• 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

You're obsession with the UN is quite comical. Do you think it has some sort of magical powers?

Your belief that a stance on the UN like Ron Paul's makes any sense in the 21st century is why you're still thinking about getting drunk and finding smart chicks to screw and I'm more concerned with my finances. If you'd like to ad hom like you usually do you're more then welcome to. I won't play nice this time. :)
 
Because mine doesn't infringe on your right to follow whatever beliefs you have.My wife getting an abortion is none of your business[/U]. 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.

Yours does more than that. Yours kills human life. Decrease by 1.

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?

The federal government, in the creation of it, argued and agreed on terms and termination of slavery. That was done on the federal level, and the federal government agreed to allow for a certain time the practice, afterwards it would be phased out. Do you not get that? Are you unable to get that? Abortion was not brought up then, and specifically in the Constitution it states that things not given to the federal government are reserved for the People and the State. Do you get it yet?
 
Yours does more than that. Yours kills human life. Decrease by 1.

Still trying to push your personal 'atheist' definition of murder on me? Glad to know.

The federal government, in the creation of it, argued and agreed on terms and termination of slavery.

Source?
 
Still trying to push your personal 'atheist' definition of murder on me? Glad to know.

Based on the rights and liberties of the individual.


Philadelphia Convention. It doesn't matter all your deflect here and red herring. Slavery was allowed for a certain amount of time, it was to be phased out. The South didn't agree and attempted to secede from the Union. The Federal government, which is allowed the power of maintaining the Republic and putting down revolution did just that. They moved to put down the rebellion.
 
Last edited:
Based on the rights and liberties of the individual.

Ah so still claiming your sense of morality and what is and isn't 'human being' should be allowed to infringe on mine?

Second Continental Congress. It doesn't matter all your deflect here and red herring. Slavery was allowed for a certain amount of time, it was to be phased out. The South didn't agree and attempted to secede from the Union. The Federal government, which is allowed the power of maintaining the Republic and putting down revolution did just that. They moved to put down the rebellion.

The Second Continental Congress? You do know it was replaced & VOIDED by the CONSTITUTION right?
 
Last edited:
It was corrected before your post. But is that all you have left? Because while I typed out the wrong one, the basic premise of the federal government putting down rebellion remains. If you have nothing else, just move along. We don't need more endless prattle on why your opinions are better and yours should be enforced upon the rest of us regardless of the basic rights of humans (right to life) being violated.
 
It was corrected.

I asked you for a source on your claim :

Your response was the Second Continental Congress :

Here is the full text for the Articles Of the Confederation & Perpetual Union :

Full Text of the Articles of Confederation

Which one deals with the phasing out and regulations of slavery? The word slavery isn't even mentioned in the document.

But is that all you have left? Because while I typed out the wrong one, the basic premise of the federal government putting down rebellion remains. If you have nothing else, just move along. We don't need more endless prattle on why your opinions are better and yours should be enforced upon the rest of us regardless of the basic rights of humans (right to life) being violated.

You're still trying really hard for this line?

I asked you :

How do the reproductive choices of others infringe on yours?

If all you have is your opinion of what constitutes as life and what doesn't then your opinion is irrelevant.
 
I asked you for a source on your claim :

Your response was the Second Continental Congress :

Here is the full text for the Articles Of the Confederation & Perpetual Union :

Full Text of the Articles of Confederation

I told you it was corrected, I wrote down the wrong one.

Which one deals with the phasing out and regulations of slavery? The word slavery isn't even mentioned in the document.



You're still trying really hard for this line?

I asked you :

How do the reproductive choices of others infringe on yours?

If all you have is your opinion of what constitutes as life and what doesn't then your opinion is irrelevant.

It doesn't affect my rights, I'm already born. It affects the life of the human being carried. All I asked was why your opinion gets to be the one enforced while you completely dismiss my opinion? You haven't answered well enough.Y You did go on some slavery aside and I explained why rebellion is domain of the federal government. So you can continue your transparent dodges, or you can engage in the debate. Choice is yours.
 
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?

I also asked you if there was anything else included in the bill besides a fence. You didn't answer the question.

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

Really? How has it failed?

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?

