Ron Paul appeals to the UN

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

He filled a international UDRP complaint. He is still better than 99 percent in the government, and he still voted against all government spending. He didn't ask for the UN for help, there is a difference. And I still not going to change, and become a spend, and tax voter just because Ron Paul wants a website with his name on it, and the website itself overcharged seeing as it's a over a one thousand dollars per person in the mailing list, and Ron Paul kindly ask them to give it to him. True be told if anyone thinks that people are going to say oh no a retired politician who was against people taking other people's money thro the government did the one bad thing in his life, and post a complaint in the UN lets all change our parties, and political beliefs.

Agema:
-snip-

I considered this, and I agree with your assessment. I think it's just the irony factor that people are laughing about. His attempt to screw his fans over though is shameful, and will bite him in the ass politically (or will at least give people ammo against Libertarianism, as a sort of guilt by association thing. Not that it really holds up under scrutiny, but people love red meat).

edit: yes, already pointed out Paul isn't a Libertarian, but people still associate him with it.

Gergar12:
He filled a international UDRP complaint. He is still better than 99 percent in the government, and he still voted against all government spending. He didn't ask for the UN for help, there is a difference. And I still not going to change, and become a spend, and tax voter just because Ron Paul wants a website with his name on it, and the website itself overcharged seeing as it's a over a one thousand dollars per person in the mailing list, and Ron Paul kindly ask them to give it to him. True be told if anyone thinks that people are going to say oh no a retired politician who was against people taking other people's money thro the government did the one bad thing in his life, and post a complaint in the UN lets all change our parties, and political beliefs.

Overcharged? Welcome to the free market. It not as much a 'let's all change parties' thing as it is a 'let's all laugh at libertarians' thing.

Gergar12:
He filled a international UDRP complaint. He is still better than 99 percent in the government, and he still voted against all government spending.

No, Paul is staunchly pro-big government. For instance he wants abortion banned, no gay marriage, and the government in your bedroom, like most libertarians (or constitutionalists if people want to hair-split. Both are ideological clones of eachother anyway)

I can also prove this because Paul voted in favour of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which used taxpayers money to expose future mothers to risk of serious injury and death. Because the procedure they banned is used, among other things, to remove already deceased fetuses from a mothers body before it'll kill her. To avoid this theocratic ban, it now requires surgery.

How anti-freedom is that? Voting to force someone to undergo invasive and risky surgery to save their life, while a much simpler procedure exists. Paul thinks not even your own body is yours, instead, in his deranged world, your body is property of the government, or better said, property of the church, to force you to do with your body whatever the current interpretation of Christian rules are.

Paul's fellow religious zealot, homophobe and War on Women activist Rick Santorum introduced this bill, and George Bush signed it into law.

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
He filled a international UDRP complaint. He is still better than 99 percent in the government, and he still voted against all government spending.

No, Paul is staunchly pro-big government. For instance he wants abortion banned, no gay marriage, and the government in your bedroom, like most libertarians (or constitutionalists if people want to hair-split. Both are ideological clones of eachother anyway)

I can also prove this because Paul voted in favour of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which used taxpayers money to expose future mothers to risk of serious injury and death. Because the procedure they banned is used, among other things, to remove already deceased fetuses from a mothers body before it'll kill her. To avoid this theocratic ban, it now requires surgery.

How anti-freedom is that? Voting to force someone to undergo invasive and risky surgery to save their life, while a much simpler procedure exists. Paul thinks not even your own body is yours, instead, in his deranged world, your body is property of the government, or better said, property of the church, to force you to do with your body whatever the current interpretation of Christian rules are.

Paul's fellow religious zealot, homophobe and War on Women activist Rick Santorum introduced this bill, and George Bush signed it into law.

No he says the states should decide on gay marriage, and what's even more anti freedom is when laws are being proposed to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in spite of what those that are against it think. What is more anti freedom is the government telling you what to drink, and what to search online. Paul thinks the baby deserves a chance to live, and Ron Paul is a doctor so I trust him to know what surgery is safe or not. And the whole War on Women is just a nickname for giving unborn babies the chance to live where unlike in Europe your baby has to be at this weight or that weight because their healthcare is overextended, and even babies that were under that weight needed could have lived they are aborted because of their lack of doctors.

Notsomuch:

Gergar12:
He filled a international UDRP complaint. He is still better than 99 percent in the government, and he still voted against all government spending. He didn't ask for the UN for help, there is a difference. And I still not going to change, and become a spend, and tax voter just because Ron Paul wants a website with his name on it, and the website itself overcharged seeing as it's a over a one thousand dollars per person in the mailing list, and Ron Paul kindly ask them to give it to him. True be told if anyone thinks that people are going to say oh no a retired politician who was against people taking other people's money thro the government did the one bad thing in his life, and post a complaint in the UN lets all change our parties, and political beliefs.

Overcharged? Welcome to the free market. It not as much a 'let's all change parties' thing as it is a 'let's all laugh at libertarians' thing.

If that is the only thing you got out of that then I say that Ron Paul only did it because he feel he could have better connected to his voters, and he could easily get 170k people, so to charged 1k each is insane, and shows that the website was using Ron Paul to sell T-shirts.

Gergar12:
No he says the states should decide on gay marriage, and what's even more anti freedom is when laws are being proposed to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in spite of what those that are against it think.

So is going to war with Iraq when people are opposed to it. Or, hell, any number of much less controversial issues. I don't see your point, why is abortion special in that regard?

Paul thinks the baby deserves a chance to live, and Ron Paul is a doctor so I trust him to know what surgery is safe or not.

What about pro-choice doctors? Or do their views not fit yours, so you dismiss their status as physicians and agree with the one who already agrees with your views anyway?

And the whole War on Women is just a nickname for giving unborn babies the chance to live where unlike in Europe your baby has to be at this weight or that weight because their healthcare is overextended, and even babies that were under that weight needed could have lived they are aborted because of their lack of doctors.

Utter nonsense.

Gergar12:
No he says the states should decide on gay marriage

Or in other words, he wants it banned. Period. Don't look at the rhetoric, look at what the decision will actually result in.

Effects matter, the excuses do not.

Gergar12:
and what's even more anti freedom is when laws are being proposed to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in spite of what those that are against it think.

They're not entitled to imposing their religion on other people. Better still, there's freedom of religion in the US constitution, so no freedom is being lost by not letting anti-abortion freaks abolish human rights.

Gergar12:
and Ron Paul is a doctor so I trust him to know what surgery is safe or not.

You're assuming he cares about people's lives. He doesn't. Paul is willing to destroy thousands of lives to get his religion imposed on people. Heck, how else could he be in favour of banning abortion and making all women state property?

Gergar12:
where unlike in Europe your baby has to be at this weight or that weight because their healthcare is overextended, and even babies that were under that weight needed could have lived they are aborted because of their lack of doctors.

I don't know who told you that bullshit, but he was lying to you. Also you silly Mexican, 'Europe' is not a country, it's a contintent, and it contains 50 separate countries with different laws.

Actually, how do you imagine that ever happening? How can you first weigh a baby after birth, and then abort it? You should've seen it wasn't true even if you missed the guy who told you that was lying. ^_^

Gergar12:

If that is the only thing you got out of that then I say that Ron Paul only did it because he feel he could have better connected to his voters, and he could easily get 170k people, so to charged 1k each is insane, and shows that the website was using Ron Paul to sell T-shirts.

They could be using the website solely for merchandising and other business purposes and it would still be fine. You're suggesting that a website that is worth money be taken by a government institution and redistributed to another for free. Even the idea that the buyer should be free to dictate the price is so far out there for someone who is trying to be Libertarian. By all means, keep arguing if you want. it's always fun watching a clear double standard form in real time.

Gergar12:

If that is the only thing you got out of that then I say that Ron Paul only did it because he feel he could have better connected to his voters, and he could easily get 170k people, so to charged 1k each is insane, and shows that the website was using Ron Paul to sell T-shirts.

So what? Shouldn't you, as a libertarian, embrace that? Isn't free market all about being able to decide at which price you want to sell things?

generals3:
I wonder if Paulites will finally realize how much of a hypocrite Ron Paul is.

I sure as hell now do. Can't believe I wanted him to be our next president. =/

I still see myself as a libertarian for the most part (certain parts of the philosophy I don't agree with, such as anarcho-capitalism), but I will not ever be supporting Ron Paul again. Thankfully I never made any contributions to the man.

It's time for the true libertarians who probably run that site to leave the Ron Paul cult so they can just focus on their ideology. Give the guy his website, demonize him using their mailing list before giving it up and invite all their fans to come to Libertarians.com (or whatever).

Ron Paul will probably be known for largely establishing the base of the modern Libertarian party, but it's time for them to move on.

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
No he says the states should decide on gay marriage

Or in other words, he wants it banned. Period. Don't look at the rhetoric, look at what the decision will actually result in.

Effects matter, the excuses do not.

Gergar12:
and what's even more anti freedom is when laws are being proposed to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in spite of what those that are against it think.

They're not entitled to imposing their religion on other people. Better still, there's freedom of religion in the US constitution, so no freedom is being lost by not letting anti-abortion freaks abolish human rights.

Gergar12:
and Ron Paul is a doctor so I trust him to know what surgery is safe or not.

You're assuming he cares about people's lives. He doesn't. Paul is willing to destroy thousands of lives to get his religion imposed on people. Heck, how else could he be in favour of banning abortion and making all women state property?

Gergar12:
where unlike in Europe your baby has to be at this weight or that weight because their healthcare is overextended, and even babies that were under that weight needed could have lived they are aborted because of their lack of doctors.

I don't know who told you that bullshit, but he was lying to you. Also you silly Mexican, 'Europe' is not a country, it's a contintent, and it contains 50 separate countries with different laws.

Actually, how do you imagine that ever happening? How can you first weigh a baby after birth, and then abort it? You should've seen it wasn't true even if you missed the guy who told you that was lying. ^_^

No he just does not care about gay rights so he avoids regulating them, and letting other people decide. I am also not Mexican, and I find that you guessing that I am mexican very strange.. So also you silly European since we are talking like that your claim that"You're assuming he cares about people's lives. He doesn't. Paul is willing to destroy thousands of lives to get his religion imposed on people. Heck, how else could he be in favour of banning abortion and making all women state property?" That has no prove, and he cares about unborn babies lives, and wants to represent them, and he does not women as a property, we are not in Saudi Arabic, or Iraq, you claim is insane, abortion is only ONE part of many human rights.

Skeleon:

Gergar12:
No he says the states should decide on gay marriage, and what's even more anti freedom is when laws are being proposed to force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions in spite of what those that are against it think.

So is going to war with Iraq when people are opposed to it. Or, hell, any number of much less controversial issues. I don't see your point, why is abortion special in that regard?

Paul thinks the baby deserves a chance to live, and Ron Paul is a doctor so I trust him to know what surgery is safe or not.

What about pro-choice doctors? Or do their views not fit yours, so you dismiss their status as physicians and agree with the one who already agrees with your views anyway?

And the whole War on Women is just a nickname for giving unborn babies the chance to live where unlike in Europe your baby has to be at this weight or that weight because their healthcare is overextended, and even babies that were under that weight needed could have lived they are aborted because of their lack of doctors.

Utter nonsense.

Iraq was pasted, and Ron Paul voted against it. I love how you attempt to act like you know what I am saying. Also pro choice doctors don't take in the person inside a women.

Notsomuch:

Gergar12:

If that is the only thing you got out of that then I say that Ron Paul only did it because he feel he could have better connected to his voters, and he could easily get 170k people, so to charged 1k each is insane, and shows that the website was using Ron Paul to sell T-shirts.

They could be using the website solely for merchandising and other business purposes and it would still be fine. You're suggesting that a website that is worth money be taken by a government institution and redistributed to another for free. Even the idea that the buyer should be free to dictate the price is so far out there for someone who is trying to be Libertarian. By all means, keep arguing if you want. it's always fun watching a clear double standard form in real time.

No I never say that stop rewriting my words in your form I never say the government should take it back I am saying that they should have given it to him back to prove they supported him. I am saying that those people if they really wanted Ron Paul to be elected or whatever should have given him his website with his name on it, and it's not odd seeing how many people trademark a name. Really Double standards?? Who do you support, and how perfected are the people you support, and how many times have they screw up, because Ron Paul is still more consistent, and you can't argue against that. So yeah keep arguing while you attempt you insult to cover your own faults of your own partly or at-least void them for the time being.

Gergar12:
Iraq was pasted, and Ron Paul voted against it. I love how you attempt to act like you know what I am saying.

You're saying it's anti-freedom to use laws to force people to pay for things they don't want with their taxes, right? When taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for abortions despite being personally opposed to abortions. My point stands: How is that different from any number of other situations where people don't get to direct where their tax-money goes?

Also pro choice doctors don't take in the person inside a women.

What does this sentence even mean?
"...like you know what I am saying."
I guess you got me there.

Skeleon:

Gergar12:
Iraq was pasted, and Ron Paul voted against it. I love how you attempt to act like you know what I am saying.

You're saying it's anti-freedom to use laws to force people to pay for things they don't want with their taxes, right? When taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for abortions despite being personally opposed to abortions. My point stands: How is that different from any number of other situations where people don't get to direct where their tax-money goes?

Also pro choice doctors don't take in the person inside a women.

What does this sentence even mean?
"I love how you attempt to act like you know what I am saying."
I guess you got me there.

Doctors don't take in account the person or growing person inside her body, and it's anti freedom to tax people what what they don't use, and what they don't want to pay for. I vote for levies in my area to boast my local schools, Police, fire etc.

generals3:

Gergar12:

If that is the only thing you got out of that then I say that Ron Paul only did it because he feel he could have better connected to his voters, and he could easily get 170k people, so to charged 1k each is insane, and shows that the website was using Ron Paul to sell T-shirts.

So what? Shouldn't you, as a libertarian, embrace that? Isn't free market all about being able to decide at which price you want to sell things?

I am pretty sure not all libertarians want an Illuim to sprang if you played mass effect. I am just saying the website should have been given to Ron Paul if they made the website to endorsing him.

Gergar12:
Doctors don't take in account the person or growing person inside her body, and it's anti freedom to tax people what what they don't use, and what they don't want to pay for. I vote for levies in my area to boast my local schools, Police, fire etc.

So I understood your point perfectly well then after all. Again, how is that different from the countless other things that people don't have control over when it comes to how their taxpayer money is spent?

As for those doctors? That's not true. Of course do they take the fetus into account. But it's a weighing of rights, issues and priorities. And not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you and the particular physicians you happen to agree with. If they did, it would hardly be so controversial.

Skeleon:

Gergar12:
Doctors don't take in account the person or growing person inside her body, and it's anti freedom to tax people what what they don't use, and what they don't want to pay for. I vote for levies in my area to boast my local schools, Police, fire etc.

So I understood your point perfectly well then after all. Again, how is that different from the countless other things that people don't have control over when it comes to how their taxpayer money is spent?

As for those doctors? That's not true. Of course do they take the fetus into account. But it's a weighing of rights, issues and priorities. And not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you and the particular physicians you happen to agree with. If they did, it would hardly be so controversial.

What makes a fetus that could turn into a person any less of a person. Is Bird egg any less of a bird. A Caterpillar any less of a butterfly. The conclusion is that people should take into account their actions, and have more self control, or face the consequences, instead of avoiding that by killing the fetus. For me if it's a rape issue or endangers mother health I would understand, but a fetus is still a person, you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

Gergar12:
What makes a fetus that could turn into a person any less of a person.

That it isn't one yet.

Is Bird egg any less of a bird.

That it isn't one yet.

A Caterpillar any less of a butterfly.

That it isn't one yet.
I'll even throw in the seed of a mighty oak. It isn't a tree yet.
It's pretty obvious that potentiality =/= actuality.

The conclusion is that people should take into account their actions, and have more self control, or face the consequences, instead of avoiding that by killing the fetus.

Of course should they, but that also means proper sex-ed, access to contraception and all that jazz. It means giving people the ability to be responsible. And yet the reddest states are also the ones with the highest teen pregnancy rates; why is that? It's because the Social Conservative approach to this issue is self-defeating. Abortion should not be a general method of contraception, but it's not like it is. If you're serious about reducing abortions, your main focus should not be on abortions but on what causes unwanted pregnancies and fuels the need for abortions. Adress the underlying issues rather than the symptom.

...you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

Yeah. You seem surprised people would think that? I'm confused by that. Of course was I not always a fully developed person, nor were you. We had to first develop into that. The exact point where that happens is hard to pinpoint - in fact, it's a fluid development so an "exact point" probably simply doesn't exist - but that doesn't mean I can't compare two rather distant points in development and evaluate those.

Gergar12:
you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

I was not aware, I had never been aware, I carried no life experiences or information that weren't hard-coded into me... I would not have considered myself a person?

Gergar12:
you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

Of course? Duh?

We were even less of persons when we were eggs and sperm.

Gergar12:

No I never say that stop rewriting my words in your form I never say the government should take it back I am saying that they should have given it to him back to prove they supported him. I am saying that those people if they really wanted Ron Paul to be elected or whatever should have given him his website with his name on it, and it's not odd seeing how many people trademark a name. Really Double standards??

They couldn't have given it back because Paul never owned it. It's not his website, he hasn't payed a cent into it to keep it running over the years and during that they happened to be paying him with their own time and free support. You can't trademark a name as simple as Ron Paul and Paul hasn't attempted to register his name in that way, he's suggesting he has rights to the website simply because he is named 'Ron Paul'. If my name's Ron Paul I have just as much right to that website. The simple fact is that the website is worth money and Paul wants it for free. I guess he is in favor of entitlements.

Who do you support, and how perfected are the people you support, and how many times have they screw up, because Ron Paul is still more consistent, and you can't argue against that. So yeah keep arguing while you attempt you insult to cover your own faults of your own partly or at-least void them for the time being.

Good luck with that route, what you said is pretty much null in my case. I don't see where I was insulting anyone and I just don't support people the way you do. If someone I like does something wrong I call them out on it because what I look for isn't the person but what they choose to represent. When I detach myself from the personality and stick to the issues, it prevents me from defending them when they are obviously in the wrong. You're getting pretty defensive here, considering all I've done is present a flaw in someone you happen to like. It kind of shows you as being insecure in your beliefs.

Notsomuch:

Gergar12:

No I never say that stop rewriting my words in your form I never say the government should take it back I am saying that they should have given it to him back to prove they supported him. I am saying that those people if they really wanted Ron Paul to be elected or whatever should have given him his website with his name on it, and it's not odd seeing how many people trademark a name. Really Double standards??

They couldn't have given it back because Paul never owned it. It's not his website, he hasn't payed a cent into it to keep it running over the years and during that they happened to be paying him with their own time and free support. You can't trademark a name as simple as Ron Paul and Paul hasn't attempted to register his name in that way, he's suggesting he has rights to the website simply because he is named 'Ron Paul'. If my name's Ron Paul I have just as much right to that website. The simple fact is that the website is worth money and Paul wants it for free. I guess he is in favor of entitlements.

Who do you support, and how perfected are the people you support, and how many times have they screw up, because Ron Paul is still more consistent, and you can't argue against that. So yeah keep arguing while you attempt you insult to cover your own faults of your own partly or at-least void them for the time being.

