Ron Paul not red enough for Red State, but the Captain urges humoring "libertarian-leaning Republicans"


56 comments posted
Not red enough? Are you

Not red enough? Are you kidding? Paul is the MOST conservative of any of the republicans.. yes they don't like him because of one issue. Too bad.. He won the debate on Sunday with 34%

NH's picture
Posted by NH (not verified) on 23 October 2007 - 10:15pm
Ron Paul is not a social conservative

What in the world are you talking about? Ron Paul is for personal and economic freedom more than any other presidential candidate. "Ready to invite Big brother into your living room?! He voted against the patriot act and has introduced legislation to repeal parts of the military commissions act which he also voted against. Which Democrat are you supporting because both Obama and Clinton voted for the patriot act. They are the ones who are allowing big brother into your living room. The new conservatives you are referring to are big government republicans. Ron Paul is a true small government republican, please do not insult him by associating him with the neocons.

William Masur's picture
Posted by William Masur (not verified) on 23 October 2007 - 10:20pm
He associates himself.

He associates himself. "Small government republican"? There hasn't been any such thing in 30 or 40 years at least. Look at our national debt.

Courtesy of Reagan, Bush the elder and Bush the lesser.

Thank you, Republicans.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 8:48am

So because he has a label of Republican he is going to the same thing? He has a 20 year record of voting against bills that he thinks violate the constitution. Hence his nickname Dr. No. He spoke out against Reagan, and Bush I and II while in Congress. Listen, I understand your anger towards Bush and the republicans, but don't be so angry to be blinded to see someone who will actually do what he says. I think we need to look beyond labels of democrat and republican when there is little difference between the two parties. They are both for big government and for foreign intervention. Just today there's an article that Bush is a bigger spender than LBJ. Ron Paul hasnt changed his stance in 30 years on almost anything and will not pander to tax eaters once in office I can guarentee you that.

William Masur's picture
Posted by William Masur (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 11:01am
I'm skeptical of all

I'm skeptical of all politicians, but there is no way I will vote for anyone who in any way condones government regulation of wombs.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 11:10am

Now we have gotten to the heart of why you couldn't support him and that's fine, but please don't write articles misrepresenting his views the MSM already does enough of that. Regarding the abortion issue, I can see why many people can disagree with him. His point of view comes from the fact that he has delivered 4,000 babies and knows that if he injures them he is liable and doesn't personally believe that aborting a baby is any different and should be made legal. But he wouldn't outlaw it, he would leave it up to the states where it should be and in that case you would have a much better chance to have an affect on the law than at the federal level. I don't agree with all of his positions either, but his foreign policy and his economic solutions to our pending bankruptcy are much more important to me than the issues I disagree with him on.

William Masur's picture
Posted by William Masur (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 11:29am
definitions stay the same, people change

You’re arguing semantics; the definition of the word ‘Republican’ has not changed. The people who call themselves Republicans have changed and tried to take the title with them. I swear, find a dictionary from the fifties and look up republican, now do it in a dictionary printed recently, what do you notice? Pretty much the same.
Back in the day (which was a wednesday), Republicans were NOT all about spying on Americans or Legislating Morality or expanding government to astronomical proportions or expanding the “American Empire”, hmmm, American Empire does have kind of a nice ring to it though, but I digress… Point is Republican still means the same thing it always has.
Think of this: Patriot Act. Nuff Said. By your logic, If I didn’t support the patriot act, I wouldn’t be a patriot, which we all know is untrue. Bush skewed the meaning by applying it to this horrendous legislation; The word Patriot still means the same thing it always has, but applied to this makes it UGLY, just like the word REPUBLICAN. Democrats are all about the government doing everything: Social Programs, Charity Programs…where will this money come from? Besides, I don’t need the government telling me which charities to donate to (Which is EXACTLY what is happening when the Fed Gov gives money (that you and I pay in taxes) and distributes it to charities) I’m a grown-up, I can decide where my money goes.

jeremy's picture
Posted by jeremy (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 2:34pm
Republicans have been big government since Reagan at least

He massively inflated the national debt. This isn't new. It's been this way for decades.

I don't get your remark about the Patriot Act. Where did I say I supported the patriot act?

Oh and about those semantics,

Reginald Fleming 'R.J.' Johnston: Words are important.

Pu Yi, at 15: Why are words important?

Reginald Fleming 'R.J.' Johnston: If you cannot say what you mean, your majesty, you will never mean what you say and a gentleman should always mean what he says.


So what is a Republican? I know, let's ask Victor Gold.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 6:20pm
Same stuff

Ron Paul has the best voting record ever held in the congress. He is more fiscally conservative then Reagan was.

Andy's picture
Posted by Andy (not verified) on 15 December 2007 - 2:56am

Honey I don't no where you are getting your information but Ron Paul is aside from his stance on abortion, more liberal on certain social issues then most Democrats. And as for "he would invite big brother into our living rooms" A major part of his platform and philosophy is against government intrusiveness. He even states how he wants to "protect our privacy and make government more transparent". This blog you wrote is just ignorant plain and simple. Also Hillary voted for the patriot act Ron Paul did not. Ron Paul voted against Iraq and opposed it from the get go; Hillary supported it. Get your facts and get informed.

Andy's picture
Posted by Andy (not verified) on 15 December 2007 - 2:51am
"Honey" says it all. Thanks

"Honey" says it all. Thanks for clarifying.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 16 December 2007 - 11:03pm
The title of your article

The title of your article should be Ron Paul not fascist enough for Red State. Also, what type of social conservatives wants to end the war on drugs?

William Masur's picture
Posted by William Masur (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 11:08am
Big Brother

I hope all the responces to your post are civil. Having said that you have to understand that most of the Ron Paul supporters are very much against the federal government intervention in our lives.

Voted against the Patriot act.
Voted against the Military commisions act.
Voted against the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act
Voted in favor of a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces

Ron Paul also authors many meaningfull resolutions every year.

Johnacorn's picture
Posted by Johnacorn (not verified) on 23 October 2007 - 11:29pm
A saint, indeed.

While Ron Paul is a saint compared to the rest of the GOP field, he is also rather saintly compared with every politician for the last fifty years. He votes consistently in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

While Ron Paul and the current liberal movement may not agree on all social issues, what is important to remember is that Ron Paul will go to bat, following the Constitution, for ALL groups. He is not interested in banning or endorsing, merely delegating roles for such things to the local and state level.

Let's take abortion for example. As a gynecologist and obstetrician, Dr. Paul finds abortions horrible. I think you would be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who takes them lightly, though.

Dr. Ron Paul is firmly opposed to abortion, and he would like to see Roe v Wade overturned. Let me be clear: He also does not support a federal ban on abortion.

This is the constitutionally correct position. The Constitution does not allow for the Federal government to play a role in the realm of abortion, believing this to be a States' rights issue.

Thus, both sides win.

Those who believe abortion is murder may live in a state where abortion is outlawed. Those who believe abortion is not murder, may live in a state where abortion is legal. Or, the state may adopt some kind of compromise.

The more complicated and decisive the issue, the more local the solution should be. Thus we all have the greatest power of influence as can be had, and preserve as much of our liberty as possible.

jbennett1128 (at) gmail dot com

Jason's picture
Posted by Jason (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 12:46am
Letting state governments

Letting state governments play Big Brother is not a very compelling libertarian view, is it? Government is government when it comes to civil rights.

Dr. Ron Paul is firmly opposed to abortion, and he would like to see Roe v Wade overturned. Let me be clear: He also does not support a federal ban on abortion.

This is the constitutionally correct position. The Constitution does not allow for the Federal government to play a role in the realm of abortion, believing this to be a States' rights issue.

Thus, both sides win.

What loony logic that is. State-run breeding agencies are okay? That's how "both sides win"?

Here's the real "both sides win" view, Jason: the pregnant woman decides for herself. After all, it's her body, not the government's.

And Jason, if you or Ron Paul are against abortion, then don't have one.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 8:46am
9th or 10th?

Ron Paul's position on overturning Roe v Wade is correct when viewed in Constitutional terms. But, it is not necessarily a state issue. It could be an individual issue. Roe v Wade was decided based on the 4th amendment right to be secure in one's person against unreasonable search and siezure. They looked at it as a right to privacy. This seems to be incorrect when you look at the langauge of the 4th amendment. They were very liberal in their interpretation. The interpretation made it a federal issue.

I think the 9th or 10th amendments are more valid in favor of this not being a federal issue. The 9th states that rights of the people not be denied or disparaged. The 10th states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the states shall be retained by the people. I think the 10th fits best. If a state allows abortion, anyone in that state may have one. If a state wants to deny it, all they have to do is write a law that says abortion is murder and thus it would be illegal and a woman may use self-defense as an argument to have one if her life is in jeopardy. In any case, the federal government should not be involved because it is either outlawed by a state or it is effectively legal.

Like it or not, Ron Paul is right. And I wouldn't worry about this wedge issue anyway, because G W Bush with a GOP Congress/Senate and stacked Supreme Court couldn't get it changed, there's no way Ron Paul or anyone else would. Let's move on to the issues of Big Brother where is is by far the best candidate on either side because he wants to take nothing from anyone, but instead restore the rights of the people that both parties have usurped for 100 years.

your name here's picture
Posted by your name here (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 10:48am
Try the 14th Amendment.

Try the 14th Amendment.

Forced pregnancy rationalizations won't get any traction on this blog.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 11:22am
dont be blinded by one issue

Media Girl,

Please do not be so blinded by the issue of abortion that you turn your back on the first honest politician that has come along in my lifetime. Don't miss this opportunity because of this one wedge issue, we may not get another chance to vote for someone outside the corportate-media-military-industrial-complex.

The fact is that Bush I, Bush II, and Regan were all pro-life and they were unable to overturn Roe v. Wade in a combined 20 years. Ron Paul will not succeed in overtunring it either. Do not let this one issue drive you away from the only candidate that truly believes in liberty and small government.

Think about it.

Paul's picture
Posted by Paul (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 12:25pm
Easy to say when it's not your body

I daresay if the issue were government control of testicles, you'd have a different view.


media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 5:30pm

Do you work for Fox News? Or maybe some other mainstream media outlet? The way you are misconstruing this issue seems to me you have some ulterior motives. Or maybe you are just so passionate about the issue you are unable to tell fact from fiction.

Ron Paul is not trying to control anyone's uterus or testicles. My point is that, even though the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional (do some research into the the decision, they pretty much made it up) it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to get overturned anytime soon.

This is precisely the type of issue politicians use to divide people into two camps and keep them bickering while they sneak out the back door with all the money.

I am pro-choice by the way, I think women should have reproductive freedom, but I also know that with thousands of Americans dying in Iraq, with this country going bankrupt spending billions, and with all the other ways in which we are going in the wrong direction, abortion just isn't the most important issue at this time and it's legality/illegality is not likely to change as a result of a Ron Paul presidency.

Please, get off your soap box and think critically for a moment.

Paul's picture
Posted by Paul (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 6:17pm
Ron Paul says that states should ban abortion

And at the root of that assumption is that it's the state's place to regulate wombs, institute forced pregnancy...

It's all very Mengele, really. Because if the state can force pregnancy, then it can force termination of pregnancy.

Maybe you don't have the right genes. Or the right "values". Or the right sexual orientation. Or the right taste in music. Or whatever.

If you believe the state can regulate human reproduction like that, then you certainly are not pro-choice, and doesn't sound like libertarian, either.

Don't tread on me.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 6:24pm
You misunderstand, I think

It's entirely libertarian to think the federal government should be hands off of states issues. It would be counter to libertarian values to mandate legality of illegality of state issues at the federal level. Just saying, at a federal level, that abortion is a state issue isn't saying anything other than that. It's outside of the scope of the federal government.

With a libertarian federal government, the states can decide completely. A state could decide that abortion is completely legal in all cases, and the state might even pay for them. It's up to us, as citizens of free and independent states, to make our states what we wish them to be.

If your current state decides that you don't have a right to your own body (unlikely except for maybe Colorado), well, nothing is stopping you from going across the border to get an abortion there.

The benefit to all this is that It is FAR FAR easier to influence state laws than federal laws.

Brian's picture
Posted by Brian (not verified) on 25 October 2007 - 7:48pm
Ron Paul and Abortion

Get it right: The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy. The right to privacy is based on the First Amendment. There is nothing illegal about it.

Tricia's picture
Posted by Tricia (not verified) on 20 December 2007 - 7:32am
Not seeking traction...

just an important discussion.

I read the 14th Amendment and the Court's rationale. I think Ron Paul wants to repeal the 14th Amendment. I think he wants to do this not only to overturn Roe v Wade but also to end birthright citizenship. Overturning the 14th would allow for unborn babies to be redefined as "persons." Thus the states can gain control over the issue and it will be legal until they ban it. Well, I'm still voting for him because he'll never be able to repeal that amendment and that is the only way to turn abortion issues to the states OR end birthright citizenship. I disagree with him there, but I believe too strongly in his other issues to dismiss him on that one idea that has no chance of passing. I don't think he wants to control anyone. I have read many of his speeches and articles on just about every subject, because I don't stump for candidates lightly. In fact, he's the first. He wants to remove control from or limit the federal government. He will be able to do that with regards to spending, foreign affairs, and taxation.

Also, consider this. If liberty is the end goal, we must take advantage of the Ron Paul candidacy as much as possible. He may win, he may lose, but either way, the farther he goes, the closer to liberty we will be because other Americans will be awakened to what libertarians have been fighting for. This can lead to a liberty minded candidate down the road as well. This can lead to more liberty and I agree that includes reproductive freedom. If Ron Paul does not win, Republicans and Democrats will rejoice for that means they may continue to share big government power and then one day someone WILL overturn Roe v Wade because America has fallen asleep and accepted the all-mighty government control like Orwell warned us of. If liberty is what you want, you may want to consider what a Ron Paul presidency can do to increase it, and at the same time remember the limits it will have. It is not easy to overturn amendments, much less the 14th, not with a Democratic Congress, split Court, 50% Democratic State Legislatures, even with Ron Paul in the White House. Too divided, which is good for all of us. Peace.

Nick's picture
Posted by Nick (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 9:10pm
It isn't loony logic. It was

It isn't loony logic. It was brillant logic, and it brought in people from all over the world.

I am actually pro-choice, but I do agree that there is noConstitutional right to abortion. The COnstitution is quite clear that anything not specifically assigned to the Fed belongs to the States. It's really so simple that most people tend to ignore it, which leaves us in this big, ugly, mean, divided in two, country that we have today.

We're supposed to be 50 small states with 50 different sets of rules. We really are.

I stray from the party because I think there should be a Federal right to abortion.

But pretending that it will stay legal when the government starts paying four our health care is a bit uninformed. The whole RvW thing was decided on our implied right to privacy.

If we want abortion to be legal in all 50 states, then we need to stop letting Washington use the issue as a tool to pander and amend the Constitution.

alexia's picture
Posted by alexia (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 11:05am
You missed the 9th

You missed the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But the issue is also equal protection.

Privacy, well, that's a weaker leg to stand on, imho.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 11:27am
What loony logic that is indeed

This is the constitutionally correct position. The Constitution does not allow for the Federal government to play a role in the realm of abortion, believing this to be a States' rights issue.

Thus, both sides win.

What loony logic that is.

Absolutely 100% Right. What loony logic that IS INDEED, letting the people in individual states decide for themselves if they want abortion.
Sorry sister, we live in a society where majority rules, and even though I am Pro-Choice, and wouldn't tell a woman she couldn't have an abortion, but no-one else is either: Assume you live in a state where Abortion was just outlawed, you go out, get pregnant, and decide "hey, I don't want this responsibility"
No worries, no one is saying you can't get an abortion, they're just saying you can't have one in this state, which is, after all, that states right.
Besides, if you're that worried, you can move to a state where it's legal, chances are, if you're pro-choice, you'd probably be happier in a state with a majority pro-choice citizens.
And besides, really, what state (besides Utah) would outlaw abortion outright? Do you really , really think that would happen?
Assume your way down the road to the worst possible conclusion.

jeremy's picture
Posted by jeremy (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 2:50pm
Let's bring back slavery while we're at it

People who don't like it can just move to another state, right?

Unless of course the state has passed a law making it illegal to move to a state where it's legal.

Doctors in prison. Pregnant women in leg irons. What a libertarian vision! Feh!

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 November 2007 - 8:46pm
"What loony logic that

"What loony logic that is."

Umm it's called the 10th amendment. I know a lot of you folks have never heard of it.

JD's picture
Posted by JD (not verified) on 7 November 2007 - 1:28pm
Too Conservative for the "Conservatives"

Ron Paul is an anti-abortion devout Christian, the only candidate who respects the Constitution, but establishment "Conservatives" apply their Iraq litmus test and dismiss him. If they keep up this hypocrisy they will lose in 2008 as badly as in 2006. Democrats will take the Presidency, tighten their hold on Congress, and spend spend spend as irresponsibly as the last party that controlled both branches.

The only litmus test necessary is whether as President the candidate would fulfill the oath of office.

We complain about lawyers, we complain about slimy politicians, but now we have the chance to elect someone who is neither. Whether we do or not, we will get the government that we deserve.

Steve Cobb's picture
Posted by Steve Cobb (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 1:08am
Not so much...

Although Pau has said that he is personally socially conservative, he also believes in personal liberty more than any other candidate from either party with the exception of the abortion issue, which he has said should be left to the states to decide because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. You want to universally protect it, add an amendment to protect it, otherwise, it is the legal authority of the states to regulate. The same should go for federal drug laws... and well... almost everything else...

But you are right about one thing, the Republican party is going down in flames in 2008 unless the abandon the "war first" platform and return to sanity. The sad thing is that the Democrat 'frontrunners' are every bit as bad. The guys who actually tell the obvious truth like Gravel, Kusinich, and Paul get pushed off as the kooks while the rest sit there and spin and lie to our faces.

