So Ron Paul wants government out of our lives EXCEPT FOR
 

When a woman wants to have an abortion.
Then it's perfectly ok for the government to trample someone's personal liberty and personal medical decision in the name of a politician's religious beliefs.

He's a fucking hypocrite just like the rest of them :321GFY

He also earmarks a ton of bullshit spending ($400 million this year). For instance his $8 million dollar earmark for marketing wild American shrimp. He's one of those guys who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.

Doesn't matter, he doesn't have a shot in hell. This election is all about Mitt vs. Hill.

At least he is man enough to choose a side rather than riding the line.

wow, this news kinda sucks

Way sucks.... :/

Quoted for truth. I may not agree with his stance, but fucking A have one at least...

Was there a vote recently?

Usually newsworthy items come with a link from the original poster. :2 cents:

So - anyone got one?

You want someone perfect???

"Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions."

Source: http://www.lifenews.com/nat3265.html

This says he is against the part of the law that allows unlimited abortions, cool with me. It doesn't sound like he wants to stop all women from having abortions under every circumstance possible.

He did say that the Gov should stay out, by not giving away tax paid/free abortions to its citizens. Can't say I disagree with that either.

Not like the system & abortions aren't abused.. Not saying take away a womens right to choose, but at the same time they shouldn't be allowed to abuse it.

This is why links are handy when it comes to things like this. It's hard enough to keep people _with_ press credentials from blowing things out of proportion - let alone the random GFY'er.

And now that there's a press release in front of us - stating what the hell's up, interested parties can research the matter more in depth if they feel the need.

Thanks for the post, man.

:thumbsup

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/


In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.




So you were saying?

If you understood his campaign (and the Constitution) you would understand his stance on abortion. He is a believer in States Rights.

So when he says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade he wants to make it an issue that the states decide. Like his stance on the War on Drugs, his stance on Income Tax, etc.

He wants to neuter the Federal Government.... they way it should be.

If you want to smoke weed and have an abortion... you move to a state that allows it. If you want no social programs, no taxes, and no abortion (or whatever mixture you desire - do not get tripped up on the options)... you would move to a state that meets your desires.

In the current system of a strong Federal Government we have a contstant "over hang" of a strong central government that is often at odds with what the people want. I will use California as an example... California voters voted for Medical Marijuana. This is contrary to the Federal Drug Laws. Who should have the final say? California or the Washington D.C.? The answer is clear.

So the same thing would happen with abortion. If people in Iowa vote to make abortion illegal... so be it. This entire abortion debate would be eliminated from presidential elections overnight. It would not be an issue that the Federal Government could get involved in.

The goal of the Ron Paul campaign is to smash the power of Washington D.C. Some do not want this to happen... There are people who depend upon upon Washington D.C. to control their lives... there are a large amount of people (myself included) that are tired (very tired) of the stranglehold that Washington D.C. has on this country.

-dd

You should have posted the url... and the man is ultra pro life.

He sounds more like he wants the state/people level change and less control from the gov. I don't know what that means for abortions, but cutting the federal power off isn't a bad thing.

You said it much better..

What is more hypocritical are those that fight against abortion (pro-life), but are quick to send people over the age of 18 to war (pro-death).

Ron Paul wants to bring all military people home... All of them from around the world (not just Iraq).

So not only does he want to stop Federal control of abortion... he also wants to eliminate the Republican and Democrat policy of Pro-Death via needless wars.

-dd

Yeah I like him as a candidate.

Yeah... after reading up on matter a bit more, I think you either didn't understand what's going on, Lenny, or you misrepresented the dealio.

Ron Paul simply doesn't feel that the Federal Government has _any_ say on whether or not a woman has a right or does not have a right to have an abortion.... and, per the Constitution, he's right on target. Through the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that's a power reserved for the states.

I see nothing hypocritical about his stance on this issue at all - whatever his personal views may be. He is and always has been a Constitutionalist. :2 cents:

As his popularity increases people will throw out these 'facts' to cause confusion with those who are 'one issue voters'. Once the real facts are exposed the truth becomes extremely clear.

His entire campaign is based around the Constitution. His campaign is and will be very hard to compete against... simply because he is running on what made this country great. Sadly, we are so far removed from what true liberty is that it will take some effort to make people understand that the current incarnation of the USA is not how it was ever intended to be.

Today's Straw Poll is going to be very interesting!

-dd

http://www.dailypaul.com/files/images/ames-ad.jpg

Ron Paul seems to me a true conservative: he's for smaller government. It's hard to say but I would like to see the guy get a chance.

What do you have against the federal government, though?

Sure, federal governments often screw things up, but is there any reason the states would do much better? Hell, if it wasn't for the federal government - the Supreme Court specifically - some states would probably still have racial segregation.

Let's imagine Ron Paul having his way for a moment. What if Massachusetts decided to outlaw abortion, alcohol, sex toys and firearms, while Rhode Island decided to legalize all those things? The Massachusetts laws would be completely ineffective - everyone would just get their guns, booze, vibrators and abortions in the next state.

I most certainly did not misrepresent his stance.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

This has nothing to do with federal government versus state government, this has to do with him wanting to take away a woman's freedom to choose.

If he didn't want the federal government to have anything to do with abortion rights then why did he say on the same page

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

What I'm saying is that he's being a hypocrite, just like the rest of the idiots in Washington.

The republicans want smaller government, unless you're talking about the military.
The democrats want civil liberties, except for the right to keep and bear arms.

I could write 100 of these, but you get the point.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to support someone who doesn't have a chance to win because you agree with their principles, then support the Libertarians.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

I agree with you here. In fact I would go one step further and abolish state governments completely and simply have two levels of government - federal and local. Imagine how much money would be saved by getting rid of 50 state governments.

The same laws should apply to all people wherever they are in country. Maybe the USA should be 50 separate countries if they care about "states rights" so much.

While I understand your point - and this isn't addressing it, keep in mind that, Constitutionally, Mass couldn't outlaw firearms, for it's protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution... so it's reserved for Federal Protection.

Now, to address your point, I don't think anyone here has anything against the Federal Government, per se... but, I, for one, do think that the Federal Government has overstepped it's bounds time and time again by applying power it does not, except for in a rather convoluted sense, Constitutionally have.

American History is dotted with these transgressions - ever since our first President.

Ron Paul, in my estimation, is simply trying to bring the U.S. back to the Constitutional Framers' intent... which I would love to see be given a serious chance in my lifetime.

As far as things being outlawed in one state, but lawful in another state... that's just fine by me - especially when I've given a choice of which state to live in.

I say let those that wish to live in a conception of their ideal environment, so long as it abides by the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution, have the opportunity to do so.

Read your last sentence and then read it again.

What you just described is: competition and freedom

Two things we do not have under a strong centralized federal government.

Additionally, you are in the mindset that you have to obey the government. Why shouldn't the government obey the electorate? It is mindset that we have been forced to accept that is complete counter to all reasonable definitions of freedom/liberty.

What issue do I have with the Federal government? In generalized terms, they exercise powers that were not granted to them by the ruling documents of this country... The Constitution. Starting in the early 1900's the liberties of the people have been stolen. The grand thefts occurred during times of turmoil... WWI, WWII, The Great Depression, Vietnam, 9/11, etc. Each time more power is given to Washington D.C. more and more freedoms are lost.

(I could go on for days)
-dd

well, it is super early to declare that. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the country outside of the uber conservative states embraces mitt.

If he does get elected we better find a new occupation because he has said that he thinks the government needs to come down hard on the porn industry starting with more obscenity prosecutions.

Bingo. I was going to put this in my last post but did not want this fly out off target with a gun debate.

Exactly. What needs to be understood is that we do not have true choice right now. We have a choice of 50 states that are ruled over by an all powerful federal government that trumps the powers of the states.

I addressed the abortion "issue" already. So let's focus on the new issues.

As to the above comment. How soon you forget history.

WWI - Democrat
WWII - Democrat
Korean War - Democrat
Vietnam - 2 Democrats (ended by a Republican)
Desert Storm - Republican
Bosnia - Democrat
Iraq - Repubican

Do you still want to say the Republicans are pro-war/big military? This is a new phenomenon and Ron Paul is trying to stop it. The Republicans historically were anti-war. The Democrats had always been the party of war. Even in one recent debate the Democrats (except Kucinich) would not state a time for withdrawl on Iraq. Obama wants to go into Pakistan. Most of the Democrats want to send the US military into Darfur. I see this as: "We want out of Iraq so we can start another war". Stop the unlawful invasions of other countries. Is that too much to ask for?

As for Democrats want civil liberties. Again, it is what you consider civil liberties. I consider freedom from oppressive taxation, acceptance of my second amendment rights, the right to choose my own form of retirement plan (not social security), the right to choose my own medical care (not government medical care), the right to choose who and what I listen to on the radio and watch on TV, etc etc. So again, it is all in what you consider "civil liberties".

I want true civil liberties for ->everyone<- based solely around the Constitution. I will accept your civil unions and free speech... will you accept my machine gun and five wives (example - not reality)? I find that people are very 'open minded' when it comes to their belief system. Remove that belief system and these same open minded people become fascists.

-dd

Let me rephrase it then: If Massachusetts restricted firearms to a well regulated militia :winkwink:

The Constitution was written rather a long time ago. That raises countless issues. For example, should websites be considered interstate commerce? If so, they'd fall under the federal government. Should the activities of corporations which operate nationally be considered a interstate commerce? Once again, they'd fall under the federal government.

The Constitution was written in an era where communication and travel were slow and arduous. When it was written, to travel across a large state would cost as much time as it would now cost to travel to the other side of the world.

The fragmentation Ron Paul supports runs counter to globalization. That makes me very doubtful about whether it could work. It seems to me that it would ultimately turn the US into something similar to - and as ineffective as - the European Union.

But if you choose to live in the Massachusetts from my example, you will live under laws that are ineffective and merely symbolic because of the laws of an adjacent state. What point is there in banning booze if there is no way to stop it from coming into the state? What point in regulating firearms if they are sold to anyone with money just a few miles away?

Jesus christ did you miss the point totally.

I didn't say the republicans liked to start wars, I said they like a big military.

Yes this is something that happened since Reagan, but how else am I supposed to describe republicans? By talking about what they stand for today or saying they're the abolitionist party? :1orglaugh

Also, you didn't "address" the abortion issue already, you mis-addressed it by saying that Paul wants it to be a states rights issue when I've used his own words to prove that isn't the case.

Quit drinking the fucking kool aid man. I made two remarks that equally insulted both parties, and you thought I was bashing republicans and sticking up for democrats.
Take a fucking valium already.

I will address the first part of your post when I wake up (about to go to bed) as the response will be lengthy.

As to the above snippet. You need to get out of the mindset of "banning" "outlawing". I see you mention Massachusetts a lot, I was born and raised there and I left 10 years ago because of the "banning" "outlawing" mindset.

To your point... Massachusetts could currently ban alcohol (the 21st amendment), but they don't. Because we live in a market economy and we already lived through the effects of a prohibition.

The situation you describe ALREADY happens in Massachusetts. Here is a list:

1. Massachusetts has Blue Laws - No alcohol sales on Sunday. People go to New Hampshire.
2. Massachusetts bans the sale of fireworks. People go to New Hampshire.
3. Massachusetts requires car insurance. People register their cars in New Hampshire.
4. Massachusetts has income tax and sales tax and excise tax and oppressive property tax and capital gains taxes. People move to New Hampshire.

So using the above example... Massachusetts already has created "criminals" of its citizens by its oppressive laws. Extrapolate this to the Federal Level. When you have so many oppressive laws that your citizens are breaking laws in their normal life... either your citizens are all criminals or your laws suck.

Free markets and competition would make this a great country again... not make it worse.

-dd

No need to sling insults. I am having a legitimate conversation with you.

