"Why did I spend $85,000 to support Ron Paul ?"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TheDudeofLife, Dec 23, 2007.

  1. nevadan

    nevadan

    The point, ZZZzzzzzzz, is that the decisions being made at the state level are one level closer to the people most affected. Therefore they will possibly be more able to affect a change in the law if it does not suit them. A one size fits all approach form Washington D.C. is less preferable than 50 sizes. That is all. You seem to have some dogmatics of your own.
     
    #31     Dec 24, 2007
  2. Ron Paul was an obstetrician for christ's sake

    if he were pro choice, you'd still be calling inconsistency, probably even moreso

    i've always tended toward choice in my personal view, but i'm willing to accept his position in the context of his overall platform
     
    #32     Dec 24, 2007
  3. So Paul thinks abortion is wrong because of his religious beliefs, thinks that it is murder...but doesn't want to restrict local levels from allowing murder?



     
    #33     Dec 24, 2007
  4. So he delivered babies...you have a point?

    Now he is a politician seeking the power of the presidency...

    Apparently delivering babies and being a doctor wasn't enough power over life and death, now he has the ambition of being president.

    It just cracks me up to see the ET clones suck off this guys hind teat...those same clones who hate authority but want to make an authority figure out of Paul.



     
    #34     Dec 24, 2007
  5. nevadan

    nevadan

    I don't know if he would try to restrict abortion at the local level. You might notice I have already implied as much. I doubt he would since he is running for President and is very clear that the federal government should not be involved. That doesn't mean he can't have a personal position on that, or any other matter.

     
    #35     Dec 24, 2007
  6. i can't tell if you're purposely obtuse or just dumb zzz. our points are laid out as simply and unemotionally as possible. if you don't get it, reread. or just sleep it off man. you sound drunk
     
    #36     Dec 24, 2007
  7. nevadan

    nevadan

    Speaking of sleep, I think I have gone about as far as I care to with this.
     
    #37     Dec 24, 2007
  8. Mercor

    Mercor

    Libertarianism is all about accepting personal responsibility.

    We are not removing or restricting any woman's choice's. She is still in control all her reproduction.

    Pro-chioce people seem to forget that abortion is the second choice, the first choice is taking risks of getting pregnant.

    A womens first choice is hers' to choose without harm, unfortunately the second choice does harm the rights of another entity.

    This is not an issue about soul or religion, Once we accept that this human form(blob) is the same as us, it deserves its' inalienable rights to life liberty and happiness
     
    #38     Dec 24, 2007
  9. I attack Pauls positions, and what do you do?

    Personally attack me.

    Par for the ET course...

     
    #39     Dec 24, 2007
  10. So what if the first choice by the woman that led to the pregnancy was a mistake?

    What if she is poor and can't afford decent contraceptives?

    She can't take steps to fix the "mistake" because other people force her not to?

    That ain't liberty...you are

    Facism, pure and simple...

    "We are not removing or restricting any woman's choice's."

    Love the "we" aspect, it is so telling...

    Oh, and a fetus is no more a human being than a fertilized egg is a chicken...



     
    #40     Dec 24, 2007