My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

[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.

[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.....

[gamblerNC1]

I really don’t understand why anyone would have reservations of voting for a Presidential candidate based on his stand on pro-life or pro-choice. Bush is pro-life but other than appointing conservative members to the Supreme Court, he has no control over it. Ron Paul may want to return this power to the state, but it ain’t going to happen. I would look more at how he stands on issues that the President has the power to control.

Things such as getting out of Iraq, balanced budgets, and of course the favorite issue here, the freedom of the internet and our constitution right to play poker on line, which he fully supports

[Bedreviter]

[ 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?

[gamblerNC1]

uh.....Am i mistaken or is the law to stop you from playing poker on line a infringement on internet freedom?

[gamblerNC1]

[ 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 ]

Seriously, how is this an issue?

Seriously? Is this a joke?

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.

Last time I tried to sign on to Party poker or NetTeller they informed me they no longer accept U.S. players.

I know Ron Paul talks about how he is against taxation and regulation of the internet, but aren’t they all?

Oh yeah, they all are, including Frist, Bush. Do not let they little law against online poker fool you, they will fight to the death for your rights. That is as long as they agree with you, and it does not cost them votes of the Family value folks.