My reservations regarding Ron Paul... - Page 4

Taso · #31 11-01-2007, 11:11 AM

It's easier to change things on the state level.

Anyways, if he lives in any state that isn't on the bibel belt, abortion would be legal, which is good for him.

AlexM · #32 11-01-2007, 01:00 PM

I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point is best for them and their people. Where's the bad?

tomdemaine · #33 11-01-2007, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's easier to change things on the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any proof?

tomdemaine · #34 11-01-2007, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace

[/ QUOTE ]

AlexM · #35 11-01-2007, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If he advocated universal healthcare he'd probably get a few more votes too. I don't agree with the stance that he's taken on abortion either, btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you support using force to make people follow one group's moral views?

natedogg · #36 11-01-2007, 01:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point is best for them and their people. Where's the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this is not necessarily correct. If my state's moral viewpoint includes allowing slavery, the federal government has the right to enforce an end to it. There are certain civil rights and moral stances your state doesn't have leeway on. Abortion could very well be one of them ad the courts have decided it is for now. (As we all know, th reasoning is weak and specious at best an the court has hypocritically failed to apply the same "penumbras" to a host of other rights).

But, if you allow each state to define personhood, then you allow each state to define civil rights, and that is against the constitution.

natedogg

AlexM · #37 11-01-2007, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To me it seems the difference is that his opposition to government-funded health care falls in line perfectly with the rest of his platform.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does.

[ QUOTE ]
The abortion issue seems out of place to me, but please no long-winded explanations of why the rights of a fetus trump those of the mother. Either position is easily argued.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not out of place and it has nothing to do with the actual abortion issue itself. You have two opposing and incompatible moral views and three options on how to deal with them:

1. Federal laws banning abortion (supporting side A)

2. Federal laws banning the banning of abortion (supporting side B)

3. No federal laws. Let the states make their own decisions. (supporting neither side)

#1 and #2 both involving forcing one group's morals on anothers. Option #3 is the only view consistent with the libertarian position.

AlexM · #38 11-01-2007, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not disagreeing, but since one moral view is going to be forced in the populace either way, it's better for the states to decide which one is more suitable for them.

AlexM · #39 11-01-2007, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point is best for them and their people. Where's the bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this is not necessarily correct. If my state's moral viewpoint includes allowing slavery, the federal government has the right to enforce an end to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

With slavery, the initiation of force is black and white. With abortion, it is not.

XXXNoahXXX · #40 11-01-2007, 01:16 PM

I think I'd like Ron Paul 100x better if people on here didn't refer to him as "Dr. Paul"... that just sounds pretentious and retarded imo.