Ron Paul and supplements

eagleba

New member
Awards
0
I realize that this is not a political forum, but since it is about Supplements.......

October 22, 2007


Discover what Ron Paul has done as a congressman. Imagine what he will do as president.

When health freedom advocates need a congressman to fight against attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements, they turn to Dr. Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the leader in Washington who is not afraid to fight the powerful special interests that want to limit access to dietary supplements.

When Dr. Paul learned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was trying to censor truthful health claims by supplement manufacturers, he introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act (H.R. 2117).

"The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigate, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease," Dr. Paul explained.

Our health freedom is also threatened by attempts to "harmonize" American laws with those of other countries, thus forcing Americans to live under European-style restrictions of dietary supplements. Dr. Paul worked to add language to the 1997 FDA Modernization Act forbidding the FDA from harmonizing our rules with those of any other nation.

The primary instrument of "harmonization" is the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a group of international bureaucrats who are developing "health care standards" for the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. The FDA is an enthusiastic participant in the Codex process.

When Dr. Paul learned the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) contained language that might facilitate the imposition of Codex's restrictive standards on American consumers, he informed his congressional colleagues of this danger with a series of letters. In addition, Dr. Paul sponsored several briefings on the issue.

More recently, Dr. Paul has shown how the FDA is working with its counterparts in Canada and Mexico on a Trilateral Cooperation charter that could "harmonize" regulation of dietary supplements among the three countries. Dr. Paul led a congressional inquiry into the Trilateral Cooperation, forcing the FDA to go on record about its involvement in the Trilateral charter.

As a congressman for 10 terms, Dr. Ron Paul has fought to protect your health freedom. Imagine what he will do as president.

Donate today: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
 
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I am looking more and more to vote for him.
 

eagleba

New member
Awards
0
Yeah, I am a big fan of everything that he stands for. This is just icing on the cake.
 

Jove

New member
Awards
0
I like Ron Paul a great deal, however he would completely do away with the FDA, the Department of Education, etc. Now, certainly these agencies have several problems, but quite frankly I don't want to buy a steak with no one but the company selling it telling me that it's safe to eat.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
His stance on the war and national security is so extremely weak. I used to like this guy, but the more I listen to him, the more I loathe him. We all know how important supplements and other bodybuilding aspects are to us, but c'mon guys...is that really what you are voting for the president on? Huckabee 2008!
 
sdmf45

sdmf45

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I like Ron Paul a great deal, however he would completely do away with the FDA, the Department of Education, etc. Now, certainly these agencies have several problems, but quite frankly I don't want to buy a steak with no one but the company selling it telling me that it's safe to eat.
does that mean that you trust the FDA? when i see the label and it says "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" i know its good. they are not for the ppl at all...................just look at all the sh*t they have released that have fvcked ppl up. fvck them. ron paul is the man!
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
does that mean that you trust the FDA? when i see the label and it says "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" i know its good. they are not for the ppl at all...................just look at all the sh*t they have released that have fvcked ppl up. fvck them. ron paul is the man!
Give me a break. Ya, this was a good act that he passed, but this guy would screw up our national defense. He keeps comparing this war to Vietnam when it's not even remotely similar. These are totally different enemies.

The only thing I like about him is his passion for trying to fix the health care system. He's a doctor, and knows what needs to be done. Other than that, he needs to just go away.
 

Jove

New member
Awards
0
does that mean that you trust the FDA? when i see the label and it says "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" i know its good. they are not for the ppl at all...................just look at all the sh*t they have released that have fvcked ppl up. fvck them. ron paul is the man!
I tried to imply without going into too much that there are in fact problems with all of these government agencies. In the case of the FDA, a large number of these problems would be solved by outlawing companies from giving the FDA money, or allowing former FDA officials to then come and become board members for said companies.

Regardless, I certainly do not trust, in general, large businesses and corporations to then step in and take over the role of being their own watchdog. I think history speaks quite loudly on the topic of how well such arrangements work.

