Warning: get_object_vars() expects parameter 1 to be object, null given in /home/newspeak/public_html/wp-includes/taxonomy.php on line 324
November 07
People are feeling love for Ron Paul, even some free thinker friendly whole foods voters. And I would like to know what I am missing because I can’t get past the following red flags:
(fine, this is just from Wikipedia but I wouldn’t know what’s the made up part and what’s what)
Later in 2001, Paul voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which authorized the president, pursuant to WPR, to respond to those responsible for the 2001 World Trade Center terror attack.
In order to prevent Congress from yielding its Constitutional authority to declare war to the executive branch, which does not Constitutionally hold that power, Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 giving Congress the opportunity to declare war on Iraq, rather than merely “authorizing” the president to deploy forces without a declaration of war. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war.
&
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade.[82][83] Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[84][85] Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images.
He loves the constitution so much he should marry it. What he seems most interested in is a turf battle over juristiction and not anything to do with the immoral nature of what we are doing overseas. Who cares about the constitution if this is how he would excercise his rights.
Posted by: marinaeckler in Mail Pattern Baldness | Permalink
Comments
18 Responses to “Can anyone explain?”
Leave a Reply
-
-
-
Warning: get_object_vars() expects parameter 1 to be object, null given in /home/newspeak/public_html/wp-includes/taxonomy.php on line 324
What exactly are the red flags about those excerpts you listed? Did you miss the part about where he said he wouldn’t vote for his own Iraq War bill, that he just wanted to make it Constitutional? In other words, he disagreed with the Iraq War on both fronts, immoral and unconstitutional. Those words aren’t synonymous.
As for the pro-life stances, Dr. Paul has a more educated and experienced stance on when life begins than most folks. I’ve tried to attack that position about defining life so early and I can’t find anything too seriously wrong with it. Fertilized eggs are future diaper-fillers. I’d like to think that I had a right to life at my earliest stages in life. Ron Paul is pro-choice he just doesn’t get credit for being pro-choice. Sex-ed is taught in grade school. Most kids know how it happens before they are taught in school. Women and men both have the choice not to take the chance at creating that future diaper-filler. Once you make that choice and the kid gets created, do you really have a right to kill it?
I edited this post to include the sentance beginning “Later in 2001″.
Anyway I figured out the answer to my question. People are just confusing him with THIS GUY
Pro-choice issues are very touchy, but I need to make a clarification here.
All fertilized eggs are not future diaper fillers. 15% percent of pregnancies terminate in spontaneous abortion (Creasy & Resnick, 2004). This does not include the number of eggs that are fertilized that never actually implant in the uterus, so we can assume that the number of fertilized eggs that never see a diaper, is higher than 15%.
Sorry to nit-pick. This is not meant to sway a person’s opinion one way or the other, but when discussing such a volatile issue, it is important to be very clear about the facts.
The choice belongs to the woman in whose uterus the fetus abides.
First of all, if it weren’t for the Constitution, Newspeak could be arbitrarily declared an enemy publication and shut down, so I think we should all love the Constitution.
Everyone is missing the point here. There are nuances to these positions that you need to understand.
As far as the Iraq War, Ron Paul wanted to return the authority to declare war to the Congress rather than allowing them to be left off the hook and allowing the President to decide unilaterally to invade Iraq. If you remember, the Congress never had the chance to debate on and vote to declare war on Iraq because they voted that option away …which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is a terrible precedent that presidents have gotten away with illegally invading countries without proper authorization from Congress. Ron Paul does care about what we are doing overseas. He wants a drastic reduction in our overseas footprint and wants the U.S. to stop policing the world. Currently, he advocates an immediate pull out from Iraq.
As far as abortion goes, it doesn’t matter what Ron Paul thinks about abortion, even though he is an obstetrician by profession, because his position would return the right to ban abortion or make it lawful to the states, which is where I think it should be. If the national government can declare abortion legal, it can just as easily declare it illegal. Ron Paul wants to take that power away from the national government on all social issues. Before you all react negatively to this, think about other consequences for increased state autonomy and a decrease in the size and reach of the federal government in the U.S.
1. States would be able to determine their own laws concerning pot and other drugs, with many states legalizing pot. Millions would be freed from imprisonment.
2. Less money at the federal level would mean fewer lobbyists fighting over that money.
3. We would be far less likely to become embroiled in wars of aggression.
4. Federalism enhances political participation and ensures greater interest by the general population because politics become local on an even greater scale. In recent history, in this country, centralization of government along with the rise of corporations has insured that the most fascistic elements of our society have more access to government than the people do.
5. With less money going to the national government, more money could flow into state coffers thereby supporting good social programs at the state level, if the electorate so desired. Currently, we have the national government mandating that states do certain things but not providing the adequate funding for these programs. States’ resources are stretched thin due to all these national mandates with no requisite funding, and so we get a state government performing social functions poorly due to lack of resources.
The support for Ron Paul has more to do with the corruption and influence of special interests that has been allowed to accumulate at all levels of the federal government, as well as the nation’s near-bankruptcy brought on by profligate spending on the war and other social programs. As long as citizens continue to be distracted by single issues, a tactic on which the current corrupt system depends, then real and important change will not occur and our civil liberties will continue to be eroded as well as our quality of life in general.
The Ron Paul constituency is composed of people who have differing opinions on the issues but who feel that there is a more urgent problem that requires immediate and drastic action: record national debt, bloated federal government, irresponsible and dangerous wars abroad, and unequal lobbyist/corporate access to government.
I’d also like to add that sex ed sucks in most places in this country. Abstinence-only education has statistically not improved outcomes and there is evidence to show it may increase risk behavior rather than deter it. Teenagers are having sex. Believe me. I see the resulting consequences weekly.
I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but we need to start giving these kids a real sexual education. If you are menstruating or ejaculating you need to be informed, and if you can’t get the info from your parent or guardian, you need to get it somewhere.
I personally feel sex ed should be offered at the university level as well. In my experience educating women about their bodies, I’ve determined the absorption rate in high school may not be that great, either because the kids were embarrassed or because the material was presented in a very dry and boring manner. Sex ed can be really fun, if presented properly. I used to teach sex ed to inmates, which was quite an education for the students and the teacher.
I don’t know, Swiss Miss. You make some really good points about States Rights, but women shouldn’t have to travel for abortion services. How is a 15 y.o. with unsympathetic parents going to get across one stateline, let alone 2 or 3?
Does gender equality, also, become an issue of state’s rights? It’s easy to imagine the benefits if you live in a progressive state like Oregon or Massachusettes, but what if you don’t?
It’s been interesting to see progressive states sidestepping the Bush Admin in order to get something done. But States Rights used to be code for segregation. Like Noel said, cool if you aren’t in a persecuted minority but what if you are? If the constitution can solve all our problems why was the civil rights movement necessary?
“The support for Ron Paul has more to do with the corruption and influence of special interests that has been allowed to accumulate at all levels of the federal government, as well as the nation’s near-bankruptcy brought on by profligate spending on the war and other social programs.”
What social program comes anywhere near the war which is the trillions?
Why did Paul vote to use military force against terrorists if it wasn’t war he had in mind?
Would he ax medicare, the only functional part of our healthcare situation?
Anyway, he’s interesting.
Retirement benefits for the Baby Boomers will end up being the single greatest expense this nation has ever faced — far more than the Iraq War, even if the war continues another 10 years. But there’s no need to worry. The U.S. will be completely bankrupted even before the last Boomer dies.
Ron Paul knows this, and he’s the only major-party candidate today attempting to address the problem. That’s his appeal, Marina. He’s the only candidate saying: “Hey, folks, we’re completely fucked unless we reign in this spending.”
Of course, the candidacy of Ron Paul amounts to little more than a circus sideshow, because he advocates the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the IRS. The Republican Party is expressly the party of Military Keynesianism (i.e. the fascist belief in centralized state planning and corporate welfare: our economic system since 1941), and so the Republican Party will never, and I mean NEVER accept Paul as their candidate. In fact, the odds are better that every Bank, Oil, and Defense CEO in America will commit suicide — because that’s what voting for Paul amounts to: suicide for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
Yeah, he’s interesting, and he’ll certainly inject some spunk into the debates — especially when he argues with “America’s Mayor” Rudolph Mussolini — but he’s hardly worth concerning oneself with.
The Civil Rights Movement would have been impossible without the Constitution.
Segregation occurred because humans are flawed individuals and make really bad laws, and has nothing to do with whether we have a constitution or not. Without the Constitution, the right to assemble wouldn’t exist, and civil rights would not have occurred, but by the benevolent hand of a dictator. Also, the thirteenth amendment made a showing during this time as well:
“The Thirteenth Amendment made a dramatic reappearance in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968). Jones dealt with the interpretation of a statute that granted to all citizens the same property rights “as [are] enjoyed by white citizens.” The question was whether this prohibition—derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866—prohibited private racial discrimination and whether Congress had authority to reach private action under the Thirteenth Amendment. The Court held that the statute did prohibit private discrimination, and that section 2 of the amendment granted Congress the necessary authority. Thus the Thirteenth Amendment reemerged as an important element of contemporary civil rights jurisprudence.” From http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-xiii-to-the-u-s-constitution
Besides, segregation is not a social issue.
As for living in a state that isn’t progressive, state laws cannot violate the Constitution so that is a check on what laws can be made at the state level.
Lost now… Need…to find…my way back….
seg·re·ga·tion (s?g’r?-g?’sh?n) Pronunciation Key
n. 2. The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.
Segregation is fundamentally a social issue and still alive and kicking today, although far more insidious in its expression.
With regard to Afghanistan, this speech from 2001 proves that he meant military action narrowly targeting the enemy, i.e. Al Qaeda, and that an invasion of Afghanistan would be fool-hardy.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm
I usually don’t get a hard-on for a particular candidate, but I support Ron Paul because I think our economic and foreign policies will ultimately spell disaster for the U.S. and I want to send a message to the government that America needs to change course now or else we, you and me, will suffer. The fat cats who benefit from and have created this fucked up system won’t suffer, but we will. I do believe that government can do good like promote alternative energies and possibly provide health care. But in order for the good things to happen, we have to take back the government from the entrenched special interests. Of course, Ron Paul won’t be able to do that, but my financial support at least sends a message. And who knows, he may just take the New Hampshire primary. But the game is rigged and so it won’t matter in the end anyway. We really need to start marching in the streets like the French are wont to do at the slightest provacation. Why are Americans such pussies?
Marina,
If you recall to mind Mark Antony’s speech in Act III, Scene II, of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and also Plato’s description of the democratic character in Book VIII of the Republic, I imagine any residual bewilderment you have concerning the Ron Paul phenomena will dissipate.
With respect to the question of the United States Constitution, and the appropriate attitude a reasonable human being ought to hold concerning it, I would recommend reading “Three Types of Constitutional Crises,” by Sanford Levinson and Jack Balkin. Balkin teaches Constitutional Law at Yale, and is presently running the most interesting law blog I have seen. Levinson, when he was here earlier this year, speaking about his book, “Our Undemocratic Constitution, ” claimed that my analysis of certain features of the Constitution was mistaken. It wasn’t. Other than that mistake, his work is quite interesting.
Jana, I am aware of what segregation is, thank you. I wasn’t clear when I said it wasn’t a social issue. What I meant to say was that it wasn’t a social issue when it comes to the class of “social issues” that Ron Paul would like to take off the docket of the Supreme Court. In other words, Ron Paul believes that the Constitution has something to say on racial discrimination, but not on, for instance, sodomy or abortion, and that those issues should be left up to the states to decide. I was responding to Marina’s question about why, if the Constitution was so great, we needed to have the Civil Rights Movement. I was arguing 2 or 3 different points at the same time and wasn’t clear enough on that one point.
After a lively discussion over drinks with some very patriotic Americans last night, I realize that any candidate such as Ron Paul who proposes to overhaul the current system so dramatically in order to put the power back in the hands of the people would be dead within a week of assuming their elected position. Perhaps we should start a campaign to “Save the Politicians” because any one of them who tries to be really good is quite literally endangered.
For anyone still following this thread, I’d recommend reading Ron Paul’s submitted editorial in this week’s eXile.
Just in case folks don’t know what The Exile is and actually believe that that Ron Paul editorial is real, you may also want to read this.
Swiss Miss,
Duly noted about segregation. I am schoolmarmish and annoyingly pedantic at times. My apologies.