Topic: Actual Issues With Ron Paul (Legally defining "Life", Science Funding, etc) (Read 2110 times)
January 15, 2012, 01:34:55 PM
So anyway... does anyone have a video of RP talking about the role of the government in science research?
January 14, 2012, 02:29:25 PM
Yeah more or less. If the US suspended government and defense for a year, that would be best however.
January 14, 2012, 07:06:41 AM
let me rephrase that for you...
Q. how has China lost?
A. US owes them money.
good luck getting any of it.
so US, is planning to ... Destroy their own reputationQ. how has China lost?
A. US owes them money.
good luck getting any of it.
i wouldn't exactly say 'planning to'... it's happening by accident.
January 14, 2012, 06:56:35 AM
let me rephrase that for you...
Q. how has China lost?
A. US owes them money.
good luck getting any of it.
so US, is planning to do a Greece on China? Destroy their own reputation, so no one gonna do business with them, anytime soon? sure thing!Q. how has China lost?
A. US owes them money.
good luck getting any of it.
may america starve to dead, as long as they have "freedom".
January 14, 2012, 06:23:03 AM
As if that matters when it gets to that level. There is a reason the US has gotten away with its bullshit the last 60 years. They have a military ready to fight two fronts at once at any time, ready to go. The invasion you describe is lose-lose, and this has been the plan for decades. If, or when, the US falls it won't be to an invasion.
not if RP get to be president.I don't think you understand American politics at all.
January 14, 2012, 06:20:56 AM
As if that matters when it gets to that level. There is a reason the US has gotten away with its bullshit the last 60 years. They have a military ready to fight two fronts at once at any time, ready to go. The invasion you describe is lose-lose, and this has been the plan for decades. If, or when, the US falls it won't be to an invasion.
not if RP get to be president. January 14, 2012, 06:17:07 AM
I disagree with RP on this point
but I believe the guy means what he says, you can work with a person like that, these other wankers, they aren't even people, they are media constructs
Romney vs. Obama...f'ing great
but I believe the guy means what he says, you can work with a person like that, these other wankers, they aren't even people, they are media constructs
Romney vs. Obama...f'ing great
I disagree with a lot of what RP says, but I mostly agree with the above sentiment. Although they arent as much media constructs as they are hand picked representatives of big business.
So Id like to hear RP speak out more force fully against corporate election funding, superpacs, citizens united etc. IMO that is the crux of the problem. Once politicians again depend on popularity of their ideas instead of corporate funding, then you might again get elections that matter. I would vote for anyone who runs on that, with little regard of the rest of his POVs.
Same here.
I owe you $100 and I have a problem. I owe you $1,000,000,000,000 and you have a problem.
you still have a problem, if you own me $1,000,000,000,000. i could stop doing business with you, and 'starve' you to dead(no more iphones for you). or invade you, and take whats rightfully mine.As if that matters when it gets to that level. There is a reason the US has gotten away with its bullshit the last 60 years. They have a military ready to fight two fronts at once at any time, ready to go. The invasion you describe is lose-lose, and this has been the plan for decades. If, or when, the US falls it won't be to an invasion.
January 14, 2012, 06:11:25 AM
I owe you $100 and I have a problem. I owe you $1,000,000,000,000 and you have a problem.
you still have a problem, if you own me $1,000,000,000,000. i could stop doing business with you, and 'starve' you to dead(no more iphones for you). or invade you, and take whats rightfully mine. 
January 14, 2012, 06:05:03 AM
I disagree with RP on this point
but I believe the guy means what he says, you can work with a person like that, these other wankers, they aren't even people, they are media constructs
Romney vs. Obama...f'ing great
but I believe the guy means what he says, you can work with a person like that, these other wankers, they aren't even people, they are media constructs
Romney vs. Obama...f'ing great
I disagree with a lot of what RP says, but I mostly agree with the above sentiment. Although they arent as much media constructs as they are hand picked representatives of big business.
So Id like to hear RP speak out more force fully against corporate election funding, superpacs, citizens united etc. IMO that is the crux of the problem. Once politicians again depend on popularity of their ideas instead of corporate funding, then you might again get elections that matter. I would vote for anyone who runs on that, with little regard of the rest of his POVs.
January 14, 2012, 05:59:23 AM
I owe you $100 and I have a problem. I owe you $1,000,000,000,000 and you have a problem.
January 14, 2012, 05:57:45 AM
America is going down the tubes.
RP can't fix it
What's there to discuss?
FTFYRP can't fix it
What's there to discuss?
America, is gonna lose big time to China, RP or not.
China has already lost big time to america. What makes you say that?
sure America have some useless ethics and moral. but that does not make people happy.
the US have lost big time to China.
January 14, 2012, 05:51:04 AM
America is going down the tubes.
RP can't fix it
What's there to discuss?
FTFYRP can't fix it
What's there to discuss?
America, is gonna lose big time to China, RP or not.
China has already lost big time to america. What makes you say that?
January 14, 2012, 05:47:06 AM
America is going down the tubes.
RP can't fix it
What's there to discuss?
FTFYRP can't fix it
What's there to discuss?
America, is gonna lose big time to China, RP or not.
January 14, 2012, 05:35:42 AM
America is going down the tubes.
RP can fix it
What's there to discuss?
RP can fix it
What's there to discuss?
January 13, 2012, 11:39:34 PM
I'm not baiting anyone on purpose. I'm quoting primary sources, opinionating on it, and looking for feedback from the bitcoin community.
He has his faults, but he's the least of the evils right now.
January 13, 2012, 10:27:16 PM
I'm not baiting anyone on purpose. I'm quoting primary sources, opinionating on it, and looking for feedback from the bitcoin community.
January 12, 2012, 03:57:48 AM
You're baiting progressives. This should be interesting. "But the government created the Internet!"
January 10, 2012, 07:04:33 PM
Part 1
I really don't care if someone poisons a ball of cells with no nervous system, and politicians have no place in "defining life". Is a tumor "life"? Anyway, I see this being circumvented in much the same way cows and chickens are not animals (livestock and poultry, respectively) depending on where they live to avoid animal cruelty laws.
Currently, in our society, having a child at a young age pretty much guarantees you a life of debt, and young people are programmed to like sex so they often act contrary to their own interest. I see more cons in forcing all pregnancies to go to term (rise in black market abortions, increased number of people living in poverty, telling women "what to do with their bodies") than I do pros (makes me feel better about the world).
On the other hand, I don't agree with the courts justification of Roe v Wade (although IANAL). It seems to me that giving the Feds the power to intervene in state law on this matter should have been made in the form of an amendment. If this cannot pass, then it should be left up to each state to decide. This may cause inconvenience for some people but it is the way the system was set up to prevent totalitarianism.
Part 2
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/ron-paul-would-erase-billions-in.html?rss=1
Has anyone looked into the exact research projects being cut under his budget plan? Do we even need government funded research? I.e., in retrospect was the NASA moonshot a good thing? The human genome project? About $30 billion is spent on health-related research (NIH) per year. That works out to about 100 dollars a year per citizen donated to study of disease and understanding life. How many people here would donate to private funding agencies (such as American Heart Association, etc) to fund health research, and how much?
To keep with the AHA example, In 2010-2011, about 20% of their $620 million budget was needed for administration and fundraising:
http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@fin/documents/downloadable/ucm_433433.pdf
See page 40 of this document for a breakdown of NIH spending. It reports about 5% is spent on administration, but a portion of the 53% that goes to research project grants is also going to be administration. One would need to go through each Institute's numbers to find out total overhead cost, and I need to go to work. Maybe I will do that later.
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_020911.pdf
Quote
As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.
Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.
After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.
The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.
After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life. And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption. And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.
The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It’s time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American’s right to life.
I really don't care if someone poisons a ball of cells with no nervous system, and politicians have no place in "defining life". Is a tumor "life"? Anyway, I see this being circumvented in much the same way cows and chickens are not animals (livestock and poultry, respectively) depending on where they live to avoid animal cruelty laws.
Currently, in our society, having a child at a young age pretty much guarantees you a life of debt, and young people are programmed to like sex so they often act contrary to their own interest. I see more cons in forcing all pregnancies to go to term (rise in black market abortions, increased number of people living in poverty, telling women "what to do with their bodies") than I do pros (makes me feel better about the world).
On the other hand, I don't agree with the courts justification of Roe v Wade (although IANAL). It seems to me that giving the Feds the power to intervene in state law on this matter should have been made in the form of an amendment. If this cannot pass, then it should be left up to each state to decide. This may cause inconvenience for some people but it is the way the system was set up to prevent totalitarianism.
Part 2
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/10/ron-paul-would-erase-billions-in.html?rss=1
Has anyone looked into the exact research projects being cut under his budget plan? Do we even need government funded research? I.e., in retrospect was the NASA moonshot a good thing? The human genome project? About $30 billion is spent on health-related research (NIH) per year. That works out to about 100 dollars a year per citizen donated to study of disease and understanding life. How many people here would donate to private funding agencies (such as American Heart Association, etc) to fund health research, and how much?
To keep with the AHA example, In 2010-2011, about 20% of their $620 million budget was needed for administration and fundraising:
http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@fin/documents/downloadable/ucm_433433.pdf
See page 40 of this document for a breakdown of NIH spending. It reports about 5% is spent on administration, but a portion of the 53% that goes to research project grants is also going to be administration. One would need to go through each Institute's numbers to find out total overhead cost, and I need to go to work. Maybe I will do that later.
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/NIH_BIB_020911.pdf
Jump to: