Originally posted by xZodiacx
so true!! never looked at it like the way he explains it. He's pretty much just taking votes for the Republican party if he runs as an independent. Only thing is is that if this does happen, then it may split the republican votes and Obama will win...As much as I want him to, I just do not see it. Check this illuminati card out. He is a puppet that will ensure Obama's victory.

So if you have Satan (Obama), and then you have the son of Satan (Romney), I should vote for the lesser of the two to keep Obama (Satan) out of the picture? Most RP supporters will not vote for the lesser evil. Like me, most RP supporters will write RP in on the ballot. Romney will not be any better (if not worse) than Obama. At least I can walk away from the voting station with a smile on my face for making the decision I feel to be right.

he is getting 10% of the republican votes

in a genral election he'd lose by 40 pts

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I like some of Paul's policies but I'm hesitant to vote for him considering his views on gay rights, women's rights, etc...

His views on gay rights are that he is not gay himself, he has been married for many years, and he believes marriage between homosexual couples (which is the biggest gay rights issue of the day) should be decided by the church and not by the government. I wholeheartedly believe in this. I don't think we can have a free society if we discriminate against people like the way that were doing. And personally he is very much pro life. Although he would not decide himself as president what the law should be against abortion, he does believe it is a state issue. So why would you hesitate to vote for him, and what makes Romney at this point any better?

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
What if Romney takes on Paul as a running mate?

Dude not even Romney from 4 years ago could be Romney's running mate, THEY TOO have nothing in common.

LOL

Originally posted by Allenb83

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I like some of Paul's policies but I'm hesitant to vote for him considering his views on gay rights, women's rights, etc...

His views on gay rights are that he is not gay himself, he has been married for many years, and he believes marriage between homosexual couples (which is the biggest gay rights issue of the day) should be decided by the church and not by the government. I wholeheartedly believe in this. I don't think we can have a free society if we discriminate against people like the way that were doing. And personally he is very much pro life. Although he would not decide himself as president what the law should be against abortion, he does believe it is a state issue. So why would you hesitate to vote for him, and what makes Romney at this point any better?

Not everyone goes to church or follows Paul's religious ideologies. Therefore, leaving it to the church is an invalid argument. Although I do believe the government should stay out of personal lives to a certain degree, there needs to be a federal decision to legalize same sex marriage. It's a right everyone deserves.

Paul is also against funding Planned Parenthood aka basic health care rights for women and even men. I understand the value of state rights but federal involvement is also very important and necessary.

This is why I'm hesitant to vote for someone who has some radical ideas.

Also, Paul is for state rights but bashed Rick Perry (who is the douche of the century) for ordering an executive decision for young girls to get the HPV vaccine. Perry is the governor of a state. It wasn't a federal issue, it was a state one. Who cares? I found that to be extremely hypocritical on Paul's part although I understood the doctor's side of the argument completely.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
What if Romney takes on Paul as a running mate?

Ron Paul has integrity.

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by Allenb83

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I like some of Paul's policies but I'm hesitant to vote for him considering his views on gay rights, women's rights, etc...

His views on gay rights are that he is not gay himself, he has been married for many years, and he believes marriage between homosexual couples (which is the biggest gay rights issue of the day) should be decided by the church and not by the government. I wholeheartedly believe in this. I don't think we can have a free society if we discriminate against people like the way that were doing. And personally he is very much pro life. Although he would not decide himself as president what the law should be against abortion, he does believe it is a state issue. So why would you hesitate to vote for him, and what makes Romney at this point any better?

Not everyone goes to church or follows Paul's religious ideologies. Therefore, leaving it to the church is an invalid argument. Although I do believe the government should stay out of personal lives to a certain degree, there needs to be a federal decision to legalize same sex marriage. It's a right everyone deserves.

Paul is also against funding Planned Parenthood aka basic health care rights for women and even men. I understand the value of state rights but federal involvement is also very important and necessary.

This is why I'm hesitant to vote for someone who has some radical ideas.

Also, Paul is for state rights but bashed Rick Perry (who is the douche of the century) for ordering an executive decision for young girls to get the HPV vaccine. Perry is the governor of a state. It wasn't a federal issue, it was a state one. Who cares? I found that to be extremely hypocritical on Paul's part although I understood the doctor's side of the argument completely.

Thats the whole idea of liberty. Ron Paul has a religion that he follows. It is something very personal to him. Nobody has to follow his religion or go to church on a regular basis in order to get married. There are many churches out there that would marry same sex couples if the law allowed it, as has happened in areas where it has been legalized. Dr. Paul wants government out of the decision because it should be an individual right. I believe we don't need the government to tell us that something is OK or not OK. It is up to us the people to make the decision of what is best for us.

Health care is not a right, it is something that either you, your children (eventually), or someone else, will have to pay for. At the present moment you do however have the right to choose wether or not you carry health insurance. Give Obama or Romney another 4 years and I wouldn't be so sure.

So please tell me how giving us our freedom to choose, without shouldering the burden of others is a radical idea?

Dr. Paul is for the constitution. Mandating that children and young adults get a vaccine without the freedom of the parent or emancipated minors choice is not following our constitutional rights, and it was a bad idea on Perry's part. So yeah, our rights are being taken away... who cares, right?

Originally posted by schuyler
Ron Paul will not win the nomination. The only way he could win is for him to pick up every single one of the remaining 770 delegates to be chosen.

Unless the others all die in a polish airliner type crash.

Originally posted by Allenb83

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by Allenb83

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
I like some of Paul's policies but I'm hesitant to vote for him considering his views on gay rights, women's rights, etc...

His views on gay rights are that he is not gay himself, he has been married for many years, and he believes marriage between homosexual couples (which is the biggest gay rights issue of the day) should be decided by the church and not by the government. I wholeheartedly believe in this. I don't think we can have a free society if we discriminate against people like the way that were doing. And personally he is very much pro life. Although he would not decide himself as president what the law should be against abortion, he does believe it is a state issue. So why would you hesitate to vote for him, and what makes Romney at this point any better?

Not everyone goes to church or follows Paul's religious ideologies. Therefore, leaving it to the church is an invalid argument. Although I do believe the government should stay out of personal lives to a certain degree, there needs to be a federal decision to legalize same sex marriage. It's a right everyone deserves.

Paul is also against funding Planned Parenthood aka basic health care rights for women and even men. I understand the value of state rights but federal involvement is also very important and necessary.

This is why I'm hesitant to vote for someone who has some radical ideas.

Also, Paul is for state rights but bashed Rick Perry (who is the douche of the century) for ordering an executive decision for young girls to get the HPV vaccine. Perry is the governor of a state. It wasn't a federal issue, it was a state one. Who cares? I found that to be extremely hypocritical on Paul's part although I understood the doctor's side of the argument completely.

Thats the whole idea of liberty. Ron Paul has a religion that he follows. It is something very personal to him. Nobody has to follow his religion or go to church on a regular basis in order to get married. There are many churches out there that would marry same sex couples if the law allowed it, as has happened in areas where it has been legalized. Dr. Paul wants government out of the decision because it should be an individual right. I believe we don't need the government to tell us that something is OK or not OK. It is up to us the people to make the decision of what is best for us.

Health care is not a right, it is something that either you, your children (eventually), or someone else, will have to pay for. At the present moment you do however have the right to choose wether or not you carry health insurance. Give Obama or Romney another 4 years and I wouldn't be so sure.

So please tell me how giving us our freedom to choose, without shouldering the burden of others is a radical idea?

Dr. Paul is for the constitution. Mandating that children and young adults get a vaccine without the freedom of the parent or emancipated minors choice is not following our constitutional rights, and it was a bad idea on Perry's part. So yeah, our rights are being taken away... who cares, right?

Oh goodness.

Let's not suck off Paul that much, ok?

The idea of marriage isn't committed to organized religion. Two people have a right to engage in marriage if they wish to do so. Having the government (State or Federal) prohibit you from doing so because of a religious institution is downright backwards and disgusting.

Paul supports the other Republicans when it comes to cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. The idea is insane and idiotic. What did he once say when it came to health care? Leave it to charities? I lol'd hard at that.


"Mandating that children and young adults get a vaccine without the freedom of the parent or emancipated minors choice is not following our constitutional rights, "

Get over it. HPV leads to cancer and there's nothing wrong with securing children from getting the virus considering it's highly infectious. It's the only decent thing Perry ever did.

I think once people find out about Obama's plan to stay in Afghanistan another 10 years will help RP even more. I think after tonight's announcement Obama will lose a lot of the fan base except for the shills who pull for him...So this could be another ticket for RP to slide in between and take center stage...

This will help RP become POTUS, because Obama will lose popularity and no one would want Romney, because Romney would do the same thing if he was in Obama's shoes...There is light for the good Dr..

Listen, if Ron doesn't win, the Country is going to get worse than it is right now because Obamney definitely doesn't have our best interests at stake here. Apparently that's what the majority craves so.... what can you do. Harp at us and cut us down when Paul loses and yet turn around and cry when the Country gets in worse shape.

-okay-

I swear you all are addicted to chaos and control by government.


I still hold hope that the younger gen will keep going how they have been and finally something good will happen when they get to voting ages etc. They are who we got to rely on now. I hope to heaven a lot of future govt seat holders will have Ron's views (the good ones; not all are great of course) and we'll weed the nasty out of the senate, HoR, Congress and Potus and FINALLY go back to fully constitutional rights, where WE run the govt, we hire the govt, we fire the govt, they work for us and talk with us, not us work for them and them talk FOR us.

Somewhere, somehow, the majority of the People forgot that we ARE the govt's employers.

*blinks*