I don't belong here....

[eldeeder]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

[Nyte]

/salute

Great post. But of course you belong here. Freedom is a big tent.

[torchbearer]

We all belong here because we all believe in freedom.

[Aggiedog]

You Liberal Hippie!!!111!1

*whack*

Sorry, I am still trying to bury my former neoconsevative self. :)

[Marc3579]

We are all here because, we hear the call of "Freedom" and "Liberty" :)

[JoshLowry]

Great post. :)

[MarkfromTN]

That is how I have gotten all my democrat leaning friends and family commited to voting for Ron Paul. The only friends I am having a damn hard time to getting to consider Ron Paul are my Republican friends.

[Shink]

You are welcome here. There is every reason for a self-professed 'liberal' to like Ron. The Constitution doesn't step on too many toes, except those of tyrants.

[torchbearer]

It is every patriots duty to rally to the defense of the constitution because without it... our government no longer has any restraints.
We all feel the urgency despite our leanings.

[xd9fan]

I will use my Second Amendment to protect your 1st..........I just really hope you use your 1st to help protect my 2nd.

[tomveil]

Welcome :) I'm a life-long Democrat myself. I dislike guns, but understand the need for people to protect themselves against the government. Abortion effects me not at all, and I know that it's too complicated to pretend I have the answer.

Never in my life did I think I'd be supporting a republican, much less filing as a PCO for them. Then again (as I tell my friends), Ron Paul is about as much of a Republican as I am. The way he voted before the War/Patriot Act was the way I WISH that the Democrats had voted instead of losing their spines.

[AdamT]

You're understanding of the Constitution is what counts.

[ctb619]

I will use my Second Amendment to protect your 1st..........I just really hope you use your 1st to help protect my 2nd.

QFT

[Steve_New_Jersey]

You very much belong here. Dispite your differences you use common sense and logic in choosing who you vote for. If even 10% of this country did that the world would be a much better place.

[TheDHC]

im a liberal democrat for ron paul :D everyone is welcome

[xd9fan]

qft

???

[eldeeder]

I will use my Second Amendment to protect your 1st..........I just really hope you use your 1st to help protect my 2nd.

Cheers friend. Ill do my best, and you do yours.

and BTW people, the true meaning of Liberal, and Liberatarian are NOT far apart. Somehow progressives have stolen the term "liberal" and now run from it.

[Ex Post Facto]

I will use my Second Amendment to protect your 1st..........I just really hope you use your 1st to help protect my 2nd.

Yes that is the idea. You mind your business, I mind mine, and together we stick up for each others business.

[torchbearer]

Cheers friend. Ill do my best, and you do yours.

and BTW people, the true meaning of Liberal, and Liberatarian are NOT far apart. Somehow progressives have stolen the term "liberal" and now run from it.

Dr. Paul talks about this in his speeches... liberal and conservative were children of Libertarianism, each splitting freedom in half. One had economic freedom, the other had social freedom. What Ron Paul wants to do is unite those two parts into one.
I think we should meld the parts into one.. and this is done with tolerance and trust in your fellow man. Live and let live... everyone free to be different and thats ok.

[LibertyEagle]

You are very welcome here. :)

I have found it to be quite an educational process for me to see how very much many of us disagree on a few of the issues, but have joined together in this campaign to support the Constitution and individual liberty. I guess because we realize that if we don't have those, all the rest won't matter one bit.

[newmedia4ron]

agnostic (former liberal speaking)
My beliefs seems to change weekly. :rolleyes:

Heres common ground:

Ron Paul is honest, consistent and responsible.

End the Iraq war
Protect the Bill of Rights
Protect Dissent
End the war on drugs


I'm done with charlatans. Do what you say and do what you believe. Thats what we need from our elected officials more than ever.

[torchbearer]

agnostic (former liberal speaking)
My beliefs seems to change weekly. :rolleyes:

Heres common ground:

Ron Paul is honest, consistent and responsible.

End the Iraq war
Protect the Bill of Rights
Protect Dissent
End the war on drugs


I'm done with charlatans. Do what you say and do what you believe. Thats what we need from our elected officials more than ever.

+1. For Truth.

[eldeeder]

Yes that is the idea. You mind your business, I mind mine, and together we stick up for each others business.

Wow... Well put...

"I don't care about the shit YOU believe in, but I care about your RIGHTS to believe in it, as long as you agree to care about my RIGHTS to believe in MY shit."


That sums it up right there.


"I don't have to worry about anyone else's shit, as long as it doesn't end up in MY yard... :) "

[pacelli]

Oh, you've DEFINITELY found the right place to be during this critical period in our history. Welcome friend, keep posting!

[Shink]

Wow... Well put...

"I don't care about the shit YOU believe in, but I care about your RIGHTS to believe in it, as long as you agree to care about my RIGHTS to believe in MY shit."


That sums it up right there.


"I don't have to worry about anyone else's shit, as long as it doesn't end up in MY yard... :) "

Amen! (atheist here, couldn't resist)

[DirtMcGirt]

freedom is popular!!!

[xd9fan]

Yes that is the idea. You mind your business, I mind mine, and together we stick up for each others business.
yep together we cover our collective backs against enemies foreign AND domestic.
The Bill of Rights are an "all for one and one for all" deal.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."
-- Patrick Henry

[thuja]

take a look at the FDA thread for more reasons to support Dr Paul. we want health freedom.

[ronpaul4pres]

I don't actually like your reasoning. In fact, as a Democrat turned Republican, I can tell you I used to agree with your beliefs. In fact, I still don't own a gun. However, it's not so much blindly obeying the Constitution that makes me support Ron Paul. It is understanding the reasons the laws are there in the first place:

1) Our Founding Fathers saw Government as corruptible. Only well armed citizens as a group can protect against tyranny. Period. This includes both weapons and words (freedom of speech).

2) As Ron Paul says, Roe v. Wade allows for an abortion one minute before birth but the child has a right to life one minute after birth. That doesn't make any sense. A fetus is a life. Once we agree to that, then we can go from there. We can see abortions are a cruel form of birth control.

[zbus12]

Sure you belong here!:)


But since you mentioned it, I was wondering about this one......

oh and I am not debating you on this issue, so don't get me wrong here.


Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions.

I was wondering if you could explain how government regulation would prevent "back alley" abortions?

Just for clarification.

[Cal Mabus]

Glad to see so many God believers here, after all there could be no atheists if there were no God.

[Shink]

Glad to see so many God believers here, after all there could be no atheists if there were no God.

:confused: I'll try not to take the bait. That's not the point of this thread.

[DahuiHeeNalu]

Hey im a Hippie with locks n i attend meetups and it brings people from all walks to have some to relize he attracts all people!

[jarofclay]

???


QFT = Quoted for truthiness (truth)

[eldeeder]

I don't actually like your reasoning. In fact, as a Democrat turned Republican, I can tell you I used to agree with your beliefs. In fact, I still don't own a gun. However, it's not so much blindly obeying the Constitution that makes me support Ron Paul. It is understanding the reasons the laws are there in the first place:

1) Our Founding Fathers saw Government as corruptible. Only well armed citizens as a group can protect against tyranny. Period. This includes both weapons and words (freedom of speech).

2) As Ron Paul says, Roe v. Wade allows for an abortion one minute before birth but the child has a right to life one minute after birth. That doesn't make any sense. A fetus is a life. Once we agree to that, then we can go from there. We can see abortions are a cruel form of birth control.


#1 Visit Europe. Very very small amounts of violent crime. BUT, you do have to contrast that with public outrage. I was in holland around a year ago. They had just passed a law requiring people to carry ID. People were OUTRAGED. out in the streets about it. And the thing is, THEY CANT EVEN SEARCH YOU FOR IT. Its not even possible to violate this law, and people were still outraged. We dont have that kind of social participation. I don't "blindly" follow the constitution. I understand why it is designed the way it is.

#2 Like I said, I don't honestly know the answer to the abortion question. Right now, the best I can do for myself (and thats the only person I can decide for) is that if something is 100% biologically dependent upon someone, and they don't want it there, they have the right to remove it.

But I dont want to argue this, I just know we both agree that the federal government shouldn't have anything to say about it. Ethically, I say leave it up to the mother, the father, and the doctor. Politcally, I say leave it up to the states. If Cali votes for legal pot, the federal government shouldnt be able to say no. If South Dakota wants to ban partial birth abortions, the feds shouldn't be able to say no.

[Live Free or Die]

We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

That's why you DO belong here! As others replied, basically it's a IMMOB & YMYOB proposition.

And since you seem to be working hard to understand our Constitution, THE Supreme Law of the Land... I applaud you for admitting that, while you do not agree with every right our Constitution preserves for us, you would work to amend the Constitution, and not just seek to "override" it.

Perhaps in time, with further reading, you will understand why the 2nd Amendment was drafted to ascertain our rights (not "give" us rights). I think it's very important for people to research for themselves why the 2nd Amendment was drafted. Here's a hint: It had nothing to do with any "militia," as some modern-day "expert lawyers" would have you believe. ;)

[derdy]

Everyone who believes in the law of the land, the Constitution, belongs here.

As for myself, I'm an atheist that likes guns, the freedom to put whatever the heck I want in my body, and I LOVE economics. I don't approve of abortion nor do I approve of the death penalty.

Welcome to the forums! :D

[eldeeder]

Glad to see so many God believers here, after all there could be no atheists if there were no God.

Ha! Just a play on words. There could be no "Keebler Elves Atheists" if there were no Keebler Elves...

But you, are essentially, A "Keebler Elves Atheist"

[LandonCook]

I'm agnostic, and pro-life... but most libertarians are pro-choice

[Danny Molina]

With states rights restored you can have your own little social liberal and social conservative states to yourself. Though this all depends on who you elect for governor.

[eldeeder]

Sure you belong here!:)


But since you mentioned it, I was wondering about this one......

oh and I am not debating you on this issue, so don't get me wrong here.



I was wondering if you could explain how government regulation would prevent "back alley" abortions?

Just for clarification.


Easy. Its the same as the war on drugs, or the war on prostitution. The demand for abortion exists, and if laws are made against it, people will still seek it out on a black market level. We live in a world where women will give birth to a child and put it in a dumpster because of social pressures. Its a shit world, but what would a law realistically help? Should we start throwing these people in jail? I know some would argue "murder." But we've got to be reasonable here.

Also, may I add we have "anonymous baby drops" in this country. Honestly! What the fuck is that?! Why cant someone have a child out of wedlock in this country and give it up for adoption without losing some sort of social status?

I can't solve the abortion issue. But I do know that a living baby should not be treated the same way as a blockbuster rental. To get to the heart of this issue, you have to weigh many ethical (and in many cases, religous) ideals. When life begins, what a womans rights are to her own body, what constitutes life. None of these are easy questions.

When we shut down, and throw our walls up, we find ourselves with things like Baby Drop-Boxes. When 2 sides stonewall and wont give any ground, this is the nonsense we end up with. We need to be able to discuss this issue openly, and rationally, then we can finally get somewhere with it.

[Zym]

Great post! Recovering Neo-Con here and I think we all have "some" aspect we don't agree with. For me it his position on Iraq, but as I study the issues, like yourself, I realize the real issue is the constitution. "Congress shall have the power to declare war", means "Congress shall have the power to declare war." It's pretty damn specific, and just like the second amendment was put there for a very good reason.

It reminds me of a web site I saw a few years ago, that talked about the similarities between pot smokers and gun people: Both want the government off their back, but neither could tolerate each other. The jist of it was if we could recognize each others rights, and come together to form a "guns and dope" party, it would rule the land with a super majority.

[dblee]

I disagree with you about everything, but I agree with your reasoning!!

Long live the constitution. And yes, you most certainly belong here.

[Carole]

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

Nicely said and the part I have quoted exemplifies perfectly how rational people who have very different views can amicably come together for a cause greater than themselves. The freedom message really does bring very diverse people together and this tent is getting larger and larger. People who might have hated one another because of the way our government has treated us "collectively" can easily like or even love one another when they are seen and treated as "individuals" as the Constitution intended.

So, in spite of your thinking you do not belong, you do. You DO belong because none of us agree with each other completely, nor with Dr. Paul completely, but we see that this message of his is greater than the sum of its parts and greater than each one of us. It is so important, because our children and grandchildren must reap the benefits of this message.

Welcome, it is fine to be different as you said, that is what makes us all so interesting and what will make America once again a great country. So glad to meet you and to share the big picture with you :)

[praxisseizure]

Best comment of any site I've seen all day.

I'm really humbled by your honesty and dedication to principle.

[Starks]

/salute to a fellow lefty independent

[eldeeder]

That's why you DO belong here! As others replied, basically it's a IMMOB & YMYOB proposition.

And since you seem to be working hard to understand our Constitution, THE Supreme Law of the Land... I applaud you for admitting that, while you do not agree with every right our Constitution preserves for us, you would work to amend the Constitution, and not just seek to "override" it.

Perhaps in time, with further reading, you will understand why the 2nd Amendment was drafted to ascertain our rights (not "give" us rights). I think it's very important for people to research for themselves why the 2nd Amendment was drafted. Here's a hint: It had nothing to do with any "militia," as some modern-day "expert lawyers" would have you believe. ;)

No, I do get it. I really do. I just think its somewhat "primative." Our human rights are our human rights, we shouldn't have to point a gun at someone to get them. We should have enough people standing beside us. Now, remember, this is a metaphor. If 100 of us run our own country, and 97 of us believe in fundamental human rights, we'd never need a gun to overpower the other 3. Now you can extrapolate this into education and all sorts of other things, but I get it! Holland doesn't need guns to defend their civil rights, because they all care about them. Something just bothers me about people carrying guns on airplanes, (of course, TSA bothers me quite a bit as well) or my kids 2nd grade teacher strapped with a 9mm. We can't even keep MIDDLE school teachers from FUCKING their students. I really don't know if we want them "packin." (at least in a leathal sense :) )

actually, you know something, im not really getting anywhere with this, so Ill just say, "I DO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN PLACE AND I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS! IN FACT I WILL PROBABLY BE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOORS FOR HELP WHEN BUSH FINALLY DECLARES MARTIAL LAW!" American citizens need guns now, but eventually, I think they will go the way of the battle axe. This may be hundreds of years from now, but i believe knowledge is more powerful than weapons. The only reason you NEED a gun right now is to protect your civil liberties. Hopefully, someday, the masses will understand liberty enough to stand up against tyranny, in numbers great enough that leathal force is no longer even an option for government.

Prolly won't see it in our lifetimes, so keep your guns... Cause I may be a pansy, but I'm no moron, and if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, odds are someone here will need to teach me how to shoot....

[Shink]

No, I do get it. I really do. I just think its somewhat "primative." Our human rights are our human rights, we shouldn't have to point a gun at someone to get them. We should have enough people standing beside us. Now, remember, this is a metaphor. If 100 of us run our own country, and 97 of us believe in fundamental human rights, we'd never need a gun to overpower the other 3. Now you can extrapolate this into education and all sorts of other things, but I get it! Holland doesn't need guns to defend their civil rights, because they all care about them. Something just bothers me about people carrying guns on airplanes, (of course, TSA bothers me quite a bit as well) or my kids 2nd grade teacher strapped with a 9mm. We can't even keep MIDDLE school teachers from FUCKING their students. I really don't know if we want them "packin." (at least in a leathal sense :) )

actually, you know something, im not really getting anywhere with this, so Ill just say, "I DO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN PLACE AND I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS! IN FACT I WILL PROBABLY BE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOORS FOR HELP WHEN BUSH FINALLY DECLARES MARTIAL LAW!" American citizens need guns now, but eventually, I think they will go the way of the battle axe. This may be hundreds of years from now, but i believe knowledge is more powerful than weapons. The only reason you NEED a gun right now is to protect your civil liberties. Hopefully, someday, the masses will understand liberty enough to stand up against tyranny, in numbers great enough that leathal force is no longer even an option for government.

Prolly won't see it in our lifetimes, so keep your guns... Cause I may be a pansy, but I'm no moron, and if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, odds are someone here will need to teach me how to shoot....

You want a marksman, I'm your guy. (As far as assault rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers are concerned)

[newmedia4ron]

I hate guns, I will never own one.

But I do support gun rights.

If gangs and the government has guns then we the people should have them.

[idrake]

Welcome from another Athiest and pro-choice member.

Guns are needed when tyranny goes too far. We're not there yet and we may never get their, but I'm shocked at just how close we are.

Health care must be profitable. If you were "wicked fuck'n smat" would you go through all that EXPENSIVE schooling, years of residency, specialization training, and undertake an emensly litigious career JUST to break even?

Free health care == no doctors at worst, bad doctors at best.

Anyway, I figure we're in the same tent, might as well share some thoughts.

[rice_classic]

I'm pro-choice because I have to be. I think a pro-life world causes more problems then it solves. I like the idea of protecting the unborn but I still argue at what point is a life a life? I'm not religious therefore NO religious argument holds any water, which leaves me to my point. I vote for Ron Paul, a pro-life politician who pro-life mainly because of his profession and his love for life, NOT his religion.

The problem with pro-choice and pro-life is similar (in a sense) to the war on drugs. You can't win the war on drugs by fighting supply... all this does is increase demand, attention and prices. You have to eliminate demand! You have to create a society (usually through education and a desire for a better standard of living) that does NOT want anything to do with drugs, this will hurt the supply hopefully to the point that it's not profitable or as profitable as other legal pursuits.

You have to reduce the demand for abortions! You have to convince people to use protection, make the 72 hour pill more readily available, promote adoption and most importantly; you must teach safe sex. This "abstainence" only BS only causes more problems. Why is it the most religious areas teach abstianence only and then want to ban abortions? Do they like having an abundance of children growing up in broken homes, in foster care or as orphans?

As for the 2nd amendment.... Imagine the citizens of this country, all of them, with no weapons.... How many more of our civil liberties might not exist right now. Think long and hard about this one.

Ok, I'll make it easy, almost none of them! An armed population is a free(er) population.

[idrake]

No, I do get it. I really do. I just think its somewhat "primative." Our human rights are our human rights, we shouldn't have to point a gun at someone to get them. We should have enough people standing beside us. Now, remember, this is a metaphor. If 100 of us run our own country, and 97 of us believe in fundamental human rights, we'd never need a gun to overpower the other 3. Now you can extrapolate this into education and all sorts of other things, but I get it! Holland doesn't need guns to defend their civil rights, because they all care about them. Something just bothers me about people carrying guns on airplanes, (of course, TSA bothers me quite a bit as well) or my kids 2nd grade teacher strapped with a 9mm. We can't even keep MIDDLE school teachers from FUCKING their students. I really don't know if we want them "packin." (at least in a leathal sense :) )

actually, you know something, im not really getting anywhere with this, so Ill just say, "I DO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN PLACE AND I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO OWN GUNS! IN FACT I WILL PROBABLY BE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOORS FOR HELP WHEN BUSH FINALLY DECLARES MARTIAL LAW!" American citizens need guns now, but eventually, I think they will go the way of the battle axe. This may be hundreds of years from now, but i believe knowledge is more powerful than weapons. The only reason you NEED a gun right now is to protect your civil liberties. Hopefully, someday, the masses will understand liberty enough to stand up against tyranny, in numbers great enough that leathal force is no longer even an option for government.

Prolly won't see it in our lifetimes, so keep your guns... Cause I may be a pansy, but I'm no moron, and if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, odds are someone here will need to teach me how to shoot....

If those three guys have 3 guns and 97 bullets between them....

[idrake]

I'm pro-choice because I have to be. I think a pro-life world causes more problems then it solves. I like the idea of protecting the unborn but I still argue at what point is a life a life? I'm not religious therefore NO religious argument holds any water, which leaves me to my point. I vote for Ron Paul, a pro-life politician who pro-life mainly because of his profession and his love for life, NOT his religion.

The problem with pro-choice and pro-life is similar (in a sense) to the war on drugs. You can't win the war on drugs by fighting supply... all this does is increase demand, attention and prices. You have to eliminate demand! You have to create a society (usually through education and a desire for a better standard of living) that does NOT want anything to do with drugs, this will hurt the supply hopefully to the point that it's not profitable or as profitable as other legal pursuits.

You have to reduce the demand for abortions! You have to convince people to use protection, make the 72 hour pill more readily available, promote adoption and most importantly; you must teach safe sex. This "abstainence" only BS only causes more problems. Why is it the most religious areas teach abstianence only and then want to ban abortions? Do they like having an abundance of children growing up in broken homes, in foster care or as orphans?

As for the 2nd amendment.... Imagine the citizens of this country, all of them, with no weapons.... How many more of our civil liberties might not exist right now. Think long and hard about this one.

Ok, I'll make it easy, almost none of them! An armed population is a free(er) population.

Just wanted to say, nice post.:)

[newmedia4ron]

You have to reduce the demand for abortions! You have to convince people to use protection, make the 72 hour pill more readily available, promote adoption and most importantly; you must teach safe sex. This "abstainence" only BS only causes more problems. Why is it the most religious areas teach abstianence only and then want to ban abortions? Do they like having an abundance of children growing up in broken homes, in foster care or as orphans?


you deserve a :)

I wish the pro-choice/pro-life movements could get together and go around encouraging protection. Prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Dan Klaus]

Nice post and thanks so much for speaking on some of the issues dear to my heart as well...see you at the voting booth...

[Joe Schwartz]

I applaud the OP for reaching this conclusion. All too often, I hear the opinion that if you're opposed to something, you must support laws against it. Or conversely, people assume that if you support legalization of something, you must approve of it. In my experience, this fallacy is widespread and strongly believed, and just getting someone to recognize the fallacy is an accomplishment.

For example, I'm personally opposed to drug use, but I strongly favor its legalization. Philosophically, I believe that people should have the freedom to use (or abuse) their own bodies as they see fit. Pragmatically, I think the government does more harm in outlawing it than would occur if it were legal. And legally, the federal government has no authority to outlaw it.

[eldeeder]

I'm pro-choice because I have to be. I think a pro-life world causes more problems then it solves. I like the idea of protecting the unborn but I still argue at what point is a life a life? I'm not religious therefore NO religious argument holds any water, which leaves me to my point. I vote for Ron Paul, a pro-life politician who pro-life mainly because of his profession and his love for life, NOT his religion.

The problem with pro-choice and pro-life is similar (in a sense) to the war on drugs. You can't win the war on drugs by fighting supply... all this does is increase demand, attention and prices. You have to eliminate demand! You have to create a society (usually through education and a desire for a better standard of living) that does NOT want anything to do with drugs, this will hurt the supply hopefully to the point that it's not profitable or as profitable as other legal pursuits.

You have to reduce the demand for abortions! You have to convince people to use protection, make the 72 hour pill more readily available, promote adoption and most importantly; you must teach safe sex. This "abstainence" only BS only causes more problems. Why is it the most religious areas teach abstianence only and then want to ban abortions? Do they like having an abundance of children growing up in broken homes, in foster care or as orphans?

As for the 2nd amendment.... Imagine the citizens of this country, all of them, with no weapons.... How many more of our civil liberties might not exist right now. Think long and hard about this one.

Ok, I'll make it easy, almost none of them! An armed population is a free(er) population.


Let me bury this gun argument once and for all. YOU CAN ALL HAVE YOUR GUNS UNTIL YOU WILLINGLY AGREE TO GIVE THEM UP! NOT until everyone else willingly agrees. In my ideal society, guns are not needed, but also, in my own ideal society, 24 year-old blondes find me irresistable. Someday, I will find both these societies... Someday...

[eldeeder]

I applaud the OP for reaching this conclusion. All too often, I hear the opinion that if you're opposed to something, you must support laws against it. Or conversely, people assume that if you support legalization of something, you must approve of it. In my experience, this fallacy is widespread and strongly believed, and just getting someone to recognize the fallacy is an accomplishment.

For example, I'm personally opposed to drug use, but I strongly favor its legalization. Philosophically, I believe that people should have the freedom to use (or abuse) their own bodies as they see fit. Pragmatically, I think the government does more harm in outlawing it than would occur if it were legal. And legally, the federal government has no authority to outlaw it.

Thats the problem! Thats the foundation of it right there! People think its heads or tails in America. If you aren't a republican you must be a democrat.

The main thing people forget in this country is that

FREEDOM MEANS PEOPLE CAN DO THINGS YOU DONT LIKE!

as long as they don't bother you, and a lot of bullshit goes into distracting us from that. All this political BS, from both sides, is just to distract us from that ONE fundamental of liberty.

[affa]

Glad to see so many God believers here, after all there could be no atheists if there were no God.

i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread.

[revolutionary8]

is that there are a whole helluva lot of people out there that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. :)

Everyone belongs here or they wouldn't be here. :)

[FilleDePaix]

What a great post!

I am so happy to be a witness to a rare phenomenon:

People brought together, their opinions simultaneously mattering and not. In true freedom, your neighbor's opinion or way of living is unimportant, and yet at the same time the most precious thing. Because humans have a gift of free will.

This paradox is rarely accepted in it's entirety outside of politics, let alone in the extreme dichotomy The Government has (de)volved into.

Ron Paul's platform unites nurtures this new (old) way of thinking, and all of you rose to the occasion! What a great thing to witness.

Thank you all and your different views. :D

[eldeeder]

i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread. i will not hijack this thread.

Covered it, Page 4, three posts from the bottom. And a net-ettiqute (netiquette?) question. Can an OP hijack his/her own thread? Im new to the whole forum thingy...

[eldeeder]

What a great post!


People brought together, their opinions simultaneously mattering and not. In true freedom, your neighbor's opinion or way of living is unimportant, and yet at the same time the most precious thing. Because humans have a gift of free will.



Exactly! How did this turn into "DONT TALK ABOUT POLITICS OR RELIGON!

[InLoveWithRon]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.



Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

!

We have a right to have guns ! Imagine the crimes if only the bad guys had guns.. You are totally insane if you want to get rid of guns.. Because that will mean only the bad guys will have them

If guns were banished, watch for a 300% increase in home invasions and burglaries because burglars won't be afraid because the Homeowners wont have guns.

Banishing guns is a Stupid stupid idea.. Dumb democrats,.

[Hangly Man]

You're welcome to try out my rifle if you like. Just keep it pointed at the ground or at the target.

[InLoveWithRon]

The US is already a police state.. What happens if the government creates a disaster in the US and has the army or fema roaming around abusing people? People need their guns for protection from the government! The government is the #1 enemy.. Haven't you noticed??

Getting rid of guns only empowers the government over the people even more.. It's a stupid idea to get rid of guns.. It's Idiotic..

[Live Free or Die]

We have a right to have guns ! Imagine the crimes if only the bad guys had guns.. You are totally insane if you want to get rid of guns.. Because that will mean only the bad guys will have them

If guns were banished, watch for a 300% increase in home invasions and burglaries because burglars won't be afraid because the Homeowners wont have guns.

Banishing guns is a Stupid stupid idea.. Dumb democrats,.

Hey now... talk about facts getting in the way. No citations? Pfft! Can we just go back to the fuzzy stuff, please? :o

[affa]

You know what one of the best things about this forum is?

Have you noticed that we're able to discuss all the taboo topics (abortion, politics, religion, etc.) and it almost never devolves into a flame war? We get the occasional troll, sure, but that's different.

And I think many of the disagreements that do occur smooth out over time. That is, many of the people here are 'new' to the ideas of freedom. Ex-neocons. Ex-dems. People used to arguing... and yet, somehow... we've got it all worked out.

Beautiful.

EDIT to note: Ok, so we've got the one guy posting about people being idiotic while I was writing this. Go figure.

[eldeeder]

We have a right to have guns ! Imagine the crimes if only the bad guys had guns.. You are totally insane if you want to get rid of guns.. Because that will mean only the bad guys will have them

If guns were banished, watch for a 300% increase in home invasions and burglaries because burglars won't be afraid because the Homeowners wont have guns.

Banishing guns is a Stupid stupid idea.. Dumb democrats,.

Read my other posts. Making laws to take guns away from citizens is like spreading democracy at gunpoint.

You cant force democracy. Its a paradox. You can't give democracy. PEOPLE HAVE TO TAKE IT! Just like you cant "take" someones guns from them, without guns of your own. You can't forceable "disarm" people in an ethical way.

The fact of the matter is we should all be able to coexist without breaking out the guns. But if only 99% of us agree on that, then someone will still have a gun, and the majority of us have the right to defend ourselves from that 1% so we need guns too. Hopefully, someday, we wont.

[Dave Pedersen]

We live in very dangerous times. Glad you value the rule of law as our basic principle of liberty and justice above the particular stipulations of our current body of true law (the constitution) with which you disagree.

Our out of control federal government is side-stepping our laws and making up new ones every day. They don't bother to deliberate in congress any more they just consign their responsibility to the whims of the executive branch. According to their arrogance they no longer even deem it necessary to put on a convincing show.

Under "color of law" the lower courts uphold the subjugation of our rights and turn the proceedings of our courtrooms into kangaroo show trials. Two branches of government are now willing to promote the unfettered advancement of the executive branch for personal gain. We have at the helm a large and arrogant collection of traitors who know exactly what they are doing in the court system and in the legislature and of course in the executive branch. Our major media outlets who are trusted with the responsibility of accurate journalism have also deliberately betrayed us.

The individual participants within these four institutions have almost entirely succumbed to the allure of elitism, the prestige of social advancement and the promise of personal financial supremacy.

Together we the people who know and love this revolution grapple with a dire emergency in the form of pervasive ignorance. Our fellow Americans for the most part remain totally unaware of the danger we face and the truth we must bring to their peaceful lives suggests a woeful challenge which once perceived is rarely welcomed. Nevertheless for our nation, our posterity and literally the hope of mankind to continue so must we.

