1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

libertarian koch brothers support herman cain over libertarian ron paul

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by jo mama, Oct 17, 2011.

Tags:
Page 7 of 7
  1. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,082
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    I never said you said anything about the gold standard so why would you think that? I was just mentioning that as another strange and failed libertarian goal.
     
    #121 glynch, Nov 1, 2011
  2. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,597
    Likes Received:
    9,111
    as i have said over and over and over again, he is advocating for the states to choose for themselves rather than the federal government. this is consistent w/ his views on the role of the federal government and the constitution.

    you assumed wrong - based on his statements regarding abortion it should be obvious that he is anything but neutral.

    his argument is based on the constitution. as i have said over and over again, he believes the federal government should not be involved - rather it is an issue that should be left up to the states. if put to a vote in texas it should be obvious which way he would go.
     
    #122 jo mama, Nov 2, 2011
  3. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,597
    Likes Received:
    9,111
    because you brought it up out of nowhere in a post where you were directly responding to me.

    so in other words, you are talking out of your ass again.

    you have made several factually incorrect statements in this thread and when pressed you run away or bring up some unrelated nonsense - every single time.
     
    #123 jo mama, Nov 2, 2011
  4. saitou

    saitou J Only Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    how do you reconcile the above with this:

    the end result of banning abortions at the national or state level is the same (it will be illegal for mothers to get abortions). at the state level, he will still be imposing his personal belief on others.
     
    #124 saitou, Nov 2, 2011
  5. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,597
    Likes Received:
    9,111
    no he isnt. as i have said over and over and over and over again, he is advocating for following the constitution. he obviously supports a ban on abortions, but doesnt believe the constitution allows for the federal government to have a say either way.

    this is really about your very narrow definition of what constitutes pro-life. you are arguing that since he is not actively supporting a federal ban on abortions that he is not pro-life. i dont know anyone else who has such specific criteria for being pro-life.

    you also seem to have a very difficult time understanding that not all politicians want to impose their personal beliefs on others. i realize that this is the way most politicians conduct themselves, but in this case paul is trying to follow the constitution. his personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. it is all about following the constitution.

    you have now spent over 2 weeks saying someone who believes rowe vs. wade should be overturned and that life begins at conception is not pro-life. you are being very silly about all of this.
     
    #125 jo mama, Nov 3, 2011
  6. saitou

    saitou J Only Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    I think you're misunderstanding me. I've already conceded that if he supports banning abortion at the state level he is pro-life.

    What I don't understand is how you can say a politician advocating a ban on abortion at the federal level is (in your words) "imposing his personal belief on others", but at the state level it's ok. The end result is the same - mothers who may want an abortion no longer get to choose because other people are imposing their beliefs on them.
     
    #126 saitou, Nov 3, 2011
  7. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,597
    Likes Received:
    9,111
    ok. glad it only took 5 pages to clear that up.:grin:

    as ive said over and over and over and over and over again, its a constitutional issue. his personal beliefs are irrelevant. according to paul, there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved either way.
     
    #127 jo mama, Nov 4, 2011
  8. saitou

    saitou J Only Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    You haven't answered the qn. I didn't ask "why does ron paul want to ban/prohibit bans on abortion at the federal level". Again, I asked,
     
    #128 saitou, Nov 4, 2011
  9. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Why would that be? The federal government has the authority to make all sorts of things into federal crimes. For example, kidnapping is a federal crime - does he believe that is not acceptable?
     
    #129 Major, Nov 4, 2011
  10. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,169
    Likes Received:
    48,339
    #130 rocketsjudoka, Nov 5, 2011
  11. parmesh

    parmesh Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    31
    Read Article 1, Section 8.
     
    #131 parmesh, Nov 6, 2011
  12. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,597
    Likes Received:
    9,111
    the premise of your question is flawed b/c you say paul is advocating a ban at the state level. he isnt telling states to ban abortions - he is saying its an issue that should be left to the states. the federal government has no enforcement role.

    im going to guess that paul would say that the federal government has no role wrt kidnapping. it would be a state issue, like abortion.
     
    #132 jo mama, Nov 6, 2011
  13. saitou

    saitou J Only Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    You say he isn't neutral on which way states choose... it should be obvious that he is advocating a very specific position.

    If you don't like the word advocate then I'll re-phrase using your terminology:
     
    #133 saitou, Nov 7, 2011
  14. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    Now we know why AB went to see him in Houston. He sold him that joke.
     
    #134 Dubious, Nov 7, 2011
  15. jo mama

    jo mama Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,597
    Likes Received:
    9,111
    it should be obvious, but for some reason you are having a very difficult time understanding this. i cant believe we have spent over 3 weeks now trying to clear this up for you.:confused:

    and he is indeed advocating a very specific position - adherence to the constitution.
     
    #135 jo mama, Nov 10, 2011
  16. parmesh

    parmesh Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    31
    Neocons are not libertarians. If you can't realize this... You have issues. "Libertarian-leaning" doesn't exist as some sort of medium between the two. Cain is not a libertarian at all, and no actual libertarian will support him. Neocons love to throw the l word around for the sake of pandering.

    glynch is unable and unwilling to tell the difference (and there is a world of difference) between libertarians and neocons. Look at all his past "libertarian/conservative/these terms are interchangeable" threads and you'll realize that this guy hasn't read... Anything. Not a lick. He probably hasn't even Wikipedia'd the two.
     
    #136 parmesh, Nov 13, 2011
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 7 of 7

Share This Page