Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Ron Paul: The 5 Million Dollar Man
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2209
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Dan Shay wrote:
Cause the position he's running for doesn't appoint supreme court justices or nothin'.
Dan, do you even read these threads anymore?
tommi teardrop wrote:
Like the guy is going to stack the supreme court so that he can rid the country of evil abortions?
Do you really think it is Ron Paul's MO to use his supreme court nominations to stack the court with avid pro-life judges? Really? Is that something that you are seriously concerned about when deciding which candidate to vote for. First, that they would even get to appoint anyone. Second, that they would be able to get enough appointments to render the court willing to overturn a decision that has stood for so long?

I guess I'm more worried about the corporate influence on every other candidate and their obligation to make their party happy and be exactly as ineffective as the nominee before them.

The fact that some bullshit Democrat says he/she pro-choice and pro gay marriage, is enough for most of you to ignore the fact that he/she will inevitably do jack shit to improve things, and will perpetuate the same cycle of bullshit.

Now crack a joke to distract the thread, or post a picture that you googled that somehow subtly points out the idiocy of us all without you even having to type a word.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11242
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

when you say something like...


Quote:

I don't think a candidate's abortion stance should really matter all that much.


You're gonna get a response like...


Quote:

Cause the position he's running for doesn't appoint supreme court justices or nothin'.


and I could give a fuck about the democratic candidates. I don't vote for them.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2209
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
Do you really think it is Ron Paul's MO to use his supreme court nominations to stack the court with avid pro-life judges? Really? Is that something that you are seriously concerned about when deciding which candidate to vote for. First, that they would even get to appoint anyone. Second, that they would be able to get enough appointments to render the court willing to overturn a decision that has stood for so long?
So do you even want to respond to that, or were you just piping in to prove that you understood how supreme court nominations work? Amazingly, you are not the only one that took an elementary government class.

I covered my tracks and stated why I dont think the abortion issue matters all that much with respect to a presidential candidate (especially Ron Paul), but you ignored that and talked to me like I was a 3 year old. Because that's what you do.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6297
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
Shambhala, all I'm saying is that there is much more to abortion than merely saying that it is a woman's right to choose. That I can understand why people are against abortion. I disagree with them, but I dont think they are all the nutcases that you seem to. For someone who champions themself as socially progressive, you seem to have tough time dealing with the fact that someone can disagree with you without being the bigot you imagine them to be.


I never said anything about nutcases. Or bigots.

There's a very basic ground level logic to abortion rights. Women are historically opressed, generally in the west with the complicity of the church. The fact that the movement against reproductive rights is religious in nature isn't an accident. Political christianity is like political islam; subjective moral codes are forcibly imposed on everyone, by any means necessary.

We aren't talking theory here, legal scholars debating federalism. It's not an intellectual debate. It's people with a very specific and religious outlook on life trying to assert control over women. There's no argument against abortion that has any connection to observable reality; it's not a logical or descriptive point of view. It's a signifier of a simple belief: My god exists, I'm right, and you're going to live by that. A political candidate who thinks like that is not going to get my vote. Period.

We can talk federalism and strict constructionism as much as we want, but I'm not going to give credit to the pro life crowd in that debate. They don't give a fuck about any of it. Their glory days were based on the coercive power of the state.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11242
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

What kind of person says 'activist judge' anyway?

I mean, that's a rhetorical question. I've heard it many times by pro lifers talking about judicial appointees who ended up unable to carry the torch of the crusade.

I've never really heard it in any other context. Oh, wait, alien tort reformists...
Post Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2209
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
There's no argument against abortion that has any connection to observable reality; it's not a logical or descriptive point of view. It's a signifier of a simple belief: My god exists, I'm right, and you're going to live by that.

I personally know many people who think abortion is wrong and should be illegal. Many of them are not religious at all. Many of them are women who honestly think that it is wrong to forcibly stop the heartbeat of another living thing.

For many people God, or the oppression of women, has very little to do with it.

You have created this fantasy where the people who disagree with you about abortion must be religious zealots. You are very wrong about that. I can't believe that you unable to wrap your head around the idea that people see abortion as a form of killing, and that in a way it is ending a "life," however you want to define that. I don't believe in God at all, and I still think it is at least a little bit fucked up.

You have effectively eliminated and ridiculed half of the population based solely on when they believe life begins. Good luck with that tactic as you continue your social activism.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:02 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6297
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Ron Paul wrote:
The War on Religion

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

December 30, 2003

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2209
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Oh my God. Ron Paul is a Christian? You mean he is a Christian just like all the other candidates?

Was that quote supposed to paint him as a zealot, because I do not think it succeeded.

What is funny is that you are the exact type of person that Ron Paul is talking about when he says, "anti-religious, elitest, secular left." I thought you guys were a myth created by republicans, but you really do exist, making complicated issues black and white while passing judgment like a Christian.

You are really not that different from what you fight against. Hopefully you realize it someday.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jascha



Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 3936
Location: Seoul, SK
 Reply with quote  

ron paul scares me.

Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

thecontractor wrote:
Casey, a closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

Try to expand your horizons and realize why a person would not want to reside in a society where abortion is legal. Regardless of your beliefs, try to see it from their point of view.

States should have the right to choose if abortion is legal or not, not the federal government. If a state deems it acceptable, and you don't agree, you can go to another state. What is wrong with that? Do you think that someone who has an opinion that abortion is wrong should not have a voice? Are they morally inferior? Poppycock. Ron Paul may not approve of abortion, but he is not going to use the power of the presidency and federally mandate that it is illegal. He sees that as an abuse of power, a concept forign to our current leaders.


That's dumb. Not everyone can afford to move to another state. Try to expand your horizons and understand why a person may not want to reside in a society where abortion is illegal.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:30 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
thecontractor



Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 99
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Try to expand your horizons and understand why a person may not want to reside in a society where abortion is illegal.


My horizon is a sanctum replete with many suppositions. The only perspicuous denouement of the many vantage points that I have prepensed seems to be a paucity of abstemiousness in said society.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
tommi teardrop wrote:
Do you really think it is Ron Paul's MO to use his supreme court nominations to stack the court with avid pro-life judges? Really? Is that something that you are seriously concerned about when deciding which candidate to vote for. First, that they would even get to appoint anyone. Second, that they would be able to get enough appointments to render the court willing to overturn a decision that has stood for so long?
So do you even want to respond to that, or were you just piping in to prove that you understood how supreme court nominations work? Amazingly, you are not the only one that took an elementary government class.

I covered my tracks and stated why I dont think the abortion issue matters all that much with respect to a presidential candidate (especially Ron Paul), but you ignored that and talked to me like I was a 3 year old. Because that's what you do.


Hey: we're like ONE VOTE away from RvW being overturned. Hello?
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2209
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Kennedy would probably back off again anyway, so we are back at square one. Stevens wasnt on board back in 92. Niether was Souter. Those three were all appointed by republicans, and they are not trying to overturn Roe v Wade. Why do you just assume that another republican nominee would make it a crusade?

Here is what Chief Justice Roberts said also, " "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."

So that leaves the pro life crowd as Alito, Thomas and Scalia. By my count they would need two more adamant pro lifers to overturn Roe.

And believe it or not, many potential nominees actually respect precedent. I honestly think that with Renquist gone, Roe will stand for quite some time.

It just seems like a scare tactic that Democrats use. If you vote for a Republican, you can kiss your right to choose away.

I just can't base choosing the leader of our country on whether or not Roe v. Wade might get overturned based on the potential president's possible supreme court nomination(s).

I might add that this a reason why interpreting the constitution so loosely is a bad thing. The decision can be overturned by eventual justices that see through the faulty logic of asserting that the 14th amendment protected a woman's right to have an abortion, when the 14th amendment had absolutely nothing to do with abortion at all.

At least the way I read it. If you read it a different way I would be happy to discuss that with you.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:43 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
thecontractor



Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 99
A short concise rebuttle on Roe v. Wade  Reply with quote  

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

- Ron Paul

BOOYA
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

What's so great about the states? Most of the state governments are even more whack-a-mole than the federal ones. And in the age when the internet is bringing us together and making the world smaller and smaller, I think the notion of federalism is kind of antiquated. The state government is both too big, and too small to be any kind of thing close to effective in today's world.

And again, for the important issues for me, Ron Paul is not anything close to a viable candidate. He's an interesting novelty act at best. Libertarianism makes for some nice ideals, but it's no way to manage a country.

I mean you see things like Matthew Shepard, the Jena Six case, and the California three strikes your out policy and it doesn't exactly instill you with the greatest of confidences for state governance.

Also I doubt the public interest in their state government. Most citizens if they follow government at all follow it at the federal level. I say gut the middle man.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:23 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon