Report comment to moderator

Ron Paul: Pro Child-Predator Candidate

Scroll down to read the comments and learn just how many people are on to the use of hysterical rhetoric in passing bloated federal legislation.

Had Ron Paul voted against a free-standing AMBER Alert bill, without all manner of other big-gummint provisions and add-ons … well, you might have a beef.

But he didn’t vote against a stand-alone AMBER Alert Bill. He voted against a monstrous amalgamation of big-gummint intrusions into people’s lives, which had the went by the name “AMBER Alert.”

And people like you, Victoria, take the bait and run hysterically into the night with it:

“RON PAUL HATES CHILDREN AND PROTECTS KIDNAPPERS AND PERVS!”

Sheesh. “What a piece of work” would be putting it politely!

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

YOU WRITE: … “If our leaders would rule biblically and execute kidnappers, rapists and murderers, there wouldn’t be any need for the Amber Alert.”

Kidnappers start at some point to abduct children, you can’t execute someone before they commit the crime. THINK ABOUT IT.

Rapists begin raping, but before they begin this hideous act, no one knows who would commit this act, how can you execute someone before they rape? THINK ABOUT IT!

Murderers have to commit a crime before you can bring them before the courts, you certainly can’t execute someone before they are tried and found guilt. THINK ABOUT IT!

We have the AMBER ALERT for a very good reason Bianca. Before you give your snap remarks, THINK ABOUT IT!

Report comment to moderator

(X ring.)

Report comment to moderator

And still, I come back again to ask your view on this fundamental issue:

Do you think that legislators should vote for any and all bills that purport to “save childrens’ lives” — period — regardless of any unconstitutional provisions they may also contain?

For all your bluster about Ron Paul’s constitutionally principled vote against the Amber Alert bill, you simply cannot bring yourself to answer an honest question.

If you don’t wanna engage issues, Victoria, why are you even here?

Oh, and I’m not “pouting” over here on this fence … I’m admiring my marksmanship.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Post #91 to Yeah “When you start asking questions which make sense, aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff, I’ll reply. Until then, have a nice evening!”

Frank

YOU WRITE:… “I’ll leave you with this constructive criticism, Victoria: You seem to be genuinely incapable of engaging in a rational give-and-take discussion. Take heart — I don’t think it’s permanent or anything. But just like the drunkard, you won’t be able to address your problem until you admit you have it.”

As for my post #83, take a look at your post #82, you scrambling computers, etc., into the AMBER Alert bill. The Bill passed, we now have the AMBER Alert Bill whether you, Ron Paul or your new candidate like it or not.

You have posted similar things in the past, that’s why I don’t post to you often. As far as you choice of candiates for the office of President which included Ron Paul, who didn’t have a chance and now Chuck Baldwin who also has no chance of winning, take a look at yourself.

I bring up the AMBER Alert bill which passed only to show you how nutty anyone can be to vote NO on this bill, not to mention the guy you now support, supported none other than Ron Paul.

Give it up Frank, sit on the fence and pout,

Report comment to moderator

You are the one who said, “When you start asking questions which make sense, aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff, I’ll reply.”

But now, when I have done what you asked, it is you who are shown not to be a woman of her word. How sad is that?

And incidentally, it is you (not me, as you asserted at (83)) who is shown to be distorting Ron Paul’s NO vote on the Amber Alert bill.

Specifically, you have made it sound as if the federal Amber Alert was the only provision in that bill, and that the Amber Alert is all the big heartless meanie Ron Paul voted against in that bill.

Yet when I seek to engage you on the true multifaceted, multilayered and unconstitutional nature of the bill, all you do is dodge, dodge and dodge some more.

Well, with all that squirming, I take some consolation in knowing that the arrows are hitting their target.

(BTW, I really love the “boo hoo” stuff. So mature … )

I’ll leave you with this constructive criticism, Victoria: You seem to be genuinely incapable of engaging in a rational give-and-take discussion. Take heart — I don’t think it’s permanent or anything. But just like the drunkard, you won’t be able to address your problem until you admit you have it.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator