quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I agree it is to broad in its possible interpretations, but it doesn't seem to be written under the pretense of criminalizing miscarriage or even the intention of banning abortion necessarily. To me it is written with the intention of moving the abortion issue to the state level.

That's my interpretation, It is poorly written, and I wouldn't of voted for it if I was in the house just because of that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The law doesn't need to change!

Did the pregnant woman take her prenatal vitamins before she miscarried? If not that is negligence right there. And don't forget ignorance is not a defence.

If a woman takes even a single alcoholic drink early in prgnancy and then miscarries, that is negligence. Same with caffeine.

So every sexually active woman with ovaries and an uterus must never drink alcohol or anything with caffeine and must take prenatal vitamins continuously under this insane law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is negligence, and then there is negligence that rises to the level of a crime. 
Don't strain yourself trying to distinguish between the two, just lump everything that sounds similar together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

I agree it is to broad in its possible interpretations, but it doesn't seem to be written under the pretense of criminalizing miscarriage or even the intention of banning abortion necessarily. To me it is written with the intention of moving the abortion issue to the state level.

That's my interpretation, It is poorly written, and I wouldn't of voted for it if I was in the house just because of that fact.

This has been puzzling me for a few days so now I'm going to throw this out there.

For the sake of argument let's assume that the above description of the bill is accurate. A candidate for President presents an bill to Congress on one of the matters most important to him and it is poorly written and what appears to be significant unintended consequences due to the sloppiness of how the bill is worded. And this makes you want to vote for the guy? He's got a staff which surely includes a legal expert and presumably a number of smart people used to considering the unintended consequences of possible legislation. So how come this bill wasn't written better before Paul attached his name to it and introduced it Congress?

The cynic in me sees a number of possible explanations. none of which make me more likely to vote for him.

1) He knows this bill isn't going anywhere but wants to be sure to throw a bone to the far right just before the 2006 campaign. So he was sloppy knowing all they'll care about is the name of the bill and that it would keep the federal courts out of the matter.

2) What the above poster viewed as slopy isn't. He and his staff knew exactly what this bill implied and cynically hoped that with the supposed power of the RR in Congress in 2005 he could sneak this bill through without anyone in the majority giving it serious consideration.

3) He and his staff really are this completely incompetent.

Anybody got another reason for this bill's language?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So from reading your post it appears that you are an anti federalist sort of libertarian.

If you say so, I've not looked up the definition.

Now of course the question is why do you think the states would do the job better? Been paying attention to the goings on in Springfield? Or is this the usual libertarian smokescreen?

I don't think the states will always do a better job. I believe some will fuck it up royally , and others will do better. The attraction is it brings those making good or bad decisions nearer to the population effected by them. How can this be worse, than decisions being made by the honorable senators from the other 49. I have no say or chance of making any bearing on those federal decisions.

In my younger days I really got into the libertarian idea and started going to party meetings. The truth is that most of th eparty didn't like paying any taxes at all were so short sighted as to believe that simply abolishing most of federal and state government was a good idea. I got out of there and after studying US history in depth in college came back to my liberal roots. Yes, I'd like to pay less taxes and I do get angry when I hear or encounter government waste but I've spent a lot of time studying both the present alternatives and what happened in the past when government was much smaller and I've come to the conclusion that even with all its warts the present expansive government is better for the US people than the libertarian ideal.

I see a system that has been in steady decline since the 60's, and the only reason in my view that we had the post war artificial boom, was Hitler gifting us the destruction of what was effectively the whole of the rest of the industrialized world. We could have had nearly any system during that time and we would have prospered. So, I think this system, is a train wreck and has only rebounded on others misfortune. i don't know what else it could be but a broken mess. The dollar is in decline, standard of living reduces decade on top of decade, the government legislates more and more laws interfering with the public. And they spend spend spend. and give give give, to everyone but the people earning it.

I see very little good that has come from the every growing Federal government.

Now I see people all over the internet raving about Ron Paul and I honestly cannot fathom why. Your answers are less than enlightening.

I'm not trying to convert you, I was simply asking you, who else matches my views.  Apparently I'm being quizzed and wasn't informed.

Non interventionist foreign policy including getting entirely out of the Middle East. How exactly do we do that? We have to have foreign oil and with how GWB has fucked up that part of the world we're going to have to keep our hand in there protecting our interests for the forseeable future.

Well, you hand it over to the Iraqis, if they kill each other in the streets, so be it. We aren't going to fix it. So, the inverse of leaving is staying, and could you explain how staying is going to "fix it".  You offer no solution in concrete terms, that is impossible, for either of us to do. But Hussein is removed, there are no WMD's, most of the fighting, is based on either hatrad of us invading, or religious reasons. So, what are you wanting to stay for?

The point also is, why were we over there before 9-11 why are we all over the planet. You have to stop at some point, or else next we'll go to darfur, then we'll think it's a good idea to go into Iran, then who the hell knows what.



Devolving social issues onto the states. This falls back to one of the other big factions of the libertarian movement, pot heads. The hope seems to be that if drug laws were decided state by state that pot would get legalized somewhere and paradise would prevail. The actual fact is that in virtually all the states the RR wields undue influence and we could expect strong opposition to such loosening of vice laws.
I'm not opposed to legalization, but I don't smoke pot, or do any drugs anymore. So, this plays a minor role, in my decision to support Ron Paul

Of course with no organized effort to stop the importation of cocaine and heroin along with problems dealing with the interstate distribution of crystal meth it seems likely that the hard drugs problem would get worse with all the associated bad effects on society.
Is the drug problem getting better currently? How long has the war on drugs been happening. I could go get pot in ten minutes, (that's better than alcohol access, I can't buy that on sunday, or after 11, I think), so I fail to see the point of praising the drug war for anything, when drugs are so easy to get it's pathetic. Seriously, ten minutes.Would it be five minutes without the drug war?  Or would it be delivered with a pizza and coke?

I'm unsure of your point here, but it's about as easy as it can be to get drugs already.

I will point out that in Illinois the previous sitting governor and virtually all of the top GOP legislators are at least friendly with Phyllis Schlafly, I'll take quasi socialists over people who are supported by that person any day.

Assuming your correct and all that, don't you think people would pay more attention to their state government, if it was making more of the decisions that affect their day to day lives.



So what is really appealing about Paul? Is it that he claims to have simple answers to complex problems? After all these years of Reagan and Bush trying the simple solution to complex problems and failing miserably I would sort of hope that people have learned not to buy into that sort of demagoguery. So what is th appeal? I simply don't see it.

He offers a different solution than those we've been following for decades, with negative results.


OKay, now, it's your turn, you give me the solutions, in clear complex terms to those same questions and problems. After all it's you that attacked Ron Pauls positions, and in my view distorted HR 776. So, offer up something concrete and definitive. I'm open minded enough to listen, but the problem is like in most cases, the  politicos like to attack proposed solutions, but offer no counter solution which in my head is the same as nothing. So, what are your candidates offering?

Is it a continuation of the Drug War?
Is it a continuation of the war in Iraq?
Is it a continuation of our military being spread out over the whole of the planet?
Is it a continuation of increased size and scope of the federal government?
Is it more taxes and wealth redistibution.

Sounds like more of the same. Please clarify, what exactly you support, and why would you find that appealing?. Or is the present system, to your liking?  (cringe).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

And just when does it become a crime?  Surely they're not going to ask the wise Alumbrado.  The District Attorney is going to make that decision for himself.

Just what we need: district attorneys deciding whether women who miscarried should be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

There is negligence, and then there is negligence that rises to the level of a crime. 
Don't strain yourself trying to distinguish between the two, just lump everything that sounds similar together.

quote:

ORIGINAL: uninterested5

Ron Paul is the only candidate for president, or even mainstream politician, worth considering or paying attention to right now. I highly recommend anybody who isn't a dipshit read The Revolution: A Manifesto. With his positions on everything from war to the economy to civil liberties, Paul is the only one with a transparent commitment to Constitutional ideals without a huge paper trail of special interest bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: uninterested5

Voting record > Your opinion