Ron Paul Is In!

[DiscoBiscuit]

yes take control of the entire distraction of the abortion issue away from the federal government and give it to the states where it belongs? no thanks...
remove the federal black dresses from the entire equation? no thanks..
drop the issue from the federal conversation so it can't be used as a wedge issue any longer? no thanks..

remember the "pro life" Dr. Paul never suggested abortion be outlawed. he proposed the federal government has no business endorsing or prohibiting abortion...

Looks like a flip flop to me. Ol' Ron wouldn't have to address abortion at the federal level because his failed "life begins at conception" bill is Pavlov's bell ringing to states.

rather than have the federal government remove the choice from the states (R-V-W) the aforementioned bill would have provided states with a choice!

Then why didn't his bill say "give the choice to states, free of my personal beliefs", instead of "life beings at conception"?

makes Dr. Paul much more "pro choice" than nancy pelosi!!
we are talking about pro choice right?

You're not. You're talking about pro-choice as the legislative choice to ban abortion.

Why would you as a man wish to interfere with a woman's right to choose what's best for her circumstance? Could it be the "life begins at conception" idea you're trying to make appear less significant?

It would require an alien world but I'll humor the possibility to make a point. President Paul wouldn't have that stink on his hands. But God forbid any ladies close to you needing these services ala Frank Zappa...

With a Kleenex wrapped around the coat hanger wire -

 

[gaiusmarius]

it's a bit strange as interviews i've seen with him covering this subject, he seems to say that it should be between the doctor and the woman and family, covered by local state laws, that set parameters. but the sanctity of life act clearly opens the door to go after people for murder if they have abortions or carry them out. in fact this act seems to go against states making their own choice in this. i'm no fan of abortions and feel any other solution should be found where possible. but i know today many don't see it that way.

why not carry a baby to term and put it up for adoption? there are tons of people who can't have babies who have to wait years on waiting lists to get the chance to adopt a baby.

 

[dagnabit]

did you read the bill?

Then why didn't his bill say "give the choice to states, free of my personal beliefs", instead of "life beings at conception"?

Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, 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.'.

said limitation works both ways...
dont get lost in the minutia DB.
you are using a predetermined conclusion and trying to make the "facts" fit into it.
truth is Dr. Paul has (correctly) stated for years this is a states issue(read:10th amendment).
this is about states having choice as our republic is designed to be.

you and i will never have accord on matters politic.
differing world views and what not.
i realize i can never change your mind to my way of thinking.
as i doubt ill ever see the world through the same lens as you.

if i were to offer my views on abortion you would probably be just as surprised as you were when you found out my views on allowing religion to influence policy
suffice it to say Dr. Paul almost lost my support completely when i first heard the title of this legislation(and abortion rates on my political importance meter somewhere between anthony's weiner and Zamboni operators union pickets)till i took the 30 seconds to actually read what the bill does.
or just look at the common sense approach to his voting record.
tea party nutjobs and bush liberals do not vote this way.
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

the overwhelming trend for Dr. Paul is a lessening of federal power and funding. (on every issue)

 

[bentom187]

if he leaves it up to states at least people of that state could make a choice instead of enfocing it nationwide.
i wish people didnt have them but i can see certain situations where one is needed.

 

[dagnabit]

it's a bit strange as interviews i've seen with him covering this subject, he seems to say that it should be between the doctor and the woman and family, covered by local state laws, that set parameters. but the sanctity of life act clearly opens the door to go after people for murder if they have abortions or carry them out. in fact this act seems to go against states making their own choice in this. i'm no fan of abortions and feel any other solution should be found where possible. but i know today many don't see it that way.

why not carry a baby to term and put it up for adoption? there are tons of people who can't have babies who have to wait years on waiting lists to get the chance to adopt a baby.

how do you get that from the SOL(cool pun) act?
it simply prevents federal courts from hearing cases concerning abortion

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2533:

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(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.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, 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.'.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

this sword cuts both ways...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

did you read the bill?




said limitation works both ways...
dont get lost in the minutia DB.

Then quote the title of the bill, dag... not to mention what it comprises. We don't need the legal mumbo when the title says it all. If the title is minutia then details must be microscopic. But they ain't microscopic when evangelical lawmakers know how to wax a woman's right to choose because their obsessive religious beliefs compel them to impose their morals on others.

 

[pearlemae]

Personally I don,t understand either of the Pauls. They both complain abut "gubbmint interference " yet the elder keeps running to run the government he dislikes and the younger had to start his own doctor rating company cause the real eye surgeon one wouldn't touch him. neither will make pres.

 

[CannaBunkerMan]

What better way to change a government that you dissaprove of than to run for office
? Well, other than voting.

 

[dagnabit]

Then quote the title of the bill, dag... not to mention what it comprises. We don't need the legal mumbo when the title says it all. If the title is minutia then details must be microscopic. But they ain't microscopic when evangelical lawmakers know how to wax a woman's right to choose because their obsessive religious beliefs compel them to impose their morals on others.

i quoted the whole damn bill..
yes the title is minutia
the meat is much more important than the title(remember how the anti 19 folks pointed out the title meant nothing but the meat was the issue )
have a read..
it's not an 11,000 page fiasco filled with bullshit jargon.
it'll take about 30 seconds to read and i C&Ped the whole thing

all the bill does is limit the SCOTUS from hearing any cases involving abortion.
that is from anti choice groups trying to get the federal government to outlaw abortion as well as pro abortion groups preventing states from doing so...
how is that a bad thing exactly?

 

[gaiusmarius]

like i said i'm in no way pro abortion. i realize that there are situations where that might be a woman's only way out, i just think it shouldn't be too easy.

as for why i got what i did out of that act was because it follows naturally that if the moment of conception equals the beginning of a human life, then anyone terminating that life will have committed murder? but i admit i wasn't able to comprehend all the language on my first read.

 

[Frozenguy]

Ron Paul may support and endorse a pro-life stance as a human and doctor, but as a president, he would work harder than any other candidate to protect your rights protected to you by the constitution. Even if that means states going to a pro choice.

Every candidate will have views that you don't share.
Ron Paul is a real candidate, a real person. He will bring some necessary change to this country. Not the "change" that was thrown around last four years, but REAL change. Hitting the nail on the head, not throwing money at it.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Thanks for the Insult.

Thanks for the Insult.

that's the way big dog, stand strong, puff yer chest out... go ahead and talk about your desire to shoot your political adversaries through the heart; don't be silenced by fear!... you're no pussy! you can always hide behind your first amendment right to justify such ignorant words since you don't seem to have the ability to express yourself civilly.

You were the one that made me think I had to clarify that I was joking in the first place. The next three paragraphs are for you and/or people that take things way to seriously. I am pretty sure you are just being sarcastic, so again this is not aimed at you, amigo. It is just a general address to everyone.

To begin, it is not about being a pussy really. It is more about not being a sheep. Study George Carlin; he had to put up with dim witted politicians trying to silence him, and his dark sense of humor. He even took it to the supreme court and won. Therefore, there is even a supreme court precedence to protect my dark sense of humor. Ron Paul wouldn't want to change that. That is another reason I feel it is just fine to have really mean jokes, as long as people know it is a joke and not a threat, or slander.

Next you force me to defend my vocabulary over a joke. First of all, you missed the joke entirely, so insulting my vocabulary and calling my words ignorant, is straight up ignorant. Words are just words, they can't be ignorant. A person using words in the wrong way is ignorant. Also my vocabulary and reading comprehension has been years ahead of others my age since I could talk, and read. Also My comprehension of all concepts is better than anyone's who doesn't get that joke. I have an IQ of like 140ish, and unfortunately that makes some of what I say, including my humor, go over a lot of people's heads. I know mentioning I.Q. sounds pompous, but it is the truth. Some people just cant comprehend things, and I am not here on this Earth to cater to them. If they are willing to listen though, I don't mind helping them expand there thought process, which would also expand their sense of humor.

ok now for some reason I have to actually explain the joke, which is sad for you, if you actually didn't get it. It isn't hard to get, IMHO. I admit though it is easier to miss a joke with text because you can not hear the inflections in my voice. The joke is about them being so stupid, and having such small brains, that you cant even shoot them in the head to kill them, not about my desire for them to be killed. I actually could care less if they live 100 years. I just want them to lose. Also if you knew me at all, even on these forums you would realize it is pretty rare that I take an extremest point of view on anything, but I make fun of Everything...... so if my view seems extreme, you probably misinterpreted a joke.

If you have noticed an increase in the amount of dark humor, and sarcasm I am using on the sight, it is because I keep coming across uptight, unintelligent people that don't pick up on anything abstract what so ever. Their desire to censor me, and force me to be politically correct to please their simpleton minds, is fascist, and only provokes me. What is even more sad about those people, is that they don't even realize that they are helping enforce fascist, unconstitutional views in America. I have the right to speak up, and it will not be lost.

 

[Cojito]

Quote: "churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. " R. Paul

government out of the morality business? sounds good to me!!!

Ron Paul may want the gov "out of the morality biz," but his belief that church folk are somehow more ethical or civil, or that church hegemony is somehow preferable is laughable. in my experience people that believe what their priests, ministers, rabbis and imams tell them are often ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, tribal, and dangerous. and i'm not eager to see more politicians with this kind of warped worldview.

i'm old enough to remember all those "ethical" Christians supporting segregation in the south. when liberals tried to get a popular TV preacher to come out in favor of civil rights, Pat Robertson response was: "i'd like to help the coloreds but the bible says i can't."

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

exactly. you can not legislate morality, and religion doesn't automatically make you moral. You do not need religion, to be moral, and the government can not make people be moral either. It is a personal choice each person makes. Sometimes parental influence has a lot to do with it as well. Kids follow religion because it is forced on them by many parents as a half assed way to teach their kids how to live, and the only reason for that is family tradition, which is dumb. People follow government because it is forced on them by there parents as well. If people grow up with their parents constantly telling them to be crazy a lot of the times they do. Just look at any form of religious or government extremism. It usually is a result of family. I am not saying all the time, but it is much more unlikely for a person to pick up any form of extremism at an older age, unless something very traumatic happens to them.

However I do not think Ron Paul will try to implement any Religion into Federal Government. He is a smart guy. He wants to end the drug war. He doesn't see drugs and religion as contrasting enemies.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If you have noticed an increase in the amount of dark humor, and sarcasm I am using on the sight, it is because I keep coming across uptight, unintelligent people that don't pick up on anything abstract what so ever. Their desire to censor me, and force me to be politically correct to please their simpleton minds, is fascist, and only provokes me. What is even more sad about those people, is that they don't even realize that they are helping enforce fascist, unconstitutional views in America. I have the right to speak up, and it will not be lost.

Palin's cross hairs on Arizona congressional districts was abstract. That and more may contribute to shootings like Gabby Giffords and others.

Suggesting that offense taken = ignorance is interesting.

Suggesting that perceived insensitivity = censorship is interesting.

The oft omnipresent reference to fascism is interesting. Everybody recognizes the non-positive inference but few know what fascism actually is. Fascism is so convoluted, I would be surprised if the urban dictionary re defines the use of the word fascist as anything that goes against ones respective principles.

Suggesting we have free speech rights at a private, (not to mention international) web site is interesting.

You're an interesting dude Hash. Hope I didn't offend.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

No you didn't offend me Disco. Constructive criticism is OK. speak freely.

The use of the word Fascism there is a little stretched I admit. It just that supporting censoring comedy just because it offends you is absurd. If fat people don't like mean fat jokes they should loose weight. If politicians don't like anti government dark humor they should stop being business men and start being public servants. If dumb people cant understand jokes about other dumb people and get pissed off at me they should read some books. lol

The fact that this is an international sight does not matter too much to me. Humans have certain rights, because we are human and no other reason. Also I am not breaking TOU because I am very clear about humor. Also I am not slandering anyone else for their opinion.

If an Admin ordered me to delete the post or edit than I would out of respect for the site, but I have not been approached.
Freedom of speech is not an IC mag issue for me ever because I generally support my arguments well while still showing respect for others opinions. not to mention I have an entire stickied thread that is about Non-violent protest and civil disobedience. Also I have made it clear in that thread and many others that education is the answer and not violence or control. Read my sig dude.

To address your argument of the Arizona shootings. I wasn't even thinking of those shootings when I made the joke, but now that you mention it, that is just another reason to stick to my guns, no pun intended. Every time something bad happens half the nation freaks out like a herd of steer in a lightning storm. Then all of a sudden it isn't o.k. to joke, or talk about something. I have been fighting against this kinda of over reactionary herd behavior since childhood. When I was in 10th grade The Columbine shootings had just happened. My high school was 2000 miles away from there. No one was personally effected. I wore a rain coat when it rained out side to school for 3 years before that because I walked to school, and then all of a sudden I couldn't wear the coat at school anymore. They said it was dangerous, and offensive. I refused to comply and told them to fuck off. they gave me detention I didn't go. They called my parents and my parents told them to fuck off. they tried to take me to truancy court and the court wouldn't take the case because there was no mention of it in the district dress code, and detention doesn't count as attendance unless it is for missing class. Teachers are dumb, I was 15 and I won with out a lawyer. In fact I kicked there asses. They didn't even make it to a trial.

Also I am not trying to hijack this good thread, but the subject of this little side debate is a great reason, for the country to elect someone that wants to shrink government, and government influence. There is so much fear propaganda out there that they have people shaking in their boots over nothing. No one In America should be scared to speak freely.

 

[forty]

It just that supporting censoring comedy just because it offends you is absurd.

not sure how you got so far off track on this. i simply sent you a rep message saying that some people might take your joke and the words you used seriously. by people, i mean leo types which could bring unwanted attention to the site. that's it- nothing more, nothing less. it was meant for your consideration only, ignore it, edit the post if you got my point, whatever... i'm no mod and this is this is not my website, that's why i used rep to message you and didn't post it. if i was offended and wanted to engage you on this i would have posted.

you seem to have completely misunderstood my intention and for whatever reason decided to post my rep message, jump on a soapbox, and preach about a bunch of shit that has absolutely nothing to do with my message not sure how you missed something so simple for being such a brilliant guy. had i known you were special i would have passed....

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

oh I know man. Your cool. I got your intentions. I know you were just looking out for me. That is why I made sure you knew those posts were not aimed at you.

I only posted your nice positive rep comment because reminded me to bring up of one of the biggest arguments I have for electing a guy who would shrink government. Other than that it has zero to do with you. Your second post did encourage me to keep pounding away though. If you like, I will edit the post with your name in it an remove you from the whole thought process I was trying to portray. My aim is not to offend or upset you either.

The point is Fear propaganda is rampant, and that is wrong. Ron Paul is the perfect guy to bring an end to that behavior. when people are scared to tell a joke that someone in LEO or Government might not get then government has over stepped their legal boundaries. People should not have to fear prison for speech.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hash, with all due respect, you appear to be easily offended. IMHO, being able to accept that we sometimes say insensitive things makes it easier to understand that we're all in this together and we're not all of the same philosophies that tell us we're inoffensive when we might otherwise be to some.

Even though the thread tangents the p word (not pussy) and the adage is labeled pc, it's not a gov thing until it get violent. Otherwise it's just human nature to consider others' potential in-sensitivities.

No suggestion that anyone should be limited to their opportunity to express free thought. You mentioned fat peeps and the suggestion they lose weight. That's interesting. Jay Leno gets lots of attention when his writers offend people. Now he says when he references fat people, he doesn't make fun that they're fat, he makes fun of their tie.

If it's ok to say it the way ya want, taking offense from another member's rebuttal is interesting enough to recognize the evolution of standard.

IMHO, being all about natural freedoms recognizes that we're not all the same. That's why we sometimes choose whom we discuss certain subjects or relate certain expressions that might be considered insensitive to others.

I'm glad you're an intelligent man. IMO, intelligence isn't the measure of sensitivity or the lack of. One impulse is brain activity and the other is heart (for lack of a better word.)

I too get a bit perturbed at the attention placed on insensitive expression. I just chalk it up to the probability my 20/20 vision still can't see all perspectives.

The more I feel I'm able to say whatever I want, the less I should react offended when others respond. Especially if the response is logical, not to mention relevant. IMO, you went a little negative to the cautionary response, seemingly taking it personal rather than the inference you could possibly be virtually located from rhetoric that has seen others located and charged.

Do I think you will be? No.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I definitely see your point, but this is a political forum. The purpose is to share your political opinion. If this were a random conversation out of the blue, that wasn't about electing a guy that wants to shrink government, I would have never brought any of this up, or even made the pretty mean joke. It would have been highly inappropriate. Just as I would never make a fat joke to a fat persons face, but I would make one on stage. I admit the joke was pretty insulting to the intelligence of those two politicians... but do you really want to defend those two. Sarah Palin says something dumber everyday. You caught the whole Paul revere thing right? Then her followers are such fucking egotistical pieces of shit they tried to go on wikipedia and change the history to what Palin said and then go on the news and say she was right. then they got caught. I have about 10 equally mean jokes about those people, but I cant decide which one to use. (see all the cussing is part of the fun of emotional emphasis. I don't need the cuss words, but I like them as humor a tool. does that make me a tool? lol)

moving on...It is not that am offended by you guys. What I am offended by is the degree at which half the globe has taken political correctness to. It has been taken to the point of people being sued and jailed over, and for what? to satisfy ego, and reassure insecure people that they are too good to joke about. Mostly very bad career politicians, that feel entitlement to their elected office. The arrogant, egotistical notions they make, that they are too good to call them out on there bull shit through humor, is also highly offensive. The fact that other people are not also offended by the attitudes of these politicians also is very disappointing; but The fat and happy are apathetic. IMHO letting up on those people just helps them justify their attitudes even more. I'm not like Bill O'Riley. In serious conversions discussing actions that should be taken to legalize pot, I openly encourage change through civil disobedience, and discourage the use of any violence. Violent humor is one thing, but openly encouraging violence is not something you will see me do. If you really want to understand my humor go watch all the Carlin Stand up specials from 1976 to 2008.