My reservations regarding Ron Paul... - Page 3

Taso · #21 11-01-2007, 06:28 AM

why?

hmkpoker · #22 11-01-2007, 06:43 AM

As someone who is adamantly pro-choice, I agree entirely with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

The federal government has demonstrated itself to be very, very bad at "protecting" civil liberties, and we have a War on Drugs, a patriot act, and UIGEA laws to show for it. If you want liberty, you have to be willing to go the full mile and not ask for protection of the practices that you happen to like. If you're pro-choice and your state is going wacky, deal with the state, not the federation.

phillydilly · #23 11-01-2007, 07:06 AM

I saw some comments on concern Paul wouldn't compromise. Initially, I felt the same, but recently I've seen a lot more of Paul's talk is advocating PHASED removal of programs, not just kill the programs immediately. I think this is a bit of compromise from him

zasterguava · #24 11-01-2007, 07:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who is adamantly pro-choice, I agree entirely with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

The federal government has demonstrated itself to be very, very bad at "protecting" civil liberties, and we have a War on Drugs, a patriot act, and UIGEA laws to show for it. If you want liberty, you have to be willing to go the full mile and not ask for protection of the practices that you happen to like. If you're pro-choice and your state is going wacky, deal with the state, not the federation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government went on a major propoganda campaign against federal governments, namely, because federal governments have a say in the activities of private power. Interesting how many ways one can approach the issue.

mjkidd · #25 11-01-2007, 07:51 AM

[ 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 ]

Certainly a president can act in self-defense to protect the country from an enemy without the consent of the Congress, and preemptive self-defense is no different from any other kind of self-defense. If the US found itself in the situation of Israel in 1967, I don't doubt that Paul would strike first without a declaration of war if that gave us an advantage militarily.

j555 · #26 11-01-2007, 08:15 AM

Isn't Paul's states rights platform on par with most of his Republican opponents? Even Giuliani says he'd nominate a judge who would interpret the Constitution and overturn Roe v. Wade. So I don't see how this issue would cost him votes more so than his stances on the war and national security among Conservatives.

RedBean · #27 11-01-2007, 10:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Hi RedBean [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey guy! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Money2Burn · #28 11-01-2007, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
DblbarrelJ, imo this concerns the rights of the individual trumping the will of the majority. While I strongly believe state's should have much more leeway in deciding how to govern their state, I don't think they should have the right to legislate on matters of personal liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost every piece of state legislation involves personal liberty in some form or another.

Whats the difference in the State of Hawaii refusing people the liberty of possessing a firearm, or the state of Georgia refusing people the personal liberty of not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, and a state deciding by a democratic process that they want to outlaw abortion?

Anytime government moves, it directly effects your personal liberty in some way.

Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you can move to one you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If abortion was illegal in your state, and you went to another state to have one, would that be considered illegal? Would it be like going to a different state to buy booze and cigarettes because their taxes are lower?

Money2Burn · #29 11-01-2007, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Many that request an abortion are impoverished and may find it quite difficult to excercise freedoms that others "enjoy".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not too concerned with how "easily" people can exercise certain freedoms, but I agree that abortions are most important for poor people who can't afford to raise a child. When they are forced to have these kids it creates problems that everyone else has to deal with, paramount amoung them are increased crime rates.

tomdemaine · #30 11-01-2007, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
As someone who is adamantly pro-choice, I agree entirely with Ron Paul's position on abortion.

The federal government has demonstrated itself to be very, very bad at "protecting" civil liberties, and we have a War on Drugs, a patriot act, and UIGEA laws to show for it. If you want liberty, you have to be willing to go the full mile and not ask for protection of the practices that you happen to like. If you're pro-choice and your state is going wacky, deal with the state, not the federation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you'll have any more luck dealing with a state bureaucracy than you do with a federal level one? Violence is wrong within this arbitrary enclosure but if you make it into a smaller arbitrary enclosure then violence becomes ok? Love it or leave it becomes a valid argument if you only have to leave the state not the country?