That is fair. You would be right to make that presumption. My proof, however, is his stance on abortion. You may see it as an "entitlement" for a woman to decide what to do with her body, but I see it as something a bit different.
Before bipartisan separatist political games at the expense of the people. ...guess I just don't trust anyone in DC
His stance on abortion is his personal view, he doesn't want the government involved in it however. He's doing what a politician should do, not force personal views onto others. Personally, I don't see an incorrect way to use the constitution, it's pretty black and white. Unless people have really started to think that ignoring it is the correct way now.
I don't like his abortion stance either. It is a womens right to choose what happens to her body. But I also know that this would be something decided by the supreme court, not a president. If you look further into Rons views on abortion you will see he wants to make that a state issue, not a federal one. As long as the states decide, not the federal gov. then I think it will be ok(at least in the state I live in). Its quite simple to me really. If you like what Americas founding fathers were about(minus slavery) then you should like what Ron Paul is about, FREEDOM!
The supreme court is retarded, if the people want abortion to be a guaranteed right in all states they have to amend the Constitution. There's no right to abortion or "privacy", whatever that means. To support the GOP is different from supporting Ron Paul. If you support Ron Paul you support prosperity for everyone not just the rich. The politically connected rich hate Ron Paul.
as far as i know the only rights we have are: those listed specifically in the constitution and the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...everything else is either a positive right or an entitlement (straight from the department of redundancy department). and to me the right to an abortion (to use the argument du jour) falls under the natural rights area. of course every human has the right to decide what to do with their body. Mr. paul's personal decision of what constitutes a "life" is irrelevant to his political view that we should live our lives free from government intervention...and he has stated such.
Really? Because Ron Paul's economic proposals (no govt. regulation, no corporate taxes, no entitlement programs) would exclusively benefit the rich and absolutely nobody else.
Psssst...you ARE a troll. http://forum.grasscity.com/politics...tion-control-internet-forum.html#post10521739 http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/805803-republican-economic-policy.html Republican Economic Policy | Republican Economic Policy Insurance | Health Insurance, Healthy Living, Healthy Eating, Sickness Symptoms
And thats exactly what the delusional Ron Paul koolaid drinkers will call you because they can't handle the truth. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo&feature=related]YouTube - A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth"[/ame]
how do you "ignore" a user again? i can't find the "douche-bag' button anywhere. you know i wasn't gonna feed the troll, but.... what in fucks name makes you say that??? corporatist hate him almost (almost) as much as lefties do. you realize that it takes an oppressive government, in concert with a coercive monopoly on legal force to legitimize the legal fiction of corporate personhood.... right...(am i going too fast for you) if the gub was held to its constitutional restrictions it would not have that authority!!! it would in fact be relegated to the states...meaning that a corporation would have to go through the expense and trouble to get that grant from all 50 states in order to operate under their current privilege. a strict enforcement of the 10th amendment could possible see and end to multinational corps based in america...at least an end to forcing you, the consumer, to recognize the aforementioned legal fiction.