My fellow democrats: I have never voted repbublican in my life but hopefully will be able to vote for the repub. Ron Paul in 08.  The issues for me are as follows:

1)banking system/dollar devaluation/dollar as world reseve currency timebomb
2)preemptive war/entagling alliances
3)civil liberties/posse commitatus/habeas corpus/patriot act. 

Read on these issues and you will see why Ron Paul is our only hope.

As a physician, I personally don’t think it is murder to abort at 2 wks conception or to use a birth control pill which inhibits the fertilized zygote from implanting in the uterine wall.  But - I do think its murder to abort a healthy 8 month old baby.  How anyone could back partial birth abortion is beyond me.  It is ALWAYS possible to take the baby via cesarean section if the mother’s life is in danger.  Why not deliver the 8 month old first and then kill it - what’s the difference?  But you would be opposed to that method I assume.  Think about it.
The abortion issue is not as simple as either side would like it to be.

#118060 by cyrena

You come across as a good person whose opinion I have grown to respect and certainly you owed me no explanation, thank you.

Whomever you support for President is your own business and if you have any insight to any of the other candidates, please share.

“It is HIGHLY unlikely that we’ll encounter each other at any voting booths. That too, is more of the sort of combative rhetoric that is so distasteful. I notice it’s been repeated verbatim, by another one of your group.”

“Combative rhetoric”  ???? 

Puhleeeease. How about a non-combative, common figure of speech that says ‘I respect your right to your opinion and your right to vote as you should respect mine’  Isn’t that a more rational interpretation instead of a defensive, emotional one?

I think so. 

The End

#118055 by Nomascerdo

•  Cyrena - For your information regarding California abortion law and Roe V Wade.  California considered abortion rights protected under the California State Constitution in 1969… BEFORE Roe v Wade. Interesting no?

Nonmascerdo,
I could say thanks for the information, but as usual, you miss the point in the larger context of the law; in this case, on the issue of abortion and the legalities or illegalities involved in the discussion as it pertains to the agenda of Ron Paul. I was alive and of age in 1969, and living in California. and regardless of what may or may not have been ‘on the books’ or interpreted as such, abortion rights were NOT universally protected across the State of California. If that were the case, there wouldn’t have been so many woman seeking the desperate measures of ‘back street’ or underground sort of procedures.

Roe v Wade was decided based on the rights to privacy, which would by logic, include ALL women, across ALL states, which is why Roe v Wade was so encompassing and instrumental in deciding the issue once and for all, and universally. There should never be a law that requires a woman to travel from her own home to another location, in order to exercise that right.

Consequently, that is the danger in overturning any previous precedent, which has already begun to occur in other states, as a result of ideological thinking that originates from people who are unable to separate their personal ideologies from the laws that should apply equally, across the board. So, we see a reversion already, just in the past few years, in certain states that are gradually reducing these rights as Roe did in fact guarantee. Alabama, Oklahoma, and Mississippi come to mind, but they are not the only ones. Texas is also experiencing it’s own troubles in this same vein, with various medical professionals who have refused to abide by their professional oaths to provide care, (including a refusal to dispense birth control) based on their own personal ideologies. In many of these cases, they ALSO fail to provide an alternative source (a different practitioner or a different pharmacist, etc) when they refuse themselves, on personal ‘faith based’ ideologies. Surely you can see where this would be problematic.

Or, maybe not.

#118124 by BadMan

•  Cyrena, are you childishly finished trying to get the last word it? Your comments have become redundant and repetitive. You don’t like Ron Paul and you have malice and contempt for anyone exercising their freedom of speech by endorsing him publicly on this forum. It is almost sad really. Please stop. You have made your opinion obvious and so have others. Leave it at that.

BadMan,

I think you put the wrong name in this comment, since it is not I who have become repetitive, redundant, or childish in having the ‘last word’. I definitely see that to have become the case, (specifically on THIS thread) and indeed, it has greatly diminished the quality of the comments/discussion. You’ve simply misdirected the accusations.

So, I won’t stop making comments on this website, (as you’ve instructed me to do) because that’s what it’s for. I also cannot stop you or anyone else from making them, nor would I ask. I would only ask the same from you. Simply stop addressing me personally. It is perfectly OK to IGNORE me. If you, (or anyone) chooses to keep addressing me personally, than I WILL respond. That’s pretty standard for these forums.

Actually, I plan to post more, if only to respond to some legitimate inquires that have been directed to me, personally, from posters that I know to be people of reason, even if we don’t agree. An example was my response to PatrickHenry, since we’ve been exchanging comments and indulging in mutual discourse on this site, over an extended period of time.

When a person (any person) chooses their discourse ONLY from a defensive perspective, (such as in ‘having the last word’ which is a very ‘revealing suggestion by the way) with no real intent to convey any meaningful information, it shows only their superficiality/lack of depth, and a clearly emotional and ideological stance. While ideology is always an integral part of any political discussion, it lacks any constructive input when it is ALL based on that, and no fact. If one can ONLY respond in a defensive manner, (to each and every issue) without any real substance to the issues, then it tends to become as meaningless and trivial as one would expect.

I have not shown ‘malice and contempt’ for the supporters of Ron Paul. Nor have I been interested in silencing them, or disrespecting anyone’s ‘freedom of speech’. I CAN however, look back over this thread, and find that very same practice, time and time again, by the group of ‘others’ of you, who happen to indulge in what I call a ‘group think’, based on emotional ideology and partisan rhetoric, rather than solid facts/reason. My other point has been in pointing out what I see as very clear (and dangerous) discrepancies in the rhetoric of Ron Paul, and what he has actually said –on the record- over his 20 plus years of political life. I also note (because it too is ‘revealing’) that my own comments in respect to the candidacy of Ron Paul are in the same vein as many others on this thread, and are no more or less inflammatory, unless you have troubles with facts and truth, which sometimes are not ‘pretty’ or complimentary in nature. Curiously though, the attacks and invectives, (such as yours above) are always directed to ME, rather than anyone else. That has become as obvious to me, as it has to the others who have posted here over an extended period of time.

So, think on that. Meantime, I’ll keep writing, just as I have been long before you showed up, and hopefully long after you’re gone.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that we’ll encounter each other at any voting booths. That too, is more of the sort of combative rhetoric that is so distasteful. I notice it’s been repeated verbatim, by another one of your group.

Cyrena, are you childishly finished trying to get the last word it? Your comments have become redundant and repetitive. You don’t like Ron Paul and you have malice and contempt for anyone exercising their freedom of speech by endorsing him publicly on this forum. It is almost sad really.

Please stop. You have made your opinion obvious and so have others. Leave it at that.

See you at the voting booth and may the best candidate win.

•  #117497 by PatrickHenry
#117478 by cyrena
Cyrena, I’ve rarely seen you resort to name calling. Calling others Paulie groupies isn’t exactly respectful of others opinions.  You a Bama groupie?
PatrickHenry,
You’re right of course, because name calling isn’t my thing. Seriously, it isn’t. On the other hand, I’m not sure what/how else I might refer to them. (It’s obviously troubled a number of posters/supporters of Ron Paul on this thread). If I call them a cult, that would seem uncomplimentary as well. So, I’ll try to think of something more politically correct. (Or just ‘supporters’ would be acceptable enough I suppose). I should probably add that I’m NOT a ‘Bama groupie’ if only because I’m just not a groupie of any sort. Meantime, I haven’t even decided yet, who I will ‘support’ for the presidential race, but only that it can’t possibly be any republican currently in the race.

I admittedly find Ron Paul more offensive than all of them, (all bad, so it’s hard to decide the least among evils in that particular category). Still, I find him the most offensive because of the very reasons that you stated yourself, for why you believed that a democratic congress could keep him in line. I no longer have that confidence, though I admit that when this same horror was on the horizon during the run-up to, and then the appointment of Dick Bush to the office, I did hold out some hope that the Congress (and carefully selected advisors) could prevent them from doing the destruction that we’ve all witnessed. As we all see, my hope/confidence was misplaced. As a long term resident of Texas, (at least at that time) I was fully aware of the damage that Dick Bush could do. For the same reasons, I am equally aware that Ron Paul is not what he presents himself to be. However, in attempting to explain that, I’ve just been accused of ‘smearing’ him, or name calling. So, I’ll avoid those explanations, even though this does give me a terrible sense of déjà vu.
Meantime, my ‘groupie’ term (however it may have been interpreted) is a result, (in part) of the comments that I’ve seen posted here, but the kicker I for me, was a recent invasion of my own community by these ‘supporters’. They entered our community and campus, much like thieves in the night, and basically defiled/defaced it. Some would say that they ‘trashed’ it.

Our campus/community is an open one, and while I can say that our collective ideology doesn’t support that of the Ron Paul ideology, these supporters would certainly not have been ‘run off’ or treated with any hostility, had they appeared like any other group. (in broad daylight)

But, they didn’t. Rather, they apparently came on campus during the nighttime hours between say midnight and 5 or 6 am, and proceeded to plaster large portions of the campus with pieces of plain white paper on which a variety of ‘slogans’ had been written. (Ron Paul for Freedom) is an example, but there were several. These (literally hundreds of them) were then ‘affixed’ to nearly every surface imaginable, with…duck tape.
Now, I’m not a neatnik, or OCD on anything. Besides, it’s a college campus. We have LOTS of things posted, but there are generally accepted and approved LOCATIONS for these things. And, I AM very proud of our community and our campus, so I felt like we had been invaded. Later in the day, the ‘caravan’ of them spread out through the community; cars loaded down with the typical stuff that you might find in the old tent revival events, loudspeakers blaring, nearly running bikers off the roads.

The students themselves quickly formed groups on their own to clean up most of the mess. There are still pieces of the sticky/silvery now dirty tape here and there, but over time, that will disappear as well. Still, I hope you can understand why it felt like such a disrespectful assault, and thereby led to my portrayal of them as ‘groupies’.

I am going to take BadMan’s observation to heart and basically stop investing so much time into this.

Cyrena - For your information regarding California abortion law and Roe V Wade.  California considered abortion rights protected under the California State Constitution in 1969… BEFORE Roe v Wade. Interesting no?

Outraged - The debate about affirmative action and forced integration etc is beyond the scope of this forum.  I do think it is interesting but I don’t have the time to dedicate to meaningfully discuss it with you.  That said, as all of this relates to Ron Paul, honestly those two issues aren’t very high on my list of priorities which is not to say that they aren’t important but they are a lower priority for me for a few reasons.  First, my top priority is our economic system which is literally teetering on a cliff.  As a student of economics and someone that has been studying Austrian economics for the past three years I am in the school of thought that we absolutely MUST change course significantly or all of this talk about everything else will hardly matter.  If you aren’t familiar with Austrian economic theory, particularly as it relates to monetary inflation I recommend looking into it.  A good understanding of this could literally save you from serious financial distress as we head deeper into the current maelstrom.  I will also put forth, lest you think I am just a greedy capitalist that only cares about money, I FIRMLY believe that Austrian economics and their theory on monetary inflation describes quite accurately what has befallen the poor and middle class in this country.  The inflation tax is silent, insidious, and hurts the poor and middle class the most.  If you have ever wondered why the American family has transformed from one bread winner to two bread winners holding down three and a half jobs between them you will find some interesting insights in this concept.  Ron Paul being the only person in the race with a clue and that being the threat that is literally here today (versus all of the other hypothetical threats that may or may not come to pass) he will get my vote, my support, and my advocacy until those efforts bear fruit no longer.

Good luck and see you at the voting booth!

RE: #117882 by Frostedflakes on 12/04

Great point Frostedflakes, except where I live I don’t see an “unprecedented growth of women in leadership positions in the workforce”.  More often than not, they seem to be first line supervisors.

A study of the income gap between women and men in the workplace showed a larger income disparity between female and male executives, than male and female “blue collar” workers.  So women are FINALLY getting there to a degree, however compensation isn’t comparable.  This study also pointed out that these woman were usually more educated and experienced than their male counterparts.  I believe the study was done about a year ago.

I absolutely endorse affirmative action regarding women.  While taking a night course we toured several local sizeable corporations but NONE had a woman CEO or any women on their board.  So of course I just had to ask “where the women were”?  My guesstimate of the female composition of the workforce at these corps….approx 90%-95%.  Hmmmm…...

Why is it that when affirmative action is spoken of it is always about race. Affirmative action is also about gender equity. The biggest benefactors of affirmative action are women. Period. Particularly, caucasion women. Just take a look around you. Since affirmative action laws were enacted look at the unprecedented growth of women in leadership positions in the workforce. Don’t you remember the cries of the “glass ceilings” preceding affirmative action. The use of color when speaking about affirmative action is nothing more than racial scapegoating.

I hope you guys understand how silly it is to write mini novels on truthdig. Most of the time, they don’t get read. You aren’t proving a point, since it usually gets lost in the muck.

With that said. I simply asked for someone to give me a viable alternative. Kucinish is great, but he has about the same chance as a snowflake would have in hell.

Who else??? Another corporate lackey or Israeli lobby obeying candidate??

Please. other than attacking Ron Paul. Give me an alternative. Every candidate out there has enough reasons for me NOT to vote for them. I could post endlessly and supply substantiating links. But what will that prove?? Only my personal disdain for them.

ALL the candidates give me thousands of reasons for me NOT to vote for them. Only two have given any reasons to vote for them, and out of those two, only ONE has a chance of winning.

I have always voted my conscience, and look at the country now. Maybe, in my opinion, Ron Paul has given me a good excuse to vote with my head.

Regards

#117848 by Outraged

Bad as it is, I’m gonna repost the “PROOF” here…in snatches.

#117852 by breezytrees
•  All he did was exclaim that we live in a time where it is dangerous to proclaim your own personal religious beliefs. He is stating that in our current political and social situation, those with religious beliefs are often discriminated against.

BT actually said this. People are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. She’s got a point. The evangelicals would as soon slit your throat as look at you, if they can’t convert you. Ask anybody who’s undergone their torment in the military lately. Oh yeah, one might be ‘discriminated’ against – but only if they AREN’T a bible tootin’ hallelujah Christian.
•  He’s a religious man yet he does not force his religious beliefs on others. (OMG- actually said this too!) He is adamantly and religiously pro-life, yet like noma stated….voted against a constitutional ban on abortion, and voted against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal.
Ah…right. That’s why he’s decided to tinker with a law that was decided over 30 years ago. How did he vote against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal? When did anyone come up with something like that? For the last 30 years, it HAS been legal!!! What the hell does this mean? Nevermind…it’s just more “proof”. (of schizophrenia)
•  Every single one of our presidents has been a practicing Christian… Ron Paul is no different from any of them in this respect. All of them have believed that “Jesus Christ is [their] personal Savior” and that “freedoms come not from man, but from God.”
OK Outraged, this last is the only part you (or anyone else) needed to hear. Yes, they are SCARY!!! Especially this last part…Ron and his Paulies say that they’re all about FREEDOM. But, how can that be, when they are only men, and these can only come from God?

I’m convinced. They’re all crazier than shit. (which is what makes them equally scary) And, George W. Bush is a ‘practicing Christian’? Right. All those dead soldiers, and those millions of dead Iraqis, and all of those homeless people right here at home, with no food or health care. That is SOOOO Christian.

So Outraged, that’s why we’ve been wasting good intelligence on raving lunatics. That means I’ll have to catch up with you on another thread. They finally got me. I’m sure I can’t take anymore. I concede.  I might even have to have a drink.

I stand corrected =p.

In our constitution our president can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I guess in our system, Cheney deserves a trial just like every other president/vp impeached.

Everyone would be happy with no income taxes. Oil companies are in Texas because there is a lot of drilling Texas. Texas has oil. It is one of its abundant natural resources.

The dems should want to impeach him. Impeaching cheney only makes the bush administration look worse. Bringing impeachment to the table, then having it fail only makes the bush administration look better… at least better than having him impeached….

#117840 by breezytrees

•  Then of course there are the people in between, and this I assume is the majority of our country. These individuals believe that somewhere along the 9 months of pregnancy, an unborn fetus becomes a living breathing thinking human with rights. These individuals cannot exactly say “when” a fetus becomes a thinking human, they have to guess because it is physically impossible to judge, even scientifically. When does this happen? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? Each fetus will also mature faster or slower than others based on the genetic makeup of the mother and father. One fetus may become self aware 8 weeks in, another 12. All of these reasons make it VERY hard to create a morale law, let alone a law at all.
Science cannot possibly answer the question of when it becomes morally safe to have an abortion. This issue of abortion simply becomes an issue of opinion and this opinion varies greatly among our general populous.
Breezytrees,

You’ve picked the wrong person to have this discussion with. And it would be the same with any other mother who has miscarried, or been delivered of a still born child. So, don’t even TRY to make this argument to the 10,000 plus women who have premature babies born at 4, 5 or 6 months who are still far too underdeveloped to live outside of their mothers’ womb. The argument is nonsensical, and if a child cannot live outside of its mother’s womb at ANY point, it is not a life of its own.

I have had one miscarriage in the 1st trimester, and I buried a child born in the last trimester, but still not developed enough to live outside of my womb. In the second case, it was a result of inadequate prenatal care and sloppy attention by the physicians in TEXAS. (Ron’s Paul’s state)

So, this is quite frankly, BULLSHIT. That’s all I can tell you. There is NO prenatal care provided for women in certain areas of the country, and no concern about whether or not they have abortions or still births. So, I’m not buying any of this argument. There is no reason in the world why I should believe that the person living across the country, one of 300, MILLION people, who doesn’t know me, (or you) and never will, should give a damn about whether or not I have an abortion, especially if they don’t even want me to have the necessary pre-natal care required for a successful pregnancy. And, if it means them parting with a dime of their own monies to provide that, they won’t. Period. If everybody that was so allegedly “pro-life’ actually got as active about making sure that medical care was provided to each and every human being in the country, as they do about maintaining pregnancies from day one, we’d all be a lot better off. As we know, they don’t. And, the right to basic medical care IS an inalienable right.

And, if the Ron Pauls of the world don’t care about the inalienable rights of the ALREADY LIVING, why the hell should I believe that they really do care about the rights of ALL of the unborn? They don’t. You’ll have to trust me on that one. It’s a very fascist mentality, and it’s obviously deceit. Hitler felt the same way about abortion, even though the world would have been far better off if his mother had had one.

As for Ron Paul allegedly hating the repugs, please don’t tell me that either. He’s been one for over 20 years, and could have switched up at any time. He could have run as an independent. Rather, he votes with these same conservative repugs on nearly every single issue.

I’m from California. It is my home. I was born raised and educated here. I leaned what hell was like during the 17 years that I lived in Texas. There’s little else you can tell me about the Ron Pauls of the world.

The only reason I still have a spiritual side is that somehow, someway, I was able to escape that hell, and make my way back home.

Best and brightest have a chance to succeed? Your wrong if affirmative action plays a role. Like I said, Affirmative action takes into account race, in addition to best and brightest. Even though someone may not be the best and brightest, they may still get the job because of the color of their racial background, leaving the actual “best and brighest” person in the dark

How is that scary? All he did was exclaim that we live in a time where it is dangerous to proclaim your own personal religious beliefs. He is stating that in our current political and social situation, those with religious beliefs are often discriminated against.

He’s a religious man yet he does not force his religious beliefs on others.

He is adamantly and religiously pro-life, yet like noma stated he voted against making it criminal to cross state lines for abortion, against making it criminal to help transport minors for an abortion, voted against a constitutional ban on abortion, and voted against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal.

He does this because he knows the limitations of the powers the constitution gives the federal government.

Every single one of our presidents has been a practicing Christian… Ron Paul is no different from any of them in this respect. All of them have believed that “Jesus Christ is [their] personal Savior” and that “freedoms come not from man, but from God.”

#117846 by breezytrees

Breezytrees, someone else posted this same thing. Problem is, Dennis Kucinich is not IN the Senate, and neither is Paul. The resolution was presented to the HOUSE. So, I’m not sure where you get the senate thing, aside from the fact that there was back and forth discussion on whether or not to send it to the Senate JUDICIARY committee, and THAT is who eventually has to hear it anyway. So, whomever you got this info from, is off base.

So, while I know that this may be confusing to many, (parliamentary procedure generally is) you’ve got it wrong. There was nothing wrong with the procedure as it was presented by Kucinich. Just like there was nothing wrong with the procedure that Cynthia Mckinney prepared over a year ago. Same articles of impeachment text, (though hers was directed at george) but nobody wanted to deal with it then either.

In the end though, I will say that based on a video that I just watched, the democrats themselves helped crash this effort. At least if what I understood was correct. Nancy Pelosi has been like a death threat to any serious progress in the house, and seems to wield some power over many of the others in the party, that I’ve yet to understand.

I hate accepting the fact, but by now it IS a fact, that for Pelosi, it’s definitely about real politic. She’s far more interested in gaining even more time, to make the repugs and this administration look even worse, by letting it all drag out. This impeachment could have gone forward ages ago. Or, at least once the dems gained semi control over the Congress. (and I say semi, because there balance is extremely close, and there are too many dems in the House who always support the repugs, and in the Senate, a 60 vote minimum is required for anything, and the split there is nearly 50/50) So, the Dems never get the 60 votes that they need to pass anything in the Senate. And, THAT’S even when some of them are screwing up…like Feinstein and Schumer on the Mukasey confirmation.

So, I admit that the dems aren’t helping the cause much, even though there would be a close call anyway. And, on the impeachment thing, it seems to come down to Pelosi.

Unfortunately, my opinion on RP still stands. I see him as a very loose and dangerous cannon, who is not representing the interests of the country, or the common good. But, I’ve also accepted the fact that most people don’t get that, if only because of a yet undeveloped knowledge about what’s the real interests are.

Seriously, I mean no harm in saying this, and it is only my experience living in the area, (Texas) and knowing the partisan politics that go on there. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He’s a separatist, devoted to privatizing everything there is to privatize. It’s not enough that the major BIG OIL industry just happens to be located in one of the only 3 states that do not collect a State income tax. That means limited to NO services for the non-land owing or non-gentried masses. Now, if Ron Paul could figure out a way where they don’t have to pay federal income tax either, he’d be a happy man, and so would all of those corporations that make their home there, for that very reason.

Re: #117840 by breezytrees on 12/03

“ANY system that puts unqualified people in qualified positions does not work.”

Breezytrees:
It isn’t logical to equate entering college with “unqualified people”.  Technically we could say everyone ENTERING college to be “unqualified”.

The points you speak of I’m assuming would be SAT scores (correct me if I’m wrong).  The purpose of “spotting” points, so to speak, is an opportunity cost of leveling the playing field.  They will still have to PASS THE REQUIRED COURSES to attain their qualifications!

This goes back to the issue of why abolishing the Dept. of Edu. is a bad idea. Since this agency also helps to level the playing field and also gives our ACTUAL “best and brightest” a chance to succeed.  Unlike our current “Commander in Grief”.

As I was checking into the Ron Paul library, I came across this article.  I found it terribly disconcerting.  It is indicative of the neocon/bush propaganda machine and ALL TO FAMILIAR. 

Ron Paul:  “We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

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.”

Link: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=916

That’s scary…......

Re: #117821 by cyrena on 12/03

“Now, we’re talking about what is in fact CONTITUTIONAL here. OK? Roe v. Wade has already been codified into law. So, we are talking about OVERTURNING a constitutional issue. How is that in keeping with the Constitution? I’m confused at the obvious contradiction here.”

cyrena:

I agree.  Paul insists upon moving backward in some misguided attempt to move forward.  Times change and issues become more clear, it’s beyond me how going backward will clear things up. On this issue Paul claims to “know” that life begins at conception, when scientifically we KNOW that’s not true.  It is a religious conviction and not a factual one.

Ron Paul: “In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.”
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=842

**Paul claims: “present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.” It also doesn’t make sense that he insists upon introducing legislation regarding the matter at the FEDERAL LEVEL but then in turn argues federal laws enacted IN FAVOR OF abortion to be unconstitutiional.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

What is this “evidence” of “significant likelihood” and what is he calling “life”?!

I found this with a google search:
“If A has the potential to become B, it follows that A is not B. Likewise, a potential person is not an actual person. The reason why a zygote at conception is a potential rather than an actual person is because it has none of the organs, limbs or other traits recognized of a person. It is simply a genetic blueprint, and aborting it is not the same as killing an actual person.”
Argument
“One of the most common pro-life claims is that “life begins at conception.” Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not “When does human life begin?” but “When does personhood begin?”

Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems—at first—to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the counter-examples.

There are many entities which are genetically complete, which contain all 46 human chromosomes, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood.”

The entire article: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

Cyrena:

You have much passion, but you need to check you facts first!

1. You stated that RP voted against the Cheney impeachment because he hides his true motives and secretly likes Cheney/Bush combo.

You can’t be further from the truth! RP voted against it because the senate does not have the constitutional authority to do so! RP would love to impeach bush/cheney, however the house of representatives needs to bring impeachment to the table, THEN the senate can vote on it. It’s the way our system works! Certain politicians are trying to abuse the system by voting to impeach Cheney through the senate alone.

I ask you cyrena as you have asked me “Why won’t [we] stand up for the Constitution?” Standing up for the constitution means that we cannot impeach through illegal means, we must do it right and legally so (and i hope we do)!

Article Two, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.”

2. Ron Paul is not supported by big businesses and the rich. Fox News hates him. CNN hates him. Ron Paul is laughed at by big businesses. The majority of Ron Paul supporters are everyday citizens… with his average donation being around 40 dollars. Likewise, the average donation for Obama is over 5 times that much at over 240 dollars.
18,000 people donated more than $2000 to Obama while only 700 people donated that same amount to Paul. The rich definitely favor Obama over Paul, by those numbers.
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

Your right cyrena, when we first attacked iraq, I was for it, now i’m pissed off I was lied too and brainwashed into believing the shit I believed. And in 2003, 70% of the country agreed with me!

RP hates the repugs. He’s only running republican because he can’t win as a libertarian. Don’t confuse Ron Paul with other republicans.

Here. When you get a chance watch the PBS ALL AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL FORUM DEBATE hosted by Tavis Smiley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6O0AlS4Nm8
It has some of Ron Paul’s best material. The debate hosted by Fox News was a Joke, likewise the one hosted by CNN.

And Cyrena, you can name any great leader and you’re guaranteed to find some questionable followers. There are questionable/immoral people in this world, and they can support some moral people but only to serve their own immoral reasons.

•  #117795 by Outraged
It is also disconcerting to find Ron Paul on the homepage of the John Birch Society.  Just scroll down.

http://www.jbs.org/

....they do show tendancies.  You’ll need to scroll down to the heading “Conservative” there you’ll find he voted, according to The John Birch Society, 95-100% in support of their issues.

#117799 by Nomascerdo on 12/03 at 5:20 pm
Outraged,
•  I can’t speak for the JBS because I am not associated with them, nor know much about them.  I have never met a member e.g. 
•  So far everything is about being a Constitutionalist, and interestingly quite a LOT about the negative impact of the Patriot Act and amendments that have passed to WEAKEN it.
OK all,
I’ve not put together a whole list of the ‘clues’ that have finally confirmed for me, how/why the paulie’s are such zealots in their support. Maybe later, I’ll have time. But, the bottom line is….THEY DON’T HAVE A CLUE!!