You specifically cited the Secure Fence act as an indication of Ron Paul's wing-nuttery. Obama also voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act. So, according to your logic, Obama is, to some degree, a wing-nut.

Instead of addressing the point you do what you usually do and rant and rave and talk nonsense in a lame attempt to deflect criticism and avoid the issue.

Your belief that a stance on the UN like Ron Paul's makes any sense in the 21st century is why you're still thinking about getting drunk and finding smart chicks to screw and I'm more concerned with my finances. If you'd like to ad hom like you usually do you're more then welcome to. I won't play nice this time. :)

Uhhhhh...okay?
 
I told you it was corrected, I wrote down the wrong one.

The agreement was not that the Federal government agreed on the termination or even terms of slavery but slave trade. It dealt with ending the IMPORTATION of slaves. Which was to be stopped but only 20 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

Project MUSE - Civil War History - Regulating the African Slave Trade

Regulating the African Slave Trade Paul Finkelman In 1807 the U.S. Congress passed legislation, which became effective on January 1, 1808, to end all importations of slaves into the United States. Even before that date, Congress had passed a series of laws which prevented Americans from participating in the trade as sailors, ship captains, ship owners, ship builders, or investors in slave trading ventures.

This is your second try & fail. I'll give you a third shot at proving your own claim :

Iraki said:
The federal government, in the creation of it, argued and agreed on terms and termination of slavery.

It doesn't affect my rights, I'm already born. It affects the life of the human being carried.

So this is all on your opinion of what a human is and isn't?

All I asked was why your opinion gets to be the one enforced while you completely dismiss my opinion?

I've explained this to you :

Me not caring what you do with your life.

Does not equal :

Me forcing you to live by my standards of what I think 'life' is and where it begins.

If I do not want to get a gun. Does it infringe on your right to get one? It does not. Must I really explain why allowing people to have the choice, regardless of what their religious, moral, ethic beliefs are, is the neutral position to take on this matter?

You haven't answered well enough.

You refuse to listen to the explanation regarding why not giving a **** about what your beliefs & convictions are as long as you are allowed to practice them on your own terms does not equal forcing people to live by your standards of what is and isn't right.

You did go on some slavery aside and I explained why rebellion is domain of the federal government. So you can continue your transparent dodges, or you can engage in the debate. Choice is yours.

You've failed to prove a single point to this date.
 
I also asked you if there was anything else included in the bill besides a fence. You didn't answer the question.

I posted what was included in the Wiki link? Are you having problems reading it? Why don't you tell us what else was included in this bill that would make the difference? Now I'm curious.

Really? How has it failed?

How many illegals has it stopped? What percentage of people crossing the border has it stopped?

You specifically cited the Secure Fence act as an indication of Ron Paul's wing-nuttery. Obama also voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act. So, according to your logic, Obama is, to some degree, a wing-nut.

And if the argument made by people opposed to Ron Paul was that a single issue made him a wing nut you'd have a point. I've explained why your repetition of this strawman is see through and irrelevant. It is a conglomeration of issues that make people think Ron Paul is not in his right mind.

It's like when dana claims people think Pat Buchanan is crazy because he's opposed to pornography. And you know.......

Not because he's hellbent on making American schools into Christian indoctrination centers or because he's a closet racist or because you know he's sexist and thinks women aren't ambitious enough to compete in a capitalist world. It's not because of all of these things put together that he's crazy. It must because of a single issue. Do you not get what people are saying to you yet?

Instead of addressing the point you do what you usually do and rant and rave and talk nonsense in a lame attempt to deflect criticism and avoid the issue.

This from the 17 year old who goes into low brow insults when his cult is attacked is R.I.C.H.

Uhhhhh...okay?

Don't ad hom if you're going to act stupid after.
 
The agreement was not that the Federal government agreed on the termination or even terms of slavery but slave trade. It dealt with ending the IMPORTATION of slaves. Which was to be stopped but only 20 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

Project MUSE - Civil War History - Regulating the African Slave Trade



This is your second try & fail. I'll give you a third shot at proving your own claim :

More deflect and denial. It's like I'm trying to talk to Truth Detector. I already told you, this is just you being stubborn and trying to deflect away again (slavery, BTW, had nothing to do with Ron Paul's notion that the States should have say in abortion laws). The slave trade was given to the Congress, eventually there were movements by the People to end slavery and the trade. Pressure was applied to slave states, they didn't like it. They revolted. The federal government not only had say in the slave trade (interstate commerce), but also in putting down rebellion.

So this is all on your opinion of what a human is and isn't?

No, human is a species. A human fetus is human. You're confusing "human" and "person". What you want to define is "personhood".

I've explained this to you :

Me not caring what you do with your life.

Does not equal :

Me forcing you to live by my standards of what I think 'life' is and where it begins.

If I do not want to get a gun. Does it infringe on your right to get one? It does not. Must I really explain why allowing people to have the choice, regardless of what their religious, moral, ethic beliefs are, is the neutral position to take on this matter?

Deflect and dodge. If you wish to honestly engage in debate, please do. Otherwise this is pointless. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You refuse to listen to the explanation regarding why not giving a **** about what your beliefs & convictions are as long as you are allowed to practice them on your own terms does not equal forcing people to live by your standards of what is and isn't right.

No, you fail to hear. You've set your mind, I said that way before you started launching into your deflections and tangents. Thanks for proving me right.

You've failed to prove a single point to this date.

No, you simply have taken the "donkey" approach, refusing to hear and listen to a position and instead deploy deflection and red herring to get away from topics at hand. You can grow up and debate intelligently, or you can run along. Talking to a brick wall doesn't appeal much to me.
 
I posted what was included in the Wiki link? Are you having problems reading it? Why don't you tell us what else was included in this bill that would make the difference? Now I'm curious.

Instead of making me spoon-feed you information like a petulant little child why don't you put on your big-boy pants and read the text of the bill? Aren't you even a little bit curious as to why this bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate?

I mean, how can you make claims about the success or merits of such a bill when you don't even know what's in it!?

Here's the bill, in case you're interested in having an informed opinion:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ367.109.pdf

How many illegals has it stopped? What percentage of people crossing the border has it stopped?

Do YOU know the answer to that question? Do you even know what the bill was supposed to accomplish? If not, how the hell can you claim that it was a failure!? How can you claim anything!?

And if the argument made by people opposed to Ron Paul was that a single issue made him a wing nut you'd have a point. I've explained why your repetition of this strawman is see through and irrelevant. It is a conglomeration of issues that make people think Ron Paul is not in his right mind.

It's like when dana claims people think Pat Buchanan is crazy because he's opposed to pornography. And you know.......

Not because he's hellbent on making American schools into Christian indoctrination centers or because he's a closet racist or because you know he's sexist and thinks women aren't ambitious enough to compete in a capitalist world. It's not because of all of these things put together that he's crazy. It must because of a single issue. Do you not get what people are saying to you yet?

Is Ron Paul's support of the Secure Fence Act an indication of wing-nuttery? Yes or no?

This from the 17 year old who goes into low brow insults when his cult is attacked is R.I.C.H.

YOU'RE the one initiating the attacks. If I've insulted you it's because you deserve it for being such a rude and abrasive asshole.

Don't ad hom if you're going to act stupid after.

I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul had an ample opportunity to present himself to the public and they simply didn't like him. No amount of airtime or exposure is going to change Ron Paul's awkward appearance and presentation, which are two of the most important qualities to the American voter (Re: Obama); sad but true.

The difference is that while all the other candidates were playing on the crowds emotions and selling themselves like the back of a self-help book (tells you all the miraculous things you'll get out of the book, but never anything of substance), then Ron Paul would get interrupted, called a terrorist, and other rediculous interpretations ... when he was shown on tv his every suggestion was attaked... was called a loon, etc. However, now that he's lost the chance to be president all of a sudden he'll be on the news and his opinions received on an equal merit.

Obama's campaign was based on his slogans and his imagery... bonus that he received 4 or 5 times the funding from the big banks that benefited the most from the bailouts as Mccain, he was chosen to win and his campaign made it clear he was going to win (after the primaries especially).

And I don't expect his association with 9/11-truthers-types (Re: You) is going to help him either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul received the most campaign funding than any other from active millitary. Anyone that cared anything about the constitution wanted Ron Paul to win... and in the end everyone voted for what they wanted.... and they 'hoped things would change' ... they will change... only probably for the worse.

Ron Paul does not think the government had anything to do with 9/11, so you should really stop treating him like your group's special guy in Washington. If Ron Paul wasn't so nice he'd tell the Truthers to piss off...

I don't care what Ron Paul thinks about 9-11... he has a lengthy track record of consistently voting with integrity and sticking to his support of the constitution.

I knew that there was NO CHANCE that the establishment would risk Ron Paul becoming president, but he represents what people in general want... that's to be left alone by government, getting rid of wasteful programs and thus reducing taxes... paying down the debt, getting rid of the federal reserve, the IRS, bringing home the troops to secure the borders at home instead of securing borders across the ocean.
 
The difference is that while all the other candidates were playing on the crowds emotions and selling themselves like the back of a self-help book (tells you all the miraculous things you'll get out of the book, but never anything of substance), then Ron Paul would get interrupted, called a terrorist, and other rediculous interpretations ... when he was shown on tv his every suggestion was attaked... was called a loon, etc. However, now that he's lost the chance to be president all of a sudden he'll be on the news and his opinions received on an equal merit.

Obama's campaign was based on his slogans and his imagery... bonus that he received 4 or 5 times the funding from the big banks that benefited the most from the bailouts as Mccain, he was chosen to win and his campaign made it clear he was going to win (after the primaries especially).

That doesn't mean the debates were unfair. It just means the other candidates know how to undermine Ron Paul better than Ron Paul knows how to communicate. He's not slick, he's not eloquent, and he's not aesthetic in anyway, which means he will never be President.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul received the most campaign funding than any other from active millitary. Anyone that cared anything about the constitution wanted Ron Paul to win... and in the end everyone voted for what they wanted.... and they 'hoped things would change' ... they will change... only probably for the worse.

Yes, Ron Paul received the most money from military members. I don't see what this has to do with the damaging association of 9/11 Truthers.

I don't care what Ron Paul thinks about 9-11... he has a lengthy track record of consistently voting with integrity and sticking to his support of the constitution.

If you're going to support Ron Paul then you should make it a point to leave 9/11 conspiracy theories out of the discussion entirely. That is, if you actually care about the man's reputation or his message...
 
That doesn't mean the debates were unfair. It just means the other candidates know how to undermine Ron Paul better than Ron Paul knows how to communicate. He's not slick, he's not eloquent, and he's not aesthetic in anyway, which means he will never be President.

No, it's that politicians rely on slick salesmanship, and Ron Paul was standing on the core values this country (used to ) stands for... that's kooky these days though.

Yes, Ron Paul received the most money from military members. I don't see what this has to do with the damaging association of 9/11 Truthers.

Why are you trying to inject 9-11 into the discussion... It's to say that anyone that cares about the country and it's constitution wanted Ron Paul for pres... whether or not they knew that was the case... his support was decidedly grassroots, and he raised the same or more then the other politicians completely in 100$ average contributions.

If you're going to support Ron Paul then you should make it a point to leave 9/11 conspiracy theories out of the discussion entirely. That is, if you actually care about the man's reputation or his message...

I don't see the relevance 9-11 even has in this discussion??? It keeps getting injected here...
 
That is one strange bedfellow... but both are nuts so I guess they have that in common.

IMO:

Ron Paul is someone who takes ideas and concepts to their logical but impractical extremes. A man of great integrity who speaks his mind. His honesty is handicapped by his lack of pragmatism.

Michelle Bachmann is a 2nd rate Sarah Palin. Another example of the Peter Principle in government--someone who has risen to level of her own incompetence. A thrower of mindless talking points when speaking, a hyper-partisan moron that damages the credibility of the GOP every time she opens her mouth.
 
It's true. Ever hear of the 3/5 compromise?

Yes, I have heard of it.

I learned about that one in fourth grade...

Obviously, you failed that lesson.
The States were allowed to have slavery as compromise for the Constitution being adopted.

The 3/5 Compromise was a political negotiation by the South to achieve more voting power in the national legislature (i.e., determining population for political representation). It was NOT about granting the right to own slaves.

:doh
 
Yes, I have heard of it.



Obviously, you failed that lesson.


