The news you're not supposed to know...

Multimedia

An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off

The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires

The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

Fall of the Republic: America's Last Stand

Operation Gladio: "One of the most secret programs that ever existed"

The Age of Transitions: The Dystopia Planned For Our Future (more)

Article posted Jul 17 2007, 8:38 AM

Category: Resistance

Source: YouTube

The YouTube Interview: Ron Paul

Watch Texas Congressan and presidential candidate Ron Paul answer YOUR questions submitted via YouTube.

SHARE:

Email This

Latest Resistance
- Arizona to allow concealed carry without permit
- Video: Congressman Paul Questions Ben Bernanke at Financial Services Hearing
- Anonymous ISP launched by Sweden’s Pirate Party
- Ron Paul at Financial Services Hearing on Coinage July 20 2010
- Kentucky Senate: Paul (R) 49% Conway (D) 41%
- Dr. Thomas Woods on The Autograph, Press TV 7/14/2010
- Video: TED Interview with Julian Assange, 'Why the world needs WikiLeaks'
- Congressman introduces resolution to protect citizens who videotape cops

Comments 1 - 6 of 6

Add Comment

Page 1 of 1

friendstacy

Posted: Jul 17 2007, 9:42 AM

Link

fer cryin out loud!
he equates abortion with nurder (yet another logical fallacy, but one that is widely accepted in arguments on this subject) and talks about the fertilized ovum as being human "from conception" and deserving the right to live. But what about the mother's right to decide for herself what to believe, when life begins?

As someone who has experienced too many miscarriages and "chemical pregnancies" I know all too well that a fertilized egg is just that, a fertilized egg. It might have the potential to become a human given the right combination of circumstances, but it is no more human than a big pile of jizz sticking the pages of a dirty magazine together, which also had the potential, no matter how miniscule, of becoming a human, given the right circumstances. Do we propose legislation against jacking off, or contraception, because every sperm and every egg has the potential of becoming a person?

If you crack open an egg from the grocery store (or farmers' market) and see that it has been fertilized (you've seen them before, the fertilized eggs have blood in the yolk), do you call it chicken? or do you scramble it in your frying pan and call it an egg? Does a potential human life have more rights than an existing human? It is not the government's place to legislate belief. When the potential for life actually becomes life is a matter of faith. Yet again, it is something each person must decide for themselves, and accept responsibility for any actions that result from that decision.

that he is a doctor tells me he probably isn't really concerned with my right to autonomy, very few doctors are, and even fewer politicians respect my right to make my own decisions. and this is the man so many think is going to save us?

Raymond

Posted: Jul 20 2007, 8:35 PM

Link

Ron Paul also stated that abortion was an extremely difficult issue whose laws would never be perfected, but would be continually fought over. His equating abortion to murder was his personal opinion based on his experience as a physician. In spite of his personal opinions, he wants us, the people, to battle ourselves on the issue of abortion, rather than depend on government leadership.

Do not confuse opinion with practice.

friendstacy

Posted: Jul 21 2007, 8:09 AM

Link

he wants each State to decide about laws on abortion, not us individuals. He doesn't want us to have a choice in the matter either way. He supports overturning Roe vs. Wade, and let the States decide legality of abortion. There was a damn good reason they took it to the federal government in the first place. I don't know the state laws anywhere else, but the Tennessee state government, in particular, has no notion of separation of church and state, and many of our state laws are downright unconstitutional.

Raymond

Posted: Jul 21 2007, 1:33 PM

Link

I still don't think you understand what he wants to occur. Under the ideal constitutional government he claims to want to rebuild and preserve, we ARE the states. We would be fully inclined to pressure our own politicians into making the decisions that we want on nearly any subject (with opposition coming from your neighbors, of course), perhaps with minimal federal interference. Our representatives, senators, and governors aren't just a bunch of autonomous, self-loving and over opinionated drones; they were elected to fight for our best interest, and would probably be replaced in coming elections if they failed to achieve this.

friendstacy

Posted: Jul 22 2007, 9:12 AM

Link

I beg to differ. I think you don't understand who my politicians are. Not a one of them is my representative, not even the few I voted for who actually won. Not a one of them has my best interests at heart. Not a one of them believes that the people should ever be allowed to make their own decisions. They all, without exception, believe in the "good of the state" rather than the good for each and every individual. They might have good intentions, but their first priority is to maintain the system, as it is now and as it has been for at least the last 2000 years. The system itself is the problem. You can't fix the problems and keep the system intact.

Raymond

Posted: Jul 22 2007, 5:25 PM

Link

What's stopping you from running for state rep yourself? Or any other position, for that matter. It's that, or take part in triggering some gruesome and wasteful riot. I really understand what you're trying to say about the state of politics today, but your options on the peaceful end of the matter are severely limited for the time being. I think if we started supporting candidates like Ron Paul who stick to more constitutional principles over "executive privileges", we'd be at a greater advantage four to eight years from now. We can't really afford to be impatient on certain matters; I believe that's partially what led so much of the public to support our current president in the first place.

Comments 1 - 6 of 6

Page 1 of 1

Add Comment

Name

Comment

* No HTML

Verification *

Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTE

Please read our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

Please note: InformationLiberation is neither liberal or conservative. When one takes the time to research the "liberal elite," whom the conservatives oppose, and the "conservative elite," whom the liberals oppose, one finds both "elite" are one and the same. "Liberal" or "Conservative" is not a substantive choice, it is only the carefully crafted illusion of a choice, for both parties come together when they are instructed to.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, 1933

"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, 1936 issue of The New York Times.

If you care to know who runs the world you live in, view these films. If you care not then I leave you with this quote to ponder:

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961 Audio - Transcript

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill