Ron Paul's speech in Iowa vs. Mitt Romney's speech in Iowa

[Gadsden]

GIVE 'EM HELL RON!!!



now, compare him with Mitt Romney:



notice how he doesn't say ANYTHING


he did mention the "Constitution" though...he probably almost choked on the word

[Huse]

Didn't Romney win in Iowa?

[devire1]

were gonna strengthen this and strengthen that... blah blah blah. vote for me. blah blah. nevermind how but were gonna do it!...

-mitt romney

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by Yovy

Didn't Romney win in Iowa?

yep

[devire1]

Originally Posted by Yovy

Didn't Romney win in Iowa?

shocking isn't it?

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by devire1

were gonna strengthen this and strengthen that... blah blah blah. vote for me. blah blah. nevermind how but were gonna do it!...

-mitt romney

yeah, he's sooooooooo original

pardon me, but I like candidates who say something when they talk

[devire1]

was that booing i heard in the second video when ron paul mentions the US government borrowing money from china?

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by devire1

was that booing i heard in the second video when ron paul mentions the US government borrowing money from china?

yeah...but the booing was good, not against Ron

[devire1]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

yeah...but the booing was good, not against Ron

ah, i sea. they were booing against the point he raised about the US government borrowing money from china.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by devire1

ah, i sea. they were booing against the point he raised about the US government borrowing money from china.

booing the government is always fine in my books

[devire1]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

booing the government is always fine in my books

indeed, mine too.

[V8 Muscle]

boo to Ron Paul's stance on abortion. Everything else he has to say is legit though

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by V8 Muscle

boo to Ron Paul's stance on abortion. Everything else he has to say is legit though

yeah...life is just a choice, and as a doctor he probably knows nothing about it....


CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson


I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion
comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under
the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist
to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New
York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new
technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some
American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the
physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful
destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.



[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

[grup910]

:blah: :blah: :blah: abortion
:blah: :blah: :blah: guns
:blah: :blah: :blah: hate on immigrants
:blah: :blah: :blah: screw the poor
:blah: :blah: :blah: get rid of dept. of education
:blah: :blah: :blah: get rid of dept. of energy
:blah: :blah: :blah: repeal 16th amendment

Lol, what a loon.

[Patrok]

By next Tuesday, despite having only 1% of the vote in real life, Ron's overwhelming internet following got him declared President of the Internets. Analysts expect his in real life support could climb has high as 1.1% if his undergrad base figures out how to send in absentee ballots, since they don't have cars to drive home in to vote and mom said she'd only drive them back and forth that day if they would vote for Rudy.

LULZ PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNETS LULZ !