Ron Paul: Words Mean Things

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm still wondering how an issue that the Supreme Court elevated to constitutional politics 40 years ago has any bearing on who you elect for President.

No matter what you or anyone thinks about abortion, the President does not have the power or the clout to amend the constitution.

The Constitution need not be amended; all it would take is a shift of power on the Supreme Court and then Congressional action (whether that would be Constitutional is another discussion). So, yes, the President does have, indirectly through his possible choices for the Supreme Court, the ability to cause that political issue - and others - to be overturned.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm still wondering how an issue that the Supreme Court elevated to constitutional politics 40 years ago has any bearing on who you elect for President.

No matter what you or anyone thinks about abortion, the President does not have the power or the clout to amend the constitution.

So you're saying that a candidate's views on civil liberties has no bearing on his suitability as president?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Constitution need not be amended; all it would take is a shift of power on the Supreme Court and then Congressional action (whether that would be Constitutional is another discussion). So, yes, the President does have, indirectly through his possible choices for the Supreme Court, the ability to cause that political issue - and others - to be overturned.

We've also seem a president's policies can affect the laws they choose to enforce...or not. The president also has the bully pulpit. If there is an issue s/he chooses to champion, s/he can have a direct effect on the priorities of the country.

 

[downzero]

So you're saying that a candidate's views on civil liberties has no bearing on his suitability as president?

No, what I'm telling you is that abortion is a distraction as it is not an issue in this or any election.

If you're selecting who you are voting for President based on an issue that he does not have the power to change, will never have the power to change, in this or any election, based on a 40 year old Supreme Court decision, that you're doing it wrong.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No, what I'm telling you is that abortion is a distraction as it is not an issue in this or any election.

If you're selecting who you are voting for President based on an issue that he does not have the power to change, will never have the power to change, in this or any election, based on a 40 year old Supreme Court decision, that you're doing it wrong.

I guess it depends on your priorities. When I see innocent people's lives being terminated through no fault of their own, I believe it's important to support candidates that will work to eliminate bad "law"...no matter how old it is.

I contend those that do not see unborn children's right to life as not truly a supporter of liberty for all.

 

[Lex Concord]

While it may misstate his position, back in 2004, the "position paper" that his followers were handing out at the Irish Fest in Dublin Ohio, said he thought abortion "should be the mother's choice," which is a position I can't agree with. Not that I think the federal government should approve or disapprove of abortion, but that abortion is - by definition - the deliberate killing of a life separate from the mother; a life which hasn't had the opportunity to do anything worthy of a death sentence.

Anyone with any commitment to "truth" will concede that the vast majority of abortions are done for the convenience of the mother, not for her "health."

Do you mean '08? Either way, that doesn't sound like anything I remember coming from him, and I've been aware of him since at least '01 or '02.

 

[Lex Concord]

I guess it depends on your priorities. When I see innocent people's lives being terminated through no fault of their own, I believe it's important to support candidates that will work to eliminate bad "law"...no matter how old it is.

I contend those that do not see unborn children's right to life as not truly a supporter of liberty for all.

Since the OP was about the definition of words, I'm curious as to your definition of "liberty for all".

 

[LEaSH]

Since the OP was about the definition of words, I'm curious as to your definition of "liberty for all".

"Liberty for all!!! (except when a female wants liberty).

 

[nprecon]

I'm good with Ron Paul. He has been consistent in his positions and what he says in front of virtually any crowd. He doesn't change his colors at every opportunity. I may not agree with every position he holds... but I do know where he stands on issues now, yesterday and ten years ago. I don't know of any other recent presidential contenders (from either party) I can honestly say this about. Therefore I can also say I won't agree with all of any other contender's positions... but I also don't know what or where their positions may be with their next audience. The final candidate has been settled for both parties at this point. Ron Paul is not one of them. Ron Paul was simply a messenger of a growing American movement. The views he espouses will continue to be built upon by others.

Reference Ron Paul's position on Congress declaring war. I agree. 10 plus years of engagement in foreign dust bowls has a huge price tag with it. When congress declares war... they must appropriate the money to support it. If war is NOT declared by the people's representatives in Congress... where does the funding to support the conflict legitimately come from? It cannot be officially budgeted... because technically there is no war. There must be stop gap votes and bills approved to continue to fund the conflict, replete with billions of pork spending (most not even related to defense costs) stuffed into each bill.

The President is the Commander in Chief and has the authority to utilize his forces. Historically presidents didn't engage in long and protracted conflicts without the approval of Congress. The use of force on the scale of recent American history (40 years?) is at odds with this point.

I also agree with Ron Paul's views on foreign stationing. His point being we spend alot of money (BILLIONs) forward deploying, supporting and sustaining hundreds of thousands of our soldiers, airmen, and marines. Our Spec Ops Commander recently asked Congress for permission to pre-position Spec Op teams forward to KNOWN trouble spots (as defined by intelligence collected from BOTH open source and covertly). This concept makes more sense, both for quicker response time, increased probability of mission success and reduced defense expenditure. IF we need to push a brigade to a trouble spot anywhere in the world... we have the capability to do it within a 48 hour window. Times have changed and so has our capabilities. The caveat here being we have to have a brigade size element of our forces here in CONUS, rested, trained, equipped and standing by to deploy on alert when called. The goat rope rotation schedule we presently are trying to hold together would severely test our abilities to do so.

