[alcimedes]

The interesting thing is that he voted along those lines very consistently as well. For example he voted against Federal control of abortion, but also voted against making it illegal to travel between states in order to get an abortion.

If no other reason cutting back some of the power granted to the Federal govt. based on the Commerce clause would be a huge boon to our country.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray God you are a humourless curmudgeon. Having watched the PBS interview with Ron Paul, my take on him is that he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. His stance on abortion should set alarm bells ringing, but even if it doesn't, his entire platform seems based on ripping the guts out of the welfare state, which is undoubtedly the most significant political contributor to social development and human welfare in the last century. Absurd! But his voice has that earnest croaking timbre and his honest eyes make people fall for him. Surprised that he's popular with the young though! You're quite right, Windswept, JFK and Clinton were pretty young by world leader standards.

Nicely stated, Dorian. I don't get the "every man for himself" stance many people in this country take with respect to welfare. When did people become so greedy? I'm fortunate enough to be able to take care of my family and I'm aware that others aren't as fortunate. Part of living in a community is being willing to share the burden.

I wish I could vote people "off the island" when they have attitudes like tens'.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by torifile Nicely stated, Dorian. I don't get the "every man for himself" stance many people in this country take with respect to welfare. When did people become so greedy? I'm fortunate enough to be able to take care of my family and I'm aware that others aren't as fortunate. Part of living in a community is being willing to share the burden. I wish I could vote people "off the island" when they have attitudes like tens'.

Why? You work hard to support your family. Why should others not have to do the same? People that have problems providing for their families are lazy. Anyone can help themselves, the problem is they choose not to. It is far easier to collect an unemployment check, contribute to inflation, and screw over your more well-off neighbors by collecting that check than it is to work two jobs to get your feet back on the ground.

My guess is you've never taken a trip through the ghetto before. Believe me, the stereotype of "porch monkey" is as true as can be. I see more poor people sitting outside their state houses and their shitty apartments during the day then I could have possibly imagined. Why should I help out those who would rather beg for change than get a real job?

As for community, I don't consider those that go around destroying my community by vandalizing it, robbing the local establishments instead of getting a job, dealing drugs and corrupting the youth instead of getting a real job, etc. to be part of my community. I would rather these people not be a part of my community as a matter of fact, because all they do is destroy it.

Until the mentality of the poor and the ethics of Americans change, they should not receive a handout of a single penny. Everyone thinks that poverty breeds poverty, and that is true to an extent, but I think it is more laziness and lack of intelligence breed poverty. Instead of getting pregnant at 16, 17, 18, etc, go to planned parenthood and bone with rubbers the way everyone else has to. I don't think thats unreasonable. Instead of taking out loans exclusively to pay for college and then half way through realizing you cannot afford to pay for it and drop out, get a part time job when you're 14 and instead of buying smack put your money in the bank. There are so many things that can be done but the lazy and unintelligent poor are unwilling to do that.

America would be a much better place if credit cards did not exist, the only line of credit people could get was for buying a home and they were required to put down 30%, and the handouts to the poor were completely cut-off. People would actually be forced to make something of themselves instead of being a burden on society. Plus then a community would actually be established as there would be less poverty, etc. I would much rather host a cookout and feed the less fortunate in my community and give them some family fun than give them money that they are free to waste on crack, booze, etc.

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by torifile Nicely stated, Dorian. I don't get the "every man for himself" stance many people in this country take with respect to welfare. When did people become so greedy? I'm fortunate enough to be able to take care of my family and I'm aware that others aren't as fortunate. Part of living in a community is being willing to share the burden.

Willingness to help others and tolerance of being forced to do it are two very, very different things.

I don't like a "every man for himself" type who never helps others. No one does. But I prefer him to those that have a need to tell me what to do.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Why? You work hard to support your family. Why should others not have to do the same? People that have problems providing for their families are lazy. Anyone can help themselves, the problem is they choose not to. It is far easier to collect an unemployment check, contribute to inflation, and screw over your more well-off neighbors by collecting that check than it is to work two jobs to get your feet back on the ground. My guess is you've never taken a trip through the ghetto before. Believe me, the stereotype of "porch monkey" is as true as can be. I see more poor people sitting outside their state houses and their shitty apartments during the day then I could have possibly imagined. Why should I help out those who would rather beg for change than get a real job? As for community, I don't consider those that go around destroying my community by vandalizing it, robbing the local establishments instead of getting a job, dealing drugs and corrupting the youth instead of getting a real job, etc. to be part of my community. I would rather these people not be a part of my community as a matter of fact, because all they do is destroy it. Until the mentality of the poor and the ethics of Americans change, they should not receive a handout of a single penny. Everyone thinks that poverty breeds poverty, and that is true to an extent, but I think it is more laziness and lack of intelligence breed poverty. Instead of getting pregnant at 16, 17, 18, etc, go to planned parenthood and bone with rubbers the way everyone else has to. I don't think thats unreasonable. Instead of taking out loans exclusively to pay for college and then half way through realizing you cannot afford to pay for it and drop out, get a part time job when you're 14 and instead of buying smack put your money in the bank. There are so many things that can be done but the lazy and unintelligent poor are unwilling to do that. America would be a much better place if credit cards did not exist, the only line of credit people could get was for buying a home and they were required to put down 30%, and the handouts to the poor were completely cut-off. People would actually be forced to make something of themselves instead of being a burden on society. Plus then a community would actually be established as there would be less poverty, etc. I would much rather host a cookout and feed the less fortunate in my community and give them some family fun than give them money that they are free to waste on crack, booze, etc.

(Wow. Just. Wow.)

On topic: so how do any of the current republican field uphold your lofty ideals?

[Mugge]

When I voted I did it from a Danish perspective, so I paid most attention to foreign policy. I voted for McCain, because he knows the cost of war and doesn't approve of any bleeding up on the definition of torture. Basically I don't mind wars. They are a good way of keeping aggressive nations/dictators under control, but applied to generously and you eventually start to chew off more than you can swallow. I think McCain would be good at striking the proper balance between force and diplomacy.

Clinton? Wouldn't mind her either, she probably has enough balls for the job as any man.

Giuliani? Probably a continuation of the Bush policy. I can live with that.

Obama? I hope not. All his talk about pacifism is going to very encouraging for bad guys like Ahmadinejad.

Paul? Well, his foreign policy sounds like something 1913-ish. Next thing we can all start partying like it was 1914, the US will probably dragged in shortly after...

Basically, we need USA to be the big brother of the world, because I don't trust any of the other potential big brothers to do it. Freedom is not free.

[Dorian Gray]

But you can't possibly believe that stuff, tensdanny38. The reason you and I are (or will be) able to "support" our families has really very little to do with our own efforts. Most importantly, we were born in rich countries (good work, pat yourself on the back for that!). We were born with a sound mind (? ) and no impairing disabilities. We were born into the most privileged ethnic group in our societies, instantly doubling our chance of success. We were born male, so we will never have to face the institutionalised sexism that still suppresses the salaries of women (among many other harmful effects). We had families that cared enough to get us through primary- and secondary-school, and that had the wherewithal to instil in us the social skills and capital so critical to success in today's economy. Because earlier generations of politicians in our countries wisely invested huge amounts of taxpayers' money into our society, we were able to take advantage of the extensive infrastructure, functioning bureaucracy and superb education facilities afforded us in our respective rich countries. To our everlasting credit, we didn't squander all of the embarrassment of riches offered to us.

After that, it's pretty much down to luck. One has to avoid being severely injured in a car crash, falling in with the "wrong" crowd, getting a dud boss, etc., few of which things are directly controllable by any of us.

The kind of society you describe sounds almost exactly like that of sub-Saharan African countries. I wonder whether you would be quite so proud of your achievements, and quite so adamant that the poor are pathetic losers, had you been born there?

Originally Posted by Koodari You are confusing his personal opinion on abortion (he opposes it, apparently based on his religious beliefs) and his stance on abortion (it's not the federal government's business to regulate, so let the states decide).

Well, his personal opinion on abortion is enough to make me distrust him, regardless of his voting record. It frankly reveals a lack of intellectual depth, and reinforces his generally uncaring attitude. I've explained before why I support the right to abortion.

Originally Posted by Koodari Willingness to help others and tolerance of being forced to do it are two very, very different things.

Conceptually they are different, but in practice, the people who have an aneurysm over anything that smacks of wealth redistribution are of course the very people who would always have an excellent excuse to not give a penny to the less fortunate. Taxation forces everyone to fund our social institutions, including those who don't appreciate how massively society has contributed to their success.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by alcimedes [...] If no other reason cutting back some of the power granted to the Federal govt. based on the Commerce clause would be a huge boon to our country.

I disagree. I think that the particular challenges faced by the U.S. – economic, environmental, security – and the world for that matter, make strong central governments vital. While I am all in favour, in principle, of small governments and local control to the extent possible, my own view is that the nature of the world has changed such that it is just not possible to the extent it was say, 100-200 years ago. I am no fan of the particular current U.S. federal administration, but I do think that the U.S historically has benefited considerably from an approach of federalism with a relatively strong central government.

[Capella]

Warning: this is a highly personal statement, but it explains why I believe that we should keep funding federal welfare programs. It's also highly biased and opinionated. But I saw tensdanny's post and I cried. And then I got angry. I'm really tired of hearing people rant against welfare and lazy people when they have no idea what it's like, the kinds of situations that could drive someone there, or the feelings of shame and guilt when you can't take care of your family without government aid.

Quite frankly, tensdanny, I am shocked that you can think that way about programs. It shows a very narrow-minded and ignorant view of those less fortunate than yourself. Now, I'm not saying that anyone who feels like that is ignorant as in stupid; I feel that if you can say that, you must not know anyone who legitimately needs these services, and thus assume that they are worthless or expendable.

Not everyone on welfare, or food stamps, or Social Security, or Medicaid or Medicare, are leechers who are using the welfare state so that they don't have to do anything. Anyone who thinks so thinks so because they have never been exposed to people who actually need these services. They believe the media and government's stereotypes of the "welfare queen" who is always a poor and generally a minority single mother with 3.5 kids so that she can stay on welfare and is too lazy to get her own job instead of breeding again.

That is a lie.

My mother had me at the age of 23. At the time, she was in her last year of college, training to be a police officer, while also holding down a job as a dispatcher in order to pay for her college. She commuted about 90 minutes each way, from Jacksonville to Daytona Beach, just to get to work. She was a brilliant woman who had a supportive family behind her and was going to have a brilliant future. Becoming pregnant ruined her life. She began to have seizures. Initially they were absence seizures, causing her to forget where she was or have periods of missing time. She had to quit her job and drop out of college. By the 4th month, she had grand mal (convulsion) seizures. By the middle of month 7, she was having continuous seizures, was hospitalized, and had labor induced to bring me into the world a month early because they were convinced we would both die if she didn't. My father, her husband, had told her in the 4th month to have an abortion or I would leave her. Despite her terror of her own symptoms- the missing time, the losing college and work- she refused, and thus he left her, abandoning her to try to live on her own like this. My grandmother had to come over from England to take care of her daughter- her father and her 3 other siblings didn't care.

The first 3 or so years of my life, my grandmother and her sister raised me. They paid for a house. They took care of me and fed me. They did everything. My mother was perpetually in the hospital. I spent as much time at the hospital or in a car driving 1 hour to the hospital as I did in the house my grandmother was providing. When I was 3, my mother had brain surgery (to be exact, a removal of a portion of the temporal and frontal lobes on the right side) because she was informed that this was the only way the seizures would stop. The seizures stopped, but only for a year. Worse, she was left legally blind. Between the seizures and the blindness, my mother was no longer legally allowed to hold a job.

Because my grandmother had worked in the US most of her life, despite initially being from England and having gone back there when her last child was in college, when she reached 65 she was eligible for Social Security. Because of my mother's new permanent disabilities, she was also eligible for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. (Plus paltry child support from my father.) Their combined income has always been less than $15,000 a year for my entire life. As a result, I've grown up under poverty limits my whole life. I know what it's like to barely be able to afford your rent and your utilities and your food, much less anything else. I know what it's like to lose some services when there's an unexpected medical bill. I only had cable sporadically, depending on whether or not we could afford the bill that month. I was one of the poorest kids in my area- it was a growing Florida town, with lots of wealthy retirees coming to get beachfront and near beachfront property. We got our house under a provision that helps with homeowning for first-time homeowners who are in poverty. I got new clothes and things when and if I needed them. We had welfare benefits for a few years, and we've been on food stamps multiple times when the money got lean. I wouldn't have had a computer if it hadn't been for the generosity of my grandfather. He could supply us a computer, but couldn't be assed to come down to Florida for 3 months to take over caring for my mother so my grandmother could have a break.

I'm a white female who grew up in poverty. I'm also bisexual, gender-neutral, and athiest. None of these are going to help me in life; they're probably going to be held against me. I know damn well what the power structures are in this country, and that by virtue of my genes and my birth and my beliefs, only one of which I can control, that I am facing a massive amount of odds against my success and wealth in the future. Except for being white, I'm pretty much the total antithesis of the white male Judeo-Christian heterosexual wealthy hegemonic power structure that runs this country. I'm going through college on a shitload of loans that I'm pretty sure I'll never be able to pay back in full because I believe that I need college and that I'm not going to go anywhere unless I have it. I want a better life for myself in the future, one where I don't have to not buy a $7.99 paperback book I've been waiting to come out for half a year because it would make our budget go into the red. If and when I can do that, I'll be happy. I know what luxuries are in life, and how many people see as basic necessities things that they can live without. Sure, it's hard as hell, but you can do it. I'm working a job and taking out loans because I think I can better myself and get over the stigma of coming from poverty, and I'm pretty sure I can do it if I don't lose sight of things.

Okay, I think now I'm digressing and getting TOO personal.

I'm honestly curious. Tensdanny and those who feel that welfare should be abolished and that people are only poor if they're too lazy to work their way up, what do you think about cases like mine? Should my mother not be allowed to be on welfare? Should she be forced to work when she is legally blind and still routinely has absence seizures and forgets where she is and what year it is? If she can't work, should she just be completely screwed over because the state shouldn't be forced to support her? Or are you only against welfare for those who COULD hold other jobs?

I apologize again for the length and off-topicness of this post, but when I saw the post above, I absolutely HAD to reply with this; I just couldn't let the concept that everyone on welfare are lazy slugs go unchallenged.

The reason I'm sharing my past with you guys is so that you understand something. Social Security isn't just for the elderly, it's for the disabled. If you talk about letting Social Security die, you're not just hurting people who may not have been able to save for retirement for whatever reason. You're hurting people like my mother who can never work again. Welfare goes to single mothers who may have had children they can't afford, or who may have lost their income or a place to live or family support because of having children. Maybe some people don't deserve it, but some people do. The abuses of a few does not mean that the entire system is broken.

Think about it. Think about what I've said and what I've shared about what I've gone through. Imagine growing up like this yourself. Imagine what it feels like to need federal assistance or go onto the streets. Think about it for 24 hours, and then tell me that you think Social Security and welfare are only for the lazy and should be abolished. If you can still say that, then I can still feel angry at you for not caring for the weakest citizens of your nation, but at least I can respect that you considered another point of view.

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Well, his personal opinion on abortion is enough to make me distrust him, regardless of his voting record. It frankly reveals a lack of intellectual depth, and reinforces his generally uncaring attitude. I've explained before why I support the right to abortion.

I'm willing to cut some slack to a person who's delivered thousands of babies as an OBGYN. While you might not agree with his position, I hardly think you can call it an uneducated one.

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray (re: Ron Paul) Well, his personal opinion on abortion is enough to make me distrust him, regardless of his voting record. It frankly reveals a lack of intellectual depth, and reinforces his generally uncaring attitude. I've explained before why I support the right to abortion.

By definition you can't really ask for intellectual depth in a matter of faith, which I understand this matter is to him. The facts are that he is upfront about it, he says that the federal government (and thus the president) cannot legislate abortion because such legislation itself isn't legal, and he has an impeccable voting record to back up that he will do what he says. Thus, his stance on abortion is A-OK for a fully pro-abortion agnostic such as myself, and I'm generally wary of religion.

I think you're letting your dislike of his politics as a whole affect your judgement in this specific matter.

(re: willingness to give and tolerance for being forced to give) Conceptually they are different, but in practice, the people who have an aneurysm over anything that smacks of wealth redistribution are of course the very people who would always have an excellent excuse to not give a penny to the less fortunate.

I consider wealth redistribution extremely harmful. The fact that so much of it is done under cover of inflation, government debt, generally binding collective agreements and such is fraud, plain and simple. It should at the very least be out in the open, with every cent of public tax money going to an individual publicly enumerated.

I don't have that much contributions to show yet. It would be stupid and irresponsible to give before I take care of myself. But I have put in over a year of free work for the benefit of others already. Not every last bit of that was technically voluntary, but in practice I could have skipped it entirely had I so wished.

Taxation forces everyone to fund our social institutions, including those who don't appreciate how massively society has contributed to their success.

Yep. I don't want to be forced by anyone. Forcing anyone myself would be even worse.

[Luca]

What bugs me about people like tensdanny is they insist that it's fraudulent and a waste of their hard earned money to put tax dollars into social welfare programs, yet they have no trouble supporting their own cash-cow programs that I disagree with to the same extent. And that's the main problem with Republicans these days. Whatever happened to small government, low taxes, and low spending? Certainly that's not what the Republican party is about anymore.

Anyway, back to my original point. tensdanny, you say that you consider it thievery that your tax dollars are being used to give poor people social welfare. Well, what about the war in Iraq? I couldn't disagree more with our whole philosophy regarding the "war on terror" and our continued costly involvement in Iraq. I don't think a penny of my tax dollars should go to fund this expensive mistake. And I guarantee you that Americans are pouring way more money into Iraq than they are into poor people who refuse to put in any effort to better themselves.

I hear my parents talk about how many thousands of dollars they have to pay in taxes every year and think, something like 1/5 of that (no idea on the actual percentage, just a wild guess) is being used to prolong this fraudulent war and put Americans in one of the most dangerous places in the world. It's a rip-off. This is the true definition of thievery, and instead of paying money out to the people who need it the most, it's stealing money AND AMERICAN LIVES from the lower and lower-middle class people who support this country with their hard work. Where does that money go? Defense contractors, lobbyists, and pretty much any old rich asshole who doesn't need it.

So how come you get to decide where your tax dollars do and don't go, but I don't get to decide? Also, what about the whole welfare reform thing where you're only given a certain number of years and you have to be actively looking for a job in order to qualify?

Even though I don't really love Ron Paul's stances on things, at least he isn't a hypocrite. Though really, I think I'd rather have Kucinich than Paul.

[alcimedes]

Well, and to be fair if you listen to the PBS interview he expressly states that he wouldn't end those social programs immediately as there are too many people who rely on them.

The basic premise is that the federal govt. has too much power, and has grown so large as to be amazingly wasteful.

The other premise is that you shouldn't expect your govt. to take care of you outside of the specific roles for which it was originally designed.

[torifile]

you shouldn't expect your govt. to take care of you outside of the specific roles for which it was originally designed.

You shouldn't expect it, but it should if you need it to.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Koodari You are confusing his personal opinion on abortion (he opposes it, apparently based on his religious beliefs) and his stance on abortion (it's not the federal government's business to regulate, so let the states decide).

What? You mean it is acceptable for a politician's stance not to be equivalent to their personal opinion?

In that case: my, how low we have sunk with political expectations.

[sirnick4]

Originally Posted by chucker What? You mean it is acceptable for a politician's stance not to be equivalent to their personal opinion? In that case: my, how low we have sunk with political expectations.

John Kerry was the same way last election. He, being a Catholic and all, does not believe in abortion, BUT he is not going to force his beliefs on any American.

[alcimedes]

Looking at things like Katrina, the 9/11 attacks, No Child Left Behind, Social Security, etc. has our govt. shown that they have the ability to keep their heads out of their asses? No.

I'd much rather have that money and that planning shift back to the state level where it belongs, and where there's some accountability for how the money is spent then disappearing into the giant DC suckhole that is our current govt.

[thegelding]

eh....personally, and all it is is a personal opinion, i think all health care should be free....at my hospital 30% of every health care dollar, and almost 30% of our employees, have nothing to do with health care or patient care...30 freakin % goes to billing and collections...i would much rather that 30% went to caring for patients and not lining the pockets of rich guys...

g


and personally i would love to see a gore/obama ticket for 2008...

give obama a term at vice pres. to grow some, give gore his term at pres that he won in 2000, then let gore do his travels for the global issues as a former pres and have obama run for pres in 2012....

of course i would be fine with obama in 2008 also...as a middle aged white guy, i am kinda tired of middle aged white guys always being president and vice pres...give people of color or people without penis a try once in a while isn't a bad thing..

[chucker]

Originally Posted by sirnick4 John Kerry was the same way last election. He, being a Catholic and all, does not believe in abortion, BUT he is not going to force his beliefs on any American.

Well, I for one can't respect a politician who isn't behind what they believe. I'm sure there's plenty of such examples. Perhaps even the majority of politicians are like that these days. But that doesn't make it right to consider it okey-dokey.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Luca What bugs me about people like tensdanny is they insist that it's fraudulent and a waste of their hard earned money to put tax dollars into social welfare programs, yet they have no trouble supporting their own cash-cow programs that I disagree with to the same extent. [...]

Exactly. There was an interesting study a few years ago that endeavoured to calculate the pluses and minuses of federal spending and taxation and showed that the net beneficiaries, by a considerable margin, were those hard-working, ‘self-sufficient’ red states, who received a considerable net subsidy from the rest of the U.S. If I recall correctly, farm subsidies and the location of military spending were a big part of the equation.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Luca What bugs me about people like tensdanny is they insist that it's fraudulent and a waste of their hard earned money to put tax dollars into social welfare programs, yet they have no trouble supporting their own cash-cow programs that I disagree with to the same extent. And that's the main problem with Republicans these days. Whatever happened to small government, low taxes, and low spending? Certainly that's not what the Republican party is about anymore. Anyway, back to my original point. tensdanny, you say that you consider it thievery that your tax dollars are being used to give poor people social welfare. Well, what about the war in Iraq? I couldn't disagree more with our whole philosophy regarding the "war on terror" and our continued costly involvement in Iraq. I don't think a penny of my tax dollars should go to fund this expensive mistake. And I guarantee you that Americans are pouring way more money into Iraq than they are into poor people who refuse to put in any effort to better themselves. I hear my parents talk about how many thousands of dollars they have to pay in taxes every year and think, something like 1/5 of that (no idea on the actual percentage, just a wild guess) is being used to prolong this fraudulent war and put Americans in one of the most dangerous places in the world. It's a rip-off. This is the true definition of thievery, and instead of paying money out to the people who need it the most, it's stealing money AND AMERICAN LIVES from the lower and lower-middle class people who support this country with their hard work. Where does that money go? Defense contractors, lobbyists, and pretty much any old rich asshole who doesn't need it. So how come you get to decide where your tax dollars do and don't go, but I don't get to decide? Also, what about the whole welfare reform thing where you're only given a certain number of years and you have to be actively looking for a job in order to qualify? Even though I don't really love Ron Paul's stances on things, at least he isn't a hypocrite. Though really, I think I'd rather have Kucinich than Paul.

I am all for low taxes, small government, etc. I don't support any cash cow programs. None. I think the governments role should be keeping order. Not being the final say on whats right or wrong (abortion, smoking bans, etc). At no point should the government tell anyone where they can or cannot smoke (even though I do love the smoking ban since I do not smoke - I still think its wrong), should not be able to make a decision for women and their rights to an abortion, etc. Small government across the board.

War in Iraq is stupid. The only decent thing about it is by getting rid of some of these anti-capitalism, anti-christian and anti-americans is that there is less of a chance that they will attack us over here now. Ron Paul would be an idiot to pull everyone out right away, but they should begin getting a plan underway to get everyone out in the next 3-5 years and letting Iraq sink or swim on its own.

We shouldn't be taxed nearly as much is my point. The state should tax us for our roads (which should be maintained by a for-profit company, not a slew of county workers), education (more funding is needed for higher education, no increase for inner-city schools that are not meeting their test score quotas because it is a problem of motivation of the students, not quality of materials, etc), and into a few more select social fields ran on a state by state level. One could argue that it will be tougher on states like Wyoming with large area and small population. There may just be a few fewer roads, and it may take a little longer to get it all snow-plowed, etc. In this case, there should be some small federal fee to take care of that that is an standard % across the board for everyone.

[thegelding]

Originally Posted by chucker Well, I for one can't respect a politician who isn't behind what they believe. I'm sure there's plenty of such examples. Perhaps even the majority of politicians are like that these days. But that doesn't make it right to consider it okey-dokey.

???

he believes his religious views should not be forced on others...i respect that.

just like the government shouldn't have cameras in your bedroom...like the government shouldn't read you mail nor your medical records...

it is also why we don't have a federal religion....

he can believe one thing while allowing for others to have a different opinion

good for him

g

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Chinney Exactly. There was an interesting study a few years ago that endeavoured to calculate the pluses and minuses of federal spending and taxation and showed that the net beneficiaries, by a considerable margin, were those hard-working, ‘self-sufficient’ red states, who received a considerable net subsidy from the rest of the U.S. If I recall correctly, farm subsidies and the location of military spending were a big part of the equation.

If it makes you feel any better, Paul wants to kill of farm subsidies and most of that military spending as well.

To me one of the basic plans in this country was that the states would be the "laboratories of democracy" which means that states should be able to try different plans to solve various problems.

Once one state figures out a good way to do something, other states quickly follow their lead.

As it stands now, so much money is going to the feds and tied to federal programs/laws that the states have very little freedom left to exercise their own decisions, and typically the desires of the local population.

Medical MJ is a good example. The feds keep arresting people in states where the states legalized it. Why do the feds care? Why are we wasting money arresting people in states where they aren't breaking any state laws?

If the voters in a state want to try legalizing, they should be able to. If they decide that it was a mistake, they can change things back to the way they were.

As it stands the feds can basically claim that almost *anything* under the sun is related to commerce across state lines and step in as they see fit.

No child left behind is another good example. Now school funding in MN is tied to how well students do on these stupid standardized federal tests. Since teachers have started teaching to the tests (to try and get good scores for more money) the overall education quality in our state has dropped. You end up forcing mediocrity on everyone rather than letting states try and do better, or do something differently.

I want to see a move back to where states are deciding the best way to handle problems on a state level for residents in that state. Who's going to have a better idea of what needs to be done in Iowa, people who were elected by people in Iowa or some bean counter in DC?

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by sirnick4 John Kerry was the same way last election. He, being a Catholic and all, does not believe in abortion, BUT he is not going to force his beliefs on any American.

Originally Posted by chucker Well, I for one can't respect a politician who isn't behind what they believe. I'm sure there's plenty of such examples. Perhaps even the majority of politicians are like that these days. But that doesn't make it right to consider it okey-dokey.

Well, the thing is that Kerry, for example, was elected to represent his *constituents* and 'their' views, NOT to represent just *himself* and his own personal views.

That's how a representative form of government should work, wouldn't you agree?

When John F. Kennedy ran for president, he made a specific pledge to the electorate that no matter 'what' his personal religious views might be, or the views of the Catholic Church, he would make presidential decisions as an *American*, and not as a *Catholic*.

Without that clear, specific pledge, he most likely would 'not' have been elected.

As an elected representative of his state, Kerry can't very well say: "Hey, 75% of my constituents believe in a woman's right to choose; but that's too bad. I'm going vote *against* a woman's right to choose, because that's how *I* personally feel".

See what I mean? He *has* to distinguish between his obligations as an elected representative vs. his own personal beliefs.

[ghoti]

That's also called the separation of church and state, which would do this country a lot of good ...

[Axl]

Drunken Ron Paul debate between John Mayer & Justin Long

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by thegelding ??? he believes his religious views should not be forced on others...i respect that. just like the government shouldn't have cameras in your bedroom...like the government shouldn't read you mail nor your medical records... it is also why we don't have a federal religion.... he can believe one thing while allowing for others to have a different opinion good for him g

Absolutely. And that is exactly the way our nation was designed to work. The man is entitled to his opinion, but his stance on abortion is not an opinion, but a constitutionally supported principle. This is a personal issue, which the Constitution does not permit the feds to regulate. It should be left to the states. This stance, which is what Ron Paul believes, allows him to hate the idea of abortion, but not stand in the way of others. Citizens then get to take the matter up with the state in which they live, and move to another if they do not like the outcome. It's a beautiful system, if only it is followed.

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by chucker What? You mean it is acceptable for a politician's stance not to be equivalent to their personal opinion? In that case: my, how low we have sunk with political expectations.

You don't get it. He has a strong opinion of what people should do. He doesn't think he has any right, as part of a federal government, to order them to do anything.

Refusing to bend the rules even while you hold a strong personal opinion or investment in the matter, and when you are sitting on enough power and unaccountability to accomplish some serious bending, shows true class. Certainly the last US presidents haven't been capable of it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html

[chucker]

Originally Posted by kscherer This stance, which is what Ron Paul believes, allows him to hate the idea of abortion, but not stand in the way of others.

Really?

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003) Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

[Banana]

Could it be because partial birth abortion is considered medically unnecessary except in case where mother/baby life is threatened (at least that's what I was told), and that if one wanted an abortion, they should have had done so earlier in the terms? They have up to six months, if I'm not mistaken?