Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election”.
Tucker, a self-professed fan of Ron Paul discusses liberty with former stripper, and current libertarian county chairman, Michelle Shingal. They regard Hillary Clinton as the candidate of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”
His colleague asks, “Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul”, to which Tucker responds, “That’s the question I think millions of Americans are beginning to ask themselves.”
Comment by Mike | August 28th, 2007
thanks for letting me know about this video
Pingback by Brushfires of Freedom » Blog Archive » Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] | August 29th, 2007
[...] of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”read more | digg [...]
Comment by Fielding J. Hurst | August 29th, 2007
Love it.
“Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul after that”? Bill
“That’s the question, I think, that millions of Americans beginning to ask themselves.” Tucker
Comment by Fielding J. Hurst | August 29th, 2007
Which of the following does Tucker Carlson love more?
A) RON PAUL
B) STRIPPERS
C) STRIPPERS FOR RON PAUL
D) ALL OF THE ABOVE. STRIPPERS FOR RON PAUL AND RON PAUL
Comment by al | August 29th, 2007
The crawl at the bottom of the screen obscured the view.
Comment by Eric | August 29th, 2007
Ron Paul? Yeah right, he better not win. That would do a great service to the country. He says a few different things and all of a sudden he’s a savior? Please…I’ve read his platform and it sounds ridiculous to me. Like some hard right-wing nut job, quite frankly, I’m happy that he barely registers on the polls.
I’m hoping Giuliani wins the republican nomination, that way we can have an easy democratic victory in 2008.
Comment by Freddy | August 29th, 2007
Candidate of Freedom? LOLZ! OK, strippers. Where will you get your abortions when Anti-Choice Ron Paul outlaws abortion? That’s right. Your beloved “freedom” candidate opposes abortion rights. What a joke. How do you libertarians justify that as freedom?
Comment by Jason | August 29th, 2007
“How do you libertarians justify that as freedom?”
Any federal laws that are not bound by the constitution are left for the states, it’s the 10th amendment. He may be Anti-Choice, but he is also against regulating anything that is out of bounds of the constitution whether it be for or against abortion.
Comment by Kevin | August 29th, 2007
Freddy,
I like how you morons call wanting to snuff out human life a “right”.
In fact you call anything you want a “right” no matter how stupid it is.
I want the right to get rid of the a kid up to 5 years after he is born, why don’t I have that “right”?
Jeez…
And if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states, as it well should be in federalism. But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the D on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.
Comment by yeah right | August 29th, 2007
It not about any one issue personal freedom is what it about stop putting labels and ideologies to ever thing based on your ego and your fears look up Mouseland. If you want abortions legal go to the Northern States if not go to a Southern States but get the issue out of the federal government control wake up take control of your own life or this will be the last free election with real choices think how ridiculous it is to spend the amount of money to elect these millionaires does it give you power to cast one vote come on think for your self make your one vote count for every one vote for integrity read Ron Paul’s take on the economy based on common sense look up the Mises theory learn what motives a man to go against the mainstream for over twenty years. Think for your self-stop listing to sound s bites
Comment by Freddy | August 29th, 2007
Kevin, thanks for exposing the ignorance that is rampant on your side- the side that believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.
OK, Kevin, cough up your evidence. PROVE that life begins at conception. Use actual science, not the pathetic far-right politics that Bush has tried to substitute for science in virtually every aspect of public life- food safety, mining, evolution, etc. Can’t do it, huh? Oh well. Anti-choicers fail again.
Oh, wait, your RELIGION tells you so (Jesus sure didn’t tell you so, HE never mentioned abortion.It’s only poor Jesus’ more ignorant followers who are obsessed with abortion, not Jesus Himself.). So what we have here is you ESTABLISHING STATE RELIGION even though the Constitution says you can’t. You fail.
Kevin, since you and your ilk have whimsically and arbitrarily GUESSED when human life begins, it is equally justifiable for some other equally ignorant group to whimsically and arbitrarily GUESS that human life begins BEFORE conception. That would make every sperm cell or egg that you are packing a human being. Your every emission or menstruation makes you a murderer. What’s that you whine? Not fair? Well neither is your shrill bleating about abortion being murder.
Kevin goes on to lie “if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states”
Well, Kevin, if you actually knew much of anything about your precious anti-abortion candidates, you would know that you just LIED. Ron Paul DOES NOT LEAVE IT UP TO STATES. Ron Paul supports restrictions on abortion at the Federal level, and has already voted to take away women’s right to abortion.
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
There you have it, Kevin. How you do justify your ignorant lie?
Given the chance to use Federal power to restrict a woman’s Constitutional right to a safe, medical abortions, Ron Paul BETRAYED libertarian principles and voted in favor of big-governemnt in your bedroom fundamentalists. Also:
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Furthermore, if you knew much of anything, you’d know Ron Paul has aborted lots of fetuses when he thought a woman’s health could be at risk. If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?
Kevin, all you have done is prove your ignorance. And that you spoke to yourself when you said “But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the [R] on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.”
It’s very Freudian that you said “repubic” instead of republic. Like the rest of you anti-choicers, you are very re-pubic minded.
Comment by Freddy | August 29th, 2007
“Any federal laws that are not bound by the constitution are left for the states, it’s the 10th amendment. He may be Anti-Choice, but he is also against regulating anything that is out of bounds of the constitution whether it be for or against abortion.”
Jason, thanks for a reasoned answer, unlike poor ignorant Kevin.
But as you can see from the answer above, Ron Paul betrayed that libertarian ideal by trying to regulate abortion at the Federal level when he voted to outlaw the so-called (pejoratively named) “partial birth” abortion. What do you say to that?
Comment by Matt | August 29th, 2007
How do I know life begins before birth? Because I have seen a child in the womb and heard its heart beat. It can move. To me that is life. Maybe it’s not at conception but it is shortly there after. I have a perfect solution. As soon as a baby’s heartbeat is discernible by medical means, it is declared a human being with all protection provided as such.
Comment by Burdell | August 29th, 2007
The problem is that there is too much dogma on both sides of the aisle. Freddy, banning any funding for foreign aid abroad and voting against federal funding for stem cell research (it is perfectly legal to destroy a fetus to experiment on embryonic stem cells) is very libertarian, because libertarians do not believe that the federal government should be a charity or the nation’s R&D fundraiser.
Now, on Ron Paul voting to outlaw late term abortions, you are right, this is against pure libertarian principals, which Ron Paul even admits. Now, it should be noted that the ban only applies to babies that are viable, meaning that it you just deliver the whole baby, instead of killing it while it is still partially in the woman, or just deliver it by C section, then the baby is far enough along to live on its own. Now, while I personally am still against the ban, saying that the ban erodes a woman’s right to abortion is like saying that outlawing slander limits our right of freedom of speech.
Freddy, even if Ron Paul is wrong on this one issue (which I agree with you that he is), does that make him a worse candidate than Obama or Clinton who voted for and continue to vote for the Iraq war, and would love to go into Darfur if given the chance. Republicans may be known as the party of big business (which they are), do you think that the Democrats are not as well. I mean lawyers and the HMOs would love for the Democrats to be elected. How about how the Democrats continue to push the broadcast flag and the DMCA, those really further my civil rights while not helping big business. The point is that both parties stink, they both are all about big government, big business, and war; their only difference is which form of big government, big business, and war each party endorses. So please, would both sides stop pushing the koolaid and let us actually talk about the issues to make our country better.
But Freddy, instead of calmly taking Kevin’s points on head on, you just simply blasted him as ignorant, perverted, and were completely intolerant of his religious beliefs (no matter how dumb they may or may not be). Sounds to me like you are a better Republican than a Democrat, what do you have to say about that … ?
Comment by Kevin | August 29th, 2007
Freddy
>>>Kevin, thanks for exposing the ignorance that is rampant on your side>the side that believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.>>OK, Kevin, cough up your evidence. PROVE that life begins at conception. Use actual science, not the pathetic far-right politics that Bush has tried to substitute for science in virtually every aspect of public life- food safety, mining, evolution, etc. Can’t do it, huh? Oh well. Anti-choicers fail again.>Oh, wait, your RELIGION tells you so (Jesus sure didn’t tell you so, HE never mentioned abortion.It’s only poor Jesus’ more ignorant followers who are obsessed with abortion, not Jesus Himself.). So what we have here is you ESTABLISHING STATE RELIGION even though the Constitution says you can’t. You fail.>>Kevin, since you and your ilk have whimsically and arbitrarily GUESSED when human life begins,>>Kevin goes on to lie “if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states.>>* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)>>* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)>>* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)>>Furthermore, if you knew much of anything, you’d know Ron Paul has aborted lots of fetuses when he thought a woman’s health could be at risk. If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?>>Kevin, all you have done is prove your ignorance. And that you spoke to yourself when you said “But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the [R] on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.”>>It’s very Freudian that you said “repubic” instead of republic. Like the rest of you anti-choicers, you are very re-pubic minded.
Comment by Kevin | August 29th, 2007
Freddy
——-
Kevin, thanks for exposing the ignorance that is rampant on your side
——-
My side? How do you know what “my side” is? I am a constitutionalist/libertarian. I’m not sure what “side” that puts me on in your book.
——
the side that believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.
——
So since I am against destroying unborn human life, I worship corporations? I’m not even sure how to respond to that knucklehead statement.
—–
OK, Kevin, cough up your evidence. PROVE that life begins at conception. Use actual science, not the pathetic far-right politics that Bush has tried to substitute for science in virtually every aspect of public life- food safety, mining, evolution, etc. Can’t do it, huh? Oh well. Anti-choicers fail again.
—–
There you go again mistaking me for a far right neo con. I am anything but that. Bush is a moron, just like Hillary and ther other status quo demopublicans and republicrats. Take your “I love the D’s and I hate the R’s nonsense somewhere else.
And to respond to your statement, I DON’T KNOW that life begins at conception. But you DON’T KNOW that it doesn’t. So instead of taking that chance and butchering unborn children, how about we just play it on the safe side, what do you think?
Hell, you can’t prove that life doesn’t begin until a child is 1 year old. So how about when someone decides a 6 month old is a pain in the rear, make it legal to take them out back and put a bullet in their head.
—–
Oh, wait, your RELIGION tells you so (Jesus sure didn’t tell you so, HE never mentioned abortion.It’s only poor Jesus’ more ignorant followers who are obsessed with abortion, not Jesus Himself.). So what we have here is you ESTABLISHING STATE RELIGION even though the Constitution says you can’t. You fail.
—–
Idiocy. You automatically assume because I don’t want to butcher babies I must be religious. I am an atheist. But not being religious doesn’t make me think it’s ok to murder unborn children any more than it makes me think it’s ok to murder 1 year olds.
—–
Kevin, since you and your ilk have whimsically and arbitrarily GUESSED when human life begins,
—–
More goofiness. Whose the idiot? The guy that says “Hmmm I assume life hasn’t started yet if the baby isn’t born, so let’s rip it to shreds and kill it” or the guy like me that says “We don’t really know and since that is a little human in there, let’s play it on the safe side and not kill it.”
—–
Kevin goes on to lie “if you actually read and paid attention, you would know Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states.
—–
Ron Paul has stated many times that even though he is against abortion, if he were president he would support leaving it to the states to decide, as the Constitution requires.
—–
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
—–
And?
Since most idiots in this country (both voters and politicians) don’t understand federalism and ignore the Constitution by making it a federal issue, I don’t think he had a choice but to vote with his feelings on the matter.
—–
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
—–
And?
That is very consistent with libertarian principles. The federal government has no business confiscating my income to do such things.
—–
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
—–
Although I might be wrong here, although I don’t think I am. That vote wasn’t to NOT ALLOW it, it was to not federally fund it, again, very libertarian.
—–
Furthermore, if you knew much of anything, you’d know Ron Paul has aborted lots of fetuses when he thought a woman’s health could be at risk. If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?
—–
You are trying to turn around and rant AGAINST what you want here. Just plain silly. Nowhere in anything I said did I say if the mother’s life were at risk that abortion not be an option. I personally see that as entirely different than abortions simply in order not to have the responsibility of children.
—–
Kevin, all you have done is prove your ignorance. And that you spoke to yourself when you said “But what do you know, all you obviously care about is your team with the [R] on their jersey winning, not the Constitution, true liberty or the repubic.”
—–
No. Wrong. BZZZT. I am neither Republican or Democrat so I am afraid you are wrong there.
—–
It’s very Freudian that you said “repubic” instead of republic. Like the rest of you anti-choicers, you are very re-pubic minded.
—–
Oh how cute, after calling me ignorant over and over you throw in one more ad hominem attack. How about maybe I just spelled that wrong, huh?
Anti choice huh? How about we let the fetus decide. Watch the little fella when they reach in there to rip him to shreds and see if you can get an idea on how he feels about the matter.
I’ll never understand you people that get so wound up about folks like me simply saying “Hey, until we know more about when life begins, lets not be so quick to want to kill these little guys.”
Then after getting throwing a fit for the “right” to kill a human fetus, your kind will scurry off, tie yourself to a tree and holler and cry about saving some idiot owl.
Comment by kyle | August 29th, 2007
Hey, Freddy. He does vote no on it at the federal level but he is for leaving it up to the states to decide…He is pro-life though. He has delivered 4000 babies…Do some research before making a silly attempt to demonize Dr. Paul.
Comment by the oak | August 30th, 2007
Too bad Freddy and Erics’ mothers didn’t practice their right to choose abortion. Then, they wouldn’t be here to slander the only good candidate that we have for president.
Put a doctor in the Whitehouse to cure an ailing country…….Ron Paul!
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Yeah right said: “If you want abortions legal go to the Northern States if not go to a Southern States but get the issue out of the federal government control”
Wrong. The rights of southern women do not end at the Mason Dixon line.
Why should women be denied their Constitutional right to access to abortion just because they are born in the south?
If certain southern states will not allow them their rights, the Federal government has every right to step in and guarantee their rights. Or are you one of those who say the Federal government should not have guaranteed the Constitutional rights of blacks in the south?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Matt says “How do I know life begins before birth? Because I have seen a child in the womb and heard its heart beat. It can move. To me that is life.”
A sperm cell can move too. Is that a human life? Your definition fails.
Matt says: “Maybe it’s not at conception but it is shortly there after.”
Note that you do not know. So why restrict women’s rights based on things you don’t know. Is that libertarian?
Matt says “I have a perfect solution. As soon as a baby’s heartbeat is discernible by medical means, it is declared a human being with all protection provided as such.”
Wrong. That’s an arbitrary and whimsical guess on your part. Not science. And if the fetus has full human protection at that point, what right does abortionist Ron Paul have to ALWAY kill the fetus rather than the woman when one of them must die to save the other?
I would not be surprised if you don’t actually answer. Not one person on this board has had the courage to actually answer these questions.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Hi Burdell. Thanks for reasoned answers, unlike the likes of Kevin, who fail to actually address any questions. You make a fine point that “banning any funding for foreign aid abroad and voting against federal funding for stem cell research (it is perfectly legal to destroy a fetus to experiment on embryonic stem cells) is very libertarian” I just think it makes a worse world if we don’t assist the world in controlling the population explosion. People around the world WANT to limit their families, but their messed-up governments try to prevent them so they have lots of cheap labor and cannon fodder. So overseas contraception is NOT charity. It’s enlightened self-interest. And I see medical R&D as essential to the nation, since preventing pandemics is a national priority.
Burdell “Now, on Ron Paul voting to outlaw late term abortions, you are right, this is against pure libertarian principals,”
Thank you.
Burdell: “which Ron Paul even admits.”
Then he should stop. He should stop being a hypocrite.
Burdell “Now, it should be noted that the ban only applies to babies that are viable,”
WRONG! Who told you that? Ron Paul? If so, he lied. The anti-choice fanatics? They lie all the time. Just look at Kevin, who lies all the time.
From wiki: “This statute deals with a method of abortion in the United States usually used in the second trimester,[5] from 18 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability. The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act
Now that you know you are wrong, do you condemn Ron Paul for his hypocrisy on the abortion issue?
Burdell “Freddy, even if Ron Paul is wrong on this one issue (which I agree with you that he is), does that make him a worse candidate than Obama or Clinton who voted for and continue to vote for the Iraq war, and would love to go into Darfur if given the chance.”
First of all, two wrongs don’t make a right, so this is no defense of Ron Paul, even if you were right about Obama, which you are not.
Second, I’m calling BS on you. Obama did NOT vote for the Iraq Resolution of 11 October 2002. On January 30, 2007, Obama introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 into Congress. So where are you getting your disinformation? Fox News? Tucker Carlson? Now that you know you are wrong about Obama, do you support him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
Burdell “Republicans may be known as the party of big business (which they are), do you think that the Democrats are not as well.”
No. They are not. This is a cynical lie by the Repubs to make the pro-people Democrats seem as filthy as the Repubs. Repubs are nothing but pro-multinational conglomerates. The Democrats try to balance the interests of people and business.
Burdell “I mean lawyers and the HMOs would love for the Democrats to be elected.”
You have a partial point about trial lawyers, but they are only a tiny piece of corporate power. The rest of the mega-multinational corporations HATE trial layers, because trial lawyers often hold them accountable. You are flat wrong about HMOs. HMOs HATE the Democrats because the Democrats want real reform of the financing of health care.
Burdell “How about how the Democrats continue to push the broadcast flag and the DMCA,”
They are as wrong as the Repubs who do the same. But overall, the Dems do not support the rapacious control of the US by the multinationals, as Bush and the Repubs do.
Burdell: “both parties stink, they both are all about big government, big business, and war; their only difference is which form of big government, big business, and war each party endorses.”
I disagree. Clinton really did put people ahead of multinational corporations in many ways. Bush put multinationls ahead of people all the time, even when he had to lie and pervert science to funnel money to his mega-rich cronies.
Burdell “But Freddy, instead of calmly taking Kevin’s points on head on, you just simply blasted him as ignorant,”
Wrong. I did both. I absolutely used facts to destroy his proven ignorance. And I called him ignorant, too.
Burdell: “were completely intolerant of his religious beliefs (no matter how dumb they may or may not be).”
I disagree. I tolerate his right to ignorant beliefs. I simply refuse to allow him to establish his religion via Federal Government power. He may invent a non-provable religious-based time that human life begins, but I won’t let him inflict in on America’s women.
Burdell: “Sounds to me like you are a better Republican than a Democrat, what do you have to say about that … ?”
You’ll have to explain that, since I am an Independent who is disgusted with all the Republicans and looking for a Democrat to support this year. I would like to like Ron Paul, since he makes a lot of sense, but the use of Federal power to restrict abortion rights stinks of pandering to anti-choice fundamentalists.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for ignorantly and mistakenly reposting my comments without any rebuttal. How embarrassing for you.
That must be your Freudian way of admitting that you know I proved that I am right and you are wrong.
Next I’ll address your follow-up rebuttal post which actually rebuts nothing.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin proves that ignorance can persist despite facts, thus explaining that Bush might actually have won an election, instead of stealing both.
Kevin: My side? How do you know what “my side” is?
Because you TOLD us, genius. You told us you are on the side of the anti-abortion forces when you said “I like how you morons call wanting to snuff out human life a “right”.” and ““right” to murder unborn children.”
Kevin: “So since I am against destroying unborn human life, I worship corporations?”
Your anti-abortion side put Bush in the White House (OK, Diebold put Bush in the White House) and put Republicans into the House and Senate, making corporation-worship rampant. So even if you claim to not worship corporate power, your side (anti-abortion) continually votes for and elects the worshipers of corporate power. My statement stands. I said that your anti-abortion side “believes that freedom is worshiping corporate power and rejecting real individual rights.” That is absolutely true about your anti-abortion side, even if you don’t like it about your anti-abortion side.
Kevin, are you saying you reject corporation-worshiping Bush and the Republicans and vote against them?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
I challenged Kevin to provide evidence and he fails:
Kevin “There you go again mistaking me for a far right neo con.”
Liar! I never called you a neo-con. Now you get to get to apply your “knucklehead” comment to yourself.
Kevin “to respond to your statement, I DON’T KNOW that life begins at conception. But you DON’T KNOW that it doesn’t.”
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Kevin ” So instead of taking that chance and butchering unborn children, how about we just play it on the safe side, what do you think?”
Kevin, it is refreshing to see you admit your ignorance. However, informed people do not ban things based on their ignorance. Only you and your anti-abortion side ban things based on your ignorance. The rest of us require evidence and facts and proof before we tamper with the Constitutional rights of actual human women.
And you call yourself a “constitutionalist” Ha ha ha!
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin goes on to embarrass himself with this: “You automatically assume because I don’t want to butcher babies I must be religious. I am an atheist. But not being religious doesn’t make me think it’s ok to murder unborn children any more than it makes me think it’s ok to murder 1 year olds.”
Then answer my question, and PROVE when human life begins.
Oh, wait, you admitted that you are ignorant about that. So instead you whimsically guess a time that human life begins with no religious or scientific guidance and you want the Federal government to take away women’s Constitutional rights based on your ignorance and whim. Ha ha ha! You are a funny kind of “constitutionalist”
What can we look forward to under President Ron Paul? Federal government bans of Constitutional rights based on whimsical ignorance?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin’s public self-embarrassment continues: “More goofiness. Whose the idiot? The guy that says “Hmmm I assume life hasn’t started yet if the baby isn’t born, so let’s rip it to shreds and kill it” or the guy like me that says “We don’t really know and since that is a little human in there, let’s play it on the safe side and not kill it.””
Kevin, Kevin. YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT YOU DON’T KNOW WHETHER LEFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION OR NOT! So you have no proof that a fetus is the equivalent of a human life! Yet here you are again, ignorantly assuming a fetus is a human life.
Even after you admit your ignorance, you are back to stating your ignorance as a fact. Why?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Here’s Kevin’s original lie, and the heart of the issue:
Kevin: “Ron Paul wouldn’t take away your “right” to murder unborn children, he would simply leave it up to the states.”
I pointed out that Ron Paul already HAS taken away a woman’s right to abortion at the Federal level with his vote against intact D&E (mistakenly called “partial birth” abortion).
All Kevin can muster in defense of Ron Paul is the everyone-is-a -hypocrite defense, which is no defense at all.
Kevin: “Since most idiots in this country (both voters and politicians) don’t understand federalism and ignore the Constitution by making it a federal issue, I don’t think he had a choice but to vote with his feelings on the matter.”
Bwah-hah-ha! Ron Paul did not have a choice to violate his principles? Ha ha ha! Some president he’d make!
Funny you say he didn’t have a “choice”, since he voted to take away “choice” from women.
No choice? Vote with his feelings? Ha ha ha!
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin “Although I might be wrong here,”
Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Starting to crack from having your ignorance pointed out so often, Kevin? Of course you are wrong. Let’s prove it.
Kevin “Although I might be wrong here, although I don’t think I am. That vote wasn’t to NOT ALLOW it, it was to not federally fund it, again, very libertarian.”
Kevin is wrong. Again. The FACTS:
“Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[88] Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.[89][90] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed “any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of … reproduction” from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[91]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Do you admit your ignorance now, Kevin?
Explain how that is a “libertarian” principle, and not more big government intrusion into private lives and personal decisions (given that it is based on non-science and non-facts).
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kevin: “Nowhere in anything I said did I say if the mother’s life were at risk that abortion not be an option.”
Kevin, again you fail to deal with what I actually said. I said “If life does indeed begin at conception and a fetus is a full human being, he’s not allowed to prioritize the woman’s life as more valuable than the fetus’ life. Why not kill the woman and preserve the fetus?”
Try answering the actual question about your hero, abortionist Ron Paul.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Kyle “He does vote no on it at the federal level but he is for leaving it up to the states to decide”
That speaks for itself.
How is that “leaving it up to the states to decide” when the Federal government bans Constitutional rights?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
The Oak gives us this bit of hate in support of Ron Paul: “Too bad Freddy and Erics’ mothers didn’t practice their right to choose abortion. Then, they wouldn’t be here to slander the only good candidate that we have for president.”
I’ll let your hate pass and actually treat you like an adult. Where did I slander Ron Paul?
Just because you don’t like facts does not make the facts slander. Do you fail to see that?
Comment by jamie | August 30th, 2007
Let me get this straight freddy, you are going to vote on one issue? You will vote for a canidate that will fight an unconstitutional war just so women can have abortions? Then you have the nerve to point your finger at Ron Paul for not being a libertarian.
How about some important issues.
Stop our crazy foriegn policy.
Stop the Federal Reserve.
Abolish an illegal IRS.
As far as the above comments go, you are assuming that life dont begin until birth. That is as big of an assumption as life begins at conception. Where are your facts?
I feel the more important issues in the election are my rights not to be spied on by the govt., not having a NAU, not fighting wars that are not declared.
This whole abortion issue is created to divide voters based on “feelings” and redirect American focus from corruption that is the democrats and republicans.
Call Kevin all the names you want, I think he has better reasoning than you.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Jamie: “Let me get this straight freddy,” OK. Let’s see if you get my points straight at all. I’m thinking you may not.
Jamie: “you are going to vote on one issue?” No.
If you want to get this straight, my point is that Ron Paul’s hypocrisy in violating his libertarian principles by sucking up to Fundamentalist anti-choice anti-constitution forces shows he is a hypocrite and NOT some kind of Folk Hero that Tucker Carlson would like to make him.
Kevin’s lies about Obama show that Obama is far more of “folk hero” and far more intellectually consistent than Ron Paul.
“You will vote for a canidate that will fight an unconstitutional war just so women can have abortions?”
No. I will vote for a candidate who will BOTH end this unconstitutional war AND preserve existing Constitutional rights of women. I don’t have to choose one or the other. Why would you?
Jamie: “you are assuming that life dont begin until birth. That is as big of an assumption as life begins at conception.”
WRONG! I am saying that if you have no proof that a one-celled zygote is a fully human being with full rights, don’t take away Constitutional rights of women based on your whims about when life begins. Do you see the difference? If you don’t have proof you can’t arbitrarily use Federal power to take away our rights.
“I feel the more important issues in the election are my rights not to be spied on by the govt., not having a NAU, not fighting wars that are not declared.”
I’m with you on spying and the war. So are many of the Democratic candidates. And they have a chance of being elected. So you support them on that, right? And you see they are better than any Republican who can win, right?
Jamie: “This whole abortion issue is created to divide voters based on “feelings” and redirect American focus from corruption that is the democrats and republicans.”
Part right. Anti-choicers like Kevin have created this issue to divide Americans. The pro-choice majority did not go looking for this fight but we will not allow the destruction of Constitutional rights here any more than we will allow Bush’s destruction of our privacy rights in his Unconstitutional wiretapping program. Republicans are so horribly corrupt there is no viable choice than any of the Democratic candidates.
Jamie: “Call Kevin all the names you want,”
Thanks. I will. But only names he has earned. Since I have proved him ignorant of the things he shot off his mouth about, how does “ignorant” not apply to him?
jamie: “I think he has better reasoning than you.”
Yet you provide no proof. I think you can do better. After all, you are not ignorant like Kevin.
Comment by yeah right | August 30th, 2007
Freddy,You have tunnel vision how about if you want to gamble one can go to a state where its allowed Nevada or New Jersey or a Native America casino but if you go to new York city you get busted live where you are comfortable. States will in act law that the true majority want that a fact we have no right to impose our will on others just because we can person freedom that all Ron Paul defends I like it leave me alone and I will do the same if we can respect each other as humans we all win vote the man not the party
Comment by cowbot | August 30th, 2007
It is worth mentioning that the beginning of life in the sense of a human’s unique dna composition does occur within minutes after conception.
In other words, even an embryo is a unique human being from the genetic standpoint.
While I support abortion during early pregnancy, declaring the termination of a pregnancy a ‘right’ requires denying the fact that the unborn child is a unique human being (in development).
To paraphrase Dr. Paul (an Ob/Gyn fer chrissakes) ‘what makes a baby not-human one second before birth and human one second after birth?’
This issue, as most contentious social issues has good arguments put forth by both sides, as well as misrepresentations. In such cases social policy is best left to the states. And Dr. Ron Paul – exceptions notwithstanding – is the leading champion of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government in Washington, and he has been that for three decades.
None of these niggling points-of-distraction his detractors make can change this fact.
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
yeah right says: “Freddy,You have tunnel vision”
How so?
Yeah right says: “how about if you want to gamble one can go to a state where its allowed Nevada or New Jersey or a Native America casino but if you go to new York city you get busted live where you are comfortable.”
So what? Do you have a point? What are you saying? That we all have a right to gamble in any state? That we should not have right to gamble in any state? I don’t think your point is very clear.
yeah right said “States will in act law that the true majority want that a fact we have no right to impose our will on others just because we can”
So why is Ron Paul imposing his will on women by denying their Constitutional right to an Abortion? How is that libertarian or constitutionalist?
yeah right said: “person freedom that all Ron Paul defends”
Not in action he doesn’t. I just proved to you that Ron Paul does not defend women’s Constitutional rights to safe access to the medical procedure of abortion. So how is that defending “person freedom”?
Yeah right said: “If you want abortions legal go to the Northern States if not go to a Southern States but get the issue out of the federal government control”
Wrong. The rights of southern women do not end at the Mason Dixon line.
Why should women be denied their Constitutional right to access to abortion just because they are born in the south?
If certain southern states will not allow them their rights, the Federal government has every right to step in and guarantee their rights. Or are you one of those who say the Federal government should not have guaranteed the Constitutional rights of blacks in the south?
Comment by Freddy | August 30th, 2007
Hi Cowbot. Good to hear a reasonable voice join the fray. A relief after the endless, incurable ignorance of the likes of Kevin.
Cowbot: “It is worth mentioning that the beginning of life in the sense of a human’s unique dna composition does occur within minutes after conception. In other words, even an embryo is a unique human being from the genetic standpoint.”
So what? Every one of your trillion cells ALSO has “a human’s unique dna composition.” So by your logic, every one of your trillions of cells is “a unique human being from the genetic standpoint.” Which makes you a mass murder for shaving or skinning your knee or just living.
Cowbot: “While I support abortion during early pregnancy, declaring the termination of a pregnancy a ‘right’ requires denying the fact that the unborn child is a unique human being (in development).”
So prove that a fetus is a human being.
Ans if you are certain that a fetus is a full human being, why do you support abortion during early pregnancy?
Cowbot: “To paraphrase Dr. Paul (an Ob/Gyn fer chrissakes) ‘what makes a baby not-human one second before birth and human one second after birth?’”
Ron Paul, like the rest of his anti-abortion ilk, is a liar.
That is not the argument of the pro-choice majority of this nation. Because the moment of personhood has never been proved by facts, we imperfect humans have derived an imperfect system. Abortion is legal when the fetus is clearly not the same as living, breathing human (early pregnancy) and becomes more controlled as pregnancy develops.
Fanatics and Fundamentalists cannot stand ambiguity, so they scream extremist slogans about murder. So Ron Paul cannot defend his hypocrisy, so he invents his opponents argument rather that actually listening to what most Americans believe.
Is that really the kind of president you want? One who lies about his opponents positions?
cowbot: “This issue, as most contentious social issues has good arguments put forth by both sides, as well as misrepresentations.”
Like the misrepresentation Ron Paul committed. Right?
cowbot: “In such cases social policy is best left to the states.”
Wrong. Civil rights was also a contentious social issue. But the Fundamentalist far right was WRONG then, right?
Leaving it to the states would have been WRONG then, right?
Same thing with women’s rights as with civil rights. When states try to take away Constitutional rights, it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED job of the federal government to stop the states and restore those rights. Right?
Comment by Kevin | August 31st, 2007
Jamie there is no reasoning against these people that are convinced that killing unborn human life is somehow a “right”. That is their only way to argue it. Declare it a right and then go nuts crying that not being able to do it is a violation of their imaginary “right”.
I am willing to admit I am not qualified to determine when “life begins. But neither is Freddy. He offers no evidence of when it ISN’T life, and therefore perfectly ok to snuff it out.
I accept that things such as the morning after pill that terminate the pregnancy early on when it is merely a cluster of cells, or even abortions at that stage might be acceptable.
BUT at some point that cluster of cells turns into a little human that has legs, arms and other recognizable body parts. How any reasonable human being cannot question ripping that little human into shreds possibly being VERY wrong is just beyond me. Take that position and you are automatically accused of being some right wing religious loon who wants to take away peoples “rights” and automatically vote for idiots like Bush and his corporate cronies.
Nope.
Not me.
I am a libertarian.
I vote libertairan.
I despise corporate corruption.
I am against undeclared wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
I think anyone of any sex should be able to marry anyone of either sex.
I don’t want the government pushing any religion.
Basically I support anyone’s right to do whatever they want as long as they are not infringing on others’ rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But nothing can convince me that a little person with eyes, legs and hands being ripped to shreds isn’t being deprived of his/her rights to the same things.
Is there a gray area? Sure. I don’t think any of us know exactly where that gray area between conception and actual life is. But the pro abortionists seem ignore the fact that they don’t know either.
But I do feel in my heart that the best approach is to play it safe and not simply declare it’s a woman’s right to kill the body that is growing inside her at any stage of it’s development when nothing is wrong with said little body inside her. Folks like Freddy are obviously consumed with the idea of the woman’s “rights” but never seem to consider the little guy/girl inside her and it’s rights.
If not feeling comfortable ripping viable perfectly developed fetuses to shreds for the simple reason that someone doesn’t want the responsibility of a child is the one area of my political beliefs that people have problems with, then so be it.
I’m done with commenting here. I noticed Freddy’s email address in one of his comments being at the made up domain of “kevinisabigfatliar” so that confirms my belief that I am dealing with an idiot here.
Also, I am only going to be called ignorant so many times in a place where the person calling me ignorant is totally safe from me stomping a mud hole in him.
Keep barking little dog. Someday you will make the mistake of doing it when the “fence” of the internet isn’t protecting you from who you are barking at.
Comment by KevinM | August 31st, 2007
Jamie there is no reasoning against these people that are convinced that killing unborn human life is somehow a “right”. That is their only way to argue it. Declare it a right and then go nuts crying that not being able to do it is a violation of their imaginary “right”.
I am willing to admit I am not qualified to determine when “life begins. But neither is Freddy. He offers no evidence of when it ISN’T life, and therefore perfectly ok to snuff it out.
I accept that things such as the morning after pill that terminate the pregnancy early on when it is merely a cluster of cells, or even abortions at that stage might be acceptable.
BUT at some point that cluster of cells turns into a little human that has legs, arms and other recognizable body parts. How any reasonable human being cannot question ripping that little human into shreds possibly being VERY wrong is just beyond me. Take that position and you are automatically accused of being some right wing religious loon who wants to take away peoples “rights” and automatically vote for idiots like Bush and his corporate cronies.
Nope.
Not me.
I am a libertarian.
I vote libertairan.
I despise corporate corruption.
I am against undeclared wars that only benefit the military industrial complex.
I think anyone of any sex should be able to marry anyone of either sex.
I don’t want the government pushing any religion.
Basically I support anyone’s right to do whatever they want as long as they are not infringing on others’ rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But nothing can convince me that a little person with eyes, legs and hands being ripped to shreds isn’t being deprived of his/her rights to the same things.
Is there a gray area? Sure. I don’t think any of us know exactly where that gray area between conception and actual life is. But the pro abortionists seem ignore the fact that they don’t know either.
But I do feel in my heart that the best approach is to play it safe and not simply declare it’s a woman’s right to kill the body that is growing inside her at any stage of it’s development when nothing is wrong with said little body inside her. Folks like Freddy are obviously consumed with the idea of the woman’s “rights” but never seem to consider the little guy/girl inside her and it’s rights.
If not feeling comfortable ripping viable perfectly developed fetuses to shreds for the simple reason that someone doesn’t want the responsibility of a child is the one area of my political beliefs that people have problems with, then so be it.
I’m done with commenting here. I noticed Freddy’s email address in one of his comments being at the made up domain of “kevinisabigfatliar” so that confirms my belief that I am dealing with an idiot here.
Also, I am only going to be called ignorant so many times in a place where the person calling me ignorant is totally safe from me stomping a mud hole in him.
Keep barking little dog. Someday you will make the mistake of doing it when the “fence” of the internet isn’t protecting you from who you are barking at.
Comment by Russ | August 31st, 2007
i like how the newsmen keep mentioning that she is a former stripper, as if by saying that.. people will disregard what she says, based on her past.
reminds me of opposing political parties “digging up dirt on the other runners”. its a bunch of bull.. and if people are detered by the media they are a bunch of ignorants. unfortunately thats how much of this country operates, and after the election, most of them go back on their words, or dont do exactly what they said they would… all the people care about is the election, and the ideas… but hardly anybody does a thing seeing that the proposed political reforms happen.
Comment by Russ | August 31st, 2007
oh also.. in response to all you pro choice noobs.
regardless if its a “right to choose” or when the right time to choose is… the point is.. that if the abortion didn’t happen in the first place.. the fetus/embryo/whatever WILL develop into a full fledged human just like you and i .. and an abortion will allow that to never happen.
Comment by Freddy | August 31st, 2007
Russ chimes in with “regardless if its a “right to choose” or when the right time to choose is… the point is.. that if the abortion didn’t happen in the first place.. the fetus/embryo/whatever WILL develop into a full fledged human just like you and i .. and an abortion will allow that to never happen.”
So?
Even if true, so what?
Of course, like the rest of the talking points of the extremist anti-abortion minority, your “facts” are not exactly factual.
Russ said “the point is.. that if the abortion didn’t happen in the first place.. the fetus/embryo/whatever WILL develop into a full fledged human”
“WILL develop”? Wrong. Try “MIGHT develop”. 15%-20% of known pregnancies spontaneously abort just in the first 30 weeks. And far more spontaneously die before the woman even knows she’s pregnant– failure to implant, etc.
So you are flat wrong.
Further, since according to you they are all “full fledged humans,” we need to arrest all those women for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide. Right?
Comment by eaglescout | September 1st, 2007
“Candidate of Freedom? LOLZ! OK, strippers. Where will you get your abortions when Anti-Choice Ron Paul outlaws abortion? That’s right. Your beloved “freedom” candidate opposes abortion rights. What a joke. How do you libertarians justify that as freedom?”
[l]ibertarians are divided when it comes to abortion, but since he is leaving such a complex issue to the states – where it belongs – and not the federal government, even pro-choicers can feel comfortable voting for Ron Paul.
Comment by Nathan | September 1st, 2007
Freddy, it is amazing what you have done here. You first bash states rights by making up lies. For example, saying abortion is a “libertarian” principle. Not necessarily true. The abortion issue is TRICKY!
“Same thing with women’s rights as with civil rights. When states try to take away Constitutional rights, it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED job of the federal government to stop the states and restore those rights. Right?”
This sort of talk has racism in its undertone. Racism is an ugly form of collectivism. There is no such thing as “women’s rights” or even “civil rights.” It’s called HUMAN RIGHTS asshole. Women shouldn’t get special privileges. Nor should minorities. Everyone should be equal. But to say one gets special privileges under the law = equality totally bastardizes the term “equality.”
Also, WRONG! It is NOT the states job to restore rights. I will only concentrate on the bill of rights. The bill of rights DOES NOT under any circumstance, give the feds the right to stop state law if it is taking away human rights. But you have to note Freddy, the constitution didn’t GRANT us any rights at all. The constitution is NOT the source of our rights. Read the fuckin document. Where does the language suggest that we have these particular rights? I mean, the first amendment for god’s sakes. It says CONGRESS can not take away these rights. It is legal under the US constitution, for a state to give state dollars to a local church. This is because a state is SOVEREIGN! The federal government can not interfere with most(if not all) state affairs. The federal government is designed to work for you…not have the states WORK for the feds.
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Eaglescout shows his lack of reading skills by droning on with the same argument I have already debunked. But I’ll go through it again, to be kind.
Eaglescout: “[l]ibertarians are divided when it comes to abortion, but since he is leaving such a complex issue to the states – where it belongs – and not the federal government, even pro-choicers can feel comfortable voting for Ron Paul.”
WRONG! I have just PROVED to you with Ron Paul’s own voting record that Ron Paul IS NOT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES!
Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!
He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.
How is that “leaving it to the states?”
How come no Ron Paul fans can answer this simple question?
Pingback by Ron Paul’s Digg Fame » The Truth @ The Spin Factor | September 2nd, 2007
[...] 6. Hillary can’t compete with strippers 4 Ron Paul. [...]
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Nathan says: “Freddy, it is amazing what you have done here.”
Thank you. Yes, it is amazing that even the most fanatical Ron Paul follower could think that Federal laws against abortion are the same thing as “leaving it to the states.”
Yes, it is amazing to get actual truth across to those whose libertarianism is faith-based rather than rational.
So thanks.
Nathan: “You first bash states rights
1) Wrong. Prove it. I never bashed states rights. There are some issues that are appropriate to states and some that are necessary for Federal action. When state governments violate the Constitution, the Federal government has an essential role in fixing it. Do you agree or disagree?
Nathan: “by making up lies. For example, saying abortion is a “libertarian” principle. Not necessarily true. The abortion issue is TRICKY!”"
2) Prove I lied. Your “Not necessarily true” is a pathetic waffle and undercuts your ugly and unfounded accusation that I lied. Where is your proof that I “lied”?
3) “Abortion is indeed a libertarian principle, even if some so-called libertarians wish it was not. Just like Bush and the so-called conservatives on Congress violated their supposed conservatism with budget-busting spending, some so-called libertarians violate true libertarian principles of freedom by trying to imposed state and federal restrictions on women.
Let’s check with the Cato Institute:
“B1. What is the libertarian position on abortion?
Most libertarians are strongly in favor of abortion rights (the Libertarian Party often shows up at pro-rights rallies with banners that say “We’re Pro-Choice on Everything!”). Many libertarians are personally opposed to abortion, but reject governmental meddling in a decision that should be private between a woman and her physician.”
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B1
How about the Libertarian Party on abortion?
“we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright
I said “Same thing with women’s rights as with civil rights. When states try to take away Constitutional rights, it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED job of the federal government to stop the states and restore those rights. Right?”
Nathan replied” This sort of talk has racism in its undertone.”
4) Prove it. What a cynical lie. So when whites and blacks worked together to end hateful state laws against minorities, that was racist? Prove it.
Nathan: “Racism is an ugly form of collectivism.”
5) What a joke. Where do you find any support for such drooling idiocy?
Nathan “There is no such thing as “women’s rights” or even “civil rights.”
6) Good thing Nathan is so much smarter than every encyclopedia in the universe. From wiki:
“…all constitutional protections are considered within the US as civil rights.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights
So Nathan doesn’t believe we have civil rights? Then Nathan does not believe we have constitutional protections. Right?
“Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to freedom of movement and the right of equal protection.”
So you don’t believe we have those civil rights? Or do you just believe that government has no role in making sure those civil rights are not trampled by the powerful?
Nathan: “It’s called HUMAN RIGHTS asshole. Women shouldn’t get special privileges. Nor should minorities.”
7) This is one of the biggest fallacies committed by the loony far-right. Women’s rights are NOT “special privileges.” Women’s rights is the term for making sure that the rights that MALES enjoy are not stolen from FEMALES. What’s so hard to comprehend about that?
Nathan: “Everyone should be equal.But to say one gets special privileges under the law = equality totally bastardizes the term “equality.”
9) Are you saying that women and minorities are treated “equally” by the powerful in this country? If not, would you do nothing about that?
Nathan: “Also, WRONG! It is NOT the states job to restore rights. I will only concentrate on the bill of rights. The bill of rights DOES NOT under any circumstance, give the feds the right to stop state law if it is taking away human rights.”
10) The Constitution DOES give the federal government power to stop state laws that violate the Constitution. It’s spelled out in Article 6. Did you read that part?
11) Nathan, are you ignorant like Kevin, or deceitful like Cheney? When you “concentrate only” on the Bill of Rights, you omit the main body of the Constitution. Did you commit an intentional attempt to deceive? Or are you ignorant? Either way, I await your apology.
Nathan: “But you have to note Freddy, the constitution didn’t GRANT us any rights at all. The constitution is NOT the source of our rights. Read the fuckin document. Where does the language suggest that we have these particular rights? I mean, the first amendment for god’s sakes. It says CONGRESS can not take away these rights. It is legal under the US constitution, for a state to give state dollars to a local church. This is because a state is SOVEREIGN! The federal government can not interfere with most(if not all) state affairs. The federal government is designed to work for you…not have the states WORK for the feds.”
12) Nathan, you fail reading comprehension 101. Go back and read the actual Constitution. Pay careful attention to Section 6, Clause 2 and 3:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
From Wiki:
Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be upheld. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution
If libertarians get this as wrong as you do, no wonder libertarianism can’t catch on outside of a few cranky get-off-of-my-property types.
Comment by Janie | September 2nd, 2007
Freddie:
Do you have “scientific proof” of when life starts?
You are a hypocrite!
Comment by eaglescout | September 2nd, 2007
“Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!”
The absence of a federal law that permits abortions isn’t the same as outlawing abortions.
Comment by Nathan | September 2nd, 2007
“He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.”
Wow, a constitutional right?! Holy fuck! I would LOVE to see where it says in the constitution that women have a right to a safe medical intact D & E abortion. Can you cite it?
About the sanctity of life act…it would JUST tell the feds that they believe that life is started at conception. THAT IS FUCKIN IT! Nothing more. The rest of the stuff is believing that will be the CONCLUSION of states under this idea. Of course, states can just easily ignore these federal laws.
What bothers me the most Freddy, is that you believe that women have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to an abortion. GIVE US PROOF IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IT IS THERE! Where is the language that the bill of rights PROTECTS abortion.
Comment by Nathan | September 2nd, 2007
“He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.”
How is this leaving it to the states? First off, you didn’t read the law itself. All it would do is the feds would all agree that life begins at conception. For any abortion law to work, we need to have a consistent view of when life begins. According to you, life begins once the baby pops its head out. You need scientific proof of that too. You are using the old “if the other guy has no proof..then my side is AUTOMATICALLY correct. All facts need reason to back it up. Explain why a baby at 7 months(which all it is doing now…is growing). I would say a baby at the third-trimester…is human life. The baby is practically just growing during the last 3 months within the womb. It is a complete human being. But to say in your extreme view Freddy(that life begins outside the womb) is saying a second before the baby gets out of the womb, it is killable without punishment, then afterwards, it has punishment is very inconsistent.
Comment by Nathan | September 2nd, 2007
Freddy, your ideals would lead to something like this:
Let us say the woman is in labor. The OBGYN doctor is working on her but all of a sudden, the drugs that he orders to give her aren’t the right ones. The baby dies because of this while she is in labor. The doctor goes to court and claims that this was an “accidental abortion” and that he did not kill anything. The woman can not charge the doctor with murder of her child…since the child was never alive. So are you saying women would agree that if this situation occured, her “child” that was ready to come out wasn’t “alive?”
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Janie says:
“Freddie:Do you have “scientific proof” of when life starts?
You are a hypocrite!”
Nice job putting the cart before the horse, Janie. Are you a libertarian? If so, all you are proving here is that libertarians are desperate to use federal power to take away our rights. I’ll explain it again. I’ll type more slowly, in hopes that this time you can follow along.
A woman is indisputably a living human with full protection under the Constitution. Agreed?
So before you libertarians can use the power of the Federal government to take away any of her rights, you libertarians must have complete and overwhelming proof that such a massively unconstitutional violation is not only required but is the the only possible solution. And even that might not be enough.
Without absolute and complete proof of your contention “life begins at conception,” you’ve got no argument, and the rights of U.S. women remain inviolate.
Which is just as the rational, constitutionally-treasuring majority of Americans agree should be the case.
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Eaglescout continues to FAIL to answer any of the tough questions that poke holes in his fallacious argument. What are you scared of, Eaglescout?
Instead, all Eaglescout can manage is this:
“The absence of a federal law that permits abortions isn’t the same as outlawing abortions.”
Well, duh.
Do you have a point, Eaglescout?
Planning on making that point anytime soon?
Meanwhile, I’ll repost what Eaglescout is afraid to answer:
Eaglescout shows his lack of reading skills by droning on with the same argument I have already debunked. But I’ll go through it again, to be kind.
Eaglescout: “[l]ibertarians are divided when it comes to abortion, but since he is leaving such a complex issue to the states – where it belongs – and not the federal government, even pro-choicers can feel comfortable voting for Ron Paul.”
WRONG! I have just PROVED to you with Ron Paul’s own voting record that Ron Paul IS NOT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES!
Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!
He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.
How is that “leaving it to the states?”
How come no Ron Paul fans can answer this simple question?
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Hey Nathan.
More questions from you? I’ll be glad to patiently continue explaining to Constitution to alleged libertarians who seem unable to read it for themselves.
But I’ll also point out how you have squirmed out of answering just about every question I have put to you.
What’s it going to be, Nathan? Will you man up and actually answer? Or will you flee from direct questions like Bush fled from service in Vietnam?
The questions are all back there. Or do you need hand-holding like little Eaglescout and need them re-pasted here?
Comment by Freddy | September 2nd, 2007
Nathan continues to hide from answering direct questions by asking more questions.
Nathan: “Wow, a constitutional right?! Holy fuck! I would LOVE to see where it says in the constitution that women have a right to a safe medical intact D & E abortion. Can you cite it?”
13) Are you playing semantics, Nathan? You are asking for those exact words in the Constitution? And if those exact words are not there, would you say there is no such protection under the Constitution? Are you sure you understand how the Constitution works?
14) The burden of proof is on the pro-liberty people like me, but the anti-liberty people like you who would use the government to take away essential rights. Read the Ninth Amendment and weep:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Are you unaware of the fact that we have many rights that are not numerated in the Constitution?
15) Since you are the proponent of intrusive big-government intervention into US citizen’s private lives, it is YOUR BURDEN to show how ANY restriction of a woman’s control of her body and life is any of your business or falls within the Federal government’s power.
16) Also, I will remind you that the US libertarian party certainly agrees that the government should NOT be legislating against abortion, “leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Cato agrees. So why is the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute wrong about abortion rights?
Nathan “About the sanctity of life act…it would JUST tell the feds that they believe that life is started at conception. THAT IS FUCKIN IT! Nothing more.”
17) Uh… and that would make it Constitutional?
18) So if we just “told the feds” that “they believe people who post online under the name Nathan have no right to make their own reproductive decisions and attempts” is that all it takes? Nothing more? There is no need for a little thing like a test of Constitutionality? The feds can begin policing your reproduction decisions and all attempts thereof?
Nathan: “The rest of the stuff is believing that will be the CONCLUSION of states under this idea. Of course, states can just easily ignore these federal laws.”
19) Chuckle. Guffaw. Chortle. OK, let’s try to pretend you might actually believe that. Did you read anything I posted about how all state legislators are bound by the Constitution? The states are not free to violate the Constitution any more than the Federal Govt.
You could check it out. It’s in this thing called… The US Constitution. Have you heard of it?
Comment by Freddy | September 3rd, 2007
Nathan desperately tries to pretend that Ron Paul passing Federal laws about abortion is somehow “leaving it up to the states.” Let’s see how he does with this impossible task:
Nathan: “How is this leaving it to the states? First off, you didn’t read the law itself.”
20) Liar. Prove I didn’t read the law. Don’t you ever get tired of being embarrassed when your baseless accusation are exposed?
Nathan “All it would do is the feds would all agree that life begins at conception.”
21) Again, that’s NOT “all it would take.” There’s still this unpleasant document called the Constitution that would have to be considered. If the “feds agreement” were found to violate the Constitution, the law falls. You libertarians should look into this this thing called the Constitution. It’s very cool. Have you heard of it? It’s the thing that says passing a law is NOT “all it takes.”
Nathan: “For any abortion law to work, we need to have a consistent view of when life begins.”
22) Prove it. We’re waiting. Still waiting…
Nathan: “According to you, life begins once the baby pops its head out.”
23) Prove I said that.
Nathan “You need scientific proof of that too. You are using the old “if the other guy has no proof..then my side is AUTOMATICALLY correct.”
24) The “old”… Yeah, it’s as old as the Constitution. If you have no proof that there is an overwhelming need for the Federal government to violate a living human’s rights, the Federal government does not get to violate a living human’s rights. Were you not aware of that? It’s in this thing called the Constitution. As a so-called libertarian, you might want to get familiar with it.
Nathan: “All facts need reason to back it up. Explain why a baby at 7 months(which all it is doing now…is growing). I would say a baby at the third-trimester…is human life. The baby is practically just growing during the last 3 months within the womb. It is a complete human being. But to say in your extreme view Freddy(that life begins outside the womb) is saying a second before the baby gets out of the womb, it is killable without punishment, then afterwards, it has punishment is very inconsistent.”
25) Nathan has found a way to finally win an argument. He will make up his opponent’s argument. Nice try. Go back and read what I actually wrote.
And then get busy answering all these question that you have been hiding from.
Meanwhile, Tucker’s so-called “folk hero” Ron Paul is a hypocrite who pretends to be libertarian but has already voted to use the federal government to take away the self-determination rights of living humans. He does NOT “leave it to the states” or even “leave it to the individual.”
Ron Paul is just pandering for religious right votes as shamelessly as any other Republican. Except the other Republicans don’t try to pretend they are libertarians.
Poor Strippers for Ron Paul (is this really a group of more than one?) Where will they get their abortions once Ron Paul is in power?
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
“Are you playing semantics, Nathan? You are asking for those exact words in the Constitution? And if those exact words are not there, would you say there is no such protection under the Constitution? Are you sure you understand how the Constitution works?”
No, I am not saying that, but I doubt even the 9th amendment would include abortion. But the bill of rights doesn’t give the government the right to create laws. But it is true states have MORE POWER than the federal government. In reality, if a state wanted to, they could outlaw abortion and JUSTIFY it under the 10th amendment. The states have the right to do this, and the feds couldn’t do shit about it.
““The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Are you unaware of the fact that we have many rights that are not numerated in the Constitution?”
I doubt you could argue that abortion could be protected under the 9th amendment. You first have to argue having an abortion is a RIGHT! That it is a “natural right” that is derived from nature(which is what the first amendment rights are). You must first prove this.
“Chuckle. Guffaw. Chortle. OK, let’s try to pretend you might actually believe that. Did you read anything I posted about how all state legislators are bound by the Constitution? The states are not free to violate the Constitution any more than the Federal Govt.”
You are stupid. You don’t know the 10th amendment…do you? Or even the “principles of 98.” State legislators are NOT bound by the constitution. If the state feels that a federal law to them is unconstitutional, they have the right to override it and not follow it within their state.
About his bill Freddy, care to fuckin read the bill?
“Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.”
Hmm…it seems to also take the federal government out of abortion issue altogether. Hmm..under a republican congress, I wonder why this didn’t pass(I mean, this was in 2005). Probably because of this measure.
Also, from the text of the sanctity of life act 2005:
a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Hmm…according to the act, human life would be considered at conception ONLY WHEN scientific evidence is found. God, Freddy, read the fuckin bill!
“http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776″
” `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.”
Read this part too. I see it “very libertarian to me.” It seems to take out the federal courts on issues concerning abortion. How is this similar to banning abortion? The feds have no say in it.
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
“Nathan “You need scientific proof of that too. You are using the old “if the other guy has no proof..then my side is AUTOMATICALLY correct.””
Um…no? You basically said a woman has the right to an abortion of any kind. But there is the argument of where life begins. This is why states themselves should decide. But you are against this too. Because certain states MAY allow it, while others won’t. This to you, is wrong. I believe this because you also refer to civil rights..in which certain states did not grant it, while others did.
“WRONG! I have just PROVED to you with Ron Paul’s own voting record that Ron Paul IS NOT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES!”
No, you haven’t..since you haven’t read the bill. God, I hate those websites that say “ron paul voted yes to ban stem cell research.” Um…blocking federal funding for stem cell research is NOT the same as saying you are against stem cell research.
You still have to prove Freddy, that abortion is a right given from “nature.” Or as ron paul puts these rights…from our “creator.”
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
“Meanwhile, Tucker’s so-called “folk hero” Ron Paul is a hypocrite who pretends to be libertarian but has already voted to use the federal government to take away the self-determination rights of living humans. He does NOT “leave it to the states” or even “leave it to the individual.””
Under what, that life act of 2005? One, it got rejected. Two, I don’t understand how it happened to GET rejected….since it was in 2005, when republicans controlled the house and senate. How did it NOT get passed? Hmm…..read the bill to find out.
Comment by Nathan | September 3rd, 2007
Also Freddy, Dr. Paul was not the only one who introduced the bill. There was Barrett of New Jersey, as well as Bartlett of Maryland. There was certain part that Paul agreed with(like the federal courts having no say on the abortion matter) and probably something he disagreed with(courts defining life). But this bill contradicts itself. The CONGRESS realizes that Life begins at conception…SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE COURTS! But the federal courts can’t rule on abortion cases either with this law. So how is this federal ruling on abortion?
Comment by Freddy | September 4th, 2007
So far Nathan has been UNABLE to explain how Ron Paul’s use of the Federal government power to prohibit abortion is “leaving it to the states.”
So far Nathan is hiding from virtually all of my direct questions to him about this and other Ron Paul hypocrisy, like how using the federal government to invade reproductive decisions can be libertarian. Is evasion a libertarian ideal?
So far Nathan is afraid to address why the two main libertarian sources in the US- the US libertarian party and the libertarian Cato Institute BOTH agree that the government should stay out of policing abortion.
What does Nathan have to say? More stuff he makes up without any verification. Like this:
Nathan: “I doubt even the 9th amendment would include abortion.”
Ha ha ha ha ha!
26) Prove it.
27) The 9th Amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Where does that exclude abortion rights?
28) Do you just make up facts? Why would the 9th NOT include reproductive rights?
Nathan “But the bill of rights doesn’t give the government the right to create laws.”
29) Are you so ignorant that you don’t know which part of the Constitution conveys the law making powers of the Federal government has the power to create laws? (Hint: look at Article 1)
30) If you don’t know that, do you think you could pass the US citizenship test?
31) Are libertarians allowed to be so unclear about something as basic as Article 1 of the US Constitution?
Nathan: “. But it is true states have MORE POWER than the federal government. In reality, if a state wanted to, they could outlaw abortion and JUSTIFY it under the 10th amendment. The states have the right to do this, and the feds couldn’t do shit about it.”
32) How could you be ignorant of the fact that the US Constitution states that The Laws of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the land? Only idiots don’t know that when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law preempts the state law. How is it you don’t know?
33)
Nathan: “But it is true states have MORE POWER than the federal government. In reality, if a state wanted to, they could outlaw abortion and JUSTIFY it under the 10th amendment. The states have the right to do this, and the feds couldn’t do shit about it.”
34) Wow. You really are shockingly ignorant. Go read Article VI, section 2, and see what the facts really are. Constitutional Federal law is supreme over state law. Are all Ron Paul voters this deluded?
Nathan: “I doubt you could argue that abortion could be protected under the 9th amendment.”
35) Nathan is wrong again. I can argue that abortion rights, like all other rights not enumerated in the Constitution, are still fully protected under the 9th Amendment, along with all other reproductive rights. The burden is on big-government libertarians (snicker) like you to explain why they would not be. So far, you fail.
Nathan “You first have to argue having an abortion is a RIGHT! That it is a “natural right” that is derived from nature(which is what the first amendment rights are). You must first prove this.”
36) Why? Why would abortion rights have to prove their “natural rights” when all other rights under the 9th do not have to? Where in the Constitution does it say such a double standard exists only for abortion rights and no other rights?
Nathan “You are stupid. You don’t know the 10th amendment…do you? Or even the “principles of 98.” State legislators are NOT bound by the constitution.”
37) Nathan, you have just lied. Or are you just ignorant? Too bad for you that the Constitution says otherwise:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
Article Six of the United States Constitution
Nathan, I have proved you WRONG! State legislators ARE bound by the constitution. Admit your error or forever hang your head in shame.
I’ll be glad to finish shooting down your other arguments in favor of Ron Paul’s anti-libertarian hypocrisy after you deal with YOUR COLOSSAL ERROR.
Comment by Freddy | September 6th, 2007
Nathan was WRONG on just about everything he said about the Constitution. Are all libertarians that ignorant of the actual facts?
Now that Nathan has been proved to be ignorant beyond a shadow of a doubt, he has fled like a little coward.
The facts: Ron Paul is a hypocrite who claims to be a libertarian who support our rights. But he opposes reproductive freedom and uses big government interference in our lives to restrict our rights.
I say it again, stripper-lady. Where will you and your other Strippers for Ron Paul go to get your abortions when President Paul outlaws abortion?
There are lots of Democrats that will end the Iraq war AND defend our privacy rights. So Ron Paul is NOT a folk hero.
Barak Obama is the real folk hero of this election. And he’s not a hypocrite like Ron Paul and all Republicans in the race.
Comment by Freddy | September 7th, 2007
No word from Nathan? Guess Nathan opted to forever hang his head in shame for being so clueless about the Constitution.
Nathan could never justify how Ron Paul could use big-government intervention against citizen’s privacy rights to make our own decisions about abortion.
Ron Paul is NOT the folk hero of the election, despite Turcker Carlson’s fevered fantasies. Ron Paul is the candidate of big-government intervention, not Hillary Clinton.
No, Hillary Clinton will end the war, like Ron Paul has promised, but HILLARY WILL ALSO PRESERVE OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS!
And Barak Obama is far more a “folk hero” than Ron Paul could ever be.
Comment by Freddy | September 9th, 2007
Huge failure by Nathan and other libertarians to justify Ron Paul’s BIG-GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN OUR LIVES!
Ron Paul is every bit as much a hypocrite as any other politician. He’ll suck up the fanatical religious right for votes and betray libertarian principles by ramming through anti-abortion laws in Congress.
Funny how Tucker Carlson does not have the courage to ask tough questions to the stripper or to Ron Paul.
Or is Tucker Carlson as ignorant of libertarianism as Nathan and Kevin and Oak.
How can people who call themselves libertarians be so ignorant of the Constitution?
Comment by Mick Russom | September 12th, 2007
Ron Paul is the only hope for America. Every other candidate will seal the casket on this country. This republic will die without him.
RON PAUL:
This may be the only revolution that doesnt require a Gun.
Washington needs a doctor not a politician.
Legalize the constitution, vote Ron Paul.
Vote against the authoritarian totalitarian regimes of the Democrats and Republicans. This is AMERICAAAAA, kick those criminal beltway thugs down the well.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Comment by Freddy | September 17th, 2007
Congratulations, Mick Russom, on committing SPAM! Your crap post completely misses the point.
Mick Russom FAILS to address a single poing.
Mick is so worshipful of Ron Paul that his ability to read at a third grade level has failed him.
Mick Russom, what part of “Ron Paul voted for big government intervention in our private lives” can you not read?
Mick Russom, you fail Poli Sci 101, Forum posting 101, and third grade reading.
Again, after the so-called libertarian Ron Paul outlaws abortion rights, where will Strippers for Ron Paul go to get their abortions?
And there have been plenty of revolutions that don’t require guns. Like the revolution that created public schools. Though clearly those public schools could not teach Mick Russom to actually learn to read before opening his yap.
Comment by Freddy | September 24th, 2007
Cowardly supporters of Ron Paul ran away when the facts arrived.
Proved: Ron Paul has ALREADY used big government to restrict our Constitutional rights, and is creating more rights-destroying bills.
Sorry, but Ron Paul is no libertarian. Any Democrat will end the war as Ron Paul promised, but the Democrats will also defend our Constitutional rights.
Comment by Robert Eckerson | October 3rd, 2007
Ron Paul does not approach abortion from a biblical perspective, but rather as an obstetrician. He points out that as a doctor he has a legal and ethical obligation to protect the life of the fetus.
I myself am pro-choice and believe in open borders but I’m not supporting Ron Paul on the basis on any one specific issue. It goes much much deeper than that.
Pingback by Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] « Us Elections | October 4th, 2007
[...] read more | digg story [...]
Comment by Thomas E. Doyle | October 11th, 2007
As a Christian, an American, a patriot and conservative, I will vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because he is the only one who seeks peace (a Biblical stance) No other candidate wants peace. They all seek to go fight (with our kids, not their own) Every president should be the first to actually go to the war zone and fight since he is commander. Maybe then he would decide we should live peacefully. Count the cost of Iraq. 30,000 injured, 4000 dead. From a who won perspective, we have lost miserably. Bring all of our kids home- from every country and begin to take care of America.
Comment by Joe Michaels | October 14th, 2007
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on the abortion issue , but since I agree with him on just about EVERYTHING ELSE, I’ll vote for him. Not one of the candidates that I’ve voted for since I turned 18 has been with me on ALL the issues. The Democrats and Repubs are only differ on one thing :HOW MUCH of WHO’S wealth should go to WHICH people? Ron Paul represents a total break from that mentality, and that total break is MANATORY if we are to move forward as a nation.
Comment by Joe Michaels | October 14th, 2007
Whoops, I meant MANDATORY, not MANATORY!! My bad.
Pingback by Digg Loves Ron Paul - Karma Rogue | October 14th, 2007
[...] Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] [...]
Comment by Freddy | October 25th, 2007
Robert Eckerson says “Ron Paul does not approach abortion from a biblical perspective, but rather as an obstetrician. He points out that as a doctor he has a legal and ethical obligation to protect the life of the fetus.”
Then Ron Paul is a liar. There is NO “legal obligation” to “protect the life of the fetus.” Show us this “legal obligation.”
Can’t do it? You fail, like Ron Paul fails. Oh, unless Ron Paul inflicts Big Government on us by making abortion illegal. But that would not be libertarian, would it?
So Ron Paul is not really a libertarian.
Comment by Freddy | October 25th, 2007
Thomas E. Doyle says “… I will vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because he is the only one who seeks peace (a Biblical stance) No other candidate wants peace.”
What a lie. EVERY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE SEEKS PEACE. Only the Republicans are pro-needless war. A non-Biblical stance, as you correctly point out.
Comment by Freddy | October 25th, 2007
Joe Michaels says “I don’t agree with Ron Paul on the abortion issue , but since I agree with him on just about EVERYTHING ELSE, I’ll vote for him.”
The point about Ron Paul’s abortion stance is that it is not principled. It is a complete and total violation of libertarian principles. There is simply NO WAY that a libertarian can justify such a massive federal government intrusion into our most private decisions and into our bodies.
The Libertarian party rejects it, as do the libertarian think tanks. There is NO principled libertarian position that would take away our rights. Period.
What’s worse, Ron Paul not only supports Big Government attacks on our reproductive freedoms, but he has introduced bills in Congress to force this assault on freedom on the entire US.
Worse, Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would turn non-scientific fantasy into the law of the land- defining life as beginning at conception.
That is a complete betrayal of libertarian principles, and a true libertarian could never go there. Even to pander for votes from the Republican Taliban.
Comment by anyusmoon1 | October 29th, 2007
Regarding the last five or so comments… First, Dr. Paul is a Republican with Constitutional leanings (how Dr. Paul describes himself). Obviously having run for the Presidential office, over 20 years ago, as a Libertarian adds that dimension to his political background but doesn’t change a thing, he is a Republican.
He has no obligation to be pure anything accept to the Constitution. And wearing the hat of Congressman involves one jurisdiction and as a candidate for President (executive branch) involves another jurisdiction.
Regarding abortion, some of you are incorrectly stating the position and must correct it… Dr. Paul, correctly, wants to stop FEDERAL gov from having ANY say (pro/con) on matters belonging in the State venue (jurisdication). There is absolutely no consitutional provision for funding abortions anymore than for funding contraception.
Dr. Paul is the last hope for any of us libertarians and conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists and as we see in the comments online democrats who care about correcting the ills in this country.
Any libertarian dissing Paul without an extremely precise examination of what Dr. Paul says is doing a tremendous disservice to himself, the Libertarian party and the country. Who in the hell are you holding out for? What exceptional individual have YOU got to recommend to even come CLOSE to the good Dr.?
Comment by Freddy | October 30th, 2007
Once again, the Ron Paul supporters show that they know the LEAST about Ron Paul. Note that so far I know more about Ron Paul’s REAL record than ANY Ron Paul supporter on this thread. Why is that? Remember that cultists are unable to see facts that contradict their devotion.
anyusmoon1 says: “First, Dr. Paul is a Republican with Constitutional leanings (how Dr. Paul describes himself).”
Wrong! Look at the libertarians running away from the libertarian label. Too bad Ron Paul has already described himself as a libertarian. What are you afraid of in the word “libertarian”? Are you afraid that Ron Paul will actually be judged by his hypocrisy against the libertarian standard?
anyusmoon1: “Obviously having run for the Presidential office, over 20 years ago…”
Wrong! It was in 88. Less than 20 years ago. You fail basic math as well as basic knowledge of your candidate. Do you admit you are wrong again?
anyusmoon1 “… as a Libertarian adds that dimension to his political background but doesn’t change a thing, he is a Republican.”
“Adds dimension? Ha ha ha ha ha! Ron Paul SAYS he’s a libertarian, and RUNS as a libertarian, and anyusmoon1 says Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian! Ha ha ha ha! Are you not aware that a person can be BOTH a libertarian AND a Republican?
anyusmoon1: “He has no obligation to be pure anything accept to the Constitution. And wearing the hat of Congressman involves one jurisdiction and as a candidate for President (executive branch) involves another jurisdiction.”
Too bad Ron Paul fails that test too. Ron Paul says he “never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” This is crap. Show me where the Constitution says that life begins at conception. Show me. I dare you. Can’t do it? Then you FAIL! And you must admit that Ron Paul is NOT PURE TO THE CONSTITUTION! (In case you are also ignorant of this, Ron Paul introduced the so called “Sanctity of Life Act”, in which the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD DEFINE HUMAN LIFE AS BEGINNING AT CONCEPTION. Where is this in the Constitution? (Or proved in science?)
anyusmoon1: “Regarding abortion, some of you are incorrectly stating the position and must correct it… Dr. Paul, correctly, wants to stop FEDERAL gov from having ANY say (pro/con) on matters belonging in the State venue (jurisdication). “
LIAR! Anyusmoon1 is either a liar or ignorant of the FACTS. Since I have already posted the facts here, there is no excuse for ignorance. So Anyusmoon1 must be a liar. Since I have PROVEN that Ron Paul has been trying to pass FEDERAL LAW defining human life as beginning at conception, HOW IS THAT LEAVING IT TO THE STATES?
Or are you going to try to prove that Ron Paul did NOT sponsor HR 1094, the so called Sanctity of Life Act of 2007?
Anyusmoon1 says: “Dr. Paul is the last hope for any of us libertarians and conservatives, republicans, constitutionalists”
And who do you have to blame for that? Who do you have to blame for the wretched state of the Republican candidates?
Anyusmoon1 says: “Any libertarian dissing Paul without an extremely precise examination of what Dr. Paul says is doing a tremendous disservice to himself, the Libertarian party and the country.”
Wrong again! Reverse that. Any libertarian SUPPORTING Ron Paul “without an extremely precise examination of what Dr. Paul says is doing a tremendous disservice to himself, the Libertarian party and the country.”
Because Ron Paul is a FRAUD of a libertarian.
Further, Ron Paul’s So called “We the People Act” would remove certain issues like abortion from jurisdiction of federal courts—even though the CONSITUTION SAYS THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION! Are you aware of that?
Anyusmoon1: “Who in the hell are you holding out for? What exceptional individual have YOU got to recommend to even come CLOSE to the good Dr.?”
Every one of the Democrats running is better than Ron Paul. They will all end the war WITHOUT BEING A RON PAUL ISOLATIONIST. And they will all preserve the Constitutional rights which Ron Paul is attacking.
Will anyusmoon1 answer? or will anyusmoon1 run away and hide like EVERY OTHER RON PAUL SUPPORTER HERE?
Comment by Adam | November 3rd, 2007
Register as a Republican!
Vote in your primaries!
Ron Paul Revolution!
Legalize the Constitution!!!
Goto: www(dot)ThisNovember5th(dot)com
Donate 1cent if thats all you have!
Every penny counts! Make history, be history.
Comment by Freddy | November 4th, 2007
Adam is the latest in a line of pro-Ron Paul spamming idiots.
Look at the crap he took in this forum. Off-topic, meaningless, drivel. He didn’t care to read anything. He vomited and fled. Great example Ron Paul sets.
Is Ron Paul a candidate or a cult leader?
Not one Ron Paulist can justify Ron Paul’s Big Government hypocrisy. Including Tucker Carlson.
Any Democrat in the race is a better choice for freedom than Ron Paul.
Comment by verta | November 5th, 2007
People can NOT keep brushing the social security issue aside – it is downright ignorant. You will have thousands of homeless disabled and elderly if you ‘do away’ with it. Do you all think you will be young and strong forever? Are you honestly that short sighted? (I’m only 31 years old and NOT on govt assistance btw.) Veterans are deserving of disability but so are disabled ‘citizens’.
People with family and friends who are in dire need of their disability need to speak up LOUDLY and OFTEN on the Ron Paul websites! You should be very afraid, this old man hasn’t a clue about disabled people, despite being a doctor! There are only so many positions for wal-mart door greeter for disabled people, those genuinely in need of SS/disability can’t do much else. And it COULD be any of us, anytime. Please take a step back and think about this even if it doesn’t impact you immediately.
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO WORK WILL NOT HAVE ANY MONEY. What then? He is opposed to state-assisted suicide… which would be the only way to avoid becoming homeless, for MANY of these people. No matter how young you are now, one day you, too WILL be elderly and in need of a social security program to take care of you. Pensions are weaker than ever before, and non-existant in many places today that they used to be commonplace. Please THINK.
Comment by Freddy | November 8th, 2007
verta says “Please THINK.”
Libertarians who CAN think oppose Ron Paul. After all, it is rank hypocrisy for Ron Paul to support draconian big government federal legislation to take away our reproductive freedom.
Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He’s a liar and not one of his supporters has been able to defend Ron Paul’s betrayal of libertarian ideals.
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul on the war and defending personal liberties.
Comment by Open your Eyes | November 8th, 2007
when I see all the unnecessary suffering and deaths that happen every winter and summer in the world.
I ask myself why?
How much do you pay for power now? What if you didn’t have to?
The big companies have stopped every bit of progress. Say free energy and they freak.
Well I personally believe they are guilty of crimes against humanity. Holding back technology that would greatly improve the world and put a stop to needless suffering and deaths just for profit is sickening to me. Not to mention the generations of people who are affected or are going to be affected by all the chemicals they are needlessly dumping on us our children and our earth. Open your eyes people!
So, some of you out there that are going to call me a nut, All I ask that you do is some real (not just watching spin masters on TV) research before you call me a nut. We don’t need oil, we don’t need coal. I have a hard time believing how naïve and uneducated the American public really is. Oh the guy with the kite and string invented electricity, What a bunch of bull*&^% from the beginning. Ever heard of Tesla and his dreams, ideas, and the real facts? Of course not. He wanted to give free power to the world. GE didn’t like that idea. Why can’t or farmers grow hemp? You and I know no one smokes hemp. Yet we import how much every year from every other country in the world? Oh it could replace a lot if not all of petro products? Hum? It’s all about the money. We need a truly free market. Not a corporate dictatorship. We need to do what is best for the people of the world. Not how much money and power the few can get. All the money in the world will not help our children and the generations to come. We need to change our priorities. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This is how we need to look at our societies. If we have a weak point, we need to strength it, not squash it.
Please educate yourselves beyond the dictated public Bull&^%$ spin system. Before you aren’t even free to do that.
Wake up! Open your minds! Open you eyes!
Comment by Open your Eyes | November 8th, 2007
Opps PT 1/2 –
The system isn’t working right now either! Let me tell you how it really is.
I am a veteran for one. Every time I try to get assistance, the regulations have been changed and I no longer qualify. Almost everything I was promised was a lie.
I worked for a non profit (social services) company for over seven years. Then one day was injured on the job. It’s been almost a year. I can’t get proper medical treatment, I was fired from my job (They terminated my position, nice legal move) when my doctor released me back to work with restrictions. I have never had anything but outstanding in my yearly reviews. I did my job and I did it well. So now I am injured, I have no job, who wants to hire me? What insurance company would let an employer? I can not get proper treatment. So now I am getting workers comp payments. They are supposed to be 2/3 of your wages. I can assure you it is not 2/3 of my previous wages. So I get these petty checks for awhile, Then out of no where, instead of a check to go towards paying my mortgage I get a letter stating that they don’t agree with the doctors and they don’t think I should get anymore money. Then they say that they think I have been overpaid and that I owe them almost $5000.00 – But “Please do not send cash”. This is almost all the money they have sent me. I can’t get disability which I have paid into my whole life. They say it is a workers comp case so I can’t get disability. I won’t qualify for social security because I am able to pick flowers with my teeth in the Mojave Desert or some unrealistic excuse. Even if I got a lawyer for Social Security, it would take years. Where is my help I have been paying for all those years? Not here. So now I have no job, No income plus I supposedly owe them money? (I’m sure they will put a lean on my house), very little medical treatment which I need, Next the bank will take my home. Try feeding your children with no income and soon no home. Oh ya, good buy car too.
This is how it really is! It only took less than a second to totally destroy my life.
Where is my help? In reality there is none. I only wish I had all that money they stole from me back. I would have enough personal savings to last abit longer and get through this. They can’t manage our money for ^&&*. So trust me when I say, they do not care about you or me. A corporation is legally bound to make as much profit as possible. They make their own rules. What they have done to me is all legal. Just as they have designed it. This is the way it is. Wake up people. I hope none of you ever get hurt at work or anywhere else. Just wake up and do some real research on the issues or Welcome to the United States of China/Canada/Mexico. Oh but it’s for are own good. NAU, did you vote on that? Uh Hu!
Do you ever ask yourself why are we driving these outdated cars?
The first Model T got 25 mpg wow what improvement after how many years?
What car won the first auto race in America? Oh, an electric car? Imagine that? How many years ago was that?
Why are we paying so much money for heating, cooling, and powering our homes?
What if I told you could heat, cool, and power your home and car for a one time cost of about $3000.00 and that it would last a lifetime and it’s clean. No, Not solar. Not wind. Although they have their good points.
What if I told you could get into you car and drive as you do, come home, park your car and sell the extra energy it has generated back to the grid (if you are even hooked up to it. You’d be independent). Although it probably wouldn’t be very profitable sense there would be plenty when I see all the unnecessary suffering and deaths that happen every winter and summer in the world.
Comment by Jeff | November 8th, 2007
Freddy, you said:
Ron Paul is hypocritically bringing the hammer of Federal Power down on citizens to OUTLAW ABORTIONS and rob us of our rights!
He has succeeded in using Federal Power to rob women of their Constitutional right to a safe, medical intact D&E abortion (the so-called “partial birth” abortion, and Ron Paul is trying to pass a FEDERAL LAW that would define human life as starting at conception despite a total lack of scientific proof.
How is that “leaving it to the states?”
How come no Ron Paul fans can answer this simple question?
Tell me where in the Constitution it addresses safe, legal abortions? I’d be interested to read that.
I do know that the tenth amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I’ll tyoe this slow so you can understand. If the Constitution DOESN’T say it, and the STATE allows it, then it’s OK. In other words, if any state votes to allow abortion, then it’s legal.
If Ron Paul wants to leave these things to the states, how is that a bad thing?
Comment by Freddy | November 9th, 2007
Jeff, if you had been paying attention, you would know that I already used the “type slowly” gag on this page. Try to keep up.
Second, I already gave answers to your regurgitated talking points. Try to follow along.
Third, like all other Ron Paul fans you fail to answer my question above. Try to actually deal with the discussion.
Nonetheless, I’ll suffer your questions gladly after you answer this:
Will you reject Ron Paul if it turns out that Ron Paul does NOT actually “leave it to the states” but has voted for federal power to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom?
Comment by Jeff | November 9th, 2007
Please, leave out the grade school attacks.
I’ve read you posts Freddy, you make a lame attack, ask a dumb question and that’s it.
To answer YOUR question. I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom. I have seen where he doesn’t want the Federal government to decide that question and would remove it from the Supreme Court but I have seen nothing to suggest that he would not allow any state to decide for itself this or most any other question.
Comment by Jeff | November 10th, 2007
C’mon Freddy, you can do better than this. A whole day and no dumb comments. Nothing worse than an internet tough guy. I asked for proof. I hope you are diligently compiling vast reams of data.
Comment by Sand | November 11th, 2007
Freddy, you make some good points. Ron Paul was not justified in retaliating for Roe v Wade the way he did.
But remember it was a retaliation… he voted out of character – an extremely unusual protest vote.
My stand on abortion isn’t the same as Ron Paul’s, but remember, if Roe v Wade is overturned, liberal states have “trigger” laws that will go into effect and protect a woman’s right to choose. And conservative states also have laws that will be triggered by overturning Roe v Wade.
This means people will be able to have abortions in certain states. And Ron Paul has already voted to allow pregnant women to travel across states to terminate their pregnancy. Conservatives were furious about this.
In the end, though it’s a win-win situation. And since the science isn’t advanced enough to allow us to make clear ethical decisions about abortion, this gives people choice in a relatively subjective decision that is too complicated to legislate by the concept of trimesters.
As you can see, I disagree with Ron Paul’s personal abortion stance; but I completely agree with the way he wants to deal with it.
Ron Paul is not perfect. But I doubt you’ll find a better candidate.
Comment by Freddy | November 11th, 2007
Jeff puts his vote where his mouth is: “To answer YOUR question. I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
Done deal, Jeff.
Federal Big Government Restriction #1:
“Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003″
Please note that this vote alone makes Ron Paul an utter hypocrite, because he is on record as saying “the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue”, right?
Federal Big Government Restriction #2:
“Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.”
Is Ron Paul is neither a researcher into the start of human life? Is Ron Paul (despite the cult-like worship of his supporters) God? No and no. So Ron Paul cannot possibly know for certain when life starts, right? And if Libertarians don’t know that restrictive legislation is required by the Constitution, they are not allowed to make it right? And that makes Ron Paul’s hypocritical bill an unwarranted big government federal overreach to restrict our current reproductive freedom.
I could go on and on, but #1 above is more than sufficient to prove that Ron Paul has indeed “voted for federal power to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom.”
Thanks for abandoning Ron Paul. We all await your post rejecting the lying hypocrite Ron Paul.
Comment by Jeff | November 12th, 2007
You’ve proved nothing except what you already want to believe Freddy.
Everything you’ve cited has the word “FEDERAL” in it. The federal government has almost no Constitutional right to do anything. The states have usurped their responsibilities to the Feds for years. You suffer from “Stockholm sysndrome” just like a lot of other Americans.
The states have the ultimate authority to do whatever the people decide. In fact, The Sanctity of Life Act would have given more power to the states by removing the issue from the Supreme Court. That way, if an individual didn’t agree with their states law, they couldn’t appeal it to the Feds. The state Supreme Court would have to rule on it and if the people have decided one way or the other, the court would HAVE to uphold the law.
The concept of states rights is so important I don’t see why you would be against it.
Thankfully, I can say that, based on your information, I won’t be abandoning Dr. Paul.
Comment by Freddy | November 12th, 2007
Ah, the colossal ignorance of the average Ron Paul supporter. Let’s all count the many errors of Jeff.
Jeff Error #1: “You’ve proved nothing except what you already want to believe Freddy.”
Jeff is wrong. I PROVED that Ron Paul voted for FEDERAL restrictions on abortion, thus PROVING that Ron Paul voted to restrict reproductive freedom. Jeff had previously said “I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.” I did exactly that. Jeff FAILS to even defend himself.
So how will Jeff try to weasel out of keeping his word? Let’s see:
Jeff Error #2: “Everything you’ve cited has the word “FEDERAL” in it.”
No duh, Jeff. I cited Ron Paul’s FEDERAL restrictions on reproductive freedom because that’s what I set out to prove. I set out to show that Ron Paul voted at the FEDERAL level to restrict reproductive freedom. And I proved it. You fail. You lose. You have ZERO defense. You are now required to renounce Ron Paul. Unless you a lying hypocrite. Are you?
Jeff Error #3: “The federal government has almost no Constitutional right to do anything.”
Jeff has been toking on the Ron Paul crack pipe. Let’s see. The Constitution gives TONS of powers to the Federal government. Here are SOME:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Jeff is sadly wrong. Jeff actually thinks that list of MAJOR power is “almost no Constitutional right to do anything.” What part of that HUGE (and incomplete) list “almost no right to do anything”?
Jeff Error #4: “The states have usurped their responsibilities to the Feds for years.”
Jeff, you poor, sorry, excuse for an informed voter. “Usurped” means “To take over or occupy without right.” I suspect the word you are looking for is “abdicated,” which means “To relinquish (power or responsibility) formally.” Do you admit your ignorance of the very terms that YOU introduced into the debate?
Jeff Error #5: “You suffer from “Stockholm sysndrome” just like a lot of other Americans.”
Prove it. Do you even know what it is? Do you have “Stockholm Syndrome” from spending too much time around ignorant people who don’t know the difference between “usurp” and “abdicate” and who don’t know that Ron Paul voted to restrict abortion at the FEDERAL level?
Jeff Error #6: “In fact, The Sanctity of Life Act would have given more power to the states by removing the issue from the Supreme Court.”
Wrong again! If the FEDERAL government defines life as starting at conception, the issue of abortion has already been decided- at the FEDERAL LEVEL! Show me where in the Constitution it says that the Federal government has the right to INVENT when life begins and make that definition the law of the entire land. I dare you. Go on.
(Hint: the vast majority of Libertarians and “Constitutionalists” jump up and down and say “such power is NOWHERE in the Constitution!” Does Jeff fail that test?)
Jeff Error #7: “That way, if an individual didn’t agree with their states law, they couldn’t appeal it to the Feds. The state Supreme Court would have to rule on it and if the people have decided one way or the other, the court would HAVE to uphold the law.”
Ok, Jeff, so now show me where in the Constitution it says that the FEDERAL government can take away the Constitutional powers of the Supreme Court and the Constitutionally established Federal Courts?
Show me where in the Constitution it says that the FEDERAL government can take away the RIGHTS of people to appeal to the appeal cases to the entire Constitutionally-established court system, including the Supreme Court?
Jeff Error #8: “The concept of states rights is so important I don’t see why you would be against it.”
Jeff, your ignorance knows no bounds. STATES DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. Only people have rights, not governments. States have powers, not rights. That’s Jr. High Civics. Are you really ignorant of that?
I am for the “concept” of the Constitutional powers of states AND the Executive AND the Federal Legislature AND the Supreme Court AND the Federal courts. The checks and balances between them is what makes the system work. Why would YOU be against that?
Jeff Error #9: “Thankfully, I can say that, based on your information, I won’t be abandoning Dr. Paul.”
Jeff, you said “I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
I showed you that Ron Paul voted to restrict so-called partial birth abortions AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Ron Paul did NOT “leave it to the states.” Therefore I proved it, and you are STILL obligated to abandon Ron Paul.
What are the odds that Jeff FAILS to actually address all these questions and just slinks away?
Comment by Jeff | November 12th, 2007
Freddy, maybe you’ve heard of something called the Tenth Amendment?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If a state wants to make ANYTHING legal, it is their RIGHT. California and several other states have legalized medical marijuana. They couldn’t do that if they didn’t have that right because FEDERALLY, it is still illegal.
I say “usurp” because the state have ALLOWED their power to be taken from them. The Feds say, if you want highway money, or education money, you’ll do what WE say. That’s extortion and the states LET them get away with it.
Dr. Paul doesn’t have to LET anyone do anything. They have the RIGHT provided to them in the Constitution.
All the “powers” you listed fall into two categories. “Provide for the common defense” and “Promote the general welfare.” Perhaps you’ve heard that somewhere before.
Look, you’re a fan of the status quo, I get that. It still doesn’t make you right. And I’ll still be working to elect Ron Paul.
Comment by Freddy | November 12th, 2007
Jeff slinks away, looking for an exit– away from facts and back to the safety of the certainty of ignorance.
There are at least ten solid questions above, all of which show Jeff is wrong. How many questions does Jeff successfully answer? ZERO.
Let the record show that Jeff is wrong on all fronts. By failing to even try to defend, you lose and you admit defeat.
Let’s look at Jeff’s sorry excuse for an attempt to get out the fact Jeff is required to renounce Ron Paul now that I PROVED Ron Paul voted for BIG GOVERNMENT FEDERAL POWER to restrict abortion rights.
Jeff Error #10: “If a state wants to make ANYTHING legal, it is their RIGHT.”
Wrong on two fronts, Jeff. First, where in the Constitution do you see State government having RIGHTS?
You don’t? Then admit you are WRONG. Again.
Jeff Error #11: “If a state wants to make ANYTHING legal, it is their RIGHT.”
WRONG! Not only is it not a RIGHT, it is not the POWER of a state to make ANYTHING illegal. Perhaps you are ignorant of Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
So no State laws can NOT make ANYTHING illegal, if the State law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you understand that?
Where in your precious 10th Amendment do you find the power for states to make UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws?
Let’s see if Jeff FAILS to answer that question.
Your whole “State’s Rights” canard was tried by a bunch of bigots who wanted to restrict the freedoms of minorities. Those bigots failed then, and their heirs will fail as they try to restrict the rights of women now.
Jeff goes out with a whimper, trying to say that words don’t actually have meaning:
Jeff Error #12: “I say “usurp” because the state have ALLOWED their power to be taken from them.”
And you are still just as wrong, Jeff. Just because you interpret the action of state governments in that peculiar way DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE WORD “usurp” any more than Bush can change the meaning of the word “torture” by lying about it. (Or “compassion” or “conservative” or all the other words Bush uses in opposition to their actual meaning.)
Jeff can’t even MAN UP and admit he used the wrong word. Who should be surprised that JEFF punks out of renouncing Ron Paul when Jeff is PROVEN WRONG?
Jeff Error #13: “All the “powers” you listed fall into two categories. “Provide for the common defense” and “Promote the general welfare.” Perhaps you’ve heard that somewhere before.”
Provide for the common defense and promote general welfare is a HUGE amount of Constitutional power (not rights) to do a tremendous amount. So Jeff was WRONG in his claim that “The federal government has almost no Constitutional right to do anything.”
Second, Jeff is wrong again. “All” the powers I list fall into MORE than two categories. They also fall into these categories: “form a more perfect Union”, “establish Justice”, “insure domestic Tranquility”, and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Jeff, perhaps you have heard that somewhere before. Or are you truly ignorant of anything in the constitution beyond your precious 10th Amendment?
Jeff Error #14: “Look, you’re a fan of the status quo, I get that. It still doesn’t make you right.”
No, I’m right because I have PROVED everything I have said. Jeff, on the other hand, has FAILED to prove much of anything that is at dispute.
Jeff has FAILED to successfully answer MANY questions.
And I PROVED that Ron Paul has indeed “voted for federal power to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom.”
Jeff failed to either renounce Ron Paul as he promised to do, or to present ANY evidence showing me wrong about ANYTHING.
I AM RIGHT: Ron Paul DID vote to restrict abortion rights at the FEDERAL level, even though Saint Ron Paul LIED by saying he would not.
We all await Jeff’s post rejecting the lying hypocrite Ron Paul.
Or will Jeff continue to slink away as his world collapses under the weight of FACTS (just like every other Ron Paul supporter in Tucker’s little paradise fled in the face of Ron Paul’s hypocrisy)?
Comment by Sand | November 12th, 2007
Freddy, I’m surprised you didn’t comment on what I wrote.
Comment by Jeff | November 13th, 2007
I’m still here Freddy, when did I “slink away?”
By the way, are you still beating you wife? If you didn’t like that question, I’d suggest you settle down with the attacks on me. Until you do, you’re nothing more than a troll ripping pages out of the GWB play book of “Say something long and loud enough and it becomes true.”
Your grade school antics still haven’t shown me where in the Constitution it says women has a right to an abortion. If it’s not in the Constitution, then any law made for or against it CAN’T be un-Constitutional. That’s kind of where the Tenth Amendment comes in.
So Freddy, name chapter and verse where in the Constitution is says women have an “unalienable right” to an abortion and then you can “prove” me wrong. Until then, you’ve proved nothing more than you are a Bill O’Reilly blowhard.
Comment by Freddy | November 13th, 2007
Jeff, you are STILL slinking away from ALL the questions I asked. You are hiding from providing real answers to real questions. Everyone here can see you for what you are.
Jeff promised to reject Ron Paul if “it turns out that Ron Paul does NOT actually “leave it to the states” but has voted for federal power to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom?”
I PROVED that Ron Paul voted to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom with his vote outlawing the so-called “partial birth” abortion.
Jeff cannot MAN UP and reject Ron Paul as he promised.
Nor has Jeff provided one drop of evidence to contradict the FACT that Ron Paul voted to OUTLAW so-called “partial birth” abortions.
So Jeff FAILS.
Jeff, you can keep blathering all you want, but you are slinking away from the actual discussion at hand.
You fear LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS, because your notions about the Constitution are WRONG.
You said: “If a state wants to make ANYTHING legal, it is their RIGHT.”
I pointed out that you are wrong. If a state votes to make it illegal for minorities to vote, the state has violated our Constitutional protections, and the courts slap down the bigoted butts of the state lawmakers.
And if a state votes to make it illegal for women to have safe and legal access to abortion, the state has violated our Constitutional protections, and the courts slap down the bigoted butts of the state lawmakers.
Do you see now that you are WRONG when you say the state can change the legal status of ANYTHING?
States can only change legal status AS LONG AS THEIR LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. What in your precious 10th Amendment changes that?
I’ll be glad to discuss the parts of the Constitution that cover our privacy and equal protection rights to abortion, but only after you do what you said you would do first- reject the lying hypocrite Ron Paul for using the Federal government to restrict abortion when he said he would not do such a thing.
We’re waiting, Jeff. Is that a slinking sound we hear?
Comment by Freddy | November 13th, 2007
Hi Sand,
Unlike Jeff, you make some good points. I can see how Ron Paul could appear appealing, especially when all the other Republicans in the race are so loathsome. There really is on other place for a sane Republican to turn.
Except to any Democrat. And here’s why. The three leading Democratic candidates are moderates who oppose the war, like Ron Paul, but also will defend our reproductive rights.
I agree with you that “Ron Paul was not justified in retaliating for Roe v Wade the way he did.”
In voting for Federal restrictions on abortion, Ron Paul betrayed the Libertarian party that he once ran for president with, Ron Paul betrayed ALL Libertarians and Constitutionalists, and Ron Paul betrayed every American who believes in privacy and keeping the government out of our bedrooms.
Sand says “But remember it was a retaliation… he voted out of character – an extremely unusual protest vote.”
A betrayal is still a betrayal. Benedict Arnold was out of character too, but he still betrayed his country. That does not excuse it.
Sand says “My stand on abortion isn’t the same as Ron Paul’s, but remember, if Roe v Wade is overturned, liberal states have “trigger” laws that will go into effect and protect a woman’s right to choose. And conservative states also have laws that will be triggered by overturning Roe v Wade.”
Will any of that help a poor woman raped and impregnated by an monstrous lunatic? She will have to undergo the trauma of carrying and bearing the result of the rape. At a minimum, that violates her equal protection rights under the Constitution.
Sand “This means people will be able to have abortions in certain states. And Ron Paul has already voted to allow pregnant women to travel across states to terminate their pregnancy. Conservatives were furious about this.”
So what? You have just imposed a tremendous hardship on women, especially poor women, that you have not imposed on men. How does that give women equal protection under the law?
Sand: “In the end, though it’s a win-win situation.”
How? It’s win-lose-lose. Women lose, poor women lose the most, and rich, hypocritical white fundamentalists win bragging rights. But that’s the way Conservatives like it, right?
Sand “And since the science isn’t advanced enough to allow us to make clear ethical decisions about abortion, this gives people choice in a relatively subjective decision that is too complicated to legislate by the concept of trimesters.”
Who says the trimester system “too complicated”? It’s been working very well. Are things bad just because they are complicated? The checks and balances systems that Jeff appears ignorant of is complicated. Should we scrap that, too? The trimester system balances the REAL rights of a living breathing human woman with the THEORETICAL POTENTIAL rights of a fetus.
The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who would take away rights of women to make reproductive choices, since a woman’s personhood is beyond question, right?
Sand “As you can see, I disagree with Ron Paul’s personal abortion stance; but I completely agree with the way he wants to deal with it.”
1) By legislating at the Federal level to make some kinds of abortion legal? No, you say you disagree with that hypocritial move by Ron Paul.
2) By taking away state power by ARBITRARILY MAKING UP the start of personhood AND MAKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCE YOUR ANTI-SCIENCE NOTIONS? How is that Ron Pauls’ law on that in any way a good thing?
3)By taking away court power to stop this anti-Libertarian, anti-Constitutionalist nonsense? How is THAT a good thing?
Sand “Ron Paul is not perfect. But I doubt you’ll find a better candidate.”
Hillary Clinton
Barak Obama
John Edwards.
All three will end the Republicans unnecessary, self-destructive war in Iraq without becoming isolationist, unlike Ron Paul.
All three will focus on the real fight against those who ACTUALLY attacked us.
And all three will protect our LIBERTARIAN rights to reproductive freedom and self-determination, unlike Ron Paul.
Any Democrat is better than Ron Paul.
Comment by Sand | November 13th, 2007
“Except to any Democrat. And here’s why. The three leading Democratic candidates are moderates who oppose the war, like Ron Paul, but also will defend our reproductive rights.”
First, I am a Democrat. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have already betrayed the Democrats by not pledging to leave Iraq by 2013.
“A betrayal is still a betrayal. Benedict Arnold was out of character too, but he still betrayed his country. That does not excuse it.”
If you held every politician to the standard you are attempting to hold Ron Paul, they would all be in Guantanamo or hanged. This is about the only legislative mistake he has ever made, and Ron Paul didn’t defect to the British.
“Will any of that help a poor woman raped and impregnated by an monstrous lunatic?”
Do you really expect conservative states to make no exceptions for rape in their local laws? It would be rather unreasonable.
“So what? You have just imposed a tremendous hardship on women, especially poor women, that you have not imposed on men. How does that give women equal protection under the law?”
Men can’t get pregnant. If they could they’d be subject to the same law.
“How? It’s win-lose-lose. Women lose, poor women lose the most, and rich, hypocritical white fundamentalists win bragging rights. But that’s the way Conservatives like it, right?”
You underestimate the effect of this legislation.
Because doctors might have input into how some abortion laws are changed, they can reflect the medical reality and adapt as safe methods or new discoveries are made.
“Who says the trimester system “too complicated”?”
NOBODY. I said the opposite. I said it’s too simple and arbitrary.
I’ll repeat myself: “And since the science isn’t advanced enough to allow us to make clear ethical decisions about abortion, this gives people choice in a relatively subjective decision that is TOO COMPLICATED TO LEGISLATE BY THE CONCEPT OF TRIMESTERS.”
“The trimester system balances the REAL rights of a living breathing human woman with the THEORETICAL POTENTIAL rights of a fetus.”
From a medical perspective Roe v Wade fails. That’s why there is opposition to Roe v Wade from liberals.
“By legislating at the Federal level to make some kinds of abortion legal? No, you say you disagree with that hypocritial move by Ron Paul.”
No. Ron Paul wants it at the state level. That’s why I agree with him, albeit for different reasons.
“By taking away state power by ARBITRARILY MAKING UP the start of personhood AND MAKING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCE YOUR ANTI-SCIENCE NOTIONS? How is that Ron Pauls’ law on that in any way a good thing?”
No. Ron Paul wants abortion legislated at the state level. As I already showed, this is good for everyone as now the law can actually have some scientific basis and women have more choice.
“All three will end the Republicans unnecessary, self-destructive war in Iraq without becoming isolationist, unlike Ron Paul.”
First. They didn’t pledge to leave by 2013. They have betrayed the democrats. Especially Hillary, who is effectively a socialist neoconservative. Second. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He will engage in diplomacy and trade with all nations. He will fight those who attack us. He even had the best free-market solution to capturing Osama Bin Laden. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque)
“And all three will protect our LIBERTARIAN rights to reproductive freedom and self-determination, unlike Ron Paul.”
[l]ibertarians are split 50/50 on abortion. The very reason for that is that the science behind consciousness is not in yet. So Ron Paul’s stance cannot be held to be anti-libertarian.
“Any Democrat is better than Ron Paul.”
Sounds like partisan hackery.
Comment by Jeff | November 13th, 2007
Freddy, you really think someone like Hillary, who can’t give a straight answer on whether or not illegal aliens should be given drivers licenses would protect ANY rights at all.
Freddy has shown his true colors as a leftist who attacks Ron Paul because they are afraid of their own shadow.
And ALL of your chosen ones have vowed to EXPAND the war by rattling sabres with Iran. Any of your three will surely ramp up World War III.
As far as your one hit wonder issue of abortion, you FAIL on any number of points.
If it’s such a “hardship” for a women to cross a state line to receive a much needed abortion due to rape, then she should make sure HER state votes to allow abortions. For herself and all her fellow prospective rape victims. If she doesn’t like the laws in her state, move. That’s one of the freedoms of states rights. The PEOPLE can punish or reward states by voting with their feet. No people, no tax collections, no state.
And YOU CONTINUE to SLINK AWAY from MY question.
WHERE in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a RIGHT to an abortion? Unless you can PROVE you have that right, you can’t say I denied you that right.
Comment by Freddy | November 13th, 2007
Jeff continues to slink away from actually responding, but continues to spew verbiage. Here are the FACTS:
Jeff PROMISED to reject Ron Paul if I could prove that Ron Paul “does NOT actually “leave it to the states” but has voted for federal power to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom.”
I PROVED IT! I proved that Ron Paul voted at the Federal level to restrict abortion in his vote on the so-called “partial birth” abortion.
Ron Paul did not “leave it to the states” as Jeff erroneously believed. Ron Paul broke his own word that he would not do so. Ron Paul betrayed Libertarian principles in doing so. Ron Paul says one thing and does another.
So Jeff was PROVEN WRONG and now he fails to MAN UP and reject Ron Paul as he promised. So anything else he has to say is a joke until then, and everyone can see that.
Jeff is just making a lot of noise to hide the fact that he must now reject Ron Paul, because I proved my case.
Jeff can’t deny that I proved it. He just hides under bluster.
Well, you fail Jeff. I’m keeping the spotlight on your FAILURE to either
a)prove that Ron Paul did NOT vote for a ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions or
b)REJECT Ron Paul, as you promised.
You have no other option, Jeff. Except to keep slinking away and blustering from the sidelines.
And in answer to your question about the Constitutional basis for abortion rights, I agreed to answer after you kept your word. But you FAILED to keep your word, didn’t you, Jeff. Even so, the answers are here- to other people. You don’t deserve answers addressed to you until you MAN UP and keep your word.
Enjoy your slinking, Jeff. Enjoy your failed defense of Ron Paul’s big government hypocrisy.
Comment by Jeff | November 13th, 2007
Still don’t see where you think anyone has a right to an abortion Freddy.
You’ve attacked me personally many times. A sure sign of someone FAILING to make a point.
You wanted to prove that someones “reproductive rights” had been violated. You can’t prove you had that right to begin with.
You’ve shown that the only thing you know how to do, you learned from Karl Rove. Say something over and over and it becomes true. Why don’t you accuse me of being un-American because I don’t agree with you.
Just keep repeating Freddy, “I won that arguement, I won that arguement….” and I’ll be here laughing at you with pity.
Comment by Freddy | November 14th, 2007
Sand: “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have already betrayed the Democrats by not pledging to leave Iraq by 2013.”
1. Not true. In the debate where that 2013 question was asked, Clinton said “it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term” with only a protective and anti-Al Qaeda residual force left. Obama’s plan calls for All Combat Troops Redeployed from Iraq by 2009. Combat troops out with only a protective force left is the position of most Democrats, so it is NOT a betrayal of the party. Now that you have the facts, do you now support Pro-Choice Clinton or Obama or Edwards over anti-abortion Ron Paul?
Sand: “If you held every politician to the standard you are attempting to hold Ron Paul, they would all be in Guantanamo or hanged. This is about the only legislative mistake he has ever made, and Ron Paul didn’t defect to the British.”
2. That example shows that your “out of character” excuse is NOT AN EXCUSE for betraying core principles. Ron Paul said one thing (no Federal abortion regulations) and then violated his word, along with Libertarian principles. Is that what you want in a president?
3. How does “out of character” justify so direct a betrayal of principle?
4. Where do you get this stuff about Ron Paul’s unjustified Federal intrusion being a “protest vote”? Did Ron Paul say that?
Sand “Do you really expect conservative states to make no exceptions for rape in their local laws?”
Yes. Next question.
5. If I can PROVE that such a law (pro-rapist-fatherhood) can pass in at least one state, will you reject Ron Paul in favor of a pro-choice candidate?
Sand: “ It would be rather unreasonable.”
LOL! What do you call the Republicans’ 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR WAR?
What do you call the Republicans gutting the teaching of actual science and the use of actual science in government policy replacing it with superstitious idiocy?
What do you call supporting a status quo of tens of millions of uninsured Americans and the rest of us stuck with polices that may not actually cover illness if we every need to use our health insurance?
6. “Unreasonable” is the most polite thing you can call the Republican’s reign of error. And Ron Paul was right there with them on many elements of it. How do you defend Ron Paul’s performance backing the Republican horrible failures in power?
Sand: “Men can’t get pregnant. If they could they’d be subject to the same law.”
7. One class of citizens cannot be singled out for less protection under the law. Can minorities be forced by law to work as slaves against their will? Then how can women be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will? If we could force either group against their will, how do those groups have equal protection under the law?
8. Rich, elite, white women always get access to safe abortions, even when abortions are illegal. The law always cracked down on abortions for poor and minority women. The same will happen again if the Pat Robertson/Ron Paul theocracy manages to outlaw abortion. How is that providing equal protection under the law?
9. Further, anti-abortion laws exempt the woman to focus on the providers. But if abortion is murder, the woman is just as guilty. Laws that only prosecute the provider also appear to run afoul of equal protection. Do you think a young George W Bush would have supported laws that would have put his sorority girlfriends in the electric chair for having an abortion? How about a young Ron Paul?
Sand “You underestimate the effect of this legislation.”
10. How have I? Prove it.
Sand: “Because doctors might have input into how some abortion laws are changed, they can reflect the medical reality”
11. What “medical reality?” Doctors are not God, despite how Ron Paulists treat Dr. Paul. Doctors do not know when personhood begins. So what possible good will their “input” do in deciding to curtail women’s reproductive freedoms?
Sand “… and adapt as safe methods or new discoveries are made.”
12. Safe methods of abortion? What are you talking about? Abortion is already VERY safe. What new discoveries? What new discoveries are you talking about? Making men pregnant so they can also enjoy the Republican’s war on their bodies? Great idea.
Sand: “NOBODY. I said the opposite. I said it’s too simple and arbitrary.”
13. Actually, you didn’t. Where did you say simple or arbitrary?
Sand: “I’ll repeat myself: “And since the science isn’t advanced enough to allow us to make clear ethical decisions about abortion, this gives people choice in a relatively subjective decision that is TOO COMPLICATED TO LEGISLATE BY THE CONCEPT OF TRIMESTERS.”
14. Perhaps you ought to clarify your point. How is the decision “too complicated to legislate by the concept of trimesters”?
Sand: “From a medical perspective Roe v Wade fails. That’s why there is opposition to Roe v Wade from liberals.”
15. So what? Liberals can and will debate any interesting topic. What does debate prove? Do you seriously see much disagreement those debating liberals on essential liberties like our Constitutionally-enshrined reproductive freedoms? From who?
16. I’m talking about ALL Constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, not just those enumerated in Roe. But since you bring up Roe, how does Roe fail “from a medical perspective?”
17. What “liberal opposition” to Roe are you talking about other than liberals who defend abortion rights using all the Constitutional protections, including those that are MUCH STRONGER than Roe?
18. Did you somehow miss the actual point I made above? I said “The trimester system balances the REAL rights of a living breathing human woman with the THEORETICAL POTENTIAL rights of a fetus.” The Constitution defines a citizen as a “person BORN or naturalized in the United States” An actual American woman meets that definition. How does a fetus meet that definition?
Sand: “Ron Paul wants it at the state level. That’s why I agree with him, albeit for different reasons.”
19. Do states have the power to enforce unconstitutional laws? (This is the point that poor Jeff fails to understand. Theoretical rights for potential citizens do no trump actual rights of living people.)
Sand: “No. Ron Paul wants abortion legislated at the state level. As I already showed, this is good for everyone as now the law can actually have some scientific basis and women have more choice.”
20. LOL! This looks like you’re saying that restricting abortion at the state level somehow gives the restriction “scientific basis. That’s too funny! Wow. Seriously. You don’t actually mean that, do you?
21. MORE CHOICE? How does having NO CHOICE in some states equal MORE CHOICE?
Sand: [l]ibertarians are split 50/50 on abortion.
22. What evidence do you have of that? Let’s start with Ron Paul’s own Libertarian party, which is avowedly Pro-choice because that is the only principled libertarian position. “we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
Sand: “The very reason for that is that the science behind consciousness is not in yet. So Ron Paul’s stance cannot be held to be anti-libertarian.”
23. LOL. Wrong. Isn’t the burden of proof on the one who would restrict the freedoms of others?
24. So therefore, the burden is on those who would restrict the reproductive freedom of women to prove that the fetus is a person with a contrary right. Right?
25. Without PROOF that life begins at conception (a RELIGIOUS invention), government has ZERO power to stop women from having safe, legal abortions. So without the “science” to prove the fetus is a person with rights, the freedoms of the actual person are what win, right?
26. Libertarian values: “Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions.” Until you can prove a fetus is a full person and citizen, what right do you or Ron Paul or the government have to interfere in that personal decision?
27. Where in the Constitution do you find that right/power?
Comment by Freddy | November 14th, 2007
Jeff slinks back in to pretend he’s still in the debate. But he’s not in the debate until he makes good on his promise.
Jeff PROMISED to reject Ron Paul:
“I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
I PROVED that Ron Paul voted at the Federal level to restrict reproductive freedom in his vote on the so-called “partial birth” abortion.
Ron Paul did not “leave it to the states” as Jeff erroneously believed. Ron Paul broke his own word that he would not vote federal restrictions on abortion. Ron Paul betrayed Libertarian principles,. Ron Paul is a hypocrite who says one thing and does another. Ron Paul does not keep his word, just like Jeff.
So Jeff was PROVEN WRONG and now he fails to MAN UP and reject Ron Paul as he promised. So anything else he has to say is a joke until then, and everyone can see that.
Jeff is just making a lot of noise to hide the fact that he must now reject Ron Paul, because I proved my case.
Jeff sputters: “Still don’t see where you think anyone has a right to an abortion Freddy.”
Then Jeff has failed to pay attention once again. I have shown that many times here. Look back at #47, for example.
Jeff whines “You’ve attacked me personally many times. A sure sign of someone FAILING to make a point.”
Jeff, are you ignorant of the fact that YOU MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME ON YOUR VERY FIRST POST! Jeff fails again!
Look back at your first post to me in this thread, #86. You said “I’ll tyoe this slow so you can understand.” (Apparently you did not type slow enough to spell “type” correctly, thus messing up your attempt at humor.)
SINCE JEFF IS MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS, JEFF ADMITTED HE IS FAILING TO MAKE HIS POINT! LOL! You just hoisted yourself on your own petard!
And that’s just one of Jeff’s MANY personal attacks on me.
Still, I forgive your behavior, Jeff. Anytime you want to get back in the debate instead of slinking to the sidelines and sniping, you can MAN UP and face the facts. Ron Paul DID vote to restrict reproductive freedom at the FEDERAL LEVEL.
You promised to reject Ron Paul if I could prove that. I proved it. Time to reject Ron Paul, Jeff.
Comment by Jeff | November 14th, 2007
Freddy, you’ve proved nothing. The Constitution does not provide a right to an abortion. Using Wiki entries as “proof” holds about as much weight as using the funny pages. How about using the Constitution to sustantiate your theory?
You position seems to leave out the childs rights? Does he not have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” A third trimester abortion is most certainly killing a human. If I kill a woman who is pregnant, I get charged with two counts of murder. Why?
As soon as you PROVE anything to me, I’ll be happy to comply with my original statement.
Comment by Freddy | November 15th, 2007
Jeff is wrong. Again.
I PROVED that Ron Paul voted at the Federal level to restrict reproductive freedom in his vote on the so-called “partial birth” abortion.
Jeff PROMISED to reject Ron Paul if I could prove that:
“I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
Still waiting…
But Jeff slinks away from his commitment. Jeff has sold out his integrity. Just like anti-choice, non-libertarian hypocrite Ron Paul.
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul at ending the Iraq war and protecting our personal Liberties.
Comment by Jeff | November 15th, 2007
Just because you keep saying it over and over, doesn’t make it true.
Is this Karl Rove?
Comment by Freddy | November 15th, 2007
Jeff, for the first time you are correct. It is not true because I keep saying it. I keep saying it because it is true.
Fact 1: Jeff said “I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
Fact2: I provided PROOF that Ron Paul voted at the Federal level to restrict reproductive freedom in his vote on the so-called “partial birth” abortion.
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Fact 3: Jeff must now reject Ron Paul.
Jeff: “As soon as you PROVE anything to me, I’ll be happy to comply with my original statement.”
Jeff, I proved that Ron Paul voted to restrict reproductive freedom. Now you are obligated to not only REJECT RON PAUL, but you are obligated to be HAPPY about it.
Jeff, we await your next slink away.
Comment by Jeff | November 15th, 2007
Seriously Karl, er Freddy, I don’t know how you think you proved anything.
I try to break down your arguement and I’m still not figuring out where you are coming from.
Karl’s Statement: “Ron Paul voted to restrict reproductive freedom at the Federal level.”
OK, “Ron Paul” I get, that’s you we are talking about. “at the Federal level” I understand because as a member of Congress, that’s where Dr. Paul would vote.
And unless by “restrict” you mean “remove from Federal jusidiction” then, I guess I can see that.
But “reproductive freedom” is still hanging me up. If Ron Paul had his way, your state could allow or disallow anything the people voted on. And even if you wanted an abortion in an anti abortion state, you could go to one that allowed it. Don’t give me the “hardship” line, I have a hardship paying for all these unwanted kids in state care.
And I’m not sure your aware of this, but your rights end when they violate someone else’s. And a “partial birth” abortion certainly does deprive a human of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And you might want to check the definition of “slink away”. That would imply that I left you hanging and I have rebutted everything you claim. You on the other hand have done nothing but attack me while REFUSING to provide WHERE in the Constitution you are guaranteed the RIGHT to an abortion.
You have changed my mind on one thing. I now believe in abortion well past the third trimester. Right up to the point where a fetus turns into a flaming liberal and starts whining about being deprived of nonexistant rights.
Comment by Freddy | November 16th, 2007
Simple question, Jeff:
Did Congressman Ron Paul vote in favor of H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?
Comment by Jeff | November 16th, 2007
Simple question Freddy.
What passage in the Constitution supports your position?
Comment by Freddy | November 16th, 2007
Simple answer, Jeff, and one I have already explained. The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION supports my position, as I have explained many times in this thread.
1)Your attempts to limit the discussion to a single “passage” is a canard. Do you think the only rights we have are the ones spelled out in “passages” of the Constitution?
2)Have you failed to read the posts (like post #53 above)in which I explained that the the entire Constitution defends the rights of an actual persons against claims made on behalf of theoretical, potential persons?
3)I have already pointed out that the Constitution clearly defines the rights of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” Is a single-celled embryo “born or naturalized”?
4) I have explained in great detail about how our rights to reproductive freedom derive from the Constitution as a whole, and from Amendment 14, including the Equal Protection Clause. I explain all this in #104 above. Do you truly believe we have no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy?
It is my opinion that the right to abortion is as rock-solid as any other right which is not disputed by the Pat Robertson/Ron Paul theocracy. You are entitled to make up opinions. But you FAIL when you try to make up facts.
Ron Paul’s votes are a matter of fact, not opinion. So I ask again the question you continue to slink away from:
5)Did Congressman Ron Paul vote in favor of H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?
Comment by Jeff | November 16th, 2007
I’ll give you number 5. There is no debate about that.
In your “born and naturalized” theory, are you telling me that a baby has no rights until it emerges from the womb?
Why then did Scott Peterson get charged with two counts of murder for killing his pregnant wife?
Am I able to kill a Mexican who just ran across the border since he has no rights in your theory?
Comment by Jeff | November 16th, 2007
And I know you think it makes you feel superior, but please refrain from using the phrase “slink away”. I have debated you from the very beginning. Your school yard tactics are beginning to bore me.
Comment by Freddy | November 17th, 2007
Jeff FINALLY says “I’ll give you number 5. There is no debate about that.”
Hallelujah! The heavens open! After about a dozen posts evading that answer, Jeff FINALLY admits the truth about Ron Paul.
Ron Paul said: “…the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.”
But Ron Paul FLIP-FLOPPED and voted to federally restrict abortion rights in HYPOCRITICAL violation of his commitment. Now even Jeff has to admit it.
So Jeff, I’ll be glad to address the rest of your questions as soon as you keep the commitment you made over a dozen posts ago.
Its time for Jeff to ABANDON RON PAUL, as you promised.
Comment by Jeff | November 17th, 2007
So, in your estimation, you would rather take your chances with the Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade? If Ron Paul’s bill had passed, that issue would be out of the Federal governments hands. I, for one, want the Federal government deciding as little as possible.
He didn’t make abortion ILLEGAL. The state still has the ability to decide. Your alleged freedom has not been infringed.
Well Freddy, I’m sure you’ll call me some names but I’m done with this. You keep violating the rights of children. I gotta go, I’m going to be late for my Ron Paul Meetup group meeting!
Comment by Freddy | November 17th, 2007
Just a post after Jeff whines about being called out for “slinking away” from the debate, Jeff’s SLINKING CONTINUES!
Jeff FAILS to keep his commitment to abandon Ron Paul, even after I PROVED that Ron Paul voted to restrict reproductive freedom by voting for a FEDERAL BAN ON THE “PARTIAL BIRTH” ABORTION.
Jeff said:
“I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
Jeff, I showed you where Ron Paul voted to BAN “PARTIAL BIRTH” ABORTIONS. After a dozen evasions you FINALLY ADMITTED IT!
QUESTION 6) You have FAILED TO MAN UP and keep your promise to abandon Ron Paul. When will you keep your word?
Jeff also says “I have seen where he doesn’t want the Federal government to decide that question and would remove it from the Supreme Court but I have seen nothing to suggest that he would not allow any state to decide for itself this or most any other question.”
QUESTION 7) How does Ron Paul’s vote to federally ban “partial birth” abortions allow the states to decide the legality of “partial birth” abortions?
Jeff FAILS to answer the questions above. He slinks away from them, because answering them would prove Jeff is wrong.
Jeff, even though you FAIL to answer most of the questions I put to you, I will continue to respect your questions.
Jeff: “In your “born and naturalized” theory, are you telling me that a baby has no rights until it emerges from the womb?”
The state has two competing interests to balance. The state has a role in protecting the many rights of an ACTUAL LIVING HUMAN WOMAN, including but not limited to her right to privacy, equal protection, due process, bodily integrity, reproductive freedom, personal freedom, etc. The state also has a role in protecting the POTENTIALITY of human life. This is why abortion rights are recognized as QUALIFIED rights. This is why Roe v Wade works so well. It balances both, though perhaps not to the full satisfaction of zealots on both sides.
Your notion that full personhood begins at conception is a wild guess at best. Worse, it is a RELIGIOUS guess. Ron Paul’s theocratic attempt to make that guess into law will fail for many reasons, including the fact that is is an attempt to establish religion.
QUESTION 8: Do you admit that your notion of personhood beginning at conception comes from religion?
QUESTION 9: If not, where in SCIENCE OR ANY FORM OF PROVEN FACT does that notion come from?
Jeff: “Why then did Scott Peterson get charged with two counts of murder for killing his pregnant wife?”
If you knew much of anything about Roe v Wade, you would know that there is no inconsistency between Roe and a third trimester shooting of a mother and fetus. Again, the state has an interest in protecting the POTENTIALITY of life. As Mrs. Patterson gave no indication that she was seeking an abortion, there were no competing rights to take into account.
Jeff: “Am I able to kill a Mexican who just ran across the border since he has no rights in your theory?”
Are you serious? Do you really not aware that your Mexican has been BORN? And therefore has full PERSONHOOD, even if he has no citizenship?
I’ll repost a few of the questions you are avoiding. You must have honestly overlooked them, since you insist you are not “slinking away.”
1)Your attempts to limit the discussion to a single “passage” is a canard. Do you think the only rights we have are the ones spelled out in “passages” of the Constitution?
4) I have explained in great detail about how our rights to reproductive freedom derive from the Constitution as a whole, and from Amendment 14, including the Equal Protection Clause. I explain all this in #104 above. Do you truly believe we have no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy?
Comment by Jeff | November 17th, 2007
You’re right. You win. About everything. You are the smartest person I know.
Sorry Freddy. I know when to stand down. Nothing anyone can say to you will make you think any differently. And you sure as heck aren’t going to convince me that I’m wrong so it seems we are at an impasse.
You may now resume your school yard antics and call me names. I’ve been called worse by better.
Just thought you’d like to know that the Meetup meeting went well. I’ll be thinking of you when I vote for Ron.
Comment by Freddy | November 18th, 2007
First Jeff said: “I am MORE than happy to abandon Dr. Paul if you can show me where he voted to restrict reproductive freedom.”
Second, I PROVED that Congressman Ron Paul voted to restrict reproductive freedom when he voted for the so-called “Partial Birth” abortion ban.
Third, Jeff was finally pinned down by this SIMPLE question: “5)Did Congressman Ron Paul vote in favor of H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act?”
Jeff was FINALLY forced to admit: ““I’ll give you number 5. There is no debate about that.”
NOW: Will Jeff flip-flop, saying one thing but doing another?
Or does Jeff have the integrity to KEEP HIS WORD and renounce Ron Paul?
Comment by Jeff | November 18th, 2007
Freddy, I asked you to PROVE something to me. You have PROVED nothing but the fact that you are a boor who is not capable of having an honest discussion.
Freddy said:3)I have already pointed out that the Constitution clearly defines the rights of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” Is a single-celled embryo “born or naturalized”?
And when I asked about killing a third trimester baby, which has never been “BORN” or an illegal alien who has never been “NATURALIZED” Freddy SLINKS AWAY and falls back on “personhood”. A concept which I cannot find in the CONSTITUTION.
By his AVOIDANCE of these two questions, he ADMITS that these two categories or “persons” have RIGHTS which CANNOT be infringed.
I guess it’s OK that Freddy is allow to VIOLATE THE RIGHTS of “persons” he sees fit, but for no one else.
How is it living in the kingdom around your head Freddy?
Comment by Freddy | November 18th, 2007
LOL! Thanks for ANOTHER good laugh, Jeff.
Remember when you confused “usurp” and “abdicate,” and then laughably insisted it was OK for you to use the word completely wrong? That was really funny.
Remember when you played the personal attack card in your VERY FIRST POST to me, and then played the victim card by whining “You’ve attacked me personally many times. A sure sign of someone FAILING to make a point”?
Remember when you promised to renounce Ron Paul if I could prove that Ron Paul voted to restrict abortion rights, but then you slinked away and failed to MAN UP after I proved it? That
This one may be the funniest yet.
Jeff: “And when I asked about killing a third trimester baby, which has never been “BORN” or an illegal alien who has never been “NATURALIZED” Freddy SLINKS AWAY and falls back on “personhood”. A concept which I cannot find in the CONSTITUTION.”
Then don’t you think it’s actually time you read the Constitution?
QUESTION 10: Jeff, did you know that in the English language used by the Framers of the Constitution, by me, and possibly by you, the word “personhood” means “the state or condition of being a person”?
QUESTION 11: Jeff, do you really not know that the word “person” appears MANY TIMES in the Constitution?
QUESTION 12: Jeff, are you aware that, by the miracle of English, this actually means that the Constitution is actually concerned with what constitutes a “person”?
QUESTION 13: Jeff, do you realize that if everyone took such a rigid, constipated a reading of the Constitution as you do, that an embryo could NEVER be a person, because the embryo is neither “born” nor “naturalized” and therefore is not a person?
Lucky for those of you who want to restrict reproductive freedom, most of the rest of the US takes a far more liberal reading of the Constitution, which actually means we need to consider the need to protect POTENTIAL persons in certain circumstances.
A more liberal reading of the Constitution allows there to be any debate at all (even though you still lose).
The big joke here is that the “pro-life” position is utterly hypocritical for “Strict Constructionists” and “Constitutionalists”.
After all, if no interpretation is allowed beyond “original intent”, then the non-born, non-naturalized fetus has ZERO rights and the argument is over and you lose.
Just like the argument about whether or not Jeff could possible have a shred of integrity left after FAILING to keep his word.
Or are you finally ready to honestly renounce Ron Paul?
Comment by Jeff | November 18th, 2007
Freddy said: Lucky for those of you who want to restrict reproductive freedom, most of the rest of the US takes a far more liberal reading of the Constitution, which actually means we need to consider the need to protect POTENTIAL persons in certain circumstances.
How does an abortion “protect POTENTIAL persons in certain circustances”?
Who gets to make the decision WHEN that potential person should be protected? You? When you feel like it? If you can make the decision to kill a small child, how come I can’t kill a person who has neither been “BORN” nor “NATURALIZED” into the country?
Does the U.S. Constitution cover ALL people? Is every person around the world covered?
The biggest problem you seem to have is that a pair of cells isn’t “a person” to you. What about that “potential” you were talking about?
When in your world do “persons” qualify to have their rights protected? When it’s convenient for you?
I’ve asked you to PROVE to me that the Constitution guarantees abortion. You have FAILED time and again to do so.
I’ll sleep well tonight thinking of the money I am going to contribute to Ron Paul.
Comment by Freddy | November 19th, 2007
WOW. At least THIRTEEN QUESTIONS above that Jeff is slinking away from answering. Because they prove him wrong.
Jeff has FAILED to answer or even address most of the questions that point out his ignorance.
Jeff is AFRAID to even talk about the fact that he promised to renounce Ron Paul if Ron Paul voted for federal restrictions on reproductive freedom, even after Jeff was forced to admit that Ron Paul DID vote for abortion restrictions.
Jeff SLINKS away from all meaningful discussions, and only sneaks back to show his reading comprehension skills. Are all Ron Paul fans so unable to follow basic thoughts, or is it just Jeff?
I’ll still suffer Jeff’s questions gladly, even though Jeff SLINKS AWAY from mine. Lots more chances to show Ron Paul for the lying hypocrite he is.
Jeff asks another question that shows he has failed basic reading skills: “How does an abortion “protect POTENTIAL persons in certain circustances”?”
It’s Roe v Wade that protects the potential person as it comes closer to being born. Try to read what I actually wrote.
QUESTION 14: Do you understand that the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE of the Constitution applies to the “born” and the “naturalized” and NOT to fetuses?
QUESTION 15: If not, where does the Constitution SPECIFICALLY APPLY PROTECTION TO FETUSES?
So for narrow, constipated view of “Strict Constructionists” like Ron Paul and George W. Bush, there IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR FETUSES. Only for the rights of the born.
But in the more liberal understanding of the Constitution that is accepted by most Americans, there is a responsibility for the state to protect potential human life, especially close to birth. Roe v Wade does exactly that.
Roe v Wade balances the ACTUAL RIGHTS of the ACTUALLY BORN with the THEORETICAL rights of a POTENTIAL person.
QUESTION 16: Do you now understand that it is not abortion, but Roe V Wade that protects potential persons?
Jeff asks: “Who gets to make the decision WHEN that potential person should be protected?”
Jeff FINALLY asks a good question. The answer is that we the people have given the power to protect rights to the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches of government in a Constitutional system of checks and balances. You can read about it in a junior high civics class. The deliberations of that system produced Roe V Wade, which balances the protection of the rights of living persons with the protection of potential persons.
QUESTION 17: Do you finally understand that the government of the people, by the people, and for the people makes that decision?
Jeff then asks another of his usual questions: “If you can make the decision to kill a small child, how come I can’t kill a person who has neither been “BORN” nor “NATURALIZED” into the country?”
What are you talking about? Can you give an examples of what you mean by those two things?
Jeff asks another actually valid question! “Does the U.S. Constitution cover ALL people? Is every person around the world covered?”
This issue is being hotly debated even now. As you probably know, the corrupt Bush administration is trying desperately to make sure to limit the number of people that government has to respect the rights of. Why is it that so many of you so-called “pro-life” people end so so pro-water torture, pro-rendition to nations that don’t respect rights, and anti-habeas corpus?
QUESTION 18: Do you support those things?
Jeff: “The biggest problem you seem to have is that a pair of cells isn’t “a person” to you. What about that “potential” you were talking about?”
QUESTION 19: What do you mean “pair of cells”? Do you mean the pre-fused ovum and a spermatozoan? Wow. You “pro-lifers” are really going back to basics. Yes, the pre-fused ovum and a spermatozoan are both “alive” so I guess you now want life to start BEFORE conception. If Ron Paul wanted to pass a federal law defining life as starting BEFORE conception, what part of the Constitution would stop Ron Paul?
Jeff “I’ve asked you to PROVE to me that the Constitution guarantees abortion. You have FAILED time and again to do so.”
Jeff, I demonstrated how the entirety of the Constitution protects our including our equal protection rights, due process rights, and privacy rights.
I can PROVE that Jeff FAILED to answer the questions above that demonstrate my case, even when I have the courage and strength to answer a whole range of your questions.
QUESTION 19: When will Jeff MAN UP and actually answer the questions above?
Comment by Jeff | November 19th, 2007
Freddy asks: Why is it that so many of you so-called “pro-life” people end so so pro-water torture, pro-rendition to nations that don’t respect rights, and anti-habeas corpus?
When did you get the idea that I am “pro-life”? I am an Agnostic pro-choice, anti-torture, pro-habeus corpus American.
Freddy’s junior high civics lets him down when he says: The answer is that we the people have given the power to protect rights to the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches of government in a Constitutional system of checks and balances. You can read about it in a junior high civics class. The deliberations of that system produced Roe V Wade, which balances the protection of the rights of living persons with the protection of potential persons.
Really? when did the Supreme Court become part of the Legislative branch? The Department of Education eliminated civics classes from my schools long ago and even I know that.
I’m not necessarily avoiding your questions Freddy, I’m just trying to figure out why you think you are right. I am trying to let you “win” this and you can’t “PROVE” anything to me yet.
Comment by Freddy | November 20th, 2007
LOL! Jeff FAILS AGAIN!
Jeff’s count of unanswered questions tops NINETEEN! (and that’s just RECENT questions- plenty more unanswered questions before that!)
How can Jeff live with the shame of knowing that he has failed to defend his ideas so spectacularly? Do all Ron Paul supporters slink away from real ideas like this?
I guess shame and disgrace are not new to the people who sell out their own integrity rather than face facts. After all, Jeff has FLED from the fact that he PROMISED to renounce Ron Paul if Ron Paul voted for federal restrictions on reproductive freedom. Jeff was forced to admit that Ron Paul DID vote for abortion restrictions, but Jeff FAILED TO KEEP HIS PROMISE!
20) Jeff, when will you reclaim your integrity by keeping your promise? Or does your integrity really mean that little to you?
Jeff SLINKS away from all meaningful discussions, and only sneaks back to show his reading comprehension skills.
21) Do all Ron Paul fans flee from questions that challenge their assumptions, or just Jeff?
I’ll STILL suffer Jeff’s questions gladly, even though Jeff SLINKS AWAY from mine. Lots more chances to show Ron Paul for the lying hypocrite he is.
Jeff asks “When did you get the idea that I am “pro-life”? I am an Agnostic pro-choice, anti-torture, pro-habeus corpus American.”
LOL! Jeff makes comments like “You keep violating the rights of children.” and then expects us to believe he is “pro-choice. That’s funny. Jeff, I’ll cut you some slack and let you go on carrying the water for the pro-life movement while pretending you are “pro-choice” if it makes you feel better.
Jeff asks: “when did the Supreme Court become part of the Legislative branch?”
22) When did I say the Supreme Court was part of the Legislative branch?
That’s a pro-life talking point, not a fact. (Oops- wait- I forgot you are “pro-choice”. RIIIIGHT.)
I believe that the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch, so the burden is on Jeff to PROVE that I believe the Supreme Court is part of the legislative branch.
LOL! Jeff, your above question is EXACTLY the kind of “when did you stop beating your wife” question that you whined that I was using. You provided ZERO evidence that I had done so. I just showed you where YOU ascribed to me an opinion that I do not have. Jeff fails again.
Jeff opines: “The Department of Education eliminated civics classes from my schools long ago and even I know that.”
23) Prove it. Since schools are run at the local level, you might have some difficulty proving that. Can Jeff prove it? Or will yet another of Jeff’s Ron Paulist anti-federal government complaints about to FAIL?
Jeff “I’m not necessarily avoiding your questions Freddy, I’m just trying to figure out why you think you are right.”
24) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! First, you ARE avoiding my questions. How are does adding “necessarily” change the fact that you have not even ATTEMPTED to answer SO MANY questions above?
Jeff: “I am trying to let you “win” this”
25) I can believe that. A person who actually believed in his ideas would actually try to win. A person with the courage of his convictions could MAN UP and face the questions above. Have you addressed the questions above? What does that say about you?
Jeff adds “and you can’t “PROVE” anything to me yet.”
Well that’s clearly wrong. Again. I already PROVED that Ron Paul violated his pledge to leave abortion to the states by voting to restrict reproductive freedom at the federal level.
I PROVED it and Jeff ADMITTED it.
26) Jeff, do you see where I DID PROVE something to you already?
Hint- Jeff admits I proved it to him in post 114: Jeff: “I’ll give you number 5. There is no debate about that.”
WOW- sure are a LOT of questions Jeff is SLINKING AWAY from. Will Jeff EVER man up and address them? Or is Jeff’s belief in Ron Paul a kind of religion which is believed in on FAITH and not REASON?
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul because they will end Bush’s failed war and also protect reproductive rights.
Comment by Jeff | November 20th, 2007
OK Freddy, I have some time to humor you, here goes.
Jeff asks “When did you get the idea that I am “pro-life”? I am an Agnostic pro-choice, anti-torture, pro-habeus corpus American.”
LOL! Jeff makes comments like “You keep violating the rights of children.” and then expects us to believe he is “pro-choice. That’s funny. Jeff, I’ll cut you some slack and let you go on carrying the water for the pro-life movement while pretending you are “pro-choice” if it makes you feel better.
It’s called “Devil’s advocate” Chucklehead. I don’t have to believe in a position to argue for or against it.
Jeff asks: “when did the Supreme Court become part of the Legislative branch?”
22) When did I say the Supreme Court was part of the Legislative branch?
That’s a pro-life talking point, not a fact. (Oops- wait- I forgot you are “pro-choice”. RIIIIGHT.)
I believe that the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch, so the burden is on Jeff to PROVE that I believe the Supreme Court is part of the legislative branch.
LOL! Jeff, your above question is EXACTLY the kind of “when did you stop beating your wife” question that you whined that I was using. You provided ZERO evidence that I had done so. I just showed you where YOU ascribed to me an opinion that I do not have. Jeff fails again.
You FAILED to show where you have a RIGHT to an abortion. SLINKING AWAY time and again. But the Supreme Court made abortion the LAW of the land. Only the Legislative branch can make laws. This is the problem with “activist judges” and how Massachusetts snuck gay marrige in. They by-passed the law makers and made thier own law. So either you or the Supreme Court seems to think it’s the Legislative branch.
Jeff opines: “The Department of Education eliminated civics classes from my schools long ago and even I know that.”
23) Prove it. Since schools are run at the local level, you might have some difficulty proving that. Can Jeff prove it? Or will yet another of Jeff’s Ron Paulist anti-federal government complaints about to FAIL?
Really? Ever hear of “No Child Left Behind”? Ever hear of “unfunded mandates”? Everything schools do comes from the Education Department. That’s why we HAVE it.
Jeff “I’m not necessarily avoiding your questions Freddy, I’m just trying to figure out why you think you are right.”
24) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! First, you ARE avoiding my questions. How are does adding “necessarily” change the fact that you have not even ATTEMPTED to answer SO MANY questions above?
In order for me to debate you, I have to determine where your arguement comes from. So far, egomania seems to be the wellspring.
Jeff: “I am trying to let you “win” this”
25) I can believe that. A person who actually believed in his ideas would actually try to win. A person with the courage of his convictions could MAN UP and face the questions above. Have you addressed the questions above? What does that say about you?
Not that I care, or expect you to believe this, but I am PRO-CHOICE, which is why I am voting for RON PAUL.
Jeff adds “and you can’t “PROVE” anything to me yet.”
Well that’s clearly wrong. Again. I already PROVED that Ron Paul violated his pledge to leave abortion to the states by voting to restrict reproductive freedom at the federal level.
I PROVED it and Jeff ADMITTED it.
26) Jeff, do you see where I DID PROVE something to you already?
Hint- Jeff admits I proved it to him in post 114: Jeff: “I’ll give you number 5. There is no debate about that.”
And? Your original premise was the Dr. Paul took away a persons right to an abortion. YOU FAILED time and again to show where you got that right, and how turning it to the states constitutes taking that right away.
WOW- sure are a LOT of questions Jeff is SLINKING AWAY from. Will Jeff EVER man up and address them? Or is Jeff’s belief in Ron Paul a kind of religion which is believed in on FAITH and not REASON?
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul because they will end Bush’s failed war and also protect reproductive rights
If you think ANY of the Democrats will end this war, please check yourself into the nearest mental hospital. You are clearly delusional. Clinton says “most” troops will be out in a few years, with some troops left over there. Barack is wanting to go to war with Iran. Those are your “frontrunners”
Anyone below Edwards isn’t going to get the nomination.
I’ve answered your questions Freddy, please point to where in the Constitution it guarantees an abortion.
Comment by Freddy | November 21st, 2007
Wow. Jeff has failed to answer several dozen questions. At least he tries to address a few.
Jeff PROMISED TO REJECT RON PAUL if I could prove that Ron Paul voted to restrict reproductive freedom. I proved that Ron Paul did indeed vote for a ban on the so-called
“partial birth” abortions, in direct violation of Ron Paul’s own libertarian pledge not to.
Jeff FAILED to keep his word. The rest of this discussion is therefore academic, because Jeff has sold out his integrity until he keeps his word.
However, I will suffer Jeff’s questions gladly, even though Jeff has FAILED to answer or even address DOZENS of direct questions to him, most of which contain answer to the questions Jeff tediously re-asks. Jeff, when will you MAN UP and actually answer?
Jeff defends his flip-flop on abortion rights by stooping to third-grade personal attack:
Jeff: “It’s called “Devil’s advocate” Chucklehead.”
27) Previously, Jeff had said “You’ve attacked me personally many times. A sure sign of someone FAILING to make a point.” Now Jeff makes ANOTHER personal attack. So Jeff, by your own logic, do you admit you are FAILING to make a point?
Jeff: “I don’t have to believe in a position to argue for or against it.”
28) What a laugh. So prove you were pro-choice at the time you began your anti-abortion argument. What in the text here supports that you were pro-choice then? What in here supports that you were playing devil’s advocate?
29) If you can’t prove you were pro-choice then, how do we know you are not flip-flopping now?
30) And if you FAIL to give any indication of when you are saying things you believe and when you say things you don’t believe, why should anyone believe anything you say?
31) So your alleged support for Ron Paul may be equally a “devil’s advocate” lie?
It makes sense that JEFF IS LYING about supporting Ron Paul, since a thinking pro-choice person would realize that Ron Paul broke his word (about leaving the matter to the states, by voting for anti-abortion laws and the federal level, by supporting a religious definition of the start of “life” etc.) So Ron Paul cannot be trusted by pro-choice America. That’s another reason any Democrat is better than Ron Paul at protecting abortion rights.
In question 22, I asked Jeff: “22) When did I say the Supreme Court was part of the Legislative branch?”
Jeff replies “You FAILED to show where you have a RIGHT to an abortion.”
32) Once again, the burden of proof is on those who would infringe our rights (like Ron Paul). Even so, I have shown you SEVERAL TIMES. My answers are above. They even contain convenient questions so you can see if you agree or disagree step by step. Did Jeff man up and answer them? (Hint- no, he did not.) Since you FAILED to answer MOST of my questions, how would you know if I answered or not? The ENTIRE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS WHICH ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR OUR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOMS. In fact, the burden is on those who would infringe our non-enumerated rights that there is a compelling reason to do so. A single-celled embryo has never been proven to be a person under the Constitution, therefore how can its theoretical rights trump the real rights of a real person to take care of her body and her reproductive future as she sees fit?
(If Jeff fails to answer the above, he is admitting he has lost the debate.)
Jeff continues: “But the Supreme Court made abortion the LAW of the land.”
33) Wrong. Prove it.
(By the way, you haven’t even made a case for it, let along PROVE it. Jeff fails again.) Go on. At least TRY to prove it, so you won’t fail so badly.
34) The CONSTITUTION took away the power of the government (federal and state) to rob us of our rights to due process and equal protection. These are the foundation of our privacy rights, from which come our rights to reproductive freedom. Blame the Constitution. All the Supreme Court did was their job- enforce the Constitution and protect our equal protection and due process privacy rights against encroachment by the state. Again, does pro-choice Jeff believe that we do NOT HAVE PRIVACY RIGHTS?
Jeff says “This is the problem with “activist judges” and how Massachusetts snuck gay marrige in. They by-passed the law makers and made thier own law.”
35) Yawn. It is getting tedious to keep saying “prove it.” How did judges “make their own law”
36) Did Scalia and company “make their own law” in Bush v Gore? Why or why not?
In question 23, I challenged Jeff to prove his assertion that: “The Department of Education eliminated civics classes from my schools long ago and even I know that.” Since after all, schools are run at the local level.
Jeff responds “Really? Ever hear of “No Child Left Behind”? Ever hear of “unfunded mandates”?”
37) I have heard of both. What do either have to do with your lack of childhood civics class? Unless you are a currently a small child, “No Child” did not affect your civics class.
38) I challenged you to PROVE that the Department of Education eliminated your school’s civics class. Prove it was not a decision at the local level. Prove it was even in response to a so-called “unfunded mandate.”
Jeff digs himself in deeper “Everything schools do comes from the Education Department.”
39) Jeff, do you realize that, apart from the recent exception of Bush’s “No Child,” that” the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
Jeff tip-toes into the subject of Jeff FAILING to keep his promise. Jeff had claimed “and you can’t “PROVE” anything to me yet.” That’s clearly wrong, since I already PROVED that Ron Paul violated his pledge to leave abortion to the states by voting to restrict reproductive freedom at the federal level.I PROVED it and Jeff ADMITTED it. So I asked # 26) Jeff, do you see where I DID PROVE something to you already? (Hint- Jeff admits I proved it to him in post 114: Jeff: “I’ll give you number 5. There is no debate about that.”)
Jeff replies “And? Your original premise was the Dr. Paul took away a persons right to an abortion.”
WRONG! You fail when you attempt to change my actual words with this “original premise” language. Go back and read what I actually said: “Will you reject Ron Paul if it turns out that Ron Paul does NOT actually “leave it to the states” but has voted for federal power to restrict Americans’ reproductive freedom?”
Jeff says “YOU FAILED time and again to show where you got that right,” Jeff is wrong again. I shown this many times, including in this post. If you did not keep FAILING to answer MOST OF THE questions above, you would see that. Until you do, you will not only keep losing here, you won’t even be in the game.
Jeff “ and how turning it to the states constitutes taking that right away.”
40) Jeff, do you really think that the Constitution allows states to make unconstitutional laws?
41) If a state does make an unconstitutional law, what is the Constitutionally-mandated role of the Supreme Court?
Jeff, if you fail to answer these two questions, you have admitted defeat in the entire discussion.
Jeff adds: “If you think ANY of the Democrats will end this war, please check yourself into the nearest mental hospital. You are clearly delusional. Clinton says “most” troops will be out in a few years, with some troops left over there. Barack is wanting to go to war with Iran. Those are your “frontrunners””
42) And your point is what?
43)You were wrong before about them and you are wrong again. As I have pointed out before, the positions of Clinton and Obama are consistent with the majority of Democrats who do not support abandoning the fight against actual terrorists (not the delusional definition of terrorists employed by the Republicans).
Jeff finishes his latest failures with this: “I’ve answered
your questions Freddy”
Ha ha ha ha! That’s really funny. Here are just a few you have FAILED to answer. (Of course, they are the most important questions).
44) Does Jeff believe there is a Constitutional right to privacy?
45) Your attempts to limit the discussion to a single “passage” is a canard. Does Jeff think the only rights we have are the ones spelled out in “passages” of the Constitution?
46) Does the Constitution defend the rights of actual persons against claims made on behalf of theoretical, potential persons?
47) How does Ron Paul’s vote to federally ban “partial birth” abortions allow the states to decide the legality of “partial birth” abortions?
48: Does Jeff admit that Ron Paul’s notion of personhood beginning at conception comes from religion?
49) If not, where in SCIENCE OR ANY FORM OF PROVEN FACT does that notion come from?
Many of these have been asked before, and Jeff STILL FAILS to answer them. Will we get to question 50 before Jeff answers 44-49?
Comment by Jeff | November 21st, 2007
Well, I can see you just want to hear yourself talk. See ya Freddy. Call me whatever names you want, I won’t be back to see them.
Comment by Freddy | November 26th, 2007
Jeff SLINKS AWAY with a petulant sob:
“Well, I can see you just want to hear yourself talk. See ya Freddy. Call me whatever names you want, I won’t be back to see them.”
It’s called asking questions. Questions that Ron Paul supporters FAIL to answer.
Don’t feel too bad about slinking away, Jeff. This forum is littered with Ron Paul supporters who fled when exposed to their own IGNORANCE about Ron Paul’s actual voting record.
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul on ending the the Iraq War AND protecting our reproductive rights.
Comment by Sand | December 4th, 2007
In reply to 104:
(1) http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11680 Look at the foreign policy of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They are vague about Iraq, and they are quietly looking for other wars, such as with Iran. Labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is hardly a diplomatic move – it will merely provoke Iran and gave Bush authorization to wage a war with Iran.
(2) Ron Paul voting out of character is not an excuse. It’s an explanation.
(3) See (2).
(4) See Ron Paul’s comments the Chairman on said legislation. He admits the problems inherent with such legislation, but given that there is no constitutional option he chose to save lives. It’s still disappointing that he voted this way.
(5) “If I can PROVE that such a law (pro-rapist-fatherhood) can pass in at least one state, will you reject Ron Paul in favor of a pro-choice candidate?” No, because that’s a non-sequitur and there are always exceptions.
“LOL! What do you call the Republicans’ 1.5 TRILLION DOLLAR WAR?” I oppose it. So does Ron Paul.
“What do you call supporting a status quo of tens of millions of uninsured Americans and the rest of us stuck with polices that may not actually cover illness if we every need to use our health insurance?”
If you don’t like the policies of your health insurance, then why did you buy it?
““Unreasonable” is the most polite thing you can call the Republican’s reign of error. And Ron Paul was right there with them on many elements of it.”
Do you have any more guilt-by-association fallacies you’d like to share?
(7) “One class of citizens cannot be singled out for less protection under the law. Can minorities be forced by law to work as slaves against their will? Then how can women be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will? If we could force either group against their will, how do those groups have equal protection under the law?”
How can people be forced to pay taxes against their will? Forced to go to school? Forced to work at all? That’s just a non-sequitur.
(8) Like I said before, Ron Paul voted NO on banning travel across states for abortions.
“The same will happen again if the Pat Robertson/Ron Paul theocracy manages to outlaw abortion.”
Don’t you mean Pat Robertson and Giuliani?
(9) “Laws that only prosecute the provider also appear to run afoul of equal protection.” I don’t endorse such laws.
(10) You fail to realize that leaving to the states allows for a wider variety of laws.
(11) “What “medical reality?” Doctors are not God, despite how Ron Paulists treat Dr. Paul. Doctors do not know when personhood begins. So what possible good will their “input” do in deciding to curtail women’s reproductive freedoms?”
Nobody knows the exact moment in which a being becomes conscious and/or feels pain. That’s why a wider spectrum of laws guarantees that at least some of the time the right thing (whatever that may be) is being done. An entirely pro-life or entirely pro-choice law doesn’t really address the complexity of each specific case.
(13) Pay attention.
(14) “Perhaps you ought to clarify your point. How is the decision “too complicated to legislate by the concept of trimesters”?”
Because trimesters are arbitrary units of time selected by medically illiterate judges. There’s no science behind the strict divisions that made up the law.
(15) Please stop engaging in partisan hackery.
(16) See 14.
(17)
//
“Liberal legal scholars have criticized Roe, despite their opposition to pro-life laws, arguing that the ends achieved by Roe do not justify the means.[21]
William Saletan, for example, has written that “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”[22] In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[23] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”
Similarly, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has noted that, “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[24] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: “[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.”[25]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law.[26] Likewise, legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen[27] and Michael Kinsley[28] say that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
Legal analyst Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply”.[29] Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who “loved Roe’s author like a grandfather” wrote: “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible….Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”[30] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[31] Cass Sunstein,[32] and Kermit Roosevelt[33] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.
//
If the Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in to legislate, we might have more reasonable laws and less controversy today. Also, people live in fear that Roe v Wade will be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court had done its job to begin with there would be no real precedent for making up the law to match your political ideology. On the same grounds that Roe v Wade was decided, it can be overturned. See the dilemma?
(18) So if someone punched your pregnant wife you’d be upset that she was punched, but you wouldn’t care about the baby, because it’s rights are theoretical?
(19) “Do states have the power to enforce unconstitutional laws?”
Obviously they are not supposed to. But there is nothing about abortion in the constitution, so this is irrelevant.
(20) “LOL! This looks like you’re saying that restricting abortion at the state level somehow gives the restriction “scientific basis.”
No, I’m saying that with more flexibility across states and more active and frequent assessments of the issue, we are more likely to arrive at better laws that reflect our scientific knowledge and account for everyone’s rights.
(21) People are not limited to the laws of one state.
(22) You seem to confuse libertarians with the U.S. Libertarian Party.
(23)
//
“The very reason for that is that the science behind consciousness is not in yet. So Ron Paul’s stance cannot be held to be anti-libertarian.”
LOL. Wrong. Isn’t the burden of proof on the one who would restrict the freedoms of others?
//
The same can be said about pro-abortion laws; but your response is indicative of your personal bias, or intellectual dishonesty.
(24) See 23.
(25) When does life actually begin? As you can see, there is no consensus, scientific or otherwise. Your position and that of pro-lifers depends on assumptions about when life actually begins that no one agrees on.
(26) But libertarians would strongly oppose killing your own child or spouse.
(27) As I mentioned before, there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. The problem stems largely from the definition of life, for which there is no consensus.
I can see from your older discussions that you are more interested in partisan hackery and name-calling. You already know I disagree with Ron Paul’s position, but I also disagree with yours.
I’m not a single-issue voter and I don’t vote for people just because they are “Democrat” or “Republican”. You have shown Ron Paul is inconsistent with his stance on federal intervention via an isolated case. Good job. It’s time you moved on to more relevant topics.
Comment by Freddy | December 6th, 2007
Nice job, Sand. You actually had the guts to try to respond about Ron Paul’s failings. The other Ron Paul supporters all FLED FROM FACTS. Too bad you are factually wrong many times over.
Sand: “ (1) http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11680”
28) LOL! Sand said “Ron Paul is not an isolationist.” But what is Sand using to defend his positions? An ISOLATIONIST WEBSITE! LOL! This Website praises isolationists! This is not a Website about intelligent use of US military power. This is about “non-interventionism abroad.” Sorry, but most Americans reject ignorant isolationism like this (and like Ron Paul) just like most Americans reject Bush’s ignorant warmongering.
Sand: “Look at the foreign policy of Hillary, Obama, and Edwards. They are vague about Iraq,”
29) Prove it.
30) Sand is WRONG AGAIN! Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have been FAR MORE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED than isolationist Ron Paul. Show us the SPECIFIC DETAILS of Ron Paul’s plan for Iraq . “Just bring them home” is not a plan. (Then show us details of Ron Paul’s tax plan and how the numbers add up. Oh, Ron Paul won’t release that information either.) So Ron Paul is the vague one.
Sand: “and they are quietly looking for other wars, such as with Iran. Labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is hardly a diplomatic move – it will merely provoke Iran and gave Bush authorization to wage a war with Iran.
31) Prove that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards “are quietly looking for other wars.” This is pure speculation on Sand’s part. Further, Obama and Edwards did NOT vote for or support the Iran measure. Where is your apology and retraction?
32) Further, Clinton has taken a lot of criticism for her vote, but your criticism fails. The resolution does NOT give Bush authorization to wage war on Iran. It was NON-BINDING. Prove your contention that it “gave Bush authorization to wage a war with Iran.” If you can’t prove it, retract and apologize.
Sand: “Ron Paul voting out of character is not an excuse. It’s an explanation.”
33) It is no explanation at all. You have yet to provide any evidence for your contention “ it was a retaliation… he voted out of character – an extremely unusual protest vote.” Prove it was “retaliation.” Prove it was a “protest vote.” Protest against what? Protest against our liberties? Protest against the Constitution? How could he protest the legislation which HE INTRODUCED?
Sand “ (4) See Ron Paul’s comments the Chairman on said legislation. He admits the problems inherent with such legislation, but given that there is no constitutional option he chose to save lives.”
34) Sand FAILED to answer my question in #4-“Did Ron Paul say that?” Did Ron Paul say “protest” or “retaliation” or did you just make that up? Prove it or apologize for making stuff up.
35) No constitutional option? The Constitutional option is to respect our Constitutional privacy rights, due process rights and equal protection rights and vote against the bill. Since YOU brought up Ron Paul’s remarks, let’s look at them:
Ron Paul “(Roe) served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing this, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the founding fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities.”
36) Ron Paul is WRONG! By that logic, the Supreme Court could not have affirmed civil rights and struck down state segregation laws. Or do you believe the Supreme Court “took the role of legislators” there, too?
37) The Constitution allows the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of state laws as well as Federal laws. Right, Sand?
38) Ron Paul “The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.” Sand, how does Ron Paul prove this canard? Do you agree that it is true?
39) Ron Paul “H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.” WOW! RON PAUL ADMITS HE VOTED TO ALLOW FEDERAL INTERVENTION INTO EVERY MEDICAL PROCEDURE! That’s more than “disappointing.” That’s insane! Tell me how excited you are to have the Federal Government intruding into our medical decisions. If Federal intervention into every one of our private medical decisions is Constitutional, what part of the Constitution could stop a law outlawing surgery to allow the paralyzed to walk again? Or a law requiring mass sterilization of all Ron Paul supporters?
40) Ron Paul “Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.” LOL! Wouldn’t a bill outlawing CARS also save many innocent human lives?
Sand said “Do you really expect conservative states to make no exceptions for rape in their local laws? It would be rather unreasonable.”
I said yes, they would. “If I can PROVE that such a law (pro-rapist-fatherhood) can pass in at least one state, will you reject Ron Paul in favor of a pro-choice candidate?”
Sand said: “No, because that’s a non-sequitur and there are always exceptions.”
41) WRONG! SAND FAILS! There are NOT ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS! Proof: South Dakota already PASSED THE BILL WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/politics/06cnd-abort.html
“The law would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life, with NO EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE or incest.”
SAND HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG! TIME TO MAN UP AND ADMIT IT!
42) How is that a non-sequiter? It follows perfectly.
Sand: “If you don’t like the policies of your health insurance, then why did you buy it?”
43) LOL. That’s like saying if you don’t like the laws of the US, why live here? The answer is that there is NO health insurance in the US that can be relied on. The market failed to create decent insurance. Market failure is a good reason for governments to take a hand. That’s why ANY Democrat deserves to win over Ron Paul, who will NOT fix these disasters in health insurance.
Sand: “Do you have any more guilt-by-association fallacies you’d like to share?”
44) Sand is wrong again. This is not guilt by association. This is guilt by SUPPORT OF BUSH! Ron Paul voted for the Bush (and Pat Robertson) domestic agenda many times– anti-abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy, stopping universal healthcare, and a lot more. Right?
45) My statement stands. Ron Paul was right there with the Republicans on many elements of their reign of error. Further, Ron Paul says that Bush violated the Constitution and should be impeached, but then Ron Paul voted to protect Bush from impeachment. What a hypocrite! Or was that another protest vote? Do you now see the difference between guilt by association and guilt by supporting Bush’s agenda?
Sand: “How can people be forced to pay taxes against their will? Forced to go to school? Forced to work at all? That’s just a non-sequitur.
46) Sand again fails on all counts. Paying taxes is in the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.” That’s why. If you oppose that, you oppose the bedrock of the Constitution. Do you oppose the Constitution on this?
47) Even if your tax example were not another failure on your part, how would paying taxes deny people equal protection of laws? We are all subject to the tax law. It does not discriminate against women (now discriminating against singles is another thing!) Anti-abortion laws not only violate our privacy rights to be secure in our persons, but they deny women’s equal protection of the law that men enjoy.
48) So my comment still stands and you failed to answer. Again: One class of citizens cannot be singled out for less protection under the law. Can minorities be forced by law to work as slaves against their will? Then how can women be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will? If we could force either group against their will, how do those groups have equal protection under the law?”
Sand: (8) Like I said before, Ron Paul voted NO on banning travel across states for abortions.
49) Travel across state lines does NOT take away the extra burden on a poor woman to get medical care. Once again, would it have been acceptable to have slavery legal in some states? Or does Constitutional protection of fundamental rights transcend state borders?
Don’t you mean Pat Robertson and Giuliani?
50) No. Ron Paul votes with the Pat Robertson/John Birch types a lot. As I have pointed out above. Ron Paul will even betray his principles to do so.
Sand: (9) “Laws that only prosecute the provider also appear to run afoul of equal protection.” I don’t endorse such laws.
51) So what? We’re talking about the errors and hypocrisy of your candidate, Ron Paul. He DOES endorse those laws. So the question stands: 9. Further, anti-abortion laws exempt the woman to focus on the providers. But if abortion is murder, the woman is just as guilty. Laws that only prosecute the provider also appear to run afoul of equal protection. Do you think a young George W Bush would have supported laws that would have put his sorority girlfriends in the electric chair for having an abortion? How about a young Ron Paul?
Sand: “(10) You fail to realize that leaving to the states allows for a wider variety of laws.”
52) Wrong again! I have indeed acknowledged that leaving it to the states would allow for a wide variety of laws. That’s the problem. Would it be right to have a wide variety of laws on the legality of slavery in each state? Or are our Constitutional rights more important than state laws which restrict our rights?
Sand “Nobody knows the exact moment in which a being becomes conscious and/or feels pain. That’s why a wider spectrum of laws guarantees that at least some of the time the right thing (whatever that may be) is being done.”
53) “a wider spectrum of laws” does NOT “guarantees that at least some of the time the right thing is being done” It has a CHANCE of doing right, but guarantee? How? Couldn’t it just as easily create polarized extremes on both ends that are equally wrong?
54) This FAILS to answer the question- “what good will doctor’s “input” do in deciding to curtail women’s reproductive freedoms?” Do you see how you failed to answer?
Sand: An entirely pro-life or entirely pro-choice law doesn’t really address the complexity of each specific case.”
55) Finally! Sand begins to see the light. This is why Roe is so wise. It may not be perfect, but it balances the “pro-choice” rights of the actual person with “pro-life” protection for the potential person. Do you understand that Roe is neither completely pro-choice (some restrictions on Constitutional rights acceptable) and neither completely pro-life (protects women’s Constitutional rights in early months)?
56) Since you FAIL to address 13, are you admitting defeat? If not, I’ll repost: 12. Safe methods of abortion? What are you talking about? Abortion is already VERY safe. What new discoveries? What new discoveries are you talking about? Making men pregnant so they can also enjoy the Republican’s war on their bodies? Great idea.
Sand “(13) Pay attention.”
57) This is non-responsive. (Now THAT’S a non sequitur!) You never said “simple or arbitrary?” If you did, just point out where.
Sand: “Because trimesters are arbitrary units of time selected by medically illiterate judges. “
58) WRONG! Trimesters are MEDICAL terms. Any arbitrariness is to be blamed on DOCTORS- the same doctors you want MORE involved in the process.
Sand “There’s no science behind the strict divisions that made up the law.”
59) WRONG AGAIN! The essential divisions are before viability and after viability. There is serious medical science behind it which pre-existed Roe.
Sand “(15) Please stop engaging in partisan hackery.”
60) Care to explain what you mean by that?
61) Also, you fail to answer any question here. You had claimed that “Roe v Wade fails” and that’s “why there is opposition to Roe v Wade from liberals. I said 15) “So what? Liberals can and will debate any interesting topic. What does debate prove? Do you seriously see much disagreement those debating liberals on essential liberties like our Constitutionally-enshrined reproductive freedoms? From who?
Sand “(16) See 14.”
62) Again, you fail to answer or to explain how this is “partisan hackery.” 16) I’m talking about ALL Constitutional protections of reproductive freedom, not just those enumerated in Roe. But since you bring up Roe, how does Roe fail “from a medical perspective?”
63) Sand’s wall of text answer to 17 FAILS to list ONE LIBERAL CRITIC OF ROE WHO DOES NOT ALSO DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS, as I challenged. All of them defend abortion rights. Read your own post! Note “their opposition to pro-life laws”!
64) Also, it is funny to see that Wittes complain that Roe “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply”. Supreme Court desegregation also “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” Do you think that was also wrongly decided?
Sand “If the Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in to legislate, we might have more reasonable laws and less controversy today.”
65) While I disagree about “legislate,” there is validity in this critique. But of course, far more actual human women would be dead from complications of childbirth when they could just have saved their lives with a safe legal abortion. Right?
66) How would Ron Paul feel about all that actual death of actual people?
Sand “Also, people live in fear that Roe v Wade will be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court had done its job to begin with there would be no real precedent for making up the law to match your political ideology. On the same grounds that Roe v Wade was decided, it can be overturned. See the dilemma?”
67) Any law can be changed, too, as the legislature changes. So how is that a “dilemma?”
Sand “ (18) So if someone punched your pregnant wife you’d be upset that she was punched, but you wouldn’t care about the baby, because it’s rights are theoretical?”
68) You still misunderstand Roe. Did you miss where I said the state has a role in protecting potential life?
I said “ (19) “Do states have the power to enforce unconstitutional laws?”
Sand said “Obviously they are not supposed to. But there is nothing about abortion in the constitution, so this is irrelevant.”
69) Wrong again! The right to abortion IS in the Constitution. How do we know? Because the branch of government empowered by the Constitution to determine Constitutionality told us so. You may not like it, just like conservatives did not like the Supreme Court finding that black people had a right to an equal and non-separate education. But it is now Constitutional fact. Where does the Constitution say anything about separate but equal schools? Or miscegenation?
Sand: “No, I’m saying that with more flexibility across states and more active and frequent assessments of the issue, we are more likely to arrive at better laws that reflect our scientific knowledge and account for everyone’s rights.”
70) Prove it.
71) Do you really think that Roe cannot take into account changing “scientific knowledge?”
Sand “(22) You seem to confuse libertarians with the U.S. Libertarian Party.”
72) The question was to prove your contention that “[l]ibertarians are split 50/50 on abortion.” I said “What evidence do you have of that?” Do you see how you failed to answer?
Sand “ The same can be said about pro-abortion laws”
73) Wrong. Whose freedoms are being restricted by abortion rights? Keep in mind that under the so-called “original intent of the framers,” the fetus us NOT a person. So no honest “strict constructionist” or “originalist” like Ron Paul can claim fetal rights.
Sand “ but your response is indicative of your personal bias, or intellectual dishonesty.”
74) Prove it.
Sand: “(24) See 23.”
75) Your 23 is an incorrect statement (and an ad hominem attack). So I ask again “therefore, the burden is on those who would restrict the reproductive freedom of women to prove that the fetus is a person with a contrary right. Right?”
Sand “(25) When does life actually begin? As you can see, there is no consensus, scientific or otherwise. Your position and that of pro-lifers depends on assumptions about when life actually begins that no one agrees on.”
76) WRONG! There IS a scientific consensus on when LIFE begins. Life begins BEFORE CONCEPTION. The spermatozoa and the ovum are both proven to be alive. That does not mean that personhood has begun, right?
77) Nor does conception prove that personhood has begun, right? Nor does implantation mean that personhood has begun. Nor does viability mean that personhood has begun. Nothing short of fully delivered, breathing functioning is INDISPUTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL personhood, right?
78) So it is clear that you are wrong and my position does NOT depend on assumptions about when life begins. My position is that WE DO NOT KNOW. Therefore the state has to balance the rights of women to be left alone to make medical decisions with the need for the state to protect potential life. Do you FINALLY understand?
Sand “(26) But libertarians would strongly oppose killing your own child or spouse.”
79) Once again, you fail to answer. Here it is again. “26) Libertarian values: “Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions.” Until you can prove a fetus is a full person and citizen, what right do you or Ron Paul or the government have to interfere in that personal decision?”
I asked “Until you can prove a fetus is a full person and citizen, what right do you or Ron Paul or the government have to interfere in that personal decision? Where in the Constitution do you find that right/power?”
Sand said: “(27) As I mentioned before, there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. The problem stems largely from the definition of life, for which there is no consensus.”
80) You still don’t say where in the Constitution the government gets the power to interfere in the personal and family decisions of reproduction.
81) Ron Paul has introduced the so-called “Sanctity of Life Act” into the House, which would say that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception” and “the term “person” shall include all such human life.” Since this definition is NOWHERE IN SCIENCE, where does it come from?
82) “Life begins at conception” is a religious notion, created by certain Christian sub-groups. Are you OK with Ron Paul using the fist of big government for this establishment of religion?
Sand: “You have shown Ron Paul is inconsistent with his stance on federal intervention via an isolated case.”
83) Ron Paul is a hypocrite not just on his vote on so-called “partial birth abortion”, but also on his support of the so-called “Sanctity of Life” act, and on his vote on impeachment, and his support of giving the government license to discriminate in federal aid, and on his sudden embrace of pork spending and earmarks TIMED WITH HIS PRESIDENTIAL RUN, and much more.
It all adds up to Ron Paul being a hypocrite who is really bending his knee to Pat Robertson and not to the Constitution as he claims.
Comment by Sand | December 6th, 2007
The website I posted is an anti-war website. Even if the website was “isolationist” as you claim, what does that have to do with Ron Paul’s foreign policy? What you are doing is something called a guilt-by-association fallacy.
Think about it. Ron Paul has black supporters. Does that mean Ron Paul is black?
HILLARY’S INCONSISTENCY
“But let’s be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.”
“The security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East. This has been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than 50 years and we must not – dare not – waver from this commitment.”
“I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. ”
“If last December’s elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there.”
Let me remind you, that there is no good reason why Iran shouldn’t be free to influence Iraq. Hillary talks about ending the war on one hand, and talks about starting another war with Iran in the meantime. Note that she is concerned about Israel more than she is concerned about ending the war.
Remember, Iran stopped working on its nuclear weapon program in 2003, leaving Hillary looking as dumb as Bush. She was wrong to vote for the war, and she is wrong to provoke Iran, again.
Her only reasoning for staying longer in Iraq is to go after Iran to protect Israel. Of course, this is only what she is saying; and given the defense industry lobbyists’ preference for Hillary over the Republican candidates, it’s not hard to imagine that they expect something out of it, like more defense contracts. The defense contractors wouldn’t go for someone who will stop the war and cut off subsidies. That would be political suicide.
HILLARY’S VAGUE RHETORIC
http://www.examiner.com/a-1032648~Edwards_Says_Clinton_Too_Vague_on_War.html
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=1233
Hillary’s frequent Captain Obvious moments:
“The Administration’s experiment has failed, we cannot go backwards, we must go forward building that new consensus and risking a new bipartisanship”
OBAMA’S VAGUE RHETORIC
“The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew.”
“Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for.”
VAGUE RHETORIC CONCLUSION
I don’t need to give more examples, but if you are interested in hearing more vague rhetoric, tune in to the next Democratic debate and listen for Obama or Hillary. If you want to hear rhetoric with more substance and an effort to provide strong reasoning behind their ideas, listen for Joe Biden (though he appeals to emotion too much) and Ron Paul.
APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
Obama and Hillary rarely go beyond their vague rhetoric, and when they do, they hardly ever justify their proposals. You can hear them bickering over tiny details about their healthcare reform, but no one ever stops to ask, “Why in the first place?” Everyone discusses the immediate reward of more healthcare, but never do they consider or even address the economic ramifications of their plans. For example, 80% of seniors don’t need drug-prescription assistance, because their pensions and employers already pay for it.
Instead of letting the private world pay for it (which they do anyway), we charge the average middle class family of four to cover $3000 dollars of money for Medicare and Medicaid they will never see. Those $3000 dollars simply go to subsidize the corporations which would have otherwise paid for the healthcare of seniors.
But of course, Hillary and Obama just want you to take for granted that universal healthcare is good. Even though government interference is going to affect the salary of great doctors, affect the procedures they are allowed to perform, and turn them into administrators for the government instead of letting them do their job.
Then don’t forget that healthcare covers 27% of U.S. citizens one way or another. To increase it to 70% coverage would require increasing the tax burden on a middle class family who earns $44,000 by $8,000. That’s $8000 that could be spent on their older child’s college, paying back credit card debts early, savings, investments, a college fund for their newborn, etc.
If you want a president that doesn’t know how to justify his or her proposals (or won’t), then by all means, vote for Hillary or Obama. We need more short-sighted presidents in office who sound good despite their vague rhetoric.
On 31, Obama didn’t even show up to vote. Edwards, of course, is a little more consistent about the war, but I’m not interested in his universal healthcare reform.
On 32 since Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is now a terrorist organization, Bush can go after it.
On 33, I think it’s time you stopped playing dumb. Ron Paul protested against the Roe v Wade decision, since the Supreme Court created new legislation by abusing their powers. The SC is not allowed to write laws – only interpret them. Read what he said on the matter, it’s widely available.
On 34 See 33.
35 Privacy rights are not the only rights enumerated by the Constitution. Do you ever get tired of playing dumb?
36, 37 The Equal Protection Clause is vague, however, the intention behind the 14th Amendment was to secure equal rights under the law for African-Americans. I completely agree with the decision in principle, but I’m not sure the Equal Protection Clause fully justifies the decision. I don’t think the Supreme Court abused its power, although the 14th Amendment could surely be clearer.
On 38, You seem obsessed with changing proving Ron Paul wrong about his view on life, but you are no less dogmatic about your preference for “privacy”. As you know I don’t agree with either your view, or Ron Paul’s, so stop trying create straw men that imply otherwise. How do you prove that abortion is only about privacy?
On 39, It’s funny that you pretend I disagree with you, and then you go on to attack me. Are you done with your straw men?
On 40 you misconstrued my statement, and actually provided evidence. I said I rejected your stupid wager because it doesn’t make sense for me to reject Ron Paul based on a single counter-example of a single issue I’m not that interested in (thus a non-sequitur reason to reject him); and then you went on to show that South Dakota is one such exception.
On 41. Thank you for making my case. See 40. Are you done being idiotically combative?
On 42. Learn to spell non-sequitur, learn what it means, then read 40, and 41.
On 43. “there is NO health insurance in the US that can be relied on” To use your own words: “Prove it!” See I can be pedantic, too. HMOs are a recent creation of the government.
On 44. Another guilt-by-association. By your logic Hillary is just like Bush because she voted for his foreign policy, and continues to do so.
On 45. See 44. Do you ever get tired of making fallacious arguments and baseless micharacterizations?
On 46. You are obfuscating the issue by focusing on one example and ignoring the rest, all which are relevant elsewise.
On 47 and 48, see 45.
On 49, when you present a better solution that addresses both sides, I’ll be happy to listen.
On 50. Deliberately missing the point. Again.
On 51, the question is irrelevant to me. As I mentioned before I don’t support his stance on this. I also don’t support yours. I have no need to defend either.
On 52, If you agree then why are you arguing again? You know, when people agree on something, there is no need to be combative over that topic. You said “wrong again!” but what you meant is I’m right and you agree. Then you revealed another issue. Would slavery be OK? No. That has been conclusively settled by consensus and the Constitution. The balance between depriving someone of life and privacy of the individual in relation to abortion has not. Sorry, but I don’t think in black and white, like you do.
On 53. Yes it could. I think you and Ron Paul are both equally wrong on abortion. But his solution to the problem is cleaner.
On 54. No, you are going to need to rephrase your question as it has already been answered in the original phrasing. Try being more specific in your query.
On 55:
//
Sand: An entirely pro-life or entirely pro-choice law doesn’t really address the complexity of each specific case.”
55) Finally! Sand begins to see the light.
//
I’ve been saying this all along, but you continue to be combative pretending I hold a different position. Roe is unconstitutional and as such it can be overturned any day by a more originalist Supreme Court. That’s not good for pro-lifers. Instead, the Constitution ought to be amended to address this issue.
On 56, why would I admit defeat over a single statement you can’t understand? Less federal government intrusion and a wider variety of laws gives some doctors more leeway in agreement with their clients as to what type of procedure to perform and when to perform it. As ideal timing, procedures and new options are discovered, better laws can be adopted throughout the states based on reality and pragmatics, and not 9 scientifically illiterate judges.
On 57, I didn’t use the same wording, the same meaning was implicit when I said abortion was too complex a decision to be decided on the concept of trimesters (which you can infer from the context, is too arbitrary). Are you done playing word games?
On 58, yes Freddy. I know trimesters are “medical” terms, but they are not medically relevant time partitions for such a decision. Don’t insult my intelligence with your silly word games. If you have nothing better to argue about, maybe you ought to stop bringing up irrelevant “arguments”.
On 59. In your own words: “Prove it!” Prove that trimesters are strict time partitions that directly correspond to viability that differ by no more than a second in different pregnancies. You can’t. So stop bringing up stupid arguments.
On 60.
//
Sand “(15) Please stop engaging in partisan hackery.”
60) Care to explain what you mean by that?
//
That means talking about things as if they are only conservative vs. liberal. And stop being so biased in your approach. People are not evil just because they disagree with you, and they are not wrong just because they disagree with you. And they are also not wrong simply because they refuse to play your word games.
61 and 62, see 60.
63, You original question is meaningless and irrelevant. The point was that there are liberals who object to Roe v Wade based on Constitutional grounds.
64, Obviously, I disagree with segregation. I think I already answered that.
65, 66, I really doubt that Ron Paul as a Obstetric Physician, would like to see women die from complications of childbirth.
67 It’s a dilemma because checks and balances have been undermined.
68, 69, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment is vague, but the intention was to secure equal rights and equal protection under the law. In theory, segregated schools can be equal. In practice, they weren’t. The Supreme Court is better justified in their Brown v Board of Education decision, than in their Roe v Wade decision, even if I, in principle, fully agree with the first decision, and partially agree with the second (legality aside).
70, It’s very easy, what is more likely to change? One of 50 state laws, or a questionable interpretation of the Constitution? Think about it.
71, It can, but you are going to have to wait a long time before a Supreme Court addresses the issue.
72, http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-pulse.html
“Using arguments based on Libertarian philosophy, the U.S. Constitution, and simple pragmatism, Libertarians were sharply split on this issue.”
73, You are probably right about that. Which is why I don’t agree with either of you on abortion.
74, It’s my opinion that you are biased, but you can see that you are by applying the same logic to yourself. You are using a double standard by suggesting that pro-choicers don’t need to produce evidence that they are not killing when aborting a baby and depriving it of life, but that pro-lifers do need to produce evidence that it is alive.
75,
76, 77, No, life is different from personhood. However, it is difficult to conclude that a baby 1 minute after birth and 1 minute before birth are substantially different when it comes to the attribute of personhood. If you want to define the fetus as property, then perhaps there is room for your argument.
78, The right decision and the legal decision aren’t necessarily the same. Since the difference between personhood and non-personhood is not discrete, and since trimesters do not indicate medically discrete differences in a fetus, Roe v Wade is still problematic. Your point of view is clear, but Roe v Wade still isn’t acceptable.
79, Well, if you consider a viable fetus to have the same rights as a person, then a libertarian may hold the view that abortion at that stage is equivalent to harming someone else.
80, I don’t need to if you consider 79.
81, I disagree with passing that act.
82, No, I am not. I thought you already knew this.
83, Actually, I disagree on earmarks, since he votes against them. The money will be taken from his district regardless so, why not ensure some of the money comes back to his district?
84, I hate Pat Robertson, and I certainly hope Ron Paul has nothing to do with him, but your claims are insignificant and exaggerated. I prefer Ron Paul’s stance on abortion to that of the rest of the Republicans. I prefer the rest of his stances to that of all the candidates, including the Democrats. It’s unfortunate that there is no perfect candidate, but disagreeing with him on abortion isn’t important enough to overlook the other issues such as the war, foreign policy, the Patriot Act, monetary policy, and his more libertarian views.
Comment by Freddy | December 8th, 2007
Sand’s walls of text FAIL to actually answer the questions. Despite Sand’s MANY failures, I’ll still point out where he is wrong. There’s a lot to point out.
Sand: “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have already betrayed the Democrats by not pledging to leave Iraq by 2013.”
84) Not true. First, you mischaracterize their positions. The silly 2013 pledge is NOT the position of most Democrats. Most Democrats support the positions of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on redeploying the combat troops out in the first term with only residual forces left for things like embassy protection. Since the MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS AGREE, this CANNOT be a “betrayal.” Admit you were WRONG.
Sand “Even if the website was “isolationist” as you claim…”
85) Do you deny that the Website YOU chose to support your point is a site that praises “isolationists”?
Sand: “what does that have to do with Ron Paul’s foreign policy?”
86) When did I claim your pro-isolationism site is about Ron Paul?
87) I said YOU are using Website full of pro-isolationism to defend YOUR UNTRUTHS about Clinton, Obama, and Edwards while you resist the label of “isolationist.” Why would you make up a false charge?
88) If you truly do not support isolationism, why would you try to bolster your point with an OPINION article from a PRO-ISOLATIONISM site?
89) Try using Websites that at least TRY to be factual if you want to make a point about FACTS! Why would you think you would find anything but a caricature of Clinton’s actual position from a site that refers to her as a “dwarf” and refers to “Hillary’s sinister laugh?”
90) You post walls of text of Clinton quotes, but you FAIL to point out any actual hypocrisy. What do you actually believe Clinton’s hypocrisy to be?
91) “We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.” OK Sand, what’s your problem with this quote? Are you and/or Ron Paul in favor of letting Iran build nuclear weapons?
92) “The security and freedom of Israel” Sand, what’s your point? Are you saying the US should NOT support Israel’s security and freedom?
93) “I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.” Open-ended commitment is the extremist position of most Republicans, and has been a disaster. Pull out immediately seems to be an equally extremist position, and also looks like a disaster. Finding the middle ground between two extreme positions seems very sensible and takes leadership, not extremism. If you think that is hypocritical, you have failed to explain how.
94) Sand: “Hillary talks about ending the war on one hand, and talks about starting another war with Iran in the meantime.” Clinton is right to end Bush’s bogus war. Stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions does NOT require war, as the Europeans have shown. It can be done with diplomacy. Do you see the difference?
95) If Ron Paul is non-interventionist, how can he stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
96) If President Ron Paul is not interested in resisting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, what will his apology speech sound like if a dozen Iranian suitcase nukes go off in US cities?
97) Sand “Note that she is concerned about Israel more than she is concerned about ending the war.” Prove it.
98) Sand “Remember, Iran stopped working on its nuclear weapon program in 2003, leaving Hillary looking as dumb as Bush.” WRONG! Bush looks dumb on Iran because the Bush administration has spent a year suppressing the NIE. Clinton looks smart because she advocated DIPLOMACY, which the Bush administration FAILED to try. Diplomacy worked, vindicating her approach.
99) Sand “She was wrong to vote for the war,” WRONG. Clinton did not vote to declare war. Bush went to war without Congress declaring war. The resolution authorizing force is NOT a declaration of war and does not allow for Bush to police a civil war. Bush abused the resolution to start a war by using on bogus intelligence to fabricate a threat to the US and by suppressing exculpatory evidence. Why is Ron Paul protecting Bush from an impeachment which would investigate Bush’s manipulation of intelligence?
100) Sand “and she is wrong to provoke Iran, again.” Sand again mischaracterizes Clinton’s position. It is Ron Paul who is wrong on Iran. Ron Paul’s quaint policy of not “entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations” was workable in Jefferson’s day, when no one nation had the power to END HUMAN CIVILIZATION. In a post-nuclear world, Ron Paul’s policy is a joke.
101) “Her only reasoning for staying longer in Iraq is to go after Iran to protect Israel.” WRONG! Are you a liar or are you ignorant of what she has actually said? She has said the plan to redeploy troops out of Iraq must include “stabilizing Iraq” and protecting the embassy. Admit you were WRONG when you said “her ONLY reasoning” is about Israel.
102) Will Ron Paul leave the US embassy in Iraq unprotected?
103) Sand: “Of course, this is only what she is saying; and given the defense industry lobbyists’ preference for Hillary over the Republican candidates” Democratic candidates are ahead in fundraising in general, which reflects the reality that the Democrats are likely to beat the Republicans. And Clinton is the front-runner among the Democrats. Show us where you took that FACT into account or admit you FAILED to take basic political reality into account.
104) Sand: “Obama and Hillary rarely go beyond their vague rhetoric, and when they do, they hardly ever justify their proposals. You can hear them bickering over tiny details about their healthcare reform” LOL! They are both too vague and discuss details? LOL! You just contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences!
105) Sand: “but no one ever stops to ask, “Why in the first place?”” Sand is WRONG AGAIN! The leading Democratic candidates have ALL explained “why.” Because the current US healthcare financing system is broken and must be fixed. The current system fails to cover 50 million Americans and those that think they are covered often lose coverage when they actually try to use it. You may disagree with their plans, but you are WRONG when you say they don’t talk about why. Right?
106) I challenged you to prove that the leading candidates are “vague” on their Iraq plan. You failed. They are not vague compared to Ron Paul. Edwards may believe he has presented more specifics on Iraq than Clinton, but they both have presented FAR more specific details of their plans than Ron Paul has. I challenge you to present all the details you can find on Ron Paul’s Iraq plan and we’ll compare the details Ron Paul takes into account to the details the leading Democrats take into account.
107) Nice attempt to dodge the issue with far-right talking points on unrelated issues. I’ll be glad to debate health care and your false premises and LIES about their plans, but only AFTER you actually answer all the questions you are FLEEING from about Ron Paul. Until then you are just attempting to divert attention from places you have been proven WRONG.
108) Sand FAILS to answer 30, so I will repost: Sand is WRONG AGAIN! Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have been FAR MORE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED than isolationist Ron Paul. Show us the SPECIFIC DETAILS of Ron Paul’s plan for Iraq. “Just bring them home” is not a plan. (Then show us details of Ron Paul’s tax plan and how the numbers add up. Oh, Ron Paul won’t release that information either.) So Ron Paul is the vague one.
109) Sand fails to support his position that Obama and Edwards are “looking for other wars.” To defend this LIE, Sand says “On 31, Obama didn’t even show up to vote. Edwards, of course, is a little more consistent about the war, but I’m not interested in his universal healthcare reform.” Sand, you FAILED to provide even a SCRAP of evidence of Obama or Edwards “looking for other wars” and you certainly FAILED to prove it. Admit you failed and that you were WRONG about them.
110) In 32, I pointed out that the vote was NON-BINDING and challenged Sand to “Prove your contention that it “gave Bush authorization to wage a war with Iran.” If you can’t prove it, retract and apologize.” Sand says “On 32 since Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is now a terrorist organization, Bush can go after it.”
LOL! Sand FAILS AGAIN! How is that OPINION of yours PROOF that a non-binding resolution “gave Bush authorization to wage a war with Iran?” It is neither a declaration of war nor a binding authorization to use military force. HOW is your opinion proof of anything?
111) Sand: “Ron Paul protested against the Roe v Wade decision, since the Supreme Court created new legislation by abusing their powers.” Sand, that is only your OPINON. You have provided ZERO evidence that any new legislation was created.
112) I have PROVEN that Ron Paul VIOLATED his own word that he would NOT vote for Big Government federal restrictions on abortion. Ron Paul’s approach to protest Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with is by violating his own word? Is that what you want in a president?
113) Sand: “On 34 See 33.” WRONG! That does NOT answer the question about whether Ron Paul actually said “protest” or “retaliation”. Post Ron Paul’s own words in which he said that or apologize for making stuff up. (This is the THIRD TIME I have challenged Sand to post Ron Paul’s words to defend Sand’s claims, and each time Sand FAILS.)
114) Sand says “35 Privacy rights are not the only rights enumerated by the Constitution. Do you ever get tired of playing dumb?” Sand AGAIN MAKES UP A FALSE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT! Did you fail to read where I pointed out that Roe is designed to take into account both privacy rights AND the state’s interest in potential life?
115) Sand “I completely agree with the decision in principle” So how is it that the Supreme Court “took the role of legislators” in striking down the Texas law restricting abortion rights, but did not “take the role of legislators” in striking down laws restricting educational rights?
116) Sure seems to be a lot of bigotry coming out of Texas. Ron Paul never published newsletters with racist statements, did he?
117) Sand “On 38, You seem obsessed with changing proving Ron Paul wrong about his view on life, but you are no less dogmatic about your preference for “privacy”…. How do you prove that abortion is only about privacy?”
WRONG AGAIN! I have said that the nation needs to balance the privacy rights of actual humans with the state’s interest in potential life. Which is what Roe does. Have you failed to read that each time I have written it?
118) Sand: “As you know I don’t agree with either your view, or Ron Paul’s, so stop trying create straw men that imply otherwise.” Yes, I know you don’t agree with Ron Paul’s when he restricted abortion at the federal level despite saying he would not restrict abortion at the federal level. My question was about Ron Paul’s LIE that “The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.” If you disagree, do you repudiate Ron Paul for LYING about inventing this bogus causal connection?
119) Sand: “On 39, It’s funny that you pretend I disagree with you, and then you go on to attack me. Are you done with your straw men?”
You agree that Ron Paul’s vote justifies allowing federal government intervention into every medical procedure? That is a far greater violation of our Constitutional rights than anything you have accused the Democratic candidates of. More proof that Ron Paul is a bogus libertarian who will shred the Constitution to get elected. Thus providing MORE evidence that the Democrats are better candidates.
120) Sand fails to answer this: Ron Paul “Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.” LOL! Wouldn’t a bill outlawing CARS also save many innocent human lives?
121) “Are you done being idiotically combative?” Is that what Ron Paul supporters call it when they are PROVEN WRONG?
Sand said “Do you really expect conservative states to make no exceptions for rape in their local laws? It would be rather unreasonable.”
I PROVED that conservative states CAN AND WILL make NO EXCEPTION FOR RAPE! Because South Dakota has already DONE SO! You can wriggle out of rejecting Ron Paul because you don’t “care” about abortion rights, but you can’t wriggle out of the fact that you didn’t believe states would pass laws with no exception for rape and I proved they would and DID!
SAND HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG AGAIN! TIME TO MAN UP AND ADMIT IT!
122) By “hackery” it looks like you mean “political hack – a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends.” Is that right? You think I control a political party? Or have you used the term incorrectly?
123) Sand “On 43. “there is NO health insurance in the US that can be relied on” To use your own words: “Prove it!””
OK. Consumer Reports shows that EVERY SINGLE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE US HAD PROBLEMS WITH ACCESS TO CARE. CR: “Most health insurance will suit you just fine–until you get sick and really need it.” Scores were dismal, both as reported by people who actually needed care and as investigated by CR. The percent of people wanting to switch was in DOUBLE DIGITS for EVERY SINGLE COMPANY! Too bad every insurance company they could switch to are ALSO double digit failures. None get a top score in more than ONE OUT OF FIVE categories, and they were all in the category of BILLING! And not a single PPO got a top score in ANY category. If all the insurers cause problems getting access to care, then they can’t be relied on to provide care when you actually need it. Most citizens don’t realize how bad the problem is until they actually need care, and then it’s often too late.
124) Sand: “HMOs are a recent creation of the government.” So? What’s your point?
125) Sand FAILS to address any real point here. Sand has DEFELCTED and DODGED! I said “The market failed to create decent insurance. Market failure is a good reason for governments to take a hand. That’s why ANY Democrat deserves to win over Ron Paul, who will NOT fix these disasters in health insurance.” If you believe that US health care financing is a great success, explain why. If not, explain how President Paul will fix it.
126) “On 44. Another guilt-by-association. By your logic Hillary is just like Bush because she voted for his foreign policy, and continues to do so.” WRONG AGAIN! Clinton was one of only 14 to vote against the $120 Billion Iraq war funding bill (along with Obama). She voted against Bush for funding bills that had timetables and bills with requirements to bring combat troops back. She voted for bills to revise US policy on Iraq and to direct Bush to begin the phased redeployment out of Iraq. She voted against Bush’s Military Commissions Act, and against his Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Overall, Clinton has voted in OPPOSITON to Bush far more often than the two examples you cite (one based on Bush’s crooked Intel and one non-binding). So you have FAILED to prove your point.
127) On the other hand, Ron Paul has voted with Bush on the failed Bush/Pat Robertson domestic agenda MANY TIMES (76% rating by the Christian Coalition). You have yet to provide any defense for Ron Paul’s siding with Bush in anti-environmental votes (5% rating by the LVC), anti-abortion rights, anti gay rights, but in favor of Bush’s tax cuts that go mostly to the wealthy and in favor of the big, irresponsible deficits those tax cuts are helping create. That’s not guilt-by-association. That’s guilt-by-VOTES that support of Bush’s failed agenda. And you have yet to provide any defense.
128) Sand “On 45. See 44. Do you ever get tired of making fallacious arguments and baseless micharacterizations?”
Sand FAILS to prove these so-called “fallacious arguments and baseless micharacterizations (sic)” Oh, and learn to spell “mischaracterizations” and learn what it means. Pretty funny, huh Sand, how you hypocritically commit the exact same error you nitpick?
129) I’ll find another way to ask the question that SAND FLEES FROM ANSWERING:
Further, Ron Paul says that Bush violated the Constitution and should be impeached, but then Ron Paul voted to protect Bush from impeachment. What a hypocrite! Why would Ron Paul do that?
130) Sand: “How can people be forced to pay taxes against their will? Forced to go to school? Forced to work at all? That’s just a non-sequitur.”
I said: “46) Sand again fails on all counts. Paying taxes is in the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes.” That’s why. If you oppose that, you oppose the bedrock of the Constitution. Do you oppose the Constitution on this?”
Sand “On 46. You are obfuscating the issue by focusing on one example and ignoring the rest, all which are relevant elsewise.”
SAND FLEES AGAIN! (And gives a good example of obfuscating an answer in making his EXCUSES for FLEEING from answering the “one example”. Psychological projection much?)
I’ll explain again. Paying taxes is in the Constitution. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. Do you SERIOUSLY think paying taxes means you don’t have equal protection under the law with anyone else? How do you make a case for such a thing? If you really think so, feel free to make that argument in court. I’ll be there to laugh.
131) How does compulsory education violate equal protection? Everyone is subjected to it (and people can homeschool).
132) What laws FORCE non-criminals to work?
133) A substantial part of the idle rich Republican base do not work. What law FORCES them to work? If you can’t provide examples, MAN UP and ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.
134) What do you think “equal protection” means? Because not ONE of these is an example of a violation of equal protection.
135) Violations of equal protection: Republican laws that put undue hardships on a woman seeking medical treatments like abortion. Just like one state can’t place undue burdens on people seeking to vote. Suppose President Paul gets his way and appoints a Thomas/Alito clone who destroys Roe. Suppose Ron Paul gets his fantasy that states can force woman to give birth to rapist babies. Suppose a poor woman is raped and impregnated by a rapist in South Dakota where the Republicans there think there should be no exception for rape. This poor woman cannot go to any clinic she knows or any doctor she knows. She has to pay for travel to another state to get an abortion, with all the extra delays, and travel, and expense, time away from her kids, dealing with strangers, etc. All because Ron Paul thinks she does not have EQUAL PROTECTION with a woman in a state with abortion rights. Understand equal protection now?
136) Sand: “On 47 and 48, see 45.” WRONG! How does your deflection answer 47? Here it is again: 47) Even if your tax example were not another failure on your part, how would paying taxes deny people equal protection of laws?
137) We are all subject to the tax law. It does not discriminate against women (now discriminating against singles is another thing!) Anti-abortion laws not only violate our privacy rights to be secure in our persons, but they deny women’s equal protection of the law that men enjoy.
138) Sand FAILS to answer AGAIN: 48) So my comment still stands and you failed to answer. Again: One class of citizens cannot be singled out for less protection under the law. Can minorities be forced by law to work as slaves against their will?
139) Then how can women be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will?
140) If we could force work slavery against the will of a minority or force womb slavery against a woman’s will, how do those groups have equal protection under the law?
141) How would the enslaved minority and the forced-breeding woman have equal protection under the law with a white male who could not be made a slave and could not be made pregnant?
142) Sand: “On 49, when you present a better solution that addresses both sides, I’ll be happy to listen.” Speaking of vague, what do you mean “both sides”? Roe already addresses both sides- the rights of the woman and the state’s interest in potential life.
143) The question you FAIL to answer in 49 is: Once again, would it have been acceptable to have slavery legal in some states?
144) Or does Constitutional protection of fundamental rights transcend state borders?
145) Sand FLEES again “On 50. Deliberately missing the point. Again.”
Then why don’t you actually MAKE a point instead of asking me if I “mean Pat Robertson and Giuliani?” I don’t mean that at all.
146) Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani just reflects that Giuliani is likely to get the nomination and Robertson wants to back a winner. How does that change the MAJORITY OF TIMES THAT RON PAUL VOTED WITH THE CHRISTIAN COALITION?
147) I said “Laws that only prosecute the provider also appear to run afoul of equal protection.” Sand “On 51, the question is irrelevant to me. As I mentioned before I don’t support his stance on this. I also don’t support yours. I have no need to defend either.” LOL! Well if you don’t support Pat Robertson’s “no abortion rights” and you don’t support Ron Paul on his hypocritical “leave abortion to the states” position, and you don’t support the pro-choice majority and Roe, what IS your position on abortion?
148) Sand: “You said “wrong again!” but what you meant is I’m right and you agree.” WRONG AGAIN! You said “You underestimate the effect of this legislation.” I have not underestimated anything and challenged you to “Prove it.” You said “Because doctors might have input into how some abortion laws are changed, they can reflect the medical reality” Where is that do you PROVE or even SUGGEST that I have “underestimated” anything? YOU failed to prove your point so you are WRONG.
149) If you cannot keep track of the debate, perhaps you should not be deleting whole portions of it. Or do you only delete portions that you know you FAIL to defend?
150) So Sand FAILED to prove that I had underestimated the effect of the legislation. But I considerately continued to follow the digression about the wide variety of laws. Or does your digression about the wide variety of laws “prove” that I underestimate the effect of this legislation?”
151) Sand tells another untruth: “Then you revealed another issue. Would slavery be OK?” WRONG, Sand. This is NOT “another issue.” This is the question Sand FAILED to answer as far back as in #7 above! Do you see how you FAILED to answer it there by DEFLECTING to issues that are NOT equal protection issues, like taxes, compulsory education, and work?
152) Sand: “No. That has been conclusively settled by consensus and the Constitution. The balance between depriving someone of life and privacy of the individual in relation to abortion has not.” LOL! “Someone”? What kind of wiggle language is that? Prove that a fetus is “someone” under the Constitution. Is a fetus a person under the Constitution? No. Did the framers of the Constitution consider a fetus a person? No. Has there been an amendment that makes a fetus a person? No.
153) Sand: “Sorry, but I don’t think in black and white, like you do.” LOL! Prove it! Prove I think “in black and white” on abortion. Prove you don’t!
154) You say an abortion is “depriving someone of life”! You have already made up your mind about the personhood of the fetus! That’s about as black and white as it gets! Let’s see- Roe takes into account both the ACTUAL RIGHTS OF A LIVING PERSON and the interest of the state in potential personhood of a fetus. Explain how that is “black and white.” Where are the shades of gray in “a fetus is a person even if it is just a single cell.”
155) Would it be right to have a wide variety of laws on the legality of SEGREGATION in each state? Or are our Constitutional rights more important than state laws which restrict our rights?
156) Sand: “Roe is unconstitutional” Sigh. Prove it.
157) Sand “it can be overturned any day by a more originalist Supreme Court.” So what? They can also overturn Brown v Board of Education. Does that mean Brown was also unconstitutional?
158) Sand “Instead, the Constitution ought to be amended to address this issue.” Why? It’s not necessary, since a fetus is not a person in the Constitution. Until a fetus is a person, what “fetal rights” are there to take into account? Just the interest of the state in potential persons.
159) Sand: 55) “I’ve been saying this all along, but you continue to be combative pretending I hold a different position.” Saying WHAT all along? You omitted what you supposedly have been saying all along.
160) Sand fails to actually answer this: “Do you understand that Roe is neither completely pro-choice (some restrictions on Constitutional rights acceptable) and neither completely pro-life (protects women’s Constitutional rights in early months)?”
161) Sand: “Less federal government intrusion and a wider variety of laws gives some doctors more leeway in agreement with their clients as to what type of procedure to perform and when to perform it.” Prove it.
162) When states outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, how do doctors have “more leeway.”?
163) Sand: “better laws can be adopted throughout the states based on reality and pragmatics, and not 9 scientifically illiterate judges.” Give some examples of “better laws.”
164) Explain how laws made by a large group of scientifically illiterate state legislators will be better than the judicial wisdom of nine scientifically illiterate judges.
165) Sand: “On 57, I didn’t use the same wording, the same meaning was implicit” Why don’t you try actually saying what you mean instead of implying?
166) Sand: “On 58, yes Freddy. I know trimesters are “medical” terms, but they are not medically relevant time partitions for such a decision.” Prove it.
167) Sand: “On 59. In your own words: “Prove it!” Prove that trimesters are strict time partitions that directly correspond to viability that differ by no more than a second in different pregnancies. You can’t. So stop bringing up stupid arguments.” Since that is not what I said, I don’t see any great need to adopt your phrasing. What I said is that “The essential divisions are before viability and after viability. There is serious medical science behind it which pre-existed Roe.” So SAND WAS WRONG when you said “There’s no science behind the strict divisions that made up the law.” Do you agree that viability has science behind it or not?
168) Sand “(15) Please stop engaging in partisan hackery.”
I said :60) Care to explain what you mean by that?
Sand: “That means talking about things as if they are only conservative vs. liberal. And stop being so biased in your approach.” Where did you get that definition of “hack”? I don’t see that definition anywhere. Did you just make it up and expect it to have some meaning?
169) Being a “partisan hack” has NOTHING TO DO with “talking about things as if they are only conservative vs. liberal.” You just made up that definition. So it looks like you are playing word games. How many times in this conversation have you committed EXACTLY the offense that you accuse others of? Here’s another instance.
170) How am I “biased?”
171) How is it that you are not biased? Use the same standards you have applied to me.
172) Sand: “People are not evil just because they disagree with you, and they are not wrong just because they disagree with you.” Duh. Is this what Sand means by a “frequent Captain Obvious moment”?
173) How many times in this conversation have you committed EXACTLY the offense that you accuse others of? This is another instance, Captain Obvious.
174) Sand “You original question is meaningless and irrelevant. The point was that there are liberals who object to Roe v Wade based on Constitutional grounds.” No, that was NOT the point. I challenged Sand to find LIBERAL CRITICS OF ROE WHO DO NOT ALSO DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS. Sand FAILED. He only posted those who are in “their opposition to pro-life laws” Sand failed and can’t man up and face it.
175) I said: “Also, it is funny to see that Wittes complain that Roe “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply”. Supreme Court desegregation also “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” Do you think that was also wrongly decided?”
176) Sand said: “Obviously, I disagree with segregation. I think I already answered that.”
You have FAILED to say what the difference is. In both cases, the Supreme Court stopped conservatives from trampling on rights of minorities- blacks in one case and women of childbearing age in the other. In both cases, states- rights conservatives howled about “activist justices” “legislating from the bench.” OK, you agree with one and not the other. But what is it about Roe that is “legislating” and what is it about Brown that is not “legislating?”
177) Sand: “65, 66, I really doubt that Ron Paul as a Obstetric Physician, would like to see women die from complications of childbirth.” Really? Well, he’s guaranteeing those actual deaths of actual people if he gets his way. Do you fail to see that?
178) Sand: “It’s a dilemma because checks and balances have been undermined.” How does it undermine checks and balances? Be specific.
179) Sand: “68, 69, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment is vague, but the intention was to secure equal rights and equal protection under the law.”
Paging Captain Obvious! You just used the term to define the term!
180) So if the intention “was to secure equal rights and equal protection under the law,” how does a law forbidding abortion equally protect both a raped woman who is forced by the iron hand of government to carry the fetus of her rapist and a man who will never have to carry the fetus of a rapist? How does it equally protect a poor raped woman and a rich woman (who can quickly and easily go to another state or another country not run by Ron Paul and Pat Robertson?)
181) Sand: “In theory, segregated schools can be equal. In practice, they weren’t.” WRONG! Do you actually understand Brown? They are not equal even in theory, because “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
182) Your theory/practice distinction easily apples to abortion. In theory, poor women can have equal protection with men and rich women even if the government can force women to bear children against their will. In reality, poor women do not have equal protection. So even that paltry distinction fails. Where is your real distinction that can be true about Brown but not Roe? Because so far, you FAIL.
183) Sand: “The Supreme Court is better justified in their Brown v Board of Education decision, than in their Roe v Wade decision” How are they “better justified”? What’s different?
184) Sand said “70, It’s very easy, what is more likely to change? One of 50 state laws, or a questionable interpretation of the Constitution? Think about it.
State laws can change more than Supreme Court decisions, but you said they would be “more likely to arrive at better laws.” Can’t they also arrive at very bad laws? Can’t they arrive at politicized laws? Can’t they arrive at laws paid for by Pat Robertson? Prove more frequent changes are “more likely to arrive at better laws.”
185) I said: “Do you really think that Roe cannot take into account changing “scientific knowledge?”
Sand said “It can, but you are going to have to wait a long time before a Supreme Court addresses the issue.”
WRONG! This is where Sand admits he does not know what he’s talking about. Roe HAS taken into account changing scientific knowledge. (This is part of the great wisdom of the ruling.) The age of viability has changed as medical science finds more ways to help premature babies survive. So it does NOT have to wait a long time. Do you admit you were wrong?
186) Now that you have the facts to understand Roe takes into account changing science, how has your position changed?
187) Sand fails again. Sand said “[l]ibertarians are split 50/50 on abortion” Sand’s choice of Website says “A firm “pro-choice” position was the plurality favorite, but with only 35.2% of the vote. Another 30.2% took a solidly “pro-life” position. And 18.6% said that the party should take no political position on this issue. How is that 50/50?
188) I said: “73) Wrong. Whose freedoms are being restricted by abortion rights? Keep in mind that under the so-called “original intent of the framers,” the fetus us NOT a person. So no honest “strict constructionist” or “originalist” like Ron Paul can claim fetal rights.”
Sand grudgingly admits: “73, You are probably right about that.” LOL! “Probably?” I am completely right! Put up counter evidence or you have already conceded that I’m right.
189) Sand “D74, It’s my opinion that you are biased, but you can see that you are by applying the same logic to yourself. You are using a double standard by suggesting that pro-choicers don’t need to produce evidence that they are not killing when aborting a baby and depriving it of life, but that pro-lifers do need to produce evidence that it is alive.”
Sand fails to PROVE or even assert a decent case for my “bias.” “Bias: To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.” How is my influence unfair or prejudicial?
190) How am I biased in any way that you are not?
191) It’s not a double standard. I do NOT need to prove a negative- that a fetus is not a person. If you think so, you fail basic logic. Nonetheless, I HAVE proved it under the Constitution, as both the founders say a fetus is not a person under the Constitution and the Supreme Court agrees. End of story until the religious right establishes religion with a fetal rights amendment.
192) To help you understand about your insistence on negative proof, what if Pat Robertson next makes the religious decision that life begins BEFORE conception and any loss of sperm or egg is murder. President Ron Paul bows at Robertson’s throne (again) and is about to betray his principles (again) by signing such a bill into law. Unless Sand can PROVE that a sperm cell is NOT a person and that Sand is not a mass murderer. OK- go!
193) Sand admits “76, 77, No, life is different from personhood. However, it is difficult to conclude that a baby 1 minute after birth and 1 minute before birth are substantially different when it comes to the attribute of personhood.” That’s why Roe takes that into account, and does not allow an absolute right to abortion. States may begin to impose restrictions after viability. You keep coming back to the wisdom of Roe.
194) But you FAIL to actually answer: 77) Nor does conception prove that personhood has begun, right? Nor does implantation mean that personhood has begun. Nor does viability mean that personhood has begun. Nothing short of fully delivered, breathing functioning is INDISPUTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL personhood, right?
195) Sand: “If you want to define the fetus as property, then perhaps there is room for your argument.” And here we see the moral bankruptcy of “libertarianism.” Property is more valuable than one’s own right to privacy or bodily integrity or being let alone in one’s most fundamental effect- one’s own self.
196) “Your point of view is clear, but Roe v Wade still isn’t acceptable.”
Too bad Sand’s point of view is still VAGUE. However, Sand appears to find it more acceptable that women be forced to bear rapists’ babies if enough state legislators think they need to curry favor with the Christian Coalition. Is that so?
197) Why is Ron Paul trying to establish Pat Robertson’s religion on the US with the so-called “Sanctity of Life” act?
198) Sand “83, Actually, I disagree on earmarks, since he votes against them. The money will be taken from his district regardless so, why not ensure some of the money comes back to his district?” Because once again Ron Paul shows he is a hypocrite who says one thing and does another. But you don’t care if it’s Ron Paul saying one thing and doing another, right? Because you are not biased, right?
199) Sand: “84, I hate Pat Robertson, and I certainly hope Ron Paul has nothing to do with him, but your claims are insignificant and exaggerated.” WRONG! Ron Paul has a LOT to do with the religious right. Ron Paul cultivates a very high rating with the Christian Coalition. His worshippers like Lew Rockwell insist he’s VERY MUCH ALIGNED with the religious right. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance109.html
Ron Paul came in third of a straw poll of the religious right in Mass, with 15%- far better than the low single digits he gets otherwise.
How well do you really know Ron Paul if you don’t know how much he courts Pat Roberson and the religious right? But that doesn’t matter to you, does it, since Ron Paul can sell out his word and principles and it’s all OK with you. And you are not biased.
Comment by Sand | December 8th, 2007
Your entire post is an example of fallacious thought. Even when I’ve proven you wrong, you come back with straw-men fallacies.
Even when I’ve proven you wrong you bring up some word game or non-sequitur answer.
If you want a response please consider avoiding being so pedantic and intellectually dishonest. Also, you might try to lay off the ad hominem attacks, and to stop ignoring evidence that proves you wrong. If I feel like it, I might stop by later and point out your fallacies one by one.
Comment by Amelia | December 9th, 2007
Another reason Ron Paul is so popular among strippers is his Tax Free Tips Act. Many of my friends, and yes, “co-workers,” in the business, are huge Ron Paul supporters. One woman I know supports Ron Paul because she wants a return to the gold standard. These are very thoughtful and intelligent women, who choose to make their living in an unorthodox manner. It is not very surprising that individuals working in an industry as prone to government interference as our own would turn to Dr. Paul.
Comment by Freddy | December 9th, 2007
Amelia says: “Another reason Ron Paul is so popular among strippers is his Tax Free Tips Act.”
Hey, Sand. While you are slinking away, Amelia gives us a good example of a logical fallacy, which Sand still fails to understand.
“Ron Paul is so popular among strippers” = REMAINS TO BE PROVED.
The interview above does not have STRIPPERS for Ron Paul. It has only ONE stripper (singular) for Ron Paul. In fact, it has exactly ZERO strippers for Ron Paul, since the stripper above is an EX-stripper. Of course, Republican Tucker Carlson FAILS the same logic test by posting “Strippers for Ron Paul” when his pathetic interview FAILS to support that claim.
Hey Sand, what are the odds that “Ameila” is really just some dude sitting in his basement pretending to be a stripper online.
But if we take “Amelia” at his, er, HER word: “It is not very surprising that individuals working in an industry as prone to government interference as our own would turn to Dr. Paul.”
So the Mafia is turning to Dr. Paul?
Comment by Sand | December 9th, 2007
Freddy, anybody can see from your own posts, that you come to irrelevant conclusions and rely on straw men fallacies to make your “arguments”.
At the end of the day, not only have you lost the argument, but you have also made a fool of yourself, because of your undue pedantic responses and intellectual dishonesty.
Nobody cares about exhaustively proving that ALL strippers love Ron Paul. It’s not even that important. But you get bogged down in the details, because you have nothing better to do.
Comment by Freddy | December 17th, 2007
Looks like the “journalists” who run thespinfactor.com snuck in and SHREDDED another one of my posts.
What’s the matter? Are you AFRAID OF FACTS? Doesn’t that make you “pseudo-journalists and bloggers”?
Here’s a repost of my CENSORED post:
139. Comment by Freddy | December 11th, 2007
Sand has FAILED to address most points. Whenever he is proved wrong or a question is too tough, he whines about “pedantic responses.” But he has yet to prove a single bit of “intellectual dishonesty.”
Here’s Sand’s own “intellectual dishonesty.” Sand CONTINUES to LIE about my point:
Sand: “Nobody cares about exhaustively proving that ALL strippers love Ron Paul.”
200) When did I say anyone had to prove “all strippers love Ron Paul”? Any inference on your part that I said such a thing would be intellectually dishonest on your part, would it not?
201) “ALL” strippers love Ron Paul is a straw man argument on your part. I never said anyone had to prove “all” or even “most” or even “many.” Do you see that?
202) “Amelia” above asserts that Ron Paul is “so popular among strippers.” But he, (whoops, I mean SHE) provides ZERO support for this assertion. Where is there proof of “so many” strippers supporting Ron Paul? He provides none – Whooops- SHE provides none. Understand?
203) The problem begins with Tucker Carlson. He FAILS to produce all the “Strippers for Ron Paul” that he promises in his lurid and deceptive headline on the top of this page. Where are all these strippers he’s talking about? NOWHERE!
204) In fact, there is only ONE STRIPPER MENTIONED IN THE ENTIRE STORY! So why the plural “STRIPPERS”? And she does not even mention ANY other strippers in any “Strippers for Ron Paul” organization. Do you realize that this is true?
205) Worse, she’s not even a stripper. She’s an EX-STRIPPER! “Strippers for Ron Paul” has ZERO ACTUAL CURRENT STRIPPERS SUPPORTING RON PAUL! Do you understand that this is true?
206) What would the headline be if Tucker Carlson was an honest man instead of a moralizing Republican who hypocritically runs a sex-pimping cable TV show?
207) An honest headline would be “Only one EX-STRIPPER for Ron Paul. Not as exciting, is it? But at least it would be “intellectually honest” wouldn’t it?
Do Ron Paul supporters care about intellectual honesty or sexy media-grabbing headlines?
208) And does thespinfactor.com care about THE TRUTH or just shilling for Ron Paul?
Comment by Chris | February 5th, 2008
Freddy is doing an excellent job illustrating what happens when you have low self-esteem, to much time and the desire to mentally masturbate publicly.
I know this topic died down over a month ago, but I hope to see you come back, maybe say a few things about it.
“209) Wrong. ‘mentally masturbate’ isn’t possible. If it was can you ‘prove’ I did it.
210) Do you even care about intellectual honesty?
211) Purple monkey dishwasher.”
Pingback by elections » Blog Archive » Tucker: Ron Paul to emerge as “folk hero of this election” [video] | April 23rd, 2008
[...] read more | digg story [...]
Comment by Muoi Peszynski | August 15th, 2010
Not sure if you know this or not butyour blog doesnt load properly when using safari. wanted let you know