Ron Paul wins Ohio Republican straw poll.

[Lost Farmboy]

  http://www.thestatecolumn.com/ohio/ron-paul-wins-ohio-republican-straw-poll/

[BUGEYE]

If he would extend constitutional rights to the unborn babies, he would be my choice.
since he doesn't, I won't vote for him.

[ironglow]

Congratulations...but polls don't mean much anymore..  I wouldn't trust any "poll" which requires particiants to PAY for the privilege to vote; guaranteed to skew the results.  This type poll would naturally eliminate those who were not rabid enough to pay for voting privileges.
  ..Think I'll stick with Rasmussen..scientific you know..

[Gary G]

If he would extend constitutional rights to the unborn babies, he would be my choice.
since he doesn't, I won't vote for him.

Bugeye, I believe that you are wrong. Ron Paul believes in the right to life more than anyone. He has delivered many babies in his time. He was and still is opposed to Roe vs. Wade.


"The fact is that the fetus has legal rights_ inheritance, a right not to be injured or aborted by unwise medical treatment, violence, or accidents." Ron Paul


So, constitutional rights are already extended to the unborn, except where they are prevented by an unconstitutional government as now.


Paul's first chapter in his newest book "Liberty Defined" is on abortion. Have you read it?

[nw_hunter]

If he would extend constitutional rights to the unborn babies, he would be my choice.
since he doesn't, I won't vote for him.

Ron Paul is beyond a doubt the best friend unborn babies have in DC. You must have him mixed up with someone else!The man has delivered thousands of babies. Never worked at an abortion clinic!

Find another excuse not to vote for Paul..........This one just won't hold water!

[powderman]

I wouldn't trust any "poll" which requires particiants to PAY for the privilege to vote; guaranteed to skew the results.  This type poll would naturally eliminate those who were not rabid enough to pay for voting privileges.

 
IG, yep, I thought I read that right.
BUGEYE. RP is very pro life. POWDERMAN. 

[BUGEYE]

The Constitution is a federal guarantee of rights.  he said he would leave it to the states to decide.
that's a cop-out.  babies in Georgia might get protection but those in liberal states would continue to be murdered.  he might be against abortion but he IS NOT willing to do anything about it.
delivering babies doesn't mean anything, that's what some doctors do.
I could overlook his lack of stage presence but NOT wholesale murder.
since the unborn can't vote, they must not have value.

[Gary G]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

[nw_hunter]

The Constitution is a federal guarantee of rights.  he said he would leave it to the states to decide.
that's a cop-out.  babies in Georgia might get protection but those in liberal states would continue to be murdered.  he might be against abortion but he IS NOT willing to do anything about it.
delivering babies doesn't mean anything, that's what some doctors do.
I could overlook his lack of stage presence but NOT wholesale murder.
since the unborn can't vote, they must not have value.

Over look his stage presence? I didn't know he was trying out for a role in a Hollywood movie or Broadway play! I'm amazed that people would put looks , age, and stage presence over Brains, morality and integrity.

If you can't vote for Ron Paul, then who could you vote for in the General election? It would appear Romney will be the GOP's choice against Obama. He is pro choice.....No he is against it.......No he's pro choice. It depends on his audience. Most of the time he is a defender of the pro-choice crowd. Could you vote for him?

We will never find a candidate that see's all things as we do. If your looking for that person, you will look forever. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. If you believe in THAT document then he is the man IMO.

[BUGEYE]

The Constitution is a federal guarantee of rights.  he said he would leave it to the states to decide.
that's a cop-out.  babies in Georgia might get protection but those in liberal states would continue to be murdered.  he might be against abortion but he IS NOT willing to do anything about it.
delivering babies doesn't mean anything, that's what some doctors do.
I could overlook his lack of stage presence but NOT wholesale murder.
since the unborn can't vote, they must not have value.

Over look his stage presence? I didn't know he was trying out for a role in a Hollywood movie or Broadway play! I'm amazed that people would put looks , age, and stage presence over Brains, morality and integrity.

If you can't vote for Ron Paul, then who could you vote for in the General election? It would appear Romney will be the GOP's choice against Obama. He is pro choice.....No he is against it.......No he's pro choice. It depends on his audience. Most of the time he is a defender of the pro-choice crowd. Could you vote for him?

We will never find a candidate that see's all things as we do. If your looking for that person, you will look forever. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. If you believe in THAT document then he is the man IMO.

It's still a cop-out.  the murder of un-born babies would continue under RP because he doesn't  have the guts to go against libertatians who take no tough stands against abortion. some states would outlaw it, some states would even pay for it.
If you are too scared to take a stand, you have the blood of innocents on your hands.
WWJD ?

[nw_hunter]

Would you vote for Romney if he wins the primary or just stay home on election day?
Just curious!

[ironglow]

Would you vote for Romney if he wins the primary or just stay home on election day?
Just curious!

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  This election is about more than one issue..the economy, spending, size of govt, stopping the illegals, abortion, gun rights, family values, christian considerations, stopping drug trade, balancing foreign trade, not lapsing into isolationism, not kow-towing to Islamofascism, and keeping our troops out of Africa or any new 'adventures'.
  I will back the conservative I think is best best until a final conservative is chosen. Then I will vote for and possibly contribute to that conservative to replace Obama.  Any one of the whole batch is many miles ahead of Obama, who is wrong on every one of those counts.
 
  BTW: You should not be surprised that 'stage presence' counts, it sure did for Nixon and every candidate since.  Do you remember Dukakis riding around standing in the TC hatch of a tank ?          
   You have no need to berate Bugeye over it however; he already told you he would "overlook Paul's stage presence".

[BUGEYE]

Would you vote for Romney if he wins the primary or just stay home on election day?
Just curious!

I will NOT throw away my vote like some would.
I will NOT vote for RP in the primary.

Ron Paul= I'm against abortion but I'll let someone else (states) handle that, after all, they can't vote.

myself= as long as there's breath in my body I will fight the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn babies and it's MY opinion that if you put it on the back burner, you will burn in the devils hell.

is that plain enough for you ?

[jimster]

The Constitution is a federal guarantee of rights.  he said he would leave it to the states to decide.

I can't for the life of me figure out how the federal government could guarantee anything, let alone your rights. In the case of abortion, they did the opposite did they not?....best not to give anything too important to the feds.  I also do not think the constitution guarantees anything at all...it's up to you to enforce your rights, and as we have seen in the past, it may very well cost more blood to keep your rights.
The federal government did not guarantee that the people of Washington D.C. or Chicago or other places could have guns did they? Nope...some states did that though.  Your better off with the states having power, and let the liberal states do whatever.  No president has the power to change your federal laws or constitution...and even if they did, the next one could change it.  Then where are you?
 
Ron Paul does not have the power to change the abortion laws at the fed level...no president does, and it was not a president who put that in place either.
 
I also do not like abortion, but I don't feel it's the fed governments business, they have a few things that are their business, and can't handle those well.  Let the states outlaw abortion, some will, some won't, it's the best you'll get without federal intervention which is always a failure and a huge money sucking deal, hell...your paying for abortions now because the feds got their hands on it. 
Ron Paul is pro life...he is also anti large government and does not think it works out well to give the feds too much power....this is as good as you'll get and a million times better than what you got.  Currently our federal government is financing abortions in other countries with your money.  This is because we gave them too much power.  Not because XXX was or was not...president.
 

[BUGEYE]

IG, thanks.
jimster, if the constitution can't protect us, then we should abolish it and break up into individual 50 countries..  I want a president who will back freedom for the very least of us, NOT leave it up to someone else.
NW, I really wanted to back RP, but if you question something about him, some of his backers infer that non-supporters are stupid.

[superjay01]

Isn't Ron Paul defending freedom by leaving it up to the states to decide? To me he is defending the freedom's that the constitution gives us. I'm sorry but you are telling me that Mit Romney and the rest of the neocons's are defending freedom more then Ron Paul just because they are against abortion? Lets see how they feel about the patriot act and that will tell you all you need to know about how they feel about your freedom. They have totally disregarded the constitution and the very same freedoms you are saying Ron Paul doesn't respect. I can respect your right to be against abortion, but I don't understand your argument that Ron Paul isn't defending freedom. If you choose to not vote for Ron Paul because you are anti abortion I can respect that. But, saying you won't vote for him because he doesn't defend freedom just demonstrates that you are misinformed. Because to me you are taking away someones right by telling them what to do with their body. Which leads to the age old question of when is it a life. Unofficially the government has already made it clear that you don't count till you are born.   

[nw_hunter]

IG, thanks.
jimster, if the constitution can't protect us, then we should abolish it and break up into individual 50 countries..  I want a president who will back freedom for the very least of us, NOT leave it up to someone else.
NW, I really wanted to back RP, but if you question something about him, some of his backers infer that non-supporters are stupid.

First let me say! I did not berate you in any way as IG indicated, and never implied you or anyone else was stupid for not backing RP. BG

[BUGEYE]

IG, thanks.
jimster, if the constitution can't protect us, then we should abolish it and break up into individual 50 countries..  I want a president who will back freedom for the very least of us, NOT leave it up to someone else.
NW, I really wanted to back RP, but if you question something about him, some of his backers infer that non-supporters are stupid.

First let me say! I did not berate you in any way as IG indicated, and never implied you or anyone else was stupid for not backing RP. BG

your sheeple accusations......

superjay, if the constitution amendments are left to the states to enforce, somebody will get the short end of the stick. compare CA. with AL.  or MA. with GA.
the constitution is a federal document and if it's not enforced that way, it's useless.
RPs leave it to the states mentality, would cause celebration in conservative states.  but in liberal states the murder of babies would continue.
everyone thinks of nothing but the here-and-now.  but eternity is a long time and I don't have to explain to God about how I allowed the murder of innocents.

[superjay01]

The founding fathers did not want did not want a strong central government for fear of what is happening now. Which is they are taking away all of our liberties away. I don't feel that we should turn the country into a theocracy because a group of people don't agree with the founding fathers and the constitution. I think we should go back to what this country was founded on, freedom.
 
If you are worried about killing innocents as you say how do you feel about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many "innocents" have we murdered there? Don't you think that god will judge people on letting that happen as well? I always found it amazing how people who are anti abortion could sit back and defend George Bush because he was pro-life yet do not criticize him because he used depleted uranium shells in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
 
Besides, I find it hard to believe that god is going to judge people on what othere people decide to do. I was always taught that god is going to judge people on what they did.     
 
 

[BUGEYE]

superjay, iraq and afganistan have nothing to do with abortion.  I have never given bush a free ride and never condoned either war. you're making assumptions.
everything to enforce constitutional law is already in place. it would NOT grow government.
I would eliminate most of the current government if I could but once again RP supporters accuse me of wanting the opposite.
the states would not enforce the constitution equally and would lead to even more abuses of freedom.  look at california and new york and other states that are trying to eliminate the 2nd.
your state might let you keep your guns. but what about the people in the liberal states.
we should not have the attitude " oh well, I have my guns, if they don't like it there they can move"
that's not what the framers had in mind.  with that attitude, freedom is soon lost.

[nw_hunter]

The founding fathers did not want did not want a strong central government for fear of what is happening now. Which is they are taking away all of our liberties away. I don't feel that we should turn the country into a theocracy because a group of people don't agree with the founding fathers and the constitution. I think we should go back to what this country was founded on, freedom.
 
If you are worried about killing innocents as you say how do you feel about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many "innocents" have we murdered there? Don't you think that god will judge people on letting that happen as well? I always found it amazing how people who are anti abortion could sit back and defend George Bush because he was pro-life yet do not criticize him because he used depleted uranium shells in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
 
Besides, I find it hard to believe that god is going to judge people on what othere people decide to do. I was always taught that god is going to judge people on what they did.   

The loss of life in the country invaded is just collateral damage. You have to remember! We are fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here. Makes one wonder why we keep letting Somalia's and other Muslim country rejects inter the USA and build up communities to set up tribal governments here.

I'm not so sure old Jorge Boosh was ever pro-life. He professed to be when running for office, and so did his wife, but after being elected she suddenly changed her tune and decided she was instead for a woman's right to choose. He just smiled when asked about her change of heart.

But getting back to the topic! Ron Paul won the straw poll "IMO" because a large number of people around the country are tired of politics as usual and know R.P. is not the typical lying political hack so prevalent in DC. The Abortion, Illegal's and Gay issues are brought up each election cycle to distract and divide the sheeple. The most effective way to keep the (so called) two party system in place.

Neither party has any intentions of doing anything about those issues.

Weird isn't it!...........R.P. wins straw polls, and is voted winner of the debates, but still people say he's not electable Think they might swayed by the talking heads on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and other National News outlets? You think there might be an agenda for not giving him credit or equal time on them? Prob. not! (Fox is known for being fair and balanced)

[coyotejoe]

Ron Paul could win every poll ever invented and the media still won't mention his name. Like it or not the media can sink a candidate and make sense or not the stage presence is a huge factor. Come election eve 75% of the voters still won't know just where their preferred candidate stands on any one issue and the 25% who think they know are just going on 30 second sound bites. Lots and lots of people will vote based on how a candidate looks on TV, isn't that how we got Obozo?

[ironglow]

Quinnipiac, a scientific poll...(compared with a pay-to-vote poll) doesn't put Ron Paul in first place;
   
      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1666
 
  It is still early, so some of the thus far 'low-acheivers'  may start a serious climb, something like what Herman Cain has done..
  I don't expect Perry of Gingrich to stay in single figures.

[nw_hunter]

Quinnipiac, a scientific poll...(compared with a pay-to-vote poll) doesn't put Ron Paul in first place;
   
      http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1666
 
  It is still early, so some of the thus far 'low-acheivers'  may start a serious climb, something like what Herman Cain has done..
  I don't expect Perry of Gingrich to stay in single figures.

LOL! Quinnipiac in Ohio..............Heh Heh  Sounds scientific!
 Paul wins debates according to the Liberal News Outlets CNN, CBS,NBC,FOX, wins Polls and still is left out of their programing or treated like the crazy but lovable Uncle on some sit-com.

You think they (Uh) perhaps fear the LOW ACHIEVER?

[BBF]

If he would extend constitutional rights to the unborn babies, he would be my choice.
since he doesn't, I won't vote for him.

Which candidate does?

[BBF]

..............
........................Lots and lots of people will vote based on how a candidate looks on TV, isn't that how we got Obozo?

Plus the colour of his hide.

[BUGEYE]

If he would extend constitutional rights to the unborn babies, he would be my choice.
since he doesn't, I won't vote for him.

Which candidate does?

Newt.  I believe he would try to enforce the Constitution unless his hands are tied by a liberal congress or liberal judges. I've sat across from him at his kitchen table and talked about many issues.
btw, Roger Mudd showed one of my pictures on his newscast in 1980. brag,brag.
I am a two issue voter. abortion and gun control.  the first is to protect those who are unimportant to most people and the second to protect freedom.

[BBF]

I like Newt, if nothing else he is a feisty old fart.

[BUGEYE]

I like Newt, if nothing else he is a feisty old fart.

yeah he is.  he's probably not electable because of his personal baggage, but if he's in the primary, he gets my vote.  if he's not, I haven't decided yet.   it won't be for anyone who leaves it to the states to interpret and enforce the constitution.
can you imagine the 2nd amendment in the hands of jerry brown and his girly men.
the Californians would have to go hunting with sling shots.