Rand Paul: Compares appliances to abortion, apparently takes tremendous dumps

[matt0611]

I picture you saying that looking at your contribution to the toilet, demanding anyone in the house come look.

You just committed a felony assault on the word awesome.

Paul is a nut and you lick the bottom of his feet. Boggling.

Anyone who doesn't believe we should regulate and control everything under the sun from Washington is a nut to you. No surprise here!

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I agree that this Act was unnecessary. Anyone who doesn't think so is a subscriber to the "liberal" notion that freedom should be sacrificed in the name of equality of outcomes: "Everyone must be protected from the dangers of car crashes, so manufacturer and consumer freedom can be reduced to accomplish it."

It is the single guiding principle behind almost every regulation that the government enacts and enforces... and entirely the opposite of what conservatives believe, which is that government is neither entitled nor effective in matters that are fundamentally a function of consumer choice.

My problem with liberals is that they refuse the acknowledge that the tradeoff is even there. Even for laws I support always weigh the benefit of the law vs the freedom it takes away.

 

[jonks]

My problem with liberals is that they refuse the acknowledge that the tradeoff is even there. Even for laws I support always weigh the benefit of the law vs the freedom it takes away.

Yawn blah blah liberals blah yawn caricature blah. "Liberals" see the tradeoff just as well as you do and probably come down on the other side more than you on most things. Don't accuse almost half the country of being oblivious simply because they disagree with you.

Allow me to quote a liberal: "The first challenge is to ensure both freedom and security. Freedom and security are often presented as being equal and opposite, the more one has, the less one has of the other. In fact, I think they are mutually dependent. Without security, liberty is fragile. Without freedom, security is oppressive. The challenge is to strike a balance: enough security to support our freedoms, but neither too much nor too little to put them in danger."

Now you may disagree with where liberals draw that line, but pretending only you and your side sees the competing interests involved smacks of echo chamber thought.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I picture you saying "I just gave birth to another progressive liberal" while looking at your contribution to the toilet

FTFY

 

[Atreus21]

Good argument.

Government lets you choose to kill your child, but it'll mandate the appliances you use.

Paul chose very poor words to make a fundamentally good argument.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm actually with Rand Paul on this. I think history in both the US and the rest of the world is pretty clear that if abortion is made illegal, we really do need heavy duty toilets to flush the evidence from dangerous, self induced abortions that will inevitably take place inside people's homes.

 

[jonks]

Government lets you choose to kill your child, but it'll mandate the appliances you use.

You can legally kill your children? Please, don't tell my wife this.

Wait, why is this happy couple being charged with anything? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20039299-504083.html

 

[fskimospy]

Paul chose very poor words to make a fundamentally good argument.

Except that of course it presumes a fetus is a child, which sort of undercuts the reasoning of Roe v. Wade. That, and the government isn't 'allowing' you to do anything to your child, its action to stop it has been deemed specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

So really, he's expressing awe that the government isn't taking actions that it's barred from performing, while it IS taking actions that it is not constitutionally barred from. That's a fundamentally retarded argument.

Of course, that's what happens when you live in a fantasyland like Rand Paul does.

 

[Atreus21]

Except that of course it presumes a fetus is a child, which sort of undercuts the reasoning of Roe v. Wade. That, and the government isn't 'allowing' you to do anything to your child, its action to stop it has been deemed specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

So really, he's expressing awe that the government isn't taking actions that it's barred from performing, while it IS taking actions that it is not constitutionally barred from. That's a fundamentally retarded argument.

Of course, that's what happens when you live in a fantasyland like Rand Paul does.

In the end, in this country you have the right to destroy your own progeny, but not to choose your own toilet.

That's it.

 

[fskimospy]

In the end, in this country you have the right to destroy your own progeny, but not to choose your own toilet.

That's it.

You sure you want to go that way? It's just as easy to say that in Rand Paul's world the government would be unable to restrict your choice of toilet, but would be able to restrict your choice of medical procedures on your own body.

The reason why you shouldn't say either of these things, is because they are dumb.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Pro-lifers just don't understand how some women want to choose what to do with their lives and bodies. And, the Government is there to protect that right.

For the last time; fuck off, it's not your body.

 

[Atreus21]

You sure you want to go that way? It's just as easy to say that in Rand Paul's world the government would be unable to restrict your choice of toilet, but would be able to restrict your choice of medical procedures on your own body.

The reason why you shouldn't say either of these things, is because they are dumb.

I shouldn't say EITHER of these things? You think the government should be able to restrict your choice of toilet?

I don't think the government should be able to restrict any medical choice you make, except in such a case when that choice inflicts harm or death to a third party, as in the case of abortion. They should restrict abortion on the same grounds as they restrict murder or infantacide.

The issue is only further horrifying in that you're not killing just anyone, but your own child. No human being should have that liberty.

 

[fskimospy]

I shouldn't say EITHER of these things? You think the government should be able to restrict your choice of toilet?

I don't think the government should be able to restrict any medical choice you make, except in such a case when that choice inflicts harm or death to a third party, as in the case of abortion. They should restrict abortion on the same grounds as they restrict murder or infantacide.

The issue is only further horrifying in that you're not killing just anyone, but your own child. No human being should have that liberty.

Right, but America doesn't consider a fetus a child in that way. If we did, you would probably have your way. If your argument boils down to the fact that you define child differently than US law does... well... okay. If Rand Paul's argument is based around him doing the same thing, well then he's just wasting his breath.

My argument is that Rand Paul wants to label it an absurdity to regulate toilets but not ban abortion. I believe it to be equally as absurd to protect toilet choice while limiting what someone can do with their own body. (as Rand Paul would like to do)

 

[bamacre]

Bad analogy to make a valid point. Nothing more.

IMHO, a better analogy is that a woman has a right to her body when she's pregnant, but not when she wants to smoke a joint.

 

[jonks]

The issue is only further horrifying in that you're not killing just anyone, but your own child. No human being should have that liberty.

Doubt you'll find anyone disagreeing with that.

 

[Atreus21]

My argument is that Rand Paul wants to label it an absurdity to regulate toilets but not ban abortion. I believe it to be equally as absurd to protect toilet choice while limiting what someone can do with their own body. (as Rand Paul would like to do)

I don't find that absurd at all.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't find that absurd at all.

ok.

 

[her209]

The issue is only further horrifying in that you're not killing just anyone, but your own child. No human being should have that liberty.

No exceptions in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.?

 

[jonks]

No exceptions in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.?

I think a cut&paste from past threads will circumvent where this will lead here.

 

[Carmen813]

And people wonder why this country is going down the shitter...