RE: ron paul

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: ron paul

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: ron paul

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 8:53:44 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Cute, we go from accusing everyone else of posing as a legal expert to shamelessly offering uninformed legal opinions of our own. Classic!

How on earth YOU know that "no one in their right mind" would ever charge a woman who has suffered a miscarriage is beyond me. That's exactly the kind of decision I don't want a district attorney to make--and exactly why we need to make sure that bills like the "Sanctity of Life Act" are never passed. (And I thought Ron Paul was for small government...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eruditus

As far as Mr. Paul's voting record is concerned...how can anyone make the claim that the "Sanctity of Life Act" would criminalize miscarriages? That's absurd. I mean, all of a sudden this forum's filled with legal experts. Let me guess, those of us who discourse so knowledgably about constitutional law are probably tax attorneys and brain surgeons as well.

Nobody in their right mind would charge a woman who naturally miscarries with involuntary manslaughter. I think the bill is meant to apply to women who drink lye cocktails or who pummel themselves in the gut or who otherwise try to kill their fetus themselves.

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/8/2007 8:54:59 PM >

(in reply to Eruditus)

Post #: 21

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:06:39 PM

NeedToUseYou

Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline

edited to clarify what I meant by not affect me as pointed out by LordAndMaster. Thanks.

Well, from what I've found, this is how interpret the Act....

Basicly it's an attempt at circumventing Row V Wade, by blocking the supreme court or any lower court from ruling on cases that are in regard to abortion.

It does define life from conception. I knew he was Pro-Life. So, this doesn't suprise me.

However, what the bill says is that the congress would give the states the power to protect that life(as defined in the bill). Basicly saying it would be up to the states on what exactly to do.

This doesn't suprise me, and is in line with what I thought his view was, which is that abortion and the consequences or lack thereof, should be up to the states. I don't have a problem with that.

So, if my interpretation is correct, it would be up to the states to punish a woman for a miscarriage, not as was implied as it would dictate a punishment for miscarriage.

This bill does not affect my view of Ron Paul, as essentially all it does is, say it is up to the states.

Here's the line
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Notice it says states will have the authority to protect lives of unborn children, it does not say states will be required to protect the unborn children.

That's how I interpret it, as a transfer of the abortion issue from federal to state. I don't have a problem with that.

I'll look for further information on it...

< Message edited by NeedToUseYou -- 7/8/2007 9:15:37 PM >

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Post #: 22

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:11:29 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

If you live in a state, it affects you.

Besides, since when is legislation OK just because it doesn't affect you personally? That's a disgraceful attitude. Of course this doesn't affect you. You're male.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

This bill does not affect me, as essentially all it does is, say it is up to the states.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Post #: 23

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:12:58 PM

NeedToUseYou

Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

If you live in a state, it affects you.

Besides, since when is legislation OK just because it doesn't affect you personally? That's a disgraceful attitude. Of course this doesn't affect you. You're male.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

This bill does not affect me, as essentially all it does is, say it is up to the states.

I meant it doesn't affect my view of Ron Paul.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 24

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:28:01 PM

Eruditus

Posts: 41
Joined: 5/9/2004
Status: offline

First, mister elephant humper guy, let me just say that many things are probably beyond you. Second, I didn't accuse everybody of posing as a legal expert--only the douchebag who took it upon himself to interpret a snippet of legislation which I could give a rat's fart about. Disgraceful attitude or not, I didn't wake up in Iran this morning: I can hold whatever attitude I want. Third, I felt compelled to come to Ron Paul's defense because I felt sorry for the widdle fella. He didn't resort to airy metaphorical bullshit like Grovel, oops, I meant Gravel did. Third, it's not shameless to offer legal opinions of my own after lambasting someone for posing as an expert. Do I really need to elucidate the difference between "opinion" and "expertise" for you? Fourth, do you know how many women accidentally flush their fetuses down the john every day? Do you really think the nation's District Attorneys have nothing better to do than to chase them all down and force them through costly trials and incarcerations? It defies common sense. Criminalizing miscarriages is akin to criminalizing Irritable Bowel Syndrome or gastric reflux.

