Ron Paul pleases supporters at rally with his ideas of liberty - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34781628]You people who when faced with the opinion of "abortion is not the most important issue at the moment" say something like "You're not a woman! I can't believe you said abortion is not important!" need to get over yourselves. The abortion is IS there but the US has a lot bigger problems at the moment.[/QUOTE] You're not a woman! I can't believe you said abortion is not important! that's my actual response to your post. I can't imagine a problem bigger than an attack on the civil rights of 50 percent of the US population. fuck the economy (which is only faltering) and the national debt, human rights are more important than those things.

And I get that it really hypocritical of me to pull out the "you'd only get it if you are a girl" card, being a guy and all. I am not implying that I know what it is like, I do not. But I also do not try to minimize the importance of the issue of Abortion in this country.

automerge

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34781628]You people who when faced with the opinion of "abortion is not the most important issue at the moment" say something like "You're not a woman! I can't believe you said abortion is not important!" need to get over yourselves. The abortion is IS there but the US has a lot bigger problems at the moment.[/QUOTE] Even if Abortion was not one of the most important issues of the present moment, it would be foolhardy to elect a President who is against it, even if he could never ban it himself.

[QUOTE=Fausty;34781337]I love ron but our government would sooner assassinate him than let him step foot in office.[/QUOTE] That's why he was elected to Congress more than once? And his son to Senate?

[QUOTE=person11;34781640]Even if Abortion was not one of the most important issues of the present moment, it would be foolhardy to elect a President who is against it, even if he could never ban it himself.[/QUOTE] You're not going to find a presidential candidate who you don't have some large disagreement with. If you do, then that just means they're doing a lot of lying.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34781658]You're not going to find a presidential candidate who you don't have some large disagreement with. If you do, then that just means they're doing a lot of lying.[/QUOTE] Well then what policies of his do you agree with?

[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;34781630]I don't understand why most of FP like him so much, I think because he is the "underdog"m his ideas are the worst.[/QUOTE] To anyone who actually pays attention foreign policy, his ideas are atrocious.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;34781634]Her? Person11 is a man.[/QUOTE] Ok? Sorry i didnt know a person that is technically anonomous. For all you could know i could be a dog on a ipod right now. My point still stands. Taking away someone's control over their own body is more disgusting than abortion it's self.

[QUOTE=Rubs10;34781459][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul[/URL] He said he wants the states to decide what to do regarding drugs, he's not going to federally decriminalize them. He pledged to never raise taxes. He's pro-life. He's against federal health care. He said global warming is a hoax, he also doesn't believe the government should get involved in regulating the environment. He's against the Civil Rights Act. He's also fine with letting states decide whether it's ok to invade your privacy.[/QUOTE] Heh, yeah I knew he would be against the right to privacy. Abortions are legal because of the right to privacy, so to outlaw them you would have to tear down the right to privacy which it looks like Ron Paul is willing to do. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] So much for being all about "liberty" and "freedom"

[QUOTE=person11;34781620]That'd be difficult since I am a guy. And I understand that Abortion is not under threat of becoming completely illegal. Knowing full well that Roe vs Wade protects women from anti-abortion laws, Republicans have been simply making Abortion more difficult to access financially and physically, while setting up programs to dissuade women from getting them (trying to stop abortion from being subsidized by the government, closing down various Planned Parenthoods, and forcing women to get trans-vaginal ultrasounds before getting an Abortion). "Personhood" bills are being deliberated in Virginia and Oklahoma right now, and both bills would ban abortion in each state. This is symbolic, since Federal law would nullify those two bills, but is just one of the many signs that show that Abortion is under attack in this country. Another good sign that Abortion is under attack? More and more women are being forced to undertake clandestine abortions, which are extremely dangerous, painful, and a callback to before Roe vs Wade, when women would die of painful infections post abortion.[/QUOTE] then why are you preaching that you can't understand the severity of the issue without being faced with this scenario yourself, when you haven't ever been put in this situation in the first place? [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34781552]banning abortion is not a rational or effective policy. plenty of women are told that by a certain large section of society who are doing everything in their power to take away a woman's right to an abortion. they're not legally prohibited from doing so, but through their war on planned parenthood and their tactics of demagoguery they have created an atmosphere in which many women who desire an abortion feel that they are prohibited (by society, not the law) from having an abortion. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] you mean human rights aren't a top priority?[/QUOTE] for the first quote my point wasn't that there isn't a legal and social attack on abortion going on, it was about person11 acting like nobody could possibly understand the issue without going through it themselves (even though he hasnt?) the second quote wasn't to imply that abortion isn't an important issue but only that given the success of anti-abortion programs (or lack thereof) i didn't see it as being as being something that was being immediately or seriously threatened which would make it a lower priority than other more urgent issues. admittedly though it was a stupid conclusion because in the end abortion is a matter of human rights which should always be upheld, i just don't think it's being threatened right now reading your posts though yeah you're right, despite the purported urgency of the economy and debt among other things, human rights should always be number one. im stupid :(

