[Luca]

What I've heard is that partial birth abortion is only ever used if there are health consequences for the mother anyway, and that only a tiny fraction of abortions (less than a fifth of a percent) are done in this manner. In that way, a ban "except to save the life of the mother" really doesn't do anything. In fact, I disagree with that ban because some doctors may refuse to perform the procedure if the mother isn't at risk of dying but could still suffer health consequences.

Really though, it should be a non-issue. The ban affects so few people that it seems to be a lot of hype over nothing. And I don't think any doctor would be willing to perform such an abortion for a mother who simply waited too long but has no medical issues.

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by chucker Really?

If you're going to bother posting a voting history, you might as well do the whole thing, rather than the pieces that support what you're saying while leaving out the ones that don't.

# Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007) # Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) # Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) # Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) # Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) # 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) # Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) # No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Then when you look at that voting record, rather than assuming it's all about abortion, look at it from the perspective of what should the federal govt. be spending money on as authorized by the constitution.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by alcimedes If you're going to bother posting a voting history, you might as well do the whole thing, rather than the pieces that support what you're saying while leaving out the ones that don't.

Erm, I didn't do that at all. I highlighted two: the ones I thought warranted. I wasn't trying to skew anything. I didn't leave the rest out to hide them.

[alcimedes]

Ha ha, my bad. I think we were looking at different lists.

I had seen the full list from somewhere else. See what political threads do? You start assuming the worst about people.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Ha ha, my bad. I think we were looking at different lists.

No, see, I did omit the items outside of the two I highlighted. But I didn't do so out of any nefarious or malicious purpose to mislead people or badmouth Ron Paul.

In retrospect, I should have either posted the whole list, or simply added "[..]" marks to be clearer about that. Sorry for the confusion.

All I wanted to point out is that, as far as I can tell, not all of Ron's votes regarding abortion followed libertarian motivations of keeping such decisions out of the government.

[Mugge]

If the actual election is going to turn out as civil as you guys, I'm going to stop drinking.

[alcimedes]

Actually every vote regarding transporting a minor to get an abortion is an attempt by the federal govt. to circumvent state policies and restrict abortions.

Some states required you be over a certain age or you'd need parental consent. Other states would let you get an abortion w/o consent. (Say at 16)

He voted against making it a crime for a minor to drive from one state to another in order to get an abortion if she chose, rather than making it a crime to try and circumvent state policies on the issue. (which were more permissive than what the fed folks wanted)

Many of the others were budget based.

The only real vote against abortion would be the partial-birth/late term abortions, which would line up his opinion with about 80% - 90% of the US population.

[ShadowOfGed]

Without lauding or lamenting people's motives, I just want to say this: I'm happy to see that Ron Paul and Obama are the two leading in these polls. They're the two people I respect for their approach to politics, even if I may disagree on certain issues.



Unfortunately, the cynic in me doesn't believe we'll see either of them as options at the 2008 national election; I fear they'll both be culled in the preliminaries. Stupid two-party system.



EDIT: So I took the SelectSmart quiz, just to see if its results agreed with my opinions, and they nailed me to a tee:

• Ideal candidate (what BS is this?)
• Barack Obama
• Kent McManigal (suspended campaign)
• Ron Paul

I don't know who Kent McManigal is, but with a supposedly-suspended campaign, I don't suppose it matters much. I really hope either Obama or Paul make it through the primaries, but I'm just too cynical to believe we---as a country---have the collective wisdom needed to put moderates on the ballot.

[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by Mugge If the actual election is going to turn out as civil as you guys, I'm going to stop drinking.

Magic eight-ball says: more beer.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 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.

I don't get this philosophy. You seem to believe that people are good-for-nothings who will resort to becoming "porch monkeys" (do you even realize how racist that statement is or are you just that much of a parrot?) yet you think that society would function in any meaningful form without a government to impose structure and provide support. Nice.

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.

What? Do you know anything about the people you hate or are you just parroting something you heard from one of those mouth-breathers on the radio or Fox News? You're not only a classist, but a racist. Doubly nice.

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)

Again, you believe that people are inherently pathetic but a for-profit company wouldn't cut corners or otherwise do a lousy job on purpose? Further, you assume that corruption rife in a bidding contract wouldn't enrich the friends of the powerful (see: KBR)?

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

If you knew a damned thing about anything you criticize, you'd realize that high-stakes testing is a very bad idea. It doesn't work. The education system is unequitable throughout the country (read Jonathan Kozol's book Savage Inequities if you want a taste). There HAS TO BE MORE FUNDING TO POOR SCHOOLS if you want to pull out the social rug out from under people.

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.

One could also argue that you are a misanthrope and an uninformed one at that. If I recall correctly, you're barely 20, right? You need to experience a day in someone like Capella's shoes or work in a community mental health center for a while. People are not as bad as you think.

[kscherer]

The beauty of this political jabber is that it will all be over soon.

I personally love differing opinions. Although that whole "porch monkey" thing might be a bit out dated?

I agree with ShadowOfGed: MORE BEER!

Ron Paul for president. And to hell with that other thing!

[Souflay123]

Originally Posted by kscherer The beauty of this political jabber is that it will all be over soon. I personally love differing opinions. Although that whole "porch monkey" thing might be a bit out dated? Ron Paul for president. And to hell with that other thing!

"I'm bringing porch monkey back!!"--- Randal, Clerks 2

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by Souflay123 "I'm bringing porch monkey back!!"--- Randal, Clerks 2

HA HA HA. Glad I wasn't the only one who thought of that when I read that sentence.

[Partial]

Tori as a black man I do not consider it racist. It is not at all limited to blacks, whites, purples, blues, reds, or yellows. I realize it may be construed as a racial term but that is incorrect. Beggars and laziness know not of color. Sorry if that offended anyone. I meant no harm.

And that is why they're called opinions in regards to your post. Clearly, we believe things should be done differently.

[709]

Investigations are underway to try and solve this dilemma once and for all.

[alcimedes]

Totally NSFW

The porch monkey scene.

[Axl]

A good in-depth interview by Political Chowder with Ron Paul from a few months back

[Partial]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Totally NSFW The porch monkey scene.

I have never laughed so hard before!!

[Koodari]

Originally Posted by chucker No, see, I did omit the items outside of the two I highlighted. But I didn't do so out of any nefarious or malicious purpose to mislead people or badmouth Ron Paul. In retrospect, I should have either posted the whole list, or simply added "[..]" marks to be clearer about that. Sorry for the confusion. All I wanted to point out is that, as far as I can tell, not all of Ron's votes regarding abortion followed libertarian motivations of keeping such decisions out of the government.

The government must draw a line for where an individual human being begins as long as they are charged with the task to protect individual lives, no?

Now this is just my opinion, but abortion in general must be legal because the mother's body is hers and she can't be obligated to support a growing child inside her if she doesn't want to. If the child is removed then it will not live. But when during a partial birth abortion the child is already capable of life independent of the mother, and it could allowed to be born as easily as can be killed, I think the situation is no longer clear cut. Both "viability" and "birth" seem like well enough defined conditions that you can draw the line there.

[Mugge]

For some reason Ron Paul seems to be quite popular on the Internet. I can't help wonder if he's some sort of Howard Dean thing, though.

YEARRGH!!!

[Ryan]

I'm just going to jump in here.

I posted a few pages back that I support Ron Paul. This is *not* because I'm anti-welfare or anything like that, I just don't think the *Federal* government is capable of providing this care as well as the states. I do believe states should work on providing these sorts of programs in a way that best suits their citizens.

I just don't think the Feds can do it well. Another case is education. NCLB has brought us standardized tests that do very little to improve absolutely anything. Yes, states require their own versions of these tests, but adding in another layer of bureaucracy doesn't help matters.

Leave stuff like this to the *states*, IMO. And that's why I support Ron Paul.

(Well, there are other reasons, but this seems to be what's being debated right now)

[Souflay123]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 I have never laughed so hard before!!

you should see the rest of the movie!

[ghoti]

Colbert for president! He has decided to run! Who would have thought!?

CNN's write-up is hilarious. And Colbert is my new hero: "[It]'s clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative."

[Souflay123]

Originally Posted by ghoti Colbert for president! He has decided to run! Who would have thought!? CNN's write-up is hilarious. And Colbert is my new hero: "[It]'s clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative."

.... i hope he wins

[Banana]

I take that Colbert was in cahoots with Robin Williams all along, then?

[Axl]

The Onion hits another one outta the ballpark!

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Luca As for long shot candidates... well, Kucinich and Paul make great pipe dreams. I see them as the only ones who might make big, significant changes in government, but they'll never win.

What a scary indictment of the political process that is, eh?

Democracy is a system where the wise must ask the permission of the fools.

A question in your nerves is lit Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy Insure you not to quit To keep it in your mind and not fergit That it is not he or she or them or it That you belong to. Although the masters make the rules For the wise men and the fools I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. -Bob Dylan

[alcimedes]

Aaaaaaand, on that note.

Back to the subject.

Ron Paul 2008!

[chucker]

I'd rather discuss beer. There's tons and tons of stereotypes when it comes to people who drink beer.

Start your next post with "Real men only drink".

[Axl]

You can scratch Senator Sam Brownback off the list.