I stated: pro war/big military in my response. They go hand in hand as when you have a big military you want to use it. The military industrial complex is not a new issue. To your point, Ronald Reagan did push the envelope and much of what he did was anti-conservative.

I did not take your comments as anti-Republican. I understand your point fully. I despise both the puppet "parties" as they are the same rapist in a different ski mask. You took my comments as pro-Republican... which I am not. Not in its current form (post-Barry Goldwater) at least.

We are at an impasse on the abortion issue. I am stating the facts based upon a Constitutional perspective. The whole thing is laughable anyways as the odds of abortion being eliminated on the federal level are: 0. You would see fanatics on both sides come out the woodwork and there would be cities in flame.

-dd

What I described is not competition and freedom. It is the inability of governments, whether local or national, to effectively enforce laws without a well-defined and controlled border.

In my example, Massachusetts would gain absolutely nothing from having these laws, since the ease with which they can be circumvented means that their only effect would be a displacement of economic activity. The only competition that causes is a competition to ban or regulate as few things as possible.

The government represents the combined electorate. That is the very essence of representative democracy. Therefore, in theory, obeying the government merely means obeying the laws that the electorate has chosen.

Of course, in practice, it doesn't work this way - especially in the United States. Ironically, the reason for this is the emphasis on states in the American electoral system, which limits viable political choices enormously.

An emphasis on the states would hardly solve this problem. In times of war and great crisis, the federal government will do whatever it deems necessary anyway. Instead, an emphasis on the states would merely solidify the influence of a particular layer of bureaucracy.

:1orglaugh :winkwink:


I hear what you're saying, and those are certainly issues that will need to be addressed if this was to ever become a reality and there was to be a Presidentially-inspired 'dressing down' of the Federal Government.... but still, Ron Paul as President would only be one man - with political power to sway opinion, maybe - but, in regards to actual power, he could only delegate what laws are enforced, and veto or sign bills (and let me say that knowing his platform, I feel confident that Ron Paul would limit his scope of power to those duties, and not make up special powers as his term moved forward)... to make a lasting impression, the Legislate would have to be on board with his opinion on a particular topic, as well, repealing old law and writing new law.... so there's the checks and balances in effect.

Honestly, I'm ok with that. The potential little inefficiency in exchange for the possibility of much greater freedom is ok in my book. IMHO, there are a lot of wrong turns that the U.S. has made in recent days - limitation on freedom, domestic bungling mixed with foreign ineptitude. I feel something needs to change - and when something's broken in my own life, I always find it useful to look back to the basics for inspiration.

And let's not forget, the constitution can change... if something's broken - if some internet or commercial or freedom-oriented or global-economy-centric issue can best serve the nation - it only takes (after a bit of preparation in congress) 2/3 of the states to agree it's a good idea, and it becomes a law across the land.


Well, personally, I can't think of a single physical item in all the universe that I'm for the "banning" of, so it wouldn't bother me all that much.

As far as those people who want to live in an environment where there's no booze, no abortions, and no loud music after 6PM... with no real chance of such items affecting their lives, I imagine they'd find themselves locating to the areas that, geographically, support their isolationist preferences....

...well, I guess until that gay couple that got married in California moved in next door... :1orglaugh and, when that happens, I figure they're just gonna have to learn to deal with it one way or the other.

I'm a firm believer in the ideal that my rights of expression and liberty end at the exact place that they affect your right to life, liberty or property.

And because of that, if he does receive the nomination, Ron Paul could very well be the first Republican I've ever voted for in a Presidential election.

I embarrassed for you people that write out these long posts and believe that the person that you are arguing with actually reads them.

______________







.

I read them all and it is clear that the people I am having a dialog with are also reading them and considering the points made in each response.

I am not looking to entertain or convert the masses. I am looking to discuss issues with people who have the ability to consider new/opposing view points.

-dd

I'm embarrassed for people who consider what we're writing here to be "long posts" :1orglaugh

I am a great proponent of laws being enforced, even when I disagree with them. The very reason for that is that if stupid laws are effectively enforced, people will rebel against them. If people can easily circumvent them, though, they won't care.

