[Taso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My big concern with Paul is his lack of compromise and his lack of understanding or caring about the practical consequences of his actions.

Abortion is a great example. Making it entirely states rights will have the practical effect of increasing government regulation in people's private lives, and will result in the banning of abortion in some states.

I find it rather bizarre that he places total emphasis on a highly debatable constitutional point - which many scholars more learned than Paul disagree with - without considering the practical consequences it will have for people's lives.

I have a feeling that if the US had overwhelming intelligence that they were about to be nuked, he would veto doing something "unconstitutional" to stop it in order to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who thinks that Paul's stance on abortion isn't due to his personal beliefs is kidding themselves. He's got so much right, though, that I'm still going to vote for him, not because it matters but I because I feel good for a day.

As to your nuke attack claim, LOL. Unless you mean he would veto a measure to invade a country other than the one that poses the threat.

[/ QUOTE ]


I guess I'm one of the ones who is kidding himself. I think its because he believes state issues should be left up to the states, not the federal government. Thats basically his entire platform. If he wanted his stance to be based on his personal preference (Abortion = bad) it would sound more like "I want to make abortions illegal!" not "I want to let the states decide social issues."