I'm pro-choice, and do not by any means embrace all of Ron Paul's policy positions. But if we're going to debate these issues, let's at least be accurate.

Ron Paul wants to let the states decide whether you get to have your constitutional rights regarding abortion or not.

There is no constitutional right regarding abortion. I know this isn't a popular sentiment, but it's true. Roe v Wade attached abortion to one's right to privacy in a dubious connection that even Constitutionally-educated pro-choice people often regard as flawed. While I strongly support a right to choose abortion, I'm not going to pretend there's a Constitutional guarantee of that right.

I used to think Ron Paul was a fairly responsible alternative for republicans but would you like to put your constitutional rights in the hands of the states? Your rights to free speech, voting rights, etc.?

You're conflating completely different kinds of rights here. Free speech and voting rights (and probably "etc" as well) are enshrined in the Constitution and will not be left to the States. Abortion is not.

Abortion proponents need to find a stronger argument. Pretending that abortion is a constitutional right is about as silly as pretending that the world is 6,000 years old.

If you like bacon, how do you feel about killing pigs?

If you like clean water, how do you feel about working in a sewage treatment plant?

Shooter, these comparisons would be a little apt were it not for these facts 1) eating bacon has not been portrayed as the most Vital Conflict of our Generation (or whatever the latest propaganda says); 2) there is no shortage of pig slaughterers; 3) there is no shortage of sewage treatment plant workers.

Do you want to try that again?

If you want peace in the Middle East, how do you feel about doing what the UN can't?

What did you have in mind? That is, in order to claim that this comment of yours is not pure, unadulterated drivel, please describe what a private US citizen is meant to do that would in some way support the UN's mission of peace in the Middle East.

The point is that some things in life that are worthwhile require ugly work.

Uh...point taken, although the examples you used were absurd. Now comes the point where you have to face the inevitable conclusion: the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not worthwhile. Saddam was no threat to us, this was strongly surmised in advance and could have been concluded had Bush let the inspectors do their work. The invasion was purely a function of Bush Administration corruption and impatience, and those things do not create a worthwhile venture simply by their own merits.

Therefore, according to your own rule, the ugly work being done in Iraq is not required.

Shooter, that inevitable moment has arrived, the one that plagues you each and every time you post here: your arguments have been thoroughly debunked and you have been shown to be absolutely bereft of personal integrity. Therefore, it's time to do what you end up doing every day: crawl back under your rock. So long.

You guys should all read this:

The Great Iraq Swindle

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

The degree of profiteering and waste going on in Iraq is completely over the top. This article even cites cases where US Taxpayer dollars are paid directly to the Iraqi insurgents by contractors in return for protection. This is what happens when a country starts a war of choice without any sort of moral imperative.

Anyone with an ounce of shame would disappear after exhibiting your level of foolishness on this issue.

Don't worry, Thomas. Shooter is in his last throes regarding this thread. Here's how it goes with Shooter damn near every single day:

1) Shooter makes some insipid claims in support of an authoritarian takeover of the US that are generally deficient in terms of facts and logic

2) Shooter's claims are soundly refuted.

3) Shooter comes back and makes a fledgling effort to redeem himself. In so doing, he generally addresses no real issues put to him, but makes a few strawman arguments, misrepresents a few facts, but leaves most of the arguments against him intact.

4) Shooter is ridiculed for his performance in #3.

5) Shooter returns to the rock under which all such 28%ers reside.

Shooter is at at least #4 now, and may have moved on to #5.

In this way, Shooter is very instructive of the type of mentality that favors an authoritarian takeover in the US. The most important aspect is the inability to actually support his worldview, and the way his claims dissolve under scrutiny like a sandcastle under a tsunami. This means that neither the facts nor a majority (or even significant minority) of Americans supports Shooter's idea of what the US should become. I find this comforting, and am glad that Shooter is here to reinforce this point each day.

So thanks, Shooter. Seriously.

...I'll just respond to this, and then we can get back to Gore.

My question: If tobacco is bad for you and pot doesn't hurt you, WHY doesn't the FDA make pot legal and tobacco illegal?

If you're looking for a rational reason for this, something that addresses the well-being of society at large, unfortunately I can't help you as no such rationale exists.

The primary reason for it is most succinctly expressed in terms of the budget for the Big Tobacco lobby, versus the budget of the pot legalization lobby.

at least half of the US public and 99 percent of people anywhere else will consider him to be worse than Stalin and on par with Hitler.

Bush is arguably the worst US president in history, and inarguably in the bottom 5. However, he's no Stalin and he's no Hitler. Those two were responsible for many more times the destruction that Bush has caused. Those are the facts. To equate Bush with those two cheapens the debate.