Originally Posted By: Derid
I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe him.


I am not going to believe him on this particular issue, as saying goes - past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.

Still, I am encouraged by this discussion, this is not irreconcilable differences, just a matter of personal opinion. I think this is closest we ever came to agreeing on any issue.

Quote:
Also, I just do not consider it unfair targeting of any group. I would and do support, as I have made clear many times in the past, limiting all sorts of federal spending.


I still stand by my position, because alternative is even less attractive. There are plenty of other sources of federal money to cut, why repeatedly and specifically go after this issue? As you probably know abortions are not funded by federal money, what Ron Paul is doing is going after providers of women health services in their non-abortion functioning. Knowing his personal faith-based position on this issue he should have abstained from voting. Since he didn't, and even sponsored a bill, I only conclude he tainted the process by trying to legislate based on his faith, in process compromising separation or state and church.

Quote:
Now, if a Constitutionally sound State level program for health spending was in place that was meant to take the place of private insurance - and someone wanted to ban any abortion spending from such a plan, I would object to such a move.


Meanwhile your federal spending principles, and I chose to believe your intentions, unlike Ron Paul there isn't a case that I can make based on your abortion stance, will run women's rights into the ground. Consequence of effectively blocking large portion of women from exercising their fundamental right can not be justified by such secondary issue as taking a minor stance on federal spending.

Minor Spending vs. Fundamental Rights, what to pick? You know my choice. I wish you would reconsider yours.

Last edited by sinij; 02/09/12 07:16 PM.
[Linked Image]