• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wingnuts Unite: Ron Paul Joins Michelle Bachmann in Weirdest Town Hall Ever

I don't get what you're talking about. If it's abortion, then I agree with him. It's not necessarily a "religious" argument either. I'm atheist, I don't make religious arguments. But I do agree that right to life should be recognized. In general, even if he or I for that matter run our mouths about it, there's nothing we can do. The SCOTUS ruled on it, and that's the end of that.

Please read about the Sanctity of life Act? It's a religious based piece fallacy of legislation and in Paul's stance the chances that his support of it is based on faith rather than not is highly likely.

When Paul mentioned the legislation in a personal "Statement of Faith",[9] CBN News White House correspondent David Brody noted that Paul was an exception to the pattern of the 2008 Republican candidates for president not engaging in "God talk".[10] The California Catholic Daily also cited Paul as "abortion's 'unshakeable foe'" with the Act as evidence.[11]

On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), now a pro-life activist, endorsed Paul for president based on his authorship of the Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act.[12]

Ron Paul said:
I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

....

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Seriously. That is not the end of that.
 
I don't care if people run their mouths about their religion. Not my business, people are free to practice and preach as they see fit so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. As for the bill, I mean if we're going to argue whether or not abortion laws are State or Federal issues, I'd have to say they are clearly State issues. The federal government was never charged with those powers, thus they do not have those powers. And that's not a religious argument.
 
I don't care if people run their mouths about their religion.

I do care when running their mouths consists of trying to pass legislation on whether or not my wife can have an abortion if she so wishes.

As for the bill, I mean if we're going to argue whether or not abortion laws are State or Federal issues, I'd have to say they are clearly State issues.

So was slavery supposedly.

The federal government was never charged with those powers, thus they do not have those powers. And that's not a religious argument.

The government at no level has the right to dictate the reproductive choices of people. This silly state's issues bull**** right wingers bring up whenever they're too chicken**** to actually deal with an issue is annoying. Please give me a rational argument for a State having the power to tell women whether or not they should be allowed to have abortions but the Federal government not having said power? There isn't? Good.
 
No. I don't like him because I'm weary of anyone in 21st century politics who wants to pull out of the UN and has fans who see him as 'logical'. Keep grasping.
I have to grasp because you keep moving around.
 
I have to grasp because you keep moving around.

You asked why I didn't like Ron Paul. Cited a theory. I explained the reason. His mind lives in the 17th century. You are not satisfied with this reason. What can I do?
 
The government at no level has the right to dictate the reproductive choices of people. This silly state's issues bull**** right wingers bring up whenever they're too chicken**** to actually deal with an issue is annoying. Please give me a rational argument for a State having the power to tell women whether or not they should be allowed to have abortions but the Federal government not having said power? There isn't? Good.

It doesn't seem like you're even open to the argument, so there's no point. You asked a question and answered it yourself, so you're not interested in my opinion on the matter. So it's pointless, you're of course free to be as stubborn as you like; but don't pretend to engage in debate when you're completely closed off to the arguments which could be made.
 
It doesn't seem like you're even open to the argument, so there's no point. You asked a question and answered it yourself, so you're not interested in my opinion on the matter. So it's pointless, you're of course free to be as stubborn as you like; but don't pretend to engage in debate when you're completely closed off to the arguments which could be made.

Typical Ikari. Act hurt whenever any kind of resistance is shown. Please don't come here telling us all that States should have a say in a matter that involves a woman and her doctor anymore than the Federal government does? Specially when you're one of the biggest defenders of drug legalization which affects entire neighborhoods. You don't have a single rock to step and this river is mighty strong.
 
Typical Ikari. Act hurt whenever any kind of resistance is shown. Please don't come here telling us all that States should have a say in a matter that involves a woman and her doctor anymore than the Federal government does? Specially when you're one of the biggest defenders of drug legalization which affects entire neighborhoods. You don't have a single rock to step and this river is mighty strong.

Hahaha, piss poor debate gets you nowhere. But if you just have to resort to attack, I suppose that just says a little something about your character. I think the matter involves the woman, her doctor, and the human child she carries. But I guess that doesn't count, does it? Here, let me act like you for a bit.

How can the federal government intercede in policy and law that it was never authorized to intercede in especially when the right to life of the unborn human is at stake? It can't! Good.
 
I don't know enough about Ron Paul to label him a "wingnut," but Bachman? That woman is as nutty as they come.

Ron Paul's willingness to appear with her is enough to tell me that something's terribly wrong with his thinking.
 
I think the matter involves the woman, her doctor, and the human child she carries. But I guess that doesn't count, does it? Here, let me act like you for a bit.

This depends on YOUR personal beliefs regarding life and not mine. I don't believe humanity starts at conception. I don't believe it's a human being until AFTER the 3rd trimester. You do. That's your perogative if you want to call a fetus, zygote whatever a 'child'. It isn't. But please stay out of people's reproductive choices and tell Mr. Paul to do the same? Thanks.

How can the federal government intercede in policy and law that it was never authorized to intercede in especially when the right to life of the unborn human is at stake? It can't! Good.

It shouldn't have to. Just like the Federal government shouldn't have had to deal with slavery in a perfect world because well, it wouldn't exist in the first place. I mean if States would stop claiming the important things as their right to dictate and regulate like say : slavery, the reproductive choices of women, education, etc then I think people would take this whole 'State's right' thing more seriously.
 
This depends on YOUR personal beliefs regarding life and not mine. I don't believe humanity starts at conception. I don't believe it's a human being until AFTER the 3rd trimester. You do. That's your perogative if you want to call a fetus, zygote whatever a 'child'. It isn't. But please stay out of people's reproductive choices and tell Mr. Paul to do the same? Thanks.

First off, I can't stop abortion or make it illegal; the SCOTUS ruled on it and that's the end of that. Secondly, if someone views human life as sacred (and it is human, no matter what you want to try to say, what you're looking for is a definition of "person", not human) then they can't very well stay quiet on an issue which revolves around legalized murder. Maybe instead of you telling me to say out of "reproductive choices", I can tell you to quit endorsing the whole sale murder of humans.

It shouldn't have to. Just like the Federal government shouldn't have had to deal with slavery in a perfect world because well, it wouldn't exist in the first place. I mean if States would stop claiming the important things as their right to dictate and regulate like say : slavery, the reproductive choices of women, education, etc then I think people would take this whole 'State's right' thing more seriously.

Slavery and abortion are very different. There's no doubt about the humanity of the person in slavery. The States were allowed to have slavery as compromise for the Constitution being adopted. It was later rectified. Federal government also doesn't belong in education. Teaching to standardized testing doesn't really behoove anyone.
 
First off, I can't stop abortion or make it illegal;

Are we still talking about what Ron Paul has done? Because I know you're just some irrelevant person on the internet. Ron Paul ran for President and meant what he said about overturning Roe V. Wade.

the SCOTUS ruled on it and that's the end of that.

Not according to Ron Paul. They're activist judges according to him and the right to privacy is non-existent.

Secondly, if someone views human life as sacred (and it is human, no matter what you want to try to say, what you're looking for is a definition of "person", not human) then they can't very well stay quiet on an issue which revolves around legalized murder.

So abortion is legalized murder now is it? According to who's definition? American laws? Yours? The Bibles? Ron Pauls?

Maybe instead of you telling me to say out of "reproductive choices", I can tell you to quit endorsing the whole sale murder of humans.

So your belief that it is murder supersedes mine that it isn't and you have no business in telling people whether or not they should have abortions? Good to know. Now I sure as **** don't want anybody who even remotely looks like Ron Paul as President.

Slavery and abortion are very different.

Ah. So in your regards it's okay for states to have control over a man's freedom(taken away solely on the basis of his skin color) and also control over whether his wife has the right to abort or not. Good to know that State's right is racist bull**** covered in regionalism.

There's no doubt about the humanity of the person in slavery.

3/5ths was it? Ummm yeah. I think there was some doubt on the part of States. But please tell us all why there was no doubt in the humanity of slaves even though there was an entire war fought AROUND the concept of slavery. Tell us all whether or not the place of black people in America was servitude as some states declared in their reasons for supporting slavery.

The States were allowed to have slavery as compromise for the Constitution being adopted. It was later rectified. Federal government also doesn't belong in education. Teaching to standardized testing doesn't really behoove anyone.

Can you tell us why a State government has a right to tell a woman whether or not to abort but the Federal government doesn't?
 
This kind :

Secure Fence Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Ron Paul on the Issues





Considering the fence is called 'the Secure Fence Act' I doubt they also want to put in snow bunnies.

You didn't answer my question. What a shocker!

1,969. You got me. I was off by 31. Makes him 31 miles less insanely crazy or retarded if it makes you feel better.

The Secure Fence Act (which is what we are talking about) only provides for 700 miles of fence, among other things.