Look at Prohibition. At the national level, it only lasted for 13 years. At the state level, it lasted for ages in some places (Mississippi).

The open-to-underground markets that are created by differences in laws are not free markets. Free markets require consistent openness. Without that, they are merely unfree but uncontrollable markets.

Personally, I am in favor of giving people the largest amount of freedom that is compatible with the largest amount of freedom for all others. For that, consistency is needed - the smaller the areas controlling their laws, the more random and frivolous they will be. The more people disagree with each other, the better.

The abortion issue will never be decided.

They will not be outlawed, nor will all types be 100&#37; legal.

I think a good option is to pass a law that says the mother must go though a short counseling session to make sure she understands the decision and the possible effects on her in the future. I've heard many, many stories about how a woman later in life started to question her past decision to get an abortion.

A lot of these things are done because of a lack of money. That problem in life is usually temporary. What happens to the woman once she does have money and realizes that she actually could have kept her baby? This is not good.


ALSO... I think another great thing to put in the lawbooks is highly increased fathers rights. Especially the ability to denounce the child as their own and wash their hands of child support. A lot of times the mother wants to keep the baby, but it is the father who talks her into an abortion just so he won't have to pay for it under current laws.

As an outsider, it seems to me that perhaps the most important thing a president does is setting a general course, and determining priorities based on that.

In the case of Ron Paul, that would probably mean initiatives towards reducing pork barrel spending, lower taxes and more privacy. All those are, of course, good things. On the other hand, it would mean a lack of initiatives towards things like universal health care, federal protection of individual's rights or workers' rights, foreign aid, political pressure on oppressive foreign governments, etc.

Practically speaking, a Paul presidency would be most beneficial to those who are fairly wealthy and live in relatively liberal parts of the US. The poor and those living in the Bible Belt would be fucked though, and the US would lose its chance to use its international power to change the world for the better.

But why would it bring greater freedom? Leaving things to the states does not necessarily bring freedom. In fact, it may take freedom away, if enough states decide they do not want that particular freedom.

The very subject of this thread is a good example of that - Roe v. Wade. No matter how you look at it, it's an example of the federal government expanding a freedom which many states would have denied.

As I mentioned before, racial segregation is another example. Again, state's rights were limited, resulting in greater individual freedom.

Or, somewhat more controversially, look at creationism versus evolution. By not allowing creationism to be taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court effectively gave students the freedom to learn about the current scientific consensus on the matter without having the stifling burden of religious dogma imposed on them.

I'm not for banning much, either - apart from weapons, anyway. Those make it far too easy for others to infringe upon my right to life, liberty and property.

Not being an American, though, perhaps my biggest problem with Ron Paul is his international isolationism. While the idea of the neocons that the world can be shaped according to their ideals is certainly absurd, the idea that the biggest contemporary global power could somehow isolate itself politically from the rest of the world seems equally absurd.

This will answer your question and show that my comments from last night were correct:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=R2s4IgPOiOY

Either listen to the whole interview or FF directly to: 5:20

He clearly states his personal view and clearly states that he wants abortion to be a STATE issue NOT a federal issue.

-dd

Why not keep it an individual issue, the way it should be?

So I should listen to what he says and not pay attention to what he does?

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

How is it going to be a states rights issue if federal law says that life begins at conception?

ROn Paul is a Sleeper just like the rest of them .

I'm 100&#37; for Ron Paul, but he's got a 0% chance of actually getting into the office, whether he gets elected or not...just like Ross Perot.

I'm sick of dumb shit bitches like you with an attitude.

Does it matter he doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell.

i know many girls that have 3-4 5 and even 6 abortion..
so whats we should do with these kinda irresponsible womens?

So what?
Are there any other legal activities that you think people should be punished for?

I know people who eat 3-4 5 and even 6 slices of pizza.

I know people who go surfing 3-4 5 and even 6 times a week.

What difference does it make?


FWIW, I'm not here to argue abortion, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in Ron Paul's platform.