liberals will vote against their own interest as much as conservatives in my opionion

[Philosopher Dan]

Originally Posted by getatnard

Well maybe we form our ideas from our labels and that's why we can't have discussions without using them. We are trapped in this either or game. I think the point I was making is there are things people who voted for obama disagree with him about yet are willing to overlook because they will never pull a lever for the other side and vice versa.

Right - but you aren't advocating that they pull the lever for the "other side" per se, but for a specific candidate, Ron Paul.

It's not like you are advocating Santorum's or Romney's position, correct?

At least, that's how I interpreted the argument you were making.

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by getatnard

I think that's what I fight the most. During this birth control debate you never heard ron paul speak about taking rights away. In his books he says people should be able to pick their level of coverage not employers or government. Please explain how he believes in taking a womens economic health rights away.

That would be outlawing abortions...

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by Philosopher Dan

Right - but you aren't advocating that they pull the lever for the "other side" per se, but for a specific candidate, Ron Paul.

It's not like you are advocating Santorum's or Romney's position, correct?

At least, that's how I interpreted the argument you were making.

Yes. Why are we so tied to our political parties. A lot of people say they hate the money in politics, hate wall street entangled with our political process or big corporation for that matter yet they will pull the lever for obama. When he was elected he went and hired all these crony crooks. He sold us out to the insurance companies on the healthcare bill and people are willing to over look that. I started this thread cause I saw a video made by ralph nader. He pointed out that obama has no one to answer to on the things he did. All he does is respond to the wackos in the republican party and how ron paul is the only one who would make him answer to the people about his stance on civil liberties, wall street, foriegn policy, and crony capitalism.

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

That would be outlawing abortions...

And how does allowing people to pick their own medical coverage outlaw abortions?

[Lance in Manassas]

Originally Posted by getatnard

And how does allowing people to pick their own medical coverage outlaw abortions?

Why do you think medical economics is limited to health insurance?

What use is health insurance that covers abortion if Ron Paul has used the power of the state to shut down all the abortion clinics?

[Damage]

IMO
I don’t think you can ever get an answer with the conversation this broad. There’s a whole bunch of issue that “lefties” will agree on. Same for the “righties”. However the further you go at each end of those groups you start to fray or marrow and lose people.
Me being a lefty a lib whatever. Am I willing to toss out all kinds of stuff I’m for because my guy is going to piss me off in some areas? Of course not. You can call that the lesser of 2 evils, getting as much as you can with what you have, or throwing out the good because you can’t have perfection etc….
This is where elections are decided if the support is not too lopsided (you know the states) or where one side doesn’t go too far. The big middle where people are willing to compromise.

[Lance in Manassas]

How about, the President I voted for did exactly as much as he could do while maintaining a 50% favorability rating.

Should I be disappointed at that?

Considering all the Republican Governors and Goverapers who've done EVERYTHING THEY CAN, is that an example to follow?

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

Why do you think medical economics is limited to health insurance?

What use is health insurance that covers abortion if Ron Paul has used the power of the state to shut down all the abortion clinics?

so you are saying if elected president he will go against what his stance is currently and and make abortions illegal. fyi, his current stance is as president he can't do anything about abortion, but he feels it should be up to the states

[Iowa Auto Guy]

Originally Posted by getatnard

Well maybe we form our ideas from our labels and that's why we can't have discussions without using them. We are trapped in this either or game. I think the point I was making is there are things people who voted for obama disagree with him about yet are willing to overlook because they will never pull a lever for the other side and vice versa.

I disagree with Obama on some things. I dont think there is any shame in saying that. But for every one thing i disagree with Obama on, I disagree with 10 things from Romney, and 50 from Santorum... and Newt is just a flat liar, so its hard to disagree with shit he says that even he doesnt believe. At least Romney lies to get votes in believable ways. I kind of wish Santorum was lying. If he wins the presidency than social conservativism will put so many more barriers on liberty you will be begging for Obama back.

[Iowa Auto Guy]

Originally Posted by getatnard

so you are saying if elected president he will go against what his stance is currently and and make abortions illegal. fyi, his current stance is as president he can't do anything about abortion, but he feels it should be up to the states

So he cannot do anything but be forced to sit back and watch people stripped of rights?

Seems backwards to me.

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by Iowa Auto Guy

So he cannot do anything but be forced to sit back and watch people stripped of rights?

Seems backwards to me.

