Rundown of candidates - can we just post pros/cons w/no arguing?

I would answer , but I'm going to abide by the wishes of the member that opened the thread.

 

No problem. I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America and that's what I did and that's what I'm still doing today.

The author of this thread wanted a civilized discussion Salty. Let's not ruin it for him okay? If you want to try and set me off do it in one of the threads I started or just PM me. I'd be glad to hear from ya. :thumbs:

I'm kinda curious about why some people believe Ron Paul is a liberal. He's in favor of limited goverment. Back in the 1980's that was conservative. He's in favor of financial sanity I remember a time when that was conservative. He's in favor of a non interventionist foreign policy that was our original foreign policy and at one time that was considered conservative. Ron Paul has always been in favor of those things that at one time were considered conservative. He's in favor of a strong defense at home and aboard to the extent it is actually needed.

So what makes him a liberal? Because he's in favor of individual liberty? The founding principle of the USA? The principle that helped make us and keep us the most advanced and admired nation in the world? Up until recently that is, when political correctness and the already failed idea of collectivism was injected into the public mind. Now we're probably the most hated and feared nation in the world.

Is it because he's in favor letting potheads out of jail to make room for serious crimnals? That alone would save this nation oodles of tax money.

As it is today the "land of the free" has the biggest prison population in the world and growing. If you carry an ounce of weed your going to jail, if you scam people for billions you're given awards and eat dinner in the White House.

If you are a gun running drug dealer dressed up as an "official" (see Iran Contra scandal) you get a pardon and a promotion and in some cases even your own tv talk show! Yet the guy that bought your wares 100 hands down goes to jail for possesion of your filth?

That's conservative? That's moral? That's a system worth keeping?

I remember a time when saving money was considered conservative. I remember a time when wasting money on things we didn't need or that didn't work was considered conservative.

Ron Paul has delivered 4,000 babies of all colors! I'd say that's pro life. That's still considered conservative isn't it?

So what is it? What makes Ron Paul a liberal?

 

Thanks, Havensdad. I'd have to look back and figure out where I got the abortion info on Paul to be sure, but I'm thinking it was the Nat'l Right to Life. Thank you for all the info and responses - lots to chew on.

 

Hi again Havensdad - I came across this first link and a few other things like it. Have yet to find a video link from a debate/speech that clearly shows him saying it. But I'm still a bit unclear about the "legalization" point per my second link. Thanks again for your input above.

http://easterniowagovernment.com/20...-abortion-decisions-should-be-left-to-states/

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...nt-16-to-28-states-would-keep-abortion-legal/

 

First, as far as the issues, lets let Paul speak for himself..

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

Notice, that Paul wants to pass the Sanctity of life act (or even better, an amendment). That means that an unborn baby would be treated no different than any other person. If someone took their life...they would be prosecuted.

What Paul is against, rightly I believe, is any law that gives one group of people more rights than another. He is also against the Federal government intruding on the states rights to prosecute crimes as they see fit (as I explained in a previous post).

However, what these articles are referring to, is Paul's "We The People" act, which is a bill that Paul introduced, that would strip Federal Jurisdiction away from the Federal Courts, for not only abortion, but also prayer in schools, the teaching of Creationism in schools, and teaching of the Bible in schools.

What would this do? It would instantly make abortion illegal in 18 states, and restricted in 22 more. These states have so called "trigger" laws, which would go into effect immediately were Roe Vs. Wade overturned in such a way. It would also allow the state of Texas, for example, to teach the Bible in schools, and choose to not teach evolution, or teach the two views of Creation and Evolution both, and to pray in schools, etc.

All of this would happen instantly, with a simple majority in congress and the signature of the presidents pen. California, and New York, who presently hold a disproportionate hold over Washington, would be silenced in terms of Texas morality. And that is a good thing! It would also save millions of children's lives.

However, what most people do NOT understand, is that this would NOT prevent the Supreme court (or other federal courts) from hearing murder cases. Thus if the child in the womb were federally considered a normal person, these would not be effected by the law, if and when that got passed.

Now, on the gay marriage issue. Paul believes not only should the Federal Government get out of the marriage business, but the states as well! Although he recognizes the states rights to conduct there own business on such matters, he believes marriage is a church issue, like baptism, and the government should never have overstepped its bounds in the first place. The idea of the government issuing "marriage certificates" should be as offensive to the Constitution loving American, as them issuing BAPTISMAL certificates. The government does not have the right to define marriage. God has already defined it.

Understand this; once you recognize that the Federal government has the RIGHT to define marriage, in a country that is, again, largely controlled by New York and California morality, it WILL be used against the states to enforce "Gay Marriage" upon them. Instead of passing laws, lets do what should have been done in the first place; return marriage to where it was before the Government decided they needed to keep whites and blacks from getting married...return marriage to the church. Then, if anyone wants to "say" they are married, they can, but I can also tell them there not, without fear of legal problems.

I hope that clears up both my, and Dr. Paul's positions..

 

I have to sit and re-read this, and dissect it a bit, but VERY helpful, Havensdad. Many good points. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time in writing it all out.

 

No sir, it would not. The Congress has the right to strip jurisdiction from the supreme court. The case would never be heard in Federal court. Though each state might challenge their existing laws in their own courts.