|
|
Post by La Princess on Jan 16, 2012 17:58:42 GMT -5
Now that I woud agree with because I do not believe government should enforce religious views on taxpayers. While I support birth control and abortion I know many do not. However, personal views are enforced on us all the time, such as welfare. I do not support unwed parenthood, yet my taxes are used to support these people, many of whom are deadbeats so I understand where he is going.
I also have a lot of issues both both the right and the left. Both sides push their agenda and if you disagree you are labelled named. I too find it interesting how the left often condemns abortion in countries like China while in the US are for it.
When you say you are uncomfortable with the prolife position I'm curious what you mean. No judging just curious because here's how I feel about it: I believe a woman has the right to terminate an early stage pregnancy, especially when it comes to rape or the health of the mother. I dislike using abortion as a form of birth control and hate when some women use it as that. Personally, if I become pregnant, unless it's rape or will affect my health I am keeping it. I would also expect the dad to marry me if I am single. This is a conservative view but it's something I feel strongly about. I don't expect all women to feel this same way though.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Jan 17, 2012 1:49:33 GMT -5
Well, I'm thinking most of extreme pro-life views including no birth control, and abstinance. There are those pro-lifers who see it that way. Perhaps what you're describing can't be seen as strictly pro-life, maybe atleast to them? I just know the pro-choice thing is quite selective; it has not much to do with women's rights, since having a child is not taking away one's "rights" - it can go for adoption. It's a social thing, and people are just conditioned in most if not all areas of life to do what is personally convenient. People are willing to vote for a WW3 candidate because they disagree with Paul philosophically and personally, not what would actually happen. The Me society is the direct opposite of liberty, no wonder Paul is so hated. If the govt can be pro-abortion, then another bunch can make it anti-abortion. What sense does that make? None really.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightboat13 on Jan 17, 2012 5:47:48 GMT -5
Oh, Ashes. Ron Paul is a far-right wolf in Libertarian's clothing.
He is "uncomfortable" with the Civil rights Act, and if Congress repealed it, he would sign. He said that. So did his creepy son.
Further, he said that businesses should have the right to turn away minority customers, the twisted logic being that people would refuse to shop there and the business would close down. That is, of course a red herring, as well as a lie. Many white customers might not be aware of the owner's corrupt business dealings. The red herring part is that by doing things Paul's way businesses can charge minorities more for service. Hair salons get busted regularly for overcharging women, blacks, asians, and native indians. Businesses can discriminate in hiring practices, pay scale, and promotion. Again, he pretends that the minorities can seek work elsewhere, but they can't do that in a country with 1 job opening for every 40 people.
Paul is a racist.
BTW, when he said he was too distracted to read the racist newsletters he put his name to, I had to wonder if he'd be too distracted as President to deal with the nonstop daily influx of work to be done. What if he's "distracted" when that call comes at 3 in the morning?
Bullshit. If people acted altruistically we wouldn't need most laws. No one would rob anyone, no one would cheat on their spouses, no one would burn crosses on their neighbor's lawn....
No points on the first part of your sentence, 70% of the country wants pot decriminalized or legalized. Why just the wealthy? Because he's one of them? Taxes MUST be collected to pay for highways, defense, social programs, and the wages of government employees (like Presidents and District of Columbia sewer workers - you don't want to lay off sewer workers, believe me.)
That's like asking why does Klingoncelt cook spaghetti and meatballs, but drives an old gas-guzzling car. Two different things. The healthcare is needed, if everyone, including the working poor, were on a government-sponsored pre-emptive medical program, workers would be much healthier and more productive. The healthcare is designed for people here in the States. The madness in the mideast is all about oil, controlling oil, oil, oil, oil. It's absolutely evil, that's how greed works, but while Paul may be correct in decrying the violence, he has not yet made any suggestion whatsoever to do instead.
Do I like the Bushreich police state - type laws? Absofookinglutely not. I don't like that Obama kept them.
The sick part is, though that there are too many citizens within our borders wanting "2nd Amendment solutions," too many people that don't understand freedom of religion includes islam, too many people that can't peacefully accept that this country runs on majority rule and go to court with their minority demands, too many people that don't like others using their right to peaceably assemble.
And if you think Ron Paul would repeal those laws, you're sorely mistaken.
