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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Why should your view get to trample all over the religious who see it as a sin?


No one is "trampling all over the religious". That's a talking point and meaningless. Each of us can have our own beliefs. Being religious doesn't mean you get to dictate that people behave according to your morals.

And besides, if the religious don't like our secular government, they can relocate to a country where abortion is illegal. Let them move to Afghanistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, Iran or some other place where people's individual rights don't matter.



What about just the people who see it morally wrong to kill a baby, their opinions dont matter?


They shouldn't have an abortion! Their opinions don't really matter to me. They can have whatever opinion they want, just don't force it down my throat.



RP=Middle ground on this issue.


Yeah, he's "middle ground" like you are.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   


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)


Nothing is a given because we are dealing with hypotheticals, you assume because 20 states lean a certain religious way, that their constituents will vote a certain way. We have more control over our elected state officials than our federal ones, and they can much more easily be swayed by the peoples wants.

Unfortunately we live in a society where 'majority rules', at least we are dealing with smaller majorities on a state level, therefore possibly able to change laws easier. I cant help how 20 states have stated their opinions, thats the decision they have to deal with, but you can be assured there will be states that allow it. Look at Cali and the marijuana industry. Something as taboo as pot is starting to rise as the STATES decided it, but even now we have an authoritarian federal government that goes against the will of the people and is prosecuting over it against the peoples wills.

I never said Paul was perfect, quote me on that one, but he does offer the most sensible solution. Right now we are either trampling on one half or the other at a federal level with this issues, when it can easily be one state at a time we address it.

Also remind me how this issue is more important then the IRS stealing from us, the Federal Government spending our money as if it is theirs, the Fed Reserve devaluing our hard earned money, no jobs, a sour economy, losing freedoms and liberties left and right, losing 'free-speech', waging unconstitutional wars, endangering the lives of our troops, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, taking care of our vets, etc? I am not saying the abortion issue isnt important, but how is it above those on the list I just mentioned? The times will catch up to abortion eventually, but I dont know how bright of an America it will be if we dont fix these other problems first



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Okay, I'm in a better mood today, so I'll take the time to give examples of Ron Paul's contradictory statements on the abortion issue.

Here we have the good Dr. saying he is against the nationalization of the abortion issue:

"I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that."

and another just to show validity where he says a nationwide ban would be invalid:

"While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."

Here we have him changing his tune, when speaking to the personhood forum, and saying he supports a nationwide ban on abortion, via the constitution or the supreme court, but wants to make it a states rights issue in the meantime:

"I have a bill called the We The People Act which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts..... Some of the pro life people say that's not a good idea because we want an absolute prohibition at the federal level, which is you know a goal, uh, but you have to change the supreme court or you have to change the constitution, and I'm not against that. I support those desires, but in the meantime I don't understand why we don't push this. As president I would push this. I would ask the congress to pass this law which says deny it to the supreme court and deny it to the federal courts the jurisdiction over abortion."

So there you have it very clearly. Ron Paul is against the supreme courts decision to legalize abortion, but supports the desires of those who wish to ban abortion via the supreme court. He is just making it a states rights decision until they can get a supreme court in favor of a nationwide ban or get the constitution ammended, or he's just blowing smoke to get some votes. You decide.

I just strted a new thread on this issue specifically so I stop derailing this one www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: add



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
Why should your view get to trample all over the religious who see it as a sin?


No one is "trampling all over the religious". That's a talking point and meaningless. Each of us can have our own beliefs. Being religious doesn't mean you get to dictate that people behave according to your morals.

And besides, if the religious don't like our secular government, they can relocate to a country where abortion is illegal. Let them move to Afghanistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, Iran or some other place where people's individual rights don't matter.



What about just the people who see it morally wrong to kill a baby, their opinions dont matter?


They shouldn't have an abortion! Their opinions don't really matter to me. They can have whatever opinion they want, just don't force it down my throat.



RP=Middle ground on this issue.


Yeah, he's "middle ground" like you are.




