Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 08:04:05 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Site provides evidence for ancient comet explosion
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/173177.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Ron Paul's rise

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ron Paul's rise  (Read 102 times)
0 Members and 40 Guests are viewing this topic.
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« on: November 04, 2007, 01:12:34 am »

Ron Paul's Meteoric Rise
Web rankings prove Ron Paul is attracting more and more attention while every other candidate is flat 
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Saturday November 3, 2007
     
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/031107Meteoric.htm

A cursory analysis of Ron Paul's web rankings on Alexa proves that his presidential campaign is soaring while all his nearest rivals are no longer attracting any new visitors and are languishing in the congressmen's wake.

The following graph (click for enlargement) compares Ron Paul's ranking (in blue) with that of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani:


Ron Paul's website is currently ranked at 13,494 and has risen 9,247 within the last 3 months, a rise of 81%.

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's site is ranked at 35,143, a drop of over 12,000 in the last three months, with giuliani way down at 121,745.

Ron Paul's online popularity is also reflected in the straw polls and the debate polls he has won.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2007, 01:13:44 am by Volitzer » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Bianca
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 41646



« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2007, 07:38:15 pm »




Rep. Paul (R-Texas) would cut or end many of the programs that serve the children, the poor and the

seniors and turn those responsibilities over to the free market. Bad idea.
Report Spam   Logged

Your mind understands what you have been taught; your heart what is true.
Adrienne
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2428



« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2007, 11:58:08 pm »

Most of his supporters are guys.  There is a reason for that - he is against abortion, would take away a woman's right to choose.  He also believes people aren't entitled to Social Security either or any other government programs designed to help people.

He's right on the war, a loony about everything else. 
Report Spam   Logged

"In a monarchy, the king is law, in a democracy, the law is king."
-Thomas Paine
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2007, 02:52:47 am »

Whoa !!!!!   Shocked

Have you guys got links and news articles ??   Huh
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2007, 02:51:19 am »

 Undecided  Anything ?? ??
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2007, 01:37:41 pm »

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=642


Quote
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2003

No Federal Funding for Abortion!
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion.

First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of 2003. This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure.

Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.


Okay he's against abortion.  But then again the big push for abortions is by Illuminati eugenicists.  He's actually protecting women from Illuminati politics and yet you bash him.    Huh Huh Huh Huh
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 01:38:49 pm by Volitzer » Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2007, 01:58:15 pm »

Quote
A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.

A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.

Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.

We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2007, 02:00:29 pm »

Most of his supporters are guys.  There is a reason for that - he is against abortion, would take away a woman's right to choose.  He also believes people aren't entitled to Social Security either or any other government programs designed to help people.

He's right on the war, a loony about everything else. 

He just doesn't believe that any government should be funding abortion.  Constitutionally America can't.  Again Abortion is eugenically driven.  Why are women so gullible to their agenda ??
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2007, 02:03:46 pm »

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it.   Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.   There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists.   The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures.   Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.   So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2007, 02:06:00 pm »

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446


Federalizing Social Policy


January 30,  2006   

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion.   It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts.   It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it.   Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.   There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists.   The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures.   Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.   So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.


The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states.   Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power.  The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population. 

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy?  Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens.   Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us.   A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person.   For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society.   No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life.   And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.
Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2007, 02:06:34 pm »

I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for a sexist.  We've had too much of that in the past.   Sad

Hillary's probably our best bet unless Al Gore throws his hat in the ring.  I am 99% sure that our next president will not be a Republican.

Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2007, 04:45:30 pm »

I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for a sexist.  We've had too much of that in the past.   Sad

Hillary's probably our best bet unless Al Gore throws his hat in the ring.  I am 99% sure that our next president will not be a Republican.



How do you get sexism out of this ??

Read the green glowing statements again.   Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2007, 04:49:42 pm »

In a nutshell abortion funding/enforcement for or against has no business being done by a Constitutional Republic Government.

If women want to pay for abortions themselves Ron Paul says nothing about that.
Report Spam   Logged
Amber
Full Member
***
Posts: 11


« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2007, 05:56:09 pm »

Of course Ron Paul's position is sexist, and he is wrong in his interpretation of Roe vs. Wade as wel.  The Consitution guarantees a right of privacy, which means no messing with people's right to birth control, abortion or sexual relations. 

People who are against Roe are so because of religious or sexist grounds, they certainly aren't against it because they see some basis for it in the Constitution, it isn't there.  Paul is against it apparently because he was an OBGYN and had more sympathy for the embryos he was seeing than the women who were carrying them.

So, in short, Ron Paul is for more government interference when it comes to your private life, less government interference when it comes to the programs that actually benefit people. 

Like most Republicans, he simply doesn't think that government should be used to help anyone.  I guess that plays well in Texas, where he is from.
Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2007, 06:16:44 pm »

Sexist or not, I don't want a president in my bedroom!  We are already dealing with a president who eavesdrops on our private phone conversations.  Where will it all end?
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy