2008 Presidential Candidates

[Slavia]

Everything I found on him was on his website, which you link to you in your signature, ent.

[Entropy]

Then perhaps you should learn how to read English.

There is absolutely nothing on his site about those things you said. If you can refute that with relevant passages from his website (and links to them), then I will apologize and declare that I am an idiot.

[Ryokotsusei]

I still say it's unfortunate that Colbert was rejected from the Democratic ballot in South Carolina, even if I don't live there.

[Slavia]

 

I agree with some of his policies, but only about 50%. Specifically I disagree with:

- Prohibiting the naturalization of children born by immigrants

 

Ron Paul says:

"End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-s...gration-reform/

I see where he's trying to go with this with Mexican immigration, but I can see this being abused by other people who are trying to get here legitimately. Basically this would nulify the law that says if you are born on US grounds then you are a US citizen.

 

- Prohibiting abortion, under any circumstances (and yes I know a mother who did die because her life was endangered, but didn't want to kill her child)

 

Ron Paul says:

"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

 

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

 

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

 

This I just find...horrible. Not that I'm necessarily pro-abortion, but I think there are some exceptions to the rule (rapes, medical complications, etc).

 

Here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

 

- His attacks on free trade

- Allowing guns in national parks and for pilots on airplanes

 

These I think we just disagree on, which is fine.

 

But I do like his ideas on a limited government, raising taxes, and a more isolated foreign policy.

 

Here I have to admit I think I read his website wrong. In this link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/) I thought he said he wanted to raise taxes, but he just alluded to that was where we would have to go if we didn't cut spending.

 

Which I agree with, but I think we should still raise taxes to those of a higher income bracket (which includes myself by the way).

 

Anyway, I'm not going to continue this arguement, because we just have different viewpoints on the subject, which is fine. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Plus I really like this game and don't want to get banned

Edited November 21, 2007 by Slavia

[Tempest]

actually i think its not even bad for pilots to have guns, would make it a lot harder to overtake planes.

Edited November 21, 2007 by Tempest

[Ryokotsusei]

The counter-argument to that, Tempest, is that we don't know we can trust all pilots, what happens if one of them snaps? Then he has a handy gun at his side to mow down everyone in the plane. >_>

[Entropy]

Ron Paul says:

"End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-s...gration-reform/

I see where he's trying to go with this with Mexican immigration, but I can see this being abused by other people who are trying to get here legitimately. Basically this would nulify the law that says if you are born on US grounds then you are a US citizen.

I guess the word illegal eludes you?

 

 

Ron Paul says:

"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

 

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

 

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

 

This I just find...horrible. Not that I'm necessarily pro-abortion, but I think there are some exceptions to the rule (rapes, medical complications, etc).

 

Here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

 

????

And HOW exactly does that quote augments your totalitarian view that "Ron Paul wants to end all abortions" ???

 

Here I have to admit I think I read his website wrong. In this link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/) I thought he said he wanted to raise taxes, but he just alluded to that was where we would have to go if we didn't cut spending.

Just FYI, Ron Paul NEVER voted for increasing taxes. As a matter of fact, he said that if he is elected as a president, one of his first priorities will be to abolish the IRS.

 

Which I agree with, but I think we should still raise taxes to those of a higher income bracket (which includes myself by the way).

Really? Ok, well, since you are so much for higher taxes, I'll tell you what: If you ever buy stuff from us, I am going to charge you 40% extra so that I cover my taxes. I am serious about it.

 

 

Anyway, I'm not going to continue this arguement, because we just have different viewpoints on the subject, which is fine. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Plus I really like this game and don't want to get banned

 

Having different view points is fine, I always enjoy debating on politics. But totally misquoting a person, a la Fox News is NOT OK here.

[peino]

Entropy, I was going to stay out of this thread because I do all my political debating at Nationstates, where the big kids play, but I do feel the need to comment on just a couple of things. (By the way, you joined Nationstates, but I noticed you haven't joined any of NS General's debate threads, especially the ones about Ron Paul. I've been waiting for you there. )

 

FIRST, I agree 100% with your assessment of the Bush/neocon agenda. They are anti-American scum, everyone of them, imo.

 

SECOND, to you and all those who support Ron Paul:

 

On Ron Paul's own website and in all his promotional materials, he declares that he will never vote for any bill or measure that is not expressly authorized by the Constitution.

 

Then, when the Partial Birth Abortion Act was voted on, Paul himself declared that bill unconstitutional, and then he voted for it.

 

That's right, he voted in favor of a bill he himself said was in violation of the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. And he committed this dereliction of his duty in direct contradiction of his own claims about himself. I don't care whether a person agrees with Paul's views or not -- that self-contradiction alone is enough to render him unfit for the presidency, as far as I'm concerned (though of course, it is far from his only disqualification).

 

This is just one of the many Ron Paul contradictions that we debate long and hard over at Nationstates. When I can find the forum thread about Ron Paul's "Integrity and Honesty," I'll link to it here for your convenience, if you like. It contains links to much of Paul's voting record as well as bills he wrote and/or sponsored. It is a catalog of action against civil rights, against the Constitution, and even against the principles of libertarianism (and in favor of a far right wing platform). (I'm too tired to do find the thing just this moment.) As I said in that thread about Ron Paul, in my opinion, he is nothing but a shill for the right wing, deliberately misrepresenting himself so he can delude libertarians and independents into thinking they are voting for something new, when in fact, their votes are going to the neocon faction. He's a political saboteur, just like Joe Lieberman.

 

As I say, when I can find the NS links, I'll provide them, but in the meantime, Ent, why don't you come verbal-PK hardball-style with me in NS, where arguments like this belong?

Edited November 21, 2007 by peino

[Entropy]

Umm, FYI I am not against abortion, nor pro abortion. Ultimately, I think the mother should decide. Of course, after a certain time period, she should not be alowed to have an abortion (like for example after the 'thing' develops a brain). Unless if some stringent medical reasons dictate that an abortion must be performed.

 

As for the bill being unconstitutional? I don't think so. Ever heard of the 5th amendment? Do you know what it says?

 

Not only that, but in the Declaration of Independence (which is the foundation of USA) there is this little phrase here:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[sywren]

 

As for the bill being unconstitutional? I don't think so. Ever heard of the 5th amendment? Do you know what it says?

 

Not only that, but in the Declaration of Independence (which is the foundation of USA) there is this little phrase here:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

If Peino's example of how Paul regularly contradicts himself is not clear enough, try this one:

 

Ron Paul says this:

"Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/american...nd-sovereignty/

 

And on the same website says this:

"End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-s...gration-reform/

 

The 14th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States says this:

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

I don't believe I have to interpret those quotes for anyone as they pretty much speak for themselves. Slavia has not misquoted or misinterpreted anything "a la Fox News style." Paul either assumes that his supporters will not read his stances on the issues, or they will choose to be blind to the fact that his idea of a limited constitutional government means changing the constitution and creating new laws that limit the freedoms and endanger the lives of those who were not born white males.

[Entropy]

Well, OK, that is more debatable. But personally I don't think that people that come here illegally should enjoy the same privileges as those who are either citizens or came here legally.

You know, most of the illegal emigrants do NOT pay for their children to be delivered here. Instead we, the tax payers pay for that. Why the hell should I pay for it?

 

One other thing, I am sure that the constitution applies in a discriminate way, based on the legality of some deed. For example, the freedom of speech/protest:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

I am pretty sure that speech such as: "Yo, motherfuckers, if you don't pass this law I'm gonna fucking blow you up!" is still illegal.

[peino]

Umm, FYI I am not against abortion, nor pro abortion. Ultimately, I think the mother should decide. Of course, after a certain time period, she should not be alowed to have an abortion (like for example after the 'thing' develops a brain). Unless if some stringent medical reasons dictate that an abortion must be performed.

That's nice. I wasn't challenging your position on abortion. I wasn't even challenging Paul's position on abortion, although I think he's wrong. What my post was about was Paul's attitudes towards the Constitution, law, and his own job. You have so far failed to address that point.

 

As for the bill being unconstitutional? I don't think so. Ever heard of the 5th amendment? Do you know what it says?

Yes, I do. I also know that the 5th Amendment has absolutely nothing at all to do with this matter. I remind you that it was RON PAUL HIMSELF who said the law was unconstitutional. Not me.

 

By the way, for those who don't know what the 5th Amendment says, here is its text in its entirety:

Amendment V

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Note, it is about due process of law and protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy for people facing criminal charges. Not one thing to do with the topic at hand. And if anyone is interested in the other Amendments, here's a link:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html

 

Not only that, but in the Declaration of Independence (which is the foundation of USA) there is this little phrase here:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's nice as well. Too bad the Declaration is not the Constitution. In fact, the Declaration is not a legal document at all and is binding on no one. I happen to value the Declaration as the statement of first principles and the philosophy of the men who wrote the Constitution, but to claim it has the same power as the Constitution is nonsense, and to cite it as a justification for Ron Paul deliberately and openly violating the Constitution is a weak argument indeed. There is no way you can successfully argue that what amounts to a mission statement has greater force in law than the law itself.

 

You know, Entropy, if you're just going to randomly pick any paragraph that contains the word "life" in it, you could just as easily (and just as logically) post a picture of a box of Life cereal and claim that as justification for Paul's actions.

 

Also, I remind you again that you are not addressing the point I raised. In this particular argument, I do not care about the specifics of Paul's position. I only care about the fact that he specifically stated that he would never go against the Constitution, and then deliberately went against the Constitution. I challenge you to explain to me why anyone who would knowingly and deliberately violate the Constitution should be made president of the US. The fact that this violation was also hypocritical, in light of his own statements about following the Constitution, is just an added mark against him.

 

By the way, it is also a hypocritical violation of his claimed stances on state's rights. He has claimed in other places that abortion should be up to the states (which he's wrong about, but never mind), and then voted for this unconstitutional law that would federalize abortion restrictions, taking more control over it away from the states.

Edited November 21, 2007 by peino

[Entropy]

That's nice. I wasn't challenging your position on abortion. I wasn't even challenging Paul's position on abortion, although I think he's wrong. What my post was about was Paul's attitudes towards the Constitution, law, and his own job. You have so far failed to address that point.

First of all, Ron Paul didn't vote to make abortion illegal. You know that, yes?

 

Yes, I do. I also know that the 5th Amendment has absolutely nothing at all to do with this matter. I remind you that it was RON PAUL HIMSELF who said the law was unconstitutional. Not me.

You still have to provide me with some link where Ron Paul said that.

But the 5th amendment does have to do with that: No person should be deprived of life without due process of the law.

 

but to claim it has the same power as the Constitution is nonsense, and to cite it as a justification for Ron Paul deliberately and openly violating the Constitution is a weak argument indeed.

 

Umm, who claimed it has the same power as the constitution?

 

I am merely pointing out that the Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone of the USA, and most of the Bill of Rights is in some way or another derived from it.

[peino]

Well, OK, that is more debatable. But personally I don't think that people that come here illegally should enjoy the same privileges as those who are either citizens or came here legally.

People who were born here did not come here illegally. What their parents may have done has no bearing on them or their actions.

 

You know, most of the illegal emigrants do NOT pay for their children to be delivered here. Instead we, the tax payers pay for that. Why the hell should I pay for it?

Irrelevant. Your lack of desire to support these people via tax dollars has nothing to do with their legal status, having been born here. Just like the 5th Amendment had nothing to do with Paul's discrepancies with himself.

 

One other thing, I am sure that the constitution applies in a discriminate way, based on the legality of some deed. For example, the freedom of speech/protest:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

I am pretty sure that speech such as: "Yo, motherfuckers, if you don't pass this law I'm gonna fucking blow you up!" is still illegal.

You being sure of a thing does not make it so. The fact is, such speech is NOT automatically illegal. Whether it will be protected or not depends entirely on its context, who said it, who they said it to, and whether it could be taken as a credible threat. People say stuff like that all the time. They even say it to elected officials. They are not all hauled off to jail for it. (Not yet, at least.)

[Slavia]

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but:

 

First of all, Ron Paul didn't vote to make abortion illegal. You know that, yes?

 

 

This is taken, again, directly from Ron Paul's website:

"Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

 

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."

 

Maybe he hasn't voted against abortion yet, but I don't think this can be more clear what his stance on the subject is.

[Entropy]

No, his stance is: This is not a federal issue, and the states should decide for it. That is the constitutional way anyway (if you ignore the 5th amendment, or think it does not apply to unborn beings).

[peino]

First of all, Ron Paul didn't vote to make abortion illegal. You know that, yes?

Another irrelevancy. Paul voted for a law that he thought was unconstitutional.

 

You still have to provide me with some link where Ron Paul said that.

