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.

 

Are there Ex-Ron Paul Supporters out there???

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


I mentioned it because I was replying to doalrite who claimed there was no such thing as an ex supporter and if so they were very, very rare.

I was simply making the point that I know a bunch, and here are their reasons.


Saying I've never met one and that I don't THINK that they exist.... is not me CLAIMING THEY DON"T EXIST.... you laugh at us for our reading comprehension...


Example...

I've never seen a chicken hatch from an egg, I don't think thats how it works

I've never seen a chicken hatch from an egg, Thats not how it works....

Do you get it GUMP




posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doalrite

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Doalrite
 




Again, your attempts to paint me as closed-minded are getting sad. Abortion is a main reason I won't vote for rp. It isn't the only reason.

Furthermore, the idea that pro-choice is a minority is downright laughable.


when did I ever say Pro Choice was a minority... I myself am pro choice

What is sad is it doesn't matter to you who we RP supporters really are we are all just crazy cultist.


Still chosing to avoid the challenges, I see.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


Do you feel better?

I was running!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Funny, isn't it, how, when faced with direct quotes from RP himself, the previous, ardent posters just abandon the thread.

Not to worry though, there are a dozen new RP threads to lie in...



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


actually i'm just tired of talking to baiters.... you are masters at it... master baiters...

Talking to you is like talking to my ex wife.. completely pointless, your not here to try and open anyones eyes only call names and go on the defensive... Its like walking through the trailer park... guess I should've expected it.

If you are an ex ron paul supporter its cool your not now..



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doalrite
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


actually i'm just tired of talking to baiters.... you are masters at it... master baiters...

Talking to you is like talking to my ex wife.. completely pointless, your not here to try and open anyones eyes only call names and go on the defensive... Its like walking through the trailer park... guess I should've expected it.

If you are an ex ron paul supporter its cool your not now..


Can you post without ad homs, goofy namecalling and baseless accusations?

You started this thread, asking for people like me, ex paul supporters, to post in it. Now you cry because you don't like what we have to say.

So, this makes a half dozen times you've accused me of something, and ill simply respond, same as I have already: prove it. Quote for me where I am defensive, where I call names, where I bash rp, where I do ANY of these things you say I do. At worst, the only example is the use of the term cult.

a bit of advice: don't try and bait people into a thread, only to try and tell them they are wrong, if you can't hold your end of the conversation.

And again, please do learn the difference between your and you're. It amazes me how many rp followers can't grasp simple grammar.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.


How about read my next post for some more clarity. No this wasnt the best he could come up with, he wrote several sensible bills, but him being a practicing OB/GYN and seeing many births he felt this issue was important too, and it is/was being talked about on a federal level so thats where his course of action had to take him. He respects life.

I dont care if you support him or not, to be quite honest, thats your opinion and choice you have to make, but it should be pointed out where and how you are wrong, and show you that a compromise is in fact better for both sides, then a one way street that effects almost half the population either way. Id be much more content with 16, 25, 36 states allowing abortion, or vice versa, but at least you have an option, right now you have nothing, just a mandate either for or against depending on who is in power at the moment. And whats your problem with the PEOPLE having the power to choose if they want their state to allow it? What happens if his plan of states rights allows all 50 states to practice abortion, how stupid will you feel then? After all it would be up to people like you to make that choice for YOUR STATE. I guess your solution is to force everyone to accept that a woman has the right to choose (and by god i believe at some level they do have that right) even if it goes against half of everyone else. Your argument is as invalid as the oppositions because you are trying to force a blanket solution when everyone is exceptionally unique and victims of varying circumstances. This man is willing to reach across even when he clearly respects life to the point of vying for a bill, because he understands that we are inherently all different and have vastly diverse opinions on the matter, so the best thing to do is just let the people decide. You have your mind made up though, so like i said, go vote for the other flip-flopper (I mean Obama) cause apparently abortion is his top priority....right behind the economy, multiple wars and strategic strikes, killing Osama, campaigning, jobs, debt ceiling and budget issues, scratching his buddies backs, oh and how could i forget his recent pot crusades, yeah we are getting tons done on the abortion fore front, such a great reason to not vote for Ron Paul.....Ok I got it



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Ron Paul is a cult figure - his admirers suffer from a legitimate case of Messianic
obsession that is blinding in its ferocity.

