is denying that as well.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[al2n]

Think back to 1991.

No one knew who this Bill Cllinton follow was nor did they think that he stood any chance of making the Democratic ticket.

Ron Paul is the best choice out there for those of us who wish for this nation to survive as a place of freedom.

Without him you better get used to spy satellites looking in on your home.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/15/the_skinny/main3168959.shtml

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[al2i]

Ron Paul is my favorite candidate, but he is far, far from perfect, and I have three personal issues with Ron Paul.

1: Dr. Paul seems weak on borders. He was an open-border Libertarian in the past (as I was), but unfortunately, his "conversion" from this point of view has been less than exciting, and he has repeatedly voted against sending troops to protect the border.

2: Ron Paul voted for H1-B and H2-B increases. An unconscionable act that really hurts American workers.

3: Now that he is a Republican and not a Libertarian, Ron Paul has gone into a rabidly pro-life mode, and recently has been outspoken in his opposition to Roe vs Wade. I believe that it should be the right of a woman to kill her unborn child, but Ron Paul seems to think that it is a bad thing.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 15 2007,16:12)]I believe that it should be the right of a woman to kill her unborn child, but Ron Paul seems to think that it is a bad thing.
Though I disagree with you strongly, I will at least applaud your sand for putting it in straight and honest terms. TU.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Aug. 15 2007,12:35)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 15 2007,16:12)]I believe that it should be the right of a woman to kill her unborn child, but Ron Paul seems to think that it is a bad thing.
Though I disagree with you strongly, I will at least applaud your sand for putting it in straight and honest terms. TU.
so when does an egg become an "unborn child" anyway?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 15 2007,10:52)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,10:36)]and no, I'm not going to deny that i'm denying it.
Perfect confirmation. He is at level two denial just like I predicted. My MartinOmeter is calibrated to a high precision. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif


which part of "not going to deny" are you having trouble understanding?

Quote[/b] ]When he has an enemy/victim, like PIU, Martin stalks. Of course he will deny that he is denying that as well.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

I don't "stalk" anybody, although I do respond to cowthief's flights of fancy whenever I notice them. It's hard to resist debunking someone who so clearly wants to be debunked.

You should look into that obsession of yours, though. It's causing you to develop reading comprehension blind spots.

HTH. HAND.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,17:45)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Aug. 11 2007,17:37)]Pardon my honesty, but he doesn't have an icicles chance. He looks too much like Alfred E. Neuman. Merits, record and intelligence aside, he's just too goofy looking to get elected in this TV age.
Excuse me?

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/bush-goofy75.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/C/9/bush_goofy_small.jpg
Yeah but the thing is that feller dare had da big bucks backing him up. Now Hillary has the big bucks and plenty of folks in that party don't think too much of her...

Here is a video that I like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfFrCUrEbY

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Aug. 15 2007,14:06)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ Aug. 11 2007,17:45)]Quote[/b] (kd5kfl @ Aug. 11 2007,17:37)]Pardon my honesty, but he doesn't have an icicles chance. He looks too much like Alfred E. Neuman. Merits, record and intelligence aside, he's just too goofy looking to get elected in this TV age.
Excuse me?

http://www.humorgazette.com/images/bush-goofy75.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/C/9/bush_goofy_small.jpg
Yeah but the thing is that feller dare had da big bucks backing him up. Now Hillary has the big bucks and plenty of folks in that party don't think too much of her...

Here is a video that I like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqfFrCUrEbY
ALMOST My Generation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,13:52)]so when does an egg become an "unborn child" anyway?
Well, if we can determine when someone is clinically dead, then by the converse we should be able to tell when someone is alive. Usually a heartbeat and brain activity are two important factors in determining if someone is alive or not.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 15 2007,13:12)]1: Dr. Paul seems weak on borders. He was an open-border Libertarian in the past (as I was), but unfortunately, his "conversion" from this point of view has been less than exciting, and he has repeatedly voted against sending troops to protect the border.

2: Ron Paul voted for H1-B and H2-B increases. An unconscionable act that really hurts American workers.

3: Now that he is a Republican and not a Libertarian, Ron Paul has gone into a rabidly pro-life mode, and recently has been outspoken in his opposition to Roe vs Wade. I believe that it should be the right of a woman to kill her unborn child, but Ron Paul seems to think that it is a bad thing.
Please note that "open borders" does not really mean "unsecured" borders. That is a common fallacy among those that criticize libertarian positions.

And as far as the illegal immigration issue goes, it is treated like property. Mexicans, (or any other foreign nationals for that matter) do not have the right to be on our property unless we allow them to be.

Remember Ron Paul is a ob/gyn and has delivered 4000+ babies over the course of his life. Once a child is determined to be alive (see my previous post), then it should be offered the full protections of the US Constitution and other inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 15 2007,14:54)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,13:52)]so when does an egg become an "unborn child" anyway?
Well, if we can determine when someone is clinically dead, then by the converse we should be able to tell when someone is alive. Usually a heartbeat and brain activity are two important factors in determining if someone is alive or not.
"When life ends" is not the converse of "when life starts" as far as I can tell.

Having the umbillical chord at the one end tends to make it a lot unlike the other.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,17:51)]Having the umbillical chord at the one end tends to make it a lot unlike the other.
So you are saying that if someone has brainwaves and a heart beat but yet has a feeding tube they are not "alive" ?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 15 2007,17:32)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,17:51)]Having the umbillical chord at the one end tends to make it a lot unlike the other.
So you are saying that if someone has brainwaves and a heart beat but yet has a feeding tube they are not "alive" ?
I'm saying a feeder tube is different than an umbilical chord.

When that which started as an egg become alive? As soon as it becomes a zygote? When it was large enough to be a blastocyst? When the blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall? When the simple fish-like heart starts beating? When the heart is finally fully developed as a human heart? When the liver is finally capable of generating red blood cells? When alveoli form in the lungs? When the lungs are capable of respiration? et cetera.

None of those questions apply to when life ends. All apply to when life starts.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,20:45)]I'm saying a feeder tube is different than an umbilical chord.

When that which started as an egg become alive? As soon as it becomes a zygote? When it was large enough to be a blastocyst? When the blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall? When the simple fish-like heart starts beating? When the heart is finally fully developed as a human heart? When the liver is finally capable of generating red blood cells? When alveoli form in the lungs? When the lungs are capable of respiration? et cetera.

None of those questions apply to when life ends. All apply to when life starts.
A feeding tube is pretty much exactly the same as an umbilical cord.

And yes we can determine if someone is "alive" regardless of how well their lungs function, or their liver, or their red blood cell count etc...


"Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death": People are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases (cf. persistent vegetative state). It is presumed that a stoppage of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness.

The possession of brain activity, or ability to resume brain activity, is a necessary condition to legal personhood in the United States. "It appears that once brain death has been determined … no criminal or civil liability will result from disconnecting the life-support devices." (Dority v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County, 193 Cal.Rptr. 288, 291 (1983))

Brain death is a legal definition of death that emerged in the 1960's as a response to the ability to resuscitate individuals and mechanically keep the heart and lungs working. In simple terms, brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity."

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 15 2007,20:32)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,20:45)]
None of those questions apply to when life ends. All apply to when life starts.
A feeding tube is pretty much exactly the same as an umbilical cord.

And yes we can determine if someone is "alive" regardless of how well their lungs function, or their liver, or their red blood cell count etc...


[i]"Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death": People are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases (cf. persistent vegetative state). It is presumed that a stoppage of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness.
Wrong end of the creature. We're not interested here in when something dies. We're interested in when it becomes alive.

Nothing in the article on brain death gives any insight at all into brain birth.

[kc2orw]

I wish we could vote for none of the existing candidates as they are all too friendly with the idea of open borders. Unfortunately I don't see any hope so maybe we could have a boxing match and the winner could get the office for four years. Probably just about as effective a method as voting for the finks is http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,22:03)]We're not interested here in when something dies. We're interested in when it becomes alive.
Life is the opposite of death.

If we can legally determine when someone dies, then logically we can determine when someone is alive for purposes of law.

It's really that simple.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 16 2007,08:15)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,22:03)]We're not interested here in when something dies. We're interested in when it becomes alive.
Life is the opposite of death.

If we can legally determine when someone dies, then logically we can determine when someone is alive for purposes of law.

