Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican

---

No, whichever Establishment crony the Republicans put out there will work with Obama (AKA Bush Dark), to split the vote from Ron Paul.

There's not ONE Republican candidate out there that could take the Independent, or Libertarian votes, besides Dr. Paul. Bush is too fresh in everybody's mind, and anybody with a brain sees BOTH Establishment parties are doing the same thing, screwing us all. Ron Paul doesn't give a toss about splitting votes between two great evils. He's not out to protect the Establishment, he's not hiding that.

I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Perhaps the most revealing spread of polling numbers comes from the latest Rasmussen poll on Tuesday showing that among voters that do not identify themselves as Republican or Democrat, Ron Paul is now in a 10-point lead over Obama (43% to 33%). This means that Paul is picking up a significant portion of the all important Independent, Decline-to-state and 3rd party vote. These 3 categories represent the fastest growing segments of registered voters today. This trend is largely being fueled by rapidly increasing voter' discontent of traditional, establishment candidates.
www.examiner.com...

Right, that's why he keeps running to split the vote, ensuring the enemies of freedom get the elected?

Censoring Ron Paul on Evolution

Writes Joe Schembrie: "Here is the unedited Youtube of Ron Paul's remarks on evolution.

"Here is the highly-edited version that is referenced by Andrew Sullivan's blog.

"Here is a transcript, with the deleted words bracketed:

"'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']

"As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"
www.lewrockwell.com...

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 10th 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.
www.lewrockwell.com...