Another Republican Sen. has a Dirty Little Affair

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by TeenageMac

Ron Paul is personally pro-life, yes; however, Ron Paul does not support a federal government ban on abortion. Paul believes in federalism, meaning that issues like abortion, as well as same-sex marriage, are state rights issues. Basically, he believes that it is up to the states and the federal government has no authority in issues like abortion. However, I do understand what you are saying and I do see where you are coming from.

And also of note (many people do not know this), Ron Paul is also a doctor, delivering over 4,000 babies in his career as a doctor.

Actually - he does support banning abortion because despite the states rights rhetoric, he supports defining life as beginning at conception, which would overrule Roe, which he says has damaged the Const. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This is becoming laughable -- note this hypocritical sack of shiitte is, of course, a born again christian whose "morally superior" record is as follows:

* Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities. (Apr 1998)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
* Rated 11% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
* Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

* Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
* Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

I support several of those measures myself. But I'm always overjoyed to see a smarmy politician topple.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by TeenageMac

[FONT="Arial"] . . . Paul believes in federalism, meaning that issues like abortion, as well as same-sex marriage, are state rights issues. Basically, he believes that it is up to the states and the federal government has no authority in issues like abortion . . . .

What is interesting is the advances in the world since 1776 make state's rights issues not really a workable solution. For example, what is Utah bans blacks and whites from marrying and/or cohabitating. They make it an offense pushable by 20 years in prison. bob the white guy is married to Jill the black girl. While flying to Los Angeles, their plane gets grounded in Salt Lake City, where they spend the night in a hotel. The Salt lake City police arrest and prosecute Bob and Jill, who are now spending 20 years in prison in Utah. That or some other incident like it could happen. So, there must be some hybrid of state's rights, which I suggest is the Fed. govt. guaranteeing basic rights so people can go from state to state without incident.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by mylittledemon

He's a politician. You ultimately can't trust any of them, I think...

Me too - and it just amazes me that people think the next one is going to be any different.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

. . . But I'm always overjoyed to see a smarmy politician topple.

me too - esp. the self-righteous ones

[TeenageMac]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Actually - he does support banning abortion because despite the states rights rhetoric, he supports defining life as beginning at conception, which would overrule Roe, which he says has damaged the Const. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Watch this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNFF614YyFA. In this video, Paul clearly articulates his position on abortion. Yes, you are right - He does support defining life at the beginning of conception, but he does not support a FEDERAL ban on abortion.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Anyone who wants to ban abortion is not for smaller govt.

But from the anti-abortionist's point of view, abortion is murder. An anti-abortion stance can easily be reconciled with a desire for reining in government. Even the vociferous anti-statists consider outlawing murder a legitimate function of the State.

In other words, although I may personally think abortion is wrong, as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother as a host, it is the mother's right to abort it.

No, that is not the Libertarian position. The Libertarian position is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus from her body. In practical terms, the two procedures might amount to the same thing; but in philosophical terms, the distinction is extremely important.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by TeenageMac

Watch this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNFF614YyFA. In this video, Paul clearly articulates his position on abortion. Yes, you are right - He does support defining life at the beginning of conception, but he does not support a FEDERAL ban on abortion.

A Federal law defining life at conception is the same thing. It would be next to impossible for a state to define it any other way because the 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The U.S. Const. guarantees Congress can pass laws. Therefore, once Congress passes that law, no state has the power to contravene it.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

But from the anti-abortionist's point of view, abortion is murder. An anti-abortion stance can easily be reconciled with a desire for reining in government. Even the vociferous anti-statists consider outlawing murder a legitimate function of the State.

No, that is not the Libertarian position. The Libertarian position is that the mother has the right to expel the fetus from her body. In practical terms, the two procedures might amount to the same thing; but in philosophical terms, the distinction is extremely important.

I know that is not the Libertarian position. I am saying it ought to be because it furthers the ideal of less govt. interference in our lives.

In the end, if the govt. and, more importantly, parents schooled their kids about how not to get preggers (it is so easy not to mind you) - the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies could be prevented. But, they never will. So, there must be the right to choose.

And - if the Libertarians supported the right to chose - they likely would gain tons of support.

[markolas]

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

As for abortion, my opinion has changed since the last time it was probably discussed here. I'm pro-life, and couldn't give a rat's ass if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which it never will be, btw). The idea that a woman has a right to abort her unborn child is utterly repugnant to me.

Also, people like to act as if before Roe, abortion was universally illegal everywhere in all circumstances, which simply isn't true. If I have my facts right, many if not most states had a "rape or incest" exception (which I'm still not crazy about) prior to Roe, for example.

Ugh. My bf is all about Ron Paul (I don't think he knows half of what's in Paul's platform), but I think he's a fruitcake, to be quite honest. Didn't he want to do away with public schools or something crazy like that?

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

And - if the Libertarians supported the right to chose - they likely would gain tons of support.

I thought they did. (I know you didn't make it up, but I despise the phrase "right to choose." Right to choose what? Whether or not you want pecans on your vanilla ice cream?)

[David]

Originally Posted by markolas

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

They don't need to be "trusted." They need to be (largely) free of the looooong arm of the State.

Ugh. My bf is all about Ron Paul (I don't think he knows half of what's in Paul's platform), but I think he's a fruitcake, to be quite honest. Didn't he want to do away with public schools or something crazy like that?

Is that a bad thing?

I just heard a funny joke:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: For a bailout.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

As I've said before on this board, I'm opposed to libertarianism (which I once heard described as the political party for Republicans who smoke weed - I thought that was pretty funny, but my ex who is a card-carrying Libertarian, was not amused ). Left to their own devices, most people simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

As for abortion, my opinion has changed since the last time it was probably discussed here. I'm pro-life, and couldn't give a rat's ass if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which it never will be, btw). The idea that a woman has a right to abort her unborn child is utterly repugnant to me . . . .

It's not about you. It's about protecting other people's right to live their own lives without judgment from others. Put into another context that may hit close to home for you, what if the govt. passed a law that said being gay was a crime against nature (which it essentially was until about six years ago) and the majority of people said they could care a less if the law affected peoples' rights because gays were repugnant to them. That would not be fair. Another example would be that anyone who gets AIDS is on their own with no govt support because they got it though sex outside of marriage.


So, I say the fairer route is to get the govt. out of the decisions we make with our own bodies. I fully realize millions will see that as millions of innocent babies dying, but I cannot see any other way - save for the education of people and greater access to birth control.

Originally Posted by markolas

I thought they did. (I know you didn't make it up, but I despise the phrase "right to choose." Right to choose what? Whether or not you want pecans on your vanilla ice cream?)

The sole issue is the right to choose. You can not be for abortion, but still be for the right to choose because although you think it is a wrong and horrible thing, you recognize another person may not. So, I say who am I to tell them what to do with their own body. It is a hard pill to swallow because to many that means innocent babies will die. So, I say of you don't want an abortion then don't you get one. Just like I say of you don't want gay marriage than don't you marry a gay person. Almost everyone I know cannot lose that inherent judgment and want to control others' lives

[markolas]

Originally Posted by David

They don't need to be "trusted." They need to be (largely) free of the looooong arm of the State.

Whatever.

Is that a bad thing?

Well, unless you want a 25% literacy rate.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

. . . Well, unless you want a 25% literacy rate.

And the poor likely staying well below the poverty line for centuries while the rich kids continue their parents domination of power. Moreover, it is likely free thought will no longer be nurtured. Having said that -- I fully recognize the current public school system for the most part sucks a$$.