But yes, the FDA is certainly screwed up right now.
 
sdmf45

sdmf45

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Give me a break. Ya, this was a good act that he passed, but this guy would screw up our national defense. He keeps comparing this war to Vietnam when it's not even remotely similar. These are totally different enemies.

The only thing I like about him is his passion for trying to fix the health care system. He's a doctor, and knows what needs to be done. Other than that, he needs to just go away.
ya i was just talking about the supplements part of it. i understand what he will do the national defence, but the way i look at it is, your given the choice of 3 or 4 douchebags and you have to pick the lesser of the evils.
 
sdmf45

sdmf45

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I tried to imply without going into too much that there are in fact problems with all of these government agencies. In the case of the FDA, a large number of these problems would be solved by outlawing companies from giving the FDA money, or allowing former FDA officials to then come and become board members for said companies.

Regardless, I certainly do not trust, in general, large businesses and corporations to then step in and take over the role of being their own watchdog. I think history speaks quite loudly on the topic of how well such arrangements work.

But yes, the FDA is certainly screwed up right now.
ok i see what your saying..................these fvckers just throw around big $$$$$$ and get all these agencies to look the other way and pass sh*t that should never be passed and get to ban sh*t cause they want all the profit off of it. fvckers!!!!!!
 
Dr Packenwood

Dr Packenwood

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I am looking more and more to vote for him.
AMEN!

I'm just hoping he has enough supporters to push him to the top of the pile. It would be nice to see a decent underdog win for once.
 
Dr Packenwood

Dr Packenwood

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
I tried to imply without going into too much that there are in fact problems with all of these government agencies. In the case of the FDA, a large number of these problems would be solved by outlawing companies from giving the FDA money, or allowing former FDA officials to then come and become board members for said companies.

Regardless, I certainly do not trust, in general, large businesses and corporations to then step in and take over the role of being their own watchdog. I think history speaks quite loudly on the topic of how well such arrangements work.

But yes, the FDA is certainly screwed up right now.
EXACTLY!

I dont believe for one second that big name drug companies don't give 'donations' to the FDA. I would be willing to bet that if a supplement company had some kickass formula that happened to be one of the banned PH's, the FDA would find a way to allow it if a big enough donation was made.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I think history speaks quite loudly on the topic of how well such arrangements work.
Does it?

Exactly how long did the FDA take to approve irradiation for meat uses, even though it had been used for years for that purpose in Europe and even though companies were pushing for it? Where is the profit, pray tell, in killing off your customer base? And how about the people who died of tainted meat in the interrim? Did the FDA protect them?

"While government leaders are the first to demand new regulations to enhance food safety, the government's own foot-dragging bureaucrats are largely responsible for the problem. This three-year delay for the approval of irradiation has literally resulted in thousands of avoidable deaths and cases of illness."
Patrick Weinert

And I guess it's unheard of for a private group to take care of labeling or safety, such as Underwriter's Labs, or the NPA, or any number of other such groups. Problem is a search of NPO and educational groups for food safety that I ran turned up more than ten such organizations with budgets ranging from hundreds to millions of dollars per year, many devoted to guaranteeing certain label claims are correct, some devoted to education on food allergies, etc. I find it hard to believe that businesses are so keen on killing their customers. More likely information takes time to accumulate and the adequate of any particular time will necessarily deviate from anyone's ideal.
 
Last edited:
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote

Jove

New member
Awards
0
I do not have any desire to get into any substantive political or economic debate on an internet forum, but I don't want to ignore your question either so before I do bow out:

I certainly concede that there are perfectly good people who do care about not only the quality of the products that they sell but their customers. I'm not trying to invoke the "Big Business" boogeyman, but, yes, I do believe history speaks to, time and time, again, businesses ultimately being concerned first and foremost with profit. Now, again, this is a generality. There are exceptions, of course. And not all businesses are the same. I wouldn't compare the business of running a newspaper, for instance, with that of a drug company.

But without independent oversight, we the consumer are left to the good graces of whoever happens to run the company in question. Furthermore, even if, for the sake of the argument, the individual in charge is an honest and ethical person, this does not ensure that all the people he or she employs are as well. And with many larger businesses, there are a number of people involved in protecting both the integrity of the company and the health of the consumer.

In short, yes, there are "good" companies out there. The Body Works is a great example. But there are also "bad" ones who, like I mention above, are motivated by profit. Such examples include the notorious Enron.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
All companies are motivated by profit. Your confusion on that matter is what leads to what I consider a deeply flawed view of the world. Enron is not a case of a company being motivated by profit, it is a case of fraud. Those are two very distinct things. Profit is the result of every voluntary trade. It is not in conflict with the well being of one or more people in a trade, it is in fact the very definition of an increase in well being for both parties. Otherwise the trade would not have taken place or would have had to been coerced.

I do not have any desire to get into any substantive political or economic debate on an internet forum, but I don't want to ignore your question either so before I do bow out:

I certainly concede that there are perfectly good people who do care about not only the quality of the products that they sell but their customers. I'm not trying to invoke the "Big Business" boogeyman, but, yes, I do believe history speaks to, time and time, again, businesses ultimately being concerned first and foremost with profit. Now, again, this is a generality. There are exceptions, of course. And not all businesses are the same. I wouldn't compare the business of running a newspaper, for instance, with that of a drug company.

But without independent oversight, we the consumer are left to the good graces of whoever happens to run the company in question. Furthermore, even if, for the sake of the argument, the individual in charge is an honest and ethical person, this does not ensure that all the people he or she employs are as well. And with many larger businesses, there are a number of people involved in protecting both the integrity of the company and the health of the consumer.

In short, yes, there are "good" companies out there. The Body Works is a great example. But there are also "bad" ones who, like I mention above, are motivated by profit. Such examples include the notorious Enron.
 
ECTOmorph

ECTOmorph

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Give me a break. Ya, this was a good act that he passed, but this guy would screw up our national defense. He keeps comparing this war to Vietnam when it's not even remotely similar. These are totally different enemies.

The only thing I like about him is his passion for trying to fix the health care system. He's a doctor, and knows what needs to be done. Other than that, he needs to just go away.
He wouldnt screw up our national defense

He might slow up our national offense tho, which isnt a bad thing

This war on terror has lasted longer than any war America has ever been involved in, and with Korea and Iran, there is no end in sight

Of coarse you wont agree w me, at least until a loved one is killed over there, then another, and on and on

Al Qaeda has quadrupleed since we invaded Afghanistan
 

eagleba

New member
Awards
0
A strong National defense is different than a strong national offense. It is apparent that our National defense is strained and very weak due to being spread very thin. Ron Paul would assure us of a strong National Defense (something that, in my opinion, we have not had in a long time.Why do you think he is leading in contributions from military individuals and families?
 
RenegadeRows

RenegadeRows

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Ron paul will never win a debate let alone the partys nomination. hes too fringe.
huckabee is a good canidate but he wont win either. it will come down to guiliani i think :( :(
 

eagleba

New member
Awards
0
I did not mean for this to be a political debate - just thought this was a worthy read.
 
zbtboy

zbtboy

Anabolic Innovations Rep
Awards
1
  • Established
I did not mean for this to be a political debate - just thought this was a worthy read.
well that was a mistake. With the political section being locked, people are probably jones'in for a debate. :)
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
He wouldnt screw up our national defense

He might slow up our national offense tho, which isnt a bad thing

This war on terror has lasted longer than any war America has ever been involved in, and with Korea and Iran, there is no end in sight

Of coarse you wont agree w me, at least until a loved one is killed over there, then another, and on and on

Al Qaeda has quadrupleed since we invaded Afghanistan
Do you have any idea how screwed we would be if we completely left the Middle East? I understand that these losses the families suffer are extremely difficult, but we would suffer greater losses if we sat and waited for them to come and attack us in our own country. We need to keep troops in the Middle East, and we need to continue a strong alliance with Israel. I'm not saying if it came down to it I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if it came down to it. I think he would be a much better choice than any of the Democrats that are running, but I do fear what would happen with the security of the country. It will take a miracle to get Huckabee the GOP nomination, but that's why I pray. This country is in desperate need of a good leader. We didn't become the most powerful nation by electing people like Hilary or Obama into office. I very truly fear the future for this country.

