It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The issues that concern me are:
His position on Abortion
I know abortion is a 'hot button' topic in any election, but it's not abortion per se that I am concerned about. It's privacy and freedom. I will never be in a position to decide on an abortion, so it's not relevant to me, but I am concerned for other women and young girls... Ron Paul has tried to get his "Sanctity of Life Act" passed every recent session, which would give the unborn the legal status of "person", which means it has rights and protections.
" We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval." ~Ron Paul
Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases...
...effectively overturning Roe V Wade, which his website proudly states...
Originally posted by openminded2011
I am for workers protections on the FEDERAL level TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON GOOD as not to be circumvented by just moving to the state most friendly to the labor or environmental abuse a corporation wants to perpetrate.
TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, THE POOR AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THE RICH. Thats my position and I am sorry to say its at odds with yours.
that is one of the points where Mr Paul and i disagree. i am not a blind follower of his, i just realize that finding a candidate that reflects my personal voice is impossible. so you and i agree on at least one point.
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
The EPA would be much more effective and powerful if there was a group for each state...instead of a massive overreaching federal agency...and this is from a biologist.
Also under common law it's illegal to dump ANYTHING into anothers' land, water, or air. It would seem that enforcing common law would go a long way towards fixing the mess this country is.
Minimum wage also should be varied across this great nation, living in NYC is alot different than the backwoods of TN...see the recent story of SF raising the City's Minimum wage to over $10.edit on 1-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)
Hows is it at odds with mine? The idea of delegation of responsibilities puts more power into the common man's hand.
Originally posted by openminded2011
So, because I disagree on 3 of his positions, and that is enough to remove my willingness to vote for him, why is that a such a problem for you?
Originally posted by openminded2011
We need laws that apply equally everywhere to be able to protect the weak from those who would abuse them.
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Originally posted by openminded2011
We need laws that apply equally everywhere to be able to protect the weak from those who would abuse them.
They are meant to, problems is the rules CURRENTLY do not apply if you've got the money...money means fed in the pocket. See my post about fighting corruption above.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
That is not what Paul wants though so what good does that argument do?
Right here in NYS that is working out wonderfully. The energy companies are only polluting their own private water so it is all legal. How is Ron Paul going to stop the water cycle from happening I wonder because ALL OUR water is getting polluted by them polluting their own private land.
GET IT??????
I guess biologists know very little about simple things like the water cycle? They teach it in 5th grade.
Hey, that company has private land with a river on it, Paul says they can pollute the river as long as it is on their land. It is not like it will go anywhere.
Hey, Kodak, want to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air?
Min wage IS VARIED across this nation. It varies from state to state. Geesh Ron Paul voters are starting to scare me.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Thanks to the free market, it seems I cannot afford the same calliber lawyer that Exxon can and thus cannot prove fracking polluted my water. That is what Paul wants more of. Are you suggesting he is going to prevent Exxon from using their private wealth to protect themselves in court against say lil ol me? Or is Paul going to fund my legal team for me?
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
That is not what Paul wants though so what good does that argument do?
Actually he does want to place the power back into state hands, and also enforce common law.
Careful with the ad-hominems... I have been respectful to all here.
They do not own the river, so no they could not legally dump in it.
Not under common law, see my above post.
I am aware of this I pointed it out in an ealier post... answer this what good does the Federal Government assigning that value do?
Do they know your city or state?
Then why have the Fed MW?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Originally posted by Human_Alien
He wants to legalize pot. That alone is reason to vote for him.
Really???
That is your biggest political issue you are concerned about.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
While I agree with Paul on the drug war issue, there's a lot more to life and our survival as a country than the legalization of a plant...
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Under a State operated agency it would be much easier to apply the legal consquences, even without a lawyer. Kind of like calling the police? You don't need money to do that.
And State governments do listen to thier citizens more(generally) than the FED.
Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Ron Paul wants each state to have their own EPA? I need a little link or something.
Identify the ad hominems. You are the one who made a point to use your educational background as some sort of prop of credibility just before diving into what seems to be one of the most ignorant things I ever read. Just noticing.
Of course you cannot legally dump in the river. That would be just silly. The good altruistic corporations are going to go to the added expense of ensuring runoff is a thing of the past out of the goodness of their hearts. Ask the people in the gulf how they like all that fertilzer that is NOT dumped in the river.
Is that really your argument? He is going to save us a buck fitty in paperwork?
Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
If you read my post, you will see that I have chosen not to vote for Obama.