is this how all debates with you end zz? audit our conversation. you attacked me personally (i let the first one go), you did it again, then i responded in kind
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Why did I spend $85,000 to support Ron Paul ?"
- Thread starter TheDudeofLife
- Start date
For those who are still thinking, here is another tell:
"our points are laid out as simply and unemotionally as possible."
Another "we" collective...
"our points are laid out as simply and unemotionally as possible."
Another "we" collective...
Quote from Avid_Consumer:
i can't tell if you're purposely obtuse or just dumb zzz. our points are laid out as simply and unemotionally as possible. if you don't get it, reread. or just sleep it off man. you sound drunk
Quote from buzzy2:
The LIBERTARIAN solution is to abolish all federal legislation on abortion and let states decide by themselves their own policy on abortion. Under that system, if you don't like your state abortion laws, you can always move to another state.
But that's exactly what I was saying. Ron Paul and libertarians claim to believe in [absolute] freedom but if states take away a woman's right to choose it's somehow OK in their book.
Cmon doodoo stop bullshitting us. We all know the real reason you don't like Ron Paul because he wants to stop the $3 billion plus a year in military welfare to Israel.
LOL, how simplistic of you, no wonder you're Ron Paul's fan. I have hundreds of reasons to dislike Ron Paul's views, the $2.6 billion in military aid (which btw comes with $10 billion worth of strings attached) is the last thing I am concerned about. I dislike libertarianism as strongly as I support Israel and that's the primary reason I disagree with Ron Paul's views. Then again I don't see him as a serious contender anyway, he is still stuck at 5% in polls, isn't he?
I didn't wade through all the back and forth, but it seems to me some of you are missing a very simple point. Ron Paul's position on abortion, and many other issues, is based not on libertarian concepts but rather on a principled understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Many prominent constitutional scholars believe the Roe v. Wade decision is a low water mark for principled constitutional adjudication. It is a classic "we know best" type decision, where the Supreme Court ignored the language of the constitution and imposed its policy preference by edict under the guise of constitutional right.
The practical effect of having federal courts take over ever-increasing areas of social policy by declaring them constitutional rights is a loss of democracy. Courts are unelected and answerable to no one. State legislatures are the bedrock of democracy and are directly accountable to voters. The fact that legislatures sometimes make unenlightened decisions and enact silly laws is unfortunate but one of the prices we pay for our democracy.
Whether the issue is absurdly expanded "constitutional" rights or a federal government that recognizes no limits on its authority, Ron Paul is the one officeholder who is willing to say "No." His guiding principle is the constitution, not polling, special interests or the media. He often stands alone in congress, but standing on principle is not for the weak-hearted.
The practical effect of having federal courts take over ever-increasing areas of social policy by declaring them constitutional rights is a loss of democracy. Courts are unelected and answerable to no one. State legislatures are the bedrock of democracy and are directly accountable to voters. The fact that legislatures sometimes make unenlightened decisions and enact silly laws is unfortunate but one of the prices we pay for our democracy.
Whether the issue is absurdly expanded "constitutional" rights or a federal government that recognizes no limits on its authority, Ron Paul is the one officeholder who is willing to say "No." His guiding principle is the constitution, not polling, special interests or the media. He often stands alone in congress, but standing on principle is not for the weak-hearted.
Quote from Avid_Consumer:
is this how all debates with you end zz? audit our conversation. you attacked me personally (i let the first one go), you did it again, then i responded in kind
ZZZzzzz made up her mind early on she didn't like ron paul.. this was before she even knew what he stood for. now she is too small to admit she was wrong... she is trying to salvage her ego. she would rather elect hillary as president and have all of us suffer than to admit she was wrong and support the only candidate that is pro freedom, pro constitution and anti-war. what a sad lil girls she is.
You sound like you have begun drinking the kool aid...
Just as his "guiding" principle may be his take on the Constitution, and just as his personal take on abortion may be his take on his Bible, both of these are his opinions which are not universally held by scholars or lay people.
So he is arguing his opinion when it comes to abortion because he thinks abortion is wrong primarily, and secondly as wrong as he thinks abortion is he thinks that the states should decide if women get to "murder" human life via abortion? It is "murder" but some states should have the right to murder?
"Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?
A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it. "
Clearly Paul looks at abortion as ending a human life. If he states "life begins at conception" he is not talking about life in a generic sense, but in specific terms of human life.
Look, let's be clear. Paul would also argue in favor of a state seceding from the union if that state wanted to adopt his opinions and principles, many of which are grounded in his religious beliefs which would then be forced on others.
Why the hell do we even need a Supreme Court to rule on questions regarding the Constitution when we have people like Paul who absolutely knows what the Constitution means for all people?
Why the hell do we need more than one religion when we have people who know what the right religion is?
Just as his "guiding" principle may be his take on the Constitution, and just as his personal take on abortion may be his take on his Bible, both of these are his opinions which are not universally held by scholars or lay people.
So he is arguing his opinion when it comes to abortion because he thinks abortion is wrong primarily, and secondly as wrong as he thinks abortion is he thinks that the states should decide if women get to "murder" human life via abortion? It is "murder" but some states should have the right to murder?
"Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?
A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it. "
Clearly Paul looks at abortion as ending a human life. If he states "life begins at conception" he is not talking about life in a generic sense, but in specific terms of human life.
Look, let's be clear. Paul would also argue in favor of a state seceding from the union if that state wanted to adopt his opinions and principles, many of which are grounded in his religious beliefs which would then be forced on others.
Why the hell do we even need a Supreme Court to rule on questions regarding the Constitution when we have people like Paul who absolutely knows what the Constitution means for all people?
Why the hell do we need more than one religion when we have people who know what the right religion is?
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I didn't wade through all the back and forth, but it seems to me some of you are missing a very simple point. Ron Paul's position on abortion, and many other issues, is based not on libertarian concepts but rather on a principled understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Many prominent constitutional scholars believe the Roe v. Wade decision is a low water mark for principled constitutional adjudication. It is a classic "we know best" type decision, where the Supreme Court ignored the language of the constitution and imposed its policy preference by edict under the guise of constitutional right.
The practical effect of having federal courts take over ever-increasing areas of social policy by declaring them constitutional rights is a loss of democracy. Courts are unelected and answerable to no one. State legislatures are the bedrock of democracy and are directly accountable to voters. The fact that legislatures sometimes make unenlightened decisions and enact silly laws is unfortunate but one of the prices we pay for our democracy.
Whether the issue is absurdly expanded "constitutional" rights or a federal government that recognizes no limits on its authority, Ron Paul is the one officeholder who is willing to say "No." His guiding principle is the constitution, not polling, special interests or the media. He often stands alone in congress, but standing on principle is not for the weak-hearted.
Very good point.Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I didn't wade through all the back and forth, but it seems to me some of you are missing a very simple point. Ron Paul's position on abortion, and many other issues, is based not on libertarian concepts but rather on a principled understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Many prominent constitutional scholars believe the Roe v. Wade decision is a low water mark for principled constitutional adjudication. It is a classic "we know best" type decision, where the Supreme Court ignored the language of the constitution and imposed its policy preference by edict under the guise of constitutional right.
The practical effect of having federal courts take over ever-increasing areas of social policy by declaring them constitutional rights is a loss of democracy. Courts are unelected and answerable to no one. State legislatures are the bedrock of democracy and are directly accountable to voters. The fact that legislatures sometimes make unenlightened decisions and enact silly laws is unfortunate but one of the prices we pay for our democracy.
Whether the issue is absurdly expanded "constitutional" rights or a federal government that recognizes no limits on its authority, Ron Paul is the one officeholder who is willing to say "No." His guiding principle is the constitution, not polling, special interests or the media. He often stands alone in congress, but standing on principle is not for the weak-hearted.
Roe v Wade is against both libertarianism and constitutionalism.
Libertarians don't have a definite position on abortion. Some are pro-choice. Others are pro-life. Ron Paul is a libertarian who happens to be pro-life.
On the other hand, libertarians believe on self-government, that's why Ron Paul believes that states should legislate on abortion as that would be a form of self-determination, without intrusion from a federal central entity.
What every state decides that's outside of Ron Paul's or any other president's influence.
That's why it's absurd some people saying that Ron Paul wants states to impose anti-abortion state laws. The president of the US cannot dictate state laws.
Ron Paul proposal is consistent both with libertarianism and constitutionalism.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So the bottom line is that he wants murder not to be a federal issue?
Once again, the Disgusting Alcoholic Troll displays his intellectual dishonesty. Militant Radicals like Z need to couch everything in terms of black and white; therefore, a woman's right to choose her own destiny is 'murder'. Slashing the genitals of an 11-year old Sub-Saharan child with a broken Coke-bottle, on the other hand, is 'tradition', and the 'rights' of those who practice it must be protected, as this moral monster has claimed in the past.
The Idiotic Troll Z says that Libertarians don't care for others. In his world, one in which compassion for others and the ideals of freedom and justice are discarded in favour of blind adherence to a theory of action based on an assumption of victimization and a murderous moral relativism, anything other than an utter rejection of the rights of the individual represents a philosophical transgression which can only be answered by calls for censorship or worse. It is predictable that Z's charge that Libertarians don't care for others is precisely the opposite of the truth.
How many times have we seen this lying sack of shit come on here and offer pure assertion and hypocrisy, as exemplified by this comment, as argument?
In fact, ultra-left PC pedants like The Moron Troll are the ones who don't give a shit about anything other than themselves and the pathetic pursuit of meaning in their lives. It must suck to give away your opportunities, become jaded enough that you're willing to lie through your teeth to win a debating point, register at a website, shout and bray like a donkey, and then realize, in the moments before sleep, that in real life you couldn't carry the jockstrap of the Men you've pretended to engage.
"I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation."
You notice that Paul isn't against a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion...he is rather indicating that such effort will take too long, in effect saying at least at the state level in the red states they could start banning abortions sooner.
The guy is anti abortion, plain and simple.
Can't you see what an opportunist this guy really is? Can't you guys see the game he is actually playing?
He claims to be for term limits on principle, but since none exist, he isn't going to follow that principle for himself by volunteering to stick to his own principle of term limits, he continues to run.
WTF?
The earmark situation is his way of saying "I am against it, but as long as it exists I am going to use it."
That is a principled position?
He will take money from anyone if it advances his campaign, yet claims to be against the position of the people he is taking money from?
He voted yes on a bill to on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
That is Liberty for gays? Not being able to adopt children?
This guy is bad news...Libertarianism and Christianity don't actually mix all that well, as you get promotion of Liberty that is seen as "moral" from a Christian point of view and prohibitions on those who don't always agree with the right wing Christian point of view...
You notice that Paul isn't against a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion...he is rather indicating that such effort will take too long, in effect saying at least at the state level in the red states they could start banning abortions sooner.
The guy is anti abortion, plain and simple.
Can't you see what an opportunist this guy really is? Can't you guys see the game he is actually playing?
He claims to be for term limits on principle, but since none exist, he isn't going to follow that principle for himself by volunteering to stick to his own principle of term limits, he continues to run.
WTF?
The earmark situation is his way of saying "I am against it, but as long as it exists I am going to use it."
That is a principled position?
He will take money from anyone if it advances his campaign, yet claims to be against the position of the people he is taking money from?
He voted yes on a bill to on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
That is Liberty for gays? Not being able to adopt children?
This guy is bad news...Libertarianism and Christianity don't actually mix all that well, as you get promotion of Liberty that is seen as "moral" from a Christian point of view and prohibitions on those who don't always agree with the right wing Christian point of view...
Quote from buzzy2:
Very good point.
Roe v Wade is against both libertarianism and constitutionalism.
Libertarians don't have a definite position on abortion. Some are pro-choice. Others are pro-life. Ron Paul is a libertarian who happens to be pro-life.
On the other hand, libertarians believe on self-government, that's why Ron Paul believes that states should legislate on abortion as that would be a form of self-determination, without intrusion from a federal central entity.
What every state decides that's outside of Ron Paul's or any other president's influence.
That's why it's absurd some people saying that Ron Paul wants states to impose anti-abortion state laws. The president of the US cannot dictate state laws.
Ron Paul proposal is consistent both with libertarianism and constitutionalism.