Jason Mitchell's picture
Posted by Jason Mitchell (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 6:46am
social conservative?

Ron Paul is the strongest supporter of individual liberty and civil rights, of all candidates D or R. he may have strong personal views that you agree with, but he would and has NEVER advocated forcing his personal views on anyone else. that is the essence of liberty. allow people to make personal decisions on their own. i think you should do a little more investigation and correct your assessment.

as for the redstate fascists...who cares. don't waste your time with them.

JL's picture
Posted by JL (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 9:06am
social conservative? call him what you will but....

Ron Paul is the strongest supporter of individual liberty and civil rights, of all candidates D or R. he may have strong personal views that you agree with, but he would and has NEVER advocated forcing his personal views on anyone else. that is the essence of liberty. allow people to make personal decisions on their own. i think you should do a little more investigation and correct your assessment.

as for the redstate fascists...who cares. don't waste your time with them.

JL's picture
Posted by JL (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 9:09am
Let me just add that I'm glad to see such active push-back

... against the neofascists running the GOP.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 11:41am
me too

I'm glad to see it too. now i just wish people would wake up and realize the neofascists are running the democrat party as well. thank god we have ron paul to expose them all.

as far as abortion everyone has been saying, it's a state issue. if the federal government were ever to ban abortion completely, i'm sure pro-choice people would be wishing the states had their right then. complicated, sensitive, personal issues like abortion should NOT be handled at the federal level. it's dangerous to liberty in so many ways. especially with the extremely narrow and powerful control it is under currently.

we need to bring governance back as close to the individual as possible. individuals are best suited to govern themselves.

aside from that. we have MANY MANY more important things to be concerned about. "reproductive rights" won't mean a damn thing when we have lost the rest of our individual liberties and become serfs of the welfare-warfare state.

JL's picture
Posted by JL (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 2:18pm
Social Conservative?

Even though Ron Paul is a social conservative, as ready to invite Big Brother into the livingrooms and bedrooms of Americans as any gold-star Republican, his name is mud in mainstream Republican circles.

I am a pro-choice non-theist. I'd be very sensitive to any candidate who would invite Big Brother in to our living rooms and our bedrooms.

Not sure where in the world you got that idea about RP.

I disagree with him on a few things, but dang. Do a little better than that.


Butler T. Reynolds's picture
Posted by Butler T. Reynolds (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 12:21pm

I guess I have to chime in on this one, too.

I saw this line when I googled Ron Paul:

'ready to invite Big Brother into the livingrooms and bedrooms of Americans as any gold-star Republican'

That's a pretty big falsehood. Paul wants the government outta your life, and pretty much out of the business of anything but national security and the protection of liberty. I don't know if you just don't know enough about him because of his party affiliation, but it'd be worth the few minutes it takes to read up a little.

Tonewah's picture
Posted by Tonewah (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 2:12pm
I've heard him a number of times recently

Replacing the federal brand of Big Brother with the state brand of Big Brother is not "protection of liberty."

State control of women's wombs is Big Brother. Sorry. It's as simple as that.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 October 2007 - 6:28pm
States vs federal

The main reason I would disagree with you on the state vs the federal government is that when the federal government outlaws something you have no choice but to leave the country if you strongly disagree. With the state regulating "Moral" rules then you have the ability to fight it at the state level and if you do not prevail you have the right to leave that state and go to a place more fitting to your beliefs.

The reason some states will outlaw abortion is that is that the people there consider the fetus as having the right to life and abortion is considered murder. In other states they will realize that a fetus is a lump of flesh up to a certain point in pregnancy and will have abortion up to a certain point. Or only allow it in the event of rape or incest. In still other states they will allow abortion up to the point of birth. I am not here to say which one is correct.

This gives the citizens of that state a ruling that agrees with the stance they hold dear.

Even if a state outright bans abortion the citizen has the right to go to a state that does not to get an abortion if they so choose.

When you have a federal rule that will eliminate freedom for all. Whether you consider the fetus a lump of flesh or a human being your rights as an individual are infringed.

This is the problem with having a federal rule for all victim-less crimes or thought crimes (read moral or blue laws).
For instance

Seat belt laws
Speed limit laws
Drunk Driving laws
Prostitution Laws
Gambling Laws
Drug Laws
Nudity Laws
Pornography laws etc...

Any law that removes freedom because of theoretical or possible crimes.

Thanks for reading

byoung's picture
Posted by byoung (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 7:41pm
how are drunk driving laws moral laws?

I suppose in a strict sense, you aren't directly infringing on someone else's rights when you drive intoxicated. However, driving impaired poses significant danger to those around you. Now I do understand where you're coming from, but if we got rid of drunk driving laws, we would have to eliminate all driving laws, such as an age limit and the need for a license.

This also would run into problems with businesses. If someone was driving for a business intoxicated and caused deaths, the business and the individual would become targets of the courts, but since there is no law against drunk driving the business would be held responsible for allowing an employee to drive intoxicated unless explicitly stated in his contract he was not allowed to. However, even if stated such a way, lawyers would inevitably find a way to blame the company and no the individual.

Visker's picture
Posted by Visker (not verified) on 25 October 2007 - 9:16am
Here's what I don't think you are understanding

While it is your view that your womb is your property and the states infringing upon it is an act against your liberty, many people, like a lot of the U.S, thinks the termination of a pregnancy is an act of aggression against someone who has rights.

so what do you do? You turn over tough moral decisions to the states. It's what the constitution advises, and it's what should be done for a lot of moral decisions. Except the best part is, in states you can actually directly vote on shit, so if the decision to turn the matter over to the state was made, you the citizen might ACTUALLY have a say in something.

"State control of women's wombs is Big Brother. Sorry. It's as simple as that." -it really isn't that simple, and you can keep thinking it every day until the federal government actually uses the measures of control over us it has been obtaining for decades

Visker's picture
Posted by Visker (not verified) on 25 October 2007 - 9:06am
The idea that trading in Big

The idea that trading in Big Brother over 300 million people for 50 Big Brothers over several million people each is somehow a small government view strikes me as ludicrous. Where can I vote directly on anything in a state election? Referendums? Puhleez! The tyranny of the majority by hot-button election campaigns does not strike me as a pleasant prospect.

By your logic, slavery should be legal and the Bill of Rights should not exist. Is that what you believe? Should we allow slavery again?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 October 2007 - 9:19pm
It's a child, not a choice.

It's a child, not a choice. If you don't want to have a child, then don't have sex. You screwed up, you live with the decision.

Danielle's picture
Posted by Danielle (not verified) on 5 November 2007 - 7:23pm
And what if you're raped?

What if there's a complication? What if your life is endangered?

It's a pregnancy, and forcing pregnancy is forcing a woman into indentured servitude of the state.

It's a child once it's born. Until then, it's a part of the woman, her body.

Funny how the "pro-life" demands so much from a pregnant woman, but once there's a child in the world the mother isn't required to do anything. The baby could require a blood transfusion, a bone marrow transplant, a kidney, and no law in the land would ever require a parent to give of their body. In fact, entire political movements are formed around denying children healthcare.

What is so different about a fetus? Or an embryo? Or a blastocyst? Or the jism of the donor?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 November 2007 - 8:41pm
Red State

Hypothetically, I understand the reasons for a ban on certain users. There are definitely self described supporters of Paul's that don't put time and thought into a real discussion, but just post pre-written rants, some of them rude. Supposedly if you discuss pure ideas and are cogent and polite they won't ban you. Not so. I posted on red state, didn't mention any of the current candidates, and was both polite and thoughtful, and still got booted. They replaced my post, on which I had spent considerable time, with a video of some nut. What's more, once they "boot" you, you can't post to ask why the entry was deleted, or in what way you violated the rules. The person with whom I had been having the discussion had made some horrible points -- for example, proposing that no president at war should be allowed to be criticized in any way, and supporting the arrest of dissenters. I suppose that's one way to get the last word.

trem's picture
Posted by trem (not verified) on 24 October 2007 - 9:45pm
One size fits all?

It might be useful to consider another advantage of resolving the abortion issue lower than the federal level (besides the obvious constitutional issues).

Pro-choice advocates must be on a constant vigil to try to prevent more conservative Supreme Court judges from being nominated. The branch of the federal government we currently allow to pass judgment on this social issue is only on the side of pro-choice at the moment.

What happens when the balance shifts in this body and Pro-Life becomes our new one-size-fits-all?

It doesn’t matter which side of a social debate you’re on, resolving social issues at the federal level means that some group will always suffer a tyranny of the majority. Maybe not yours at the moment, but why argue for that power at the federal level in the first place?

If we followed the 10th Amendment and “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” all these social issues, then the answers could be as diverse as 300 million citizens require them to be. Or at least as diverse as 50 sections of those 300 million could be.

Personally, I’d like to see abortion reserved “to the people” (no laws about it whatsoever), but the worst answer is a federal one, even if it agrees with your position at the moment. It’s the most subject to abuse and tyranny.

Akston's picture
Posted by Akston on 24 October 2007 - 11:56pm
Pro-choice is the

Pro-choice is the libertarian position. "Resolving social issues at the federal level" is a red herring. There are a lot of social issues "resolved" at the federal level. Let's start with the Constitution's stipulation that no title of Nobility shall be granted by the federal government, or no religious test shall be required. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press....

Some rights are inalienable. Leaving tyranny to the states does not strike me as a morally defensible position.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 25 October 2007 - 9:25pm
Libertarians argue over

Libertarians argue over abortion all the time. If one assumes that pro-choice is a libertarian position they haven't been listening to them ramble on for very long.

Everyone is always arguing over the woman's right. Where do the men fit into this idea? Woman's body womans choice? Humans do not reproduce asexually although someone could come to that conclusion by reading this blog.

If a man wants to raise the child alone rather than it being aborted the woman can simply ignore him and abort it. She is then applauded for exercising her right of choice regardless of his beliefs it might be murder or not. The man is depicted as a evil patriarch who want to impress his tyranical outdated beliefs on women everywhere.

If a woman carries a child to term that a man wanted aborted. She is also applauded for raising a child alone and being a strong woman that picks up the mans slack. The man is then forced into life long child support even if he was tricked from a woman claiming to use birth control. The man depicted as a evil patriarch that fears to commit despite the fact it's women who have all the abortions avoiding commitmets.

Men have no legal rights in almost every state in regards to abortion and all attempts to grant them equal rights are stifled by feminist groups. As women already had full rights for generations and special minority privialges (despite being a majority) it seems as if new brands of feminism have less to do with rights and preserving femininity and more about gaining the upper hand in all gender dealings.

This blog is a product of such a distorted world view by those who can't seem to even begin to fathom the idea of men having equal rights, a repbulican not being a fascist, libertarians not agreeing on a subject or pretty much understanding any other issue that doesn't fit into the clueless narrow groupthink agenda.

anonymous's picture
Posted by anonymous (not verified) on 28 October 2007 - 10:52am
Men don't get pregnant (duh!)

Funny how this little detail seems to escape the MRA dogma. Thanks for visiting.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 November 2007 - 8:43pm
Resolving social issues at

Resolving social issues at the federal level can be done. It is called a constitutional amendment. Or the supreme court can decide things that decide a constitutional issue. Roe v. Wade did not decide a constitutional issue, it created jurisdiction out of nowhere. I don't buy that search and seizure equals abortion. So your goal should be a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, not the protection of roe v. wade.

kelly's picture
Posted by kelly (not verified) on 9 December 2007 - 7:13pm
Equal protection is not a

Equal protection is not a "jurisdiction out of nowhere." You may disagree, but calling the decision unconstitutional is just partisanship, not scholarship. You don't agree, so you call it unconstitutional.

Don't fret. You have your activist court now that claims the constitution means only what existed in 1789. They can roll back history and you can live in your dreamland.

But it has no bearing in our current reality in terms of Constitutional rights or common law. Not in my opinion.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 9 December 2007 - 9:14pm
Look I made a mistake on

Look I made a mistake on Jurisdiction out of nowhere meaning that the court had no jurisdiction, because it was an appellate case. What I trying to say was that was that the court stretched the meaning of constitution to decide that an "illegal search and seizure" is anti-abortion legislation. The decision is based on faulty logic.

I happen to be pro-life, and sure in reality I will take roe v. wade vs. nothing. But we are talking theory here because there is no way that Ron Paul is going to be able to overturn the decision in the first place.

As far as equal protection goes, please explain how that is grounds for legalizing abortion... i don't get.

As far as the ninth amendment goes that means simply because something is not in the constitution does not mean that is not a right. BUT the power to legislate over matters not in the constitution is given to the states in the tenth. This would mean they have the power to decide whether abortion is a right. Roe v. Wade takes this power away based on a huge leap in interpretation. The only proper way to make a federal ban on abortion legal is a constitutional amendment... because when you face facts right to abortion is just not in the constitution. This is what the women did to get the vote this is what was done for slavery. The proper way to make a states issues (one the constitution doesn't delegate to the supreme court, congress or the prez), applicable for all fifty states ie on a federal level-- is an amendment.

As for 1789, that is silly i accept the amendments made to he constitution made after that. In fact I would encourage them over some bogus interpretation in a court case.

kelly's picture
Posted by kelly (not verified) on 9 December 2007 - 9:48pm
Haha-- meant to say that I

Haha-- meant to say that I am pro-choice.:)

kelly's picture
Posted by kelly (not verified) on 9 December 2007 - 9:58pm
Nothing to see here

Double post edited out by the original poster. Move along :-)

Akston's picture
Posted by Akston on 25 October 2007 - 12:03am
Hello media girl, Here is my

Hello media girl,

Here is my canadian view of the futur of your country

Your country faces and really bad dilemma

This comment is not complete as I wish it to be, but it covers a few good points

If americans lets the social conservatives take all the power, your country will become a FASCIST THEOCRACY. And that is not good for nobody, even christians. Liberty? Gone.

If americains let the socialists take all the power, your country will become like Canada. And that is not good for nobody, even liberals. Liberty? Gone. Please don't beleive ANYTHING Moore (or any democrats) say's about our system... It doesn't work ! Here, a lot of things are falling apart, especially in the most socialist part of our country, i.e. Québec.

The solution against the neo-cons, neo-capitalism and imperialism, is NOT more state. It's a system that does not permit big corporations to take control of the state and the free market. And how do you do that? By abolishing the fiat money created by the Federal Reserve Bank INC ! Did you know that the power of the capitalists monopolies (they call that capitalism) that control your country come mostly by the privatly owned FRB inc. ? And it's possible to abolish it, your country did it in the past.

And what the Ron Paul team want's to put in place is a complete different system. Not socialist state that controls a BIG part of you life, not a 'fake' free market that controls -also- A BIG part of your life.

Please don't beleive me and READ! That's what Ron Paul's message made me do, and I now understand this system and it work's ! Even if Ron Paul does not become president (but he has a good chance), I think people are waking up and realizing that BOTH parties are LYING and are control freaks ! Anyway, I can say that I've been studying history, economy, and the main ideologies out there, and I've come to the conclusion that the only way America (and Canada!) can come out of this mess (we are following the neo-cons more and more), it's by going back to the fundementals of YOUR constitution.
(our constitution is half as good as yours!)

I know, I may sound a bit weird, but I'm french and my english is not so good. But I can read and understand very well. My conclusion is that the IDEAS that the Ron Paul campaign is putting forward are nearly perfect, because your constitution is one of the most perfect constitution elaborated by a human society. And the ideas behind this constitution played a big part of what made your country so great! And everyday that passes, your country (and BOTH partys) do the OPPOSITE and that's the main reason why everything goes so wrong.

REAL Liberty, REAL freedom, REAL peace and the result is REAL prosperity.

Please take a little of your time to study YOUR constitution and all it's implications in YOUR lives. You are SO lucky to have this and right now, Ron Paul is the only one out there that can bring back your country back to it's original fundementals.

Most liberals would LOVE a USA that follows the constitution. Most conservatives also. It's not just a slogan: freedom REALLY brings people together and I wish my country hade a movement like the Ron Paul r3vo7ution. It is trully a peacefull revolution and if you look at Ron Paul past actions, I am sure you will start to have REAL hope in politics again. Please don't stop at the fact that RP is a Republicain. I know all the bad things that's been done by that party in the past... but RP has to run in one of the 2 partys if he want's to win. Anyway, if your system was really democratic, he would probably start the Constitution party. ;-)

I had lost ALL hope even for my country. But now with what is happening in your country and ALL OVER THE WORLD... I can say this is trully unique and has historical implications.

And don't forget, Ron Paul is not the main attraction here. What matters is understanding the principales of YOUR consitution. Even M. Paul said that he was 'irrelevant' and that the MESSAGE is what counts. But americains who understands what is going on, have the unique chance to vote for him. This man is SOLID and REAL and we will see more and more politicians follow in his footspets. And I'm sure that's what RP wants: The constitutiom and the message first !


The democrats (mostly funded by the same big corporations) will continue the war in Irak, and spread it in Iran... that is a absolute certainty !

Thank you for your patience and I apologize for all my mistakes. :-)

Keep up the good work on your blog... and continue to search for the facts...
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess: She wants permanent bases in Iraq – and threatens war with Iran, Justin Raimondo, Jan 23 2006
Hillary, War with Iran is No Laughing Matter, September 30, 2007
How Clinton Set The Stage For Bush, ICH
Hillary Warmongering at AIPAC, YouTube

Hillary Clinton -
The Surge is Working, Prepare for New War, YouTube
Hillary Clinton We Will Continue To Support Israel, YouTube
Mike Gravel vs Hillary Clinton on Iraq/Iran, YouTube
Mike Gravel: Hillary Clinton is Propaganda

Sébastien's picture
Posted by Sébastien (not verified) on 25 October 2007 - 5:22am
3rd lign = Your country

3rd lign = Your country faces a really bad dilemma

Sébastien's picture
Posted by Sébastien (not verified) on 25 October 2007 - 5:26am