Wow! Attack ad aimed at Paul only

[Paulitics 2011]

To be honest, I don't see this having a huge effect. The sensationalism isn't even subtle:

"He wants to abolish marriage!"

 

[John of Des Moines]

To be honest, I don't see this having a huge effect. The sensationalism isn't even subtle:

"He wants to abolish marriage!"

You don't know Iowa.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You don't know Iowa.

Or NC. These people are crazy-powerful. The problem is that these people will lie in a heartbeat to accomplish their goals, but they are an allegedly Christian org, therefore no matter how crazy the stuff they make up, people will believe it because Christians aren't supposed to lie, and certainly a Christian group as prominent as that one isn't going to lie...

But they do. It has been my limited experience that the NOM/AFA/CC people are just as quick, if not quicker, to lie as any other group of political scum.

 

[Danke]

I was in a hotel room yesterday so I turned on the MSM (I don't have cable tv nor watch tv at home). Wow! All neg to RP and off the mark but strange comments (mostly fluff or positive) to the other candidates.

 

[Czolgosz]

Every time I hear these quotes used to misrepresent Ron's philosophy I wanna knee cap the authors. /vent

 

[Ronulus]

Oh no, if the state doesn't recognize my marriage it must not be true. Even though we got married in a church, by a priest (not the state). I guess if the government doesn't protect my marriage then churches wont be allowed to have them anymore. (/sarcasm)

 

[gmc1988]

Well I'm sure that each and every person who has a leadership capacity with NOM is a 100 percent supporter of military action. That is the REAL reason for their opposition to Dr Paul in my opinion.

 

[ZanZibar]

It's called a FUD campaign:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

 

[Voluntary Man]

If you believe in babies, you'll grant the federal government exclusive power to explicitly define what a baby is, isn't, and ought to be.

If you believe in motherhood, you'll grant the federal government exclusive power to explicitly define what a mother is, isn't, and ought to be.

If you believe in manhood, you'll grant the federal government exclusive power to explicitly define what a man is, isn't, and ought to be.

....after all, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[airborne373]

Why? Because Paul believes the STATE should get out of marriage so those who support state marriage would attack. Basically the supporters of communism.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Or NC. These people are crazy-powerful. The problem is that these people will lie in a heartbeat to accomplish their goals, but they are an allegedly Christian org, therefore no matter how crazy the stuff they make up, people will believe it because Christians aren't supposed to lie, and certainly a Christian group as prominent as that one isn't going to lie...

But they do. It has been my limited experience that the NOM/AFA/CC people are just as quick, if not quicker, to lie as any other group of political scum.

I got into a debate with a constitutional law professor, who was committed to the idea that, if the federal government didn't intervene, immediately, everyone was going to get divorced and no one was ever going to get married, ever again -- except for homosexuals, presumably (just for the novelty?). I asked him whether he thought the institution of marriage had been improved by state licensing requirements. I explained to him that the state had not invented marriage, and could only harm it further by regulating it further. He just looked at me as if I had just landed from another planet. Some people, people who should know better (that professor called himself a Christian, considered himself a conservative, and had tried cases before SCOTUS), really don't get it.

Personally, I don't care if you refer to your Jack Russel Terrier as "the missus." Frankly, it's none of my business. Just, no more laws, please. Please?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I got into a debate with a constitutional law professor, who was committed to the idea that, if the federal government didn't intervene, immediately, everyone was going to get divorced and no one was ever going to get married, ever again -- except for homosexuals, presumably (just for the novelty?). I asked him whether he thought the institution of marriage had been improved by state licensing requirements. I explained to him that the state had not invented marriage, and could only harm it further by regulating it further. He just looked at me as if I had just landed from another planet. Some people, people who should know better (that professor called himself a Christian, considered himself a conservative, and had tried cases before SCOTUS), really don't get it.

Personally, I don't care if you refer to your Jack Russel Terrier as "the missus." Frankly, it's none of my business. Just, no more laws, please. Please?

I find it frightening that such a person has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

 

[Voluntary Man]

I find it frightening that such a person has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

Amen, brother!

...and that he's molding the legal minds of tomorrow ... and today.

 

[PRIEST]

Here's the tube of someone's answering machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynmdcV1oTME