My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

[Phil153]

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.

[skeptix]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these are valid criticisms that I would very much like some more learned Paul supporters to touch on.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

This however, is a completely unreasonable assumption imo. You seem to verge on sarcasm here, which is intellectually dishonest. I have no doubt that Ron Paul would take any real threat to the US very seriously.

[JayTee]

[ 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.

[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."

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

HR 1094

So Paul wants the federal government to define life as beginning at conception. Of course this isn't meant to try and force states to ban abortions since states decide whether or not it is a crime to commit murder.

[Taso]

Didn't know about that JayTee. It's at odds with what he's been running as though, and statements he's made in interviews and debates. Very interesting.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't know about that JayTee. It's at odds with what he's been running as though, and statements he's made in interviews and debates. Very interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he had been born 20 years or so later we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Taso]

why?

[Bedreviter]

Doesnt the Unborn Victims of Violence Act basically state that life start at conception?

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ 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 ]

Because there obviously couldn't possibly be a Constitutional solution to the problem. That damned piece of paper is gonna get us all killed.....