Ventolin For Sale

Ventolin For Sale, I must say that I agree with Ron Paul on a number of economic issues including his consistent opposition to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, both bail-outs, and the recent lifting of the debt ceiling. Ventolin dose, But on the major social/moral issues that under-gird any society's economy (life and marriage), Ron Paul is as far from being an authentic pro-Personhood pro-lifer and pro-family conservative as you can get, Ventolin forum. Ventolin steet value, The bottom line with Ron Paul is that he claims to be pro-life but believes that individual states may allow the killing of pre-born babies if the majority of voters say it's ok even though inalienable rights may never be alienated. He also claims to be pro-traditional marriage but is on record numerous times in support of same-sex "marriage" (or as Paul himself says, buy Ventolin without prescription, Ventolin pharmacy, "whatever they want to call it").

The guy who just won the Gay friendly, buy generic Ventolin, Ventolin duration, formerly conservative, "Conservative Political Action Conference Presidential Straw Poll" for the second straight year:

1, Ventolin for sale. Denies that God says homosexuality is a sin, Ventolin For Sale. Buy no prescription Ventolin online, 2. Supports open homosexuals in the military and repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

3, Ventolin price, coupon. Is Ventolin safe, Supports the "freedom philosophy" of legalizing cocaine, heroin, low dose Ventolin, Real brand Ventolin online, marijuana and all other hard drugs. "Government has no role or authority in regulating drugs."

4, buy Ventolin from canada. Supports legalization of pornography and prostitution Ventolin For Sale, . Get Ventolin, 5. Supports right of homosexuals to marry one another, Ventolin pics. Ventolin coupon, i.e. “gay marriage.” (“Gay couples can do whatever they want.”)

6, low dose Ventolin. Is "pro-choice for states" on abortion, Ventolin For Sale. Ventolin wiki, Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. All pre-born babies don’t possess a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate, order Ventolin online overnight delivery no prescription. Where can i order Ventolin without prescription, 7. Supports "exceptions" for abortion such as "honest rapes."

8, my Ventolin experience. Ventolin images, Supported abortion legislation regulations which have resulted in 7.4 million chemical and surgical abortions since taking office in 1997 in Congress.

9. Doesn’t believe it’s government’s role to “legislate morality” even though all laws are based on morality, Ventolin class. Ventolin reviews, . Ventolin dosage. Ventolin price, coupon. Where can i find Ventolin online. Doses Ventolin work. Fast shipping Ventolin. Ventolin without a prescription. Discount Ventolin. Online buying Ventolin hcl. Ventolin recreational. Ventolin samples.

Similar posts: Buy Imitrex Without Prescription. Buy Viagra Without Prescription. Buy Armour Without Prescription. Ketoconazole Cream For Sale. Purchase Nasonex. Celebrex canada, mexico, india. Where can i buy Toprol XL online. Purchase Female Pink Viagra for sale.
Trackbacks from: Buy Levaquin Over The Counter. Discount Plavix. Discount Antabuse. Buy Hgh No Prescription. 500mg Flexeril. Imitrex canada. Hgh india. Actos mexico.

12 Responses to “Ventolin For Sale”

  1. Matt Farag Says:

    Hello Gregg,
    I do have some disagreements with your political views, and here they are. Ron Paul does a good job defending his Iraq War views in chapter 13 of his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by addressing claims supporting the war, such as Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, harbored Al-Qaeda, ordered an attempted assassination on George H. W. Bush, and violated 16 UN resolutions (that is true, but it was not the only country violating UN resolutions). Ron Paul said that we should lift sanctions off Iran and we should talk with the leaders of Iran just as we talked of Russia and China during the Cold War. At first, I thought that the Patriot Act did not apply to me, so long as I was not a suspected terrorist, until I read two articles from 2005 discussing the Patriot Act, both of which can be found at and
    Thomas Aquinas quoted St. Augustine as saying that not all vices must be punished. In the Netherlands, they prevent car accidents from marijuana use by not allowing you to smoke it and go driving, you cannot sell it, and the only place you can smoke it is in the coffee shop. So if you want to prevent car accidents from it’s use, restrict it to home use and do not allow people to smoke it and go driving. You might want to consider and the book Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? Personally, doing drugs is not something I approve of, but when you illegalize drugs or alcohol, you create crime lords that will illegally trade in those substances, start terrorizing local areas, increase police and local government corruption, and it becomes a black market that you cannot control. When prohibition ended, the bootleggers disappeared. If you end drug prohibition, the drug cartels will be gone. If you want to deal with drug addicts, it should not be the job of the police. The job goes to families, schools, churches, and community organizations. Although many conservatives support the war on drugs, and increasing number like William F. Buckley are skeptical. Thomas Sowell finds drug prohibition more utopian than conservative. Also, a federal ban on drugs or alcohol would be unconstitutional, and the men who ratified of the 18th amendment understood this; but now legislators are ignoring this. On the issue of legalized prostitution, go to As for abortion being a states’ rights issue, read pages 58-63 of Ron Paul’s book The Revolution: A Manifesto. Actually, you should read that entire book. When the fifth amendment says that nobody should “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” that means the federal government has to give you a proper legal proceeding before it executes, incarcerates, or expropriates you.If the fifth amendment is saying a baby has a right to life, then it is saying that healthcare is a right. Also go to and Lysander Spooner’s essay Vices are not Crimes. At the same time, I do agree with you that Ron Paul’s views on gay rights (excluding hate crimes) are wrong. Other than his views on gay rights (excluding hate crimes), his opposition to Israel, and his views on the Ground Zero Mosque, he is excellent.

  2. Gregg Hilton Says:

    Ron Paul has been consistent since his election to Congress in 1976 in advocating unilateral disarmament of America’s defense and trade policy. Many Ron Paul supporters describe themselves as very conservative, but they support an agenda which has much in common with the radical left.
    The introduction to Paul’s book on foreign policy says the Cold War and the War on Terror are both a “farce”, and they were designed to justify a larger role for government. He compares the U.S. role in Afghanistan to “a schoolyard bully.” The Texas lawmaker is far to the left of Obama and Pelosi on foreign policy, defense and international economic issues.
    If a solution isn’t exactly as he dictates, the Congressman will oppose the entire bill. It doesn’t matter how beneficial or Constitutional the legislation may be.
    DEFICIT SPENDING: He claims to be for limited government but Ron and Rand Paul were among the few Republicans who opposed the Paul Ryan budget to reduce the deficit by $6.2 trillion over a decade. They said it did not cut enough, but they would not accept the Ryan plan as a starting point.
    EARMARKS: He is the only GOP candidate who continues to support earmarks and pork barrel spending. He votes against every appropriations bill but only after making sure he has received his usual $400 million every year.
    TRADE: He claims to support free trade but votes against every free trade agreement. He is one of the greatest protectionists on Capitol Hill.
    ABORTION: He claims to be pro-life, and says the Right to Life is the foundation for all rights in the Constitution. The truth is that he is really pro-choice on the state level. That is the purpose of his Sanctity of Life Bill. He is essential saying it is fine with him to kill a child if a state agrees.
    IMMIGRATION: He claims to be against illegal immigration, but has voted against the border fence and the E-Verify program to stop employers from hiring illegal aliens. In fact, he is against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens.
    He opposes Arizona’s get tough policies and the deportation of people who are here illegally. He claims to oppose amnesty but that is what his program advocates. If a state wants open borders that is fine with him. NumbersUSA gives him an “F” rating on immigration.
    DEFENSE: Paul, 75, says he supports a strong national defense but wants a hollow military and an end to all modernization and readiness programs. His report with Barney Frank advocates cutting from $1 trillion to $1.8 trillion from the Pentagon. He wants to return to the 1970s when many service members were eligible for food stamps.
    He opposes the Patriot Act and FISA. Bush and Obama now agree on practically every war on terror policy but they are opposed by Ron Paul and Code Pink.
    WAR ON DRUGS: He says “Government should have no role or authority in regulating drugs.” All dangerous drugs would be legal if they were approved by a state government.
    CIVIL RIGHTS: He is the only Republican in the House or Senate who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. We have heard his sovereignty arguments before. That is what the Southern states said when they started the Civil War. They said it again in the Southern Manifesto of 1957 to keep black children out of public schools and when they tried to stop the Civil Rights Act. Eisenhower and Kennedy had to send in the U.S. military to open the schools.
    FOREIGN POLICY: The Congressman says if he was President 1) He would not have authorized the raid to kill Osama bin Laden. 2) Iraq would have been allowed to take over Kuwait.
    3) He would have done nothing if Saddam Hussein threatened to capture three-quarters of the world’s reserves by taking over the Saudi oil fields. An attack on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would have violated the UN charter and had terrible repercussions for our energy security but Paul would not have responded because “it did not involve an attack on America.”
    4) The United States would pull out of NATO, the WTO, and our UN Security Council veto would be abandoned.
    5) No U.S. soldiers were killed in the former Yugoslavia but he believes it was wrong to join the NATO mission which stopped genocide, ethnic cleansing and rape camps. The Milosevic dictatorship would have continued and Bosnia would have been taken over if it was up to Ron Paul.
    ISRAEL: He rarely fails to repeat propaganda from terrorist groups. He claims Israel is keeping food, medicine and humanitarian supplies out of Gaza, even though the Red Cross says this is not true and there is no crisis. He claims Palestinians are confined to a “concentration camp.” He is the only Republican who refused to vote for the resolution condemning Iran’s President after he said “Israel should be wiped off the map.” He voted against a resolution recognizing Israel’s “right to defend itself against Hamas rocket attacks” and reaffirming the U.S.’s support for Israel.
    INTELLIGENCE: He accuses the CIA of being in the drug business and says they need to be “taken out. . . There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”
    * A suicide bombing against Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan took the lives of seven CIA agents. They are heroes who were on the front lines protecting us. We should be praising them, not making false allegations.
    The CIA did not invent crack cocaine and they have never been in the drug business. It is Muslim extremists who intentionally target civilians, not the CIA or the US military.
    ISOLATIONISM AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES: The Texas Congressman is a firm isolationist and promotes many conspiracy theories. He frequently talks of the dangers of the North American Union, an “Amero” currency and a “NAFTA Superhighway.” None of these things exists and they were never planned by the U.S. government.
    EXTREMISM: He has voted to protect the privacy of sexual predators. He will not require operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child pornography to report it to the government. He does not want the Census Bureau to be allowed to collect demographic data on age, race, and income.
    * Paul voted against giving a Congressional Gold Medal to Mother Theresa and Rosa Parks. The Parks medal was privately funded and the Congressman said “she would not want a medal.” Rosa Parks was alive and gratefully accepted the medal. Why was he really opposed to honoring Rosa Parks?
    * RACISM
    Once again, Ron Paul is the only Republican in the House and Senate who opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and he voted it against it on its 40th anniversary. For 15 years the Ron Paul Report newsletter was filled with racism. The newsletter staff included his wife and daughter, but now Paul wants us to believe that he did not know what was in a newsletter which carried his name. According to the “New Republic”:

    “In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’ While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.”

    This article contains many additional damning quotes:

  3. ted Says:

    Greg, learn the Constitution then come back and blabber a bit more about the role of the Federal Government and it’s relationship with the State Governments. You have no idea what you’re talking about and deliberately demean a man who simply wants you and everyone else to live in peace in a sovereign Nation. You are totally misinformed and your opinions are obviously backed by some agenda, most likely paid. Knowledge is powerful sir, and so is freedom and liberty. Learn it.

  4. admin Says:

    Ted, would you like to actually cite one example of anything I have written about Mr. Paul that is not true?

  5. topeka Says:

    @Gregg Hilton,

    Good post, but you are relying on news media reports. Not that I read anything in your post I disagree with, but there are a few things I have only seen from left-wing media.

    That the left-wing distributes these facts does not make them false, after all the devil’s best lie is (mostly) the truth. Generally, many of these allegations seem to ring true, because of repetition, but I just feel uncertain of the quality.

    Also, I have a bias towards believing Mr. Paul has “issues” based on his followers. Too many of Mr. Paul’s followers are borderline believers in too many conspiracy theories. They have ridiculously high standards for others, but hold themselves to no principles in a debate.

    Frequently, I have argued with Paul supporters and found myself experiencing the same dementia and dissociation one has when arguing with someone with a mental illness, bipolar, manic-depression, or OCD personality disorder. They behave as though you are attacking their ego, and they are unwilling to offer practical suggestions or to defend their positions logically and practically.

    Many Paul supporters cannot seem to recognize morality other than pot and sex. They think all of our others laws popped out of a vacuum. If one accepts their hypothesis, they cannot explain how to undo the current system, nor can they explain how to maintain their hypothetical social order.

    Example, they think the social contract should be enforced absolutely, but will they accept homeowner defaults such as occurred in Houston when the entire city hit depression era levels of unemployment? Seems most of them are soft on this issue if they were wiped out and lost a home, but they are hardcore if they have never experienced a housing market downturn. Being human is fine with me, and I accept this hypocrisy as within normative ranges, but Paul supporters want us all to impose their hypocritical morality through the law.

    And that’s just based on several I have run into. There are many more. And unfortunately, they are pretty ugly. Among hardcore conservatives, I have met many adulterers, tax cheats, repentant alcoholics, and others with similar problems, but never the outright insanity, selfishness, or meanness of soul and spirit of the Paul supporters. Frankly, were it not for mean-spirited Liberals, I would have to rank Paul supporters among the most unpleasant people I have had the misfortune to know.

    And that’s just my relatives….

    Anyway, that was a rabbit trail.

    I just wanted to suggest primary sources.

    thanks for the info.

  6. Clarence Says:

    Regards for helping out, superb information.

  7. Josie Says:

    “…but when you illegalize drugs or alcohol, you create crime lords that will illegally trade in those substances, start terrorizing local areas, increase police and local government corruption, and it becomes a black market that you cannot control. When prohibition ended, the bootleggers disappeared. If you end drug prohibition, the drug cartels will be gone.”

    Matt, isn’t that the same argument used by pro-abortionists?
    Specifically, they claim that illegalizing abortions will result in some imaginary onslaught of undescribable horrors, involving multitudes of young women, lurking in dark alleys, abusing themselves with rusty coathangers.

    As one who’s old enough to remember the days preceding the Roe v. Wade decision, I must challenge your stated assumptions.
    Were we to use that same lame argument across the board, might we not also eliminate ALL bank robberies, by simply legalizing the act, itself?
    How relieved we’d be, once our savings were warmly nestled inside unlocked banks, free of security cameras and personnel.
    Then, a sign proclaiming, “WELCOME, THIEVES!” could be conspicuously posted on every bank’s front door?!

    It appears that you’ve been taken-in by the belief that decriminalizing any subversive act, renders it a socially acceptable behavior.
    And Matt, that belief cannot be further from the truth!

    Because “crime,” by definiton, requires two elements — a perpetrator, and a victim.
    Of course, you’ll probably argue that personal drug abuse doesn’t fulfill those same requirements.
    But, you might also find it difficult to convince those who’ve lost a loved one, who had “self-medicated” themselves into an early grave.
    And our existing laws are clear, even recognizing “suicide,” as a criminal act.

    But, why?

    Because, Matt, it is unnatural for man to terminate his own mortal existence! And furthermore, it is illegal (not to mention — immoral) to take an innocent life — the true definition of “murder!”

    And again….you might argue that a suicidal individual “owns” his life, and therefore, harms no one by his actions.
    However, even if we ignore the obvious — that all mortal life is God-given, and not really “ours” to return, at will….
    we’re still faced with that obvious question regarding man’s true nature — more specifically, with “natural law.”

    And because we’re not lemmings —
    it can hardly be argued that our mortal flesh isn’t programmed for survival.
    Even medical science has proven this, devoid of any “religious” persuasion.

    Ergo, the suicidal individual is not of ‘sound mind.’ And as the primary function of the law is to protect the innocent….
    then, our duty to prevent such an individual from doing harm, even unto himself, is quite clear.

    So, yes — suicide actually does fit the definition of “a crime.”
    It’s just that both the victim, and the perpetrator, are one-in-the-same.

    But, what has all of this to do with ‘legalizing drugs,’ you might ask?

    And again, I will respond, using only “natural law.”

    He who seeks to rid himself of a ‘sound mind’ — even temporarily —
    is already lacking that very same ‘soundness.’
    And “self-medication” — whether through drugs, or alcoholic toxification — is merely a symptom of another, possibly serious, underlying health problem —
    whether it be physical pain, or some common mental issue, such as depression.

    In any case, those issues should be addressed by a medical professional — NOT some self-diagnosing, self-prescribing “quack!”

  8. Anita Says:

    I just have to say that of all the candidates I would like to vote for the one that consistently votes to limit the powers of the federal government. All of the candidates left except Ron Paul flipflop.

    Flip flopping is one of the #1 things that makes a candidate un-electable. Paul is consistent. there are balances of power of the President the Senate and the house. They will balance him, but at least we know that he is not going to flip flop, get paid by lobbiests or sell his soul.

    And I whole heartily disagree with the borders and legalizing of drugs. He always says a strong national defense is necessary. He’d pull the troops out of the war profiteering countries and bring them home for our nation defense and to up the economy by spending money here at home. he also said he is against drugs, but how much money are we spending on people in jail that have just smoked pot? way too much! I believe he is the most incorruptible, consistent, integritous and honest candidate we have running.

  9. Mike Cone Says:

    You’re page is full of typical right-wing establishment rhetoric, contradictory I might add.
    Take this statement from your very first paragraph:
    “they support an agenda which has much in common with the radical left.” Now compare the implication in that statement to the following statement you make in your Defense paragraph “Bush and Obama now agree on practically every war on terror policy”. First the radical left are wrong, and then Obama is somehow miraculously correct.
    Have you considered the possibility that you are the one who holds a far left position on war? After all bloated foreign occupations are the essence of big government. The Patriot Act is a constitution ravaging policy which reeks of big government, and you support both.

    You also put words into Paul’s mouth here “He is essential saying it is fine with him to kill a child if a state agrees.” He’s never said anything of the sort. Here you are exposed as an outright liar. Paul has asserted that this is the quickest way to save as many lives as possible, since attempts to reverse Roe v Wade have gone nowhere. According to your standards, your dismissal of the Sanctity of Life act shows that you believe it is fine to kill a child until Roe V Wade is reversed. Of course I know that’s not true, so I wouldn’t write it. You on the other hand decided to post a link to a site that credited Ron Paul himself with the deaths of children.

    The same can be said about everything else you wrote. Stated as fact, yet completely one sided with vital information conveniently missing. You call him an isolationist, when he has said himself he is not. He is a non-interventionist.

    You call him a racist, when there is far more proof he is not.

    You accuse him of protecting sexual predators, when he’s really protecting the constitution.

    You point out that Paul said he wouldn’t have allowed the Bin Laden killing, but fail to point out that he voted for us to invade Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden, and that the statement was made after we let Bin Laden run loose for 10 years.
    Lie after lie.

  10. admin Says:

    Here is Ron Paul admitting he believes it’s ok to kill babies conceived in rape:

  11. Ron Jones Says:

    I disagree vehemently with the position that it is acceptable to murder a child who is the product of rape, incest, or danger to a mother’s life.

    Now, point me in the direction of any conservative politician who will get the federal government out of the way, so that the people of Tennessee can vote to end the murder of innocents [without being hindered by the sodomites and wiccans]… and I will vote for that man.

  12. admin Says:

    Ron, all elected officials at both the state and federal level posses the consitutional and moral obligation to protect and defend the inalienable right to life for all human persons from conception to natural death. Not and “either or” thing…

    No individual state possesses the authority to alienate the inalienable right to life.

Leave a Reply