Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by EGuitarStar, Jan 20, 2012.
Use a condom? Get any other type of contraception? Seems to work for the rest of us.
People painting Ron Paul as aa religious nutjob is tiresome as well, he really isn't. Look at Santorum for that.
All forms of contraception can fail.
Even if a woman doesn't use protection, quite why a single shag should turn into a life-changing event against her wishes is beyond me. It's her body and primary responsibility for the child will almost certainly fall on her, so it should be her decision. Banning abortion is nothing more than a patriarchal society's way of punishing women for having sex for pleasure instead of having children.
I'd agree - he's a straight-up nutjob like most libertarians; the religious qualifier is unnecessary.
True, but I watch TYT, who give him fair coverage, and they haven't mentioned him for a while.
People complain politicians don't listen and force things through, they change their views as they mature or public wishes change and they get blasted for that too :/
Erm, that's not really Paul's position on rape and abortion. He has stated that he would "give a shot of estrogen" to women almost immediately after they had been raped but not necessarily to women who had been raped but turned up at hospital later on.
US politicians are generally so dire that the US public latch on to a conviction politician like Ron Paul out of desperation - that doesn't mean that Paul should be let within a million miles of the levers of power.
It doesn't matter what el' presidente wants, that all changes when they get into power.
Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't seem to have an agenda... so if I were a republican, or american for that matter, he would get my vote.
Seems like you totally missed the point that Ron Paul was making. Amazing achievement really when he spelt it out so plainly but you still did it.
I don't have an automatic problem with a politician doing either of those, but politicians get lambasted for everything they do, from someone. It's just the nature of what they do.
I still think Mitt is the best candidate for the GOP, but compare the views he was espousing in 1994 (Senate run against Ted Kennedy), 2003 (governorship against Jane Swift) and now. It isn't simply changing the tone of his remarks to make them more palatable for different audiences, or changing his mind due to a revolt from the pubic, it's taking polar opposite positions, in order to win different elections. It's called opportunism, and I don't like it.
for anyone who hasn't seen it. Is he stupid? probably not; so what's his deal?
Ron Paul's response:
Yep. Ron Paul is a legend TBH, America and the world would be a much better place if someone of his calibre and vision were in the white house.
Actually Vermin Supreme should be the UN Director General, would be MUCH more enjoyable to see the UN doing things then.
Free ponies! a base on the moon!
oh wait the last one was Gingrich.
Some great posts here, thanks people
It is a shame that so in the west much revolves around the US yet it is one of the most corrupt in the west and the people are too blind to see past what is in front of them!
or over the course of a decade he changed his views?
Do you hold the same views on everything you did 10 years ago?
I'm looking forward to "Super Tuesday" on March the 6th when there are primaries etc in 8 states iirc. After then it should be blatently clear who the victor is likely to be.
Ron Paul is a racist gay hating nutter just like the rest of them. Please take the Paul circle jerk to reddit.
Separate names with a comma.