Paul's point of spending billions of American taxpayer's dollars in "foreign aid" is simply taking from Americans to enrich a few shady characters in a foreign country. Case in point, about a year ago a Provincial Reconstruction Team received approval to spend $25,000 to buy a bed for a provincial tribal leader in Afghanistan. That is NOT the intent of our foreign aid. However, this expenditure is not even the tip of the iceburg.

Ron Paul's view of abortion is typical of his other positions, personally he is not in favor of "on demand" abortions (he has delivered many a child) however his position doesn't really matter to him because he does not believe this subject is even within the legal perview of our federal government to regulate it.

I think it is good to rely on the known, demonstrated character of the person/s running versus the created personnas which appears to continually befuddle the American voter. Character matters. It always has and always will.

 

[nprecon]

So I guess I can agree that abortion is not the main issue (and shouldn't be) of this or any presidential election. Pundits simply attempt to make abortion an issue to diffuse and distract from REAL political issues which are more difficult (and politically dangerous) to take positions on. Abortions are a morality issue. However, I have to go back to the character issue. Those with character do that which is right, even when no one is watching.

Finally, Eisenhower warned America in his farewell address of the dangers posed by the 'military industrial complex.' Eisenhower, of all people of his time, understood well this threat. He had a reason to make the statement when he did. There is CRAZY HUGE money to made in war and there has to be conflict to justify their continued existence.

 

[IndyDave1776]

"Liberty for all!!! (except when a female wants liberty).

Just for my curiosity, where do you draw the line between a woman's right to do as she chooses with herself and her 'right' to murder someone else? For example, Obama has twice voted against legislation to protect babies born alive which were intended to have been aborted, so he apparently puts the line comfortably this side of birth. No ambush intended, it is just that when you ask 10 different people you are going to get 11 different answers.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Since the OP was about the definition of words, I'm curious as to your definition of "liberty for all".

I would submit liberty is impossible without life. When society so cavalierly decides one person's "liberty" is more important, a higher priority, than another's life, then our society's priorities are screwed up.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

it is just that when you ask 10 different people you are going to get 11 different answers.

And that is precisely why this should not be a federal issue. Trying to decide such a hot-button topic for 300 million people by popular vote is unwise, at best.

Personally, I abhor abortion & do not understand how those involved live with themselves. However, any laws prohibiting it would be next to unenforceable without massive intrusions into the private lives of all humans with uteri. I trust pregnant women more than I trust our government, if mandated to investigate every miscarriage as potential murder...

 

[foszoe]

No, what I'm telling you is that abortion is a distraction as it is not an issue in this or any election.

If you're selecting who you are voting for President based on an issue that he does not have the power to change, will never have the power to change, in this or any election, based on a 40 year old Supreme Court decision, that you're doing it wrong.

He can veto funding.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I would submit liberty is impossible without life. When society so cavalierly decides one person's "liberty" is more important, a higher priority, than another's life, then our society's priorities are screwed up.

It almost reminds me of some tyrant during WWII who decided for others what life was worth living and which should be terminated.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Do you mean '08? Either way, that doesn't sound like anything I remember coming from him, and I've been aware of him since at least '01 or '02.

No, the first time I became aware of him was at the Dublin, OH Irish Fest in either 2003 or 2004. A group of his supporters were passing out flyers supposedly outlining his positions on various topics. One of those bullet points was, as I recall, a statement affirming a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and that the federal government should stay out of the decision.

In case my position needs to be clarified, I see no difference between a woman choosing to kill her unborn baby and a murderer choosing to slay another human being. If any level of government should be involved in the latter, it should also be involved in the former, and for the same reason: both are premeditated and both involve the deliberate termination of a human life.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

both are premeditated and both involve the deliberate termination of a human life.

So, if your wife had a miscarriage, you'd feel it is perfectly justified for both of you to be investigated for wrongful death or murder? What if she miscarried w/out knowing she was pregnant & it turns out that the baby's death was due to your New Year's Eve party & the drinks she had? What should the lawful punishment be? 5 years in prison?

 

[NavyVet]

To take this one step further... We always seem to quote the fact that the founders understood priorities by giving us the second amendment to protect the first.

I would contend that the order (and priority) of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' are not in that order by accident!!! I believe that the pursuit of happiness should not infringe on liberty, and liberty should not infringe on life. If you believe it as written, it is not too hard to understand GodFearinGunTotin's position.

I would submit liberty is impossible without life. When society so cavalierly decides one person's "liberty" is more important, a higher priority, than another's life, then our society's priorities are screwed up.

 

[NavyVet]

And how does this apply to the deliberate taking of human life (as stated in the original message)????

So, if your wife had a miscarriage, you'd feel it is perfectly justified for both of you to be investigated for wrongful death or murder? What if she miscarried w/out knowing she was pregnant & it turns out that the baby's death was due to your New Year's Eve party & the drinks she had? What should the lawful punishment be? 5 years in prison?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

And how does this apply to the deliberate taking of human life (as stated in the original message)????

Involuntary manslaughter...Otherwise, good luck differentiating between deliberate miscarriages & accidental. You'd have to have a probing investigation either way...something I doubt most would want...