Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[Osborn F Enready]

I just signed up with Zogby to help influence change in the minds of those who vote based on "poll numbers" or the lesser of two evil theory.

[brien]

Quote by: GHook93 3% isn't anything to brag about. And he is 5th, behind Romney 35%, the Mayur and the Hawk at 19% a piece and Fred Thompson at 6%.

Fred Thompson is not a candidate. Ron Paul is fourth, just as I wrote. The fact that the polling people even put Thompson in there shows exactly why you can't trust the polls. Here is a poll just as valid as any. So your assumption that Dr Paul can't do what you think he can't do is mere speculation.

May 21, 2007

As of 6:01 p.m. ET today, Congressman Ron Paul's YouTube channel has 8,000 subscribers; giving Dr. Paul a commanding first-place position among all presidential candidates. Senator Barack Obama remains in second place with 5,749 subscribers. Ron Paul's YouTube Channel YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[xyzer]

Yep Decider...Paul just zoomed up from 1 to an astronomical 3 % in the poll? I guess he has a chance....

I agree osbourn

And what is it that YOU think a President should be like, based on your subjective picture?

the format of the "debate" channeled responses into a series of questions which each had a short time to answer...nevertheless Paul came across to me as a shrill cranky antiwar(Itold you so) type candidate? He was heralded by the press as the only debator who was anti war? I prefer a straight talking, less emotional, candidate who regardless of the question he is asked doesn't whine and moan. I prefer an element of patriotism over defeatism in my candidates! A guy who looks with candor and optimism about the great country he proposes to represent! Not a blame placer and typical political charlatan!

IMNSHO the Iraqi War is a blip on the welfare of this nation.
However it has been wrung out of all proportion by antiwar types(like Paul) the Democrats, and the press. It was the issue that drove the Dems into legislative ascendency? All the while the economy is booming, you and I are getting more wealthy and living at a much better level..though there are still some issues that confront us..Illegal Immigration, Tax Reform, Social Security, etc.. Instead we keep hearing about Iraq and abortion, oversight and mistakes by the current administration. And what else have the Demos offered us.
What else does Paul offer us, or any of these candidates?

[brien]

I guess he has a chance....

He has a better chance than every other candidate below him. Furthermore, there is still many months for the exposure to Ron Paul's ideas and the lies in the campaigns of others. He can peel away support from the other candidates when it can be shown Rudy is a farce, (he couldn't even beat Clinton in NY for the Senate seat) Mc Cain is a warmonger, and Romney is as phony as his claim to be a "life long hunter". Continued debates will only grow support for Paul.

[Autolykos]

Xyzer, I invite you to read and answer my previous response to you.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier:

Quote by: Hmm Umm... Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Indeed. While I am opposed to partial-birth abortion on a moral level, I see no reason to enact a federal law banning the procedure. So I disagree with Dr. Paul's stance on this issue.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: RickSp Correct me if I am wrong but he opposed Roe V Wade. This is not exactly the same as a federal law outlawing abortion but it is close enough for me.

AFAIK, Roe v. Wade effectively banned state legislatures from outlawing abortion outright. In other words, it essentially created a federal right to abortions.

I'm a decentralist, which means I'm opposed to the federal government imposing policies on the entire country. That includes policies which otherwise conform to my view of morality.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider In other words, Paul wouldn't care about Massachusetts abortions, but women in Texas are SOL. Gotcha!

Spare me your sarcasm. Why don't you try explaining what makes you conclude that abortion is an inalienable right. While you're at it, explain how, in your opinion, the federal government is justified in imposing any legal view of abortion on the country as a whole.

- Rob

[GHook93]

Quote by: Autolykos AFAIK, Roe v. Wade effectively banned state legislatures from outlawing abortion outright. In other words, it essentially created a federal right to abortions.

It might have made it unconstitutional for the states to outlaw abortions, but it left open the door to putting limits on abortion up to the point of fetus viability.

[Autolykos]

Okay, so? Do you favor centralism over decentralism?

- Rob

[brien]

More gains for RP.

Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 22, 2007 ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party. "The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race." In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that: Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against: · raising taxes; · unbalanced budgets; · a federal restriction on gun ownership; · raising congressional pay; or · increasing the power of the executive branch. His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against: · the USA Patriot Act; · regulating the Internet; and · the war in Iraq. Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform. "Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president." -30- Ron Paul 2008

[The Decider]

Quote by: Autolykos Spare me your sarcasm.

No can do, sorry.

Quote by: Autolykos Why don't you try explaining what makes you conclude that abortion is an inalienable right.

Ask Paul. He seems fine with abortions in Massachusetts, if Massachusetts citizens allow them, and OK with abortion bans in Texas for the same reason. At least Paul wants us to believe this. If he truly opposes abortion, how can he standby silently while Massachusetts practices that which he abhors? I doubt he would. He would find a way to support Massachusetts anti-abortion groups by using the presidential "bully pulpit." Either way, I'm not eager to find out.

Quote by: Autolykos While you're at it, explain how, in your opinion, the federal government is justified in imposing any legal view of abortion on the country as a whole.

The topic I addressed was Paul's "states rights" stand on abortion. I stipulate to his anti-federal argument (although I don't agree) to question Paul's real commitment to a state's right to permit an act that he clearly views as "killing" or even "murder." As a pro-choice supporter, an anti-abortion candidate taking a "states' rights" position offers little comfort.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien More gains for RP.

The United Republicans of California a "key GOP group?" They broke away from the California Republican Assembly back in the early 1960s and have no connection with the current Republican Party Central Committee. They represent the radical fringe of the party.

[brien]

I don't care who they are, they vote. It is a gain for RP.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien I don't care who they are, they vote. It is a gain for RP.

It's a gain if Paul moves up in the California polls. We'll see.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: The Decider No can do, sorry.

Sure you can.

Ask Paul. He seems fine with abortions in Massachusetts, if Massachusetts citizens allow them, and OK with abortion bans in Texas for the same reason. At least Paul wants us to believe this. If he truly opposes abortion, how can he standby silently while Massachusetts practices that which he abhors? I doubt he would. He would find a way to support Massachusetts anti-abortion groups by using the presidential "bully pulpit." Either way, I'm not eager to find out.

First off, let me point out that you did not actually answer my question.

With that said, I will respond to what you did write. You seem to doubt Dr. Paul's sincerity in his anti-centralist statements. Might I ask why? Is it simply because he is a politician, and you're used to politicians lying?

On the other hand, opposing a thing does not mean one must feel obligated to prevent it. I oppose murder but I do not try to prevent all murder. Dr. Paul, I suspect, has the same view about abortion -- he opposes it morally, but not legally -- at least not on the federal level. Honestly, I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand.

The topic I addressed was Paul's "states rights" stand on abortion. I stipulate to his anti-federal argument (although I don't agree) to question Paul's real commitment to a state's right to permit an act that he clearly views as "killing" or even "murder." As a pro-choice supporter, an anti-abortion candidate taking a "states' rights" position offers little comfort.

So you are a centralist, then. I see.

What, in your view, are the merits of centralizing power?

- Rob

[The Decider]

Quote by: Autolykos Sure you can.

But I choose not to, sorry.

Quote by: Autolykos First off, let me point out that you did not actually answer my question.

Your question, "Is abortion an inaliable right," is off-topic on a Ron Paul thread, unless you introduce a statement by Paul that sheds light on his abortion stand. When you do, I'll respond.

Quote by: Autolykos With that said, I will respond to what you did write. You seem to doubt Dr. Paul's sincerity in his anti-centralist statements. Might I ask why? Is it simply because he is a politician, and you're used to politicians lying?

Presidents have a great deal of power to influence a state's politics. He can offer or withhold federal contracts; reward or punish state representatives in Washington; and support or oppose private interest group efforts. A president also must factor in his own supporters and what they may want as reward for their support. Is Paul immune to all these temptations and influences? If you think so, you're being more than a little naive. I won't take that chance.

Quote by: Autolykos So you are a centralist, then. I see. What, in your view, are the merits of centralizing power?

Perhaps on another thread we can debate "centralizing power," but here I'm more concerned with Paul's stance on abortion and how it might affect pro-choice states like my own, Massachusetts. Your assurances to the contrary, I'm not comfortable with the idea of an anti-abortion president in the White House.

[bishop]

paul's going to be on cspan tonight at 9pm - giving a speech on u.s. foreign policy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks Bishop, will be sure to tune in.

Any idea of what c-span channel? (1, 2, 3 or 4)?

[bishop]

not sure.. it'll be the cspan that usually airs the house of reps., which is cspan2 if i'm not mistaken.