I would love to sit up all night discussing this, but I don't have time for the repartee. Just wanted to sound off like I got a pair. Which I do. And they're pretty pendulous and crampy with seed right now, so I gotta take a slave to the creamery. Goodnight all.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Post #: 25

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:34:26 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Did you even read the bill? It doesn't criminalize miscarriages. It declares that states have the right to protect life before birth, which has the consequence, intended or not, of allowing district attorneys to bring women up on charges for having miscarriages if the district attorney considers it involuntary manslaughter.

Your response here (after a few lines of ill-willed bullshit) is that district attorneys don't have the time or the resources for that. Wrong, district attorneys have proved time and again that they have the time and the resources for witch hunts when they're so inclined. (Remember the Duke lacrosse case?)

What you might have meant, and what I'd agree with, is that WE AS A SOCIETY don't have the time or the resources to bring women up on charges for miscarriages.

Which means that the "Sanctity of Life" act needs to be rewritten or defeated.

Go enjoy whomever you're going to fuck, and maybe you'll come back afterwards with a less boorish attitude. Bye bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eruditus

Fourth, do you know how many women accidentally flush their fetuses down the john every day? Do you really think the nation's District Attorneys have nothing better to do than to chase them all down and force them through costly trials and incarcerations? It defies common sense. Criminalizing miscarriages is akin to criminalizing Irritable Bowel Syndrome or gastric reflux.

< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/8/2007 9:35:53 PM >

(in reply to Eruditus)

Post #: 26

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:39:59 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

edited to clarify what I meant by not affect me as pointed out by LordAndMaster. Thanks.

Well, from what I've found, this is how interpret the Act....

Basicly it's an attempt at circumventing Row V Wade, by blocking the supreme court or any lower court from ruling on cases that are in regard to abortion.

It does define life from conception. I knew he was Pro-Life. So, this doesn't suprise me.

However, what the bill says is that the congress would give the states the power to protect that life(as defined in the bill). Basicly saying it would be up to the states on what exactly to do.

This doesn't suprise me, and is in line with what I thought his view was, which is that abortion and the consequences or lack thereof, should be up to the states. I don't have a problem with that.

So, if my interpretation is correct, it would be up to the states to punish a woman for a miscarriage, not as was implied as it would dictate a punishment for miscarriage.

This bill does not affect my view of Ron Paul, as essentially all it does is, say it is up to the states.

Here's the line
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Notice it says states will have the authority to protect lives of unborn children, it does not say states will be required to protect the unborn children.

That's how I interpret it, as a transfer of the abortion issue from federal to state. I don't have a problem with that.

I'll look for further information on it...

The reasoning is quite simple. Under this act a fetus is a full fledged person but one in a dependent relationship to the pregnant woman. When someone dies in your care an autopsy is usually performed and if any sort of intentional or unintentional harm resulting in death was done to the dependent by the care giver they can be charged with manslaughter. Even if they didn't know they were in that caretaker position.

States would have no choice in the matter. They all have laws on human deaths on the books and to exclude a class of persons from those protections would violate equal protection under the 14th ammendment.

The frightening thing of course would be that this would be open to selective enforement by D.A.'s and the equivalent. Young white woman has a celebratory glass of champaign and miscarries is a shame and brings no charges out in the burbs but if a poor woman or minority woman miscarries in a county with a social conservative D.A. with political aspirations she's looking at serious jail time. Or have we all so quickly forgotten the attempts to prosecute women for injuring their fetuses from back in the 90's?

P.S. my bad I saw 776 and somehow typed 775. I'm glad you caught it.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 7/8/2007 9:41:09 PM >

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Post #: 27

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 9:45:31 PM

NeedToUseYou

Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline

I agree it is to broad in its possible interpretations, but it doesn't seem to be written under the pretense of criminalizing miscarriage or even the intention of banning abortion necessarily. To me it is written with the intention of moving the abortion issue to the state level.

That's my interpretation, It is poorly written, and I wouldn't of voted for it if I was in the house just because of that fact.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 28

RE: ron paul - 7/8/2007 10:39:45 PM

Eruditus

Posts: 41
Joined: 5/9/2004
Status: offline

Okay okay okay elephant humper dude...you have a point. Toufrigginche. And you were right about something else--after bursting my grape in a shamefully short amount of time, I do feel oddly less boorish.

