Topic: Ron Paul is an idiot.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #11,045
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #197,737
Inb4 mountainman.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,739
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution? Jesus the Republican party is strange.
LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,740
Ron Paul is insane, and it makes me sad that he's the only Libertarian who's even remotely in the public eye. I wish there were a single social Libertarian politician out there that still had moderately left-winged economic policies. And who believes in evolution. That's a big one. There's the Green Party, but they're also all socialists, so that's not a very good alternative.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,742
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,743
@197,740 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
> I wish there were a single social Libertarian politician out there that still had moderately left-winged economic policies
I think you'd really like Ron Wyden.
> I wish there were a single social Libertarian politician out there that still had moderately left-winged economic policies
I think you'd really like Ron Wyden.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 44 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,744
@previous (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
This, so much. He's one of the Cascadian senators, and stopped COICA from being passed single handedly, as well as the protect-IP act.
This, so much. He's one of the Cascadian senators, and stopped COICA from being passed single handedly, as well as the protect-IP act.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,745
@197,742 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Indeed.
@197,743 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Interesting... I'll read through his Wikipedia article right now.
Indeed.
@197,743 (Voice of !WisdomHsuU)
Interesting... I'll read through his Wikipedia article right now.
LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE double-posted this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,753
@previous (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
> Wyden has also consistently voted against limitations on the use of the death penalty.
> In 2009 Wyden sponsored the Healthy Americans Act, an act that would institute a national system of market based private insurance.
> In 2003 Wyden joined with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the Bush Administration's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[18] The Bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was triple its original claim. The bill has been criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates.
> On November 10, 2005, Wyden was one of five Senate Democrats who joined 44 Republicans in voting "yes" on Amendment no. 2516, brought to the floor by Republican senator Lindsey Graham, which ruled that enemy combatants did not have the right to Habeas Corpus.
Hm. Not bad. I've seen politicians whom I've supported have far more than four votes on their record that irritated me. Thank you OP and, I never thought I'd say this, Voice of Wisdom. :)
> Wyden has also consistently voted against limitations on the use of the death penalty.
> In 2009 Wyden sponsored the Healthy Americans Act, an act that would institute a national system of market based private insurance.
> In 2003 Wyden joined with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the Bush Administration's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[18] The Bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was triple its original claim. The bill has been criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates.
> On November 10, 2005, Wyden was one of five Senate Democrats who joined 44 Republicans in voting "yes" on Amendment no. 2516, brought to the floor by Republican senator Lindsey Graham, which ruled that enemy combatants did not have the right to Habeas Corpus.
Hm. Not bad. I've seen politicians whom I've supported have far more than four votes on their record that irritated me. Thank you OP and, I never thought I'd say this, Voice of Wisdom. :)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #197,761
LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #197,767
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #197,770
"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." - Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_religion
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #197,772
@previous (H)
What's the big deal about people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? I usually say Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, fun Kwanzaa, and drunk solstice in the same sentence and it takes forever.
What's the big deal about people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? I usually say Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, fun Kwanzaa, and drunk solstice in the same sentence and it takes forever.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #197,799
America is done folks. Wake up and smell the decaying corpse.
grey !C.MxxuCiTo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #197,818
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #197,836
I hate how people treat him like he's the second coming of Jesus, and yet he isn't consistent on his issues. For all his cries for "states rights" and "individual liberty", he still wants to federally ban abortion by "Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.â€1" rel="nofollow"> The thing about libertarians like Ron Paul is they create this false spectrum with "The government controls everything you think or do" at one end and "Absolute personal liberty" at the other, without considering the fact that any sufficiently large and influential group (not just governments) can and will prohibit your rights if it is in their interests. Hence, while it may seem like severely limiting the FDA2" rel="nofollow"> is a good idea (less government influence = more personal freedom); in reality it diminishes your personal freedom by getting rid of government protection of your rights, and letting unscrupulous corporations freely deceive because it is profitable and they can get away with it. Not all government interference in the market is detrimental to the rights of the consumer. This false dichotomy is further illustrated by his (in my opinion) absurd decision to "Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.3" rel="nofollow">. The problem with this is that it supposes the average American consumer has enough legal clout to seriously challenge multi-billion dollar corporations in court. This is, of course, simply false. Not to mention his "End the Fed"4" rel="nofollow"> policy is not based on any sound agreement among economists; it's merely his personal belief which he will force on the American people (this is, ironically, something he is opposed to doing). When this is joined with his desire to return to "sound money",5" rel="nofollow"> close the IRS,6" rel="nofollow"> and abolish the income tax7" rel="nofollow">, it is evident that he is too radical of a candidate to elect as President of the United States.
tl;dr fuck Ron Paul
tl;dr fuck Ron Paul
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,054
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,061
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,083
"Live free, die hard"
- Ron Paul
- Ron Paul
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,091
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,092
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,093
@197,740 (LatestDude !fdNXKPsJjE)
I don't know that he totally rejects evolution... I would like to see another quote on the issue.
Does it really matter though? It doesn't affect any of his policies or actions. I'd prefer that he believed on it, but id also prefer that he dressed like jfk. Lol
I don't know that he totally rejects evolution... I would like to see another quote on the issue.
Does it really matter though? It doesn't affect any of his policies or actions. I'd prefer that he believed on it, but id also prefer that he dressed like jfk. Lol
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,094
@198,092 (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Lol he made a distinction between leftwing and socialism, I'd like to know what exactly he means.
Lol he made a distinction between leftwing and socialism, I'd like to know what exactly he means.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,095
@198,093 (TrollBuster3000)
> Does it really matter though?
It does matter because there doesn't need to be some heathenistic evolution promoter in the White House. Clearly if he believes then he has already condemned himself to the firey brimstone of Hell and thus puts him in alignment with Satan himself.
> Does it really matter though?
It does matter because there doesn't need to be some heathenistic evolution promoter in the White House. Clearly if he believes then he has already condemned himself to the firey brimstone of Hell and thus puts him in alignment with Satan himself.
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,096
Christians generally don't believe in evolution?
OMG SO INSIGHTFUL OP
OMG SO INSIGHTFUL OP
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,097
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,179
@197,739 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution? Jesus the Republican party is strange.
Neither does Romney, Perry, Or Bachmann.
Theyre idiots. I mean, they clearly lack the ability to look at information, understand it, and come to a sensible conclusion.
LOADS of evidence VS NO evidence.
They still think they should lead a nation that is in crisis.
> Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution? Jesus the Republican party is strange.
Neither does Romney, Perry, Or Bachmann.
Theyre idiots. I mean, they clearly lack the ability to look at information, understand it, and come to a sensible conclusion.
LOADS of evidence VS NO evidence.
They still think they should lead a nation that is in crisis.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,259
@197,772 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> What's the big deal about people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? I usually say Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, fun Kwanzaa, and drunk solstice in the same sentence and it takes forever.
How about you just say there is no God, and holidays are just any other day except you don't have to go to work.
> What's the big deal about people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? I usually say Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, fun Kwanzaa, and drunk solstice in the same sentence and it takes forever.
How about you just say there is no God, and holidays are just any other day except you don't have to go to work.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,309
@198,093 (TrollBuster3000)
He believes in creationism. I remember this going back to 2008 which is what turned me off to him.
He tried to make it out like it's not important, too. He doesn't realize how important it is to foster an environment where our children can succeed on an international level. China and India are outpacing us. They are industrial nations, which leaves much more room for growth.
