• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ron Paul is nuts...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 29, 2006
14,727
2,576
126
Strange how pro-life people are also pro-death penalty. And how after the child is born want to penalize the parents for improper care but give no support for proper care. But then you're nuts too.
Come on im not ever pro-life and i am for the death penalty but even i can draw the conclusions how they are different. Lame attempt to make a point this was.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,296
3,965
136
This is brought up over and over again by lefties..."XXX is for small government but he wants abortion to be illegal !"

See if you can follow this logic...

Some people believe in small government in our lives but they still want murder to be illegal.

Some of those same people consider abortion to be an act of murder, because it is depriving the fetus of life. The same way you can get charged for 2 murders when you kill a pregnant woman.

You may not agree with this but can the resident lefties at least follow this logic? Its not at all hypocritical to want limited government but still want abortion to be illegal.
This is what gets me about pro-lifers. They usually bitch about the cost of welfare, yet they want more mouths to feed on welfare by denying abortions. Once the child is born, they want to forget it exists and not support it. But some will literally kill to see that they're born.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,933
2
81
This is what gets me about pro-lifers. They usually bitch about the cost of welfare, yet they want more mouths to feed on welfare by denying abortions. Once the child is born, they want to forget it exists and not support it. But some will literally kill to see that they're born.
you are proving the point that abortion is nothing but a divide and conquer hot button issue the establishment uses to keep status quo corrupt politicians in power. wake the fuck up.
 

chihlidog

Senior member
Apr 12, 2011
884
1
81
The death penalty argument holds no water IMO. Aside from the fact that criminals have made their choice knowing the consequences, while the baby hasnt - I, and probably most other pro-lifers, would gladly vote to abolish the death penalty if it also meant abolishing most (notice I said most, I cant judge in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening pregnancies) abortions.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
His foreign policy views are, in my view, pretty nutty, but in other respects I think he talks sense. Foreign policy is, however, a big deal, since national defense is arguably the President's most important role, and I wouldn't vote for someone with such a detached view of the projection of American military power.
We don't need a foreign-minded president right now. We've had that for the last 12 years and it hasn't done us any damn good.

We need a president that focuses on fixing our own shit and lets the rest of the world fix their own shit. We can't fix our shit while at the same time fix everyone else's shit. We don't have the resources.

We need a foreign policy of non-interventionism for a few years while we right our ship. If, after that time, we decide that some foreign country needs our aid, then we can decide whether or not it benefits us to give it. Pouring billions of dollars per year in "foreign aid" to Israel and other countries doesn't seem like a particularly brilliant idea when we are running a massive, massive deficite and most of our domestic programs are severely underfunded.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,933
2
81
We don't need a foreign-minded president right now. We've had that for the last 12 years and it hasn't done us any damn good.

We need a president that focuses on fixing our own shit and lets the rest of the world fix their own shit. We can't fix our shit while at the same time fix everyone else's shit. We don't have the resources.

We need a foreign policy of non-interventionism for a few years while we right our ship. If, after that time, we decide that some foreign country needs our aid, then we can decide whether or not it benefits us to give it. Pouring billions of dollars per year in "foreign aid" to Israel and other countries doesn't seem like a particularly brilliant idea when we are running a massive, massive deficite and most of our domestic programs are severely underfunded.
exactly. We don't even properly extort the countries we are helping. We should be getting oil rights up the wazzooo for the work we have done liberating the middle east. If we wanna play global police we need to start getting paid, then they(whomever we are helping) can decide if they really want our help.

stability in the middle east is directly benefiting OPEC countries who are bending us the fuck over. Gass should be 99 cents a gallon for all the shit we have done.
 
Last edited:

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
This is what gets me about pro-lifers. They usually bitch about the cost of welfare, yet they want more mouths to feed on welfare by denying abortions. Once the child is born, they want to forget it exists and not support it. But some will literally kill to see that they're born.
That's easily fixable...

You want government aid (EBT, food stamps, welfare, etc)? You get forced contraception, in the form of an IUD.

Right now, we REWARD poor people for getting pregnant by giving them more fucking money. It's a circle that will never end and abortion will not solve it.

While I detest abortion, I'm of the opinion that what private people do with their own money in the privacy of their own doctor's office is their own business. I will not ever, EVER condone the government providing free abortion services for girls/women that are too stupid to not have sex.

I mean, hell, you can get free birth control in any city with almost no questions asked. If they're too stupid to do that, or too stupid to remember to take it, then we shouldn't be rewarding them by fixing their mistakes for them.
 

chihlidog

Senior member
Apr 12, 2011
884
1
81
exactly. We don't even properly extort the countries we are helping. We should be getting oil rights up the wazzooo for the work we have done liberating the middle east. If we wanna play global police we need to start getting paid, then they(whomever we are helping) can decide if they really want our help.

stability in the middle east is directly benefiting OPEC countries who are bending us the fuck over. Gass should be 99 cents a gallon for all the shit we have done.
Why do I get told I'm an arrogant American bigot when I say basically this very same thing?
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,933
2
81
Why do I get told I'm an arrogant American bigot when I say basically this very same thing?
If its going to be war for profit then it should NOT just be the private corps reaping the profits. The taxpayers and those paying in blood need to be cut in.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
16,296
3,965
136
That's easily fixable...

You want government aid (EBT, food stamps, welfare, etc)? You get forced contraception, in the form of an IUD.

Right now, we REWARD poor people for getting pregnant by giving them more fucking money. It's a circle that will never end and abortion will not solve it.

While I detest abortion, I'm of the opinion that what private people do with their own money in the privacy of their own doctor's office is their own business. I will not ever, EVER condone the government providing free abortion services for girls/women that are too stupid to not have sex.

I mean, hell, you can get free birth control in any city with almost no questions asked. If they're too stupid to do that, or too stupid to remember to take it, then we shouldn't be rewarding them by fixing their mistakes for them.
Then what do you propose happens to the children born to those "too stupid" people? Take them away from their birth-mothers? Put them in an orphanage? It costs money no matter what. The taxpayers are still "on the hook".
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
This is what gets me about pro-lifers. They usually bitch about the cost of welfare, yet they want more mouths to feed on welfare by denying abortions. Once the child is born, they want to forget it exists and not support it. But some will literally kill to see that they're born.
So you're saying you'd prefer for someone to be ok with something they feel is morally incorrect just to solve another issue? So are you saying you don't understand how someone can stand by their morals/principles even if straying from those morals might solve some other problem?
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
Then what do you propose happens to the children born to those "too stupid" people? Take them away from their birth-mothers? Put them in an orphanage? It costs money no matter what. The taxpayers are still "on the hook".
The idea is to prevent/discourage people from being stupid in the first place.

If a person has a job and has a kid, great, good for them.

If a person has no job and no money and is receiving government assistance for living, they should NOT be having kids. Yet we reward them for having kids by giving them more money.

That said, an orphanage full of kids is a lot cheaper to run and care for those kids than giving money to each family and then giving the kids two meals a day at school anyway because the parents refuse to buy food with their welfare money.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
So you're saying you'd prefer for someone to be ok with something they feel is morally incorrect just to solve another issue? So are you saying you don't understand how someone can stand by their morals/principles even if straying from those morals might solve some other problem?
Single-issue voters are a problem.

A president by himself CANNOT pass a law legalizing or banning abortion. So refusing to vote for the best candidate for the job just because of his different views on abortion is silly. Even if he's elected, he's not going to be able to change anything by himself.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,592
2
81
This is brought up over and over again by lefties..."XXX is for small government but he wants abortion to be illegal !"

See if you can follow this logic...

Some people believe in small government in our lives but they still want murder to be illegal.

Some of those same people consider abortion to be an act of murder, because it is depriving the fetus of life. The same way you can get charged for 2 murders when you kill a pregnant woman.

You may not agree with this but can the resident lefties at least follow this logic? Its not at all hypocritical to want limited government but still want abortion to be illegal.
then those people should also be against the murder of all animals and plants, seeing as that fetus is as selfaware as a ficus...
 

PricklyPete

Lifer
Sep 17, 2002
14,714
164
106
Single-issue voters are a problem.

A president by himself CANNOT pass a law legalizing or banning abortion. So refusing to vote for the best candidate for the job just because of his different views on abortion is silly. Even if he's elected, he's not going to be able to change anything by himself.
I was not arguing that at all. The commenter I quoted didn't understand how someone could stand for a certain principle when that principle may in fact exacerbate another issue. If you feel something is morally wrong, it doesn't mean that you should suddenly be "ok" with it to solve some other issue.

I agree with you that single issue voters are a problem and short sided. Regardless, it is my understanding that Paul feels that it is a state issue and shouldn't be handled at the federal level anyway...so in relation to his office as president...it is somewhat irrelevant (especially as you said, he has little input on the issue other than the possible chance that he gets to nominate a supreme court justice.
 

chihlidog

Senior member
Apr 12, 2011
884
1
81
then those people should also be against the murder of all animals and plants, seeing as that fetus is as selfaware as a ficus...
A) The "proof" of that is debatable at best.

B) I should think we ALL agree that human life is more important than plants and animals, do we not? Unless you're prepared to take a different position, I think your argument falls flat.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
Wasn't this about Ron Paul and the election?

Are all you guys focusing on an "issue" that may directly effect, MAYBE, 1 out of 10 of you?

1) Abortion = Bullshit argument. Regardless of how you feel, the government should not be involved in this. Your CHURCH should, your FAMILY should, but I do not want the government in my privates. Why we even pay attention to it is pointless.

2) Foreign policy. Even if we did not get gas at 99¢ a gallon, I would like to see some profit go to pay our DEBTS. We never fully planned out the Iraq war and got only as far as "We beat him.... now what?"

3) Death Penalty. Useless. Unless we get omniscient and know who really DID kill who, how does killing a person really save any lives? The guy isn't coming out again (if we revamp our system so we do not have petty thieves and pot smokers in our state prisons, 3 strikes is BASEBALL, not life). Until we know a way to convict with 100% certainty, we will still kill the innocent.

We eliminate the DP, we can free up a lot of unnecessary court time on appeals and just put these guys to work making iPods.

4) Taxes/Spending. Look, it is fucking simple. WE OWE MONEY. How do you fix that? SPEND LESS and "EARN" MORE. All these false models showing increased growth through reduced taxes are bupkis. They may fit better to consumer items that are optional, but many (in this day) are not (automotive travel, for instance). Taxes need to be RESTORED, not "raised" as everyone keeps putting it. Hell, go back to the Reagan years if you have to! AND our spending needs to be cut.

We need our bills to be two fold, nevermind making two separate ones that do one or the other and just leave us halfway there.

5) ENOUGH with this partisan hardline BS. the PEOPLE need REPRESENTATIVES, not party members. REGARDLESS of your party, if your people say "hey, we need more taxes and less spending on 'blah'" that should be YOUR position, nevermind selling your people on your parties platform.


And that is about it. I do not think Ron stands a Rats chance in a Turkish prison (You ever BEEN in a Turkish prison Johnny?), but he DOES make a bunch of really good points.

Will he make a good president? No. No more than an honest man makes a good used car salesman. He does say many issues as they are, but that does not CONVINCE anyone.

I think he is a needed ingredient in any debate and political campaign to try to bring the truth back to the table, but as an elected official designated with the representation of our country..... RuPaul might be better. :p
 

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
then those people should also be against the murder of all animals and plants, seeing as that fetus is as selfaware as a ficus...
Sorry, murder laws are written about murdering humans, not animals or plants.

It has nothing to do with being "selfaware".
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Ron Paul needs to get back in the Time capsule and go back to the 19th Century.
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
31
91
We really need spending cuts as well as tax increases to get out of the hole we're in. Which candidate is advocating that? We have the lowest tax rates in recent history and we're in the worse shape since the Great Depression.

Spending cuts alone won't do it, and lowering taxes further for the rich won't fix it either.
Ron Paul's plan would balance the federal budget.

You don't need tax increases if you actually cut services.

The only reason that other politicians think you need tax increases also is because they're scared to cut welfare and military spending, which is what, 75% of our total spending?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Ron Paul is widely considered a joke, in both parties, and no one takes him particularly seriously because he's consistently wrong and not particularly bright to boot.
Anyone who see's two evils and goes "I'll vote for the lesser" isn't to bright and should be considered a joke by most.

Also, him being pro-life is pretty much the main reason I won't vote for him. As much as I dislike the act of aborting an unborn baby, whatevs I can see where it would be necessary and who the fuck am I to dictate to others what to do with their lives?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY