Originally posted by zeeblebotHunter states that The Right to Life Act "would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
DUNCAN HUNTER! WooHoo!
Yuck. A religious wacko. No thanks!
On April 28, 2004, Hunter introduced legislation that he said could "turn parents into prosecuting attorneys fighting a wave of obscenity."
Yuck yuck! He wants to suppress free speech!
He wants a fence on our border, which I agree with.
...contends that free trade policies directly impact America's manufacturing base and contribute to the country's trade deficit.
Yuck! This guy's a Republican?!
Hunter argued that the military is the biggest consumer of intelligence
An amusing sentence.
In a House Armed Services Committee hearing on November 9, 2005, Hunter strongly criticized a Defense Logistics Agency "prime vendor" buying program that led to the purchase of $20 ice cube trays and a tiny refrigerator for $22,797 (initially exposed by The State). Hunter stated that he wanted explanations from the companies in question and the government purchasing agents who had approved the purchases, accusing the latter of "absolute incompetence." He further stated that the purchases are "a real slap in the face to the guy making $13,000 a year who is engaged in a firefight in Ramadi," and claimed that "A fairly large amount of incompetence is embedded into the system."
Glad he's addressing this garbology.
Still, don't vote for this douche, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPaul has some positions that I agree with, although he is actually more of a libertarian than a Republican . And he actually ran for President as the Libertarian.
Hunter states that The Right to Life Act "would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
Yuck. A religious wacko. No thanks!
On April 28, 2004, Hunter introduced legislation t ...[text shortened]... te for this douche, please.
[i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter
Thereligious conservative wing of the Republican party will support him whole heartedly since he has stated that he is a stalwart opponent of abortion. Sorry ATY, guess there goes your support for him.
What turns me off about him though is his stance on abortion (if a woman wants an abortion thats her right and a decision between her, her conscience and God. But as a taxpayer, don't me pay for it except in certain circumstances).
Second, is his non-interventionist foreign policy which equates to isolationism. He wants to Pull out of the UN (aka Useless Nations) which is fine with me. He also wants to pull out of NATO, which I would have to think seriously about.
And then of course, is his position on Iraq which aligns itself with his isolationist notions.
His good ideas are the bedrock of conservatism in this country's modern history, and those I have no problem with.
Still he has very little public support and would get slaughtered in a Presidental election.
Osama-Obama represents the far left of the Democratic party idea wise and besides, he is running against Hillary. And the Clintons have proven since their time in Arkansas, they know how to deal with political opponents.
Originally posted by SMSBear716He's against NAFTA too. Strange. I didn't expect that.
Paul has some positions that I agree with, although he is actually more of a libertarian than a Republican . And he actually ran for President as the Libertarian.
Thereligious conservative wing of the Republican party will support him whole heartedly since he has stated that he is a stalwart opponent of abortion. Sorry ATY, guess there goes your suppor tons have proven since their time in Arkansas, they know how to deal with political opponents.
I wonder exactly what his abortion position is? I'll check out his forum. My friend got me to join it but I haven't actually gone there yet.
Federalizing Social Policy
by Ron Paul
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.
Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.
January 31, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell, you can't have everything.
Hunter states that The Right to Life Act "would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
Yuck. A religious wacko. No thanks!
On April 28, 2004, Hunter introduced legislation t ...[text shortened]... te for this douche, please.
[i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter
altho, i guess that with 300M citizens, a bunch of them are going to agree with every single vote he makes.
so maybe you CAN have everything. but EVERYbody can't have everything.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot so much really. Sounds like a looney populist. When it comes to Libertarians, there are a couple good apples among a lot of kooks.
He's against NAFTA too. Strange. I didn't expect that.
I wonder exactly what his abortion position is? I'll check out his forum. My friend got me to join it but I haven't actually gone there yet.