It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Paul's "states rights" position would open the doors for all sorts of discriminatory legislation to take place in the states. We could see restaurants with "No Mexicans Allowed" signs posted out front - perfectly legally if the state legislature votes to do so. No, thanks.
His strong support for the Texas Law that forces doctors to give women an unnecessary medical procedure - and forces the women to review the results and hear the heartbeat and description of the fetus 24 hours before performing an abortion, is plenty of reason for me to be very concerned.
How can he use the 4th Amendment as justification for his opposition to the Patriot Act, but disregard the Constitution altogether when speaking to a woman's privacy in her very own PERSON?
Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
Yes, one is about weights and measures, but "We must follow the Biblical mandate"???
His personal beliefs on homosexuality and race speak to his views of equality! They are not irrelevant, as I have shown he is willing to violate the Constitution and make laws based on his personal, religious beliefs.
Originally posted by xstealth
So you want to re-elect him?
Take away our civil liberties
I'll never understand how someone can be so ignorant, not calling you ignorant personally, this is just a general statement about Obama supporters.
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I do not believe that states would be able to pass legislation that encroaches on an individuals rights granted by the constitution.
But are we willing to trample on property rights of every business owner in order to squash a handfull of racist shopkeepers?
They are only required to have a sonogram. I would not label that as an "unnecessary medical procedure". It is non-intrusive and does not effect their physical "self".
After the birth of my second son I wanted to get a vasectomy, but was not allowed to do so unless I sat down with a doctor and talked about the potential implications.
This is where it becomes difficult. It depends on whether or not you agree the child within is a woman is a person in and of itself.
IMO, this issue is better handled by local communities and states; allowing the people to have much more input rather than mandates handed down by the federal government.
I understand that. He is welcome to his beliefs. I was addressing the issue that he would use those beliefs to legislate. And he clearly will.
I was also addressing the issue of privacy. The fourth amendment protects the privacy of my person. He cannot crawl inside my body and legislate rights to the various cells living in there. Privacy means PRIVACY. What is in my body is a PRIVATE matter, between me and those with whom I choose to share it.
Anyone who truly believes in freedom and the Constitution understand this. The government's reach does NOT extend to inside a person's body. If something started growing in your body, do you want the government to decide what you do about it?
Exactly. He speaks of freedoms, but wants to make abortion murder (by the Sanctity act) and then tell the states to make laws accordingly. Hmmm... with 25 states enacting 92 abortion restrictions in 2011, how long will it take before abortion is illegal in all 50 states?
It's his personal opinion that abortion is an act of violence. He can have that opinion. But I'll be damned if I'm going to support him to use his opinion to determine that he has the right to legislate inside my body. His personal opinion be damned. If he thinks it's violence, then he shouldn't have an abortion.
And abortion is a private issue.
Originally posted by negativenihil
Originally posted by doom27
My opinion is, who cares if he's racist or not?
I care. Every American should care - the President represents us as a whole to the world. I don't want someone with racist and/or homophobic tendencies to represent me nor my country.
Originally posted by Praetorius
Forever sounds about right to me...since it was already legal to one degree or another in 20 states prior to Roe v. Wade.
It should follow that it doesn't matter if what's going on inside your PERSON is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your PERSON because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He discounts the 4th Amendment.
How do you explain this discrepancy?
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
She says "He knew all about those Newsletters"
Death blow charges for his campaign and even his hopes of forming a "Movement" as leader.
I doubt he will even make it to the Convention now, or even be allowed to speak there. He is proven to be a liar now, and used racism to make more money.
Tainted beyond repair.
His campaign now lays in a smoldering pile of ruin. Goodbye Ron Paul campaign, you were entertaining while it lasted.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TinfoilTP
Oh good lord TP, you really never DO get tired of hopping on the Paul threads just to stir things up, do you?
We understand, and are already well aware, that you don't like Paul...at least in your ATS persona...and that you bait Paul supporters much more aggressively than the newsletters ever did their readers. We gotcha, we're clear on that.
My clarifying that out of the way, as far as I can tell from the articles...and your post...this is ONE person who claims awareness of the situation disagreeing with multiple people on the matter previously interviewed during its previous incarnations.
Overblowing of the newsletter content aside - she's the odd duck out here. He is proven to be nothing you claim he is, just alleged (unless I misunderstand what we're dealing with here AS WELL AS founding american legal precepts regarding guilt), and despite where he may end up in polling or actual votes as that comes, his campaign is still, to my knowledge, on a much better footing (financially, as regards ballot access, etc.) than Gingrich or Santorum.
You're such an unpleasant sort of fellow... You know that already though, I take it...
edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)