Comments on: Why you shouldn’t Fawke if you love Ron Paul

By: Peter Macdonald

Peter Macdonald — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:15:37 +0000

Why I post on Red Sox Blog 11-27-07
Written by Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
You may not be NH residents. You are U.S. citizens and Veterans give their lives for citizens no matter what state they come from. NH has violated the law and Constitution to inflict pain and suffering on my family and me because I volunteer my time to help a Madbury NH family that the selectmen openly brag about destroying residents they do not think belong in their town. I had never met this family before they became so desperate they asked for my help because of a letter to the editor that I wrote. I do not even live in Madbury NH. I am 100% disabled. I was injured three times during my tour. Twice during combat related missions during the Vietnam Conflict. My PTSD was diagnosed only this past year because I never talked about my experiences until I wrote a book and they became public. I have relived my Convoy’s as an American Advisor and my first kill every day since my return in 74. I just never believe any one needed to know the dirty parts of a conflict. We as veterans are not fighting for you (people we do not know) we are fighting for our nation and the freedom it brings.
I do not ask people to put them selves in harms way. What Veteran’s give the U.S. can never be explained. What we did and the lives we lived over there is not possible for you that have never served to conceive. When newspapers and media feel that the words of a disabled veteran being tortured by the NH courts and government to silence his free speech is not worth informing the public we as a free nation no longer exist. I have violated no laws. What I ask people to do is talk about me to your elected officials, letters to your editor or blogs, I continue to help this Madbury family because they could be any of you. Freedom is worth fighting for and I can not let what so many Veterans that gave over the history of the U.S. be diminished by illegal government acts.
I use the RD blog because I used them as a crutch during my tour. If you Google my name and Lee NH you can read my letters in full. Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi

By: PD

PD — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:27:51 +0000

I’ll start out by saying I am NOT a Ron Paul supporter.

That said, I find it very ironic that you call him close-minded when your entire article “screams” close-mindedness. What is close-minded about Paul coming up with novel reasons why he doesn’t support abortion?

Also, your assertion that a pro-life OB/GYN disrepects himself is absurd. I fail to see the connection you apparently made between self-respect and opposing the termination of a developing fetus. You go on to correctly state that an OB/GYN advocates women’s health. However, by saying that his pro-life stance compromises his ability to advocate for women is misguided because you are assuming that having an abortion has no health risks for the mother.

I think you should do proper research and learn to respect other’s beliefs by not imposing your flawed reasoning on the situation.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:08:02 +0000

I believe Ron Paul does support stem cell research, just not funded by the Federal government. I think he believes that if a state or private firm wants to do it it should. He has even stated that he thinks that an embryo from a tubal abortion could be used in the research.

Anyway something to that effect. I think he just explained his position on it to a NH newpaper thats up on youtube I believe. You might want to check out his position. It seemed pretty well thought out and I’m pro choice.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:52:24 +0000

Morgan, what an arrogant approach to any political issue. Did you not consider that the reason Paul is pro-life is because of his position as an Ob/Gyn? Through his experiences in medicine, his personal belief is that life begins at conception. Just because you think otherwise does not make you better than him, or anyone else for that matter.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:45:50 +0000

Thanks for the link to my blog in your post. Be prepared for the onslaught of protest from Paul supporters.

As you may have noted in some of his views, Paul is more a social conservative (despite differing from them on drugs) than a true libertarian. His opposition to stem cell research might be justified on libertarian grounds as he opposes all govenment funding on research, but I still find it objectionable to single out stem cell research when the fact is that a considerable amount of research is currently funded by government.

Paul’s claims to consistency totally fall apart on abortion. This is not simply a matter of keeping the federal government out of the issue as Paul has voted for the federal ban on so-called partial birth abortions. While his supporters come up with all sorts of ways to justify this, the fact remains that Paul is violating the libertarian principles he supposedly supports when he both imposes his own personal view on abortion on others and when he gets the federal government involved.

The problems with Paul’s views can extend well beyond abortion. Paul and his supporters also promote conservative revisionsit history which denies our heritage of separation of church and state, as well as the extension of Constitutional rights to the states under the 14th Amendment. Paul has also written that this is a Christian nation. As a consequence of these beliefs not only might abortion be banned but we run the risk of the religious right enforcing their beliefs in other areas such as birth control, especially at the state level. The reason that so many white supremicists and anti-Semitic groups are backing Paul is that they see his social conservativism as consistent with many of their views, and see Paul’s denial of some Constitutional rights as a means for promoting their agendas.

By: Miranda

Miranda — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:58:38 +0000

You do realize that abortion is not a settled issue, don’t you? it’s still about a 50/50 split and if a medical doctor takes the view that life begins at conception then surely he would not support the termination of life, “first do no harm” after all…

Awfully arrogant of you to question the man’s medical schooling becuase you don’t agree with him on a very controversial and dividing ethics position.

Be a bigger person and look at the whole candidate please.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:45:49 +0000

If you would look into his positions you would see that he doesn’t support funding of stem cell research because it is not authorized by the constitution. He doesn’t support federal involvement of abortion either. No politician should make his views that of the nation. Ron Paul is trying to get the federal government out of the picture. So, he is pro-life but his position is that it really doesn’t matter what I think, the states should decide what they want. Why have 50 states if they are all mandated to do the same thing. The Federal government is way too big. We don’t need a totalitarian state in this country.