The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul - Page 3

Arty · 07-22-2008, 04:40 PM

With Ron Paul being my congressional representative, I've twice had the occasion of writing to him regarding the issues du jour. Below are copies of his responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Dear Mr. Arty,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding the fairness doctrine. Of course, I will oppose any attempts to impose this unconstitutional regulation on the nation's broadcasters. I am pleased to let you know that I voted for an amendment to the Financial Services Appropriations bill that will stop the federal government from implementing the fairness doctrine. The amendment passed the House of Representatives on June 28, 2007. I am also an original cosponsor of legislation permanently barring the federal government from reinstating the fairness doctrine.
Please be assured, I will continue to fight against federal laws that infringe on your First Amendment rights. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on this vital issue with me.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

Dear Mr. Arty:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding immigration, amnesty, and the recent failed Senate immigration reform legislation.
Rest assured, I am against general amnesty for illegal aliens. I can assure you that I will oppose the Senate bill and any other legislation that grants amnesty to anyone who has come to this country illegally.
Please see below a recent column I wrote on this issue.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061107.htm
Amnesty Opponents Are Not Un-American
June 11, 2007
Although action in the United States Senate this week has slowed passage of the amnesty bill, it is not yet dead as President Bush remains committed to this approach. That is why the President recently suggested that those of us who oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants are unpatriotic. Those of us who strongly oppose the new immigration reform bill before the Senate "don't want to do what's right for America ," the president said. I reject that assessment as unfair and inaccurate.
Supporters of the amnesty bill like to claim that border protection is their first priority. But if enforcement of our borders is the highest priority, certainly a much shorter bill could have been written. Even better, why not enforce existing laws? According to our Constitution, Congress makes the laws that the executive branch is to enforce. The rush to pass this new law seems to obfuscate this simple fact. There are plenty of laws already in place, so it seems sensible to largely solve this problem without new laws.
To make matters worse, as I wrote in a recent column, some 120 of our best trained border guards are going to be sent to Iraq to help them with border enforcement! In addition, National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start on the Mexican border are scheduled to also be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.
This legislation purports to crack down hard at our borders, but as we have learned time and time again, you cannot address enforcement until you address incentives. That is why you cannot have border security with an amnesty program in place: the incentive of amnesty undermines any crack-down on border protection and in fact just makes work for our Border Patrol all the more difficult. Incentives in place to those who would come to the United States illegally will remain in place if this legislation is passed. Illegal immigrants will still receive federal assistance and free medical care and their children will still gain automatic citizenship after this bill is passed. We need to face the fact that securing our borders means more than legislation, or fences, or even more Border Patrol. It means removing incentives for people to come to the US illegally in the first place. That is why I will once again introduce an amendment to the Constitution to end birthright citizenship this coming week.
Although the "reform" of immigration in the amnesty bill is enough to cause alarm, other highly troubling provisions are tucked away that will serve to undermine our sovereignty and weaken our civil liberties. According to the most recent version of the Senate bill, the misnamed Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America is to be "accelerated." It seems ironic that a project aiming to actually weaken US borders with Mexico and Canada would be added into a bill that purports to toughen border controls.
Also, this bill will bring us closer to a national ID card, which without a doubt runs counter to American values and history and will punish American citizens without doing much to counter those who would come here illegally.
I strongly disagree with the president that opposing this legislation is unpatriotic. I believe we have an obligation to reject any legislation that promises amnesty to those here illegally, and that undermines the sovereignty and privacy of American citizens.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul

It's a shame that the political system is so blinded by a two party system that Ron doesn't have a real chance at anything but raising awareness to his point of view. Especially when both of the two parties put up moronic wolves-in-sheeps-clothing candidates.

Perhaps, someday, that'll change.

Snark · 07-22-2008, 04:43 PM

IMO, even more morally reprehensible than abortion would be the advancements of clinics and anonymity to the point where unplanned pregnancy becomes no more a fleeting inconvenience than a headache or a bruise.

I think abortions should be allowed to those under 18. Over 18 = Sorry, you're an adult. You can drive, you can smoke, and you can close your legs.

Ethar · 07-22-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

IMO, even more morally reprehensible than abortion would be the advancements of clinics and anonymity to the point where unplanned pregnancy becomes no more a fleeting inconvenience than a headache or a bruise.

I think abortions should be allowed to those under 18. Over 18 = Sorry, you're an adult. You can drive, you can smoke, and you can close your legs.

I will just respectfully point out, that the argument could be made that under 18 = not adequately prepared to deal with the emotional consequences of abortions. Lose/lose, obviously.

Lamil · 07-22-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

IMO, even more morally reprehensible than abortion would be the advancements of clinics and anonymity to the point where unplanned pregnancy becomes no more a fleeting inconvenience than a headache or a bruise.

I think abortions should be allowed to those under 18. Over 18 = Sorry, you're an adult. You can drive, you can smoke, and you can close your legs.

What about a raped 19 year old.

Ethar · 07-22-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arty

With Ron Paul being my congressional representative, I've twice had the occasion of writing to him regarding the issues du jour. Below are copies of his responses.

It's a shame that the political system is so blinded by a two party system that Ron doesn't have a real chance at anything but raising awareness to his point of view. Especially when both of the two parties put up moronic wolves-in-sheeps-clothing candidates.

Perhaps, someday, that'll change.

Someday, but not likely soon, as it becomes harder and harder to the tell the difference between parties on our already truncated political spectrum.

Snark · 07-22-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethar

I will just respectfully point out, that the argument could be made that under 18 = not adequately prepared to deal with the emotional consequences of abortions. Lose/lose, obviously.

I think we could agree that the burden of immaturity/ignorance should be on the parent - never on the child.

Ethar · 07-22-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

I think we could agree that the burden of immaturity/ignorance should be on the parent - never on the child.

Raincheck, I'm out of time in real life hah.

Snark · 07-22-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamil

What about a raped 19 year old.

Good point, without a doubt I would extend abortion rights to all rape victims.

The point I'm trying to make is that (voluntary) sex carries potential consequences that anyone over the age of 18 should have the maturity to grasp

Lamil · 07-22-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snark

Good point, without a doubt I would extend abortion rights to all rape victims.

The point I'm trying to make is that (voluntary) sex carries potential consequences that anyone over the age of 18 should have the maturity to grasp

Here's the problem though. Whether someones raped or has [voluntary] sex, people who are against abortion because it is murder wont care because, raped or not, in their views it is still the murder of an unborn child.

--

Also, what about miscarriages.

What if people start forcing miscarriages once (if) abortions are illegal?

What's the next step from there?

--

btw, my stance is pretty much the same as snarks I think, with the little details all being circumstantial.

but it's black or white with these people so I dont even care anymore.

I know I would take responsibility though.

Lamil · 07-22-2008, 04:58 PM