I don't belong here....

[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]

Right On!

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]

Overcoming the Fallacy

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]

One thing is for sure

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.