Ron Paul not good on Meet the Press

[top gun]

vyo476;28323]Then is it okay to just off people who can't breathe for themselves? Or who have brain damage?

There's a difference. If the people who couldn't breath for themselves or had brain damage were connected to and affected another person that was able to live on it's own... then yes. And this isn't just with abortion either. It often happens with Siamese Twins where both probably cannot live if they are separated but that decision is still often made.

Miscarriage would not be and is not suicide. Suicide requires a human being to actively or passively cause or allow himself/herself to die. Now I'm hardly an expert on misscarriages, but if you can't show how the fetus is choosing to die, it isn't committing suicide.

Excellent point... and I was hoping you'd bring that up because it is true. A fetus is not a human that is developed & capable of such a decision... hence no personhood.

There are a lot of people who don't share your views on abortion. I myself tend to sway back and forth, as it's a hard issue to decide on. In any case, saying he's "out of touch" simply because he disagrees with your viewpoint is a bit arrogant.

I don't know that it's necessarily arrogant to state my true feelings. Everyone has to call 'em like they see 'em. That's just my call. I'm Pro-Choice because I believe the Woman involved, not me or the government should have priority to make that very personal call.

There are any number of reasons Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination. He's too radical. He isn't backed by as many important people or interest groups. If you're paranoid enough you might think it's because the present establishment is working against him because his radical ideas would destroy the ring of corruption which makes them richer every year.

Me, I think it's something else. I had a conversation with someone the other day about politics. She's not braindead on the subject but also doesn't really keep up with current events all that often. I mentioned Ron Paul to her, and she said, "Oh, yeah, him. You do know he doesn't have a chance of getting the nomination, right?"

That's why Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination. There are too many people out there who think like she does - since he looks and smells like a third party candidate, all he's going to do is mess up the vote for the other guys. Rather than sitting down and really saying, "I'm going to vote for the person who represents what I believe in," scores of people - I'd wager a majority - are going to vote for who they believe can win.

That's why we keep winding up with these "lesser of two evils" elections.

If you don't like Ron Paul based on his stances, fine. Good, even; by doing so you're demonstrating that you, at least, are thinking about politics for political merit. But you're dislike of his stances isn't what's going to keep him from getting the nomination.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I don't think it has anything to do with me at all per se. I'd expect others see the same problems with his overall phylosophy that I do but my point was... these are the problems I see. I can't really speak for other peoples reasons for not electing him. But at the end of the day he's not and really shouldn't be electable... in my opinion.

 

[heyjude]

I have come to the conclusion that Paul is not entirely sane. He is off the wall.

 

[vyo476]

Right off the bat I'd like to apologize if anything I posted came across as a personal attack. I'm a little wound up right now. Sorry.

There's a difference. If the people who couldn't breath for themselves or had brain damage were connected to and affected another person that was able to live on it's own... then yes. And this isn't just with abortion either. It often happens with Siamese Twins where both probably cannot live if they are separated but that decision is still often made.

You have a point here, especially with the first bit.

This always seems to happen. Whoever has the floor has me convinced of their side on the abortion issue. Whenever pale rider is around he has me convinced, whenever you or Mare is around you guys have me convinced.

The question is, at what point do I give up on this one?

Excellent point... and I was hoping you'd bring that up because it is true. A fetus is not a human that is developed & capable of such a decision... hence no personhood.

Plenty of people aren't capable of making decisions for themselves regarding their own lives. While your point above this one is valid, I still find it dishonest to say that a fetus isn't a person simply because it doesn't have decision-making faculties.

I don't know that it's necessarily arrogant to state my true feelings. Everyone has to call 'em like they see 'em. That's just my call. I'm Pro-Choice because I believe the Woman involved, not me or the government should have priority to make that very personal call.

Sorry about the arrogant crack. Like I said I'm a little wound up.

I'm all for people, women most definitely included, being able to use their bodies however they want. If it was just a question of how women are allowed or not allowed to use their own bodies than I'd be one hundred percent on board for the Pro-Choice side.

Still, there's that little nagging voice in my head that keeps reminding me that technically the fetus is a human being and killing a human being is, generally speaking, wrong. You can thank pale rider for that voice, he's the one who put it there.

Honestly, I'm not the right person to be debating this issue, as I could go either way on it.

I don't think it has anything to do with me at all per se. I'd expect others see the same problems with his overall phylosophy that I do but my point was... these are the problems I see. I can't really speak for other peoples reasons for not electing him. But at the end of the day he's not and really shouldn't be electable... in my opinion.

And that's fine and dandy, but he won't be elected for the reasons I laid out. Slight difference but an important one. And nothing against you, by the way; it's more the people who dismiss him simply because they don't think he has a shot at winning who were the target of that rant.

 

[Coyote]

Btw, I see he is Mr. Big corporation as well. He would repeal significant portions of antitrust law, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. Add to that, his terrible environmental record, opposition to the raising of the minimum wage, no on alternative energy, no on CAFE standards etc.

That is one of the major reasons I would never support him or probably any Lbertarian candidate.

 

[heyjude]

He wants the Federal government out of education. But what was education like before. Separate but equal. Which wasn't equal at all. And praying and bible reading every day. Boys were forced to take shop, and girls to take home making.

And if you abolish the DOE, that is what you will have again in the parts of the country you had it before.

 

[vyo476]

He wants the Federal government out of education. But what was education like before. Separate but equal. Which wasn't equal at all. And praying and bible reading every day. Boys were forced to take shop, and girls to take home making.

And if you abolish the DOE, that is what you will have again in the parts of the country you had it before.

I think that if there's one thing you should never force on somebody, it's rationality, because they'll come to resent it. If the voting majority wants all that crap than forcing them to have something else, something we see as more rational, will only make them resent our rationality and rebel against it.

Maybe it's cold, but if the minority of people who are rational in regions where irrationality reigns can't tolerate what the majority wants, they'll still be free to move to a place that better represents their ideas.

Or they can stay and put up with the irrationality and work for change. It's the basic choice you're left with in a democratic society - if the vote doesn't turn out how you wanted it to, you can either leave or stay and work for change.

 

[top gun]

vyo476;28347]Right off the bat I'd like to apologize if anything I posted came across as a personal attack. I'm a little wound up right now. Sorry.

No offense taken.

You have a point here, especially with the first bit.

This always seems to happen. Whoever has the floor has me convinced of their side on the abortion issue. Whenever pale rider is around he has me convinced, whenever you or Mare is around you guys have me convinced.

The question is, at what point do I give up on this one?

It's a very tough and multifacited decision. There are seemingly resonable arguements on both sides. But at the end of the day I personally cannot step into the position of making this most personal and difficult decision for women I truly know nothing about. And to make things worse whether people admit it or not we often get overtones of being dragged down a "religion" path on this topic and I often see additional problems with that dictating government policy to the masses.

Plenty of people aren't capable of making decisions for themselves regarding their own lives. While your point above this one is valid, I still find it dishonest to say that a fetus isn't a person simply because it doesn't have decision-making faculties.

Dishonest ... What often happens is we try to look for absolutes in an imperfect world. There are unfortunate laws of nature that can end a pregnancy at anytime. A pregnant animal or person at anytime. Say two women get into a voluntary fist fight and the fetus is aborted. This happens all the time in the animal kingdom.

So to me it all boils down to when can the government force a woman to have a child. To me the logical time would be the time when that child could theoretically "live" on it's on without the mother's life support.

So labeled as a person or anything else there is a definable difference between a fetus and it's host. One can live without the other. The other cannot.

It reminds me also of things like the Terry Shivo case where she was in a permanent vegetative state. She too was "alive" and a "person" but was not in a state that she could survive without outside means of life support. The decision fell back on the next of kin which is where I believe it belongs.

Sorry about the arrogant crack. Like I said I'm a little wound up.

I'm all for people, women most definitely included, being able to use their bodies however they want. If it was just a question of how women are allowed or not allowed to use their own bodies than I'd be one hundred percent on board for the Pro-Choice side.

Still, there's that little nagging voice in my head that keeps reminding me that technically the fetus is a human being and killing a human being is, generally speaking, wrong. You can thank pale rider for that voice, he's the one who put it there.

Palrider can at times make a seemingly convincing case. I choose to disagree with him on this for good reason. At some point it becomes spiritual. No one is ever going to get me to buy into the idea that a fertilized egg (2 cells) has the same rights as a full grown adult woman and can dictate that women's life choices. And if you buy into any of it you're buying into all of it. I'm just not buying...

Honestly, I'm not the right person to be debating this issue, as I could go either way on it.

And you know most of the Pro-Choice people I've met are like that too. They don't think abortion is a great wonderful thing. They actually think it should be avoided. But they know that option has to be left open to the individual woman involved. Going back to the dark ages of the dirty back alley abortion clinics, or a woman using a coat hanger on herself or throwing herself down a flight of stairs causes the same abortion and nobody can stop it. It only makes an extremely bad personal situation worse. Better to be handled in a medical environment if it must happen at all.

And that's fine and dandy, but he won't be elected for the reasons I laid out. Slight difference but an important one. And nothing against you, by the way; it's more the people who dismiss him simply because they don't think he has a shot at winning who were the target of that rant.

I think we can agree that different people will not vote for him for differing reasons. At the end it's all really all a numbers game isn't it.

I hope you have a good New Years my friend.

 

[Bunz]

Back on the subject of Meet the Press, I watched Obama during his interview, he did a pretty good job in answering the questions. I dont necessarily agree with him on everything, but I witnessed a smooth operator in Barak Obama.

 

[LibertyHawk]

Left up to the local communities? You do that, 90% of the small towns, in the Bible belt, will be teaching creationism as outright fact. Nothing but religious indoctrination. You admit he is a Christian, how can you say it is not affecting his views negatively?

I wasn't aware it was the job of the federal government to tell a parent what they and may not teach their children. Nor is it their dictate to enforce the will of the majority on a minorty.
Or are you aware the number of people that believe in creationism is a minority?

If a local community wishes to deny teaching a subject I see no reason or justifcation for the government to tell them not to.

Btw everything I have said assumes there is no federal funding for public schools(which is what Paul wants).
As long as federal tax dollars go to schools, any mention of creationism is obviously a violation of the church state seperation.