Pssst. Barack Obama isn't also calling for an investigation on a silly witch hunt of the Fed, claiming some higher knowledge of the 'original intent' of the constitution, calling for going back to the Gold standardin 2009, pulling out of the UN, NATO, NAFTA etc, using his religious beliefs to dictate whether a woman should get an abortion, doing away with the income tax in his first week as President, doing away with the department of education etc. Your strawman seems to think that people claim ONE issue and ONE political opinion make Ron Paul an insane old man living in the 21st century. A group of these does. But if you'd like to believe that wanting to build a fence is all that makes Ron Paul a modern day political luddite. By all means.

Your blind devotion and inconsistency when it comes to this guy is almost funny. Specially considering your ardent defence of drugs. The same person who thinks the government has no business fighting drug trafficking(his continued attacks on funding for the DEA) is the same guy who won't vote for funding of needle exchange & rehabilitation programs. And then you like a good little Pauldier come on the forum and scream about the wonders claimed by studied regarding what legalizing drugs has done for a 3rd world European irrelevancy like Portugal when the very reason they claim they've had these success is because of government funded needle exchange and rehabilitation programs.

Then come other issues like his typical Christian refusal to put the 'souls' of goo in a petri dish before that of living human beings simply because he has some silly Dr. Seuss fueled belief that a bunch of cells glued together in a test tube consist of life.

Aren't you a marine? I mean can you imagine if Ron Paul was a Democrat voting against the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan AND also voting against funding for the troops? The calls of treason and hating the troops would never stop. But we're supposed to let you and a bunch of other internet teenagers tell us that he's some sort of revelation when in reality he's just some old man who's got a grandious sense of self and like a political Jim Jones gets off on telling people he knows what the founders really meant? Like, he was, you know there? Sorry my son. This game of 'one issue' makes Ron Paul crazy you seem to want to play is not one most people will go along with.

Your glaring double-standard has been exposed so you resort to ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and any other logical fallacy you can think of in order to deflect the issue. Typical...

Obama the wing-nut!!! Just ask Hat and Redress!
 
The joys of being a liberal. If you agree with Obama, you have "drank the koolaid" and "worship your messiah", but speak poorly of ole Ron Paul, and you are just unreasonable and hate the constitution. No one ever gives us credit for actually arriving at our positions in a reasoned manner.

Yea, that's totally how I operate.

How many times have I accused you of drinking the koolaid or worshipping the Messiah, Redress?

How many times have I said you hate the Constitution?

Anyway, it's obvious that Obama is a wing-nut, otherwise he would've never voted for the Secure Fence Act...am I right?
 
No. I don't like him because I'm weary of anyone in 21st century politics who wants to pull out of the UN and has fans who see him as 'logical'. Keep grasping.

You're obsession with the UN is quite comical. Do you think it has some sort of magical powers?
 
This depends on YOUR personal beliefs regarding life and not mine. I don't believe humanity starts at conception. I don't believe it's a human being until AFTER the 3rd trimester.

That's because you know nothing about biology. The unborn are alive and possess a unique, diploidic human genome. That means they are human beings.
 
You asked why I didn't like Ron Paul. Cited a theory. I explained the reason. His mind lives in the 17th century. You are not satisfied with this reason. What can I do?
That's not exactly how it went, but whatever. I've come to expect irrationality from the opposition when the subject is Ron Paul
 
Are we still talking about what Ron Paul has done? Because I know you're just some irrelevant person on the internet. Ron Paul ran for President and meant what he said about overturning Roe V. Wade.

He could try. I doubt there would be any success there. Legislature that contradicts the SCOTUS will be struck down in now time.

Not according to Ron Paul. They're activist judges according to him and the right to privacy is non-existent.

They are activist judges, but what are you going to do about it?

So abortion is legalized murder now is it? According to who's definition? American laws? Yours? The Bibles? Ron Pauls?

Why is it that you can submit your opinion of non-life or un-humanity of the unborn child, yet I can't submit my opinion? Hypocrisy much? Thus of course comes back to your unwillingness to entertain any debate or opinion on the matter. But you'll probably ignore that.

So your belief that it is murder supersedes mine that it isn't and you have no business in telling people whether or not they should have abortions? Good to know. Now I sure as **** don't want anybody who even remotely looks like Ron Paul as President.

It's not "now", you didn't want it from the get go. So nothing's changed. Why is it that you can supersede my opinions, but I can't supersede yours? Hmm?

Ah. So in your regards it's okay for states to have control over a man's freedom(taken away solely on the basis of his skin color) and also control over whether his wife has the right to abort or not. Good to know that State's right is racist bull**** covered in regionalism.

Good to know that intellectually honest debate seems to not be your concern. I never said it was OK. I gave the historical context as to why it was allowed to exist. And why slavery is different than abortion. Slavery was clearly wrong, and the federal government interceded because the rights of the individual were being infringed upon. Now with abortion, it's not the same. You can't make a simple property argument since it can also be argued from a right to life issue. As it stands, this is proper domain of the State.

3/5ths was it? Ummm yeah. I think there was some doubt on the part of States. But please tell us all why there was no doubt in the humanity of slaves even though there was an entire war fought AROUND the concept of slavery. Tell us all whether or not the place of black people in America was servitude as some states declared in their reasons for supporting slavery.

The slaves were human (much like the unborn child), we simply didn't recognize that (much like the unborn child). It was agreed upon that slavery would be phased out of the US. That time came and went, the South tried to renege, we fought a war and rectified the problem. Slavery and abortion are rather different issues though as there's no doubt that a slave is "human", but people will argue the unborn child is not "human". I guess slave owners back in the day would have argued that slaves weren't human. Wait...what was your argument again?

Can you tell us why a State government has a right to tell a woman whether or not to abort but the Federal government doesn't?

Because everything not given to the federal government has been reserved by the People and the States.
 
Last edited:
Because everything not given to the federal government has been reserved by the People and the States.
Whoa, your logical argument using the Constitution has no place here. Jeez.

:thumbs:
 
Because everything not given to the federal government has been reserved by the People and the States.
Wrong. The Federal government has control over absolutely everything. Stop being such a wingnut.
 
Wrong. The Federal government has control over absolutely everything. Stop being such a wingnut.

Damn it, that's right. I'm sorry.
 
You didn't answer my question. What a shocker!

You asked what kind of fence. I provided you with the link to what kind of fence it was. Would you like me to drive over to where you live and read what it says to you too?

The Secure Fence Act (which is what we are talking about) only provides for 700 miles of fence, among other things.

And like the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, The Berlin wall etc it is a complete failure.

Your glaring double-standard

Is this what you do when confronted with your own strawman? That is the belief that people claim Ron Paul is a wingnut because of a single issue?
 
He could try. I doubt there would be any success there. Legislature that contradicts the SCOTUS will be struck down in now time.

I honestly don't care what Ron Paul could/would try when he claims he'll do away with income tax in his first week like being President is some magical power.

They are activist judges, but what are you going to do about it?

According to him. According to me they made the right decision.

Why is it that you can submit your opinion of non-life or un-humanity of the unborn child, yet I can't submit my opinion? Hypocrisy much? Thus of course comes back to your unwillingness to entertain any debate or opinion on the matter. But you'll probably ignore that.

Because mine doesn't infringe on your right to follow whatever beliefs you have.My wife getting an abortion is none of your business. Just like your wife not choosing to get an abortion is none of mine. Do you not get this fundamental difference between you and I? I honestly don't give a **** what you do with your life as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of other walking, breathing, thinking, viable human beings.

It's not "now", you didn't want it from the get go. So nothing's changed. Why is it that you can supersede my opinions, but I can't supersede yours? Hmm?

Explain to me how me not caring about your reproductive choices infringes on those choices. It doesn't. Just thought I'd let you know.

Good to know that intellectually honest debate seems to not be your concern. I never said it was OK. I gave the historical context as to why it was allowed to exist. And why slavery is different than abortion. Slavery was clearly wrong, and the federal government interceded because the rights of the individual were being infringed upon. Now with abortion, it's not the same. You can't make a simple property argument since it can also be argued from a right to life issue. As it stands, this is proper domain of the State.

The slaves were human (much like the unborn child), we simply didn't recognize that (much like the unborn child). It was agreed upon that slavery would be phased out of the US. That time came and went, the South tried to renege, we fought a war and rectified the problem. Slavery and abortion are rather different issues though as there's no doubt that a slave is "human", but people will argue the unborn child is not "human". I guess slave owners back in the day would have argued that slaves weren't human. Wait...what was your argument again?

Because everything not given to the federal government has been reserved by the People and the States.

Do you not understand the massive contradiction you're engaging in? In the same paragraph you say that it's wrong for a State to deem what is a human being and what isn't in the case of slavery. Then you state that it's right for the State to deem what is and isn't a human being in the case of abortion. My argument resides in that the neutral stance would be NO LEVEL of government Federal or otherwise having the right to deem what is and isn't life in either of the presented scenarios and that your entire premise for being opposed to one and not the other resides in your personal sense of morality. Not mine. Do you get it yet?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom