Does it even matter? There's only something like 15% of the counties in the US that even have abortion services available.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of abortion and have done my time on clinic defense lines. But, really, is Ron Paul notably different from most Republican candidates (or even Democratic ones) because of his stand on abortion?
Seems kind of silly to me.
He's only remarkable because he's thought of as the sane libertarian who doesn't care about all the crazy right-wing social issues.
Yet, given this, and the racism, it seems he really isn't. Or he's given in and is willing to pander for the nomination, which also blows his image.
Well, until st peter (the one with the long floppy ears) runs, i think this is as close to a libertarian party candidate as you're going to get.
|
12 was an arbitrary age, but it's a good example. The risk of death in childbirth is MUCH higher the younger the pregnant person is. Combine this with a circumstance of rape and there is NO WAY you can ethically or morally tell this CHILD they are to be victimized again by risking death to deliver their rapist's baby.
Kolopak: Centuries ago, when the women of our tribe were raped by white conquerors, many gave birth to their children. And we did not reject them. They were accepted by the tribe. One was a direct ancestor of ours, Chakotay. His name... was Ce Acatl. He became a great leader of our people. Here is a man who was given life without his mother's consent. Are you so different from her? And is your child so different from Ce Acatl?
Commander Chakotay: [after a pause] No.
Kolopak: Mm... He is your son, Chakotay. And he is a child of our people.
Of course this was written and acted by men, so no wonder they don't understand.
12 was an arbitrary age, but it's a good example. The risk of death in childbirth is MUCH higher the younger the pregnant person is. Combine this with a circumstance of rape and there is NO WAY you can ethically or morally tell this CHILD they are to be victimized again by risking death to deliver their rapist's baby.
There is, IF... and this is a very large if, you accept the premise that the fetus is a person, then a 100% chance of death for the fetus vs a 1% chance of death for the mother is not a fair trade off. Killing someone on the 1% chance that they'll kill you isn't allowed.
Please, please remember, that i do not accept the basic premise of the person hood of a zygote, but the conclusion does follow morally and rationally IF you accept that premise.
Qualified praise from the commies at Counterpunch.
@White Knife: Han Solo? I missed that before! You're a weirdo!
Ha. You know it!
I used to be a big Ron Paul supporter - until I came across some statements he made on YouTube which show that he doesn't understand the whole church and state issue. I think he's a lot less libertarian than people think he is.
He's a Texas libertarian, which means total deregulation of big business on the financial end of things, with government serving only to grease the wheels. The ones I've met in person (with the exception of HD) are generally not social libertarians, except with respect to being free to run red lights and own military ordnance; too many of them haven't thought past that, and choose to default to their interpretation of "Christian values" (imposed by the government as needed) to answer all other issues.
|
He's only remarkable because he's thought of as the sane libertarian who doesn't care about all the crazy right-wing social issues.
Yet, given this, and the racism, it seems he really isn't. Or he's given in and is willing to pander for the nomination, which also blows his image.
So believing in conception being the personhood (which for the record I disagree with him about) means he's not libertarian? Man, if a single moral issue can determine whether or not you're part of a party, then I'm not allowed in any.
I also don't believe he's a racist, I've seen the newsletters, but he disavowed them and says he didn't write them. Considering how incorruptible he's been in congress and how much the party establishment hates him for it considering how far he could get if he just played ball, I'm willing to take him at his word.
By the way anyone else think it's ludicrous how the republicans are claiming that if he wins in Iowa that it invalidates the primary process?
The government doesn't increase net worth. There's no product or service that it sells. It is a drain on the economy. What we need are people in jobs whose products we can sell. We need these people to get -out- of government jobs.
As for your deregulation jab, it was unfair since every argument I've ever seen included a recognized need for business transparency - which didn't exist in your example.
I don't necessarily disagree with you... in the long run. But right now, in 2012-2013, putting more people out of work (reducing government spending) will not improve the economy. Increasing the unemployment % does NOT grow the economy.
In addition, the government does produce things that people use. For one, health care. I benefit greatly from the Veteran's Hospital located several miles from my house, without their services I would be either dead or homeless right now. Health care is a product, there is proof that the government can be capable of providing it and it can be of pretty high quality.
The government also produces roads, bridges, education, law enforcement, fire departments, airports. These are things we all use, or "consume". I believe government should cover the basic necessities that are to be available to all citizens, now we can argue over what those necessities are, but if every single citizen is going to benefit from these programs.
I can't think of a single industry where freedom of information without some sort of external oversight is standard practice. I'm sure there's one or two, but overall, companies do not share internal information if they don't have to. Even when people would seemingly have a right to that information (shareholders) companies are often loathe to give it out. Hiding information is par for the course, unless we make it a law that it has to be shared, even then, companies will stick to the letter of the law, not the spirit and conceal as much as they can.
You can call it a jab, but it was a completely unregulated market. It definitely corrected itself, so all the "market advocates" are right, the market does work! Boom and busts will always happen, anyone who says they can prevent the cycle is either doesn't know any better or is lying (most are just deluded). That doesn't mean we can't take steps to mitigate the effects of the cycle and that's where regulation comes in.
The problem is that people who advocate deregulation never seem to advocate the propagation of information. Instead of trying to reform regulation in a meaningful way, they just try to get rid of it. Ron Paul is so opposed to regulation, he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
He's only remarkable because he's thought of as the sane libertarian who doesn't care about all the crazy right-wing social issues.
Yet, given this, and the racism, it seems he really isn't. Or he's given in and is willing to pander for the nomination, which also blows his image.
So believing in conception being the personhood (which for the record I disagree with him about) means he's not libertarian? Man, if a single moral issue can determine whether or not you're part of a party, then I'm not allowed in any.
I also don't believe he's a racist, I've seen the newsletters, but he disavowed them and says he didn't write them. Considering how incorruptible he's been in congress and how much the party establishment hates him for it considering how far he could get if he just played ball, I'm willing to take him at his word.
By the way anyone else think it's ludicrous how the republicans are claiming that if he wins in Iowa that it invalidates the primary process?
I get a chuckle out of watching all of the major media outlets (especially fox) who claimed Paul would never win anything change their story to how Iowa isn't relevant.
I dared to hope for better.
Ron Paul's Iowa results: Candidate falls short of validating 1st place finish
Well, with any luck Santorium will go like the rest of them and colapse soon, otherwise Pauls handing the nomination to romney.
Well, with any luck Santorium will go like the rest of them and colapse soon, otherwise Pauls handing the nomination to romney.
I really detest Romney with a burning passion.
For the most part, I have become more disgusted with my party every year for 25 years.
BT, not to worry too much. The Campaign is on top of things. Delegates are surging!
and
That's consistent with the strategy here in Colorado. I've been a county delegate twice and a state delegate once. We have done very well at advancing delegates.
A first place showing would have made it harder for the MSM to ignore us though.
We have always know it would be a brutal uphill battle. I appreciate the edifying thoughts.
Well, with any luck Santorium will go like the rest of them and colapse soon, otherwise Pauls handing the nomination to romney.I really detest Romney with a burning passion.
For the most part, I have become more disgusted with my party every year for 25 years.
Having not been paying attention to politics for that long i can't say I've ever seen much to recommend about your party. Its touted goals of small government that lets people run their own lives are laudible, but i have never in my life seen the republicans do that. Its all about slanting the laws in favor of big business, invading places for natural resources with our tax payer paid for army, and appealing to the christian right on social issues. Having a government school put up the ten commandments and holding prayers so kids know who the uppity atheists are so they can give them a swirly later is not my idea of government staying out of my life.
The problem I have with paul is that he wants to leave everything to the states.. states don't neccesarily stay out of peoples lives either.
The other 75% hate him.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. While there are around 25% that are excited about him, he has consistently shown up as the majority of Republican voters "2nd" choice (after their preferred candidate). The entirety of that other 75% doesn't necessarily hate him, they are merely not excited about him.
What I think you are seeing is the same groups of voters switching to the next big thing. The people that suddenly started supporting Bachman, jumped to Perry, then to Cain, then started supporting Newt, then Paul, now Santorum. I think there certainly is a 25-30% group of Republicans that want anyone but Romney, but I don't think it is close to 75%.
Bachman just dropped out officially, Perry said he's gonna keep going.
Paul got third...dunno what to think about that, honestly. Do people really agree with his foreign policy stuff enough, or do they just not care?
If he gets into office, most of his good domestic ideas he'll ahve to get passed by congress, but his whack-a-do foreign policy stuff he doesn't need any congressional approval on, except maybe cutting off all foreign aid. His military ideas he can jsut do with a stroke of a pen.
Are people really ok with this?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I happen to agree with his foreign policy, as does quite a number of the international community, and strangely enough our military.
Since the U.S. has been rattling its war drums at Iran, with severe opposition from Russia and China, and Japan now reluctantly joining their argument, we're on the edge of an international diplomacy meltdown. Unfortunately, it is likely there will be a military response from the United States, including transferring something like 20,000 troops to Australia in preparation for Chinese naval action.
Several Australians I know are not at all happy about this. China is their largest trading partner, and one of the primary reasons that their nation is doing relatively well in this global economic crisis. Staging troops in Australia would effectively cut off this trade with China and endanger (if not brutalize) the Australian Economy.
In other news today, the United States economic sanctions against Iran have dramatically decreased the value of Iran's currency (40%) in the international market. This can only make things worse for Iran, who I hope will still be able to trade with their currency internally to avoid hyperinflation and the travesties that follow. I think it is likely that Iran will shut down the Strait of Hormuz (sp?) if international relations continue to worsen. Oil prices up 4% today. Up 400% if the Strait of Hormuz is closed off.
There was a time, not too distant for some, but several lifetimes for others, when sanctions were considered an act of war and were never used in international relations, or used seldomly, as it was entirely possible to declare war against those that have placed sanctions. The following would be considered acts of war in this previously held philosophy:
1) Interfering with or imposing restrictions on a nation's ability to trade with its neighbors or with any nation.
2) Interfering with or imposing restrictions on a nation's ability to conduct diplomacy or enter alliances with its neighbors or with any nation.
3) Interfering with or imposing restrictions on the internal affairs or governmental powers of a nation.
And yet, these days, these are common practices. Imperialism at its worse. The Golden Rule applies internationally. We must realize that it is better to treat others how we would wish to be treated.
Bachman just dropped out officially, Perry said he's gonna keep going.
Paul got third...dunno what to think about that, honestly. Do people really agree with his foreign policy stuff enough, or do they just not care?
If he gets into office, most of his good domestic ideas he'll ahve to get passed by congress, but his whack-a-do foreign policy stuff he doesn't need any congressional approval on, except maybe cutting off all foreign aid. His military ideas he can jsut do with a stroke of a pen.
Are people really ok with this?
A decent amount of Paul's support within the GOP comes from his pro peace non interventionist policies, and it comes from various directions. There are anti war folks, war fatigue folks, anti globalists, and so forth. If you oppose preemptive war and nation building who else is there to support in the GOP? Opposition to preemptive war and nation building used to be mainstream positions in the GOP after the Cold War before neo con policy came to be dominant.
Paul's pro peace beliefs also draw support from independents and Democrats in open caucuses like Iowa and open primaries like New Hamshire.
Obama has betrayed his supporters who value peace and civil liberties, and the rest of the GOP field seems ready to start bombing Iraq. Many people see Paul as the only major candidate left who truly opposes a state of endless undeclared war.
Many people see Paul as the only major candidate left who truly opposes a state of endless undeclared war.
Well, Paul and maybe Huntsman (who unequivocally wants us out of Afghanistan, but seems open to the possibility of having to invade Iran "to stop them from getting nukes"). Then again, Huntsman isn't exactly a "major candidate," either.
|
|
Bachman just dropped out officially, Perry said he's gonna keep going.
Paul got third...dunno what to think about that, honestly. Do people really agree with his foreign policy stuff enough, or do they just not care?
If he gets into office, most of his good domestic ideas he'll ahve to get passed by congress, but his whack-a-do foreign policy stuff he doesn't need any congressional approval on, except maybe cutting off all foreign aid. His military ideas he can jsut do with a stroke of a pen.
Are people really ok with this?
Considering his foreign policy is basically the only one that fits my worldview, I'd welcome it.
And what Stardust said.
It would be interesting to see just how much of his military/foreign policy he could do with the stroke of a pen. And what the immediate political consequences would be. He might have the theoretical power to do things without congressional approval, but he does still need congressional support. If he runs roughshod over them on one issue, will they give him any support elsewhere?
And can the president singlehandedly break treaty commitments, etc?
Still, despite having serious reservations about his isolationist foreign policy ideals, his opposition to military adventurism is about the only thing I like about him. And the Civil liberties tied to the wars on (some) terror and on (some) drugs.
His domestic ideas, other than that, are where I think he's a whackjob.
It would be awesome to watch how he handles his deeply held belief in a limited executive while fighting the other branches efforts to expand the power and scope of government.
Many people see Paul as the only major candidate left who truly opposes a state of endless undeclared war.Well, Paul and maybe Huntsman (who unequivocally wants us out of Afghanistan, but seems open to the possibility of having to invade Iran "to stop them from getting nukes"). Then again, Huntsman isn't exactly a "major candidate," either.
How does Texas semi open primary system work? Could someone declare at the polls for the GOP to support a candidate in the primaries then caucus?
I don't think nation building and what not is cool, either.
Burying your head in the sand isn't a swell option either.
Where's the middle option?
International proletarian socialist revolution?
Sorry. I'll shut up now.
It wouldn't be you if you did ;)
I don't think nation building and what not is cool, either.
Burying your head in the sand isn't a swell option either.
Where's the middle option?
I think non intervention is the middle ground between isolationism and imperialism.
Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist as the medial loves to label him. The media and GOP's constant use of the term isolationist is a deliberate slur and distortion.
I just don't think that avoiding entangling alliances and opposing preemptive war equates to sticking our head in the sand. We cannot afford to maintain an empire and be the policeman of the world.
International proletarian socialist revolution?
Sorry. I'll shut up now.
*facepalm*
I respect your consistency.
I respect your consistency.
Something about "the hobgoblin of small minds" rings a bell, but everybody knows what an anti-goblin bigot Emerson was.
I am only breaking my vow to shut up so that Citizen Kryzbyn will know that my account hasn't been hacked.
LOL!
How does Texas semi open primary system work? Could someone declare at the polls for the GOP to support a candidate in the primaries then caucus?Many people see Paul as the only major candidate left who truly opposes a state of endless undeclared war.Well, Paul and maybe Huntsman (who unequivocally wants us out of Afghanistan, but seems open to the possibility of having to invade Iran "to stop them from getting nukes"). Then again, Huntsman isn't exactly a "major candidate," either.
This is the last I heard in '08:
"Here is the explanation from the office of the Texas Secretary of State—
If you are a registered voter in the state of Texas, you will simply choose your party and vote in that party’s primary. To explain, we do not register by party in Texas. One becomes “affiliated” with a party by voting in a party’s primary and the affiliation lasts for that primary year. As an example, if a voter voted in the March 2006 primary or April 2006 runoff primary, the voter affiliated with that party for the rest of that year, but on December 31, 2006 the affiliation expired. The affiliation means that the person may not vote in another party’s primary or participate in another party’s convention or sign an independent candidate’s petition for place on the ballot if the independent candidate’s position appears on the primary ballot. Note that in the general election in November, a voter may vote for whomever he/she wishes, regardless of how or whether he/she voted in the primary or runoff primary election, since all candidates are on the same ballot "
I understand Paul's ideas to be:
1)Close our bases (even ones in ally countries) worldwide and bring them home. Cut defense budget accordingly, leave a force large enough to defend only our borders.
2)End foreign aid. Period.
3)Stay out of other countries' business, even if it includes them acquiring nuclear weapons.
4)We don't support allies abroad militarily.
Am I off?
How is that not isolationism?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully this will help you out:
I would also turn to Washington's Farewell Address for a better understanding as well.
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
I understand Paul's ideas to be:
1)Close our bases (even ones in ally countries) worldwide and bring them home. Cut defense budget accordingly, leave a force large enough to defend only our borders.
2)End foreign aid. Period.
3)Stay out of other countries' business, even if it includes them acquiring nuclear weapons.
4)We don't support allies abroad militarily.Am I off?
How is that not isolationism?
Stardust has done an excellent job of contrasting isolationism and non-interventionism.
Your summation of Paul's position is fair although I think we would maintain adequate naval and air power to respond to an attack any where in the world.
This is a huge contrast to the current situation where US military spending rivals the rest of the planet combined. Most of that spending is focused on "projecting power" globally. I think the fact that we label this "defense spending" is positively Orwellian.
So unless we pull out of the world economy and break all treaties, we're not technicly isolationist.
But in every other way, we would be.
It's like when people point out that tomatos are technicly not vegetables, they are fruit. But in everyday vernacular, they're vegetables.
Stardust has done an excellent job of contrasting isolationism and non-interventionism.Your summation of Paul's position is fair although I think we would maintain adequate naval and air power to respond to an attack any where in the world.
This is a huge contrast to the current situation where US military spending rivals the rest of the planet combined. Most of that spending is focused on "projecting power" globally. I think the fact that we label this "defense spending" is positively Orwellian.
Ok, that's not so bad.
And I'm not totally against any of those things. As long as we have adequate defense, I'm ok. As long as Paul is willing to fight when necessary, I'm ok with that. As long as non-intervension does not mean "let them walk all over us", I'm ok with that.I'm hoping as a Texan he'll pay attention to our southern border at least, and take steps.
So unless we pull out of the world economy and break all treaties, we're not technicly isolationist.
But in every other way, we would be.
It's like when people point out that tomatos are technicly not vegetables, they are fruit. But in everyday vernacular, they're vegetables.
I think this goes far beyond semantics. Labeling Paul an isolationist is naked demagoguery and propaganda.
He is not an isolationist on trade, culture, travel, immigration, and so forth. Labeling someone isolationist for opposing preemptive war and entangling alliances is either grossly uninformed or a willful distortion, and the GOP and MSM does it consistently.
We can agree to disagree. It may not be technical isolationism, but I can see where someone would get that impression, seeing as how I had that impression myself...
If it continues to be a stumbling block for him, perhaps he will have more opportunity to clarify his positions.