Time to get behind Ron Paul

I think that if you are going to get a lady pregnate, have it planned and a contract against abortion(contacts are legit, even with abortion). Otherwise, it's just the woman's body. You wouldn't like it if someonr messed with your reproductive rights. If the guy want a kid that bad, he csn go do another girl, if he doesn't want this one he CAN relinquish all legal rights and have nothing to do with the baby.
Anyway, back on topic. The chances of a non-major cantidate winning are low. Independent parties chances to be electrd into the presidency are basically non exisstant, because dispite their ecistance we still have a two major party system with moderate parties that don't do crap, and the republican party(one of the two)is in shambels after GWbush.

 

have you guys even read Ron Paul's platform on his site? it doesn't sound like it.

 

Yes, he is basically pro-life. It was rather surprising to me at first too. Being a libertarian you would think that he wouldnt want the federal government to interfere with anyone's privacy, but he doesnt really look at it as a privacy issue. He just sees the inconsistencies in the whole deal that basically says that there is a life there. If you abort a child one second before it's born it's legal but if you do it one second after it's born it's murder. If someone kills a pregnant woman they're charged with two murders. If he as a doctor does something wrong and causes the fetus to die, he is held responsible for it. So I can kind of see his point on this issue. Really I dont think he wants the federal government to have any say at all (which is why he wants to overturn roe v wade), but rather the individual states, which I think is how it should be.

Personally, I'm pro-choice for the most part. It does seem like it should be a woman's right to choose. In my opinion I dont think it should be done on a whim, but rather in certain circumstances, like the woman being raped or the mother's life in danger.

Personally though, I think the abortion thing is a rather insignificant. He's talking about saving the country. For example, Hillary is pro-choice, but she wants to basically have a socialistic society where the government is taking care of the entire population (which is a disaster: see katrina, veteran's hospitals, social security), and then increase taxes to give the needed funds. She's stated she would keep us in Iraq longer, which is going to cost billions upon billions more dollars (and many lives). Under Hillary the government will expand, taxes will increase, and the value of the dollar will continue to go down. Why do you think prices on everything is so high? Our dollars dont buy as much oil or anything as it used to (the dollar hit a TWENTY-SIX YEAR LOW the other day). They just keep printing more and more money and borrowing more and more, and the value just sinks.

On the other hand, under Ron Paul, we can let the other countries over the world mind their own business. We dont have to be the world's policemen. We would save trillions of dollars, which can be given back to American people in the form of removing the income tax and restore the value in our dollar. He would restore our civil liberties and rights to privacy. He would use our troops to actually protect our country and our citizens instead of some middle eastern country and middle eastern citizens. We would stop generating so much hatred towards us because of our occupations around the world. Weed might actually become legal or decriminalized in my state!

I think a DRAMATICALLY reduced central government is a much better solution than anything hillary has to "give" us...

and remember kids:

 

yeah, it's always insignificant when it's somebody else's issue isn't it? well, to my way of thinking, being forced to have children you don't want or can't afford is a good deal more important than having the right to smog out legally. i'm all for sensible government policies on drugs, but not at the expense of women and the environment. and until all the men are gay or fixed, it's their issue too.

 

Smoking out legally is insignificant to me as well. Aborting a child because you cant afford or dont want (which shows a lack of personal responsibility) is insignificant as well. There are much larger issues facing the country than some brat with no self control who wants to kill off her baby. Soldier's lives, allowing american citizens to keep more of their money, and keeping the value in our money. These are things that affect all americans. This is why I say it's insignificant. Maybe if your reasoning for abortions was better, but because you simply cant afford or dont want it? Give me a break. Perhaps you would be able to afford it if gas and food prices werent so insanely high (because our dollar has no value now).

 

Obviously, not everybody who needs to terminate a pregnancy does it because they lack personal responsibility. But even those that do...would they make good parents if that's true? How can you say you support the rights of the individual and want government out of our personal business...and then turn right around and say that over half the adults on the planet should have no say in their reproductive choices? People like you, and Ron Paul, have a disconnect in your thinking...a really BIG disconnect. Besides, overpopulation is an environmental issue that impacts all of us in a multitude of ways. And many social problems such as poverty, disease and child abuse/neglect are caused in part by people having children they don't want or can't afford. Population pressure and socioeconomic problems are the kind of problems that cause wars. Are you sure you're thinking this through?

 

Dr. Paul's stance on Abortion:

As a congressman, the U.S. constitution gives him the full right to attempt to pass legislature banning abortion on a federal level. He has attempted multiple times to pass legislature that defines life at conception. Because he was an OB-Gyn he does not falter on his pro-life philosophy, he says that he feels too connected to the lives he has aided in bringing into this world to ever see a justification for abortion. Now this is what would make Ron Paul such a great president (not what was typed above)... because the 10th amendment of the U.S. constitution clearly states, "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" Dr. Paul has openly said that he will not subvert the constitution on any issue including a woman's right to choose meaning this decision would go from being made by a pro-life gov't that does not respect the constitution (the Bush administration who actively fights against abortion) to a pro-life gov't that does respect the constitution (Dr. Paul who would give the battle of abortion up to the states to decide). Now the issue here is what about states like Kentucky which would clearly subvert a woman's right to choose, since Ron Paul would clearly support that state's choice and my response to that is it then comes down to grassroots activism at that point. Unfortunatly the pro-choice movement holds its ideals high but is not very active especially in comparison to the pro-life movement that tends to consistently show up on liberal college campuses throughout the country. Women need to speak a little louder on a state level about what rights they want secured and with a potential President like Ron Paul the chances of being heard because your freedoms are secure are much higher than when dealing with a government like the one Hilary Clinton proposes that is ultimately based around domestic survellience.

And no its not always insignificant when its someone else's issue but some issues do take precedent over others. Gay marriage for instance is a lesser issue in this country than poverty or "free-market capitalism" the reason being.. our economic policies destroy the lives of minorities at home and other cultures over seas. Gays in this country are not being prevented from voting, locked up based upon the fact they are a poor minority and they are not struggling to get jobs (at least not out here on the west coast) based upon the fact they are a minority. Women's issues are different in that we live under a male, white supremacist social structure but have come to the juncture where society has decided that we need to shift that power dynamic... and that is revolutionary. In other words there are different levels of oppression and lots of gay and lesbiens agree with me on this one... as far as minorities go.. african-americans, natives, latino/a (s) and women have it worse than other groups in this country.

 

"many social problems such as poverty, disease and child abuse/neglect are caused in part by people having children they don't want or can't afford. Population pressure and socioeconomic problems are the kind of problems that cause wars."

I don't really buy that argument... at all actually. People have been having children forever and there have been drastic changes in population growth historically, however in a lot of cultures the notion of abortion or infanticide came after colonial conquest. Nature naturally took the lives of people in cultures that couldn't stabalize their growth of population and the notion of disease decimating cultures came from the domestication of animals and then the spread of those microbes once again via colonial conquest. A majority of the worst diseases these days syphallis (sp?), AIDS, Malaria, etc. were definately not products of over population and while they are more prevelant in populations that are impovershed there is little distinction between small villages in Africa that are decimated by disease and overpopulated cities in Latin America if you feel what I'm saying.

Poverty, disease, war and child abuse are not a result of women not having the right to choose that would assume that these issues were solved when people were granted abortion rights throughout the world and that is a very simplistic view of the current situation in the world. While it may be a factor in overpopulation which does have a clear environmental impact its silly to think that nature wouldnt eventually put things back into place... it always has historically.

Think about this for a second... if everyone came to a consensus right now and we fixed the issue of population alone.. thats it just the issue of overpopulation and it could be through abortion or whatever creative means you can conjure up. Would we still have conflicts over artificial borders like Israel vs. Palestine, would we still have disease, would we still have rape, child abuse and domestic violence, would we still have people raping resources in third world nations, would we still have racism, would we still have war? If you say NO to any of those things we can end the conversation here.

Women deserve the right to have control over their reproductive systems and if I'm not quick enough on my toes to not get you pregnant then I have forfeited my right to make the choice about whether or not I want a kid... its now my partner's choice... but I don't think if you really think about it that abortion is going to solve a majority of your worldly concerns that existed far before this fairly recent explosion in population.

 

We should all be voting for Cynthia McKinney anyway... America needs an intelligent, black woman for President more than anything else.. but Ron Paul surprises with his recent popularity and he does have a ton of good ideas especially in regards to specialized free trade which is HUGE contributor to global poverty which is an issue I'm personally invested in. Kill the prison industrial complex and kill specialized free-trade and you've got my vote.

 

I think you Ron Paul supporters are falling victim to yet another politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth. I prefer to let the candidate speak for himself. When I read what he himself publicly states as his position on reproductive rights, I know I'd be an idiot to vote for him because he's sure to bring an end to reproductive rights for women. These statements are copied directly from Ron Paul's website www.ronpaul2008.com:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

 

Well he's a much bigger threat to abortion right now as a Congressman then he would be if he was President... who is your ideal candidate?

plus I think it is admirable that he can be fully pro-life.. in the sense that he is against not only abortion but also the death penalty and war.. not something you see too often.

 

I know there's more important issues than gay marriage right now but I'm gay and I'd like the right for all of us to get married if we want to.

I dunno who I'm voting for now. I'm gonna have to look into Ron Paul some more before I make my final decision.

But there's no way in hell I'm voting for Hilary or Barack. They rub me the wrong way...

 

lady of freaks, if you don't want a baby, it is your "reproductive right" to not have sex.

your "reproductive right," to me, would refer to your own body, not the one growing inside you.

i feel you on the fact that many people without the desire or finances for a child would turn out to be shitty parents, but instead of fixing this by handing out abortions, how about you guys have some more self control and stop fucking. overpopulation's easy fix=stop having so many damn babies at such a young age. but does that mean abortion or self/birth control?

 

okay, it's a deal...we'll all just stop fucking...d'ya hear that everybody? STOP FUCKING NOW!!!!

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa... no one here knows about Mike Gravel?

First off a list of Gravels accomplishments:

Was senator of Alaska from 71 to 83

Made the Pentagon Papers public, by doing so, risked being arrested and jailed. The Pentagon Papers were documents that proved that America went to war with Vietnam under a fraudulent basis (sound familiar to anyone?).

Went on a one-man filibuster (long ass speech usually used to delay action) to end the draft, and succeeded, by allowing the law to expire.

Stopped nuclear testing done on some sites.

On the Issues:

Mike Gravel is pro gay marriages. Believes that love is love.

Anti- War on Drugs. He thinks cannabis should be legalized while harder drugs should be decriminalized, so instead of arresting addicts, they can fill their drug habits at a pharmacy, and be monitored by doctors to see how they're doing. Gravel believes that drugs is a public health crisis, not a criminal action. Prohibition, of any kind, has never worked.

Tax: He wants to wipe out the income tax and replace it with the fair tax.


-WARS-
Iraq: He wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible- No phased out bullshit, either. He can get us out in a few months, through an orderly exist.

Iran: Wants to prevent all resolutions that would get us to attack Iran. He is extremely anti-preemptive strike, especially a nuclear one. He believes in diplomacy, first.

War on Terror: He believes that since terrorism has been here since the beginning of time, then it'll remain a part of civilization till the end of time. Since terrorism will always be here, then a "War on Terror" just doesn't make sense, logically, at all. Although, he believes that terrorism should be a police action based on global intelligence.

Anti-Patriot Act.


He doesn't believe that people hate us "for our freedom" but because of our involvement of their affairs. He definitely doesn't think that "we got what was coming to us", but thinking that we are completely innocent in the matter is pretty naive and childish.

Environment:

Promises to get us off of our dependency of the middle east in about 5 years, and believes that the only way to do this is simply to have the will and the financial support, and we cannot have the financial support if we are wasting all out our money on useless wars and expanding our military as if we are some kind of modern age Roman legion.

For those that are against Ron Pauls changes of government, I suggest to learn more about Gravel. But honestly, I support both of them for many reasons. But if I had to decide between Gravel or Ron, then I choose Gravel - I would be happy with Paul as president, ecstatic, even.

Recommended video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LZaKkXADKg

Extra:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pExaBIOAs_s

Please, learn more about him. The reason why many don't know of this candidate, is simple. Gravel was excluded in the democratic debates, since Oct 30s, because of monetary reasons. CNN created ridiculous rules to exclude Gravel for sinister reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSoCHfyYCew Gravel was excluded after what he said to Hillary, and all she could do was laugh like a witch.

 

I know these guys are great, but the majority, by a VAST number, of americans are moderate and support major cantidates. Niether of these guys stand a chance, no mater how good they are*wishes Gravel was president*.

 

in my state we're one step closer to losing our right to reproductive freedom as of 4 days ago. because of a state ruling we won't be able to get the morning after pill in any pharmacy where the pharmacist is a right to lifer. for those of you who think the abortion question is irrelevant, keep in mind that the agenda of the right to lifers is to eventually make all birth control illegal and return us to the days of no divorce, one marriage for life, no sex outside of marriage and sex for procreation only. hope you're all up for it.

 

"Niether of these guys stand a chance"

Many people tell me that Gravel is the best candidate, yet want to vote for another, because others 'may stand a greater chance'. This is insane because all you have to do to get these people elected is to vote for the candidate that you think is the best, not who you think may or may not win! You vote for the man that you want to see in office. The reason why 'he has no chance', if I believe you on that, is because people have your attitude. You vote for the person you believe in, simple as that. You're a part of the reason why these great candidates don't win, and the sooner you realize that, the better. Don't listen to gallup polls, they mean nothing. Listen to your beliefs.


"for those of you who think the abortion question is irrelevant, keep in mind that the agenda of the right to lifers is to eventually make all birth control illegal"


Having an abortion out of convenience is criminal. But preventing people from having these abortions is chaotic.

 

yes, anyone who WOULD have an abortion out of convenience SHOULD have an abortion. the world is overpopulated to the point that this whole mess is going to blow up in our faces. it's going to get ugly. the same people who get all sentimental about every microscopic cell will be the first to declare war and kill every child who gets in the way of gassing up the status symbol in the driveway. foster parents and adoptive parents can't be found for all the abandoned children we have now. this way of life is not working. those who don't take a global view are missing the point. and anyone who thinks people are going to quit having sex for any reason is crazy.

 

Im with you. Mike has the right point of view. It would be great to see more of him. Paul and Gravel '08, anyone???