• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

mariposa said:
Ron Paul and I fundamentally differ on the issue of abortion. I believe he grossly misinterprets 2nd Amendment rights, as it is important to remember that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as the right of citizens to a militia, not the unilateral right to own a gun.

Well, I disagree with your interpretation.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That can be boken down into two seperate parts.
First: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," (note that State is capitalized).

Second: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The State is the subject of the first half of the sentence. The people the subject of the second half of the sentence.
So I interpret that not to mean "A well regulated militia is necessary so the people should have guns so they can participate." Rather I think it means "As long as the state is going to have a militia, the people will be allowed to keep and bear arms."
In other words, the people's arms are a conterbalance to the State's militia. Considering the historic context under which the document was written, that it the more probable intent.
 
supertrav77 said:
Well, I disagree with your interpretation.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That can be boken down into two seperate parts.
First: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," (note that State is capitalized).

Second: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The State is the subject of the first half of the sentence. The people the subject of the second half of the sentence.
So I interpret that not to mean "A well regulated militia is necessary so the people should have guns so they can participate." Rather I think it means "As long as the state is going to have a militia, the people will be allowed to keep and bear arms."
In other words, the people's arms are a conterbalance to the State's militia. Considering the historic context under which the document was written, that it the more probable intent.

Well, the interpretation to which I was referring addressed the states' rights to form a militia. I don't know what you're referring to as to your statement regarding "the State" as to your interpretation of the Second Amendment. Also, your English is incorrect, but it's too late for me to correct it properly, and I'm not inclined to wastefulness at present. :|

My interpretation of the Second Amendment is that each state is entitled under law and natural rights (omg did I just load that further?) to its own militia, independent of the Federal government. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an individual's rights to keep and bear arms so as to protect the people and an individual state's right to form a well-regulated militia. This addresses the right of the "people" to bear arms; not the individual. Clearly, this refers to states' rights.

I intentionally did not capitalize "state" so that confusion among those who do not know the difference among "state" "nation", "country" and, well, anything else would not result. "State" as a proper noun is applied very differently, as a political and English scholar such as yourself should know. :|

I maintain my position.
 
Dr. Paul finished at over 6+ million within 24 hours. A new single day fundraising record!! Beat out Kerry's $5.7 M after receiving the dem nom in 2004.
 
If Paul were to personally pledge to provide each of those "innocents" (see above website for citation) with a good life and enough resources to become healthy adults, I might flip my position and vote for him.

What about putting your baby up for adoption?

Just out of curiosity...

A baby was born at 21 weeks and survived with no foreseeable long term health problems. In some states abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks after conception. How can you argue that a baby born within the time period abortions are performed that lived and is healthy was not alive?

Does this mean that in your opinion life doesn't begin until the baby is outside of the mother? In that case, would you support abortions of 9 month old babies?

Also, what other issues do you have with Ron Paul and who are you going to vote for currently?

I believe he grossly misinterprets 2nd Amendment rights, as it is important to remember that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as the right of citizens to a militia, not the unilateral right to own a gun.

No, this is how you think it should be interpreted.

To start off are you aware that by the definition of militia all men registered with Selective Services are part of a militia?

The current United States Code, Title 10 (Armed forces), section 311 (Militia: Composition and Classes), paragraph (a) states "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." Section 313 of Title 32 refers to persons with prior military experience who could serve as officers. These persons remain members of the militia until age 65. Paragraph (b) further states, "The classes of the militia are: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Second, why does the second amendment say..

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

..when it doesn't have anything to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Why doesn't it just say "the right of the people to form militias" or "the right of a state to form militias" if that is all you say it's supposed to mean?

My interpretation of the Second Amendment is that each state is entitled under law and natural rights to its own militia, independent of the Federal government.

If this was true then why did the Militia Act of 1903 which also defined all able bodied men, yadd yadda, as part of the "reserve militia" combine all of the state militias into the National Guard which is a federal entity? Wasn't it the right of those states under the constitution to it's own militia?

I see that you're arguing that "the people" refers to a state so the second amendment means a state has the right to keep and bear arms in the form of a militia. However, legally "the people" refers to the citizens of a particular jurisdiction with political power and the militia of a state is composed of those same citizens. How does it not all come back to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms?


Anyway, regardless of all of this...

How exactly does not supporting women's rights to abortion or interpreting the second amendment to mean the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms constitute "stepping all over the constitution" or "exploiting" it? Also, you claim to not really care if people want to own firearms as long as they don't have a criminal record and pass a background check so why does any of that even matter to you?
 
Last edited:
Kul69 said:
What about putting your baby up for adoption?

Just out of curiosity...

A baby was born at 21 weeks and survived with no foreseeable long term health problems. In some states abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks after conception. How can you argue that a baby born within the time period abortions are performed that lived and is healthy was not alive?

Does this mean that in your opinion life doesn't begin until the baby is outside of the mother? In that case, would you support abortions of 9 month old babies?

Also, what other issues do you have with Ron Paul and who are you going to vote for currently?



No, this is how you think it should be interpreted.

To start off are you aware that by the definition of militia all men registered with Selective Services are part of a militia?



Second, why does the second amendment say..

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

..when it doesn't have anything to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Why doesn't it just say "the right of the people to form militias" if that is all you say it's supposed to mean?

I have to get some sleep after this. It's election season and I am thinking too much.

I, personally, find it unconscionable that a woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy post 12-weeks. I nonetheless believe that a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy at any point short of the third trimester at which point she should have made her decision for herself, and if there is a medical problem that could cost the woman her viability subsequent to that, or an unforeseen birth defect that was likely to cause (in a doctor's opinion) or anything else that could cost the woman her life, it is a painful decision. How a woman in such circumstances should decide is not up to the government or anyone else, except the woman herself.

I support a woman's right to choose adoption as much as any other right. A woman who continues a pregnancy and elects to give up a viable fetus that is later born a baby exercises her right to free choice, and I believe adoption is a better option than abortion, personally. But the law operates independently of personal opinion. It is choice that matters. A woman should have choice whether or not to continue her pregnancy, period. If the pregnancy eventually results in a living child and if the woman wishes to give that child up for adoption, that remains - and should remain - her choice.

As to what I would do, I remain childless at present by choice because I'm not ready for a child and I use a form of birth control that is nearly flawless with perfect use. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Your point is moot. I have so far exercised my choice not to bring children into the world. I think it's a very good one. Others chose differently. It is a choice.

In reference to the Second Amendment issue, it's not me that said it, it's the Constitution and the Constitution is meant to be a flexible document, with the ability to address the rights of everyone that is or chooses to be a US citizen. I didn't draft the Constitution. I can only interpret the Constitution as the living, breathing, vital document it was drafted as. That was the intent of the people who drafted it; not mine. The U.S. President is charged with that job, and the only oath to which I personally feel bound is the Pledge of Allegiance, with exceptions (when I say it, I omit several words so I can say my oath knowing I'm telling the truth).

So before you make an attempt to criticize my "hypocrisy" know that I live as a conscious citizen and human being.

I am well aware of the Selective Service regulations as they pertain to males and enlisted females.

I plan to vote for Obama at present because I think he will protect my rights and that of all Americans. If Obama is not the Democrats' frontrunner, I'll reevaluate my decision at that time.

I have effectively addressed my issues with Ron Paul and I'm too exhausted to indulge you in your redundancy. My points stand. My opinions stand. You're free to vote as to your conscience; don't criticize me for speaking about my right to vote mine.
 
So, it sounds like you're saying you just wanted to state how you feel about Ron Paul and don't really care to defend or argue those feelings. That's fine. I would love to go into it more but I can respect your desire not to.

Just know that saying someone is stepping all over and exploiting the constitution because of their feelings about a non-constitution matter and interpretation of one of the amendments is kind of ridiculous. I can just as easily say YOU are stepping all over it and exploiting it to support your pro-abortion anti-gun ownership ideals. I wouldn't but using your logic I could. That is really the only thing you said that bothered me because it just doesn't make sense.

I have to ask though, why pledge allegiance to the flag when the constitution is much more important? In my opinion the idea of pledging allegiance to a symbol of America that really means nothing is strange.
 
It's a rather moot point to argue about Paul's (or anyone's) stance on abortion rights. Bush, a republican congress and a republican supreme court couldn't un-do Roe vs Wade, what makes anyone think another candidate will have better luck?

We have a right to pro-choice due to roe vs wade and it's not going away anything soon. And it's not like he's after to ban it, just push it to the states.
 
Last edited:
mariposa said:
I plan to vote for Obama at present because I think he will protect my rights and that of all Americans.

Democrats are no better for protecting rights than republicans. Obama does not even plan to do anything about the war on drugs. How is that protecting civil liberties? Obama must have inspired you with 'hope' and 'change', but he has not introduced legislation to bring about this 'change'.
Democrats 'protect' groups of people by taking rights away from other people. This is what obama and the other democrats offer and it is not new. This is known as collectivism.

individualism vs collectivism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I&feature=related
 
Kul69 said:
So, it sounds like you're saying you just wanted to state how you feel about Ron Paul and don't really care to defend or argue those feelings. That's fine. I would love to go into it more but I can respect your desire not to.

Just know that saying someone is stepping all over and exploiting the constitution because of their feelings about a non-constitution matter and interpretation of one of the amendments is kind of ridiculous. I can just as easily say YOU are stepping all over it and exploiting it to support your pro-abortion anti-gun ownership ideals. I wouldn't but using your logic I could. That is really the only thing you said that bothered me because it just doesn't make sense.

I have to ask though, why pledge allegiance to the flag when the constitution is much more important? In my opinion the idea of pledging allegiance to a symbol of America that really means nothing is strange.

It was past 3 a.m. and I was having a bout of insomnia. Forgive me for not having addressed your point immediately; I finally went to bed. :)

You raise valid points which I'll address when I have had time to think about them a little more.
 
ok, first off as far as abortion rights. this is one of the few areas where ron paul does pander alittle bit. Unfortunately this is politics and he does need to win the pro-lifers out there. We have already debated this a lot about 200 posts ago, but the sanctity of Life Act that would define life as beginning at conception does not stop abortion. It gives the pro-lifers a win because it give them that definition but if you read the whole bill it only defines it on the federal level and then says federal courts cannot rule on it. Therefore overturning Roe V. Wade and making it a states issue just how the constitution says it should be. Regardless of you personal feelings this is a very constitutional bill just wrapped to look the other way. Kind of the opposite of unconstitutional bills that look good that we are used to.

As far as the second amendment I believe the words "free state" to be the most important. The founders knew that the first step to enslaving citizens is to disarm them. The second amendment is not so i can go hunting or shoot at the firing range, or even stop a criminal from hurting me. the second amendment acts as a failsafe to guard against government tyranny.
 
I find it disconcerting that some people don't think a politician cannot have an opinion outside of the context of political pandering. I mean, in the case of someone like Mitt Romney, where there was an obvious volt face when he stopped speaking to liberal Mass population, and went national.

Paul says things that he knows aren't politically endearing all the time, though. That's his charm. Even being pro-life isn't politically popular in a general election. Paul certainly isn't in the cultural conservative arms race, so that isn't why he's saying it.

To me, its reasonable that he actually believes what he's saying. You can disagree with his position (pro life, and I do disagree), and you can disagree with his explanation (the power to legislate regarding abortion is solely within the sphere of state governments-- with which I do agree), but you should never lose sight of the fact that there are well-meaning, good intentioned people on both sides of the issue. Thinking otherwise makes one a wedge issue pawn.
 
To me, its reasonable that he actually believes what he's saying. You can disagree with his position (pro life, and I do disagree), and you can disagree with his explanation (the power to legislate regarding abortion is solely within the sphere of state governments-- with which I do agree), but you should never lose sight of the fact that there are well-meaning, good intentioned people on both sides of the issue. Thinking otherwise makes one a wedge issue pawn.

agree 100%.
 
xmas_dees.jpg


ronpship_dees.jpg
 
Mariposa - Ron Paul isn't trying to trample upon your rights.

He views a fetus as a human life with full rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

If a fetus has rights, abortion is murder. Period. You lose your ability to CHOOSE death for the fetus because it becomes an act against an EQUAL with EQUAL RIGHTS.


All the bills he has endorsed have been to proclaim that a fetus is a human LIFE with RIGHTS.

He has not tried, in any way, to infringe upon the RIGHTS of a WOMAN.
No woman has the RIGHT to commit murder.


You share a different belief of when life begins. That is all.

He wants a constitutional amendment proclaiming that live begins at conception.
I don't.

And there won't be one (probably) in our life times.


HOWEVER, this is CORRECT and PROPER.

The constitution has been amended to establish a broader term of "man" or humanity - and has extended the RIGHTS of all sovereign individuals to those included in these broadened terms.

Women and negros are explicitly granted all protections and immunities granted to any white man/land owner under the constitution because of these amendments.

If a fetus IS human and DOES have rights is the question.
If a fetus IS NOT human and DOES NOT have rights, the woman's right to choose cannot be abrogated by and law of congress (or any of the respective states) as that would be an unconstitutional law prohibiting the exercise of sovereignty by the individual woman.

If a fetus HAS rights, abortion is MURDER, and it is a CRIME against another individual with equal rights.

Stop talking about Ron Paul's stance on abortion.
Abortion is NOT an issue.

The issue is "FETUS'S RIGHTS"
You can argue that one all you want...
But you cannot criticize Ron Paul for his position - as it is constitutionally correct, morally correct, and legally correct.
It may be factually inconsistent, and inconsistent with the opinions of the people, but he is not trying to introduce an unconstitutional malum prohibitum law destroying the sovereignty of the individual.

He's delivered over 4,000 babies.
He aided a late term abortion during his medical training.

What credentials do you have to determine that life DOES NOT begin when he says it does?

I don't care on the whole abortion issue.
As a gay boy, it's more or less irrelevant to my life.

However human rights I stand up for... and if the common consensus - and or scientific fact - proves that life begins at X period of pregnancy, then at X point, abortion becomes murder.


For now, abortion cannot be illegal, as a fetus is not recognized as a human with rights...
But a murder of a pregnant woman is a double murder - counting the life of the unborn child.

One of these policies must concede to the other.
A fetus needs to be amended into the constitution as a sovereign right-bearing individual, or the double murder laws need to be abolished.


Rational thought and proper perspective are needed when dealing with the issue of Fetus Rights (not abortion. Abortion can never be decided. It's another policy meant only to divide people - prevent a common goal or noticing that our government talks about policies and never does anything.)

Drop the emotional pretext (abortion) and discuss the issue (fetus rights) at length and see if you can come to a common consensus.

If you can, great.
If not, you'll know what can LEGALLY/CONSTITUTIONALLY be done by the outcome of your argument.
Malum prohibitum crimes are unconstitutional (drug laws/prostitution/etc...)

Prohibiting abortion as a criminal offense is unconstitutional so long as a fetus does not have rights.
 
bush is pro life nothing changed its an issue with the supreme court doesnt look like the next pres is going to get an appointment anyway. Roe vs Wade is pretty safe IMO
 
Ron Paul raises record breaking $6 million in 24-hour period

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, raised an astounding $6 million and change Sunday, his campaign said, almost certainly guaranteeing he'll outraise his rivals for the Republican nomination in the fourth quarter and likely will be able to fund a presence in many of the states that vote Feb. 5.

Paul's campaign spokesman late Sunday announced the campaign had eclipsed the $5.7 million that John Kerry raised the day after he locked up the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination – arguably the largest single-day fundraising haul in U.S. political history.


Paul, whose campaign has been embraced by a zealous community of online supporters, raised eyebrows when donors acting independently of the campaign dropped $4.2 million into his campaign coffers Nov. 5.

Still, the libertarian-leaning Paul is considered a distant long-shot by conventional political calculations and has languished in the mid-single digits in most national polls.

His campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Sunday's haul put the campaign over $18 million in fundraising since Oct. 1, 50% more than its goal of $12 million.

He said the extra funds would be used to pay new staffers and air more ads in early states.

He said the campaign planned to bring 300 students to Iowa to canvass over winter break.

"We have a lot of time to close in the polls," Benton said, and he asserted traditional polls "underestimate … Paul's real support."

That's partly because they attempt to query folks who have voted Republican, and Benton asserted that Paul's base draws heavily from those who have shied away from the party or were not previously politically active.

For instance, he said 24,940 new donors contributed during the Dec. 16 haul.

It was timed for the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, a day meant to resonant with the Libertarian sensibilities of his supporters.

The man who engineered it — a 37-year-old music promoter named Trevor Lyman — has no official ties to the campaign and had no political experience to speak of before he engineered the innovative model for the Nov. 5 fundraising haul.

He set up a website that solicited pledges for contributions to be made directly to the Paul campaign on that day — a technique that became known as a "money bomb," which he used again to such great effect Sunday.

In an interview late last month, he told Politico.com he thought it was "bad for the country" that fundraising played such a prominent role in American politics.

"The democratic process should be based on candidates' ideas, but we had to go within the system," he said. "We have to use the money to get people to pay attention to what [Paul] actually stands for."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-ronpaul-fundraising_N.htm?csp=34

Surprised this hasnt been posted yet (if it has my bad...did a search and got nothing)

Does anyone think he can pull w/in shooting distance? I hope to God so....

Tucker Carlson and Bill Maher seem to be pretty big supporters of him...I even saw he appeared on The View recently as well....So he's starting to ghet the exposure...

I have been hearing on the diff news stations that he has a pretty strong following in New Hampshire....and thats where he's gonna dump a majority of his money...
 
Top