Vote for Ron Paul-----Great idea

[GottaHaveIt]

his stance on abortion is irreconcilable with libertarianism and indefensible with respect to assuring basic rights for ALL americans. not just the ones in the blue states.

I believe Ron has already been quoted. Here it is again:

"I think we ought to return the issue to the states so that local opinions could better determine the specific regulations concerning this deeply personal issue".

Note well this. 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. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment.

 

[deprave]

Your right Uncle Buck pipe dreams but some of them could happen if RP was president its not impossible for the drug policy to change or the wars to stop

You vote for something because you think its right

[video=youtube;GFNtzrHRsso]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFNtzrHRsso[/video]

 

[NoDrama]

and i'm sure women from south dakota to mississippi love hearing that!

hell, as long as their rights are stripped from them at a state level, it's ok, right?

nice job shooting yourself in the foot.

edit - his stance on abortion is irreconcilable with libertarianism and indefensible with respect to assuring basic rights for ALL americans. not just the ones in the blue states.

My foot is perfectly fine. but your argument IS full of holes.

 

[mame]

Pretty much everytime Ron Paul disagrees with something he invokes "states rights" as his opinion. The fact is, he is pro-life. I can see why he shelters himself with this stance... it's effective. If he is pro-life that would lead one to believe he is against women choosing for themselves whether they should get an abortion... which would lead one to say, "oh well that goes against libertarianism!"

But by turning it into a "states rights" issue he can defend his argument by saying that he wants local governments to choose - effectively assuring us all of his libertarian roots... except that we all know that this is an illusion because if he were truly for the freedom of choice involved - he'd be outright pro-choice. The same goes for his position on drug policy. He doesn't want to admit he would like to see drugs like weed legal so he invokes his old "states rights" stance.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm a Libertarian, and I think abortion as birth control is disgusting. For Christ's sake, my 13 year old daughter can't get stitches without me signing thirty fucking forms; but she can get an abortion without my knowledge. (ask me how I know this and then shove your 'it's my body' arguments right up your wazoo.)

well, abortion as birth control and parental consent for minors are two completely different things than what i was talking about.

i was speaking of someone like my wife, who uses birth control and is an adult, being allowed to make a decision concerning something that can possibly kill her in any of the 50 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.

i am a strong believer in states' rights.

so let's suppose we put abortion on a state level. let's suppose south dakota makes abortion illegal.

who should we punish when an abortion is sought? should we criminalize an adult making the most painful decision they may ever make in their life? should we criminalize a doctor for following the hippocratic oath?

and criminalizing abortion entails that the fetus has more rights than a fully grown adult.

so how should we protect the fetus? should we make all women take compulsory pregnancy tests, that way me can make sure they don't do anything that may harm the fetus, such as jumping on a trampoline or walking on an uneven sidewalk?

some women don't even realize they are pregnant until the very late stages...they may have done potentially harmful things to their fetus, unaware they even had one inside of them...so should they be punished retroactively? one way to make sure no such thing happens is by having state-issued, mandatory pregnancy tests once a month for all women in the state. are you seriously in favor of that?

sorry, bud. there is NO WAY to reconcile libertarianism and criminalizing abortion (in any state).

 

[UncleBuck]

My foot is perfectly fine. but your argument IS full of holes.

how so? are you saying it is ok to strip someone of their rights as long as it is on a state level, and not federal?

 

[GottaHaveIt]

Any time a democrat or republican argues against State Rights, they forget the most important fact...You can move somewhere the laws suit you.
the US was set up as a Republic of independent States, not 50 vassals of a tyrannical Federal government.

The first four words of the Hippocratic Oath are "First, do no harm..." now let me drown your fetus in salt and scrape the crap out of your uterus.

 

[UncleBuck]

Any time a democrat or republican argues against State Rights, they forget the most important fact...You can move somewhere the laws suit you.

what if all 50 states decide to criminalize abortion then?

by the way, do you have any idea how costly it is to move out of state? it is simply not an option for a huge number of women.

The first four words of the Hippocratic Oath are "First, do no harm..." now let me drown your fetus in salt and scrape the crap out of your uterus.

fact: any pregnancy whatsoever may harm or kill the mother.

fact: 'back alley' abortions are not known for being very safe.

so yes, it fits with 'first do no harm'.

you still have not answered me though....who should be punished when the inevitable abortion is sought? the doctor? the mother? what should be the punishment? jail? fines? death penalty? and how should we enforce the abortion ban? state agents in every doctor's office? and how should we protect those fetuses? compulsory pregnancy tests?

tell me how the mechanics of criminalized abortion should work and i'll listen, i promise.

 

[NoDrama]

how so? are you saying it is ok to strip someone of their rights as long as it is on a state level, and not federal?

What rights are being stripped? its up to the states, not Dr. Paul. So you wanna argue with me again how Dr. Paul is going to make abortions illegal again? Or are you tired of losing that argument?

 

[UncleBuck]

What rights are being stripped? its up to the states, not Dr. Paul. So you wanna argue with me again how Dr. Paul is going to make abortions illegal again? Or are you tired of losing that argument?

what rights? the rights granted to women under roe v. wade.

how will dr. paul make abortion illegal? by allowing it to happen on state level.

you wanna tell me how criminalizing abortion fits with libertarianism?

 

[NoDrama]

what rights? the rights granted to women under roe v. wade.

how will dr. paul make abortion illegal? by allowing it to happen on state level.

you wanna tell me how criminalizing abortion fits with libertarianism?

Roe Vs Wade does not grant women any rights whatsoever, you are lost. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Dr. Paul does not control states, what part of that don't you understand?Your argument is WEAL WEAK WEAK, in fact it wouldn't stand up to a small puff of an argument. He isn't allowing anything, he doesn't have any say. Who wants to criminalize abortion? You?

You know that the Public sector in Wisconsin lost all their Bargaining rights and that is all the fault of Obama, he let it happen. Same moronic argument as you are trying to make. That mass murder in Indiana, that was Obama's fault also, he let it happen. those school shootings? Obama's fault, he let it happen. Starvation in Somalia? Obama's fault, he let it happen. Everything is Obama's fault, he let it happen. Oral sex in Illinois is illegal, Blame Obama, he LET IT HAPPEN!!!

Try a real argument for once.

 

[GottaHaveIt]

tell me how the mechanics of criminalized abortion should work and i'll listen, i promise.

Abortion in the US is retroactive birth control. In the (relatively) rare case where the mother's life is in danger the pregnancy could be terminated. Anything else is reprehensible.

 

[deprave]

so out of the last 5 or so presidents only clinton and obama are pro-choice and abortion has yet to be made illegal, thats not to say it won't you never know, Personally I am strongly pro-choice, anyone who understands women should be in my view, so I am not really going to argue about abortion.

 

[UncleBuck]

Abortion in the US is retroactive birth control. In the (relatively) rare case where the mother's life is in danger the pregnancy could be terminated. Anything else is reprehensible.

do you not realize that any pregnancy whatsoever is capable of endangering the life of the mother, sometimes with no forewarning? so thanks for agreeing with me that any pregnancy whatsoever may be terminated

but seriously, you still have not discussed how we protect these fetuses or answered any of my many questions.

 

[deprave]

There is a lot of medical reasons why women need abortions that is why it just seems ridiculous to me to go against abortions, I think they would have a hard time keeping it illegal if it ever happened medical proffesionals would be livid, some politicians are very passionate about being pro-life, I am pretty sure RP isn't one of them, his voting record is mixed on abortion however he has voted in the same stance as a "pro-lifer" would vote quite a few times.

 

[UncleBuck]

Roe Vs Wade does not grant women any rights whatsoever, you are lost.

sorry for the loose verbiage.

it protects the rights they naturally have.

Dr. Paul does not control states, what part of that don't you understand?Your argument is WEAL WEAK WEAK, in fact it wouldn't stand up to a small puff of an argument. He isn't allowing anything, he doesn't have any say. Who wants to criminalize abortion? You?

when did i say i favored criminalizing abortion? it sounds to me like you are lost.

right now, roe v wade restricts states from forming their own abortion laws to some degree. take that away, and...you should see where i am going.

You know that the Public sector in Wisconsin lost all their Bargaining rights and that is all the fault of Obama, he let it happen. Same moronic argument as you are trying to make. That mass murder in Indiana, that was Obama's fault also, he let it happen. those school shootings? Obama's fault, he let it happen. Starvation in Somalia? Obama's fault, he let it happen. Everything is Obama's fault, he let it happen. Oral sex in Illinois is illegal, Blame Obama, he LET IT HAPPEN!!!

Try a real argument for once.

nice adding of substantial content via an edit.

if i was johnnyo, you would feel my wrath of indignation.

but i am not, so i leave you with this:

[video=youtube;CD2LRROpph0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0[/video]

edit: ya know, i really wish i had more artists like rebecca black when i was in high school. surely, her iteration of how the days of the week work would have been helpful. but i often found myself contemplating which seat i could take, and to know that others were struggling with this same dilemma would have let me know i was not the only one going through that shit.

 

[NoDrama]

When I was in High School, a girl like that would be my flavor of the month.

 

[UncleBuck]

When I was in High School, a girl like that would be my flavor of the month.

i also would have savagely killed her and feasted on the carcass for approximately one month.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Pretty much everytime Ron Paul disagrees with something he invokes "states rights" as his opinion. The fact is, he is pro-life. I can see why he shelters himself with this stance... it's effective. If he is pro-life that would lead one to believe he is against women choosing for themselves whether they should get an abortion... which would lead one to say, "oh well that goes against libertarianism!"

But by turning it into a "states rights" issue he can defend his argument by saying that he wants local governments to choose - effectively assuring us all of his libertarian roots... except that we all know that this is an illusion because if he were truly for the freedom of choice involved - he'd be outright pro-choice. The same goes for his position on drug policy. He doesn't want to admit he would like to see drugs like weed legal so he invokes his old "states rights" stance.

You are either thoroughly brainwashed or you are a "stooge" of the progressive/liberal/socialist left. If the former, I hope you find your way out of the "Matrix" and if the latter, all I can say is "you reap what you sow."
You mentioned somewhere that you are going to school, right? Maybe it would do you some good to take some American history classes because you obviously don't know anything about it. I'm not surprised though, this is what you get when the government controls education.
So what if he is Pro-Life. Are you Anti-Life? At least he has enough integrity to NOT want the federal government to enforce his beliefs because he knows the LAW.
You and your ilk call yourselves Pro-Choice, how conveeeeeeeenient. How about MY choice? My choice to keep my property and do with it as I please. My choice to imbibe in whatever recreational drug I choose? My choice to expect my government to act responsibly and in adherence to the Constitution? My choice to not have to support a failing education system (your above comment is proof of that). My choice to fly on a plane without being sexually molested in the terminal? (how does your wife's body feel about that one, Uncle Buck?)
You are an elitist. You think you know better how to run people's lives than they do. Even if you do, it's their lives. If they want to waste them, THAT is THEIR CHOICE!!!!!
GOD, I wish I had a joint....

 

[Mr Neutron]

Pretty much everytime Ron Paul disagrees with something he invokes "states rights" as his opinion. The fact is, he is pro-life. I can see why he shelters himself with this stance... it's effective. If he is pro-life that would lead one to believe he is against women choosing for themselves whether they should get an abortion... which would lead one to say, "oh well that goes against libertarianism!"

But by turning it into a "states rights" issue he can defend his argument by saying that he wants local governments to choose - effectively assuring us all of his libertarian roots... except that we all know that this is an illusion because if he were truly for the freedom of choice involved - he'd be outright pro-choice. The same goes for his position on drug policy. He doesn't want to admit he would like to see drugs like weed legal so he invokes his old "states rights" stance.

You are either thoroughly brainwashed or you are a "stooge" of the progressive/liberal/socialist left. If the former, I hope you find your way out of the "Matrix" and if the latter, all I can say is "you reap what you sow."
You mentioned somewhere that you are going to school, right? Maybe it would do you some good to take some American history classes because you obviously don't know anything about it. I'm not surprised though, this is what you get when the government controls education.
So what if he is Pro-Life. Are you Anti-Life? At least he has enough integrity to NOT want the federal government to enforce his beliefs because he knows the LAW.
You and your ilk call yourselves Pro-Choice, how conveeeeeeeenient. How about MY choice? My choice to keep my property and do with it as I please. My choice to imbibe in whatever recreational drug I choose? My choice to expect my government to act responsibly and in adherence to the Constitution? My choice to not have to support a failing education system (your above comment is proof of that). My choice to fly on a plane without being sexually molested in the terminal? (how does your wife's body feel about that one, Uncle Buck?)
You are an elitist. You think you know better how to run people's lives than they do. Even if you do, it's their lives. If they want to waste them, THAT is THEIR CHOICE!!!!!
GOD, I wish I had a joint....