[BrattonBasher]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/glenn-be...arian-now.html

This is just rich. The Libertarians over at Alex Jones's Prison Planet website are upset that Glenn Beck fancies himself a Libertarian. They do have a valid point, in that Mr. Beck seem to be a Moneytarian. But please note the ridiculous accusations they throw out like they are fact. They claim Mr. Beck "works for the Pentagon", and "cost Ron Paul the election". If Libertarians would jettison the crazies and the conspiracy theories, more would listen to their slant IMHO.

[ronbrattin]

Glenn beck is nuts.

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by ronbrattin

Glenn beck is nuts.

True, but so's Ron Paul. Asking you to disown Glenn Beck in order to support Ron Paul is like deploring Peanuts and then advocating eating Cashews.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

True, but so's Ron Paul. Asking you to disown Glenn Beck in order to support Ron Paul is like deploring Peanuts and then advocating eating Cashews.

They are indeed quite different. Beck is a neoconservative war-supporter, and Dr. Paul is against intervening in foreign matters. Alot of Ron Pauls ideas are novel and interesting. Of course he is so freaking Pro-Big Business and anti-regulation it would make you puke.

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by BrattonBasher

They are indeed quite different. Beck is a neoconservative war-supporter, and Dr. Paul is against intervening in foreign matters. Alot of Ron Pauls ideas are novel and interesting. Of course he is so freaking Pro-Big Business and anti-regulation it would make you puke.

No to mention he's staunchly pro-life.

I know they're two very different guys, with more or less antipodean political ideologies. My point was that they' do have one thing in common: they're both batshit crazy.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

No to mention he's staunchly pro-life.

I know they're two very different guys, with more or less antipodean political ideologies. My point was that they' do have one thing in common: they're both batshit crazy.

Yes indeed he is anti-womens right to choose. He tries to bullshit the masses by saying it's a States Rights issue, but we know better... At least he is consistent. Neoconservatives bring up States Rights only when it suits their agenda!!!

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by BrattonBasher

Yes indeed he is anti-womens right to choose. He tries to bullshit the masses by saying it's a States Rights issue, but we know better... At least he is consistent. Neoconservatives bring up States Rights only when it suits their agenda!!!

My understanding was that Paul favors a Constitutional Amendment "protecting the rights of the unborn." Hence he believes there should be a national standard on this one, and that standard would be imposing criminal penalties on women who have abortions and their doctors.

Did I misunderstand him on this one?

[LemonHerb]

Paul also doesn't believe in evolution. I like that he doesn't think it's something the government needs to worry about, but it calls into question his judgment and ability to be reasonable.

When Faith> Evidence and reason I don't believe you can be trusted with the important decisions facing this country.


But if I identified myself seriously with a group and Glen Beck was trying to claim he represented that group as well I would certainly want to make sure everyone and their brother knew he was spouting total BS and had nothing to do with it. I'd rather someone draw a comparison with me to Cheney than to Glen Beck.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

My understanding was that Paul favors a Constitutional Amendment "protecting the rights of the unborn." Hence he believes there should be a national standard on this one, and that standard would be imposing criminal penalties on women who have abortions and their doctors.

Did I misunderstand him on this one?

I doubt Dr. Paul wants to amend any wording on the Constitution. It's the Holy Grail...

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by BrattonBasher

I doubt Dr. Paul wants to amend any wording on the Constitution. It's the Holy Grail...

Well, according to what I read on his website a few months back, he wants to ratify a 28th Amendment to say that a fetus has Constitutional rights or something along those lines. He's not alone on that one. There's lots of conservative support for such an Amendment.

[gopers]

Originally Posted by BrattonBasher

Yes indeed he is anti-womens right to choose. He tries to bullshit the masses by saying it's a States Rights issue, but we know better... At least he is consistent. Neoconservatives bring up States Rights only when it suits their agenda!!!

Well, the Taliban don't believe in a womans right to anything, same goes for the rest of the fantical muslims. Also, they want to keep them barefoot, pregnent and uneducated in the kitchen.

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Well, according to what I read on his website a few months back, he wants to ratify a 28th Amendment to say that a fetus has Constitutional rights or something along those lines. He's not alone on that one. There's lots of conservative support for such an Amendment.

Well, this is a slipppery slope. There are some states thatwill charge a drunk driver for murder if a woman in the crash was pregnent and the baby dies even as young as 6 months. While some states allow abortion all the way up to the 9th month.

[Night Train]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

My understanding was that Paul favors a Constitutional Amendment "protecting the rights of the unborn." Hence he believes there should be a national standard on this one, and that standard would be imposing criminal penalties on women who have abortions and their doctors.

Did I misunderstand him on this one?

I think you are mostly right about Dr. Paul's position, but I don't think he wants to amend the constitution, he argues that the constitution already protects life in the 1st amendment born or unborn.

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by gopers

Well, the Taliban don't believe in a womans right to anything, same goes for the rest of the fantical muslims. Also, they want to keep them barefoot, pregnent and uneducated in the kitchen.


Well, this is a slipppery slope. There are some states thatwill charge a drunk driver for murder if a woman in the crash was pregnent and the baby dies even as young as 6 months. While some states allow abortion all the way up to the 9th month.

The Taliban? I saw them at the Whisky. They were the warmup group for The Dead Kennedys I think. It was a long time ago, I might be wrong. I didn't know they were so backward. I like all the ladies to be very educated about the kitchen. I even allow them to watch the Food Network. Ever see Rachel Ray? That gal can whip up some grub!

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by Night Train

I think you are mostly right about Dr. Paul's position, but I don't think he wants to amend the constitution, he argues that the constitution already protects life in the 1st amendment born or unborn.

The First Amendment? ~Ahem~ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor abridging the freedom of speech; and of the press; and of the right of the people to peacably assemble; and to petition the government for a redress of grievences.

So that may not be it verbatim, cause that's literally just off the top of my head (too lazy to look it up again right now). Still, what does any of that have to do with protecting life, whether born or "unborn?"

Seriously I don't get it.

[VooDoo Chile]

Hey everybody, I'd love to discuss Ron Paul some more, but if I do, a certain Tracker ,who has yet to comment in this thread, may negative rep me! Talk about discouraging free, open debate!

Just wanted to warn everyone that there's some butt hurt lurking going on here. BEWARE OF THE SILENT NEGATIVE REPPER!

[Night Train]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

The First Amendment? ~Ahem~ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor abridging the freedom of speech; and of the press; and of the right of the people to peacably assemble; and to petition the government for a redress of grievences.

So that may not be it verbatim, cause that's literally just off the top of my head (too lazy to look it up again right now). Still, what does any of that have to do with protecting life, whether born or "unborn?"

Seriously I don't get it.

Oops I wrote that wrong I meant the declaration of independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." He says that if you can't protect life then you can't protect the constitution because everyone is entitled to "unalienable rights" which are secured by the constitution.

[contract.dude]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Hey everybody, I'd love to discuss Ron Paul some more, but if I do, a certain Tracker ,who has yet to comment in this thread, may negative rep me! Talk about discouraging free, open debate!

Just wanted to warn everyone that there's some butt hurt lurking going on here. BEWARE OF THE SILENT NEGATIVE REPPER!

out them for the safety of future discussions. imo

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by Night Train

Oops I wrote that wrong I meant the declaration of independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." He says that if you can't protect life then you can't protect the constitution because everyone is entitled to "unalienable rights" which are secured by the constitution.

Okie dokie. That's actually called Declarationism. Personally, I don't think this is bad idea, but I think there's a reason why the Declaration's never had any legal weight. Hint: the powers that be don't want us to have inalienable rights.

[Night Train]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Okie dokie. That's actually called Declarationism. Personally, I don't think this is bad idea, but I think there's a reason why the Declaration's never had any legal weight. Hint: the powers that be don't want us to have inalienable rights.

Yeah its a nice idea but theres no way the argument could hold up in court. I've heard of people trying to use the "pursuit of happiness" as an argument for using marijuana but its been shot down every time.

[VooDoo Chile]

Originally Posted by Night Train

Yeah its a nice idea but theres no way the argument could hold up in court. I've heard of people trying to use the "pursuit of happiness" as an argument for using marijuana but its been shot down every time.

Man, oh man, do I get tired of hearing that one! It's even better when folks get that part of the Declaration confused with the Constitution!

It's not their fault, though. It's the failure of U.S. History courses.

[Night Train]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Man, oh man, do I get tired of hearing that one! It's even better when folks get that part of the Declaration confused with the Constitution!

It's not their fault, though. It's the failure of U.S. History courses.

Yeah its really bad...

http://www.ocpathink.org/publication...ective&id=2321

[LemonHerb]

Originally Posted by VooDoo Chile

Hey everybody, I'd love to discuss Ron Paul some more, but if I do, a certain Tracker ,who has yet to comment in this thread, may negative rep me! Talk about discouraging free, open debate!

Just wanted to warn everyone that there's some butt hurt lurking going on here. BEWARE OF THE SILENT NEGATIVE REPPER!

Same here, negative rep from someone who doesn't even bother to participate in the discussion. It's crazy how butt hurt people get when you say the first negative thing about Ron Paul. He's been built up so much on the internet that people just don't know how to deal with the difference of opinion.