My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week.

[skeptix]

Good points on all sides, I especially like how AlexM summed it up for me regarding the three viewpoints.

I understand that the President wouldn't be able to institute a national ban on abortion, but he could certainly push for it if he so wanted.

However, the thread kind of derailed a little. I was more interested in your opinions of whether or not he should be making this an issue. I think it hurts his electability because a decent portion of the populace that might like his platform will be turned off by this one issue (not saying that there is merit to this position). He needs to realize he's reaching out to a much larger segment of the population, some of which are very socially liberal.

There is already a thread to discuss abortion being a state's rights issue.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please describe to me a realistic situation where one side of the abortion issue isn't being oppressed.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the freedom of the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, how is this an issue? I cannot remember to have read or heard anything about any major politician in the US saying anything that made me feel he or her was opposed to the freedom of the internet. I know Ron Paul talks about how he is against taxation and regulation of the internet, but arent they all?

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever heard of Bill Frist?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Good points on all sides, I especially like how AlexM summed it up for me regarding the three viewpoints.

I understand that the President wouldn't be able to institute a national ban on abortion, but he could certainly push for it if he so wanted.

However, the thread kind of derailed a little. I was more interested in your opinions of whether or not he should be making this an issue. I think it hurts his electability because a decent portion of the populace that might like his platform will be turned off by this one issue (not saying that there is merit to this position). He needs to realize he's reaching out to a much larger segment of the population, some of which are very socially liberal.

There is already a thread to discuss abortion being a state's rights issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. It's a huge campaign blunder. On the other hand it shows he sticks with his principles regardless, which has value, I just don't think it outweighs the negatives he'll get from talking about watering down Roe-v-Wade. I think he'd get a lot farther by pushing the notion that the court's reasoning on Roe should apply generally to everything related to personal decisions. (ie. drug laws, FDA laws, health food restrictions, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, financial restrictions, etc)

natedogg

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever heard of Dr. Frist?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he'd get a lot farther by pushing the notion that the court's reasoning on Roe should apply generally to everything related to personal decisions. (ie. drug laws, FDA laws, health food restrictions, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, financial restrictions, etc)

natedogg


[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I find this very interesting. Although our Federal Constitution doesn’t have an explicitly guaranteed right to privacy, the Roe court found an implied right to privacy in the due process clause of the 14th amendment, thus establishing a constitutional right to privacy.

The State of Alaska has a right to privacy explicitly written into its constitution ( unlike the Federal constitution ). This right to privacy guarantees, among other things, that persons possessing or smoking small amounts of marijuana in the privacy of their home are free from prosecution.

See Ravin v. State of Alaska ( Alaska Supreme court decision )

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, we conclude that citizens of the State of Alaska have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska's constitution. This right to privacy would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial context in the home unless the state can meet its substantial burden and show that proscription of possession of marijuana in the home is supportable by achievement of a legitimate state interest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ravin v. State of Alaska

Notice that this isn't a decision regarding medical use and the Federal boys can't touch this with their overreaching commerce clause.

[XXXNoahXXX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever heard of Dr. Frist?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that he's a doctor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know he is a doctor. However, "Dr." replaces "Mr." as the title preceding a medical doctor's name.

The problem is that none of the other candidates are referred to as Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney. So when you are talking about candidates and you say things like "I disagree with Obama and Romney's stance on things. I have more faith in Dr. Paul".

Just sounds retarded to me, especially since it's only done by his supporters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should ask Mr. Romney's supporter's why they don't refer to him as Mr. Romney. What retards.

[mmbt0ne]

[ QUOTE ]
If abortion was illegal in your state, and you went to another state to have one, would that be considered illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my question too. I would guess no since there wouldn't be a federal law against it, and "crossing state lines to commit a crime" wouldn't work since the act wasn't a crime in both states.