Ron Paul is against abortion

[Valley Oak]

Ron Paul is against abortion!

He says so clearly in the very first minute of this interview:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Don't vote for Ron Paul. He is a very, very poor choice for President of the United States. I strongly oppose Ron Paul for the White House.

DO NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL, WHO IS ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI-ABORTION!

Edward

[79paul]

It kills me when I drive around Santa Rosa and see these "google Ron Paul" signs. The guy is scary, but what's more scary is that he's got a group of uninformed 20-somethings who think this guy must be cool because he's tapped into some sort of an online mystique.
I like the fact that he has always been against the Iraq occupation.
But that is not enough....
Yes, he's very much anti-choice. He also says that global climate change is a hoax and couldn't possibly be caused by humans. He thinks the Endangered Species Act should be aboloished. His answer to any environmental issue is to let the goodness of free market hearts take care of the problems. Just because his campaign is largely online does NOT mean he's cool!!!!

[Valley Oak]

I agree!

Another right wing bandwagon that Ron Paul has jumped on (besides being against abortion) is the "Global Whining" or "Stop Global Whining" campaign. This is one of the most repulsive attitudes among the right wing today.

Ron Paul's reprehensible stances on either abortion or global warming is more than enough reason to strongly oppose his candidacy for president.

Edward

It kills me when I drive around Santa Rosa and see these "google Ron Paul" signs. The guy is scary, but what's more scary is that he's got a group of uninformed 20-somethings who think this guy must be cool because he's tapped into some sort of an online mystique.
I like the fact that he has always been against the Iraq occupation.
But that is not enough....
Yes, he's very much anti-choice. He also says that global climate change is a hoax and couldn't possibly be caused by humans. He thinks the Endangered Species Act should be abolished. His answer to any environmental issue is to let the goodness of free market hearts take care of the problems. Just because his campaign is largely online does NOT mean he's cool!!!!

[Valley Oak]

Any "candidate" who is against abortion is unfit to be President of the U.S.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

It astonishes me how anti choice people hide their true intentions behind the "states rights" argument. That is so dishonest and devious!

Edward

[Neshamah]

Dennis Kucinich was "pro-life" until he started running for President. Guiliani and Clinton are both "pro-choice" but will also continue to prop up the House of Saud along with numerous other dicatorships with our tax dollars. How exactly is that beneficial to women's rights?

In the spirit of this thread, any "candidate" who supports the status quo of propping up foreign dictatorships that sentence rape victims to 200 lashes plus jail time is not fit to be President of the U.S.(https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/w...in&oref=slogin)

There is no perfect candidate, and while Ron Paul's limited government ideals are a little too extreme, balancing them with a "pro-choice" Democratic and relatively environmentally aware Congress should land us a lot closer to the mark than the status quo alternatives. Whatever he may mean for the U.S., the world will be a lot better off without corporation-directed U.S. government interference.

~ Neshamah

[Valley Oak]

You make me laugh.

Edward

Dennis Kucinich was "pro-life" until he started running for President. Guiliani and Clinton are both "pro-choice" but will also continue to prop up the House of Saud along with numerous other dicatorships with our tax dollars. How exactly is that beneficial to women's rights?

In the spirit of this thread, any "candidate" who supports the status quo of propping up foreign dictatorships that sentence rape victims to 200 lashes plus jail time is not fit to be President of the U.S.(https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/w...in&oref=slogin)

There is no perfect candidate, and while Ron Paul's limited government ideals are a little too extreme, balancing them with a "pro-choice" Democratic and relatively environmentally aware Congress should land us a lot closer to the mark than the status quo alternatives. Whatever he may mean for the U.S., the world will be a lot better off without corporation-directed U.S. government interference.

~ Neshamah

[Valley Oak]

Some folks believe that because some progressive candidates used to be against abortion (were they really?) and then switched to support abortion when they ran for president, that Ron Paul might do the same? Strange thinking, to say the least. Therefore, even though Ron Paul is against abortion we should vote for him anyway because his supporters insist that we do? Jeeez, you've got to be kidding!

Sorry Charlie. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, an infinitely better choice than that crackpot, neo-fascist Ron Paul.

Edward

[Dynamique]

Guess again, dude. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the biggest corporatist (neo-fascist) of them all! If you want a genuine populist and not a thinly-disguised corporatist, consider John Edwards. https://johnedwards.com/

Sorry Charlie. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, an infinitely better choice than that crackpot, neo-fascist Ron Paul.
Edward

[Valley Oak]

I'm not saying that Clinton isn't a corporatist (neo-fascist), etc. Sure she is but she is less evil than Giuliani. Therefore, I will vote for Hillary, not a third party candidate and NEVER for a republican. If a Democratic candidate, other than Hillary, wins the Democratic primaries in Spring/Summer '08, then I will support that candidate no matter how strongly I disagree with her/his positions (unless they become identical Adolf Hitler in every conceivable way). Why? Because whoever that person may be, they will be the only real chance of beating Giuliani. In the U.S., because of the kinds of electoral laws that we have (electoral college & first-past-the-post), there are always only two likely candidates, which is why we have the two-party system.

