Ron Paul our only chance

[riseagainst89]

What does everyone think of Ron Paul i myself am a radical, Belive that Ron Paul may actually have a chance to win know that, he has been winning the debates. And even though he is running under the repblica ticket we all know he is a libertarian having someone in office thats some fucking dumb rep or waste full democrat could truly help turn this country around and if Hillary wins were tommed she will waste more money than bush has all ready.

[turncoat93]

i like barack obama ALOT more then ron paul.
ron paul seems good at first but if you really are into it hes against things for the wrong reasons

[senatorlamb]

I rather not go back the 1880's, thank you very much.

[Justin_stacy]

Ron's too perfect to win. Wishful thinking aside, Americans have a habit of picking the worst possible people for political positions......so chances are instead of taking a chance on something better we‘ll probably stick to the same old blah....in a Bush clone, or another Clinton, or an Ambulance chasing lawyer, or an unqualified first term senator. It quite depressing..


By the way how many more Ron Paul threads do we really need?

[riseagainst89]

Obama is against the legalization of pot and that is a huge civil rights issue, what are you saying into what for the wrong reasons. And my god Hillary better not win her outrageous plans to spend money and raise taxes we will all be doomed.

[senatorlamb]

Obama is against the legalization of pot and that is a huge civil rights issue, what are you saying into what for the wrong reasons. And my god Hillary better not win her outrageous plans to spend money and raise taxes we will all be doomed.

And Bush isn't spending money? How much is everyday in Iraq? I don't think the taxes under the Clinton years were so bad. Essentially, that would be what we're going back to. People just love compare Hillary to a communist, when in reality, she's a moderate, pro-free trade Democrat. Hardly, Karl Marx.

[asmolitor]

Obama is against the legalization of pot and that is a huge civil rights issue, what are you saying into what for the wrong reasons. And my god Hillary better not win her outrageous plans to spend money and raise taxes we will all be doomed.

no, no it is not.

[asmolitor]

it doesn't matter who wins debates, the fact of the matter is, his name isn't on the ballot of numerous polls, he receives no news coverage, and his views are highly irrational in terms of the government and the economy.

his best shot is top 5 in the primaries, given that only 5 people exist in the race by then.

[asmolitor]

And Bush isn't spending money? How much is everyday in Iraq? I don't think the taxes under the Clinton years were so bad. Essentially, that would be what we're going back to. People just love compare Hillary to a communist, when in reality, she's a moderate, pro-free trade Democrat. Hardly, Karl Marx.

well, there are some ridiculous plans... what about the giving $5,000 for every child born in america? if amnesty ever becomes an issue, then under that, taxes would be outrageous. that, or they would dip into the community chest known as the social security fund.

regardless, i don't think hillary is the complete monster people make her out to be... but i still wouldn't ever want to see her hold the office of president of the united states.

[x togepi x]

Obama is against the legalization of pot and that is a huge civil rights issue, what are you saying into what for the wrong reasons. And my god Hillary better not win her outrageous plans to spend money and raise taxes we will all be doomed.

if we're going to get into civil rights, Ron Paul is a huge supporter of capitalism to be left to its own ends, which is definitely worse for civil rights.

[senatorlamb]

well, there are some ridiculous plans... what about the giving $5,000 for every child born in america? if amnesty ever becomes an issue, then under that, taxes would be outrageous. that, or they would dip into the community chest known as the social security fund.

regardless, i don't think hillary is the complete monster people make her out to be... but i still wouldn't ever want to see her hold the office of president of the united states.

I believe she scrapped that 5,000 dollar bond idea. It was interesting, but I think it was just a food for thought kind of deal. Bottom line, Hillary is far from liberal. Her husband was a DLC third-way Democrat. The Clintons are shrewd, they know politics, and they know how to keep the ruling, corporate class content. They are not a threat. Edwards is really the big-government liberal in this race. Not that its a bad thing...

[asmolitor]

I believe she scrapped that 5,000 dollar bond idea. It was interesting, but I think it was just a food for thought kind of deal. Bottom line, Hillary is far from liberal. Her husband was a DLC third-way Democrat. The Clintons are shrewd, they know politics, and they know how to keep the ruling, corporate class content. They are not a threat. Edwards is really the big-government liberal in this race. Not that its a bad thing...

alright, wasn't there like another proposal like that, though? where it got slashed down to $1,000? i swear i read something about it on yahoo...

but regardless, i'm actually really pulling for edwards to come out on top on the left, as impossible as it is being 3rd place behind the other two (and their bankrolls)...

also, sweet teddy roosevelt avatar.

[asmolitor]

if we're going to get into civil rights, Ron Paul is a huge supporter of capitalism to be left to its own ends, which is definitely worse for civil rights.

bingo bango.

i'm all for capitalism, but not to the extreme that paul would have it - essentially privatizing everything for the sake of saving taxpayer money. a small purge in government, i can see that... but scrapping entire programs altogether? (some that are slightly essential in my opinion, like, the federal reserve, IRS, intelligence) he's just too radical for his own good.

that's right, libertarianism is too radical for america. i said it.

[TxRepresent]

What does everyone think of Ron Paul i myself am a radical, Belive that Ron Paul may actually have a chance to win know that, he has been winning the debates. And even though he is running under the repblica ticket we all know he is a libertarian having someone in office thats some fucking dumb rep or waste full democrat could truly help turn this country around and if Hillary wins were tommed she will waste more money than bush has all ready.

There is not a sno-ball chance in hell of him winning, or even coming close in the primary. As intelligent as the man might be, a lot of his ideas are pretty radical, and Americans do not really favor change (as much as they would like to think they do). The young people you talk about in your post below this that would like to legalize marijuana, would actually need to come out in record numbers and all vote for Paul in order to get him elected, and I'm sorry that is just not happening. Wish and dream all you want because thats all they are, dreams.

[x togepi x]

even if paul were to get elected, he wouldn't have any republican support for any of his policies, so he'd be a lame duck from day one.

[AEast317]

i dont think he has much of a chance at winning

[jsteil]

Please read about Dr. Paul and find out what he represents before you come on this forum and say what others are telling you.

"A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank."

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. "

If your thinking that Paul supports monopolies, run away spending, and huge corporations that lobby in Washington DC and spends there workers pentions then you do not know the truth.

Anything is possible in America and Ron Paul can win. If not you will see myself either voting for no one or I'll vote for the Democrats, atleast then if there going to go ahead and spend my great grand childrens money atleast I get something more out of it instead of just wars.

[x togepi x]

that definition of capitalism is abut as idealistic as saying communism is a peaceful perfect system.

[zachff]

Hmm Ron Paul.. all I know is that at the Obama rally in Boston last night there were Ron Paul supporters being really loud and obnoxious while Barack was attempting to speak. I mean being there to raise awareness is one thing, but disrespect.. unnecessary.

[Nevuk]

Ron Paul has a lot of whackjob supporters who probably do his cause more harm than good.

[White Noise]

It doesn't matter, hes never going to win. He's crazy.

[asmolitor]

even if paul were to get elected, he wouldn't have any republican support for any of his policies, so he'd be a lame duck from day one.

it's been said in this forum before, but each time this point is brought up, it's incredibly necessary.

[asmolitor]

Please read about Dr. Paul and find out what he represents before you come on this forum and say what others are telling you.

"A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank."

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. "

If your thinking that Paul supports monopolies, run away spending, and huge corporations that lobby in Washington DC and spends there workers pentions then you do not know the truth.

Anything is possible in America and Ron Paul can win. If not you will see myself either voting for no one or I'll vote for the Democrats, atleast then if there going to go ahead and spend my great grand childrens money atleast I get something more out of it instead of just wars.

no, if you read about Dr. Paul and what he represents, and extrapolated that out to what his policies would actually entail... you would see in an instant that he would be terrible for the country. and if you're gonna make points in his favor, do something other than monetary/fiscal policy. yes, we're running a fiat money system (not backed on gold since nixon took us off the "gold standard" in like '72) but dismantling the federal reserve would sort of, you know, dismantle the economy. since, you know, the most important words on the dollar bill are "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE."

and as for dismantling the IRS, where would the government get its revenues? wide sweeping consumption taxes? what if the country went into recession and consumer confidence in purchasing went down? there's no good to come of most of paul's plans.

just because something is possible in America, doesn't mean it will happen. how many people have the profound "American Dream?"

[asmolitor]

Ron Paul has a lot of whackjob supporters who probably do his cause more harm than good.

is it just me, or is there a high correlation between ron paul supporters and 9/11 "truthers" ?

[asmolitor]

hes crazy....well..hes not...maybe fearful is a more correct term to use... id be too if i supported views of "dead generals and presidents" who were assasinated for wanting to come out with the truth.

what? what truth? mckinley got shot because of 9/11? lincoln got capped because of edited news coverage?

WHAT DID ROBERT E. LEE KNOW ABOUT BUILDING 7?

[oldwirehands]

bingo bango.

i'm all for capitalism, but not to the extreme that paul would have it - essentially privatizing everything for the sake of saving taxpayer money. a small purge in government, i can see that... but scrapping entire programs altogether? (some that are slightly essential in my opinion, like, the federal reserve, IRS, intelligence) he's just too radical for his own good.

that's right, libertarianism is too radical for america. i said it.

The Fed don't need to be here and neither does the IRS.

[Nevuk]

is it just me, or is there a high correlation between ron paul supporters and 9/11 "truthers" ?
Alex Jones supports Ron Paul. I forget what Alex Jones runs, but its a backbone of the truther/conspiracy movement.
Kucinich seems to actually be improving lately, so I'll throw my support behind him if it matters. Only two I'd consider voting for are him and Gravel, but I will say I consider Paul better than the majority of the rest of the candidates.

[asmolitor]

Alex Jones supports Ron Paul. I forget what Alex Jones runs, but its a backbone of the truther/conspiracy movement.
Kucinich seems to actually be improving lately, so I'll throw my support behind him if it matters. Only two I'd consider voting for are him and Gravel, but I will say I consider Paul better than the majority of the rest of the candidates.

yeah, he's the "prison planet" guy. in my opinion, both alex jones and ron paul seem to cater to the same group of irrational people.

[EasySkankin]

Here's a small thing I don't understand. How is the Federal Reserve Bank private?

Ron paul talks alot about what is ok and not ok by the constitution, and ties this in with the FRB activites, but he ignores the 10th ammendment, that of the reservation of rights to the states, and to the people. Arguably, the people ultimately voted for the bank, and any activities the federal government may make.

Now that the discussion is somewhat hot...

Wouldn't it be better if the media completely ignored what statues the candidates are in, popularity-wise? A common argument of a voter to vote for crappy candidates is the seemingly predominant victory they have. This just brutalizes the entire democratic process. Giving this information would only force voters to vote for someone they don't necessarily think is the best. To say "Hillary is an unstoppable force" (I forgot who said it... somewhere on CNN) is a perfect example. The media's fetish with 2-4 candidates as the "front-runners" gives the democratic process, the USA, and american media, a bad name.

[SePaMc]

The first thing he said in a speech in Iowa was preserving all life, including those just conceived.

He called Roe V. Wade horrible and felt it needed to be overturned.

No thanks.

[asmolitor]

actually its william cooper....david icke...jfk...bobby k...matin luther k...george wawshington ...thomas jefferson...list goes on...we all dont follow alex jones and treat him like a master...were not brainwashed and base our views on one president....we base them on every president...and quotes facts and information leaked about whats going on.

coulda fooled me.

[oldwirehands]

The first thing he said in a speech in Iowa was preserving all life, including those just conceived.

He called Roe V. Wade horrible and felt it needed to be overturned.

No thanks.

You can't jude a canidate based on one issue.
If I had that mindset, I'd be looking for someone to legalize marijuana.
More than likely, the person I vote for will be against that.

[thetrueblood]

Here's a small thing I don't understand. How is the Federal Reserve Bank private?

Ron paul talks alot about what is ok and not ok by the constitution, and ties this in with the FRB activites, but he ignores the 10th ammendment, that of the reservation of rights to the states, and to the people. Arguably, the people ultimately voted for the bank, and any activities the federal government may make.

Now that the discussion is somewhat hot...

Wouldn't it be better if the media completely ignored what statues the candidates are in, popularity-wise? A common argument of a voter to vote for crappy candidates is the seemingly predominant victory they have. This just brutalizes the entire democratic process. Giving this information would only force voters to vote for someone they don't necessarily think is the best. To say "Hillary is an unstoppable force" (I forgot who said it... somewhere on CNN) is a perfect example. The media's fetish with 2-4 candidates as the "front-runners" gives the democratic process, the USA, and american media, a bad name.

so you want to tell the media what they can and can't say?

[Justin_stacy]

No you can.

Anyone wanting to turn over that whilst claiming to be a libertarian has serious problems ideologically.

Many pro-abortion/”chioce (http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/understanding-ron-pauls-stance-on-abortion)” advocates agree with his position on roe for the simple fact that the ruling defies the constitution. Ron’s stance is that the constitution neither allows the Federal government the right to legalize or criminalize the act.

Its also foolish to say his beliefs on abortion, life and states rights, for that matter, run counter to libertarian stances......"If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?"

[SgtFumunda]

No you can.

Anyone wanting to turn over that whilst claiming to be a libertarian has serious problems ideologically.
I think that kind of depends on how you view abortion. Even so, that's just one issue. None of the other candidates have a more solid ideology than Paul in my opinion. Well, besides Phillies. But I doubt most people know who he is.

[SePaMc]

You can't jude a canidate based on one issue.
If I had that mindset, I'd be looking for someone to legalize marijuana.
More than likely, the person I vote for will be against that.

No, but one issue on something that a candidate could actually attempt to do is a huge issue. One issue is a deciding factor in a lot of things.

A lot of people don't want a president that supports the war. Some people want a candidate because of their view on socialized medicine.

One issue, when he uses it to start his whole speech (which shows how passionate he is about it) and uses it as a running theme in his speech, is a HUGE issue. If its the base of his platform, I don't see how you can't base a candidate on it. I made that a large issue in my life, and I feel strongly about it. I don't want abortion to be made illegal, and while I don't know for certain his stance, I feel stem cell research is extremely valuable and shouldn't be blocked because cells are considered a life. It's my view and opinion that they are not. That's my view on the matter, and on a huge issue as emerging technologies to save existing human lives, I will base my vote on that.

Marijuana legalization is something that a small sect of the population wants, or feels is a major issue. Almost everyone in this country would have a strong view on abortion, that would probably come close to 50/50.

[oldwirehands]

No, but one issue on something that a candidate could actually attempt to do is a huge issue. One issue is a deciding factor in a lot of things.

A lot of people don't want a president that supports the war. Some people want a candidate because of their view on socialized medicine.

One issue, when he uses it to start his whole speech (which shows how passionate he is about it) and uses it as a running theme in his speech, is a HUGE issue. If its the base of his platform, I don't see how you can't base a candidate on it. I made that a large issue in my life, and I feel strongly about it. I don't want abortion to be made illegal, and while I don't know for certain his stance, I feel stem cell research is extremely valuable and shouldn't be blocked because cells are considered a life. It's my view and opinion that they are not. That's my view on the matter, and on a huge issue as emerging technologies to save existing human lives, I will base my vote on that.

Marijuana legalization is something that a small sect of the population wants, or feels is a major issue. Almost everyone in this country would have a strong view on abortion, that would probably come close to 50/50.

I was only using marijuana as an example. The point was that you should vote for a president who you agree with mostly. I can't agree with Ron Paul and he being pro-life but I like his views on most other issues. I actually haven't decided who I really want to vote for yet, but what I do know is that I'm not voting for someone in the Counsel of Foreign Relations. They weird me out.

[micahistheballs]

Does anyone else find it surprising that someone wanting to make as radical of changes as Paul does is trying to get the Republican nomination?

[Kyle Garchar]

And Bush isn't spending money? How much is everyday in Iraq? I don't think the taxes under the Clinton years were so bad. Essentially, that would be what we're going back to. People just love compare Hillary to a communist, when in reality, she's a moderate, pro-free trade Democrat. Hardly, Karl Marx.I don't think people understand that Bill Clinton was one of the first presidents to get us out of deficit spending. Dubya got right back into that.

[Kyle Garchar]

And Bush isn't spending money? How much is everyday in Iraq? I don't think the taxes under the Clinton years were so bad. Essentially, that would be what we're going back to. People just love compare Hillary to a communist, when in reality, she's a moderate, pro-free trade Democrat. Hardly, Karl Marx.I don't think people understand that Bill Clinton was one of the first presidents to get us out of deficit spending. Dubya got right back into that.

[Justin_stacy]

radically bad changes.

:rolleyes: ......you act as though he's ralph nader.

[Justin_stacy]

Now you're comparing him to "i see little green people"dennis? Lets be real.

[EasySkankin]

so you want to tell the media what they can and can't say?

lol i'm going to call jeffrey zucker and ask him politely to stop covering the elections.

also, there's huge hypocrisy in this statement. The media is already so filtered into what issues and positions are "hot" and "popular" and get more attention (and eventually money) that whatever politicians and media execs decide to pay attention to is pretty much all that is going to be paid attention to.

If the media respected the democratic process, it wouldn't cover elections. It'd cover candidates, but never leak information regarding the monetary and polling progress of them. They obviously don't.

[asmolitor]

lol i'm going to call jeffrey zucker and ask him politely to stop covering the elections.

also, there's huge hypocrisy in this statement. The media is already so filtered into what issues and positions are "hot" and "popular" and get more attention (and eventually money) that whatever politicians and media execs decide to pay attention to is pretty much all that is going to be paid attention to.

If the media respected the democratic process, it wouldn't cover elections. It'd cover candidates, but never leak information regarding the monetary and polling progress of them. They obviously don't.

also, news programs, especially 24/7 networks, are still all about ad revenue. sensationalized news stories bring in way more viewers than say, reviewing the latest poll numbers.

[asmolitor]

Fox News Buried Record Breaking Ron Paul Story
While news networks were forced to report massive donation drive, Fox featured mindless exploits of "snake man"

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, November 6, 2007


While most establishment media networks were forced to report on the record-breaking success of Ron Paul's November 5th donation drive, with the Congressman eventually raising over $4.2 million in a single day, Fox News chose to report on another Texas record-breaker, by showcasing a story about a man who sat in a bath tub full of snakes.

The Murdoch owned Neo-Con mouthpiece was begrudgingly forced to pick up the Ron Paul story this morning, but throughout most of last night their top feature was about the mindless exploits of Jackie Bibby, the "Texas Snake Man," who sat in a tub with 87 rattlesnakes, and news of the Texas Congressman's watershed fundraiser was buried.

(Article continues below)



Having been unable to ignore the runaway popularity of both Paul's campaign and the November 5th donation drive, most of the corporate media resorted to inferring the Congressman was a terrorist by tying the event to 400-year old British history and Guy Fawkes, relishing the chance to repeat the words "bomb Parliament" over and over.

In reality, the November 5th motif was a gimmick to help people to remember to donate, and has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his supporters being aspiring terrorists.

However, that didn't stop CNN, the Associated Press and a gaggle of Neo-Con cheerleaders from regurgitating the jibe today, in a desperate attempt to take the attention away from the fact that Ron Paul's support is real, grassroots and is accelerating at a pace that makes the establishment nervous as hell.

you know, fox news not covering this wasn't a big deal... because every other network did. and every major internet news source (google, yahoo, etc.) did too.

plus, there's no way for the number to be confirmed until the end of year election paperwork is filed. it could be anywhere between 1.5 and 5 million. which, you know, would still place ron paul out of like the top 5 in total fundraising.

[asmolitor]

honestly, i'm beginning to think of the ron paul presidential campaign as nothing but pure irony.

the main selling point is that people should think for themselves and not let a government dictate ideals to the citizen... but it seems to be like ron paul followers are seemingly the same sort of sheep (to use a Timberwolf187 term) that plague other candidates/parties. just blindly following along in the name of someone they "think" can do any sort of real change.

i can't wait for the ron paul shit to be over.

[The Revisionist]

I am a big fan of Ron Paul, not so much of his threads.

[Nevuk]

I didn't think Nader was running this year. At least, I heard a rumor he wasn't...

[dannytheschid]

I think Ron Paul is on of only three actually honest people running for president. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the only other sincere human beings. Gotta love how in the debates, they always stick these three in a corner. Mike Gravel and Kucinich don't stand a chance, but I'm hoping that Ron Paul actually succeeds in New Hampshire.

[lauren<3s music]

What does everyone think of Ron Paul i myself am a radical, Belive that Ron Paul may actually have a chance to win know that, he has been winning the debates. And even though he is running under the repblica ticket we all know he is a libertarian having someone in office thats some fucking dumb rep or waste full democrat could truly help turn this country around and if Hillary wins were tommed she will waste more money than bush has all ready.

Your ignorance about the issues are exactly what this man panders too. He is a joke of a candidate with impractical ideas that would make a mockery of this country. Ron Paul isn't a leader now, he wasn't in Congress, and would run this country into the ground.

[lauren<3s music]

The Fed don't need to be here and neither does the IRS.

Clearly you're an idiot who knows nothing about economics. Sure the Fed they do NOTHING for this country but sit on their asses. Do you know what would happen without regulations over our monetary supply? Let me paint a lovely picture for you: Nothing. Business would stand still and you and i and everyone else in here would see a drastic shift in our lifestyle.

Do some research before you spout off moronic comments.

[lauren<3s music]

No you can.

Anyone wanting to turn over that whilst claiming to be a libertarian has serious problems ideologically.

And once again we agree

Many pro-abortion/”chioce (http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/understanding-ron-pauls-stance-on-abortion)” advocates agree with his position on roe for the simple fact that the ruling defies the constitution. Ron’s stance is that the constitution neither allows the Federal government the right to legalize or criminalize the act.

Its also foolish to say his beliefs on abortion, life and states rights, for that matter, run counter to libertarian stances......"If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?"

Sure of course THAT makes a ton of sense. Right. Really people grow up, he's masquerading as a libertarian. Overturning Roe v. Wade is much more than about abortion. This case sets the precedent for PRIVACY as it relates to government intervention into an individual's life.

From the Libertarian National Committee:
"Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions."

But overturning the one Supreme Court ruling that upholds the beliefs, makes a lot of sense. He's catering to the conservatives who are anti-abortion on the hopes that the Republican nominee will have a "scary" enough personal life, that they'd feel immoral voting for them.

[lauren<3s music]

I think Ron Paul is on of only three actually honest people running for president. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the only other sincere human beings. Gotta love how in the debates, they always stick these three in a corner. Mike Gravel and Kucinich don't stand a chance, but I'm hoping that Ron Paul actually succeeds in New Hampshire.

He's honest? Explain that logic to me.

[asmolitor]

Clearly you're an idiot who knows nothing about economics. Sure the Fed they do NOTHING for this country but sit on their asses. Do you know what would happen without regulations over our monetary supply? Let me paint a lovely picture for you: Nothing. Business would stand still and you and i and everyone else in here would see a drastic shift in our lifestyle.

Do some research before you spout off moronic comments.

i was about to go on a huge rant about monetary policy and the discount rate... then i realized you were sarcastically making the same point i was about to. i can't believe how far ron paul has gotten with such a ridiculous platform in terms of finance.

[asmolitor]

Your ignorance about the issues are exactly what this man panders too. He is a joke of a candidate with impractical ideas that would make a mockery of this country. Ron Paul isn't a leader now, he wasn't in Congress, and would run this country into the ground.

i always laughed at the ideal of an "anti-politician" politician. and of course, he'd never have congressional approval for any of his policies... and i'm pretty sure abuse of presidential power not EXPRESSLY defined in the constitution wouldn't get any of his policies passed either.

i don't know, maybe it's me... but the constitution isn't the end all answer for everything in government. if it was... maybe we wouldn't have had to add 27 amendments to it.

[asmolitor]

I don't think people understand that Bill Clinton was one of the first presidents to get us out of deficit spending. Dubya got right back into that.

true, but he did preside over unprecedented economic growth. with tax revenues flowing in like that, it'd be hard to overspend when not in a time of "war."

and depending on who you believe, deficit spending in the wake of the elder bush's presidency is what allowed a future budget surplus in the first place.

[lauren<3s music]

i was about to go on a huge rant about monetary policy and the discount rate... then i realized you were sarcastically making the same point i was about to. i can't believe how far ron paul has gotten with such a ridiculous platform in terms of finance.

i absolutely adore you for this. thank god someone else gets it

i always laughed at the ideal of an "anti-politician" politician. and of course, he'd never have congressional approval for any of his policies... and i'm pretty sure abuse of presidential power not EXPRESSLY defined in the constitution wouldn't get any of his policies passed either.

i don't know, maybe it's me... but the constitution isn't the end all answer for everything in government. if it was... maybe we wouldn't have had to add 27 amendments to it.

i agree with you about the "anti politician" politician. and he'd get no where with congress ever and wouldn't be able to legally enact half of the shit he spews.

it's not, i see it as a living document, bc i don't think flexibility is key to ruling

[asmolitor]

i absolutely adore you for this. thank god someone else gets it



i agree with you about the "anti politician" politician. and he'd get no where with congress ever and wouldn't be able to legally enact half of the shit he spews.

it's not, i see it as a living document, bc i don't think flexibility is key to ruling

heh, there's like eight people in the politics forum that aren't crazy. i'm glad we're two of them. i'm all about the constitution as a living document. there's just an incredible amount of relevant issues that can't be completely covered with a document from the 1780's. internet, gay marriage, abortion, etc.

i'm not necessarily saying that any of those things require any sort of constitutional amendment or legislation one way or the other... but for ron paul to base a presidential bid on what's explicitly laid out in the constitution seems to me like a step backwards. 2008 is not the 1830's. emulating andrew jackson today would just lead to a terrible, terrible financial collapse.

[asmolitor]

What does everyone think of Ron Paul i myself am a radical, Belive that Ron Paul may actually have a chance to win know that, he has been winning the debates. nd even though he is running under the repblica ticket we all know he is a libertarian having someone in office thats some fucking dumb rep or waste full democrat could truly help turn this country around and if Hillary wins were tommed she will waste more money than bush has all ready.

ron paul supporters voting tens of thousands of times on informal MSNBC polls doesn't equal a "win." especially with multiple votes from the same person. then multiplied thousands of times.

[oldwirehands]

Clearly you're an idiot who knows nothing about economics. Sure the Fed they do NOTHING for this country but sit on their asses. Do you know what would happen without regulations over our monetary supply? Let me paint a lovely picture for you: Nothing. Business would stand still and you and i and everyone else in here would see a drastic shift in our lifestyle.

Do some research before you spout off moronic comments.

What have they been doing with our monetary supply? Increasing it while making our dollars worth less and less. We need to make a move to a government controlled central bank.

For the record, you shouldn't be a straight up cunt to people who are ignorant on any topic. No one is fucking perfect, including you little miss sunshine.

So be a respectful fucking being before you run your cunt lips bitch.

[lauren<3s music]

this is going to be fun

What have they been doing with our monetary supply? Increasing it while making our dollars worth less and less.

Again, if you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't open your mouth. First, the Fed has been attempting to reduce inflation, in an attempt to increase the real value of our money. I suggest that you look up the relationship between interest rates and inflation, before you act like you know what's going on.

We need to make a move to a government controlled central bank.

I'm guessing you don't realize that THIS is what the Fed is. And if you support Ron Paul shouldn't you be against this.

For the record, you shouldn't be a straight up cunt to people who are ignorant on any topic. No one is fucking perfect, including you little miss sunshine.

So be a respectful fucking being before you run your cunt lips bitch.

Aw how cute, you're so upset that a girl called you out on your stupidity, that you have to resort to third grade insults. try growing up some and then we can talk

[oldwirehands]

this is going to be fun



Again, if you don't know what you're talking about you shouldn't open your mouth. First, the Fed has been attempting to reduce inflation, in an attempt to increase the real value of our money. I suggest that you look up the relationship between interest rates and inflation, before you act like you know what's going on.



I'm guessing you don't realize that THIS is what the Fed is. And if you support Ron Paul shouldn't you be against this.



Aw how cute, you're so upset that a girl called you out on your stupidity, that you have to resort to third grade insults. try growing up some and then we can talk

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime."

-Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1934

From Wikipedia:

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency.[14] The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[15] The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause."[16] The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general."

And if you didn't know what an independent federal government agency was...

"Independent agencies of the United States government are those that exist outside of the departments of the executive branch. Established through separate statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, each respective statutory grant of authority defines the goals the agency must work towards, as well as what substantive areas, if any, it may have the power of rulemaking over. These agency rules (or regulations), while in force, have the power of federal law."

I am not a republican so I don't fully support Ron Paul. I think he's the best of the republican candidates but I'm not going to vote for him. Third grade insults? Bitch, did you not read what you first posted? I don't have respect for people like you.

[brentford]

i'll give anyone a gram of dat kush if they vote fo my boy ron...

[asmolitor]

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime."

-Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1934

From Wikipedia:

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency.[14] The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[15] The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause."[16] The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general."

And if you didn't know what an independent federal government agency was...

"Independent agencies of the United States government are those that exist outside of the departments of the executive branch. Established through separate statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, each respective statutory grant of authority defines the goals the agency must work towards, as well as what substantive areas, if any, it may have the power of rulemaking over. These agency rules (or regulations), while in force, have the power of federal law."

I am not a republican so I don't fully support Ron Paul. I think he's the best of the republican candidates but I'm not going to vote for him. Third grade insults? Bitch, did you not read what you first posted? I don't have respect for people like you.

From Wikipedia:

McFadden was known as openly antisemitic. He claimed that Jews controlled the American economy, and that the United States had to choose between "God and the money changers who have unlawfully taken our gold and lawful money into their possession."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-0) McFadden also blamed Jews for president Roosevelt's decision to abandon the gold standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard), and claimed that "in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-1) McFadden was also a supporter of Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) and the Nazis' anti-Jewish policies. McFadden encouraged Hitler's attempts to destroy the alleged Jewish control of the German economy, media, education, and professions.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-2) When McFadden ran for the presidency in 1936, one of his slogans was “Christianity instead of Judaism.”[4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-3)


A government owned central bank would not only be counterintuitive to a Ron Paul supporter, it'd be a giant leap backward for the economy, being used as a political tool more so than as a economic tool. Allowing agencies to be "independent" doesn't mean they're exempt from any sort of government policies... it helps to deflect political agendas away from institutions that would suffer from political moodswings.

Also, just because an agency is "independent" doesn't mean it's exempt from any sort of government regulation. CIA, FCC, FTC, NASA, SSA, SEC, USPS, etc.

[oldwirehands]

From Wikipedia:

McFadden was known as openly antisemitic. He claimed that Jews controlled the American economy, and that the United States had to choose between "God and the money changers who have unlawfully taken our gold and lawful money into their possession."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-0) McFadden also blamed Jews for president Roosevelt's decision to abandon the gold standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard), and claimed that "in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-1) McFadden was also a supporter of Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) and the Nazis' anti-Jewish policies. McFadden encouraged Hitler's attempts to destroy the alleged Jewish control of the German economy, media, education, and professions.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-2) When McFadden ran for the presidency in 1936, one of his slogans was “Christianity instead of Judaism.”[4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._McFadden#_note-3)


A government owned central bank would not only be counterintuitive to a Ron Paul supporter, it'd be a giant leap backward for the economy, being used as a political tool more so than as a economic tool. Allowing agencies to be "independent" doesn't mean they're exempt from any sort of government policies... it helps to deflect political agendas away from institutions that would suffer from political moodswings.

Also, just because an agency is "independent" doesn't mean it's exempt from any sort of government regulation. CIA, FCC, FTC, NASA, SSA, SEC, USPS, etc.

Now this is confusing. How could some support Hitler, who was aided by bankers of the Federal Reserve (Rockefeller and JP Morgan), but be against those same bankers in America? That just doesn't make sense.

I understand that independent agencies aren't exempt from government regulation. I was just trying to make the point that the Fed is indeed and independent agency. That entire agency is corrupt and there needs to be a change.

I do support Ron Paul but I'm not going to vote for him. If you must know who I plan on voting for, its going to be Dennis Kucinich. Like I've stated before, I don't vote for someone based on one issue. I agree with Kucinich more than Paul.

[lauren<3s music]

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime."

-Congressman Louis T. McFadden, 1934

From Wikipedia:

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency.[14] The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.[15] The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause."[16] The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general."

And if you didn't know what an independent federal government agency was...

"Independent agencies of the United States government are those that exist outside of the departments of the executive branch. Established through separate statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, each respective statutory grant of authority defines the goals the agency must work towards, as well as what substantive areas, if any, it may have the power of rulemaking over. These agency rules (or regulations), while in force, have the power of federal law."

I am not a republican so I don't fully support Ron Paul. I think he's the best of the republican candidates but I'm not going to vote for him. Third grade insults? Bitch, did you not read what you first posted? I don't have respect for people like you.


1. using quotes from 1934 only shows how desperate you are.
2. the fed while yes a 'independent' is a de facto "fourth branch" of the government. after all the president appoints the chair of the Fed, so to claim its independence is again naive.
3. I could care less what party you claim or who you're going to vote for.
4. I don't need your "respect." Quite frankly I'd rather have someone who is as ignorant as you hate me and disagree with me just like you're doing. Further proof I'm right and you don't have a clue.

[asmolitor]

Now this is confusing. How could some support Hitler, who was aided by bankers of the Federal Reserve (Rockefeller and JP Morgan), but be against those same bankers in America? That just doesn't make sense.

I understand that independent agencies aren't exempt from government regulation. I was just trying to make the point that the Fed is indeed and independent agency. That entire agency is corrupt and there needs to be a change.

I do support Ron Paul but I'm not going to vote for him. If you must know who I plan on voting for, its going to be Dennis Kucinich. Like I've stated before, I don't vote for someone based on one issue. I agree with Kucinich more than Paul.

neither did his forming of opinions on monetary policy based on an irrational hatred of jews. as to answer the question... it's because he hated jews, and equated them with all things money.

but, so as to not let this thread fall victim to godwin's law... first of all, JP Morgan was dead by 1913. sort of hard to directly support hitler, since morgan died before the FIRST world war, hitler's rise was BECAUSE of the aftermath of world war 1, etc. as for rockefeller, i don't know. but two things are true: a) there's a lot of money to be made in foreign direct investment, especially after the collapse of a country, and b) though painful and hard to believe, there was such a time before hitler went on massing killing sprees.

and if you say, well, "hitler still hated jews and encouraged mass anti-semitism" then that would almost certainly ruin the credibility of mcfadden on the same charge, whom you solely quoted to make your point. plus, in context, blaming the federal reserve in 1934 was a direct scapegoat for the great depression - because it's easier for a congressman to deflect blame onto an "independent" agency rather than take any sort of blame themselves.

[Justin_stacy]

Sure of course THAT makes a ton of sense. Right. Really people grow up, he's masquerading as a libertarian. Overturning Roe v. Wade is much more than about abortion. This case sets the precedent for PRIVACY as it relates to government intervention into an individual's life.

From the Libertarian National Committee:
"Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions."

But overturning the one Supreme Court ruling that upholds the beliefs, makes a lot of sense. He's catering to the conservatives who are anti-abortion on the hopes that the Republican nominee will have a "scary" enough personal life, that they'd feel immoral voting for them.



You can’t seriously be this ignorant. Of course it makes TONS of sense to attempt to over ride an unconstitutional ruling. One that not only disregarded the text and history of the constitution, but also set a very dangerous precedent about interpretation. That is the crux of the issue, and foolishly pretend as you might otherwise, but regardless of one’s own beliefs on abortion....Roe was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and therefore is ripe for challenges. .

And there is no validity in this notion that all Libertarians possess the same beliefs on abortion. Conservatives don’t all agree on abortion, liberals don’t all agree on abortion, democrats don’t all agree on abortion, even republicans don’t all agree abortion.......but from your ridiculous post one could only assume that topic was all but settled among Libertarian, yet of course we know such an assertion is nothing short of nonsense. Many libertarians oppose the act because of its AGGRESSIVE nature towards the child and IRRESPONSIBLE attitude. Contrary to your post there is no definitive stance on abortion, there never will be, and having a sense of humanity doesn’t run counter in anyway to libertarian beliefs.

The problem with making such a confrontive post is that when you fail miserable to make a valid point, you come off as an irrational, arrogant, ass, which makes having any further decision(s) almost impossible.

Accept it or not, there is with out a doubt a valid argument for over ruling Roe, and it clearly goes beyond just abortion and all the rhetoric of the left.....

[lauren<3s music]

you're another fun one. let's take this step by step shall we.


You can’t seriously be this ignorant. Of course it makes TONS of sense to attempt to over ride an unconstitutional ruling. One that not only disregarded the text and history of the constitution, but also set a very dangerous precedent about interpretation. That is the crux of the issue, and foolishly pretend as you might otherwise, but regardless of one’s own beliefs on abortion....Roe was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ruling and therefore is ripe for challenges.

Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional. I can see where if you took the Constitution very literally word for word, yes you could have an argument. However about half of what we take for granted in every day life would then be declared unconstitutional, assuming you don't believe that privacy is a civil liberty granted to us under this ruling. I believe that the Constitution is a living document, thus subject to interpretation under judicial review. Since the case was decided through constitutional means, i believe that the ruling is fair and sets precedent. I'm guessing you take the strict interpretation of judicial review, i.e. if it is not clearly spelled out by the letter of the law, it is unconstitutional. too each their own, but personally i think the founding fathers could care less about our personal lives, let alone our medical decisions.


And there is no validity in this notion that all Libertarians possess the same beliefs on abortion. Conservatives don’t all agree on abortion, liberals don’t all agree on abortion, democrats don’t all agree on abortion, even republicans don’t all agree abortion.......but from your ridiculous post one could only assume that topic was all but settled among Libertarian, yet of course we know such an assertion is nothing short of nonsense. Many libertarians oppose the act because of its AGGRESSIVE nature towards the child and IRRESPONSIBLE attitude. Contrary to your post there is no definitive stance on abortion, there never will be, and having a sense of humanity doesn’t run counter in anyway to libertarian beliefs.

Way too be arrogant and not take my actual post into consideration. MY point wasn't that all Libertarians believe one way or another on abortion, but that Libertarians are for a smaller role of government and subsequently less gov't interference in our personal lives. Overturning Roe would be contradictory to this principal as it would be disregarding a citizen's fundamental right to privacy.


The problem with making such a confrontive post is that when you fail miserable to make a valid point, you come off as an irrational, arrogant, ass, which makes having any further decision(s) almost impossible.

sorry my original post was over your head. maybe you should reread my points here before you make assumptions.

Accept it or not, there is with out a doubt a valid argument for over ruling Roe, and it clearly goes beyond just abortion and all the rhetoric of the left.....

The valid argument would be for the literal translation of the constitution which has not been the Court's precedent. And for the record, if you believe Roe is only about abortion rights, clearly whatever education you've had has failed you. This case is about our right to privacy; to act without the interference of the government in crucial decisions whether it be medical, financial, etc. I would think any concerned citizen, let alone a Libertarian, would rather not have bureaucratic red tape as part of the process in making our most vital and personal choices.

[riseagainst89]

free gram of kush shit i was voting for ron anyway, he is a bright man whos not afraid to call the US a empire.

[Justin_stacy]

Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional. I can see where if you took the Constitution very literally word for word, yes you could have an argument. However about half of what we take for granted in every day life would then be declared unconstitutional, assuming you don't believe that privacy is a civil liberty granted to us under this ruling. I believe that the Constitution is a living document, thus subject to interpretation under judicial review. Since the case was decided through constitutional means, i believe that the ruling is fair and sets precedent. I'm guessing you take the strict interpretation of judicial review, i.e. if it is not clearly spelled out by the letter of the law, it is unconstitutional. too each their own, but personally i think the founding fathers could care less about our personal lives, let alone our medical decisions..

No actually the ruling its self was completely unconstitutional, as it violated the 10th amendment, and had to be concocted, rather then stated. Even if one want to pretend that abortion is an issue of privacy, which it isn’t, the constitution doesn’t give the court the power to trump state law in the matter. Many pro-abortion advocates understand this, as they understand that hiding behind a bad precedent isn’t necessary to keep abortion legal.

The dissenting opinion was spot on.
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

Way too be arrogant and not take my actual post into consideration. MY point wasn't that all Libertarians believe one way or another on abortion, but that Libertarians are for a smaller role of government and subsequently less gov't interference in our personal lives. Overturning Roe would be contradictory to this principal as it would be disregarding a citizen's fundamental right to privacy. ..

For you to comment on the arrogance of others is almost comical. And please understand that no one needs a lecture on Libertarianism from the likes of you. The point was that there is no definitive position on abortion among Libertarians or any political group for that matter. Not everyone believes its a privacy issue, or that the life being destroyed is undeserving of “rights.”

In relation to Dr. Paul’s candidacy, being opposed abortion, or wanting to over turn Roe v Wade, does not in anyway run counter to Libertarian beliefs.

http://www.l4l.org/

sorry my original post was over your head.

Such arrogance is the true sign of stupidity.

[open mind]

for every good idea ron paul has it seems like he's got at least one really bad one from what i've heard.

[Nevuk]

No actually the ruling its self was completely unconstitutional, as it violated the 10th amendment, and had to be concocted, rather then stated. Even if one want to pretend that abortion is an issue of privacy, which it isn’t, the constitution doesn’t give the court the power to trump state law in the matter. Many pro-abortion advocates understand this, as they understand that hiding behind a bad precedent isn’t necessary to keep abortion legal.

The dissenting opinion was spot on.
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.



For you to comment on the arrogance of others is almost comical. And please understand that no one needs a lecture on Libertarianism from the likes of you. The point was that there is no definitive position on abortion among Libertarians or any political group for that matter. Not everyone believes its a privacy issue, or that the life being destroyed is undeserving of “rights.”

In relation to Dr. Paul’s candidacy, being opposed abortion, or wanting to over turn Roe v Wade, does not in anyway run counter to Libertarian beliefs.

http://www.l4l.org/



Such arrogance is the true sign of stupidity.

In fairness, the 10th amendment has been invalid since the civil war, at the very least. Since secession is also guaranteed by it.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Here's a small thing I don't understand. How is the Federal Reserve Bank private?

Ron paul talks alot about what is ok and not ok by the constitution, and ties this in with the FRB activites, but he ignores the 10th ammendment, that of the reservation of rights to the states, and to the people. Arguably, the people ultimately voted for the bank, and any activities the federal government may make.

Now that the discussion is somewhat hot...

Wouldn't it be better if the media completely ignored what statues the candidates are in, popularity-wise? A common argument of a voter to vote for crappy candidates is the seemingly predominant victory they have. This just brutalizes the entire democratic process. Giving this information would only force voters to vote for someone they don't necessarily think is the best. To say "Hillary is an unstoppable force" (I forgot who said it... somewhere on CNN) is a perfect example. The media's fetish with 2-4 candidates as the "front-runners" gives the democratic process, the USA, and american media, a bad name.

Not only this but the majority of people in America are fucking morons. So the majority vote generally is a bad thing. Look at the Bible Belt for example... fucking morons.

[SgtFumunda]

Not only this but the majority of people in America are fucking morons. So the majority vote generally is a bad thing. Look at the Bible Belt for example... fucking morons.
I appreciate the sweeping generalization, you douche bag.

[B-Bones]

i'll give anyone a gram of dat kush if they vote fo my boy ron...

DONE AND DONE. where's my gram?

[SubrosaSeductiv]

I appreciate the sweeping generalization, you douche bag.

We've been over this is the conspiracy thread. Just because you live in TN doesn't mean you are a moron. However, there are some severly bible-washed people such as the evangelicals in your region. I respect you though. Trust me New Jersey is full of fucking guido fucking idiots, so there really is no perfect spot.

[SgtFumunda]

We've been over this is the conspiracy thread. Just because you live in TN doesn't mean you are a moron. However, there are some severly bible-washed people such as the evangelicals in your region. I respect you though. Trust me New Jersey is full of fucking guido fucking idiots, so there really is no perfect spot.
Well, your language in the prior post does not reflect this notion.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Well, your language in the prior post does not reflect this notion.

I said a majority. Unfortunately my friend we are amongst a minority of thinkers.

[SgtFumunda]

I said a majority. Unfortunately my friend we are amongst a minority of thinkers.
Agreed.

[Jarrodtexas]

you're another fun one. let's take this step by step shall we.




Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional. I can see where if you took the Constitution very literally word for word, yes you could have an argument. However about half of what we take for granted in every day life would then be declared unconstitutional, assuming you don't believe that privacy is a civil liberty granted to us under this ruling. I believe that the Constitution is a living document, thus subject to interpretation under judicial review. Since the case was decided through constitutional means, i believe that the ruling is fair and sets precedent. I'm guessing you take the strict interpretation of judicial review, i.e. if it is not clearly spelled out by the letter of the law, it is unconstitutional. too each their own, but personally i think the founding fathers could care less about our personal lives, let alone our medical decisions.



Way too be arrogant and not take my actual post into consideration. MY point wasn't that all Libertarians believe one way or another on abortion, but that Libertarians are for a smaller role of government and subsequently less gov't interference in our personal lives. Overturning Roe would be contradictory to this principal as it would be disregarding a citizen's fundamental right to privacy.




sorry my original post was over your head. maybe you should reread my points here before you make assumptions.



The valid argument would be for the literal translation of the constitution which has not been the Court's precedent. And for the record, if you believe Roe is only about abortion rights, clearly whatever education you've had has failed you. This case is about our right to privacy; to act without the interference of the government in crucial decisions whether it be medical, financial, etc. I would think any concerned citizen, let alone a Libertarian, would rather not have bureaucratic red tape as part of the process in making our most vital and personal choices.


Aside from my personal opinions on the topic at hand, your posts are so arrogant that I dont even want to read them. I might even agree with you at times, but frankly the entire time I read your posts, I find myself wanting to argue with you just because you are such a bitch in the way you deliver your thoughts. I guess what I am trying to say is you might be more productive in sharing your thoughts if you stuck to the subjects at hand rather than trying to find clever ways to mount your pedestal and put others down.

[senatorlamb]

Ron Paul has the endorsement of Storm Front, apparently.

[asmolitor]

Ron Paul has the endorsement of Storm Front, apparently.

oh, wow. i'd laugh if this was finally the catalyst to receiving news coverage.

[lauren<3s music]

Aside from my personal opinions on the topic at hand, your posts are so arrogant that I dont even want to read them. I might even agree with you at times, but frankly the entire time I read your posts, I find myself wanting to argue with you just because you are such a bitch in the way you deliver your thoughts. I guess what I am trying to say is you might be more productive in sharing your thoughts if you stuck to the subjects at hand rather than trying to find clever ways to mount your pedestal and put others down.

Really honestly if you think I'm that arrogant or that much of a bitch, why would you even bother responding? Quite frankly, I don't care if you think I'm either of these things nor will I debate my personality with you because you don't know me. I get annoyed when I see people blindly following someone who disregards what this country stands for, so sure maybe my posts aren't the warm fuzzy type, but guess what they weren't meant to be. But sure, I see your reasoning, just because I don't say "omg i love ron paul" or because I make an intelligent valid point, I must be a bitch. If that's the way logic works in here I'd rather be a bitch.

[lauren<3s music]

No actually the ruling its self was completely unconstitutional


Only one opinion. There are plenty of people, including those who wrote the majority.


as it violated the 10th amendment, and had to be concocted, rather then stated.

I would argue that Roe strengthens the 10th amendment as it firmly impacts the people's right to privacy, something which is not expressly written in the constitution. Please explain your argument of how it's a violation.


Even if one want to pretend that abortion is an issue of privacy, which it isn’t, the constitution doesn’t give the court the power to trump state law in the matter.

A Supreme Court ruling actually does trump federal and state law, unless declared unconstitutional.


Many pro-abortion advocates understand this, as they understand that hiding behind a bad precedent isn’t necessary to keep abortion legal.

Judging by your terminology, I can see where you stand. The proper term is pro-choice.

The dissenting opinion was spot on.
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

Again, your opinion.

For you to comment on the arrogance of others is almost comical. And please understand that no one needs a lecture on Libertarianism from the likes of you.

Well then perhaps those claiming to be and/or support a candidate who's claiming to be, should visit and read the national office's website and brush up on the principals.

The point was that there is no definitive position on abortion among Libertarians or any political group for that matter.

I've never said otherwise.

Not everyone believes its a privacy issue, or that the life being destroyed is undeserving of “rights.”

And not everyone believes that abortion or any other medical decision should be left up to the discretion of our government.


In relation to Dr. Paul’s candidacy, being opposed abortion, or wanting to over turn Roe v Wade, does not in anyway run counter to Libertarian beliefs.

http://www.l4l.org/


Again, if you can step out of your "abortion is wrong" bubble and consider the fact that this is a larger issue about government intervention into an aspect of citizens' lives, where there is no need, then yes actually it is a bit hypocritical.



Such arrogance is the true sign of stupidity.

Quite a brazen statement that I could just as easily apply to you, but I at least have manners.

