patrick.net

HousingWatcher says

Ron Paul, the man who supports the liberties of humanity, is anti-choice. He’d prefer the positive term, pro-life, but as the debate remains unresolved, choice, based on individual values and beliefs, is the best option in the abortion debate.

To say Ron Paul allows his personal religion to cloud his judgment because he is pro-choice is just lame. He is a Doctor and his support for pro-life stems from the fact that he has delivered 4000 babies and believes that conception is from the fetus.

How the hell does his thinking on abortion has anything to do with the practical matters that the President should concern himself with? Such as economy, foreign policy.

HousingWatcher says

he is not the supporter of individual rights that he claims he is; he is a religious fundamentalist who would allow Christianity to infuse with the government, and he lacks compassion for those who are not American citizens.

Looks like a baseless claim.

We now are on the 3rd (THIRD) sitting US president who allegedy(or admittedly) smoked pot.

And its still Illegal.

The war on drugs has morphed into a 'big union jobs program' for the cop/prison industry which is why it will never end.

It's not just unions. It's also the for profit prison industry that is behind the war on drugs.

"He is a Doctor and his support for pro-life stems from the fact that he has delivered 4000 babies and believes that conception is from the fetus."

If that is the case, then Ron Paul should support changing the tax code to allow a fetus to count as a dependant and change the Census so that a fetus is counted as a person.

Do you know a candidate who doesn't have a problem?

HousingWatcher says

If that is the case, then Ron Paul should support changing the tax code to allow a fetus to count as a dependant and change the Census so that a fetus is counted as a person.

I think the fetus statement is stated as Dr. Paul's opinion. He doesn't really incline to pass laws or use the Executive to push his agenda. He doesn't seem like that kind of a person. He's more than likely to eliminate the federal over-burden and delegate issues to state-level.

Does the position on abortion even matter for someone to become a President? Why are you cribbing about a non-issue, whereas the more pressing practical issues are the economy and endless wars?

The position on abortion is more of an emotional swayer of votes. It has nothing to do with the practical, more pressing issues to be addressed.

His problem is he's the "Leave it up to the states to decide (LIUTTSTD)"man. Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

BobbyS says

His problem is he's the "Leave it up to the states to decide (LIUTTSTD)"man. Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

yeah, this is one of the issues that alarm me with Ron Paul...

However, given all candidates, including sitting Prez, I don't see anybody whole aligns with my economic and politicla views closer than he is, so he'll have my vote.

BobbyS says

Should institutional racism be permitted? "LIUTTSTD". Should women be aloud to vote? "LIUTTSTD".

There are very strict laws in the justice system to prevent discrimination against race or women. Dr. Paul doesn't have to do anything in this regard to defer to the states, because the Justice system takes care of these more serious issues.

Unlike these, I don't see how social/moral issues can cloud people's thinking and judgment in electing their leader. A leader has to address the more pressing, practical issues at hand I'd think. Social/moral issues are better left to the choices of individuals.

austrian_man says

It has nothing to do with the practical, more pressing issues to be addressed.

spoken like a "man", LOL

"There are very strict laws in the justice system to prevent discrimination against race or women. Dr. Paul doesn't have to do anything in this regard to defer to the states, because the Justice system takes care of these more serious issues."

Justice Scalia would disagree with you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

HousingWatcher says

Justice Scalia would disagree with you:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/scalia-constitution-does-not-p.html

It is not written explicitly in the Constitution. But aren't federal laws and state specific laws adequate to protect all citizens?

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Bellingham Bill says

spoken like a "man", LOL

haha. Well - on moral issues, I'm neutral; because it is hard to take either stance. There are moments in life when pro-choice wins and there are times when pro-life wins. These are gray issues and they are better left that way me thinks.

HousingWatcher,
In some cases there was a sense in answering but this one is a complete non-sense. Atheism is a religion as any.
Is your anti-Ron-Paul flooding is driven by your personal religion that clouds your judgment?

michaelsch says

Atheism is a religion as any.

Atheism is as much as "another religion" as not believing in Astrology or Alchemy is just another kind of Mysticism.

The very word itself means "No God".