For example, in 2000, I voted for Al Gore even though I voted for Green Party candidates and other parties for most other public offices.

If we want change, then we have to stop wasting our time "getting out the vote" and start modifying our electoral laws and voting methods. We need to replace the electoral college and FPTP with IRV and PR.

Edward

Guess again, dude. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the biggest corporatist (neo-fascist) of them all! If you want a genuine populist and not a thinly-disguised corporatist, consider John Edwards. https://johnedwards.com/

[79paul]

Don't worry about Gulliani. The religious right will never support him (pro-choice, 3 marriages, ethical issues). It will be Romney or Huckabee...

[Valley Oak]

If it does turn out to be Romney or Huckabee, what do you think their chances are of beating Hillary?

Edward

Don't worry about Gulliani. The religious right will never support him (pro-choice, 3 marriages, ethical issues). It will be Romney or Huckabee...

[OrchardDweller]

Guess again, dude. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the biggest corporatist (neo-fascist) of them all! If you want a genuine populist and not a thinly-disguised corporatist, consider John Edwards. https://johnedwards.com/

Both Hillary and Edwards are members of the CFR
https://www.cfr.org/bios/9641/john_edwards.html
https://www.cfr.org/bios/8211/hillar...m_clinton.html

CFR and the 2008 candidates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

Cheney used to be director of the CFR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnpN07J_zg

You see, both parties are owned by the same people. It's a puppet show to make us think we have some choice in the matter.

[Neshamah]

Edward,

There you go with the name calling again. Ron Paul's small government ideals, while a little extreme, are the exact opposite of fascism. If you want to fight fascism, then vote against Guiliani and Clinton. They are not Mussolini fascists, but their policies, especially Guiliani's, come much closer to fascism than to Democracy. Also, pointing out Kucinich's prior opposition to abortion is not the same as claiming Ron Paul will change his views. Like Kucinich, Paul has been for the most part very consistent throughout his political career. Like Kucinich, agree or disagree, you know where he stands.

I agree with you that Clinton is less objectionable than Guiliani. In fact that is part of the reason I intend to support Ron Paul in the general election no matter what. Fiscal and social conservatives will vote for him rather than Guiliani. A Clinton Presidency will not improve much of anything, but it will slow our slide into fascism. Guiliani will accelerate that slide. Only Ron Paul would reverse it, but he is admittedly too conservative for the mainstream. Obama and Edwards would be less fascist than Clinton, but just as Paul is too far to the right, they are likely too far to the left to win in the general election.

Romney will not win the primary because most Americans cannot see past religion and will not elect a Mormon. Huckabee is more sympathetic to environmental causes but also wants a Federal ban on abortion that overrides the States. Do not underestimate the power of the Republican political machine. None of the present candidates are anywhere near as unfit to be President as George Bush in 2000. If Republicans can win with someone that incompetent, they can win with anyone. I'd like to think Bush's incompetence is there for all to see now, but I thought the same thing in 2000 and 2004.

The 2-party system is far too restrictive. I try to support third parties, usually Libertarian or Green at every possible opportunity, though I admit to holding my nose and voting for Kerry in 2004.


~ Neshamah

[OrchardDweller]

Ultra right wing Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and owner of Fox news) backs Hillary Clinton. Go figure.

Conservative Cash for Sen. Clinton
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...n1816866.shtml

[Valley Oak]

So because Hillary is supported by a wealthy conservative then that makes a reprehensible candidate like Ron Paul a good choice???

Please. I thought you could reason better than that but was I wrong!

Edward

Ultra right wing Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and owner of Fox news) backs Hillary Clinton. Go figure.

Conservative Cash for Sen. Clinton
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...n1816866.shtml

[phooph]

My contacts on Wall Street and in Washington, who don't know each other, by the way, have told me that the power brokers who backed the Bushies see that the Republicans have spent their political capital and have found a new person to carry water for them, and that person is Hillary, thus the support from the likes of Mudock. These are the people who really run the country and whoever they want in the White House gets there, voters be damned.

Their worst nightmare is Ron Paul, who wants to dismantle their money and power machine. He is the only candidate who has a chance to beat Hillary so they are doing all they can to keep him marginalized. Should he win the primary (not much chance) he would meet with an accident or catastrophic health problem.

Right wing Christians are not the only people who can be manipulated through emotional hot button issues to keep the country in the grip of those who's goal is to fleece us.

Ruth

So because Hillary is supported by a wealthy conservative then that makes a reprehensible candidate like Ron Paul a good choice???

Please. I thought you could reason better than that but was I wrong!

Edward

[Rucira]

Im also against abortion. what kind of conscious being scrapes another conscious being out of the sanctity of her womb. ? dont all throw rocks and grab a noose at once. anyone want to condemn me , stand politely in line, if u please. the unblessed, rucira

[Sonomamark]

I suspect you're right about Hillary, who is easily the most conservative of the frontrunner Dems running. But it's important to remember that this doesn't mean she'll be like the Republicans by any means. She--like Bill--will be a lot more conservative than we like, but a LOT more liberal than they like.

I'm not supporting her, but I will if she's the nominee. Which brings me to Ron Paul. The problem here is hyperbole.

Ron Paul isn't "Wall Street's worst nightmare", except possibly in his dreams and those of his followers. Unlike Clinton, Paul has zero chance of being elected. Nil. Nada. Ron Paul will be President shortly after JFK is reelected.

Which means that Wall Street, when it thinks about Ron Paul at all, spends two seconds of mild indigestion on him and then moves on.

The man is utterly irrelevant to the nation's future. Move on, shall we?


SM

My contacts on Wall Street and in Washington, who don't know each other, by the way, have told me that the power brokers who backed the Bushies see that the Republicans have spent their political capital and have found a new person to carry water for them, and that person is Hillary, thus the support from the likes of Mudock. These are the people who really run the country and whoever they want in the White House gets there, voters be damned.

Their worst nightmare is Ron Paul, who wants to dismantle their money and power machine. He is the only candidate who has a chance to beat Hillary so they are doing all they can to keep him marginalized. Should he win the primary (not much chance) he would meet with an accident or catastrophic health problem.

Right wing Christians are not the only people who can be manipulated through emotional hot button issues to keep the country in the grip of those who's goal is to fleece us.

Ruth

[handy]

Interesting scatter chart animation...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lew...es/017546.html

[Valley Oak]

It is very interesting to see that the Ron Paul supporters here on the Wacco list refuse to answer questions about the fact that their candidate is against abortion.

They refuse to answer because Paul's position on abortion has no remedy to it. The only thing his supporters are willing to do, if anything at all, is talk about other issues as if abortion was not that important to begin with.

Ron Paul will lose his bid for the presidency and I'm glad that he will. Abortion is still one of the most serious issues facing Americans today.

Edward

[Lenny]

Isn't Ron Paul in favor of various states determining their own agenda on abortion?
I don't think he believes that one government should dictate to all the people, as we are diverse folks. Some of us want abortion, like almost all of California, but a religious state like Louisiana (French Catholics, Pentecostals, few Baptists, African-roots religions, etc) do not want outsiders telling them how to live, concerning something SO personal and emotional, like abortion.
However, around here in Wacco-central, abortion is a non-issue. There is no "remedy" as you are seeking, especially in light of the fact that you recognize it as "one of the most serious issues facing Americans today".

It is very interesting to see that the Ron Paul supporters here on the Wacco list refuse to answer questions about the fact that their candidate is against abortion.

They refuse to answer because Paul's position on abortion has no remedy to it. The only thing his supporters are willing to do, if anything at all, is talk about other issues as if abortion was not that important to begin with.

Ron Paul will lose his bid for the presidency and I'm glad that he will. Abortion is still one of the most serious issues facing Americans today.

Edward

[Garnette]

that is how I understand many of the issues that people are so up in arms over... state level rather than federal level for example, repealing the enviromental protection act... At the FEDERAL level. It should be run by state governments,as they have more interest in what happens on their own soil. and I believe that applies to the abortion issue also. state rather than federal control.

my thoughts? I know a woman who has had 9 abortions and she was soooo sorry after each one... she just wasn't ready to have a child she told me... and I know of others, just regular women who have had multiple "therapeutic abortions"... I'm sorry to say this but too many use abortion as a form of birth control and I know this is true.
Of course there are good reasons where a woman would want to end a pregnancy and that is perfectly understandable and supportable

Ultimately, having the right to end a typical pregnancy on one hand also gives one the right to NOT get typically pregnant on the other.. Two sides of the same coin... It's your body and you have the right to make those decisions.

Isn't Ron Paul in favor of various states determining their own agenda on abortion?
I don't think he believes that one government should dictate to all the people, as we are diverse folks. Some of us want abortion, like almost all of California, but a religious state like Louisiana (French Catholics, Pentecostals, few Baptists, African-roots religions, etc) do not want outsiders telling them how to live, concerning something SO personal and emotional, like abortion.
However, around here in Wacco-central, abortion is a non-issue. There is no "remedy" as you are seeking, especially in light of the fact that you recognize it as "one of the most serious issues facing Americans today".