Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Yes it does! Without laws prohibiting abortion, people will still use it as belated birth control. 95% of abortions have nothing to do with a risk to the health of the mother, rape, or incest. It's birth control after the fact -- purely a matter of convenience.pbwalker wrote:Pro-Choice ≠ Pro-AbortionCharles L. Cotton wrote:pro-abortion
Thing is, is that self defense and defense of the youngsters and oldsters in the family are similar enough that killing for hire by doctors (whether for aged or unborn) is merely age discrimination as an arbitrary criteria. All unborn and aged should get free guns or ALTERNATIVELY, have an appointee protect themCharles L. Cotton wrote:This thread is getting far off track and I'm unfortunately as much a part of the problem as anyone else. I should have stayed out of the abortion arena and I apologize. The fact is Ron Paul is a Libertarian not a Republican and his views would not be supported by even a miniscule percentage of Republicans, independents and conservatives of any flavor.
Chas.
My grandfather would have called this mindset "cutting off your nose to spite your face". I call voting for Romney "the lesser of two evils".lbuehler325 wrote:First of all, Ron Paul is Pro-Life. It is the main distinguisher from him and Gary Johnson (the very successful NV governor, former 2012 Republican primary candidate, and now the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate).
Rep. Paul has been consistent in his assertion that the exercise of one's liberty is not to be infringed, so long as it does not infringe on another's ability to exercise their liberty. Abortion, while it can be argued is a personal choice, is opposed by Dr. Paul, and he has stated such many times over, because it prevents the unborn child from his/her right to life (part of the whole, life, liberty, property premise John Locke introduced us all to).
As someone who's faithfully been a Republican since turning 18, and voting for Dole, GWB, GWB, and McCain (sometimes while holding my nose), and watching the Republican party spend us into debt nearly as quickly as the Dems, I am questioning how much better a Romney administration would be compared to a truly principled, small government, pro-liberty administration. The conclusion I have come to is: a Romney administration is one based on expanded government, expanded spending, corporate welfare, restricted firearms rights, socialized medicine, and higher taxes. To say anything but this is pure ignorance of the facts about what came about under Romney's Massachusetts administration. The funny thing is, it all sounds just like what a second Obama term would bring about; just not as fast. So is slower progression toward socialism good, simply because Romney has an R behind his name?
If this is what the Republican party stands for, I will find myself leaving the party. Call it punishment, call it "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" (and it's not, it's a vote for Paul, a principled vote, a vote for who I believe is the best hope for our Bill of Rights, a vote for the direction I want to see in my country and my party), call it whatever you want. If the Republican party decides to move down that road toward socialism, why should we support it? You may chose to do that, but I, for one, will not do so. We either need to get right or choose to go bankrupt, all the while losing our liberties. I've chosen to get right. If the Republicans nominate Romney, they don't deserve my ongoing support, as it will not represent my values.
And oh, by the way, Romney cannot defeat Obama (in my opinion), as he will not attract libertarian minded Republicans, independents, Libertarians, and pro-liberty democrats the way only Ron Paul can. And so many of these people will refuse to vote for Romney, that the general election will end up being a landslide on par with that of 1996.
And oh by the way again, bringing the vast majority of our troops stateside is bad how? We can maintain force levels and training, while having our soldiers spend their earnings in the domestic market, and maintaining force flexibility to actually defend the United States. Notice how, under an Obama administration, we are seeing a significant RIF, but military spending continues to grow; so where's that money going? A: it's going to defense contractors and defense firms, not our soldiers. Romney would bring more of the same.
Except for the fact the Romney is not the nominee, and you can choose to support the best candidate available for our Constitution in our lifetime. Right now there are two evils and one patriot. Choose the patriot.jmra wrote: I call voting for Romney "the lesser of two evils".
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one, Chas, in part. You forgot the "probably"s and the "maybe"s. IMHO, the GOP has strayed far enough from the stereotypical "small-government" image that Libertarians might be the way to go if "small government" is the most important issue to you. A non-trivial part of me wants to support Ron Paul for this very reason, but I can't fully get behind him in the primaries without knowing how he would dismantle some of the larger aspects of our government. The chaos that would result from just doing it would, IMHO, be worse than another two Obama terms (also, while I sympathize with the sentiments of Paul's foreign policy, I'm reasonably certain that he'd go too far with it). I will certainly grant you though, that since we don't have a ranked/preferential or rated voting system, that Ron Paul shouldn't be supported if he's not the GOP nominee.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The fact is Ron Paul is a Libertarian not a Republican and his views would not be supported by even a miniscule percentage of Republicans, independents and conservatives of any flavor.
Chas.
Or, more often, best suited for a union of soviet socialist republics. A plague on both their houses.Dave2 wrote:Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem capable of admitting that some of their ideas are best suited for the state or local governments.
tbrown wrote:Or, more often, best suited for a union of soviet socialist republics. A plague on both their houses.Dave2 wrote:Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem capable of admitting that some of their ideas are best suited for the state or local governments.
I agree with you on state's rights. Romney could have deflected a good portion of the Romneycare attacks by framing it as a state's rights issue. A lot of people still would be opposed to it, but atleast they could accept that it had some sort of constitutional basis. However it worries me quite a bit that I've never heard it brought up by the campaign, its as if they don't care about state's rights at all, the thought never crosses their minds.Dave2 wrote: Speaking of Romney... Part of my problem with the whole "party politics" thing is that, as far as I can tell, neither party is willing to even give lip service to the 10th amendment. For instance, I think Obamacare is a bad federal-level law (and not just because it's unconstitutional). But Romneycare (for which he has taken much flak from the rest of the GOP candidates) was done where such a law would belong — at the state level — if it were a good idea. By implementing it there its effects can be studied without jeopardizing the national GDP and job market. I still think it's a bad idea, but at least he didn't throw the nation's healthcare system into turmoil and push us all further into debt to find out if it'd work. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem capable of admitting that some of their ideas are best suited for the state or local governments.
speedsix wrote:...THIS election's not about casting your vote for the candidate of your choice...it's about casting your vote for America!!!
Vote against socialists no matter what letters they have after their name.
