pop 0 #1 November 7, 2007 Anyone else feel like he is a possible option? Republicans have an appetite for a pointless war and are driven by corporate interests rather than peoples’ interests, and democrats are a bunch of sand filled vaginas that can’t agree on anything and get something done. It would refreshing to get a Libertarian in office. There are a few issues like abortion that I don’t agree on with Ron Paul, but that’s such an irrelevant issue to how a president will run a country. I want something new in government aside the two party line system we have in place now. At this time Congressman Paul has my vote, unless I see someone else worth paying attention to.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #2 November 7, 2007 I hope he gets the nomination. He'd have my vote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #3 November 7, 2007 Quote It would refreshing to get someone who takes the Constitution seriously in office. There; Fixed it for you."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #4 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuote It would refreshing to get someone who takes the Constitution seriously in office. There; Fixed it for you. good fix...i agree7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #5 November 7, 2007 As I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #6 November 7, 2007 QuoteAs I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. If life does not begin at conception, then when does it?The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #7 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteAs I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. If life does not begin at conception, then when does it? For the most part, I think that life does begin at conception. But to put that into legislation, it seems that an embryo would then be given the same rights as a newborn baby, and I don't agree with that. I think that abortion would then legally be murder. And what about miscarriages? Would we need to do a criminal investigation every time a woman had a miscarriage? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I just don't think it's a good thing to define by law. And the fact that he wants to makes me question his judgment on the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #8 November 7, 2007 I like the guy.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #9 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteAs I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. If life does not begin at conception, then when does it? At least 3.5 billion years ago.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #10 November 7, 2007 Quote Quote Quote As I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. If life does not begin at conception, then when does it? At least 3.5 billion years ago. Are you speaking from first hand knowledge? If so you are really dating yourself. The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #11 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteAs I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. If life does not begin at conception, then when does it? For the most part, I think that life does begin at conception. But to put that into legislation, it seems that an embryo would then be given the same rights as a newborn baby, and I don't agree with that. I think that abortion would then legally be murder. And what about miscarriages? Would we need to do a criminal investigation every time a woman had a miscarriage? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I just don't think it's a good thing to define by law. And the fact that he wants to makes me question his judgment on the issue. OK, just to clear things up, here is what Ron Paul had to say about abortion: JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade. REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue. JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with abortion. REP. RON PAUL: That's right. JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that? REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it. . . . The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be. ---------------- Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #12 November 7, 2007 QuoteAs I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. I believe its okay to have an abortion, but whether abortion is legal or not it doesnt affect our taxes, roads, schools, international policy, drugs, environemnt etc..... It's definitely an issue, but no major one, in my opnion, compared to the issues such as security, health, environment...etc7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #13 November 7, 2007 Quote If life does not begin at conception, then when does it? It's very difficult to pin down, and I think reasonable minds can reach different conclusions. While some would say sperm and eggs represent "potential" life, others believe it's not a life till it can survive outside the womb on it's own. In between, there's a fertilized egg toward one end and and a recognizable independent heartbeat toward the other. All I can say in absolute terms is that I don't know when something exhibits "life" in a way that is more deserving of protection than the owner of the womb in which it resides. I can say almost as emphatically that neither does anyone else. I personally believe that it happens sometime right before viability of the fetus, and if it has any reasonable chance of surviving outside of the womb, it should probably be protected. Because this subject is an area of intersecting greys that different people will interpret differently, I don't think anybody should be allowed to force their personal conclusions on anyone else. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #14 November 7, 2007 QuoteOK, just to clear things up, here is what Ron Paul had to say about abortion: JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade. REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue. JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with abortion. REP. RON PAUL: That's right. JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that? REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it. . . . The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be. He also said this: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." (which is what I have a problem with) If, at a federal level, life is defined as beginning at conception, then abortion will be murder. So will the legality of murder be left up to the states? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #15 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteAs I mentioned in another thread, this one quote from his website is enough to make me unlikely to vote for him: "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094." I don't consider that to be an "irrelevant issue" to how he will run the country. I believe its okay to have an abortion, but whether abortion is legal or not it doesnt affect our taxes, roads, schools, international policy, drugs, environemnt etc..... It's definitely an issue, but no major one, in my opnion, compared to the issues such as security, health, environment...etc My problem is not so much with his position on whether abortion should be legal or not; it's his position on legally defining life as beginning at conception. That has greater implications than simply making abortion illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #16 November 7, 2007 QuoteSo will the legality of murder be left up to the states? No. From what he said, the legality of abortion will be left up to the states. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #17 November 7, 2007 Quote No. From what he said, the legality of abortion will be left up to the states. Then why does he want to pass legislation that defines life as beginning at conception? Would that not make abortion illegal at a federal level, since it would then be murder? Seems like a contradiction in his position to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 November 7, 2007 Well, life does begin in some form when a zygote is formed. But Ron Paul recognizes that the issue is more complicated than that: QuoteREP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it. . . . The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be. He's saying the FEDERAL government should stay out of it. Not protect abortion, nor ban abortion. Leave it up to the states. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #19 November 7, 2007 QuoteHe's saying the FEDERAL government should stay out of it. Not protect abortion, nor ban abortion. Right, and Shotgun realizes that, but she brings up a good point. If the federal government says life starts at conception, then the whole abortion discussion is right out the window. There is nothing left for the states to decide on. Hence, so far his action on this point contradicts what he says (I know not a great surprise for a politician, but if I have to believe some of the people here he is the second coming of christ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #20 November 7, 2007 QuoteWell, life does begin in some form when a zygote is formed. And you think the zygote should have the exact same rights as a newborn baby? (which seems to be what he is saying with HR 1094) QuoteHe's saying the FEDERAL government should stay out of it. Yes, he's saying that. And then he's contradicting himself within the text of HR 1094 (which does specify that abortion should be up to the states, but the rest of the text is opening up a big can of worms, in my opinion). Here is the text if you're interested: http://www.prolifealliance.com/H.R.1094%20Sanctity%20of%20Life%20Act.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #21 November 7, 2007 Isn't murder a state crime? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #22 November 7, 2007 QuoteIsn't murder a state crime? I don't know. Is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #23 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteIsn't murder a state crime? I don't know. Is it? I don't know either, I think so. What do you think? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #24 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIsn't murder a state crime? I don't know. Is it? I don't know either, I think so. What do you think? I think it's unimportant, and by mentioning it, I created a distraction from what my actual point was. I also think that I should get back to doing homework instead of goofing off on here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #25 November 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteWell, life does begin in some form when a zygote is formed. And you think the zygote should have the exact same rights as a newborn baby? (which seems to be what he is saying with HR 1094) QuoteHe's saying the FEDERAL government should stay out of it. Yes, he's saying that. And then he's contradicting himself within the text of HR 1094 (which does specify that abortion should be up to the states, but the rest of the text is opening up a big can of worms, in my opinion). Here is the text if you're interested: http://www.prolifealliance.com/H.R.1094%20Sanctity%20of%20Life%20Act.pdf OK, I read it. It seems to say that state governments are free to pass laws restricting or prohibiting abortion, and if they do so, the Federal Supreme Court may not override them, because the state laws are protecting human life. It DOES NOT give or imply a mandate for the Federal Government to ban abortion itself. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