[newmedia4ron]

Stop The Drama Before It Starts :)
Back To Precinct Leaders....

[ronpaul4pres]

#1 Visit Europe. Very very small amounts of violent crime. BUT, you do have to contrast that with public outrage. I was in holland around a year ago. They had just passed a law requiring people to carry ID. People were OUTRAGED. out in the streets about it. And the thing is, THEY CANT EVEN SEARCH YOU FOR IT. Its not even possible to violate this law, and people were still outraged. We dont have that kind of social participation. I don't "blindly" follow the constitution. I understand why it is designed the way it is.

#2 Like I said, I don't honestly know the answer to the abortion question. Right now, the best I can do for myself (and thats the only person I can decide for) is that if something is 100% biologically dependent upon someone, and they don't want it there, they have the right to remove it.

But I dont want to argue this, I just know we both agree that the federal government shouldn't have anything to say about it. Ethically, I say leave it up to the mother, the father, and the doctor. Politcally, I say leave it up to the states. If Cali votes for legal pot, the federal government shouldnt be able to say no. If South Dakota wants to ban partial birth abortions, the feds shouldn't be able to say no.

Given that criminals don't obey the law by definition, is it really that much harder for a criminal to get a gun in Europe than here?

I don't understand: a newborn is still 100% dependent, yet all of us would say no one has a right to end its development if no longer wanted.

[eldeeder]

Stop The Drama Before It Starts :)
Back To Precinct Leaders....

Drama!? Bah... We need to remind ourselves we aren't on the same page every once in a while, just so we're sure we're on the same page. Huh? We aren't just lemmings, supporting some chode because he smiles and says words like "change."

But come on. After several long, hard hours of campaigning, its great to have a few beers, and argue with other people about why they're nuts (myself not excluded) and then wake up the next day and do it all over again. We'll all have plenty of time to not bother each other AFTER we get Dr. Paul elected... :)

[eldeeder]

Given that criminals don't obey the law by definition, is it really that much harder for a criminal to get a gun in Europe than here?

I don't understand: a newborn is still 100% dependent, yet all of us would say no one has a right to end its development if no longer wanted.

Christ, Im going to let you keep reading for the gun argument. But on #2

I didnt say "100% dependent" I said "100% BIOLOGICALLY dependent."

Whats the difference? a 1 minute old child is 100% dependent, but there are countless people on which it can be dependent. You can take care of it, I can take care of it, Tina can take care of it. Who the fuck is Tina? I don't know, but I'm told she's good with kids.

Anyway, when a woman is pregnant, that child is a part of her body. If she wants to dispose of it, she has the right. If the child can be dependent upon some other means, that should be the option to pursue ( I think at least). A child is not an independent being until it can be sustained outside the biology of its mother. If you want to view the two lives as equals (mother and fetus) you have to be able to answer one fundamental question.

If the mothers life is in danger, does she have the right to abort? If you are weighing the lives equally, and independently, then no, she does not have that right. If you view it as biology, then a woman has the right to dispose of anything inside her own body that she chooses.

[zackmario]

Hey! Help your grassroots brethren with their quest to give RP his BEST debate yet on Wednesday 1/30

Details here. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=100959

We really could use your help. It will only take 2 minutes.

[newmedia4ron]

Drama!? Bah... We need to remind ourselves we aren't on the same page every once in a while, just so we're sure we're on the same page. Huh? We aren't just lemmings, supporting some chode because he smiles and says words like "change."

But come on. After several long, hard hours of campaigning, its great to have a few beers, and argue with other people about why they're nuts (myself not excluded) and then wake up the next day and do it all over again. We'll all have plenty of time to not bother each other AFTER we get Dr. Paul elected... :)

when you first discuss abortion & religion with someone its never the same after that

[eldeeder]

when you first discuss abortion & religion with someone its never the same after that


It shouldn't matter. We'll never get anywhere on any issue, as long as we continue being so contemptious of those who disagree with us.

[angrydragon]

I support gun control...for the government.

[LBT]

Sure you belong.

We don't all have to have the same opinions, nor could we all have the same knowledge.

But we've found issues of commonality that are worth striving for.

All groups have tensions toward group-think, but those with a libertarian strains tend to allow more diversity of opinion by the nature of the philosophy behind it.

And there is nothing better than a good debate among fellow travellers to get the mental cogs working and to develop better skills in persuasion:)

[nbhadja]

The war, economy, and immigration should be a much bigger issue than gun rights. Abortion is big I guess, but I have mixed feelings on it. Don't know whether to support it or go against it.

[Xenophage]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

Hey, I'm like you! I'm an atheist, I'm pro-choice, and I don't really like guns. I abhor violence and I don't think I could ever hunt for pleasure. Having lived in Alaska my whole life, I've been around lots and lots of guns, and shot lots of guns, but they were never my cup of tea so to speak. However, I believe entirely in the right of the citizenry to be armed. I think in that respect, I agree with Ron Paul entirely - he seems to share my feelings on the matter exactly.

As far as "pro-choice," I don't want Roe v Wade overturned, but I understand the Constitutional argument for doing so, and I'm willing to go along with it to see some other things happen that I want SO badly to happen.

You said: "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" That is practically the entire libertarian philosophy summed up in two sentences.

So, I wouldn't say you're a liberal at all. You're a libertarian, like me.

Our major difference is going to be: Government involvement in things that you don't think should be profit motivated. There are a lot of things that people do that are not profit motivated, but they do them without Government interference anyway. Furthermore, I don't believe there's much that can't be profit motivated, and I believe that charity and profit organizations can co-exist within the same market or industry and provide different sorts of service. This happens naturally with things like health care, as long as its allowed to. I also believe that profit motives are quite necessary in health care... we need the newer technology and we need the highly trained doctors and researchers.

There are certain things that the government needs to be involved in, obviously, but I limit those to the legal system, the police force, public transportation and roads, and national defense.

I don't want the FCC or FAA abolished. I know that's unrealistic and would cause great confusion. I do think that alternative solutions could be allowed to compete, some rules could be changed, and gradually over time we would find less and less of a need in society for these institutions.

[WilliamC]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

....

DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

Freedom Does Bring Us Together!

Not wanting to argue your hatred of guns, but how is an inanimate object stupid?

I'm guessing you hate guns just because you think it makes it too easy for people to kill each other.

Of course stupid people use guns for bad reasons, but guns are incapable of being stupid, or smart, or anything.

They are just a tool.

Trying to wish them away is like trying to wish death away; It's not going to happen.

Now what I think is "stupid" is lying. It's easy to identify the simply violent individuals since they can't mask their behavior very well.

It's the pathological liars that I don't like since they can conceal their violent/criminal intents from the majority of honest folk.

I'm waiting for the Truth Machine myself, that'll revolutionize Justice!

[Sematary]

An impressive post, to say the least. It's a shame that the majority of Republicans (the Non-Ron Paul type) don't see it that way. Personally, I agree with Dr. Paul on a majority of his platform. I don't agree with building a fence on our southern border - I think having our troops there to guard it is sufficient (a human wall, if you will) but other than that, I find very little to disagree with. The 2nd amendment is what it is. Abortions should be regulated at the state level - as should drugs, etc.... Like you, I believe the answers lie in the constitution and the amendment process. If enough people feel that there is an egregious wrong in society that can be righted by amending the constitution, then so be it. That is all that is asked - use the process. It works, and will continue to work as long as we abide by it.

[Revolutn]

I wish you would submit a shortened version of this to every newspaper's letter to the editor page.

You have hit the nail on the head, and I think more people need to hear/see/read this perspective.

Rev

[mokkan88]

Guns are stupid. They only serve to kill. But the government has them, and so we should have them. That's my stance.

[MicheleFloyd]

I know where you're coming from... I grew up in a enthusiastically Republican household, but started seeing things differently when I'd been out on my own for a while. In 2000, I considered myself to have no allegiance to either of the Big Two. I sided with Bush during the election scandals - my first big mistake. As 2001 progressed, the more vacation time GW took, the more I felt like we put the wrong guy in office. After 9/11, I tried to roll with Bush but that didn't last long when I realized his way of fighting terrorism was going to bring the country to ruin and infringe on my civil liberties. I started reading international newspapers and found out just how devious his strategies appeared to be.

Had I been wrong?

The more I learned about the politics and history of the Middle East, the more I was convinced that yes, I was wrong. When the US invaded Iraq, I just shook my head. I wrote hand-written letters to my H of R rep and both of my Senators to express my frustration that we were going down a bad road. All 3 replied to say that they absolutely agree (Sen. Lugar's response being the most personalized.) So why don't they do anything? It became clear that all of the deal-making, backslapping and rally around the leader meant that nothing was going to happen unless we started electing people who would stand up and be counted, even if it were unpopular. I noted Ron Paul as being one of the few who did that back when Congress had the power to stop the Iraq War from happening.

Fast forward to now, I've gotten to know Ron Paul's platform a lot better. I'm a liberal but as a for instance, I wholeheartedly agree that we should sack the Department of Education and take a fresh look at how we can improve as a country. You can't do that with a huge, centralized government. It just promotes mediocrity. Finally, I'm a history student and it worries me that we'll end up like the rest of the empires that rose and fell with a thud.

[voytechs]

Remember Dr. Paul doesn't own a gun either, but of course he did have to use it in the army. I like guns, but safety and respect always comes first, that is the first thing you learn at a gun club.

And my favorite quote:



"Ron [Paul] was also nice enough to autograph my rifle stock. He didn't even flinch when I handed it to him [at a rally]. I don't think you'll find many other candidates willing to do the same." - Andrew Kovacs

[yongrel]

It's a big tent.

[BillyDkid]

Welcome and happy to have you. Believe me, you are far from the first confirmed "lefty" or "liberal" to join our ranks. It's all about liberty and it's a funny thing - the message of freedom resonates with most people once they get to hear it and understand it. I respect your feelings about guns, but you might want to remember that first step taken by every would be authoritarian society is to disarm the populace. That is specifically what the founders had in mind when the added the 2nd amendment. You might also be interested to know that the first guns laws were directed at blacks - to disarm them so they couldn't defend themselves. In the same way the "War on drugs" was originally initiated as a way to persecute minorities. If it were true that an armed, law abiding populace made the world a more dangerous place I would be inclined to agree with your sentiments (though I would still support gun rights on principle) but that just isn't the case. Gun control laws only effect the law abiding and makes them more vulnerable to those who are inclined to disregard the law.

As it happens - our most vulnerable citizens, those living in high crime inner city areas (a product of drug prohibition) are essentially prevented from being able to legally defend themselves against brutal thugs who are only to happy to buy their weapons (of whatever sort they like - even full auto - with the mountains of money they have made selling illegal drugs) on the black market. People need to understand this - gun control laws only effect the law abiding, leaving them vulnerable to the most evil among us. The right to self defense is fundamental as is the right to throw of oppressive government - which is what the founders had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

Another thing it took me some time to understand - economic liberty and personal liberty are inextricably linked and you can't have one without the other. Governments - all governments always - serve primarily the interests of the powerful, so it behooves those of us who value liberty to understand the importance of not having a government any more big or powerful than it needs to be to perform it's basic, primary function - to protect liberty.

I might add, you do belong here. You just didn't realize it until now. Believe me we have all types here - which is terrific - all tied together in the belief in liberty and self ownership.

[Seanmc30]

No, you belong here. You speak common sense, a language long since abandoned.

Bill Maher has a great bit about this in his stand up routine. He has opinions and views just like you, but always trumps his views with "I don't ask that you LEGISLATE my taste!" That's what we have done. We have legislated the taste of big business, soccer moms, organized religion, liberals, etc. when instead, we should have been protecting the rights of others that don't necessarily believe the same.

[robert4rp08]

Awesome post. I'll keep that in mind when faced against a liberal. Very good points!

[voytechs]

You would be surprised how many people in the RP camp feel like you do.:eek: I'm a republican myself and happen to agree with everything the good doctor has to say.:D You are definitely in the right place.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

I agree with you on abortion, but have you ever considered guns being important for hunting reasons? Some people can't afford to go the grocery store and buy overpriced meat. Also for those like myself who go camping, you need a gun for protection from wild animals. I'm guessing you live in the city or suburbs so you're not familiar with rural culture. You should go camping sometime.

[HillbillyDan]

Well put, and you are indeed in the right place!

[krott5333]

can I take you shooting sometime? Guns are the best!

[RonPaulFTFW]

Hey man (or woman) read my reasons why I support Ron Paul in my Signature.

You might find you belong here after all :D

[PatriotOne]

...but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.



I use to be anti-gun also but when I read something similar to your statement above, it changed my whole paradigm on the subject in seconds. It just made so much sense. I had a self "duh" moment.

[krott5333]

Guns are stupid. They only serve to kill. But the government has them, and so we should have them. That's my stance.

you're stupid! :mad:

[krott5333]

I agree with you on abortion, but have you ever considered guns being important for hunting reasons? Some people can't afford to go the grocery store and buy overpriced meat. Also for those like myself who go camping, you need a gun for protection from wild animals. I'm guessing you live in the city or suburbs so you're not familiar with rural culture. You should go camping sometime.

Guns have nothing to do with hunting.

Look at the mass genocides throughout history. They were all preceded by gun confiscation, and gun confiscation is usually preceded by gun registration.

Also, look into the Warsaw ghetto uprising, and what a few determined folks with guns can accomplish against tyranny and oppression.

[clintontj72]

Amen brother! "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire

I don't disagree with everything you say...just it is okay to not agree, but agreeing on the Constitution and freedom is where it is at :D

[pinkmandy]

You are welcome here. There is every reason for a self-professed 'liberal' to like Ron. The Constitution doesn't step on too many toes, except those of tyrants.

Ditto that. This isn't about right or left, it's about saving our country and putting back on its proper foundation so we can ALL be free. None of the other issues matter if you are losing your country! We must fix that first.

[DontFret]

Wonderful post by the thread starter.

This is truly the essence of why this country needs Ron Paul and his message of freedom as contrasted with the collectivism that dominates US government policies of today. The centralized (and unconstitutional) power now consolidated in Washington is a recipe for disaster, irrespective of whether the corrupt and out-of-control bureacracy centered at the nation's capital (and with tentacles fanned out all across the country) has actually made laws/regulations that you find (or anyone finds) personally attractive.

It is the concentration of power amongst a group of elites (or metastasizing elites) that breeds corruption and begins the inevitable slide toward collectivism as mandated through laws and regulation to further the profits of greedy and powerful collectivists nationwide.

If this power were not concentrated in Washington, as is expressly warned about in the Constitution, then the 'free market' of laws/regulations at the state level would serve as a powerful regulator of collectivism. The nation's founders knew this and were extremely specific in forewarning about the dangers of centralized national power.

It is worthy of all citizens, notwithstanding their personal views on any given issue, to consider this fact above all others if they desire a healthy country founded on truth and individual growth as opposed to mandates from Washington instead founded upon profit, greed, and collectivism.

In honor of this excellent post by the thread starter and his obvious understanding of what ails our country I have just donated another $100 to the Ron Paul campaign. I urge others to do the same.

Thank you, TS.

[Malum Prohibitum]

Welcome. You dont have to like what I like or even like *me* in order to understand that its about The Constitution and the rule of the REAL LAW.

There was a time in this country when the practice and writing of the law was seen as an endeavor to study for truth, akin to philosophy. The Constitution is an expression of that attempt, and an effort by many learned men, to find a means by which to bind the dangerous servant that government is, so that it could do its ONE legitimate purpose, which is to ensure the liberty of the people.

Since then, sadly, the practice and writing of law has been taken over by those who see the law as just a means to an end, with the end chosen by who ever wins the contest of the day. To these people the concept of liberty is an antique, and all that matters is that the policy gets done. This is law without truth or morality. These people must be stopped.

[dshields]

Great post eldeeder.

Discussing the amendments like the second in a lot of cases is like trying to convince someone their favorite color is blue when it really is green. People just see things different. What matters in the end is we agree to disagree but continue on doing what we believe as long as it doesn't infringe on each others rights.

I would like to point out to fellow pro-lifers and I am one of them, that it is not logical to "legislate morality". You will save far more unborn children if you use your time educating people about the values of life and showing them acceptance. Morality can only be taught or learned through example not forced by law.

I for one am EXTREMELY encouraged by the sort of unity I am seeing under Ron Paul's message.

Dave

[nullvalu]

DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

Absolutely! But if I met you on the street & didn't know you were a Paul supporter, we'd probably end up in a fist fight. ;) haha

[JuniorNJ]

I will use my Second Amendment to protect your 1st..........I just really hope you use your 1st to help protect my 2nd.


Touche' my friend!

[Ninja Homer]

Nice post, eldeeder. You definitely belong here.

I agree with you philosophically about guns. Guns suck. If there was a way to magically remove every single gun (and bomb, and WMD, and nuclear weapon) in the world that would be awesome. However, it isn't ever going to happen, so I have to look at it realistically.

You have to be able to protect your life, family, and property with weapons equal to those being used against you, whether it's a burglar or a corrupt government. It isn't just about self defense, it's about national defense as well. Because there are millions of gun owners in the US, no foreign enemy will even think about trying to occupy the US... it would be impossible.

In my opinion, abortion is looked at as a black and white issue way too often. You're labeled as either pro-life or pro-choice, but there are about a million positions in between. I've never met a pro-choice person who is 100% in favor of Roe v Wade, when they fully understand what it means. Roe v Wade says that somebody can have an abortion a second before a baby is born, and I've never met anybody that agrees with that.

On the other side, I've never met a pro-life person who doesn't agree that a rape victim should be able to take a day-after pill, once they understand how the day-after pill works, and that an egg doesn't become fertilized, get set in the womb, and start to grow for a few days.

[margomaps]

#1 Visit Europe. Very very small amounts of violent crime. BUT, you do have to contrast that with public outrage. I was in holland around a year ago. They had just passed a law requiring people to carry ID. People were OUTRAGED. out in the streets about it. And the thing is, THEY CANT EVEN SEARCH YOU FOR IT. Its not even possible to violate this law, and people were still outraged. We dont have that kind of social participation. I don't "blindly" follow the constitution. I understand why it is designed the way it is.

You might be interested to know that the US has comparatively far less crime (including violent crime) than most countries in Europe. I thought this was common knowledge by now. The US is higher than most industrialized countries in homicide rate -- there's plenty of evidence to suggest this is an unintended consequence of the War on Drugs -- but lags behind almost every European country in robberies, sexual assaults, and other physical violence. Unless you're a young black male in the southern US involved in the trade of illicit drugs, you're significantly less likely to become a victim of violent crime than someone living in most parts of Europe.

Google "International Crime Victimization Survey" to read about international crime statistics. If you currently believe that the US is a dangerous place, and other industrialized countries are much safer, you'll be shocked. Australia, England & Wales, The Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, and France all have higher victimization rates than the US.

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/pdf/08-icvs-h2.pdf

Enjoy. Oh, and I'm glad you're a Ron Paul supporter. :)

[davidkachel]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

Ladies and gentlemen; I give you the foregoing as the very definition of intelligence!

[Goldwater Conservative]

Honestly, it all comes down to federalism for me. If most government was state (or preferably even local) I could just move to place where the policies fit my preferences. I don't want to force libertarianism/conservatism on the whole country (as if you could "force" freedom...), but I do want at least one option within the United States that doesn't involve authoritarianism. Hell, give me a single county where I can get that and I'd be fine with the left taking the rest.

So, even if you're a bleeding heart leftist, if you can understand the importance of government being close to home and allowing democratic experimentation, welcome aboard. It's the "one size fits America" crowd that gets to me.

[constituent]

God-loving, gun-totin', conservative (?), "neo-hippie (not my label, but i get called it often enough)"


Glad to have you aboard!

[Sey.Naci]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter.Ditto.

[davidkachel]

Hell, give me a single county where I can get that and I'd be fine with the left taking the rest.

The problem with that is the surrounding counties will feel it is their obligation to bring democracy and justice to you, whether you like it or not. Just as we (a country which is NOT a democracy) are bringing democracy to the rest of the world. (Just think Crusades, without the cross.)

[Goldwater Conservative]

The problem with that is the surrounding counties will feel it is their obligation to bring democracy and justice to you, whether you like it or not. Just as we (a country which is NOT a democracy) are bringing democracy to the rest of the world. (Just think Crusades, without the cross.)

But they'd probably be peacenik sheep with few guns and little know-how to use them, while we'd be armed to the teeth militant freedom fighters. Think Israel versus the Middle East. ;)

[tamor]

I am very much pro-choice and have been since abortion was not legal. Remember then abortions were performed illegally and many girls died. Abortions were just driven underground and into the black market. So, Dr. Paul and I disagree on this issue. But, I do feel he will respect my individual liberties. I am thankful that there is the morning after pill. Advances are on the way-- so maybe in the near future, abortion will not be an issue. Welcome .. one more thing -- don't confuse faith with religion --
God did not ruin faith - man did by all that religious dogma -- Welcome, again

[Gadsdenfly]

Freedom and the Constitution is what binds us as a nation. We should be able to see past all the individual issues as no candidate is going to be 100% behind your opinions. I really respect you for seeing beyond these issues and respecting the Constitution. I completely disagree with you on guns and somewhat on the abortion issue but you are RIGHT we should amend the document if we want to change these things not ignore it!

[EvilNight]

Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions.
Right on. The argument for legal abortion is the exact same argument for the legalization of drugs. You can't logically support the one and not the other.

Why? Abortions happen at the same rate, legal or illegal. Law has no effect on reducing it, just like with drug use. Keeping it illegal only places the woman in jeopardy in a back alley instead of a hospital room.

Good to see someone else actually understands that.

[CelestialRender]

I will use my Second Amendment to protect your 1st..........I just really hope you use your 1st to help protect my 2nd.

QFT.

[Feenix566]

I consider myself a pure libertarian. Ron Paul's positions don't line up with mine in every instance, but he's a whole lot more libertarian than any other candidate I've ever seen, so that's why he's getting my vote and my donations.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Crazy how I was a Bush/Rudy supporter just a year ago, and now I'm supporting the same candidate that ex-Kucinich supporters are supporting.

[mconder]

I just curious where in the Constitution you see the authority to take money from some and give it to others so they can get health care? If the constitution were to be amended to allow this redistribution of wealth, where does society get the moral authority to negate one right (of property) to promote another supposed right (of health care)? Can you agree with me that individuals have the right of property...to keep, dispose of, use, or transfer that property any way they see fit? If we can agree on that, we can agree that universal health care or any other social program is organized theft...can't we?

[mconder]

We all belong here because we all believe in freedom.

Well...he believes in Universal Health Care, which violates someone's freedom.

[EotS]

eldeedler,

I didn't have time to read all 11 pgs of posts in this thread, but wanted to throw in my $0.02, some of which may have been stated by others.

You DO belong here. This campaign is about the Constitution, and you are clearly someone who understands the constitution.

So you'll also clearly understand that the government has no authority to take over health care, or air traffic control, or many other things. It protects your right to be an atheist.

It's interesting to hear from someone that hates guns who realizes that my right to bear arms is not up for his vote. You do, however, have property rights. So do the owners of the establishments you frequent. They can ban guns on their property.

[Jeremy]

Something about guns...

Before the Holocaust, Hitler made guns illegal for people to have. The people had no way to protect themselves or stand up against Nazi Germany... millions were killed.

[revolutionary8]

How Planned Parenthood Duped America
...
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.

While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.

These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.

Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justiices all accept as "social orthodoxy."
....
more at link
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
I didn't learn that about Sanger in school that is for sure.

[Tidewise]

The Constitution of the United States of America: THE ULTIMATE BIG TENT!

[amy31416]

I'm a former "liberal", actually, I'm a former "thought I was a liberal, but really was a constitutionalist all all along."

No shame in that. We all have to grow.

I've also found that the toughest segment of the population is the neocons. They still believe that they have to be loyal to the end, no matter what that end is or how we get there.

Not surprising.

[ronpaul4pres]

Christ, Im going to let you keep reading for the gun argument.

Is it I who should read?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1109259&postcount=108



But on #2

I didnt say "100% dependent" I said "100% BIOLOGICALLY dependent."

Whats the difference? a 1 minute old child is 100% dependent, but there are countless people on which it can be dependent. You can take care of it, I can take care of it, Tina can take care of it. Who the fuck is Tina? I don't know, but I'm told she's good with kids.

Anyway, when a woman is pregnant, that child is a part of her body. If she wants to dispose of it, she has the right. If the child can be dependent upon some other means, that should be the option to pursue ( I think at least). A child is not an independent being until it can be sustained outside the biology of its mother. If you want to view the two lives as equals (mother and fetus) you have to be able to answer one fundamental question.

If the mothers life is in danger, does she have the right to abort? If you are weighing the lives equally, and independently, then no, she does not have that right. If you view it as biology, then a woman has the right to dispose of anything inside her own body that she chooses.

A newborn is still "biologically" dependent. Are you suggesting that just because it can poop on its own it's suddenly a separate life? Why do women have mammary glands? A baby requires milk from its mother. The baby still has a biological dependence on its mother.

Now, just because humans are smart and can create substitutes for a mother's milk doesn't make the baby any less dependent or any more alive. For example, we'll eventually be smart enough to allow babies to develop outside a mother's womb. By your definition, though, that would suddenly make it a "separate" life whereas it wasn't before. But, that makes no sense. How could such a baby be more alive?

Your question about the life of the mother being in danger is irrelevant. We must first agree on the definition of life. Then, we can talk about the termination of this life in certain cases.

[xd9fan]

Something about guns...

Before the Holocaust, Hitler made guns illegal for people to have. The people had no way to protect themselves or stand up against Nazi Germany... millions were killed.
yep

The 2nd makes the rest of them......a reality.

[bluemarkets]

/salute

Great post. But of course you belong here. Freedom is a big tent.

I think I read somewhere else, that this has to be the most diverse forum EVER!

Just like Dr. Paul said "The Freedom message brings people together!"

[Swmorgan77]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Great!!! Under the Constitution you are completely free to not own a gun, to avoid people who have them and to have exactly the opinion you want. You are also free to form private voluntary associations of individuals who agree not to own them, and patronize businesses that don't allow them because you feel safer. All the Constituiton prevents you from doing is using government force to take them away from those who have a different viewpoint.



Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

The whole abortion question turns on whether the unborn fetus is a life. If it is, then any sense of ethics requires us to protect it, even against aggression from the woman carrying it if necessary. If not, then its just a growth to be removed. Pick your side, but anywhere in the middle is ultimately philosophically inconsistent.


If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Yes, but even then it would be unlawful. Statutes (including the 2nd amendment) are created to protect natural rights, not to make them come into existence. Repeal the 2nd amendment, and my right to keep and bear arms is still just as valid. It would simply mean that the Constitution no longer acknowledged it.

[LiberalDemForRP]

I'm pretty sure the OP and I were separated at birth. My name says it all. Just because I don't agree with every issue doesn't mean the larger message isn't worth my time and my vote. Glad to see a kindred spirit. ;)

[FilleDePaix]

I'm a former "liberal", actually, I'm a former "thought I was a liberal, but really was a constitutionalist all all along."


Perfectly said, quite true for me too.

It was fun telling my hippie parents I switched to "Republican". :)

[qh4dotcom]

Anyone who votes for Ron Paul is welcome here

[xd9fan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amy31416
I'm a former "liberal", actually, I'm a former "thought I was a liberal, but really was a constitutionalist all all along."

Perfectly said, quite true for me too.


I'm a former "conservative", actually, I'm a former "thought I was a conservative, but really was a constitutionalist all along."

Funny how that works....liberty

[eldeeder]

Is it I who should read?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1109259&postcount=108




A newborn is still "biologically" dependent. Are you suggesting that just because it can poop on its own it's suddenly a separate life? Why do women have mammary glands? A baby requires milk from its mother. The baby still has a biological dependence on its mother.

Now, just because humans are smart and can create substitutes for a mother's milk doesn't make the baby any less dependent or any more alive. For example, we'll eventually be smart enough to allow babies to develop outside a mother's womb. By your definition, though, that would suddenly make it a "separate" life whereas it wasn't before. But, that makes no sense. How could such a baby be more alive?

Your question about the life of the mother being in danger is irrelevant. We must first agree on the definition of life. Then, we can talk about the termination of this life in certain cases.

Ok. We obviously differ on the idea of our term "Biologically dependant"

I define it as a 100% BIOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY. If it can NOT be dependant on that particular woman, there is NOTHING OR NO ONE in can be dependent upon.

I may very easily be wrong here, but fuck that, I dont care about it enough to continue to debate it. Lets talk about gun control.

Guns are stupid, and destructive, and I do not want to have any part of them, or have my family be any part of them.

BUT, should the government ever threaten my rights, they wont just threaten MY rights, it will be ALL OF OUR rights. I personally rely on all of you to carry guns responsibly. I HATE GUNS. That doesnt mean I want you to, or that I want to take them away from you.

The second amendment is there so that you "gun-toating" friends of mine can protect MY rights. Not just Your own.

Either the people in your country are mostly good, or mostly bad. I believe you all
to be good, so there fore, I want you armed to the teeth. Then, when our government comes after me, YOU will be there to defend me. Call it a cop-out, call it what ever you want. You have had your guns since your granddaddy was born, and have never bothered me. If I made a law tomorrow that said "Everyone must turn in their guns!" the only people who would do so, would be LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. So great, my law just disarmed the MORAL portion of the population.

I HATE GUNS, but I LOVE the idea of people like you having them.... Thats as simple as I can put it.

Thanks for taking care of my rights, and hopefully, I will join you someday...

[LibertyEagle]

<snip>
Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

You said it perfectly. :)

[Truth Warrior]

"liberal" ( so called :rolleyes: ) = socialist.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[Danke]

Guns are stupid, and destructive, and I do not want to have any part of them, or have my family be any part of them.

The second amendment is there so that you "gun-toating" friends of mine can protect MY rights.

Thanks for taking care of my rights...

Yeah, but we're gonna make you our bitch first!


:p

[LibertyEagle]

I wish you would submit a shortened version of this to every newspaper's letter to the editor page.

You have hit the nail on the head, and I think more people need to hear/see/read this perspective.

Rev

+1

[eldeeder]

Believe it or not, I do understand your rights as a gun owner. Lets say your 10 year old child shoots himself in the stomach with a shotgun. (I do know this, my grandfather did just that at that exact age) did he make it though? Obviously, hes my grandfather. Should your kid be stupid, because you are not a responsible gun owner, then tough shit.

We dont need gun laws to protect us from ourselves.We, the citizens, need to have guns to protect us from our own govenment....

[eldeeder]

Yeah, but we're gonna make you our bitch first!


:p

Really? I guess you miss the point then....

[Danke]

Really? I guess you miss the point then....

Or you missed the sarcasm. ":p"

[eldeeder]

liberal = socialist.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

No, PROGRESSIVE = SOCIALIST.

The democrats are NOT LIBERALS, WE ARE LIBERALS. The socialist formula does not agree with what the US was founded upon...

[torchbearer]

play nice. :)

[eldeeder]

I apoligize, I agree with everyone here, but love to hammer out the details. Regardless...

Viva La Constitution! Viva Human Rights. Viva Existance!

[acptulsa]

I apoligize, I agree with everyone here, but love to hammer out the details. Regardless...

Viva La Constitution! Viva Human Rights. Viva Existance!

You belong here. Thanks for posting.

[Truth Warrior]

No, PROGRESSIVE = SOCIALIST.

The democrats are NOT LIBERALS, WE ARE LIBERALS. The socialist formula does not agree with what the US was founded upon...
"LIBERAL" = PROGRESSIVE = SOCIALIST. :p

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :D

Speak for yourself, I'm a "libertarian".


THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers

;)

[acptulsa]

"LIBERAL" = PROGRESSIVE = SOCIALIST.

He didn't use the quote marks around "liberal". Perhaps he should have said, "classic liberal".

[kigol]

/salute

Great post. But of course you belong here. Freedom is a big tent.

..

[Truth Warrior]

he didn't use the quote marks around "liberal". Perhaps he should have said, "classic liberal".
yep! ;)

"When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty." -- Confucius

[Arklatex]

thanks for sharing your opinions eldeeder, and supporting the REVOLUTION!!

My mother shares your same stance on guns, what I always reply to her is, making them illegal won't get rid of them. It'll be like prohibition of anything else. So making guns illegal tantamount:

bad guys = rich and plenty of guns

good guys = no guns

=)

[Bill M DC]

Guns are stupid, and destructive, and I do not want to have any part of them, or have my family be any part of them.

Stupid people do stupid things. It is impossible for an inanimate object to be stupid or destructive. It is stupid, irresponsible people who create dangerous, destructive and deadly situations with inanimate objects.

I don't want anything to do with stupid destructive people with guns.

I grew up in a home where guns were in every room accept the kitchen. No trigger locks ever and ammo was readily accessible.

Because of the training and respect for life that my parents gave my siblings and myself and because of other invasion deterrents no one ever got shot in the house or on the property. A loaded gun actually saved my father and myself from venomous snake bite. Plus my fear of what I was going to get from Dad if I screwed up reinforced self discipline and kept me acting responsibly even as a preteen.

[Truth Warrior]

Guns are only TOOLS, as is government itself. ;)

The TOOLS are NOT responsible for the USE nor MISUSE to which they're put.<IMHO>

[CoreyBowen999]

Good post even though i dont agree with your stances. The constitution has a big tent.

[Truth Warrior]

Good post even though i dont agree with your stances. The constitution has a big tent.
The Constitution TOOL was KILLED by the government TOOL, even BEFORE Ron Paul was born.<IMHO> ;)

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[priest_of_syrinx]

You Liberal Hippie!!!111!1

*whack*

Sorry, I am still trying to bury my former neoconsevative self. :)
That's actually pretty similar to what I was going to post! Since finding these forums, I have really undergone a transformation.

[Akus]

eldeer as long as your views are not imposing on mine, you belong here. what unites us is not having similar views on things, but the fact that we all just want to be left alone and do our own thing, which was the way this country was originally built on.

[torchbearer]

The Constitution TOOL was KILLED by the government TOOL, even BEFORE Ron Paul was born.<IMHO> ;)

Abraham crossed the Rubicon in the 1860's, the american republic died, and the american empire arose.
The chains of the constitution was forever broken, from that point on.

[Truth Warrior]

Abraham crossed the Rubicon in the 1860's, the american republic died, and the american empire arose.
The chains of the constitution was forever broken, from that point on.

That's one interpretation and perspective that I am mostly somewhat comfortable with.



Thanks! :)

[torchbearer]

That's one interpretation and perspective that I am mostly somewhat comfortable with.



Thanks! :)

Too bad the victor always gets to write the history.

[Drknows]

Good post but i would like to comment on your thoughts about guns. I don't want to start a heated debate.

But say if you took away the right to bear arms (guns) you think criminals would give them up? You think people who commit violent crimes would stop? NO look at the UK. They have a problem with Knife stabbings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2008/jul/17/ukcrime.knifecrime


Guns dont kill people people do. banning guns is not going to stop violent crime. You would just see more unusual acts of violence.

[Truth Warrior]

Too bad the victor always gets to write the history. Only the "official" history ( so called ). :p

[Forefall]

Good post but i would like to comment on your thoughts about guns. I don't want to start a heated debate.

But say if you took away the right to bear arms (guns) you think criminals would give them up? You think people who commit violent crimes would stop? NO look at the UK. They have a problem with Knife stabbings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2008/jul/17/ukcrime.knifecrime


Guns dont kill people people do. banning guns is not going to stop violent crime. You would just see more unusual acts of violence.

Take a look at Japan.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ja-japan/cri-crime

I DEFINITELY agree that it's the people. I guess Americans, Aussies and Brits are just ... angrier than everyone else? Dang.

Now, I'm pro-guns for various reasons, but saying the "look what happens when you take away guns" by just pointing at the UK is kinda wishy-washy. Take a look at other countries first. Violent crime and guns do seem to correlate more than not. Humans are just ignorant like that.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Everyone is welcome to this movement.

That is, everyone except for liberal democrats, socialists, white nationalists, 9/11 truthers, non-christians...

[torchbearer]

Take a look at Japan.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ja-japan/cri-crime

I DEFINITELY agree that it's the people. I guess Americans, Aussies and Brits are just ... angrier than everyone else? Dang.

People get chopped up by machete in Africa, probably daily..en mass.
Also- the more people are concentrated in one area.. and the more transient they are.. the more likely you are to have very high crime rate.

[AxXiom]

How amazingly Right On!

I feel a little bit of an outsider at times in the seriously socially conservative area I'm in but I am constantly reminded that not everyone here demands thought compliance with their particular flavor of conservatism-Namely, the people who place the Rule of Law and Liberty in first place on governmental issues.
God, Goddess, Gods, >chosen deity< >NONE< >Haven't Decided< Bless Constitutional Americans!

AxXiom

[torchbearer]

How amazingly Right On!

I feel a little bit of an outsider at times in the seriously socially conservative area I'm in but I am constantly reminded that not everyone here demands thought compliance with their particular flavor of conservatism-Namely, the people who place the Rule of Law and Liberty in first place on governmental issues.
God, Goddess, Gods, >chosen deity< >NONE< >Haven't Decided< Bless Constitutional Americans!

AxXiom

That is how freedom brings us together. We don't have to agree at all on how we live our lives. And that is ok. You leave me alone. I leave you alone.
We freely associate with others that think similar to us... and we live in harmony.
That is the idea, with the constitution as chains on our men of power, to protect us from tyranny.
That was the idea anyway... then the 1860's happened... oops.

[Truth Warrior]

Please refrain from hiring the thugs and goons that tyrannize, terrorize and threaten me and mine through your vote. ;)

And I'll leave you alone. :D

[liberalnurse]

Welcome :) I'm a life-long Democrat myself. I dislike guns, but understand the need for people to protect themselves against the government. Abortion effects me not at all, and I know that it's too complicated to pretend I have the answer.

Never in my life did I think I'd be supporting a republican, much less filing as a PCO for them. Then again (as I tell my friends), Ron Paul is about as much of a Republican as I am. The way he voted before the War/Patriot Act was the way I WISH that the Democrats had voted instead of losing their spines.

Me too..Life long Democrat, considered liberal in my views..Never in my lifetime did I expect to support a Republican, let alone switch parties to do so, nor did I expect to find a man like Ron Paul to educate me and lead me back to the Consitution. A very good friend of mine, was a ardent Hillary supporter and we agreed months ago to agree to disagree in order to keep our friendship intact. We totally avoided politics when we were together. After Hillary dropped out I gave her Rons' book A Manifesto. Less then 2 weeks later she calls and says I think I'm a Libertarian, and was actually quoting from the book. She joined me in DC for the March and Rally, called me the next day and her first words, "I've awakened." I said Welcome to the Revolution. Freedom is indeed popular!! We will both see you in Minneapolis.

[dude58677]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

The right to own a gun also means the right not to own one.

[westmich4paul]

That is how I have gotten all my democrat leaning friends and family commited to voting for Ron Paul. The only friends I am having a damn hard time to getting to consider Ron Paul are my Republican friends.
I couldn't agree with you more on this. My family is largely Democrats and yet once they here the man they understand the man. While on the same token once my Republican's hear Ron Paul speak they kind of automatically go into an attack/defensive posture. I being a former Democrat have had a much easier time converting Dems over Reps to Ron Paul.

[Kade]

No, PROGRESSIVE = SOCIALIST.

The democrats are NOT LIBERALS, WE ARE LIBERALS. The socialist formula does not agree with what the US was founded upon...

I haven't seen you before, for whatever reason...

My name is Kade, and you and I have MUCH in common my friend.

[Truth Warrior]

If you think that the government should be BIGGER, you do not belong here.<IMHO>

[Kade]

I don't know, or really want to know what the idiot above me said, but he is the one of the ones here who redefines what it means to be liberal into a nice burnable straw man at a whim.

[Truth Warrior]

Well the "above him" part is correct. The rest, not so much, as is most usual. ;)

[Deborah K]

The only thing we all need to agree upon is adherence to our beloved Constitution. Everything else is just fluff.

[Truth Warrior]

The only thing we all need to agree upon is adherence to our beloved Constitution. Everything else is just fluff.
Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)
Tom Woods on its stranglers.

We shall now observe a moment of silence for the "dearly departed".

[libertythor]

Yay for vintage RPF! :)




Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice. I hate guns. I am an atheist. I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

[Deborah K]

Who Killed the Constitution? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html)
Tom Woods on its stranglers.

We shall now observe a moment of silence for the "dearly departed".

Are you implying that Tom Woods is telling people in his book to scrap the Constitution??? I already know that you want to, but really, I don't think that was the intention of the authors.

In Who Killed the Constitution? Woods and Gutzman

• REVEAL the federal government’s “great gold robbery”—the flagrant assault on the Constitution you never heard about in history class
• DESTROY the phony case for presidential war power
• EXPOSE how the federal government has actively discriminated to end . . . discrimination
• TEAR DOWN the “wall of separation” between church and state—an invention that completely contradicts what the Constitution says
• DARE to touch the “third rail of American jurisprudence,” Brown v. Board of Education—showing why a government decision that seems “right” isn’t necessarily constitutional

Never shying away from controversy, Woods and Gutzman reveal an unsettling but unavoidable truth: now that the federal government has broken free of the Constitution’s chains, government officials are restrained by little more than their sense of what they can get away with.

I'm not getting how you think their goal in writing the book was to scrap the Constitution and start over.

[Truth Warrior]

Are you implying that Tom Woods is telling people in his book to scrap the Constitution??? I already know that you want to, but really, I don't think that was the intention of the authors.

In Who Killed the Constitution? Woods and Gutzman

• REVEAL the federal government’s “great gold robbery”—the flagrant assault on the Constitution you never heard about in history class
• DESTROY the phony case for presidential war power
• EXPOSE how the federal government has actively discriminated to end . . . discrimination
• TEAR DOWN the “wall of separation” between church and state—an invention that completely contradicts what the Constitution says
• DARE to touch the “third rail of American jurisprudence,” Brown v. Board of Education—showing why a government decision that seems “right” isn’t necessarily constitutional

Never shying away from controversy, Woods and Gutzman reveal an unsettling but unavoidable truth: now that the federal government has broken free of the Constitution’s chains, government officials are restrained by little more than their sense of what they can get away with.

I'm not getting how you think their goal in writing the book was to scrap the Constitution and start over.
I think that Woods is telling the people that the Constitution is DEAD.

[Deborah K]

I think that Woods is telling the people that the Constitution is DEAD.


Did you read the book?

[Truth Warrior]

Did you read the book? In process. :) I've got a lot on my reading platter.

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

It's shorter than the book. ;)

[Deborah K]

In process. :) I've got a lot on my reading platter.

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

It's shorter than the book. ;)

Okay, well when you're done, let's discuss this. Woods may very well be telling people that the Constitution is dead, to use your words, but I don't think he is implying in any way that it should be scrapped.

[Truth Warrior]

Okay, well when you're done, let's discuss this. Woods may very well be telling people that the Constitution is dead, to use your words, but I don't think he is implying in any way that it should be scrapped.
Help me understand you here please, what does the question "Who Killed the Constitution?" really mean? Sometimes my tendency to the literal seems to confuse others.

If you're thinking "miraculous resurrection" here, how are you going to do it?

Thanks! :)

[Feenix566]

I hate guns.

I hate guns, too. I don't own one. But I have a right to own one, if I wanted to.

[Deborah K]

Help me understand you here please, what does the question "Who Killed the Constitution?" really mean? Sometimes my tendency to the literal seems to confuse others.

If you're thinking "miraculous resurrection" here, how are you going to do it?

Thanks! :)


Yes, I think you are taking the title a bit too literal. The Constitution isn't alive, therefore it can't literally be killed. "Who Killed the Constitution" is meant to be taken metaphorically, in my flea bitten opinion.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, I think you are taking the title a bit too literal. The Constitution isn't alive, therefore it can't literally be killed. "Who Killed the Constitution" is meant to be taken metaphorically, in my flea bitten opinion.
Was it ever alive? ( metaphorically ) Is it still alive? ( metaphorically )

If you're thinking "miraculous resurrection" ( metaphorically ) here, how are you going to do it ( metaphorically )?

Look out for the flea bites ( literally? ). ;)

Thanks! :)

[AmericasLastHope]

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid.

Then you must think George Washington was stupid when he said this...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

-George Washington

[Truth Warrior]

Then you must think George Washington was stupid when he said this...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

-George Washington

:cool: Washington quote, thanks! :)

[revolutionman]

yep!! Freedom is a three ring circus, and there is more than enough room under the big top for anyone who believes in freedom. Part of embracing freedom is respecting the rights of others.

[Truth Warrior]

yep!! Freedom is a three ring circus, and there is more than enough room under the big top for anyone who believes in freedom. Part of embracing freedom is respecting the rights of others.
Well that leaves the VOTERS out. :p

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Strange sounding post, I know, but bear with me.

I am what you would probably call a liberal. I am very much pro-choice.

I'm pro-choice.


I hate guns.

I don't own one. Do you know what Stalin & Hitler did before they violated their people? Confiscated the guns!


I am an atheist.

Likewise.


I do think the government should take on certain tasks in which profit should not be a motive. i.e. Air traffic control, health care, and a few other smaller items.

umm. I thought that airports take care of air traffic control? Gov is already in health care.


So now, allow me to explain why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I am going to use the example of Guns and Abortion (2 sensitive subjects) for this.

Guns are stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm not going to go into the reasons why, there is no reason to. Im not posting this to argue about guns. Let's just say thats how I feel about the issue, and you'll have a tough time changing it.

hmm. Guns are very useful. Would you prefer bows & arrows?


Abortion? Right or wrong, it has to remain legal. Why? So it can be regulated, preventing "back-ally" abortions. I don't consider it ethical after the 1st trimester, but, as an atheist, I am conflicted in my own views about this topic, so no reason to force my speculative views upon you.

What does atheism have to do with it? Yeah.


So... There are my arguments. A lot of people on here would fight me tooth and nail about them, but first let me explain my support of Ron Paul.

Guns? The second amendment. The constitution is NOT pick and choose. Its all or nothing. I hate guns, but understand that gun control only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I hate guns period, but tough shit for me, the constitution doesn't. If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution. Not just make a law saying "no more guns for you..." And I do understand why our founding fathers wanted the second amendment.

uhh ok. :rolleyes:


Abortion? Roe v Wade is actually on my side. It upholds my beliefs. Oh, wait though. Its AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, and like I said people, ITS NOT PICK AND CHOOSE. Ron Paul wants it gone. Not so he can replace it, but because its not the federal governments place.

Thats why I am a Ron Paul supporter. I don't agree with a lot of peoples politics, but I do agree that what we have isn't working. We all need to find a common ground, and what better place than our own constitution.

Anyway, to sum it up, It's NOT about politics anymore! It's about getting back to our senses. Its about waking America up! It's about saying "HEY! Freedom means people can do things you dont approve of! As long as they don't impose upon your freedoms!" (im sure there is a better way to phrase that)

So, while I find I don't agree with many people I meet, I couldn't agree with the movement more.

And let's be honest with ourselves. What fun would any of this be if we all agreed on every issue? Might as well work for fox news then... :)


DR. RON PAUL ----> The only candidate who is ACTUALLY bringing people together!

uhh..yea

[Anti Federalist]

If I want to take your guns away, I have to fight to AMEND the constitution

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

[Truth Warrior]

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

A quote I snagged just today:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

;)

[Danke]

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

Yep. But so many have been brain washed that they have Constitutional Rights (ie. the Constitution grants them rights).

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yep. But so many have been brain washed that they have Constitutional Rights (ie. the Constitution grants them rights).

We are born with these unalienable rights according to libertarianism because the libertarian founding fathers witnessed things like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and so they said, "Rights are not granted, we are born with them." Good way to avoid the tyrants in history from resurfacing is if everyone is born with unalienable rights that no government can take away from them. Yea, simplistic, but I'm using it as more of a metaphor. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

We are born with these unalienable rights according to libertarianism because the libertarian founding fathers witnessed things like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and so they said, "Rights are not granted, we are born with them." Good way to avoid the tyrants in history from resurfacing is if everyone is born with unalienable rights that no government can take away from them. Yea, simplistic, but I'm using it as more of a metaphor. ;) Who taught you history? :rolleyes:

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Who taught you history? :rolleyes:

hmm. Some in school, some by myself. Who taught you history? :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

hmm. Some in school, some by myself. Who taught you history? :rolleyes: Keep reading.

Back to Sumer ( ~ 4,000 B.C. ) and then precede forward in time, for human history. ;)

95%, me. :D

[jkm1864]

I can not stand liberals but You my friend are ok....

[Kade]

While I understand the OP's point, (doubtful he's still even around to argue it) it's going to take a lot more than amendment to take my guns away.

The bill of rights protects preexisting rights, rights that no legitimate government can take away, regardless of plebiscite or amendment.

That's how some feel about reproductive choice.

[AmericasLastHope]

[...]the libertarian founding fathers witnessed things like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia[...]

What are you talking about? The founding fathers witnessed Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia? Are you making an analogical example, or do you actually believe that?