Wow, look at what this thread has become. I dislike the lack of media attention Ron Paul receives. I've already addressed the policies I disagree with in other threads.
Again stay calm. So you say we all belong in prison for smoking an ILLEGAL (on a federal level) narcotic?
no because that would be hypocrisy. Which it blatany is. To override laws meant to be regarding illegal immigration, illegal immigration DOES have one of the most detrimental effects of a technologically advanced nation. To even consider that marijuana be on the level of deception to take away from legal citizens is wrong. If you cannot understand illegal immigration is wrong, you are severley biased against America never ending in space, jobs, currency, food and liberty.
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures If I go to the doctor with a medical issue, and am denied proper treatment because of politics and/or religious views, I am no longer secure in my person. If I have another human living in my body, and forced by law to carry it to term and risk my health, then I am no longer secure in my person. If I can be raped and still be forced to give birth, I am no longer secure in my person. If I have no say on what goes on inside my body, with my organs, I have no personal security. Fuck, even a DEAD person has the right to contol their own organs. But, god dammit, if I have sex, I have no constitutional right to be secure in my body. Not to mention state laws that now require women to undergo an unnecessary, internal body scan in order to get the medical treatment they. I guess you don't consider forced ultrasounds to be unreasonable search?
Who gets to decide whether the fetus is a person? You would say the mother. Who gets to decide whether an infant is a person?
The question isn't when someone becomes a person. The question is when does any "person" have the right to to use another person's body without permission? The question is when do I lose my right to my organs? I don't lose the right to my organs when I die, but if I have sex.... Anyway, not an abortion debate... The question was what I don't like about RP... That's a big one for me. It doesn't affect you much, but it certainly affects me.
Statists pulling the old "Constitution" and Bill of Rights card only when they feel it could benefit their argument. Any other time, it's discarded. How about judicial activism on the supreme court? How about the 9th and 10th amendments? :crickets: There is no moral or legal justification for abortion. The best anyone can come up with is economic reasons and the classic "rape/incest" line of thinking. No law will change anything. People will either continue to condone the activity or call it out for what it is. I happen to feel that killing is wrong in all cases. From abortion, to the death penalty, to warfare. I don't discount the lives of the weak, unborn, innocent, etc on linguistic terms.
If you have consensual sex and allow a zygote to form, that would constitute permission. What about in self-defense or defense of an innocent? If I saw an aggressor raping someone, I shouldn't be allowed to kill them? What if they are physically larger than me and I couldn't possibly physically overpower them without risking my own well-being? What if they're armed themselves?
Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins. You know, I don't know anymore. I personally have a CCW license and I am a better shot than most police officers. I hope I never have to harm another human or take anyones life. It just doesn't compute in my brain that that would ever be the "right" thing to do. You are asking questions that deserve a moral and legal answer. To your specific questions, morally I don't think so. Legally however, you are permitted to. Even if you are legally "justified" in killing another human, there will be thoughts that will live with you and perhaps haunt you for the rest of your life.
I don't agree with his closed borders view. I think people should be free to come and leave with zero border patrol.
Watch the video Mr. Raider. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqVQ5oUkU6w]The Ron Paul Tipping Point - YouTube[/ame] Even if you don't agree with him the NWO is fucking scared. They say they will assassinate him. Please watch this and open your mind.
Watched it. I agree with him I just still think walls around the US is bad. Eliminate the federal government and use sound hard money and there is no emigration problem.
We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Ron Paul, Jun 2007) Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Ron Paul, Sep 2007) If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem. (Ron Paul, Dec 2007)
So? Under the new system, welfare will be reformed to be accessible and better for you. Also, each livable house will only require one person working again. No more of this 2 person to keep afloat bullshit. Back to how it's supposed to be. You know that he's going to let you keep your taxes? Hmmm So you choose Welfare over Taxes. You are pitiful. You are dirt poor. You aren't willing to look outside of the box to see what exactly would happen under a Paul presidency WHICH WILL BE,. Perry was announced that he is backed by 24 BILLIONAIRES. It will resonate within the people. People will find the Heil Rickler pictures, it will make them uneasy. People will find out about the Gardasil because of Alex Jones. Guys.... In about one week we exposed THE BEAST. More months for presidency??? Ron Paul has the MAJORITY vote now. Let us see what will happen if we make a stand.
The problem is that it can't survive outside the womb at that point, so it's not a full-fledged human (yet). I don't think that any human has the right to utilize a woman's body for 35+ weeks just because someone made a mistake with regards to contraception. Morally, I wouldn't have a problem with killing a rapist in the act, but if I was able, I may try to incapacitate them. To each their own though. I honestly think that in a perfect world, it should be up to the victim to decide what to do with their aggressor (in a impartial court), but, in the case that I couldn't stop an aggressor without risking more lives, I may decide that it's better to end the aggressor's life than to risk more innocent lives. I don't really see "killing" as such a bad thing. Killing an innocent human being I see as morally wrong, but killing an aggressor in the act is comparable to killing a rabid dog (or some other threatening animal) for me. If an aggressor can be apprehended, I think the proper thing to do would be to have them tried in an impartial court and if found guilty, work for the victim (or their family) while giving most of their earnings to the victim and/or their family.