rvbrvb’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  State's rights

  Some would argue that Ron Paul's view on abortion coincides with exactly what you desire, 'respects all human beings in all things..'  The difference being the definition of 'human beings'.

  Ron Paul's views on life and rights to life, especially that of the fetus, are guided by his experience as an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies and who has also witnessed late-term abortions in practice.

  Ron Paul says that in his medical practice if he injures a fetus or unborn child then he is legally liable for that baby.  He also points out that if someone negligently injures a pregnant woman, like in a car accident, that person is liable for the life of both the mother and the unborn child.  If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is responsible for the deaths of both lives.  In all of these examples the fetus legally has a right to life and another person who injures or takes that life is liable.  

  While Ron Paul's definition of life is from conception forth his view on abortion law allow both definitions to coexist.  Our Constitutional Republic specifically allows this by leaving these issues to be decided by the States independently.

  Many people agree with Ron Paul's definition of life and feel very strongly about it.  However, with the federal government involved they are forced to live in a system that requires them to fund abortions with their tax dollars.  Conversely, many people disagree with Ron Paul's definition of life and or feel very strongly about a woman's right to choose.  If abortion was federally abolished they would be forced to live in a system in opposition to their beliefs.

  By removing Federal jurisdiction and leaving the issue to the States and allowing them to set their own laws according to the will of their respective populace the our Constitutional Republic allows for both views to coexist.

  Ron Paul is not trying to 'force' his views on everyone.  In fact, he is taking himself out of the debate/decision and allowing state level and local law makers to write the laws that reflect the potentially 50 different views on this issue.

  Liberal states will reflect liberal values. Conservative states will reflect conservative values.  That is the beauty of the system we have and Ron Paul understands and respects that.

  He applies similar thinking to issues like gay marriage, education, the environment, etc.  I think that his respect for the Constitution and his appreciation that people do have different values and that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing one group's values over another group that makes him uniquely 'fit' to be President.On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  quick search results yield

  Definition:

  Dementia is a progressive degenerative disease or syndrome of the brain.

  Key symptoms are:

  Well-defined, vivid, visual hallucinations. In early stage, the person may even acknowledge and describe the hallucinations. Other types of hallucinations are less common but sometimes occur. These might be auditory ("hearing" sounds), olfactory ("tasting" something) or tactile ("feeling" something that isn't there)...On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "States almost never use a stricter..."

  Hmmmmm... Really hickerreese?  Here is a very fresh example of the largest state in the country getting thwarted by a politically powerful federal agency (your beloved EPA) as the state attempts to exercise its Constitutional right to enact more stringent emissions standards within its own borders:

  "Title: Sue obstructionist EPA

  Agency stonewalling California's waiver request

  Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007

  California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should make good on his threat to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to grant his state the waiver it needs to set tough new limits on auto emissions of greenhouse gases.

  Oregon should be first in line to join that lawsuit. Right behind should be the 13 other states that have adopted the same tailpipe standards but can't put them in place until the EPA gives California the required waiver that's clearly allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. The same waiver that the EPA has granted California for air pollution controls without question or delay dozens of times in the past..."

  Read rest of article here: http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support ...

  A perfect example of why we all need to think hard about the wisdom of voting to empower the Federal government more and more, election after election, year after year. Is it really doing what we think it is beyond the rhetoric or would we truly be better off having more influence on local and state levels regarding the issues that concern us most?  

  This is also an indictment of how special interests who have consolidated power in Washington and then can impose their will across the whole country are the real problem.
  On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  My point was...

  States should be able to standards that better reflect the environmental challenges and realities each are facing.  This approach should do better than the Federal government applying blanket, one size fits all policies with enforcement.  

  It is impossible for one agency or organization to 'monopolize' perfect knowledge or information regarding the environment and also simultaneously know the finest ways to deal with protecting it from a policy standpoint.

  Wouldn't it be in the interest of the country to have competing approaches on the state level and then share best practices?  

  The practical approach of day to day enforcement of private property rights and ending government subsidies would only enhance the system.
    On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  litigation, laws, and the EPA

  The Federal government does not hold (or should not hold) a monopoly on setting laws nor standards. Ron Paul's adherence to the US Constitution means that he is strongly in support of the sovereign rights of the States and the States' judicial systems. States and local governments should be more effective at legislating and prosecuting meaningful environmental laws because they are closer to the issues of pollution.  Lawsuits would be (and currently are) prosecuted at the state and local level most of the time anyhow.

  Over time, private enterprises and non-profits could easily replace the EPA and create independent and competing guidelines and testing.  Phasing the EPA and allowing independent, private laboratories to compete with the EPA for standard setting could only help the science, the environment, and the consumer.  Why can't private companies or organizations with rigorous missions benchmark and test environmental products and issues?  The EPA is in full effect today and still tainted toys get through.  Why can't an entrepreneur start a business that says they will put their stamp of approval on imported products from China and assure their safety?  Consumers may have to pay a bit more for products that have this assurance but if the company is reputable and does a good job consumers will demand that stamp on products they buy because they recognize the obvious value.  If that company screws up or loses the public trust they can be held liable and if they were dominant they have just given a market opportunity to a new entrant to do the job better.

  Ever been to www.ewg.org?  They do tremendous work as a non-profit and offer consumers independent testing of cosmetics and household products that the FDA doesn't even touch.  Why can't there be more of that?

  Anyhow, Ron Paul has said numerous times that getting rid of the EPA is very low on his list of priorities and would also require a consensus (so probably never happens anyhow).  As an earlier poster commented, his immediate and prioritized policy of ending the war will have the most dramatic, beneficial environmental impact out of every candidate (Kucinich excluded).

   On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses