Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,385 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:

Other short answer, more geared towards SS:

How would you make it work? A one-time decision made when you take your first job? At 16, everyone would opt out. You're young and immortal, retirement is so far away it can't even be imagined. Can you opt back in when you hit your 40s and realize you're never actually going to be a millionaire and you're really going to need it? If you opt out partway through your career, can you get your money back?
And fundamentally, what do you do with the people who opted out and would up without any savings? Do you just let them starve on the streets? Remember even with good planning, one illness & job loss can blow through any reasonable saving, even if you were ensured to start with.
We've done this before. Before SS, if you weren't rich and didn't have kids to support you when you were too old to work, it was very rough.

Insurance pools, which is essentially what both SS & Medicare are, work best by spreading the risk as widely as possible.

This is the core disagreement. I would rather pay the price personally for making a bad choice that forcing everyone else to pay for my bad choice or misfortune.

The alternative seems to be charity at gunpoint. I know it seems like hyperbole, but that's really what it comes down to. We accept it because large majorities are in favor of things like social security and medicare. What do we do when increasingly large minorities reject this premise? My position is very much a minority, but how much of a minority makes the system unjust? Our government safety nets are basically charity through force. How many have to object?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
In theory the nation uses force to promote the greater good because the majority agrees that this is OK. I find this argument to be a problem because it can be used to justify anything from the war on drugs or terror to virtually any social program.
Yeah, but that's a part and parcel of every government or social group ever -- not just the U.S. Fed, but all the way back to Oog the Cave Man's clan of 3 sycophants and Ug the dissenter. If you abolish large governments, people tend to immediately self-organize into smaller clans which then try to exterminate each other. These are all problems with human nature, not specifically with government.

I can't disagree, but do we have to settle for "This is the way it has always been."? It seems we should fight for better.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Jeff wrote:
Sure, on some level it's all just accounting fiction, but on that level you don't actually have any money in the bank. The bank just takes your money and lends it to other people.

But the bank has a legal responsibility to give me the money back if i ask for it, when i ask for it.

The government has NO legal requirement to give me back my social security money.. EVER. It is a seperate taxing program and a seperate spending program. They can keep the taxing program and end the spending program if they want.

Of course there is. The laws that set up Social Security specify the tax rate and the payouts. The SSA can't just stop paying out the benefits and the Treasury can't just not pay the Trust Funds Treasury bills when they come due. Congress and the President could change those laws, but that's true of anything. They could change the laws requiring your bank to give you the money back if they wanted.

The government could go bankrupt, I suppose, but so could your bank. If your bank goes bankrupt, your account is insured by the FDIC, but "The government has NO legal requirement to give me back my" FDIC insured money either.

If you're saying something else, I don't understand it at all.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's no reason this couldn't be funded out of the general pool. Its that wage earners have crappy lobbyists.

If it had been funded out of general revenues, it would have been even easier to pillory it as "entitlement" or welfare and it would have been gutted long ago. That it's a separate funding stream makes people feel invested in it and made it the 3rd rail of politics. It's taken decades of propaganda to convince enough people that they'll never see the money they've paid in that it's no longer completely out of the question to dismantle it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Jeopardy:

3 minutes 42 seconds

question:
How much time will Ron Paul be allowed to speak at tonight's debate?


Bitter Thorn wrote:
This is the core disagreement. I would rather pay the price personally for making a bad choice that forcing everyone else to pay for my bad choice or misfortune.

See, this may be the core disagreement, but I see it very differently. It's not just that I want my shot at a decent healthy retirement, it's that I don't want to live in a country where, even if I make it, large numbers of people don't. Median income in this country doesn't leave a lot to invest and there's a good chance of any investments going south anyway. Without a safety net, the bottom is a long way down and it's a rough landing.

There are an awful lot of people living on little but SS. Would they all be doing even that well, if they'd had that little bit extra in every paycheck? Would we, as a country, really be willing to just let them die if they hadn't saved enough to live on? I hope not.
We'd pay for it one way or another. Just like we pay for those without insurance or money who show up in emergency rooms. And it's far less efficient to let them crash all the way and then take care of them than it is to keep them afloat.

It's not forcing everyone to pay for my misfortune, it's being willing to help cover everyone's bad choices or misfortune. Because I'd rather live somewhere where we take care of each other, than where the losers are left to rot.

Bitter Thorn wrote:
The alternative seems to be charity at gunpoint. I know it seems like hyperbole, but that's really what it comes down to. We accept it because large majorities are in favor of things like social security and medicare. What do we do when increasingly large minorities reject this premise? My position is very much a minority, but how much of a minority makes the system unjust? Our government safety nets are basically charity through force. How many have to object?

We live in a democracy, which is the form of government that spreads the power out most. I have trouble envisaging a functioning government where any small minority can stop anything the government tries to do.

As an aside, under your theory can the government use force to collect taxes to fund its response to the initiation of violence? I'd also assume that "the initiation of violence against a person or their property" also includes things we don't normally think of as violence, like theft and contract violation? Trespass?


Bitter Thorn wrote:
I can't disagree, but do we have to settle for "This is the way it has always been."? It seems we should fight for better.

We definitely should. But we come pre-programmed to do a lot worse, given half a chance. Our massive, corrupt bureaucracy, for all of how horrid it is, is actually better than the natural alternatives! One of the few times I can easily think of when a revolution was actually a net gain, as opposed to an excuse to commit genocide and/or usher in a blatant dictator, was the original American Revolution -- and the secret to their success was that they had a new government already set up and ready to go (in the form of the Continental Congress, even if they hadn't laid the Constitution out on paper yet), before the revolution ever began.

If you just want to create a power vacuum, it always gets filled, and always it's a net loss. The time for fighting is after you've solved your problems with a solid national organization, to make your solution a reality -- not before.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
I can't disagree, but do we have to settle for "This is the way it has always been."? It seems we should fight for better.
We definitely should. But we come pre-programmed to do a lot worse, given half a chance. Our massive, corrupt bureaucracy, for all of how horrid it is, is actually better than the natural alternatives! One of the few times I can easily think of when a revolution was actually a net gain, as opposed to an excuse to commit genocide and/or usher in a blatant dictator, was the original American Revolution -- and the secret to their success was that they had a new government already set up and ready to go (in the form of the Continental Congress, even if they hadn't laid the Constitution out on paper yet), before the revolution ever began.

Not to take away from your larger point, but the government they started with was based on the Articles of Confederation and it failed horribly.

In many ways it was much closer to what the state's rights absolutists these days still want (and in some ways closer to the CSA constitution). Very, very limited federal government, no executive, no federal taxation, etc. It lasted less than a dozen years and was replaced by the Constitution we have now.

We've tried minimalist federal government and it couldn't even pay the bills it had run up during the Revolution


Quote:
Of course there is. The laws that set up Social Security specify the tax rate and the payouts.

But one law sets up the payment and another sets up the layouts. You can change one without altering the other, and in fact they have been... by making the retirement age older and older, well past the point of the average male lifespan and way past what I'm going to see.

Quote:
The SSA can't just stop paying out the benefits and the Treasury can't just not pay the Trust Funds Treasury bills when they come due. Congress and the President could change those laws, but that's true of anything. They could change the laws requiring your bank to give you the money back if they wanted.

Nope, they'd need a constitutional amendment for that. (no expost facto laws) not to mention the sanctity of contracts.

(and they'd need to pass the law in the middle of the night before people could take their money out)

Quote:
The government could go bankrupt, I suppose, but so could your bank. If your bank goes bankrupt, your account is insured by the FDIC, but "The government has NO legal requirement to give me back my" FDIC insured money either.

Sure they do. Its the entire point of the agency.

Quote:


If it had been funded out of general revenues, it would have been even easier to pillory it as "entitlement" or welfare and it would have been gutted long ago.

I don't think that's possible with today's demographics.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Of course there is. The laws that set up Social Security specify the tax rate and the payouts.

But one law sets up the payment and another sets up the layouts. You can change one without altering the other, and in fact they have been... by making the retirement age older and older, well past the point of the average male lifespan and way past what I'm going to see.

A distinction that makes no difference as far as I can see. You can change one law without changing another or you can amend part of one law without changing another part.

There's no way to make a law that Congress can't change as it pleases, short of a Constitutional amendment. Even that can be changed.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
The SSA can't just stop paying out the benefits and the Treasury can't just not pay the Trust Funds Treasury bills when they come due. Congress and the President could change those laws, but that's true of anything. They could change the laws requiring your bank to give you the money back if they wanted.

Nope, they'd need a constitutional amendment for that. (no expost facto laws) not to mention the sanctity of contracts.

(and they'd need to pass the law in the middle of the night before people could take their money out)

In practice they couldn't make it quite that simple, but the federal government (but not the states) is allowed to alter contracts. Bankruptcy proceedings certainly allow it.

Would it be stupid? Economically disastrous? Of course. And probably tied up in Court for years.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure how ex post facto plays out in civil law.

The way the banks write their contracts so they can change them at will and any interaction after "notification" is acceptance of the terms, they could probably post a notice on their web site that they were keeping all your money if you accepted the terms and if you checked your balance online so you knew how much to withdraw to close the account as evidence you'd accepted the terms. They'd never do it, because no one would ever deposit with them again.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
The government could go bankrupt, I suppose, but so could your bank. If your bank goes bankrupt, your account is insured by the FDIC, but "The government has NO legal requirement to give me back my" FDIC insured money either.

Sure they do. Its the entire point of the agency.

Exactly like it's the whole point of the SSA. Of course the law says the FDIC has to cover the insured money, but that could be changed. It could be changed in a moment in the middle of a crisis. If banks are failing left and right, the FDIC runs out of cash and Congress (or the Fed?) decides not to throw more money at it...

Sure there'll be a run on the banks, but if they don't have the money you won't get it back.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:


If it had been funded out of general revenues, it would have been even easier to pillory it as "entitlement" or welfare and it would have been gutted long ago.
I don't think that's possible with today's demographics.

Politically? Or legally?

I hope it's not politically possible. A lot of the proposals are of the "we'll cover everyone over 55 but the rest get shafted" variety. Designed to keep the older crowd happy and screw the rest of us over. They don't seem to be going over well, but if everyone under a certain age is convinced SS won't be there for them...


the jeff wrote:
A distinction that makes no difference as far as I can see. You can change one law without changing another or you can amend part of one law without changing another part.

One more attempt to explain the difference to you before calling it a derail and starting a new thread (or just going to bed)

First off, when I put money in the bank its my money. I cannot be deprived of it without due process: so you need a constitutional amendment, which I'm not worried about. It exists, in practice, as a discrete and separate set amount that belongs to me. The bank has a legal obligation to pay me back.

When social security money is taken its never a discrete amount. Its mixed up with everyone else's ss money, and then further mixed in as the general funds. MY money doesn't exist anymore, it is now the governments money. They spend it on whatever they want, and they're NOT saving it for my retirement.... they're too busy conquering the world for american corporations.

I can't legally get it back because its not legally mine. Its the governments, and they CAN, but do not have to, decide to give it to me at some point.

They have already set that age to 67, and are likely to raise it higher as time goes on. So no, they DON"T have to give it to me, they can just wait for me to drop dead.

There is something inherently wrong with a regressive tax, and thats ALL social security is the way its set up.

Take mits tax returns for example: he paid 15%, which is the INCOME tax you pay when you make in a year what he does in a day. You THEN pay social security and medicare, then sales taxes and probably another few percent in property taxes either directly or via an increased cost in rent.

I'm not saying lets end social security, but do Americans who work for a living need an effective 33% tax rate because Mit lobbied to keep his 15%?

Ron paul is right. This can't keep going. The only thing we can really ditch is that world conquering army of ours. Its too expensive to NOT sit around and do something with. Its too tempting, its too much power, and we're not worthy of it.

But the solution isn't to have government do nothing. From the beginning america's government has been involved in vital projects that have benefited all of us? Roads, bridges,canals, railroads, aquaducts, the interstate, cancer research (even "private" research is usually done at government funded universities) ... they're too big for any state to do alone. Sure, when you needed 2 weeks on a horse to ride from new york to buffalo treating new york as a sovereign nation made sense. When i can fly there in two hours it doesn't.


thejeff wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
This is the core disagreement. I would rather pay the price personally for making a bad choice that forcing everyone else to pay for my bad choice or misfortune.

See, this may be the core disagreement, but I see it very differently. It's not just that I want my shot at a decent healthy retirement, it's that I don't want to live in a country where, even if I make it, large numbers of people don't. Median income in this country doesn't leave a lot to invest and there's a good chance of any investments going south anyway. Without a safety net, the bottom is a long way down and it's a rough landing.

There are an awful lot of people living on little but SS. Would they all be doing even that well, if they'd had that little bit extra in every paycheck? Would we, as a country, really be willing to just let them die if they hadn't saved enough to live on? I hope not.
We'd pay for it one way or another. Just like we pay for those without insurance or money who show up in emergency rooms. And it's far less efficient to let them crash all the way and then take care of them than it is to keep them afloat.

It's not forcing everyone to pay for my misfortune, it's being willing to help cover everyone's bad choices or misfortune. Because I'd rather live somewhere where we take care of each other, than where the losers are left to rot.

Bitter Thorn wrote:
The alternative seems to be charity at gunpoint. I know it seems like hyperbole, but that's really what it comes down to. We accept it because large majorities are in favor of things like social security and medicare. What do we do when increasingly large minorities reject this premise? My position is very much a minority, but how much of a minority makes the system unjust? Our government safety nets are basically charity through force. How many have to object?
We live in a democracy, which is the form of government that spreads the power out most. I have trouble envisaging a functioning government where any small...

I believe the choice between a large coercive state and leaving the losers to rot is a false choice. It seems to proceed from the assumption that the only workable way to help the less fortunate is through government force. I reject this assumption.

I would also argue that we live in a republic not a democracy. The distinction is not semantic. Democracy and the tyranny of the majority are very real threats. The most fundamental role of government in a constitutional republic is to protect the rights of minorities and the smallest minority, the individual. To use an extreme example, 95% of the population voting to enslave 3% of the population is simply unjust.

To answer your aside I concede government and taxation to be necessary evils. Without a purely voluntary tax system I see no way to tax without coercion. I know there is some cognitive inconsistency here, but I can't quite embrace the stateless (anarchist) position even though I respect it intellectually. I favor the least invasive, least coercive means of taxation such as a sales tax.

Violence against property would include theft, fraud, contract violation, pollution, and the like.


meme


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
meme

I especially enjoyed 11, 14, 18, 21, 25, 30, 31, 34, 43, and 50!


2012 Colorado GOP Presidential Caucus Results

In my precinct we took 28% of the straw poll, but we took about 83% of upper level delegates and alternates.


Interesting.

Clean sweep for Rick Santorum in Colorado, Minnesota & delegate-less primary in Missouri

Colorado Caucus 2012 Results MAP: Real-Time Data On The CO Republican Contest

2012 Colorado GOP Presidential Caucus Results

Liberty's Edge

Yes, new delegate totals (approximated by greenpapers.com)

Romney 99
Gingrich 41
Santorum 39
Ron Paul 28

Delegates Remaining 2079
Delegates Required to Reach a Quorum: 1143


1 person marked this as a favorite.
stardust wrote:

Yes, new delegate totals (approximated by greenpapers.com)

Romney 99
Gingrich 41
Santorum 39
Ron Paul 28

Delegates Remaining 2079
Delegates Required to Reach a Quorum: 1143

Frustrating but interesting. It's interesting and odd how the GOP would rather be crowning someone in this race historically by this time.

Contrary to what the media would have us believe this race is far from over. Romney can still be beaten, and the only candidate that champions the constitution is far from dead.

We won't shut up and die, and we aren't going away!

Liberty's Edge

Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.


houstonderek wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.

Which one? Your epithet doesn't narrow the field much!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly.


houstonderek wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbug's act.

Hey, now!

Liberty's Edge

Not Ron. I like Ron. He's the only politician besides Sanders I think actually believes in what he says. Both of them don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about them and they both speak truth to power.

The rest? Mealy mouthed douches who should all burn in hell for constantly lying to us and making our country s+&+.


houstonderek wrote:

Not Ron. I like Ron. He's the only politician besides Sanders I think actually believes in what he says. Both of them don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about them and they both speak truth to power.

The rest? Mealy mouthed douches who should all burn in hell for constantly lying to us and making our country s+#*.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel...

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Not Ron. I like Ron. He's the only politician besides Sanders I think actually believes in what he says. Both of them don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about them and they both speak truth to power.

The rest? Mealy mouthed douches who should all burn in hell for constantly lying to us and making our country s+#*.

Don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel...

Like I've ever had a problem with that :-)


Black Goblin, how do you feel about a Ron Paul presidency?


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Black Goblin, how do you feel about a Ron Paul presidency?

Ron Paul Hmm I thought he dropped out of the race?

Legalize Legalize Legalize Downsize Downsize Downsize Get off my back man OFF WITH THEIR HEADS


And how do you feel about Ron Paul's position on the necessity of national Right-to-Work legislation, Black Goblin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
And how do you feel about Ron Paul's position on the necessity of national Right-to-Work legislation, Black Goblin?

The Black Goblin and the R.B.G have put out a bounty for the head of Dr.Ron Paul. We the Revolutionary Black Guard find this stance of the Doctors to be counterrevolutionary and contrary to our particular brand of anarchogoblinism. ( we do not exclude non-gobliniod in the movement )

The good Dr. should keep his laws off our bodies and out of religion...The UNION. So !@#!you Dr. Paul
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!!!!!!
Drink a Bud for freedom.


Paul seems too trustworthy, so I don't trust him.

I would like to see him run as a 3rd party candidate, and not just because I want to sabotage an inevitable Mitt run. I don't actually support RP or Obama, but I love the idea of an election where the candidates actually differ on some issues. I think it would change all three of the campaigns and possibly the political landscape for the better.

Liberty's Edge

I voted for RP in '88 when he was running on the Libertarian ticket. Voted for Nader in 2000. I like voting for people I think are genuine, even if I don't agree with them on some stuff. Honesty trumps policy for me, because, over the years, I've found the policy noises main party candidates make tend to be bs.


houstonderek wrote:
I voted for RP in '88 when he was running on the Libertarian ticket. Voted for Nader in 2000. I like voting for people I think are genuine, even if I don't agree with them on some stuff. Honesty trumps policy for me, because, over the years, I've found the policy noises main party candidates make tend to be bs.

It could happen with me. I feel the same way.

I guess I would have to see an incredible debate performance with Ron Paul vs. President Obama to be swayed to vote for Paul even despite my unease.

I'm not ideologically aligned with Obama, and even though I have serious issues with some of his policy (mainly continuing Bush policy I voted for him to end) he has performed better than I ever expected anyone could after 2008. Now that we are/(seem to be) heading in the right direction (albeit at a snail's pace) I need a really convincing argument to change things up. Basically, even "not good enough" is better than I could have hoped for.

It could happen. The authoritarian aspect of his administration scares the hell out of me. Ron Paul has got to convince me he'd fix it without knocking the economy off balance again. Right now, I'm in the middle of the road, but ties favor the incumbent.

Liberty's Edge

I have a different take on Obama, but everyone is going to see things through their own filters and what they expected. I got exactly what I expected from him (read my posts leading up to the election, I think I was spot on with a lot of stuff) and I'm very disappointed I was right.

The thing I like about RP is that the things I care about that the executive branch can do, he's in line with my world view. And a lot of the things that worry me about him are fully under the aegis of the legislative branch, so he'd have little power there.


I read a lot of your posts running up to the election, actually. I think you'll be surprised to find how much I agree with you, and yet I'm just incredibly cynical. I don't like any of it, basically, but if things "seem" to be getting better, that's as much as I can hope for.

Problem is, who to believe about whether things are actually improving.

So as a completely impartial cynical bastard, I vote on the state of the economy as I perceive it, and after that I might vote based on my dearly-held beliefs like freedom and individuality. All government tramples on the latter — especially the guys who say otherwise — so it factors into my participation a little less.

If I saw it go in a really crazy direction, though, I'd be right alongside you in the revolution. I don't think any meaningful improvement will come from within the electoral system, however. Not until campaign finance and corruption are dealt with. You and I both know it'll be guillotines before then.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, it isn't going to be pretty.


Voting is for ninnies!!

Vive le Galt!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Voting is for ninnies!!

Vive le Galt!

One man, one torch, one pitchfork.

Riot early and riot often!


houstonderek wrote:

Not Ron. I like Ron. He's the only politician besides Sanders I think actually believes in what he says. Both of them don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about them and they both speak truth to power.

The rest? Mealy mouthed douches who should all burn in hell for constantly lying to us and making our country s@&+.

Speaking as a former constituent, I really liked Russ Feingold. He's about the most honest guy you'd ever meet. He was the only senator to vote against the patriot act. There's a lot of clamor right now for him to run for Governor against Scott Walker here in Wisconsin, but he's said he isn't interested. He did his stint as Senator and he's done with public office. Precisely the kind of politician we never see any of anymore.

But I agree, I feel the same way about Paul and Sanders. It's sad that the list of politicians we really respect, at least on a national level, is that short.

Liberty's Edge

I would have mentioned him, but some idiot cheeseheads decided to retire him.


Don't remind me, man. This state has been just sliding downhill this past year. I could go on forever about the systematic dismantling of regulatory agencies, the rampant croneyism in the state executive branch, etc.

F*~@ Citizen's United!


houstonderek wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.

Are you talking about Mr. "Big Invasive in your personal life mandatory Ultrasounds in Texas Ron Paul?" I used to like him but he's lost me completely.


Did Ron Paul Really Win Maine Caucus?

Reality Check - Ron Paul Cheated in Maine Caucus Fraud? - Ben Swann Breaks it Down

Rachel Maddow - Doug Wead - Ron Paul Cheated in Maine Caucus Fraud?

Liberty's Edge

cranewings wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.
Are you talking about Mr. "Big Invasive in your personal life mandatory Ultrasounds in Texas Ron Paul?" I used to like him but he's lost me completely.

I think you're confusing Paul with Perry. Ron Paul is a representative in the national congress, he has nothing to do with Texas state laws.


houstonderek wrote:
cranewings wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.
Are you talking about Mr. "Big Invasive in your personal life mandatory Ultrasounds in Texas Ron Paul?" I used to like him but he's lost me completely.
I think you're confusing Paul with Perry. Ron Paul is a representative in the national congress, he has nothing to do with Texas state laws.

Eh, he supports personhood at conception, declared hormonal birth control should be illegal, and praised Texan law makers for working to forcibly give women ultrasounds before abortion. Big government Ron Paul wants the man to be able to force a doctor to insert a medically unnecessary ultrasound device inside regular women.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's not how ultrasounds work...


Actually early term ultrasounds are often done with a transvaginal probe. The fetus is too small to see clearly with traditional ultrasound at that stage.
Almost all abortions are done at that early stage. I'm not sure what Texas law requires, but it definitely is how some ultrasounds work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've only ever had them for blood clots, and my sister's first was done on the outside of her belly. Learn something everyday...

Liberty's Edge

cranewings wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
cranewings wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people are buying into that dbag's act.
Are you talking about Mr. "Big Invasive in your personal life mandatory Ultrasounds in Texas Ron Paul?" I used to like him but he's lost me completely.
I think you're confusing Paul with Perry. Ron Paul is a representative in the national congress, he has nothing to do with Texas state laws.
Eh, he supports personhood at conception, declared hormonal birth control should be illegal, and praised Texan law makers for working to forcibly give women ultrasounds before abortion. Big government Ron Paul wants the man to be able to force a doctor to insert a medically unnecessary ultrasound device inside regular women.

Well, biologically, at conception, you have a developing human being. The abortion debate can discuss all of the moral and philosophical points they want, but the debate is pretty much retarded when idiots start tossing around "it's just a blastoid" and crap like that. Biology is biology. Oh, yeah, and the guy is an OB/GYN. So I probably respect his opinion there a bit more than yours, sorry.

Plus, we're talking about a presidential candidate. The policies he espouses that the executive branch actually has power over are pretty much in line with what I think. The crazy ones are generally under the aegis of the legislative branch, and, frankly, if he couldn't get them passed in that body, I'm not terribly concerned he could do so from the executive.

But, who cares. Vote for the staus quo. Have fun with your "change" you can "believe" in, or having a douchebag like Romney or Santorum doing their thing.


I was for Ron Paul, but I don't care if he's a Dr. Or not. Expertise giving ultrasounds doesn't make him correct when it comes to using force to make women get them.

You are a loaded ball of emotion. I never talked about biology, hope, change, Romney, Obama, or anything else you were already thinking about.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I've only ever had them for blood clots, and my sister's first was done on the outside of her belly. Learn something everyday...

That's Ron Paul for you. If a woman wants an abortion, the government gets to stick a probe in her vagina and they are going to use law enforcement to see to it that it is done, despite the fact that neither the woman or her doctor think it is medically necessary.

None of his good ideas will ever get done, and all his stupid ones that will destroy the world will happen on day one.


Actually what he can do as President is appoint SC (and other) judges who will reverse Roe vs Wade. There's very little in federal legislation about abortion. Some states still have laws banning it on the books.

1,201 to 1,250 of 1,385 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.