It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it.
Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
I can vote for Chuck too. He is the best man running (and I would say that even if his "competition" were a whole lot better than McCain and Obama--to say that he is better than them is no great compliment). I would have loved to have seen a ticket with Ron and Chuck, that would have been as good as we could have wanted or hoped for.
I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved.
Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done?
As a Christian pastor it would be incumbent upon him as president to punish anyone who went to Canada for an abortion just as our govt would punish someone who goes there for marijuana now.
Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties? Why is that preferable to Bush's? There are millions of cops and other "drug warriors" (hooked on asset forfeiture) who'd rather keep marijuana illegal and (forced to choose) keep legal abortion. To hear them tell it, marijuana is deadly and dangerous because that's what their "religion" teaches.
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
Why is one group of hypocritical kooks preferable to another?
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
If someone believes, as does Pastor Baldwin, that abortion is murder he would be untrue to his conscience to do otherwise than to oppose it.
I disagree with state intervention on it, but do find abortion to be tantamount to infanticide, and I do not share his particular religious beliefs.
Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified.
Abortion is one of those issues that causes strong emotion because for those who oppose it they are opposing what they view as murder, and while you may disagree with that conclusion - given that viewpoint that the anti-abortion movement people have you must admire their commitment to their beliefs.
All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified.
because dawg's against federal codification of abortion doesn't translate into his wanting codification of his views, does it? i believe his position, as is mine, is that abortion should be a state legislation issue and not federal. isn't this Ron Paul's opinion as well?
All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
The problem with your broad brush understanding is, you could not file an intelligent legal brief to oppose an unconstitutional power grab because you don't understand the legal principle at stake.
For instance, when the federal govt passed a "gun free zone" around schools based on the interstate commerce clause it was overturned.
Do you know why?
When you can successfully argue that then you'll be skilled enough for a discussion of this type.
No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority.
There is no federal statute that outlaws murder. (except on federal reservations or in the commission of terrorism, etc, and other jurisdictional questions that make it a federal crime. Now if murder is REEL BAD and REEL IMMORAL then why isn't any murder automatically a federal crime?
Think about it.
The Branch Davidians were murdered and the feds told us they were child abusers. There were no federal child abuse laws that justified the machine gun/immolation murders of those people!
They were murdered under the guise of serving a search warrant for an item that would have required a two hundred dollar tax to be paid in order to be in compliance with the law.
Believe me, the govt ain't in the business of saving children. they are the number one threat to them, and if you advocate putting their safety in federal hands then you really need to study up some more. Once unborn children become wards of the federal govt then people like Bush will force mothers to take experimental vaccines that enrich drug companies and endanger children's lives. And all because you find abortion so morally reprehensible that you'll grab at any proposed solution including a deal with the demon himself to end it.