Is This What A Fucking "Kook" Sounds Like?
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Just curious ... cause i still don't here anything crazy,
except for the explanations of what "they" want you to think is sane. url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUc8ip5hc]part2[/url] & [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaZsAeMKFo]3[/url
Its doublespeak at its worst.
They tell you crazy is sane, sane is crazy,
and the people smile and drool.
and worse, they vote too.
:angry face:
except for the explanations of what "they" want you to think is sane. url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUc8ip5hc]part2[/url] & [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaZsAeMKFo]3[/url
Its doublespeak at its worst.
They tell you crazy is sane, sane is crazy,
and the people smile and drool.
and worse, they vote too.
:angry face:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
i agree with his foreign policy...
i disagree with his domestic policy (sink or swim)
for a guy that knows and praises the constitution so often you would think he would have a better grasp on the 14th amendment and the right to privacy when it comes to his stance on abortion... i notice he doesnt mention the constitution when it comes to abortion :rolleyes:
Yeah. Actualy he does mention the constitution.
You can agree or disagree,
but Ron Paul just happens to place the constitutions EXPLICIT protection of LIFE over its IMPLICIT protection of "privacy" ... which by the way isn't really mentioned in the constitution.
Here. From the very same 14th Ammendment you brougth up: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life".
Seems pretty explicit to me.
Again. You can sit back and take sides, and argue all you want.
I'm all for privacy in medicine,
but i'm not sure i'm on board with the notion that the "retained" 9th ammendment right (all rights not enumerated) to privacy ... which is implicitly deduced from the constitution ... not sure how i feel about that trumping the very real express right to life.
And i KNEW that someone was going to bring up abortion as basicaly the only argument they could posit.
I don't see how that makes him a kook.
I think it is honorable that he believes humans don't need to be killed just to serve the wants and whims of individuals in moments of crisis & weakness. There are alternatives.
But i'd prefer not to turn this in to an abortion thread.
The point is, he is NOT crazy ... the media just wants you to think that, because he is a serious threat to power.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
First off, your candidate can't bring up a subject, be called out on it, then you just dismiss it out of hand.
Also, he says that he wants to protect our libterties, but only so far as he agrees with what we're doing? BS.
Second of all, the amendment you brought up would speak more against the death penalty, since that would be the State depriving someone of life. Roe v. Wade does not MANDATE abortions, but gives us the LIBERTY of them as an option, rather than, say, forcing an unwanted and unloved child into a world that does not want it, and will neglect and abuse it.
Also, the anti-abortion issue is the only thing that he gives a clear plan on. The rest of his speech is just railing on how bad things are.
Other than dismantling the department of education (as well as going back to the "gold standard" ((could you explain to me exactly what that means, and how it will directly affect each person? Will the money we have now be worthless? How will we transition between what we have and the new standard? Will we have to go without money for a time? Or will it be gradual? Will he have to serve more than two terms to see it completed?)) and eliminating federal oversight of our liberties ((if a state adopted a one child per family cap, and mandated abortions for anyone who became pregnant, or forced sterilization, would he stand behind that?))) What exactly does he plan to do?
What do we do with all of the unwanted children that are born? Ron Paul doesn't have an answer, does he? None of the pro-lifers do. "Give them up for adoption." What happens when we we run out of parents that want to adopt?
Off the abortion topic,
Other than the INS, what does he plan to do with the federal government? What will be their role? Why not avoid the whole thing and eliminate the job of President?
He wants to do away with the FBI, CIA, etc. But he must want to keep the INS, and get rid of all those illegals. Or does he plan to farm it out to private corporations?
So please, tell me, what are his plans for the federal government? If it's not to protect our right to choose what's right for ourselves, and it's not to protect us from those that would want to harm us, then what?
But there's no real substance.
And this is coming from Ron Paul supporters who complain that the other candidates are good speakers, but lack content.
No. He says he wants to protect the liberties of ALL individuals, including the unborn.
You mean the 14th Ammendment, which MY2HANDS brought up, NOT me! The argument was that this ammendment was a protection of privacy. Hell read the ENTIRE constitution and tell me where (ANYwhere) you see an explicit guarantee of privacy. You can't. It is an INFERED right. However it does EXPLICITLY guarantee that no state can take your life WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. second, the 14th Ammendment is a "Citizenship Rights" ammendment intended to deal with freed SLAVES. So i'm not even sure why we are looking at it in the first place. Maybe he meant the FOURTH ammendment, i'm not sure. What is certain is that the right to privacy is a Court interpreted right. I'm not saying that is not valid, because it was the intent of the Constitution to allow courts to decide on such issues of retained rights of the citizens. What i AM SAYING, is that such an inference by the court should not be allowed to trump a very real very explicit right guaranteed by the direct pen of the constitution. That right is the RIGHT TO LIFE.
The "it's my body" argument fails to take in to account that there is ANOTHER body inside you that has no say in the matter. But i'm sure there are plenty of arguments why that smaller body has no rights or say so, huh?
Should I have the liberty to kill my grandmother, because her husband is dead, and she is now "unwanted and unloved"? Is that a "liberty" that I should have? What about my grandmother and her rights? Why is an undelivered human being less deserving of constitutional protection than one that has seen the light of day? Feel free to argue that position, but don't just ignore it.
This is where you lose me in earnest. Ron Paul spends a great deal of time talking about Conservative FISCAL values. Balanced budgets, dramaticaly reduced government spending and departmentalization, reduction of global empire and foreign based military, and a real analysis of the workings and merit (lack thereof) of welfare programs are NOT VAGUE COMMENTARY. THOSE ARE REAL CLEAR ISSUES, AND A CLEAR PLAN. What part of cut military spending and domestic welfare guarantees, balance the budgets, and secure the value of our dollar sound vague or not specific to you??????????????????
He has a comprehensive economic recovery plan. Its on his website. It is very specific. He wants a dramatic increase in the transparency of the FED and FOMC policy. He wants COMPETING CURRENCY, and he wants to dramaticaly reduce the Feds "reserve" basis by eliminating the personal income tax.
I'm not going to spend 200 pages here explaining how competing currency can and could work. He has an old book, "The Case For Gold", which you can read. Maybe the notion that Steve Forbes, Jim Rogers, and Larry Kudlow (of CNBC) all AGREE about Gold backed COMPETING CURRENCY being practical and a GOOD IDEA may make you reconsider in short, however.
You have already lost THIRTY percent of your dollars value in 5 years. Someone wants to give you a non-inflationary alternative, and NOW you become worried about the dollar losing more value? That is pretty funny.
That was a long and inane rant, so i pared it down to the crux of it all.
So i see you are really hooked on the whole abortion thing, but you realy don't seem to be able to come to grips with the glaring hypocricy of wanting to defend a womans right to "choose" while vehmenently denying an unborn child the constitutionaly explicit right to life ... and all on the grounds that the mother is so heartless she wouldn't love the child ... well that is nice and rosey. Who is the negativist now?
The Federal government was intended as a collective defense for the States against foreign threats, and to regulate their interactions with eachother in a cohesive fashion. Beyond those charters, its concern was the protection, as you say, of your personal liberties and rights against state interventions. It is also in charge of regulating the currency and minting coin ... unfortunately it has utterly failed in this regard.
The FBI and CIA have repreatedly demonstrated that they are incapable of weighing personal liberties as greater than national\internal defense. THAT is why Ron Paul has a serious problem with them. His actual intention is to redistribute those services to other existing entitites that operate more transparently. See the quote in my signature line. It is unacceptable for the federal government to significantly infringe on your personal liberty in the name of collective defense.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Okay, but YOU are the one that quoted the amendment, not him. So I was asking you, wasn't what you quoted more obviously against the death penalty, as opposed to abortions?
(Yes, I'm bringing it up again, because it was the only detailed plan RP stated in his speech.)
So as long as you agree that abortions are bad then we're all okay. No dissenting opinions.
But isn't privacy an important part of liberty?
If your grandmother is in pain and wants to end her life peacefully, is it up to me or the President? No
And someone who's eighty or ninety years old is beyond all political or scientific definitions of "alive".
It's apples and oranges.
1. No, he complains about all of the chances republicans had to fix our country, but that they failed. He didn't mention any bills or a plan to fix the problem.
Did we see different videos, perhaps? Mine was only about eight minutes long.
Who said I'm not worried? Are you confusing me for someone else? I just want to make sure we're not trading one dead horse for another.
And please, explain it to me simply, if I wanted 200 pages, I'd read something else.
Are you living in La-La land? Becoming pregnant doesn't make women suddenly better. Semen is not a cure for anything, no matter what some people might say. So yes, selfish, cruel people are not going to be good at raising children.
And no, lazy, unloving mothers are not going to be good mothers.
And hello! We have proof of bad parenting all around us! Where your proof of this utopia you seem to be able to see?
Abortions aren't the answer, but neither is forcing unwanted children into the world, so we settle for the lesser of two evils.[/quote]
Hey! A direct answer. Thanks. But what means of protecting our liberties will he set up after dismantling the FBI? What checks and balances will he set up for local law enforcement agencies?
But you are the one arguing that privacy isn't one of our rights, at least not in the constitution.
But yes, I believe they need to be overhauled, but maybe not eliminated entirely.