My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]


Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you drive to one that allows abortion. Hell, make a romantic weekend getaway out of it. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

[skeptix]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that it has to be this way. I don't see that state's rights should trump constitutional rights. But I admit it's a slippery issue, which is also easily argued on both sides of the coin.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

My concern with this is that abortion laws may not seem relevant to someone until the issue actually comes up. I don't see that people will want to pack up and move just on this one issue. Also, this would allow more freedom to those wealthy enough to take advantage of moving or traveling to another state. Many that request an abortion are impoverished and may find it quite difficult to excercise freedoms that others "enjoy".

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Edited to add If you don't like the abortion laws in your state, you drive to one that allows abortion. Hell, make a romantic weekend getaway out of it. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

A VERY good point imo!

[zasterguava]

One of my concerns with Ron Paul is that people who work for him distributed racist propoganda appealing to the lowest common denominator to get votes. I feel Ron Paul does this in his speeches on issues such as tax, health care, government and so on. For example, when he described Bill Gates as a good example for why it is safe to hand over government power to private power I almost puked.

And generally on an sidenote I don't find his meek kind old man persona very convincing.

[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."

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my concerns with Ron Paul is that people who work for him distributed racist propoganda appealing to the lowest common denominator to get votes.

[/ 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]

[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?

[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.