Ahh, yes, the charity angle. At a time when there are more people needing charity than there are those who can give it, this statement is illogical. If people rant and rave and rail and whine over their taxes going to help the poor, do you really think they'll donate money? Is this why senior citizens used to live on cat food? Because of all the donations they got?
The Constitution is pretty clear on separation of church and state. The far right mentality is to enforce unwanted pregnancies as a means to inhibit financial progress for women and the working poor. Do you have any clue how many rich women get abortions that their press agents call "appendectomies" or "exhaustion?"
Women in the west use birth control, they don't wait until after the child is born. Also, in India 95% of families kill girl children. Almost none kill boy babies. That's not poverty, that's a f.ucked-up patriarchal society.
No, it can't go up for adoption. As of 2010 there were 114,562 American children under 16 in foster care awaiting adoption. This does not include babies in long-term care facilities such as hospitals.
Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term is very much an infringement of her rights. It's funny how the "less government" crowd has no problem with government intrusion on women's rights. And gay rights.
"Convenience" is a derogatory word, used to imply that a pregnant woman would rather engage in vacuous activity like shoe shopping or hanging out at the disco. No one that has never raised a child has the right to use that word.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Jan 17, 2012 9:59:18 GMT -5
Well you showed slightly more honesty than some in at least explaining what Paul did say about doing away with the civil rights act. But not so in calling him a racist. It's the old identity politics talking and that is the problem we have always had.
Societal change happens slowly. You say people aren't altruistic. Well yes, and you care nothing about the sentiments of those that aren't like you. I'm not Christian but I don't want to see their rights trampled upon, by the government using their money for abortions. Separation of church and state definitely. But it is equally unfair and unconstitutional to have the government trample upon religion.
People place the same kind of value on babies, when they choose to not call it murder, acting like a fetus is not a baby and newborns are also killed. In India if they kill female children, in the west they kill both male and female children. It's not patriarchal, it's because women bring in less money. Children can be given up for adoption if the process is made easier. You're just trying to look for as much resistance as possible to justify the status quo and keep the democrat power base from eroding.
In response to the marketplace taking racist people out of business. It is for people to change slowly and accept others and if one is realistic they can see it happening around them. People's very natures are changing in business and look at the personal empowerment of those getting political. This requires a certain calibre of people and they exist. They will respond to the naysayers and do what others will say 'unrealistic' but in reality is simply beyond their limited thinking. What you see in others is a reflection of yourself and if you think in terms of identity politics you lash out at all other opponents. It is a limitation placed on oneself, and there are those that are bigger than this.
My point in comparing govt healthcare about foreign interventions was perfectly simple and understandable to many. We need people that can take their blinders off and stop supporting something that gets them or their causes, what they need immediately. That is the only lasting change there can be. Those that look for short term solutions will recreate the mistakes of all empires and visibly in countries in the present. Thankfully there is a large number of people that are otherwise. Interesting that in 25-30 years it is not Ron Paul that has changed, but masses of people have come round to his side. And you can't put a lid or wish it away as much as you want to. The traditional way is jews looking out for jews, muslims for muslims and using lobbies to get their way. There are blacks (sacred cows for 'concerned' fake liberals), gays, democrats and republican wasps coming around for a genuine American revolution. Even if Paul dies soon or is assassinated, there are enough serious people from all walks to carry this forward.
By contrast what you have said is too little, too late. You have not even acknowledged that Obama took away civil liberties, merely that he 'kept' Bush reich policies. You can play that game, but thankfully the hardcore libs and cons are fading away. Don't be saying that Paul has offered no solutions because that is as dishonest as misrepresenting him on the civil rights act.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Jan 17, 2012 14:53:33 GMT -5
So much to respond to. Regarding the whole abortion/adoption thing here's the problem: in most states if a child is white and no physical problems it will be a high in demand child. However, this is not the case many times. Many of those available for adoption, at least in Illinois are what are called unadoptable: minority, older kids (kids that are no longer infants are often considered unadoptable)kids with special needs (which can be as mild as problems due to abandonment, etc. I know because I have been considering adoption myself in the near future in the event I can't get pregnant. There are MANY kids who are available to be adopted, but most aren't the desired group. For me personally I am open to adopting an older kid so this isn't a problem but most people aren't.
With regards to businesses discriminating this is a problem. While one could say they should have the right to do so, it becomes a slippery slope. We all know many places discriminate against women and minorities. I have a masters yet have seen time and again white men who are less qualified be promoted over me. One of the worst offenders I have seen was a government agency. This is why many women drop out of corporate jobs and then employers say they will not hire women and it becomes a terrible cycle.
Not to derail this, but this is so true and unfortunately they are bringing it here. Indian men (those born in India not Indian by ancestry)basically hate women. I have had many dealings with them and they see nothing wrong with discriminating against women. A few months ago I had an interview where the guy kept asking me if I planned to have kids because he hates to hire mothers. He also said he wanted to hire me because I am not a smoker nor am I overweight. Yet we keep sending them jobs and bringing more here and they are bringing this hate filled culture. You know what happens when they get power? things get worse for women.
I hate that Obama is not for Americans and signing the NDAA proved it. I will readily admit I was lied to and it makes me sick. Then again the Dems are no longer what they used to be and neither are the Reps. Both groups make me sick.
I have heard people say Obama will take away the 2nd Amendment but so far haven't seen this. If he did he will lose many voters, including yes many liberal Dems. I support the right to bear arms and feel any city (like Chicago)that outlaws them are infringing on rights. Likewise I feel that gay rights and abortion should also be legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by sueb1863 on Jan 17, 2012 19:44:35 GMT -5
I don't think Paul has any chance at the GOP nomination. They aren't totally sold on Romney but I think they'd rather have him than Paul.
Unless Romney makes some sort of major mistake, the nomination is his to lose. I don't think anybody else has a realistic shot at it. The question is who he'll pick as his VP running mate. My guess is it won't be anybody from the candidate pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Jan 17, 2012 19:51:47 GMT -5
I suspect he will pick someone who's part of the religious branch of the Reps. If by chance he got a moderate like Olympia Snowe of Maine he would pick up a lot of Dems, but I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Jan 17, 2012 20:16:41 GMT -5
I suspect if not Paul, a dem, most like O'bubble boy will have another 4 years. In a way that is fully neccessary to shake the population into action. Many dems are under the illusion that BO won't attack Iran even though he threatened them directly in 2008 during his campaign no less. Some people just don't have the wit to see something even when it's in front of them. But experience is a teacher you can't ignore forever. It slaps you around and then the scales fall from one's eyes. Till the passage of the NDAA, they lived through the TSA abuses, and before that the 'delay' on the closure of Gitmo, the silence on 9/11 etc. But like Bush, many would support him only because of a percieved lack of choice. But through harsh conditions they will find the courage to try new ideas and that will be a young energized Paul base.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Jan 17, 2012 23:01:01 GMT -5
Ashes, most people are stupid. We all know this and that's why things haven't changed. After Bush I was willing to give any a chance and Obama has disappointed me terribly. Our rights are being eroded and people are too worried about minor issues to worry about the important things. Yes I think Iran will attack and I don't trust China either.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Jan 17, 2012 23:27:02 GMT -5
That is the complete truth, and yet most people don't see it. Change is a slow thing and it will not come to many within this life time.
You can't trust China, or Russia either but in both cases the Anglo-American empire as well as Europe gave them every reason to head in that direction. The paranoia was mostly centered in the US in the military-industrial complex (the right wing!!!! to some) and still is. In a globalised society the US is set up to be the army, and never again a manufacturing base. That's why any attempt to say 'jobs are coming back', 'more employment' must be dismissed as a lie. There was some room for complacency awhile ago but now the game is clear. Globalisation means bad times for everyone. When China outlives it's purpose, the globalists pull the plug on them too. That's what globalisation is, it must forever chase the cheapest price and it's done deliberately. Profit is only a cover. The real motive is control. That's how communism and the Russian revolution were all western projects, just like we see today with the west backed Islamic fundamentalists. An age old story of divide and rule. But you can't tell the Arab student that they are having their strings pulled by the west. You can't tell a liberal or conservative they're being manipulated by the same people. The ego is a powerful thing. It can't be overcome intellectually and it resists all facts. Some people are just worse than others at not seeing the obvious.
|
|