Ron Paul also wants no government regulation. He has some ideals, that work in some areas, but companies who's goal is $$$ can't be trusted to be ethical. It never works out that way. Corporations cause the most corruption in government that is blatant and ignored. The man isn't fit to be president. I admire his conviction, but he is dead wrong when it comes to too many critical issues.
Which is a shame, because he is likely the only possible choice for president who would bring our troops home. He would likely be assassinated for it, though (the military industrial complex has assassins. They stand to lose billions. Why do you think Obama is bombing libya? He doesn't want to be shot.)
He believes in creationism. I remember this going back to 2008 which is what turned me off to him.
He tried to make it out like it's not important, too. He doesn't realize how important it is to foster an environment where our children can succeed on an international level. China and India are outpacing us. They are industrial nations, which leaves much more room for growth.
Ron Paul also wants no government regulation. He has some ideals, that work in some areas, but companies who's goal is $$$ can't be trusted to be ethical. It never works out that way. Corporations cause the most corruption in government that is blatant and ignored. The man isn't fit to be president. I admire his conviction, but he is dead wrong when it comes to too many critical issues.
Which is a shame, because he is likely the only possible choice for president who would bring our troops home. He would likely be assassinated for it, though (the military industrial complex has assassins. They stand to lose billions. Why do you think Obama is bombing libya? He doesn't want to be shot.)
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Meowth !RKehomzmKo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,448
California Governor Jerry Brown CAN SUCK MY DICK FUCKIN' FAGGOT.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,513
@198,309 (sluggy)
Hey I asked for additional sources on Ron Paul's beliefs on creation/evolution (I believe there may have been a question at a debate like "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution" and he didn't raise his hand). I would like a source where he clearly enunciates his views on evolution i.e. something he can't wiggle out of by saying "Oh I was talking about atheism" or "social darwinism" or some crap like that.
It's not that important. He's not a teacher. If he was a science teacher his views on various scientific theories would be very relevant. But he's not. He's a presidential candidate. His views on foreign, domestic and economic policy are relevant. His religious or scientific views are only relevant where they influence his policies. Acceptance or rejection of evolution does not influence any of his policies.
If corporations would benefit under libertarianism, why do they support statists and not libertarians? You bring up that corporations corrupt government - a compelling argument for limiting the power of government. Big government is the best friend of big business.
You say he is dead wrong on many critical issues but you don't bring any up. I am willing to explain/defend his positions if you wish.
Hey I asked for additional sources on Ron Paul's beliefs on creation/evolution (I believe there may have been a question at a debate like "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution" and he didn't raise his hand). I would like a source where he clearly enunciates his views on evolution i.e. something he can't wiggle out of by saying "Oh I was talking about atheism" or "social darwinism" or some crap like that.
It's not that important. He's not a teacher. If he was a science teacher his views on various scientific theories would be very relevant. But he's not. He's a presidential candidate. His views on foreign, domestic and economic policy are relevant. His religious or scientific views are only relevant where they influence his policies. Acceptance or rejection of evolution does not influence any of his policies.
If corporations would benefit under libertarianism, why do they support statists and not libertarians? You bring up that corporations corrupt government - a compelling argument for limiting the power of government. Big government is the best friend of big business.
You say he is dead wrong on many critical issues but you don't bring any up. I am willing to explain/defend his positions if you wish.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,518
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Ill be honest, I have no idea where I heard or read that. It was in 2008, and it could have just been someone telling me. It could be wrong, but I have thought of him as believing in creationism since then.
His views on abortion lead me to believe its accurate, but let me see if I can find anything.
Ill be honest, I have no idea where I heard or read that. It was in 2008, and it could have just been someone telling me. It could be wrong, but I have thought of him as believing in creationism since then.
His views on abortion lead me to believe its accurate, but let me see if I can find anything.
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,524
Yea, dude. Watch the video in the OP. He is evasive, and refers to evolution as a theory, obviously not understanding what a scientific theory is. He says there isn't any concrete evidence on either side. There is no evidence on the creation side, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence on the evolution side.
He sounds delusional and very ignorant. I don't think he is an idiot. I do believe he lets his faith cloud his judgment. There are real concerns with that. There is a strong correlation between religious belief and climate change denial in the US. Rick Perry doesn't believe in global warming. He says the evidence lead him to that conclusion. He also is a creationist as well He thought it was taught in texas schools because he appointed creationist people to the board of education. They had to be blocked by the courts from introducing creationism from the schools as an alternative method. The creationism side never produced any evidence for its side. It tried to attack evolution, and only served to show how ignorant creationism scholars are.
These people can't be responsible for making policy decisions. They are delusional. They will push bad policy and support poor education because of their delusion (faith). It shows a real serious inability to think critically.
He sounds delusional and very ignorant. I don't think he is an idiot. I do believe he lets his faith cloud his judgment. There are real concerns with that. There is a strong correlation between religious belief and climate change denial in the US. Rick Perry doesn't believe in global warming. He says the evidence lead him to that conclusion. He also is a creationist as well He thought it was taught in texas schools because he appointed creationist people to the board of education. They had to be blocked by the courts from introducing creationism from the schools as an alternative method. The creationism side never produced any evidence for its side. It tried to attack evolution, and only served to show how ignorant creationism scholars are.
These people can't be responsible for making policy decisions. They are delusional. They will push bad policy and support poor education because of their delusion (faith). It shows a real serious inability to think critically.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,534
@197,836 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
lol a Jew hating Ron Paul? That's original...
> I hate how people treat him like he's the second coming of Jesus, and yet he isn't consistent on his issues.
Big claim, let's see how you go.
> For all his cries for "states rights" and "individual liberty", he still wants to federally ban abortion by "Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.â€1" rel="nofollow">
I don't want to come across as a jerk, but you either can't read or are being deliberately dishonest. Here is the text of the Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.776.IH::
It's only very short. Read the text. It REMOVES federal jurisdiction over abortion; it devolves the issue to the STATES. It does the opposite of what you says it does and is thus perfectly consistent.
> The thing about libertarians like Ron Paul is they create this false spectrum with "The government controls everything you think or do" at one end and "Absolute personal liberty" at the other, without considering the fact that any sufficiently large and influential group (not just governments) can and will prohibit your rights if it is in their interests.
Influential? Over whom? Individuals? Influence is bad when it is used to sway Big Government against the wishes of the people. "Prohibiting rights" is a strange concept that I can't quite fathom. Are you suggesting that large corporations will prohibit the right of private property? Or perhaps one's right to life?
> Hence, while it may seem like severely limiting the FDA2" rel="nofollow"> is a good idea (less government influence = more personal freedom); in reality it diminishes your personal freedom by getting rid of government protection of your rights, and letting unscrupulous corporations freely deceive because it is profitable and they can get away with it.
Now you are outright lying. Liberty ≠security; how would Franklin's famous quote make any sense if the concepts are synonymous? It is superlative sophistry to claim that limiting freedom increases freedom.
> Not all government interference in the market is detrimental to the rights of the consumer. This false dichotomy is further illustrated by his (in my opinion) absurd decision to "Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.3" rel="nofollow">. The problem with this is that it supposes the average American consumer has enough legal clout to seriously challenge multi-billion dollar corporations in court. This is, of course, simply false.
A person who suffers pollution is not a "consumer". They are a victim of crime; their rights to property and even life have been infringed upon. To suggest that one can "buy" justice is offensive to judges and the entire legal profession everywhere. That is not to say I don't see some value in the EPA. For example, I see no other solution to carbon pollution than regulation, as it is odorless, invisible and does not have localized effects.
> Not to mention his "End the Fed"4" rel="nofollow"> policy is not based on any sound agreement among economists; it's merely his personal belief which he will force on the American people (this is, ironically, something he is opposed to doing). When this is joined with his desire to return to "sound money",5" rel="nofollow"> close the IRS,6" rel="nofollow"> and abolish the income tax7" rel="nofollow">, it is evident that he is too radical of a candidate to elect as President of the United States.
There is not "sound agreement" among economists on any issue lol. Although there were not too many other voices calling out the bubbles when Ron Paul was. "Agreement" matters little; Obama and Bush agree on foreign policy, yet they are both clearly wrong. You are once again resorting to sophistry; you sound like my friend who claimed I advocated "imposing freedom" upon people, a clearly ridiculous concept. Closing the IRS seems to be related to ending income taxes: I guess another bureau would be responsible for collecting other taxes; I am not sure. Why don't you want a radical president? Many things are clearly wrong with the country. You need a radical change in foreign policy, a radical change in domestic policy, and a radical change in spending. Ron Paul is the only radical candidate, and is thus most worthy of the presidency.
> tl;dr fuck Ron Paul
Only love here bro
lol a Jew hating Ron Paul? That's original...
> I hate how people treat him like he's the second coming of Jesus, and yet he isn't consistent on his issues.
Big claim, let's see how you go.
> For all his cries for "states rights" and "individual liberty", he still wants to federally ban abortion by "Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.â€1" rel="nofollow">
I don't want to come across as a jerk, but you either can't read or are being deliberately dishonest. Here is the text of the Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.776.IH::
It's only very short. Read the text. It REMOVES federal jurisdiction over abortion; it devolves the issue to the STATES. It does the opposite of what you says it does and is thus perfectly consistent.
> The thing about libertarians like Ron Paul is they create this false spectrum with "The government controls everything you think or do" at one end and "Absolute personal liberty" at the other, without considering the fact that any sufficiently large and influential group (not just governments) can and will prohibit your rights if it is in their interests.
Influential? Over whom? Individuals? Influence is bad when it is used to sway Big Government against the wishes of the people. "Prohibiting rights" is a strange concept that I can't quite fathom. Are you suggesting that large corporations will prohibit the right of private property? Or perhaps one's right to life?
> Hence, while it may seem like severely limiting the FDA2" rel="nofollow"> is a good idea (less government influence = more personal freedom); in reality it diminishes your personal freedom by getting rid of government protection of your rights, and letting unscrupulous corporations freely deceive because it is profitable and they can get away with it.
Now you are outright lying. Liberty ≠security; how would Franklin's famous quote make any sense if the concepts are synonymous? It is superlative sophistry to claim that limiting freedom increases freedom.
> Not all government interference in the market is detrimental to the rights of the consumer. This false dichotomy is further illustrated by his (in my opinion) absurd decision to "Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.3" rel="nofollow">. The problem with this is that it supposes the average American consumer has enough legal clout to seriously challenge multi-billion dollar corporations in court. This is, of course, simply false.
A person who suffers pollution is not a "consumer". They are a victim of crime; their rights to property and even life have been infringed upon. To suggest that one can "buy" justice is offensive to judges and the entire legal profession everywhere. That is not to say I don't see some value in the EPA. For example, I see no other solution to carbon pollution than regulation, as it is odorless, invisible and does not have localized effects.
> Not to mention his "End the Fed"4" rel="nofollow"> policy is not based on any sound agreement among economists; it's merely his personal belief which he will force on the American people (this is, ironically, something he is opposed to doing). When this is joined with his desire to return to "sound money",5" rel="nofollow"> close the IRS,6" rel="nofollow"> and abolish the income tax7" rel="nofollow">, it is evident that he is too radical of a candidate to elect as President of the United States.
There is not "sound agreement" among economists on any issue lol. Although there were not too many other voices calling out the bubbles when Ron Paul was. "Agreement" matters little; Obama and Bush agree on foreign policy, yet they are both clearly wrong. You are once again resorting to sophistry; you sound like my friend who claimed I advocated "imposing freedom" upon people, a clearly ridiculous concept. Closing the IRS seems to be related to ending income taxes: I guess another bureau would be responsible for collecting other taxes; I am not sure. Why don't you want a radical president? Many things are clearly wrong with the country. You need a radical change in foreign policy, a radical change in domestic policy, and a radical change in spending. Ron Paul is the only radical candidate, and is thus most worthy of the presidency.
> tl;dr fuck Ron Paul
Only love here bro
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,537
@198,524 (sluggy)
He is speaking to a crowd of people. I don't know what the nature of the crowd was; I don't know how evolution is popularly defined in the USA etc. My lecturers try to equate evolution with atheism. To them, evolution certainly implies abiogenesis without a Creator. They also equate the Big Bang with atheism, an absurd notion.
If I was attempting to speak to my lecturers on liberty and foreign policy, and they asked me some irrelevant BS question about a particular scientific theory that has social/cultural/religious implications I would assuage their consciences by rejecting the atheism they associate with these theories. I am not there to school them on the scientific merits on evolution; I am there to talk about liberty.
While rejecting evolution does represent a deficiency in critical thinking, I would be less quick to say the same about climate change skepticism. I see no reason to reject climate science, but a minority do. Their opinion is not based on peer pressure or religious indoctrination, but for various reasons (that I don't understand lol). I do not see climate change denial as a lapse in critical thinking; I merely see it as misguided and wrong.
Rick Perry is a statist fool, we are both agreed on that. Ron Paul would eliminate the Department of Education - the federal government would have no say in what you teach your kids. The children of America would be safer from indoctrination under a Ron Paul administration.
He is speaking to a crowd of people. I don't know what the nature of the crowd was; I don't know how evolution is popularly defined in the USA etc. My lecturers try to equate evolution with atheism. To them, evolution certainly implies abiogenesis without a Creator. They also equate the Big Bang with atheism, an absurd notion.
If I was attempting to speak to my lecturers on liberty and foreign policy, and they asked me some irrelevant BS question about a particular scientific theory that has social/cultural/religious implications I would assuage their consciences by rejecting the atheism they associate with these theories. I am not there to school them on the scientific merits on evolution; I am there to talk about liberty.
While rejecting evolution does represent a deficiency in critical thinking, I would be less quick to say the same about climate change skepticism. I see no reason to reject climate science, but a minority do. Their opinion is not based on peer pressure or religious indoctrination, but for various reasons (that I don't understand lol). I do not see climate change denial as a lapse in critical thinking; I merely see it as misguided and wrong.
Rick Perry is a statist fool, we are both agreed on that. Ron Paul would eliminate the Department of Education - the federal government would have no say in what you teach your kids. The children of America would be safer from indoctrination under a Ron Paul administration.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,559
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
> Ron Paul would eliminate the Department of Education - the federal government would have no say in what you teach your kids. The children of America would be safer from indoctrination under a Ron Paul administration.
I don't agree with that. Parent's shouldn't decide what their children learn of reality. Educators with no agenda except to educate children should decide.
> Ron Paul would eliminate the Department of Education - the federal government would have no say in what you teach your kids. The children of America would be safer from indoctrination under a Ron Paul administration.
I don't agree with that. Parent's shouldn't decide what their children learn of reality. Educators with no agenda except to educate children should decide.
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #198,564
@198,534 (TrollBuster3000)
> Influential? Over whom? Individuals?
I agree with the other guy on this point. Without regulations, corporations are free to do whatever they like. They can lie in their adverts with no advertising regulations saying they can't. They can cut corners in the workplace without health and safety laws. They could put all sorts of dangerous chemicals in your food without the health people prohibiting usage of those chemicals.
> Influential? Over whom? Individuals?
I agree with the other guy on this point. Without regulations, corporations are free to do whatever they like. They can lie in their adverts with no advertising regulations saying they can't. They can cut corners in the workplace without health and safety laws. They could put all sorts of dangerous chemicals in your food without the health people prohibiting usage of those chemicals.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,593
@198,559 (sluggy)
> I don't agree with that. Parent's shouldn't decide what their children learn of reality. Educators with no agenda except to educate children should decide.
So basically, Parent's shouldn't have the right to teach their own children, only the state should. That is a kind of Fascism and exactly the state of affairs Libertarians desire to avoid.
> I don't agree with that. Parent's shouldn't decide what their children learn of reality. Educators with no agenda except to educate children should decide.
So basically, Parent's shouldn't have the right to teach their own children, only the state should. That is a kind of Fascism and exactly the state of affairs Libertarians desire to avoid.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,603
@198,534 (TrollBuster3000)> > For all his cries for "states rights" and "individual liberty", he still wants to federally ban abortion by "Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.â€
> It does the opposite of what you says it does and is thus perfectly consistent.
Umm... No. Perhaps it is you who did not read the text you provided closely enough. (I've circled the relevant bits for you in case you're still confused.)
Section 2 pretty clearly defines life as beginning at conception and then kicks the issue of protecting that life to the states. It does precisely what he said it does, not the opposite.
> It REMOVES federal jurisdiction over abortion
Not exactly, it removes the ability of district courts and the Supreme Court (LOL) to review cases dealing with abortion or rule on the definition it sets down in section two. Aside from the hilariously dangerous precedent of enabling Congress to enact legislation free from judicial review, this basically forces his definition of life upon the states with no recourse to change it.
This is NOT handing the issue over to the states. This is handing the states Ron Paul's definition of life and tasking them with protecting it without right of judicial review.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,624
@198,259 (Jack !gOStA1p7Pc)
Why would I do that? I work in a place full of dying people and you think that I should remind them that there is no afterlife?
Why would I do that? I work in a place full of dying people and you think that I should remind them that there is no afterlife?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,626
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,637
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
What if parents determine the state is unfit to educate their children?
What if the state determines parents are unfit to educate it's future citizens?
The state is obviously in the dominant position, especially since they have the financial resources to affect their will whereas most parents do not.
What if parents determine the state is unfit to educate their children?
What if the state determines parents are unfit to educate it's future citizens?
The state is obviously in the dominant position, especially since they have the financial resources to affect their will whereas most parents do not.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,641
@previous (I)
What if the parents are unfit to teach children? Would uneducated people be able to get proper results, or would they release children that wouldn't benefit society?
What if the parents are unfit to teach children? Would uneducated people be able to get proper results, or would they release children that wouldn't benefit society?
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,644
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Rights are rights. If we're going to toss them away whenever we disagree with an individual's decisions, the whole concept is rubbish.
Rights are rights. If we're going to toss them away whenever we disagree with an individual's decisions, the whole concept is rubbish.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,645
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,855
@198,559 (sluggy)
And thus the great socialist experiment which started with Plato failed. The philosopher-king has never, does not, and will never exist. These pure, agenda-free people do not exist.
You'll note that Dr Paul leaves the States free to legislate on education; he is just removing this unconstitutional power from the Federal government.
And thus the great socialist experiment which started with Plato failed. The philosopher-king has never, does not, and will never exist. These pure, agenda-free people do not exist.
You'll note that Dr Paul leaves the States free to legislate on education; he is just removing this unconstitutional power from the Federal government.
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,858
@198,564 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
"Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association." -Tocqueville
Free, voluntary associations will take the place of compulsory, coercive bureaus. Associations fulfilling the role of the FDA will spring up, but they will not have the power to prevent you from drinking raw milk.
"Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association." -Tocqueville
Free, voluntary associations will take the place of compulsory, coercive bureaus. Associations fulfilling the role of the FDA will spring up, but they will not have the power to prevent you from drinking raw milk.
TrollBuster3000 triple-posted this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,864
@198,603 (L)
The States are not forced to act in any way. The states are free to act however they wish. Claiming that removing federal jurisdiction is equivalent to a federal prohibition is far beyond sophistry - you are deliberately lying and misleading uninformed people.
The Supreme Court of the United States does, unfortunately interfere in the governance of the States. Such a clause should not even be necessary.
The States are not and can not be forced to do anything under this legislation.
The States are not forced to act in any way. The states are free to act however they wish. Claiming that removing federal jurisdiction is equivalent to a federal prohibition is far beyond sophistry - you are deliberately lying and misleading uninformed people.
The Supreme Court of the United States does, unfortunately interfere in the governance of the States. Such a clause should not even be necessary.
The States are not and can not be forced to do anything under this legislation.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,867
@198,858 (TrollBuster3000)
Liberals will never appreciate what an offense the illegality of raw milk truly is.
Liberals will never appreciate what an offense the illegality of raw milk truly is.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,870
@previous (I)
Take back the word liberal! Liberal = liberty = libertarian. Progressive is another misnomer. Expanding the state is regressive.
Take back the word liberal! Liberal = liberty = libertarian. Progressive is another misnomer. Expanding the state is regressive.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,885
@198,864 (TrollBuster3000)
> The States are not forced to act in any way.
The act legislatively overturns Roe v. Wade and essentially redefines murder. The state's responsibility to protect unborn children is specifically mentioned in the act.
> removing federal jurisdiction
It doesn't. It only tries to prevent future rulings in federal courts. Actually removing federal jurisdiction from the matter wouldn't allow for Congress to define when life begins.
I understand you are just schticking it up, but stick to random quotes and overblown rhetoric.
> The States are not forced to act in any way.
The act legislatively overturns Roe v. Wade and essentially redefines murder. The state's responsibility to protect unborn children is specifically mentioned in the act.
> removing federal jurisdiction
It doesn't. It only tries to prevent future rulings in federal courts. Actually removing federal jurisdiction from the matter wouldn't allow for Congress to define when life begins.
I understand you are just schticking it up, but stick to random quotes and overblown rhetoric.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,889
I have a question: can anyone who supports Ron Paul, or his general set of ideals, tell me why states' rights are considered so important? People booing and hissing at federal law is one thing I've never understood.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,890
@198,885 (L)
The definition of "murder" is completely unchanged. Please stop making things up and misleading people.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2533:
This is the most recent version of the bill. I may have posted an older version earlier.
There is not "responsibility" to protect children; only an authority - an authority the states have had usurped from them by the federal government. This act would recognize that, and would devolve the power to regulate abortion to the States.
Abortion legislation is a completely separate issue from defining the word "life" in federal law. Do not conflate the issues. You are confusing yourself and others.
> I understand you are just schticking it up, but stick to random quotes and overblown rhetoric.
The old "uh on I don't know if my arguments will actually convince anyone so I better accuse my opponent of trolling" tactic. Don't go there, bud.
The definition of "murder" is completely unchanged. Please stop making things up and misleading people.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2533:
This is the most recent version of the bill. I may have posted an older version earlier.
There is not "responsibility" to protect children; only an authority - an authority the states have had usurped from them by the federal government. This act would recognize that, and would devolve the power to regulate abortion to the States.
Abortion legislation is a completely separate issue from defining the word "life" in federal law. Do not conflate the issues. You are confusing yourself and others.
> I understand you are just schticking it up, but stick to random quotes and overblown rhetoric.
The old "uh on I don't know if my arguments will actually convince anyone so I better accuse my opponent of trolling" tactic. Don't go there, bud.
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,892
@198,889 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
1. It is constitutional.
The federal government breaks the constitution daily and we would like to end this.
2. Greater liberty.
Government is least restrictive when kept as local as possible. It is the least coercive and most agreeable to the greatest number of people.
1. It is constitutional.
The federal government breaks the constitution daily and we would like to end this.
2. Greater liberty.
Government is least restrictive when kept as local as possible. It is the least coercive and most agreeable to the greatest number of people.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,893
@198,890 (TrollBuster3000)
Why do you think the act bothers to define life as beginning at conception?
Why do you think the act bothers to define life as beginning at conception?
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,899
@198,892 (TrollBuster3000)
> 1. It is constitutional.
> The federal government breaks the constitution daily and we would like to end this.
Well, here's another question: the Constitution is hundreds of years old. Why does it necessarily still need to be upheld to the very letter? A great deal of it is archaic and no longer applies to modern life.
> 2. Greater liberty.
> Government is least restrictive when kept as local as possible. It is the least coercive and most agreeable to the greatest number of people.
That causes a ton of fragmentation. Why are federal laws unacceptable if they are used to set basic legal "lines," and let the states define it from there?
> 1. It is constitutional.
> The federal government breaks the constitution daily and we would like to end this.
Well, here's another question: the Constitution is hundreds of years old. Why does it necessarily still need to be upheld to the very letter? A great deal of it is archaic and no longer applies to modern life.
> 2. Greater liberty.
> Government is least restrictive when kept as local as possible. It is the least coercive and most agreeable to the greatest number of people.
That causes a ton of fragmentation. Why are federal laws unacceptable if they are used to set basic legal "lines," and let the states define it from there?
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,903
@previous (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> Well, here's another question: the Constitution is hundreds of years old. Why does it necessarily still need to be upheld to the very letter? A great deal of it is archaic and no longer applies to modern life.
This is what amendments are for, troll.
> Well, here's another question: the Constitution is hundreds of years old. Why does it necessarily still need to be upheld to the very letter? A great deal of it is archaic and no longer applies to modern life.
This is what amendments are for, troll.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,904
@198,893 (L)
States already have the authority to protect postnatal life. This act is designed to give states the authority to protect prenatal life.
States already have the authority to protect postnatal life. This act is designed to give states the authority to protect prenatal life.
LatestDude !!nEftABMoF replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,905
@198,903 (O)
@198,890 (TrollBuster3000)
> The old "uh on I don't know if my arguments will actually convince anyone so I better accuse my opponent of trolling" tactic. Don't go there, bud.
@198,890 (TrollBuster3000)
> The old "uh on I don't know if my arguments will actually convince anyone so I better accuse my opponent of trolling" tactic. Don't go there, bud.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,908
@198,899 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
If you feel that way you should amend it. I am curious, though, to learn what parts you find archaic and irrelevant.
Why is fragmentation bad?
Not everybody agrees on the "basic legal lines". Hence why each state has developed their own "basic legal lines".
If you feel that way you should amend it. I am curious, though, to learn what parts you find archaic and irrelevant.
Why is fragmentation bad?
Not everybody agrees on the "basic legal lines". Hence why each state has developed their own "basic legal lines".
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,909
@198,905 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
Re-read what I said and try not to just divert the issue with your trollish ad hominems.
Re-read what I said and try not to just divert the issue with your trollish ad hominems.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,911
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #198,925
@198,904 (TrollBuster3000)
> States already have the authority to protect postnatal life.
Then section two is unnecessary.
> This act is designed to give states the authority to protect prenatal life.
You just claimed that they already have that.
Why would the act need the federal government to provide a definition of life (and then assure that the definition can't be challenged in federal court) if this leaves the matter for the states to decide?
> States already have the authority to protect postnatal life.
Then section two is unnecessary.
> This act is designed to give states the authority to protect prenatal life.
You just claimed that they already have that.
Why would the act need the federal government to provide a definition of life (and then assure that the definition can't be challenged in federal court) if this leaves the matter for the states to decide?
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,070
@198,899 (LatestDude !!nEftABMoF)
> > 1. It is constitutional.
> > The federal government breaks the constitution daily and we would like to end this.
> Well, here's another question: the Constitution is hundreds of years old. Why does it necessarily still need to be upheld to the very letter? A great deal of it is archaic and no longer applies to modern life.
What???? That's what rule of law is about. Agreements articulated on paper dominate. The institutions exist to serve and uphold the law. They have the power to change it. That they haven't done so suggests it is still relevant.
> > 1. It is constitutional.
> > The federal government breaks the constitution daily and we would like to end this.
> Well, here's another question: the Constitution is hundreds of years old. Why does it necessarily still need to be upheld to the very letter? A great deal of it is archaic and no longer applies to modern life.
What???? That's what rule of law is about. Agreements articulated on paper dominate. The institutions exist to serve and uphold the law. They have the power to change it. That they haven't done so suggests it is still relevant.
Anonymous I double-posted this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,080
@198,870 (TrollBuster3000)
Fine then: American Socialists, who officially refer to themselves by the deceptive label of liberal democrats.
Fine then: American Socialists, who officially refer to themselves by the deceptive label of liberal democrats.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,152
@198,925 (L)
Section 2(B)(2) is necessary for a clear, plain-reading legislation. Legislation should not have to be read into, with implications and inferences.
> You just claimed that they already have that.
I have no idea what you mean by this. The States have had their authority to protect prenatal life usurped by the Federal government. This act would remedy this.
You are misled (or attempting to mislead) on the issue of SCOTUS challenges. The Sanctity of Life Act may face constitutional challenges by the Supreme Court, but if the Sanctity of Life Act were passed the Supreme Court would lose jurisdiction over abortion regulation.
Section 2(B)(2) is necessary for a clear, plain-reading legislation. Legislation should not have to be read into, with implications and inferences.
> You just claimed that they already have that.
I have no idea what you mean by this. The States have had their authority to protect prenatal life usurped by the Federal government. This act would remedy this.
You are misled (or attempting to mislead) on the issue of SCOTUS challenges. The Sanctity of Life Act may face constitutional challenges by the Supreme Court, but if the Sanctity of Life Act were passed the Supreme Court would lose jurisdiction over abortion regulation.
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,154
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,221
@198,593 (I)
Parents should have a right to teach their own children, but they should not be allowed to teach a revisionist history. Children deserve a fair shot at life. They shouldn't be held back by delusional and ignorant parents.
Germany doesn't allow homeschooling. They're doing ok right now.
Parents should have a right to teach their own children, but they should not be allowed to teach a revisionist history. Children deserve a fair shot at life. They shouldn't be held back by delusional and ignorant parents.
Germany doesn't allow homeschooling. They're doing ok right now.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,227
@previous (sluggy)
Who determines orthodox history? The state? The USA is the eternal good guy of world history who does not provoke attacks or bomb, invade and occupy other nations, unlike Islam and China, who have ALWAYS been the number enemies of human freedom.
Who determines orthodox history? The state? The USA is the eternal good guy of world history who does not provoke attacks or bomb, invade and occupy other nations, unlike Islam and China, who have ALWAYS been the number enemies of human freedom.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,230
@199,221 (sluggy)
It's mostly due to a religious aspect, even though most claim to be Christian of various denominations in reality it's just a formality. The numbers of offenders is very minimal in comparison to the overall population.
It's mostly due to a religious aspect, even though most claim to be Christian of various denominations in reality it's just a formality. The numbers of offenders is very minimal in comparison to the overall population.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,234
@199,221 (sluggy)
It's not the effect it has that matters! Why is slavery wrong? Not because masters beat their slaves, because husbands beat their wives yet this is not used to decry the evils of marriage. Slavery is wrong because it violated their liberty. State abduction and indoctrination of children is not wrong because the education they receive is so poor (although it is), it is wrong because it violates their liberty.
It's not the effect it has that matters! Why is slavery wrong? Not because masters beat their slaves, because husbands beat their wives yet this is not used to decry the evils of marriage. Slavery is wrong because it violated their liberty. State abduction and indoctrination of children is not wrong because the education they receive is so poor (although it is), it is wrong because it violates their liberty.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,238
@199,227 (TrollBuster3000)
Curriculum standards are decided by the state's board of education (I believe). It's a serious problem. The Texas board of education has pushed a revisionist curriculum through recently. It's sad.
Based on our experience with Vietnam we should have known not to invade Iraq. We didn't learn because we aren't taught that the US attacked Vietnam unprovoked. It's disgusting. War is gross and barbaric. I think presidents should be required to see the war first hand. I know it presents security concerns, but fuck, if you order people to kill, you should be there. There are procedures in place to replace a president who is killed. You can't replace a child.
Curriculum standards are decided by the state's board of education (I believe). It's a serious problem. The Texas board of education has pushed a revisionist curriculum through recently. It's sad.
Based on our experience with Vietnam we should have known not to invade Iraq. We didn't learn because we aren't taught that the US attacked Vietnam unprovoked. It's disgusting. War is gross and barbaric. I think presidents should be required to see the war first hand. I know it presents security concerns, but fuck, if you order people to kill, you should be there. There are procedures in place to replace a president who is killed. You can't replace a child.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,249
@previous (sluggy)
One would think that acknowledging the problem of objectivity would dissuade one from using such objective terms as "revisionist". There is no TRUE history. There are many theories of history. Some may be more popular than others but this changes as evidence is discovered &c. Terms like "revisionism" are statist tools to keep you from questioning the status quo.
For example, the United States didn't lose in Vietnam. They withdrew with honor. By claiming there are lessons to learn from Vietnam you demonstrate acceptance of a revisionist theory of history. There was the Gulf of Tonkin incident but this was the result of US aggression.
We shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. We shouldn't have bombed Libya, Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. We shouldn't be giving money to dictatorships, or to Israel. We shouldn't be occupying Germany, Korea or Japan.
One would think that acknowledging the problem of objectivity would dissuade one from using such objective terms as "revisionist". There is no TRUE history. There are many theories of history. Some may be more popular than others but this changes as evidence is discovered &c. Terms like "revisionism" are statist tools to keep you from questioning the status quo.
For example, the United States didn't lose in Vietnam. They withdrew with honor. By claiming there are lessons to learn from Vietnam you demonstrate acceptance of a revisionist theory of history. There was the Gulf of Tonkin incident but this was the result of US aggression.
We shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. We shouldn't have bombed Libya, Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. We shouldn't be giving money to dictatorships, or to Israel. We shouldn't be occupying Germany, Korea or Japan.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,275
@199,152 (TrollBuster3000)
A federal mandate that life legally begins at conception is not leaving the matter to the states. I don't know how I can be any more clear about that. This is not a states' right proposal.
A federal mandate that life legally begins at conception is not leaving the matter to the states. I don't know how I can be any more clear about that. This is not a states' right proposal.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,305
@previous (L)
And now you've come to: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" You ignore my arguments and resort to "IT JUST IS, OK?!"
I have compellingly, convincingly and consistently proved that this bill is a States' rights proposal, in complete accord with Ron Paul's political philosophy and ideology.
Feel free to counter any of my arguments; but please don't post any more Just So Stories.
And now you've come to: "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" You ignore my arguments and resort to "IT JUST IS, OK?!"
I have compellingly, convincingly and consistently proved that this bill is a States' rights proposal, in complete accord with Ron Paul's political philosophy and ideology.
Feel free to counter any of my arguments; but please don't post any more Just So Stories.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,319
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
> The old "uh on I don't know if my arguments will actually convince anyone so I better accuse my opponent of trolling" tactic. Don't go there, bud.
:P
> The old "uh on I don't know if my arguments will actually convince anyone so I better accuse my opponent of trolling" tactic. Don't go there, bud.
:P
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,427
@previous (L)
I didn't accuse you of trolling. I accused you of repeating yourself, despite having been effectively corrected.
I didn't accuse you of trolling. I accused you of repeating yourself, despite having been effectively corrected.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,452
@199,249 (TrollBuster3000)
The lesson to be learned from Vietnam is that we shouldn't invade countries.
Look at Vietnam today. It's not a danger or enemy of the US. Iraq wasn't our enemy. They likely could be in the future.
Regardless, we kill innocent people who haven't done anything to anyone. Why? To help them? It's so fucking ridiculous.
> We shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. We shouldn't have bombed Libya, Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. We shouldn't be giving money to dictatorships, or to Israel. We shouldn't be occupying Germany, Korea or Japan.
I'm torn on Afghanistan. We needed to retaliate against al Qaeda. The Taliban didn't want to cooperate, supposedly. It's hard to know what's truth and what's propaganda. A war makes a lot more money for people than covert operations. It's just, how do you justify killing innocents?
The lesson to be learned from Vietnam is that we shouldn't invade countries.
Look at Vietnam today. It's not a danger or enemy of the US. Iraq wasn't our enemy. They likely could be in the future.
Regardless, we kill innocent people who haven't done anything to anyone. Why? To help them? It's so fucking ridiculous.
> We shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. We shouldn't have bombed Libya, Yemen, Pakistan or Somalia. We shouldn't be giving money to dictatorships, or to Israel. We shouldn't be occupying Germany, Korea or Japan.
I'm torn on Afghanistan. We needed to retaliate against al Qaeda. The Taliban didn't want to cooperate, supposedly. It's hard to know what's truth and what's propaganda. A war makes a lot more money for people than covert operations. It's just, how do you justify killing innocents?
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,460
@previous (sluggy)
I agree 100%. I believe the occupation was unnecessary. Ron Paul's idea was to treat them as pirates:
The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means. Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.
I agree 100%. I believe the occupation was unnecessary. Ron Paul's idea was to treat them as pirates:
The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means. Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,462
@previous (TrollBuster3000)
Yea, his foreign policy is so fucking dead on. I wish he wasn't an idiot.
Yea, his foreign policy is so fucking dead on. I wish he wasn't an idiot.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,464
@199,427 (TrollBuster3000)
You haven't corrected anything. When you couldn't answer a simple question, you accused me of inventing my own reality and trying to mislead people.
You claim that imposing a definition by federal law somehow gives the states authority (@199,152 (TrollBuster3000)) after claiming they already have that authority (@198,904 (TrollBuster3000)) after stating that they have had that authority usurped (@198,890 (TrollBuster3000)) by the federal government. And the solution to that authority being usurped is... a federal law defining it for them?
Is there sense behind your doubletalk and accusations?
You haven't corrected anything. When you couldn't answer a simple question, you accused me of inventing my own reality and trying to mislead people.
You claim that imposing a definition by federal law somehow gives the states authority (@199,152 (TrollBuster3000)) after claiming they already have that authority (@198,904 (TrollBuster3000)) after stating that they have had that authority usurped (@198,890 (TrollBuster3000)) by the federal government. And the solution to that authority being usurped is... a federal law defining it for them?
Is there sense behind your doubletalk and accusations?
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,469
@199,462 (sluggy)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703052653/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
Some great stuff he said before the Iraq War. Of course, you never heard any of it on the media. The media was non stop war propaganda.
He's not an idiot.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703052653/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
Some great stuff he said before the Iraq War. Of course, you never heard any of it on the media. The media was non stop war propaganda.
He's not an idiot.
TrollBuster3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,477
@199,464 (L)
I apologize for accusing you of attempting to mislead people before; it is now clear that was not the case.
> Imposing
It is a perfectly valid use of power for the Federal government to define the terms used in its laws, and ridiculous to suggest otherwise with such language.
> 3 citations lol
Postnatal and prenatal are different words. Is that where you are getting confused?
> solution
The states have had many rights usurped; this bill is a stopgap measure to restore one of those rights.
> rhetoric
Unless I've used a wrong word somewhere that I'm not picking up because I'm correcting it as I read, I read don't get what you're on about.
I apologize for accusing you of attempting to mislead people before; it is now clear that was not the case.
> Imposing
It is a perfectly valid use of power for the Federal government to define the terms used in its laws, and ridiculous to suggest otherwise with such language.
> 3 citations lol
Postnatal and prenatal are different words. Is that where you are getting confused?
> solution
The states have had many rights usurped; this bill is a stopgap measure to restore one of those rights.
> rhetoric
Unless I've used a wrong word somewhere that I'm not picking up because I'm correcting it as I read, I read don't get what you're on about.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,478
@199,469 (TrollBuster3000)
You're right, he isn't an idiot. He is a man who has some really rational ideas about how this country should operate, but believes in many things that I feel would be very detrimental to the average citizen.
You're right, he isn't an idiot. He is a man who has some really rational ideas about how this country should operate, but believes in many things that I feel would be very detrimental to the average citizen.
TrollBuster3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,487
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,515
@199,477 (TrollBuster3000)
> Postnatal and prenatal
Ahh... That makes your view seem a little less conflicting. I apologize for misrepresenting your position.
I am still confused about the need to define life as beginning at conception, or how that empowers individual states. Acknowledging the constitutional rights and "personhood" of unborn children not only undercuts a standing court decision to uphold a person's constitutional right to liberty, but it seems designed to throw a wrench in any state legislation aimed at defining it in its own terms. In short, you shouldn't need a federal law to define fetuses as constitutionally protected people if your sole aim is to leave that very matter to the individual states to decide.
> Postnatal and prenatal
Ahh... That makes your view seem a little less conflicting. I apologize for misrepresenting your position.
I am still confused about the need to define life as beginning at conception, or how that empowers individual states. Acknowledging the constitutional rights and "personhood" of unborn children not only undercuts a standing court decision to uphold a person's constitutional right to liberty, but it seems designed to throw a wrench in any state legislation aimed at defining it in its own terms. In short, you shouldn't need a federal law to define fetuses as constitutionally protected people if your sole aim is to leave that very matter to the individual states to decide.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,610
People (MM) always say that you should only judge political candidates by their views on politics and nothing else. But when I hear someone make a ridiculous claim (like evolution is false) it makes me question their ability to make rational decisions based on science and truth instead of mythology. If a different candidate said that we should teach about electricity because it would anger Zeus, you would never consider him to be an appropriate candidate.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,624
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Why is acceptance of evolution the litmus test for critical thinking ability? This seems to be a firm position in atheistic circles: skepticism is great and health, but skepticism of evolution is heresy.
Why is acceptance of evolution the litmus test for critical thinking ability? This seems to be a firm position in atheistic circles: skepticism is great and health, but skepticism of evolution is heresy.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,626
@previous (I)
We have proof that things evolve, we see it!. If I questioned the fact that electricity exists, you would think I was a crackpot. Also, evolution does not automatically rule out the idea of an intelligent designer.
We have proof that things evolve, we see it!. If I questioned the fact that electricity exists, you would think I was a crackpot. Also, evolution does not automatically rule out the idea of an intelligent designer.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,627
@199,624 (I)
let me direct you to a smarter man than I, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html
I believe that settles that.
let me direct you to a smarter man than I, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html
I believe that settles that.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,630
@199,624 (I)
My mother and girlfriend are Christians who believe that God got the ball rolling, but that evolution actually happens, which it does.
My mother and girlfriend are Christians who believe that God got the ball rolling, but that evolution actually happens, which it does.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,631
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,637
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I never said I personally didn't believe in evolution. I'm just pointing out that it's becoming an idol among self-identified atheists.
And by the way, the effects of electricity are instantly observable. The effects of evolution are not. Your analogy only made sense in your own mind.
I never said I personally didn't believe in evolution. I'm just pointing out that it's becoming an idol among self-identified atheists.
And by the way, the effects of electricity are instantly observable. The effects of evolution are not. Your analogy only made sense in your own mind.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,640
@previous (I)
You don't believe that the effects of evolution are observable? Also, how does believing in a scientific theory that has so much proof backing it, make someone an idol worshiper? The movement of Tectonic plates are not instantly observable so would you find it rational to doubt that as well?
You don't believe that the effects of evolution are observable? Also, how does believing in a scientific theory that has so much proof backing it, make someone an idol worshiper? The movement of Tectonic plates are not instantly observable so would you find it rational to doubt that as well?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,641
swamplights !!V3J448+/B triple-posted this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,642
@199,637 (I)
By the way, electricity was not always instantly observable, Science (which seems to be a dirty word among fundamentalists) made it so.
By the way, electricity was not always instantly observable, Science (which seems to be a dirty word among fundamentalists) made it so.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,643
@199,641 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
YES.
Real Christians love gays same as everyone. Idol worshiping Christians do not.
YES.
Real Christians love gays same as everyone. Idol worshiping Christians do not.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,645
@previous (I)
Then why do their opinions get any merit at all? I actually do not believe that Christians or any other religious people are idol worshipers and I have personally seen that people can be very religious without denying scientific facts.
Then why do their opinions get any merit at all? I actually do not believe that Christians or any other religious people are idol worshipers and I have personally seen that people can be very religious without denying scientific facts.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,648
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,654
@199,645 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Then you fail to understand idolatry. In modern society everyone worships idols. Rome remade Christianity into and idolatrous religion.
Then you fail to understand idolatry. In modern society everyone worships idols. Rome remade Christianity into and idolatrous religion.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,656
@previous (I)
If everyone worships idols then there is no reason to even bring it up. When people accept any kind of crazy idea just because the person is religious,it insults all intelligent and rational minded religious people.
If everyone worships idols then there is no reason to even bring it up. When people accept any kind of crazy idea just because the person is religious,it insults all intelligent and rational minded religious people.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,666
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Well boo fucking hoooo.
Actually, people who are truly of a rational mind are not so easily offended by personal choice.
Well boo fucking hoooo.
Actually, people who are truly of a rational mind are not so easily offended by personal choice.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,670
@previous (I)
You can't pretend it doesn't impact people. Perry tried to get creationism taught in schools. These people are influenced by their religious beliefs. The anti-abortion movement is almost exclusively religious.
You can't pretend it doesn't impact people. Perry tried to get creationism taught in schools. These people are influenced by their religious beliefs. The anti-abortion movement is almost exclusively religious.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,673
@199,666 (I)
You just discounted everything that I said without even trying and considering a different opinion. Who said that I was offended? I said that I don't trust people who try and push unscientific ideas.
You just discounted everything that I said without even trying and considering a different opinion. Who said that I was offended? I said that I don't trust people who try and push unscientific ideas.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,679
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
And I said get over it. People are free to push and accept any ideas they choose. Your approval is not required.
And I said get over it. People are free to push and accept any ideas they choose. Your approval is not required.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,680
@previous (I)
But also your approval isn't required for my opinion. But you still talk about, so why can't I? I'm challenging you to stop posting as anonymous. Why hide when discussing unpopular topics?
But also your approval isn't required for my opinion. But you still talk about, so why can't I? I'm challenging you to stop posting as anonymous. Why hide when discussing unpopular topics?
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,690
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Oh no, not the identity weapon. Are you implying I'll be forced to go along with something I don't believe just because my reputation is at stake?
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I personally find it hive-minded, discriminatory, and disrespectful of personal choice. I commented as such.
Oh no, not the identity weapon. Are you implying I'll be forced to go along with something I don't believe just because my reputation is at stake?
I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion. I personally find it hive-minded, discriminatory, and disrespectful of personal choice. I commented as such.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,691
@previous (I)
You said that I'm allowed to have an opinion as long as I don't talk about it. 71% of Americans are Christians but as an Atheist, I'm the hiveminded one? That's bullshit, and you are a coward for not revealing your identity.
You said that I'm allowed to have an opinion as long as I don't talk about it. 71% of Americans are Christians but as an Atheist, I'm the hiveminded one? That's bullshit, and you are a coward for not revealing your identity.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
protip !!pMmAiEwOm replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,694
Can I get a TL;DR?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #199,695
@previous (protip !!pMmAiEwOm)
Ron Paul and many other Republican politicians do not believe in evolution. This is a problem for some.
Ron Paul and many other Republican politicians do not believe in evolution. This is a problem for some.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #199,706
@199,691 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Christians are also hive minded. I never said you weren't allowed to talk about your opinion, I said you had not right to force the choices of others.
And honestly. If you think Evolution is the most important issue in politics you are just plain dumb.
And I choose not to reveal my identity. You really have issues respecting the choices of others don't you?
Christians are also hive minded. I never said you weren't allowed to talk about your opinion, I said you had not right to force the choices of others.
And honestly. If you think Evolution is the most important issue in politics you are just plain dumb.
And I choose not to reveal my identity. You really have issues respecting the choices of others don't you?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #199,708
@previous (I)
I never said that it was the most important issue but it's still important. When I stated my opinions` on this subject you said boohoo and get over it, which implies that I shouldn't discuss such a thing.
I never said that it was the most important issue but it's still important. When I stated my opinions` on this subject you said boohoo and get over it, which implies that I shouldn't discuss such a thing.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #199,710
@199,706 (I)
Forcing an unscientific opinion to be taught in schools is also not respecting other's opinions.
Forcing an unscientific opinion to be taught in schools is also not respecting other's opinions.
The Pony !.PonyTzEbE replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #199,799
@198,858 (TrollBuster3000)
> but they will not have the power to prevent you from drinking raw milk.
So they're useless, then.
> but they will not have the power to prevent you from drinking raw milk.
So they're useless, then.
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #200,329
@199,515 (L)
Sorry if I got a little mad I just couldn't work out what you were talking about haha.
> I am still confused about the need to define life as beginning at conception
I am unsure. Is life defined as beginning at birth currently? Either way the definition is not a law per se, but is necessary for the second part authorizing states to protect said life.
Text of 14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
sorry if this post doesn't make sense I've got a headache
um just briefly cause the screens all blurry lol:
I am unsure what would happen if a state were to define life differently. As it stands States can't define life as beginning at conception - perhaps this bill would allow states to define it up to conception, but at birth if they wish. I'm sure equitable interpretations could be found.
You shouldn't need to define life but because of another federal power grab (Roe v. Wade) I guess it became necessary. If Roe v. Wade were overturned (as it should be, I believe: it is very poor legal work, ridiculously illogical and a classic example of judicial legislation) this bill would not be necessary, as the states would retain the power to regulate abortion. I Roe v. Wade were overturned I would suggest the Sanctity of Life Act be removed as well.
Sorry if I got a little mad I just couldn't work out what you were talking about haha.
> I am still confused about the need to define life as beginning at conception
I am unsure. Is life defined as beginning at birth currently? Either way the definition is not a law per se, but is necessary for the second part authorizing states to protect said life.
Text of 14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
sorry if this post doesn't make sense I've got a headache
um just briefly cause the screens all blurry lol:
I am unsure what would happen if a state were to define life differently. As it stands States can't define life as beginning at conception - perhaps this bill would allow states to define it up to conception, but at birth if they wish. I'm sure equitable interpretations could be found.
You shouldn't need to define life but because of another federal power grab (Roe v. Wade) I guess it became necessary. If Roe v. Wade were overturned (as it should be, I believe: it is very poor legal work, ridiculously illogical and a classic example of judicial legislation) this bill would not be necessary, as the states would retain the power to regulate abortion. I Roe v. Wade were overturned I would suggest the Sanctity of Life Act be removed as well.
StatistSocialist3000 double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #200,333
@199,610 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
> If a different candidate said that we shouldn't teach about electricity because it would anger Zeus, you would never consider him to be an appropriate candidate.
If Ron Paul attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in schools, I would not support him, because that would be a political opinion. If a candidate believed in Zeus but held rational political theories I would vote for him. Your analogy is false and misleading.
> If a different candidate said that we shouldn't teach about electricity because it would anger Zeus, you would never consider him to be an appropriate candidate.
If Ron Paul attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in schools, I would not support him, because that would be a political opinion. If a candidate believed in Zeus but held rational political theories I would vote for him. Your analogy is false and misleading.
StatistSocialist3000 triple-posted this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #200,341
@199,799 (The Pony !.PonyTzEbE)
hope you're joking but some people certainly believe that hence why it is official government policy
hope you're joking but some people certainly believe that hence why it is official government policy
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #200,343
@200,329 (StatistSocialist3000)
I really wish you would discuss more about Australian politics instead of American ones considering you live on the other side of the globe from the United States.
I really wish you would discuss more about Australian politics instead of American ones considering you live on the other side of the globe from the United States.
StatistSocialist3000 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #200,348
@199,710 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Ron Paul is not forcing an unscientific opinion to be taught in schools. Ron Paul wants to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education.
Ron Paul is not forcing an unscientific opinion to be taught in schools. Ron Paul wants to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education.