Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Southern Guardian
Sorry. I was using the Southern Guardian Tactic™ of twisting ones words and making it look like the exact opposite of what one actually, factually
said.
This is your excuse? You accuse me of doing it to you before as an excuse
and you have nothing to show for it? Atleast you
admitted that
you misquoted me.
But the federal government does have the absolute last say on what a woman can do with her body.
Roe vs. Wade allows and permits women to have abortions.
Roe vs. Wade
restored the matter and decision of abortions to those of women, before governments decided to get involved in the early 19th
century in this country. If there are women who are pro-life, they can make those decisions accordingly when they find themselves in a situation of an
unexpected pregnancy, or assualt. Government (state and federal) wasn't involved from the start, and it should have stayed that way in the first
place.
The federal government had the temerity to think it gave that right to them,
Again, the federal government
restored the matter and issue of abortion to each and every individual woman, as it was at the beginning of this
nations founding. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, you have the decision to decide which path you which to move to, you take self
responsibility.
Not surprisingly, you're criticizing Roe vs wade, when before you insisted that your stance was always that states should not be given the power to
decide on the matter. Unless I'm wrong? You still think that states shouldn't be given power over the matter right? Should I go back to your
previous posts on this matter?
Going back to the OP, the abortion issue is but one example of why Paul fails to stand out from the others when it comes to election time, or when it
comes to scientific polls. He doesn't do himself any justice in seperating his candidacy by sticking to the same old issues as other republican
candidate. It shouldn't be surprising that he only got 12% despite all the hype about him on this thread, the only thing that really seperates him
from the rest is his stance on the wars and the patriot act. Those may be significant issues to Paulers (they are to me, but the are one of many
issues), but they are certainly not fundamental issues to voters at this point. These issues certain don't overrule the other policies that isolate
him from the deciding voters.
If Ron Paul well and truly intends on gaining support and crossing the line to gain votes, if he intends to stand out, he'd review his policies and
similarities to the grand old party. The wars, the patriot act, these are not defining issues that will gain him the edge on the other candidates. His
last two elections should be evident... in 88' he got 2% of the vote, in 08' he got 4% in the republican primaries.