That’s what it boils down to, but when I’ve tried to point this out in the past, I’ve simply been demonized and attacked, and criticized for bringing out my alleged big guns of intelligence.

When I pointed out that Ron Paul was a racist, based on multiple past comments, Nonmascerdo decided that I was just making him ‘guilty by association’. (or maybe he/or she doesn’t really care about that) When I pointed out that he is NOT a Constitutionalist, (the desire to overturn Roe v Wade was only one example) that too became an issue for attack.
So, this is final proof that they don’t know what a Constitutionalist actually is, and nonmascerdo, even after admitting to living in California, claims to know nothing about the John Birch Society. (seems unconcerned that Ron Paul is on their homepage).

The complaints that seem to have generated the zealotry of the paulies are things like The Patriot Act. (I’ve been enraged about the Patriot Act since day one WHO brought it to us folks?). They also have finally gotten around to complaining about the endless war. (nevermind that there were tons of us out there protesting it before it even happened)
They say YES!(after 7 years) we want our country back. (never a single acknowledge about how they lost it to begin with). They say: no more ‘regulation’. Well, we haven’t HAD any regulation on the corporate thieves that have robbed us blind, that’s how they’ve been able to do it! And they’ve let RePUGS DESTROY the Constitution!

Aren’t these the same folks that have demonized Cindy Sheehan for speaking out years ago? Yep, I think so.

And YES! They’re ANGRY and SICK of it they say. (the rest of us have been pulling out our hair for over 7 years now) And so, let’s have YET ANOTHER conservative religious zealot from the reddest state of Texas…and the BIG OIL DISTRICT at that. (Ron Pauls 14th district is adjacent Tom Delay’s old district, and their ideologies are overwhelmingly similar). And, I admit that I’ve never been able to figure out how Jesus freaks can be racists, but I’ve spent enough years in the Bible belt to know that they are.

So, without further ado, I have to write them all off as a worthless cause. If by some horrible fate (a déjà vu of the Dick-Bush run-up in 2000, when everyone was equally fooled) Ron Paul should actually make the cut, then I’ll go into panic mode again. But, for now, there’s just no time to educate those who choose to remain ignorant.

OH, for those who are not familiar with the John Birchers, they are simply the rich cousins to the KKK, and have generally maintained a lower profile. (no sheets with the big hats). Just as dangerous I might add, and mostly concentrated in the traditional red/conservative areas of California, though I suppose they are in other states as well. I suspect they’re even more dangerous than the KKK’ers, because they manage to hide themselves more easily, and they have lots of money. They’ve been around for decades, and privatization/racism is at the very top of their agenda.

Cyrena: What you say makes sense. I am pro-choice. Why are pro-life individuals forcing their beliefs onto me?? My abortion does not affect them at all. It only affects me.

Alas, it is not that simple. Pro-life individuals believe that my abortion not only affects me, it also affects my unborn child, who has the same inalienable rights that I have.

Now, a pro-choice individual simply disagrees with this. They believe that my child has no rights until it leaves my womb.

Then of course there are the people in between, and this I assume is the majority of our country. These individuals believe that somewhere along the 9 months of pregnancy, an unborn fetus becomes a living breathing thinking human with rights. These individuals cannot exactly say “when” a fetus becomes a thinking human, they have to guess because it is physically impossible to judge, even scientifically. When does this happen? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? Each fetus will also mature faster or slower than others based on the genetic makeup of the mother and father. One fetus may become self aware 8 weeks in, another 12. All of these reasons make it VERY hard to create a morale law, let alone a law at all.

Science cannot possibly answer the question of when it becomes morally safe to have an abortion. This issue of abortion simply becomes an issue of opinion and this opinion varies greatly among our general populous.

Case in point: California is very very much pro choice, Utah is very very much Pro Life—yet our country is neither pro life nor pro choice.

Since there can be vast differences between the opinions and viewpoints of peoples that live in various states, why not have different laws reflecting those differing opinions? Why not have abortion be legal in california and illegal in utah? Does this not make sense?

States reflect the views of their citizens MUCH more than the federal government reflects the views of its citizens. Letting our federal government decide on such a divided issue clumps the differing views of our many peoples into one, alienating most everyone.

******************

Outraged: How is affirmative action not racism?

University of Michigan uses a 150 point grading system to judge qualified applicants. They automatically subtract or add 20 points to certain individuals if they belong to a certain racial backgrounds. How is this not racial discrimination?

Affirmative Action does not work because it adds another variable to an equation where the only variable should be merit. Any system that rewards anything but merit is an impedance on the system. Nepotism or any form of it is a terrific example. George Bush got into yale not because of his merit, but because of his father and grand father went there. George Bush’s acceptance into yale essentially put an unqualified man on the right path towards presidency.

ANY system that puts unqualified people in qualified positions does not work.

Outraged,

I will get back to you tomorrow.

Cyrena,

I am going to ignore you until you stop the personal attacks.

Re: #117808 by breezytrees on 12/03

The original bill, before the amendment was put forth was called the “Community Solutions Act aka HR 7”.  Paul voted “NO” on this legislation, but the measure was passed in the house anyway.

The gist of the bill: “Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations who provide social services to apply for and receive federal funding, and provides $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over a ten year period”

An amendment to the newly passed House bill ( the Community Solutions Act ) was introduced to ensure accountablity and non-discrimination, since the enities were receiving “federal dollars”.  Something Ron Paul claims to endorse.

The bill itself had already passed but when it came to accountability verbage (the amendment) in regards to their use of federal grants and subsidies Paul voted “NO”.

Why would Paul vote NO.  He claims to endorse accountability and fairness when using tax payer dollars.  It becomes even more questionable considering the fact that, originally it was legislation which he apparently didn’t agree with.

Re: #117809 by Nomascerdo on 12/03

I didn’t mean to imply that Paul was a KKK member however one doesn’t need to belong to the KKK to be racist.  Brown v. Edu. was a step in the right direction whereas it concerns ALL Americans.  It is also better for the country if ALL it’s citizens are well educated.

Your comment:
“In the speech he repeatedly states his abhorrence for forced segregation. That said, he does raise questions regarding the efficacy of forced integration and also brings to light some of its unintended, negative consequences.”

**Who was forced integration directed toward if not for the racist and biased?  Who says it doesn’t work…?  Negative consequences for whom…?  Paul uses the ol’ “see it just doesn’t work” philosophy but excludes where it has worked.  There is a huge underlying racist problem in America, to that I can agree.  I’ve experienced it all my life and everywhere I go.  Why don’t so many with diverse ethnicities feel “comfortable” in white neighborhoods?  I can attest to the fact that it’s not their imagination.

The problem is not that affirmative action doesn’t work, the problem is that it is not enforced.  While this is indicative of our current justice system in general, it still doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work.  In order to know that we would have to have meaningful enforcement and also protections for the victims.

Also, you say that he repeatedly states his abhorrence for forced segregation, however that simply doesn’t undo his statements which “back it up”.  I can honestly say I would not accept money from a white supremacy group KNOWINGLY, yet Paul does.  This would be like trying to convince the cops that you had nothing to do with a robbery, yet you have some of the loot.

#117809 by Nomascerdo

•  It is no secret that Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe V Wade and return the issue to the state’s.  While I am pro-choice I do recognize that A LOT of people in this country aren’t and the only way to provide government for everyone that reflects the diverse set of values in this nation is to send it back to the states.  I live in California and am quite certain that abortion will always be legal here.
I’m very curious about this response that you have here, as far as your recognition of the fact that A LOT of people in this country are NOT pro-choice. In the case of abortion, does it stand to reason, that for THOSE MANY PEOPLE who are NOT pro-choice, and who do NOT approve of abortion under any circumstances, that THEY would chose NOT to have them?

For me, this seems so very, very obvious, and particularly because of the fact that Roe v. Wade WAS decided on the fundamental issue of privacy. So, I’m going to try to reword it, just in case I don’t make sense. If one is against abortion, then they would choose NOT to have an abortion. If one becomes pregnant, (for whatever reason, and under whatever circumstances) and chooses not to continue that pregnancy, should there be a law that prevents them from seeking an abortion, in ANY state?

Now, I ask this from the standpoint of a Ron Paul, who seems to believe that nothing should be regulated, on behalf of the common good, and on behalf of individual privacies. So, does this not seem like the total OPPOSITE of that?

Now, we’re talking about what is in fact CONTITUTIONAL here. OK? Roe v. Wade has already been codified into law. So, we are talking about OVERTURNING a constitutional issue. How is that in keeping with the Constitution? I’m confused at the obvious contradiction here.

Can you help me understand this, in light of recognizing the great ‘diversity’ among the population, how do we reconcile that an individual may now be charged with murder, (if rp overturns this constitutional issue) for obtaining an abortion, based on their OWN ‘diversity”. How do we justify sending someone out of the state, or out of the country, in order to have access to a safe medical procedure, when chances are, if they had access to proper medical advice or care to begin with, they wouldn’t be pregnant if they didn’t choose to be.

On a different note, I’m just now realizing that some of these posters don’t live in Texas, and probably never HAVE lived in Texas, and so they consequently don’t ‘get’ what the Ron Paul ‘ideology’ is –in action-. So, I’ll clue you in later on, just in case any of you want to know that how it ‘sounds’ isn’t how it works out in real life.

And, it’s really scary to think that anybody would say ‘never’ about anything. Such as, abortion will ‘never’ be illegal in California. You don’t know that.  It was ILLEGAL before Roe v. Wade, which is why so many desperate women wound up in back street locations with unsafe procedures that could cost them their lives.

We ‘never’ thought spying would be acceptable either. (since it’s against the law) We never thought that something as basic as habeas corpus would simply be taken away by an insane president. (I mean, that’s been a basic right since the Magna Carta). We never thought that a Congress would allow for the violation of the laws of war. But, all of this has happened. So, anybody that has lived though the past 7 years, should know that there is no such thing as ‘never’. This is very scary thinking. Scarier that you vote.

I probably should have clicked once more to read the bill’s contents…

Breezy:

Here is the description of that bill which appears to desire to put the issue back to the states and remove federal court jurisdiction, federal funding, etc.  Declaration (2) is the key point on that:

“Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. “

It is no secret that Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe V Wade and return the issue to the state’s.  While I am pro-choice I do recognize that A LOT of people in this country aren’t and the only way to provide government for everyone that reflects the diverse set of values in this nation is to send it back to the states.  I live in California and am quite certain that abortion will always be legal here. 

I will also highlight that Ron Paul voted against making it criminal to cross state lines for abortion, against making it criminal to help transport minors for an abortion, voted against a constitutional ban on abortion, and voted against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal. 

Outraged:

I hear your point and I don’t know the answer. That said, from what I understand about how Ron Paul votes, he will vote against any legislation that is not within the purview of the Constitution… Even if legislation passed that he voted against, I suspect he would vote against all amendments that expanded the reach of that legislation vs reducing it. 

It is difficult to tell though from what is available.  I think that his record, by and large, is consistent enough over his 10 terms, his writings, speeches, and votes are the same, and his principles clear enough that I can ignore isolated votes on amendments of bills that he opposed and feel very comfortable that he isn’t trying to pull a fast one, or is a ‘snake in the grass’ or a Klan member hiding his true identity.  I just don’t buy any of that whatsoever.  I have read his books, many of his speeches, met him in person, etc.

By the way, I watched the speech linked to the JBS site in it’s entirety and the message in 2004 is the same as it is today.  Defense of the Constitution, protection of our nations sovereignty, non-interventionism, freedom for all citizens, limited govt, advice of the founders.  Actually a great speech! NOTHING sinister.

I made a tinyURL of the link on google video:

http://tinyurl.com/2epvxm

outraged: Could you reword the following?:

“Doesn’t it stand to reason that if the original bill passed (the Community Solutions Act, even though he had voted NO ) that Paul would now be voting on a measure which had already passed and that the amendment (which would obviously be an addition to the original) he should have endorsed considering where he claims he stands.”

I do not understand.

The only piece of dirt I have ever uncovered on Ron Paul is thus: Ron Paul (I think) has recently sponsored a bill to define life as beginning at conception, obviously giving a fetus rights, obviously turning abortion into murder.

RP claims to make abortion a state matter, but this is a federal bill. If this bill passes (and it won’t obviously) abortion will be a federal offense.

Yup, just checked. It’s bill HR 1094.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094

Re: #117794 by Nomascerdo on 12/03 at 5:02 pm
(78 comments total)

Outraged to be clear:

Ron Paul voted NO on HR 7 which was the “Community Solutions Act”

Nomascerdo:
Doesn’t it stand to reason that if the original bill passed (the Community Solutions Act, even though he had voted NO ) that Paul would now be voting on a measure which had already passed and that the amendment (which would obviously be an addition to the original) he should have endorsed considering where he claims he stands.

Paul’s quote: “if a person or group is going to voluntarily take the taxpayers’ money, then the recipient - whether a candidate running for president or a clinic handing out condoms - is going to have to be accountable and play by the rules the taxpayers set and deserve.”

From Vote Smart:
“:Official Title of Legislation:

H.AMDT.200 to HR 7: Amendment to the Community Solutions Act of 2001.

Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:

Vote to pass a substitute amendment that would regulate the hiring practices of any social service provider that receives federal funds.”

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php? cs_id=V3027&can_id=296

Outraged,

I can’t speak for the JBS because I am not associated with them, nor know much about them.  I have never met a member e.g. 

That said, I am listening to the speech that he gave their which is on their website.

So far everything is about being a Constitutionalist, and interestingly quite a LOT about the negative impact of the Patriot Act and amendments that have passed to WEAKEN it.

If I come across anything different I will let you know… it’s a long speech tho so might not be able to listen to all of it today.

It is also disconcerting to find Ron Paul on the homepage of the John Birch Society.  Just scroll down.

http://www.jbs.org/

Of course (not that these stats are “all inclusive”) they do show tendancies.  You’ll need to scroll down to the heading “Conservative” there you’ll find he voted, according to The John Birch Society, 95-100% in support of their issues.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php ?can_id=296

The John Birch society has some rather strange bedfellows and support a radical libertarian agenda.  From what I could gather using several sites they are radically anti-communist and were against the civil rights movement.  Which, if accurate, would explain Paul’s objection to Brown v. Board of Education.

Outraged to be clear:

Ron Paul voted NO on HR 7 which was the “Community Solutions Act” which is as described:

Title: To provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government program delivery to individuals and families in need, and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial security by building assets.

He also voted NO on the amendment to HR 7 that you cited.  As I stated, it does not surprise me that he would vote NO on an amendment to a bill that he voted NO against unless that bill significantly altered the original bill’s meaning.  The amendment you cited apparently did not do so for him.

Regarding the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul voted NO on the original bill but then voted YES on the amendment that you cited, HR 2862.

That amendment, HR 2862, stopped the government from being able to look at library and bookstore purchase records.  Ron Paul was one of only 38 Republicans to vote YES on HR 2862.

That amendment WEAKENED the Patiot Act, which he has consistently voted against so his voting record is consistent here.

Just to be 100% clear.

Outraged:

He isn’t disagreeing with BvsBoE. This is very clear in his statement. The fact that this isn’t a referendum on BvsBoE but one on a cncrnt res. to celebrate the anniv. of the decision is an important distinction as well.

In the speech he repeatedly states his abhorrence for forced segregation. That said, he does raise questions regarding the efficacy of forced integration and also brings to light some of its unintended, negative consequences. 

My interpretation is that he supports the decision of BvsBoE but thinks that unintended consequences have had the opposite effect desired. He supports his claim with evidence in the speech.

This is the same argument that many people put forth regarding programs like affirmative action.  The argument states that by attempting to compensate for past government failures (institutionalized discrimination) with new programs that offer special rights or privilege to one group over another (also institutionalized discrimination), the issues of racial animosity are perpetuated, not solved. People who are innocent of discrimination are punished for the sins of those who came before them.  Along the same lines, people who may not have been institutionally discriminated against, benefit from special treatment. This foments distrust and animosity and has the unintended consequence of persons associating isolated incidents that occur in their own lives with negative feelings towards entire groups of people based on superficial characteristics.  Whenever an individual feels that another group is being favored, it is impossible for that indiv. not to feel injustice.  Feelings of injustice breed hatred.

So while Ron Paul does seem to put this argument outlined forth, he does so in the context of recognizing the major contributions that BvsBoE had on our society while condemning forced segregation at the same time.

Like all of his positions, this is a nuanced position and it comes from a philosophical viewpoint. Namely, that our right