Ron Pauls policies are the same as the old south and they will reduce America
to Third World nationhood - where a small handful of people control a large nation
of poor laborers.

Conservative politics are backwards, they sink all the canoes to keep several
battleships well stocked. George Bush was an idiot, so is Palin, Romney is an actually
Elite, a Gordon Gecko and you all are way too impressionable.

I like Obama, he is Moderate and a steady hand... America has limped back and
I give Obama credit for keeping cool despite all the adversity. While all of you believe
in false rumors and innuendo, this country is getting up again from a major blow.

Vote Obama, Leave third world policies to the third world



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.


So you dont care that he HAS to do it this way, because thats how we are set-up. If he had HIS way, your state would get to choose, if you like what your state says, well stay put, if not move on. Its kinda that important free-will thing, you know do as you please without hurting others. What about the other 50% in the nation that doesnt agree with abortion? How do you feel about them? I guess they should just have to 'deal with' your choice then huh? At least Ron Paul gives us options, in the same country, which i think is smart. As of now, if you dont like abortion you have to move to Canada or something, instead of possibly just one state over. Your stance is ridiculous simply because you are wanting to legislate to half the population that doesnt agree with you, and thats the problem.

You dont even see how beneficial it would be for states to compete for business, and yes abortion is a business, it makes money by killing babies. You have to pay for that service, so theoretically, you could have states trying to bring money into their state(A) by offering cheaper, or safer alternatives than state(B). But i guess you thought of all this too huh?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.


How about read my next post for some more clarity. No this wasnt the best he could come up with, he wrote several sensible bills, but him being a practicing OB/GYN and seeing many births he felt this issue was important too, and it is/was being talked about on a federal level so thats where his course of action had to take him. He respects life.

I dont care if you support him or not, to be quite honest, thats your opinion and choice you have to make, but it should be pointed out where and how you are wrong, and show you that a compromise is in fact better for both sides, then a one way street that effects almost half the population either way. Id be much more content with 16, 25, 36 states allowing abortion, or vice versa, but at least you have an option, right now you have nothing, just a mandate either for or against depending on who is in power at the moment. And whats your problem with the PEOPLE having the power to choose if they want their state to allow it? What happens if his plan of states rights allows all 50 states to practice abortion, how stupid will you feel then? After all it would be up to people like you to make that choice for YOUR STATE. I guess your solution is to force everyone to accept that a woman has the right to choose (and by god i believe at some level they do have that right) even if it goes against half of everyone else. Your argument is as invalid as the oppositions because you are trying to force a blanket solution when everyone is exceptionally unique and victims of varying circumstances. This man is willing to reach across even when he clearly respects life to the point of vying for a bill, because he understands that we are inherently all different and have vastly diverse opinions on the matter, so the best thing to do is just let the people decide. You have your mind made up though, so like i said, go vote for the other flip-flopper (I mean Obama) cause apparently abortion is his top priority....right behind the economy, multiple wars and strategic strikes, killing Osama, campaigning, jobs, debt ceiling and budget issues, scratching his buddies backs, oh and how could i forget his recent pot crusades, yeah we are getting tons done on the abortion fore front, such a great reason to not vote for Ron Paul.....Ok I got it


Abortion is not the states business, it is between a woman, her doctor and her maker.

How can you Conservatives expect "small government" when you empower it to this degree?
I suspect small government is really just a code word for, governance conservatives like or
prefer -

Ron Pauls economic policies have been tried in third world nations for centuries now.
No centralized standards and the country invariably see's infant mortality go WAY up
(pro life are you???) poverty go way up, standard of living drop, quasi slave like
conditions in places of employment become the new norm. The environment is the
first to eat it because it does not have a vote...

I think Ron Paul is a good guy, but I think he is daffy and out of touch



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.


So you dont care that he HAS to do it this way, because thats how we are set-up. If he had HIS way, your state would get to choose, if you like what your state says, well stay put, if not move on. Its kinda that important free-will thing, you know do as you please without hurting others. What about the other 50% in the nation that doesnt agree with abortion? How do you feel about them? I guess they should just have to 'deal with' your choice then huh? At least Ron Paul gives us options, in the same country, which i think is smart. As of now, if you dont like abortion you have to move to Canada or something, instead of possibly just one state over. Your stance is ridiculous simply because you are wanting to legislate to half the population that doesnt agree with you, and thats the problem.

You dont even see how beneficial it would be for states to compete for business, and yes abortion is a business, it makes money by killing babies. You have to pay for that service, so theoretically, you could have states trying to bring money into their state(A) by offering cheaper, or safer alternatives than state(B). But i guess you thought of all this too huh?


Of people don't believe in abortion, they won't get an abortion -

The hypocrisy is that Ron Paul's economic ideas are based upon free choice, "if you wanna smoke pot,
it's your choice", "If you wanna work for a slave laborer who owns all the jobs in town, it's your "choice" "

But in this one case the man abandons his principle -



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Ron Paul is a cult figure - his admirers suffer from a legitimate case of Messianic
obsession that is blinding in its ferocity.

Ron Pauls policies are the same as the old south and they will reduce America
to Third World nationhood - where a small handful of people control a large nation
of poor laborers.

Conservative politics are backwards, they sink all the canoes to keep several
battleships well stocked. George Bush was an idiot, so is Palin, Romney is an actually
Elite, a Gordon Gecko and you all are way too impressionable.

I like Obama, he is Moderate and a steady hand... America has limped back and
I give Obama credit for keeping cool despite all the adversity. While all of you believe
in false rumors and innuendo, this country is getting up again from a major blow.

Vote Obama, Leave third world policies to the third world


I was at least considering what you wrote until you got to the part of Obama fixing this country. Nope, sorry I dont see that one pal. I see Bush=Obama=Romney nothing more and nothing less. They are all cut directly from the same cloth. If Obama is sooooo great where in the hell is his INTEGRITY? Why is he breaking like every campaign promise. His platform of bringing the troops home, laughable, just yesterday he extended 20,000+ troops stay in Afghanistan until 2024 and they arent even sure if the amount of troops left is a correct number

worldnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Or how about him all of a sudden cracking down in California on marijuana when he campaigned that he wouldnt?

Or how about re-signing Bush's Patriot Act?

No he flips as much as Romney (isnt Obama-care essentially Romney-care anyway?, real big differences between these guys, huh?), and does the same thing as Bush, no difference, seriously.

At least Ron Paul is honest, yeah he may have cult-like followers, but its because people KNOW they can trust him, we only FELT we could trust Obama, we didnt have anything to go off of, RP has a proven record, and as evidenced by no one attacking his character because of it. Its well known he wont take lobbyist money, its well known he doesnt vote for tax increases, its well known for 30 years he hasnt wavered on his stances. Nope if anyone is delusional, its those who think Obama or Romney are going to be good for this country



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Id be much more content with 16, 25, 36 states allowing abortion, or vice versa, but at least you have an option, right now you have nothing, just a mandate either for or against depending on who is in power at the moment.


An option? You do realize that when abortion is legal, we ALL have the option, right? That's what free choice is.

Abortion isn't mandated... Where do you get the logic that making something illegal gives people an OPTION??? Make it illegal and no one has the option...

How twisted is the idea that making something illegal gives people choice? Making something illegal REMOVES the option.



And whats your problem with the PEOPLE having the power to choose if they want their state to allow it?


What happens in a woman's body is NOT for the State to "allow" or "disallow". It's none of the State's business. Do you hear yourself? Talking about choice, freedom and liberty, while all the while advocating restricting or even outlawing a woman's choice?

Man! I didn't realize he had you guys this brainwashed...



What happens if his plan of states rights allows all 50 states to practice abortion, how stupid will you feel then?


That's not going to happen. States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions



In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010.



I guess your solution is to force everyone to accept that a woman has the right to choose (and by god i believe at some level they do have that right) even if it goes against half of everyone else.


Yes. Absolutely! I actually don't care if people accept it or not. They can throw a fit and fight against it all they want, but I want the FEDERAL government protecting my rights and the rights of women all over the country.

If you believe in women's right to choose, how can you support this man who wants to restrict it? I wonder how you would feel if this were a man's right at stake... A man's right to make decisions about his own body... You think the great people of your state should vote to decide whether or not you should have a vasectomy or get circumcised? You know, vasectomies kill billions of potential lives...



Your argument is as invalid as the oppositions because you are trying to force a blanket solution...


Individual freedom is NOT a blanket solution, it's the only solution! Freedom for each individual to CHOOSE should be protected on a federal level.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

Originally posted by phishfriar47

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.


So you dont care that he HAS to do it this way, because thats how we are set-up. If he had HIS way, your state would get to choose, if you like what your state says, well stay put, if not move on. Its kinda that important free-will thing, you know do as you please without hurting others. What about the other 50% in the nation that doesnt agree with abortion? How do you feel about them? I guess they should just have to 'deal with' your choice then huh? At least Ron Paul gives us options, in the same country, which i think is smart. As of now, if you dont like abortion you have to move to Canada or something, instead of possibly just one state over. Your stance is ridiculous simply because you are wanting to legislate to half the population that doesnt agree with you, and thats the problem.

You dont even see how beneficial it would be for states to compete for business, and yes abortion is a business, it makes money by killing babies. You have to pay for that service, so theoretically, you could have states trying to bring money into their state(A) by offering cheaper, or safer alternatives than state(B). But i guess you thought of all this too huh?


Of people don't believe in abortion, they won't get an abortion -

The hypocrisy is that Ron Paul's economic ideas are based upon free choice, "if you wanna smoke pot,
it's your choice", "If you wanna work for a slave laborer who owns all the jobs in town, it's your "choice" "

But in this one case the man abandons his principle -



Where does he abandon that, when he says the states will end up with the choice? Thats the same as the other arguments you just mentioned, you can have that choice for your state. Thats what he wants, but we dont have a government set-up like that yet, actually we do, the feds just stole too much power and he wants to rescind it back to the states.

He has only advocated for protecting life in our current system, and that is because he was an OB/GYN and apparently being in that profession his whole life has led him to believe that every baby is precious and can be saved. Pair that with where the debate is sitting at right now on the federal level and BAM you have why he introduced a bill protecting life. Or should he have wrote a bill saying lets first go back to states rights, and then let those individual states decide about abortion? Because if thats what you are suggesting he have done, well thats exactly what hes doing right now. There is no easy solution to this, but he has the best answer so far. Make everyone happy, by letting them have the power to decide.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Ron Paul is a cult figure - his admirers suffer from a legitimate case of Messianic
obsession that is blinding in its ferocity.

Ron Pauls policies are the same as the old south and they will reduce America
to Third World nationhood - where a small handful of people control a large nation
of poor laborers.

Conservative politics are backwards, they sink all the canoes to keep several
battleships well stocked. George Bush was an idiot, so is Palin, Romney is an actually
Elite, a Gordon Gecko and you all are way too impressionable.

I like Obama, he is Moderate and a steady hand... America has limped back and
I give Obama credit for keeping cool despite all the adversity. While all of you believe
in false rumors and innuendo, this country is getting up again from a major blow.

Vote Obama, Leave third world policies to the third world


I was at least considering what you wrote until you got to the part of Obama fixing this country. Nope, sorry I dont see that one pal. I see Bush=Obama=Romney nothing more and nothing less. They are all cut directly from the same cloth. If Obama is sooooo great where in the hell is his INTEGRITY? Why is he breaking like every campaign promise. His platform of bringing the troops home, laughable, just yesterday he extended 20,000+ troops stay in Afghanistan until 2024 and they arent even sure if the amount of troops left is a correct number

worldnews.msnbc.msn.com...

Or how about him all of a sudden cracking down in California on marijuana when he campaigned that he wouldnt?

Or how about re-signing Bush's Patriot Act?

No he flips as much as Romney (isnt Obama-care essentially Romney-care anyway?, real big differences between these guys, huh?), and does the same thing as Bush, no difference, seriously.

At least Ron Paul is honest, yeah he may have cult-like followers, but its because people KNOW they can trust him, we only FELT we could trust Obama, we didnt have anything to go off of, RP has a proven record, and as evidenced by no one attacking his character because of it. Its well known he wont take lobbyist money, its well known he doesnt vote for tax increases, its well known for 30 years he hasnt wavered on his stances. Nope if anyone is delusional, its those who think Obama or Romney are going to be good for this country


I am supporting Obama because he is my favorite option, he may not be wildly different than
other presidents, but he is a know quantity and I prefer a steady hand; if we all agree not to
pull this whole facade down, I am weary of anymore boat rocking myself...

