This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul: A New Beginning
From Ron Paul
Ron Paul: A New Beginning
America is over $16 trillion in debt. The “official” unemployment rate still hovers around 8%.
Our federal government claims the right to spy on American citizens, indefinitely detain them, and even assassinate them without trial.
Domestic drones fly over the country for civilian surveillance.
Twelve million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, yet political pundits scratch their heads.
It’s not hard to see why, though.
To go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties I’ve named above.
As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.
GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.
They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.
My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.
Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.
As long as the GOP establishment continues to not only reject the liberty message, but actively drive away the young, diverse coalition that supports those principles, it will see results similar to Tuesday’s outcome.
A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.
I urge all my Republican colleagues to join the liberty movement in fighting for a brighter future.
»
- 62557 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yes; at least I had a vowel in that last postion LOL ...
.
SOME of you are interested in amending the constitution to remove a women's right to decide what happens inside her own body, and relegate the enForcement of this to the State.
*nods*
here's hoping you might start paying attention to the ongoing attempts by the Repubs to tighten that Sanctity around women's wombs, because I can assure you SOME people are very well versed on the topic.
and I don't vote, and I don't give a damn about govt's made up "scientific" rules and punishments.
fight club.
lets aks Katy Parry what she thinks:
http://www.katyperry.com/videos/
and let's also ask John Prine, he can be a pretty wise old dude. . .
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/prine-john/unwed-fathers-10874.html
John Prine ~ Unwed Fathers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVXCVKqpw1s
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html is a truly disturbing website.
Hey CA, I would never begrudge yours or any woman's point of view.
But, two points seem to never get made:
1. more people want to adopt than there are abortions.
2. the morning after pill should be free and easily available everywhere .
appreciate your replying, I'm not going to check your link, alright? I'm not arguing FOR abortion, I'm pointing to the Conservative Religious Right Republicans desire to control female bodies, specifically their wombs, and that this is an agenda that dates back at least to the RayGun era, and that it was kept alive for over a decade by Ron Paul - irrespective of what anyone believes, this is a verifiable fact.
and subsequently it has been taken up by Paul Ryan, who seeks an even more draconian version, as is always the case in govt. - incremental creep, loss of "rights" over time.
if you want to make a point about adoptions, go ahead. I don't believe forcing women to give birth will create the baby factory that point entails.
as to the "morning after pill" - how 'bout the night before condom? when used, it does help, though in the end, whatever a woman decides about her body is her right, not Law Enforcement.
in my opinion.
"2. the morning after pill should be free and easily available everywhere."
And its frrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Really?
I think I'm going to be physically ill now. And who will be doing this charitable giving? The people who hold the patents? The people who make the machines to stamp out the pills? The labor used to run the machines, package them up, ship them out? The friggin pharmacist perhaps?
Where did this free concept come from?
Someone will pay. It may not be the moron at the end of the line who says "ïts free!" but ALL of the above activity entails costs.
Unless you've personally bio-engineered a Morniing After Pill Tree for everyones backyard...but you won't become wealthy of course off of it...because, ya know...its going to be frrreeeeee!
jesus wept.
here, FIFTEEN definitions of "free"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
Free:
a : having no trade restrictions
b : not subject to government regulation
FREE TO BE FOUND and USED by whoever seeks it out, unrestricted by tiny minds in government who seek to control EVERYthing over time.
would that SOME of you applied as much pedantry to your politicians.
The Sanctity of Life bill presents the determination that life begins at conception as a finding which is not legally binding on the states. Furthermore it returns power to the states to make their own laws regarding abortion. This is yet another example of the federalist principle which Paul espouses. States which want to outlaw abortion could do so. States which wanted to make abortion freely available on demand at public expense could do so.
In a federalist system each state is a living laboratory. A state can try a new idea and if it works other states may adopt it, if it fails the other states could avoid making the same mistake. If one favors abortion and wishes to see its continued use on a wide scale then one might be tempted to prove once and for all that abortion is a good thing by letting those who promote it use it and by letting those who oppose it do without. Then we'd know.
hmmm,
how 'bout we let these "living laboratories" experiment with something other than a female's right to make informed decisions about her own body, something less draconian first, see how the experiments with LIBERTY work on other SUBJECTS (intentional wordage).
