For Ron Paul Fans and Paulites Only

I find Rudy G. absolutely loathsome, with Hillary only slightly less vomit inducing (Idunno why, guess she doesn't try to hide her true colors and says "9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! a little less frequently) BUT I don't sit here and make countless threads dissing on people who love Rudy and Hill. I think it would be a waste of my time trying to convince people who have already, for whatever reason, decided to support them...or hell, any other candidate.

I mean hell, Rudy actually has real quotes floating around out there about how freedom actually means giving control over to the Government about personal choices in your life. New York is practically a police state, in the fashion of Great Britain (I know, I was born in Dundee, Scotland and lived to see the changes there after Dunblaine, etc). But RON PAUL scares you?!
Click to expand...

I have to say that I can think of nothing more disgusting than standing in a voting booth and having to pick between Billary and Rudy. I imagine that I'd throw my vote at whoever's running on the Libertarian ticket as a form of protest. Or maybe sit at home and drink while singing patriotic anthems in a sad minor key :(
 
I don't agree with Ron Paul about banning all abortions, but I could live with the issue going back to the states. If we're allowed to argue the abortion issue here, like one poster already did, I'm definitely up for the fight! But I suspect that those controlling this forum won't allow it so I'll not defend my position until asked to.:cool:
 
LOL, I too will most likely end up sitting alone, drinking, and softly weeping about amber waves of grain..
 
"a woman's right to choose.

Sorry folks, no matter your own morality the gov't should stay out of women's wombs.", Defjon.

Conversely the government should stay out of other peoples pockets to pay for those abortions. Personally, I could care less if a person wants to kill their offspring for whatever reason they may have. My problem with abortion is that there is an expectation for government to pay for their mistakes by effectively robbing another person. The perception of it being morally wrong to do so is another matter that no one should dictate to another person. If one wishes to terminate a potential life, for personal reasons, that is their deal. Pay for it yourself.

A moral dilemma is caused by government funding. By taking money out of other peoples hands to pay for it, we are in turn putting blood on their hands. Where does the government have the right to put the blood of an innocent on a person's hands who finds such activity to be morally reprehensible? Other than that who cares what pro-abortionists want to do? In fact it seems that Democrats are primarily the ones that like to abort their babies, why should a Republican or any other person want to stop them? All it really does is eliminate potential future Democrats. That is a winning proposition for the opposition. I guess in the end it is a matter of perspective. Either way, use your own dang money. Stay out of my wallet.

Ron Paul is more hit than miss, when it comes to the Constitution. Can't agree with him 100% but at least he doesn't want to grow government as the others on both sides seem to like to do.
 
I whole heartedly agree with you, Slug.

My own moral base is, to be frank, appalled at abortion. I know people that use it almost like a form of birth control. I, personally, (if I had a uterus) wouldn't have one.

But as I said, I don't believe it is the government's right to legislate morality, especially in a matter like this. I also believe it would be legislating morality in a way to PAY for the abortions, as you mentioned.

However, I COULD see some need for programs to allow for it. In cases of violent rape, incest, etc coupled with poor to no income (that accounts for a LOT of this country, folks- I don't care WHAT the DOW Jones is!) then it might be necessary.

Doctor Paul's likely response to this would be similar to his responses about welfare, as this is sort of a form of that. He would suggest charities and organizations on the private sector form and set up funds for cases where it can be shown financially impossible for victims like this to have a procedure done.

I don't know. This is a TOUGH issue that I go back and forth on. It boils down to that no matter how I feel about it, I don't want some faceless entity illegalizing something like this. It some ways, it could be compared to the Chinese government telling people how many children they can have, etc. Or mandating vesictimies (sp).

Anyway, thanks. Good issue. Paul lets it boil down to what the states choose. I guess I'd go a step further and not make any laws about it, leave it up to the people, but also not provide gubermint funding. If people feel strongly about it, they can form trusts.

This is a slightly more important issue than say...PETA, and they surely have millions.
 
For the longest time it was Ron Paul's foreign policy that required the most faith from me to trust that he knows what he is talking about. But the more I thought about it, the more I could accept it. My favorite part is the realization that for the first time ever, Israel would be able to crush, kill and destroy anyone who picks a fight with them because the U.S. would not be butting in acting as an emergency brake.

My next biggest issue is the gold standard. The basic idea of it makes since, but I can't wrap my head around how it would be feasible when there is only so much gold on the planet.

The biggest thing about any candidate to remeber is that most or all of their campaign promises are B.S. because the President does not have absolute power, unless his (or her) party also controls the House and Senate. The biggest advantage I can see with Ron Paul as President would be complete and total griddlock. The neocons hate half of what he stands for, and the liberals absolutely despise the other half. He's the perfect candidate.
 
"a woman's right to choose...
Sorry folks, no matter your own morality the gov't should stay out of women's wombs.", Defjon.

Conversely the government should stay out of other peoples pockets to pay for those abortions... Pay for it yourself.
Click to expand...

Childbirth should be 100% voluntary; it isn't just a trivial undertaking, you know. I've got no problem with the government making women pay for their own abortions. The poor can just beg, borrow or steal if they have to! But many anti-abortion people don't care about the funding: they just want to punish "bad" women.

A moral dilemma is caused by government funding... Where does the government have the right to put the blood of an innocent on a person's hands who finds such activity to be morally reprehensible?
Click to expand...

Oh please. I personally don't agree with my government bombing civilians (even as supposed "collateral damage) in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon Iran, many of whom are innocent women and children. Why aren't all those crying about the rights of blastocysts opposing this? Is it that all foreigners are guilty, so are fair game? I also don't support my government torturing people. But so what? We all have to pay taxes which go to things we personally don't approve of.
 
I always liked the stretch those against Paul make regarding 9/11. They make it sound like Paul has said we deserved it which is a pile of bull droppings.

What he has said is that when you drive around town constantly flipping off other drivers you shouldn't be surprised when one of them decides to punch you in the nose. That does not justify the assault. US actions overseas in no way justified the events of 9/11 but one would have to be a complete brainwashed moron to believe Osama and company simply staged the largest terrorist attack in history on us from the other side of the globe because "they hate our freedom." Sorry but our way of life, while abhorrent to them, does little to build the desire to kill oneself while taking as many of us with them as possible. Go muck around in their backyard though and you have a completely different situation. Ron Paul understands that and is one of the only people to properly point it out. I am all for going after those who did it, which seems to be unimportant to the current administration, but that doesn't mean I need to be blind to the cause (even though I don't believe it justified).

Lying to ourselves that this is all about "Freedom" and that "They Hate Our Freedom" is simply a presidential mantra repeated to justify any actions they choose to take without acknowledging the cost or consequences.
 
Childbirth should be 100% voluntary; it isn't just a trivial undertaking, you know. I've got no problem with the government making women pay for their own abortions. The poor can just beg, borrow or steal if they have to! But many anti-abortion people don't care about the funding: they just want to punish "bad" women.
Click to expand...

According to you. I think it should be allowed but do not believe the opposition oppose it because they want to punish "bad" women. From those I have spoken with it has to do with their concept of life starting, its sanctity, and the gov't responsiblity to its most defenseless citizens (as they see them). I tend to believe it should be available, although regulated since the basic concept of abortion as birth control is NOT good for the society at large. At the same I am intellectually honest enough to realize that there is no COTUS protection for abortion.

If the American people want one then pass an ammendment stating abortion is a protected right, immune from state and federal regulation beyond an ammendment then they should do so. Otherwise the states are within their power to regulate, restrict and outright ban it as the individual state legislatures desire. Any president's position on Abortion should be a non-issue since constitutionally they have absolutely nothing to do with it. Any SCOTUS prospects opinion on it should be equally meaningless, as long as they are judiciously honest. The only place the SCOTUS should have on this is saying that ther Fed Gov't has no place interfereing and that the issue is purely one within the state's domain. If people want anti or pro abortion in the their state then deal with it through their own state legislatures.
 
I am not a PAULista. I may agree with many of his issues but I think he is just plain unelectable so why waste gray matter or stomach acid on him.
 
I disagree with his stance on the death penalty. I believe that some crimes warrant the ultimate punishment. Perhaps the system needs to be revamped..but not eliminated.

That being said..he's still the best possible candidate out there if you stand for limited government and maximum freedom.
 
"Childbirth should be 100% voluntary; it isn't just a trivial undertaking, you know." ,pitz96.

Exactly, that is why, before having a child, one should be responsible for their personal actions. Making the choice to engage in the behavior which results in childbirth is a most serious one. Perhaps those that take it lightly should have to face the consequences of their actions rather than to be absolved of those actions. There are cases where potential childbirth isn't 100% voluntary, we call that rape. In such an instance there may be justification for an abortion, that still doesn't give a citizen the Constitutional right to have money confiscated, through force of law, for abortion funding. The right or lack thereof is left to the individual state unless, as Musketeer stated, a Constitutional Amendment is passed in regards to abortion. Good luck with that.

Not a problem to me, so long as those that desire such a thing play by the rules. I may not approve of it, but that is why I will vote for candidates that oppose federal or state funding of abortion, undeclared wars, or anything that otherwise as a potential effect on my conscience and financial well being. The voting booth is always a good place to have a political fight for the future of America and her citizens. I do so love a good fight. So if after the fight is done and there are things that are not to my approval, I will abide by the laws, until the next match. Then the laws can be changed or not. Either way it is the fight that counts. No matter how frustrated one becomes, never lose sight of the goals and never give in. In the end the strongest and most enduring will wins.

On that note... The pen is a formidable tool/weapon

My ink cartridge is spent! Time to reload. Come get some!!! Let's Rock !!! ;)
 
How can a real Pualite disagree with him about abortion? The Constitution is sacred right? Roe v. Wade was made up out of nothing but a desire to make social policy. Of course it was an invalid decision, and whether you agree with the outcome or not, it has to go, throwing the issue back to the States.

Or does the principle only apply when we agree with the result? The "reasoning" process behind the collective theory of the Second Amendment is no more tortured than the "penumbra" implying a "right to privacy" in the Roe decision. Disagreeable result though, and we stand on principle. I think Paul should repudiate any of his supporters who are not on board with the Constitution.
 
it has to go, throwing the issue back to the States
Click to expand...
Yes, that's where it should be, at least until we decide to recognize these individual human beings, distinct from their parents, as people. Much as in the past "we" decided to recognize those who had been slaves as people rather than property. Notice that nothing changed physically to make them people, just "our" attitude about them.
A baby's DNA, although still in the womb, will identify it as human, distinct from both it's mother and father.
I expect at some future date we will see written their "Emancipation Proclamation".
Until that time, it should be left to the individual states, as should most things that the fedgov is currently doing.
 
Good for you WA - an open forum to challenge people to examine their choice in politician.

I have to say that I agree with the vast majority of Ron Paul's positions. But I would say that the ONLY item I disagree with is the Iraq war. I believe we have tp get out ASAP. I also know that we cannot leave completely. In fact it was advocated more than two years ago to reduce the US presence to a token force. It would keep the government honest (ish) and would put the burden on the Iraq police/military to fix themselves without the crutch of the American military to lean on.

Many years ago I was all about Buchanan on his limited government stance and closed borders. Ron Paul strikes the same chord. I also find it very refreshing that he answers the questions directly rather than dance around the issue like the mainstream contestants do.
 
How can a real Pualite disagree with him about abortion? The Constitution is sacred right?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul voted for the federal ban on partial birth abortion. The authority for that ban came from the same place as federal authority over guns too near a school, homegrown wheat or cannabis for personal consumption, homemade machine guns for personal use, and almost anything else you can imagine. We have had cases about whether assisted suicide, rape, or indigenous California toads are interstate commerce.

Ron Paul recognizes the rootless and malleable nature of our commerce clause jurisprudence, and knows it makes a mockery of the notion of limited federal power, and he knows that a partial birth abortion is not interstate commerce, AND YET, he voted for the ban anyway. At least he had the guts to admit he was stepping outside his authority under the Constitution with that vote, but that doesn't make it much better. I continue to disagree with his vote, because I don't think a partial birth abortion is interstate commerce. It's not a federal matter, not within his constitutional powers, and he should have respected that fact.
 
Yes, that's where it should be, at least until we decide to recognize these individual human beings, distinct from their parents, as people.
Click to expand...

People are free to lobby for that but I do not see much chance of it happenning. Birth provides far to clear cut a line of deliniation between living person and not a person. There needs to be a line drawn at some point. The vast majority of the nation will not agree with the line being drawn at conception. I think the best chance the pro-life movement has is to draw the line at the start of the third term. It is easy to gain opposition to a third term abortion, the fetus at that point "looks" like a baby.

The majority of anti abortion sentiment comes from religious doctrine and there are too many regions in the nation where education has supplanted religious decree when it comes to deciding on right and wrong. A national amendment will not pass but you may be able to get one on a state by state basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top