Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
I won't respond to all of your comments because, frankly, you bore me.
But...
Ron Pul's not interested in amending the death penalty, he wants to do away with it. I agree that it could use an overhaul, but not if the goal of that overhaul is to make it easier to abolish it altogether...
|
Like I said, the death penalty needs to be amended before it can be supported. Right now, supporting it would be supporting a broken concept.
Quote:
Hardly the same thing. Drugs are illegal, coffee is not. Surely there's nothing about that which confuses you...
|
Then it would follow that their homes should be searched for illegal file-sharing (movies, music, software) software, they should be followed to ensure they don't jaywalk or speed, etc... given that all of those are illegal, too.
Quote:
Saying a prayer is fine, but setting time aside during the school day should not be done in a public school.
|
I read through the amendment and I don't see where it said that. All I see is is a proposition to neither force nor ban praying.
Quote:
As for forcing someone to pray, that also should not be done...
Amber alerts help find missing children. If passing that means that porn drawings are illegal, then I'm cool with it. Ron Paul, apparently, is unconcerned with finding missing children...
|
No, Paul is apparently concerned with loaded bills that idiots in government use to pass bullshit resolutions by including them with other items. You don't need to ban child porn drawings to make it easier to find missing children. It's a loaded bill, Paul apparently saw it, and thus, didn't fall for the bullshit. Leave it to the weak-minded to say "well, this obviously means he doesn't want to find missing children," while ignoring the fact that it was a loaded bill.
Quote:
Where did anyone say anything about convicted terrorists?
|
If one hasn't been convicted (and hasn't confessed), how do you know he is a terrorist?
Quote:
Sorry, but someone who believes what they read on the internet, because it's not on television, is a fucking idiot...
|
Paul didn't say that and you know it. The question mentioned MAINSTREAM media and Internet, not mainstream media and mainstream Internet. Given that MAINSTREAM media is pretty much driven by money, it would follow that the Internet, which has aspects driven by money and aspects not driven by it, given only those characteristics (as is the question), would be less biased.
Also, when are you going to show us where Paul said the things you claimed he said about the FBI and CIA?