Good luck with that route, what you said is pretty much null in my case. I don't see where I was insulting anyone and I just don't support people the way you do. If someone I like does something wrong I call them out on it because what I look for isn't the person but what they choose to represent. When I detach myself from the personality and stick to the issues, it prevents me from defending them when they are obviously in the wrong. You're getting pretty defensive here, considering all I've done is present a flaw in someone you happen to like. It kind of shows you as being insecure in your beliefs.

I am not it's called being stubborn, and sticking with dented sword when there are non better than it still in my point of view. If I was insecure I about my point of view I would left like did when I left supporting John Kerry after seeing there was a better solution than him. The website still was suppose to support him, and it should have given it back to prove it.

Seanchaidh:

Gergar12:
you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

Of course? Duh?

We were even less of persons when we were eggs and sperm.

It's a stage of a person, and that therefore it's a person, and that is subjective.

All in all a force ending to a life at 6 years of age from birth ,and a ending to a life that is x to birth still an ending to a life. Why is one called murder, and another one called abortion, and why should tax payers be paying it for it.

Gergar12:
It's a stage of a person, and that therefore it's a person, and that is subjective.

So corpses are living people? After all, we all end up as a corpse eventually, that's just a stage of a person.

Come on man, nobody who wants abortion banned has ever been able to twist himself into the impossible bends and turns needed to make the 'pro-life' excuse look legit, and they've been trying for years. That level of hypocrisy just can't be fixed. From a debating point of view I'd love to pull such a stunt too, but the anti-abortion lobby just can't defend the 'pro-life' smokescreen, there's too many double standards and far fetched assumptions involved.

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
It's a stage of a person, and that therefore it's a person, and that is subjective.

So corpses are living people? After all, we all end up as a corpse eventually, that's just a stage of a person.

Don't forget sperm are people too, they're a stage of a person and therefore a person.

Gergar12:
No he says the states should decide on gay marriage

And the Civil War was about "states' rights", wasn't it? "Let the states decide" is the political equivalent of "Go ask your mother". It lets you do the thing you want to do without being the one to actually say no. "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the homophobic law. I just voted for the law that let other people vote for the homophobic law, despite knowing full well how that would pan out. My hands are totally clean."

No one is buying that.

Seanchaidh:

Gergar12:
you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

Of course? Duh?

We were even less of persons when we were eggs and sperm.

Which is why, following above logic, masturbation is murder.

Quad Erat Demonstradum.

Gergar12:

Seanchaidh:

Gergar12:
you and I were both at one time fetus were we any less people than we are now???

Of course? Duh?

We were even less of persons when we were eggs and sperm.

It's a stage of a person, and that therefore it's a person, and that is subjective.

All in all a force ending to a life at 6 years of age from birth ,and a ending to a life that is x to birth still an ending to a life. Why is one called murder, and another one called abortion, and why should tax payers be paying it for it.

I prefer not to make policy with semantic arguments.

The reason is because we ought to care about these:
image

But not about these:
image

If you want some bland philosophical argument, the first has preferences and the second does not and has not ever had preferences. A necessary component of legal personhood should be having had preferences at some point. The purpose of society is to facilitate the cooperation of persons. This means weighing their preferences. If you have no preferences-- not being merely indifferent about many things, but about every condition whatsoever-- then what preference is there to weigh? In what way is society obliged to such a being? It doesn't want anything. It never has!

Also, the post below receives my stamp of approval.

Gergar12:

It's a stage of a person, and that therefore it's a person, and that is subjective.

There's really two arguments in this sentence:

1.

P1: A foetus is at one stage of personhood.
P2: An animal at any stage of personhood is a person.
_______
C1: A foetus is a person.

2.

P1: I am arguing something subjective
P2: Things that are subjective can't be argued with
______
C2: You cannot argue with me.

Possible problems with 1:
- Personhood and humanity are not the same thing
- Many things that are not even human are arguably at a stage of "personhood"
- Many things that are regarded as obtaining "Personhood" lack qualities that satisfy definitions of "Human".

Possible problems with 2:
- Subjectivity is the source of argument.
- I see where you might be coming from: cultural relativism is a valid argument in some circumstances, but not this one. We are using the same standards, but disagreeing on specifics.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked