Ron Paul's Agenda To Include Eliminating 5 Govt. Departments & He Will Take $39k Presidential Salar

I like Ron Paul but I'm not too crazy about his pro life stance...More welfare babies no thank you...hey let's face it I would much rather some didn't propegate their um, well uh shallow gene pool. IMO, some should be definately allowed to terminate...please.

Also I beleive in total freedom to do whatever the hell they want to their bodies, let's face it mum owns that body until it comes out!!! Also totally for the end of the war on drugs legalize it, watch the populace of Darwinists take themselves out.
Why does nobody see these things as a positive? It can only help to decrease the overwhelming population 7 BILLON!!! BY Today (it was yesterday's thread so it said 7 billion by tomorrow well now it's tomorrow!)

ETA: where in the constitution does it ever mention not having the right to abortion anyway?
The onl;y thing that mentions it would be the amendment, but nowhere in the bill of rights or the constitution does it say you can't do it?

Loving all the Paul supporters on these boards. Freedom really does bring people together.

PS:

RON PAUL WILL WIN THE NOMINATION, AND RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT CAN BEAT OBAMA!

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I like Ron Paul but I'm not too crazy about his pro life stance...

not too crazy about this video?

reply to post by conar


No I'm not, though I don't agree with late term abortion (which is illegal already) I see this as just a way to keep his obstetrician buddies in business...which I can understand, but I don't see them losing any business, what I see is more unwanted welfare babies...or unwanted babies period, who wants to support more babies that of mothers who don't have the means or brains to provide for them? Do you think they can all get adopted out? Pffffffffffttttt. Most of them end up in orphanages or foster care and guess what? At the taxpayers' dime, what solution is there to bringing more unplaced children into the world. As far as I am concerned they are not a seperate entity until they are born...till then they are a part of the entity that brought it into conception...also though after being born it's totally murder, but I think that that part of the video is BS. I never ever heard of such a thing, and it sounds like the first time I have heard Ron Paul spew propeganda when he should see it from my perspective, who in the hell is going to support these unwanted kids? More taxation? What? How can someone be pro-life and then be against more taxation. Who the hell is going to support these kids, most that get abortions are totally inept to raise a child! Most orphanages and Foster homes incompetent and abusive. Great more abused kids, no I don't see the good in pro life. Not one bit.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by KilrathiLG

 

My guess would be....

1. The Department of Agriculture
2. The Department of Education
3. The Enviormental Protection Agency
4. The T.S.A.
5. The D.E.A.


Five of the Worst Offenders of Wasteful Goverment Spending .

edit on 14-10-2011 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)

Dept of Energy is another that needs to go.

It was created to get America off of it's dependence on foriegn oil. Now it acts as the liason to the big oil companies.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I never ever heard of such a thing, and it sounds like the first time I have heard Ron Paul spew propeganda when he should see it from my perspective, who in the hell is going to support these unwanted kids? More taxation?

Although I'm prochoice myself, there is a waiting list of people who would like to adopt children.

Originally posted by The_Zomar

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I never ever heard of such a thing, and it sounds like the first time I have heard Ron Paul spew propeganda when he should see it from my perspective, who in the hell is going to support these unwanted kids? More taxation?

Although I'm prochoice myself, there is a waiting list of people who would like to adopt children.

I'm pro choice also, but only because I'm a Libertarian.

I don't think it is the governments right to dictate what we do with our own bodies.


Ron Paul may be pro-life, but he has stated on numerous occasions that he wouldn't try to oulaw abortions. He wants a system that works.

My appliance sales manager and his wife waited 3 years to adopt an American baby, there is a long list of families looking to adopt.


I have 3 friends who adopted Russian babies in the 90's, all 3 have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and face a lifetime of challenges.

The adoption system can be reworked and end abortions once and for all.

Thank you ron we need a smaller government.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


So in other words, he's offering to make cosmetic changes, not real ones. Eliminating names while moving the functions to other departments is nothing but phony symbolism.

And the departments targeted are an odd list. I'd like to see his reasoning for those, and what exactly would be eliminated before I would applaud it.

Now if he would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, that would be a step in the right direction.

reply to post by Imlookingthroughyou


Define "smaller government" for me will you please?

Do you mean:

Fewer DMV clerks so I can waste 2 days instead of one?

Fewer doctors researching so I'll be at a higher risk of dying in an epidemic?

Fewer government meat inspectors so I can get e.coli more often?

Fewer postal workers so my current snail mail looks fast?

Fewer National Parks, and park workers so there are more forest fires?

Smaller Coast Guard so boaters learn to be more self-reliant, and smugglers can breathe easier?

Fewer building inspectors so I can't trust the building not to collapse on me?

Fewer public works people so the sewage backs up in the street?

Fewer government workers overall so that the response time stretches in months and years for anything?

I think people confuse "smaller government" with "less intrusive government", which is not the same thing.

The problem isn't that government is too big, it is that it is too small: not enough people to tend to the needs of the nation.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

The Judge Andrew Napalitano is the only other man i would trust and i think only one who Paul would pick.

Great idea.. electing strangers as seen on TV always works out for the best.

Vote for anyone but the 2 party mafia. I might be motivated to participate in the fake elections if Dr Paul promised war criminal investigations where suspects would be handed over the the Hague, dropped party affiliation, and called out the GOP & DNC on their proto-Nazi behavior with RICO investigations... I'd be down with that cause. An adult needs to stop the US elite from, and hold them accountable for.. exporting of senseless violence / millions left dead / suffering.

Until then.. nah, he's a party loyalist IMO..a gimmick used for articulating popular rage... a tactic that pacifies some restless sheep who will sit home believing someone is fighting on their behalf... speaking truth to power. An old play out of the Edward Bernays propaganda playbook.

reply to post by ldyserenity


Abortion shouldn't be a federally mandated matter (per the constitution). It should be a local matter to be decided by the sovereign states.

This is what is good about Ron Paul, as he says, 'I take my marching orders from the constitution'.

reply to post by apacheman


Dr. Paul says it best himself.

One more video from Dr. Paul.

We hear the full details of his economic plans announced tomorrow in Las Vegas. Many of us Los Angeles Ron Paul'ers really wanted to head to Vegas but can't make it on a Monday.

reply to post by POPUP2000

Actually the Rothchilds sub-contracted American Presidents out to the Rockefellers. 1980 David Rockefeller sat next to Reagan at a public gathering prior to his election as Ron spoke in a lower than usual tone leaving many in the audience a little confused, what a moment. If you find that vid. please post.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Imlookingthroughyou

 

Define "smaller government" for me will you please?

Do you mean:

Fewer DMV clerks so I can waste 2 days instead of one?

Fewer doctors researching so I'll be at a higher risk of dying in an epidemic?

Fewer government meat inspectors so I can get e.coli more often?

Fewer postal workers so my current snail mail looks fast?

Fewer National Parks, and park workers so there are more forest fires?

Smaller Coast Guard so boaters learn to be more self-reliant, and smugglers can breathe easier?

Fewer building inspectors so I can't trust the building not to collapse on me?

Fewer public works people so the sewage backs up in the street?

Fewer government workers overall so that the response time stretches in months and years for anything?

I think people confuse "smaller government" with "less intrusive government", which is not the same thing.

The problem isn't that government is too big, it is that it is too small: not enough people to tend to the needs of the nation.

edit on 16-10-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

Hey, I think Mr. Ben Franklin had YOU in mind when he penned this thought....

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Seriously, what kind of person WANTS a "nanny state"?

www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by omega man


Ron Paul is furthering the Fabian Socialist Agenda. See above link.

Just a reminder, since a lot of RP supporters are checking on this thread, the CNN debate is Tuesday night and RP is participating.

Better not freeze him out, which I'm worried about. This is the type of debate I could see CNN intentionally ignoring Ron for the duration.