Ron Paul supports Austrian ideas, the people he *****ed about (Bernake) support Kenysian ones. Do we need to involve the others?

And, would you like to discuss the issue, or just make snide remarks?

Why choose the mother's life over the babies? What makes the mother worth more?

She has an established life.

I am really starting to worry about the upcoming US election. Are there any opposition candidates who don't deny evolution, dismiss global warming, tolerate gay marriage and/or want to restrict abortions?

As well as that, I'm interested in knowing if any of them have a plan to stabilise their economy? In fairness, I don't expect the candidate to be an economist, but I'd bloody well like to hope they can employ a couple.

Unfortunately, Martyn, it seems as though the republican party just wants to run crazy *******s because that's who appeals to the republican base.

I remember a time not so long ago when I would have voted for McCain, but then he decided he wanted a chance at actually getting elected, and had to start acting crazy. This is the way of things in America right now. In the words of Lewis Black, the democratic party is a party of bad ideas, and the republican party is a party of no ideas.

I don't disagree with what you're claiming here. I'm not sure if you think I do and are trying to argue something or just clarifying a point... Anyway, the argument usually is WHEN that life begins legally. People have different opinions. But the beginning of the baby's humanity isn't a Constitutional issue, but more of a moral/philosophical one. Generally people either think the baby's humanity begins at conception (which is what I believe, and where most negative opinions (including mine) of abortion stem from) or that the baby's humanity begins at birth (which is the take most pro-abortionist have, and is usually either a fundamental of, or a justification of their opinion that abortion is no worse than clipping your fingernails.)

I'm not claiming (and didn't claim) that it's a closed issue constitutionally. I've only said that I don't understand how it can even be considered from a Constitutional stand point. I'm getting the gist of it now, but I've never thought about it in those terms. It's always been a moral/philosophical issue for me.

But, my whole argument in this thread has not been that Abortion is or isn't Constitutional, nor has it been that Abortion is or isn't morally acceptable. It's been that we live in an age where, for our nation, there's a lot more important things to be discussing in Presidential Debate than abortion stances. In the past, when the economy was good (or at least seemed good, Ron Paul predicted that fall, btw, when other prominent politicians/economists said it wouldn't happen) we could afford to focus our voting around important moral issues. But when the economy is on the verge of collapse and the way we've been doing things isn't working, shouldn't we focus our attentions on other options instead of nit-picking things like abortion?

Consider it from this perspective. I'm not sure I like Ron Paul's views on eliminating laws against drugs, but I know that whether or not heroin is illegal is not going to affect me being able to provide for my family after I get out of the Navy... But a wrecked economy will. I'm not saying I know his plans will work. But I do think that he's extremely economically intelligent, and he's the only one that seems to want to TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT, as our current economic policies keep dragging us further and further into the ground.

Lastly,

That's definitely not relevant to the current situation. I don't think anyone would argue that Ron Paul doesn't have ideas. There may be argument about whether or not they're bad... but then he's not a democrat. :p

He really doesn't have any ideas. Similar to every other politician he's just doing the same crap that people before him did. He's trying to fit a paradigm in order to get votes.

In case you missed it earlier:

"Conventional medicine has no treatment for your condition. Luckily for you, I'm a quack."

Antony, you're as far from the truth as possible. He's not "trying to get votes." He's not "fitting a paradigm." If he was, he'd probably be a much more successful politician, considering he's an amazing debater and an amazing, charismatic public speaker.

Jon`C, I didn't miss it, but I ignored it. I guess I didn't appreciate the humor of your high-brow, dismissive argument of claiming a logical fallacy in a way you didn't expect me to understand without bothering to explain which opinion of mine you were even addressing, or what was fallacious about it.

Now, if you were pointing out my belief that since it's radical it's bound to work, then let me take a page from your book.

In case you missed it earlier:

" I'm not saying I know his plans will work."

Sarn, reading your posts makes me really sad. Because of you, I have no hope for mankind. We, as a species, are screwed, because people like you can successfully procreate. You make me want to smash my head off of my desk. I would rather drag my dick through a mile of broken glass and used heroin needles than consider the notion that your opinion actually matters.

It seems you like to express your views on abortion despite rejecting that particular issue's relevance to your main point, so I feel I may address this little bit of your post. I think you're being prejudiced toward people who don't oppose abortion in thinking that they share this view that abortion is no worse than clipping your fingernails. I've never heard anyone say they think that - usually it's something about weighing the pros and cons of the individual situation. Sometimes abortion is the better choice. I don't deny that some people may think abortion is nothing, but it's not like the possibilities are limited to a person thinking either that, or being anti-abortion.

Haha no, we're not going there.

That's the brilliance of it too, we don't HAVE to go there. If a thief is threatening your life, you are allowed self defense. Your life isn't more important than the thief's, but you are allowed to defend yourself. That baby's life doesn't need to be more, less, or equal in value. It's self-defense, period.

BRILLIANT!

Who the hell is Jon Stewart???

Perhaps you'd be more familiar with his given name of Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz?

I've heard of the guy, but I'm not familiar. He's either a pharmacist or a Nascar driver. I can't put my finger on it.

I thought he was some sort of Neurosurgeon/Wrestler/Gigolo?

Well no one's disputing that he's an NWG, Alan.

Oh no, I remember... he's the deep sea explorer who discovered electricity!

HOW DID YOU LEARN MY NAME

TELL ME YOUR SECRETS

I also heard he uses Vegemite as sun-tan-lotion. Apparently it's the reason he has a cock the size of my arm.

That article had a typo, it's actually "army"

DAMMIT! That's what I get for reading Fox News!

get a room you dicks

That's why I don't read news. I assimiliate information by sticking my dick into a light socket. It's how I know everything.

Fair enough. I exaggerated. I recognize that many people have layers to their acceptance of abortion.

[quote=Cool Matty]That's the brilliance of it too, we don't HAVE to go there. If a thief is threatening your life, you are allowed self defense. Your life isn't more important than the thief's, but you are allowed to defend yourself. That baby's life doesn't need to be more, less, or equal in value. It's self-defense, period.[/quote]

So... maybe you should have though of that before you locked the thief in your house and stocked your cupboards full of food.

That's similar to what I do, but I stand in a mud puddle and put a phone cord up my pee hole. You get the same kind of effect. That's how I know how to perform heart surgery.

I'll have to try that. I've heard balsamic vinegar, a candle, and 6' of rope is also effective.

jon`c? how did you steal alan's account

Two words: rape victim.

Oh, and even better. What if your husband turns out to be a psycho? Sure he lives in your house and eats your food. Does that mean if he comes at you with a knife you can't defend yourself?

Sorry Sarn, but you have to admit this is an air-tight defense.

You know what, Cool Matty, I wrote a big post refuting your point with the actual statistics of the US' MMR, but I deleted it because this thread is about Ron Paul, not abortion.

And then I saw that, and wished I hadn't. It's not an air-tight defense, and Sarn doesn't have to admit anything. There are two problems with your comparison to robbery. First, the robbery does not occur because of the woman's actions; it occurs because the robber decides to rob her. In the robbery, the situation is the direct result of the robber's actions. In the pregnancy, the situation is the result of the woman's actions. Second, no, I do not assume that I have more right to life than the robber. His wrong actions do not make my actions in defending myself less wrong; they only make them justifyable, which is vastly different.

Sorry, but we've obviously moved on to less infuriating courses of discussion that do not make you all look like vacuous, gibbering retards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/ron-paul-can-win_b_939993.html

I couldn't find a part of that article I wanted to quote the most, and I couldn't quote all of it. So I'll offer a quote not from that article instead. First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win.

...unless you want to continue looking like someone who needs an attendant to keep them from drowning in their own saliva and other bodily exudates.

That's okay, it wouldn't have had anything refuting anyway.



There's two problems that are already addressed with a tiny ounce of common sense, AND my previous post right above yours. Read up or give up.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot, I already proposed a perfectly acceptable solution to "convenient" abortions. Without any funding from insurance or the government for them, it will temper the problem of women using abortion as an easy way out to childhood. Adoption, contraception, or a big fat sum. Pick one. (Note that this only applies to convenient abortions, not life saving or rape abortions)

This thread is pointless, will yield no results, and will be forgotten about soon... There just seems to be a handful of people who think it's actually important. Just like Ron Paul's asinine presidential campaign.

BODILY.
EXUDATES. [/SIZE][/COLOR]

funny then, Antony, that political figures are saying that Ron Paul is shaping the election.

Yes, and of course all of the polls reflect that....

So what you're saying is that you agree with Ron Paul's policies and voting record on the matter?

Well, whatever. Continuing the debate anyway.

You mean, rape victims? I already weakened my argument with an exception for them, see -



Further, when you claim something is 'addressed with a tiny ounce of common sense', you should say what that ounce of common sense is. It may be surprising to you that not everyone agrees on what constitutes 'common sense'.

Yes, they do! Please refer to the very first post in this thread.

Why? It's your post so it's roughly as interesting and full of content as the one I'm quoting.

These political dick-sucking contests threads are killing massassi and all of you (except antony, but he sucks for other reasons) aren't doing much to prevent this place from turning into a bitter cluster**** where everyone feels entitled to jump down each other's throats over a difference of ****ing opinion, and quite frankly it's making me sick.

tl;dr go drink a knife.

Yeah there are a lot of reasons why I suck, but getting worked up over politicians who appeal to a small minority is not one of them!