You provided us with the link, and both Slavia and Sygon have pointed it out to you. It's in Ron Paul's own website. Sygon provided the link just recently. To paraphrase one of your oft-used remarks: RTFWS.

 

But the 5th amendment does have to do with that: No person should be deprived of life without due process of the law.

So, despite your disclaimer above, you do think that a fetus is a person with legal rights and a claim to due process? And you are equating abortion with capital punishment?

 

And as you pointed out, the PBAB did not outlaw abortion, so what's your point in bringing this up -- except to acknowledge that Paul is, in fact, anti-choice and his votes reflect that socially conservative view, despite his denials, and you also support that view, despite your denials? Because that's what it looks like, Ent.

 

And finally, what has any of that to do with the fact that Paul violated the Constitution?

 

Umm, who claimed it has the same power as the constitution?

I should have said "to imply" rather than "to claim." But then again, why did you bother even bringing it up if you know it cannot supercede the Constitution?

 

I am merely pointing out that the Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone of the USA, and most of the Bill of Rights is in some way or another derived from it.

So?

[Slavia]

Regardless, I don't want someone with that viewpoint in office.

 

Edit:

Again, that's my opinion. Doesn't matter if you agree with me or not.

Edited November 21, 2007 by Slavia

[Entropy]

People who were born here did not come here illegally. What their parents may have done has no bearing on them or their actions.

No, but their parents coming here illegally is a prerequisite of them being born here. Their birth here is a consequence of an illegal act, and therefore their right should be invalidated.

 

Irrelevant. Your lack of desire to support these people via tax dollars has nothing to do with their legal status, having been born here.

Not directly. But the tax payers do have the right to amend laws.

 

Just like the 5th Amendment had nothing to do with Paul's discrepancies with himself.

Yes, it does. Read my previous post.

 

You being sure of a thing does not make it so. The fact is, such speech is NOT automatically illegal. Whether it will be protected or not depends entirely on its context, who said it, who they said it to, and whether it could be taken as a credible threat. People say stuff like that all the time. They even say it to elected officials. They are not all hauled off to jail for it. (Not yet, at least.)

 

Well, obviously, the context is as a threat. Freedom of speech does not cover threats (and many other things, such as asking a 11 year old girl for sex, or inciting someone to commit a crime, and so on).

[peino]

No, his stance is: This is not a federal issue, and the states should decide for it. That is the constitutional way anyway (if you ignore the 5th amendment, or think it does not apply to unborn beings).

First to address the irrelevant and off-topic part:

 

The fact that you apparently believe that "unborn beings" (itself a contradiction in terms) have a claim to rights under the 5th Amendment shows that you either (1) don't understand the 5th Amendment, (2) are a staunch pro-lifer/anti-choicer, or (3) both. If (2), you may want to consider retracting your claim that you support abortion rights, unless you enjoy contradicting yourself. (Maybe that's why you support Ron Paul )

 

But, still, you are wrong on two points:

 

First, because the 5th Amendment does not apply to abortion; and

 

Second, because rights are things that accrue to persons. "Person" is a legal construct that does not apply to embryos and early stage fetuses.

 

So there is no way the 5th Amendment could ever apply to anything unborn.

 

Now to address the meat of the matter:

 

If Paul believes that states should have the right to decide what restrictions to put on abortion (which they shouldn't, but never mind for now), then why did he vote in favor of a federal law that takes away the states' power to decide the matter?

 

Paul's voting record shows plenty such instances, in which he votes to take power away from states and individuals and concentrate it at the federal level. Paul claims to believe in small government, but his voting record (on many issues) shows that he believes in whatever will promote his personal ideological agenda -- small/state-based government when that will give him what he wants, and big/federal government when that will give him what he wants.

[Entropy]

You provided us with the link, and both Slavia and Sygon have pointed it out to you. It's in Ron Paul's own website. Sygon provided the link just recently. To paraphrase one of your oft-used remarks: RTFWS.

I fail to see where on TFWS he said: "This is unconstitutional but I voted for it anyway". So please indulge me and point out to the specific paragraph and URL.

 

So, despite your disclaimer above, you do think that a fetus is a person with legal rights and a claim to due process? And you are equating abortion with capital punishment?

Killing someone is a capital punishment. As for my disclaimer above, I think you are refering to my mention of "brain"?

If so, yes, I disagree with the fact that a fetus is a living being, but that is a very debatable subject, as the definition of life is very broad and can be interpreted in many ways.

 

And as you pointed out, the PBAB did not outlaw abortion, so what's your point in bringing this up -- except to acknowledge that Paul is, in fact, anti-choice and his votes reflect that socially conservative view, despite his denials, and you also support that view, despite your denials? Because that's what it looks like, Ent.

 

You were claiming that he voted anti abortion, but he did not do so. But again, yes, some of his views are different than mine. I never said I agree 100% with all his views. Overall, he is the candidate that I agree most with.

 

And finally, what has any of that to do with the fact that Paul violated the Constitution?

For the love of fuck, he didn't violate the constitution! He voted for a bill to define the life as starting at the moment of conception, and there is no place in the constutition that defines life in a different way.

 

I am merely pointing out that the Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone of the USA, and most of the Bill of Rights is in some way or another derived from it.

So?

 

So, you have to look at the spirit of the constitution as well, not only at the letter of the constutition. You need to understand the context, and you can see that the 5th amendment is derived from the "liberty and life" phrase in the Declaration of Independence.

[peino]

No, but their parents coming here illegally is a prerequisite of them being born here. Their birth here is a consequence of an illegal act, and therefore their right should be invalidated.

The law disagrees with you. For several centuries now, and not just in North America, it has been considered unjust to punish people for someone else's crime. Their parents crossed the border illegally. They did not. So why should their rights be invalidated, when they did nothing wrong?

 

Not directly. But the tax payers do have the right to amend laws.

That's hardly a persuasive argument. But if you think you can pull it off, go for it. I'll bring popcorn and a video camera.

 

Yes, it does. Read my previous post.

Your previous post was wrong, and I explained why.

 

Well, obviously, the context is as a threat. Freedom of speech does not cover threats (and many other things, such as asking a 11 year old girl for sex, or inciting someone to commit a crime, and so on).

I just finished telling you that the context is not obvious, but must be determined case by case. And your attempt to broaden the argument to include obvious crimes such as child molestation and criminal incitement only further weaken your argument. Those are specific crimes, with specific laws against them. Speech is not. To get away with sex crimes and criminal facilitation by an appeal to free speech, the burden is on the defense to prove that those actions DO fall under the 1st Amendment. For the speech example you gave, the burden would be on the prosecution to prove that the words DON'T fall under the 1st Amendment. They are therefore not comparable.

[Entropy]

The law disagrees with you. For several centuries now, and not just in North America, it has been considered unjust to punish people for someone else's crime. Their parents crossed the border illegally. They did not. So why should their rights be invalidated, when they did nothing wrong?

Of course that it is unjust to punish someone for someone's else crimes. But you are not punishing the child by doing that. You just revoke a right someone has based on the [lack of] legality that right was aquired.

For example, if you steal a large sum of money, and then you transfer it to your children, I am pretty sure that under many circumstances if you get caught, your children will have to give back the money.

 

 

That's hardly a persuasive argument. But if you think you can pull it off, go for it. I'll bring popcorn and a video camera.

Tax payers indirectly change the laws all the time, by voting for their representatives. Yes?

 

I just finished telling you that the context is not obvious, but must be determined case by case. And your attempt to broaden the argument to include obvious crimes such as child molestation and criminal incitement only further weaken your argument. Those are specific crimes, with specific laws against them. Speech is not. To get away with sex crimes and criminal facilitation by an appeal to free speech, the burden is on the defense to prove that those actions DO fall under the 1st Amendment. For the speech example you gave, the burden would be on the prosecution to prove that the words DON'T fall under the 1st Amendment. They are therefore not comparable.

 

You just augmented my argument. Not all the speech is protected. If all the speech were protected, then you could not have crimes like inciting someone to commit a crime, or making terrorsit threats, and so on.

[peino]

I fail to see where on TFWS he said: "This is unconstitutional but I voted for it anyway". So please indulge me and point out to the specific paragraph and URL.

After this post, I will try to unearth that Ron Paul thread you ignored at NS. It has all the relevant links because your arguments were all addressed (and trounced) there. Be patient. NSG has moved onto other topics, but I'll find it eventually. That will give you all the specific paragraphs and URLs you need.

 

Killing someone is a capital punishment.

No it isn't, unless the government kills them as punishment for a crime.

 

As for my disclaimer above, I think you are refering to my mention of "brain"?

If so, yes, I disagree with the fact that a fetus is a living being, but that is a very debatable subject, as the definition of life is very broad and can be interpreted in many ways.

Mm-hm.

 

You were claiming that he voted anti abortion, but he did not do so.

First of all, the PBAB is functionally an anti-abortion law, but that is neither here nor there in the current conversation.

 

What I SAID was that Paul violated his own rules about his adherence to the Constitution. The content of the specific law on which he did that is beside the point.

 

But again, yes, some of his views are different than mine. I never said I agree 100% with all his views. Overall, he is the candidate that I agree most with.

You're free to do so. I don't agree with Bill Richardson on every single issue, but overall he'd be my first choice if he stood a chance in hell of getting the nomination.

 

For the love of fuck, he didn't violate the constitution! He voted for a bill to define the life as starting at the moment of conception, and there is no place in the constutition that defines life in a different way.

I like it when my opponents resort to annoyed exclamations.

 

I'll say it for you again. I'd say it slowly, but this is written, so please read it slowly, so you can follow it:

 

1) Paul says he only votes for things that are authorized by the Constitution.

2) Paul says the PBAB is unconstitutional.

3) Paul votes for the PBAB.

 

Also, I'll ask you to consider this: If Paul says he only votes for measures that are authorized by the Constitution, then why did he vote in favor of a law that is obviously not authorized by the Constitution, since the Constitution nowhere addresses the matter of defining life in any way?

 

So, you have to look at the spirit of the constitution as well, not only at the letter of the constutition. You need to understand the context, and you can see that the 5th amendment is derived from the "liberty and life" phrase in the Declaration of Independence.

Sorry, Ent, it doesn't work that way.

 

First of all, the Constitution always supercedes the Declaration because the Constitution IS the body of law, whereas the Declaration is nothing but a political statement. Period. The Declaration does not impact the Constitution in anyway at all.

 

Second, that's how YOU choose to interpret it. It is not how the entire history of US law has chosen to interpret it. So you're "you can see that" is not a given. I choose to see things the way the law and the legal system see them, in this regard -- and that's not your way.

 

Finally, since you're so insistent upon specific references, kindly point out to me where either the Declaration or the Constitution states that the "life" they refer to is the life of unborn fetuses. No, Ent, that's your little construct that you brought to the table, on your own. I am not persuaded by it, not when the entire history of US jurisprudence is against you.

Edited November 21, 2007 by peino

[peino]

Of course that it is unjust to punish someone for someone's else crimes. But you are not punishing the child by doing that. You just revoke a right someone has based on the [lack of] legality that right was aquired.

For example, if you steal a large sum of money, and then you transfer it to your children, I am pretty sure that under many circumstances if you get caught, your children will have to give back the money.

1) You seem to be conflating "right" with "privilege." Rights belong to the people, under US law, so they cannot simply be revoked by fiat, the way privileges (like getting a driver's license) can.

 

2) Citizenship is a right, not a privilege. Now it may be debated whether that is the right way to go or not. My personal opinion about the value and usefulness of citizenship is undecided at the moment. But the fact remains, that citizenship is a right in the US, not a privilege, and that birthright citizenship is specifically recognized in US law. So there is very little justification for the revocation of a right belonging to a person who did nothing wrong.

 

3) You keep saying "I'm pretty sure", and you also soften your arguments with phrases like "in most circumstances." If you're not sure you're right, maybe you should do some research before arguing further.

 

Tax payers indirectly change the laws all the time, by voting for their representatives. Yes?

Like I said, if you think you can get this particular cockamamie notion of yours passed into law, go try for it. I'll be there, cheering for your opponents, who, by the way, are taxpayers who change the laws the exact same way you do.

 

You just augmented my argument. Not all the speech is protected. If all the speech were protected, then you could not have crimes like inciting someone to commit a crime, or making terrorsit threats, and so on.

And you continue to try not just to compare apples and oranges, but to base your argument on apples being oranges. There is a difference between a criminal action and protected speech. I explained the difference. Ignoring that won't change it. I told you how you were wrong in your supposition that a certain kind of speech is illegal. Appealing to the existence of other kinds of crime in the world is not the way to address that. You were in error. Accept it, own it, get past it.