The View - contoversial abortion topic

Parent Cafe
81

<p>catera, how you can interpret Ron Paul’s words to mean he is racist, is beyond me.</p>

<p>There are racists and sexists supporting many various candidates. Look at how many hateful warmongers are supporting McCain, Giuliani, Hillary, etc. Look at the hateful warmongers supporting that ‘nice’ pastor, Huckabee! That is beyond any candidate’s control and therefore irrelevant. </p>

<p>The article you posted, in my interpretation, makes it clear that Ron Paul envisions a ‘color-blind’ society in which there is NO MORE RACISM!</p>

<p>Ron Paul IS NOT A RACIST.</p>

<p>I repeat: Ron Paul IS NOT A RACIST.</p>

<p>It is completely unethical for you to imply that he is.</p>

<p>Please re-read my post #79 and try to comprehend his vision of a free society, in which EVERYONE has equal rights and there is no longer any need to draw attention to our differences. Any drawing of attention to differences may have a temporary benefit but in the long run only perpetuates those differences. Ron Paul envisions a world beyond that. His biggest challenge is that he’s light-years ahead of most everyone else, to the point that they cannot even comprehend the brilliance of his ideas (as was the case with most visionaries throughout history).</p>

<p>You are creating an issue when none exists.</p>

<p>Of far greater concern to me would be the warmongering attitude of ALL the other candidates (save Kucinich & Gravel).</p>

82

<p>I never said Ron Paul was a racist. I said that racists find support in his policies since he supports doing away with any federal prohibition against racism, they see it as opening a door for legalizing discrimination. As I have said before, it won’t matter what Ron Paul believes or what I believe or what you believe if something like the Civil Rights Act is repealed. The only thing that will matter is what the citizens of each individual state believe. Some states would likely give more protection against race and gender based discrimination than exists now under the federal government. Others may choose to do away with all protection - what Ron Paul thinks would be irrelevant.</p>

83

<p>I’ll add that I don’t believe the Civil Rights Act would be repealed if Paul is elected President but he clearly doesn’t support it.</p>

84

<p>It’s not that he wants to remove those things; rather, he simply is working towards long-term solutions that would make such things unnecessary. He is a true visionary in the sense that his solutions tend to be more long-term, permanent solutions that seek to get at the root of chronic social issues, rather than merely putting band-aids on them.</p>

<p>Now that we’ve had those band-aids, or crutches, for awhile, and they have served their purpose at the time, now it is time to look at long-term solutions.</p>

<p>Our society has made great strides in the area of discrimination. We’ve gone beyond the need for forced integration in many cases. Maybe we’re not at the point of eradicating it altogether yet, but Ron Paul is looking beyond the present and into a future in which everyone has equal rights. He envisions working hard to restore the liberties of ALL, which would negate the need for special treatment of any one group. Once society is at the point in which individual liberties are viewed as paramount, then to focus on any group would be perpetuate division, and, therefore, indirectly perpetuate discrimination. Ron Paul seeks to get beyond ANY discrimination whatsoever and have a truly color-blind (gender-blind, sexual orientation-blind, etc.) society. </p>

<p>He also envisions charity hospitals helping the poor, the way they did a few decades ago (when he was a practicing physician) but has also stated that he would NOT do away with welfare, social-security, etc. because he would not want to take it away from those who need it.</p>

<p>He wants to strengthen the legs before removing the crutches.</p>

85

<p>By my read, that speech condemns affirmative action and hiring quotas due to problems with the federal enforcement of the law. I agree with him that racism is not a legal problem but a moral one, and that federal law cannot fundamentally reform the beliefs of American citizens. I find Paul’s platform far more race-blind than those of candidates who support affirmative action. </p>

<p>America’s racial problems today are fundamentally tied to poverty and education, issues that are not inherently racial, so race-specific policies are hurtful. Affirmative action cannot act as a band-aid for race. We cannot have quotas in our schools and workplaces that mandate proportionate representation of racial groups when Asians (79%) and Caucasians (76%) graduate at much higher rates than African-Americans (55%) and Hispanics (53%). There are major achievement gaps as well. Society needs to address these issues but ensuring race-blind and need-blind opportunities in higher education and the workplace is entirely necessary.</p>

<p>“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.” - Rep. Ron Paul</p>

<p>Sounds to me like he’s an equal opportunity finger-pointer, showing flaws in racially exclusive groups. I take that as a condemnation of the KKK, a racist group, and groups like campus BSAs, which organize based on race.</p>

86

<p>You asked if he would support doing away with the EEOC. My answer is that if he supports doing away with the Civil Rights Act, then, yes, he advocates doing away with the EEOC.</p>

87

<p>Well said, ninja!</p>

88

<p>That’s true, thanks for answering my question Cartera. The rationale behind that elimination is nuanced, which I find heartening.</p>

89

<p>Just found this, in which he explains his views on personal freedoms:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - John Stossel interviews Ron Paul -ABC AFRAID TO PUT IT ON TV](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz80H5Su8AA]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz80H5Su8AA)</p>

90

<p>I agree with Ron Paul about the importance of freedom of choice. I also believe that the government has no business restricting, say, marijuana usage, and I don’t think that marriage should be at all related to the government. </p>

<p>He wants to restrict a choice which I believe is of fundamental importance, though. I can’t support that.</p>

91

<p>That is your ‘choice’ to not support it. Can you at least understand that, to someone who believes an unborn baby is a person, there is no contradiction? The freedoms he advocates are to be guaranteed to all, so it would be a contradiction to deny those freedoms to unborn babies. You may not agree with this, but surely you can see that he is consistent, right?</p>

92

<p>“Consistent”, perhaps, but it’s consistent based on a belief that I strongly disagree with - how can I support him on that? Bush has been consistently in support of the Iraq War, and consistently a ■■■■■■■■■. Actually, I think he’s consistently disappointed me, but I wouldn’t consider his administration a success based on that.</p>

<p>I can not support Ron Paul as a man who will protect my essential freedoms when he says all these things (and I absolutely support what he said in that interview) while simultaneously trying to limit one of our most important freedoms.</p>

93

<p>

</p>

<p>Ha! Well we agree on that!!!</p>

<p>Well I respect your stance. I don’t know of ANY candidate that one can expect to agree on 100% on ALL the issues. All we can hope to do is weigh out which issues are the most important to us. Many people vote on the abortion issue as their main issue.</p>

<p>Having said that, personally for me the most important issue is Iraq/War/foreign policy, with the environment tying for 2nd place with civil liberties.</p>

<p>I actually am NOT in agreement with Ron Paul on the environment. I believe the issue is too big to leave up to private interests. That is the one things we SHOULD globalize, because it affects ALL of us, and if one country pollutes the air, others breathe it, pollution in the oceans spreads everywhere, global warming affects all of us, etc.</p>

<p>However, it’s all moot if the neocons start WWIII and a nuclear war! War is bad for the environment, not to mention people and other living things.</p>

<p>Therefore, I consider PEACE on the planet to take precedence over everything else: over the environment, abortion, and everything else.</p>

<p>So I do think it’s important to get clear on what our priority should be. Our country is REALLY messed up right now and messing up the rest of the world and we really don’t have the luxury of arguing about abortion, which is really secondary when compared to the bigger picture, imo.</p>

<p>For this reason, many Ron Paul supporters are pro-choice. I know many of them personally. They even hand out pro-life literature promoting Ron Paul because they believe it is so important to get him elected, that it doesn’t really matter which cause you happen to agree with him on, as long as we’re all in agreement that he is the ONLY viable candidate who will end the war. THAT is top priority.</p>

<p>Also, you might consider this: The same neocons who have taken away our other liberties (habeas corpus etc and right to privacy on phone calls, searches etc under the patriot act) are also pushing for the national ID card, which would be a further invasion of our privacy. They are laying the groundwork for a police state. This is not paranoia but fact. Now whether they actually abuse this and actually institute a police state or not is subject to debate & speculation, but the fact remains that the structure is there. Think about this, very carefully: If the theocratic neocons have their way, they can outlaw whatever they want, and we’ll have no say in the matter. Abortion is but one of many issues. They would have no qualms about taking away not only abortion but contraception, etc. That would be horrific, especially in conjunction with re-instituting a draft to man the next war, etc.</p>

<p>If you think the Democrats are immune to their pressures, think again. With the exception of Kucinich & Gravel (both of whom I consider the Democrat equivalent to Ron Paul and would be happy with as president) all the Democrat candidates are members of the CFR. And THAT is where the true power is. They wouldn’t sway on something like contraception, but they are just the same as bush when it comes to war, building a global empire, meddling in the affairs of other countries, and POWER. I really liked Obama at first, but he is sounding more and more like the rest of the warmongers.</p>

<p>It is debatable whether Ron Paul could actually turn abortion over to the states. But it is not debatable that he is our best hope for regaining control of our country, re-instating our lost liberties, and keeping our national soverignty.</p>

<p>Weigh it all out.</p>

94

<p>And I agree with you there. There are a couple main issues that are important to me, and abortion is just one of them. I would never vote for a candidate solely because they are pro-choice (luckily I don’t have to) and I could, conceivably, vote for a pro-life candidate, but I would have a lot of trouble doing so. I don’t think Ron Paul is a bad guy. I like a lot of what he says, and he’s my favorite Republican candidate. I like his honesty, and I would not be ashamed to call him my President. I could still not vote for him when there are candidates out there whom I prefer, who would respect my reproductive rights, not just my right to smoke marijuana. I also dislike Ron Paul’s stance on the environment, and I think that is another issue that is too important to ignore.</p>

95

<p>I understand completely.</p>

<p>How do you feel about the war? How do you reconcile Hillary/Obama with the war? </p>

<p>I’ve always voted Democrat before. I never even considered Ron Paul for the longest time, because he was a <gasp> Republican! I really liked Obama at first and thought I’d be supporting him. I grew disenchanted when I heard him talk about the war.</gasp></p>

<p>I’d love it if Gore jumped into the race. Not sure what his stance would be right now on the war, but I would hope he’d be less of a warmonger than the others. I’m very disappointed with the Democrat candidates (with the exception of Kucinich & Gravel, of course, but again, they don’t seem to have any chance at this point).</p>

96

<p>I have been strongly opposed to the war from the very beginning (I was only 15 when it started, though, but I protested it vehemently). I have trouble reconciling Hillary and Obama’s attitudes towards the Iraq war with my own, and it’s absolutely something that I have thought about as a concerned voter. I like Gore and Gravel very much. Most of my opinions probably align more closely to Kucinich (but I’m much more conservative on a few issues).</p>

97

<p>Kucinich would be my first choice as well. I have this secret dream of Ron Paul choosing Kucinich as his running mate - defying all party conventions. They have opposing ideologies but at the outer levels, the ideologies wrap back around and end up being similar. They’d be an awesome team and could work together, I believe, because they are actually in agreement on the conceptual issues.</p>

<p>Silly dream, I know.</p>