ferno Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Isn’t he that fat guy with a moustache who used to make porn films? Nope, he's the guy who opposes abortion for rape victims and compares gay partnerships to polygamy. http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-gay-marriage-abortion-other-social-issues-162300001.html He's pretty good on drugs. So to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 To be fair his opposition to those laws are that they should be for individual states to decide, rather than the federal government. He was an obstetrician, so his strong views on abortions come from personal experience it would appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 He was an obstetrician, so his strong views on abortions come from personal experience it would appear. If he were a rape victim who became pregnant as a result of said rape, I'd be willing to accept that his view comes from personal experience. Not otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 There is still a long way to go in the primaries. New Hampshire is only the second state. It doesn't mean all that much if Ron Paul came in second. He was still around 15 percent below Romney with the rest way below that. It's hard to predict who will win the nomination in June of course but I'll hazard a guess and say it's Romney Ron Paul is essentially a Libertarian who is now running as a Republican but his ideas remain Libertarian. He ran under the Libertarian or Independent ticket back in 2008 and got nowhere because the Libertarians are just not a party that appeals to the great majority of the voters. His ideas aren't really realistic. He is basically a racist, would like to see Social Security and Medicare disappear and advocates legalizing drugs. During one interview he was asked who would take care of the sick if there was no health plan of any sort and his answer was that the church could do that in some cases because that was how it was done in the the old days. As for me I'll vote for Obama again any day. He may get his fair share of criticism from his opponents, some of it deserved maybe but no one can tell me he didn't do the right thing back in 2009 when he bailed out General Motors and Chrysler and saved millions of jobs in doing so and both those companies are doing very well now and the bail out loans paid back also. It also has to remembered that Obama inherited two wars and an economy that was going down the hole when he took office, a situation that not very many presidents before him except Roosevelt had to face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 He was an obstetrician, so his strong views on abortions come from personal experience it would appear. Or they may come from the fact that he's a right-wing bigot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I wouldn't worry about Paul when Mitt Romneys going to win ,, I don't care for any of them, but anythings better than Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'd be delighted if a Jeffersonian libertarian president was elected. just out of interest, what would one of them do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alternageek Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 To be fair his opposition to those laws are that they should be for individual states to decide, rather than the federal government. He was an obstetrician, so his strong views on abortions come from personal experience it would appear. It should be a federal issue as there would be loads of states who would ban it and prevent women being able to access the care they need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 It should be a federal issue as there would be loads of states who would ban it and prevent women being able to access the care they need Under the terms of the US Constitution, that's not a valid reason for making it a federal issue. States are supposed to be able to make law themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Actually Paul came 2nd in A American Primary, the second but not the first where he came third. You didn't mention that. Both were won by Romney, which hardly means that Paul is heading for the White House. In New Hampshire Paul got, I think, 23%. Romney got 39%. This implies that by your definition Romney speaks nearly twice as much sense as Paul but then again my pet goldfish Egbert speaks more sense than Paul. He (Paul not Egbert) wants to abolish income tax as a means of reducing the state. Well it would acheive its purpose but at what cost? Romney will win the GOP nomination as the least awful of a bunch of right-wing nutters. And then Obama will destroy Romney. As Obama has been a nothing much of a president so far that says a lot about the Republicans. He's got us out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. Some of the Republicans wish we could stay in both places. As for Romney the man with the billionaire smile he had the nerve to accuse Obama of being responisble for the loss of millions of jobs when it's on record that he himself was quite an axe man when it came to chopping jobs in his corporate executive days. The man has no connection with the average present day American unless they're among the one percent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.