[QUOTE=Venezuelan;33911170]Or gay marriage, or drug legalization, or pretty much anything progressive for that matter[/QUOTE]The states can actually do that on their own for the most part already, hence why some already have legalized same-sex marriage, progressive drug policy, and lenient abortion policy. Just at this stage, the Supreme Court can step in and say, "Hey, you're a bunch of fuck-ups, what the hell are you doing? You can't do this." Though that is not to say the Supreme Court is immune to idiotic rulings. But what Ron Paul wants is more akin to Gingrich's "Lol, fuk da Supreme Court." view.
[QUOTE=Contag;33911179]He doesn't view abortion as a right, and doesn't seem to care about it.
Even though what Obama is doing will affect [B]orders of magnitude[/B] less people than anti-abortion legislation would.
honestly are you blind or just stupid?[/QUOTE]
Am I stupid?
All I saw was him saying that Ron Paul being prolife isn't enough for him to completely dismiss him.
Dismissing a candidate on one policy issue [u]usually[/u] ridiculous.
If there was a candidate for universal healthcare, reducing military presence and budget, a progressive tax reform (the main things facepunch seems to have a general consensus on), but he was prolife, facepunch would still dismiss him completely for it.
Ron Paul is gonna get into office and then make blacks illegal
I hope you Ron Paul guys know that if he doesn't win the primaries and he runs as independent, and you [B]STILL[/B] vote for him? I will hunt you down for destroying the chance of the US having a competent president because not ONLY did you waste your vote on an independent who I [B]GUARANTEE[/B] will only take [B]AWAY[/B] votes from the current President, but will do EXACTLY the same fucking thing Ralph Nader did:
Give us 8 years with a fucking idiot president, two fucking long-ass wars, and a deficit longer than ANY in record.
YOU really fucking WANT that??
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33911226]Abortion is not an existing right in the US. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention it. However it probably should become one.
And I never said I don't care about abortion. One thing just takes priority over the other in this situation.[/QUOTE]
[quote]the Supreme Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion[/quote]
welp none of them are worth voting for now
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33911380]I hope you Ron Paul guys know that if he doesn't win the primaries and he runs as independent, and you [B]STILL[/B] vote for him? I will hunt you down for destroying the chance of the US having a competent president because not ONLY did you waste your vote on an independent who I [B]GUARANTEE[/B] will only take [B]AWAY[/B] votes from the current President, but will do EXACTLY the same fucking thing Ralph Nader did:
Give us 8 years with a fucking idiot president, two fucking long-ass wars, and a deficit longer than ANY in record.
YOU really fucking WANT that??[/QUOTE]
except that george W bush reached the highest approval rating in decades
he hit higher than reagan ever did
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33911380]I hope you Ron Paul guys know that if he doesn't win the primaries and he runs as independent, and you [B]STILL[/B] vote for him? I will hunt you down for destroying the chance of the US having a competent president because not ONLY did you waste your vote on an independent who I [B]GUARANTEE[/B] will only take [B]AWAY[/B] votes from the current President, but will do EXACTLY the same fucking thing Ralph Nader did:
Give us 8 years with a fucking idiot president, two fucking long-ass wars, and a deficit longer than ANY in record.
YOU really fucking WANT that??[/QUOTE]
Uh pretty sure it would result in an election similar to 1992, where Bush Sr. lost votes to Ross Perot, resulting in Clinton's win.
Sorry, Ron, but this sort of thing isn't the government's place to decide. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, the final decision rests solely with the woman carrying the child in question, not with religious groups and not with some guy in DC who's never even seen her let alone knows what's right for her.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33911341]
Dismissing a candidate on one policy issue [u]usually[/u] ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
how not?
violating anything I consider a right takes a candidate off the table for me
[QUOTE=Contag;33911385][/QUOTE]
Nice job cutting off half that sentence. Why don't you try reading the second half.
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;33911440]how not?
violating anything I consider a right takes a candidate off the table for me[/QUOTE]
Well if you don't have any preference then I don't see why you're debating.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33910376]
That doesn't make it all right.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it doesn't but that doesn't mean we shouldn't want an actual election, with actual debates and actual divisions on topics in both foreign and domestic policy, and if anyone but Paul wins the primaries that's exactly what it won't be.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33911442]Nice job cutting off half that sentence. Why don't you try reading the second half.[/QUOTE]
No, you said that it wasn't in the constitution, and the supreme court decided it was via the 14th amendment
[B]why do I even fucking bother[/B]
you're not going to learn anything and you're just going pull out shitty arguments
you know what?
I hope Ron Paul wins so I can post "I told you so"
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;33911476]Yeah it doesn't but that doesn't mean we shouldn't want an actual election, with actual debates and actual divisions on topics in both foreign and domestic policy, and if anyone but Paul wins the primaries that's exactly what it won't be.[/QUOTE]
Don't be naive, it won't be that at all
look at the current bullshit about the newsletter
shit-smearing and sensationalism personality politics, the stock standard for future elections
[QUOTE=Contag;33911440]how not?
violating anything I consider a right takes a candidate off the table for me[/QUOTE]
So you would dismiss a candidate if they appeased all of your personal wishes in candidate, except being prochoice.
A candidate that would do the absolute best for the nation, minus his prolife status.
I am not saying Ron Paul is the absolute best for the nation, far from it, but I'm trying to see how far you take these abortion rights.
I see abortion rights as an important issue. I do not believe that anybody has the right to take that away, but at the same time, if there is a candidate that I know is going to take this nation in a better direction with tons of good policy, minus his prolife policy, I will probably vote for him.
It's better than voting for a prochoice candidate that is going to run the country into the ground and take away various other rights.
That stupid "prochoice" makes the ticker think I'm mentioned...
[QUOTE=Contag;33911490]
you know what?
I hope Ron Paul wins so I can post "I told you so"[/QUOTE]I feel that way about a lot things, but I get torn over it because part of me is so appalled and terrified of these things, and the other part of me is a spiteful ass that feels these people need to learn from experience.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33911514]So you would dismiss a candidate if they appeased all of your personal wishes in candidate, except being prochoice.[/QUOTE]
I take it to the top, baby
the thing is, if there was a politician that held all of my views, she/he would also be prochoice because holding any of the other views basically demands being prochoice
it's a bit like asking "if you only liked apples, would you pick an apple if it was a lemon"?|
in this instance, Ron Paul is definitely a lemon
[QUOTE=Contag;33911490]
Don't be naive, it won't be that at all
look at the current bullshit about the newsletter
shit-smearing and sensationalism personality politics, the stock standard for future elections[/QUOTE]
This is happening in a primary filled with some pretty terrible individuals, funded and supported by warmongers and the overly religious. I don't think the Obama campaign would sink that low, and I want to see them debate.
Like a real debate, where Obama has to actually defend all his economic policies instead of some half-assed "we actually created jobs", explain why he's caved in on so many things (if they call him the most liberal president ever one more time my face is going to melt), and passed a healthcare bill that forces people to buy private insurance because it didn't provide a public option, and do it all WITHOUT blaming Republicans.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;33911604]This is happening in a primary filled with some pretty terrible individuals. [B]I don't think the Obama campaign would sink that low[/B], and I want to see them debate.
Like a real debate, where Obama has to actually defend all his economic policies instead of some half-assed "we actually created jobs", explain why he's caved in on so many things, and passed a healthcare bill that forces people to buy private insurance because it didn't provide a public option, and do it all WITHOUT blaming Republicans.[/QUOTE]
well who would have thought that Obama would have signed the legalization of indefinite detention after it went through congress
I didn't expect much difference but sure as hell didn't expect that
Most of the media wouldn't report on any kind of legitimate questions posed by Ron paul anyway
[QUOTE=Contag;33911595]I take it to the top, baby
the thing is, if there was a politician that held all of my views, she/he would also be prochoice because holding any of the other views basically demands being prochoice
it's a bit like asking "if you only liked apples, would you pick an apple if it was a lemon"?|
in this instance, Ron Paul is definitely a lemon[/QUOTE]
Liberal Christians do exist and in a far greater number than you would imagine. I know many Christians who think "the democrats have everything right aside from abortion rights."
Then again, this was about a decade ago before most democrats were batshit crazy, stupid, or brainwashed.
It seems like most democrats sit back and just take shit when Obama stands up and tells them to sit down.
But anyways, this is a whole different conversation for a different time.
[QUOTE=Contag;33911595]I take it to the top, baby
the thing is, if there was a politician that held all of my views, she/he would also be prochoice because holding any of the other views basically demands being prochoice
it's a bit like asking "if you only liked apples, would you pick an apple if it was a lemon"?|
in this instance, Ron Paul is definitely a lemon[/QUOTE]
It's more like if the apple was half apple and half lemon. Nobody here is going to be perfect but you just have to decide what the most important issues are and find someone who matches those THE MOST.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;33911514]So you would dismiss a candidate if they appeased all of your personal wishes in candidate, except being prochoice.
A candidate that would do the absolute best for the nation, minus his prolife status.
I am not saying Ron Paul is the absolute best for the nation, far from it, but I'm trying to see how far you take these abortion rights.
I see abortion rights as an important issue. I do not believe that anybody has the right to take that away, but at the same time, if there is a candidate that I know is going to take this nation in a better direction with tons of good policy, minus his prolife policy, I will probably vote for him.
It's better than voting for a prochoice candidate that is going to run the country into the ground and take away various other rights.[/QUOTE]With a subject like this, you can't really use examples like this because its such a complex issue with so many facets. But in general, with a candidate who is mediocre already, something like this easily pushes them in to the undesirable category. With someone who is already undesirable, an issue like this makes them simply appalling.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33910768]Sorry but I would rather have a president who's pro-life and protective of our existing rights than a president who's for abortion but is willing to sign our basic rights away.
No candidate here is even close to perfect and you have to pick one based on what's more important.[/QUOTE]
Protective of your existing rights? The guy wants to take away minimum wage. Do you have any idea how important minimum wage is?
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33911651]It's more like if the apple was half apple and half lemon. Nobody here is going to be perfect but you just have to decide what the most important issues are and find someone who matches those THE MOST.[/QUOTE]
Except, as he said, a candidate who was sufficiently liberal for his liking would all but have to be pro-choice, by the nature of their beliefs.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;33911132]Well then you just to keep on looking. Out of the hundreds of people actually running for president (not just the mainstream ones) I bet you anything you could actually find one who agrees with what you believe.[/QUOTE]
the only thing that bothers me about this is that rather than looking for alternatives people just say "obama 2012! because it worked so well the last time!!"
What do you guys want Ron Paul to say? Either way, he's gonna get smack. If Ron Paul said he was pro choice, everyone would be accusing him of being inconsistent or hypocritical for someone who worked as a doctor for years helping women give birth. I mean, since he's a doctor, doesn't he kind of have to be pro-life? In fact, it was witnessing one of his professor's perform an abortion that disturbed him and caused him to have a pro-life stance. If everyone in the world had to witness how an abortion was performed, I can guarantee it would have a strong impact on how people viewed abortions.
On the other hand, PersoonhoodUSA released a press release questioning Ron Paul's commitment to pro-life: [URL="http://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/ron-paul-signs-personhood-pledge-personhood-usa-questions-commitment"]http://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/ron-paul-signs-personhood-pledge-personhood-usa-questions-commitment[/URL]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33911380]I hope you Ron Paul guys know that if he doesn't win the primaries and he runs as independent, and you [B]STILL[/B] vote for him? I will hunt you down for destroying the chance of the US having a competent president because not ONLY did you waste your vote on an independent who I [B]GUARANTEE[/B] will only take [B]AWAY[/B] votes from the current President, but will do EXACTLY the same fucking thing Ralph Nader did[/QUOTE]
Wait, so you're saying that Ron Paul running as independent would take votes away from Obama? But the GOP establishment is saying that Ron Paul would take votes away from the Republican candidate. Would it be hypothetical that if Ron Paul could take votes away from the mainstream Democrats and Republicans, that he would be the one to win instead?
If a person is considered a human from the exact moment of conception onward does that mean fucking a pregnant lady is considered a threesome?
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;33912866]What do you guys want Ron Paul to say? Either way, he's gonna get smack. If Ron Paul said he was pro choice, everyone would be accusing him of being inconsistent or hypocritical for someone who worked as a doctor for years helping women give birth. I mean, since he's a doctor, doesn't he kind of have to be pro-life? [/QUOTE]
Uh no. Pro choice isn't force all women to have abortions everywhere. It's allowing ladies the right to choose whether they want to go through with the painful experience of childbirth
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33911380]I hope you Ron Paul guys know that if he doesn't win the primaries and he runs as independent, and you [B]STILL[/B] vote for him? I will hunt you down for destroying the chance of the US having a competent president because not ONLY did you waste your vote on an independent who I [B]GUARANTEE[/B] will only take [B]AWAY[/B] votes from the current President, but will do EXACTLY the same fucking thing Ralph Nader did:
Give us 8 years with a fucking idiot president, two fucking long-ass wars, and a deficit longer than ANY in record.
YOU really fucking WANT that??[/QUOTE]
grr why dont you idiots vote for whoever you think is gonna win!!!
how dare u waste your vote on someone that wont get elected!
i'm not saying you should vote for ron paul, but saying you're "wasting your vote" for voting for someone you believe in rather than who you think will win is [B]fucking stupid[/B]
voting should be about choosing who you want to run the country, not guessing who you think will win and turning up on election day to see who guessed right
[QUOTE=Lambeth;33912893]If a person is considered a human from the exact moment of conception onward does that mean fucking a pregnant lady is considered a threesome?[/QUOTE]
What the fuck? Would a camera man videotaping two people doing a porno make the porno a threesome? Just because he's there at the porno, as long as he's not engaging in any sexual activity, it doesn't make it a threesome. Same thing with a baby, just because he's there doesn't make it a threesome. And also, you shouldn't be having sex with babies, that's just fucking messed up.
or because they were raped by their grand father or whatever
and the american political spectrum isn't two dimensional like the two parties like to make it seem
[editline]27th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;33912965]What the fuck? Would a camera man videotaping two people doing a porno make the porno a threesome? Just because he's there at the porno, as long as he's not engaging in any sexual activity, it doesn't make it a threesome. Same thing with a baby, just because he's there doesn't make it a threesome. And also, you shouldn't be having sex with babies, that's just fucking messed up.[/QUOTE]
does an unborn fetus have second amendment rights?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
