© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
well, unfortch this country is too dumb/has the wool pulled over its eyes, to elect a true and logical human being and statesman, such as RP
true Juice…plus the media hit machine will not let up on him
Whom do you guys think you’re fooling?
Like you didn’t BOTH vote for Obama in 2008?
Credibility FAIL.
_________
As per his usual party logic, no one is ever allowed to change their mind or actually consider the issues and message of a candidate – simply adhere to either democrat or republican.
If you vote party not issues you are a moron.
You are the moron, M. Fanatique.
There is a chasm about as wide as the jump from here to Alpha Centauri between the statist authoritarian Obama and the libertarian ethos as evidenced by Ron and Rand Paul.
But you see, that’s prima facie evidence, and I didn’t figure I’d need to roll it out before an educated audience.
___________
Do please try to work on your reading.
P.S. Using statements like “prima facie evidence” doesn’t fool anyone when you cannot even read properly.
Also find it hilarious that you are the only one who routinely goes through posts and thumbs down people who express views contrary to your won.
Is that your response, junior?
“Do some reading?”
LOFL.
Also, I never use the thumbs up or down, dipshit. It doesn’t even show up on this screen (and neither do any of the vids, to my chagrin).
Looks like like it’s time to call in Professor Ottnott for another assist, kid. You’re shit out of dumb bleats.
________________
Again, please learn to read. I did not write – do some reading I wrote learn to read. Thank you for so eloquently proving my point.
Plum out of bullets, junior. You need to call Professor Ottnott and ask him what “inference” means.
Not everything is going to be spoon fed to you all your life like it has been on Talking Points Memo. Time to learn to think for yourself.
______
Please, keep talking down to me. Being young it really wants to make me see your point of view. Perhaps you should save the personal judgements for people who you actually know?
I am, however, massively enjoying myself. It is really fun to watch how wound up you get over this stuff, but I do admire the conviction as much as I hate the views.
so Mr Know-it-all / Know-better-than-everyone-else: what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Was RP representing your god-loving/god-fearing party back then?
Give me RP, or I’ll happily vote Obama one more time.
That’s what I mean Bruce. You lose all credibility with that statement.
Ron Paul or Statist Zero?
That’s like saying “Give me Abraham Lincoln, damnit or I’m going to hold my breath and until I can pull the lever for Pol Pot again!”
You have to have a better argument than that.
_______
Not all of us want to see a 15% corporate tax rate so it actually is quite logical.
We don’t want to elect a fringe right wing nutjob, so if the party of nutjobs doesn’t nominate their rational candidate we will vote for choice b. How is that illogical?
It’s illogical on it’s face, young T.
You are arguing with the minutia of federal tax policy, while the gap between Obama and Pau is so much greater than that in almost every facet, from the number of federal bureaucracies Obama wants to run our lives and economy, to the provision of lowest common denominator healthcare on a government-imposed basis.
The differences are as great as the stars in the sky, and they are far, far more than the difference between what your leftist instructors have informed you is “right wing” or “GOP” and Mr. Paul.
Ron and Rand, after all are Republicans!
Prima facie, this is what I meant by that.
_________
They probably have the mistaken impression that Ron Paul is a libertarian.
Far from it.
What he favors is an interpretation of the Constitution that greatly limits the powers of the Federal government, but he doesn’t object if states claim most of those powers.
Given that so many of our states are much more substantial than the entire U.S. was at the time the constitution was written, that stance isn’t a sensible ideology. I strongly suspect that the elevation of state rights is just a means to allow the type of governmental intrusions he does favor, including the Texas law that would force a pregnant woman to have a probe inserted into her vagina before she would be allowed to have a legal abortion.
Just got impregnated by a rapist? So sorry. Lie down and let the state take a turn.
Ron Paul is okay with that. You can agree or disagree with his position, but you can’t call it libertarianism.
Your post is propaganda bullshit. Go read up on Libertarianism you fucked up asshole.
Well the Constitution actually grants rights to the states, which is more than the Federal penumbrists are allowed in that text which they are so wont to abuse.
Why did the Founders give the States such leeway? Because they knew it gave citizens more choices.
If you don’t like Texas giving the benefit of the doubt to a child about to be murdered, you can always move to California and look for a job there.
See the diff?
____________
Back to my point – state-enforced rape by vaginal probe is not a libertarian stance.
A libertarian would favor a consistent set of individual freedoms, and would be opposed to both state and federal laws and actions restricting those freedoms.
A situation where people have to give up some of those individual freedoms to live in certain states is not what a libertarian would seek.
Paul is not a libertarian.
Hold on a second — “state imposed rape?”
So if I were to go in for a voluntary medical exam, say… a colonscopy, I would have to charge them with anal rape in order to maintain libertarian bona fides?
Because certainly one would have to voluntarily seek out an abortion, yes? How would one determine if the foetus were viable without a common medical procedure (assuming this is the law in the state)?
Perhaps a short voodoo ceremony? Or would that be violating your strict libertarian soul?
