Ron Paul Political Informercial

[Taco John]

This half hour infomercial is going to be broadcast throughout Iowa the weekend of December 22nd - 23rd.


Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k

Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg

[baja]

This Ron Paul movement is going to grow exponentially now.

[Taco John]

Tuesday night, Ron Paul will be on the Glenn Beck show for a full hour. Then this upcoming Sunday, Tim Russert will have Paul on for a full hour.

[cutthemdown]

I'm watching it. My first wow is the 9-11 may have been stopped if we had listened more to the 2nd amendment. Is he implying that if we all packed heat on airplanes someone would have shot them?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I'm watching it. My first wow is the 9-11 may have been stopped if we had listened more to the 2nd amendment. Is he implying that if we all packed heat on airplanes someone would have shot them?

No, the second Amendment also applies to the airlines. Pilots have been asking to carry guns for years, but the Federal government refused to let them. The Bush Administration had strongly opposed this position.


Here's an article that discusses this point of view:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1757

[cutthemdown]

The one thing that I absolutly love about Ron Paul is he hits on my nationalistic tendencies. I am all for not giving our money away to other countries, I say we spend it all on our infrastructure. Next Tsunami call someone else. I don't agree with closing every base but I could go with closing a lot of them. Maybe then we could get some cool high speed trains built from LA to Vegas so I could gamble and party more often.......I AM A CONSITUTIONALIST.

Thank's Taco I enjoyed watching those.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Taco John

No, the second Amendment also applies to the airlines. Pilots have been asking to carry guns for years, but the Federal government refused to let them. The Bush Administration had strongly opposed this position.


Here's an article that discusses this point of view:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1757

Oh ok I think they should have been more clear on that but I will watch it again maybe i missed it. I get it though because the feds say only we can have guns on planes, the airlines are left to the mercy of fed air marshals where you hope one might be on the plane. If airlines handled their own security then I guess it could be like a bank where there is an armed guard on the plane and the pilots have guns. I get it now!!!!!! I would actually say that it would be better to let the airlines handle it because they have the most to lose by a plane being taken over.

[cutthemdown]

Baja how can you be for Paul he is pro-life?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I would actually say that it would be better to let the airlines handle it because they have the most to lose by a plane being taken over.

That is *exactly* Ron Paul's position on this matter.

[baja]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The one thing that I absolutly love about Ron Paul is he hits on my nationalistic tendencies. I am all for not giving our money away to other countries, I say we spend it all on our infrastructure. Next Tsunami call someone else. I don't agree with closing every base but I could go with closing a lot of them. Maybe then we could get some cool high speed trains built from LA to Vegas so I could gamble and party more often.......I AM A CONSITUTIONALIST.

Thank's Taco I enjoyed watching those.

Jesus you are an irritating little piss ant.

You are the poster boy of "The Ugly American"

Somewhere in almost every post you write I feel a twinge of embarrassment that you are a fellow American.

And to top it off you are also a suck ass.

[baja]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Baja how can you be for Paul he is pro-life?

Why would you think that is a conflict of my views. Do you think before you type something?

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Baja how can you be for Paul he is pro-life?

I've been wondering about that one myself. I'm willing to give Dr.Paul a long, fair look and listen because, on balance, I find that I agree with him on many of the issues and questions in the Iowa videos. I'm not willing to be a one-issue voter on this question. That would be just as narrow-minded of me, going the other way, as any religious rightwinger who wouldn't vote for any candidate without a Jesus bumper sticker slapped across his ass.

The question of "reproductive freedom" covers a whole lot more ground than whether or not a woman can have an abortion -- or even who should pay for it. I'm curious to find out more about Dr. Paul's stand on the wider issues of true reproductive freedom, and also how he views these questions interacting with individual sovereignty and personal freedom.

Regards,
m.

[Taco John]

Dr. Paul's position on abortion is simply this: He's personally against it, but doesn't feel that the federal government should be setting any national directives on this - or any other matter of morality. Thus Dr. Paul believes that it's important that the Federal government remain consistent in these matters by leaving them all to the states. This isn't just for abortion, but it also is for every issue, from medical marijuana (or even recreational marijuana), to euthinasia, to drinking age, to abortion. Dr. Paul's position is simply that the federal government has no mandate to override the decisions of the states in these matters. States should decide on all of these matters through ballot measures and through locally elected representatives.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Dr. Paul's position on abortion is simply this: He's personally against it, but doesn't feel that the federal government should be setting any national directives on this - or any other matter of morality. Thus Dr. Paul believes that it's important that the Federal government remain consistent in these matters by leaving them all to the states. This isn't just for abortion, but it also is for every issue, from medical marijuana (or even recreational marijuana), to euthinasia, to drinking age, to abortion. Dr. Paul's position is simply that the federal government has no mandate to override the decisions of the states in these matters. States should decide on all of these matters through ballot measures and through locally elected representatives.

He makes it emphatically clear that he would like to see Rowe vs Wade overturned.

He believes life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by baja

He makes it emphatically clear that he would like to see Rowe vs Wade overturned.

Yes, indeed. He also makes it emphatically clear that this is because he believes that RvW is an example of the judicial branch writing legislation, rather than ruling on already written law, and that he believes these matters belong to the states, not the federal government. So to fix this, he would like to pass legistlation that effectively nullifies R v. W and gives the jusrisdiction on this matter, and all other moral matters to the states.

He has already written this legislation. It's called the We The People Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgements.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Yes, indeed. He also makes it emphatically clear that this is because he believes that RvW is an example of the judicial branch writing legislation, rather than ruling on already written law, and that he believes these matters belong to the states, not the federal government. So to fix this, he would like to pass legistlation that effectively nullifies R v. W and gives the jusrisdiction on this matter, and all other moral matters to the states.

He has already written this legislation. It's called the We The People Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgements.

I agree 100%

On a personal note I believe, after a life time of struggling with this decision, that life begins at conception and it is the higher good to protect the unborn life than to protect the rights of the mother.

[Taco John]

Let me make this clear by saying this:

Ron Paul doesn't believe that because HE thinks abortion is murder, that everybody should have to live by what he believe. Dr. Paul believes that there is no one correct way to handle these matters, and that the best thing to do is to turn them back over to the people, not the federal governent.

Dr. Paul believes that his position on abortion should really only matter in terms of his local government, and he would vote in Texas state for representatives who would reflect this position.

As far as any legislation that crosses his desk in this matter, he's only going to sign bills that meet constitutional muster for the federal government. If the bills don't meet constitutional muster, then he will not sign them.

[baja]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Let me make this clear by saying this:

Ron Paul doesn't believe that because HE thinks abortion is murder, that everybody should have to live by what he believe. Dr. Paul believes that there is no one correct way to handle these matters, and that the best thing to do is to turn them back over to the people, not the federal government.

Dr. Paul believes that his position on abortion should really only matter in terms of his local government, and he would vote in Texas state for representatives who would reflect this position.

As far as any legislation that crosses his desk in this matter, he's only going to sign bills that meet constitutional muster for the federal government. If the bills don't meet constitutional muster, then he will not sign them.

I love how Dr. Paul uses the constitution to settle what has been very sticky matters I also love returning power to the individual states.

[mhgaffney]

You will recall that R Reagan's so called revolution was supposed to decentralize the federal government and return power to the states --

But it didn't work out that way. Under Reagan the globalists began their agenda of off shoring investment capital. Under Reagan we also saw union busting -- and huge military spending, which is not consistent with decentralization. The federal government continued to grow under Reagan -- and so did executive power.

But Ron Paul is a different breed of politician. He really means to live by the Constitution. That could save us -- but you have to figure that if his popularity grows and he becomes a contender the powers that be will try to kill him -- because at that point he would be a real threat to the US power elite --

[mhgaffney]

They killed the Kennedys. They killed M Luther King. They can certainly do Ron Paul.

[baja]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You will recall that R Reagan's so called revolution was supposed to decentralize the federal government and return power to the states --

But it didn't work out that way. Under Reagan the globalists began their agenda of off shoring investment capital. Under Reagan we also saw union busting -- and huge military spending, which is not consistent with decentralization. The federal government continued to grow under Reagan -- and so did executive power.

But Ron Paul is a different breed of politician. He really means to live by the Constitution. That could save us -- but you have to figure that if his popularity grows and he becomes a contender the powers that be will try to kill him -- because at that point he would be a real threat to the US power elite --

This is my concern too. I will not be surprised to see Ron Paul come down with some type of wasting disease and have to withdraw his name from the race due to health reasons. It's not healthy to fuuun with big Pharm or big banking.

[baja]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

They killed the Kennedys. They killed M Luther King. They can certainly do Ron Paul.

Who are "They" ?

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by baja

Jesus you are an irritating little piss ant.

You are the poster boy of "The Ugly American"

Somewhere in almost every post you write I feel a twinge of embarrassment that you are a fellow American.

And to top it off you are also a suck ass.

I think it's funny how mad I make you. It shows how weak your mind is when you succumb to making personal insults. I choose to rise above it from now on and just let you wallow in your life of irritation.

[baja]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I think it's funny how mad I make you. It shows how weak your mind is when you succumb to making personal insults. I choose to rise above it from now on and just let you wallow in your life of irritation.

You don't make me mad. You do make me wonder if the species will ever amount to anything approaching noble.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

That could save us -- but you have to figure that if his popularity grows and he becomes a contender the powers that be will try to kill him -- because at that point he would be a real threat to the US power elite --

I received an email with this link the other day...

Take it for whatever it's worth:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ating_paul.htm