I'm all for those who "don't use abortion" - ie, the womb-less in particular - to back away from the SUBJECT.
Do you object to allowing those who care about an unfortunate woman who is considering abortion to suggest to her that her life may be more enriched by loving her child or by giving that gift to others who can love the child than it can be enriched by throwing the child away? All that I or Ron Paul are suggesting is that when making a choice some consideration should be given to the value of life.
I would be appreciative if you would voice specific objections to that statement, if any.
What does this have to do with the womens choice? Once that baby is there isn't it really the baby's choice of whether it wants to be terminated or not?
Who advocates for the unborn child that cannot advocate on his/her behalf? What about the baby's right to choose? Now this becomes a Kevorkian issue...lol I have no issue with a woman having a choice over her own body...but the baby is not her body. The body of the baby belongs to the baby (you know...the human). It happens to be a technicality of design that the baby has to exist inside the womb. I think its a pretty cool design.
You all struggle with the concept of when a baby is a baby...a bunch of rationalizers who want their own vain way.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....notice that "life" comes before "liberty". Nice that everyone wants to take the unborn child's liberty away - the unborn childs pursuit of happiness away.
When man becomes god prepare for disaster. What you obey defines your character and your destiny.
but the baby is not her body
Amen.
My argument from Day one.
The Chromosonal structure is like no other now,before,or after,not like the HOST, and not like the Donor.
A totally unique individual if LEFT alone to term, he/she, will be unlike anyone ever until TIME IS NO MORE.
Hallelujah! aMEN!
lol.
the zygote is actually 50% her body dude, it's the "egg" part mixed with the "sperm" part, hours old.
how 'bout we go ahead and enForce the "baby" to the point where it leaves the host, and then give it to the "sperm donor" to provide for the next part of its existence? fair's fair. no one's talking about how that "baby" is going to survive outside of the "body" once it needs to leave - will you be donating some of yer taxes for more "aid" in it's care and feeding to adulthood?
Actually, it's not 50% but we can leave that discussion for the thread on genetic variance.
ooooh, can't wait!
For a fella you've got quite the feminine mystique workin' for ya.
1) A human zygote exists for about four days, and becomes a blastocyst on the fifth day.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
2) Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) at a Glance
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-m...
3. 1) PAUL: As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequence of government control of medical insurance. The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level. But along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills. The pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society.
GINGRICH: When government provides a morning-after abortion pill [under ObamaCare], you inevitably move towards tyranny.
PAUL: Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if you legalize birth control pills, you really can't separate the two. They're all basically the same, hormonally.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
3.2) Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?
PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
uh huh, again, Sanctity of Life, as proposed by Dr. Paul, would override this by giving "natural personhood" to the zygote.
read his Sanctity of Life proposals, and if you want to see where the Conservative Repubs are continuing with these proposals, then read Paul Ryan's new, improved versions. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
http://www.isidewith.com/blog/55553441-the-candidates-stances-on-abortion
The federal bill does not make the concept "life begins at conception" binding on the states which would chose their own paths in regard to reproductive rights. Moving government toward a state level and away from the federal can be viewed as the first step toward complete individual sovereignty. As Thoreau said:
blah blah blah.
while you may believe getting local law enforcement into your sexual acting would be a liberty-inducing sensation, I don't.
let's just leave it at that.
and I noticed you went off on another tangent instead of quoting back the Sanctity of Life Act to continue staying on topic, as per usual.
which means we're done. again.
Thanks for purposely missing the point.
Sad.
Too many folks confusing "liberty" with "license"...
License is an intangible construction designed by a licensor. Liberty comes from God, necessarily to demonstrate each individual's will.
The Republicans will do everything they can to corrupt this new movement. They'll turn it into Gods Gays and Guns so that they can distract the gullible public while they promote the military industrial complex, banking system and corporations.
If they can't corrupt RP, they'll have him killed. Exactly what kind of a country to people think this is? Those people killed Kennedy, afterall. RP is brave. I hope he pulls this off, but I'm not optimistic.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
"Follow the money"
If you'll observe government carefully, particularly at the highest levels, you'll notice that incompetence and malice are bastard twins.
Well spoken and convincing.
Agreed but I think it may be triplets if "unaccountability" or "irresponsibility" are included. You could add apathy to that as well.
I'll drink to that. But at this point I must take exception with IC's use of the phrase "bastard twins." I'm a bastard and there ain't nothing wrong with that. Life is precious no matter the legal standing of one's parentage.
Let me clarify: "bastard" referred to disposition, not lineage.
Damn straight.
Edit: So now we're down on bastards, ey?
Paul cleverly made a quantum jump in his visibility and commitment years ago -- enough so that killing him would make him a martyr.
He is indeed very brave, but they missed their chance at him before 2008. Now that he's out of public office entirely, an assassination would look even stranger.
The Republicans are finished, as are the Democrats.
-1 for a whole host or reasons (not the least of which is your apparent silliness)
Which clown in the two-ring circus do you support?
Strawman proposition.
I support the non-Marxist clown in any case.
You don't care who the sociopath is as long as that sociopath says the right things to appear on your side.
I'm inclined to agree with TD, that both parties are finished. But then I recollect that Obama is fully capable of inciting the unproductive leeches to call for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment, in which case we're all finished.
And what is the 22nd Amendment again -- the right to bear cellphones? No, that wouldn't be it...
So your pathetic god is merely a licensor of your liberty and liberty is merely his license. Thanks for the clarification exposing you as a moron and/or fraud.
Dude. A self-loathing Irish "catholic" should really try to look up the meaning of "matrimony" at least once in his life.
As an I atheist I care not whether a person believes that an individual's right to self ownership and self determination comes from Nature or Nature's God. Adherence to the principle is paramount, not the path to the principle.
Well said.
It's the alliteration. Like a sugar coating. Sometimes I unconsciously slip into Anglo-Saxon alliterative meter.
Edit: Downvoters be damned, descend into the underworld.
You know, it's like Beowulf.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man...Romans1
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1Cor 1
Take a break, Crockett, maybe put down the booze.
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
And what have you got against poetry?
It's not poetry I have a problem with. It's your incessant blathering about all subjects, depicting yourself as wise when you are really just a fool.
Why would you use the words of the God you hate? That is the ultimate hypocrisy.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom1.21
I'm just typing out my thoughts with no attempt to depict myself as anything other than what I am. Why does that upset you?
The Bible is a fine book and there are some good things in it. Why should I be denied access to it?
As an atheist why bother even getting involved in the conversation. Seems pointless. Since life is pointless. You by default are pointless and your opinion as well. You'll be dead soon and just fertilizer. Look talking fertilizer. Amazing...
If life is as pointless as your comment, then we're truly fucked.
PS: My mythological invisible sky demon can kick your mythological invisible sky demon's ass.
right...
So, being foolish gives your comment logical weight and meaning.
You win...
PS, I am glad I never have to meet your demons.
Just be glad that you will never have to meet your own imaginary sky demons either.
Your faith is very strong...
So is an atheist.
That's what I said nmwewmn
lol...yes, I suppose you did.
I pride myself on my lack of faith. Keeps me frosty.
Why would a god be necessary to give life meaning? Don't you have any family or friends who enrich your life? Do you have neither drive nor ambition? Aren't you capable of setting your own goals rather than waiting until you die to get a pat on the back from a phantom?
No disrespect intended to believers who don't tell others that their lives are a waste of time.
How do you derive meaning apart from God?
Re: family and friends: Not without a big picture that includes a loving God, no.
Enrichment? What the heck does that mean? Sounds self-gratifying.
What do drive and ambition have to do with anything when you are on a sinking ship?
Again, if the ship is going down to the pit what good are goals?
So, God is a phantom?
A true believer will not be "disrespected"...they will simply give you the truth. Which you will continually reject, until you don't.
You aren't changing my going to heaven. You don't have any authority in these matters.
How do you (apparently) ONLY derive meaning in your life from your belief in mythological beings?
That is far weirder, and much sadder, to me.
I'll leave it to you, akak. It's beyond me.
Apparent? Obviously. Mythological? God can stand up for Himself. He doesn't need me to prove anything.
I don't think any of this is weird. As for your sadness...well, mabye you'll feel better tomorrow.
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but you presumably believe that EVERYONE of every extinct religion in the past, and EVERYONE of every other religion in the world today except your own, was wrong in their beliefs. How lucky of you to have stumbled into the one true religion --- which you obviously only entered after having carefully and dispassionately studied and considered all the others, right?
Have you never stopped to wonder why 99% of all religious believers share the same faith as their parents? Is it well-considered thought and reason which leads people into religion, or blind faith and conformity to that with which they were raised?
Which extinct religions of the past? Most are alive and well, just in another form.
Stumbled? No I didn't stumble into it.
Which religions do you want me to consider?
And yes to careful and dispassionate consideration.
The reason why most people believe like their parents is because they simply never stopped to think "hey, why do I believe this and why is it necessary"
And to your last statement I would respond with no, to well considered thought and yes to blind faith and conformity to their upbringing.
Would that be the same God that blessed us with cannabinoid receptors?
Yes.
Dude! you can totally grow your plants in atheist fertilzer...you'll get gnarly potent THC numbers mango!
.
WHICH god? WHOSE god? can we get that part cleared up please?
true liberty predates anybody's version of Fathers, and anyone who wants to hide behind Daddy's robes to fling their Divine Rules around.
It's an individual decision so the god would be the god recognized by the individual in question. Mohammed said "Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another." Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." As an atheist I'm comfortable with that.
As an atheist you better examine the Muslim faith a little more carefully. You may not like what a caliphate govt looks like...it may take away your rights to protest who and what you believe. To the point were your head is removed from your body....check out Syria my man!
Sharia-law might tighten you right up! lol save for your head of course, which may be loosed.
I don't talk to freaks.
Better check under your bed, Crockett --- there could be some Muslim terrorists just waiting there to slit your throat while you sleep! After all, they hate us for our freedoms!
Now I feel foolish for sponsoring that Palestinain boy. Fady, I hope you're well.
Step right up. Ass clown tatoo orgy.
You're more a vandal than a troll, really.
Crockett. You're such a complete fucking fraud. Don't pretend to respect liberty or RP ... because in fact you're conduct is simply orthogonal to everything he stands for and you claim to embrace.
Ron Paul likes Muslims just fine if that's what you're on about:
You are such a pedantic fucking moron. Try "religious liberty". You stupid cunt.
Cunt? What's that about?
OMG. I thought you had to be 13+ to register on ZH. You're not king of the wild frontier after all. You're king of the ass clowns.
...long live the king!
1 Samuel 86 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
The thing was that they had a king. God was their king and His will was given to the people thru the Judges. But they cried out for God to give them an earthly king anyway. Thus, the kingly line begins. Starting with Saul, then David...Solomon. To this day, earthly rulers don't work out so well.
Good scripture...you should start in Genesis though. Starting with Samuel is kinda jumping into the middle of things and you lose context.
When you hailed your forum king you required instruction in those verses. We've all read the Bible bow to stern.
The instructions don't help you if you ignore them.
So why did you ignore them and hail your Earthly king?
Re: I don't talk to freaks
That's because your self-absorbed and lazy...
Freaks are sweet!
That's because his self-absorbed and lazy .... what?
It takes effort my friend.
If you are only concerned with yourself and are lazy you will be less inclined to speak with a "freak".
Get it?
I responded up there, but it brought my comment down here.
I can see how that would be confusing.
That's why I did the "re:"
Thought it would help...sorry.
wake up, we're all freaks
you know what....I think you're right!
WTF are you blathering about?
The forefathers were speaking of the God of the Bible...
Who has the authority to give "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
...You? And all your creative authority?
Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, [saying],
"Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us."
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure:
"Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."
Psalm 2: 1-6
"Why do men rage and war, and the people plot a vain thing, and the kings of the earth devour the sloths, and the orangutans, and the breakfast cereals? It is because they have lost faith in the one true LORD, the Great and Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, meatballs be upon him."
Book of Macaroni II: 2-6
"et tu ass clown Brutus?"
Suppose akak called you an "ass clown?" Would he be the winner?
Still trying to make sense of it all?
Yes. If akak called either you or Precious an "ass clown" would he be the winner?
Depends on the rules and method for scoring.
I don't know if I want to play...can I wear pads?
Did we already pick teams?
Precious is awesome...
You are too, I just think you and Akak are well... a bit lost.
I just wanna help.
And muslims aren't bad people...Islam is bad ideology and counter theology, so good for you in sponsering the Palestinian boy, they need love.
In Christianity God fights his own battles, in Islam Muslims fight Allah's battles.
In Pastafarianism you get overweight from eating too much pasta whilst smoking fat doobies with your atheist collegues.
It's good to find even a small portion of common ground. Peace be with you.
We are all on common ground...you just wanna make sure you are sealed in the ark when it starts to rain.
Shalom to you too.
You mock yourself.
If you would have quoted Dawkins that would have been much more interesting.
That's the whole problem with the gay marriage thing. They want state recognition of their marriage to receive government benefits - there is no other purpose. Nobody would otherwise care what in the world gays do.
And why do you care so much if two dykes get the same benefits as a fat turd and his old lady? I could personally care less.
There must be a difference between God and the Religious Right, because that makes a world of sense.
And why do you think government has the right to seize and redistribute anybody's money in the first place.
I think he means the benefits that married traditional couples get like spousal access in hospital situations and spousal inheritance, etc.
Edit: The whole God hates gays thing is just divisive and ridiculous at this point. Seems like thay are protected by the constitution like every other citizen. I'm sure RP sees it as a non starter.
Asking the wrong questions is a waste of time. Marriage originates in religion. Goverment secularized it. Therein lies the problem. Marriage should be strictly a religious act, and the government should not involve itself in religious decisions or freedoms in any way. That's the crux of the mistake. It has nothing to do with marriage itself. It has everything to do with government distorting and trying to monopolize the religious significance of marriage. People are tools. They don't see the manipulation. Thus they buy into the manipulation, like idiots. Marriage is not about tax breaks and inheritance benefits. But the sheeple, because they don't know the right question in the first place, never get to the right answer.
Are you really this ******* credulous and believe everyone else to be so ******* stupid that they would take your tripe seriously? My lord! Prior to religion, there was no marriage? That is not just a wrong opinion, it is a categorically false fucking statement i.e. a fucking lie.
"People are tools." On this belief you obviously rely, thank you for admitting it.
"But the sheeple, because they don't know the right question in the first place, never get to the right answer."
Are those the political sheeple or just (the equally ignorant) religious sheeple such as yourself? Do we get to burn them at the stake? That is the religious way, after all, and who are we sheep to question it?
Please, if you really believe civil "corruption" of marriage to be the root of the issue, relocate yourself to a more religious community such as the Mennonites, Islam, the Hasidim, the Mormons, etc. I'm positive you'll fit right in. And you won't be missed.
Dude. You're just sad, pathetic and uninformed. But that's totally to be expected from a novus ordo Irish "Catholic" (protestant) who follows the paedophile pope, Ratzinger and his band of criminal bishops.
You are drilling down way too deep. Government is creating the descrimination.
They are being treated unfairly, that is a fact and why?
Allowing them their rights is a secular issue.
two different arguments going on here.
Disclosure: I have no dog in the gay or god fight.
Speaking generally to this issue and in reply to no one in particular: For those who simply don't like gays it would be best to let them live as they see fit. Homosexuality is determined genetically. If you use social pressure to force gays into heterosexual relationships they are more likely to reproduce and the genetic trait for homosexuality will be preserved in the population.
That goes to the subject of the article, liberty.
Social engineering is what dickhead thinktards try to enact.
Blacks voting for Dems who love abortion in order to kill themselves.
I don't know what RP's feeling about abortion, but at some point liberty begins for the child.
POTUS is ok with pithing them after they are born, clearly murder at that point.
Getting a lot of red arrows stating facts not opinion.
.
any chance you might be curious to FIND that answer before you go waving the RP banner? and have you an opinion on when the "liberty" begins for "the child" and when it ends for the woman whose body "the child" is dependent on? genuine question.
thanks for the thread Fight Club, this is really bringing out some home truths. . .
Ok I don't care what RP's views are on the subject, but the fact is that at some point a fetus becomes a person with liberties.
I did not say nor do I know when that is. I do know that after it pops out, it has rights as an American citizen and as I said before, that post birth abortion shit is definitely murder. And POTUS is alright with that. Unbelievable!
You have to be kidding yourself if you cant see the distinction.
not sure what you're referring to when you write "post birth abortion" - I don't believe that can exist?
I'm glad you've admitted that you don't know/care what RP's views are "on the subject" - at least you're honest, which is more than some.
for the record, the Sanctity of Life Constitutional Amendment that Repubs are pushing would make it illegal, ie, punishable by LAWS and their enForcers, for anyOne to interfere with a zygote, a single cell organism that predates an actual foetus by about 8 weeks.
and I'll say again, I'm not "for or against" abortion, but I am definitely FOR a woman's right to make the choice for her own body, and AGAINST the State, of any sort, to make that decision for her by criminalising her choice.
leaving it up to "states" or even "local" government is leaving it up to such folks as local law enforcement to decide - I don't see that as a smart act in ANY matter, given the STATE of "law enforcement" lately. . .
Post birth abortions are also called failed abortions where the child comes out wounded but alive. There was legislation declaring it ok to finish the job.
3rd term abortion is a problem with me. If you don't know by then, you're the problem and should go for adoption.
The life of the viable late term child is in the hands of congress and the scotus. Politics dictates the thumbs up or down.
With the constant drumbeat of fairness, at some point, the kid is not being represented when it could live on its own.
Personally I don't think it is fair to the kid to be put down weeks before birth when it's good to go.
Shortly after conception, sure use it for good. Stem cell research. Moral Hazzard alert: farming 'em for money
I cringe every time i hear the fairness mantra. Life can never be fair. It is political drivel. What does it mean? Who decides?
ahhh, I see - I believe the term most often used is partial-birth abortion, and it's already "illegal" as far as I know.
I'd much rather that these decisions be in "hands" of the woman and her choice of doctor than the "supreme court" or "congress" - given their track record for integrity and all.
I'm not in favour of what you're describing, for the record.
my presence here is to provoke deeper thinking on the subject of "voting" and what it can/does not accomplish - that RP was championing "liberty" and other memes, in the face of some of his actions that suggest otherwise for many, means I'm using these actions as examples, nothing more.
appreciate your replies.
An interesting question from a woman who doesn't know the answer herself.
not sure who you're referring to?
given that I've repeatedly stated that I'm not a "woman."
I hadn't seen that. Although I did think you were way to butch to be any sort of actual chick. Any chick I could imagine anyway -- Hillary notwithstanding.
you're so cute when you're angry.
"chick" - lol.
*peep peep*
your imagination could use some expanding tho' hon, just sayin'
What are you wearing?
heh, you are wearing.
Flannel shirt over tee-shirt and jeans. Your basic Earl look.
Funny, that is practically my usual uniform, substituting Carhartts for the jeans. Oh, and add a baseball cap (the sun is almost always low in the sky in Alaska, and invariably directly in one's eyes).
I often wear a cap as well. But that's just because I'm balding. Too bad I can't use that Alaska excuse, I think the locals would catch on.
Funny, it is almost strange to see men of almost any age WITHOUT a cap on up here. But like I said, it is mainly because of the sun --- after living a little while in Alaska, one comes to really appreciate that bill.
Plus it blocks that view of Russia, which I hear can be intimidating.
If you are not a woman, Cathartes (and I had never read anything to the contrary from you before this), you are remarkably, one might even say suspiciously, obsessed with uterine and reproductive issues, in a way that is all-too familar from many women, but which I have NEVER encountered before in a man. Your frequent, classically feminine, passive-aggressive style of argumentation may have led me to assume that you are a woman as well. For that, I apologize.
Hold on, akak. We still don't know what its wearing.
Blame it on the vodka.
Ass clown orgy up ahead.
over and over and over, and yet it never sinks in, because you don't have the mental infrastructure in place to grok the concepts.
last week you were calling me a "militant feminist" - this week I get to be a "woman" and "classically feminine" - all this despite my many posts explaining gender roles as cultural constructs designed to keep the minds boxed into their role-playing, even in last week's thread replies to you.
and obviously working as intended - some mind-boxes are positively concrete bunker'd!
for the record, I am female, not a woman, and all that being a woman entails - I don't do gender roles, but I can recognise those who do, and as long as they aren't being assholes about it, who cares?
culture makes some fine men & women, and they definitely serve their purpose, working as intended. that you and others here accept this as some kind of ultimate reality is hilarious to me, because I can assure you, there are far more people living outside the assigned roles than you'd imagine. why on earth accept the narrow confines of cultural definitions in any area of your life? unless you're using a limiting religious belief, of course, that would be understandable - but if you don't have religion to occupy your mind, why let the culture live there??
now perhaps you should pay some attention to your threadmate there, he's definitely showing an interest. . . mebbe buy hiim a drink?
Cathartes, for the record, I did not say that YOU were "classically feminine", I stated that the passive-aggressive style of argument you had repeatedly made was classically feminine (which it is, by the way).
As for your particular individual situation, to which you have dropped cryptic hints but to which I remain unenlightened, please know that regardless, the vast majority of men and women --- "individuals", maybe I should say --- in human society DO have and act out in broad gender-specific roles, NOT because they are forced into those roles by society, but by their own biology. The fact that your particular biology may happen to steer you into another role, or none at all, takes nothing away from that pre-existing and widespread fact.
For myself, I am not a Marxist who believes that humans are born as completely blank slates, to be molded at will by their upbringing --- inherent biology certainly plays a significant role as well.
"cryptic" only because you don't have any definitions for the language I use, which is understandable, given your desire to think more along the accepted cultural norms.
"gender-specific roles" vary from culture to culture akak, and your use of the word "act" to describe the role-playing is accurate. also "pre-existing" is another tell, in that one is born into a pre-existing set of cultural norms, and a bunch of actors playing out those roles. if you're over say, fifty or so, then you might notice how over time these roles do vary, change, etc. - example: watch any Hollywood movie set in the 30's, 40's, 50's etc. - and watch the changing roles of social interactions, including clothing norms - they're getting more relaxed, ever wonder why?
"inherent biology" isn't even allowed to be inherited by the way - as I've said over and over - 1 in 2000 births in amrka today, now, exhibit "ambiguous genitalia" which means they're not discernible as either/or duality. and the next step is to counsel the parents about how traumatic it will be to force their child OUT of the duality-box, because of the inherent social stigma - whereupon, the good doctor ASSIGNS a sex-role through surgery and hormones-added, with all the hellish outcomes on that individual as they come of sexual age, and their own body begins to assert itself.
one in two thousand akak. assigned a culturally acceptable sex role, by surgery and a lifetime of hormones to support fitting into the cultural box.
ponder this.
(and for the record, I've not had this situation in my life, but I have empathy for all those who have)
Conversing with you would be almost pleasant if you didn't preface so many statements with, "you're so stupid you won't understand this." You can do better than that. Not joking.
lol, shall I wear heels, perfume and makeup too?
how 'bout you just pretend I do, and chat about that amongst yourselves. . .
I was speaking in all seriousness. I shouldn't ought to do that.
I have often felt like asking if you were born a man. Seems we have to do these things, these days, in order to get the complete picture and viewpoint.
But that would be...impolite...somehow.
I was born a boy. A tiny wittle boy. But today I am man.
Vodka is tasty,
I answered your question in my reply to akak above. the only reason you might even ask that is that I don't "act" like a woman here, amirite?
in fact, arguing is not very feminine, and arguing strongly might imply manliness, whereas a more flirty argument might include cute sexual references so as to enhance the, ah, tension, yes?
see, this is where gender does its work. . .
by the way, Crockett appears to be flirting with you guys, I hear alcohol is a social lubricant. ^^
...but you break just like a little girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl_VnvuHZ48&feature=related
His point, Totentanzerlied, is that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, which should be a civil institution, ie, if you're gay and 'your' church is homophobic, then go join some other church, or start your own. The only proper role for government in marriage is the enforcement of civil contract.
As for all the government entitlements (that marriage brings) that gays want - there's your answer; get rid of the entitlements. The government had no right to extend them in the first place.
I've noticed you routinely miss the crux of people's arguments. Slow down. If you find your rage levels rising maybe you should reread what they've actually written. Your bug-eyed responses to assertions that haven't even been made makes you look stupider than you (probably) are.
There is hope for mankind after all.
If you're talking to me, the subject is gays getting equal rights. Who cares what you call it? They don't get their due rights under civil union or partnership.
This is a liberty thread and they are being persecuted. Arguing about the term is symantics to me which brings up the word stupid.
You re-read!