• Ron Paul: The TEA Party is taking you for a ride.
    154 replies, posted
But they are still a minority, and a tiny minority in the government. Anti black laws could easily pass on a state level.
[QUOTE=Chilean;32063778]wow really? the fact that he has an opinion in the grayest area of politics shadows everything?[/QUOTE] yes, because it's indicative that some of his non-publicized views are most likely fucking stupid as well. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Chilean;32064001]I disagree. Abortion is an extremely complex topic that people oversimplify.[/QUOTE] to the religious mind, maybe. It's a very simple issue of personal rights.
[QUOTE=Contag;32064050]Explain?[/QUOTE] It's a false dilemma. We're presented with "pro-life" and "pro-choice", which are both very annoying terms to illicit emotion, when in actuality there are many variables. There's the timing of how far into the pregnancy you can do it, and there's the cause of the pregnancy such as the line between rape and being careless. But on top of that I believe that abortion itself isn't even the issue, unwanted pregnancy is the issue, to which abortions are a side effect. Simply put we need better sex education and more available birth control.
[QUOTE=Chilean;32064270]But on top of that I believe that abortion itself isn't even the issue, unwanted pregnancy is the issue, to which abortions are a side effect. Simply put we need better sex education and more available birth control.[/QUOTE] I'm in my late teens. If there is some malfunction with the condoms my girlfriend and I obsessively use, we do not want to end up with a child. No amount of sex education will prevent malfunctions that inevitably happen to somebody. Of course this is simply a personal reason, but I don't want to start an abortion debate because that's not what this thread is about.
[QUOTE=leet;32064195]to the religious mind, maybe. It's a very simple issue of personal rights.[/QUOTE] If someone considers a fetus alive, then they believe that it deserves the right to live, which is the ultimate right. And you don't have to be religious to have that belief either, that is another oversimplification.
Cancer is life, by that definition. Also he disagrees with evolution.
[QUOTE=leet;32064368]Cancer is life, by that definition. Also he disagrees with evolution.[/QUOTE] Not really. Also, that doesn't really affect his politics.
[QUOTE=Chilean;32064401]Not really. Also, that doesn't really affect his politics.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it is. It's parasitic and constantly growing. Also, it could easily affect his policy making. There's no telling
I can't tell you what their definition of a human life is but I can guarantee that that is not it. btw, personally I'm fine with abortions for the first trimester. After that, honestly, I don't know what I think. Also, according to this, only 5% of unintended pregnancies are from contraceptive failure, so it's still a problem that needs addressing but a relatively small one [url]http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/september-2008[/url] [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] Also, the president really has no control over any of these things anyway. He's much more in a position to do shit like this as a congressman. Which he is.
[QUOTE=Swilly;32052800]Well then that and leaving civil rights up to the states.... PFFFFFTHAHAHAHAHA[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's not like massive issues being left up to the states ever caused a civil war or anything.
I wonder why Ron Paul supports the tea party even though they're a total disgrace to his... ...wait. Smart move, Dr. Paul. Smart move.
[QUOTE=Elspin;32064941]Yeah, it's not like massive issues being left up to the states ever caused a civil war or anything.[/QUOTE] The Civil War was because it was traditionally a state's choice and they feared the federal government taking power. That's kind of not at all relevant.
relevant [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsfhADiaP5E[/media]
[QUOTE=Chilean;32065065]The Civil War was because it was [B]traditionally a state's choice[/B] and they feared the federal government taking power. That's kind of not at all relevant.[/QUOTE] That's the relevance.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32065123]That's the relevance.[/QUOTE] No because they took away state powers, this is the very opposite. Reducing federal powers affects everyone equally, there's no way it could result in a huge conflict. The only way it could is if after a few decades the federal governments decide to take those powers back, again. My point being, the civil war wasn't because states had powers, it was because they got removed.
Oh fuck, I'm a non mormon living in Utah...Shit's gonna go down if Ron Paul wins and manages to pass the civil rights thing.
[QUOTE=Chilean;32065183]No because they took away state powers, this is the very opposite. Reducing federal powers affects everyone equally, there's no way it could result in a huge conflict. The only way it could is if after a few decades the federal governments decide to take those powers back, again. My point being, the civil war wasn't because states had powers, it was because they got removed.[/QUOTE] And that's just it. If you give states the power to decide civil rights, then if a new administration gets in and tries to be progressive (legalizing gay marriage nationwide, or something), then we could have another civil war on our hands.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;32065192]manages to pass the civil rights thing.[/QUOTE] president is executive branch how could this even happen
[QUOTE=leet;32063707]The fact that he's pro-life shadows everything. You don't need to be radical to want to end the war, and he has some very shitty views. Fuck him.[/QUOTE] pro-life, anti gay, anti porn, anti but sex, but, pro cocaine, crack, heroin, and weed. sounds reasonable.
[QUOTE=Chilean;32065236]president is executive branch how could this even happen[/QUOTE] Because I'm fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32065235]if a new administration gets in and tries to be progressive (legalizing gay marriage nationwide, or something)[/QUOTE] If only.
[QUOTE=Swilly;32057581]Yeah...they'd still do it. LBGT rights would go out the window, I bet the system would become extremely more racist in a lot of southern states. Face it, historically, leaving civil rights up to states has never been a good idea. He basically wants to recreate the Articles of Confederation and that failed miserably.[/QUOTE] Honestly how is this any different to today? 99% of the civil rights issues are left to the state anyways at the moment, and the only ones that get on the ballot to be enforced on a national level are all terrible ones we'd never want to be there anyways. I'm all for being progessive with civil rights but face it - there is no way in hell in this day and age we will ever legally pass a broad civil rights law without getting hell from one side or the other. This is why it isn't done currently, and why civil rights issues ARE handled state-side. It's a smaller scale, and it allows "baby stepping" of movements. Plus, people can easily vote on what laws and resolutions they want passed for their state, which is more democratic, while its nearly impossible to get any real say into national matters. The few times a civil rights issue comes up in a state law that is detrimental, that's a case where someone can sue and have it cross examined at the national supreme courts. How is this a bad thing? You guys are all living in a dream world if you think you can just push a button that instantly makes benficial things like gay marriage and abortion legal when people have such wildly different views these days about such things. It is not long term at all. A more long term solution is to let it grow on people as the next generation comes and goes, thats how culture works and changes. Because in the end, civil rights are connected to the culture of a nation. You don't just change culture in the push of a button. Especially one that was founded on a pegan republic not to long ago in the grand scheme of things. And that is why I think the whole "but he doesn't want to nationally enforce civil rights bawww" is a totally retarded counter argument against Ron Paul.
I would agree with you, except Republicans are already restricting abortions as much as they can on the state level. There already some places with so few abortion clinics with licenses that girls have resorted to illegal and dangerous abortions. Some have already died.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32065235]And that's just it. If you give states the power to decide civil rights, then if a new administration gets in and tries to be progressive (legalizing gay marriage nationwide, or something), then we could have another civil war on our hands.[/QUOTE] That's a really uneducated statement... In this day and age, a civil war would not benefit either side with the world the way it is now, so the logical option is: to [I]not[/I] have a civil war! In my opinion, state governments regulating social policies would be much better because: A. It's not the Federal government. B. It'd be easier to petition your state government. Local = better, easier to gather the general opinions of counties, cities, towns. C. Don't like your area's social policies? Move. People already move because they don't agree with their state's policies, so this would be nothing new. And don't get me started with the whole "The south is ass backwards, and allowing them to set their own social policies would be a human rights disaster!" bullshit. As somebody pointed out, there's a huge black presence in the south. It's not [I] incredibly[/I] racist down there anymore. In some areas, sure, but not everywhere. And if Alabama or whoever wants to be pro-life, and anti-LBGT, then [I]let them[/I]. God forbid they have different opinions! Refer to option C to solve this problem. Edit: I thought I'd address this little gem. [QUOTE=person11;32064010]I'd rather have the federal government compromise on a social issue than have California give everyone rights and the south restrict everyone's rights.[/QUOTE] Yeah, see, that's the problem right there. The Federal government [B][I]does not[/I][/B] compromise often enough. It's the reason we're discussing the topic of greater state's rights. Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, it's been that way for a very long time. On a side note, California is slowly circling the drain, and there's a reason for that. Give states the power we're discussing, and I can guarantee you that if things do take a turn for the worst, it will be California to collapse first, not the South.
A little late to the thread but yeah, fuck the tea party, baffled as to how they are even real candidates.
Like it or not, Ron Paul seems to be your best option. Who else are you gonna vote for? Obama was a huge disappointment.
[QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]In this day and age, a civil war would not benefit either side with the world the way it is now, so the logical option is: to [I]not[/I] have a civil war![/quote] Yeah, because that totally stopped the first civil war. [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]A. It's not the Federal government.[/quote] Not a point, considering that state government is still government. [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]B. It'd be easier to petition your state government. Local = better, easier to gather the general opinions of counties, cities, towns.[/quote] Uh, okay? [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]C. Don't like your area's social policies? Move. People already move because they don't agree with their state's policies, so this would be nothing new.[/quote] Yes, because it's totally feasible to move states in an economy where it's incredibly hard to find a job. [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]And don't get me started with the whole "The south is ass backwards, and allowing them to set their own social policies would be a human rights disaster!" bullshit. As somebody pointed out, there's a huge black presence in the south. It's not [I] incredibly[/I] racist down there anymore. In some areas, sure, but not everywhere.[/quote] They're more referring to LGBT discrimination. [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]And if Alabama or whoever wants to be pro-life, and anti-LBGT, then [I]let them[/I]. God forbid they have different opinions! Refer to option C to solve this problem.[/quote] "If they want to oppress people, I say let them!" Truly a great policy to have. [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]Yeah, see, that's the problem right there. The Federal government [B][I]does not[/I][/B] compromise often enough. It's the reason we're discussing the topic of greater state's rights.[/quote] Oh you've got to be kidding me, when has Obama not compromised? [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, it's been that way for a very long time.[/quote] I really don't know what "Left" you're talking about. Socialists have no pull in government, and Progressives have such a weak voice at this point it's hardly even there. [QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]On a side note, California is slowly circling the drain, and there's a reason for that. Give states the power we're discussing, and I can guarantee you that if things do take a turn for the worst, it will be California to collapse first, not the South.[/QUOTE] Yeah, there's a reason for it, and I'll tell you right now it's not state's rights. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=barttool;32067565]Like it or not, Ron Paul seems to be your best option. Who else are you gonna vote for? Obama was a huge disappointment.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul in many ways would be worse than Obama could ever be.
[QUOTE=barttool;32067565]Like it or not, Ron Paul seems to be your best option. Who else are you gonna vote for? Obama was a huge disappointment.[/QUOTE] The levels of wrong. Obama can't stop the filibuster.
Ron Paul seems to favor states rights over the rights of individuals. Have to say that turns me off.
[QUOTE=Falstad007;32066064]That's a really uneducated statement... In this day and age, a civil war would not benefit either side with the world the way it is now, so the logical option is: to [I]not[/I] have a civil war! In my opinion, state governments regulating social policies would be much better because: A. It's not the Federal government. B. It'd be easier to petition your state government. Local = better, easier to gather the general opinions of counties, cities, towns. C. Don't like your area's social policies? Move. People already move because they don't agree with their state's policies, so this would be nothing new. And don't get me started with the whole "The south is ass backwards, and allowing them to set their own social policies would be a human rights disaster!" bullshit. As somebody pointed out, there's a huge black presence in the south. It's not [I] incredibly[/I] racist down there anymore. In some areas, sure, but not everywhere. And if Alabama or whoever wants to be pro-life, and anti-LBGT, then [I]let them[/I]. God forbid they have different opinions! Refer to option C to solve this problem. Edit: I thought I'd address this little gem. Yeah, see, that's the problem right there. The Federal government [B][I]does not[/I][/B] compromise often enough. It's the reason we're discussing the topic of greater state's rights. Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, it's been that way for a very long time. On a side note, California is slowly circling the drain, and there's a reason for that. Give states the power we're discussing, and I can guarantee you that if things do take a turn for the worst, it will be California to collapse first, not the South.[/QUOTE] California is not going down the drain because of its Progressive slant, and richer states tend to take a bigger hit in times of crisis anyway. As for the Federal government and compromises, I at least think they have done plenty through compromise in the last few years. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=barttool;32067565]Like it or not, Ron Paul seems to be your best option. Who else are you gonna vote for? Obama was a huge disappointment.[/QUOTE] That is because everyone thought Obama was a wizard simply because he is not Bush. Noone could have done better in the same situation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.