How would they be stripped of rights. Roe vs wade would have to be overturned and as president he couldn't do that. it seems to me that lance is making the stance that he wouldn't vote for paul on some made of scenario that will never happen. A president is not king. He can't just do anything he wants.

[jfstorm]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

Why do you think medical economics is limited to health insurance?

What use is health insurance that covers abortion if Ron Paul has used the power of the state to shut down all the abortion clinics?

I don't think I have ever heard of Ron Paul advocating for such a thing?

Honest, the guy is stubborn to the point of intransigent on some issues, but I think he is flat out neutral on this one.

He's an ob/gyn isn't he?

[jfstorm]

Originally Posted by Iowa Auto Guy

*snip*... But for every one thing i disagree with Obama on, I disagree with 10 things from Romney, and 50 from Santorum... and Newt is just a flat liar, so its hard to disagree with shit he says that even he doesn't believe....*snip*

Wow, I love being able to dredge out this old classic from Walter Mondale:

"It isn't what you think you know that bothers me. It's what you know for a fact that just ain't so."

[Lance in Manassas]

You know Get, this is one point I just don't just a politician's promise on.

You don't seem to trust ANY politicians, except the one who you think shares your beliefs.

Chance that's actually a weakness on your part?

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by getatnard

How would they be stripped of rights. Roe vs wade would have to be overturned and as president he couldn't do that. it seems to me that lance is making the stance that he wouldn't vote for paul on some made of scenario that will never happen. A president is not king. He can't just do anything he wants.

A president does get to nominate justices for the Supreme Court, and will likely have multiple chances over the next four years. In this way he does influence Roe as well as other very important issues that I wouldn't trust a Republican, even a libertarian republican, with.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by CMAC

A president does get to nominate justices for the Supreme Court, and will likely have multiple chances over the next four years. In this way he does influence Roe as well as other very important issues that I wouldn't trust a Republican, even a libertarian republican, with.

First, the Supreme Court nominee would need to be approved by the Senate. Second, if Ron Paul nominated someone who shared similar beliefs about the Constitution as he does, he believes that such things are not the federal governments responsibility to enforce. Would states ban abortions? It's possible. But if they did, they would likely have to deal with an uprising. If not, then the people of that state are 'cool' with it. And if there are some that aren't, they can leave the state for a more liberal state on the subject.

Third.. I would also mention that it would take at least 5 Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. And they can't just overturn it. There needs to be a case they are willing to hear.

[Lance in Manassas]

The Roberts court isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The Reberts court is going to discover in the Constitution a Right to Life.

And when they do, women will lose the control over their own reproductive choices.

[CMAC]

Originally Posted by Tritium

First, the Supreme Court nominee would need to be approved by the Senate.

When he Senate flips to GOP this will be easy for a Republican President.

Second, if Ron Paul nominated someone who shared similar beliefs about the Constitution as he does, he believes that such things are not the federal governments responsibility to enforce.

That's where he is wrong. Roe is an issue of privacy and individual liberty. Other issues such as Civil Rights, would also be something Paul wouldn't think isn't the Federal Government's business.

Would states ban abortions? It's possible. But if they did, they would likely have to deal with an uprising. If not, then the people of that state are 'cool' with it. And if there are some that aren't, they can leave the state for a more liberal state on the subject.

. This is the same bullshit line of thinking that people use to tell others to find a more palatable country to live in. No. We are the United States. We shouldn't let a tyranny of the majority harm the minority's rights. In fact, there could be an interpretation that this isn't even constitutional.
Article 4 section 2 states The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Do you want a packed court to decide that this means if several states have particular laws, all the other states must recognize. Gay marriage, anyone.

Third.. I would also mention that it would take at least 5 Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. And they can't just overturn it. There needs to be a case they are willing to hear.

There are four right wing activist justices now. Would only take one more. There are several states passing these laws now, almost to be feeder cases for abortion issues.

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by Lance in Manassas

You know Get, this is one point I just don't just a politician's promise on.

You don't seem to trust ANY politicians, except the one who you think shares your beliefs.

Chance that's actually a weakness on your part?

I dont trust politicians either but i can look at their voting records and the type of bills they bring to the table. The man barely talks abortion on his own. matter of fact they only time i hear him talk about it is when it is ask of him

[getatnard]

Originally Posted by CMAC

A president does get to nominate justices for the Supreme Court, and will likely have multiple chances over the next four years. In this way he does influence Roe as well as other very important issues that I wouldn't trust a Republican, even a libertarian republican, with.

we hear this every election cycle. Republicans have controlled every branch of the government and abortion hasn't been overturned yet.