It's really that simple.
My first grandchild now has an independently beating heart as verified by instrumentation a few days ago, and was conceived approximately 13 weeks ago. If a child of 13 weeks is murdered by anyone other than its mother and I am on the jury, it will probably go bad for the perp.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Aug. 16 2007,09:36)]My first grandchild now has an independently beating heart as verified by instrumentation a few days ago, and was conceived approximately 13 weeks ago.
From what I've read, the start of the 2nd trimester is when it is generally accepted that the individual is "alive"

[wv6z]

I have a feeling your opinion will change when (if) you have children or are even just expecting a child Matt. Real life has a funny way of doing that to you. Trust me on this one.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Aug. 16 2007,08:15)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 15 2007,22:03)]We're not interested here in when something dies. We're interested in when it becomes alive.
Life is the opposite of death.

If we can legally determine when someone dies, then logically we can determine when someone is alive for purposes of law.

It's really that simple.
That would only be true if the start of life was exactly the reverse of the end of life.

We know that much isn't true.

Think about the questions I asked and you'll see it for yourself.

[K3XR]

"Like two ships that pass in the night".....

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/002838print.html

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Aug. 16 2007,21:41)]That would only be true if the start of life was exactly the reverse of the end of life.
I would argue that it is

[KI4PJW]

YES!

[N3ATS]

My wife had her first ultrasound at 10 weeks gestation. That was the first time I heard my daughter's heartbeat. 160 beats per minute and her heart was no bigger than the head of a pin, as I watched it on the screen.

Does that constitute alive?

Maybe we can get the baby killers to come to an agreement that a fetus is 2/3 of a man. You know like Negroes were, back 200 hundred years ago.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Sep. 22 2007,14:40)]My wife had her first ultrasound at 10 weeks gestation. That was the first time I heard my daughter's heartbeat. 160 beats per minute and her heart was no bigger than the head of a pin, as I watched it on the screen.

Does that constitute alive?

Maybe we can get the baby killers to come to an agreement that a fetus is 2/3 of a man. You know like Negroes were, back 200 hundred years ago.
My first grandchild as measured by 3-d ultrasound on Friday is a little girl. I and my entire family are very excited and happy. She is not a "fetus", but rather a "person" in my mind, a very important one. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

That said I deny the government the right to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices. If she wants to kill her unborn children, the murderess probably shouldn't be having children anyways. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Sep. 22 2007,18:50)]My first grandchild as measured by 3-d ultrasound on Friday is a little girl. #I and my entire family are very excited and happy. #She is not a "fetus", but rather a "person" in my mind, a very important one. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Accept my sincere congratulations to you, your family and especially to the happy mommy-to-be. My prayers for a good delivery and happy, healthy baby are part and parcel of that wish.

Quote[/b] ]That said I deny the government the right to interfere with a woman's reproductive choices. If she wants to kill her unborn children, the murderess probably shouldn't be having children anyways.

How then, dear Dave, do we separate ourselves from the beasts of the forest and field? Is our law not so much above that of fang and talon that we could so easily dispatch our young like so many guppies devouring their spawn?

That man is an animal apart is too obvious to deny. The line that separates an intelligent chimpanzee from the dullest denizen of QRZ is not one of degree, but of kind. Your grandchild one day will bring home a crayoned masterpiece to festoon a refrigerator door. Can you imagine a young chimp drawing a line, let alone essay a green puppy dog? Though both might happily munch the crayons, only one of the pair could use them.

Oh, what a choice you approve!

[N3ATS]

Every abortion should come with a complimentary hysterectomy! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Sep. 22 2007,15:08)]How then, dear Dave, do we separate ourselves from the beasts of the forest and field? Is our law not so much above that of fang and talon that we could so easily dispatch our young like so many guppies devouring their spawn?

That man is an animal apart is too obvious to deny. The line that separates an intelligent chimpanzee from the dullest denizen of QRZ is not one of degree, but of kind. Your grandchild one day will bring home a crayoned masterpiece to festoon a refrigerator door. Can you imagine a young chimp drawing a line, let alone essay a green puppy dog? Though both might happily munch the crayons, only one of the pair could use them.

Oh, what a choice you approve!
I know that you wish to protect the unborn as do I, but government is an abject failure at enforcing this and many other forms of wholesome behavior.

Sometimes you have to let people commit evil, for it would be a greater evil to stop them. The government should not be peering into birth canals and wedging itself between a woman and her physician. There is also no clear line between terminating a problem pregnancy and murdering unborn children, because the Universe is not always conveniently black and white. Just keep the uniforms, pledges, tasers, jackboots and handguns out of our exam rooms. Thanks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif