Amazing... Whoopi doesn't even know what she's arguing for.i.e. she didn't even know that 3rd trimester abortion is legal. Telling Ron Paul who is a gynecologist and congressman that he is wrong... To all THE VIEW ladies:Please read the statutes before you comment!
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
@ Thejayeffkay To quote Ron Paul "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual."
@BillyBatsonMarvel That, unfortunately is the mentality of the average voter in this country. Peole have to get passed this party line default affiliation to see that both Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson are not only electable, but the best choices Americans have.
I like the way he answers the Abortion question, although obviously some people just dont get it. It's NOT up to him to decide, it's up to the American people. He's not going to FORCE his views on you, you the people decide what's acceptable & what's not....end of story. If the people of your state decide against abortion then you simply can move somewhere that better reflects your views. Now thats freedom, not the current Left vs. Right B.S where 51% decide what the other 49% can or cant do!
@MySammypoo liberties not control our lives and not saying that the state govt's are either but that's why we do have a fed gov't to make sure the state gov'ts aren't infringing on our rights either-a checks and balances system too. That's what Ron Paul is for, he doesn't want to infringe on liberties but protect them. He is the only Representative who isn't focused on the minor issues. It's like the old saying "Can't see the forest through all the trees"
@TheSmilebit EXACTLY, do people honestly understand how the local state/federal government works?
When Ron is talking about solving issues at a state level, he's not talk about a fucking secession ala southern slave states. It's about recognizing and honoring state rights and jurisdiction, the purpose of the federal government is to act as big bro watching over the little bro. Today its completely backwards, the federal govt. thinks its big brother in the orwellian sense and its in total comm
@MySammypoo to prevent people from state jumping (idk what else to call it). In that scenario people's liberties aren't being prevented in a sense. It's a generalized idea and many factors do come into play. This would also help people not be so focused on the minor issues when something bigger is in play. All these things like abortion, gay marriages, things like that are a distraction from the bigger picture which is the President and the government in place are supposed to protect your civil
@MySammypoo I get what you're saying on that and their should be laws in place to make sure that the state govt's aren't abusing their powers. However, with it being at the state level, issues such as abortion can vary from state to state. It doesn't have to be a country mandated decision. It can and should be a state decision, for example, in TX abortion wouldn't pass and in CA it would. People in different states have different views and backgrounds. Of course their should be laws in place
@MySammypoo The reason why RP doesn't answer the question isn't because he doesn't want to take a stance, it's because he believes it's not up for him to decide. RP believes things like that should be left at the state and local level, they can handle that much better than at a federal level. RP is a very strict constitutionalist and believes in civil liberties and is pro-life. I suggest you do some research on him and not go off of a 10 minute clip with him on the view.
@TheSmilebit People want fewer laws affecting their lives and their rights, whether they are federal, state or local. Yes RP can decide what he thinks. Roe v Wade came about because states had power over abortions and were abusing those powers. Human rights are more important than states' rights.
We know what will happen if Roe is overturned. Some states have trigger laws ready for that and some will ban all abortions.
Ron Paul has shown he is a typical politician, telling half-truths and dodging the tough questions.
Why didn't he mention the Sanctity Of Life Act (SOLA) which he has presented to Congress 3 times (2005, 2007 7 2009)? It's provisions state that life begins at conception and that each state has the authorityn to protect the lives of the unborn.
It would ban all abortion but when asked about them dodged the question. Typical politician.
RP looked pretty embarrassed at the end and who wouldn't be? It's funny how suddenly people lately seem to be nicer to him. Could it be that he is winning the battle of Truth and now people know that treating him rudely has a negative effect?
Whoopi speaking on politics is like me telling her how to act. It's not my industry and therefore I know nothing bout it. Stick to what you know Whoopi.
What a waste of time! This man would actually bring back the US Constitution to America, he is right in line with our Founding Fathers, and you want to waste time talking about abortion? Idiots! Ron Paul is so much more than being against abortion! Who cares? Nobody is going to change Roe v.s. Wade anyways! Talk about real issues!
@freenow77 It wasn't a surprise to Ron Paul. They would have agreed what they would talk about before the show. He was the one talking about abortion and making it an issue.
Looking at all the protests outside all the abortion clinics, a lot of p;eople think it's very important.
@Newspeakgeneration Don't you think people should question experts about things?
We get second opinions from doctors and appeal judge's decisions all the time. Every religion has its own view on morality and ethics. Any one person''s view on anything is not automatically right. RP can make laws that affect everyone's lives. We all should be able to question him and he should be able to cnvince people he is right.
@MySammypoo i wouldn't argue with a kidney doctor on my stage of cancer.. if i had cancer that is. If any i would go look for another doctor to get a 2nd opinion.. but not argue with him about his knowledge.
@Newspeakgeneration Going for a second opinion is questioning the first diagnosis.
Doctors make mistakes too. If told they have terminalk cancer, and 6 months to live, most people will look for alternatives, not just accept their fate. And on serious matters, good doctors should be consulting their colleagues on the illness.
@MySammypoo that has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about..? It's clear you didn't even comprehend what I said. Whoopi was arguing with a gynecologist about what stages abortion is permitted and what time line of the pregnancy it is performed..
No one was making a diagnosis .. lol so you what you said is retarded. I said go get a 2nd opinion if someone tells you that you have kidney cancer but don't argue with the doctor regarding what kidney cancer is or the stages of it.
@Newspeakgeneration When an abortion is permitted is a question of law, not medicine. If Whoopi believes something, which may be wrong, yes she should ask an expert about it. The women asked twice if RP wanted to ban all abotions, which is fair. Twice he dodged the question and referred to 8 month terminations which are not all abortions. RP wouild not say whether he accepted some abortions are ok.
@Newspeakgeneration When abortions can be done is an objective madical question, and can probably be done right up to before birth. There may be terrible consequences but they can still be done.
When abortions are allowed and are legal is a subjective legal question. There were laws before Roe banning 8 month abortions and Roe did not change them. Abortion is legal, but, for pro-lifers, it still isn't right. Abortion would be ok for pro-choicers even if illegal.
@Newspeakgeneration You could say, the doctor says you have cancer and you do, that's a fact. You can say there are abortions and that's a fact. I can't argue with that.
They were arguing about whether there should be abortions and what type. Ron Paul wants to change the current laws, which are facts. You will get many doctors for abortion and many against. A woman may be told by a doctor she is pregnant. What she is told she can do may depend on the doctor, who is not necessarily right.
Most of these women are uninformed and are missing the big picture. If Ron Paul is elected, he would go down in history as another Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson, which we desperately need. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!!!
I think if this man dies without being President it will be a terrible waste. One of the most level-headed men I can remember in politics, and I've studied American Politics in University
It's worth noting however, that he stays pretty well active and he can handle anyone in a debate and run circles around anyone, from the chairman of the federal reserve to anyone in his own party or Democratic party. He's pretty sharp, I'd say.
@taylor22222222 People call the women on The View stupid, but your 'great debater' can't give a straight answer to a simple question. Maybe his age makes him hard of hearing.
@taylor22222222 Doesn't RP understand what all means? He was asked twice if he wanted to ban all abortions. Yes or no was all needed to say. They only have a limited yime on tv, and the women try to ask what their mighgt ask. Does he say in his debates that he wasn't given enough time to answer?
i know his view on abortion. That he doesn't want to admit it does not gain him any respect from me.
I don't know if you quite understood it, I did listening to every angle he comes from and going by many other videos as well. He doesn't want it controlled at the federal level, that's the point he made.
@taylor22222222 He has presented a bill to Congress three times, in 2005, 2007 and 2009, called the Sanctity of Life Act (SOLA). It says that life begins at conception and that states have the authority to protect the lives of the unborn. It will ban all abortions. He kept talking about 8 month abortions, not new conception ones.
He knew the women and the viewers would be screaming if he told the truth. Like every politician, he dodges the hard questions and uncomfortable truths.
@taylor22222222 Nah there's too much stuttering and his delivery and forcefulness isn't as strong as say Obama. I mean what he's saying is spot on, he just doesn't have the charisma to get his point across always
Haha, have you seen him against Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly and on the Fox News debates?? And plus you have 4 ladies here who are bickering and whining almost non stop, imagine a controlled debate (with a moderator, I mean) where he's allowed to answer, it a whole new story and he's very consistent with his views.
@taylor22222222 Yeah I've seen them, lacks charisma for sure. Obama seems much more composed in debates. His policies and views are always spot on, and he'd make a fantastic President, but his charisma is the reason why he'll never connect with an extended (and for lack of a better term, dumb) audience, which is crutial in elections
See I think his supporters are the most enthusiastic for a reason, being that he's so logical and speaks so simplistically that he tends to overwhelm many of his opponents. That's what I see. And although there are better speakers out there, he still makes the most sense and he has much more traction and support then he did last election so I guess that's why I don't see his imperfection like speaking in a very upstanding and dignified manner 100% of the time exclusive for winning.
@BuddhaWatt Yeah it's a shame that extended audience have votes. Do you want an intelligence qualification on the right to vote? It's arrogant people who think they know better than anyone else tghat got us in this mess.
@MySammypoo No intelligence qualifications are stupid, I was just explaining why Ron Paul will always fail to connect with a broader audience. Many seem to be entranced with charisma rather than listening to what they have to say. Hell, I'm guilty of it sometimes. I think Obama certainly had that effect on a few people
@BuddhaWatt Like all politicians RP can't give a simple answer to a simple question. And you try and blame the audience for his failings. If he wants people to vote for him, he has to make himself understood.
He should have said yes or no, then explained why. Instead he dodges the question. The women were too nice with him. If he can't handle an easy, friendly chat show, he has no hope.
@MySammypoo No I don't blame the audience, you're just looking for an argument now. I'm saying that we as people are naturally more impressed with a clear, coherent answer than a rambling one, no matter what the content. Unfortunately Paul stutters and rambles a lot, which means he wont be able to connect with an extended audience. His answers are great if you listen carefully enough, but America aren't clever enough to listen that carefully
@brad238899 That's what congressmen are for; to argue with about issues. You shouldn't just accept any politician's views on any subject.
As for the legalities of abortion, it's RP that wants to change the law. Ask why he wants the change. Yes he may be qualified on abortion on medical grounds. But he wants changes on moral grounds. How is he qualified for that?
@MySammypoo Actually, he wants changes based on the SCIENCE of whether or not a baby is "alive" after conception. Yes, he has a strong moral background to vote against it, but he is explaining that the argument for abortion is contradicting. Pro-choice (which I actually am for) relies on the argument that the "fetus" is not alive until a certain point, but if a doctor harms that very same "non-living" baby, then the doctor can get in serious trouble, and I have seen this happen.
@MatthewRider1 Rp is a typical politician as he won't give a straight answer.
When the women support abortions he refers to ones of 8 pound 8 month foetuses. He won't admit whether he would allow ones at say 3 months.
Roe V Wade originally permitted abortions before viability - able to live outside the womb - at 28 or even 24 weeks. Roe also declared that state laws banning abortions at 3 months or less were unconstitutional. There are laws controlling 8 month abortions.
@MySammypoo Ron Paul does give a very straight answer. His answer is that it is not the Fed's responsibility under the Constitution and that it falls to the states and therefore he has no right per the Constitution to force the separate states of his will.
@brad238899 The Supreme Court is there to support our rights against the government, federal and state. It has to be their responsibility. It decreed state restrictions were unconstitutional in the 70's. The SC declared abortion a fundamental right, that has not changed, and so must be protected.
It is very complicated legally, but I figure that 9 SC justices, then and now, know more about it's legality than me or Ron Paul. Many justices have disagreed with Roe, but have not overturned it.
@MySammypoo I'm not saying I support abortion or I'm not. I simply said Ron Paul believes that the Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to decide and therefore it is a right of the states per the 10th amendment. And the Supreme Court is there to protect our Constitutional rights as citizens of the U.S. and as citizens of our separate states.
@brad238899 Fair enough. I suppose this is a very emotional issue. I just am suspicious why RP wants to return abortion to state control. I also think that Roe v Wade ruled that state governments did not have the right to decide, either, in early term abortions.
I find it interesting that some people who want state abortion laws because they disagree with federal policy, want a constitutional amendment against gay marriage because they disagree with some states' policies.
@MySammypoo I would prefer gay marriage rights go to the states as well. I would personally vote for their freedom to marry who they wish but living in WY (the equality state funny enough) it would never pass. Could it be passed federally? sure. But, I don't believe in bending the rules to get what you want. Sadly we have been doing it for ages now.
@MySammypoo If you are suspicious why, then you obviously haven't been paying attention to Ron Paul. It is not about RP agreeing with individual states... He simply, straight up, hates the federal government having that kind of power. Also, RP has said the same thing about gay marriage... actually he went further saying it is no business of the state government to stop gay marriage either, and that the federal government should prevent the state from intervening.
@MatthewRider1 I am heartened by RP's views on gay marriage.
I just want to make sure I understand. Does RP believe that abortion rights don't belong on a federal level. and it's not about pro-life or pro-choice? To me any law will affect my life, whether it's federal or state. I can only see a need to change it to state law if he wants to change its legality.
@MySammypoo First, RP is personally against abortion. Even though religious convictions are a factor in his reasoning, he was also a physician who delivered some 4,000 babies (unlike other politicians, he really does practice his own morals). That being said, he wants to limit the power of the Federal government as much as possible. I believe he would want the judicial branch to outlaw abortion, but I don't believe he would ever use the executive branch for such a nefarious purpose.
@MatthewRider1 Whatever RP's reasons for this clip on abortion, whether medical. legal or ethical, we should be able to question them. He is not the undisputed authority on any subject.
What difference is it really whether a law is federal or state, unless he wants it changed? Roe v Wade came about because some states were abusing human rights. Why are state's rights more important than individual ones?
@MySammypoo You don't understand him entirely. It's not that he wants states to decide on abortion, its more that he doesn't want ANYONE to make decisions about other Americans (yes, even a fetus has rights).
@delanogaston Oh I agree, most people don't want anyone making decisions for them on any subject. But we do have laws that place restrictions on just about anything we do. No laws at all wouid be anarchy.
What stage a foetus has rights is still under question. Is it at conception, 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester? Roe v Wade established it at 28 weeks.
@MySammypoo Ya, I was also on the fence about abortion for the longest time because there are too many variables. What if the girl is raped? What if she is 13 and just had one night of stupidity? And trying to determine at what point a fetus has rights is difficult too...but if Dr. Paul, an obstetrician with 4000+ deliveries says that a 1st trimester baby has rights, I will take him at his word unless someone comes out with some logical arguments on why he is wrong. Peace! ;)
@delanogaston I don't think that when a foetus has rights is a medical issue, but a legal one. So I question whether RP's medical experience is relevant. I would guess that all the doctors who perform abortions have also delivered healthy babies. Those doctors support abortion and are probably just as qualified as Ron Paul to comment on its rightness.
@MySammypoo Well we can debate all day wether RP's stance is moral or not, but you're missing one point. He can't tell us (the people) how to think or what laws should be passed. The President does not have this right. He will only try to persuade Congress and America that abortion after a certain time is illegal. If he becomes President you can write your congressman and tell him how you want him to vote. The GREAT thing about RP is he follows the constitution, unlike most Presidents weve had
@delanogaston Ron Paul was a congressman running for president at the time of this clip. Another poster (MatthewRider) believes RP wants judicial action on abortion. So who does RP want to change abortion laws? The legislature, the executive, or the judiciary.
Yes he may follow what he thinks the constitution says, but politicians and lawyers are always debating its meanings. And people are always wanting constitutional amendments.
@MySammypoo I disagree that he will follow what he "thinks" the constitution says. The constitution is as clearly written as the instructions on shampoo bottles. Yes, there are amendments, thats because our forefathers left an open claus just for this reason. The document clearly gives no power to the president to change anything, only to persuade Congress. Its not true that he can use his power to pursuade the Judiciary, that would be against the law in any country......
@delanogaston The constitution may be clear in what it says, but its meaning is debated. Take the right to bear arms. What are arms? Are they only weapons from the 18th century, like musket, flintlock pistol, sword and dagger? The Founders couldn't have predict Uzis and assault rifles.
Does it include cannon? Or does arms mean only what a man could carry? What about shoulder launched anti-tank missiles?
How about grenades? They existed then and still do today.
@MySammypoo All good examples and there are many more but right to bear arms is right to bear arms. If you can get ahold of an Uzi and NEVER EVER use it to infringe on the rights of others, then go for it. I bet people will think twice about breaking into your house when you rain 9mm rounds on them :) But the forefathers left our constitution open ended because they were brilliant thinkers and knew things would change/progress. That'swhy we have amendments. Peace!
@delanogaston Carrying an uzi, let alone using it, is a crime in some places. Try a court, a school, or on a plane.
But I am not arguing whether we have a right to bear arms. I was trying to show that the constitution is not comprehensive enough to cover every law and circumstance. I am asking if uzis, or SAMs, or grenades, are arms or not. The constitution is not clear, and other judges and lawmakers have had to clear this up.
@MySammypoo Thats why the constitution is open ended, just for cases like that. We either need to abolish it completely and start a whole new govt, or honor the millions who have died defending it by supporting it to our dieing breath. Many brilliant men have tried to warn us of what would happen if we let banks run our government but we didn't listen....now we are trying to dig ourselves out of a big heaping pile of crap. If we just had a Presient who can't be bought we can get back on track
@delanogaston The GFC was not just the government's fault. Millions of people defaulted on their loans, that's what sent the banks bust. You may never have had a mortgage, car loan or credit card, but most people have.
Responsible people have been saying for at least the last 25 years that USA should cut its foreign and budget deficits. We owed money to the Arabs, then Japan, now the Chinese. But voters just ignored it
@MySammypoo Millions of people defaulted because morons like Bush and Clinton deregulated the rules banks used to live by...the ones mainly created by FDR. They hedged their bets and profited from our loss. Then Obama, who has more lobbyists and czars in his pocket than any president in history, listened to Bernanke and "bailed out" the banks. Nobody went to jail, but instead the criminals were given bonuses in the hundreds of millions. This is our country at its finest.
@MySammypoo Also, don't presume that you know me. I have multiple credit cards, a mortgage, student loans, and 2 cars that are paid for. I lost my job ilke many others in 2008. Did I cry to my government for help? No. I have never been on unemployment or welfare in my life and never will. Instead, I swallowed my pride and took jobs where I had to clock in and out and wear a name tag. Our government is corrupt and has been since JFK. Hopefully RP has a different fate than him.
@delanogaston I said you may never have had loans, so I don't presume to know anything about you.
You have been saying that the president can only try to persuade congress, and that only congress can change laws. So why are you blaming the president for changing the bank laws. This was done by congress.
Who authorised the bailouts of the banks and the car companies? Congress. Put the blame where it is due.
@MySammypoo What I'm saying is, according to our constitution congress has the power, but Bush and Obama seem to think the constitution is there as friendly advice, and do not follow it. That's what I'm such a huge RP supporter. The Patriot Act was approved through unscrupulous methods. They laid out all 500 pages of it a few hours before it was to be voted on. A lot of people were outraged but it got passed anyway. This is 1 example of MANY I could point out but not enough space here! :)
@delanogaston Unfortunately, that while Congress may have been duped in passing Patriot Act in 2001, they have had 9 1/2 years to change it. It was to expire 12/31/05 but was extended in 2005 and 2006.
Its latest extension was 02/28/11, for another 90 days. We have got a new congress and a new president. If the Patriot Act so offends them, they should do something about it.
@MySammypoo But to get back on your original topic, abortion falls under the right to live. I guess the question is, at what point is a woman carrying a "person" with individual rights? If one suggests that abortion should be illegal reguardless of what stage of pregnancy might as well put a ban on birth control too. But the greatest thing about RP is the fact that he knows the limits of presidency. He has no right to change abortion laws, he can only try to persuade Congress and the people.
@delanogaston The president as leader of his party has a lot of persuasive power. He is not elected, and not judged, on what he might persuade Congress to do. People vote for him, or her, on the policies. If the power to change things is only with congress, then blame them for the state of the country.
@MySammypoo .....To be honest, its the least of this nations worries. Its just like RP says in this clip, its not a moral issue, its a legal issue. Theres an infinite number of variables in the abortion debate, so I don't sit on ether side of the fence. I really don't care. We need to fix our foreign policy and end the Fed among other high priority items. But people use this against RP because its a hot issue and the hidden government that really runs things don't want him to be President.
@MatthewRider1 RP says there are laws controlling abortions in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. This is true but laws for the 1st are not the same as the ones for the 3rd. In this clip he never claims it is a medical issue. When asked if it is a moral one, he claims it is a legal issue.
He wants abortion under state control. Some states never repealed anti-abortion laws, some have laws ready that apply if Roe v Wade is repealed. I don't think states rights is a good reason for repeal.
@MySammypoo I was talking about Whoopi claiming that Rep. Paul was incorrect about abortions. I completely agree with arguing about the issues but my reference it was about the legality of abortions. There is legal and illegal no gray area. There is no "view on the subject". There is allowed and not allowed.
@brad238899 The women were rearguing for abortion in general. RP referred to 8 month foetuses.
If RP wants to bring all abortion under state control, not just some, so it is legal and illegal. The Supreme Court declared abortion a fundamental right. Roe came about because of unconstitutional state restrictions. We know how states will react as some already have trigger laws that will go into effect if Roe is overturned.
@Kneary1000 Neither the people today or the ones 235 years ago are or were perfect. We will never create a perfect nation. A new nation may start on Monday, South Sudan, let's see how that goes.
The Founding Fathers knew that the world would change, that's why we have amendments to the constitution.
If the US rewrote the entire constitution today, there would be a lot of arguments. The right to bear arms, gay marriage. The Founders did not ban slavery, so they were fallible too.
@MySammypoo I agree with you and I understand my comment was a bit loaded-However, I am not trying to say we are less insightful today than in 1776...I am trying to emphasize that the values expressed in the constitution were well thought out for the time and have been revised appropriately since therefore should remain intact -The purpose of the constitution would be self-defeating if it did not allow amendments of course...(continued below)
@MySammypoo For ex. slavery was permitted in the constitution mainly because the higher value at the time was to preserve the union hence the term "necessary evil"-which was later resolved after the civil war What Ron Paul's goal is to not to resist change but to remind where issues should or should not be fought many issues are state issues such as gay marriage - marriage has a religious background and therefore is a state issue -RP's intention is to prevent the constitution from being diluted
@Kneary1000 Some people are campaigning for a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman. That puts it on a federal level.
You say marriage is religious therefore state issue. Separation of church and state means it shouldn't be a government issue.
The status and benefits accorded married couples have no religious context. Heterosexual marriages have same status, in or out of church. Give gays the same.
The constitution shoiuld protect rights, not take them away
@Kneary1000 I didn't know the constitution permitted slavery or did it just ignore the issue. Did the Founders consciously deny slaves their rights?
I don't know RP's feelings re gay marriage, but what he says about abortion on this clip. He talks of late term abortions but does he agree that some abortions should be allowed?
Abortions are permitted unless banned federally. Does RP want to make it banned unless permitted in some states
@MiamiPush2theLimit Actually the 3/5 compromise was used to end to slavery. Because the south wanted blacks to be counted as a whole person, so they can have more power. But the north wanted to take power away from the south to stop slavery. Also the constitution sunsets slavery, which it did. Judicial activism is what continued slavery.
@MySammypoo hey, sorry just saw that you commented on this haha (five months later)....but i wanted to answer you...
The constitution actually avoids using the words slave or slavery. instead, they use the terms "other persons" and "importation of persons" to discuss the slave trade and, of course, the 14th amendment contained the 3/5th value to blacks before it was ratified, but in my previous explanation i guess the word tolerated would have been a better choice over permitted...
@MySammypoo as for RP on gay marriage -he generally supports gay marriage but feels it should be left to the states and should really be a decision by the church anyway. He also opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
@Kneary1000 He thinks the government doesnt belong in marriage at all. Which is doesnt because no one should tell you what you should do but people want government in marriage so they can reap the benefits there should be no benefits to getting married.
@MySammypoo RP on abortion - he is against abortion as he believes life begins at conception and wants to protect the rights of the fetus...however, he believes it should be a state issue -federal law supersedes state law so he has supported bills that help states have backing if they do wish to prohibit abortion but has also supported legislation allowing the mother to travel to other states if she wants an abortion and cant in hers - and hes voted against late-term abortions.
They used to say that in America, everything is permitted, unless it's banned. In Russia, everything's banned unless permitted. In France everything's permitted, even if banned, and in China everything's banned, even if permitted
I ask if Ron Paul wants to change abortion from permitted unless banned, to banned unless permitted. He gets the women to admit that they would not allow some abortions, but does he state he would allow some?
Perhaps it's that I'm relatively young that I can't articulate this feeling, but as MUCH of a liberal that I am, I would not have minded Ron Paul being president AT ALL. I think that one the most admirable things about him is that despite him not being popular, he DOES NOT sell out his views.
Why do power-crazy politicians revert to the idea of states rights when they want to take away human rights? They don't like federal law, so want to take issues back to where they can control them.
They tried to use states rights to keep segregation and slavery going. Didn't states leave the union because they felt their state had the right to make laws about slavery.
Human rights trump states rights. The constitution says, we the people, not, we the states.
abortion is irrelevant when selecting a candidate, because no politician can ever change it! only the supreme court can reverse the decision on abortion. while the president does nominate the justices, the justices always wait to retire until a president who they like is in power.
I dont see any difference between 1month old fetus and 25 year old man... The first one is a very little human and the second one is big human... can we murder human being just because its small? what comes next? exterminating the elder? oh wait they already kill the elder in the name of "decent" death... I hate this world
@9531mike LOL you've never seen the View before? Clearly not all women are stupid. They're like men. Some are, some aren't. Unfortunately, they might as well have picked 4 high school cheerleaders. They'd be a lot more interesting to look at, I can promise you that. These women talk about issues to make you think they're intelligent, but what they're really thinking is "Obama is cool, I'm voting for him." Policies don't matter. Ron Paul has been right on the economy and war for years.
ok u ignored my comment and just went on i see. anyway so wheres is your linking proving anything??? no u r not right about its population. you made my point he too liberal he said he would not make any drug illegal and if you wanna kill your self ok. uhm now thats just a bit on the side of not caring, look it up
do not vote for him he doesnt care about people which means his decisions will not be for us he has an agenda and his background doesnt make sense cant afford it? the hospitals ect... cant afford their mansions and mercedez thats the problem why is dubai able to have free healthcare, no taxes and free schooling ,furthermore they also are the richest in the entire world when it comes to extravagent living ect...
@imcrazy85 dubai is wealthy because it has a very very very low population and lots and lots of oil, so it has shit loads of income. how ever they have NO democracy and no liberty they are ruled by a royal family and if you do wrong by them they toture you and kill you in the desert
This really isnt a great example on your behalf you really have to try harder
Can you please explain to me why he dosent care about people
@danbuck333 wrong about its population and wheres ur proof of a torture. do ur research bud america is just a corp run by a royal family of brittian. how he doesntcare about people just look what he says. your comments arent to great examples there not even real lol now that looks bad
@imcrazy85.... Actually im right about its population as for the torture it has been making its rounds through the media for sometime now, all you would have had to do is search for it
i have looked at what he says and does, and he is in total support for peoples liberty and freedom, he doesnt vote for anything that takes away peoples liberty and ability to choose for themselves, that is ultimate freedom
If you have anything that cotradicts that which I doubt, then please provide a link
@imcrazy85 "corp run by a royal family "true, the royal family has that control through the banks, ie the 'federal reserve" and ron paul is the only person in government trying to stop them, and your here complaining about him
Danbuck is right, what you said doesn't make any sense and his voting record contradicts everything you said. He's actually one of the few politicians who do care about the people.
@imcrazy85 wow ok thats proof that he cares about people huh for sure right not trying to look good to get elected and then do whatever he wants like all them do ???? mmmmmmmm and his votes oh please an example?
Amazing... Whoopi doesn't even know what she's arguing for.i.e. she didn't even know that 3rd trimester abortion is legal. Telling Ron Paul who is a gynecologist and congressman that he is wrong... To all THE VIEW ladies:Please read the statutes before you comment!
RSheftall 1 month ago
Kate Walsh looks so stoned she must love Ron Paul. End the Marijuana prohibition now!
hpmathis4 1 month ago
wow ... Ron Paul has been on every show there is .
HK379 4 months ago
can you believe he is a gynecologist too? if you put it like that... NO
yajo891 4 months ago 6
Ron Paul makes everyone else seem so dumb.
heatbucspies55 4 months ago
these clucking hens need to let him TALK!
InYourMomsBox 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 5 months ago
My god, Kate Walsh is gorgeous.
lawlzpie 6 months ago 4
@lawlzpie she ain't no elizabeth hassleback nah.
clay7760 2 months ago
VOTE DR. RON PAUL 2012!!
shannalgreen 6 months ago
@ Thejayeffkay To quote Ron Paul "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual."
Keep your racist shit to yourself and evolve.
FadingThought 6 months ago
@FadingThought
i admit i got carried away, wrong video
black people need to evolve
Case in point: whoopi, and sherri
TheJayEffkay 6 months ago
ron paul is the TRUTH
Obama is a greasy nappy haired con man
RON PAUL 2012
TAKE BACK THE WHITE HOUSE
SEND BLACKS BACK TO THE FIELD
TheJayEffkay 6 months ago
@TheJayEffkay its getting harder and harder to watch obama open his mouth. Phoney as FUCK
12ylan 6 months ago
LIBERALS WANT TO BROWN AMERICA
THE WHITE RACE IS THE MASTER RACE - HITLER WAS CORRECT
THE JEWISH AGENDA IS HAPPENING NOW
THE BROWNING OF AMERICA IS HAPENING
THE ZIONISTS WANT TO PUNISH THE WHITE RACE FOR THE HOLOCAUST.
THEY WANT TO MAKE THE USA ISRAEL 2.0
TheJayEffkay 6 months ago
I'm not a big fan of the view, but I really appreciate them giving Dr. Ron Paul some airtime.
mostdispleased 6 months ago
Whoopis clothing KILLS me
Skabur123 6 months ago
@Skabur123
SHE LOOKS LIKE A HOODRAT
TheJayEffkay 6 months ago
I find it hilarious, how interviewers always try to get Ron Paul to endorse his opposition. "you can't win, so who would you vote for Mr. Paul?".
As if Ron Paul supporters would jump ship and support that person.
BillyBatsonMarvel 7 months ago
@BillyBatsonMarvel That, unfortunately is the mentality of the average voter in this country. Peole have to get passed this party line default affiliation to see that both Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson are not only electable, but the best choices Americans have.
critter505 7 months ago
That girl that plays the gynecologist on tv, the one on the right, is so flippin high on drugs during this whole interview
hisel13 7 months ago
how are murder and abortion different?
apnwahoowa 7 months ago
@apnwahoowa ... Depends on your definition of "life."
emantabrizi 7 months ago
@Sibs1990 men and grammar dont mix
whynotflip 7 months ago
like and dislike buttons are not sufficient for ron pauls positions. there should be a standing ovation button.
whynotflip 7 months ago 2
But Joy was right.. he didn't win. And to say that it was down to Bill is stupid, Joy wanted him out of all the candidates to get the nomination!
konzb 8 months ago
I like the way he answers the Abortion question, although obviously some people just dont get it. It's NOT up to him to decide, it's up to the American people. He's not going to FORCE his views on you, you the people decide what's acceptable & what's not....end of story. If the people of your state decide against abortion then you simply can move somewhere that better reflects your views. Now thats freedom, not the current Left vs. Right B.S where 51% decide what the other 49% can or cant do!
Metalgod668 8 months ago
Comment removed
SylviaSayit3Times 8 months ago
@MySammypoo liberties not control our lives and not saying that the state govt's are either but that's why we do have a fed gov't to make sure the state gov'ts aren't infringing on our rights either-a checks and balances system too. That's what Ron Paul is for, he doesn't want to infringe on liberties but protect them. He is the only Representative who isn't focused on the minor issues. It's like the old saying "Can't see the forest through all the trees"
TheSmilebit 8 months ago
@TheSmilebit EXACTLY, do people honestly understand how the local state/federal government works?
When Ron is talking about solving issues at a state level, he's not talk about a fucking secession ala southern slave states. It's about recognizing and honoring state rights and jurisdiction, the purpose of the federal government is to act as big bro watching over the little bro. Today its completely backwards, the federal govt. thinks its big brother in the orwellian sense and its in total comm
Jamzkangster 8 months ago
@MySammypoo to prevent people from state jumping (idk what else to call it). In that scenario people's liberties aren't being prevented in a sense. It's a generalized idea and many factors do come into play. This would also help people not be so focused on the minor issues when something bigger is in play. All these things like abortion, gay marriages, things like that are a distraction from the bigger picture which is the President and the government in place are supposed to protect your civil
TheSmilebit 8 months ago
@MySammypoo I get what you're saying on that and their should be laws in place to make sure that the state govt's aren't abusing their powers. However, with it being at the state level, issues such as abortion can vary from state to state. It doesn't have to be a country mandated decision. It can and should be a state decision, for example, in TX abortion wouldn't pass and in CA it would. People in different states have different views and backgrounds. Of course their should be laws in place
TheSmilebit 8 months ago
@MySammypoo The reason why RP doesn't answer the question isn't because he doesn't want to take a stance, it's because he believes it's not up for him to decide. RP believes things like that should be left at the state and local level, they can handle that much better than at a federal level. RP is a very strict constitutionalist and believes in civil liberties and is pro-life. I suggest you do some research on him and not go off of a 10 minute clip with him on the view.
TheSmilebit 8 months ago
@TheSmilebit People want fewer laws affecting their lives and their rights, whether they are federal, state or local. Yes RP can decide what he thinks. Roe v Wade came about because states had power over abortions and were abusing those powers. Human rights are more important than states' rights.
We know what will happen if Roe is overturned. Some states have trigger laws ready for that and some will ban all abortions.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
Hes just too intelligent for the show
bigbillyz 8 months ago
Ron Paul has shown he is a typical politician, telling half-truths and dodging the tough questions.
Why didn't he mention the Sanctity Of Life Act (SOLA) which he has presented to Congress 3 times (2005, 2007 7 2009)? It's provisions state that life begins at conception and that each state has the authorityn to protect the lives of the unborn.
It would ban all abortion but when asked about them dodged the question. Typical politician.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
07:47 I don’t understand how whoopi links immigration to outsourcing.
So if I follow her view,
BRINGING BACK AMERICAN JOBS would create a LARGER incentive for immigrants to come for those jobs?
j2ching 8 months ago
Can't knock a good man down, he's on solid ground.
johnnyfast 9 months ago
RP looked pretty embarrassed at the end and who wouldn't be? It's funny how suddenly people lately seem to be nicer to him. Could it be that he is winning the battle of Truth and now people know that treating him rudely has a negative effect?
YES!
timberwolves100 9 months ago
I hate woopi's face. She's sitting there with an arrogant stare...
guitarfreaking 9 months ago
RON PAUL'S DEBATE DAY MONEY BOMB!! MAY 5, 2011!! Google + LibertyPAC
MIDWEST507REPIN 9 months ago
i coulda sworn he was not a gynecologist, more like an obstetrician
GalacticJustice 9 months ago
Whoopi speaking on politics is like me telling her how to act. It's not my industry and therefore I know nothing bout it. Stick to what you know Whoopi.
delanogaston 9 months ago 2
Joy sounds like a bitch in this video
chrismx24 9 months ago
What a waste of time! This man would actually bring back the US Constitution to America, he is right in line with our Founding Fathers, and you want to waste time talking about abortion? Idiots! Ron Paul is so much more than being against abortion! Who cares? Nobody is going to change Roe v.s. Wade anyways! Talk about real issues!
freenow77 9 months ago
@freenow77 It wasn't a surprise to Ron Paul. They would have agreed what they would talk about before the show. He was the one talking about abortion and making it an issue.
Looking at all the protests outside all the abortion clinics, a lot of p;eople think it's very important.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
why the fuck is whoopi trying to argue with a gynecologist regarding abortion laws..
Newspeakgeneration 9 months ago 47
@Newspeakgeneration Don't you think people should question experts about things?
We get second opinions from doctors and appeal judge's decisions all the time. Every religion has its own view on morality and ethics. Any one person''s view on anything is not automatically right. RP can make laws that affect everyone's lives. We all should be able to question him and he should be able to cnvince people he is right.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo i wouldn't argue with a kidney doctor on my stage of cancer.. if i had cancer that is. If any i would go look for another doctor to get a 2nd opinion.. but not argue with him about his knowledge.
Newspeakgeneration 9 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration Going for a second opinion is questioning the first diagnosis.
Doctors make mistakes too. If told they have terminalk cancer, and 6 months to live, most people will look for alternatives, not just accept their fate. And on serious matters, good doctors should be consulting their colleagues on the illness.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo that has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about..? It's clear you didn't even comprehend what I said. Whoopi was arguing with a gynecologist about what stages abortion is permitted and what time line of the pregnancy it is performed..
No one was making a diagnosis .. lol so you what you said is retarded. I said go get a 2nd opinion if someone tells you that you have kidney cancer but don't argue with the doctor regarding what kidney cancer is or the stages of it.
Newspeakgeneration 9 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration When an abortion is permitted is a question of law, not medicine. If Whoopi believes something, which may be wrong, yes she should ask an expert about it. The women asked twice if RP wanted to ban all abotions, which is fair. Twice he dodged the question and referred to 8 month terminations which are not all abortions. RP wouild not say whether he accepted some abortions are ok.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration When abortions can be done is an objective madical question, and can probably be done right up to before birth. There may be terrible consequences but they can still be done.
When abortions are allowed and are legal is a subjective legal question. There were laws before Roe banning 8 month abortions and Roe did not change them. Abortion is legal, but, for pro-lifers, it still isn't right. Abortion would be ok for pro-choicers even if illegal.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration You could say, the doctor says you have cancer and you do, that's a fact. You can say there are abortions and that's a fact. I can't argue with that.
They were arguing about whether there should be abortions and what type. Ron Paul wants to change the current laws, which are facts. You will get many doctors for abortion and many against. A woman may be told by a doctor she is pregnant. What she is told she can do may depend on the doctor, who is not necessarily right.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration totally agree!! i was dumbfounded!
wang222 9 months ago
@Newspeakgeneration
Because Whoopi's ignorance is so galactic she doesn't even realize when she's out of her league...
closer71 8 months ago
LOL @ Whoopi (a has been actor) trying to dispute Dr. Ron Paul (congressman).
delanogaston 10 months ago
Most of these women are uninformed and are missing the big picture. If Ron Paul is elected, he would go down in history as another Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson, which we desperately need. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!!!
pacten21 10 months ago 2
I think if this man dies without being President it will be a terrible waste. One of the most level-headed men I can remember in politics, and I've studied American Politics in University
BuddhaWatt 10 months ago 44
@BuddhaWatt
It's worth noting however, that he stays pretty well active and he can handle anyone in a debate and run circles around anyone, from the chairman of the federal reserve to anyone in his own party or Democratic party. He's pretty sharp, I'd say.
taylor22222222 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 People call the women on The View stupid, but your 'great debater' can't give a straight answer to a simple question. Maybe his age makes him hard of hearing.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@MySammypoo
It's not that they're stupid. It's that they're too ignorant to shut up and wait for an answer before moving onto something else.
taylor22222222 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 Doesn't RP understand what all means? He was asked twice if he wanted to ban all abortions. Yes or no was all needed to say. They only have a limited yime on tv, and the women try to ask what their mighgt ask. Does he say in his debates that he wasn't given enough time to answer?
i know his view on abortion. That he doesn't want to admit it does not gain him any respect from me.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@MySammypoo
I don't know if you quite understood it, I did listening to every angle he comes from and going by many other videos as well. He doesn't want it controlled at the federal level, that's the point he made.
taylor22222222 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 He has presented a bill to Congress three times, in 2005, 2007 and 2009, called the Sanctity of Life Act (SOLA). It says that life begins at conception and that states have the authority to protect the lives of the unborn. It will ban all abortions. He kept talking about 8 month abortions, not new conception ones.
He knew the women and the viewers would be screaming if he told the truth. Like every politician, he dodges the hard questions and uncomfortable truths.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 Why wouldn't he answer the question? They didn't ask if he wanted to ban federal abortions.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 Nah there's too much stuttering and his delivery and forcefulness isn't as strong as say Obama. I mean what he's saying is spot on, he just doesn't have the charisma to get his point across always
BuddhaWatt 8 months ago
@BuddhaWatt
Haha, have you seen him against Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly and on the Fox News debates?? And plus you have 4 ladies here who are bickering and whining almost non stop, imagine a controlled debate (with a moderator, I mean) where he's allowed to answer, it a whole new story and he's very consistent with his views.
taylor22222222 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 Yeah I've seen them, lacks charisma for sure. Obama seems much more composed in debates. His policies and views are always spot on, and he'd make a fantastic President, but his charisma is the reason why he'll never connect with an extended (and for lack of a better term, dumb) audience, which is crutial in elections
BuddhaWatt 8 months ago
@BuddhaWatt
See I think his supporters are the most enthusiastic for a reason, being that he's so logical and speaks so simplistically that he tends to overwhelm many of his opponents. That's what I see. And although there are better speakers out there, he still makes the most sense and he has much more traction and support then he did last election so I guess that's why I don't see his imperfection like speaking in a very upstanding and dignified manner 100% of the time exclusive for winning.
taylor22222222 8 months ago
@taylor22222222 Why are you acting like I'm disagreeing with you? Youre saying exactly what I'm saying
BuddhaWatt 8 months ago
@BuddhaWatt
Oh I'm sorry, I interpreted your first sentence way wrong. *shakes head* lol well in that case, I take that back and I agree!
taylor22222222 8 months ago
@BuddhaWatt Yeah it's a shame that extended audience have votes. Do you want an intelligence qualification on the right to vote? It's arrogant people who think they know better than anyone else tghat got us in this mess.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@MySammypoo No intelligence qualifications are stupid, I was just explaining why Ron Paul will always fail to connect with a broader audience. Many seem to be entranced with charisma rather than listening to what they have to say. Hell, I'm guilty of it sometimes. I think Obama certainly had that effect on a few people
BuddhaWatt 8 months ago
@BuddhaWatt Like all politicians RP can't give a simple answer to a simple question. And you try and blame the audience for his failings. If he wants people to vote for him, he has to make himself understood.
He should have said yes or no, then explained why. Instead he dodges the question. The women were too nice with him. If he can't handle an easy, friendly chat show, he has no hope.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@MySammypoo No I don't blame the audience, you're just looking for an argument now. I'm saying that we as people are naturally more impressed with a clear, coherent answer than a rambling one, no matter what the content. Unfortunately Paul stutters and rambles a lot, which means he wont be able to connect with an extended audience. His answers are great if you listen carefully enough, but America aren't clever enough to listen that carefully
BuddhaWatt 8 months ago
what a waste - i cant believe they are taking to him about abortion.
df61660a 10 months ago
It blows my mind how dumb the people on this show are
elativ10 10 months ago 2
Ron Paul is the shit . Conservative nice guy that knows a lot about pussy.
Newspeakgeneration 11 months ago 2
Whoppi are you really going to argue the legality of abortions and pregnancy with a Gynecologist and a Congressman? Really?
brad238899 11 months ago
@brad238899 That's what congressmen are for; to argue with about issues. You shouldn't just accept any politician's views on any subject.
As for the legalities of abortion, it's RP that wants to change the law. Ask why he wants the change. Yes he may be qualified on abortion on medical grounds. But he wants changes on moral grounds. How is he qualified for that?
MySammypoo 11 months ago
@MySammypoo Actually, he wants changes based on the SCIENCE of whether or not a baby is "alive" after conception. Yes, he has a strong moral background to vote against it, but he is explaining that the argument for abortion is contradicting. Pro-choice (which I actually am for) relies on the argument that the "fetus" is not alive until a certain point, but if a doctor harms that very same "non-living" baby, then the doctor can get in serious trouble, and I have seen this happen.
MatthewRider1 11 months ago
@MatthewRider1 Rp is a typical politician as he won't give a straight answer.
When the women support abortions he refers to ones of 8 pound 8 month foetuses. He won't admit whether he would allow ones at say 3 months.
Roe V Wade originally permitted abortions before viability - able to live outside the womb - at 28 or even 24 weeks. Roe also declared that state laws banning abortions at 3 months or less were unconstitutional. There are laws controlling 8 month abortions.
MySammypoo 11 months ago
@MySammypoo Ron Paul does give a very straight answer. His answer is that it is not the Fed's responsibility under the Constitution and that it falls to the states and therefore he has no right per the Constitution to force the separate states of his will.
brad238899 11 months ago
@brad238899 The Supreme Court is there to support our rights against the government, federal and state. It has to be their responsibility. It decreed state restrictions were unconstitutional in the 70's. The SC declared abortion a fundamental right, that has not changed, and so must be protected.
It is very complicated legally, but I figure that 9 SC justices, then and now, know more about it's legality than me or Ron Paul. Many justices have disagreed with Roe, but have not overturned it.
MySammypoo 11 months ago
@MySammypoo I'm not saying I support abortion or I'm not. I simply said Ron Paul believes that the Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to decide and therefore it is a right of the states per the 10th amendment. And the Supreme Court is there to protect our Constitutional rights as citizens of the U.S. and as citizens of our separate states.
brad238899 11 months ago
@brad238899 Fair enough. I suppose this is a very emotional issue. I just am suspicious why RP wants to return abortion to state control. I also think that Roe v Wade ruled that state governments did not have the right to decide, either, in early term abortions.
I find it interesting that some people who want state abortion laws because they disagree with federal policy, want a constitutional amendment against gay marriage because they disagree with some states' policies.
MySammypoo 11 months ago
@MySammypoo I would prefer gay marriage rights go to the states as well. I would personally vote for their freedom to marry who they wish but living in WY (the equality state funny enough) it would never pass. Could it be passed federally? sure. But, I don't believe in bending the rules to get what you want. Sadly we have been doing it for ages now.
brad238899 11 months ago
@MySammypoo If you are suspicious why, then you obviously haven't been paying attention to Ron Paul. It is not about RP agreeing with individual states... He simply, straight up, hates the federal government having that kind of power. Also, RP has said the same thing about gay marriage... actually he went further saying it is no business of the state government to stop gay marriage either, and that the federal government should prevent the state from intervening.
MatthewRider1 10 months ago
@MatthewRider1 I am heartened by RP's views on gay marriage.
I just want to make sure I understand. Does RP believe that abortion rights don't belong on a federal level. and it's not about pro-life or pro-choice? To me any law will affect my life, whether it's federal or state. I can only see a need to change it to state law if he wants to change its legality.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo First, RP is personally against abortion. Even though religious convictions are a factor in his reasoning, he was also a physician who delivered some 4,000 babies (unlike other politicians, he really does practice his own morals). That being said, he wants to limit the power of the Federal government as much as possible. I believe he would want the judicial branch to outlaw abortion, but I don't believe he would ever use the executive branch for such a nefarious purpose.
MatthewRider1 9 months ago
@MatthewRider1 Whatever RP's reasons for this clip on abortion, whether medical. legal or ethical, we should be able to question them. He is not the undisputed authority on any subject.
What difference is it really whether a law is federal or state, unless he wants it changed? Roe v Wade came about because some states were abusing human rights. Why are state's rights more important than individual ones?
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo You don't understand him entirely. It's not that he wants states to decide on abortion, its more that he doesn't want ANYONE to make decisions about other Americans (yes, even a fetus has rights).
delanogaston 10 months ago 2
@delanogaston Oh I agree, most people don't want anyone making decisions for them on any subject. But we do have laws that place restrictions on just about anything we do. No laws at all wouid be anarchy.
What stage a foetus has rights is still under question. Is it at conception, 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester? Roe v Wade established it at 28 weeks.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo Ya, I was also on the fence about abortion for the longest time because there are too many variables. What if the girl is raped? What if she is 13 and just had one night of stupidity? And trying to determine at what point a fetus has rights is difficult too...but if Dr. Paul, an obstetrician with 4000+ deliveries says that a 1st trimester baby has rights, I will take him at his word unless someone comes out with some logical arguments on why he is wrong. Peace! ;)
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston I don't think that when a foetus has rights is a medical issue, but a legal one. So I question whether RP's medical experience is relevant. I would guess that all the doctors who perform abortions have also delivered healthy babies. Those doctors support abortion and are probably just as qualified as Ron Paul to comment on its rightness.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo Well we can debate all day wether RP's stance is moral or not, but you're missing one point. He can't tell us (the people) how to think or what laws should be passed. The President does not have this right. He will only try to persuade Congress and America that abortion after a certain time is illegal. If he becomes President you can write your congressman and tell him how you want him to vote. The GREAT thing about RP is he follows the constitution, unlike most Presidents weve had
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston Ron Paul was a congressman running for president at the time of this clip. Another poster (MatthewRider) believes RP wants judicial action on abortion. So who does RP want to change abortion laws? The legislature, the executive, or the judiciary.
Yes he may follow what he thinks the constitution says, but politicians and lawyers are always debating its meanings. And people are always wanting constitutional amendments.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo I disagree that he will follow what he "thinks" the constitution says. The constitution is as clearly written as the instructions on shampoo bottles. Yes, there are amendments, thats because our forefathers left an open claus just for this reason. The document clearly gives no power to the president to change anything, only to persuade Congress. Its not true that he can use his power to pursuade the Judiciary, that would be against the law in any country......
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston The constitution may be clear in what it says, but its meaning is debated. Take the right to bear arms. What are arms? Are they only weapons from the 18th century, like musket, flintlock pistol, sword and dagger? The Founders couldn't have predict Uzis and assault rifles.
Does it include cannon? Or does arms mean only what a man could carry? What about shoulder launched anti-tank missiles?
How about grenades? They existed then and still do today.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo All good examples and there are many more but right to bear arms is right to bear arms. If you can get ahold of an Uzi and NEVER EVER use it to infringe on the rights of others, then go for it. I bet people will think twice about breaking into your house when you rain 9mm rounds on them :) But the forefathers left our constitution open ended because they were brilliant thinkers and knew things would change/progress. That'swhy we have amendments. Peace!
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston Carrying an uzi, let alone using it, is a crime in some places. Try a court, a school, or on a plane.
But I am not arguing whether we have a right to bear arms. I was trying to show that the constitution is not comprehensive enough to cover every law and circumstance. I am asking if uzis, or SAMs, or grenades, are arms or not. The constitution is not clear, and other judges and lawmakers have had to clear this up.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo Thats why the constitution is open ended, just for cases like that. We either need to abolish it completely and start a whole new govt, or honor the millions who have died defending it by supporting it to our dieing breath. Many brilliant men have tried to warn us of what would happen if we let banks run our government but we didn't listen....now we are trying to dig ourselves out of a big heaping pile of crap. If we just had a Presient who can't be bought we can get back on track
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston The GFC was not just the government's fault. Millions of people defaulted on their loans, that's what sent the banks bust. You may never have had a mortgage, car loan or credit card, but most people have.
Responsible people have been saying for at least the last 25 years that USA should cut its foreign and budget deficits. We owed money to the Arabs, then Japan, now the Chinese. But voters just ignored it
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo Millions of people defaulted because morons like Bush and Clinton deregulated the rules banks used to live by...the ones mainly created by FDR. They hedged their bets and profited from our loss. Then Obama, who has more lobbyists and czars in his pocket than any president in history, listened to Bernanke and "bailed out" the banks. Nobody went to jail, but instead the criminals were given bonuses in the hundreds of millions. This is our country at its finest.
delanogaston 9 months ago
@MySammypoo Also, don't presume that you know me. I have multiple credit cards, a mortgage, student loans, and 2 cars that are paid for. I lost my job ilke many others in 2008. Did I cry to my government for help? No. I have never been on unemployment or welfare in my life and never will. Instead, I swallowed my pride and took jobs where I had to clock in and out and wear a name tag. Our government is corrupt and has been since JFK. Hopefully RP has a different fate than him.
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston I said you may never have had loans, so I don't presume to know anything about you.
You have been saying that the president can only try to persuade congress, and that only congress can change laws. So why are you blaming the president for changing the bank laws. This was done by congress.
Who authorised the bailouts of the banks and the car companies? Congress. Put the blame where it is due.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo What I'm saying is, according to our constitution congress has the power, but Bush and Obama seem to think the constitution is there as friendly advice, and do not follow it. That's what I'm such a huge RP supporter. The Patriot Act was approved through unscrupulous methods. They laid out all 500 pages of it a few hours before it was to be voted on. A lot of people were outraged but it got passed anyway. This is 1 example of MANY I could point out but not enough space here! :)
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston Unfortunately, that while Congress may have been duped in passing Patriot Act in 2001, they have had 9 1/2 years to change it. It was to expire 12/31/05 but was extended in 2005 and 2006.
Its latest extension was 02/28/11, for another 90 days. We have got a new congress and a new president. If the Patriot Act so offends them, they should do something about it.
MySammypoo 8 months ago
@MySammypoo But to get back on your original topic, abortion falls under the right to live. I guess the question is, at what point is a woman carrying a "person" with individual rights? If one suggests that abortion should be illegal reguardless of what stage of pregnancy might as well put a ban on birth control too. But the greatest thing about RP is the fact that he knows the limits of presidency. He has no right to change abortion laws, he can only try to persuade Congress and the people.
delanogaston 9 months ago
@delanogaston The president as leader of his party has a lot of persuasive power. He is not elected, and not judged, on what he might persuade Congress to do. People vote for him, or her, on the policies. If the power to change things is only with congress, then blame them for the state of the country.
MySammypoo 9 months ago
@MySammypoo .....To be honest, its the least of this nations worries. Its just like RP says in this clip, its not a moral issue, its a legal issue. Theres an infinite number of variables in the abortion debate, so I don't sit on ether side of the fence. I really don't care. We need to fix our foreign policy and end the Fed among other high priority items. But people use this against RP because its a hot issue and the hidden government that really runs things don't want him to be President.
delanogaston 9 months ago
@MatthewRider1 RP says there are laws controlling abortions in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd trimesters. This is true but laws for the 1st are not the same as the ones for the 3rd. In this clip he never claims it is a medical issue. When asked if it is a moral one, he claims it is a legal issue.
He wants abortion under state control. Some states never repealed anti-abortion laws, some have laws ready that apply if Roe v Wade is repealed. I don't think states rights is a good reason for repeal.
MySammypoo 11 months ago
@MySammypoo I was talking about Whoopi claiming that Rep. Paul was incorrect about abortions. I completely agree with arguing about the issues but my reference it was about the legality of abortions. There is legal and illegal no gray area. There is no "view on the subject". There is allowed and not allowed.
brad238899 11 months ago
@brad238899 The women were rearguing for abortion in general. RP referred to 8 month foetuses.
If RP wants to bring all abortion under state control, not just some, so it is legal and illegal. The Supreme Court declared abortion a fundamental right. Roe came about because of unconstitutional state restrictions. We know how states will react as some already have trigger laws that will go into effect if Roe is overturned.
MySammypoo 11 months ago
Looks like Kate Walsh just took a toke of a doobie back stage.
corkskrewclubhouse93 11 months ago 2
He is a true patriot.
ftslv500 1 year ago
guliani 911 911 911 skipping cd scumbag, romney might be ok but i smell pro war party line puppet
gonadcancervictim 1 year ago
@jamchew1982 ...u seriously believe we are more insightful than the founding fathers of 300 years ago?
Kneary1000 1 year ago
@Kneary1000 Neither the people today or the ones 235 years ago are or were perfect. We will never create a perfect nation. A new nation may start on Monday, South Sudan, let's see how that goes.
The Founding Fathers knew that the world would change, that's why we have amendments to the constitution.
If the US rewrote the entire constitution today, there would be a lot of arguments. The right to bear arms, gay marriage. The Founders did not ban slavery, so they were fallible too.
MySammypoo 1 year ago
@MySammypoo I agree with you and I understand my comment was a bit loaded-However, I am not trying to say we are less insightful today than in 1776...I am trying to emphasize that the values expressed in the constitution were well thought out for the time and have been revised appropriately since therefore should remain intact -The purpose of the constitution would be self-defeating if it did not allow amendments of course...(continued below)
Kneary1000 1 year ago
@MySammypoo For ex. slavery was permitted in the constitution mainly because the higher value at the time was to preserve the union hence the term "necessary evil"-which was later resolved after the civil war What Ron Paul's goal is to not to resist change but to remind where issues should or should not be fought many issues are state issues such as gay marriage - marriage has a religious background and therefore is a state issue -RP's intention is to prevent the constitution from being diluted
Kneary1000 1 year ago
@Kneary1000 Some people are campaigning for a constitutional amendment stating marriage is between a man and a woman. That puts it on a federal level.
You say marriage is religious therefore state issue. Separation of church and state means it shouldn't be a government issue.
The status and benefits accorded married couples have no religious context. Heterosexual marriages have same status, in or out of church. Give gays the same.
The constitution shoiuld protect rights, not take them away
MySammypoo 1 year ago
@Kneary1000 I didn't know the constitution permitted slavery or did it just ignore the issue. Did the Founders consciously deny slaves their rights?
I don't know RP's feelings re gay marriage, but what he says about abortion on this clip. He talks of late term abortions but does he agree that some abortions should be allowed?
Abortions are permitted unless banned federally. Does RP want to make it banned unless permitted in some states
MySammypoo 1 year ago
@MySammypoo in the U.S. Constitution, it says blacks are only 3/5ths of a human being...so um, yeah this country is founded on racism.
MiamiPush2theLimit 1 year ago
@MiamiPush2theLimit I didn't realise that. It is sad that that happened.
MySammypoo 1 year ago
@MiamiPush2theLimit Actually the 3/5 compromise was used to end to slavery. Because the south wanted blacks to be counted as a whole person, so they can have more power. But the north wanted to take power away from the south to stop slavery. Also the constitution sunsets slavery, which it did. Judicial activism is what continued slavery.
jimhunt81 1 year ago
@MySammypoo hey, sorry just saw that you commented on this haha (five months later)....but i wanted to answer you...
The constitution actually avoids using the words slave or slavery. instead, they use the terms "other persons" and "importation of persons" to discuss the slave trade and, of course, the 14th amendment contained the 3/5th value to blacks before it was ratified, but in my previous explanation i guess the word tolerated would have been a better choice over permitted...
Kneary1000 7 months ago
@MySammypoo as for RP on gay marriage -he generally supports gay marriage but feels it should be left to the states and should really be a decision by the church anyway. He also opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Kneary1000 7 months ago
@Kneary1000 He thinks the government doesnt belong in marriage at all. Which is doesnt because no one should tell you what you should do but people want government in marriage so they can reap the benefits there should be no benefits to getting married.
lilsm555 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lilsm555 The states or the federal government should not be aloud to tell people who they want to spend the rest of there life with or involved.
lilsm555 7 months ago
@MySammypoo RP on abortion - he is against abortion as he believes life begins at conception and wants to protect the rights of the fetus...however, he believes it should be a state issue -federal law supersedes state law so he has supported bills that help states have backing if they do wish to prohibit abortion but has also supported legislation allowing the mother to travel to other states if she wants an abortion and cant in hers - and hes voted against late-term abortions.
Kneary1000 7 months ago
Comment removed
lilsm555 7 months ago
continued above- sorry.
Kneary1000 1 year ago
They used to say that in America, everything is permitted, unless it's banned. In Russia, everything's banned unless permitted. In France everything's permitted, even if banned, and in China everything's banned, even if permitted
I ask if Ron Paul wants to change abortion from permitted unless banned, to banned unless permitted. He gets the women to admit that they would not allow some abortions, but does he state he would allow some?
MySammypoo 1 year ago
i like RP but the constitution was written 300 years ago... the reverence with which he holds it is a little scary...
jamchew1982 1 year ago
Perhaps it's that I'm relatively young that I can't articulate this feeling, but as MUCH of a liberal that I am, I would not have minded Ron Paul being president AT ALL. I think that one the most admirable things about him is that despite him not being popular, he DOES NOT sell out his views.
JacobFlores2 1 year ago
Fuck you joy behar
Garrnett1 1 year ago
Why do power-crazy politicians revert to the idea of states rights when they want to take away human rights? They don't like federal law, so want to take issues back to where they can control them.
They tried to use states rights to keep segregation and slavery going. Didn't states leave the union because they felt their state had the right to make laws about slavery.
Human rights trump states rights. The constitution says, we the people, not, we the states.
MySammypoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ppl waste a lot of time discussing abortion.
abortion is irrelevant when selecting a candidate, because no politician can ever change it! only the supreme court can reverse the decision on abortion. while the president does nominate the justices, the justices always wait to retire until a president who they like is in power.
cdc482 1 year ago
I like this guy. As republicans go this guy is pretty ok, probably better than Obama. I would have voted for him if I was american.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
He wants to bring home the troops he probably delivered to this world :p
Ron Paul 2012!
ProRanting 1 year ago
Ron Paul is one cool gyno.
surfer53 1 year ago
whoopi does stunt doubles for any black person with dreads..
Chslosers 1 year ago
I dont see any difference between 1month old fetus and 25 year old man... The first one is a very little human and the second one is big human... can we murder human being just because its small? what comes next? exterminating the elder? oh wait they already kill the elder in the name of "decent" death... I hate this world
Metuzalem66 1 year ago
so Ron Paul comes on this show and the only thing they can keep asking him is abortion?!
why not ask him on foreign policy or economy or war?
this is ridiculous
9531mike 1 year ago 2
@9531mike
They're liberal women, what can you expect? (other than Liz)
Da1RiSiN1sMoKe 1 year ago
Ron Paul comes on the show. .. they have no time to get into deep issues. Some hollywood celebrity comes on.. interview lasts a hour.
Chslosers 1 year ago
@9531mike LOL you've never seen the View before? Clearly not all women are stupid. They're like men. Some are, some aren't. Unfortunately, they might as well have picked 4 high school cheerleaders. They'd be a lot more interesting to look at, I can promise you that. These women talk about issues to make you think they're intelligent, but what they're really thinking is "Obama is cool, I'm voting for him." Policies don't matter. Ron Paul has been right on the economy and war for years.
surfer53 1 year ago
@9531mike The view is too stupid that's why
metalgodaragona1986 1 year ago
ron paul is the man
Pooper88x 1 year ago 2
He doesn't play the bullshit political game of smearing his opponents. Everyone needs to reconsider their partisan politics.
P.S. He's a gyno, he knows about the hoohaw! lololol
drlovebutton 1 year ago
he did awesome
elviaje26 1 year ago
how is he gonna stop his boss guy lol
imcrazy85 1 year ago
@imcrazy85 are you going to comment on anything I have said or are you just going to avoid me because you realise your wrong
danbuck333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danbuck333 well dumbass look at the comments
imcrazy85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ok u ignored my comment and just went on i see. anyway so wheres is your linking proving anything??? no u r not right about its population. you made my point he too liberal he said he would not make any drug illegal and if you wanna kill your self ok. uhm now thats just a bit on the side of not caring, look it up
imcrazy85 1 year ago
Wow Whoopi lost alot of weight
CardinalRaker 1 year ago
do not vote for him he doesnt care about people which means his decisions will not be for us he has an agenda and his background doesnt make sense cant afford it? the hospitals ect... cant afford their mansions and mercedez thats the problem why is dubai able to have free healthcare, no taxes and free schooling ,furthermore they also are the richest in the entire world when it comes to extravagent living ect...
imcrazy85 1 year ago
@imcrazy85 dubai is wealthy because it has a very very very low population and lots and lots of oil, so it has shit loads of income. how ever they have NO democracy and no liberty they are ruled by a royal family and if you do wrong by them they toture you and kill you in the desert
This really isnt a great example on your behalf you really have to try harder
Can you please explain to me why he dosent care about people
danbuck333 1 year ago
@danbuck333 wrong about its population and wheres ur proof of a torture. do ur research bud america is just a corp run by a royal family of brittian. how he doesntcare about people just look what he says. your comments arent to great examples there not even real lol now that looks bad
imcrazy85 1 year ago
@imcrazy85.... Actually im right about its population as for the torture it has been making its rounds through the media for sometime now, all you would have had to do is search for it
i have looked at what he says and does, and he is in total support for peoples liberty and freedom, he doesnt vote for anything that takes away peoples liberty and ability to choose for themselves, that is ultimate freedom
If you have anything that cotradicts that which I doubt, then please provide a link
danbuck333 1 year ago
@imcrazy85 "corp run by a royal family "true, the royal family has that control through the banks, ie the 'federal reserve" and ron paul is the only person in government trying to stop them, and your here complaining about him
now that looks really bad
danbuck333 1 year ago
@imcrazy85
Danbuck is right, what you said doesn't make any sense and his voting record contradicts everything you said. He's actually one of the few politicians who do care about the people.
rmccay88 1 year ago
@rmccay88 they all say they care dude wheres ur proof
imcrazy85 1 year ago
@imcrazy85
I told you my proof in my previous comment if you actually read it..."his voting record."
rmccay88 1 year ago
@imcrazy85 wow ok thats proof that he cares about people huh for sure right not trying to look good to get elected and then do whatever he wants like all them do ???? mmmmmmmm and his votes oh please an example?
imcrazy85 1 year ago
btw the comment would make sense if u pay attention to the vid and u r informed lol
imcrazy85 1 year ago
do not vote for him he doesnt care about people which means his decisions will not be for us he has an agenda and his background doesnt make sense
imcrazy85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imcrazy85 "his background doesnt make sense" he was in the military and he was a doctor, there you go that wasnt hard
danbuck333 1 year ago