Erpsssarwtc

[OGEvilgenius]

the mother, the person who owns the baby. what's so hard to understand about this?

followed by

so you own the woman's body, not the woman?

hypocrite.

So I see you support the mother being allowed to murder their children, as they are merely possessions. Like a dog owner can put down his or her dog. Very intelligent position that you hold.

I will say that in the current system there would have to be a constitutional amendment as it has been decided by the courts, and that may never happen. But it doesn't mean it's right to kill unborn children for no good reason or that folks should stop trying to fix this issue.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

1) I wasn't sure what you meant, so we will agree that the mainstream thinking in the US is wrong. I can live with that.

2) and beyond, this doesn't end in November.

3) Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion. At least he is honest about it, much more refreshing than​ Obamney, et al, that only say what they think everybody wants to hear. If that's the worst thing about him, I can live with that.

His opinion has a lot more basis than some in this thread give it credit for.

While it is true the Founding Fathers were largely against organized religion dominating society, they were also against the government being able to dominate society. And back then the church provided far more than just 'moral guidance' as suggested earlier, they provided school, charity, child services and often more for their communities.

This was how society was setup to function, so it is true that the founders viewed the Churches role in society as greater than the governments, but they also wanted government to be there to protect against tyranny from the Church (in other words, to allow a free flow of ideas and competition to foster a better society).

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I don't get this. First Bucky says the unborn aren't human beings. Now he calls it a baby. So what kind of baby is it? Not human. So is it a baby kitten? A baby mouse? What?

 

[OGEvilgenius]

This guy^ Having a penis is cool isnt it? Im glad I dont have to personally worry about this since I do not have a vagina, but for the time being I guess your the best person to make decisions about not penises.

I bet if the government made you have a colonoscopy every year without your choice you would be on libertarian fire!

[video=youtube;s49HkpsbHmM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s49HkpsbHmM[/video]

Strawmen much?

Except in the case of rape, no one is forcing the woman to have vaginal intercourse.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Its not the worst thing about him and you know that.
Interesting opinion I found online.

The Cost of War
Representative Paul has advocated on many occasions that the United States should bring our troops home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because such action is a violation of state sovereignty (a subject to be discussed later) and the costs are bankrupting this country. Yet, Rep. Paul takes it a step further and demands that the United States stand down in places like Europe and South Korea, and that we should downgrade our military to a national defense force, essentially cutting our defense forces in half.

Yes, such a policy would save the United States government, and US taxpayer, hundreds of billions of dollars every year, but it also has another cost. In a world where China is building their navy, air force and nuclear stockpile, where North Korea will sell their technology to the highest bidder, and where Iran is beginning to expand their influence into the Western hemisphere it is a poor time for America to begin weakening itself militarily. Though Mr. Paul advocates that technology enables us to minimize our forces, he also fails to realize that the size of our forces is also deterrence. The ability to take the fight to the enemy, and crush his will no matter where he resides, has been an effective deterrence through out the years, and as China begins to grow their forces, a larger, more technologically advanced force would be needed should China decide to flex its muscles. Granted this argument is was the justification for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), but international scholars would argue that MAD was what ultimately kept the Cold War cold, and what bankrupted the Soviet Union.
Another president pursued such a policy when he was first elected. He decimated the US Army and Navy all in the name of economics. His policy had such a negative affect that when the United States was finally forced into war by the actions of a hostile foreign navy, there were only a handful of Army Division, a dozen airplanes, and maybe a few dozen battleships. The United States was woefully prepared for their response when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and the president who desired to downgrade our military to a national defense force because the country couldn’t afford it was FDR.
Yes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost money, and American prestige over seas; however, American prestige has not been good in foreign countries for some time, and would not have improved had we never invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the cost of maintaining a standing military, even in a time of war, according the nonpartisan CBO is approximately 4% of GDP. Entitlements and Social Security take up over 60% of GDP, and the cost is climbing. It seems that perhaps the real threat to the United States’ national security is not maintaining the best trained fighting force this world has ever seen, but in making social promises we can’t afford or keep.

http://www.voicesempower.com/debunking-ron-paul’s-fp-part-1-the-cost-of-war/

You have enough nuclear weapons to never have to worry. The only reason countries like China are in this arms race is because the UNITED STATES started it. Not the other way around. Breaking of various weapons treaties, development of new banned weaponry, most of the military budget devoted towards war against superpowers (not against terrorists because it's never actually been about terrorists, they're just boogeymen to be used for political and economic means). Even fucking Japan has entered this new arms race.

By the way, historically speaking, world wars have broken out from situations very much like the one we are in right now. Right on eh?

PS: Vote Obama because you know, because he's pro war. Despite the fact that war is the antithesis of sound investment (when you invest resources in destroying resources, well, I hope I don't have to tell you why it's not a good idea for human and economic development).

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I bet if the government made you have a colonoscopy every year without your choice you would be on libertarian fire!

I'm pro-life and Libertarian. What you going to do now bitch!

 

[OGEvilgenius]

H.R.7955
Latest Title: Family Protection Act
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-22] (introduced 8/19/1980)

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.​

Except that he wants to do this for everything, so that people can be free to live their lives without interference and cohersion from government - where government doesn't forcibly take from you to pay for someone elses agenda - because that only causes huge problems socially, financially and otherwise.

You have a real problem with context it would seem (ie: your completely lacking argument about RP's comments, if you really wanted to attack them you would say that they perhaps placed too much emphasis on the church, but they weren't actually practically untrue, and then you took an out of context Jefferson piece and tried to pass it off as support, what does he actually mean by power in his writings? He's talking about force).

 

[OGEvilgenius]

i see.

if somehow my wife gets pregnant despite using birth control, you want to be able to exercise control over her. you think that you own her body, not her. i get it.

fuck you and stop trying to legislate your morality upon us, please. also, fuck you.

I'm sorry, did he suggest that you shouldn't be able to have sex?

I'm pretty sure your wife had control over her body and became responsible for another body through her own willful actions.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

my wife's fetus picks cotton for her?

dude, lay off the psychedelics. it's my wife's body, not yours. you don't get a say, dick face.

You know you have nothing going on up in your head but a big ball of emotion when you conflate a baby with property and have to resort to insults and ridicule.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Subsidized by who?

The debt the government takes out on your behalf.

When you do it round about like this, there's a lot more money in it for a small group of people and it all costs a lot more too. Unclebuck is so smart to support this policy. He's obviously thought it through completely, as usual.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

making $56k a year is poor?

wow.

edit: i used to make $28k a year and had no problem paying the $600 a year for health insurance i never used but felt good about having. the fine for me would have been less than insuring myself.

It's smart to force people to buy insurance and give little regulation on how the insurance companies will have to behave in response. That's why the insurance companies stocks shot through the ceiling. Also it's smart to subsidize them with tax dollars too so that they have a more secure form of income and can be lazier about how they operate - not that the current insurance system isn't a giant scam in the first place, why not throw more money away into it? Thanks Nixon & Obama. Like peas in a pod.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

people are not being robbed form, they get health insurance in return. even if they don't want health insurance, they will inevitably need health care.

and when they do inevitably need health care, i don't want the costs passed on to me. and i would prefer that everyone who can buy insurance does. if everyone is in the pool, insurance works better. that's how it works.

You must own stock in the insurance companies. Lord knows it shot up drastically as soon as this passed.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

and what do you get in return? health care!

now suppose the person does not pay for something they will inevitably need, what happens? they end up stealing from me through the backdoor by passing their costs onto me.

i'm off to flush/harvest, shower, and bang the wife (in no particular order). in the meantime, name me one country that insures all of their citizens, pays less than we do per capita, AND has no individual mandate. just one. GO!

You are correct, he is using the wrong term. Extortion is much more accurate.

Unless of course, you think it's proper for the mob to be going around to small businesses and threatening them if they don't pay. I mean, they do get protection after all, right?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Og,

You do know talking to yourself is a sign of mental illness. Just saying.

 

[UncleBuck]

You are correct, he is using the wrong term. Extortion is much more accurate.

Unless of course, you think it's proper for the mob to be going around to small businesses and threatening them if they don't pay. I mean, they do get protection after all, right?

extortion would be closer to the correct term. i don't know if i said it here or in another thread, but the PPACA which mandates that you purchase insurance, if able, from a for profit capitalist insurer, is closer to fascism than socialism.

i still haven't seen anyone point to an example of a country that insures ALL their citizens for LESS than we pay per capita and WITHOUT an individual mandate.

you want a strong, healthy society? everyone has to be in the pool. simple as that. if you are for an "everyone for themselves" type of society where people go bankrupt or die due to preventable medical maladies, you will probably be against an mandate. it's all about values.

the "everyone for themselves" crowd subscribes to ayn rand, those who don't think it's right that people go broke or die because they got sick subscribe more to the jesus philosophy.

given ayn rand versus jesus, i know who i would pick. not that jesus is real and christianity is still utter bullshit.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think he is banging the wife. Give him 3-5 minutes.

the magic never happened. she's been having some major health issues for months now, lost about 40 pounds and can't really eat. even plain white rice upsets her. months of tests and treatment have left us no closer to knowing the cause than before.

trimming tops is great and fun and all, it's when you get down to the lowest branches that work slows down. needed my full concentration. sorry to leave you all waiting.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Sorry to hear about your wife, Buck. I wish her well.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sorry to hear about your wife, Buck. I wish her well.

thanks man. the new doctor thinks it might be that she's smoking too much cannabis, which he said can paradoxically cause the symptoms she is having.

just thought i'd throw that in there since it came up when i picked her up from the endoscopy/colonoscopy and we are on this website.

 

[UncleBuck]

Change the word Insures to "Cares for" and the answer would be any country that "pays less than we do per capita AND has no individual mandate" (and has the resources - hospitals, doctors, medicine, etc..)
OR remove "pays less than we do per capita" and the answer would be: We do....for hundreds of years...



Key word buddy, "Insures", Key thing to recongize: Insurance doesn't equal care.

Then you will realize that this in lamens is simply just a bunch of insurance salesman and government banding togather to scam the living crap out of us.

yeah, we "care for" our sick alright. even people with insurance losing their houses, going completely bankrupt, even dying from preventable/treatable maladies because the insurance company finds a reason to drop them once they get sick. real cared for, buddy.

that's why i used the word "insures all their citizens". the thought of losing your home because you got sick is unthinkable in japan. it would be a huge scandal in switzerland. it happens routinely her. these care places you mention exist with and without the PPACA. the only thing the PPACA does is make sure more people are in the pool and regulate what the insurers can do to some small and pathetic extent.

it's "layman's terms", by the way. i will accept your critical analysis of anything once you can show me that you know what words mean.

 

[ThatGuy113]

I'm pro-life and Libertarian. What you going to do now bitch!

Congrats? We werent even talking about you or your opinion on the matter, we were talking about Mr Nuetrons beliefs.

Strawmen much?

Except in the case of rape, no one is forcing the woman to have vaginal intercourse.

Its not just intercourse stop simplifying it. Actually look into the subject instead of stereotyping the subject to just abortions and sex. Its much more then that.
Like I said earlier Education and Preventative care are the ONLY ways to majorly drop unexpected pregnancy and abortion rates because they wouldnt be getting pregnant in the first place.

You have enough nuclear weapons to never have to worry. The only reason countries like China are in this arms race is because the UNITED STATES started it. Not the other way around. Breaking of various weapons treaties, development of new banned weaponry, most of the military budget devoted towards war against superpowers (not against terrorists because it's never actually been about terrorists, they're just boogeymen to be used for political and economic means). Even fucking Japan has entered this new arms race.

By the way, historically speaking, world wars have broken out from situations very much like the one we are in right now. Right on eh?

PS: Vote Obama because you know, because he's pro war. Despite the fact that war is the antithesis of sound investment (when you invest resources in destroying resources, well, I hope I don't have to tell you why it's not a good idea for human and economic development).

Please enlighten me how we are in the same boat as WWI and WWII.
In both wars we were focused on only our own hemisphere before being forced to step in after a while in both conflicts. No country is trying to expand and conquer others right now (in the traditional sense of physical invasion) . Conventional warfare is obsolete because of those nuclear weapons. The issue however is if push came to shove do you really think the people in charge would have the balls to shoot off a nuke and forever change the entire world through probable mass destruction and a nuclear winter that last years.

Japan is on our side, they are The United States sphere of influence in South East Asia a long with South Korea. Remember the whole Japan taking over the world thing was like 10 years ago the talking heads have replaced the name Japan with China and are still fear mongering. I do realize the article mentions it above but I do not agree with it. China has many more domestic problems in society and politics.

The military status we face today is the result of 50 years of the Cold War. So..... If you want to be fair you could say that its the fault of the departure of FDR. The boys club from Yalta was no longer complete and relations started degrading at Potsdam (Truman, Churchhill and Stalin). That is what built up the industrial war complex.

WWI killed of monarchies and WWII killed off colonialism
We no longer face an expansive government looking to march into other countries and take everything. We are dealing with a world of collective security. The fact is the nuclear weapon made conventional warfare obsolete. We no longer fight institutions (like nazi Germany or communist Moscow) We fight ideology and thats where we screwed up in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan (Which has seen invasions from Britain and Russia throughout history and both failed) and so on. We always just relied on our American Exceptionalism to make us believe that non Americans would drop to their knees and commit to American values and ideals once we went over there and started throwing guns and money at our problems.

I would normally love to show you with contextual information that I am correct but for risk of being a "copy paste king" I no longer care about you guys drawing your own conclusions from the original information instead of just hearing my side anymore.