Have Done Some Research At Your Urging...

[HuffAndPuff]

So everyone is talking Ron Paul this, Ron Paul that. Now, kudos to you, you have done your part. You guys got me on his website. So I am on there, poking around, and what do I learn?

Ron Paul is Pro-Life. That is to say, Ron Paul is Anti-Pro-Choice. Seems to me, that just because this guy is the rebel pot supporter, you guys are cheering "Ron Paul for Victory". How can you claim to be a Libertarian, and not respect a woman's right to choose? I don't consider myself particularly "left" at all, but as a man, I can tell you that that is a decision I will never have to face at the end of the day. Worst case, I contribute to having one performed. Insofar as I am not the one that has to answer to that for the rest of my life, I will refrain from throwing stones.

The way I see it, the government's numero uno obligation is protecting the citizens, in whatever they collectively elect to do- at home. I do not mean protection through prevention, either. I mean, respect the fact that people are going to get wasted, and give them public transportation home- Instead of telling them ".08? You're Straight!!!" People have had abortions since there have been pregnancies and coathangers. Do we ban them out of some sort of moral superiority? (thereby forcing them into back alleys, with dubious practitioners?) Or is acknowledging that they are going to happen, and keeping the mother safe the morally superior thing to do?

Free Will. Free Choice. If it doesn't affect you, it should be between me, myself, I, and whatever notion of a soul/conscience/god I have. I object to people arbitrarily drawing moral lines. This certainly applies to pot. Apparently also to abortion.

Thank you to everybody who has been posting like crazy about all this politico jibber-jabber. I am still borderline as far as feeling powerless to affect change... But you have got me daring to hope. This is a big step.

Admin- It is not my intention for this to be a "politcal" discussion, as such. It is equal parts feedback on the community's impact on me, a general discussion of free will, and our individual liberties. Ron Paul just so happened to be the intermediary. To everyone else- Stimulating discussion, please? I'd rather let the thread die from malnourishment, than be binned like some run of the mill fart/zeitgeist thread. Does that work?

Stay Safe,
HuffAndPuff


[EDIT: Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, please understand that this is the 2nd thing I saw, after being there for 2 seconds. This is not the most important thing to me, but it is up there. Let me assure you, my mind is not made up, and I am still looking into Dr. Paul. Furthermore, at the end of the day, you can just vote for whoever you want, and cancel my vote out, capice?]

 

[Jack D Ripper]

He is pro-life, but before that he would follow the constitution, and probably leave the decision up to the states. He may want to change the definition of "life" to begin at the time of conception, but I dont think that is one of his priorities, and it will never happen...

but I dont agree wiht him about everything (I dont agree with ANYONE about everything) ... but he is very libertarian, and is right on many issues.

 

[kurlyq2g]

Pro-this... Pro-that...

Dont say pro life... say he is against abortion.

Dont say pro choice.. say he allows abortion.

When you don't use the word abortion, the whole sentance has alot less impact.

I am pro life AND[B/] pro choice... which has nothing to do with abortion, for me. I like to choose, and I enjoy life...

The media has brain washed us all.

There is no hope.

 

[kurlyq2g]

And besides, our votes don't count anyway...

*ahem* Electoral College

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

"Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote."

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#meaningful

 

[Pops]

Huff, one of the things that you may want to consider is that Ron Paul is a medical doctor. As such, he has taken an oath to support life and not take it, something that many other doctors have forgotten. The man has delivered several thousand babies and simply could not and would not kill one himself. As the father of 4 and grandfather of three, I would have to agree. I cannot see how anyone can kill their own child. That being said, he has also pledged to support the Constitution. Prior to Roe v Wade, there was never a "Constitutional" right to abortion. All 50 states had laws on the books to prevent it. An extremely liberal court decided that in a time when Women's rights were being actively sought.

As a man ,my choice doesn't matter. It seems to me that the law talks out of both sides of their mouths when they say that a woman's reproductive organs are her own to control, but arrests her for prostitution when she rents them out. It is o.k. though, for her to kill her child. Does this make sense to anyone else?

 

[vaprpig]

I like the fact that you know exactly where Ron Paul stands, no nuance or pandering.

But he is very extreme. He is a strict Libertarian. With Ron Paul we would probably see lower taxes, less government regulation, more states rights, more personal freedoms, etc. Not bad. But with that you'd also see a mass reduction in social programs and govt. regulatory agencies.

I like Libertarian ideas but I also feel it discounts human nature. We can be weak and need help in areas and we can be cruel and take advantage of others.

A libertarian view is more like if you were born a citizen of this country then you have just as much opportunity as anyone else, a level playing field. But that's not reality.

All that said, I don't think I will vote for him but I sure hope he gets the repub nomination because he is no where near as scary as the rest of the lot.

 

[zymos]

Thanks for starting this thread. A lot of people here seem to be "single issue voters" with the issue being marijuana laws.

For a lot of people elsewhere, the "single issue" is reproductive choice.
Although neither situation is a good one, I'd rather continue living in a country where pot is illegal than one in which abortion was criminalized. The reality is not that black and white, but when you start talking about these single issues, that's kind of where it leads you.

I just had a discussion last night with someone about politics, and he mentioned the many countries that have rewritten their constitutions after realizing that it needed to change. It is kind of ridiculous that we keep hanging on to some 200 year old document that needs interpretation every time some modern situtaion comes up. Who knows what "the founders" meant exactly at the time, and more important, is it even relevant any more?

Flame away...

 

[Jack D Ripper]

I wouldnt trust any politician to rewrite our constitution... what would you like to change that couldnt be fixed with an ammendment?

I think the bill of rights is fantastic, but maybe you would like more unreasonable search/seizures, less guns, and no habeas corpus

* First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Shafto]

After the patriot act you don't have habeas corpus anymore...

I really enjoy living somewhere, where I know there will never be any anti abortion laws... and much less of that right wing infectious political/religious stew going on... damn I hate that shit.

 

[Snootch]

Have you heard him talk about why he is against abortion? Its a medical stance not religious. I believe he was originally Pro-Life but then later after inventions like the sonogram decided that a baby is alive well before birth, and that that baby, since it is alive, is an american citizen and deserves every right we have, including the right to live.

I pretty much agree with him, and I'm not religious at all so dont call me a neocon for being pro-life. When you look at a fetus as being alive and a person, how can you justify killing it? The heart begins beating at about 20 days, and brain function begins at about 40 days. If you didnt take responsibility and got pregnant, then suck it up, carry the kid to term, and give it away for adoption if you dont want it. Pro-Choice people will say well then you are dooming a kid to a bad life in foster care. But if that was the truth why are there huge waiting lists to adopt newborns? I would think its pretty easy to find a good family to adopt your baby if u decide u cant take care of it.

I understand that this argument will probably never be won, and I respect the Pro-Choice side, but since I believe this is argument is unwinnable, and abortions will always happen, I've made it a non issue and dont care whether a politician is pro choice or pro life.

Ron Paul '08!

 

[newbgrow]

Ron Paul is personally Pro-Life but has repeatedly stated he would allow the states themselves to choose whether or not to allow abortions. Although I think abortion should be legal everywhere, that is a sensible compromise.

 

[Pops]

For those who believe that libertarians like Ron Paul would do away with all federal social programs, I ask you how that is a bad thing? Most Libertarians believe that the majority of federal programs(social type) interfere with the rights of the states to control and protect the interests of the people who live in that state. Charity,now the province of the federal government, was never meant to be under our founders. It was the province of family, church and local community.

Sometimes the federal courts step in and determine that all states should have equal laws in order to protect the rights of all citizens. That can often be used to eliminate states rights. At the same time,it can eliminate stupidity on the part of some states like Georgia, who sentenced a 17 yo black kid to ten years for letting a 15 yo girl give him a bj.Thankfully, the Georgia SC overturned that one, but not before the kid served 2 1/2 years. I am torn between eliminating federal interference in the states and trusting asshole religious states like Florida and Georgia, whose politicians are run by a religious right whose agenda is forcing their version of morality on everyone.

Ultimately, Libertarians believe that most programs should be run by the States and the people(local government) as the constitution suggests. That takes the power from a centralized federal government and puts it back in the hands of people at a local level, where the Constitution put it originally.

Without all the power to control everything, the federal government would have to go back to just defending our borders, regulating trade between states and defending our international commerce, the original rights given under the Constitution. They would lose the power to tax the Hell out of us. The states would pick up part of that taxation power in order to pay for locally run programs. We as citizens would have a choice to move if any state became too odious on their laws or too overbearing in their taxation. Or we could band together and vote out the assholes, something Americans have been too apathetic to do. California is about the only state to recall a governor for gross stupidity.

Most people tend to forget that the Constitution gave the federal government permission to pursue only three types of criminal behavior; treason, counterfeiting and piracy. Look where we are now!

 

[usa]

Free Will. Free Choice. If it doesn't affect you, it should be between me, myself, I, and whatever notion of a soul/conscience/god I have. I object to people arbitrarily drawing moral lines. This certainly applies to pot. Apparently also to abortion.

You sound like Ron Paul voter. As of now we have zero say, with these issues you mention in the feds hands.

With Ron Paul enforcing the rule of law using the Constitution it forces those to get off their collective asses and get involved about such issues & to take part on a local level.

Shaping communities to reflect it's overall general needs and wants. At a federal (national) level we get a one size fits all policy that doesn’t jive regionally.

Hope you reconsider your Choice no pun intended

 

[okwildfire]

did anyone hear the news?? he now has the support of the new nazi movment..and gladly takes there money...i keep hearing news blerbs about it...anyone know anything about it??

 

[Pops]

Since the start of our country, 1,125,000 Americans have been killed in war.

Since 1973, between 37,000,000 and 43,000,000 Americans have been killed in abortions, more than the entire population of California.

Not being pro or con, just stating numbers.

 

[usa]

did anyone hear the news?? he now has the support of the new nazi movment..and gladly takes there money...i keep hearing news blerbs about it...anyone know anything about it??

Are you talking about neocons or white racialist? Because there are plenty of racialist who don’t prescribe to a National Socialist form of govt. In fact many hate the word socialist but what do you know,lol

Anyhow, so what? I hope they can give more money; Ron Paul can use all the funds he can get for tv ads. Maybe you’re willing to replace the money they donated?

 

[okwildfire]

i was just wondering if anyone has heard anything about this.....or has more info on it..

 

[Shafto]

I know this thread isn't directly about abortion but I gotta let this go... I can see people saying here that the baby is 'alive' because it's heart it beating and such.. so therefore it's deemed a citizen and has the rights of everyone else.. but it's just like a braindead vegetablized person from an accident on breathing apparatus having their blood pumped for them and fed an IV, is that person really alive? well physically I suppose.. they're heart still moving and there is electrical activity in the brain.. but really?

I dunno.. at that stage as harsh as it sounds to me it's worse to put down a fully grown cat or dog at the SPCA, they have much more consciousness "aliveness" to me than an unborn mistake... responsible or not.

 

[Boxy Brown]

Since 1973, between 37,000,000 and 43,000,000 Americans have been killed in abortions, more than the entire population of California.

Thats "if" you consider a few cells to be intelligent, to me its nothing more than a mindless bunch of cells that will eventually turn into a mindless parasite oops I mean fetus

 

[arpnuke]

I feel like Ron Paul is the best bet for the future of America. The Bush administration has heavily damaged our standing in the world, chipped away at our rights, and put us much further into debt. With the top 3 democrats (Edwards, Clinton, and Obama) refusing to commit to pulling out the troops by the end of the first term*, I've lost some faith in them. I can't help but think it has something to do with all that oil below the surface of Iraq. Now that we are there, why not?

Ron Paul's got my vote if he gets the nomination.

*http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/iraq-s28.shtml