Heres my middle ground so you have straight from the horses mouth how I personally feel about the issue:

I am the biggest hypocrite when it comes to the abortion issue, ill admit that. I morally think it is wrong, but I wouldnt hesitate for my girlfriend to have one right now as I know we know we arent ready yet to care for a child how we believe a child should be cared for. We are not financially capable of raising a child in this world to where it would be awarded the best chance at the best opportunities, nor do we believe we are mentally capable of taking on that responsibility, yet. We are both 25 and use reasonable caution when having sex to ensure we dont need to resort to such a thing as abortion, but we both realize mistakes happen and have discussed our course of action in such a scenario as that. So yes I ride that fence hard, and know full well I am a hypocrite when it comes to abortion.

I believe that Ron Paul best represents how this situation should be handled, ive given his reasons for introducing that bill, ive tried to explain how I feel his stance is, and how it would effect my life. I have decided that the people should have greater control over this choice then on a federal sweeping level, either for or against abortion. I have seen a solution that works for the people better then just a yes or no, and I will now add this to the other reasons for why I will be voting Paul in my primary and the national election should he make it that far. As for abortion being my priority to vote for or against him, well im not a woman,so in all honesty its not as important to me as you, i get that, and i believe we have more pressing issues to address at the moment.

like i said previously, vote for who you want, and for why you want them, i really dont care, honestly. I feel like ive prepared myself for most any situation that can be thrown at me and im just enjoying the ride at this point. From anarchy, to some large world/national catastrophe, to having an actual functioning for the people government, im pretty well rounded and have thought out most of these situations, and prepared accordingly on a mental level, and some things on a physical, tangible, level.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
by phishfriar47[/url]
 


Unless it is mandated that everyone MUST have an abortion, then freedom of choice does not"trample" anyones rights. That idea is downright silly. Your rights are not violated because someone else has an abortion. Your right are not violated it you choose not to have one.

The only way this turns into a violation of rights is if people like rp get there way, and take away the right to choose.

I have to say, I find it pretty funny thatsome people try to paint individual choice as infringing on our freedoms.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
by phishfriar47[/url]
 


Unless it is mandated that everyone MUST have an abortion, then freedom of choice does not"trample" anyones rights. That idea is downright silly. Your rights are not violated because someone else has an abortion. Your right are not violated it you choose not to have one.

The only way this turns into a violation of rights is if people like rp get there way, and take away the right to choose.

I have to say, I find it pretty funny thatsome people try to paint individual choice as infringing on our freedoms.


I get that, I really honestly do. But why should the half of the nation who believes that it is morally wrong, even a sin in some eyes be forced to live in a nation where their beliefs are suddenly invalid? And how does allowing it in certain states and not in others trample your right to obtain one? you could just as easily drive a state or 2 over to have an abortion as a solution.

Let me also ask you this and maybe this will make it a little clearer for you. Why should you get to have your abortion, but I cant smoke my pot? They are essentially the same idea. Its my body, its my health, but its the government who is punishing us for not following their rules. Where as RP says, hey if your state wants it, great, if not, well thats awesome too. I like that option better then a simple yes or no, it caters to everyone.

Please remind me again how it is trampling your right to have an abortion if there are multiple states in the union willing to perform them? Why should I have to leave the country if i dont agree, versus you driving a state over to obtain your abortion. which is more sensible?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishfriar47
But why should the half of the nation who believes that it is morally wrong, even a sin in some eyes be forced to live in a nation where their beliefs are suddenly invalid?


1. NO ONE is forced to live here...

2. NO ONE is invalidating their beliefs, whatever that means.

3. This is a FREE country! Do you even know what that means? We are FREE to have our beliefs. Just because I don't share your beliefs - that doesn't "invalidate" them OR give me the right to make you live your life according to MY beliefs.

This is what's wring with this country today (among many things).... People don't have enough to do, so they busy themselves investigating and controlling what others are doing.

Religions are using this tack to control the population. Like me using birth control somehow steps on their religious freedom or invalidates the bible or their beliefs... What? So, what I do with my body somehow denies their right to religion? That's insane! Are you listening to yourself? You admit your position is hypocritical, and I've got to agree. Your position is freedom for some. As long as you are aware of that and are comfortable being a hypocrite, I guess that's for you to live with.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by phishfriar47
But why should the half of the nation who believes that it is morally wrong, even a sin in some eyes be forced to live in a nation where their beliefs are suddenly invalid?


