Fuck Ron Paul

[Alan]

It's almost offensively patronizing to use Mexico as an excuse for legalization when they don't know anything of the situation in Mexico.

First of all, I already know that legalization will only happen when it's convenient to the United States, without having cared about its implications to other countries. It will be legalized when it loses its bad rep in the public sphere and that won't happen because of some 'altruistic' vision of brotherhood with your southern neighbor. No, it will happen because enough people want to just be able to smoke in principle.

And lo and behold, that's precisely what happens already with pro-legalization people who use Mexico as an example. Just three years ago I had to tell friends in the northern US to raise awareness of the implications of prohibition on Mexico.
It's only about this year, the year where violence has finally mellowed out no thanks to anything the US did, that Americans are actually feeling more comfortable with the Mexican argument. Too little too late.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Saya

Ron Paul is on the record as saying that if a rrape is a "honest rrape" (because women usually make it up, rite?) he'd just give a woman an estrogen shot. Which hasn't been used in a million years. He's as out of touch with women's issues as the next Republican.

Yeah that is pretty fucked up, I agree. I don't like this authoritarian stance on abortion that he seems to have adopted recently. I don't remember him being so militant against abortion before, but he's been running for president since the 1980s, and his views seem to fluctuate based on whatever political party he's trying to garner the most attention from at the time. This season it is the pro-lifers on the far right.

He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination though, so worrying about him is rather pointless at this point.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by BourbonBoy

What's sad is this is what people think this is the answer, rather than take the more patient and tolerant route I mentioned (not only that, but we need some reps in DC to stop worrying about reelection and worry about making important decisions for the country). Believe me, there's more than enough Cracker von Patriarchs in my area to make me want to hurl obscenities and wish I could make them infertile in some fashion so they won't pollute the world whenever I hear their verbal vomit. At the moment 17 states have legalized it for medical purposes with another 6 pending legislation, while another 12 rejected the proposition. While these are temporary setbacks, things are slowly going in the legalized direction.

I love how state's rights advocates put state's rights over what's actually wrong and right. Bad ideas and legalizing things that are absolutely fair do not deserve the level of patience it takes for the whole country to get on board state by state. And with politicians like Ron Paul being actively regressive, we can't hope or even bother worrying about how the states feel about it individually.

However, I think there are more pressing concerns at the moment, such as ensuring nut jobs like Ron Paul won't get placed in the most powerful office in the world. It's scary enough to think we have people like him running day to day business in this country as it is (shudders)

Wait a minute. Who are you arguing with? I thought you liked Ron Paul for a second there.

[BourbonBoy]

I was arguing with Class-Punk. He was saying he'd vote for Ron Paul on the second page because he wants marijuana legalized and I was giving him an example of why you wouldn't need that crazy old fart since Saya's disgust for RP's anti-abortion views and some of the links I posted he didn't really acknowledge, more like, "Well, I don't think as many people would die if abortion was made illegal compared to marijuana being legalized."

And I agree with your stance on state's rights. That whine with cheese has forced numerous people working through the federal government to drag the regressive parts of the country kicking and screaming into the modern world multiple times.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by x-deviant-x

Yeah that is pretty fucked up, I agree. I don't like this authoritarian stance on abortion that he seems to have adopted recently. I don't remember him being so militant against abortion before, but he's been running for president since the 1980s, and his views seem to fluctuate based on whatever political party he's trying to garner the most attention from at the time. This season it is the pro-lifers on the far right.

He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination though, so worrying about him is rather pointless at this point.

Don't forget though that the pro-life movement was only born in the 80s. I think he's only just decided that it should be a state issue, this year he voted against making sex-selected abortion illegal claiming it should be a state issue, but in 2000 and 2003 he voted against "partial-birth abortion" (and as a doctor he should have known its not an actual thing) and several times in the 2000s introduced legislation that would ban abortion on the federal level.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Saya

but in 2000 and 2003 he voted against "partial-birth abortion" (and as a doctor he should have known its not an actual thing)

Can you clarify this? What do you mean "its not an actual thing"?

[Saya]

One, it isn't a medical term: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5168163 That's a really good article about the debate over it. Basically, "partial birth" implies that the fetus is alive until the skull is collapsed, when in actuality the fetus is killed while still in the womb, then the body taken out and the head collapsed.

The thing about it is the alternative in later term pregnancy is to remove the fetus bit by bit, which can be traumatic particularly if the pregnancy was wanted and the parents want to bury the fetus or hold it afterwards. Its about making abortion harder to get and punishing the women who get them.

[x-deviant-x]

Originally Posted by Saya

One, it isn't a medical term: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5168163 That's a really good article about the debate over it. Basically, "partial birth" implies that the fetus is alive until the skull is collapsed, when in actuality the fetus is killed while still in the womb, then the body taken out and the head collapsed.

The thing about it is the alternative in later term pregnancy is to remove the fetus bit by bit, which can be traumatic particularly if the pregnancy was wanted and the parents want to bury the fetus or hold it afterwards. Its about making abortion harder to get and punishing the women who get them.

Yeah, I already read that article.

I wasn't aware that the fetus was already dead. That makes it a bit easier to stomach, though I actually had to look up info on the D & X procedure on a different site to find out that it was, as the article doesn't make that clear. And that's what they're selling it on. Pretty sad.