Oh don't get me wrong. I've never seen your face nor do I know anything about you. As men we enjoy a nice little rabbit **** now and then. I'm just saying over here on the Ron Paul side there are plenty of women getting hot by the words of this sexy 76 year young politician.
The choice is yours my man. Do you get the chance to rabbit ****? Since you claim that its better than devoting it toward a cause.
See, I hang out at the Apathy Club, where we scope for Paulite chicks every night. It usually takes a couple of waves of the Roofie Wand, but they come around to our side. And when they want to abort their rape baby, they can't. Cuz they're Ron Paul supporters. And their messiah doesn't believe in it.
__________________ I did not hit her, it's not true. It's bullshit. I did not hit her. I did naawwt.
Fortunately for those women Ron Paul doesn't believe his views should be forced upon you. Seeing as he is a doctor whose delivered over 4,000 babies and enjoys life. Go figure
And when they hear this.... oh boy do their legs open!
But really though, you're not that misguided are you?
Must be. Though your definition of 'misguided' might be a little misguided. You don't honestly believe that if--and I mean IF, because there's no WHEN in this case--if Ron Paul became president, he wouldn't let his beliefs on abortion, separation of church and state, evolution, gay marriage, gold-backed dollar, etc. affect his presidency? You really don't believe that it wouldn't have any bearing on his administration's policies and decisions?
__________________ I did not hit her, it's not true. It's bullshit. I did not hit her. I did naawwt.
as amazing as it might sound, the words typed by someone thousands of miles away anonymously on the internet don't do much to ruin my day
ya dude, come north of the border and we can do this
na, you two are the only ones in recent memory who have gotten all personal with it, so I'm starting a new "thing"
only if it is massively federalized in the way Paul wants it, and in what is largely consistent with American political history (ie, states have massive rights)
Libertarianism isn't, by default, against a centralized government that determines rights for the nation. They might be against forcing a doctor to perform one if they had a moral issue, but I don't think they are against the idea of rights that are applied at a national level
__________________
Last edited by Oliver North on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Agreed, there is no when because we can't predict the future now can we?
According to his own statements (and if you even took the time to listen to him) of course it wouldn't. This is not what he is running on. He's running on smaller government. Bring most of these issues to the state level where they belong and have the people vote on their issues. You don't favor them? Change states. Seems easier than moving countries I'd say. Individual liberty my friend.
but thats the thing, not everyone has the option to just move, and some people believe certain rights are universal.
for instance, imho, free speech is free speech, no government, regardless of how local or centralized or whatever, should have the right to infringe this (except in places like "fire" in a threatre if it causes injury or panic).
but like, with the type of extreme downward delegation of states powers, rights no longer become universal, but subject to local culture. I'm sure you and I can agree that there are places where the culture would massively restrict certain rights. If you don't think certain things are universal, I suppose that is ok, but I don't agree that some local bunch of rednecks should be allowed to pass legislation that restricts the rights of women or minorities, which we know they would. Even in the Roe v Wade context there are laws being passed to create entirely unreasonable standards that abortion clinics have to meet, forcing the mother to be counseled about the life of the child and see pictures of it and [almost passed] the state sanctioned rape in the case of a trans-vaginal ultrasound. This gets worse in a Paul presidency.
Like, free speech, I'm actually sure Paul himself is more in line with my ideas than probably any other candidate in either of our nations, but his ideology specifically states that if the small geographical locality I live in just happens to be populated by enough people who are offended by something, they can infringe on my speech rights.
^Already spotting fallacies in there. I already stated you aren't even worth the time but since you keep on keeping on I'll get back to you later. If I feel like it.
KMC Community Forums
I play guitar, sing & write songs. Listen to my music 
Mar 2nd, 2012 10:17 PM
