[Sandi Egan]

I think progress cannot be stopped. Soon or late every country worth its square mileage will be able to develop some kind of powerful weaponry. We can’t invade them all.

[Sandi Egan]

I think in the hands of law enforcement guns have prevented desoptism. In the hands of criminals, idiots and gangmembers, I would say they have created more deaths than anything else.
Marion,

Both law enforcement and criminals WILL carry guns no matter whether the 2nd amendment is enforced or repealed. The only people that are affected are law-abiding citizens, who could own guns to protect themselves from both.

Allan,

I am far from supporting Obama, but please check out this video addressing the topic of foreign relations experience.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/10925-daily-show-america-to-

[Sandi Egan]

I think in the hands of law enforcement guns have prevented desoptism. In the hands of criminals, idiots and gangmembers, I would say they have created more deaths than anything else.
Marion,

Both law enforcement and criminals WILL carry guns no matter whether the 2nd amendment is enforced or repealed. The only people that are affected are law-abiding citizens, who could own guns to protect themselves from both.

Allan,

I am far from supporting Obama, but please check out this video addressing the topic of foreign relations experience.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/10925-daily-show-america-to-

[Sandi Egan]

I think in the hands of law enforcement guns have prevented desoptism. In the hands of criminals, idiots and gangmembers, I would say they have created more deaths than anything else.
Marion,

Both law enforcement and criminals WILL carry guns no matter whether the 2nd amendment is enforced or repealed. The only people that are affected are law-abiding citizens, who could own guns to protect themselves from both.

Allan,

I am far from supporting Obama, but please check out this video addressing the topic of foreign relations experience.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/10925-daily-show-america-to-

[Sandi Egan]

I think in the hands of law enforcement guns have prevented desoptism. In the hands of criminals, idiots and gangmembers, I would say they have created more deaths than anything else.
Marion,

Both law enforcement and criminals WILL carry guns no matter whether the 2nd amendment is enforced or repealed. The only people that are affected are law-abiding citizens, who could own guns to protect themselves from both.

Allan,

I am far from supporting Obama, but please check out this video addressing the topic of foreign relations experience.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/10925-daily-show-america-to-

[Sandi Egan]

I think in the hands of law enforcement guns have prevented desoptism. In the hands of criminals, idiots and gangmembers, I would say they have created more deaths than anything else.
Marion,

Both law enforcement and criminals WILL carry guns no matter whether the 2nd amendment is enforced or repealed. The only people that are affected are law-abiding citizens, who could own guns to protect themselves from both.

Allan,

I am far from supporting Obama, but please check out this video addressing the topic of foreign relations experience.
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/10925-daily-show-america-to-

[Sandi Egan]

marion and esmith,

Thanks for the info. I’ve researched it a bit. Here’s what I understand:

Birth control bill was designed to prohibit federal funding for contraception and specifically abortion. I understand, that some people consider abortion a medical procedure rather than a murder. But others feel strongly that abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being. And using taxes paid by pro-life people for abortion in Dr. Paul’s view is just plain wrong. Birth control is apparently much less of an issue, but still — why do you have to pay for condoms for a person who can’t afford them? Dr. Paul’s position is and has always been to spend as little taxpayers ‘ money as possible, and limit involvement of federal government in people’s lives.
We can debate whether federal money should be spent on contraceptives, but even if you disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on this, is this really a key issue to make a decision about your next president?

Unions. The two bills that esmith cited are designed to give Union leaders some extra rights that not only greatly affect employers in a negative way, but also strip employees from their right to cast their votes on union-related issues secretly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act#Opponents.27_views
From what I understand, this act gives union leaders rather than regular members extra power. Voting against this act does not strike me as an attempt to do away with unions.
I feel strongly that unions (except government employee unions) are essential for our society and play a very important and positive role. However, and I think you would agree, union leaders abused their powers in more than a few cases, and I don’t believe any legislation proposed by the mighty union lobby in DC automatically deserves a Yea.

[Sandi Egan]

marion and esmith,

Thanks for the info. I’ve researched it a bit. Here’s what I understand:

Birth control bill was designed to prohibit federal funding for contraception and specifically abortion. I understand, that some people consider abortion a medical procedure rather than a murder. But others feel strongly that abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being. And using taxes paid by pro-life people for abortion in Dr. Paul’s view is just plain wrong. Birth control is apparently much less of an issue, but still — why do you have to pay for condoms for a person who can’t afford them? Dr. Paul’s position is and has always been to spend as little taxpayers ‘ money as possible, and limit involvement of federal government in people’s lives.
We can debate whether federal money should be spent on contraceptives, but even if you disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on this, is this really a key issue to make a decision about your next president?

Unions. The two bills that esmith cited are designed to give Union leaders some extra rights that not only greatly affect employers in a negative way, but also strip employees from their right to cast their votes on union-related issues secretly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act#Opponents.27_views
From what I understand, this act gives union leaders rather than regular members extra power. Voting against this act does not strike me as an attempt to do away with unions.
I feel strongly that unions (except government employee unions) are essential for our society and play a very important and positive role. However, and I think you would agree, union leaders abused their powers in more than a few cases, and I don’t believe any legislation proposed by the mighty union lobby in DC automatically deserves a Yea.

[Sandi Egan]

marion and esmith,

Thanks for the info. I’ve researched it a bit. Here’s what I understand:

Birth control bill was designed to prohibit federal funding for contraception and specifically abortion. I understand, that some people consider abortion a medical procedure rather than a murder. But others feel strongly that abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being. And using taxes paid by pro-life people for abortion in Dr. Paul’s view is just plain wrong. Birth control is apparently much less of an issue, but still — why do you have to pay for condoms for a person who can’t afford them? Dr. Paul’s position is and has always been to spend as little taxpayers ‘ money as possible, and limit involvement of federal government in people’s lives.
We can debate whether federal money should be spent on contraceptives, but even if you disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on this, is this really a key issue to make a decision about your next president?

Unions. The two bills that esmith cited are designed to give Union leaders some extra rights that not only greatly affect employers in a negative way, but also strip employees from their right to cast their votes on union-related issues secretly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act#Opponents.27_views
From what I understand, this act gives union leaders rather than regular members extra power. Voting against this act does not strike me as an attempt to do away with unions.
I feel strongly that unions (except government employee unions) are essential for our society and play a very important and positive role. However, and I think you would agree, union leaders abused their powers in more than a few cases, and I don’t believe any legislation proposed by the mighty union lobby in DC automatically deserves a Yea.

[Sandi Egan]

marion and esmith,

Thanks for the info. I’ve researched it a bit. Here’s what I understand:

Birth control bill was designed to prohibit federal funding for contraception and specifically abortion. I understand, that some people consider abortion a medical procedure rather than a murder. But others feel strongly that abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being. And using taxes paid by pro-life people for abortion in Dr. Paul’s view is just plain wrong. Birth control is apparently much less of an issue, but still — why do you have to pay for condoms for a person who can’t afford them? Dr. Paul’s position is and has always been to spend as little taxpayers ‘ money as possible, and limit involvement of federal government in people’s lives.
We can debate whether federal money should be spent on contraceptives, but even if you disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on this, is this really a key issue to make a decision about your next president?

Unions. The two bills that esmith cited are designed to give Union leaders some extra rights that not only greatly affect employers in a negative way, but also strip employees from their right to cast their votes on union-related issues secretly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act#Opponents.27_views
From what I understand, this act gives union leaders rather than regular members extra power. Voting against this act does not strike me as an attempt to do away with unions.
I feel strongly that unions (except government employee unions) are essential for our society and play a very important and positive role. However, and I think you would agree, union leaders abused their powers in more than a few cases, and I don’t believe any legislation proposed by the mighty union lobby in DC automatically deserves a Yea.

[Sandi Egan]

marion and esmith,

Thanks for the info. I’ve researched it a bit. Here’s what I understand:

Birth control bill was designed to prohibit federal funding for contraception and specifically abortion. I understand, that some people consider abortion a medical procedure rather than a murder. But others feel strongly that abortion is a violent act against an innocent human being. And using taxes paid by pro-life people for abortion in Dr. Paul’s view is just plain wrong. Birth control is apparently much less of an issue, but still — why do you have to pay for condoms for a person who can’t afford them? Dr. Paul’s position is and has always been to spend as little taxpayers ‘ money as possible, and limit involvement of federal government in people’s lives.
We can debate whether federal money should be spent on contraceptives, but even if you disagree with Dr. Paul’s position on this, is this really a key issue to make a decision about your next president?

Unions. The two bills that esmith cited are designed to give Union leaders some extra rights that not only greatly affect employers in a negative way, but also strip employees from their right to cast their votes on union-related issues secretly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act#Opponents.27_views
From what I understand, this act gives union leaders rather than regular members extra power. Voting against this act does not strike me as an attempt to do away with unions.
I feel strongly that unions (except government employee unions) are essential for our society and play a very important and positive role. However, and I think you would agree, union leaders abused their powers in more than a few cases, and I don’t believe any legislation proposed by the mighty union lobby in DC automatically deserves a Yea.

[Sandi Egan]

Submitted by marion on December 25, 2007 – 1:07am.
Anyone who wants to bar contraception from people has some serious personal issues. If he does want to do away wtih unions, strike two.

Marion, could you please disclose your sources for both of these statements? I have to admit I’ve never seen or heard Ron Paul to make any such claims, but I might be wrong.

[Sandi Egan]

Submitted by marion on December 25, 2007 – 1:07am.
Anyone who wants to bar contraception from people has some serious personal issues. If he does want to do away wtih unions, strike two.

Marion, could you please disclose your sources for both of these statements? I have to admit I’ve never seen or heard Ron Paul to make any such claims, but I might be wrong.

[Sandi Egan]

Submitted by marion on December 25, 2007 – 1:07am.
Anyone who wants to bar contraception from people has some serious personal issues. If he does want to do away wtih unions, strike two.

Marion, could you please disclose your sources for both of these statements? I have to admit I’ve never seen or heard Ron Paul to make any such claims, but I might be wrong.

[Sandi Egan]

Submitted by marion on December 25, 2007 – 1:07am.
Anyone who wants to bar contraception from people has some serious personal issues. If he does want to do away wtih unions, strike two.

Marion, could you please disclose your sources for both of these statements? I have to admit I’ve never seen or heard Ron Paul to make any such claims, but I might be wrong.

[Author]

Posts