Floodgates = open

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

And Ron Paul wonders why he didnt get fucking elected? And as for that article, they should also note that Blackwater no longer exists its Xe (pronounced Z) now.

I mean I am all for asking questions and speaking out but to advocate the dismantaling of our intelligence service is a huge mistake.
 
Drake said:
And Ron Paul wonders why he didnt get fucking elected? And as for that article, they should also note that Blackwater no longer exists its Xe (pronounced Z) now.

I mean I am all for asking questions and speaking out but to advocate the dismantaling of our intelligence service is a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't think he wants to (read: I hope he doesn't want to) completely remove the function, but bring it back under control by putting the function within the scope of existing, more controllable and more importantly, accountable, frameworks.

I do find myself 'translating' for Ron Paul alot lately, that's where he went wrong... He needed to stress that most of his ideas were meant to be gradual... to explain his positions and timelines more fluently instead of just listing his ultimate goals (end the fed, cut the cia, etc).

Even if I'm wrong and he didn't want to be gradual, he would have had two other branches of government to slow him down. So it still would have happened the right way and we're still screwed for not electing him. :)
 
I liked Paul myself as well. And I think you hit the nail on the head, its the fact that it isnt obvious to a lot of people what he means. The translation part is what did him in. But he never had a chance due to the fact that he would interupt the status quo in Washington. And neither side of the coin wanted anything like that to happen.
 
DarkHand said:
I don't think he wants to (read: I hope he doesn't want to) completely remove the function, but bring it back under control by putting the function within the scope of existing, more controllable and more importantly, accountable, frameworks.

I do find myself 'translating' for Ron Paul alot lately, that's where he went wrong... He needed to stress that most of his ideas were meant to be gradual... to explain his positions and timelines more fluently instead of just listing his ultimate goals (end the fed, cut the cia, etc).

Even if I'm wrong and he didn't want to be gradual, he would have had two other branches of government to slow him down. So it still would have happened the right way and we're still screwed for not electing him. :)
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is a radical.

Although B has most members of this board bought into the hype and I, too, support some of his platform - overall he is a radical.

As bad as Obama and as bad as Bush, Ron Paul would run the country as he personally saw fit.

I take issue with anyone who feels abortion (a clear representation of choice and free will) should be illegal. The issue also goes against the traditional right wing stance of small government and low regulation and swings the pendulum to the other side of regulation and government intervention.
 
totalburnout said:
Ron Paul is a radical.

Although B has most members of this board bought into the hype and I, too, support some of his platform - overall he is a radical.
Click to expand...

Believing in the constitution does not make you a radical. He would be a radical if he wanted to alter or change it like our current & former presidents.

Its a shame when the only guy in the room who cares about the rights passed onto us by our founding fathers is considered a radical.

Here is my 2c on ron paul: The FED and the CIA may not be good for us, but our enemies have their own versions of these agencies. To not fight fire with fire is suicide.
 
Last edited:
totalburnout said:
I take issue with anyone who feels abortion (a clear representation of choice and free will) should be illegal. The issue also goes against the traditional right wing stance of small government and low regulation and swings the pendulum to the other side of regulation and government intervention.
Click to expand...
Well, anti-abortionists believe that the fetus is a human life that deserves to be protected. Should parents have the right to strangle a newborn baby to death? How about a five year old? What is the difference between a fetus in the birth canal and one 2 seconds old? Seems like we're defining "abortion rights" as a simple time limit on when it's okay to kill someone. I don't believe in telling people how to live their lives, but it seems like a fucked up thing to do no matter how you slice it.

Sorry for the off topic.
 
If you choose to have sex & you get pregnant, then live with the consequences of YOUR choice which you freely made.

If you do not choose to have sex and you get pregnant, you should then get to make your choice.

The creation of life is a one time choice. If you decide to create life, to then decide to destroy it is wrong. Arguing that the "choice of life creation" was too complicated for you to fully grasp is not an excuse to destroy life.
 
Last edited:
I think abortion (not including rape, incest, etc.) should be a one time option that also comes with the removal of your uterus. The other issue is that the man bears the same level of responsibility and should be chopped as well if he doesn't want the child.

I guess this is one issue where I radically depart from my libertarianism.
 
klyph said:
I think abortion (not including rape, incest, etc.) should be a one time option that also comes with the removal of your uterus. The other issue is that the man bears the same level of responsibility and should be chopped as well if he doesn't want the child.

I guess this is one issue where I radically depart from my libertarianism.
Click to expand...
The only problem with the not including rape or incest part is it would have to be decided in the court of law prior to allowing the abortion (or in your case removal of the reproductive organ). That would take even more time and allow the fetus to develop even further. The line needs to remain drawn; either yes or no.
 
the only problem with extreme anti-rape sentiment is for the stupid girls who do home abortions. if it was a choice between a girl using a coat hanger or a government subsidized abortion, i'll eat the tax on that one. and i HATE taxes.
 
klyph said:
Well, anti-abortionists believe that the fetus is a human life that deserves to be protected. Should parents have the right to strangle a newborn baby to death? How about a five year old? What is the difference between a fetus in the birth canal and one 2 seconds old? Seems like we're defining "abortion rights" as a simple time limit on when it's okay to kill someone. I don't believe in telling people how to live their lives, but it seems like a fucked up thing to do no matter how you slice it.

Sorry for the off topic.
Click to expand...

I love that you said this. It is a great point.

klyph said:
I think abortion (not including rape, incest, etc.) should be a one time option that also comes with the removal of your uterus. The other issue is that the man bears the same level of responsibility and should be chopped as well if he doesn't want the child.

I guess this is one issue where I radically depart from my libertarianism.
Click to expand...

Consider also that if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer goes to trial for 2 MURDERS...if she did not want said baby, she could have opted to have a doctor kill it...WTF?
 
UNDR8D said:
Consider also that if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer goes to trial for 2 MURDERS...if she did not want said baby, she could have opted to have a doctor kill it...WTF?
Click to expand...

Werd.

Backwards ass logic will always prevail when people are that desperate to avoid bearing the responsibilities of their mistakes.
 
klyph said:
Werd.

Backwards ass logic will always prevail when people are that desperate to avoid bearing the responsibilities of their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Werd and double werd. It is really just a shitty excuse for lazy cum-bunglers
 
You step on insects (/add whatever creature you choose - baby kittens, baby seals, etc) without a problem, correct?

First trimester babies are a simple collection of cells. Nothing about those cells resembles human life at that point.

I take issue with people that believe as soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, a human life is conceived and therefore an abortion is murder or ending life.

There's a high likelihood that a female's egg could have been fertilized and then later discharged during menstruation. No one is up in arms about this fact (unless they peed on a stick to know that they tested positive for "pregnancy" hormones) because they will never be aware that this event took place.

Clearly there needs to be a time line to determine when a "person" comes to exist. My definition is simply different from many who are anti-abortion.

Back on topic;
Ron Paul is a radical. He doesn't just believe in the constitution and attempt to enforce the constitution.

I like some of his stances but, as does everyone, he chooses when to interpret the constitution and when to enforce the constitution in a literal sense. Society has grown tremendously since the constitution was written and as such the situation dictates the need to interpret the "spirit" of the constitution IMO.
 
totalburnout said:
Clearly there needs to be a time line to determine when a "person" comes to exist. My definition is simply different from many who are anti-abortion.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, when do you define the moment that the "collection of cells" becomes human? Why do you consider yourself more than a "collection of cells"? What is it that you have, beyond your "collection of cells" that defines your humanity?
Back on topic;
Ron Paul is a radical. He doesn't just believe in the constitution and attempt to enforce the constitution.

I like some of his stances but, as does everyone, he chooses when to interpret the constitution and when to enforce the constitution in a literal sense. Society has grown tremendously since the constitution was written and as such the situation dictates the need to interpret the "spirit" of the constitution IMO.
Click to expand...

IMO nothing about the way we have crafted our policies in the past 80 years comes within a million miles of the "spirit" of the constitution. Quite the opposite in fact.

That being said, I've given up on debating politics or suggesting better alternatives. There's no way to fix all the problems of this country without starting from scratch. I figure the best way to bring about that radical change is to accelerate our heading into self-destruction.
 
klyph said:
Out of curiosity, when do you define the moment that the "collection of cells" becomes human? Why do you consider yourself more than a "collection of cells"? What is it that you have, beyond your "collection of cells" that defines your humanity?
Click to expand...

When an organism can possess a sophisticated level of thought. I.e., not be a genius, but capable of higher level thought. That won't happen until all body systems are complete or nearly complete.
 
i believe more people should get abortions.
i say they should be free.
who gives a goddamn when what becomes what.
dont want it? you a shitty person? know you wont be worth a shit as a parent?
here, have a free abortion, its one less fucktard to dumb up the world.
but, thats just my opinion.
 
totalburnout said:
When an organism can possess a sophisticated level of thought. I.e., not be a genius, but capable of higher level thought. That won't happen until all body systems are complete or nearly complete.
Click to expand...

So you believe abortions can be performed until the multiplication tables are understood? Or will simple addition/subtraction be sufficient to ensure the right to continue life without the threat of extermination?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top