[silverstein91]

i like john edwards but i dont think he gonna beat hillary

[asmolitor]

Judging by your terminology, I can see where you stand. The proper term is pro-choice.


haha, awesome.

it surprises me in the numerous occasions that involve this issue, so many people think pro-choice means death to every baby. they're idiots to begin with, but still.

[Nevuk]

Really honestly if you think I'm that arrogant or that much of a bitch, why would you even bother responding? Quite frankly, I don't care if you think I'm either of these things nor will I debate my personality with you because you don't know me. I get annoyed when I see people blindly following someone who disregards what this country stands for, so sure maybe my posts aren't the warm fuzzy type, but guess what they weren't meant to be. But sure, I see your reasoning, just because I don't say "omg i love ron paul" or because I make an intelligent valid point, I must be a bitch. If that's the way logic works in here I'd rather be a bitch.
Its because the majority of your posts have a condescending tone, and you make no effort at all towards tact. Your logic is usually fine.

I do believe abortion should be legal, because the alternative is far worse, illegal abortion clinics and practices which without regulation are generally just as great an evil.

[sweet tragedy]

Quite a brazen statement that I could just as easily apply to you, but I at least have manners.

Haha, what? Just because you imply you would say it instead of actually saying it certainly doesn't qualify you as having manners, nor does parading around calling people idiots.

[lauren<3s music]

haha, awesome.

it surprises me in the numerous occasions that involve this issue, so many people think pro-choice means death to every baby. they're idiots to begin with, but still.

pretty much. i knew there was a reason I liked you!

Its because the majority of your posts have a condescending tone, and you make no effort at all towards tact. Your logic is usually fine.

I do believe abortion should be legal, because the alternative is far worse, illegal abortion clinics and practices which without regulation are generally just as great an evil.

I'll give you that I may sound condescending, but really I don't care. I do this sort of work all day, so forgive me that I'm not the nicest person in regards to a deceptive fringe candidate. I have little patience for those who disregard this country's political framework, history, and reality. Trust me I have tact, I've held my tongue more times in here than I can count.

You raise a good point here. Most people think that if we overturn Roe, abortion will just magically disappear, when in fact it will become a very dangerous medical situation.

[lauren<3s music]

Haha, what? Just because you imply you would say it instead of actually saying it certainly doesn't qualify you as having manners, nor does parading around calling people idiots.

I'm implying I could say it as it is applicable. It's a matter of opinion really. And manners may not have been the best word choice there. Let's just say I'm holding back

[SubrosaSeductiv]

Really honestly if you think I'm that arrogant or that much of a bitch, why would you even bother responding? Quite frankly, I don't care if you think I'm either of these things nor will I debate my personality with you because you don't know me. I get annoyed when I see people blindly following someone who disregards what this country stands for, so sure maybe my posts aren't the warm fuzzy type, but guess what they weren't meant to be. But sure, I see your reasoning, just because I don't say "omg i love ron paul" or because I make an intelligent valid point, I must be a bitch. If that's the way logic works in here I'd rather be a bitch.

Bahahah!

You're right the we should endorse more leaders that will institute futher opressing laws such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, maybe eventually we as the middle class can just de-evolve and become cattle while upper tier of this country shit all over our lives.

No president in the past 200 years aside like 3 have represented this country well.

[lauren<3s music]

Just so we're clear: This is what I said originally.


I get annoyed when I see people blindly following someone who disregards what this country stands for

And your response:

Bahahah!

You're right the we should endorse more leaders that will institute futher opressing laws such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, maybe eventually we as the middle class can just de-evolve and become cattle while upper tier of this country shit all over our lives.

No president in the past 200 years aside like 3 have represented this country well.

Let's take this one piece by piece

You're right the we should endorse more leaders that will institute futher opressing laws such as the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

Now please highlight in my original post that you responded to where I
a) say what type of leaders I support
b) say I what type of legislation/laws I support
c) comment on the Patriot Act

For the record, in my opinion the Patriot Act violates the Constitution, so again I don't support it or anyone who uses it as justification for "homeland security." Not that was in any way related to what I originally stated, but I figure I might as well respond to your "point."

maybe eventually we as the middle class can just de-evolve and become cattle

First off I think the word you're looking for would be regress. And sure by supporting leaders who undermine the foundations of this country, I certainly would agree that this would be a step in the wrong direction. However, if you're really concerned with the fate of the middle class, I'd encourage you to do some research to see who is helping/hurting the middle class. Also, examine Paul's positions and think about how that would impact the middle class you're so concerned about. For example, wiping out the current tax system (which yes admittedly needs a lot of work) would allow the rich to get richer and widen the gap until their was no middle class. Without taxes, how would the government subsidize programs such as education, to make it affordable for everyone who's not a millionaire? Also, once again where do I ever even bring up this point, in my original post?

while upper tier of this country shit all over our lives

You have some issues you need to work out apparently in regards to your feelings and the "upper tier" that go way beyond this thread. I'll just say this, again where did I mention the "upper tier" let alone supporting them or the ramifications that doing so would have on the middle class?

No president in the past 200 years aside like 3 have represented this country well.

First you'd need to define "well" before I can even respond to this point. After that I'd be happy to list examples.

You all can also spare me the "she's so condescending/arrogant/bitchy" comments. I'm well aware of how you all perceive me and I really don't give a fuck.

[Rock]

I'm well aware of how you all perceive me and I really don't give a fuck.
HARD ASS!

[lauren<3s music]

HARD ASS!

hahaha probably. what can i say i'm probably overly opinionated, but this is my line of work so fuck it. :-)

[Rock]

hahaha probably. what can i say i'm probably overly opinionated, but this is my line of work so fuck it. :-)
Fair enough. For the most part, I don't see a problem with having a lot of opinions - especially when it comes to politics. I think it is also the tendency of most people to become offended when challenged on a subject of which they have a lot of knowledge.

[lauren<3s music]

Fair enough. For the most part, I don't see a problem with having a lot of opinions - especially when it comes to politics. I think it is also the tendency of most people to become offended when challenged on a subject of which they have a lot of knowledge.

True i mean everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just think it's funny how people think i'm going to get upset because they think I'm a bitch because I make a point. If you like Ron Paul, or Huckabee, or Clinton or whoever you're entitled to that but everyone should accept the facts and flaws of the candidate of their choosing. Just the way it works. No need to freak out because someone else thinks the person you like isn't mr or mrs perfect and can point to obvious things.

and besides this is warm up for the rest of my day at work :-)

[atticus1492]

Wow, she's so condescending/arrogant/bitchy.

[Nevuk]

True i mean everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just think it's funny how people think i'm going to get upset because they think I'm a bitch because I make a point. If you like Ron Paul, or Huckabee, or Clinton or whoever you're entitled to that but everyone should accept the facts and flaws of the candidate of their choosing. Just the way it works. No need to freak out because someone else thinks the person you like isn't mr or mrs perfect and can point to obvious things.

and besides this is warm up for the rest of my day at work :-)
Uh... I'm afraid to ask what your work is.

As far as it goes, I think Paul is probably the 3rd best candidate (4th if Nader is running... is he?), but the only one of the better candidates with a chance of winning. My reasoning is that my largest concern is the patriot act, and only Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel are opposed to it. Do I think a lot of his other policies are very out there? Yes, but I think the same of Gravel. However, I disagree with Paul more than with Gravel.
If Roe V Wade were overturned, as long as it stayed legal in the majority of the states, and it was legal to go over state lines for an abortion (a right Paul has voted for), I don't believe there would be as large a change as its being made out to be. Total outlawing of abortion .... no. Shouldn't be done under any circumstances, but under the current situation we have religious firebombers of clinics because... abortion is murder. Every possibility has some drawbacks.

Laissez-Faire is very.... different. No one can definitively answer whether it is a good or bad policy, as its rarely been truly practiced, rather it usually meant protecting big business through a lack of laws, rather than today where its done through the opposite effect. Laissez-Faire was practiced in a very similar economic climate to today, but we take the opposite view on it economically.

[Justin_stacy]

Only one opinion. There are plenty of people, including those who wrote the majority..

As was theirs only one opinion.....and many people nowadays see it as a fine time to correct past mistakes.

I would argue that Roe strengthens the 10th amendment as it firmly impacts the people's right to privacy, something which is not expressly written in the constitution. Please explain your argument of how it's a violation..

First in my opinion its disingenuous to call abortion an issue of privacy. Second, since there is nothing explicitly stated in the constitution, it is a state matter protected by the 10th amendment. Making the courts decision of wiping clear all state laws on abortion unconstitutional.

On abortion the constitution is mute. In terms of privacy, one must first accept that abortion is an issue of privacy, which is obviously debatable, and second show where the constitution refers to such an issue since it is not explicitly stated. I contend, as do many people on both sides of the issue, that the Burger court’s justification does not defend their decision in Roe. If the constitution does in fact include a right to privacy, it is not reflect in the majority’s decision and wouldn‘t apply to abortion. As Rehnquist said in his dissenting opinion;

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action

Well then perhaps those claiming to be and/or support a candidate who's claiming to be, should visit and read the national office's website and brush up on the principals.

Not to dive to deeply into the stupidity of that comment, he isn’t running on the “national office’s ticket” or its “stances.” He’s running on his own merits, as a republican. And its not like the LPA had much of a problem with Ron and his opinions on abortion in ‘88 when they nominated him for president.

The problem here, and let me say I can’t believe you over looked this, is that the Libertarian Party of America is a political organization, while Libertarianism is a political philosophy. They are in no way tied together, anymore then Liberalism and Democrats are tied together. Being a liberal do you take all your talking points from the national office of the DNC or do you derive your own opinions and beliefs?

Is Harry Reid still a democrat even though his view’s on abortion doesn’t reflect that of his national party?

Again, if you can step out of your "abortion is wrong" bubble and consider the fact that this is a larger issue about government intervention into an aspect of citizens' lives, where there is no need, then yes actually it is a bit hypocritical. .

Being a parent and a human, its hard to step out of my “bubble” that destroying life is “wrong,” although i still don’t favor criminalizing/or making illegal abortion. The fact is abortion itself doesn’t need Roe to stay legal, South Dakota showed last year that even in a traditional, or conservative, state the public will not stand for the act to be totally criminalized.

The much bigger issue here, though, goes well beyond abortion and has to do with the constitution and interpretation. The precedent Roe set is so dangerous that it must be over ruled, and I think that is why you see people from both sides of the aisle speaking out against it. If the constitution can be tailored to fit any decision, what real meaning does the document have or the rights it guarantees?

Quite a brazen statement that I could just as easily apply to you, but I at least have manners.

Actually from reviewing the thread......the one thing that generally everyone accuses you of lacking is manners or civility.

-------

With that I’d prefer to be done......this has turned into an argument in futility, and diverted to far from the point of the thread. Ron offers far to much, for the conversation to be bogged down by abortion.

[Nevuk]

Hilarious, he actually voted for the fence thing :

Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

[Nevuk]

Lol at the fence.

Berlin anyone?

No?
Well, it was more feasible in Berlin than here. The impracticality of a several hundred (thousand?) mile fence as a deterrent is ludicrous.

[lauren<3s music]

Uh... I'm afraid to ask what your work is.

As far as it goes, I think Paul is probably the 3rd best candidate (4th if Nader is running... is he?), but the only one of the better candidates with a chance of winning. My reasoning is that my largest concern is the patriot act, and only Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel are opposed to it. Do I think a lot of his other policies are very out there? Yes, but I think the same of Gravel. However, I disagree with Paul more than with Gravel.
If Roe V Wade were overturned, as long as it stayed legal in the majority of the states, and it was legal to go over state lines for an abortion (a right Paul has voted for), I don't believe there would be as large a change as its being made out to be. Total outlawing of abortion .... no. Shouldn't be done under any circumstances, but under the current situation we have religious firebombers of clinics because... abortion is murder. Every possibility has some drawbacks.

Laissez-Faire is very.... different. No one can definitively answer whether it is a good or bad policy, as its rarely been truly practiced, rather it usually meant protecting big business through a lack of laws, rather than today where its done through the opposite effect. Laissez-Faire was practiced in a very similar economic climate to today, but we take the opposite view on it economically.

Okay since you've said you're #1 concern is the Patriot Act, I can kind of see where you're coming from with Paul. And to date no, Nader has not announced his candidacy.

If Roe was overturned, I think you'd be shocked at how quickly a number of states outlawed abortion. Utter chaos. And its unreasonable to think that say for example, Alabama and surrounding states have outlawed it and the closest state that offered it was FL. How is someone supposed to afford that?

and lets put myself out there - i'm a lobbyist for a non-profit

Not sure why you brought laissez faire into it but yes i'm familiar and I agree its results depend.

Lol at the fence.

Berlin anyone?

No?

HA

[lauren<3s music]

You and I will never agree and quite frankly I'm over the back and forth with you over a candidate I think is a joke. I will however only respond to one thing you said.

Being a parent and a human, its hard to step out of my “bubble” that destroying life is “wrong,” although i still don’t favor criminalizing/or making illegal abortion. The fact is abortion itself doesn’t need Roe to stay legal, South Dakota showed last year that even in a traditional, or conservative, state the public will not stand for the act to be totally criminalized.

You have consistently claimed that I am arrogant/condescending/bitchy but really you are exactly the kind of person I thought you were. And debating someone who can not see how disgusting that "disclaimer" is, is not worth a second more of my time. Really there are plenty of parents and last time I checked humans, who are pro-choice. Grow up.

[Nevuk]

Okay since you've said you're #1 concern is the Patriot Act, I can kind of see where you're coming from with Paul. And to date no, Nader has not announced his candidacy.

If Roe was overturned, I think you'd be shocked at how quickly a number of states outlawed abortion. Utter chaos. And its unreasonable to think that say for example, Alabama and surrounding states have outlawed it and the closest state that offered it was FL. How is someone supposed to afford that?

and lets put myself out there - i'm a lobbyist for a non-profit

Not sure why you brought laissez faire into it but yes i'm familiar and I agree its results depend.



HA
Oh, the laissez faire was merely because Paul is a proponent of it, which is also an issue, a rather large one. And yes, I thought a bit about the abortion distance thing, but its too complicated of an issue for me to argue for effectively one way or the other, as the anti-choice states are all geographical close to each other.

[lauren<3s music]

Oh, the laissez faire was merely because Paul is a proponent of it, which is also an issue, a rather large one. And yes, I thought a bit about the abortion distance thing, but its too complicated of an issue for me to argue for effectively one way or the other, as the anti-choice states are all geographical close to each other.

In theory laissez faire would be great, but i don't know that in this day and age is actually practical. I myself am a fan of Keynesian economics, but that's a personal opinion. and the geography really is a problem.

[Villanova1L]

Quick question, why does anyone believe Ron Paul has ANY chance at being elected? Having no support from either party, and having zero name recognition means you will not get past the primaries.

I'm personally excited to pick between a Clinton/Edwards vs. Thompson/McCain ticket.

[Jarrodtexas]

Really honestly if you think I'm that arrogant or that much of a bitch, why would you even bother responding? Quite frankly, I don't care if you think I'm either of these things nor will I debate my personality with you because you don't know me. I get annoyed when I see people blindly following someone who disregards what this country stands for, so sure maybe my posts aren't the warm fuzzy type, but guess what they weren't meant to be. But sure, I see your reasoning, just because I don't say "omg i love ron paul" or because I make an intelligent valid point, I must be a bitch. If that's the way logic works in here I'd rather be a bitch.


Of course you don't see yourself as arrogant, the arrogant rarely do. And if you read my post, it has nothing to do with you making a good point. There is having an opinion and then there is also knowing how to have the eloquence to bring others with you and have them see it. You can disagree and be passionate without being rude.

You seem to make educated points, and I commend you for that. You just lack the tact to communicate them in a productive way. For you to make a point, it seems necesary for you to put others down. You patronize people and like I said before, it almost discounts any "good point" you might have regardless of how warm and fuzzy they may or may not be.

I dont care about your personality, nor do I have an interest in knowing you, but I do care that if you are debating in a public forum, you at least show those you disagree with some respect. Just a thought, take it for whatever you want to.

[Jarrodtexas]

As was theirs only one opinion.....and many people nowadays see it as a fine time to correct past mistakes.



First in my opinion its disingenuous to call abortion an issue of privacy. Second, since there is nothing explicitly stated in the constitution, it is a state matter protected by the 10th amendment. Making the courts decision of wiping clear all state laws on abortion unconstitutional.

On abortion the constitution is mute. In terms of privacy, one must first accept that abortion is an issue of privacy, which is obviously debatable, and second show where the constitution refers to such an issue since it is not explicitly stated. I contend, as do many people on both sides of the issue, that the Burger court’s justification does not defend their decision in Roe. If the constitution does in fact include a right to privacy, it is not reflect in the majority’s decision and wouldn‘t apply to abortion. As Rehnquist said in his dissenting opinion;

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action



Not to dive to deeply into the stupidity of that comment, he isn’t running on the “national office’s ticket” or its “stances.” He’s running on his own merits, as a republican. And its not like the LPA had much of a problem with Ron and his opinions on abortion in ‘88 when they nominated him for president.

The problem here, and let me say I can’t believe you over looked this, is that the Libertarian Party of America is a political organization, while Libertarianism is a political philosophy. They are in no way tied together, anymore then Liberalism and Democrats are tied together. Being a liberal do you take all your talking points from the national office of the DNC or do you derive your own opinions and beliefs?

Is Harry Reid still a democrat even though his view’s on abortion doesn’t reflect that of his national party?



Being a parent and a human, its hard to step out of my “bubble” that destroying life is “wrong,” although i still don’t favor criminalizing/or making illegal abortion. The fact is abortion itself doesn’t need Roe to stay legal, South Dakota showed last year that even in a traditional, or conservative, state the public will not stand for the act to be totally criminalized.

The much bigger issue here, though, goes well beyond abortion and has to do with the constitution and interpretation. The precedent Roe set is so dangerous that it must be over ruled, and I think that is why you see people from both sides of the aisle speaking out against it. If the constitution can be tailored to fit any decision, what real meaning does the document have or the rights it guarantees?



Actually from reviewing the thread......the one thing that generally everyone accuses you of lacking is manners or civility.

-------

With that I’d prefer to be done......this has turned into an argument in futility, and diverted to far from the point of the thread. Ron offers far to much, for the conversation to be bogged down by abortion.


this is exhibit A of someone who disgrees, gives thoughtful points and is not rude, patronizing, or disrespectful. Thank you sir

[asmolitor]

Being a parent and a human, its hard to step out of my “bubble” that destroying life is “wrong,” although i still don’t favor criminalizing/or making illegal abortion. The fact is abortion itself doesn’t need Roe to stay legal, South Dakota showed last year that even in a traditional, or conservative, state the public will not stand for the act to be totally criminalized.

if abortion doesn't need Roe to stay legal, and the public would still give it legality... why does the supreme court need to waste time overturning something that essentially wouldn't have any positive/negative effect on the issue?

[asmolitor]

Quick question, why does anyone believe Ron Paul has ANY chance at being elected? Having no support from either party, and having zero name recognition means you will not get past the primaries.

I'm personally excited to pick between a Clinton/Edwards vs. Thompson/McCain ticket.

this is mostly what i've been thinking since the inception of this thread. there's no way he'll even get past the first primary.

[The Revisionist]

Quick question, why does anyone believe Ron Paul has ANY chance at being elected? Having no support from either party, and having zero name recognition means you will not get past the primaries.Wait, so... you're supposed to vote only for people you think will be elected, rather than who you feel would be the best candidate in your personal opinion?

[Justin_stacy]

You and I will never agree and quite frankly I'm over the back and forth with you over a candidate I think is a joke. I will however only respond to one thing you said..

One man’s joke is another’s savoir i guess. Ron to me is the only bright spot in this awful array of candidates. He’s the only one who offers hope and the prospect for a better America.......but its politics and two people rarely see eye to eye.

You have consistently claimed that I am arrogant/condescending/bitchy but really you are exactly the kind of person I thought you were. And debating someone who can not see how disgusting that "disclaimer" is, is not worth a second more of my time. Really there are plenty of parents and last time I checked humans, who are pro-choice. Grow up.

First i never called you “bitchy,” such cheap insults were never warranted.

Second, do you even read your own posts? When you accuse me of being in bubble because i don’t tote the same nonsense you believe, what kind of response do really expect from me?

[Villanova1L]

Wait, so... you're supposed to vote only for people you think will be elected, rather than who you feel would be the best candidate in your personal opinion?

I'd say that if you're voting for someone who couldn't accomplish anything in office then you aren't voting for the best candidate. I don't see a point in electing someone who wouldn't be able to accomplish anything he/she says because they have no support from other political officials.

[Justin_stacy]

if abortion doesn't need Roe to stay legal, and the public would still give it legality... why does the supreme court need to waste time overturning something that essentially wouldn't have any positive/negative effect on the issue?

One, the ruling was unconstitutional.......and two it set a bad precedent about constitutional interpretation that could impact future rulings.......some you might not agree with.

And to be fair, the legality would be different from place to place. The South Dakota example was only to point out that even in a conservative states, the act would not be criminalized. That is not to say that some states wouldn’t place limitations on act, and some see this as a threat which is why they stand behind Roe.

Quick question, why does anyone believe Ron Paul has ANY chance at being elected? Having no support from either party, and having zero name recognition means you will not get past the primaries.

I'm personally excited to pick between a Clinton/Edwards vs. Thompson/McCain ticket.


Zero name recognition? He’s one of the most talked about candidates of the seasons, and he‘s done it with no party help.

Regardless of the fact he can’t win, he offers something that, with the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, no one else offers....change. My own hope is that he can have a big enough impact on the Republican Party during the primaries to where policies and attitudes will start changing. Where an atmosphere of big business and neo-conservativism, can be reverse. Sometimes it takes only one person.

Clinton/Edwards offer no real change, and Thompson/McCain are just neo-bushes......outside of the fact that they can win, why bother?

[atticus1492]

One, the ruling was unconstitutional.......and two it set a bad precedent about constitutional interpretation that could impact future rulings.......some you might not agree with.

And to be fair, the legality would be different from place to place. The South Dakota example was only to point out that even in a conservative states, the act would not be criminalized. That is not to say that some states wouldn’t place limitations on act, and some see this as a threat which is why they stand behind Roe.

To say that the ruling was Constitutional is an idea that is difficult to defend. However, I find it far more difficult to say that the ruling was unconstitutional. Also, I am not interested in writing a book on the matter at this point. So, in the interest of keeping things simple, I will say this. Whether or not you find the ruling unconstitutional depends heavily on whether or not you consider an abortion to be an issue of privacy. The right of privacy can be inferred from the 9th and 14th Amendments, and has been upheld in a multitude of court cases, using many different Constitution-derived remedies, prior to and following Roe v Wade. (Famously, Griswold v Connecticut (1965), Katz v US (1967), etc, etc). So, what it boils down to, is whether or not abortion is a privacy matter.

And this, unfortunately, is where I intend to stop, because I have neither the energy nor the willpower to type up a logical argument on the subject, as it would be quite lengthy. But I am very interested in hearing your thoughts, actually, so please respond. :-)

[Villanova1L]

One, the ruling was unconstitutional.......and two it set a bad precedent about constitutional interpretation that could impact future rulings.......some you might not agree with.

And to be fair, the legality would be different from place to place. The South Dakota example was only to point out that even in a conservative states, the act would not be criminalized. That is not to say that some states wouldn’t place limitations on act, and some see this as a threat which is why they stand behind Roe.




Zero name recognition? He’s one of the most talked about candidates of the seasons, and he‘s done it with no party help.

Regardless of the fact he can’t win, he offers something that, with the exception of Gravel and Kucinich, no one else offers....change. My own hope is that he can have a big enough impact on the Republican Party during the primaries to where policies and attitudes will start changing. Where an atmosphere of big business and neo-conservativism, can be reverse. Sometimes it takes only one person.

Clinton/Edwards offer no real change, and Thompson/McCain are just neo-bushes......outside of the fact that they can win, why bother?

I'd say that talked about isn't always name recognition, and I'd say the name recognition you speak of tends to be accompanied with an article calling him a "fringe" candidate. I can't say I disagree with that. Also, to say his name recognition is on par with Obama, Clinton, or Guiliani simply isn't right.

[The Revisionist]

I'd say that if you're voting for someone who couldn't accomplish anything in office then you aren't voting for the best candidate. I don't see a point in electing someone who wouldn't be able to accomplish anything he/she says because they have no support from other political officials.I'd say that if politicians are supposed to be representing the people, then if somebody like Paul were elected into office, the other political officials would have to change their game plan to start representing what we have shown that we desire. Perfect world scenario. Obviously it's not a perfect world... but I would rather try to help nudge it that way than jolt off to the side.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

First off I think the word you're looking for would be regress.

Nope, de-evolve is from a music video including the song secret agent man. I find it funny, so I use the word. I'm fully aware of the word regress and what it means, please don't treat me like an imbecile.

And sure by supporting leaders who undermine the foundations of this country, I certainly would agree that this would be a step in the wrong direction. However, if you're really concerned with the fate of the middle class, I'd encourage you to do some research to see who is helping/hurting the middle class. Also, examine Paul's positions and think about how that would impact the middle class you're so concerned about. For example, wiping out the current tax system (which yes admittedly needs a lot of work) would allow the rich to get richer and widen the gap until their was no middle class. Without taxes, how would the government subsidize programs such as education, to make it affordable for everyone who's not a millionaire? Also, once again where do I ever even bring up this point, in my original post?


I'm glad we agree, partially. Taxes are frequently abused by the upper class.

Now please highlight in my original post that you responded to where I
a) say what type of leaders I support
b) say I what type of legislation/laws I support
c) comment on the Patriot Act

a.) You commented on people blindly following Ron Paul. I simply was trying to point out that this isn't something new. Why would you expect something differently. This wasn't an attack on your views.

b.) I didn't say anything about what you support I was pointing out example of the herd-like mentality that the common American embodies.

c.) Once again, an example of ideas fully supported but vaguely researched by the common American.

You have some issues you need to work out apparently in regards to your feelings and the "upper tier" that go way beyond this thread.

Actually I would consider myself in the upper tier class of this society. My father is an anesthesiologist, my mother manages an entire portion of a company, my step-father is one step below the corporate ladder prior to becoming a C.I.O. and my Step-Mother owns 4 different non-invasive plastic surgery practices in Tampa Bay Florida. I'm not bragging by any stretch, its just I've been able to see the corruption of the upper class first hand. Such as the evasion of taxes by my parents while I've witnessed kids giving half of their paycheck to social security alone.

I'll just say this, again where did I mention the "upper tier" let alone supporting them or the ramifications that doing so would have on the middle class?[/

Once again another example I used.

First you'd need to define "well" before I can even respond to this point. After that I'd be happy to list examples.

If you can't define it for yourself I won't even bother.

You all can also spare me the "she's so condescending/arrogant/bitchy" comments. I'm well aware of how you all perceive me and I really don't give a fuck.

Never said that in my life, never will.

[The Revisionist]

Nope, de-evolve is from a music video including the song secret agent man.DEVO fan = friend of mine.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

DEVO fan = friend of mine.

DEVO is the shit dude.

[lauren<3s music]

Nope, de-evolve is from a music video including the song secret agent man. I find it funny, so I use the word. I'm fully aware of the word regress and what it means, please don't treat me like an imbecile.

Sorry for that.

I'm glad we agree, partially. Taxes are frequently abused by the upper class.

So much so it makes me sick. The middle class is getting taxed to death while according to our lovely President, he plans to allow people making over a million bucks to get a tax break. Just sickens me.

a.) You commented on people blindly following Ron Paul. I simply was trying to point out that this isn't something new. Why would you expect something differently. This wasn't an attack on your views.

b.) I didn't say anything about what you support I was pointing out example of the herd-like mentality that the common American embodies.

c.) Once again, an example of ideas fully supported but vaguely researched by the common American.

I see. Sorry I get very defensive anytime anyone mentions the Patriot Act because I think it's pretty much one of the worst things to happen to this country in a long time. And yes a lot of people vote without thinking or questioning which irritates me for all candidates. Which is why I like to bring up points of contradiction. I think if you can have an intelligent discussion about a candidate's views and at the end you still like them in spite of the counter points then go for it.

Actually I would consider myself in the upper tier class of this society. My father is an anesthesiologist, my mother manages an entire portion of a company, my step-father is one step below the corporate ladder prior to becoming a C.I.O. and my Step-Mother owns 4 different non-invasive plastic surgery practices in Tampa Bay Florida. I'm not bragging by any stretch, its just I've been able to see the corruption of the upper class first hand. Such as the evasion of taxes by my parents while I've witnessed kids giving half of their paycheck to social security alone.

Once again another example I used.

Do you think any of them would like to adopt me? Jokes aside, it is a fucked up system. And what's funny is I always hear the rich complaining about the AMT which is barely a dent in their pocket. Just frustrating.

If you can't define it for yourself I won't even bother.

I said that because what I'd consider "well" you might think is awful. For example, one of the things I look for is contributions to the lives of Americans as a whole. I think FDR was brilliant and LBJ wasn't too bad either with the Great Society. I wasn't trying to be obnoxious I just wanted to know what you thought the standard was.

Never said that in my life, never will.

Thanks.

[EasySkankin]

His views on foreign policy are above excellent.

But that's about it heh

[TxRepresent]

People that quoted Wikipedia in this post made me lol.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Quick question, why does anyone believe Ron Paul has ANY chance at being elected? Having no support from either party, and having zero name recognition means you will not get past the primaries.

I'm personally excited to pick between a Clinton/Edwards vs. Thompson/McCain ticket.

Clinton / Edwards seems unlikely with the way things are going between them. And McCain could be both sides of a ticket. Hes been on both sides of many issues.