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.

 

Ron Paul, Just Another Politician?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Yesterday, in another thread, I stated that I have become less enthusiastic about Ron Paul since noticing him changing his tone and answers on certain issues depending on who is asking him. In other words pandering. I didn't really feel like scouring you tube and quote sites @ the time, so I was of course criticized and the such by the Paul die hards. 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 as an example of what I'm talking about.

Here we have the good Dr. saying he is against the nationalization of the abortion issue, which is the position most Dr. Paul supporters believe he holds:

"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 another source 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.



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




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
EDIT: Listening again... will update after further thought.

Post Edit: This comment is indeed curious... as he's been rock steady that his goal is to pass it back to states.

I think if I'm to understand what he's getting at here, is that he is wanting the minds of people to shift to view abortion as a violent act... and then treat it like Slavery and Murder on the federal level, which prohibits that and does not allow States to legalize slavery or murder.

Regardless of agreement or disagreement... that is the approach when taking in the full context of the speech... and it seems in line with what the government *would* have the power to do if society changed to view abortion as murder similar to society changing to view Slavery as inhumane and cruel and outlawing it.

The debate over which circumstances are justifiable (health, rape, etc) would continue to rage on... just like the debate on "justifiable self defense resulting in a homicide" continues to rage on (though not as impassioned).

The deal with Ron Paul is he doesn't speak at a middle school level like most politicians, and has a lot of nuance to his stances and approaches and require getting to know him similar to any person in your life where minor interactions give one impression, but getting to know them reveals a much more cohesive picture.

Namaste
edit on 2012/5/2 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
 


It's between 7 and 9 minutes to save people time who are looking for the quoted section.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
He's always wanted the states to have that power. What do you mean his tone has changed? I don't get it.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


I don't really know how to make it any clearer.

Maybe try reading the OP again.
edit on 2-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: ff



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Unfortunatly, he is just another career politician.

These are the people that NEED to be gone.

I sometimes can't believe how stupid we Americans are...



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
another thing your not taking into account. I have heard paul say this many times.
His personal beliefs are not always his public political beliefs. I have heard him say many times that personally he is against abortion. He would LIKE/PREFER to see it stopped. However, his political belief is that it should be up to the states to decide its legality as it is not a federal issue. If they wanted to take it a step further, it would require change in the Supreme court or an amendment in the constitution. If this is really your best example of Paul "Flip flopping" then i am done reading this thread as it lacks sustenance.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines
Unfortunatly, he is just another career politician.

These are the people that NEED to be gone.

I sometimes can't believe how stupid we Americans are...


A career politician that has 30 years of voting consistency FOR THE PEOPLE!! He's a career politician because he cares about our country and has been fighting for change the entire time.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
another thing your not taking into account. I have heard paul say this many times.
His personal beliefs are not always his public political beliefs. I have heard him say many times that personally he is against abortion. He would LIKE/PREFER to see it stopped. However, his political belief is that it should be up to the states to decide its legality as it is not a federal issue. If they wanted to take it a step further, it would require change in the Supreme court or an amendment in the constitution. If this is really your best example of Paul "Flip flopping" then i am done reading this thread as it lacks sustenance.


So your mad that he leaves his personal feelings out of the way and does whats right? WOW. He's not just another politician. It seems you want him to be "just another politician".



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
The one problem I have with Ron Paul is his view on social/religious issues with abortion being one of them. Another being that he doesn't believe in separation of church and state. Which really makes me wonder when push comes to shove would he choose to supports the rights of the people or religion.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
The one problem I have with Ron Paul is his view on social/religious issues with abortion being one of them. Another being that he doesn't believe in separation of church and state. Which really makes me wonder when push comes to shove would he choose to supports the rights of the people or religion.


Supports the rights of everyone. Your asking these types of questions like you don't listen to him in any debates or speeches...Or Do YOU?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
.

OMG ...What Part of the Word LIBERTY Do you not understand ?

This is the basic tenant of his beliefs .

Some of the statements in this thread make me doubt the sincerity of the posters .

Want abortion illegal ...No separation of church and state ..

Wow these statements are so far from the truth ...

I'd expect them from agent provocateurs ..

.

.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few."

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage."

"Similarly, the mythical separation of church and state doctrine has no historical or constitutional basis. Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment ... routinely referred to "Almighty God" in their writings, including the Declaration of Independence. It is only in the last 50 years that federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression."
edit on 2-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: add



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
another thing your not taking into account. I have heard paul say this many times.
His personal beliefs are not always his public political beliefs. I have heard him say many times that personally he is against abortion. He would LIKE/PREFER to see it stopped. However, his political belief is that it should be up to the states to decide its legality as it is not a federal issue. If they wanted to take it a step further, it would require change in the Supreme court or an amendment in the constitution. If this is really your best example of Paul "Flip flopping" then i am done reading this thread as it lacks sustenance.


He calls prohibiting abortion on the federal level a goal. I don't think he's merely saying it's his personal belief.
edit on 2-5-2012 by wearewatchingyouman because: clarity



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
EDIT: Listening again... will update after further thought.

Post Edit: This comment is indeed curious... as he's been rock steady that his goal is to pass it back to states.

I think if I'm to understand what he's getting at here, is that he is wanting the minds of people to shift to view abortion as a violent act... and then treat it like Slavery and Murder on the federal level, which prohibits that and does not allow States to legalize slavery or murder.

Regardless of agreement or disagreement... that is the approach when taking in the full context of the speech... and it seems in line with what the government *would* have the power to do if society changed to view abortion as murder similar to society changing to view Slavery as inhumane and cruel and outlawing it.

The debate over which circumstances are justifiable (health, rape, etc) would continue to rage on... just like the debate on "justifiable self defense resulting in a homicide" continues to rage on (though not as impassioned).

The deal with Ron Paul is he doesn't speak at a middle school level like most politicians, and has a lot of nuance to his stances and approaches and require getting to know him similar to any person in your life where minor interactions give one impression, but getting to know them reveals a much more cohesive picture.

Namaste
edit on 2012/5/2 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)


Yes, exactly. The impression I got is he wants to pass it back to the states UNTIL the federal government(the people) evolves to a place where they make abortion an illegal violent act on a federal level. This is quite opposite from my previous impression that he thinks federal government should stay out of the issue all together and leave it up to the states.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act shows that he wants it to be federally mandated that life and legal personhood begin at conception. If that doesn't show his hypocrisy, nothing does. Do his supporters REALLY know his positions? Have you read the Sanctity of Life Act that he keeps trying to get passed?

Yes, Ron Paul is just another politician... A dangerous one.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I don't know about you, but all I ever hear out of Paul on abortion is that he wants it banned by an overturning of Roe vs. Wade. He has never hidden the fact that he believes that life begins at conception. From what I can make of your post, you simply don't understand his explanation of how he would handle the banning of abortion, or you're intentionally twisting his words. Paul wants to take an approach to the matter that he holds to both healthcare and the Federal Reserve. Ultimately he wants to end both, but he wants to wean the country off of them, instead of outright ending them.



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


All this means is that he recognizes that, ultimately, only an amendment to the constitution can ban abortion. He is not stating that he is against nationalization of the issue, only that he recognizes that, with our current Constitution, the federal government via the legislature does not have the power to ban abortion.


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,


Yup, that's it.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would like to remind all those who think abortion should be legal that while I don't think you can just cut across the border to Canada to have one if they are banned in the state you live in if Ron Paul becomes the president, you can sure as hope that they don't prevent you from coming here because you would want one.

In the same way we'd welcome those running from conscription, Canada might be needed to welcome those who are running from religious fundamentalism. Perhaps if it becomes illegal to cross a border to have an abortion (is it already?) then I think those who sneak into Canada to have one will not be welcomed back into their home states, like draft dodgers.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wearewatchingyouman
 


To answer your title yes Paul is just another politician, but a different one...

Is this the only issue people can use to discredit Dr. Paul for is the abortion issue? Since when did abortion become a "universal" issue?

Especially if he has been in politics 30+ years...On standby eating my chili dog...
edit on 2-5-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


It really has less to do with the issue itself for me. It's more to do with him pandering. The thing I always liked about him is agree or disagree I knew where he stood. I feel that line blurring little by little the more I read his articles and listen to him speak. I still like him better than most politicians though.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join