I am not question Ron Pauls integrity, I am questioning his judgement in believing that
removing basic protections for workers, consumers and the environment will produce
results other than the results the Third World reaps from similar policies. Essentially
you will be having Corporations gaining more power and privately control law and standards
of every facet of life through contracts and fine print. This control will be outside of the
reach of the public to effect change via voting, it is not very well thought out IMO.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

Originally posted by phishfriar47

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Because he respects life, and unfortunately for him, the abortion issue is already on a federal level, so thats the field he currently has to play on.


I don't really care WHY he's trying to make abortion illegal at the federal level (in an end run around the Constitution). I was responding to a post that claimed he doesn't. His reasoning doesn't matter to me. "He states Abortion is NOT a Federal Issue" was the claim... He can state that all he wants, but if it's not a federal issue, and he believes in freedom, why is he fighting to make it criminal on a federal level? You've been hoodwinked if you think this man believes in real freedom.



He cant realistically sit as a congressman and literally do nothing because he has to play ball federally or he will get voted out


So... you're saying he had nothing better to do? So he wrote the Sanctity Act to insure that he keeps his job? It's basically busy work? I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've heard yet... He's trying to restrict women's freedoms so he can win the election... Yep. Sounds like a Republican to me.


So you dont care that he HAS to do it this way, because thats how we are set-up. If he had HIS way, your state would get to choose, if you like what your state says, well stay put, if not move on. Its kinda that important free-will thing, you know do as you please without hurting others. What about the other 50% in the nation that doesnt agree with abortion? How do you feel about them? I guess they should just have to 'deal with' your choice then huh? At least Ron Paul gives us options, in the same country, which i think is smart. As of now, if you dont like abortion you have to move to Canada or something, instead of possibly just one state over. Your stance is ridiculous simply because you are wanting to legislate to half the population that doesnt agree with you, and thats the problem.

You dont even see how beneficial it would be for states to compete for business, and yes abortion is a business, it makes money by killing babies. You have to pay for that service, so theoretically, you could have states trying to bring money into their state(A) by offering cheaper, or safer alternatives than state(B). But i guess you thought of all this too huh?


Of people don't believe in abortion, they won't get an abortion -

The hypocrisy is that Ron Paul's economic ideas are based upon free choice, "if you wanna smoke pot,
it's your choice", "If you wanna work for a slave laborer who owns all the jobs in town, it's your "choice" "

But in this one case the man abandons his principle -



Where does he abandon that, when he says the states will end up with the choice? Thats the same as the other arguments you just mentioned, you can have that choice for your state. Thats what he wants, but we dont have a government set-up like that yet, actually we do, the feds just stole too much power and he wants to rescind it back to the states.

He has only advocated for protecting life in our current system, and that is because he was an OB/GYN and apparently being in that profession his whole life has led him to believe that every baby is precious and can be saved. Pair that with where the debate is sitting at right now on the federal level and BAM you have why he introduced a bill protecting life. Or should he have wrote a bill saying lets first go back to states rights, and then let those individual states decide about abortion? Because if thats what you are suggesting he have done, well thats exactly what hes doing right now. There is no easy solution to this, but he has the best answer so far. Make everyone happy, by letting them have the power to decide.


So, you are suggesting letting the states trample upon the option available to individuals
who might not hold the same views. This would mean that anyone in the state will have to
adhere to the views of others. Since we all know the political/religious leanings of 20 states
it is a given... Therefore all the INDIVIDUALS who are supposed to be the focus of our
Constitution are dictated to by a majority rule, but isn't that majority rule contrary to the
ideas of a constitutional Republic by Ron Paul's own rhetoric?
edit on 2-5-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

edit on 2-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: dp



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Id be much more content with 16, 25, 36 states allowing abortion, or vice versa, but at least you have an option, right now you have nothing, just a mandate either for or against depending on who is in power at the moment.


An option? You do realize that when abortion is legal, we ALL have the option, right? That's what free choice is.

Abortion isn't mandated... Where do you get the logic that making something illegal gives people an OPTION??? Make it illegal and no one has the option...


What happens in a woman's body is NOT for the State to "allow" or "disallow". It's none of the State's business. Do you hear yourself? Talking about choice, freedom and liberty, while all the while advocating restricting or even outlawing a woman's choice?


I guess your solution is to force everyone to accept that a woman has the right to choose (and by god i believe at some level they do have that right) even if it goes against half of everyone else.


Yes. Absolutely! I actually don't care if people accept it or not. They can throw a fit and fight against it all they want, but I want the FEDERAL government protecting my rights and the rights of women all over the country.

If you believe in women's right to choose, how can you support this man who wants to restrict it? I wonder how you would feel if this were a man's right at stake... A man's right to make decisions about his own body... You think the great people of your state should vote to decide whether or not you should have a vasectomy or get circumcised? You know, vasectomies kill billions of potential lives... ........


I am not saying abortion should be illegal, I am saying RP has the best solution available. Why should your view get to trample all over the religious who see it as a sin? Their opinions are important too, even if i disagree with them. What about just the people who see it morally wrong to kill a baby, their opinions dont matter? What about the little female babies options and choices? You are advocating for a womans right to choose, but what about that babies right to choose life or death? Oh its a baby, so its not important enough to make that decision, but assuming they had a choice, which do you think they would choose? And actually we have a built in choice as a fetus. It aborts itself if there are genetic issues or too unhealthy, or it goes on to live if its healthy and by it growing, theres obviously something somewhere making it decide to continue to accept nutrients and grow or not.

I offered a sensible solution as well. What about abortions ok for medical reasons, rape, incest etc, and maybe 1 per person if they decide they cant handle a child. I vehemently disagree with multiple abortions as a form of birth control. I think its alright for a young couple to decide they are in over their heads and abort because they know the quality of that babies life wont be great, but if they do it again in 3 months, they didnt learn anything and shouldnt be allowed an abortion, at least not a legally sanctioned one.

You see I ride the fence on this issue, and so I see RPs solution as the best option for now. You want to please your half, while ignoring the will of the other half, where as Ron Paul says have your cake and eat it too. I dont care if half the population wants to be controlled and not permitted to have an abortion, thats THEIR CHOICE, and some 100,000,000 million people or so sing to that tune, just as much as the other 100 Mil or so say abort abort abort. Thats their choice, but no law should infringe on any body. and you making it legal infringes on the people who have morally decided abortion is wrong, so yes your solution is a blanket solution. I cant help you are for abortion while some are not, what I can do is advocate for some middle ground. RP=Middle ground on this issue.

Even if it is illegal you still have a choice. You can go to a country where it is accepted (like mexico, canada, ireland, wherever they are cool with it), you can self abort, you can black-market abort. Just because YOU dont like the choice, doesnt mean there isnt one so dont try that either. Thats what I am getting at, there are too many opinions for it to be either this way or that way. So Ron Paul says lets have both, or at least to the will of the people.

If it was set-up like Paul wanted and NC didnt allow a Vasectomy but SC did, i would go to SC instead of Mexico, or snipping my own. See what I did there?

At any rate, Pauls solution at least gives us a better choice than we have now. If its legal, youre hurting half the population and have no regard for their opinion, if its illegal, well you have effed up back alley abortions and exorbitant costs leaving the country for one. Paul says "lets please both sides" even against his own self proclaimed advocacy for the babies



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47
So you dont care that he HAS to do it this way, because thats how we are set-up.


He shouldn't be doing it at all! If he doesn't like abortion, he shouldn't have one. Instead, he's trying to force people to behave according to HIS morals.



If he had HIS way, your state would get to choose,


Since when is a states freedom more important than individual freedom?

Corporations are people and now states are people, too?



What about the other 50% in the nation that doesnt agree with abortion?


Then they shouldn't get one! This "freedom" that you want the states to have is code for "control". You want people who don't like abortion to be able to legislate morality to control the behavior of the rest of the people...


I guess they should just have to 'deal with' your choice then huh?


They don't have to "deal with" my choice! It's none of their business. Only I have to deal with my choice.


As of now, if you dont like abortion you have to move to Canada or something,


Or you can mind your own business. Accept that people have the freedom to make choices about their own lives and live your OWN life...


Your stance is ridiculous simply because you are wanting to legislate to half the population that doesnt agree with you, and thats the problem.


Legislate what? How does legal abortion "legislate" to half the population? That makes NO sense! What must these people do to obey this legislation you speak of?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join