The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I don't know where he said he would like Roe VS Wade overturned but if he did i don't' agree with it but you can't ask anyone to be perfect, anyone else who has delivered 4000 plus babies into the world would probably lean towards being pro-life as well.
In his book (Revolution: A Manifesto), he talks about an experience with abortion:

Ron Paul: Revolution said:
...When I studied medicine at Duke Medical School from 1957 to 1961, the subject [of abortion] was never raised. By the time of my medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1960s, though, wholesale defiance of the laws against abortion was taking place in various parts of the country, including my own.

Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with the delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was...
I just thought a little background on why he has this view would be in order, especially being that everybody seems to think it's because of his religion.

He goes on...

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, striking down abortion laws all over the country, even some supporters of abortion were embarrassed by the decision as a matter of constitutional law. John Hart Ely, for instance, wrote in the Yale Law Review: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." The decision, he said, "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who will rule in accordance with the Constitution, however, Americans who care about our fundamental law and/or are concerned about abortion do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over broad categories of cases. In the wake of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, abolitionsts spoke of depriving the courts of jurisdiction in cases dealing with slaver. The courts were stripped of authority over Reconstruction policy in the late 1860s.

If the federal courts refuse to abide by the Constitution, the Congress should employ this constitutional remedy. By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitutional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, since no appeal to federal courts on the matter could be heard. (I have proposed exactly this in H.R. 300.)
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Ron Paul: Revolution, A Manifesto
...When I studied medicine at Duke Medical School from 1957 to 1961, the subject [of abortion] was never raised. By the time of my medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1960s, though, wholesale defiance of the laws against abortion was taking place in various parts of the country, including my own.

Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done. One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section. It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy. The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds. At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with the delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room. The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there. I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was...

I don't even know what to say to that, just sickening. I need to pick up a copy of that book sometime and read up apparently.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
There has to be a limit as to how far into a pregnancy an abortion should be allowed. What Ron Paul witnessed was not an abortion, it was outright murder. I don't see how anyone could ever justify that.


 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
There has to be a limit as to how far into a pregnancy an abortion should be allowed. What Ron Paul witnessed was not an abortion, it was outright murder. I don't see how anyone could ever justify that.



This has kind of been my stance on the issue, but once again it should be determined by the states.
 

deprave

New Member
New Ron Paul Vids today



Obama vs Ron Paul (Ron Paul wins!):)
15 Minute Special
[video=youtube;CBa4cY5IWTk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBa4cY5IWTk[/video]



Ron Paul weekly audio update.
[video=youtube;FJztRiAu5os]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJztRiAu5os[/video]


Ron Paul on The Wilkow Majority: Radio Show Appearance about Economy


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


[video=youtube;wpqdYN-8JJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpqdYN-8JJ4[/video]
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
The hardcore truth about Ron Paul is he will never get out the Republican primary as the winner and with that being said he will never be POTUS..He should have went independent from the start and maybe he could have been...I will take all bets on this
 

txpete77

Well-Known Member
The hardcore truth about Ron Paul is he will never get out the Republican primary as the winner and with that being said he will never be POTUS..He should have went independent from the start and maybe he could have been...I will take all bets on this
I wouldn't say never, but it is unlikely. If Paul is proved right with the Fed and other financial issues he may be able pull it off. A lot of this depends on whether or not the Tea Party maintains or gains momentum and how much they pay attention to the other candidates.

I think Paul could beat Obama, but not as an independent. He needs the GOP nomination if he is to win the election.
 

mame

Well-Known Member
The Tea Party is losing momentum in terms of relations with the general public - "movement approval rating"(the link is fairly old... last night's CNN "debt ceiling" coverage showed a Tea Party approval rating below 25%...). They're being seen more and more as extremists than anything by more and more Americans which spells doom for any Tea Party candidate...

The only chance Republicans have is a moderate conservative but even then, the Tea Party may drag the Republican ticket down and the Republicans are likely to ultimately lose the '12 POTUS election in large part because of it... Aside from that you've anti-far right sentiment building in the midwest (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) and multiple unpopular governers elswhere (florida, New Jersey come to mind)... How can anyone seriously believe a Tea Party candidate, even Ron Paul, has even the slightest chance of victory?
 

deprave

New Member
Big NEWS: Dr Ron Paul has Introduced bill to cancel 1.6T in debt owed to fed.

[video=youtube;PdD8zndfWSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdD8zndfWSM[/video]
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
The Tea Party is losing momentum in terms of relations with the general public - "movement approval rating"(the link is fairly old... last night's CNN "debt ceiling" coverage showed a Tea Party approval rating below 25%...). They're being seen more and more as extremists than anything by more and more Americans which spells doom for any Tea Party candidate...

The only chance Republicans have is a moderate conservative but even then, the Tea Party may drag the Republican ticket down and the Republicans are likely to ultimately lose the '12 POTUS election in large part because of it... Aside from that you've anti-far right sentiment building in the midwest (Wisconsin, Ohio, etc) and multiple unpopular governers elswhere (florida, New Jersey come to mind)... How can anyone seriously believe a Tea Party candidate, even Ron Paul, has even the slightest chance of victory?
Ron Paul would handily beat Obama in an election. He is only a few points behind Obama in polls. A debate of Obama vs Paul would be a blood bath. People would come away hearing Obama say the same things he has always said but never actually accomplished. Lets see how it would go:

Question; What will you do about the war in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/and every other asshole of the world that America has invaded.

Obama "I will really end the war this term. The first term I had to broaden the war by sending more troops while promising to end it, and then start a new war over uh,... democracy, yea thats it, democracy, in Libya"

Ron Paul would outright say "The war is over, we will begin an immediate withdrawl. Fuck Libya, Fuck Iraq, Fuck Afghanistan, Fuck Abuda duba in the middle of the desert that matters 0 to the US. Closing our hundreds of bases, and still securing America's borders while immediately reducing the budget by a substantial percentage. Our military is very important, and we need to be powerful. We do not need to be in every country at all times, however. Fully a quarter of our deficit could of been adverted if in the 2000's alone every President had not started wars with countries across the sea that do not affect America."

How will you fix the economy?

Obama: "I will continue spending trillions a year on things that I can't prove help, while I keep massive tax breaks for companies like GM. I will continue using federal money to prop up the economy so the next collapse will be even harder. I will continue my attempt to tax the rich more while not considering making the poor (you know, everyone who has under 60k a year with kids) pay any taxes while they use the most government benefits. I will basically do the same thing I have been doing and if it fails, I will blame the Republicans"

Ron Paul "I will stabilize the economy by stopping the free fall of our dollar. I will work to end the FED. I will work to reduce needless regulations and bureaucratic red tape so that our country can be competitive in manufacturing again. Lowering the cost of doing business will bring manufacturing back to our country, and keep that money in our own country. We need to understand as a people that printing money cannot create jobs in the long term. We spent almost 4 trillion dollars trying to get ourselves out of the recession. We lost 7 million jobs during this time, that money accomplished nothing. To put that into perspective 4 trillion dollars could of created 8 million jobs for 10 years making 50,000 a year. instead, we got nothing. Why? Printing money does not create jobs. Our economy would already have righted itself without government interference."
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Big NEWS: Dr Ron Paul has Introduced bill to cancel 1.6T in debt owed to fed.

[video=youtube;PdD8zndfWSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdD8zndfWSM[/video]
You aren't allowed to point out that a bunch of the debt we owe is bullshit to begin with. It is amusing that no one there really has a clue what will happen. Why? Probably because we aren't sure what would happen if we take imaginary numbers off the balance sheet. Probably nothing - that is why it seems so complicated. How could 1.6 trillion dollars go poof and it not mean anything to anyone?
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The funny thing is, you never hear the liberal mindset pooh pooh the Feds creation of $16 trillion dollars over the last 3 years. The majority of which went to overseas interests.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
The funny thing is, you never hear the liberal mindset pooh pooh the Feds creation of $16 trillion dollars over the last 3 years. The majority of which went to overseas interests.
I don't think they even understand what the Fed does, they probably think it is Fort Knox.
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
You ever think there might be no bubbles to pop if there were no propping up of financial systems? Would there of been a housing bubble if the government had not encouraged lenders to loan money to people who couldn't pay it so they could be home owners? Wouldn't that of adverted the entire financial system meltdown?
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
You ever think there might be no bubbles to pop if there were no propping up of financial systems? Would there of been a housing bubble if the government had not encouraged lenders to loan money to people who couldn't pay it so they could be home owners? Wouldn't that of adverted the entire financial system meltdown?
you are correct. That is why you treat the cause not the symptoms.
 
Top