Best wishes!

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)

Post #: 29

RE: ron paul - 7/9/2007 12:21:27 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

OK, fair enough. Next time get your rocks off BEFORE discussing politics.

(in reply to Eruditus)

Post #: 30

RE: ron paul - 7/9/2007 10:17:38 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

I don't have to read the bill, I don't care who is right, I simply do not like it. The following is what I see as a true Libertarian point of view on abortion.

Abortion is indeed murder, plain and simple. I am all for it, why ? Because if you are willing to murder your own children you shouldn't have them. I would say a person of norman sensibilities would never do that except under extreme duress, such as the life of the Mother being in danger if carried to full term. Even in this case it is murdering a child to save one's self. The Mother, the doctor and the FATHER all need to make this decision, and in the unfortunate event they decide to abort, the government has no right to remove this from their options.

If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE. If you are pregnant with my child, you better not murder my child. I will not say what I would do because of TOS, but if you murder a Man's child he might take actions that will not be pleasant. I am not talking about these walking sperm banks running around who only care about sex, I mean a Man.

This is the one fundamental point on which I strongly disagree with Paul. And I mean strongly. He is trying to legislate his values. That is something with which I will never agree, but here's the irony of it, I would still vote for him. If he were elected I hope something like this bill never crosses his desk.

Ron Paul should be tied to a chair and forced to watch a bunch of Maury Povitch shows. The ones with the 34 paternity tests and still going and going. And if that doesn't do it expose him to the human slag on the Jerry Springer show.

Even if unable to convince him, he is still the best Man for the job. Noone has mentioned hi nickname- Dr. No. He constantly votes no on bills that are not authorized by the Constitution, as such he votes no on almost everything. He is also a real MD, a gynecologist in fact. Perhaps that has shaped his views on abortion, or perhaps his personal beliefs are what impelled him to choose that particular specialty. I wouldn't know.

The only thing that would get me to go against Ron Paul is if he came of in favor of gun control. I have mentioned the all important placement of the comma in the Second Amendment. It's meaning is clear to the literate.

Now don't get me wrong, there needs to be a distinction between arms and armament. Something that can level a house with one shot does not belong within city limits. That is common sense. But a handgun for personal protection is off limits. Hollow point ammunition should't be banned, it should be REQUIRED within city limits. That is because they have less of a tendency to go through things. Things like the walls of an apartment building.

Alot of people might not like the country as led by Paul. There would be alot less welfare, but there would be alot more work. If Paul ever got elected I would urge him to have his own hand picked bodguards. He would surely be a target for assassination by people who can afford to finance such things. I think he would drastically curtail foreign aid with the express purpose of eliminating it altogether eventually. If I were he, I would take the foreign aid away from Israel and give it to Iraq and Afganistan, and let them rebuild the kind of society they want, instead of the society needed by the oil companies.

Things would be different. If Haliburton had moved out of the US under his watch I bet he would cancel all the contracts they have with the government. You do know they moved don't you ? I would cut them off cold.

The powers that be will never let him become President, in fact I am surprised that he even got on TV in the first place. I didn't see the interview but I would like to, anyone got it on youtube or something ? Even though he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, I think it would be interesting.

T

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 31

RE: ron paul - 7/9/2007 1:17:43 PM

SeeksOnlyOne

Posts: 2012
Joined: 5/14/2007
Status: offline

my opinion on abortion......if you think theyre wrong....do not get one.....

_____________________________

it aint no good til it hurts just a little bit....jimmy somerville

in those moments of solitude, does everyone sometimes think they are insane? or is it just me?

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 32

RE: ron paul - 7/9/2007 2:39:47 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

Back to the OP, I just came in from an errand, and saw a 'Ron Paul in 2008' sign in the local artsy neighborhod.

These would be the folks with the Badnarik posters last time around, which IMHO is going to be Paul's achilles heel.

(in reply to SeeksOnlyOne)

Post #: 33

RE: ron paul - 7/11/2007 2:43:25 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I don't have to read the bill, I don't care who is right, I simply do not like it. The following is what I see as a true Libertarian point of view on abortion.

if you are talking about hr2755 i think that is only about disolving the federal reserve board and repealing the 17th.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_1104820/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#1104820

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 34

RE: ron paul - 7/11/2007 2:49:34 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eruditus

Nobody in their right mind would charge a woman who naturally miscarries with involuntary manslaughter. I think the bill is meant to apply to women who drink lye cocktails or who pummel themselves in the gut or who otherwise try to kill their fetus themselves.

If nobody in their right mind would do it, why is the law written in such a way that she could be charged
with involuntary manslaughter?

There is a vast difference in the legal arena between the spirit vs. the letter of the law. Want the law to reflect a certain spirit, write the law in such a way that that is reflected. The more cynical among us might wonder if the (mostly) men who wrote the law want it to be framed in such a way that if a woman trips on the stairs and loses the baby, he could file criminal charges against her.

Besides which, history is rife with examples of people doing things not in their right mind.

Sinergy

p.s. On a related note, only left-handed people are in their right minds.

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 35

RE: ron paul - 7/11/2007 3:34:10 PM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

If nobody in their right mind would do it, why is the law written in such a way that she could be charged
with involuntary manslaughter?

Not all deaths though accidental means must be charged as involuntary manslaughter.. the prosecutor would still have to prove a level of negligence equivalent to mens rea.

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 36

RE: ron paul - 7/11/2007 3:46:39 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

If nobody in their right mind would do it, why is the law written in such a way that she could be charged
with involuntary manslaughter?

Not all deaths though accidental means must be charged as involuntary manslaughter.. the prosecutor would still have to prove a level of negligence equivalent to mens rea.

Nevertheless, the woman who lost the baby gets to enjoy life in jail, pay to defend the charges, etc., all because the nitwits who want to outlaw abortions have written the law in such a way that if the woman lost the baby she could be held criminally liable.

Having said that, I read somewhere that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarraige. This law takes away a woman's medical history and care and puts it in the hands of juries, attorneys, and judges who do not have the education, experience, objectivity, or adherence to the Hippocratic Oath, to make these sorts of decisions about a woman's medical care.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Post #: 37

RE: ron paul - 7/11/2007 5:52:28 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

Congressman Ron Paul at the First GOP Presidential Debate
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1119185262531519920&q=

Ron Paul VS Major Media
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7394064911240493756&q=

This is unreal any of you guys have this happen to you?
MySpace Censoring Ron Paul Supporters *WATCH IN FULL SCREEN*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797891802870590048&q=

CNN / Lou Dobbs - Ron Paul Interview 2-26-2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1179375736445103708&q=

REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT | REAL TIME W BILL MAHER 3-30-07
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4139219124930607483&q=

Congressman Ron Paul Visits My Dorm Room
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7131244136488064715&q=

Ron Paul: Bad Foreign Policy Started with Woodrow Wilson
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5991830829046709492&q=

Congressman Ron Paul Speaks Out AGAINST War With IRAN - April 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7456931596878368112&q=

Texas Republican slams Bush "demented philosophy of conquest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8473961727332349980&q=

No More Manipulation - Ron Paul 4 Pres 08
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4956930273219182821&q=

Ron Paul - Gulf of Tonkin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1594542410357689172&q=

Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=254789066215671796&q=

i like him..... go ron! (hope they let you live!)

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Sinergy)

Post #: 38

RE: ron paul - 7/12/2007 7:06:58 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

Nevertheless, the woman who lost the baby gets to enjoy life in jail, pay to defend the charges, etc., all because the nitwits who want to outlaw abortions have written the law in such a way that if the woman lost the baby she could be held criminally liable.

A woman who loses her child a few minutes after birth faces those prospects right now.
On the face of it, this bill just moves the clock back 9 months.

You are correct that this would be fodder for the 'abortion is murder' crowd.
Whether or not they could overcome the legal safeguards built into existing homicide statutes, is something I hope to never have to see.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 39

RE: ron paul - 7/12/2007 1:08:58 PM

Sinergy

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

A woman who loses her child a few minutes after birth faces those prospects right now.
On the face of it, this bill just moves the clock back 9 months.

Please clarify how a medical issue with the mother will cause a newborn to die spontaneously, and I would
be willing to discuss whether that is a valid comparison.

Otherwise, it is apples and oranges.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: ron paul

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094