geez rb88, take it easy. I usually don't agree with dddooo, but his point is valid as to whether RP is consistent in this area. Maybe his comments are a little over the top when he slams RP, and it will be a point that will be debated no doubt if Paul does climb in the polls. I expect that Paul will try to leave it at a state issue and not get into the same quagmire this thread is descending into. I am a Paul supporter for sure. This is just one of those issues that really don't belong in the political arena. Since most objections are based on religious beliefs it seems to me clear that this fits into the area of a religious test, which is unconstitutional.
"Why did I spend $85,000 to support Ron Paul ?"
- Thread starter TheDudeofLife
- Start date
WRONG
Ron Paul says that federal legislation on abortion will result in EITHER a) the pro-choice camp imposing its point of view to everybody (the status quo) OR b) the pro-life camp imposing its point of view to everyone.
A lose-lose proposition.
The LIBERTARIAN solution is to abolish all federal legislation on abortion and let states decide by themselves their own policy on abortion. Under that system, if you don't like your state abortion laws, you can always move to another state.
This is what Ron Paul is actually proposing. Not what doodoo is saying.
Cmon doodoo stop bullshitting us. We all know the real reason you don't like Ron Paul because he wants to stop the $3 billion plus a year in military welfare to Israel.
The argument that my views may impose on others if they feel different is a rhetorical argument.
There are such things as absolutes, universal truths. I argue that once we are enlightened we shall agree that abortion is denying the rights of a human (form). In the same way that owning an African person seems absurd today.
Without universal truths civilizations could not exist.
Paul has other areas of inconsistency, the kool aid drinkers don't want to deal with them.
So what really is the difference if the Federal government or a state government restricts a woman's right to choose?
None really, the consequence is control of liberty for a woman. Both state and Federal control should be seen as an affront to a genuine Libertarian, but of course Paul's religious belief is stronger than his Libertarianism.
Capital punishment?
Why would the state, or Fed have the right to end the ultimate liberty, i.e. human life by efforts of the state?
Once again it goes back to Paul's religious thinking, which takes precedent over secularist progressive thought.
I read Paul's comments on racism, and he was disparaging the efforts to end racism via government intervention, even going so far as to denounce the efforts to end slavery. His argument was that other civilized countries ended slavery without the need for such federal government influence.
Well, most of those same countries in the civilized world also came to the conclusion that a woman should have the right to choose and that guns should be controlled...so which civilization is Paul actually in agreement with? Iran who invokes capital punishment, or GB who does not?
Paul is a right winger who would seek to impose his religious and personal beliefs on others, and if the clones can't see the problem with that...well, they can't only because they agree with his personal beliefs or refuse to look at the conflicts and inconsistencies because they think they will pay less income tax...
So what really is the difference if the Federal government or a state government restricts a woman's right to choose?
None really, the consequence is control of liberty for a woman. Both state and Federal control should be seen as an affront to a genuine Libertarian, but of course Paul's religious belief is stronger than his Libertarianism.
Capital punishment?
Why would the state, or Fed have the right to end the ultimate liberty, i.e. human life by efforts of the state?
Once again it goes back to Paul's religious thinking, which takes precedent over secularist progressive thought.
I read Paul's comments on racism, and he was disparaging the efforts to end racism via government intervention, even going so far as to denounce the efforts to end slavery. His argument was that other civilized countries ended slavery without the need for such federal government influence.
Well, most of those same countries in the civilized world also came to the conclusion that a woman should have the right to choose and that guns should be controlled...so which civilization is Paul actually in agreement with? Iran who invokes capital punishment, or GB who does not?
Paul is a right winger who would seek to impose his religious and personal beliefs on others, and if the clones can't see the problem with that...well, they can't only because they agree with his personal beliefs or refuse to look at the conflicts and inconsistencies because they think they will pay less income tax...
Take away religious beliefs, and universal truth changes dramatically...
Take away the soul aspect, and it is no longer a form of human life, it is simply a potential human life.
Look, until such time that either the government or the anti-abortion crowd is going to ensure that all unwanted fetuses who are forced to term against the mother's will are properly fed, clothed, and educated until their full maturity, it is actually against a "universal truth" to deny a woman's wishes and then take no responsibility for the birth and life of a child.
When the government sees that its job is to control the reproductive process of a woman...then we are back to treating a woman as something that can be, and needs to be controlled by the government.
Really no different that limiting the number of children that a woman can bear, how often she can try to get pregnant, etc.
A real Libertarian would be against the government doing anything to control and regulate a woman's right to choose...
Take away the soul aspect, and it is no longer a form of human life, it is simply a potential human life.
Look, until such time that either the government or the anti-abortion crowd is going to ensure that all unwanted fetuses who are forced to term against the mother's will are properly fed, clothed, and educated until their full maturity, it is actually against a "universal truth" to deny a woman's wishes and then take no responsibility for the birth and life of a child.
When the government sees that its job is to control the reproductive process of a woman...then we are back to treating a woman as something that can be, and needs to be controlled by the government.
Really no different that limiting the number of children that a woman can bear, how often she can try to get pregnant, etc.
A real Libertarian would be against the government doing anything to control and regulate a woman's right to choose...
man are you stretching things.. you're putting forth a major effort to smear this guy. it's actually a pretty good sign imo
did anyone see the Tim Russert - Meet The Press interview? i never watch the show, but was pretty surprised at the degree of blatant bias in Tim Russert's questioning... contextual misrepresentations, biased leading questions, then cutting paul off mid-response. again and again
RP fielded Tim's bias very well imo
did anyone see the Tim Russert - Meet The Press interview? i never watch the show, but was pretty surprised at the degree of blatant bias in Tim Russert's questioning... contextual misrepresentations, biased leading questions, then cutting paul off mid-response. again and again
RP fielded Tim's bias very well imo
Suggesting that people actually examine Paul's thinking and inconsistencies is a smear?
LMAO...
Oh man, yet another clone who is going to blame the media...
Uhhh, Russert doesn't even have to put Paul on TV, no media has to take Paul's advertising money, they don't have to run his print ads...DOH!
What a crock. A real setup, a built in excuse ahead of the game for when Paul loses they have someone to blame for the failure of Paul to capture the nomination. It can't be Paul's fault, nor his groupies, it must be that evil media. Oh, where have we heard that before...oh yeah, the right wingers repeat this mantra continually...
Oh baby, blame someone else for Paul's failures, that's the ticket...
LMAO...
Oh man, yet another clone who is going to blame the media...
Uhhh, Russert doesn't even have to put Paul on TV, no media has to take Paul's advertising money, they don't have to run his print ads...DOH!
What a crock. A real setup, a built in excuse ahead of the game for when Paul loses they have someone to blame for the failure of Paul to capture the nomination. It can't be Paul's fault, nor his groupies, it must be that evil media. Oh, where have we heard that before...oh yeah, the right wingers repeat this mantra continually...
Oh baby, blame someone else for Paul's failures, that's the ticket...
of course not, i say put Ron Paul under an electron micrograph. flip him inside out.. everything i've seen so far has been complete bias, spin or smear... produce substance
Russert's brand of scrutiny, at least in this interview, seemed like purposeful bias to me. just my opinion of course.
absent some sort of concrete evidence of polling/voting fraud... i will be happy to concede RP's outcome. i do feel like i've observed more consistent media bias against RP than toward any other candidates so far.. but i also accept that as an extension of the political apparatus we currently have. if his platform and political skillset aren't enough to overcome that, so be it. unfortunate, but that's american politics.
Sorry, no sale. Paul is not trying to impose his views on the country. He is trying to return to the each of the states the ability for its' citizen to determine what their state laws will be. Free from as many federal dictates as possible. Something more along the lines the Founders had in mind and not the central planners who run things now.
1. Ron Paul is against abortion because he thinks it is murder and/or because of his religious beliefs that says abortion is wrong.
2. He wants states to decide if people get to murder others? One state decides it is okay to murder in his mind and that's cool in Paul's eyes because the state said it was okay to murder, not the federal government? What if the state says owning slaves is okay? What about the state abolishing child labor laws, yada, yada, yada...
You can't see the inconsistency?
Geez...
I think the points are probably too subtle for the dogmatically inclined...
I love this quote:
"If you consulted Ron Paul as a doctor, you would be lucky to leave with all your limbs. The man is not an incrementalist."
---Robert Stein---
2. He wants states to decide if people get to murder others? One state decides it is okay to murder in his mind and that's cool in Paul's eyes because the state said it was okay to murder, not the federal government? What if the state says owning slaves is okay? What about the state abolishing child labor laws, yada, yada, yada...
You can't see the inconsistency?
Geez...
I think the points are probably too subtle for the dogmatically inclined...
I love this quote:
"If you consulted Ron Paul as a doctor, you would be lucky to leave with all your limbs. The man is not an incrementalist."
---Robert Stein---