This country needs candidates like him. His stance on abortion is frustrating however, since it is inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy and seems to be more a product of an emotional response to situation a long time ago than a balanced analysis of the facts:“It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
If you support libertarianism, then you will vote *against* Ron Paul.Ron Paul would outlaw same-sex marriages *at the federal level*, in opposition to the position of the Libertarian Party.Ron Paul would define life as beginning at conception *at the federal level*, effectively outlawing ALL abortions - and even certain forms of birth control - by defining them as felony murders.Ron Paul would support overturning Roe v. Wade, despite the rhetoric you hear to the contrary - he has introduced a bill that would effectively lead to that, by taking away from the Supreme Court its constitutional role to review and rule on the constitutionality of all laws involving abortion.In fact, in each and every case where Ron Paul has introduced or co-sponsored legislation that would legislate theocratic morality at the federal level, he has also included clauses that would take away from the Supreme Court its right to hear cases involving the constitutionality of these laws. He would bar the SC from ruling on violations of the Establishment Clause, on limits to individual liberty involving a woman's right to choose and citizen's right to marry others of the same sex, and non-Christian taxpayer's rights not to pay for officially sanctioned and subsidized prayer in public schools and displays specifically of the ten comamndments - but no other religion's symbols nor secular counter-displays - in government buildings.Ron Paul would overturn the Fourteenth Amendment granting automatic citizenship to children born in the US - and, curiously, would, once again, bar the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of laws and regulations stemming from his bill.Ron Paul is an authoritarian theocrat in "libertarian" clothing. There is a reason he is not the Libertarian Party's choice for president any more. He should not be any American's choice to lead this country, as his positions are profoundly undemocratic and hypocritical. He only favors government getting out of corporation's pockets, not out of citizen's bedrooms and bodies.
Ron Paul would only be proud if the revolt also outlawed abortion, same-sex marriage, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, along with the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to native-born children - and only if the revolt eliminated the Supreme Court's Constitutionally-mandated role as the ultimate defender of the Constitution against intrusions by the other two branches of government.Read the bills he has actually introduced in Congress, not the propaganda you read on blogs.
Didn't federal intervention desegregate the schools in local areas where the GOVERNOR of the STATE stood in the doorway to block those accursed "Negroes" from getting a decent education? Where were free-market forces and state control then?My point not being that federal intervention is ALWAYS good, nor that state control is ALWAYS bad. As you say, these issues are complex, but that does not preclude there being a federal law to solve the problem acceptably (although I'm sure there were many in Alabama who found federal intervention unacceptable).
djrayneJul 22, 2007
1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. YesNow go call air america and tell them how out of touch everyone else is.
plebeianJul 22, 2007
This country needs candidates like him. His stance on abortion is frustrating however, since it is inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy and seems to be more a product of an emotional response to situation a long time ago than a balanced analysis of the facts:“It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
rationalistJul 22, 2007
And you've never actually read Adam Smith, have you?
rationalistJul 22, 2007
If you support libertarianism, then you will vote *against* Ron Paul.Ron Paul would outlaw same-sex marriages *at the federal level*, in opposition to the position of the Libertarian Party.Ron Paul would define life as beginning at conception *at the federal level*, effectively outlawing ALL abortions - and even certain forms of birth control - by defining them as felony murders.Ron Paul would support overturning Roe v. Wade, despite the rhetoric you hear to the contrary - he has introduced a bill that would effectively lead to that, by taking away from the Supreme Court its constitutional role to review and rule on the constitutionality of all laws involving abortion.In fact, in each and every case where Ron Paul has introduced or co-sponsored legislation that would legislate theocratic morality at the federal level, he has also included clauses that would take away from the Supreme Court its right to hear cases involving the constitutionality of these laws. He would bar the SC from ruling on violations of the Establishment Clause, on limits to individual liberty involving a woman's right to choose and citizen's right to marry others of the same sex, and non-Christian taxpayer's rights not to pay for officially sanctioned and subsidized prayer in public schools and displays specifically of the ten comamndments - but no other religion's symbols nor secular counter-displays - in government buildings.Ron Paul would overturn the Fourteenth Amendment granting automatic citizenship to children born in the US - and, curiously, would, once again, bar the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of laws and regulations stemming from his bill.Ron Paul is an authoritarian theocrat in "libertarian" clothing. There is a reason he is not the Libertarian Party's choice for president any more. He should not be any American's choice to lead this country, as his positions are profoundly undemocratic and hypocritical. He only favors government getting out of corporation's pockets, not out of citizen's bedrooms and bodies.
rationalistJul 22, 2007
Ron Paul would only be proud if the revolt also outlawed abortion, same-sex marriage, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, along with the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to native-born children - and only if the revolt eliminated the Supreme Court's Constitutionally-mandated role as the ultimate defender of the Constitution against intrusions by the other two branches of government.Read the bills he has actually introduced in Congress, not the propaganda you read on blogs.
djrayneJul 22, 2007
I know it my blow you away...... but.......Some people agree with him for just those points alone.I know, not very progressive.
atheistacolyteJul 23, 2007
Didn't federal intervention desegregate the schools in local areas where the GOVERNOR of the STATE stood in the doorway to block those accursed "Negroes" from getting a decent education? Where were free-market forces and state control then?My point not being that federal intervention is ALWAYS good, nor that state control is ALWAYS bad. As you say, these issues are complex, but that does not preclude there being a federal law to solve the problem acceptably (although I'm sure there were many in Alabama who found federal intervention unacceptable).