The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[Chronik Fatigue]

Merged...

I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat

Check him out on Jim Lehrer's Newshour

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

I just think there are so much more important things to worry about. Shit, if it means not killing tens of thousands of innocent Iranians and losing abortion rights for a few years, well, I know hich one I'd choos

But, I saw this on the Newshour the other night:

Government's role in abortion law

JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade.

REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with abortion.

REP. RON PAUL: That's right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that?

REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it.

And there are some extreme circumstances that I may not even endorse but I recognize that we're always arguing about it. The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be.

Once you get into a difficult problem, and then you have one monolithic answer, like Roe v. Wade, then you come up with a solution where the courts legislate and allow abortion to be done a minute before birth, and I can get paid for doing one of those, yet a girl, because she throws her baby away, we arrest her for murder. There's something awfully inconsistent about that.

And I have so much legal responsibility as a physician, if I do harm to the fetus, I can be sued. So the fetus has legal rights, but we should figure that out at the state level on the extreme circumstances and not legalize abortion at any time during pregnancy, which is essentially what the Supreme Court did.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Prayer in the schools, you would restore it through an amendment to the Constitution?

REP. RON PAUL: No, I wouldn't restore it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Not true?

REP. RON PAUL: I would remove the ability of federal courts to prohibit it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: OK, thank you for clarifying.

REP. RON PAUL: So we should have no laws; Congress shall write no laws. So local people should be able to do what they want.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And wherever they are in their school?

REP. RON PAUL: Yeah, that's right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Voluntary prayer, in effect?

REP. RON PAUL: Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have declined to sign on, as I understand, for the federal pension that every member of Congress is entitled to. So my question is, you're not worried about your later years? I mean, you could live many more years, Congressman Paul.

REP. RON PAUL: This is one position that I think my wife might disagree with me on. There goes our retirement. No, you know, I was in the Congress in the '70s and '80s, and I've been back, so I've had a good many years, close to 20 years. I've been in the military. So it would be a nice pension fund.

But when I started in Congress, the first time in '76, it was even then more lucrative than it is now, but it's a very lucrative, very beneficial pension fund. And I could not see with me condemning, you know, the system to on the side quietly participate in getting some very good benefits. So I just said, "I'm not going to do it; I'll have to take care of myself some other way."

JUDY WOODRUFF: Should everybody else follow suit, do you think?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, no, I don't think we should have those kind of programs. I think citizens should be representing us in Congress and the work should be reduced. We should cut their pay in half and let them go home and work.

See, if I go home and practice medicine right now, the congressional rules say, "You can't practice medicine." I don't want to take the lucrative pension fund, but ironically, if I wanted to work extra on the weekend, they won't allow me, because they say it's a conflict of interest for me to go home and deliver a baby. So figure that out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, I understand traveling around the country campaigning, you've run into people you've actually delivered.

REP. RON PAUL: Yeah, I think that's so neat. Because the other night, we had a meeting up in New Hampshire. A young lady came up and she goes, "You delivered me." And I said, "Do you want me to pick you up, since I held you for the first time?"

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is she voting for you? Or do you know?

REP. RON PAUL: Oh, yes, she was a strong supporter.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Congressman Ron Paul, thank you very much for being with us.

REP. RON PAUL: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We appreciate it.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on Congressman Paul, you can visit our Vote 2008 Web site at PBS.org. All of our candidate interviews and campaign updates are also available there.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html

 

[bingalpaws]

I know it's off topic but the abortion stuff has died down and half that article isn't about abortions, so:



JUDY WOODRUFF: Prayer in the schools, you would restore it through an amendment to the Constitution?

REP. RON PAUL: No, I wouldn't restore it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Not true?

REP. RON PAUL: I would remove the ability of federal courts to prohibit it.



If anything, wouldn't we want the federal courts to be supreme when it comes to upholding the constitution? I mean, do we really want states to be able to decide for themselves if they want to override the constitution? Because if a single state allows prayer in public schools, then they have violated our constitution by not strictly separating church/state.

 

[mulberryman]

Whether the United States is torturing people is contested, and it's my belief that they are, but since it's contested I guess I better just keep my mouth shut.

Its because of the Republicans that they are, those same people that supposedly just love all those little babies. The heart of the pro-life arguement, at least politically it not to save the babies, but to strip the rights of the women who get them, who are so often usually poor and of minority decent. The people the classic Republicans truly hate and would surely wipe out like the Nazi's they are at heart, if only it weren't politically destructive to their elecitibility. So yes, you should keep your mouth shut, as in all probabilty, you voted for those animals.

 

[Infernal]

I know it's off topic but the abortion stuff has died down and half that article isn't about abortions, so:



JUDY WOODRUFF: Prayer in the schools, you would restore it through an amendment to the Constitution?

REP. RON PAUL: No, I wouldn't restore it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Not true?

REP. RON PAUL: I would remove the ability of federal courts to prohibit it.



If anything, wouldn't we want the federal courts to be supreme when it comes to upholding the constitution? I mean, do we really want states to be able to decide for themselves if they want to override the constitution? Because if a single state allows prayer in public schools, then they have violated our constitution by not strictly separating church/state.

His argument would be classic Libertarian. That would be that the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government... However, I would think that due to past American theology problems (see Pre US Pennsylvania) that his argument wouldn't necessarily apply.

 

[mulberryman]

He's (unfortunately) stated that if he loses the GOP nomination he won't be running as an independent. Sad state of affairs, but I think he's hellbent on fixing the Republican party more than anything.

Sorry to say it, but Ron Paul fits in the Republican party like a Nobel Prise winner in a Police Academy movie.

 

[mulberryman]

He's the quintessential debate winner, and has a grass-roots following the likes of which haven't been seen in over a century.

Unfortunately, the media, corporate America, abd even his own party are doing everything in their power to thwart his success. Considering the intelligence level of the average American, a victory ni the GOP primary would be a feat of such immense probability it could hardly be considered anything short of miraculous. And, then he'd still have to debate Hillary.

 

[bingalpaws]

His argument would be classic Libertarian. That would be that the First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government... However, I would think that due to past American theology problems (see Pre US Pennsylvania) that his argument wouldn't necessarily apply.

But wouldn't the federal government be the supreme law of the land, trumping all other laws (think medical marijuana)? If so, then I don't see why that wouldn't be inherently libertarian.. I've always considered myself libertarian so I feel kinda surprised (and dumb) that a true libertarian system would allow for certain states to violate the constitution.

Sorry to say it, but Ron Paul fits in the Republican party like a Nobel Prise winner in a Police Academy movie.

haha srsly! I didn't really get why he was running republican, I presumed it was because other parties, given our current system, are pretty much doomed to failure before the race begins

 

[Infernal]

But wouldn't the federal government be the supreme law of the land, trumping all other laws (think medical marijuana)? If so, then I don't see why that wouldn't be inherently libertarian.. I've always considered myself libertarian so I feel kinda surprised (and dumb) that a true libertarian system would allow for certain states to violate the constitution.

Well, Libertarian principal would say that No One can take away a god given right, by deferring to the States, it probably would end up limiting the right. I'm not saying that what he is saying is Pure Libertarian; rather, that he would use a classic Lib argument without the full intent.

haha srsly! I didn't really get why he was running republican, I presumed it was because other parties, given our current system, are pretty much doomed to failure before the race begins

I pretty much agree.

 

[mulberryman]

Hey you mentioned prayer in the schools, and I was thinking that there's no reason we cannot have a compromise there either. It is possible to teach schoolchildren about religion without teaching them religion. We can encourage this as we can encourage, 'a moment of silence' period where students can pray what ever way they please, they just can't be led by the teacher in this.

I've been thinking about education and, agiain inevitably about the healtcare issue... ( 8) ) ...and well, we don't provide medicare to people who can afford private insurance, why should we do the so with our public education system. It doesn't seem fair that people who make $100K, $150K, $200K + a year should be able to send their kids to public schools for free...

 

[bingalpaws]

People who make 200k a year and send their kids to public schools are not doing so for free - rather, they're paying *more* than poor people are towards the schools, as they're paying higher taxes. It's people who *do not* pay taxes who send their kids to public schools for free.

There's also a very strong reason we cannot have compromise on something like prayer in school - because it violates the constitution of our country, which is something that really, really pisses a lot of people off. But, aside from general principle, there's more! If we are to allow prayer in school, which religion's prayers should we allow? Just christianity's? If not just christianity's, then how do we choose which are going to be included, as surely there's too many prayers people would like to hear. And, if we've included enough varied prayers to cover everyone student in the school's religion, then we have just alienated the atheist students.

So, not only is it in violation of our constitution, but it will undoubtedly alienate somebody. The only option that does not alienate anyone is to keep schools, and for that matter, all public property, completely devoid of religion. There is *plenty* of time for people to practice their religious practices, the need to bump some into the public sector simply isn't there.

 

[mulberryman]

We can compromise on this and a great many issues without "violating" the constitution. The constitution was not written to be interpreted as barrier to all compromise and thus a barrier to democracy. If the people want prayer in their schools, they must be allowed to have it, but also only allowd to have it in a way that bears a fundamental respect to constitutional values.

Democracy is the most important value in our society. It does not matter if people who make $200K+ per year pay more than their fair share of taxes, if thats's what the majority wants then fairness toward them, as a minority is secondary. Likely, though even the poor majority wouldn't vote to deny their children's education though. And I hate to bring this up again, but the majority are moving toward deciding that we need a fair healthcare system for all who cannot afford it, so regardless of those who may think this is fair or not, it is, because of democracy. If the HMO's want to continue to exist, then they better improve the quality of their service, as a free alternative will soon be available to all people who are not in the extreme minority and thus are penalized for being so separated from the will of the people. By the way, the same principal can be applied to minorities of other persuasions, though it may seem less PC to say it. If the black/spanish/etc to be treated differently then they need to start associating with everyone else in the melting pot. I just got back from a family reunion today, and some might hardly believe we were all related, and at 4 "races" would have been represented. For us though, even the word race is meaningless, and everyone should feel that way if they want to end racism.

Likewise rich people who want to be accepted by society, should give some of that money back to it. We do allow people to make deductions on their taxes after all. If you can show that you gave most of your excess income away, then sure, we'll let you have our healthcare.

 

[bingalpaws]

Well, I'm not even going to touch health care issues to respond to you in this thread, if you want to continue the healthcare debate you know where to post what you have to say, and I haven't seen you back over there.

And there's too many issues with what you have to say for me to even fully address w/o wasting 10 minutes to write a response, so I'm just gonna touch on one or two.

"we can compromise on this and a great many issues w/o 'violating' the constitution"
That simply is not true. If 75% of this country thought "globalization" should be a prohibited/banned word, then any real compromise in that area would, inherently, *violate* the constitution. So, your logic is flawed in that statement.


"The constitution was not written to be interpreted as barrier to all compromise and thus a barrier to democracy"
Nobody said it was. It's is a barrier to compromise on certain important issues, things such as free speech, separation of church and state, etc, so that such important things are not slowly wittled away from our society.


That's all I'm touching, I'm not going into race, healthcare, or any of that stuff in this thread as it's insanely off topic, both off of the original topic and the constitution path this thread has taken.

 

[aanallein]

LOL, that is awesome. Possibly the best analogy that I've ever heard.

that analogy actually isn't accurate at all.

 

[mulberryman]

75% percent probably think "nigger" should be be a banned word. We compromise by censoring it and a good many others from certain media.

We can have prayer in schools without violating church and state, as long as its not called prayer or encouraged by any means. A law saying that individual students cannot be expelled for non-intertuptivly praying during school hours would not violate the constitution at all, and might appease some of these peoples' sensitivities.

There are numerous ways to compromise on the abortion issue as well.

 

[bingalpaws]

that analogy actually isn't accurate at all.

what's wrong with it? Poop doesn't begin at conception, are you saying that a fetus would follow different rules because the end result is something we like better?

 

[bingalpaws]

75% percent probably think "nigger" should be be a banned word. We compromise by censoring it and a good many others from certain media.

Uhhhh, you can compromise all you want with media, this is different as it's a public school! I can still say nigger all I want, and I understand why certain mediums will stay away from it.

We can have prayer in schools without violating church and state, as long as its not called prayer or encouraged by any means.

So, you think we should have prayer but not call it prayer? 8)
What the hell would the point of that be? Who cares what it's called, it is what it is.

A law saying that individual students cannot be expelled for non-intertuptivly praying during school hours would not violate the constitution at all, and might appease some of these peoples' sensitivities.

There's quite a difference between mandated prayer and students praying on their OWN time during school hours. Furthermore, that 'law' you have in your head pretty much exists already, who the hell gets in trouble for individually saying prayers on their own time during school?

There are numerous ways to compromise on the abortion issue as well.

Name one.

 

[mulberryman]

No, we don't need prayer in school. You know that, I know that, and ya noone gets in trouble for praying in school, but the gov't is mostly for show in these areas, we need a media that will stop trying to provoke these people and show them that compromise is normal. No normal compassionate human being with any amount of intelligence wants abortion banned accross the board or wants to take womens rights to their own bodies away from them. Unfortunatly there's too many assholes out there who love to spout on about killing babies and have no problem at all about invasive, violent, and unnecessary wars based on lies and bigoted and selfish agendas. That's the real reason the GOP is against abortion on the whole, because it strips the rights of poor women and allows for more poor people to entice into exploitation of the worst caliber with such ludacrous false promises like how they can "Be all they can be!"

 

[mulberryman]

Here's they way to compromise on abortion, and we already kinda have it. They talk about keeping abortion a state issue. I say we should keep it a county issue. By this I mean let any county ban abortion withing its borders. This will ensure that it will still be legal in larger cities where it is most necessary, and keep those that live in areas of low population density happy since naturally, they would be the most likely they will be against abortion, as they have little need for it from their perspective.

 

[bingalpaws]

That's the real reason the GOP is against abortion on the whole, because it strips the rights of poor women and allows for more poor people to entice into exploitation of the worst caliber with such ludacrous false promises like how they can "Be all they can be!"

8)

Here's they way to compromise on abortion, and we already kinda have it. They talk about keeping abortion a state issue. I say we should keep it a county issue. By this I mean let any county ban abortion withing its borders. This will ensure that it will still be legal in larger cities where it is most necessary, and keep those that live in areas of low population density happy since naturally, they would be the most likely they will be against abortion, as they have little need for it from their perspective.

How do we already kind of have that? And that's not really a compromise, as any abortions allowed, any at all, are still murder in the eyes of pro-lifers (god I hate the stupid names, like anybody is against life or choice!). So even reducing the number doesn't seem like a compromise to me, but I'm 'pro-choice', so it's harder for me to see through the eyes of a 'pro-lifer'.

Any pro-lifers here want to comment? Would you feel that's a suitable compromise if it still allows abortion?