Ron Paul
- Thread starter Herschel
- Start date
He's my favorite of the republican candidates and I might consider voting for him. We'll see as time passes.
I like that he, unlike many of the candidates, wants to protect citizen's rights to privacy and personal property.
At a glance, I'm not wild about the fact that he's pro-life. So am I, but I'm against taking away a woman's right to choose by adding more legislation against abortion and stem cell research. No partial birth abortions, ok, I can understand that - but I'm under the impression that Paul wants to ban abortion, period.
I like that he, unlike many of the candidates, wants to protect citizen's rights to privacy and personal property.
At a glance, I'm not wild about the fact that he's pro-life. So am I, but I'm against taking away a woman's right to choose by adding more legislation against abortion and stem cell research. No partial birth abortions, ok, I can understand that - but I'm under the impression that Paul wants to ban abortion, period.
He voted against federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and backed the President's veto on expanding federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research. He says that he isn't "against it" but thinks that it should all be privately funded. To me, that is essentially the same as saying "I'm against it".
ETA: Adult stem cells are not totipotent. They don't "become" the cells that surround them, they just bind to the cells, and do not divide to produce new cells. There isn't much application for them, and thus research surrounding them isn't nearly as important as embryonic stem cell research.
ETA: Adult stem cells are not totipotent. They don't "become" the cells that surround them, they just bind to the cells, and do not divide to produce new cells. There isn't much application for them, and thus research surrounding them isn't nearly as important as embryonic stem cell research.
I'm not for having the government fund stem cell research either... doesn't mean I am against it. To say that is just silly. that's right up there with the "if you aren't with me you are against me" theory IMO. I don't think it is the governments job to fund such things.
As for taking away a womans right to her body... IMO... when you are with child... it's no longer just YOUR BODY to do with what you please.... your purpose is to do nothing other than support the life YOU made. If there isn't a medical reason 9life or death) I just can't support it. I don't think there should be more laws... but I can't fault him for feeling the way he does.
If I could vote... he is one of the front runners for me... but I can't so it doesn't really matter.
As for taking away a womans right to her body... IMO... when you are with child... it's no longer just YOUR BODY to do with what you please.... your purpose is to do nothing other than support the life YOU made. If there isn't a medical reason 9life or death) I just can't support it. I don't think there should be more laws... but I can't fault him for feeling the way he does.
If I could vote... he is one of the front runners for me... but I can't so it doesn't really matter.
I agree with Zoom and Breeze. I would never vote for him.
I don't agree with abortion, however, I am prochoice. I personally would only have an abortion if it were medically necessary, and it disgusts me when people use abortion as a means of birth control. Although I do not believe in abortion, I would never want the government to take away the freedom of choice when it comes to women and their bodies. Not to mention, if abortion becomes illegal, there are going to be so many illegal abotion clinics and women doing their own.
I don't agree with abortion, however, I am prochoice. I personally would only have an abortion if it were medically necessary, and it disgusts me when people use abortion as a means of birth control. Although I do not believe in abortion, I would never want the government to take away the freedom of choice when it comes to women and their bodies. Not to mention, if abortion becomes illegal, there are going to be so many illegal abotion clinics and women doing their own.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2006
- Messages
- 15,349
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
Whether he can or cannot "just up and change the law" isn't the issue. The issue is that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth . . . politics as usual.
But it's kinda like saying the President can't declare war on his own . . . and how many times have we found ourselves in the midst of war zones on the word of a President?
But it's kinda like saying the President can't declare war on his own . . . and how many times have we found ourselves in the midst of war zones on the word of a President?
Since I don't really WANT to vote and the whole ordeal is just absolutely disgusting to me (not the voting part...the whole "political" aspect of it), I just might not vote. OH I KNOW ALREADY. What a waste, right?
Here's my deal: I hate all of them and will NEVER EVER believe a word that comes out of ANY of their mouths. I feel this odd guilt though, like...I'm avoiding my "duty" if I don't vote.
But how can I vote for something I don't believe in? Isn't it my right NOT to vote?
I don't know, last election (call me lame if you will) I was SOOO into it all and I cried and cried and cried when Bush won. Last election, to me, it wasn't about "vote for who you like/believe in", it was "Vote for a freakin' goldfish if it gets Bush out of office".
But this time around...I just don't know. I mean I don't go by party anymore. I grew up with a VERY democratic father, but he was an OLD SCHOOL union railroad welder. I don't do that whole party BS anymore. And I SURE AS HELL am NOT voting for a democrat THIS time around.
Sure...This Ron Paul, yeah, he sure seems to hit the nail on the head with issues that are important to me. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat. It burns MY ASS that I would vote for a *shudder* Republican, but democrats aren't what they're cracked up to be and I'm not impressed with the major ones running in the primary. I LOVELOVELOVED Obama when he ran for Senate (he was awesome then to me AND from Illinois to boot!), but he rose up from out of nowhere and that just isn't sitting right with me. I don't agree with his gun control happiness (that ONLY means BAD things, seriously). Hillary? No. Just no. I'm not even going to go there about her. The others? No.
The Republicans running? No way. Guliani? No. His kick about strengthening National Security (again, only can mean bad things AND he is about gun control, too-you BAD republican, GULIANI!). McCain is a just...ack.
If my guilt is overwhelming enough to make me vote, I'll be voting Ron Paul. Yes. I believe I will be. Unless I find out he stands for some REALLY BAD things that are REALLY BAD things in my opinion.
Here's my deal: I hate all of them and will NEVER EVER believe a word that comes out of ANY of their mouths. I feel this odd guilt though, like...I'm avoiding my "duty" if I don't vote.
But how can I vote for something I don't believe in? Isn't it my right NOT to vote?
I don't know, last election (call me lame if you will) I was SOOO into it all and I cried and cried and cried when Bush won. Last election, to me, it wasn't about "vote for who you like/believe in", it was "Vote for a freakin' goldfish if it gets Bush out of office".
But this time around...I just don't know. I mean I don't go by party anymore. I grew up with a VERY democratic father, but he was an OLD SCHOOL union railroad welder. I don't do that whole party BS anymore. And I SURE AS HELL am NOT voting for a democrat THIS time around.
Sure...This Ron Paul, yeah, he sure seems to hit the nail on the head with issues that are important to me. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat. It burns MY ASS that I would vote for a *shudder* Republican, but democrats aren't what they're cracked up to be and I'm not impressed with the major ones running in the primary. I LOVELOVELOVED Obama when he ran for Senate (he was awesome then to me AND from Illinois to boot!), but he rose up from out of nowhere and that just isn't sitting right with me. I don't agree with his gun control happiness (that ONLY means BAD things, seriously). Hillary? No. Just no. I'm not even going to go there about her. The others? No.
The Republicans running? No way. Guliani? No. His kick about strengthening National Security (again, only can mean bad things AND he is about gun control, too-you BAD republican, GULIANI!). McCain is a just...ack.
If my guilt is overwhelming enough to make me vote, I'll be voting Ron Paul. Yes. I believe I will be. Unless I find out he stands for some REALLY BAD things that are REALLY BAD things in my opinion.
You have a good point, and I agree.
My beliefs and values are so bizarre (I'm an extreme social liberal and an economic conservative) that the chances of a candidate popping up who shares ALL of my feelings is.. well.. zero. Unless I run for president.
I figure they're all liars, whether they change their mind a lot or are hypocritical on some issues, but so far he's pushing for a few things that I think are important. So he's a possibility.
Honestly, it's never an issue discussed by presidential candidates but in local offices, I like to know their feelings on BSL and animal-related issues. Unfortunately the local liberals that I would vote for are pro-BSL (they always watch out for the majority, even if the majority are idiots). I can't help but think that if BSL ever became national, a very liberal administration would be inclined towards passing legislation against "dangerous dogs". not the most important issue out there, true, but a VERY important issue to ME.
My beliefs and values are so bizarre (I'm an extreme social liberal and an economic conservative) that the chances of a candidate popping up who shares ALL of my feelings is.. well.. zero. Unless I run for president.
I figure they're all liars, whether they change their mind a lot or are hypocritical on some issues, but so far he's pushing for a few things that I think are important. So he's a possibility.
Honestly, it's never an issue discussed by presidential candidates but in local offices, I like to know their feelings on BSL and animal-related issues. Unfortunately the local liberals that I would vote for are pro-BSL (they always watch out for the majority, even if the majority are idiots). I can't help but think that if BSL ever became national, a very liberal administration would be inclined towards passing legislation against "dangerous dogs". not the most important issue out there, true, but a VERY important issue to ME.