The Paul File

[Trippy]

No, it only attacks it when it is out of context. That is when it turns of its barrier and lets itself be attacked. The cellular regulation that kept it in 'context' was turned off.

No, it attacks it because it has foreign dna and foreign proteins, not because it's out of context. It's in context, it's exactly where it's supposed to be.

All of your sources say the same thing - the first step. The very first thing the blastocyst does as it implants is suppresses the hosts immune system to stop it from being attacked. No amount of dressing it up is going to change that.

 

[Trippy]

He doesn't say it. Quad does. There is a difference. But the fact is you believe quad so what can I say :shrug:

According to quad: he would impose his beliefs and so 'favor' those policies. Quad can't quote 'policies', he can only quote beliefs.

So when he says "I would like to make it illegal" he really means something else?

 

[786]

That's what every politician says. Since the beginning of time.

I'm saying it. Not him

The fact that Paul won't use the Presidency to enforce things that are outside of the power of the President to enforce, doesn't really say anything about Paul.

Paul would veto federal legislation against abortion not support it.

All it really says is that you think the rest of us are so stupid as to be impressed by the assertion that Paul won't magically turn the Presidency into an all-powerful dictatorship.

He'd actually try to get rid of some of President's powers.

The problem seems to be you just can't trust him- or I should say a politician. If you decided to run tomorrow, you wouldn't even trust yourself then because you'd 'turn into a politician'... so instead of playing on stereotypic labels of 'politicians' I advise you to look at his policy instead. Perhaps he's not your stereotypic politician- but you're not even willing to see that.

 

[786]

No, it attacks it because it has foreign dna and foreign proteins, not because it's out of context. It's in context, it's exactly where it's supposed to be.

All of your sources say the same thing - the first step. The very first thing the blastocyst does as it implants is suppresses the hosts immune system to stop it from being attacked. No amount of dressing it up is going to change that.

Its called cellular regulation. You have to use for a system, in place, to work.

 

[786]

So when he says "I would like to make it illegal" he really means something else?

'I would like'
'I would'

One expresses personal belief.. The other expresses policy. Couple that with Libertarian policy of individual freedom- he wouldn't support his 'personal belief (like) and have it imposed as policy. This is why he leaves it to the state.

'I would like no one uses drugs'. But I'm for ending the drug war. Seems like a contradiction but its not

'I would like to make it illegal'. But he'd veto anti-abortion (as in making it illegal) bills.

So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid

He would like to do stuff 'as his ideal world', but since its just not his world, he would allow others to make those choices too.

 

[Trippy]

Its called cellular regulation. You have to use for a system, in place, to work.

And what does the cellular regulation do? It stops the immune system from attacking the Blastocyst.

Why does the immune system want to attack the Blastocyst? Because it recognizes the Paternal DNA and Paternal proteins as being foreign?
As EVERY SINGLE SOURCE you have posted to try and contradict me has stated.

No amount of dressing it up is going to change the facts.

 

[Trippy]

'I would like'
'I would'

The difference is in his ability, as Quad has eloquently pointed out to you.

He would like to, but the US political structure means he can't.

'I would like to make it illegal'. But he'd veto anti-abortion (as in making it illegal) bills.

I don't believe this for a minute.

I think if he was handed the power to do so, he would, without hesitation, because it's consistent with his asthetic.

I think that the only thing stopping him from doing so is the fact that even as president, he still would not have that kind of power, because the blue states would block it.

 

[786]

And what does the cellular regulation do? It stops the immune system from attacking the Blastocyst.

Just as cellular regulation stops the attack on sperm. Immune system molecules are prevent from that 'context' you are talking about.

Anyways, lets just settle this as semi-foreign

 

[Trippy]

Just as cellular regulation stops the attack on sperm. Immune system molecules are prevent from that 'context' you are talking about.

Anyways, lets just settle this as semi-foreign

:roflmao:

 

[786]

The difference is in his ability, as Quad has eloquently pointed out to you.

He would like to, but the US political structure means he can't.

Ok.

I don't believe this for a minute.

I think if he was handed the power to do so, he would, without hesitation, because it's consistent with his asthetic.

For example he'd make marijuana legal. He doesn't believe people should use it, but that their choice, he doesn't want them to restrict their choices because 'he beliefs they're bad'.

This is a clear example, and this he can without question do as it is the federal regulations that ban it. So this shows the principle of the abortion issue as well.

I think that the only thing stopping him from doing so is the fact that even as president, he still would not have that kind of power, because the blue states would block it.

But he will push for legalizing drugs whether they 'block' it or not. But he would veto any bill that would make abortion illegal across 50 states (in principle).

 

[786]

:roflmao:

I thought we'll never agree so

 

[Trippy]

Hmm... you can pass a lot of regulations to make it basically 'illegal' on the federal level.

For example he'd make marijuana legal. He doesn't believe people should use it, but that their choice, he doesn't want them to restrict their choices because 'he beliefs they're bad'.

This is a clear example, and this he can without question do as it is the federal regulations that ban it. So this shows the principle of the abortion issue as well.

But he will push for legalizing drugs whether they 'block' it or not. But he would veto any bill that would make abortion illegal across 50 states.

If that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable voting for him, okay, sure.

 

[Trippy]

I thought we'll never agree so

Not what I was laughing at, although I'm sure that will continue to escape you.

 

[Big Chiller]

From what I gather from the discussion the fetus isn't parasitic foreign or not. 'Nuff said.

 

[eyeswideshut]

I would understand all the fear and paranoia if it would be other way around; that he would make the abortion mandatory.

 

[786]

If that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable voting for him, okay, sure.

I'm just proving the point.

He is against drug use, but would end the war on drugs. Ending the war on drugs IS his STATED POSITION as something he'll try his best to do. So I'm talking specifically about what policies he'll try to put in place.

And this proves the point in principle. He may 'disagree' with it wouldn't 'like it'. But he'd still allow it (and push for legalization), and this example is of his stated position something which he can do on the federal level, even if you think the abortion position is just 'limited power'. This example proves that in principle- its the same.

The debate was if he'd enforce what he believes on people- and the drug issue clearly proves the point, that no he wouldn't. Because all his policies stem from the freedom of everyone to choose, which automatically mean he can't enforce his personal beliefs on people and the drug is a great example of this- as it is his stated policy and something he'll try to achieve.

 

[quadraphonics]

Paul would veto federal legislation against abortion not support it.

Where has he said that?

In point of fact, Paul voted in favor of federal bans on partial birth abortion in both 2000 and 2003. He also voted in favor of a measure to ban federal health coverage that includes abortion.

The problem seems to be you just can't trust him- or I should say a politician.

That's only a problem if you imagine that politics relies on "trust." It doesn't. It relies on interests - you can trust politicians to do exactly what they think will maximize their chances of re-election, and nothing else. A politician is not a date that you're considering marrying, and assessing the trustworthiness of. A politician is a vehicle controlled by the demands of the electorate, and nothing more.

If you decided to run tomorrow, you wouldn't even trust yourself then because you'd 'turn into a politician'...

Rather, I'd refrain from insulting voters' intelligence by asking them to "trust" me. Instead I'd make clear that I recognize their prerogatives and will serve them as best I can, in the interest of getting re-elected.

so instead of playing on stereotypic labels of 'politicians'

This is more a "basic definition" than a "stereotypical label."

I advise you to look at his policy instead.

I have, and I mostly don't like what I see. As I've explained at length, here.

Perhaps he's not your stereotypic politician- but you're not even willing to see that.

You seem to be confused. Politicians aren't craven because they all just happen to have some personality flaw, through some massive coincidence. They are craven because such is selected for systemically by the political process. People who aren't craven in that way, don't last in politics. Ron Paul has been a career politician for decades now - he's a creature of politics, not some trustworthy everyman. If his politics are outside of the mainstream, it's only because he happens to represent a constituency that is likewise out of the mainstream (Galveston, TX and environs).

 

[eyeswideshut]

That's only a problem if you imagine that politics relies on "trust." It doesn't. It relies on interests - you can trust politicians to do exactly what they think will maximize their chances of re-election, and nothing else. A politician is not a date that you're considering marrying, and assessing the trustworthiness of. A politician is a vehicle controlled by the demands of the electorate, and nothing more.

I guess you dont vote then ?

 

[786]

Where has he said that?

In point of fact, Paul voted in favor of federal bans on partial birth abortion in both 2000 and 2003. He also voted in favor of a measure to ban federal health coverage that includes abortion.

If it is a matter of individual moral choice and what you believe is when life starts, why should the tax-payer who all don't agree pay for it?
Why should it be that someone who believes you're comitting murder pay taxes that are used to do it?

So its only a 'personal choice' matter but its okay to take money from everyone to fund it?
This is just strange. And secondly this is not an 'anti-abortion' thing, its simply realizing people need to pay for this stuff themselves. He's against many other forms of spending too, so this is just a more 'fiscal conservative' issue you're touching.

As for partial-births-

As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Its not a matter of 'belief' as it is a matter of knowing. Abortion could have been done long time back, why now? Its not even at 'cell state'. I mean you can literally know its a baby. Why now?

Also although he is against Roe v Wade (which stops them from making abortion illegal)- if it were overturned- he would still not vote for federal ban (which then would become legal) only RvW stops it)

So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid

And

Rather, I'd refrain from insulting voters' intelligence by asking them to "trust" me. Instead I'd make clear that I recognize their prerogatives and will serve them as best I can, in the interest of getting re-elected.

So you'd just appease the people and would never make tough decisions because all you care about is re-election. Great, and that is how every politician is, and should act. Very nice

That's only a problem if you imagine that politics relies on "trust." It doesn't. It relies on interests - you can trust politicians to do exactly what they think will maximize their chances of re-election, and nothing else

Talking in front of a Republican audience against the wars. Almost defending Iran. Against funding foreign aid including Israel. Against drug war.. Very nice positions to follow policies that 'maximize chances' of even being elected as President.

 

[quadraphonics]

I guess you dont vote then ?

Of course I vote. How am I supposed to align the incentives that motivate politicians with my own preferences if I don't vote?

I just don't concieve of a vote as an expression of personal trust in a candidate. It's a means of informing them of which actions are and are not in their electoral interests.