Americans! Want to keep our porn? Vote Ron Paul!

[waterbuffalo]

Look - I love porn. I assume you all do too. I want to keep it that way, for all of us.

Republican candidate Ron Paul is the only congressman who has consistently voted against federal efforts to censor sexually explicit Web sites--a stance that nearly cost him his re-election bid last November when his Democratic rival cited those votes to argue that Paul was soft on porn. Dr. Ron Paul, sometimes known in Washington as "Dr. No," risked opprobrium from fellow Republicans by voting against a law last year to restrict Internet gambling and has also opposed targeting the video game industry and giving federal police more Internet surveillance powers.

He received the highest score in the U.S. Congress, 80 percent, in CNET News.com's 2006 Technology Voter Guide. Clinton received a 33 percent score, Obama 50 received percent, Joe Biden received 38 percent, John McCain received 31 percent.

Dr. Paul's political views are broadly libertarian, which means supporting ideas like free markets (less regulation), individual rights (against the Patriot Act), lower taxes (eliminate the IRS), and civil libertarianism (legalize marijuana). He is the only candidate speaking what you are thinking.

More at http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Please circulate this important message to folks you know who would support Ron Paul in his fight for our God-given freedoms.

 

[Legzman]

So wait a minute. Who is targeting the video game industry and the porn industry? I swear to god if they start censoring video games I'm gonna be pissed off for real!

 

[VidKing]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that answers a question with a real answer. The other candidates say "we need change." "We need more jobs." "We need to end the war." They all live in a fairytale world. You don't get universal healthcare without paying for it, so don't just say we should provide that as a government. Say, we should do this and "this is how." The money has to come from somewhere. What will you give up in order to do this? Say how you will bring more jobs to Michigan Mitt Romney; don't just get on McCain because he thinks it's unrealistic. If it is realistic, then say how you will achieve this goal. Nope, he and the other candidates speak like the government can do anything and money is no issue. They say whatever they think will get them a vote. Nevermind what they promise has no ground in reality. Ron Paul will tell you if something is possible or not. The US' debt is quickly getting out of control especially considering inflation and the decline of the dollar. So what do the other candidates want to do? They want to add programs. Ron Paul tells it like it is that we've got to cut back. No one votes for cutting back, they only vote for more government programs. I swear we're back to 1st Century Rome with Augustus giving us bread and circuses so that we'll allow him to have power. They only wish to amuse us. "Amuse" (muse = "think" a = "not")

The government needs to stay out of gaming and internet regulation (short of child pornography). Less government please...please...please.

 

[Friday on my mind]

You don't get universal healthcare without paying for it, so don't just say we should provide that as a government. Say, we should do this and "this is how." The money has to come from somewhere.

We are already paying exorbitant amounts for health care in the US,too much in fact.We spend double per capita what any other industrial country does and they all have universal coverage.The only reason we don't have a lower cost system like the other countries is the VERY powerful for profit lobby's opposed to it.And our system for all we spend does not rank well when compared to the other ones,we are being hosed big time.As bad as you think more govt is do you really trust for profit corporations more?

Oh and on Ron Paul for the record he opposes a womens right to choose an abortion.That puts a little chink in his libetarian persona I think as that is in direct conflict with the libs stand on the issue.

 

[dick van cock]

I bet he can walk on water, too... :1orglaugh

Less government please...please...please.

There are countries that fit yout wish: Somalia and Afghanistan... :wave2:

 

[Roughneck]

There are countries that fit yout wish: Somalia and Afghanistan... :wave2:

Or the United States... if you actually bothered to read your history.

cheers,

 

[dick van cock]

Or the United States... if you actually bothered to read your history.

(irony detector out of order?)


As I have already said in another thread: This isn't the age of Thoreau anymore... Only failed states (add the tribal areas of Pakistan or portions of Yemen to the list) can do without - what the Libertarians denounce as - "Big Government".

 

[lovejoy]

I like Ron Paul but is it realistic he has a chance.

Ron Paul got over million dollars on the internet but he performed poorly so far.

I do not like the Bain guy who won Michigan but has slashed tens of thousands of jobs, sold off companies, costed human life.

But no one even mentioned those so called "investment companies" whom are controlling America and control our job and our life. Go Ron !



P.S. It is NOT the government but "rogue" governemnt officials who took the law into their hands and abuse the power !!!!

 

[dick van cock]

But no one even mentioned those so called "investment companies" whom are controlling America and control our job and our life. Go Ron !

.............................

"Corporate greed has got a stranglehold on America, and unless and until we have a president in the proud tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, who has a little backbone, who has some strength, who has some fight, who's willing to stand up to these people, nothing will change. We will never have the America that all of us dream of."

 

[VidKing]

My asking for less government automatically would make the USA Afghanistan? Gees, less regulation doesn't mean no government. That's quite a leap I apparently just made! Increasing state's rights would make us go to that extreme?

To "Friday on my mi" above, I very, very much want to not get in a debate over abortion, but that issue is far more complicated than that simplistic conclusion. It all comes down to, "Is the fetus a person? Does a fetus have the same rights as others?" The woman and the child both have rights. The government has the obligation to protect life. All "libertarian" motives eventually break down because if followed to its logical conclusion, a libertarian becomes an anarchist. Liberarians stop short of anarchism by claiming that you don't really have the right to do whatever you want because you don't have the right to harm others. So, libertarians are very concerned with individual freedom, but not at any cost. In this case, if what you're saying is true, Paul stopped "individual" rights of the mother over the "rights" of the child. It's the whole issue of is a fetus a human and therefore does it have equal rights? That is the issue. (But please, don't debate over abortion. I'm simply trying to show that libertarians aren't anarchists and the individual freedom argument eventually breaks down because of the rights of others).

 

[Jagger69]

Which is probably a big reason that Ron Paul has no shot (unfortunately!) to be the Republican nominee.

 

[Friday on my mind]

My asking for less government automatically would make the USA Afghanistan? Gees, less regulation doesn't mean no government. That's quite a leap I apparently just made! Increasing state's rights would make us go to that extreme?

To "Friday on my mi" above, I very, very much want to not get in a debate over abortion, but that issue is far more complicated than that simplistic conclusion. It all comes down to, "Is the fetus a person? Does a fetus have the same rights as others?" The woman and the child both have rights. The government has the obligation to protect life. All "libertarian" motives eventually break down because if followed to its logical conclusion, a libertarian becomes an anarchist. Liberarians stop short of anarchism by claiming that you don't really have the right to do whatever you want because you don't have the right to harm others. So, libertarians are very concerned with individual freedom, but not at any cost. In this case, if what you're saying is true, Paul stopped "individual" rights of the mother over the "rights" of the child. It's the whole issue of is a fetus a human and therefore does it have equal rights? That is the issue. (But please, don't debate over abortion. I'm simply trying to show that libertarians aren't anarchists and the individual freedom argument eventually breaks down because of the rights of others).

I was not trying to get into a debate about abortion.Only pointing out that Paul who is billed as Libetarian differs from the libetarian view on govt's role in it.He wants restrictions put on it while the Lib platform is govt has no role in the matter.

 

[titsrock]

All Ron Paul has done is show to the American Public, if they bother to look and admit it, that the FRINGE RIGHT and the FRINGE LEFT have become UNITED!

Examine Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on an issue by issue basis and you'll see a remarkable comparison. Sure there will be wide differences -- in Univ Healtcare, for example--but they both advocate identical positions on Iraq, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Peace and Diplomacy...even some parts of Immigration are the same...

 

[Friday on my mind]

.............................
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Edwards
"Corporate greed has got a stranglehold on America, and unless and until we have a president in the proud tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, who has a little backbone, who has some strength, who has some fight, who's willing to stand up to these people, nothing will change. We will never have the America that all of us dream of."

It's statements like that that make me think he is by far the best candidate to be president.Someone has to stand up for the majority of americans and his voice is the strongest one out there doing that right now IMO.Thank you for posting his message.:thumbsup:

 

[max0rz]

meh, don't they give this whole morality speech every time they're up, lol.

they usually end up spending their time on other more important things.

other than that 18 U.S.C. 2257 thingy, did Bush and his crew do anything else to stifle our pr0n?

 

[titsrock]

It's statements like that that make me think he is by far the best candidate to be president.Someone has to stand up for the majority of americans and his voice is the strongest one out there doing that right now IMO.Thank you for posting his message.:thumbsup:

Edwards is the best candidate to put an end to influence peddling and lobbyists. Obama doesn't have much experience but we'll have to hope he can keep lobbyists and influence peddlers out of his administration. He has lobbyists advising him on his campaign, as does Hillary. Hillary also takes their money, so she's the least trustworthy of the Dems.

There is a problem with the media in this country when they don't offer equal coverage to all "realistic" candidates from both parties and from realistic 3rd Party candidates. Edwards is suffering from lack of coverage and a hohum approach to him from the media. He continues to win the debates and give the best speeches.

I thought Edwards made a mistake in the last debate when he didn't go after Hillary enough early on.

If Edwards can't have a breakthrough...maybe he becomes Obama's Atty General, down the road?

 

[Member2019]

I'm still waiting to here how lobbyists can be outlawed ...

I'm still waiting to hear someone give me a detailed and technical explanation on how lobbyists can be outlawed. Everything I've ever heard would either A) not solve the problem, just create more loopholes or B) outlaw everyone except those who can afford to spend their own money to do it (and not expense it as a business either). So, in other words, still only people who have money.

 

[Facetious]

I'm afraid that there's nothing to worry about :1orglaugh

The Hildabeast is our next President . . . period !

 

[VidKing]

There is a problem with the media in this country when they don't offer equal coverage to all "realistic" candidates from both parties and from realistic 3rd Party candidates. Edwards is suffering from lack of coverage and a hohum approach to him from the media. He continues to win the debates and give the best speeches.

I haven't really thought about it because I'm not voting Democratic, but the media really hasn't covered Edwards much. On the Dem side, it's all Obama v. Clinton. He did really well in Iowa, so that should have at least afforded him some attention going forward. Isn't he from South Carolina? How is he in the polls there?

 

[Member2019]

There is a problem with the media in this country when they don't offer equal coverage to all "realistic" candidates from both parties and from realistic 3rd Party candidates.

The media is just catering to the viewership. After all, the "main problem" is that the overwhelming majority of people continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" anyway. They listen to non-engineers on what's we should do in the world of electrical engineering and the like, etc..., etc..., etc...

I blame people. Pointing fingers at leaders is making them a scapegoat. I defended Clinton where he didn't deserve it, I do the same on Bush.

Edwards is suffering from lack of coverage and a hohum approach to him from the media. He continues to win the debates and give the best speeches.

He's a lawyer and an ambulance chaser, so what do you expect? That's not a demonization, but a honest-to-goodness reason why he's so influencial. In media terms, that's "boring."

I haven't really thought about it because I'm not voting Democratic,

Why are you purposely not voting Democratic? Or did you just mean in the primary (and you're not registered Democratic)? If the former, why would you purposely exclude anyone in any party from your consideration for your vote when November rolls around?