The 3/5 Compromise was a political negotiation by the South to achieve more voting power in the national legislature (i.e., determining population for political representation). It was NOT about granting the right to own slaves.

:doh

The three-fifths compromise was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in the Congress, since it applied only to slaves and not free blacks. It was part of the overall compromise process that took place.

Many Founders were against slavery, and even started the first anti-slavery institutions in America, but at the time they could not risk the stability of our newly formed Republic in order to abolish the institution, so a compromise - which partly involved the 3/5 compromise - was reached and slavery was permitted for the time being.
 
IMO:

Ron Paul is someone who takes ideas and concepts to their logical but impractical extremes. A man of great integrity who speaks his mind. His honesty is handicapped by his lack of pragmatism.

Michelle Bachmann is a 2nd rate Sarah Palin. Another example of the Peter Principle in government--someone who has risen to level of her own incompetence. A thrower of mindless talking points when speaking, a hyper-partisan moron that damages the credibility of the GOP every time she opens her mouth.

I wouldn't call it necessarily a logical conclusion Rep. Paul comes to, provided his ideological goals are more in the mainstream. To say so is the result of intellectual pigeonholing, such as the propensity for people to extrapolate their immediate experience into false dichotomies.

Rep. Bachmann is crazy, but what can you expect from the outer ring suburbs?
 
Using the source linked above(since I got it still open):

Voted against Extending Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits.

Voted against funding for both Iraq and Afghanistan

Voted against needle exchange programs

Voted against improvements to student loan programs

Voted for impeachment of Clinton

voted against a bill to authorize $1.01 billion for the 2009 fiscal year to rebuild structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System and to require states to devise plans for the replacement of such bridges.

Voted against GI Bill expansion

Voted against Establishment of the Office of Congressional Ethics

Voted for the Secure Fence act

Voted against the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

Voted for An amendment to prohibit any funds to be used by the FDA for the testing, development, or approval (including approval of production, manufacturing, or distribution) of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion

Voted against stem cell research

voted yes to to adopt an amendment that would ban federal funding in the District of Columbia for couples who want to adopt a child but are not related by blood or marriage.

Voted yes to adopt an amendment that gives states the option to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings or on public property.

Voted against VA and HUD funding

Sponsored the 2005 version of Sanctity of Life Act

I can go on into his comments and positions if you really want.
Generally speaking Ron Paul will vote against anything he perceives as improper for the federal government to do. Are there ever any exceptions, I don't know, but this is the perception. Do I agree with him on everything, no I don't and usually on foreign policy matters. But I do understand why he take his positions on foreign policy. He views policy as it ought to be if we had followed the advice of some of our Founders. There is nothing in the Constitution that prescribes what our foreign policy is or that it should go as some Founders thought it should. As far as the Constitutionaility of certain bills passed in Congress, he is very correct philisophically. Some say his district benefits from federal money regardless of how he votes, and that he knows this. Frankly I think how he votes is all that matters since that is the only thing he has control over. The most unfortunate thing about Ron Paul, is that his efforts are futile in today's politics especially since he is generally alone.
 
The slave trade was given to the Congress, eventually there were movements by the People to end slavery and the trade.

Your claim :

Ikari said:
The federal government, in the creation of it, argued and agreed on terms and termination of slavery.

I asked you to provide the source for that claim. You've avoided doing so because you know it's not true. The slave trade(or in your words slavery) was NEVER given to Congress. What was given to Congress was the power to end IMPORTATION of slaves but only 20 years after the signing of the Constitution. Please understand the difference between slavery and the importation of slaves?

Pressure was applied to slave states, they didn't like it. They revolted. The federal government not only had say in the slave trade (interstate commerce), but also in putting down rebellion.

Can you please provide a source for your claim?

No, human is a species. A human fetus is human. You're confusing "human" and "person". What you want to define is "personhood".

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Can you tell us why the rest of the human species should live by your definition of when life begins?

Deflect and dodge. If you wish to honestly engage in debate, please do. Otherwise this is pointless. This has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

No it is your inability to comprehend that my choices have nothing to do with your beliefs. If you choose to believe that life begins at conception that is fine. If you choose to believe that a fetus, zygote, test tube rat is the equivalent of a human being that is fine and dandy. Those are your beliefs. My beliefs are not yours and yours are not mine.

No, you fail to hear. You've set your mind, I said that way before you started launching into your deflections and tangents. Thanks for proving me right.

No, you simply have taken the "donkey" approach, refusing to hear and listen to a position and instead deploy deflection and red herring to get away from topics at hand. You can grow up and debate intelligently, or you can run along. Talking to a brick wall doesn't appeal much to me.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any proof of the claims you've made or answer any question. But you can't. It's a simple matter. I've asked you for 3-4 pages why your definition of when life begins should be the one people use to make their reproductive choices. You couldn't.
 
Generally speaking Ron Paul will vote against anything he perceives as improper for the federal government to do. Are there ever any exceptions, I don't know, but this is the perception. Do I agree with him on everything, no I don't and usually on foreign policy matters. But I do understand why he take his positions on foreign policy. He views policy as it ought to be if we had followed the advice of some of our Founders. There is nothing in the Constitution that prescribes what our foreign policy is or that it should go as some Founders thought it should. As far as the Constitutionaility of certain bills passed in Congress, he is very correct philisophically. Some say his district benefits from federal money regardless of how he votes, and that he knows this. Frankly I think how he votes is all that matters since that is the only thing he has control over. The most unfortunate thing about Ron Paul, is that his efforts are futile in today's politics especially since he is generally alone.

I don't care what hairbrained reason Paul votes against things for. I care about results. I am sorry I have offended some people's cult leader, but Paul is a looney on almost every issue. It's not just his votes, it's the bills he has introduced. It's not just the bills he has introduced it's the things he says. Total package is nutcase.
 
I asked you to provide the source for that claim. You've avoided doing so because you know it's not true. The slave trade(or in your words slavery) was NEVER given to Congress. What was given to Congress was the power to end IMPORTATION of slaves but only 20 years after the signing of the Constitution. Please understand the difference between slavery and the importation of slaves?

The federal government can put down rebellion. I don't know what more you want. The federal government wanted to end the slave trade. The south was already under pressure to change from people (there was a fairly decent abolitionist movement in America, especially in the North) and industry (including Europe). The south didn't like it, they wanted to keep their slaves. They rebelled, the US government put down the rebellion.

Can you please provide a source for your claim?

It's called history. Are you disputing the fact that the south tried to secede from the Union?

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Can you tell us why the rest of the human species should live by your definition of when life begins?

Why should the rest of the human species have to live by your definition of when life begins? You keep saying I want to hold people to my standards, but you're doing the same. With abortion, I've not seen scientific definition of when "life" begins in terms of people wanting to apply "personhood". But the organism becomes human at conception. Since no one can really say when life begins, I think we should err on the side of the child. Instead of destroying a human when convenient. But as I have said already, I can't do anything about that since the SCOTUS already ruled on the case.

No it is your inability to comprehend that my choices have nothing to do with your beliefs. If you choose to believe that life begins at conception that is fine. If you choose to believe that a fetus, zygote, test tube rat is the equivalent of a human being that is fine and dandy. Those are your beliefs. My beliefs are not yours and yours are not mine.

And yet you want to subjugate people to your belief while mocking my own. There's no doubt of what abortion does, it destroys a human.

No, you fail to hear. You've set your mind, I said that way before you started launching into your deflections and tangents. Thanks for proving me right.

You never made the claim. I did, however. I know your incredible bias on the issue of Ron Paul and knew from the start you weren't going to engage in any form of honest debate on the issue.

I'm still waiting for you to provide any proof of the claims you've made or answer any question. But you can't. It's a simple matter. I've asked you for 3-4 pages why your definition of when life begins should be the one people use to make their reproductive choices. You couldn't.

And I asked you the same. The only thing I got was a huge deflection towards slavery. The only ironic thing I find in that is that you use the "logic" of the slavers. Defining "human" as whatever is convenient for them.
 
I would like to point out to those Paul supporters that are bitching and moaning about how poorly they get treated because they support Paul... It could be worse. Try being an Obama supporter. I can't even log onto this site without seeing him called a fascist, a commie, an american-hater, you name it. Keep in mind you're not alone here, if anything you have it better than we do.
 
Back
Top Bottom