Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Personally I like him because he is basically honest and actually believes what he says, but he's totally off the rails when it comes to health care in America. He wants the uninsured to throw themselves on the steps and mercy of a church in the event of a serious illness but at the same time thinks abortion is murder. So by his logic, it's OK to kill a grown human being by denying them health care and not OK to kill something that is not even born yet. That's a huge void in logical thinking.
That's why he could never be president. Women don't want him in their bedrooms or bathroom cabinets, either. In that regard he ain't no libertarian, he's Big Brother.
Personally I like him because he is basically honest and actually believes what he says, but he's totally off the rails when it comes to health care in America. He wants the uninsured to throw themselves on the steps and mercy of a church in the event of a serious illness but at the same time thinks abortion is murder. So by his logic, it's OK to kill a grown human being by denying them health care and not OK to kill something that is not even born yet. That's a huge void in logical thinking.
That's why he could never be president. Women don't want him in their bedrooms or bathroom cabinets, either. In that regard he ain't no libertarian, he's Big Brother.
I don't think you fully comprehend his beliefs. He does not support the Government being involved with the Abortion issue. Government should neither fund Abortion, nor ban it. It's not a Government issue. And Government should not force Citizens to purchase a particular product by way of threats and punishment. Look into his stances a bit more. There's lots of sources out there to fill you in more accurately.
Personally I like him because he is basically honest and actually believes what he says, but he's totally off the rails when it comes to health care in America. He wants the uninsured to throw themselves on the steps and mercy of a church in the event of a serious illness but at the same time thinks abortion is murder. So by his logic, it's OK to kill a grown human being by denying them health care and not OK to kill something that is not even born yet. That's a huge void in logical thinking.
That's why he could never be president. Women don't want him in their bedrooms or bathroom cabinets, either. In that regard he ain't no libertarian, he's Big Brother.
I don't think you fully comprehend his beliefs. He does not support the Government being involved with the Abortion issue. Government should neither fund Abortion, nor ban it. It's not a Government issue. And Government should not force Citizens to purchase a particular product by way of threats and punishment. Look into his stances a bit more. There's lots of sources out there to fill you in more accurately.
Well then, he must be in agreement with President Obama and Ds.
But no. right along with the rest of the R clowns, he has outright lied about ObamaCare.
AND, ObamaCare is well within the TRUE Libertarian beliefs in that it makes it possible for all citizens to buy insurance at the same premium rates. But no. Once again, both Pauls have said they are against equality for all Americans.
Both Pauls are very changeable. They say whatever they happen to "believe" that day and will likely change their "beliefs" the next day.
The old man is bat shit nuts and the guano doesn't fall very far from the bat.
The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]
Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]
I don't think you fully comprehend his beliefs. He does not support the Government being involved with the Abortion issue. Government should neither fund Abortion, nor ban it. It's not a Government issue. And Government should not force Citizens to purchase a particular product by way of threats and punishment. Look into his stances a bit more. There's lots of sources out there to fill you in more accurately.
Well then, he must be in agreement with President Obama and Ds.
But no. right along with the rest of the R clowns, he has outright lied about ObamaCare.
AND, ObamaCare is well within the TRUE Libertarian beliefs in that it makes it possible for all citizens to buy insurance at the same premium rates. But no. Once again, both Pauls have said they are against equality for all Americans.
Both Pauls are very changeable. They say whatever they happen to "believe" that day and will likely change their "beliefs" the next day.
The old man is bat shit nuts and the guano doesn't fall very far from the bat.
The sad ramblings of a willfully ignorant misinformed Dear Leader-Worshipper. So pathetic.
The Sanctity of Life Act , via Ron Paul
The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]
Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]
The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]
Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]
Well then, he must be in agreement with President Obama and Ds.
But no. right along with the rest of the R clowns, he has outright lied about ObamaCare.
AND, ObamaCare is well within the TRUE Libertarian beliefs in that it makes it possible for all citizens to buy insurance at the same premium rates. But no. Once again, both Pauls have said they are against equality for all Americans.
Both Pauls are very changeable. They say whatever they happen to "believe" that day and will likely change their "beliefs" the next day.
The old man is bat shit nuts and the guano doesn't fall very far from the bat.
The sad ramblings of a willfully ignorant misinformed Dear Leader-Worshipper. So pathetic.
IOW, you can't argue what I wrote.
LOL
The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]
Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]
And of course this brings up the ancient question no libertarian seems able to answer:
How do libertarians explain the hypocrisy of fearing the tyranny of the Federal government yet advocating the tyranny of state and local governments?
a vapid speech of an old man
Yeah, like you watched the videos. Hurry, back to your Obamy's butthole. Lots more butt sniffing for you today. Enjoy.
The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7][8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are "born alive".[10]
Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.[11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]
And of course this brings up the ancient question no libertarian seems able to answer:
How do libertarians explain the hypocrisy of fearing the tyranny of the Federal government yet advocating the tyranny of state and local governments?
Are you really asking a question? Or do you think you already have the answer?
a vapid speech of an old man
Yup, they have this carefully crafted front but are so full of contradictions. Ron Paul makes the big stand against government spending but was one of the biggest porkmeisters in congress. Ron Paul says government should stay out of people's lives then introduces bills at the federal level to define life as beginning at conception in an obvious move to back his pro-life agenda.Just my opinion but the answer IS the question. That's why I say the Pauls are not Libertarians. They're just Rs that want to be elected. That means they'll do or say anything to fool the gullible.
And, not surprisingly, it works quite well.
a vapid speech of an old man
paulitician, you are a libertarian loon, nothing more.
You and the other liberts and randians are here only for our amusement, just grins and chuckles, my boy.
