If We Don't Talk About it It'll Go Away

Nothing inherently establishmentarian, but how about in actuality? It's not like they don't know where this money is going.

I just don't understand his nature. For example, he states that their only 3 federal crimes in the Constitution, yet agrees with a ban on partial birth abortions. I just can't see that he's a strict Constitutionalist. It seems like a justification when he feels like it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well here were his own words on the ban:

Quote:

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

The law itself distinguishes Partial Birth Abortion as:

Quote:

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

Basically the bill challenges the notion that a fetus or infant which is only partially inside the womb during the operation isn't entitled to protection. The ban concerned a method of abortion, not the actual age of the fetus, and according to a Supreme Court ruling this past April, the ban isn't unconstitutional.

How ya doing, buddy?

To be fair, the man would get nothing done if elected. Heavy resistance from Congress and from lifelong public sector workers would render him impotent within 2 years.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

At least he wouldn't abuse Habeus Corpus and get us into another war.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I think this interview pretty much sums up why no one takes him seriously and why no one should. The man is against the existence of the CIA, thinks the civil war shouldn't have happened (apparently we're just supposed to allow people to secede at will), and thinks a privatized FAA could have prevented 9/11 (I especially loved his rant about how letting people have guns on planes could have stopped it, without regard for the fact that, you know, if you fire a gun on a plane the whole thing will decompress and all hell will break lose).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

You know the Civil War was Unconstitutional, right? That the CIA attempting to assassinate foreign leaders and depose democratically elected governments has damaged our foreign relations? that:

Quote:

(I especially loved his rant about how letting people have guns on planes could have stopped it, without regard for the fact that, you know, if you fire a gun on a plane the whole thing will decompress and all hell will break lose).

Explosive decompression is an urban myth?

How ya doing, buddy?

The plane wouldn't explode, but decompression WOULD occur and there are any number of serious side-effects associated with it.

Also, way to ignore the entire point.

How ya doing, buddy?

Aren't the oxygen masks they have in airplanes for the instance of the cabin depressurizing?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yes. But depressurizing a cabin STILL makes the plane incredibly difficult to control, etc.

Look, the fact of the matter is this: Even if Brady's nuts enough to agree with Paul, 99% of America realizes that the Civil War was a necessary thing, the CIA's benefits far outweight its occasional mistakes, and that people on planes should not have guns. Paul is fucked up, plain and simple, and 100 percent unelectable.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That's exactly why we have Air Marshalls armed with guns right now, right?

You'll notice how much good feedback he got in that interview, and how Maher couldn't figure out a way to one-up Paul. Paul's insistance that the Civil War wasn't necessary sounds crazy until he gives the argument for why it wasn't inevitable, which Maher couldn't counter. It's why he kept coming back to the Civil War despite all the good points that Paul brought up in the interview.

You're trying to marginalise a candidate who's more of an intellectual than you give him credit for.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I read up on this guy and even watching a few of the debate videos, but one question, one BIG question that I haven't found the answer for is this: Suppose he repeals the 16th Amendment and Abolishes the IRS, how will taxes be conducted/collected/organized? How will the US refinance in the wake of the abolution, and how will the markets recapitalize with no secondary market of capital (Income Taxes, AKAIK, allow money to be poured back into wallstreet when stocks are down, and act as ONE of MANY forces to force that economic balance of Bear and Bull markets) to act as a safeguard for when the economy takes an especially hard turned nose dive (in rare circumstances)?

I'm finding myself breathing a breath of fresh air at what this guy proposes, but my cynical side still is saying to me that a lot of what he proposes just will not come through as planned, or will be locked up in congress for so long that it will be ineffective if any one of his proposed policy changes makes it to pen and ink.

I really want to know what he plans to do if he gets the 16th amendment abolished. What will be used both as a replacement and a temporary placemarker?

And on the Iraq War, well fuck I don't even know what to do about that.

My grandmother seemed to think he was a good candidate though, after I gave a brief summary of the guy.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

I read up on this guy and even watching a few of the debate videos, but one question, one BIG question that I haven't found the answer for is this: Suppose he repeals the 16th Amendment and Abolishes the IRS, how will taxes be conducted/collected/organized? How will the US refinance in the wake of the abolution, and how will the markets recapitalize with no secondary market of capital (Income Taxes, AKAIK, allow money to be poured back into wallstreet when stocks are down, and act as ONE of MANY forces to force that economic balance of Bear and Bull markets) to act as a safeguard for when the economy takes an especially hard turned nose dive (in rare circumstances)?

Well Paul said it himself that the only way to get rid of the Federal Reserve and the IRS is to get rid of the programs that they finance like the war in Iraq and the welfare state. The overwhelming majority of revenue from individual income goes to paying off the interest to the Federal Reserve.

What acts as a placeholder in the absence of the Reserve is Congress itself, as it's Congress's duty to issue money. The States then take over the duty of bank regulation, or alternatively allow free banking. Instead of having the Fed manipulate interests and creating artificial booms like the housing market bubble individual banks would be able to set their own interest rates in accordance to their own reserves and market forces.

The transition wouldn't be painless, of course, but the way we pay a private bank to issue money that they have no controls on for printing is absolutely retarded.

An obstinate congress is another problem, though one solution Paul put forward in an interview was to make Gold and Silver legal tender, which would force the Fed to be more responsible monetarily as people would save their money in commodities like gold and silver instead of a constantly devaluated fiat money.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Paul's insistance that the Civil War wasn't necessary sounds crazy until he gives the argument for why it wasn't inevitable, which Maher couldn't counter. It's why he kept coming back to the Civil War despite all the good points that Paul brought up in the interview.

Maher didn't counter because he realized how nuts Paul was. Remember that the Southern states seceded and attacked first. What was Lincoln supposed to do, wave goodbye? The Civil War was absolutely, 100% necessary.

Quote:

You're trying to marginalise a candidate who's more of an intellectual than you give him credit for.

I don't CARE if he can dream up complicated political theories and has the brain of Einstein reborn - he's lost in lala land with absolutely NO connection whatsoever to the realities of the world. And so, apparently, are you.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Maher didn't counter because he realized how nuts Paul was. Remember that the Southern states seceded and attacked first. What was Lincoln supposed to do, wave goodbye? The Civil War was absolutely, 100% necessary.

No, it wasn't. Every historian agrees that Lincoln baited the South into firing the first shot by choosing to resupply Fort Sumter instead of giving it up to South Carolina, which considered it sovereign territory.

Seceding from the Union wasn't illegal, but the powers that Lincoln undertook to fight the war were. (suspending Habeus Corpus) You're also not really giving me a good reason for why the war was unavoidable, you're just saying that it was.

Quote:

I don't CARE if he can dream up complicated political theories and has the brain of Einstein reborn - he's lost in lala land with absolutely NO connection whatsoever to the realities of the world. And so, apparently, are you.

What, were the Air Marshalls too much for you to wrap your mind around? I must be crazy, though, to think that we don't need the CIA for information gathering, that guns on planes won't destroy everything in the blink of an eye, or that the Civil War was avoidable and that we didn't have to fight the bloodiest war in our history to end slavery.

FELIPE NO

Enough.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?