Paul passes McCain

[Steve Gagne]

I'm glad we're all on-topic here.

This discussion was about MONEY; how did it get sidetracked into Islam and abortion?

And whether Bob likes it or not, Ron Paul will get the nomination, partly because Republicans will wake up and realize that he's the only Republican candidate who has a chinaman's chance of beating the Democrats in the current political milieu . And when he becomes president, if war is justified, he will ask for a CONSTTUTIONAL declaration of war; barring that, we won't be engaging in anymore blood-for-oil adventurism, and have it shoved down our throats as a bunch of LIES about imaginary terrorists.

Now as far as the money situation goes, if you put the different reports together, not only has ole "Sleeper Cell" McCain spent almost everything he has, but Mitt Romney ALSO has spent twice what he took in last quarter. So much so that Ron Paul is nearly in a dead heat with him, in terms of remaining cash-on-hand after debts are resolved. (Now if Romney were president, would he be any less profligate with our tax money?) That leaves Giuliani as the only competition, with about $12 million more unencumbered.

(Unless you include the Council on Fred Relations, the Man Who Stands For Nothing In Particular Besides Looking Good as a President on TV, Mr. Thompson. Scary. How much does he have in his warchest? God only knows!)

So Bob, you got a better candidate, "put yer money where yer mouth is!"

Edited July 16, 2007 by Steve Gagne

[BaalChatzaf]

So Bob, you got a better candidate, "put yer money where yer mouth is!"

The are no better candidates. There are only bad ones and worse ones. The Republicans are dry of viable talent. If Congressman Paul is nominated he will lose. Even if he won, Congress will make mincemeat out of him. There will be arrows in his back many of them shot by his "fellow" Republicans.

The last decent Republican was Robert Taft of Ohio and he died a long time ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

So Bob, you got a better candidate, "put yer money where yer mouth is!"

The are no better candidates. There are only bad ones and worse ones. The Republicans are dry of viable talent. If Congressman Paul is nominated he will lose. Even if he won, Congress will make mincemeat out of him. There will be arrows in his back many of them shot by his "fellow" Republicans.

The last decent Republican was Robert Taft of Ohio and he died a long time ago.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ron Paul is the closest thing to Robert Taft since--Robert Taft. And he will not be nominated.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Bob; Barry Goldwater was very good!

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob; Barry Goldwater was very good!

Right on! He was the only Republican I ever voted for. It was the 1964 election. I don't know why it slipped my mind. Aside from the fact he is dead, where is he when we need him so badly? Goldwater would know how to handle the current war we are in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 16, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Aside from the fact he is dead, where is he when we need him so badly?

Reminds me of a Sam Goldwyn gem: "If Roosevelt was alive, he'd be spinning in his grave."

Seriously, the US lost a great opportunity to nominate and elect Lee Hamilton of Indiana as president in 2000 or 2004. Regarding Goldwater, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think his defeat was coincident with Objectivists being purged from the Republican Party in 1964.

W.

Edited July 16, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[Aggrad02]

Bob; Barry Goldwater was very good!

Right on! He was the only Republican I ever voted for. It was the 1964 election. I don't know why it slipped my mind. Aside from the fact he is dead, where is he when we need him so badly? Goldwater would know how to handle the current war we are in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't understand you Bob. Ron Paul is constantly praising Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. He is even good friends with and endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr.

--Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't understand you Bob. Ron Paul is constantly praising Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. He is even good friends with and endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr.

--Dustan

Underneath that libertarian exterior, Paul has an altruistic interior. Also his position on abortion is disgusting. The inclination to go to war and the opposition to anti-abortion laws are my two touchstones. A third is in inclination to let the lamed, the maimed and the stupid perish of their own defects, but this latter will not manifest in American politics. Americans are far too softhearted for their own good. That is why we are not the New Rome.

And being friends with people does not determine how one thinks on all issues. I have friends who are Christian. Does that make me a Christian? My daughter-in-law was brought up Christian and I love her like my own flesh and blood.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 16, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Aggrad02]

I don't understand you Bob. Ron Paul is constantly praising Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. He is even good friends with and endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr.

--Dustan

Also his position on abortion is disgusting. The inclination to go to war and the opposition to anti-abortion laws are my two touchstones.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Then I understand if those are you two major issues. Even though I clearly don't agree with you.

Also, I am currently reading Ron Paul's book Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue" written in 1989. I will give summaries of his position and arguements for that position so that y'all can understand his argument (I not trying to convince anyone to change their stand on the issue, just let them know where Ron Paul stands on the issue and how he arrived at that position).

--Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

Also, I am currently reading Ron Paul's book Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue" written in 1989. I will give summaries of his position and arguements for that position so that y'all can understand his argument (I not trying to convince anyone to change their stand on the issue, just let them know where Ron Paul stands on the issue and how he arrived at that position).

--Dustan

By being anti-abortion he relegates women to being brood-mares for the human race. However he arrived at this position he is wrong clean down to the bone. A woman owns her body and anything inside her body. From excreta to fetus and all in between she owns the lot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Kevin Haggerty]

I always thought it was basically a jurisdictional issue with abortion. What goes on within the borders of your own body is up to you. Seems to me that once the fetus is viable without the mother's womb to protect and nurture it, then you might make the argument that it exists as a being with emigration rights, so to speak. But as long as it is totally dependent on its mother for life, it is a part of her, definitively. It is a peculiarity of biological fate that women should have the power to destroy in this way, but they do and we men should be able to live with that, IMO.

I keep imagining a science fictional situation where a patient was put on life support and that life support was actually another person's body. That the person whose own body was providing life support would have no option to pull the plug seems to amount to slavery, so to my mind, Bob's brood-mare is not too far off the mark.

What I heard from Dr. Paul on the subject, a sound bite about witnessing with horror a very late stage abortion and deciding that it was "wrong, just wrong" sounded to me like a simple case of pandering to the Republican base. He seems to be foregrounding his personal disgust because it's what they want to hear, since he knows full well that his personal feelings have absolutely no bearing on law. I predict that his book will be very much against such late stage abortions, as most folks would be, but completely accepting of abortion when the fetus is still in the "squiggle" stages.

-Kevin

Edited July 16, 2007 by Kevin Haggerty

[Aggrad02]

I always thought it was basically a jurisdictional issue with abortion. What goes on within the borders of your own body is up to you. Seems to me that once the fetus is viable without the mother's womb to protect and nurture it, then you might make the argument that it exists as a being with emigration rights, so to speak. But as long as it is totally dependent on its mother for life, it is a part of her, definitively. It is a peculiarity of biological fate that women should have the power to destroy in this way, but they do and we men should be able to live with that, IMO.

I keep imagining a science fictional situation where a patient was put on life support and that life support was actually another person's body. That the person whose own body was providing life support would have no option to pull the plug seems to amount to slavery, so to my mind, Bob's brood-mare is not too far off the mark.

What I heard from Dr. Paul on the subject, a sound bite about witnessing with horror a very late stage abortion and deciding that it was "wrong, just wrong" sounded to me like a simple case of pandering to the Republican base. He seems to be foregrounding his personal disgust because it's what they want to hear, since he knows full well that his personal feelings have absolutely no bearing on law. I predict that his book will be very much against such late stage abortions, as most folks would be, but completely accepting of abortion when the fetus is still in the "squiggle" stages.

-Kevin

His book was written in 1989 a year after running on the Libertarian ticket and at this time he was still affliated with the Libertarian party, so he wasn't pandering to anyone. He was no longer running for or in office at the time.

I just finished the first chapter and will give an update as soon as I can (I am really busy right now).

As to pandering here is Dr. Paul's first experience with abortion in the medical field:

Challenge to Liberty Paul, pg. 9-10,

Residents in a training hospital frequently visted operating suites to observe different procedures. One morning, without knowing what was in each room., I made the rounds of the operating rooms. Shortly after entering one room, I was abruptly awakened from the daze I was in, after having been up most of the previous night. The two surgeons were in the middle of a hysterotomy, a C-section performed for pregnancy at less than term. Soon after I entered the room, the infant was extracted, weighing approximately two pounds, weakly crying, and gasping for air.

Up until that moment, everything that I learned for the previous ten years was directed toward perserving life and improving the health of all of my patients.

What followed was ghastly. The infant was placed in a basin on the floor in the corner of the room, and everyone pretended not to hear the weak cries and the final gasp as the baby expired. No longer would I be able to avoid thinking in a serious manner about abortion. I would need to come to grips with an issue that would involve my medical career as an obstetrician and affect this nation politically for years to come.

Technology and an acceptance of a political philosophy that rejects all initiation of violence has kept me thinking and refining my beliefs regarding this manner to this day. Abortion is no a light issue and, as time goes on, the emotional intensity and bitterness of the two sides grows. Most likely it will not be resolved before the 21st century. The manner in which it is resolved will determine the future of the United States. It's not an isolated problem, accidentally dumped on us, but reflects deep-seated philosophic and moral commitments of the citizens of this country.

Here is Dr. Paul's conclusion for the first introductory chapter, p17-18

Once it is realized that a baby exist with a heartbeat and brain waves, it's not quite as easy to close one's eyes and deny that a new life exist, even when it exist in utero.

However, the moral dilemma is not likely to fade away soon. As more and more of us become informed, the larger the number will be who become militantly pro-life.

Pro-abortion groups will become more militant as court decisions move us away from abortion on demand, abortion used as contraceptive, and third-trimester abortions. The moral crisis that exists in this country is responsible for the confrontation between the opposing factions.

Abortion is a symptom of a much deeper seated problem: the relative value of all life and the contest between liberty and the monlithic state. The difficulty in the abortion debate is the value of life that some of us claim deserves protection, and others would deny. If our views on abortion were to reflect only our values on this issue, our society would suffer far less. Politically, some may claim to be single issue -- but the position one holds regarding this issue must reflect the attitude one holds of all life and liberty.

Although many who endorse abortion can be pro-liberty on other issues, the philosophic consequence of this position leads to the conclusion that my obstetricial porfessor was so willing to accept -- selective infanticide, i.e. selective murder.

The issue of liberty, the role of government, and the responsibility of the individual family are tightly hinged to the concept of all life.

A nation or culture that encourages tossing a pre-born infant into the garbage cannot discipline the young mother who throws her newborn baby into the gutter, or the seventh grade science student who proudly displays aborted fetuses.

Government exist to protect life and liberty, not to participate in arbitrarily devising relative standards for life such as acceptable disease states, IQ, gestational age, or social convience for carrying a baby to term. Respect for even less-than-perfect life is required if liberty for all is to be protected and not trampled upon by the government.

[BaalChatzaf]

Government exist to protect life and liberty, not to participate in arbitrarily devising relative standards for life such as acceptable disease states, IQ, gestational age, or social convience for carrying a baby to term. Respect for even less-than-perfect life is required if liberty for all is to be protected and not trampled upon by the government.

One of the things government does is end the lives of enemy humans, should the need arise. If a government is acting properly it is protecting the life, property and liberty of those who ordain and sanction its existence, namely its citizens. Not mankind in general but its citizens. Since a fetus is not a person, it is not a citizen and Ron Paul if full of shit. Government, in an indirect way, is MY club for beating the shit out of my enemies. Government is MY weapon of defense for Me and Mine. It is also your weapon as well. When the need arises I expect my government to send in the chariots, horses and legions to kick ass. I do not expect my government to get involved in the private affairs of pregnant women.

I sense, underneath his pseudo libertarian effusions, an Altruist. There are two things I cannot abide: zits and altruism. If Paul's inclinations are indicated by his propensity for making category errors, as he has above, I will be happy not to vote for him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 16, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Ron Paul is full of shit. Government, in an indirect way, is MY club for beating the shit out of my enemies.

You want government to beat up Ron Paul? Like Ross Perot?

:getlost:

[BaalChatzaf]

Ron Paul is full of shit. Government, in an indirect way, is MY club for beating the shit out of my enemies.

You want government to beat up Ron Paul? Like Ross Perot?

No. I want the Government to destroy Mecah and Medinah in the middle of the Haj.

Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

I want the Government to destroy Mecah and Medinah in the middle of the Haj.

Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have changed my mind about Ron Paul. He may be our last hope to get free of Israel and AIPAC.

No more questions. Genocide is a straightforward concept.

W.

[Aggrad02]

Bob,

How is it altruistic to value life (in general, not in regards to abortion)? I know that you don't because you have stated it many times.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

How is it altruistic to value life (in general, not in regards to abortion)? I know that you don't because you have stated it many times.

Value whose life? It is not altruistic of me to value MY life or the life of my family members and friends. Ron Paul apparently thinks more of the life of a fetus than that of the woman carrying the fetus. He would sacrifice the latter for the former. It is that which makes him an altruistic.

Please understand this: there is no defense or mitigation of an anti-abortion stand. If one is anti-abortion then one believes women are there to breed. That is their primary function. He who is anti-abortion is anti the freedom and liberty of women capable of bearing children. Such a person thinks the biological future of our species is more important than the social condition of its present. That is altruistic and collectivist all at the same time. I do not believe in sacrificing the present to the future. Paul apparently does or perhaps I have not understood him properly.

Just because Paul is more principled in the matter of government than most of the pragmatic hyenas of the Republican and Democrat parties does not mean I buy his view in the totality. In fact his anti-abortion view makes we wish to discount his constitutional views. As I have said more than once: I reject Paul because he is not warlike enough and because he is anti-abortion. I perceive altruism at work and I detest altruism in all of its wretched manifestations.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

A woman has a right to an abortion. I don't debate this point. I will discuss nuances such as late trimester abortions, but only in the over-riding context of that right.

I also don't care to debate with tribalists when they are being tribalistic.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Bob,

How is it altruistic to value life (in general, not in regards to abortion)? I know that you don't because you have stated it many times.

Value whose life? It is not altruistic of me to value MY life or the life of my family members and friends. Ron Paul apparently thinks more of the life of a fetus than that of the woman carrying the fetus. He would sacrifice the latter for the former. It is that which makes him an altruistic.

Please understand this: there is no defense or mitigation of an anti-abortion stand. If one is anti-abortion then one believes women are there to breed. That is their primary function. He who is anti-abortion is anti the freedom and liberty of women capable of bearing children. Such a person thinks the biological future of our species is more important than the social condition of its present. That is altruistic and collectivist all at the same time. I do not believe in sacrificing the present to the future. Paul apparently does or perhaps I have not understood him properly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are truly ridiculous. (I say this light heartedly because I am truly amazed)

Please show philosophically how you arrive at your conclusions?

How one life can be more valuable than another?

How being pro-life, one is enslaving women?

How being pro-life restricts the freedom of women?

How social conditions are relevant to the issue?

How valuing life is altruistic?

How we are sacrificing the present to the future?

Do you understand what altruism is?

Another question, do you really admire Ayn's philosophy? If so what about it? Because I have seen nothing you have posted to suggest so? You clearly hold the philosophy of muscle/might.

If you believe that a fetus is just a glob of tissue, then that is an entirely different subject, but the crud you just posted is logically indefensible.

--Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

Another question, do you really admire Ayn's philosophy? If so what about it? Because I have seen nothing you have posted to suggest so? You clearly hold the philosophy of muscle/might.

If you believe that a fetus is just a glob of tissue, then that is an entirely different subject, but the crud you just posted is logically indefensible.

--Dustan

Me and mine take precedence (in my action plan) over you and yours and him and his.

By the way, John Galt was rescued by the use of force. Do pay attention to the details.

Also note that our country is de facto at war with Islamic enemies. I propose to defend our country (therefore defend me and mine) against these enemies. Do you think Rand would have objected to this?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Another question, do you really admire Ayn's philosophy? If so what about it? Because I have seen nothing you have posted to suggest so? You clearly hold the philosophy of muscle/might.

If you believe that a fetus is just a glob of tissue, then that is an entirely different subject, but the crud you just posted is logically indefensible.

--Dustan

Last item first. A fetus, if allowed will become an infant (most likely). An infant, if allowed, will become a person even as you and I are persons. So clearly a fetus is more than just a glob of tissue. It has a future (most likely) if permitted to realize it.

First item next.

Consider Dagny Taggart and the guard where John Galt was held prisoner.

She shot him dead because:

1. He was in the way of a rescue.

2. He could not make up his mind.

But you object because I want to kill people who are actively out to harm us or make it possible for fanatics to do that harm. Anyone who supports a Mosque (a place where fanatics are recruited) is at least an accessory to the deeds of my enemies, if not an enemy.

Say! Who is it that does not understand what Ayn Rand is saying?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Wolf;

In an earlier post you referred to Objectivists being purged from the Republican Party after the 1964 presidential election. What are you talking about?

I think you will find that what actually happened was that Objectivists agreed with Miss Rand's piece "It's Earlier Than You Think" from the Dec. 64 issue of the Objectivist Newsletter.

Objectivists became less involved in politics from the deep involvement in the Goldwater campaign. In 1968 Miss Rand strongly endorsed Nixon. She endorsed him again in 1972 because she was strongly opposed to McGovern.

There was a purge in Young Americans for Freedom in 1969 of libertarians. There may have been a purge of Objectivists from YAF earlier but I don't have any information.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Wolf DeVoon]

Thanks, Chris. I must have been thinking of the YAF purge of libertarians.

W.

[Aggrad02]

Another question, do you really admire Ayn's philosophy? If so what about it? Because I have seen nothing you have posted to suggest so? You clearly hold the philosophy of muscle/might.

If you believe that a fetus is just a glob of tissue, then that is an entirely different subject, but the crud you just posted is logically indefensible.

--Dustan

Last item first. A fetus, if allowed will become an infant (most likely). An infant, if allowed, will become a person even as you and I are persons. So clearly a fetus is more than just a glob of tissue. It has a future (most likely) if permitted to realize it.

First item next.

Consider Dagny Taggart and the guard where John Galt was held prisoner.

She shot him dead because:

1. He was in the way of a rescue.

2. He could not make up his mind.

But you object because I want to kill people who are actively out to harm us or make it possible for fanatics to do that harm. Anyone who supports a Mosque (a place where fanatics are recruited) is at least an accessory to the deeds of my enemies, if not an enemy.

Say! Who is it that does not understand what Ayn Rand is saying?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Read your text. Dagny & Co. killed those standing between them and Galt directly. They did not incinerate New York City. I have no problem going after those who attacked us or are planning on attacking us. But Iraq was not a threat to our security. Bin Laden was, and we didn't catch him. Right now he is in Pakistan most likely and we are sending subsidies to Pakistan. We should tell Pakistan like we told the Taliban to "give him up or we are coming to get him". And the only candidate talking about putting pressure on Pakistan instead or Iran is Ron Paul.

--Dustan