Pages:
Author

Topic: Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love - page 6. (Read 7672 times)

hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1002
January 04, 2012, 04:04:26 PM
#26
I don't think religion has any place in government.

I agree with you  - and so does Ron Paul. That's what makes him the best case candidate in this country which is somehow still overrun with people who think Jesus rode dinosaurs. We're not going to get an atheist into the white house. So we need a Christian who believes strongly in freedom and the constitution so that his ridiculous beliefs about an afterlife won't affect all the other things we need him to do as President.

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul 100% - he's still the only guy running who has proven he's trustworthy. He alone gets the label "crazy" for saying things were against the status quo at the time  (a lot of them have been proven completely correct in the last decade) -  but not because he's the only one that thinks those things. It's because he is the only guy who is completely honest.

I think this is the main reason he draws people from so many different parts of the spectrum.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
January 04, 2012, 03:56:09 PM
#25
I agree about that.  There should be freedom of choice, even within families allowing the children (that grow to become no longer children) to make their own mind rather than punishing, ridiculing and treating them differently if they express a lack of interest, understanding or agreement.  Also, currency should be impartial.  I am appreciative that Bitcoin hasn't adopted any religious influence, though I am disappointed that the addictedly religious luke-jr has included religious based influence in his source code contributions to bitcoin and bitcoin-related developments.

So if families should allow that luxury, wouldn't you want it from the president as well?
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
January 04, 2012, 03:54:07 PM
#24
Mizery, do you remember me? We met in SF. I'm not a troll.

I really don't think it's right to put people in cages if they won't pay for other people's guarding (whether they want it or not, which most probably do).

I used the word troll, but I did not refer to you as a troll.  The reference to you as a troll came from someone else.  Feel free to reread what I wrote if you'd like.

I understand. I was saying that for both of your benefits (my benefit really) to demonstrate my realness.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 04, 2012, 03:53:25 PM
#23
I agree about that.  There should be freedom of choice, even within families allowing the children (that grow to become no longer children) to make their own mind rather than punishing, ridiculing and treating them differently if they express a lack of interest, understanding or agreement.  Also, currency should be impartial.  I am appreciative that Bitcoin hasn't adopted any religious influence, though I am disappointed that the addictedly religious luke-jr has included religious based influence in his source code contributions to bitcoin and bitcoin-related developments.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
January 04, 2012, 03:21:45 PM
#22
I understand that. I just don't think a woman should have to drive up to New York from Alabama because she wants an abortion. It is a federal issue. I don't want the medical care available to me to vary from state to state.

This is an interesting point, buuuuuuut, it's still difficult to presume that there is only one entity to rule over all of a country.  Consider the same as one entity to rule over all of the planet?  It may be useful to break down the rule and authority to individual states to allow each state to handle the dispute so that they can receive the same kind of effort that a president would.

Sure it may be inconvenient to have to drive to another state if the state which you reside abolishes abortion.
But what about if abortion is abolished entirely throughout the country?  Will you then complain that you must travel to another country?  continent?  planet?  solar system?

I think the evilnesses and goodnesses in which authority exists should be made smaller (e.g. states vs country) as it then allows more direct attention.

Take schools and colleges for example.  A class with 200 students vs another class with 20 students.  Depending on the size, each student will receive more or less attention.


I don't think religion has any place in government. Yes, I would complain that I needed to travel to another country. Do you really think that because you happen to live in an area full of half-wits who cling to religion that you too should have to abide by their stance, however ignorant it may be? Think about the implications of what you are saying.

How would you feel if Christian Scientists called the shots in the US? No medical care for anyone, anywhere. God will provide. Would that be ok? So why are catholics calling the shots?

If you place more faith in state government than federal, you have obviously not dealt with government in any significant matter. Go to some assembly meetings...some of these fuckwits can barely string a sentence together. State governments are full of simpletons. Michelle Bachmann, anyone? Let's hear it for the United Countries on the American Continent...

Fractured is not better. If you think it is, move to Africa.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 04, 2012, 02:51:07 PM
#21
I understand that. I just don't think a woman should have to drive up to New York from Alabama because she wants an abortion. It is a federal issue. I don't want the medical care available to me to vary from state to state.

This is an interesting point, buuuuuuut, it's still difficult to presume that there is only one entity to rule over all of a country.  Consider the same as one entity to rule over all of the planet?  It may be useful to break down the rule and authority to individual states to allow each state to handle the dispute so that they can receive the same kind of effort that a president would.

Sure it may be inconvenient to have to drive to another state if the state which you reside abolishes abortion.
But what about if abortion is abolished entirely throughout the country?  Will you then complain that you must travel to another country?  continent?  planet?  solar system?

I think the evilnesses and goodnesses in which authority exists should be made smaller (e.g. states vs country) as it then allows more direct attention.

Take schools and colleges for example.  A class with 200 students vs another class with 20 students.  Depending on the size, each student will receive more or less attention.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3tPMGx7I3E

"They are scared of Ron Paul"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Controversy
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
January 04, 2012, 01:47:20 PM
#20
Anyone who is under 30 and does not support Ron Paul either

A. has not done their research or

B. not really under 30


(most people over 30 have resolved to the fact that the government is their master and there is nothing to do to stop it)
legendary
Activity: 1449
Merit: 1001
January 04, 2012, 07:55:47 AM
#19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3tPMGx7I3E

"They are scared of Ron Paul"
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
January 04, 2012, 03:10:40 AM
#18
I would be all for him if he wasn't a pro-life pile of shit.

Great! Because his personal beliefs about abortion will not affect his decisions to keep the federal government out of dealing with it!

So get out there and support Paul. Smiley

He sure has signed some pledges and made some statements to the contrary. How could you think that someone can act without incorporating their beliefs and ideals?

No sir. He has always said that he believes the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion, and would work against any federal interference. It's a state issue. And for the record, I am an atheist who is pro-abortion.

I understand that. I just don't think a woman should have to drive up to New York from Alabama because she wants an abortion. It is a federal issue. I don't want the medical care available to me to vary from state to state.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 04, 2012, 02:33:44 AM
#17
Besides, with a kind of open sourceness of medical techniques, and practice and perfection on those techniques, it should be fairly easy to establish a series of procedures (how-to guide?) on how to self abort thus cutting out the middle doctors and related fees/costs.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1002
January 04, 2012, 01:12:23 AM
#16
I would be all for him if he wasn't a pro-life pile of shit.

Great! Because his personal beliefs about abortion will not affect his decisions to keep the federal government out of dealing with it!

So get out there and support Paul. Smiley

He sure has signed some pledges and made some statements to the contrary. How could you think that someone can act without incorporating their beliefs and ideals?

No sir. He has always said that he believes the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion, and would work against any federal interference. It's a state issue. And for the record, I am an atheist who is pro-abortion.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 04, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
#15
Quote
Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
January 04, 2012, 12:58:49 AM
#14
I would be all for him if he wasn't a pro-life pile of shit.

Great! Because his personal beliefs about abortion will not affect his decisions to keep the federal government out of dealing with it!

So get out there and support Paul. Smiley

He sure has signed some pledges and made some statements to the contrary. How could you think that someone can act without incorporating their beliefs and ideals?
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1002
January 04, 2012, 12:50:42 AM
#13
I would be all for him if he wasn't a pro-life pile of shit.

Great! Because his personal beliefs about abortion will not affect his decisions to keep the federal government out of dealing with it!

So get out there and support Paul. Smiley
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 03, 2012, 08:39:45 PM
#12
Mizery, do you remember me? We met in SF. I'm not a troll.

I really don't think it's right to put people in cages if they won't pay for other people's guarding (whether they want it or not, which most probably do).

I used the word troll, but I did not refer to you as a troll.  The reference to you as a troll came from someone else.  Feel free to reread what I wrote if you'd like.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
January 03, 2012, 08:32:39 PM
#11
I would be all for him if he wasn't a pro-life pile of shit.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1016
Strength in numbers
January 03, 2012, 07:44:19 PM
#10
So if I own property on the border can I invite people to it? Does any third party have standing? Can the come guard my property against my will? What if I or my associates disobey the guards? Nothing happens? How is Ron funding these guards?

I am not sure.  Perhaps I or any other human existence (that has ability to speak a language, probably English is most necessary) can research some contact information for those who own property on border of united states country and interview them to ask those questions to find out their answers.  google offers free calls to united states numbers, so this should be easy for anyone in united states or access to a server/shell account in united states to do.

Don't feed this troll. No one is dumb enough to argue against Ron Paul because he wouldn't support abandoning our border security so their "friends" could illegally enter the country. That's just silly.

Mizery, do you remember me? We met in SF. I'm not a troll.

I really don't think it's right to put people in cages if they won't pay for other people's guarding (whether they want it or not, which most probably do).
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 03, 2012, 07:31:24 PM
#9
mm, well, disregarding the 'troll' type of evolution of messages, concepts and ideas to be excused so easily and offensively I can understand the concern over dwelling on all possible imperfections of all possible presidential candidates especially to make sure everything is validated and acknowledged to a satisfactory, desirable and agreeable perspective for all existences that put forth effort to evaluate all the things of all the things.

And in the case of the specificity of guarding something as being violent in nature, I am kind of confused as to what is the logic behind such an evaluation.
hero member
Activity: 868
Merit: 1002
January 03, 2012, 06:40:05 PM
#8
So if I own property on the border can I invite people to it? Does any third party have standing? Can the come guard my property against my will? What if I or my associates disobey the guards? Nothing happens? How is Ron funding these guards?

I am not sure.  Perhaps I or any other human existence (that has ability to speak a language, probably English is most necessary) can research some contact information for those who own property on border of united states country and interview them to ask those questions to find out their answers.  google offers free calls to united states numbers, so this should be easy for anyone in united states or access to a server/shell account in united states to do.

Don't feed this troll. No one is dumb enough to argue against Ron Paul because he wouldn't support abandoning our border security so their "friends" could illegally enter the country. That's just silly.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
January 03, 2012, 06:26:10 PM
#7
So if I own property on the border can I invite people to it? Does any third party have standing? Can the come guard my property against my will? What if I or my associates disobey the guards? Nothing happens? How is Ron funding these guards?

I am not sure.  Perhaps I or any other human existence (that has ability to speak a language, probably English is most necessary) can research some contact information for those who own property on border of united states country and interview them to ask those questions to find out their answers.  google offers free calls to united states numbers, so this should be easy for anyone in united states or access to a server/shell account in united states to do.
Pages:
Jump to: