Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

  • Total voters
    105
Axiom_Blade said:
Well, there ya go. I don't agree.
And that is why I don't support Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

He'll let abortion be at the state level, not the federal level.

If you are a woman and you don't want kids right now, why not freeze your eggs? or get an IUD? or birth control or tube tying or diaphragms or plan B pills?

Abortion is not that important. Take some responsibility for yourselves women!
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Well, there ya go. I don't agree.
And that is why I don't support Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

That's fine but do you know the hell a woman goes through after she has an abortion? This can all be prevented through scientific breakthroughs like IUD's and birth control, and morning after pills, and condoms, and diaphragms, and vasectomies and tube tying....and, abortion. But abortion is an extreme diagnosis. What's the baby has a heart and arms and limbs, you can no longer touch it. It was also a womans choice to use the money on a pair of shoes instead of birth control or plan B's.

Think about this.
 
ronpaulisright said:
lets states choose their own abortion policies


well there you go.
Click to expand...

should states choose their own segregation policies? women's right to vote?

if a state law is unconstitutional, as prohibition against abortion laws are, the federal governmant has the right to step in.
 
ronpaulisright said:
Republicans were elected to STOP the war in korea, stop the war in viet nam, the current republican party is not a true republican party. They have lost there way. the neo cons hijacked the republican party which has a long history of anti war.
Click to expand...

Nixon was elected in 1968 having promised that he had a plan to get out of Vietnam, and instead he expanded US intervention in Indochina into Cambodia with mass-bombings carried out as late 1973 in Nixon's second-term. So what did that have to do with neo-conservatives? US interventionism goes a long way back before Irving Kristol appeared.

During the Korean war General MacArthur wanted to expand the war to a full-scale campaign against China and Truman booted him for that. Conservatives of that era held this against Truman and held that by failing to back MacArthur's drive for a wider war Truman was serving Communism. What does that have to do with Kristol?
 
RandFan said:
So, let's take away their choice.
Click to expand...

She had the choice to give head instead too.

She had the choice to buy a condom. she had the choice to get an IUD. She had the choice to be on birth control. She had the choice to get her tubes tied. She had the choice to to take a plan B pill. She had the choice to work at any job that would give her benefits to pay for her contraceptives.

Women, they have plenty of choices.
 
PatrickSMcNally said:
Nixon was elected in 1968 having promised that he had a plan to get out of Vietnam, and instead he expanded US intervention in Indochina into Cambodia with mass-bombings carried out as late 1973 in Nixon's second-term. So what did that have to do with neo-conservatives? US interventionism goes a long way back before Irving Kristol appeared.

During the Korean war General MacArthur wanted to expand the war to a full-scale campaign against China and Truman booted him for that. Conservatives of that era held this against Truman and held that by failing to back MacArthur's drive for a wider war Truman was serving Communism. What does that have to do with Kristol?
Click to expand...

The point is there has been a long history of the republican party being anti war. That is the position Paul takes. The position of the true fiscally conservative republicans.
 
The Republican Party, under Abraham Lincoln, executed the Civil War against the Confederacy.

Theodore Roosevelt, also a Republican, had a very interventionist foreign policy in South America and begged Woodrow Wilson to join the Allies during WW1.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
should states choose their own segregation policies? women's right to vote?

if a state law is unconstitutional, as prohibition against abortion laws are, the federal governmant has the right to step in.
Click to expand...

Right. But state laws can make their own policies on abortion. according to the act.
 
ronpaulisright said:
She had the choice to give head instead too.

She had the choice to buy a condom. she had the choice to get an IUD. She had the choice to be on birth control. She had the choice to get her tubes tied. She had the choice to to take a plan B pill. She had the choice to work at any job that would give her benefits to pay for her contraceptives.

Women, they have plenty of choices.
Click to expand...

...
WOW.

...
...
I've got nothing.
 
PatrickSMcNally said:
Nixon was elected in 1968 having promised that he had a plan to get out of Vietnam, and instead he expanded US intervention in Indochina into Cambodia with mass-bombings carried out as late 1973 in Nixon's second-term. So what did that have to do with neo-conservatives? US interventionism goes a long way back before Irving Kristol appeared.

During the Korean war General MacArthur wanted to expand the war to a full-scale campaign against China and Truman booted him for that. Conservatives of that era held this against Truman and held that by failing to back MacArthur's drive for a wider war Truman was serving Communism. What does that have to do with Kristol?
Click to expand...
The truth is not at all what many think it is. Fact is for being doves of peace the Democrats have gotten us into their share of wars. Perhaps more than their share. To be fair the Republicans sure knew how to escalate a war.

You are right of course. Foreign intervention goes way back.
 
parky76 said:
The Republican Party, under Abraham Lincoln, executed the Civil War against the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Truman, a democrat, dropped the bomb. Bush in 2000 was elected on a humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing of the world. Your attempt is sad.
 
ronpaulisright said:
She had the choice to give head instead too.

She had the choice to buy a condom. she had the choice to get an IUD. She had the choice to be on birth control. She had the choice to get her tubes tied. She had the choice to to take a plan B pill. She had the choice to work at any job that would give her benefits to pay for her contraceptives.

Women, they have plenty of choices.
Click to expand...
So take away some of those choices. Why stop with abortion?
 
i love it when men want to take away womens freedom. especially when they call themselves "patriots" and "freedom lovers".

i would support any state taking away a woman's right to an abortion if they also take a way the financial burdens of raising a child...especially without a father.

but "true conservatives" as they like to be called, want to force women to have their child and them demand from them they care for that child for 18 years, regardless of their financial means or emotional abilities.

maybe "true conservative" is just a code word for heartless soul?
 
Last edited:
Women have the choice to be celibate if they are not married. Women have the choice to wear shoes during their pregnancy. Women have the choice to get married. Women have the choice of what meal to fix and when to serve it so long as it is served by the time her man gets home.

Women have plenty of choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom