Ron Paul's stand on Prohibition
- Thread starter Gonzo
- Start date
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
The next election is going to be Amerika's IQ test. Unfortunately Dr. Paul is a threat to the Federal Reserve, the military industrial complex, and the status quo. He will continue to be marginalized by the media and misunderstood by the majority of people who do not have the attention span, or willingness, to read and understand his material.
t-dub
t-dub
headdoctor
Well-Known Member
I'm all for legalization, and if that's the sole issue you're voting on the Paul may be your best bet this time around. But once we look past this one issue, this guy is on the loony far right of most issues. He doesn't believe in evolution or climate change (!!), has a *very* sketchy record on race and sexual-orientation issues, and opposes a woman's right over her own body (anti-abortion). I say this in the name of political dialogue, not to start a fight. Surely we can do better than this guy.
photobooth
Well-Known Member
+1 very much agreedheaddoctor said:
WatTyler
Revolting Peasant
headdoctor said:
whaaat? for real? wowsers. The other things don't surprise me all that much- they're opinions I've heard lots before. But the potential for a western world leader that did not believe in evolution seems beyond belief- they're meant to take scientific advice appropriately. I have heard a little about this rejection of evolution in the US from the media- in light of some court case regarding the teaching of intelligent design in schools alongside evolution on an equal footing- although I had assumed it was a crazy minority belief. Certainly not something I thought a potential presidential candidate could admit to.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Here is exactly what he said: "Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."
A fairly reasoned response I would say considering. If we don't get a handle on the wars and the Fed, the rest is going to be a moot point anyways. If the USD is ever replaced as the world's reserve currency, look out. Can you say DECREASED standard of living and hyperinflation? Think, read and study the relevant issues at hand for our survival.
His stance on abortion, if you read it, talks not only about the sancitiy of life but ALSO about how it is a State's right meaning he believes that State's ultimately should have control. From Wikipedia: "Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[210] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[211] He has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which defines life as beginning at conception, in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011.[212] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[213][214][215] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction."
Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, "It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket."[216] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[217]"
t-dub
A fairly reasoned response I would say considering. If we don't get a handle on the wars and the Fed, the rest is going to be a moot point anyways. If the USD is ever replaced as the world's reserve currency, look out. Can you say DECREASED standard of living and hyperinflation? Think, read and study the relevant issues at hand for our survival.
His stance on abortion, if you read it, talks not only about the sancitiy of life but ALSO about how it is a State's right meaning he believes that State's ultimately should have control. From Wikipedia: "Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[210] and "an unshakable foe of abortion".[211] He has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which defines life as beginning at conception, in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011.[212] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[213][214][215] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction."
Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, "It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket."[216] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[217]"
t-dub