We learn more about Professor Ottnott every day!
If you were to voluntarily seek a colonoscopy, and state law required you to have a vaginal probe inserted into your mouth before you could get that colonoscopy, you would be a victim of state-enforced oral rape.
And the same would be true if they forced my to decorate myself with purple lillies before I entered the joint.
However, that’s got absolutely nothing to do with a medical procedure for which I am volunteering, and neither does your silly example.
__________
I swear you must be talking about an ultrasound which is not sticking a probe in anything…sounds like very dramatic and false information you would pickup from a Planned Parenthood memo.
I assume that the JakeBot is to blame for:
–failure to recognize that some abortions are voluntary in the same sense that getting treated for a gangrenous infection is vountary
–failure to recognize that even state requirements that are silly and trivial (purple lilies) in comparison to forced insertion of a vaginal probe are not something that a libertarian would support.
Ah, so a child is now a “Gangrenous infection” in the dicta of Professor Ottnot?
One wonders if there were not state provided abortion services available and said “gangrenous infection” were born unto this world, how many seconds head start the Professor would give said dermal necrotic tissue before popping away with his Mossberg?
One feels deeply for the Professor’s children, if any escaped the abortionist’s wand.
(Needless to say, this is an example of the way liberals think.)
_______
JakeBot’s failsafe programming does not recognize an analogy, goes straight to the Blame A Liberal default output.
No, and you’re not liable for your analogies either, Professor Ottnot. “Gangrenous infection/baby, baby/gangrenous infection.”
Whatevah, right?
I’ve yet to see a liberal take responsibility for anything, I don’t expect our Number One Participant to start now.
But thanks for remaining such a shining example to the undergrads.
___________
Doc, Professor Ottnot is not one for the facts, or he wouldn’t be defending the statist (sic) quo.
I’m not sure he even knows that an abortion is performed by inserting something in his aformentioned target area.
Details, details!
_______
Certain procedures are necessary or useful to perform an abortion safely.
The state forces insertion of a vaginal probe even when it is not necessary or useful.
Details, details!
“Doc” doesn’t realize that external ultrasounds aren’t up to producing a good image of a fetus in most of the first trimester.
The law forces a woman to have the probe inserted into her vagina so that the doctor can describe the fetus to her out loud, even though very good images of human embryos at all stages of development are readily available in print and online.
Not libertarian, to say the least.
So to be clear — the “probe” is a camera or other such device to show a live picture of a growing life within the womb?
And said “probe” — presumably its insertion would be prior to the insertion of the curettage knives and subsequent vacuum cleaner which would extinguish aforesaid life?
So we could liken said procedure to that of a hostage negotiation?
Tough to have liberty without life, Professor.
_________
Again, the Texas law does not make abortions illegal. It simply forces vaginal penetration of some women who do not want or need a vaginal probe.
What do you mean “doesn’t need?”
I guess a suicide doesn’t need to be talked off a shelf, and currently suicide is not illegal in Texas either.
We should stop abrogating those shelf jumper’s rights this moment!
_________
Again, you’ve yet to show how this is against a libertarian ethos, given the state of the law. If the law says its still okay to kill developing children, then the least a libertarian can do is try to install a reasoning check on their state approved infanticides.
Or, “developing gangrenous infections” in your case, I guess, Professor.
_________
JakeBot appears to be unfamiliar with the libertarian stance on abortion.
It is quite far from “use the power of the state to force objects into her vagina”.
It isn’t even gentlemanly to suggest that you know better than an adult woman whether or not she “needs” to have an object inserted into her vagina against her wishes.
I know everything in the statist world is battleship-gray standard, Professor, but I hope you won’t be too shocked to hear that libertarians are hardly of one mind about anything.
Some of us actually believe a growing child has some rights as well. Amazing, I know.
And the common ultra sound that’s so anthema to you is no more against anyone’s “wishes” than any ethical medical procedure’s requirements. (It may however, be against the Professor’s wishes, but that’s another tale entire).
Moreover, if the power of the state can enforce strictures upon firearms possession for the good of the bearer, can it not also ethically require a mother to know exactly what is entailed in the decision to end a child’s life both — even for her own health’s sake?
I know to you and the rest of the heirs to the great Sanger Eugenics movement it’s merely a gangrenous infection, but to the scientific community (and the moral world) it’s actually a human life that’s being ended.
Truly, it amazes me the number of liberals who would rather this dangerous and morally debilitating process be rendered as close as possible to a visit to the local Taco Bell (if perhaps not quite as frequent).
__________________
This news story is obvious propaganda designed to smear a predidential candidate. And then someone deems it worthwhile posting it here as news? How fucked up is that?
It’s Cronkite. You new around here?
_______
keep up the good fight,senator. the 0bamabots sudden love affair with Ron Paul is confusing. derangement of some kind.
It’s nothing of the kind. It’s horseshit, and proven by Bruce’s avowal to vote for the First Statist if he allegedly can’t get his Polar Opposite as the GOP nominee.
Utter nonsense.
____________