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34781658]You're not going to find a presidential candidate who you don't have some large disagreement with. If you do, then that just means they're doing a lot of lying.[/QUOTE] I support Obama, but I disagree with his handling of Wikileaks, Occupy Wall Street, and Guantanamo Bay. [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;34781751]then why are you preaching that you can't understand the severity of the issue without being faced with this scenario yourself, when you haven't ever been put in this situation in the first place? for the first quote my point wasn't that there isn't a legal and social attack on abortion going on, it was about person11 acting like nobody could possibly understand the issue without going through it themselves (even though he hasnt?) the second quote wasn't to imply that abortion isn't an important issue but only that given the success of anti-abortion programs (or lack thereof) i didn't see it as being as being something that was being immediately or seriously threatened which would make it a lower priority than other more urgent issues. admittedly though it was a stupid conclusion because in the end abortion is a matter of human rights which should always be upheld, i just don't think it's being threatened right now[/QUOTE] I never meant to imply that I understood it. I do not. Just like I do not understand what it is like to get murdered or raped. Just because I do not understand what it is like, does not mean I can't stand against it. Guys can stand with women in support of ending anti-Abortion policies, even if they have no idea what it is like to be cut off from access to Abortion.

Have [i]any[/i] of the campaign runners said anything about higher wages to match the current state of living? Like, say, to a [i]two-digit[/i] number instead of the current $7.25 federal minimum? It'd be nice to see the US reaching wage rates that are comparable to Australia's "$15.50 / $589.30 per week" or something.

[QUOTE=3noneTwo;34781928]Have [i]any[/i] of the campaign runners said anything about higher wages to match the current state of living? Like, say, to a [i]two-digit[/i] number instead of the current $7.25 federal minimum? It'd be nice to see the US reaching wage rates that are comparable to Australia's "$15.50 / $589.30 per week" or something.[/QUOTE] Why would GOP candidates care about the working class?

[QUOTE=3noneTwo;34781928]Have [i]any[/i] of the campaign runners said anything about higher wages to match the current state of living? Like, say, to a [i]two-digit[/i] number instead of the current $7.25 federal minimum? It'd be nice to see the US reaching wage rates that are comparable to Australia's "$15.50 / $589.30 per week" or something.[/QUOTE] This would make it harder for people to employ people, meaning unemployment would remain high. I'd rather just peg the minimum wage to the inflation rate, with occasional increases to make up for higher cost of living.

[QUOTE=person11;34781620]That'd be difficult since I am a guy. And I understand that Abortion is not under threat of becoming completely illegal. Knowing full well that Roe vs Wade protects women from anti-abortion laws, Republicans have been simply making Abortion more difficult to access financially and physically, while setting up programs to dissuade women from getting them (trying to stop abortion from being subsidized by the government, closing down various Planned Parenthoods, and forcing women to get trans-vaginal ultrasounds before getting an Abortion)..[/QUOTE] Republicans will never try to repeal Roe Vs Wade, you need to understand that simple fact. Between 2000 and 2006, the Republicans held the white house, the senate, and the congress. They had ample opportunity to reverse Roe Vs Wade and they didn't. It's become a gimmick to rally the masses around, but they'll never get around to actually doing it.

[QUOTE=Swilly;34781711]To anyone who actually pays attention foreign policy, his ideas are atrocious.[/QUOTE]Explain.

[QUOTE=Omali;34782063]Republicans will never try to repeal Roe Vs Wade, you need to understand that simple fact. Between 2000 and 2006, the Republicans held the white house, the senate, and the congress. They had ample opportunity to reverse Roe Vs Wade and they didn't. It's become a gimmick to rally the masses around, but they'll never get around to actually doing it.[/QUOTE] That is sort of what i am getting at. The Republicans are finding dozens of ways to force women into unsafe, illegal abortions without actually banning abortion. It is brilliant but terrifying. I do not think Roe vs Wade is in danger, I am saying that Roe vs Wade does not need to be in danger for women to be in danger of losing access to abortion.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;34781632]You're not a woman! I can't believe you said abortion is not important! that's my actual response to your post. I can't imagine a problem bigger than an attack on the civil rights of 50 percent of the US population. fuck the economy (which is only faltering) and the national debt, human rights are more important than those things.[/QUOTE] lol are you seriously trying to say the wellbeing of a few people is more important than the wellbeing of our collective society?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;34782161]lol are you seriously trying to say the wellbeing of a few people is more important than the wellbeing of our collective society?[/QUOTE] We can work towards both. We do not need to elect a man who supposedly will fix the economy (which he won't) and hates abortion. We do not need to put one over the other. We just need to avoid belittling either one as "not a real issue". [editline]19th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;34782098]Exactly. They've held a rather large chunk of congress for a couple years now as well and they still haven't done anything to abortion. If they were actually serious about this they would be trying to force laws through congress.[/QUOTE] That was before the Tea Party, which grew within the Republican party in 2009. Republicans before that time were not as insane as they are now.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;34782199]Um, they still hold a huge part of congress to this day, that's why Obama hasn't been able to do anything, because the Republicans have basically shot down everything he's tried to do for the last 2 years.[/QUOTE] But they can't do any major Abortion restricting action because of the Democrat-led Senate.

[QUOTE=person11;34782321]But they can't do any major Abortion restricting action because of the Democrat-led Senate.[/QUOTE] Well and because of Roe v. Wade

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34782342]Well and because of Roe v. Wade[/QUOTE] If they had the Senate and the House, they'd be able to do what State Governments are doing with Abortion, ie restricting it without outright banning it, essentially going around Roe vs Wade while making it more difficult for women to get legal abortions.

[QUOTE=person11;34781191]Are you a female? If not, you may want to shut up and stop trying to claim that abortion is [I]not[/I] an important issue.[/QUOTE] As it stand right now, abortions are not very hard to obtain. Certain states have it harder than others, but in general, they are accessible. He is prolife, but his legislation is neutral. If you want freedom of choice in your area, talk to your local government officials. The people in your area know what is best for your area (better than a disconnected Federal Government). Now, I don't think THAT should necessarily be applied to abortion, but people act like he is going to outlaw abortions, which from what I last heard, he is leaving completely up to the states. That might be "bad" but you can fix that by being active in your community. Compare his stance to the other members of the GOP who want to outright ban it. For the record, I am pro choice and think that abortions should be guaranteed rights, but would pick Ron Paul out of the GOP.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;34782393]As it stand right now, abortions are not very hard to obtain. Certain states have it harder than others, but in general, they are accessible. He is prolife, but his legislation is neutral. If you want freedom of choice in your area, talk to your local government officials. The people in your area know what is best for your area. Now, I don't think THAT should necessarily be applied to abortion, but people act like he is going to outlaw abortions, which from what I last heard, he is leaving completely up to the states. That might be "bad" but you can fix that by being active in your community. Compare his stance to the other members of the GOP who want to outright ban it. For the record, I am pro choice but would pick Ron Paul out of the GOP.[/QUOTE] I live in California, in which they are extremely accessible. Under Ron Paul's ideal system, California would be free to legalize drugs and gay everything and give abortions to everyone, due to how liberal we are here. I am worried about the small minority of states that would, and are seeing huge attempts to restrict abortion. In some of these states, there are only a couple abortion clinics that have not been closed. I already used Oklahoma and Virginia as an example. I know that Mississippi almost passed a Personhood bill as well. It is states like those that would be, and are, in danger of anti-abortion laws. I could go on and on about how giving the States the rights to pass this kind of legislation would harm the minority of liberal people in conservative states. Also: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/13/267880/162-number-of-new-anti-abortion-provisions-in-the-states/?mobile=nc[/url] [img]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-restrictions.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=person11;34782485]I live in California, in which they are extremely accessible. Under Ron Paul's ideal system, California would be free to legalize drugs and gay everything and give abortions to everyone, due to how liberal we are here. I am worried about the small minority of states that would, and are seeing huge attempts to restrict abortion. In some of these states, there are only a couple abortion clinics that have not been closed. I already used Oklahoma and Virginia as an example. I know that Mississippi almost passed a Personhood bill as well. It is states like those that would be, and are, in danger of anti-abortion laws. I could go on and on about how giving the States the rights to pass this kind of legislation would harm the minority of liberal people in conservative states. Also: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/13/267880/162-number-of-new-anti-abortion-provisions-in-the-states/?mobile=nc[/url] [img]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-restrictions.gif[/img][/QUOTE] I agree with you and understand where you're coming from. I am just saying that I think Ron Paul has the most sensible viewpoint out of the remaining GOP candidates, in my opinion (sensible is relative). I just support Ron Paul for the fact that he is the only one that has foreign policy down the best out of any of the candidates in my opinion (including Obama) and know his economic policies probably wont get passed nor will any legislation that deals with civil rights... I hope. That being said, I will probably be voting for Obama... but it honestly is tempting. I think our foreign policy is the biggest issue in America, because it effects every single thing within out country. We've built a big dirty reputation we need to get rid of so we can safely seek help when we need it. But I'm getting far away from the point. This is a whole different discussion for a whole different time.

Ron Paul has the best opinions when it comes to Drugs and Privacy, but nothing else, in my opinion. I can see what Ron Paul wants to do with his Foreign Policy, but it is not realistic: The United States has interests in other peoples affairs for its own benefits, and it should pursue them as long as it is beneficial to its citizens. Sometimes we have to do things that other countries will hate us for, and we can take it. Ron Paul is the most potentially disastrous candidate out of the GOP for his radical ideas on budget slashing more than anything else. It would send us spiraling down into another recession. I am not too concerned about any of the GOP candidates in general though, Obama cannot lose at this rate.

You know what sucks? Ron Paul came to my city to speak, you didn't have to pay a cent to get in. I didn't go see him because I was too lazy. Sad day

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34781658]You're not going to find a presidential candidate who you don't have some large disagreement with. If you do, then that just means they're doing a lot of lying.[/QUOTE] Or it's you who is running for president.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34781628]You people who when faced with the opinion of "abortion is not the most important issue at the moment" say something like "You're not a woman! I can't believe you said abortion is not important!" need to get over yourselves. The abortion is IS there but the US has a lot bigger problems at the moment.[/QUOTE] Actually I'm pretty sure there's no bigger issue than human rights