Why, oh, why, can't I vote for someone for whom I want to vote, instead of choosing between the lesser of two (or three, or twenty) evils
( Read more... )
Dr. Paul is pro-life. However, he's against Roe v Wade decision because he believes it's unconstitutional. He wants to leave the matter up to the states, just like most everything that's debated and shouldn't be of concern to the federal government (abortion, gun control, welfare, education, drugs, etc...). He is a strict constitutionalist and sees the only legitimate role of the federal government as upholding the Constitution ( as in our inalienable rights). Which is why I like him. Why have one administration constantly try to assert its policies on 300 million people? We have 50 states and leaving the federal government out of it would give us many more options of where to live. While some states would pass laws prohibiting abortion, many states would legalize it. It would be both a "grand experiment" and give us much more freedom.
Paul is for fed govt out of abortion issue
anonymous
July 3 2007, 16:19:28 UTC
A comment about your Ron Paul post. Though Ron Paul is pro-life, he is against the federal government having anything to do with abortion. I am pro-choice myself, but to me this is a very minor issue compared to the war and the police state, and the Federal Reserve. Besides, the guy delivered 4,000 babies. I imagine I would be pro-life too if I did that.
Abortion is a personal issue, made an issue only because it is a voting platform to stand on. which makes it even the more disgusting. politicians dont care about the kid, just the votes. the crazy people standing outside the clinics do not care about the kid, they want to display their oh so legitimate righteous anger. George Carlin said it, they love you until you are born, after that, no preschool, no neonatal care, no welfare, no education assistance, no food stamps, if you are preborn, you are fine, if you are preschool you are fucked. fucked.
Anyway, I like richardson, very straightforward. I could never stomach someone that is on a platform at least partially based on their intellegence, using that platform to feign ignorance, deny evolution, and glorify ignorance because of your constituency. I guess I would rather have a beer with a retard, than with someone pretending to be retarded to get a vote.
Matt had an interesting run in with one of his roommates in Iraq, a young fella (about 18 or so) from Abilene. Matt was reading "River out of Eden" by Richard Dawkins, and they guy asked him, "What's the book about." Matt told him evolution. The kid said he doesn't believe in evolution because it's too much work; it takes too much thinking. When Matt asked him what he believed, the kid said, "I believe in the 'Poof!' theory." As it turns out, the "Poof!" theory is the idea that god waved his hand and, "Poof!" everything was here. He said it's just way easier to understand, and that's why he believes it
( ... )
Okay, so you know my pro-life stance, so I won't get into that. I must, however, argue with you and mattwg440 (whom I don't know) about the not caring about children after their born. In case you've forgotten, that is my profession. There are plenty of programs out there for children birth-preschool age (and there is free or reduced cost prenatal care if people would just get off their asses and take advantage of it). They are highly underused, and yes, even underfunded (as most truly helpful programs are). They are also not publicized as well as...hmm...causes to help the environment, or animal rights, etc. Many doctors don't even know that there are federally mandated early intervention programs in every state...progams that offer free evaluations and assessment and help find services kids need. And often, people whose children do need help are either too proud to accept the help or just don't care anyway. Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now...
I understand that some of these programs exist. My sister was with the wic for awhile when my neices were first born. My points are that 1. Republicans will on one hand say "the government is not supposed to be making big decisions and have big intrusive impacts on peoples lives." and the other, " the government should decide control over abortions. " the obvious reason is that republicans want the gov to be able to run peoples lives, they just do not want them to regulate corporations, they want to be able to make money without regard to how it gets made. The only way to defend the questionable things these folks do, without gov intervention on behalf of the little guy is to , well you get it
( ... )
Comments 7
Reply
Though Ron Paul is pro-life, he is against the federal government having anything to do with abortion.
I am pro-choice myself, but to me this is a very minor issue compared to the war and the police state, and the Federal Reserve.
Besides, the guy delivered 4,000 babies. I imagine I would be pro-life too if I did that.
Reply
Reply
Anyway, I like richardson, very straightforward. I could never stomach someone that is on a platform at least partially based on their intellegence, using that platform to feign ignorance, deny evolution, and glorify ignorance because of your constituency. I guess I would rather have a beer with a retard, than with someone pretending to be retarded to get a vote.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment