What's the contradiction? Abortion is such a non-issue. Plus, even if Paul was elected as president in a landslide, he still wouldn't have the power to make abortion illegal. Talk about missing the forrest for the tree.
What Paul represents is admitting to ourselves that the donkey/elephant establishment has been ripping us off blind and killing innocents needlessly all over the world along the way to the point that we need to REMOVE YA!
It's basically a war against a criminal government that has transformed itself from a representative republic to a banking dictatorship. Who of us was asked if we wanted them to give trillions to their crooked buddies? Obama doesn't even consult Congress anymore to strike up a new war.
This shit needs to be turned over on its ear. And you fellas are quite simply sitting on the wrong side of the fence...in that you lapdogs to Satan's nutsack eventually, if not already as evidenced by your pathetic and petty attitudes, are going to lose.
Maybe it won't be Paul to do it. But the tides are a-shifting.
People are tired of being bullshitted.
Ron Paul may be a lot of things, and a lot of those things may be wacky and unrealistic, but he doesn't appear to be trying to bullshit anyone.
If people support Ron Paul on a "No more cheating, lying and bullshitting" front I can appreciate that.
And if he's a step towards a more mainstream, level-headed politician who holds those specific morals, great!
Maybe in a circus the clown has the best ideas on how to run things but at the end of the day he's still just a clown.
Maybe it won't be Paul to do it. But the tides are a-shifting.
It definitely won't be Paul. Dude can't even get Fox News to talk about him. Maybe the tides will shift, but they'll just move from one side of the pool back to the other. So Rick Perry is our new President. Awesome. We'll just go back to where we were 10 years ago.
Until we have a truly progressive leader backed by a progressive congress it's always going to be 2 steps forward, 3 steps back.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
FoxNews is irrelevant. There are grown folks talking.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
keithvanhorn said:
What's the worst that could happen in a Ron Paul presidency?
Alarmist drivel. Taking those suppositions for true is wackier than anything actually Paul related.
your ron paul cheer-leading is really annoying, mostly because you keep repeating the same rhetoric about how he is the anti-establishment candidate, but you have no idea how he would lead as president because you seem to know very little about him (and you're dismissive about people who do). i''d imagine that some of the things you probably value (like programs for the poor, healthcare for kids, and general federal spending for the underprivileged) would cease to exist because Paul would veto all spending for it.
it's okay to cheer him on when he says things that you agree with (like his stance on foreign policy and his critique of the cozy relationship between the govt and lobbyists) but also acknowledge that the government can play (and does play) a positive role in many people's lives.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
You wanting to just vote for Obama again is what is annoying.
b/w
Thank you, sir. May I have another?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Obama can't do shit which y'all excuse him for, but if Paul becomes president y'all act like he's going to move mountains with the flick of his wrist.
He'll curb war, tell the bankers to fuck off, and bring accountability to government. I'll take that gladly as all he'd be able to accomplish with you 2-party dinosaurs acting so ridiculously incredulous all around him.
Who wold Paul nominate for the SCOTUS? There will probably be a couple of those next term. Those appointments are for life...would he put a "bootstraps, look out for number one, he who has the most wins" person on there? A few more "origianlists" on the SCOTUS and we could be screwed for a very very long time.
RP has stated repeatedly it is not up to the president to decide whether abortion is should be legal or not. I agree with him on this. Even if he did want a federal ban on abortion (WHICH HE DOESN'T [and couldn't accomplish as president]) that wrong position is not even in the same ballpark as assassinating US citizens, continuing renditions and torture, waging war without approval or oversight, and most importantly continuing THE FUCKING DRUG WAR. All policies that as a president he could affect.
I'm glad you guys have morals and want to protect women's reproductive rights, but talk about missing the forest for the trees.
RP has stated repeatedly it is not up to the president to decide whether abortion is should be legal or not. I agree with him on this. Even if he did want a federal ban on abortion (WHICH HE DOESN'T [and couldn't accomplish as president]) that wrong position is not even in the same ballpark as assassinating US citizens, continuing renditions and torture, waging war without approval or oversight, and most importantly continuing THE FUCKING DRUG WAR. All policies that as a president he could affect.
I'm glad you guys have morals and want to protect women's reproductive rights, but talk about missing the forest for the trees.
:walk_away_son:
does Roe v. Wade ring a bell to you? who do you think nominates the supreme court justices?
his stance on abortion is one of many reasons not to like him and nobody who knows anything about Paul brings up his stance on abortion (which is shared by every GOP candidate, except for Romney in his past political life) in a conversation about why he would be bad for the country since there are so many other things that would make him a horrible prez.
You 2-party dinosaurs acting so ridiculously incredulous all around him.
Did I miss something? Last time I checked Ron Paul is and has been running as a candidate for the Republican party nomination. Unless you know something I don't, the prediction that he will break off and run as an independent is just conjecture.
b/w
Dude's been running for President since 1988, no wins yet.
RP has stated repeatedly it is not up to the president to decide whether abortion is should be legal or not. I agree with him on this. Even if he did want a federal ban on abortion (WHICH HE DOESN'T [and couldn't accomplish as president]) that wrong position is not even in the same ballpark as assassinating US citizens, continuing renditions and torture, waging war without approval or oversight, and most importantly continuing THE FUCKING DRUG WAR. All policies that as a president he could affect.
I'm glad you guys have morals and want to protect women's reproductive rights, but talk about missing the forest for the trees.
:walk_away_son:
does Roe v. Wade ring a bell to you? who do you think nominates the supreme court justices?
his stance on abortion is one of many reasons not to like him and nobody who knows anything about Paul brings up his stance on abortion (which is shared by every GOP candidate, except for Romney in his past political life) in a conversation about why he would be bad for the country since there are so many other things that would make him a horrible prez.
Abortion is about 500th on the list of important topics related to the president, and Roe v. Wade is the most over-hyped piece of legislation ever. I've asked at least a dozen educated adults over the years what would happen if it were overturned and every single one of them said that abortion would be illegal, which is of course not the case at all.
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
This is a classic red herring issue to distract the electorate while both parties rob you blind.
Why on earth would the republicans want to overturn Roe. Its the gift that keeps on giving.
I also want to take this opportunity to go on the record that if the President stays on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, its for one reason and one reason only - photo op. On Sunday or at the latest Monday, we will be treated to pictures of the President: (a) riding it out in the eye of the storm, talking to governors on the phone and directing the recovery efforts from ground zero; (b) in action filling sandbags, or (c) if we are lucky, rescuing an animal or old person.
On Sunday or at the latest Monday, we will be treated to pictures of the President: (a) riding it out in the eye of the storm, talking to governors on the phone and directing the recovery efforts from ground zero; (b) in action filling sandbags, or (c) if we are lucky, rescuing an animal or old person.
RP has stated repeatedly it is not up to the president to decide whether abortion is should be legal or not. I agree with him on this. Even if he did want a federal ban on abortion (WHICH HE DOESN'T [and couldn't accomplish as president]) that wrong position is not even in the same ballpark as assassinating US citizens, continuing renditions and torture, waging war without approval or oversight, and most importantly continuing THE FUCKING DRUG WAR. All policies that as a president he could affect.
I'm glad you guys have morals and want to protect women's reproductive rights, but talk about missing the forest for the trees.
:walk_away_son:
does Roe v. Wade ring a bell to you? who do you think nominates the supreme court justices?
his stance on abortion is one of many reasons not to like him and nobody who knows anything about Paul brings up his stance on abortion (which is shared by every GOP candidate, except for Romney in his past political life) in a conversation about why he would be bad for the country since there are so many other things that would make him a horrible prez.
Abortion is about 500th on the list of important topics related to the president, and Roe v. Wade is the most over-hyped piece of legislation ever. I've asked at least a dozen educated adults over the years what would happen if it were overturned and every single one of them said that abortion would be illegal, which is of course not the case at all.
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
This is a classic red herring issue to distract the electorate while both parties rob you blind.
Absolutely, yet it's an issue that both sides of the aisle get so worked up about that they can't focus on or even understand the other 499 more important issues.
Let's fix the friggin engine and worry about the fringe around the rear view mirror later.
On Sunday or at the latest Monday, we will be treated to pictures of the President: (a) riding it out in the eye of the storm, talking to governors on the phone and directing the recovery efforts from ground zero; (b) in action filling sandbags, or (c) if we are lucky, rescuing an animal or old person.
On Sunday or at the latest Monday, we will be treated to pictures of the President: (a) riding it out in the eye of the storm, talking to governors on the phone and directing the recovery efforts from ground zero; (b) in action filling sandbags, or (c) if we are lucky, rescuing an animal or old person.
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
You are disconnected from reality. This is from 2006; since then, the right wing has shifted much farther to the right.
How can it make a difference if the right wing shifts further to the right. I think what you mean is that the general public has become less supportive of abortion, you just don't want to actually have to say it.
What's the big deal with freedom of speech. Such a non-issue.
If it were up to the states, some would have it, some wouldn't.
If you have something to say, just go to another state to say it.
I would also add that your graphic cites as its source the Alan Guttmacher Institute which is named after the former president of planned parenthood. I wonder what their policy position is? I would also be curious to see how they define "significantly restrict." Parental notification for children under 14? Or maybe prohibitting the use of federal funds for abortion? Or maybe a three day waiting period.
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
You are disconnected from reality. This is from 2006; since then, the right wing has shifted much farther to the right.
Sorry, but this is misleading. "restrict access to abortion" is often jargon for cuts in funding, it doesn't necessarily mean it would be outlawed.
And the source you quoted is hardly unbiased, reproductive rights groups don't get donations by saying that every thing is fine and there's no danger to your rights. Factcheck.org claims that 20 states would likely prohibit abortion, but every source they sited has an active bias on this issue. The one relatively unbiased source (Washington Post nationwide poll) indicates that less than 20% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases. I don't see how that translates into a sweeping tide of states outlawing abortion.
And none of this changes the fact that this is an absurd issue to judge a presidential candidate by.
Comments
People are tired of being bullshitted.
Ron Paul may be a lot of things, and a lot of those things may be wacky and unrealistic, but he doesn't appear to be trying to bullshit anyone.
If people support Ron Paul on a "No more cheating, lying and bullshitting" front I can appreciate that.
And if he's a step towards a more mainstream, level-headed politician who holds those specific morals, great!
Maybe in a circus the clown has the best ideas on how to run things but at the end of the day he's still just a clown.
It definitely won't be Paul. Dude can't even get Fox News to talk about him. Maybe the tides will shift, but they'll just move from one side of the pool back to the other. So Rick Perry is our new President. Awesome. We'll just go back to where we were 10 years ago.
Until we have a truly progressive leader backed by a progressive congress it's always going to be 2 steps forward, 3 steps back.
Alarmist drivel. Taking those suppositions for true is wackier than anything actually Paul related.
It's definitely irrelevant to me but it plays a huge part in deciding who "the base" elects. Any Grown Republican Will Tell You.
your ron paul cheer-leading is really annoying, mostly because you keep repeating the same rhetoric about how he is the anti-establishment candidate, but you have no idea how he would lead as president because you seem to know very little about him (and you're dismissive about people who do). i''d imagine that some of the things you probably value (like programs for the poor, healthcare for kids, and general federal spending for the underprivileged) would cease to exist because Paul would veto all spending for it.
it's okay to cheer him on when he says things that you agree with (like his stance on foreign policy and his critique of the cozy relationship between the govt and lobbyists) but also acknowledge that the government can play (and does play) a positive role in many people's lives.
b/w
Thank you, sir. May I have another?
He'll curb war, tell the bankers to fuck off, and bring accountability to government. I'll take that gladly as all he'd be able to accomplish with you 2-party dinosaurs acting so ridiculously incredulous all around him.
I'm glad you guys have morals and want to protect women's reproductive rights, but talk about missing the forest for the trees.
:walk_away_son:
does Roe v. Wade ring a bell to you? who do you think nominates the supreme court justices?
his stance on abortion is one of many reasons not to like him and nobody who knows anything about Paul brings up his stance on abortion (which is shared by every GOP candidate, except for Romney in his past political life) in a conversation about why he would be bad for the country since there are so many other things that would make him a horrible prez.
Did I miss something? Last time I checked Ron Paul is and has been running as a candidate for the Republican party nomination. Unless you know something I don't, the prediction that he will break off and run as an independent is just conjecture.
b/w
Dude's been running for President since 1988, no wins yet.
Elaborate.
Not supporting the drug war would make him the best president in my lifetime.
This would have a negative economic effect on certain people with Lawyers being near the top of the list.
Abortion is about 500th on the list of important topics related to the president, and Roe v. Wade is the most over-hyped piece of legislation ever. I've asked at least a dozen educated adults over the years what would happen if it were overturned and every single one of them said that abortion would be illegal, which is of course not the case at all.
If it were overturned, a handful of states at most would outlaw abortion, and women in those states could just go to another state.
This is a classic red herring issue to distract the electorate while both parties rob you blind.
I also want to take this opportunity to go on the record that if the President stays on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, its for one reason and one reason only - photo op. On Sunday or at the latest Monday, we will be treated to pictures of the President: (a) riding it out in the eye of the storm, talking to governors on the phone and directing the recovery efforts from ground zero; (b) in action filling sandbags, or (c) if we are lucky, rescuing an animal or old person.
Absolutely, yet it's an issue that both sides of the aisle get so worked up about that they can't focus on or even understand the other 499 more important issues.
Let's fix the friggin engine and worry about the fringe around the rear view mirror later.
You think it's easy reading a book upside down?
Ha ha! Good point.
Ugh. Who left the door open again.
Yeah, because going to another state is something only millionaires can do.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have a point, but just can't stop talking.
You are disconnected from reality. This is from 2006; since then, the right wing has shifted much farther to the right.
How can it make a difference if the right wing shifts further to the right. I think what you mean is that the general public has become less supportive of abortion, you just don't want to actually have to say it.
I have never been pregnant. I will never be pregnant. How can something that will never effect me be the least bit important.
OK carry on.
If it were up to the states, some would have it, some wouldn't.
If you have something to say, just go to another state to say it.
Seriously. A bunch of men going on about how unimportant an issue abortion is to them.
Sorry, but this is misleading. "restrict access to abortion" is often jargon for cuts in funding, it doesn't necessarily mean it would be outlawed.
And the source you quoted is hardly unbiased, reproductive rights groups don't get donations by saying that every thing is fine and there's no danger to your rights. Factcheck.org claims that 20 states would likely prohibit abortion, but every source they sited has an active bias on this issue. The one relatively unbiased source (Washington Post nationwide poll) indicates that less than 20% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases. I don't see how that translates into a sweeping tide of states outlawing abortion.
And none of this changes the fact that this is an absurd issue to judge a presidential candidate by.