Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

OneShotKi11

Regulars
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Jeremy

OneShotKi11's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Could you imagine a world where everything men thought of actually came into existence? Wait... I think i see that Flying Spaghetti Monster now. And he is RED! Hmmmmmm what good sauce might i add. The logic in the OP is terribly flawed. I dont even see a reason to debate such an undebatable un-logical OP.
  2. Im sorry, but i must disagree. I am a Union Ironworker and we have worked extremely hard for the amount we get paid and our benefits. Yet we are losing jobs more then ever to immigrant workers who are working for less then half of what we get paid. They work under unsafe conditions without the proper equipment , but because of that they save companies huge amounts of money. Thus Union jobs are being given away to illegals, who dont pay taxes. I will continue to consider that stealing my job. As for ers and his problem with 2 million Muslims living in the U.S. I suggest we start build our concentration camps today.
  3. Could you then please show me evidence to support your statement? I provided i link for you to read that provided some of his voting record and clearly states he is for Free-trade. I could provide several video clips that he openly states his policies and that he is all for Trade with countries. Truthfully you can laugh all you want because i was banging my head against my computer desk when i seen another person lacking in knowledge of the definition of Isolationism. Yet you still felt it was proper to throw around during your discussions. Is that not embarrassing to you? I would hate to get called out on something so simple as a definition. Please explain... I thought i answered this already? Yes, he does with his Congressional seat support overturning ROE vs WADE. Its his personal belief stemming from the fact he was a doctor that life starts at conception. As President he has stated that it wouldnt be left in his hands. This means that his personal belief wouldnt really affect the law of the land, but instead it would be left up to the states and the people. So allow me to reiterate that what he thinks on the matter wouldnt really effect the policy with his presidency. YOur worries would have to lay with your state officials. Now if thats what your actually worried about thats a whole other argument. Another personal comment from me is, i feel if women dont want to have babies dont have sex. They invite themselves to bare children then dont want the responsibility when it happens. It sort of reminds me of a landlord going through the entire procedure for tenants to move in, and then once they do want to throw them out on the street without reason, because they can do what they want with their land. Is that fair? :lol: Does the father get no say in the situation? For some reason i am lead to believe that it might be half his child in that tummy. That was just a food for thought question. Again this topic isnt even a relevant issue to me when looking at who im going to vote for as next president. I noticed that your entire post failed to provide me with any information and barely did anything more then point at me and say im wrong. You fail to admit you were wrong about the meaning of Isolationism. I clearly provided the accurate meaning for you so there is no defending your stance. With around 2 million Muslims living in America today i cant see how you could say we are at war with Islam itself. That is a completely ignorant thing to say and alone has made me believe i jumped into a debate with an individual who cant be reasoned with, or lacks reason altogether. If we were at war with Islam i think having 2 million Muslims freely living among us would be a severe problem. I then went to explain his stance on immigration, a stance that revolves around our economy. Somewhere you were able to interpret that because an individual is against illegal immigration (Not to be confused with perfectly legal immigration which he is all for) he must be "inherently anti-free trade". That again is a silly comment and i will continue to ask you to provide some sort of explanation to your statement. Please, within your explanation provide me with information on how being against immigrants illegally sneaking into our country, not paying taxs, stealing American jobs, then using up free American services is "inherently anti-free trade". That looks totally like an economic issue if you ask me..... Again his personal belief is overthrown by the fact that he openly says he would leave it up to the states. "If a state law says "no abortion," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order." Which can also be read as: If a state law says "abortion is legal," it doesn't go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. I guess your just against your state having the option to decide if they believe it should be legal or not. What is wrong with allowing any individual to pray in school or any other public area if it is part of there religious beliefs, and is not interfering with anyone else? Nowhere is it going to force your child to pray in school. It merely stated it wouldnt infringe on an individuals right to pray if they wanted to. Please, when you make a post provide comments that explain your thought process. Right now i see a block of text that stated Ron Pauls beliefs, yet no explanation as to what is wrong with them. Almost as if you are scared to say anything else regarding the matter and are leaving it up to other readers to decipherer for you, and thus allowing them to come of with their own interpretation for you. I dont know what your trying to get at with your post. Are you against religion anywhere in America? Are you against religion being done in public areas? Are you against religion being seen in public schools? Are you against the Islamic religion? You must make a stance when you are debating. Now, i feel i have answered most of your comments without the slick information less one liners you provided for me. I would like it if you returned the courtesy.
  4. From my understanding no man/women has a chance if nobody votes for him/her ( Dam Hillery). SO were at a time where we need to crush Islam? Please tell me you mis stated something. I dont believe we are fighting Islam, but i might be wrong. Ron Paul does not in any way shape or form support isolationism, unless infact you consider isolationism pulling our troops from half the world. Then again if thats what you considered it then you would be dead wrong, and that would be your own misinterpretation not ours. Please forgive me but i must quote good ol' WIKI for the momment: Isolationism "foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following: 1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. 2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. Isolationism is not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all people." Your third reason for not liking Ron Paul is pure comedy. So an individual against illegal immigration must be against free trade. From his voting record as well as publicly addressed statements Ron Paul is all for FREE-TRADE. He is against illegal immigration because of ECONOMIC reasons. Allow me to now quote DR. Paul if i may: "If economy were good, there'd be no immigration problem." Now i could further school you on what this means but i am not getting paid, nor am i your adviser. It is now up to you to research the topic in order to be able to properly debate it in future circumstances. As for his stances on "pro-life" he has many times clearly stated that his stance does not matter. Even though he doesnt support abortion he says the topic isnt really in his hands. It is not something he is going to handle and would leave it up to the states to deal with themselves. What you should really worry about in a Ron Paul presidency is not Dr. Paul, but your state and city representative's and their abilities to make proper decisions on such matters. I for one do not support abortion but really could careless if its allowed or not. I see it as non important issue when running for a presidential bid, unless the individual is clearly gone mad about the topic i wont care if he supports it or disagrees with it. I hope i was able to provide enough information to allow you to understand how extremely wrong you were with your statements regarding Ron Paul. Any further information can be found here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm Im sure this wont be any help because most people base there information on what they hear talk shows hosts comment on, or what they see their fellow forums posters state on an issue. It is rare that i see an individual who does the actual research... Jeremy
×
×
  • Create New...