Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party?

Ron Paul..(paraphrase) instead of dictating to other countries through force we should have other countries want to emulate us.

Sane!

http://www.cnn.com/video/...

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

<quoted text>
Sanitarium just won 2 states. Don't worry I believe those states already have re-written science and history text books anyway. He'll fit right in.

Neither one are delegate counted are they? The real contest is in March, right?

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

<quoted text>
Sanitarium just won 2 states. Don't worry I believe those states already have re-written science and history text books anyway. He'll fit right in.

CO aint looking good either.

Of course I am not sure there are any Republicans in CO.

O M Gosh, the plot thickens and the game is afoot. Just what will March bring in, besides a lot of hot air.

There will be a few rhetorical grandstands and some empty promises to go with that hot air.

LORAX wrote:

There will be a few rhetorical grandstands and some empty promises to go with that hot air.

LOl. Yea, I guess you're right. I hope so. The guy just said women shouldn't be on the front lines because they are too emotional.(he might be right given that my wife went balistic over his comment) My wife is ..let's say extremely ambitious and "head strong". I don't think he recognizes that categorizing all women as emotional and unprepared for combat is a wise decision. He actually believes it. The same way he believes gay rights equates to polygamy, beastiality and pedophellia. He's not only incorrect but actually believes and prosyletizes his inacurrate ideas.

Easy on the other hand might agree with him. Back in the kitchen barefoot and naked for all women.(except for the butch ones, they might be ok to fight):)

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced President Barack Obama's compromise over whether to require religiously affiliated institutions to provide contraception to female employees. They keyword here is "provide". "Today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deploy held convictions," their statement said

While I agree with the separation of church and state,we are talking about medicine here. Would their statement be the same if they were required to offer immunizations to children instead of prayer?

Confused on this one. Bill please furnish your opinion. I'm still leaning toward, If you don't want contraception don't take it.

Furthermore, from an economic perspective, given the cost of birth control without insurance, the only ones who are affected by non-coverage, are those who are low income or poor, since those with higher incomes can afford the cost. Part of me really doesn't understand the argument. Women who do not believe in the use of birth control should never have to use it, even if their insurance allows for it. I guess the requirement that the insurance has to provide it is what really pisses them off.
It is irresponsible to bring children into the world who you cannot afford to raise. And it is ridiculous and sad to imply that women who cannot afford the expense of children should abstain from a full sexual life.(on the other hand is it their deeply held religous believe that sex is only for procreation..once..and that's it. No oral, No anal, No bondage,just plain missionary and sorry for you women..NO ORGASM)
Forgive me for my overt exagerations which Bill will gladly point out.
Great Day all!

I think its a matter of funding.. If the word is provide does that not equal an unfunded mandate? If it is paid for then is the federal government then not crossing the line of church and state? Again the problem with initiating these types of "solutions" at a federal level.

This is ancient news from 2008.

The world has changed greatly since 2008 and so has the constituancy of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul will not run as a third party in 2012.

Ron Paul will be the Republican nominee for President of the United States of American, and he will win the general election by a landslide.

In 2013, Ron Paul will be sworn in, thereafter to immediately abolish the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 by executive order as first order of business.

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

Furthermore, from an economic perspective, given the cost of birth control without insurance, the only ones who are affected by non-coverage, are those who are low income or poor, since those with higher incomes can afford the cost. Part of me really doesn't understand the argument. Women who do not believe in the use of birth control should never have to use it, even if their insurance allows for it. I guess the requirement that the insurance has to provide it is what really pisses them off.
It is irresponsible to bring children into the world who you cannot afford to raise. And it is ridiculous and sad to imply that women who cannot afford the expense of children should abstain from a full sexual life.(on the other hand is it their deeply held religous believe that sex is only for procreation..once..and that's it. No oral, No anal, No bondage,just plain missionary and sorry for you women..NO ORGASM)
Forgive me for my overt exagerations which Bill will gladly point out.
Great Day all!

You forgot that most abortions are procured by those in a much higher income bracket than the poor. If the poor were to be able to have an abortion with out a cost or the stigma,rather than a child, I wonder which way they would go? Unless they were the professional welfare group who no matter what, would spit one out every 14 months. Believe me, religion only plays a very small part in the decision making process for those in the lower income bracket, unless they are in their teens living at home. The cost of birth control is a pittance compared to raising a child to the age of, say 18. For a thinking man there is a rather simple decision to make, either assume the responsibility or get a very cheap vasectomy. Which in my opinion, is the only way to go!

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

<quoted text>
LOl. Yea, I guess you're right. I hope so. The guy just said women shouldn't be on the front lines because they are too emotional.(he might be right given that my wife went balistic over his comment) My wife is ..let's say extremely ambitious and "head strong". I don't think he recognizes that categorizing all women as emotional and unprepared for combat is a wise decision. He actually believes it. The same way he believes gay rights equates to polygamy, beastiality and pedophellia. He's not only incorrect but actually believes and prosyletizes his inacurrate ideas.
Easy on the other hand might agree with him. Back in the kitchen barefoot and naked for all women.(except for the butch ones, they might be ok to fight):)

Wrong oh Western sage! I don't want them in the kitchen because I have never found one in 78 years that could cook a real meal. But I prefer them doing things that a man isn't really up to, like washing and knowing how to iron a shirt properly, dusting and general cleaning the house. They must also understand that sex is not something special, its sex and as such, they need to comply with what ever is deemed normal. A BJ at noon is not deviant, it's a BJ and if it makes a guy who is bringing in the green backs happy..........well so be it. You do understand that it would only be two days a week, I mean the guys at work the rest of the time,I mean after all it's only 10 or 15 minutes out of their day. Geez is that too much to ask?
As far as women in the military, having had some work for me I can tell you I do not want one with a rifle next to me, they can't handle it, they really are too emotional, being at shot at is something that just isn't their cup of tea. I can just hear it, I can't go on patrol, I think my period is coming, maybe in 5 days I can handle it. Listen whenever one told me she couldn't do a job because of her period, I sent her straight to the hospital for an excuse slip, they came back without one and I sent them to do the job. She was getting paid the same amount as the men were and she was going to do the same job.

Israel agrees with Ron Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Let us just see, Ron Paul wins 0, ran third or fourth, 5 times, second once, out of a field of 4. It's all over Ron, go home and feed the chickens, OH!, and take Newt with you.

EASY MONEY wrote:

<quoted text>
You do understand that it would only be two days a week, I mean the guys at work the rest of the time,I mean after all it's only 10 or 15 minutes out of their day. Geez is that too much to ask?

I would agree but then I might not get the BJ. Therefor I have no comment.

Come on Easy. Romney just won Main and the CPAC straw poll. The headline reads Romney wins prized cpac straw poll. Prized? How come when Ron Paul wins the same poll it's considered meaningless? Go figure.

EASY MONEY wrote:

Let us just see, Ron Paul wins 0, ran third or fourth, 5 times, second once, out of a field of 4. It's all over Ron, go home and feed the chickens, OH!, and take Newt with you.

There is less than a two hundred vote difference and at least one caucus expecting over 300 not yet reported due to weather. It aint over yet.

Crazy n Nutty Politics wrote:

<quoted text>
I would agree but then I might not get the BJ. Therefor I have no comment.

There you go! a thinking man, need to CYA.

LORAX wrote:

<quoted text>
There is less than a two hundred vote difference and at least one caucus expecting over 300 not yet reported due to weather. It aint over yet.

It was over two months ago!