Ron Paul

[Mortshnefran]

it's not the same, as the fetus has an existing reliance on the uterus, while an individual who needs a kidney does not. it would be more akin to compare it to conjoined twins that share a vital organ. can one twin make the decision to kill the other for his own convenience? it's not a perfect analogy but it's the closest i could think of.

Actually, it's a ridiculous analogy, since both of them have the same claim to the organ. The same is not true for my body and anyone else who seeks to lay claim to it.

Here's a better example. Suppose I give blood regularly with a directed donation (a specific patient who needs it). I decide not to give blood anymore. Can they tie me down and drain it out of me because they have an existing reliance on my blood?

And you're shifting the goalposts. If one person's right to life trumps another person's right to bodily integrity, the preexisting reliance thing really shouldn't matter.

i was not comparing the twins to the kidney patient, but the twins to mother and fetus. and no you cant be forced to give organs or blood, and i do believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. i'm simply playing devils advocate as to why it is internally consistent to be a libertarian and pro-life.

Actually, the foetus is attached to the placenta - not the uterus. It is enclosed in the uterus, but that doesn't make it part OF the foetus any more than your bladder is part of your urine.

what is the placenta attached to? the uterus through a molecular bond

and damn it ron paul is a republican not a libertarian!

[Dempublicents1]

i was not comparing the twins to the kidney patient, but the twins to mother and fetus.

...which is silly. The mother's body is completely and wholly her own. The embryo/fetus is a new entity which is using her body. The body, however, is still completely and wholly her own and therefore she has the highest claim to it.

With conjoined twins, on the other hand, any shared organs are and have always been shared. As such, they have equal claims to said organs.

and no you cant be forced to give organs or blood, and i do believe in a woman's right to have an abortion. i'm simply playing devils advocate as to why it is internally consistent to be a libertarian and pro-life.

But, by your devil's advocate argument, people should be forced to give blood and organs.

what is the placenta attached to? the uterus through a molecular bond

If someone sticks a needle in me, it is attached to my body. That doesn't mean I am part of the needle.

[Mortshnefran]

fuck! there needs to be a shaking fist smiley. i'm tired of arguing this point, because i dont believe it, and now im beginning to see ya'll have a point, that that two positions are mutually exclusive. i hate it when that happens. it is a historic day when my position can be changed.

[Dempublicents1]

fuck! there needs to be a shaking fist smiley. i'm tired of arguing this point, because i dont believe it, and now im beginning to see ya'll have a point, that that two positions are mutually exclusive. i hate it when that happens. it is a historic day when my position can be changed.

[Grave_n_idle]

fuck! there needs to be a shaking fist smiley. i'm tired of arguing this point, because i dont believe it, and now im beginning to see ya'll have a point, that that two positions are mutually exclusive. i hate it when that happens. it is a historic day when my position can be changed. i need to think on this more.

I've changed positions a couple of times on NS forums. I consider it a good thing, if it's the right thing.

[Melkor Unchained]

From a purely legal standpoint, the man has the exact same reproductive rights as the woman - the right to determine the extent to which his body participates in the reproductive process. It's due to biology that his participation is such a small part of the process, not the law.

That's a load of horse shit and anyone with a neuron and an axon to rub together for warmth knows it. If abortion procedures did not exist, this would be 100% true. But because they do, the decision to get one is ultimately the woman's, not the man's.

I seriously don't understand how you could type this with a straight face.

[Grave_n_idle]

From a purely legal standpoint, the man has the exact same reproductive rights as the woman - the right to determine the extent to which his body participates in the reproductive process. It's due to biology that his participation is such a small part of the process, not the law.

That's a load of horse shit and anyone with a neuron and an axon to rub together for warmth knows it. If abortion procedures did not exist, this would be 100% true. But because they do, the decision to get one is ultimately the woman's, not the man's.

I seriously don't understand how you could type this with a straight face.

Men are allowed to abort all the foetuses in their bodies, just as women are.

[Dyakovo]

the uterus is just as much a part of a fetus as it is a mother.

That would only be true if the mother didn't have a uterus until the fetus formed.

[Melkor Unchained]

Men are allowed to abort all the foetuses in their bodies, just as women are.

Hahaha, true enough

[Bluth Corporation]

If you take the premise that my rights end when yours begin - and that IS the argument that is being used to justify why a foetus gets to claim uterus space, then OBJECTIVELY you have to allow that to be applied both ways - otherwise, it's just intellectual dishonesty.

If I own a house and sign an agreement allowing you to live in it, and part of the agreement stipulates that I am not allowed to unilaterally cancel it, am I entitled to unilaterally cancel it?

[Dyakovo]

If you take the premise that my rights end when yours begin - and that IS the argument that is being used to justify why a foetus gets to claim uterus space, then OBJECTIVELY you have to allow that to be applied both ways - otherwise, it's just intellectual dishonesty.

If I own a house and sign an agreement allowing you to live in it, and part of the agreement stipulates that I am not allowed to unilaterally cancel it, am I entitled to unilaterally cancel it?

That would be comparable if fetus had such an agreement with the person they occupy...
However, they do not.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I'm not going to get too far into this since most of you already know where I stand (and the "Ron Paul hates freedom" arguments are pretty loltastic)

Setting aside your silly and sexist argument about male ownership of fetuses, I apologize for being so unfair to Ron Paul.

I mean it isn't fair to call him a racist just because he has published extremely racist statements under his name.

It isn't fair to call him racist just because he opposes civil rights, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It isn't fair to call him racist just because he opposes equal protection under the law.

It isn't fair to call him racist just because he has proposed racist legislation on numerous occassions.

I mean we don't have actual videotape of him lynching a black man while using racial epithets. So it's unfair.

Similarly, just because he would strip people of constitutional rights and allow state governments to infringe on freedom doesn't make him anti-freedom or anti-constitution.

Just because he has voted for legislation that he himself said was unconstitutional because it fit his personal agenda, doesn't make him anti-constitution.

Just because he opposes the 14th Amendment doesn't mean he is against constitutional rights.

Why are people so unfair to St. Paul?

[Allanea]

It isn't fair to call him racist just because he opposes civil rights, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The CRA-64 is opposed by many people not because they are racist, but because they are opposed to those clauses of the Act that regulate private entities. It is completely possible to oppose these statutes - as I do - and not be racist.

[Melkor Unchained]

I ain't biting this time, Cat-Tribe. Your opinions about Ron Paul are as misguided and ridiculous as they were the last time I tried to pound the truth into that skull of yours.

[The Cat-Tribe]

It isn't fair to call him racist just because he opposes civil rights, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The CRA-64 is opposed by many people not because they are racist, but because they are opposed to those clauses of the Act that regulate private entities. It is completely possible to oppose these statutes - as I do - and not be racist.

Um. Perhaps you missed the point. There is a pattern of behavior. Arguably one can take some of the positions and do some of the things Ron Paul has without being racist per se*, but not when one takes them as a whole.

*Opposing the CRA-64 is not necessarily racist. It does show a lack of commitment to racial equity, however.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I ain't biting this time, Cat-Tribe. Your opinions about Ron Paul are as misguided and ridiculous as they were the last time I tried to pound the truth into that skull of yours.

Actually, this "I won't argue because you are too wrong and there is no point" has been your consistent default position when discussing Ron Paul. I've looked at some of the prior discussions recently and you deliberately have avoided actually defending Ron Paul except in the very abstract.

But, whatever. You can deify the man all you want. The truth shines through.

[Melkor Unchained]

I ain't biting this time, Cat-Tribe. Your opinions about Ron Paul are as misguided and ridiculous as they were the last time I tried to pound the truth into that skull of yours.

Actually, this "I won't argue because you are too wrong and there is no point" has been your consistent default position when discussing Ron Paul. I've looked at some of the prior discussions recently and you deliberately have avoided actually defending Ron Paul except in the very abstract.

But, whatever. You can deify the man all you want. The truth shines through.

There's a reason for that. It's because I think the country ought to be moving generally in that direction, but the haters out there (yourself included) are married to the idea of tying me down to every single thing he's ever said/done. I pointed this out probably a half dozen times last time we went over this, but you were happy to ignore it along with just about everything else.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I ain't biting this time, Cat-Tribe. Your opinions about Ron Paul are as misguided and ridiculous as they were the last time I tried to pound the truth into that skull of yours.

Actually, this "I won't argue because you are too wrong and there is no point" has been your consistent default position when discussing Ron Paul. I've looked at some of the prior discussions recently and you deliberately have avoided actually defending Ron Paul except in the very abstract.

But, whatever. You can deify the man all you want. The truth shines through.

There's a reason for that. It's because I think the country ought to be moving generally in that direction, but the haters out there (yourself included) are married to the idea of tying me down to every single thing he's ever said/done. I pointed this out probably a half dozen times last time we went over this, but you were happy to ignore it along with just about everything else.

That's fine. But us "haters" look at the wide range of issues where we believe his positions are not just wrong, but dangerous or evil.

You can like many of his positions without excusing his racism or his other positions. I may not understand why a libertarian would support someone that, for example, doesn't believe in seperation of Church and State or in the right to privacy, but you don't have to justify yourself to me.

What I object to (and I recognize that I do something similar) is your smug, "I'm right and you are just being ridiculous, but I don't need to explain why" attitude about it. But, again, you don't have to justify it. Just don't expect everyone else (or anyone else) to agree with cursory, undefended statements.

[Melkor Unchained]

Fair enough, but I can find for you (if you'd like) paragraphs upon paragraphs of antecedent "justifications." Just because I'm not doing it right now doesn't mean I never have--I've no intention of beating that dead horse any further; I think we both know where I stand on this. I think Ron is a generally good guy who gets a bad rep--and I've yet to run into a black man who thinks he's racist--that commentary almost always comes from white middle class folks who are hypersensitive to issues of race. A few weeks after the New Republic printed its character assassination piece, the Austin NAACP director conducted a radio interview to the effect that Ron was being smeared by the opposition. It comes as no surprise that the interview got no coverage or recognition, but I'm pretty sure it's on YouTube somewhere. Who do we honestly expect to know more about Ron's racial beliefs? A Canadian-owned publication a thousand miles away, or someone (a black man, no less) in his own community?

[Colonic Immigration]

Who?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Fair enough, but I can find for you (if you'd like) paragraphs upon paragraphs of antecedent "justifications." Just because I'm not doing it right now doesn't mean I never have--I've no intention of beating that dead horse any further; I think we both know where I stand on this. I think Ron is a generally good guy who gets a bad rep--and I've yet to run into a black man who thinks he's racist--that commentary almost always comes from white middle class folks who are hypersensitive to issues of race. A few weeks after the New Republic printed its character assassination piece, the Austin NAACP director conducted a radio interview to the effect that Ron was being smeared by the opposition. It comes as no surprise that the interview got no coverage or recognition, but I'm pretty sure it's on YouTube somewhere. Who do we honestly expect to know more about Ron's racial beliefs? A Canadian-owned publication a thousand miles away, or someone (a black man, no less) in his own community?

First, I love how you would cite a local NAACP president as an authority on racism. Convenient, isn't it? I know you usually defer to the NAACP on racial issues.

Second, you can try ad hominem attacks on The New Republic, but that conspicuously ignores the content of the piece -- the undeniably racist statements printed under Ron Paul's name in his own newsletter.

Third, I made a point of not relying just on the newsletter contents as evidence of Ron Paul's racism. Again, there is a pattern of behavior to go along with that.

Fourth, I'm afraid I'm never going to agree that a consistent opponent of civil rights is a "good guy" who is just being smeared by "hypersentive" liberals.

Finally, although his racism is one of the reasons I loathe Ron Paul, his consistent opposition to constitutional freedoms is a tad bit disturbing.

[Allanea]

First, I love how you would cite a local NAACP president as an authority on racism. Convenient, isn't it? I know you usually defer to the NAACP on racial issues.

It is very useful, since he's arguing with YOU, and YOU respect the NAACP.

Fourth, I'm afraid I'm never going to agree that a consistent opponent of civil rights is a "good guy" who is just being smeared by "hypersentive" liberals.

No, it is YOU who claim he is a consistent opponent of civil rights. Opposing the CRA-64 does not opposition of civil rights make. Suggesting Federal courts have overstepped their bounds does not opposition of civil rights make.

[Melkor Unchained]

If you're going to accuse someone of being a racist, logic would dictate you'd listen to the people he's accused of being racist against. I'm not seeing any terrific minority outcry over Paul and his policies, and like I said earlier I've met waaaaayyyy more white guys who thought he was racist than black guys. I know my own personal experience is circumstantial at best, but its been my experience that the white middle class in this country is still carrying racial baggage from 150+ years ago. My best friend is black, and when we get together and drink (or ingest other chemical compounds ) race relations is a favorite topic of ours. He says he still comes across racism on a more or less daily basis, but I think we agree that it's remarkably over-politicized these days.

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at accusing me of ad hominem against a magazine. All media outlets (and this isn't unique to that publication by any means) have an agenda of some sort, and that they're left-leaning is certainly not up for debate. Anything they have to say about their potential political opponents should be taken with a grain of salt, and I'd be glad to say the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Paul's newsletter, for example, is quite certainly published with the intention of promoting his policies as well. It's just the nature of the beast.

[Mortshnefran]

here is link to one of the newsletters http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf i haven't read the whole thing yet my opinion so far is that while i can see how it could fall on liberal ears as not showing the proper racial sensitivity, it is not "racist"

edit** ok finished the whole thing, and yes there are some phrases and sentences that might be racist. but over all he makes some decent points.

[Melkor Unchained]

here is link to one of the newsletters http://www.tnr.com/downloads/sponraceterrorism.pdf i haven't read the whole thing yet my opinion so far is that while i can see how it could fall on liberal ears as not showing the proper racial sensitivity, it is not "racist"

Didn't you get the memo? Slavery was so terrible, you can say anything you want against whites and it's not racism. If blacks oppose gay marriage 8:1 (which they did as recently as 2008) it's called "conservative values." When whites vote against gay marriage, it's "bigotry." What's happening here is the American white middle class is falling all over itself to prove how not racist it is by responding as violently as possible to this kind of talk. Welcome to America!