Think about the agony that Ron Paul the racist must feld when helping black people to deliver more black babies in the world, it must have been devastating pain for him. Or the agony when black women comes to him asking to kill the parasite on her womb and he cant do it because he hates women and want them to feel the pain of labour, what a mindfuck that must be.
Ron Paul would keep the federal government out of it? Right. According to Ron Paul: I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration .... .... Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government. (Boldface accent added) Why is it that Ron Paul's supporters misrepresent him in order to increase his appeal? Like I said: Ron Paul, and his supporters. ____________________ Notes: Paul, Ron. "Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle". June 4, 2003. LewRockwell.com. October 7, 2011. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul100.html
Is there something wrong in working for or supporting constitutional amendments? That is how women got the right to vote & Alcohol became illegal for some years and several other changes to the founding fathers constitution were made. IMHO, RP is consistently showing he does want to follow the constitution, including the procedures built in for changing it. Also IMHO, any chance that the constitution could be changed to make abortion illegal died decades ago. Thus RP's own views / wishes about abortion don't make any thing happen - not worth a wooden nickel.
Hardly, but that's beside the point No, there is nothing wrong in advocating constitutional amendments, regardless of whether I think they are idiotic, mean-spirited, ignorant proposals for the sake of religious supremacism and other aesthetics. However, in this case, I feel Ron Paul's argument contradicts 786's argument that Ron Paul wouldn't impose his view on abortion through the federal government.
RP in preceding sentence clear states IHPOV that decisions on abortion belong at the state level. He has also many times on many subjects stated that the federal government makes too much interference. The fact that he does recognize an "Alternative" which he does not supports (for either of these two just stated reason: "states right" & less Fed. gov. is good) can not be construded as advocating Federal limitation of abortion, as you do. It seems to me that he is being "logically complete" and mentions in one sentence a logical possibility, which he clearly is opposed to but some of his supporter may less consistently support. What is most remarkable about RP, IMHO is this consistency - probably would cause serious problems if he were POTUS and were that consistent. For example: Barain is ruled by a minority that seriously abuses the majority and gets away with that as Saudi Arabia support the minority rulers with tanks when needed. etc. If RP were president he might stupidly ignore fact that Barain is the base of the US's fleet protecting oil shipments and consistently support the basic human rights the US proclaims. Summary: "real politics" is ugly but some times needed. Too much "consistency" can cause a heap of trouble. If combined with the logical thought RP seems victim of instead of with some "gut feelings" it can lead to really big disasters. Like $1000/ barrel oil when the Gulf's supply is drastically reduced with no base for the US fleet protecting oil shipments.
Tiassa- You do recognize that for a Constitutional Amendment requires 3/4 of the STATES! Which means it is essentially the WILL OF THE STATES. Something basically the NATION agrees on. Not the "Presidential Will" There have been 10,000 Amendments proposed, how many are ratified? A Constitutional Amendment is the will OF THE STATES, not a 'enforcing his views through Federal Gov'. If the STATES don't agree how the hell are you going to pass an amendment regardless of what the President believes? Ron Says: 1.Leave it to the States 2. But if the STATES want to Amend the Constitution that would be the other thing Amendment is not a 'simply' - Here's what I believe, now force the States to pass it- President's 'want' 'willing' 'belief' has nothing to do with it. If an Amendment does pass, that just means an overwhelming amount of the States believe it SHOULD be the law of the land. Has nothing to do with one man imposing his views- Amendments don't pass like that. Stop- as if you don't know how hard it is, and WHO it takes, to pass an Amendment.
Try finding me 3/4 of the States that want to make abortion illegal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And that is besides the point. If abuse of power is what you care about, then government shouldn't exist at all. The fact is quite simple, Ron wants States to decide, an Amendment uses the same thing: THE STATES. No matter how you want to twist it, oh there can be abuse, as it doesn't exist elsewhere. Government shouldn't exist if that is your concern. So at least respect the system a little bit- or change it. What you just said is quite stupid, another way of 'don't trust him' approach. Let's get rid of all the amendments they could've been abused. Lets start with the Bill of Rights. There is a reason why the amendment process is this difficult- can it be abused (probably)- but it is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT than passing legislation at the federal or even state level.
Lysistrata and the "libertarian" Disingenuous, as we might expect. Ron Paul wants the states to invest their authority in the federal government regarding abortion, so that if the states' perspectives ever evolve, they are still committed by federal authority to stay the course unless the federal government deems to grant them another chance to exercise their rights. The Constitution is federal authority. I just don't get why a "libertarian" wants the federal government obliging criminal investigations of vaginas and uteri. Of course, no wonder, then, so many "libertarians" oppose marriage equality. If they get their way on abortion, the obvious response requires only one word: Lysistrata. See, everything is interrelated.
The Constitution = STATES agreeing TO and CREATING Federal Authority. There was no 'federal authority' before the Constitution. The AUTHORITY of the CONSTITUTION is derived from the STATES, which is then made into 'Federal Authority' BY the STATES. The Federal Government didn't make the Constitution. The States did. You're the disingenuous one here. And again.. If the proposal is to leave it to the States, and the States want to Amend the Constitution how is that not leaving it to the states as if the Federal government is imposing their will.. You think a amendment can pass simply by a President wanting to impose what he believes. Then you don't know how difficult it is to get an Amendment, and who it takes to do it.
There is something called "reality". You ought to try it, sometime. Good gravy, man. Is making shit up all you ever do?
Just admit it that Ron wants to leave it to the States, and an Amendment is also leaving it to the States, which will never happen and so he couldn't enforce his views on you.
:roflmao: What was that fallacy of just skipping after calling it something then moving on.... What you just said is as stupid, vapid, as your other responses. And 'your' sperm is foreign material. :roflmao:
(Something, something, Burt Ward) Or should you just admit that you can't make an honest argument? "You think a amendment can pass simply by a President wanting to impose what he believes. Then you don't know how difficult it is to get an Amendment, and who it takes to do it." That is a complete straw man. You ducked the issue in order to throw an insult. Maybe that works among "libertarians" such as yourself. But most people are smart enough to see through that kind of stupid excrement. If you're going to try that moronic stunt, at least put some effort into it.
The word 'if' was implied there. I said much more in that post which you chose to duck. Secondly you're the one ducking. No matter what Ron 'wants', he can't get it without the states, and he is thus leaving it to the states to regulate abortion. Its really that simple. He's not enforcing his views on you. Constitution is legislated by the States Legislation by Federal Government is done in Congress, and he doesn't want that to be used against abortion. Only 2 appropriate methods according to him: 1. State law 2. States legislating to amendment the Constitution Both of these processes are not under 'Federal' legislating control.
Dipshit. You never understood my argument. But you are right about one thing - sperm is foreign to the bloodstream - hence autoimmune infertility, precisely as I said - the Body fails to recognize itself as itself. What was your point again? Autoimmune diseases have precisely zero relevance to my point, meanwhile you're still struggling to understand how mendelian inheritance is relevant. Oh right, you've got nothing other than hot air and straw.
And you're struggling to provide a definition of what is 'itself'. Define it before you just 'throw it around'.
Keep attacking. But in all of this time you haven't defined it. You used DNA and proteins before and you know sperm won't fit that definition. So go ahead Mr. Scientist the definer of self- define 'self' for us.
