I agree. But in the same vein, a man who puts millions of dollars in earmarks into bills (Ron Paul), has no authority in talking about economic responsibility. Ron argues that it's necessary that he puts these earmarks into bills, as it's just part of politics. Well, think about it from Huck's side. What if Huck had refused to authorize the death penalty of these criminals? It would be political suicide. Just as it would be political suicide if Ron Paul hadn't given millions to the shrimping industry with his earmarks.
Many Governors have the option to use the Death Penalty, but not every Governor exercises it. It's especially frustrating from ones that claim to decide on the side of life, unequivocally, and who claim to have God on their side, when Jesus' message was very clearly love, forgiveness, and mercy.As far as Ron Paul and his earmarks (which is NOTHING compared to the value of human life) - it's like a great big pie with a bunch of families fighting over it - he just wants to make sure his family gets fed. He may disagree with the way the pie is distributed, and fight to change the way the pie is distributed - but the reality is - this is how it works, and his constituency will go hungry if he doesn't play by their rules until the rules change.I really don't see it as being too similar, on one hand the Congressman is using the system to the benefit of his community, on the other hand, the Governor is using the system to kill people and save nothing but the cost of 16 life imprisonments.
The earmark question is just like the term limit question. Ron Paul supports term limits (as in he would vote for them) but doesn't support voluntary term limits.Furthermore, he votes against the bills that have his earmarks in them!
His pro life stance is just talk. His legislation had no REAL effects, it did not stop one abortion. But when he wanted illegal aliens, he got it, when he wanted more taxes, he got. The man lacks true character which is why he attacks Paul now that he thinks Paul is out of the equation.
Actually Fred Thompson and Gerald Ford opposed Roe v. Wade on 10th amendment on the basis. There are others. Thompson has said that all end of life issues should be decided at the family and state levels, not the federal government. This is essentially the same legal position that many constitutionalists hold.
States rights on issues like this is whats important...The federal government was not made to be a big brother. honestly how is it ok to let innocent people die in war, but protect the sanctity of life in a womb? Granted its a soldiers choice to serve, but what about those women and kids that if they had their way they'd be alive? i was born free in America... but something tells me i wont die free in America.
reed311Feb 14, 2008
I agree. But in the same vein, a man who puts millions of dollars in earmarks into bills (Ron Paul), has no authority in talking about economic responsibility. Ron argues that it's necessary that he puts these earmarks into bills, as it's just part of politics. Well, think about it from Huck's side. What if Huck had refused to authorize the death penalty of these criminals? It would be political suicide. Just as it would be political suicide if Ron Paul hadn't given millions to the shrimping industry with his earmarks.
v3n0mFeb 14, 2008
Many Governors have the option to use the Death Penalty, but not every Governor exercises it. It's especially frustrating from ones that claim to decide on the side of life, unequivocally, and who claim to have God on their side, when Jesus' message was very clearly love, forgiveness, and mercy.As far as Ron Paul and his earmarks (which is NOTHING compared to the value of human life) - it's like a great big pie with a bunch of families fighting over it - he just wants to make sure his family gets fed. He may disagree with the way the pie is distributed, and fight to change the way the pie is distributed - but the reality is - this is how it works, and his constituency will go hungry if he doesn't play by their rules until the rules change.I really don't see it as being too similar, on one hand the Congressman is using the system to the benefit of his community, on the other hand, the Governor is using the system to kill people and save nothing but the cost of 16 life imprisonments.
mnewcombFeb 14, 2008
The earmark question is just like the term limit question. Ron Paul supports term limits (as in he would vote for them) but doesn't support voluntary term limits.Furthermore, he votes against the bills that have his earmarks in them!
kent4jmjFeb 14, 2008
His pro life stance is just talk. His legislation had no REAL effects, it did not stop one abortion. But when he wanted illegal aliens, he got it, when he wanted more taxes, he got. The man lacks true character which is why he attacks Paul now that he thinks Paul is out of the equation.
digitalbobFeb 14, 2008
Actually Fred Thompson and Gerald Ford opposed Roe v. Wade on 10th amendment on the basis. There are others. Thompson has said that all end of life issues should be decided at the family and state levels, not the federal government. This is essentially the same legal position that many constitutionalists hold.
jrskblx125Feb 14, 2008
States rights on issues like this is whats important...The federal government was not made to be a big brother. honestly how is it ok to let innocent people die in war, but protect the sanctity of life in a womb? Granted its a soldiers choice to serve, but what about those women and kids that if they had their way they'd be alive? i was born free in America... but something tells me i wont die free in America.