The American people need to wake the hell up and realize where we are headed if we keep going down this path. I was getting so pissed off at the tv the other day. I was flipping through channels and stopped on MTV, who was having some presidential debate thing between a bunch of ignorant music artists. It was terrible.

Our country can't afford Hilary or Obama; figuratively and fiscally.
 
Dr Packenwood

Dr Packenwood

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
........ We didn't become the most powerful nation by electing people like Hilary or Obama into office. I very truly fear the future for this country......
I agree. Fortunately in the brief history of this country its only happened a few times. I only hope it doesn't happen again for a long long time.

:sad:
 
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
I would never vote for a Christian Conservative...unless he absolutely swore to uphold a PURELY secular role (including getting the hell away from the Abortion issue, and not trying to manipulate the court system or anything else into overturning Roe V. Wade, not trying to screw with Evolution/Creationism in school, etc.)
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I would disagree, because I think it is our troop presence in other countries and our involvment in other country's wars and internal affairs that generates the lion's share of hostility towards us. There are certainly those who are just crazy and hate the US. I think they are a minority, and are only empowered with recruits and the like when we give the run of the mill foreigner a tangible reason to not like or outright hate the US, such as killing their loved ones with bombs or sanctions, or doing so indirectly by enabling their enemies military forces. Our interventions have bred more problems than solutions over the years, and only lead to the need for more interventionism over time.

Ron Paul's foreign policy would be to pull our resources back to the US, trade with all countries that are willing, engage in no treaties or other entangling relationships, and decisively defend against attacks and/or clear and present dangers to the US, which the middle east is not now, nor would it likely be in my view if we left them to solve their own problems.

You'd also see an end or severe restriction of foreign aid and humanitarian aid as well. The competent don't need our help, the incompetent need it in perpetuity. And aid only serves to prop up political regimes that are the very obstacles to development in impovrished countries while equally and oppositely supressing entrepreneurship and capital accumulation locally by undercutting local prices and diverting resources to administrative leeching rather than productive growth.

Do you have any idea how screwed we would be if we completely left the Middle East? I understand that these losses the families suffer are extremely difficult, but we would suffer greater losses if we sat and waited for them to come and attack us in our own country. We need to keep troops in the Middle East, and we need to continue a strong alliance with Israel. I'm not saying if it came down to it I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if it came down to it. I think he would be a much better choice than any of the Democrats that are running, but I do fear what would happen with the security of the country. It will take a miracle to get Huckabee the GOP nomination, but that's why I pray. This country is in desperate need of a good leader. We didn't become the most powerful nation by electing people like Hilary or Obama into office. I very truly fear the future for this country.
 
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Then again...wherever there seems to be any kind of Muslim sub-population, they end up attacking any kind of secular government in efforts to instill some jacked up psycho theocracy.

Look at what's going on in Turkey right now...Look at Pakistan, etc.

As with MOST groups of that nature, they believe (and remember, faith requires no proof, just the blind belief of its followers...so they are all equally valid - or I should say INvalid) that they know best for everyone and want the government to bow to its morality...ultimately global control over everyone.
 
edwards

edwards

Active member
Awards
1
  • Established
Ron paul will never win a debate let alone the partys nomination. hes too fringe.
huckabee is a good canidate but he wont win either. it will come down to guiliani i think :( :(
I don't agree. Ron Paul has been winning straw poll after straw poll. He doesn't win national polls because his name usually isn't included.

Take it from a household with two Democrats and 1 Independant that changed party affiliation to Republican just so we can vote for Ron Paul.

I am in total agreement with his foreign policy. He is following the constitution afterall. His comparison to Vietnam is that neither wars were declared. The Congress, according to the Constitution is the only authority that can declare a war. Not the president. However, our congress passed the buck to the president both in the vietnam war and the iraq wars.

don't forget to donate to his campaign. ronpaul2008.com
 
zbtboy

zbtboy

Anabolic Innovations Rep
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't agree. Ron Paul has been winning straw poll after straw poll. He doesn't win national polls because his name usually isn't included.

Take it from a household with two Democrats and 1 Independant that changed party affiliation to Republican just so we can vote for Ron Paul.

I am in total agreement with his foreign policy. He is following the constitution afterall. His comparison to Vietnam is that neither wars were declared. The Congress, according to the Constitution is the only authority that can declare a war. Not the president. However, our congress passed the buck to the president both in the vietnam war and the iraq wars.

don't forget to donate to his campaign. ronpaul2008.com
One thing no one is taking into consideration is; What can he realistically change? What support is he going to get when trying to rid the country of the FDA, Energy Dept, and the others he wants gone? His libertarian views will go no where which only leaves his Foreign Policy.

I like a lot of what he has to say, but its going no where.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
I would never vote for a Christian Conservative...unless he absolutely swore to uphold a PURELY secular role (including getting the hell away from the Abortion issue, and not trying to manipulate the court system or anything else into overturning Roe V. Wade, not trying to screw with Evolution/Creationism in school, etc.)
That would be a horrible Christian conservative.
 

Tiberius

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
People keep talking about "I won't vote for Ron Paul because he'd <insert extreme action here>" and they completely forget such actions are impossible without Congress' approval. You aren't voting for dictator folks! Having someone extremely against large government as president means every piece of pork will get vetoed and any bill that gets put through that decreases government involvement and government spending will get the stamp of approval. It means a budget proposal that's a lot tighter.

It doesn't mean the abolishment of the FDA, the DOD, or any other extreme measure Ron Paul would LIKE to accomplish.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
As with MOST groups of that nature, they believe (and remember, faith requires no proof, just the blind belief of its followers...so they are all equally valid - or I should say INvalid) that they know best for everyone and want the government to bow to its morality...ultimately global control over everyone.
That's the desired function of government for anyone who tries to control the laws, not just religious zealots.
 
dsade

dsade

NutraPlanet Fanatic
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
That's the desired function of government for anyone who tries to control the laws, not just religious zealots.
True...but what they crave is a government that governs IN ACCORDANCE with their religious beliefs.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
True...but what they crave is a government that governs IN ACCORDANCE with their religious beliefs.
So does everyone else. Whether it's religious or secular guidelines in the end, everyone wants the government to force people to live by standards they feel are appropriate but that others might disagree with. Whether it's praying five times a day and covering women head to toe, or filling out copious forms just to paint your house a certain color or build a new deck or have a pool installed, the overall effect is the same. And in the end everyone thinks their standards are the ones that are justified.

If you want to truly leave people alone you have to be willing to let them make decisions you don't agree with. Whether that means using certain drugs, buying certain products, accepting certain relatively lower safety standards, working for particular wages, or whatever.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I say CDB for president.
People who run for state office only do so because their deepest, darkest secrets stop them from running for a higher, national office. Me, I won't even run for town level positions. Not that I'd have any chance of being elected anyway. People specifically want things from the government, that's why they lobby and write letters. Very, very few people see the benefits of a true hands off policy both foreign and domestic, and even fewer see it as beneficial to vote for someone who would support such a policy.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
True...but what they crave is a government that governs IN ACCORDANCE with their religious beliefs.
Give me one single example of Christian principle that would harm this country in any way. You speak of moral and immoral; yet it's our school systems that teach that there are no moral absolutes.

This entire country was founded on Christian principles; the further we move away from them (right now for example) is when we see so much destruction in our path.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
Give me one single example of Christian principle that would harm this country in any way. You speak of moral and immoral; yet it's our school systems that teach that there are no moral absolutes.

This entire country was founded on Christian principles; the further we move away from them (right now for example) is when we see so much destruction in our path.
Should blasphemous statements being against the law? How about the Ten Commandments, care to be convicted of covetting your neighbor's handmaiden or not adequately honoring thy parents?

The key Christian principle that served as this country's foundation is original sin, from which ideas of self responsibility are derrived. There's plenty in the Bible that is not consistent with a free society. The problem isn't Christianity, the problem is enforcement of Christianity on nonChristians. Some of the best and worst people I know are Christians. The best are good people who have a concern for my soul but leave it to persuasion to try and save it. The worst are those who feel that if I don't voluntarily save myself, the state should do it for me.
 

romanreid

New member
Awards
0
Give me one single example of Christian principle that would harm this country in any way. You speak of moral and immoral; yet it's our school systems that teach that there are no moral absolutes.

This entire country was founded on Christian principles; the further we move away from them (right now for example) is when we see so much destruction in our path.
Praise God that we move from Christian principles if that leads people on a road of depravity and the realization of there sin. For Born Agian believers our goal is not to make others live according to biblical principles in hopes of a eutophian society. But that men would see the destruction that sin cause and that the spirit of God would bring conviction unto salvation. I am sad that the face of Jesus in America is the Right wing conservative who hates Gays, Mexicans, Muslims, and women that sacrifice there unborn children. I believe the Lord mourns the sin and bondage they are and desires to see them come to the knowledge of the truth. Moral legislation will not delivery men from sin and death. Nothing but the blood of Jesus. I would rather I woman have suffered the pain of 10 abortions repent and go to heaven than live according to a moral code and never repent from her sin. The Gospel changes lives, countries and the world. I wish that believers would be more passionate about the Gospel and less about the morallity of those without the body. The Word says that believers will be know by there love for each other, not their moral objects. Remeber Salvation= Child of the living God= no longer Gay, Liar, Theif, Muslim, or sacrificer of unborn children. Salvation is the Key. Not legislation :thumbsup:
 
jomi822

jomi822

Banned
Awards
1
  • Established
His stance on the war and national security is so extremely weak. I used to like this guy, but the more I listen to him, the more I loathe him. We all know how important supplements and other bodybuilding aspects are to us, but c'mon guys...is that really what you are voting for the president on? Huckabee 2008!



thats a pretty specific and strong stance if you ask me
 

eagleba

New member
Awards
0
Ron Paul is a strong Christian. He also understands the constitution and knows what the word freedom means. It is going to be hard to find another candidate that has all of these qualities. It would be interesting if he chose Huckabee as a running mate.
 

herkfsu

New member
Awards
0
"government should have a hands-off attitude toward religion" Mike Huckabee
Yet they tell us in school that we came from "nothing" and the universe came from a big bang(in which galaxies spin in different direction... hmmm). Life came from NO LIFE...

You can't tell me this requires any less faith than believing in God. I am a Christian, but do respect others' religions, and don't think Christian views should be forced upon anyone, much like I do not want anyone pushing Islam on me or my kids. But it sounds like the government has its own religion its pushing down our kids throats and its unfortunately under the name "science".

If I honestly believed in this evolution garbage I would be the worst person alive. Why would it matter how I acted or how people treated me? I would be dead in 50 years or so anyways and none of it would have mattered. But God gives life meaning. It just makes sense, and I know Ive been blessed by him because of my faith.

Sorry, this is going to turn into a Religious topic I am sure. Mods might want to close this.
 

Irish Cannon

Legend
Awards
2
  • Legend!
  • Established
Ron Paul is a strong Christian. He also understands the constitution and knows what the word freedom means. It is going to be hard to find another candidate that has all of these qualities. It would be interesting if he chose Huckabee as a running mate.
I don't see how that would work too well. Their stance on the war are complete opposites.
 
CDB

CDB

Registered User
Awards
1
  • Established
I don't see how that would work too well. Their stance on the war are complete opposites.
In old days of the republic the guy who got the most votes was the president, the guy who got the second most was vice president. People with completely opposite agendas occupied the whitehouse. Seemed to work pretty good back then, more or less.
 

Similar threads


Top