Ron Paul vs. Any Other Candidate

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

and this thread has been hijacked...

The abortion issue is about "when does life begin." This is the key issue.

No, it isn't. Life began four and a half billion years ago. There is no "beginning of life" bullshit in the abortion debate. Nobody disputes the fact that a zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Anyone that does dispute that is factually wrong.

If it was about a women's choice about when to kill their unborn, then how is it that when a pregnant women is murdered and her unborn child is also killed that it is a double murder but when a woman decides to kill her own unborn child that it's OK?

Because it's about a woman deciding what to do with her own body.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Technically the fetus is its own body also.

Of course it is.

Imagine that you need to feed off of me in order to survive. You are your own body. I am my own body. Do I not have a right to kick you off? Why should I have to lug you around all day? Why should I have to consume enough nutrients to care for you just because you're dependent on me? Find someone else to leech off of if you can.

Like lew said, the argument is about whether or not the woman should be forced to be a slave to her fetus. Should she be COERCED into providing it with nutrients? I don't think she should be.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Of course it is.

Imagine that you need to feed off of me in order to survive. You are your own body. I am my own body. Do I not have a right to kick you off? Why should I have to lug you around all day? Why should I have to consume enough nutrients to care for you just because you're dependent on me? Find someone else to leech off of if you can.

Like lew said, the argument is about whether or not the woman should be forced to be a slave to her fetus. Should she be COERCED into providing it with nutrients? I don't think she should be.

Should be "coerced" to feed her child after birth? What's the difference?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Should be "coerced" to feed her child after birth? What's the difference?

She's not coerced to feed her child after birth. She can put it up for adoption.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

No, it isn't. Life began four and a half billion years ago. There is no "beginning of life" bullshit in the abortion debate. Nobody disputes the fact that a zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Anyone that does dispute that is factually wrong.

Click on "When Life Begins" - unless you think all these people with Doctor degrees are wrong...

clar

Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that black people are not persons. They changed that didn't they?

When I say "When Life Begins," I am not talking when humans came into existence. I'm talking about the beginning of life at conception. Geesh....

Eventually those 9 people under my name will have to decide this issue and the next President of the United States will choose who will take the place of any Supreme Court Justice that dies or retires during their tenure. As such, I want to see a pro-life candidate elected...like Ron Paul who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies.

Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade tells her side of the story: National Catholic Register: Won By Love - Norma McCorvy's Story

Any other conversation on this issue is moot, but I'll let you have the last word since you seemed to have hijacked my thread...

Fed Up

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Not to split hairs here, but the most recent complaint in that list is from 1993. 5 complains in as many years as he's been a congressman?

I thought I saw an article about these things explained once also, but I think the fact that they're from at LEAST 15 years ago makes them pretty silly to bring up

I don't know about that. Everytime Pat Buchanan runs the press brings up just about everything he said or did going back to my Administration!

[Ardentfrost]

I hate the abortion issue because of all the personal issues on it. That's even FURTHER reason why this should be handled at a more local level. If even like-minded people can't agree on it, then how are we supposed to agree on it as a nation? The right of the woman compared to the right of the baby can be weighed at personal and local levels. It should be a non-issue federally, which is the entire point of rolling back Roe v Wade. No matter how you cut it, it's a personal issue and personal issues are not for the federal government.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Click on "When Life Begins" - unless you think all these people with Doctor degrees are wrong...

wtf?

What I said is directly in line with what these guys are saying. Why the fuck would I say that the people with "Doctor degrees" are wrong?

Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that black people are not persons. They changed that didn't they?

Non-sequitor.

When I say "When Life Begins," I am not talking when humans came into existence. I'm talking about the beginning of life at conception. Geesh....

And I'm saying that it's disingenuous to make it about "when life begins" at all. It is life. Nobody disputes that it is life. Anyone that does dispute that is factually incorrect.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't know about that. Everytime Pat Buchanan runs the press brings up just about everything he said or did going back to my Administration!

I agree that if he hasn't recanted or changed his mind or had good reason for saying the things he did (passages being selectively chosen to make him seem like a nut, which happens all the time to a shit ton of politicians), then I hope to hear some reasoning behind it.

But again, I'm not really worried about things from 15 years ago personally. I've never claimed RP is perfect, I've just said he's the most consistent, honest, and suitable candidate for the job this election cycle. If he wants to roll back Roe v. Wade so make it easier to outlaw abortions, then I think he's doing it for the wrong reason. I have also heard him tout "secure our borders," but depending on his specific ideas on how that should be done, I could see room for him to be wrong (as far as I'm concerned) in that respect too. However, those are the only two things I've even remotely heard about that I may not agree with. 2 reasons to not want him as prez compared to the 100 [sic] reasons I do want him as prez ain't too shabby even without comparing him to the other candidates who are all pretty much God awful.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

No, it isn't. Life began four and a half billion years ago. There is no "beginning of life" bullshit in the abortion debate. Nobody disputes the fact that a zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Anyone that does dispute that is factually wrong.

There is a "beginning of life" aspect to the debate, it deals with when that zygote/embryo/fetus becomes an individual person being with rights of their own that the mother shouldn't be able to terminate

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

wtf?

What I said is directly in line with what these guys are saying. Why the fuck would I say that the people with "Doctor degrees" are wrong?


Non-sequitor.


And I'm saying that it's disingenuous to make it about "when life begins" at all. It is life. Nobody disputes that it is life. Anyone that does dispute that is factually incorrect.

I might have misread what you said earlier while I was searching through the thread for posts about the issues that Ron Paul has versus any other candidates.....

I read quickly when the post has nothing to do with the thread...

Fed Up

[motivez]

What does Ron Paul want to do with public schools (get rid of them, etc?) and if it is get rid of them, what does he think is an appropriate role for government to have in providing for education for those who wouldn't be able to afford private school (of which there would be many)

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

What does Ron Paul want to do with public schools (get rid of them, etc?) and if it is get rid of them, what does he think is an appropriate role for government to have in providing for education for those who wouldn't be able to afford private school (of which there would be many)

Ron Paul on Education

He wants to abandon federal control and allow the local governments to do what they see as best for the students. Funding would be, as it often is currently, a local thing but could be a state thing as well, he only offers giving up the federal control.

[motivez]

I don't know that I agree with that really, having moved from state to state and having to deal with differences in the education systems, I think there needs to be a nationalized standard for public education..

When I moved here the school wouldn't accept many of my credits because they were "half credits" and they didn't do that here.. letting states that disagree on so much already set different standards seems to penalize students who might have to move..

I also think if you leave it to the local level and abandon any federal funding you wind up with a situation that has the children of the rich get a far better education while the children of the poor are left behind.. even moreso than what happens now.

What does he think about things like Pell Grants, etc.. which help pay for many people to go to college?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't know that I agree with that really, having moved from state to state and having to deal with differences in the education systems, I think there needs to be a nationalized standard for public education..

When I moved here the school wouldn't accept many of my credits because they were "half credits" and they didn't do that here.. letting states that disagree on so much already set different standards seems to penalize students who might have to move..

I also think if you leave it to the local level and abandon any federal funding you wind up with a situation that has the children of the rich get a far better education while the children of the poor are left behind.. even moreso than what happens now.

What does he think about things like Pell Grants, etc.. which help pay for many people to go to college?

Dunno his thoughts on them, but I think they suck. School and especially college isn't for everyone. If you're going to spend the money to get a college education, you should have incentive to choose a degree that's going to better your status rather than burn through 5 years of your life floating by on something you have no intention of using (even cursorily). College doesn't have to be for the rich, and there are certainly a lot of scholarship and funding opportunities out there, but if you can't get any of those, then get a loan and pay it off like me. It's not that bad if you focus and get through fast or work at the same time to help pay the bills and borrow less (I started doing the first method and ended up doing the other ).

As for standardizations, that is a hopeless fantasy. The dept of education is defunct and no amount of money can change that. There are too many kids, and the "standardized" tests they promote have been proven again and again to mean jack shit in the end. If colleges can come to agreements without being standardized, then so can grade schools.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

As you can tell, no one who was spouting off about Paul in this forum and The Floor, has taken me up on this challenge. This is what I expected.

Donkey and Octavius have not responded, yet are very capable themesleves of asking questions expecting answers about Paul.

On an issue vs. issue basis, Paul stands alone.

I don't need to debate Paul's stance on his issues unless it is mano y mano or beatch. This is the point in my saying in the original post, "Would like to debate issue vs. issue anyone who is for a candidate other than Ron Paul."

If I get no takers to this challenge, then that proves (to me) his stance on the issues are superior to any other candidates.

Don't you find it ironic that no one has replied? I do. It's easy for someone to attack Ron Paul's chances or talk about his low polling numbers, but when it comes to debating his stance on the issues vs. any other candidate, I hear nothing but crickets chirping on this thread.

Fed Up

I just don't give a fuck. Don't confuse the two. I am glad you decide to speak for me as to why I have or haven't posted in this thread. Now you try to differentiate between Ron Paul and ALL issues and comparing his stance on issues? There's no difference. Ron Paul won't get my vote because he's too much of a radical on things like the FDA, IRS, taxes, stem cells, creationism, etc. ..therefore, I don't care where he stands on anything else.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I just don't give a fuck. Don't confuse the two. I am glad you decide to speak for me as to why I have or haven't posted in this thread. Now you try to differentiate between Ron Paul and ALL issues and comparing his stance on issues? There's no difference. Ron Paul won't get my vote because he's too much of a radical on things like the FDA, IRS, taxes, stem cells, creationism, etc. ..therefore, I don't care where he stands on anything else.

Donkey...I called you out because of your comments here:

Ron Paul $3.1 Million in 1 day beats (R) Mitt Romney in Donations

The point was to put up or shut up...

This thread was supposed to be about "Ron Paul's stance on the issues versus any other candidates stance on the issues."

you now say you don't care? So why are you bitching about Ron Paul in the other thread if you don't care? Don't you have better things to spend your time on that you care about?

There's a reason why our nation is in deep debt to the tune of over 9 trillion...I guess you don't care whether social security or medicare will last? that your taxes will go higher? that the dollar will continue to get weaker?....these things just aren't important to you...

Fed Up

[Ardentfrost]

I think Donkey is one of those people who wants higher taxes. It's like, him, a friend of mine, and Warren Buffet.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Donkey...I called you out because of your comments here:

Ron Paul $3.1 Million in 1 day beats (R) Mitt Romney in Donations

The point was to put up or shut up...

This thread was supposed to be about "Ron Paul's stance on the issues versus any other candidates stance on the issues."

you now say you don't care? So why are you bitching about Ron Paul in the other thread if you don't care? Don't you have better things to spend your time on that you care about?

There's a reason why our nation is in deep debt to the tune of over 9 trillion...I guess you don't care whether social security or medicare will last? that your taxes will go higher? that the dollar will continue to get weaker?....these things just aren't important to you...

Fed Up

And thankfully Ron Paul won't make it to office in order to wreak even more havoc than you state is going on now. I don't bitch about Ron Paul...I bitch about the bandwagoners touting bullshit as success and as evidence he's going to win this election.

[Ardentfrost]

2% increase in the polls this month BEFORE that amazing day of donations getting him more press coverage. I wouldn't call it bullshit and impossible