Paul is anti-abortion. As a strict constitutionalist, his saving grace would come in belief that it would not be his job as president to decide the matter. I think I have heard him say he believes the decision should be made at the state level.

I personally will not defend all of Paul's positions, because I do not share all of his beliefs.

There was a time when men thought they had committed some grievous sin because they spread their "seed" on the ground when they jacked off, like it was some horrible waste of life. Churches taught that contraception was an evil thing (I believe the Catholic church still does). This thinking probably goes back to a time when tribes were in competition with each other and having lots of children was considered good for the whole. (And no, I don't think that every word in the Bible was inspired by God. Men wrote the thing and they had agendas.)

In an era of worldwide overpopulation and a planet stretched to the limit for natural resouces, we don't need to encourage people to have more children. If anything we should be encouraging reduction of our numbers.

I did inhale.

I don't really see that as a saving grace at all, to be honest. I know you're not defending all of Ron Paul's positions, but I'm just going to explain my reasoning on this:

"Let the states decide" sounds nice because it means that decisions will not be made on the federal level and thus will be "closer to the people." But there are certain rights that must be universally enforced, and the right to control your own body is certainly one of them. At least, for something as fundamental as reproduction--there's a bit more to it when it comes to things like drug use (for example, I do think that crystal meth should be illegal, but not pot, alcohol, tobacco, etc.--I'm not a 100% absolutist.)

In any case, the history of appeals to "leave it to the states" isn't exactly bright. Most recently, gay marriage has been confronted with this motto. Couples that get civil unions are now finding that employers aren't always willing to recognize them. And going to a state that does not recognize a union/marriage means that if a partner gets hurt and medical decisions need to be made by someone else, the other partner will be denied that right. Leaving it to the states is curtailing their liberties. Going back even further, well... slavery was defended under the motto of "states rights" too.

Similar things will happen with abortion--not everyone who lives in an anti-abortion state will be able to travel to a state that provides them... and that's when the clothes hangers start coming out again and women start dying because they happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I know you're not defending his positions and I'm not attacking you at all--just Ron Paul. However, I am questioning just how much on the side of liberty Sen. Paul is. In my view, having the right to get an abortion secured at the federal level is a step toward liberty--it is the opposite of government encroachment. But "leave it to the states" are weasel words that passively allow authoritarianism to take root.

although he can get a little wordy.

And I'm breathing much better knowing that they got that 70 year old man with four ounces of weed and an inoperational .25 automatic off of the streets. Or out of his home. Whatever.

Goddamned terrorist.

I did inhale.

responds to my requests of him, makes requests of his own, and complains when he feels aggrieved. That makes him a whole lot closer to a "person" than any fetus, or even a newborn baby, ever was. My cat enjoys a certain number of rights in my home, and I think a human who can match his level of participation in society should have basic human rights too.

But moral proscriptions against destroying a fetus are not about higher principles of life and creation. They are about the basest manipulation of power-- whether it be the power of men over women (which is what's in it for the Catholics) or the power of conservatives to hog the microphone of political discourse (which is what's in it for the Republicans).

Perhaps libertarian has become one of those loaded words. Like the word liberal (which I take to mean tolerant and many conseratives would use to mean Communist). I use the term libertarian because that's what I have seen defined on political aptitude tests as the opposite of authoritarian.

I'd have to say that large scale socialists have also proven themselves to be untrustworthy in supporting anti-authoritarian principles.

For instance today's Fidel Castro, or tomorrow's Hugo Chavez. They talk a game of doing for the people, while all the while stifling dissent, punishing opposition and cementing their hold on power for generations to come. Before long, the state line is the only line.

Check out Mike Gravel's platform. He goes so far as bringing important issues to a vote by the public. Maybe that does disqualify him as an effective politician. But not with me.

I did inhale.

I use the term libertarian because that's what I have seen defined on political aptitude tests as the opposite of authoritarian.

I've discovered that some of those political aptitude tests, especially "The World's Smallest Political Quiz," slant their questions toward the libertarian side and present it as directly opposed to authoritarianism in all cases. Whether or not this is true in reality... I don't know. They certainly try to claim it, but I've seen enough people claiming to be libertarians defending oppression and corporatism to seriously doubt it. Maybe its true in theory though... :)

...that the reporting you see on Hugo Chavez is extremely slanted.

The TV station he 'closed down' was directly part of the coup plot against him - they turned broadcast directly over to the coup before Chavez had even been chased from office. And he didn't yank their satellite or cable licenses, only their broadcast license. And no one is in jail.

He delivers long harangues and beats his chest, but what he does is actually quite mild. He is trying to draw the 85% of the population that has been the underclass for hundreds of years into the political life of the country, where they have had exactly no voice for all this time.

He has not asked to be made President for life. He has asked for a repeal of term limits. He has asked for the power to make certain changes by decree, but that's hardly unusual in Venezuala, where the Constitution makes change very difficult. Many past Presidents have asked for and been granted the same powers.

Most indy reporters will tell you that anti-Chavez talk is freer in Venezuala than anti-Bush talk in this country. The problem is that the 15% of his country that has owned it lock, stock and barrel feels that they are being robbed when they're supposed to share their nation's wealth with those other people that live there. And that 15% has very good ties with the wealthy in this country who are beginning to experience similar fears.

As a teenager I lived and grew up in South America and know full well how the oligarchy dominates and oppresses.

But as suggested by the model in Orwell's Animal Farm, I also know that the swine offering alternatives often end up wearing the same clothes.

Both sides of the argument slant their stories. A close friend of mine was dispached by GQ magazine to write an article on Venezuela last year. The magazine did not publish what he had to say (even though by contract they had to pay his expenses and for the story as well).

Why not?

Because he called the wealthy elites pieces of crap, Chavez their only alternative, and then went on to say that the most of the country has come to a standstill, sitting around waiting on the next government hand-out while the infrastructure crumbles. Soon everyone except for a small per-centage of the new elite will live in squalid conditions.

A brother still living and working in Ecuador tells me he hears stories of middle class Venzuelans that have fled the country for lack of opportunities.

You want to live in Venezuela? Help yourself.

Michael Ruppert thought it was the place to be so he wrote off the United States, converted his assets to gold and went there.

A year later he quietly slipped back into the United States, penniless, sick as hell, and glad to be back in the "land of oppression".

And the boatloads of people fleeing to Cuba...

I did inhale.

about what candidates represent? Ron Paul isn't electable, nor was Nader. I would find it hard to support a candidate that strayed from my values but eventually I would vote for the candiate I believed could win. Of all the candidates, it strikes me that Edwards comes the closest to being able to return America to Locke and John Stewart Mill's concept of goodness, which is a philosophy that overall I would not feel unduly compromised by voting for him.

Maybe if we listen really hard to tomorrow debates we can find a candidate that we can support that has a half-assed chance of winning because it's imperative that Republicans be defeated.

and the state of our nation that honorable men aren't electable.

I did inhale.

I have hunch that the big wedge issue this go around is going to be the imigration stuff. It's to Rovain for the Rethugs to pass up.

"The president's job is to think not only about today, but tomorrow"
george bush delivers deep insights in a speach given on
April 19, 2007
Tipp City High School
Tipp City, Ohio

All that effort on Hispanics goes to waste, and they lose the money bags as well. The anti-immigration crowd is very noisy, but I don't think it's anywhere near as big as psuedo populist Lou Dobbs would like you to believe.

are heavily involved in their communities. Much moreso in fact than socialists that expect the government to do everything for them.

Case in point: The Belmont Texas volunteer fire department. Privately funded, everyone in the community shows up for twice yearly gatherings and donates generously. Many members are on call for emergencies and work without pay.

And another: Last week the transmission on my pickup went out near Gonzales, Texas. I was able to coast into the parking lot of the local auction. I called my wife on the cell phone who happened to be in Austin at the time, an hour away. So I decided to walk (against traffic) the two blocks to a convenience store on the outskirts of town. Three people stopped to ask if I needed a ride or assistance before I could get to the store and back.

(# 1 on the list of private donations to charity as percentage of income by state, Mississippi. Last on the list of donations to charity as a percentage of income by state, Massachusets. You do things your way, we'll do them our way.)

Many of these people are also involved in their communities through churches and donate time and money to a myriad of local charities. There's no such a thing as a homeless person anywhere near these parts.

No one in these communities wants to do away with public schools or county hospitals or shut down social programs for the poor.

What they don't like is the growing encroachment of government into every facet of their lives.

I did inhale.

... that conservatism brought to its natural if not extreme conclusion produces sociopathic selfishness and criminality.

Libertarians are strange beasts. Most of 'em that I know don't like anything at anytime and have no problem telling you about it.

you offer us two bad choices.

Vote. Ear-ache on this side. Tooth-ache on the other.

I did inhale.

Obviously you don't know that Libertarians are against imperialstic endeavors, nation building and foreign entanglements. People like Ron Paul would greatly reduce the scope and description of our military, returning it to a strictly defensive posture.

Individual liberties should not be extended to corporations. Libertarians stress individual accountability and would like nothing better than to go after people that hide behind corporate cloaks to prey on and derive profit from the people by employing deceptive devices.

What I see in the modern Republican party is in no way in line with the true conservative platform. Instead it's a radical form of fascism, where government enables and protects huge multinational corporations that use the people for grease to lubricate the gears of the machine.

Anne Coulter is an apologist for the Republican Party. For rich white oppressors. Period. Not welcome in my world. (Like a child molestor offering candy to a kid.)

I will not deny that many ignorant southerners are easy prey for these bastards (Republican fascists), They use the right words, wrap them in a flag, top them with a patriotic song or two, and then screw them in the ass.

I did inhale.