50 Pauls.

Your questions don't even make sense. You can't even seem to keep up with the discussions. Either that or you have reading comprehension problems.

You quoted me saying income taxes aren't used to operate the government and you ask me "Where does it go then?"

I answered that question in like the next fucking sentence in the post that you quoted! lol

That's why I wasn't even going to attempt to reply to you, because you are too frustrating to deal with. Why are you going to ask someone a question that was answered in the very post that you quoted? Get a clue.

Then you quote me and say "services cost money." I also explained that in the same post that you quoted: the government has thousands of OTHER taxes that they get money from to help run the government and fund these "services" you speak of.

On top of that, when the government needs money they just have the Federal Reserve type a few buttons on their computers and create a few billion more dollars out of thin air (making all the money that the people have worth less due to inflation). They don't need to take our hard earned money to run the government, the income taxes go to pay the interest on the money loaned to the government from the Federal Reserve, something I already explained... but I'm sure you will ask again. lol

Sorry, yes it does, however what I meant to emphasize is that he believes it's not the federal governments or president's duty to make laws on this. So yes he personally may be against it but that doesn't matter.

here is the next quote from the page that you did not include in your reply to my post:

?The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don?t need a federal abortion police. That?s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that?s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don?t think that should be up to the president to decide.?

this is the beauty of ron's philosophy that i like the most, even though his personal beliefs may be different than yours, mine, or joe the plumber's, he realizes that it's not the federal governments job to decide. :-)

again, you should educate yourself on the "beauty" of ron paul's positions and voting record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ed_legislation

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[213] However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000[214] and 2003.[215]

What is so wrong with being against abortion? Like killing tiny forming babies is the cool thing to do or something? lol

If a woman is raped or in some rare circumstance like that she should have options, but in general I don't understand why people think it's okay to just kill the baby that is forming inside of them like it's no big deal. That's just my personal opinion.

But like BV said, it doesn't even matter what Ron Paul "personally" thinks about abortion, because it's not the federal government's or president's duty to make laws about this.

i know you live in a delusional fantasy world when it comes to ron paul but if ron paul really believes that the states should be making the laws on abortion why did he try and ban it at the federal level. please explain.

That response is to a question he was asked about what he thought should happen if abortion were made illegal and a woman still got one. So his thought is that in that case the person providing the abortion should be punished. That doesn't change anything. It still means he thinks that abortion should be outlawed.

He might believe that individual states should have the right to legalize or not legalize abortion, but that doesn't change the fact that he is against it. Personally I think passing this off as a states rights issue is horseshit. There are somethings I agree states should be allowed to decide for themselves but in matters of health and medical issues there should be federal laws so that every American citizen can have the same rights as every other citizen.

All you ever do is say dumb bullshit like "delusional fantasy world."

It's so annoying trying to discuss things with people who reply with nothing more than "Dude, you're crazy" or "haha you're fucking delusional." It's completely pointless.

if ron paul really believes that the states should be making the laws on abortion why did he try and ban it at the federal level. please explain.

There is nothing wrong with being against abortion. The question becomes, "when does life really start?" If you believe that life starts at the moment of conception than any abortion is murder. If you feel like life doesn't start until later in the pregnancy than it is not. That said, Paul is always for personal freedom. He wants everyone to have as much freedom and liberty as possible except when it comes to abortion. He wants to pass a law that states that life beings at the moment of conception. That is his opinion and not a proven fact. If he really is for freedom and liberty he would let everyone decide for themselves when that happens and whether or not having an abortion is something they would want to do or be a part of.

Oh my god dude, you're fucking delusional!!$!%#%@

Now we're getting somewhere! lol

they said the same about obama.... ummmm...... he still around and protected by them 24 hours a day LOL

here i bolded it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ed_legislation

Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[213] However, this has not stopped Paul from voting in favor of a federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000[214] and 2003.[215]

What!!!??? Ron Paul says one thing and then does another that contradicts it? That must be an internet lie! You know Ron Paul is God right?

Life probably starts whenever that little thing inside of a woman starts moving around and starts using sustenance from it's host.

But I don't care enough about abortion to sit here and argue about it, there are much more important things to be concerned about in this country right now in my opinion.

Also, freedom and liberty do not equal anarchy. What about murder? We can't just say that a person should be free to decide if they want to kill someone or not. We have to have laws about certain things. So if the baby is technically alive then obviously it's probably not a good thing to destroy it, just like it's not a good thing to destroy another person. The main issue is who should write the law and how should it be implemented?

a ron paul presidency would be a great boon for science, science education and keeping america's schoolchildren and workforce trained for the 21st century.

Why would they have him killed? He's a total shill for the establishment, they love him.

You would never hear Obama give a speech like this:



Or write an executive order like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

StickyGreen answer one simple question. why did paul try and ban abortion at the federal level is he thinks the matter should be handled at the state level?

You never fairly answer questions that I ask you so why should I give you that respect? Stop addressing me, I don't like talking to you. lol

there must be a simple explanation. maybe i am just too stupid to understand. educate me.

I agree with you that life likely starts when the baby starts taking nutrition from the mom and is breathing and moving around. I have no idea at what point during the pregnancy that occurs. To me this whole thing is a larger issue because it feels like Paul would be using the system in order to manipulate the outcome in his favor. If he made abortion illegal and was able to get a law passed that said life starts at conception it would be very hard for any state to pass a law allowing abortion because it would be seen in the eyes of the law as murder. It is just a shrewd way of getting what he wants while appearing to be pro-states rights.

But as you say the abortion issue is not one worth fighting over. As far as I am concerned it isn't going to be changed any time soon. No president is going to get it over turned. It would take a state outlawing it then that case working its way through the judicial system and eventually getting to the supreme court who then ruled in favor of the state to make it happen. If a state could get abortion outlawed and survive the court battles it would open the door for other states to do the same. But that process could take 10 years or longer. We as a country have much more pressing problems.

You realize what he voted on in 2003 became law and was upheld by the Supreme Court, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial...ortion_Ban_Act

That's late abortion, not all abortion.

point is what happened to letting the states decide?

Congress won't let the states decide. That's what happened.
That's what needs to change.
The federal government was created to serve very few purposes.
The rest was to be left to the states.
That system gave us the greatest most free country in the world.
And all you fucking idiots want to do is continue to piss that away.
You should not forget what got us here.
That is the model to follow. It's worked for the past 200 years rather well.
It's all the elitist fucks and their welfare drones that want us to end up like North Korea and it makes me literally sick to listen to some of you people that support that kind of "change".
GFY....