1. NO ONE is forced to live here...

2. NO ONE is invalidating their beliefs, whatever that means.

3. This is a FREE country! Do you even know what that means? We are FREE to have our beliefs. Just because I don't share your beliefs - that doesn't "invalidate" them OR give me the right to make you live your life according to MY beliefs.

This is what's wring with this country today (among many things).... People don't have enough to do, so they busy themselves investigating and controlling what others are doing.

Religions are using this tack to control the population. Like me using birth control somehow steps on their religious freedom or invalidates the bible or their beliefs... What? So, what I do with my body somehow denies their right to religion? That's insane! Are you listening to yourself? You admit your position is hypocritical, and I've got to agree. Your position is freedom for some. As long as you are aware of that and are comfortable being a hypocrite, I guess that's for you to live with.


Youre right, im wrong. see ya on another thread

But i will add this, its steps on their rights and beliefs if according to their religion it is wrong and a sin, but they have to pay for something they dont agree with. and please tell me the religious wouldnt have to pay via taxes so the poor can get their abortions. you want everyone to have the right to choose, but we dont get the right to choose not to pay taxes to fund these silly choices you make. so yes it does step on the other half. whether you like to think so or not
edit on 2-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)


Im essentially saying that if you support abortion, go live in the state that would allow it and come up with your own funding source for it. Much better to have the state take out taxes from only the people who support it, versus all of us paying to support abortions when we dont all agree with it, thus forcing your beliefs on the ones who dont agree with abortion.

Like i said im done with this topic, i know where i stand, i know who represents the best choice for all, and i like you apparently cant be swayed from my opinion, so I will vote and act accordingly. Good luck to you and your candidate and i truly hope whomever it is solves this problem for you while also fixing this country of its higher priority needs.
edit on 2-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


So, it sounds like you agree with the idea of religion making our laws. So, do you agree that the following should be up for making illegal?

Religious Sins (and these are just Christian sins... Imagine if we let Muslims and Mormons make our laws, too!):

Adultery
Lust
Pride
Astrology
Judgment
NOT spanking a child (You want the law to force your child to be spanked?)
Not going to church (should church attendance be mandatory because religious people believe it's a sin if you don't?)
Women wearing bikinis (I bet this one would break a lot of hearts)
Women wearing gold and jewelry
Complaining
Using God's name in vain... (Should cursing be illegal because Christians think it's a sin?)
Seeking Council that is not of God
Divorce
Drinking!
Sex outside marriage (would you support states making this a law?)
And finally, sex with a virgin... (there goes our population...)

Sin List

You know, there are many countries where the religion DOES make the laws.
Freedom is gone, but religious people get to dictate everyone's behavior. Is this really what you want for the USA?

edit on 5/2/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


So, it sounds like you agree with the idea of religion making our laws. So, do you agree that the following should be up for making illegal?

Religious Sins (and these are just Christian sins... Imagine if we let Muslims and Mormons make our laws, too!):

Adultery
Lust
Pride
Astrology
Judgment
NOT spanking a child (You want the law to force your child to be spanked?)
Not going to church (should church attendance be mandatory because religious people believe it's a sin if you don't?)
Women wearing bikinis (I bet this one would break a lot of hearts)
Women wearing gold and jewelry
Complaining
Using God's name in vain... (Should cursing be illegal because Christians think it's a sin?)
Seeking Council that is not of God
Divorce
Drinking!
Sex outside marriage (would you support states making this a law?)
And finally, sex with a virgin... (there goes our population...)

Sin List

You know, there are many countries where the religion DOES make the laws.
Freedom is gone, but religious people get to dictate everyone's behavior. Is this really what you want for the USA?

edit on 5/2/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


Im not even going to read past religion dictating our laws. I do not agree with that nor have i ever said that. Only that i respect the religious peoples opinions. They may be as wrong as sin, but they believe they are right, and I cant change that, so I respect it. I abhor religion and like to live my life spiritually. So continue on whatever rant you had, I didnt even read it. Base your assumptions on facts, not what you think i subscribe to. If theres any doubt, just ask me, I will tell you. Simple. And again please point out where i said it was acceptable for religion to dictate laws, i didnt, I hate religion. I just simply said theres a way for all of us to be happy with different states having different laws.

Again explain to me how having legal abortions in say 5 states, tramples your right to an abortion? You can drive, plane, bus, or train to get there to have it done. Not really my concern how you get there, just that you have the option available to you. Pauls solution definitely helps the majority, except say the extremists like you who believe it HAS to be legal, no matter what others opinions are. Or the absolute far right who scream we cant have any type of abortion for any reason, most people are willing to compromise and if we cant set a time frame for when the fetus actually becomes a person, the least we can do is cater to all and offer a solution that says you can have it if you want, if you dont want it, go somewhere that thinks like you do, without it being a whole nother country.

I wonder if you would want one of your loved ones moving to afghanistan since they dont agree with you on abortion? maybe it makes more sense for them to move to iowa where it is illegal and they dont have to deal with it.

Also, if the people choose to not allow abortions and they are happy, what concern is that of yours? They CHOSE it that way, and you are screaming you support ultimate freedom of choice. I cant help if they chose their prison, thats their fault, not mine, and that shouldnt concern you either.

We are not as far off on the abortion stance as you might think. Im all for it being up to the individual, but in a way that respects the others of this nation. We are all vastly different, and there is no cut and dry solution to anything with the unique populace we have.

Also, isnt this a classic example of a straw man argument? I didnt even mention religion as making laws, yet you built a whole argument as if thats what I suggested. and this is a serious question as I cant recall anyone ever doing something like that to me on ATS

Simply answer this: how having abortion legal or illegal in some states tramples your right to obtain that abortion. You are free to travel as you please, and also answer what you would do if the majority of the country flipped its stance again on abortion and made it illegal. Where would you go? How would you abort?

See Pauls stance would make it even harder to outlaw abortions as you would have too many states doing too many different things and it would be impossible to have a sweeping federal law banning it or allowing it.
edit on 2-5-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wearewatchingyouman
 


I've seen him pander on this issue too, although I do not think it is pandering necessarily. He is trying to work in his belief that nobody should take a life, with the constitution, and still trying to balance the individual liberty side of it. Should it be okay to force a person to have a child they do not want, nor might be able to support? I think he isn't so much pandering as he is attempting to balance these conflicting ideals. While explaining his views I see him recognize the inconsistency in these views. I suppose it would be easier just to stay Pro-life or Pro-Choice; however, this issue isn't really a this way or that way type of issue. Its more complex then that. And what you see is a person attempting to balance those two ideals where everyone might be happy with the solution. Respect for life, and respect for choice where there are circumstances making that choice justified.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by wearewatchingyouman
 


I've seen him pander on this issue too, although I do not think it is pandering necessarily. He is trying to work in his belief that nobody should take a life, with the constitution, and still trying to balance the individual liberty side of it. Should it be okay to force a person to have a child they do not want, nor might be able to support? I think he isn't so much pandering as he is attempting to balance these conflicting ideals. While explaining his views I see him recognize the inconsistency in these views. I suppose it would be easier just to stay Pro-life or Pro-Choice; however, this issue isn't really a this way or that way type of issue. Its more complex then that. And what you see is a person attempting to balance those two ideals where everyone might be happy with the solution. Respect for life, and respect for choice where there are circumstances making that choice justified.


Wow, how have i written like 16 page long posts trying to explain this, and you did it in a single paragraph in the same thread. Good explanation, and I feel like it echoes the sentiment i was trying to get across. There is no concrete way to handle this situation that will please everybody, but you can please most by granting the states the authority to handle this matter and by extension the people.

I dont know what the big deal about driving a state or 2 over is about if it even came to that, you might be surprised and the actual majority of every state may be for abortions, hence legalizing it in all states. People drive that distance for far less important issues than whether or not they can handle a baby in their life. Ive seen people drive across state lines for alot of things, drugs, vacations, fire works, a whim to travel, just to do it, different items they want to obtain such as regional or local foods, the beach, the mountains, etc. So its not like it would be all that difficult, hell people hitch hike cross country all the time, so getting to the state that would allow it isnt as difficult as some would make you believe. They would just rather have their opinion forced on you then allowing you a choice, whether it be for or against.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join