I don't belong here....

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
/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!"
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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. ;)
 
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". :)
 
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
 
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...
 
<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. :)
 
"liberal" ( so called :rolleyes: ) = socialist.

Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg
 
Last edited:
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
 
Back
Top