What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Lawrence kinda evaporated when you realized Paul actually said it - on national television. There goes a potential chunk of women voters for Ron Paul.


You passing out the anonymous reps too, whoodie?

find where Ron says any of what you and your master claim, I gave you the transcripts

And why do you care so much about anon rep it doesn't hurt your precious green blocks and to answer your question no.
 

dagnabit

Game Bred
Veteran
I see it as a conflict when a libertarian passes judgement on something as arcane as non-procreative sex.?
why?
libertarian does not mean without morals. it means not forcing others to obey your morals.
Dr Paul can abhor pre marital and not force you to abhor it.
why is this cncept so hard for you to grasp?

i personally am VERY pro choice. that being said i think abortion is wrong.
i think eating horse meat is an abhorrent practice. i dont think it should be illegal.
is there anything you think is immoral the government should NOT police?

do you actually believe the good doctor would attempt to outlaw premarital or are you propping up straw men.


either or
 

JJScorpio

Thunderstruck
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Just out of curiosity. To those of you that think there should be no taxes, how do you plan to run the Country? The infrastructure in our Country is in terrible condition. Where are we getting the trillions of dollars to start working on that?

And here's another funny one from some of you. No welfare or help for people that actually need it. No Social Security, fuck the old people. Legalize the importation of any and all drugs into our Country. Make what you want and keep it all. No education, because there will be no money to pay for it. Have I missed anything, lol?

It's no wonder.......
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Just out of curiosity. To those of you that think there should be no taxes, how do you plan to run the Country? The infrastructure in our Country is in terrible condition. Where are we getting the trillions of dollars to start working on that?

And here's another funny one from some of you. No welfare or help for people that actually need it. No Social Security, fuck the old people. Legalize the importation of any and all drugs into our Country. Make what you want and keep it all. No education, because there will be no money to pay for it. Have I missed anything, lol?

It's no wonder.......

The federal government has no business getting its hands into the things you bring up. Is it too hard to believe that the states could manage those problems in a way that suits their circumstances if the fed would do its constitutional job.

Do you not see a moral problem using gov to force people to pay for something they disagree with.

If you believe the poor would be worse off without a "safety net" you probably wouldn't donate your time too help, you'll use a violent gov to do what you can't be bothered with.
 

JJScorpio

Thunderstruck
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I'm not blinded by shit. That's just some of the nonsense that's been posted in this thread. Did you post any of this nonsense or are you just running interferance so they don't have to answer and give me a chuckle....

I wonder if we went through and removed all the smartass comments and rudeness how many pages there would be?



^^u be blinded bye illuminati
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
"It's the sex that's immoral", whodie.

He's also said abortion should be illegal. It's the 21st century, women are tired of old white men telling them what they can't do with their own bodies. The last Republican House came in on the "jobs jobs jobs" whistle and went for multiple abortion bills before they took on their first jobs bill.

It's happening all over the nation and women will stop voting for these guys and they'll get the message until the next elections roll around. You can have your opinion and I'll respect you for as much. Say I'm immoral for mine and all bets are off.
 

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
I'm not blinded by shit. That's just some of the nonsense that's been posted in this thread. Did you post any of this nonsense or are you just running interferance so they don't have to answer and give me a chuckle....

it was tongue and cheek, thats why it was spelled and formed so poorly.

I agree with everything you said.



Im the one posting realities about Dr Paul.
 

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
Do you not see a moral problem using gov to force people to pay for something they disagree with.

If you think this answer is a black and white 'yes' or 'no', you are fooling yourself.

The Govt forced a bunch of Southerners in the early 1860's to give up their 'private property'. They certainly disagreed with the Fed govt, yet i dont see a problem with it.
 

JJScorpio

Thunderstruck
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Do you have any clue how many states cry to the Federal Govt for money everytime there is a flood, hurricane or some other natural disaster? Or what about the States crying for money for their schools, or when people are freezing to death? Got news for you. There's probably more waste per dollar in state gov't than the Fed govt. While we're at it let's disband the military and disarm our nuclear weapons. I've always wanted to live like they do in Iran.

Might be a waste of bandwidth but at least it's humerous..... I wasn't aware you were joking, lol......


The federal government has no business getting its hands into the things you bring up. Is it too hard to believe that the states could manage those problems in a way that suits their circumstances if the fed would do its constitutional job.

Do you not see a moral problem using gov to force people to pay for something they disagree with.

If you believe the poor would be worse off without a "safety net" you probably wouldn't donate your time too help, you'll use a violent gov to do what you can't be bothered with.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
"It's the sex that's immoral", whodie.

He's also said abortion should be illegal. It's the 21st century, women are tired of old white men telling them what they can't do with their own bodies. The last Republican House came in on the "jobs jobs jobs" whistle and went for multiple abortion bills before they took on their first jobs bill.

It's happening all over the nation and women will stop voting for these guys and they'll get the message until the next elections roll around. You can have your opinion and I'll respect you for as much. Say I'm immoral for mine and all bets are off.

I'll post some more evidence to refute your nonsense
He personally abbhors it but believes it to be a state issue.

Presidential hopeful and Reason mag pinup Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is a medical doctor who is staunchly anti-abortion. He explains his reasoning over at the blog of the CNN show In The Arena:
In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds.
It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice.
Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue....
The fetus has legal rights—inheritance, a right not to be injured or aborted by unwise medical treatment, violence, or accidents. Ignoring these rights is arbitrary and places relative rights on a small, living human being.
The only issue that should be debated is the moral one: whether or not a fetus has any right to life. Scientifically, there’s no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human—if not killed, it matures into an adult human being.
It is that simple. So the time line of when we consider a fetus “human” is arbitrary after conception, in my mind....
If an abortion doctor performs a third-trimester abortion for whatever reason, a handsome fee is paid and it’s perfectly legal in some states.
If a frightened teenager, possibly not even knowing she was pregnant, delivers a baby and she kills it, the police are out en masse to charge her with a homicide. What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and a newborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing....
Paul states that cases of unprotected sex and rape can be dealt with morning-after pills such as Plan B, which he correctly notes are not "abortion pills" but rather prevent conception from happening in the first place.*
He also argues that he is against Roe v. Wade*not because it legalized abortion per se but because it nationalized an issue that should be decided at the state level: "*I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being."
It's a nuanced argument for his point of view and deserves to be read in full, especially if you disagree with him on the matter (as I do). (The post at In The Arena is an excerpt from his book Liberty Defined.)
Further reading: In 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act which asserts that life begins at conception and that federal courts have no jurisdiction over the regulation of abortion. Isn't the first part of that inconsistent with the second? If the federal government has the power to define when life begins (and the "moment of conception" is less clear than it might seem at first blush), then it seems odd that the feds would have no role in its protection. Or slightly differently: If federalism is the issue, shouldn't the bill simply state that the feds have no say in abortion and leave it and the definition of when life begins up to individual states?
Regardless of whether you agree with Paul, I think virtually no other politician lays open his thought process so candidly on the matter.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
By the state if you choose to own a car...
Analogy fail

Car insurance policies don't attempt to sell interstate trash and receive intrastate-only regulations.

It shows that the people who don't buy insurance and don't pay for their care raises everybody else' rates. I respect your opinion but it doesn't have a practical application. I'm surprised you're not more down on a health care industry that sucks up 1/5th GDP for 37th place.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Do you have any clue how many states cry to the Federal Govt for money everytime there is a flood, hurricane or some other natural disaster? Or what about the States crying for money for their schools, or when people are freezing to death? Got news for you. There's probably more waste per dollar in state gov't than the Fed govt. While we're at it let's disband the military and disarm our nuclear weapons. I've always wanted to live like they do in Iran.

..

The states cry for help from the fed because they pay into the system and they want what was promised.
Do you realize private citizens, neighbor states and corporations did more for the survivors of Katrina.

And I'm not an anarchist I'm more a constitutionalist, the fed had very specific roles.

One of them being maintain a defensive military
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
... He personally abbhors it but believes it to be a state issue.

Looks like you forget one thing. It's a federal issue. SCOTUS ruled so that no woman would have to be subjected to old white men running states like moral crusades. Ron Paul obviously doesn't see this issue as settled . He knows he can't get a federal abortion ban but he can sure send the message loud and clear that Republicans are still in the business of telling women what to do with their reproductive health, by hook or crook.
 

whodare

Active member
Veteran
Looks like you forget one thing. It's a federal issue. SCOTUS ruled so that no woman would have to be subjected to old white men running states like moral crusades. Ron Paul obviously doesn't see this issue as settled . He knows he can't get a federal abortion ban but he can sure send the message loud and clear that Republicans are still in the business of telling women what to do with their reproductive health, by hook or crook.

I guess you would have no objection to killing a fetus if you didn't believe it had a right to life.

He believes the LIVING fetus/human has the same protections as the mother.

Feel free to promote murder we know youre pro violent robbery
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top