NationStates Jolt Archive

It doesn't really surprise me that Ron Paul apologists willfully ignore the evidence of his racism.

I do wonder, however, how they manage to justify his lying and hypocrisy.

On his official website, Paul claims: "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)

However, as is also on his official website, he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 despite his stated belief that it was unconsitutional. link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/83/the-partial-birth-abortion-ban/):

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.
...
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

It should be noted that Paul's explanation for why he will vote for the unconstitutional law is that it will save innocent lives -- which is blatantly untrue as teh law in question does nothing to stop even a single abortion but merely requires the use of different abortion methods.

This contradiction, lie, and hypocrisy has been pointed out in Ron Paul threads before but I have yet to see a response from the Paul apologists.

It doesn't really surprise me that Ron Paul apologists willfully ignore the evidence of his racism.

I do wonder, however, how they manage to justify his lying and hypocrisy.

On his official website, Paul claims: "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)

However, as is also on his official website, he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 despite his stated belief that it was unconsitutional. link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/83/the-partial-birth-abortion-ban/):

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.
...
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

It should be noted that Paul's explanation for why he will vote for the unconstitutional law is that it will save innocent lives -- which is blatantly untrue as teh law in question does nothing to stop even a single abortion but merely requires the use of different abortion methods.

This contradiction, lie, and hypocrisy has been pointed out in Ron Paul threads before but I have yet to see a response from the Paul apologists.

Normally, there doesn't seem a lot of time on NSG 1 for you to post, yet you're making it pretty clear you don't like Paul .... *ponders*

Clearly his words and actions have been misconstrued and warped by the liberal media.

Now on the subject of the liberal media, I think that we need to hold them accountable for....

...huh....? What do you mean changing the subject? How unpatriotic of you! You are no better than those iraqi terrorists that cause 9/11.

Now about Iraq....


:D

Ron Paul is obviously a nutjob with no chance of winning. What is disconcerting is that he is able to raise money. This means he could probably run as an independent. The interesting question is who would he siphon votes from? The Republicans or the Democrats? If someone has some analysis on this I'd like to hear it.

A politician lying? ZOMG! Who could have ever thought!? :eek:












:p

A) Ron Paul is a nut.

B) Not all of his money is coming in from Republican sources.

Paul is not above reproach, he is a politician after all.

But perhaps we could do a comparison of Paul's consistency and principles with that of the other candidates.

Paul is not above reproach, he is a politician after all.

But perhaps we could do a comparison of Paul's consistency and principles with that of the other candidates.

If his ideology is that of a Neo-Nazi, perhaps he has.

As to a look at his bill introduction record:

Same Shitty Song, Different Fiddle (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html)

It doesn't really surprise me that Ron Paul apologists willfully ignore the evidence of his racism.

I do wonder, however, how they manage to justify his lying and hypocrisy.

On his official website, Paul claims: "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." link (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/)
Why oppose the Constitution when you can write rules which clarify its ambiguities or play it to your own benefit. Like authoring legislation that prevents people from challenging any laws about religion, homosexuality, and marriage in federal courts.

Some people don't think the Constitution is ambiguous at all.

Edit: Wait, my sarcasm detector was off... *switches it back on* Beep!Beep!BeEEEEEEEEe!!!!

Shit! :p

Now about Iraq....


:D
Surely you meant to say Iran? :D

Surely you meant to say Iran? :D

Touche'

...

It's not unconstitutional to save someone's life. Granted it appears that this provision won't guarantee that (use lethal drugs in late term abortions instead of the PDA method and you get the same result). So what if it's a contradiction? Since when did you live your life in a manner utterly consistent with the ethical framework you would claim to adhere to?

People aren't perfect, and politicians are people.

</Ron Paul Hating> anyone?

Paul is not above reproach, he is a politician after all.

But perhaps we could do a comparison of Paul's consistency and principles with that of the other candidates.
^

This. A Million Mother-Fucking Times.

...

It's not unconstitutional to save someone's life. Granted it appears that this provision won't guarantee that (use lethal drugs in late term abortions instead of the PDA method and you get the same result). So what if it's a contradiction? Since when did you live your life in a manner utterly consistent with the ethical framework you would claim to adhere to?

People aren't perfect, and politicians are people.

</Ron Paul Hating> anyone?

It's unconstitutional to violate the right to privacy in regard to a woman's freedom to chose (see Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey ). I'm not sure that the "Doctor" (Not much of one, if he's Pro-"life") is correct in his analysis of the bill's constitutionality (I'd ask one of NS's many lawyers, like, for example, the one at the top of this thread, for an opinion), but it certainly does fall in the GOP's long term strategy of not outright banning abortion, but instead regulating it the point where it may as well be banned. It certainly violates the spirit of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.

And I'm all for hating Ron Paul: he's affiliated with Neo-Nazi's and racists, he masquerades as a libertarian, but is really just another Conservative, and he's a hypocrite and a snake-oil salesman.

Has devotion to your (pointless) crusade completely blinded you? I doubt very many people even care about it at this point. Oh, besides Corneliu2 of course...

If his ideology is that of a Neo-Nazi, perhaps he has.
Perhaps he has what?

This. A Million Mother-Fucking Times.
Indeed.

Paul may be further from my political beliefs than other US politicians (though that doesn’t mean much; I can’t really identify with any of the candidates) but I don’t hold much faith in other candidates’ intelligence, honesty nor integrity.

A president swears an oath to uphold the constitution. How can I trust a president to do such when he does not even know what it says:

Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God . . .

given that Dr. Paul seeks a position that requires him to uphold the constitution, I am curious to the extent he knows what the constitution says, and am curious just how many references to god he can find in the constitution, a document he claims is "replete" with such.

In other words, in not knowing that the constitution contains exactly 0 references to god, none what so ever, Dr. Paul is either:

1) fundamentally ignorant as to the content and purpose of our constitution, in which case is utterlyy unqualified to uphold it,

or;

2) is aware of the contents of the constitution, and simply doesn't care, and is willing to, basically, lie to serve his purposes, which makes him completely undeserving to be president.

Indeed.

Paul may be further from my political beliefs than other US politicians (though that doesn’t mean much; I can’t really identify with any of the candidates) but I don’t hold much faith in other candidates’ intelligence, honesty nor integrity.

After the last eight years, I'll settle for competence. *nod*

Has devotion to your (pointless) crusade completely blinded you? I doubt very many people even care about it at this point. Oh, besides Corneliu2 of course...

Was this directed at me? If so I shall have to find a way to properly dismiss your intellectual credibility in a humerous and condescending manner.

Perhaps he has what?

Yeah, I was reading something that wasn't there. <.<

I rather meant: "Perhaps he has more ideological purity than other candidates."

I'm not sure that the "Doctor" (Not much of one, if he's Pro-"life") is correct in his analysis of the bill's constitutionality (I'd ask one of NS's many lawyers, like, for example, the one at the top of this thread, for an opinion).

For what it's worth, HR 760 was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. Therefore, as a matter of law, for now, it is constitutional. We can debate back and forth whether this is true as a matter of fact, but given SCOTUS' ruling, it is constitutional as a matter of law.

Was this directed at me? If so I shall have to find a way to properly dismiss your intellectual credibility in a humerous and condescending manner.
No, just the alleged noncrusader who started the thread.

No, just the alleged noncrusader who started the thread.

Ah. You do realize that Cat Tribes is one of the most well balanced and intellectually honest posters on this forum, right?

For what it's worth, HR 760 was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. Therefore, as a matter of law, for now, it is constitutional. We can debate back and forth whether this is true as a matter of fact, but given SCOTUS' ruling, it is constitutional as a matter of law.

So, in fact, at least by law, the good "Doctor" was wrong.

So, in fact, at least by law, the good "Doctor" was wrong.

Like he appears to be on virtually every other constitutional question he cares to discuss.

Ah. You do realize that Cat Tribes is one of the most well balanced and intellectually honest posters on this forum, right?
No.

So, in fact, at least by law, the good "Doctor" was wrong.

well he believed it to be unconstitutional at the time. however that means someone who seeks an office that has the primary duty of upholding hte constitution is willing to do something he believes will violate the constitution.

No.

Well, now you do. :)

But perhaps we could do a comparison of Paul's consistency and principles with that of the other candidates.

The "consistency" he has is founded on awful principles... so if he is in fact the most consistent of the candidates (which is by no means a settled question), his consistency merely makes him consistently wrong, and is no reason to support him.

Well, now you do. :)
No, I don't.

The "consistency" he has is founded on awful principles... so if he is in fact the most consistent of the candidates (which is by no means a settled question), his consistency merely makes him consistently wrong, and is no reason to support him.
And the reason for supporting any other candidate, would be...?

It's unconstitutional to violate the right to privacy in regard to a woman's freedom to chose (see Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey ). I'm not sure that the "Doctor" (Not much of one, if he's Pro-"life") is correct in his analysis of the bill's constitutionality (I'd ask one of NS's many lawyers, like, for example, the one at the top of this thread, for an opinion), but it certainly does fall in the GOP's long term strategy of not outright banning abortion, but instead regulating it the point where it may as well be banned. It certainly violates the spirit of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.

And I'm all for hating Ron Paul: he's affiliated with Neo-Nazi's and racists, he masquerades as a libertarian, but is really just another Conservative, and he's a hypocrite and a snake-oil salesman.

Like he appears to be on virtually every other constitutional question he cares to discuss.
Wouldn't you, by your political nature, naturally favor someone who wants limited governmnet over someone who want's larger government?

And I mean by that that you'd favor Ron Paul over EVERYONE else (Republican and Democrat) running?

And the reason for supporting any other candidate, would be...?

Half right, half wrong or always wrong?

Nothing's wrong with a mix. Unless you parade around in bedsheets. . .

Wouldn't you, by your political nature, naturally favor someone who wants limited governmnet over someone who want's larger government?

And I mean by that that you'd favor Ron Paul over EVERYONE else (Republican and Democrat) running?

Do I look like a loony toon libertarian to you? Is it the clown-nose and wig? Is that it?

I favor a constitutionally limited goverment that provides for its poor and needy, insures that services like police, fire protection, and health care are available, and respects both civil rights and civil liberties.

And the reason for supporting any other candidate, would be...?

Free punch and pie. :)

No, I don't.

Well, you must be incredibly thick to have missed it, since LG and I BOTH told you that.

Well, you must be incredibly thick to have missed it, since LG and I BOTH told you that.
All the more reason to stick to my position.

After the last eight years, I’ll settle for competence. *nod*
A fair point.

It just always amuses me — and I’m not saying you’re doing this — when supporters of one political party or another assumes that everything will be peachy once their preferred candidate gets into office.


No.

Well, now you do. :)

No, I don’t.
Oooohhhhhhh yes you do!

Pantomime season already?

I favor a constitutionally limited goverment that provides for its poor and needy, insures that services like police, fire protection, and health care are available, and respects both civil rights and civil liberties.
I actually meant that for Soheran....sorry. But by the way, wouldn't a moderate libertarian favore a constitutionally limited government that insures services like police and fire protection are avaiable and respects both civil rights and liberties?

I meant to ask you:
Prove that Ron Paul is associated with Neo-Nazis beyond the one donation of all the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars he's recieved.

Wouldn't you, by your political nature, naturally favor someone who wants limited governmnet over someone who want's larger government?

Pretty much all right-wing libertarians suffer from certain inconsistencies when it comes to "limited government" (massive organized coercion to defend wealth is okay, but not to feed starving children), but with Ron Paul, who I hesitate to even call a "libertarian" of any variety, it's even more pronounced.

He's in favor of "limited government" when it means cutting off aid to the poor, but against it when it means liberal immigration policies, letting women choose for themselves whether or not to terminate their pregnancies, and keeping church and state separate.

And I mean by that that you'd favor Ron Paul over EVERYONE else (Republican and Democrat) running?

Why I should support a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-secular asshole like him is beyond me.

Add that to his ardent opposition to any measures aiming at remedying the inequities and injustices of capitalism, and I would violate every principle I believe in to "favor" Ron Paul over any Democrat and plenty of Republicans.

A fair point.

It just always amuses me — and I’m not saying you’re doing this — when supporters of one political party or another assumes that everything will be peachy once their preferred candidate gets into office.

Even the perfect President would have a hell of a battle against the entrenched corporate and special interests who have firm grips on the nutsacks of the congressmen of their choice.

The Executive is a separate branch of government for a good reason, but that also limits one's influence over another. As the Iraq War dmonstrates. *nod*

And the reason for supporting any other candidate, would be...?

I don't know--maybe that, unlike Ron Paul, they actually advocate policies I support?

:rolleyes:

I don't know--maybe that, unlike Ron Paul, they actually advocate policies I support?

:rolleyes:
Groucho Marx?

Pretty much all right-wing libertarians suffer from certain inconsistencies when it comes to "limited government" (massive organized coercion to defend wealth is okay, but not to feed starving children), but with Ron Paul, who I hesitate to even call a "libertarian" of any variety, it's even more pronounced.

He's in favor of "limited government" when it means cutting off aid to the poor, but against it when it means liberal immigration policies, letting women choose for themselves whether or not to terminate their pregnancies, and keeping church and state separate.



Why I should support a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-secular asshole like him is beyond me.

Add that to his ardent opposition to any measures aiming at remedying the inequities and injustices of capitalism, and I would violate every principle I believe in to "favor" Ron Paul over any Democrat and plenty of Republicans.
I didn't ask for that.

The point is, Ron Paul favors a smaller government than anyone else who is running for the Republicans or Democrats.

Yes or No?

So since you beleive in ultra minimal government or no government, by that definition you should vote for Ron Paul because he wants much more of a limted government than everyone else.

So since you beleive in ultra minimal government or no government, by that definition you should vote for Ron Paul because he wants much more of a limted government than everyone else.

Because he doesn't want a limited government, not in the slightest. Oh, he pretends he wants a limited government, but he doesn't. He wants it limited, but only in the aspects he agrees with. Religion? Abortion? Privacy rights? oh he's quite happy to intrude then.

I actually meant that for Soheran....sorry. But by the way, wouldn't a moderate libertarian favore a constitutionally limited government that insures services like police and fire protection are avaiable and respects both civil rights and liberties?

Did you miss the other things I said? And Paul is no moderate in any way, shape, or form anyway.

I meant to ask you:
Prove that Ron Paul is associated with Neo-Nazis beyond the one donation of all the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars he's recieved.

Well, aside from his history of racist statements (he assures us they were "written by a ghost writer". I don't beleive him. And even if they were, I shall assume he gives the instructions for what they write), and the fact that he enjoys strong support at such wonderful breeding-pins of vile racism and violence as Stormfront, I suppose there is always this (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/17/155438/459), this (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html), and, of course, his endorsement by any number of White-supremacist groups.

And, yes, those are blogs. They also cite their material. That's more than I can say for the New York Times or Faux News.

All the more reason to stick to my position.

Oh dear. Now I shall have to come up with a witty and mildly mocking response intended to demean your credibility or judgement to defend my good name.

Luckily for me, I don't have one (I sold it in exchange for some gum-wrappers and a rubber band), and instead I can simply let Cat Tribe's record stand for itself.

Wouldn't you, by your political nature, naturally favor someone who wants limited governmnet over someone who want's larger government?

Paul is not for "limited government." He is for religious/paleoconservative government.

The point is, Ron Paul favors a smaller government than anyone else who is running for the Republicans or Democrats.

Yes or No?

No.

Not, at least, by the only conceptions of "small government" (or "no government") that I am willing to stand by... ones that are not equivalent to simply handing over power to those who own and control private wealth, especially not while still using the power of that state to protect said private wealth.

So since you beleive in ultra minimal government or no government, by that definition you should vote for Ron Paul because he wants much more of a limted government than everyone else.

Even ignoring your misunderstanding of my position, this doesn't even follow logically.

I do not only care about opposition to state power. Certainly I am not in favor of reducing state power always and in any way... for instance, though like Ron Paul I think a free society is best served by having a minimal (or nonexistent) centralized national government, I am not willing to advance this principle always--not, for instance, when it means that I am collaborating with an attempt by the reactionary right to deny women abortion rights.

Ah. You do realize that Cat Tribes is one of the most well balanced and intellectually honest posters on this forum, right?

I'll give you intellectually honest, but I highly doubt anyone on this forum counts as well balanced. :p

Pretty much all right-wing libertarians suffer from certain inconsistencies when it comes to "limited government" (massive organized coercion to defend wealth is okay,

:confused:

:confused:

Most "minarchist" right-wing libertarians think the state ("massive organized coercion") should protect private property ("wealth.")

Even "anarcho"-capitalists do not truly escape this--they merely propose that the massive organized coercion of the state be privatized.

Why is it that you can get away with insults if you claim to hold a "liberal" or "enlightened stance"?????

How about keeping your trap shut if you don't have anything nice to say, or at least having a civil discussion without delving into name calling and the like?

Or maybe I'm too old fashioned because I actually believe in the golden rule???????

Groucho Marx?

A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere.

A man's only as old as the woman he feels.

From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down, I convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend on reading it.

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.

I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it.

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception.

I remember the first time I had sex - I kept the receipt.

I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it.

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?

-Groucho Marx.


Sold! :D

Most "minarchist" right-wing libertarians think the state ("massive organized coercion") should protect private property ("wealth.")

Why shouldn't it?

And protecting what is legitimately yours is not "coercion."

Or maybe I'm too old fashioned because I actually believe in the golden rule???????

I don't know whether or not you're talking to me, but I believe in the Golden Rule... or something to its effect, anyway.

If I were to ever advocate the views and associate with the people Ron Paul does, I fucking hope every sane and decent person in the world tosses every suitable insult against me, in the harshest of terms... so that maybe I would recognize the error of my ways.

I hope that I will never sink so low as to, say, whine about the "cultural left" and its gay rights agenda, but if I ever do, I give all of you and everyone else on the planet full permission to call me a disgusting worthless bigot for all it's worth.

It's unconstitutional to violate the right to privacy in regard to a woman's freedom to chose (see Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey ). I'm not sure that the "Doctor" (Not much of one, if he's Pro-"life") is correct in his analysis of the bill's constitutionality (I'd ask one of NS's many lawyers, like, for example, the one at the top of this thread, for an opinion), but it certainly does fall in the GOP's long term strategy of not outright banning abortion, but instead regulating it the point where it may as well be banned. It certainly violates the spirit of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey.

It also has the sole effect of endangering women's lives. That is it's only effect. Doesn't seem like a very good move for a doctor, either, does it? Willfully endangering patients lives, IIRC, is not allowed by any version of the Hippocratic Oath.


As to the OP:
Ron Paul's Intelligence, Honesty, and Integrity

Intelligence is debatable. He might be a really intelligent guy so blinded by ideology that he never bothers to think through the bullshit he proposes. The other two are simply laughable.

Why shouldn't it?

That is beside the point.

And protecting what is legitimately yours is not "coercion."

I don't see any reason to accept that, say, forcibly removing an unwanted resident from the land owned by a large landowner is anything less than coercive.

Like many libertarians of all varieties, the working definition of "coercion" for many right-wing libertarians appears to be "force I don't like."

Groucho Marx?

So in your mind, anyone that does not support Ron Paul is a marxist?

I don't see any reason to accept that, say, forcibly removing an unwanted resident from the land owned by a large landowner is anything less than coercive.

If it's your property, you have every right to remove him. It is your property. There is no "right" to trespass.

Why shouldn't it?


Because such a position is a direct contradiction to the belief common among Libertarians that government is evil, coercive, incompetent, wasteful, etc.

"Government is evil, coercive, incompetent, and wasteful, except where it pursues my own personal economic interests, in which case it is the thin blue line that stands between civilization and chaos."

Seems a bit less than thinly veiled.

Because such a position is a direct contradiction to the belief common among Libertarians that government is evil, coercive, incompetent, wasteful, etc.

"Government is evil, coercive, incompetent, and wasteful, except where it pursues my own personal economic interests, in which case it is the thin blue line that stands between civilization and chaos."

Seems a bit less than thinly veiled.

You're thinking of anarcho-capitalists. I am not one.

So in your mind, anyone that does not support Ron Paul is a marxist?

Or a Marx Brother. :p

You're thinking of anarcho-capitalists.

On the contrary, anarcho-capitalists call for the end of the state/government. Thus, an anarcho-capitalist is being consistent to the extent that he declares the state/government evil, coercive, incompetent, and wasteful and thus calls for it's absolute end.

(of course, the problem with anarcho-capitalist ideology, as already noted by Soheran (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13211272&postcount=51), is that the private landlord also possesses the power of coercion. This is not really an inconsistancy so much as it is a failure on the part of the anarcho-capitalist to generalize his theory and carry it to its logical conclusion.)

A "minarchist" Libertarian, however, is inconsistent when he declares the state/government evil, coercive, incompetent, and wasteful, but is still willing to defend it's existence so long as it serves his purposes. The Libertarian demonstrates a willingness to tolerate evil, coercion, incompetence and wastefulness for personal gain.

You see, this "minarchist" or "limited government" nonsense essentially amounts to a person's desire that the state/government should serve only his interests, regardless of the effect on anyone else, dressed up in pretty sounding political rhetoric. Even the most cursory examination will find that policies declared by Mr. Libertarian to be those which government is "justified" to pursue also happen to be those policies most advantageous to Mr. Libertarian.

Wouldn't you, by your political nature, naturally favor someone who wants limited governmnet over someone who want's larger government?

And I mean by that that you'd favor Ron Paul over EVERYONE else (Republican and Democrat) running?

Ron Paul doesn't want limited government. He claims to want limited federal government, and virtually unlimited government at the state and local level. He even wants to be sure that there is no legal structure whatsoever ensuring states' adherence to the US Constitution.

But by the way, wouldn't a moderate libertarian favore a constitutionally limited government that insures services like police and fire protection are avaiable and respects both civil rights and liberties?

Yup, that's why I would absolutely never vote for Ron Paul. He has no respect for civil rights and liberties.

The point is, Ron Paul favors a smaller government than anyone else who is running for the Republicans or Democrats.


No, he doesn't. He simply wants to move all of the powers he thinks the federal government should not have to the state governments. I hardly think it's a "small government" position simply because he thinks a different government should be doing it.

Even the perfect President would have a hell of a battle against the entrenched corporate and special interests who have firm grips on the nutsacks of the congressmen of their choice.

The Executive is a separate branch of government for a good reason, but that also limits one's influence over another. As the Iraq War dmonstrates. *nod*

But what if the Executive were to use the new laws put down by the Bush administration to take the entrenched corporate and special interests and declare them "terrorists" and give them a vacation in Cuba, with their assets frozen?

Ron Paul doesn't want limited government. He claims to want limited federal government, and virtually unlimited government at the state and local level. He even wants to be sure that there is no legal structure whatsoever ensuring states' adherence to the US Constitution.


Of course, take this exact same dynamic but bump it up to the realm of international politics. Now we understand why Ron Paul wishes the United States to exit the United Nations. Not because the United Nations "threatens" the United States' sovereignty (How is the single largest military and economic power with a Security Council veto power threatened by the United Nations? It's not.).

Ron Paul simply believes that the United States government should be able to do whatever it wants at any time, regardless of the impact on the rest of the world. Many phrases describe this belief, but "limited" or "small government" are not among them.

Why is it that you can get away with insults if you claim to hold a "liberal" or "enlightened stance"?????

How about keeping your trap shut if you don't have anything nice to say, or at least having a civil discussion without delving into name calling and the like?

Or maybe I'm too old fashioned because I actually believe in the golden rule???????

I would like to see where "liberal" name calling occurred. Do you mean me calling Ron Paul what he is? Honesty is a virtue (Actually a specialization on the Valor or conviction virtues.*), you know.

I do not beleive that anyone, except perhaps Imperial Brazil has actually fallen so low as to engage in uncivil discussion, and even he was mostly civil. If you think this is uncivil, you haven't been here NEAR long enough.

I have to admit that phrases likke "How about keeping your trap shut" are fairly uncivil, though. Perhaps you should revise your stance on the golden rule.

*Cookies if you can identify the reference.

It also has the sole effect of endangering women's lives. That is it's only effect. Doesn't seem like a very good move for a doctor, either, does it? Willfully endangering patients lives, IIRC, is not allowed by any version of the Hippocratic Oath.

With politicians, that is the Hypocritic Oath. Get it straight. :p

*snip*

Minarchists view government as a necessary evil, but still an evil; one that must be put on as short a leash as possible.

Honesty is a virtue (Actually a specialization on the Valor or conviction virtues.*)

*Cookies if you can identify the reference.

Exalted, 2nd ed.

Cookie, bitch.

If his ideology is that of a Neo-Nazi, perhaps he has.

As to a look at his bill introduction record:

Same Shitty Song, Different Fiddle (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html)

Where is the indictment?

With politicians, that is the Hypocritic Oath. Get it straight. :p

Well, I was talking about his status as an MD - something his supporters absolutely love to point out.

No.

Not, at least, by the only conceptions of "small government" (or "no government") that I am willing to stand by...

You have no conception of small government to stand by anyways.

So in your mind, anyone that does not support Ron Paul is a marxist?
Yes, in the great tradition of Groucho Marx.

Exalted, 2nd ed.

Cookie, bitch.


http://www.bayareaveg.org/gallery2/d/6457-2/cookies.jpg

In High Res, no less.

Do you play?

A "minarchist" Libertarian, however, is inconsistent when he declares the state/government evil, coercive, incompetent, and wasteful, but is still willing to defend it's existence so long as it serves his purposes. The Libertarian demonstrates a willingness to tolerate evil, coercion, incompetence and wastefulness for personal gain.

You see, this "minarchist" or "limited government" nonsense essentially amounts to a person's desire that the state/government should serve only his interests, regardless of the effect on anyone else, dressed up in pretty sounding political rhetoric. Even the most cursory examination will find that policies declared by Mr. Libertarian to be those which government is "justified" to pursue also happen to be those policies most advantageous to Mr. Libertarian.
Wouldn't that mean I should be in favour of welfare money? In fact, if this is the motivation of the minarchist, there should be no poor or unemployed minarchists, right?

Good on you for thinking about these things and in turn making me think as well, but you're oversimplifying it all just a tad.

Where is the indictment?

"INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
-- He opposes the right of women to be free to control their own reproductive systems if they happen to live in particular states or other countries, or if they work for the Peace Corps.

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person

-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag

-- He wants to repeal the "Motor Voter" Act, which has made it easier for people to register to vote

-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:

-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked:

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

-- Speaking of schools, he would weaken educational standards by using Federal power to interfere with states improving their standards for teacher certification:

-- He has favored all manner of other right-wing policies, in the following case with a single bill, which includes provisions for such things as supporting corporal punishment, requiring that young people seeking reproductive care have their parents notified, allowing churches and religious organizations that run "public" services to discriminate against potential clients, and moving us back to school segregation."

All from here (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html) with bills as evidence.

I suppose that you might have mistook me for using that list as evidence of his connection with White Supremacist Nationalists. I did not mean it to be, I should have been more clear. It is an indictment of it's own, and does not need to be appended to anything else.

I did my best to point out some of his VERY unlibertarian stances here. There are others that I, as an economic moderate who swings from moderate-left to moderate-right find repugnant, but that would not bother you as a libertarian.

Has devotion to your (pointless) crusade completely blinded you? I doubt very many people even care about it at this point. Oh, besides Corneliu2 of course...

If pointing out inconvenient facts about Ron Paul is a crusade, then the crusade appears to be going well.

Ron Paul apologists like yourself haven't stepped up the the plate to defend the golden boy.

Others have joined the thread to point out the dangers of Dr. Paul.

All in all, far from pointless or blind.

My objections to Ron Paul are more olfactory than political.

A couple nit-picks ...

-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person

It's my personal opinion that someone needs to do something, in relation to abortion, to define when the woman has the right to abort and when it is murder, IE: killing a living being. As a Congressonal Represenative, it is usually their job to do such things. Citing this as him being "Unlibertarian" strikes me as more of your opinion and that it disagrees with his, than anything else. Please correct me if I'm wrong

-- He would deny the use of the Federal court system -- and even Federal precedent -- to people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. This would also limit the cross-state recognition of same-sex marriages. Some of these bills he cynically calls this the "We the People Act".

States should have the right to recognize whatever "license" they want. If they don't want to recognize your marrage license, drivers license, CC permit, etc ... it's their right to do so. It's my personal opinon, yet again, that the Federal government dictates too much to the states, instead of letting them sort stuff like this out for themselves. The easy solution for this is take away the Federal & State's right to hand out "Marrage License's". of course this would mean no more tax benefit. Instead anyone who wanted to get married could go about it as they please.

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag

Define opposes? Has he tried to pass legislation that denys people their right or has he simply spoken out against it and thinks (IE: his own personal opinion) that people shouldn't do it. I'm opposed to gay marrage & their lifestlye but that doesn't mean that I'd pass, or help pass, legislation that limits or forbids either of that.

-- He has tried to make it easier for racial and ethnic discrimination in our society:

How has he done this? Please explain.

-- He would propose an amendment to the Constitution to gut the Fourteenth Amendment by denying citizenship to people born here whose parents aren't already citizens "nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States". That latter part could produce some serious political discrimination, especially if radicals can have their citizenship revoked:

I'll agree with you on the last part about allegiance. That has potential to be abused in the wrong way. However, I agree with getting rid of of "Birthright Citizenship" as it's called. That is a personal opinion and I don't see how it is relevant to him being a Libertarian.

-- This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:

Again that has nothing to do with him being a Libertrain. It's his personal opinion that the U.S. has a right to defend itself using ICBMs.

-- Would he pull the U.S. out of the ABM Treaty?

It's my understanding that we already pulled out of that, June 13th, 2002, after we gave the required amount of notice (6 months).

-- He has favored all manner of other right-wing policies, in the following case with a single bill, which includes provisions for such things as supporting corporal punishment, requiring that young people seeking reproductive care have their parents notified ...

Parents have the right to dicipline their kids. By saying otherwise you are taking away their right to choose. Don't misconscrew my wording however, they don't have the right to abuse their children, but they have a right to discipline them as they see fit, and if that means a slap across the hand and a swift pat to their bottem, then so be it. And again, parents are legally responsible for their children until a certain age. That's why a parent has to be present when a child under the age of 18 is being questioned by police, as an example. Courts of Law have ruled that children have limited rights while others are ceded to their parents so it is not unresonable to assume that a parent has a right to know if their child has/is seeking/seeked some form of "Reproductive Care".

This is not a personal attack, only a few minor nit-picks. I'm not pretending to know, or have, all the answers. If I am wrong in any of what I have posted, please tell me but do it in a mature fashion. Any ad hominems will be rightly ignored and any arguement that follows will be ignored too. Thank you

My objections to Ron Paul are more olfactory than political.

Um... Care to elaborate, for us?

Um... Care to elaborate, for us?

He smells like a steaming pile of crazy.

To be fair, though. The flag-burning thing is bum rap. He only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to show it's supporters the constitutional way of doing it. He then delivered a speech on the floor of the House explaining why he considered anti-flag-burning measures to be "very unnecessary and very dangerous." Then he urged his colleagues to vote against it.

Good on you for thinking about these things and in turn making me think as well, but you're oversimplifying it all just a tad.


I merely describe. The oversimplification occurs amongst Libertarians.

Minarchists view government as a necessary evil, but still an evil; one that must be put on as short a leash as possible.

Right. And the leash stops exactly where the interests of someone other than Mr. Minarchist come into play.

It's my personal opinion that someone needs to do something, in relation to abortion, to define when the woman has the right to abort and when it is murder, IE: killing a living being. As a Congressonal Represenative, it is usually their job to do such things. Citing this as him being "Unlibertarian" strikes me as more of your opinion and that it disagrees with his, than anything else. Please correct me if I'm wrong

Right. Being Pro-"life" is being Conservative. You can put whatever spin you like on it: real and substantive civil libertarians do not support the state in revoking a woman's right to choose. There is nothing libertarian about taking the same old, tired conservative (and incorrect) view on abortion.


States should have the right to recognize whatever "license" they want. If they don't want to recognize your marrage license, drivers license, CC permit, etc ... it's their right to do so. It's my personal opinon, yet again, that the Federal government dictates too much to the states, instead of letting them sort stuff like this out for themselves. The easy solution for this is take away the Federal & State's right to hand out "Marrage License's". of course this would mean no more tax benefit. Instead anyone who wanted to get married could go about it as they please.

This is about their right to representation before the court and about equal rights. Paul was acting to continue GOP opression of homosexuals and religious minorities. This is also Conservative (and evil).

Define opposes? Has he tried to pass legislation that denys people their right or has he simply spoken out against it and thinks (IE: his own personal opinion) that people shouldn't do it. I'm opposed to gay marrage & their lifestlye but that doesn't mean that I'd pass, or help pass, legislation that limits or forbids either of that.

He has introduced 2 ammendments to ban flag burning.

How has he done this? Please explain.

Read the blasted site. I've posted links to it twice. The pretty underline is not just decoration.

I'll agree with you on the last part about allegiance. That has potential to be abused in the wrong way. However, I agree with getting rid of of "Birthright Citizenship" as it's called. That is a personal opinion and I don't see how it is relevant to him being a Libertarian.

First off, you don't agree with me, you agree with the source I quoted. It so happens that you also agree with me, but please make the effort to read my whole post, before attempting to debate it. And the racist, xenophobia of the Republican party is merely disgusting, whether it is "libertarian" or not.

Again that has nothing to do with him being a Libertrain. It's his personal opinion that the U.S. has a right to defend itself using ICBMs.

Well, it sorta debunks his claim to be for an "isolationist" foreign policy. What he really wants is all the perks of being a superpower with none of the responsibilities.


It's my understanding that we already pulled out of that, June 13th, 2002, after we gave the required amount of notice (6 months).

You are correct. The Bush Republicans did withdraw us from the treaty. My source clearly did not bother to check that. Nevertheless, it shows that he's perfectly willing to go back to heightened tensions and a new Cold War, just like Shrubya.

Parents have the right to dicipline their kids. By saying otherwise you are taking away their right to choose. Don't misconscrew my wording however, they don't have the right to abuse their children, but they have a right to discipline them as they see fit, and if that means a slap across the hand and a swift pat to their bottem, then so be it. And again, parents are legally responsible for their children until a certain age. That's why a parent has to be present when a child under the age of 18 is being questioned by police, as an example. Courts of Law have ruled that children have limited rights while others are ceded to their parents so it is not unresonable to assume that a parent has a right to know if their child has/is seeking/seeked some form of "Reproductive Care".

No they don't. The innate danger to children who have Conservative parents from that so-called "right" is immense. Violent Pro-"life" monsters are everywhere. We need to protect children from them, not hand them over with a bow around their heads.

And "corporal punishment" almost certainly means more than mere spankings. We can disagree over whether or not a good parent uses it (a good parent uses spanking only when there is no other way to divert a potentially dangerous situation. Bad parents fall back on hitting their child whenever they wish, because they can.), but I beleive we can both agree that paddles and belts should be flat, fucking out. Anyone using weapons against their children belongs in jail. Weapons are for fighting. They are about a mindset of fighting, and they should NEVER be used for discipline.

This is not a personal attack, only a few minor nit-picks. I'm not pretending to know, or have, all the answers. If I am wrong in any of what I have posted, please tell me but do it in a mature fashion. Any ad hominems will be rightly ignored and any arguement that follows will be ignored too. Thank you

Wow. You present a respectable, if incorrect, argument, and then you toss this pile of garbage out at the end. Way to undermine my respect for you.

Wouldn't that mean I should be in favour of welfare money? In fact, if this is the motivation of the minarchist, there should be no poor or unemployed minarchists, right?


People often pursue beliefs and courses of action that are directly contrary to their interests. I did too, until I quit going to church and quit voting LP (http://www.lp.org/).

Being Pro-"life" is being Conservative.


<.<

>.>

I think -7.90 is pretty damn good, myself.

<.<

>.>

I think -8.51 is pretty damn good, myself.

Nevertheless, the position is a Conservative one. You may have a number of other libertarian stances, but being Anti-Choice is a Socially Conservative position.

But what if the Executive were to use the new laws put down by the Bush administration to take the entrenched corporate and special interests and declare them "terrorists" and give them a vacation in Cuba, with their assets frozen?

They would have a parade for him and celebrate him as a hero of the American people. He would ride in a convertible and everyone could see him wave. Even from the book depository.... :eek:

Lol @ right-wing infighting

Lol @ right-wing infighting

Hmm... It is funny to watch the wingnuts over at lgf and Redstate rage at the Ron Paul Personality Cult and visa-versa.

Nevertheless, the position is a Conservative one. You may have a number of other libertarian stances, but being Anti-Choice is a Socially Conservative position.

"Anti-Choice."

That's about as stupid a label as is "Pro-Murder" or "baby killer" and such. Indeed, nothing angers me more than people exercising free choice.

Or something.

...

At any rate, is the position still "Conservative" if I assert that greater access to education, greater economic security, greater knowledge of and access to birth control, enhanced social services for supporting mothers and their children, and all sorts of other social initiatives that most "Conservatives" hate and oppose are actually entirely necessary for ending the practice of abortion? What if I assert that individuals like Ron Paul are anything but "pro-life" exactly because they oppose what is necessary in order to actually achieve such a goal?

Unlike the average "Conservative," I'm not all that inclined to pass laws or throw people into cages because those actions don't actually solve problems. They win elections, but they don't solve problems.

Among the "anti-choice" crowd, this makes me a crazy "Liberal."

"Anti-Choice."

That's about as stupid a label as is "Pro-Murder" or "baby killer" and such. Indeed, nothing angers me more than people exercising free choice.

Or something.

...

At any rate, is the position still "Conservative" if I assert that greater access to education, greater economic security, greater knowledge of and access to birth control, enhanced social services for supporting mothers and their children, and all sorts of other social initiatives that most "Conservatives" hate and oppose are actually entirely necessary for ending the practice of abortion? What if I assert that individuals like Ron Paul are anything but "pro-life" exactly because they oppose what is necessary in order to actually achieve such a goal?

Unlike the average "Conservative," I'm not all that inclined to pass laws or throw people into cages because those actions don't actually solve problems. They win elections, but they don't solve problems.

Among the "anti-choice" crowd, this makes me a crazy "Liberal."

Let me correct my statement: wanting the state to take an anti-choice position is not libertarian. Not being pro-abortion is not conservative.

Let me correct my statement: wanting the state to take an anti-choice position is not libertarian. Not being pro-abortion is not conservative.

Thank you.

It's just that I already have the "pro-life" side hating me for being a hippie commie. I don't need the "pro-choice" side telling me I hate freedom too. :)

(edit: although, to be completely honest, the sentence "wanting the state to take an anti-choice position is not libertarian" still makes me uncomfortable. Thing is, the "Conservative" "pro-life" folks make me even more uncomfortable)

If it's your property, you have every right to remove him.

Maybe. It's still coercion.

Minarchists view government as a necessary evil, but still an evil; one that must be put on as short a leash as possible.

Short enough to avoid doing the things they don't like, and long enough to do the things they do like... which includes such things as setting and enforcing the property framework for the entire economy, with massive consequences for everyone's lives.

Since "minarchists" generally tend to be at best skeptical of democracy, they not only advocate such massive state intervention into people's lives (contrary to their oft-expressed demand that the state stay out) but they advocate it being done top-down, without any meaningful participation of the people this intervention affects as far as determining the rules of the economic system imposed on them.

You have no conception of small government to stand by anyways.

Thankfully, I also have no reason whatsoever to accept your analysis.

Edit: Ironically enough, you only prove my original point.

People often pursue beliefs and courses of action that are directly contrary to their interests. I did too, until I quit going to church and quit voting LP (http://www.lp.org/).
Sure, but that means that "Libertarianism" must come from something that isn't just individuals using the state to further their own interests. One must be pretty damn stupid to be poor and a potential recipient of income transfers but still conclude that minarchism is a good idea - unless there is something to it that goes beyond the immediate motivation you mentioned.

Yes, in the great tradition of Groucho Marx.

Oh brother! Thank God you are a nut for only a fool would think that.

If pointing out inconvenient facts about Ron Paul is a crusade, then the crusade appears to be going well.

Ron Paul apologists like yourself haven't stepped up the the plate to defend the golden boy.

Others have joined the thread to point out the dangers of Dr. Paul.

All in all, far from pointless or blind.

What you said is true and I like to know why Imperial Brazil included me in that post.

It makes me happy that although the Left hates it, Ron Paul is slowly picking up steam. Did you see how much money he raised in a day?:) What makes me even more happy is that the Left has to jump to things like..."Ron Paul hangs out with Neo-Nazis and caters to Stormfront!"....because they can't fight his sheer logic.

Oh, and support for him is ALL over my university too, something which is incredible not only because he's not some left wing lunatic but because he's a politician...so it's refreshing to see some real political action at the university level counter-act all this apathy that usually runs rampant in America.
:)
Go Dr. Paul! Go!
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/paulheart_dees.jpg

Still no response to the lying and hypocrisy. Dang, that would have been interesting.

"Anti-Choice."

That's about as stupid a label as is "Pro-Murder" or "baby killer" and such.

In the context of the abortion debate, anti-choice is 100% accurate for describing one major camp. One side believes that individuals should not be permitted to choose to have abortions, the other side does.

The "pro-life" or "pro-abortion" labels are what are really crap, since both sides are in favor of life and neither is actually pro-abortion.

If you, personally, believe that abortion is rotten but also that it's an individual decision that should not be made by the government, then you're pro-choice. You don't have to like abortion or think it's a good idea to be pro-choice.

If pointing out inconvenient facts about Ron Paul is a crusade, then the crusade appears to be going well.

Ron Paul apologists like yourself haven't stepped up the the plate to defend the golden boy.

Others have joined the thread to point out the dangers of Dr. Paul.

All in all, far from pointless or blind.
No offense to you and your efforts, but personally I am hoping Ron Paul gets the nomination, because it will be a 100% guarantee that we won't have a Republican president for at least two more terms.

Every day I fling hopeful prayers out into the universe that the GOP is stupid enough to continue swinging further and further to the radical right wing. After all, the Democrats aren't going to win shit on their own, so we've just got to hope the GOP continues to lose as spectacularly as they've been doing.

Oh, and support for him is ALL over my university too, something which is incredible not only because he's not some left wing lunatic but because he's a politician...so it's refreshing to see some real political action at the university level counter-act all this apathy that usually runs rampant in America.
:)
I guess getting an education is no way to get informed.

The worst thing we could do for America is elect Fred Thompson. The next worst is elect Ron Paul.

No offense to you and your efforts, but personally I am hoping Ron Paul gets the nomination, because it will be a 100% guarantee that we won't have a Republican president for at least two more terms.
And you would be wrong. What do you think a Republican would do that Ron Paul wouldn't?

I believe she means that she wants Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination, and doesn't think the good Dr. Paul would win.

AH, very good then, I can't read, apologies.

And you would be wrong. What do you think a Republican would do that Ron Paul wouldn't?

I believe she means that she wants Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination, and doesn't think the good Dr. Paul would win.

here (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-and-his-followers.html)are some interesting articles on Ron, in the comments (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davidneiwert/2437105258191203346/#294637) you can find a list of some bills that Ron Paul has proposed, not merely voted on, but sponsored.
(you can also find the typed out list here (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/), but I can't link to it directly, you'll have to scroll down until you see: "Ron Paul's record in Congress")

I believe she means that she wants Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination, and doesn't think the good Dr. Paul would win.
Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't believe the Democrats are capable of winning an election any more, but I believe the Republicans are quite capable of losing. That's what I'm banking on for 2008. I want the Republicans to pick a nominee who will guarantee a loss for the Republicans, and I think Ron Paul would fit that bill beautifully.

Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't believe the Democrats are capable of winning an election any more, but I believe the Republicans are quite capable of losing. That's what I'm banking on for 2008. I want the Republicans to pick a nominee who will guarantee a loss for the Republicans, and I think Ron Paul would fit that bill beautifully.

Indeed. If I could vote, it'd be for !Ron Paul.

It makes me happy that although the Left hates it, Ron Paul is slowly picking up steam. Did you see how much money he raised in a day?:) What makes me even more happy is that the Left has to jump to things like..."Ron Paul hangs out with Neo-Nazis and caters to Stormfront!"....because they can't fight his sheer logic.

I'm sorry, but I consider his connection to Neo-Nazi organizations to be reason enough to not vote for him in and of itself. Period. That should always be the case.

But, you'll note, I actually posted a list of the delusional old-man's legislative history in this thread as well. Needless to say, it isn't pretty at all. Same Bush shit, Shiny new fiddle.

Now I need to find me a scary new cloak or some'pn since I'm the new stand in for "The Left" *Jaws Musik*. You must be damned scared of the points, if you don't bother really adressing them.

Oh, and support for him is ALL over my university too, something which is incredible not only because he's not some left wing lunatic but because he's a politician...so it's refreshing to see some real political action at the university level counter-act all this apathy that usually runs rampant in America.
:)
Go Dr. Paul! Go!


Oh christ. You're right, he's not the normal "left wing lunatic". He's so far right, he makes George Bush look like a liberal, and Multiple Choice Mitt wonder if he can pull of the man's loony contortions as well as he does. And, yeah, he has the support of the apolitical and "rebel" communities on campus here. One of whom just does it to look good, and the other of whom doesn't actually understand him. Neither has any organizational strength. The College Republicans can't stand him (he manages to make even their most reasonable policies sound delusional, when he advocates for them), and the College Dems here laughed one of his supporters out of our meeting when it was suggested that we endorse him, rather than a sane American.

And the good "Doctor" can go as much as he likes. It still will neither make him politically or historically correct.

It doesn't really surprise me that Ron Paul apologists willfully ignore the evidence of his racism.

I do wonder, however, how they manage to justify his lying and hypocrisy.

[deleted]

This contradiction, lie, and hypocrisy has been pointed out in Ron Paul threads before but I have yet to see a response from the Paul apologists.
Gosh ... Hypocrisy from a politician? Who'd have ever thought that would happen.

Unlike a religious figure, Paul isn't perfect. Is he the least objectionable? Probably not, if your hot button is abortion. But if you're willing to compromise on a few things, maybe he is the best Republican candidate.

As far as racism goes, if we were to expel every office-holder that had ever uttered a racist word, Governors would be working overtime to fill the vacancies.

Anyway, Byrd gets a pass on his prior KKK membership. Just an artifact of being Democrat?


Apologetic enough for you?

Touche'

http://www.geocities.com/strydermike/epee_tangle.jpg

It makes me happy that although the Left hates it, Ron Paul is slowly picking up steam.

Does one really have to be a member of "the Left" to value individual rights over government powers?

Go Dr. Paul! Go!

It's really a shame that breaking the oath you take to get an MD doesn't automatically remove your right to use the honorific it entails.


Gosh ... Hypocrisy from a politician? Who'd have ever thought that would happen.

Most of us have learned to expect it. Of course, Ron Paul supporters place him on a pedestal as a Messiah-figure who has never lied....

Unlike a religious figure, Paul isn't perfect. Is he the least objectionable? Probably not, if your hot button is abortion. But if you're willing to compromise on a few things, maybe he is the best Republican candidate.

Abortion is hardly the only issue to worry about here. Ron Paul's record on civil rights in general is abysmal. His stance is essentially that the states can trample all of your individual rights as they please. The 9th Amendment is non-existent in Paul's political philosophy.

If someone is willing to "compromise" on their civil rights and those of others, I really don't know what to say about that.

As far as racism goes, if we were to expel every office-holder that had ever uttered a racist word, Governors would be working overtime to fill the vacancies.

There's a difference between simply "uttering a racist word" and actively attempting to instill racist policies. There is also a difference between "uttering a racist word" and advocating that members of one ethnicity be treated differently in a criminal court than others.

Paul has made it exceedingly clear that he thinks his racist, homophobic, and misogynist ideals should be instituted into law.

My opinion about Ron Paul -- aside from total agreement with the OP and the other very astute critics here -- is that he is just another version of Bush/Cheney but with a different party title, which I suppose some political stratetgist somewhere hopes will allow him to scarf up both Republican and third party votes, in the event the electorate splits significantly. He's a judas goat, in other words, deluding libertarians and independents into thinking they are voting for something other than the same old right-wing shit, when in fact a vote for Paul would be a vote for Bush v.2 (or 3 if you count his father). I don't see much difference between Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman in this respect. They are both shills for the right-wing masquerading as something else.

Does one really have to be a member of "the Left" to value individual rights over government powers?

You mean you didn't receive the communique? The Council sent it out yesterday! We are now comprised of all real Libertarians (something Ron Paul will never be), liberals, anarchists, anarcho-communists, angsty teenagers, and occasionally confused moderates. There was a conspiracy merger, but we got to keep our name. Unfortunately, the health benefits are gone.

Abortion is hardly the only issue to worry about here. Ron Paul's record on civil rights in general is abysmal. His stance is essentially that the states can trample all of your individual rights as they please. The 9th Amendment is non-existent in Paul's political philosophy.

I'm also worried about his stance on secession. He's given speeches on the "Once and Future Republic" or Texas. It really, really worries me to see any national politician talking that way. We desperately do not need a President who will not fight to keep the Union together.

If someone is willing to "compromise" on their civil rights and those of others, I really don't know what to say about that.

I do. I'm pretty sure it isn't PG, though.

In the context of the abortion debate, anti-choice is 100% accurate for describing one major camp. One side believes that individuals should not be permitted to choose to have abortions, the other side does.


I understand what you mean. It's just that the camp generally designated as "anti-choice" tends to be so for many issues in general, not just abortion. I object to being associated with that.


If you, personally, believe that abortion is rotten but also that it's an individual decision that should not be made by the government, then you're pro-choice. You don't have to like abortion or think it's a good idea to be pro-choice.

Even though I've stated that I don't see much value in laws or other punishments against the practice of abortion, I don't really consider myself "pro-choice" on the issue either. I really would prefer to live in a community/society where abortion simply does not exist, where it is not an available choice. Of course, I qualify that position with the belief that the best way to achieve such a community/society is though other positive social measures that are widely available, that are a choice.

Even though I've stated that I don't see much value in laws or other punishments against the practice of abortion, I don't really consider myself "pro-choice" on the issue either. I really would prefer to live in a community/society where abortion is simply not available, where it is not an available choice.

So you'd prefer to live in a community/society in which women die preventable deaths instead of being able to receive a medical treatment that could save them?

I don't think you do. I think you would like abortion to be available in SOME situations, you just don't want it available in situations that you don't personally approve of.

Lol @ right-wing infighting

Yeah, infighting with your right-wing is hard.










http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=89760&rendTypeId=4

One must be pretty damn stupid to be poor and a potential recipient of income transfers but still conclude that minarchism is a good idea - unless there is something to it that goes beyond the immediate motivation you mentioned.

There is something that goes beyond the motovation I describe. I've seen it before, but I don't see it anymore.

This "something beyond" is being lost. When I first arrived here at NationStates, I used to reside squarely in the "right libertarian" quadrant. But I think since 9/11, that quadrant has seen an influx of what are essentially conservative Republicans (my perspective is from that of the United States) who only happen to agree with actual libertarian ideology on a very few coincidental issues (mostly having to do with money).

Several years ago I sat in the "Libertarian Paradise" region here on NationStates, and engaged in intelligent discussion about what government should and should not do, with people, like myself, generally critical of the exercise of power. Now I am essentially forced to be a hermit in a region of my own creation, having retreated from association with Libertarianism in general because, in the present political climate, being critical of the exercise of power is to "hate America" or "hate the troops" or be a "hippy," "Democrat," "commie," member of "The Left," so on and so forth.

I think my current political compass scores have less to do with my being a socialist, and more to do with a reaction of horror to the apparent exodus of an already relatively rare tradition of libertarian thought from American politics, replaced by some kind of conservative Republicanism that is "libertarian" only to the extent that it advocates complete law-of-the-jungle economics.

Again, this new "libertarianism" rings rather hollow.

So you'd prefer to live in a community/society in which women die preventable deaths instead of being able to receive a medical treatment that could save them?


Of course not. I thought that an exception for medical necessity was understood as given; even if termination of pregnancy is occuring, I don't personally consider such procedures as falling under "abortion," per se. I understand that there are those who would prohibit even life saving medical treatment, but those people are clearly insane.

I apologize for not clarifying.

I have not seen any other candidate bring so much out of people. In all of the comments and name calling and disinformation that this thread has spouted (and the fact I now have paper cuts on all my fingers from looking up all the big words and a lot that where just made up) we finaly are starting to communicate on a level that will get us somewhere. If you really think that American Idol and Big Brother are a topic of converstation then you deserve to live in a country where money is stolen out of your paycheck, where you have to ask to improve your house or property and stand in a designated area to voice your dissent.
America (The only FREE country left in the world) is on the brink of non-existence. The pending NAU (North American Union) with help from the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and the weaking dollar (Federal Reserve) are moving America and Americans father into a position where our voice will not be heard. Just look at the EU (European Union) and the structure of the ruling body and how many new laws are passed and how impossible it is to stop.
Only after we secure our country can we continue to enjoy these rights that we express here. Ron Paul is the only Candidate that has the momentum to defeat the elitists that want to continue to destroy the power of the people.
By moving more power to the state and local levels, we as Americans can control our goverment rather than out government controling us.
The supporters of Ron Paul go out and raise awareness, what are you doing for your candidate? Why doesn't your candidate give you hope? Because your candidate is the same old thing and that road is has gotten America no where.

Ron Paul for President of the United States of America!

Ok so tell us what we have wrong about Dr. Ron Paul Drewlio. No one has yet refuted the points against him. Maybe you can be the first.

America (The only FREE country left in the world)


There are lots of free countries left in the world (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf).


America...is on the brink of non-existence.


How is the single most powerful military and economic entity on the planet possibly on "the brink of non-existance?"

Oh, wait, only the second most powerful economic entity (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html) on the planet, by half a hair's width. Clearly the End Times are near.


The pending NAU (North American Union) with help from the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and the weaking dollar (Federal Reserve) are moving America and Americans father into a position where our voice will not be heard.


Clearly, the United States' ability to ignore the words and wishes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2003:_Invasion) of the rest of the world (http://www.un.org) on key issues of international importance demonstrates that it's the United States that is in "a position where voice will not be heard."


Ron Paul is the only Candidate that has the momentum to defeat the elitists that want to continue to destroy the power of the people.
By [I]moving more power to the state and local levels...


Why move power when one could destroy power?

I have not seen any other candidate bring so much out of people. In all of the comments and name calling and disinformation that this thread has spouted (and the fact I now have paper cuts on all my fingers from looking up all the big words and a lot that where just made up) we finaly are starting to communicate on a level that will get us somewhere.

What disinformation, exactly?

Only after we secure our country can we continue to enjoy these rights that we express here. Ron Paul is the only Candidate that has the momentum to defeat the elitists that want to continue to destroy the power of the people.
By moving more power to the state and local levels, we as Americans can control our goverment rather than out government controling us.

Depends on the power you're talking about. Ron Paul rightly states that the federal government cannot infringe upon individual civil rights, but would move that power to the states instead. That isn't giving Americans more control - it's just making the oppressors more local.

If someone is pointing a gun at me, and Ron Paul comes up, takes the gun from that person, and hands it to the guy directly next to me who then holds the gun directly to my head, has he really protected me from anything?

I think not.

No government entity can infringe upon civil rights. Period. It doesn't matter if it's the town council or the US Congress.

The supporters of Ron Paul go out and raise awareness, what are you doing for your candidate? Why doesn't your candidate give you hope? Because your candidate is the same old thing and that road is has gotten America no where.

My candidate does give me hope, and is far from the "same old thing". Ron Paul, on the other hand, is "the same old thing" if we go back 100 years or so. 100 years ago, he would have been the isolationist keeping us from dealing with the rest of the world. He would have been the politician of the segregationists, arguing that the states absolutely have the right to mistreat portions of their populations. He would have been the politician of big business, arguing that a corporation absolutely should be able to mistreat its workers. He would have been the politician of the anti-suffragettes and Jim Crow laws; the politician of the states restricting who and how you can have sex and whether or not you could legally obtain prophylactics.

And the truly sad thing is that, 100 years later, after we have made so much progress in these areas, people think Ron Paul is something "new".

I have not seen any other candidate bring so much out of people. In all of the comments and name calling and disinformation that this thread has spouted (and the fact I now have paper cuts on all my fingers from looking up all the big words and a lot that where just made up)

Anti-intellectuallism? Please, there were no excessively verbose words used in this thread. I have made no erronious claims in this thread, excepting my misunderstanding of the status of the ABM treaty. I have backed all of them up with proof. If you would like to respond to them, either do so substantively, or don't bother posting.

we finaly are starting to communicate on a level that will get us somewhere. If you really think that American Idol and Big Brother are a topic of converstation then you deserve to live in a country where money is stolen out of your paycheck, where you have to ask to improve your house or property and stand in a designated area to voice your dissent.
America (The only FREE country left in the world) is on the brink of non-existence. The pending NAU (North American Union) with help from the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and the weaking dollar (Federal Reserve) are moving America and Americans father into a position where our voice will not be heard. Just look at the EU (European Union) and the structure of the ruling body and how many new laws are passed and how impossible it is to stop.

And there we go. The paranoid far-right fear of supranationalism. Welcome to advanced liberal democracy. It's a trend and it won't change. There is no New World Order conspiracy, no matter what Ron Paul may like to claim that there is one. Supranaitonalism creates healthy, free trade economies, and it promotes development and peaceful interaction. Supranationalism has not meant excessively abandoning individual sovreignity in the EU, why would it do so in the US.

Only after we secure our country can we continue to enjoy these rights that we express here. Ron Paul is the only Candidate that has the momentum to defeat the elitists that want to continue to destroy the power of the people.

Ron Paul is just another elite who is using your naivette to his own personal gain. Only by aknowledging our status as the manipulated can we turn the manipulation on its ear and fight back.

By moving more power to the state and local levels, we as Americans can control our goverment rather than out government controling us.
The supporters of Ron Paul go out and raise awareness, what are you doing for your candidate? Why doesn't your candidate give you hope? Because your candidate is the same old thing and that road is has gotten America no where.

My candidate gives me a great amount of hope. He is a charismatic, intelligent man with a history of being able to work with everyone. He is a moderate liberal who has demonstrated his ability to listen to a number of diverse groups well. He is a man with an international background and a great deal of education. He has worked in the slums, and as a civil rights lawyer, and as a professor. He has seen America and the world, and I beleive he is the proper agent for a change in American Political Culture away from the insanity and decay of the Bush years. My candidate was not born with a Silver Spoon in his mouth. He has earned his place in the world, and thus knows the trials of those from whom he came. He will build a stronger, healthier America that no longer clings to outdated, unhealthy economic, environmental and international policies. Your candidate will worsen them.

Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Ron Paul is the most dangerous candidate in this election. His economic policies are heartless in an extreme, and his social policies are insidious and downright evil (and about as far from Libertarian as possible).

Thank God he won't be a candidate much longer. His support is still in the gutter, no matter how loud the people supporting him are.

Normally, there doesn't seem a lot of time on NSG 1 for you to post, yet you're making it pretty clear you don't like Paul .... *ponders*

I truly have no idea what you are implying. I post frequently on NSG. I don't like Ron Paul and I do hope I've made that clear.

A politician lying? ZOMG! Who could have ever thought!? :eek:
:p

I love this defense.

Ron Paul is a liar when it comes to the very heart of what he claims he is about. In describing the basis of his candidacy here (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/), he provides 4 sentences. As I have shown, at least one of those is a flat-out lie. The other 3 are arguably lies for the same reasons.

Paul is not above reproach, he is a politician after all.

But perhaps we could do a comparison of Paul's consistency and principles with that of the other candidates.

Again, with the "he's a politician excuse."

And feel free to point out where other candidates have based their campaign on such a basic lie and hypocrisy.

...

It's not unconstitutional to save someone's life. Granted it appears that this provision won't guarantee that (use lethal drugs in late term abortions instead of the PDA method and you get the same result). So what if it's a contradiction? Since when did you live your life in a manner utterly consistent with the ethical framework you would claim to adhere to?

People aren't perfect, and politicians are people.

</Ron Paul Hating> anyone?

Um. You fail to understand that Ron Paul himself said the PBABA was unconstitutional but then voted for it.

As for the contradiction, it goes to the very heart of what Ron Paul claims to stand for. The basic reason he claims he should be President. If he is lying about that, how can he be trusted about anything?

It makes me happy that although the Left hates it, Ron Paul is slowly picking up steam. Did you see how much money he raised in a day?:) What makes me even more happy is that the Left has to jump to things like..."Ron Paul hangs out with Neo-Nazis and caters to Stormfront!"....because they can't fight his sheer logic.

Oh, and support for him is ALL over my university too, something which is incredible not only because he's not some left wing lunatic but because he's a politician...so it's refreshing to see some real political action at the university level counter-act all this apathy that usually runs rampant in America.
:)
Go Dr. Paul! Go!


Curious that you claim "the Left" can't deal with Ron Paul's "sheer logic," yet you don't actually defend Paul against the showing of lying and hypocrisy that I documented in the OP.

Gosh ... Hypocrisy from a politician? Who'd have ever thought that would happen.

As I've discussed above, this is a ridiculously weak reposite. Paul is dishonest and hypocritical about what he claims is his first principle. That goes beyond that of most politicians.

Unlike a religious figure, Paul isn't perfect. Is he the least objectionable? Probably not, if your hot button is abortion. But if you're willing to compromise on a few things, maybe he is the best Republican candidate.

Compromise on a few things like the Constitution? The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment?

The point was about abortion -- although his stance on that issue is a reason to oppose him -- it was about how Paul can't be trusted on the most basic issues.

But you are right that "best Republican candidate" is a low bar.

As far as racism goes, if we were to expel every office-holder that had ever uttered a racist word, Governors would be working overtime to fill the vacancies.

Anyway, Byrd gets a pass on his prior KKK membership. Just an artifact of being Democrat?

Again with the "other politicians have done it" excuse.

Regardless, Paul has done more than let slip the accidental racist word. He's published entire diatribes about race. Others have documented his racist record in this thread and I'm not going to re-tread that ground simply because you refuse to face up to reality.

As for Senator Byrd, I didn't see me making excuses for him nor did I see him running for President. His past has been a very real issue in his state, even though his bad actions were more than 50 years ago. And Byrd has copiously apologized and explained he was mistaken.

Apologetic enough for you?

LOL. Actually, I'm a bit dissappointed. You really didn't put up that much of struggle.

Supranationalism has not meant excessively abandoning individual sovreignity in the EU

Um, yes, it has.

Um, yes, it has.

No, no it hasn't. There have been some powers lost or mitigated by states, but by and large, all of the states retain high capacity and autonomy, and the monopoly of force over their land. That's sovreignity and the retention of strong states with a weak supranational pseudo-government.

Libertarians don't like Paul because he is exposing the horrible truth of their ideology.

No, no it hasn't. There have been some powers lost or mitigated by states, but by and large, all of the states retain high capacity and autonomy, and the monopoly of force over their land. That's sovreignity and the retention of strong states with a weak supranational pseudo-government.

For now, at least.

For now, at least.

Oooooooooo dire consequences! Be afraid! The New World Order is just around the corner!

Give me a break. Supranationalism is healthy for international relations and healthy for the economies involved in it. Opposition to it is almost always based on paranoia and misinformation.

Oooooooooo dire consequences! Be afraid! The New World Order is just around the corner!

Give me a break. Supranationalism is healthy for international relations and healthy for the economies involved in it. Opposition to it is almost always based on paranoia and misinformation.

I never said anything about a New World Order. I just worry that this might set a precedent.

I never said anything about a New World Order. I just worry that this might set a precedent.

What precedent? You mean for prosperity and peace with continued sovreignity? Scary stuff, man. Scaaaary stuff.

What precedent? You mean for prosperity and peace with continued sovreignity? Scary stuff, man. Scaaaary stuff.

So long as the bolded part remains, then I have no problem.

So long as the bolded part remains, then I have no problem.

*rolleyes*

The EU has not shown any sign of substantively decreasing the sovreignity of the nations within it. Even if it did, however, so long as it remained democratic in nature, they would still have a say.

#1

"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
Ron Paul


"It should be noted that Paul's explanation for why he will vote for the unconstitutional law is that it will save innocent lives -- which is blatantly untrue as teh law in question does nothing to stop even a single abortion but merely requires the use of different abortion methods."
The Cat Tribe

"has the possibility of saving innocent human life," RP

"that it will save innocent lives" TCT

You have mis-quoted, I will not speak for Dr. Paul, but to me his explaination is in line.

"H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause." RP

Smaller Goverment, Less Intervention...

#1

"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
Ron Paul


"It should be noted that Paul's explanation for why he will vote for the unconstitutional law is that it will save innocent lives -- which is blatantly untrue as teh law in question does nothing to stop even a single abortion but merely requires the use of different abortion methods."
The Cat Tribe

"has the possibility of saving innocent human life," RP

"that it will save innocent lives" TCT

You have mis-quoted, I will not speak for Dr. Paul, but to me his explaination is in line.

"H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause." RP

Smaller Goverment, Less Intervention...

I present exhibit A of the ineptness of RPs supporters. What you posted just disproves Ron Paul. Thank you for playing.

LOL. Actually, I'm a bit dissappointed. You really didn't put up that much of struggle.
Sorry. I just don't have much interest in any of the bums that are running... Maybe Huckabee, but it's way too early to care much about the crowd. Our primary is in February, so I'll start caring in January.

#6
A) Ron Paul is a nut.

B) Not all of his money is coming in from Republican sources.

Corneliu 2

A) Nut, kernel enclosed in a shell; bolt fastener. (websters)
The mighty Oak tree grows out of an acorn and is securely fasten to the earth and provides shade and shelter.

b) True , Ron Paul's donations come from a large and diversified group, crossing political lines, I have changed parties to support Dr. Paul, so have many others. Many who have never donated or supported a canidate before are donating and supporting Ron Paul.

#6
A) Ron Paul is a nut.

B) Not all of his money is coming in from Republican sources.

Corneliu 2

A) Nut, kernel enclosed in a shell; bolt fastener. (websters)
The mighty Oak tree grows out of an acorn and is securely fasten to the earth and provides shade and shelter.

8. Slang. a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person.
b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nut

b) True , Ron Paul's donations come from a large and diversified group, crossing political lines, I have changed parties to support Dr. Paul, so have many others. Many who have never donated or supported a canidate before are donating and supporting Ron Paul.

Nice job on selecting a nut.

"I present exhibit A of the ineptness of RPs supporters. What you posted just disproves Ron Paul. Thank you for playing"

If your where faced with the decision of:

A) loose your right hand
or
B) loose your left hand

Which would you choose?

You can't make up your own answer and the bill dosen't leave the choice. Dr. Paul explains his position and his decision. If you don't agree thats fine you have that choice. If you choose not to decide then you have made a decision and that is what is going on today. War,Inflation,Corruption these are not things that I want. I do not see any other candidate that is willing to stand for the beliefs that I believe.

Lets see if any other candidate voted on the bill also.

I suppose that you might have mistook me for using that list as evidence of his connection with White Supremacist Nationalists. I did not mean it to be, I should have been more clear. It is an indictment of it's own, and does not need to be appended to anything else.

I did my best to point out some of his VERY unlibertarian stances here. There are others that I, as an economic moderate who swings from moderate-left to moderate-right find repugnant, but that would not bother you as a libertarian.

With the exception of the flag-destruction and a interpretation of "permanent allegiance" that I am sure Ron Paul doesn't use, these were not unlibertarian at all.

. Slang. a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person.
b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic.

Slang:

1. very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more
metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language, as Hit the road.
2. (in English and some other languages) speech and writing characterized by the use of vulgar and socially taboo vocabulary and idiomatic expressions.
3. the jargon of a particular class, profession, etc.
4. the special vocabulary of thieves, vagabonds, etc.; argot.
–verb (used without object) 5. to use slang or abusive language.
–verb (used with object) 6. to assail with abusive language.

Serving in the Military, Serving in the Congress, A Doctor - These atributes are not of a nut.

. Serving in the Military, Serving in the Congress, A Doctor - These atributes are not of a nut.

Serving in the military: that depends on the reason for serving. Many GIs are nuts.

Serving in the congress: That requires a nut.

A Doctor: who then goes against his medical training and his oath to do no harm, yeah it needs a nut.

. Slang. a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person.
b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic.

Slang:

1. very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more
metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language, as Hit the road.
2. (in English and some other languages) speech and writing characterized by the use of vulgar and socially taboo vocabulary and idiomatic expressions.
3. the jargon of a particular class, profession, etc.
4. the special vocabulary of thieves, vagabonds, etc.; argot.
–verb (used without object) 5. to use slang or abusive language.
–verb (used with object) 6. to assail with abusive language.

Serving in the Military, Serving in the Congress, A Doctor - These atributes are not of a nut.

his racist views, support of more, not less government, isolationism,

Is aware of the contents of the constitution, and simply doesn't care, and is willing to, basically, lie to serve his purposes, which makes him completely undeserving to be president.

I suggest that this is the fact with regard to Ron Paul. But then again, he is a politician, and all of them "lie to serve [their own] purposes". So, based on your argument, makes all of them undeserving to be President.

Which is the very reason I have yet to find any of the Presidential Candidates appealing.

#6
<snip>
A) Nut, kernel enclosed in a shell; bolt fastener. (websters)
The mighty Oak tree grows out of an acorn and is securely fasten to the earth and provides shade and shelter.
<snip>
So, your argument is that we should support him because he is a nut? Or perhaps because you expect a tree to grow out of him?

Oh, by the way, please learn how to use the quote button when responding to someone else's posts. The way you're doing it makes it difficult to tell what belongs to your argument and what doesn't.

Nah, RP will lose simply because teh ebil j00s don't like his idea to cut aid to Israel.:D

So, your argument is that we should support him because he is a nut? Or perhaps because you expect a tree to grow out of him?

Oh, by the way, please learn how to use the quote button when responding to someone else's posts. The way you're doing it makes it difficult to tell what belongs to your argument and what doesn't.

Button pushed...

As not to continue to corrupt...

Rebuttal is the original poster, state your position, Support your candidate, I am willing to continue this open discussion and thank those who have brought their candiates to debate. Use of slang and name calling is not welcome in discussion with me.

Muravyets - what is your position and who are you supporting?

Button pushed...

As not to continue to corrupt...

Rebuttal is the original poster, state your position, Support your candidate, I am willing to continue this open discussion and thank those who have brought their candiates to debate. Use of slang and name calling is not welcome in discussion with me.

Muravyets - what is your position and who are you supporting?

But Ron Paul is a nut. His stances are proof of it.

B) Not all of his money is coming in from Republican sources.

Corneliu,

You have stated this here and in other threads but it does not show to me any reflection of your position.

Here is Ron Paul's position on American Independence and Sovereignty;

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."


I think its time you put something behide your words or maybe you will just write another apology.

Dr. Paul explains his position and his decision.

And his decision is to break his oath of office - the one where he swore to uphold the Constitution - by intentionally voting for something he believed to be unconstitutional.

And yet he still attempts to call himself the "defender of the Constitution."

He also said that the reason he was willing to break his oath of office was to "save innocent lives", something the bill does not do.

War,Inflation,Corruption these are not things that I want. I do not see any other candidate that is willing to stand for the beliefs that I believe.

Standing for and actually doing something about are two different things. Paul speaks a lot of pretty words about liberty. He does absolutely nothing to actually uphold it, however, doing the exact opposite, in fact, by trying to infringe upon personal liberty. He talks big talk about getting out of the war, but does absolutely nothing about it. He goes on about corruption, but is the only candidate to be outright willing to break his oath of office - and to even tell you that he is doing it!

Lets see if any other candidate voted on the bill also.

Several of the Republicans, IIRC.


With the exception of the flag-destruction and a interpretation of "permanent allegiance" that I am sure Ron Paul doesn't use, these were not unlibertarian at all.

Since when are government interference in personal lives and government breach of the right to bodily integrity libertarian stances?


Serving in the Military, Serving in the Congress, A Doctor - These atributes are not of a nut.

There are plenty of nuts in all three.

And I hardly think bringing up his doctor status does much to defend him, given his willingness to vote for a law with no effect whatsoever except to endanger patients.

Button pushed...
Thank you. :)

As not to continue to corrupt...

Rebuttal is the original poster, state your position, Support your candidate, I am willing to continue this open discussion and thank those who have brought their candiates to debate. Use of slang and name calling is not welcome in discussion with me.

Muravyets - what is your position and who are you supporting?

I don't need to state my candidate because the topic of the thread is Ron Paul, not the candidates seeking nomination in general. To bring my preferences into it would be to open a new topic, one that is off-topic.

For the record, I have no horse in this race just yet. My personal preference would be for Bill Richardson, but since he has as much chance of getting the Dem nomination as I do, I am hanging back and waiting to see what choices will be offered for the general election. But as I say, that is irrelevant because this isn't a Bill Richardson thread, so I will not respond to any challenges or questions about him here.

As to the actual thread topic, I stated my position on Ron Paul earlier in this very thread. I quote myself:
My opinion about Ron Paul -- aside from total agreement with the OP and the other very astute critics here -- is that he is just another version of Bush/Cheney but with a different party title, which I suppose some political stratetgist somewhere hopes will allow him to scarf up both Republican and third party votes, in the event the electorate splits significantly. He's a judas goat, in other words, deluding libertarians and independents into thinking they are voting for something other than the same old right-wing shit, when in fact a vote for Paul would be a vote for Bush v.2 (or 3 if you count his father). I don't see much difference between Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman in this respect. They are both shills for the right-wing masquerading as something else.

In other words, he's liar and a hypocrite, who is deliberate misleading the public about what he stands for and who he represents. I want nothing to do with him.

If his ideology is that of a Neo-Nazi, perhaps he has.

As to a look at his bill introduction record:

Same Shitty Song, Different Fiddle (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html)
I kind of thought Paul was a dick. Now I'm totally convinced.

Oh brother! Thank God you are a nut for only a fool would think that.

Wow...you're a real student of history, aren't you? :D

For the record, Groucho Marx is a comedian. KARL Marx is the one you're talking about.

Wow...you're a real student of history, aren't you? :D

For the record, Groucho Marx is a comedian. KARL Marx is the one you're talking about.

Thank you! Like I already did not know that.

With the exception of the flag-destruction and a interpretation of "permanent allegiance" that I am sure Ron Paul doesn't use, these were not unlibertarian at all.

Gee. Whoda thunk Libertarians really WERE Conservative-lite.

A) Ron Paul is a nut.

B) Not all of his money is coming in from Republican sources.


For once, politically, I agree with you.


And that scares me. :p



Somebody hold me! :fluffle:

Ron Paul is not dumb, he is an MD doctor.

You may call him a political nut, but thats a matter of opinion. I find him sensible.

You may call him racist, but thats ok with me cuz I'm racist.

Ron Paul is not dumb, he is an MD doctor.

Some doctor. He voted for a useless bill that will not save one life on the basis that it will save lives. Yep. That's pretty dumb.

You may call him a political nut, but thats a matter of opinion. I find him sensible.

OOOOKKK!!!!

You may call him racist, but thats ok with me cuz I'm racist.

really? I hadn't noticed :D

It doesn't really surprise me that Ron Paul apologists willfully ignore the evidence of his racism.


How is he racist?

Ron Paul is not dumb, he is an MD doctor.

The price of tea in China is irrelevant. I've had doctors that were lucky to know their heads from their asses.

Ron Paul is not dumb, he is an MD doctor.

And? Being a doctor means he got a degree. Given his willingness to vote for a bill with the sole result being danger to the lives of patients, I hardly think, 'HE'S A DOCTOR!" can defend him.

You may call him a political nut, but thats a matter of opinion. I find him sensible.

So, do you agree with what he says or what he does? The two resemble each other very little.

How is he racist?

I think most people get that impression from his racist comments towards blacks - the ones that, years later, he decided were someone else's, despite him willingly and personally putting his name to them and publishing them.

Of course, his bill to deny financial aid to Iranian students doesn't help either, in my mind.

The price of tea in China is irrelevant.

What about the price of beans in Peru?

Yay Ron Paul!!

Why hasn't anyone mentioned WEED? He'll stop the federal war on drugs if elected.

Thank you! Like I already did not know that.

Then why did you accuse Imperial Brazil of calling everyone who disagreed with him Marxists if he was talking about Groucho Marx?

He'll stop the federal war on drugs if elected.

Even though most warring on drugs occurs at the state, county, and municipal levels?

Yay Ron Paul!!

Why hasn't anyone mentioned WEED? He'll stop the federal war on drugs if elected.

So would most of us, actually. That's hardly relevant.

So would most of us, actually. That's hardly relevant.

Single issue voting achieves a new high in lows.

Vote Ron Paul 2008: He Breathes A Mixture Of Nitrogen, Oxygen, And Other Trace Gasses!

#1

"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good."
Ron Paul


"It should be noted that Paul's explanation for why he will vote for the unconstitutional law is that it will save innocent lives -- which is blatantly untrue as teh law in question does nothing to stop even a single abortion but merely requires the use of different abortion methods."
The Cat Tribe

"has the possibility of saving innocent human life," RP

"that it will save innocent lives" TCT


A minor distinction without difference. Are you saying that it is OK to vote for something unconsitutional if it has the possibility to save lives?

#You have mis-quoted, I will not speak for Dr. Paul, but to me his explaination is in line.

"H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause." RP

Smaller Goverment, Less Intervention...

Um. You don't seem to follow. Dr. Paul says he against the PBABA because it justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure. He is saying it is an unconstitutional extension of the interstate commerce clause. Then he voted FOR the law he has just said is unconstitutional -- voting FOR BIGGER Government and MORE Intervention.

:headbang:

Ron Paul is not dumb, he is an MD doctor.

You may call him a political nut, but thats a matter of opinion. I find him sensible.

You may call him racist, but thats ok with me cuz I'm racist.

Glad to see you finally admitting what was already well-established.

I'm sure Ron Paul appreciates your endorsement.

Stormfront supports Ron Paul, they have an advertisement on their website

I thought it was awsome

A minor distinction without difference. Are you saying that it is OK to vote for something unconsitutional if it has the possibility to save lives?

Or, in this case, if you just want an excuse to vote for a bill that has exactly zero chance of saving any lives and, in fact, endangers them?

Stormfront supports Ron Paul, they have an advertisement on their website

I thought it was awsome

Awesome that he openly welcomes racism or awesome that he's not responding?

Awesome that he openly welcomes racism or awesome that he's not responding?

Awesome because it shows that Paul is aware of the evil Mexican Jew Lizard conspiracy, obviously.

I would like to see where "liberal" name calling occurred. Do you mean me calling Ron Paul what he is? Honesty is a virtue (Actually a specialization on the Valor or conviction virtues.*), you know.

I do not believe that anyone, except perhaps Imperial Brazil has actually fallen so low as to engage in uncivil discussion, and even he was mostly civil. If you think this is uncivil, you haven't been here NEAR long enough.

I have to admit that phrases like "How about keeping your trap shut" are fairly uncivil, though. Perhaps you should revise your stance on the golden rule.

1. Unsupported and undocumented allegations of racism??? Honest is indeed a virtue, but how about proving that you're actually telling the truth??? Followed by insults on intelligence??

2. Maybe I haven't been here near long enough, or maybe everyone here needs to learn some polite conduct?
And now for the basis behind my stance: I find political DISCUSSIONS interesting, and have for a long time. I'm interested in the opinions of all sides and variants. As such, I frequent fringe discussion groups and engage in discussion. White supremacy, Black supremacy, communists, anarchists, Evangelists, freedom from religion, the whole lot. I usually play devil's advocate and spend some time looking at their opinions. Even if I don't agree (which 99% of the time I don't), its interesting.

What saddens me is that on the most extremist boards I usually see more civility and politeness than in so called "moderate" or non-biased boards.
On these boards a overly vocal minority tend to ruin an chance at discussion with the crap they bring in. Discussions tend to turn into mudfests and name-calling. For the most part this comes from "liberals," although conservatives are not free of blame either.

3. You're correct, that was a product of my annoyance at time of posting. I apologize

Disclaimer, Me: economically slightly liberal, socially slightly conservative
If you're not interested in hearing these opinions, then ignore this and go on living your lives as before. Pity for you.

Awesome that he openly welcomes racism or awesome that he's not responding?

Awesome that Ron Paul can comfortably know Storefront is behind him.

Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-388512.html

We must secure the existance of our race and a future for white children

Some how I don't think ol' Paul will apreciate the endorsement

Stfu With Your Character Assisnation Plots. All Of You. Ron Paul Does Not Affiliate Himself With Racists. He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Conspiracy Theorists. These People Might Affiliate Themselves With Him, But He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Them. The Reason For Such Is Paul Wants Closed Borders For Protecting The Security Of America Witout Having To Give In To The Nau. Conspiracy Theorists Are For Him Because He Wants A Transparent Government. For Them Its Because They Want The "trooth" For Paul Its To End Corruption.


Signing Off You Ignorant Faux Noise Watchers

Stfu With Your Character Assisnation Plots. All Of You. Ron Paul Does Not Affiliate Himself With Racists. He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Conspiracy Theorists. These People Might Affiliate Themselves With Him, But He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Them. The Reason For Such Is Paul Wants Closed Borders For Protecting The Security Of America Witout Having To Give In To The Nau. Conspiracy Theorists Are For Him Because He Wants A Transparent Government. For Them Its Because They Want The "trooth" For Paul Its To End Corruption.


Signing Off You Ignorant Faux Noise Watchers

well that was pretty pointless.

No, I said something with some substance.

what you said though? Yah, lol yeah....

well that was pretty pointless.

Stfu With Your Character Assisnation Plots. All Of You. Ron Paul Does Not Affiliate Himself With Racists. He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Conspiracy Theorists. These People Might Affiliate Themselves With Him, But He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Them. The Reason For Such Is Paul Wants Closed Borders For Protecting The Security Of America Witout Having To Give In To The Nau. Conspiracy Theorists Are For Him Because He Wants A Transparent Government. For Them Its Because They Want The "trooth" For Paul Its To End Corruption.


Signing Off You Ignorant Faux Noise Watchers


Who the fuck here watches Faux News? None of us do. We just have the brains to see Paul for the liar he is. We present evidence. You just make unsourced claims. Your argument is utterly worthless. Return when you can respond substantively.

well that was pretty pointless.

Who the fuck here watches Faux News? None of us do. We just have the brains to see Paul for the liar he is. We present evidence. You just make unsourced claims. Your argument is utterly worthless. Return when you can respond substantively.

ROFL half the comments made on this forums are "neo nazi fascist." Your argument is invalid. You want a source? www.ronpaul2008.com

There you go Neo..(con)

Who the fuck here watches Faux News? None of us do.

Not even for laughs? ;)

As for Paul lying...what do you expect? All politicians do it. No exceptions. So why all the shock and awe when he does it? Hell, I'd be concerned if he didn't ever lie about anything.

Note that I am not pro-Paul, just astonished that he's being singled out for lying, while everyone else can squeak by.

Thank you Imperio Mexicano.

Personally, I have yet to see a candidate I like (with the exception of Richardson, but I doubt he'll have any chance).

Not even for laughs? ;)

It's too pathetic to be funny.

Thank you Imperio Mexicano.

Personally, I have yet to see a candidate I like (with the exception of Richardson, but I doubt he'll have any chance).

Richardson seems like a decent fellow, I agree.

Gee. Whoda thunk Libertarians really WERE Conservative-lite.

The vast majority of those you listed were restrictions on federal spending and the jurisdiction of federal courts.

It's too pathetic to be funny.

Eh, true.

The vast majority of those you listed were restrictions on federal spending and the jurisdiction of federal courts.

The lot of them were either assaults of civil rights, civil liberties, or the safety of the people of this nation.

The lot of them were either assaults of civil rights, civil liberties, or the safety of the people of this nation.

Perhaps you would pull out the summaries of the bills that were attacks on civil rights, civil liberties, or the safety(?) of the people of this nation?

Perhaps you would pull out the summaries of the bills that were attacks on civil rights, civil liberties, or the safety(?) of the people of this nation?

We the People. Look it up.

Does this Ron Paul dude have any international significance?

Does this Ron Paul dude have any international significance?Yes. He's one of the best known, if least respected, comedians on the planet.

Perhaps you would pull out the summaries of the bills that were attacks on civil rights, civil liberties, or the safety(?) of the people of this nation?

Look, I provided the citation alread. Go read it, rather than ignoring it.

Stfu With Your Character Assisnation Plots. All Of You. Ron Paul Does Not Affiliate Himself With Racists. He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Conspiracy Theorists. These People Might Affiliate Themselves With Him, But He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Them. The Reason For Such Is Paul Wants Closed Borders For Protecting The Security Of America Witout Having To Give In To The Nau. Conspiracy Theorists Are For Him Because He Wants A Transparent Government. For Them Its Because They Want The "trooth" For Paul Its To End Corruption.


Signing Off You Ignorant Faux Noise Watchers

"YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

ROFL half the comments made on this forums are "neo nazi fascist." Your argument is invalid. You want a source? www.ronpaul2008.com

There you go Neo..(con)

DUDE!!! Those of us against Ron Paul have used nothing but his own record and words. If you cannot trust those words then you sir, are the fool.

DUDE!!! Those of us against Ron Paul have used nothing but his own record and words. If you cannot trust those words then you sir, are the fool.

Corneliu 2,
Once again I remind you that you have not brought any substance to the discussion but rather are riding on Cat's and Demplub's coat tails.

Corneliu 2,
Once again I remind you that you have not brought any substance to the discussion but rather are riding on Cat's and Demplub's coat tails.

you kinda get used to him doing that.

That being said, I've seen far more of you accusing others of "not bringing anything of substance" and far little of you saying things of actual substance.

Funny that.

Look, I provided the citation alread. Go read it, rather than ignoring it.

I did read through the summaries of all of them (well not all of them, over two thirds of the bills listed are duplicate bills), that is why my last two posts were:

"With the exception of the flag-destruction and a interpretation of "permanent allegiance" that I am sure Ron Paul doesn't use, these were not unlibertarian at all."

"The vast majority of those you listed were restrictions on federal spending and the jurisdiction of federal courts."

Did you read those or do you simply accept that blogger's biased interpretation of those bills?

Since libertarians don't really fit on to the two sides of political discourse in the US, and as a result are often misconstrued by both, it is not surprising that this forum has been filled with mindless libertarian bashing, but at least don't make me read that boring shit for nothing.

Corneliu 2,
Once again I remind you that you have not brought any substance to the discussion but rather are riding on Cat's and Demplub's coat tails.

Um dude? He supported Partial Birth Abortion Act which will not save one life and in fact goes against his oath as a doctor.

I looked at the other things he supports and dude, if you bothered to read it, you would see that he's a class a fool. Much like yourself. Now prove to us that he is not a nut.

Stfu With Your Character Assisnation Plots. All Of You. Ron Paul Does Not Affiliate Himself With Racists. He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Conspiracy Theorists. These People Might Affiliate Themselves With Him, But He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Them. The Reason For Such Is Paul Wants Closed Borders For Protecting The Security Of America Witout Having To Give In To The Nau. Conspiracy Theorists Are For Him Because He Wants A Transparent Government. For Them Its Because They Want The "trooth" For Paul Its To End Corruption.


Signing Off You Ignorant Faux Noise Watchers

So, you're not going to address my points then?


Did you read those or do you simply accept that blogger's biased interpretation of those bills?

Some didn't have full-text, but I, for one, read all of the ones that disturbed me when I could.

Since libertarians don't really fit on to the two sides of political discourse in the US, and as a result are often misconstrued by both, it is not surprising that this forum has been filled with mindless libertarian bashing, but at least don't make me read that boring shit for nothing.

I still want to know why "The federal government can't infringe upon civil liberties, but the state and local governments can" is being seen as a "Libertarian" viewpoint. It doesn't sound very Libertarian to me.

The idea that Ron Paul could be seen as a Libertarian is laughable to me.

Wow.

I haven't seen this many strawmen since I saw the world's largest collection of scarecrows.

I'm just waiting for the Ron Paul supports a second Holocaust.

I have countless problems with Ron Paul, but from the looks of it most of the people attacking him are crazier than he is.

Um dude? He supported Partial Birth Abortion Act which will not save one life and in fact goes against his oath as a doctor.

I looked at the other things he supports and dude, if you bothered to read it, you would see that he's a class a fool. Much like yourself. Now prove to us that he is not a nut.

A doctor, An OB/GYN at that, votes for the banning of Partial Birth Abortion.

After delivering some 4000 odd babies, having and 100% pro life rating and stating that even though the constitution doesn't allow the gov't to interfer in the private lives of men and women he will vote for the banning of such an awful procedure. To me that is a man of principle and a guardian of life. The Bill did not go into all abortion procedures but rather only focused on this one type, maybe as a group we can encourage our legislators to really earn there keep rather than be kept by big business and special interests.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother that is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

The Congress finds and declares the following:

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.

There is additional parts to this here : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108lZTntP::

And then to be called a nut.. walk me thru your logic here.

*snip*

Explain his statements about this bill and why he 1) violated the constitution and 2) broke his oath of office?

A doctor, An OB/GYN at that, votes for the banning of Partial Birth Abortion.

Yup. Isn't it disgusting that an OB/GYN would vote for a bill that does absolutely nothing but endanger the lives of the patients he is supposed to treat?

After delivering some 4000 odd babies, having and 100% pro life rating and stating that even though the constitution doesn't allow the gov't to interfer in the private lives of men and women he will vote for the banning of such an awful procedure. To me that is a man of principle and a guardian of life.

(a) Ron Paul has never stated that the government does not have the right to interfere in the private lives of men and women. He states that one particular branch of it cannot. The other branches can do it as much as they like.

(b) Someone who claims to be the "defender of the Constitution" cannot make that claim if he will fail to uphold it when it is convenient for him.

The Bill did not go into all abortion procedures but rather only focused on this one type,

Indeed. And, in so doing, it removed an option from doctors treating patients - an option that might be the best to use in a given case. It has also terrified doctors such that many are making the allowed procedures even more dangerous because they fear accidentally breaking the law. Meanwhile, it doesn't stop a single pregnancy from being aborted. Not one. The only thing it does is endanger the lives of women who need late-term abortions.

Congress "found" that it is never a "necessary" procedure despite the fact that every major medical organization in the country opposed that "finding". They "found" a consensus that does not exist in the medical community. And they endangered the lives of pregnant women around the country by declaring something "never medically necessary" simply because there are alternatives that may or may not be equally safe in a given case. It's the logical equivalent of banning C-sections because women can give vaginal birth.

Stfu With Your Character Assisnation Plots. All Of You. Ron Paul Does Not Affiliate Himself With Racists. He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Conspiracy Theorists. These People Might Affiliate Themselves With Him, But He Does Not Affiliate Himself With Them. The Reason For Such Is Paul Wants Closed Borders For Protecting The Security Of America Witout Having To Give In To The Nau. Conspiracy Theorists Are For Him Because He Wants A Transparent Government. For Them Its Because They Want The "trooth" For Paul Its To End Corruption.


Signing Off You Ignorant Faux Noise Watchers


You never went by the name Ritalia did you?

Yup. Isn't it disgusting that an OB/GYN would vote for a bill that does absolutely nothing but endanger the lives of the patients he is supposed to treat?



(a) Ron Paul has never stated that the government does not have the right to interfere in the private lives of men and women. He states that one particular branch of it cannot. The other branches can do it as much as they like.

(b) Someone who claims to be the "defender of the Constitution" cannot make that claim if he will fail to uphold it when it is convenient for him.



Indeed. And, in so doing, it removed an option from doctors treating patients - an option that might be the best to use in a given case. It has also terrified doctors such that many are making the allowed procedures even more dangerous because they fear accidentally breaking the law. Meanwhile, it doesn't stop a single pregnancy from being aborted. Not one. The only thing it does is endanger the lives of women who need late-term abortions.

Congress "found" that it is never a "necessary" procedure despite the fact that every major medical organization in the country opposed that "finding". They "found" a consensus that does not exist in the medical community. And they endangered the lives of pregnant women around the country by declaring something "never medically necessary" simply because there are alternatives that may or may not be equally safe in a given case. It's the logical equivalent of banning C-sections because women can give vaginal birth.

lets try to see just how you stand?

We've allready come to agreeance that you are not going to support Ron Paul and I am. - no longer an issue

but I have the feeling that you are trying to tell me that you approve of partial birth abortion. is this so? you agree that the above mention proceedure it acceptable in your beliefs?

it is allowable if the mothers life is in jeopardy, if not then how by not doing it is the mothers life in jeopardy?

You beleive that are no extenuating circumstances that one should feel justified to step outside the strict stance you are holding him by?

95+% of the time is not good enough?



surely, his voting records does make him the top candidate for the defender of the constitution, but for you its 100% or nothing?

Do we have the number ? of women who are in need of late term abortions per year? How many are we talking about?

I'd do hope that we can get to talk about some other candidates, Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic and do hunt out any reference they may come across, It's been a hard road to bring our candidate to light. Some of the posting by other supporters have been agrumentative. I can't control them but I can continue to discuss politics constructively.

Richardson seems like a decent fellow, I agree.

Richardson would be my choice, but he lacks ****DAZZLE**** so my fellow Americans don't even know he exists, which is so sad on so many levels.

Richardson has both the administrative and executive experience for the job. He also has foreign relations experience and a proven track record of diplomatic accomplishments. I don't agree with him on every single domestic issue, but I really think he is emminently qualified to get us out of the shit hole Bush/Cheney have dug us into.

ON AN INTERESTING SIDE NOTE RELEVANT TO THE RON PAUL ARGUMENT, I happen to know from personal experience that Bill Richardson is neither a liar nor a crook. In fact, he is one of the few politicians I've ever heard of who neither misrepresents himself nor takes favors/gifts/bribes. I know this because my mother used to work for a corporate PAC (Political Action Committee, i.e. lobbying group for a specific corporation). Of all the US pols she dealt with directly, only Bill Richardson was up front about his stances on any issue they were lobbying about, and only Bill Richardson flat-out refused free meals, limo services, and cash gifts, from them because those were against political financing rules and would compromise his position. Every single other pol they dealt with scarfed up those freebies and cash as fast as they could and yelled out for more, including Ron Paul.

one of our inaleinable rights is privacy. means my business is my own. my body, my thoughts.

surely, his voting records does make him the top candidate for the defender of the constitution, but for you its 100% or nothing?

I see some one doesn't know his voting record. Right to privacy? Sure, the federal government can go stuff itself there, but the states will be allowed to do whatever they want without repercussion - ie, no courts upholding the rights of the citizens getting in the way of it. And that is what Ron Paul supports, in fact that is what he himself proposed.

but I have the feeling that you are trying to tell me that you approve of partial birth abortion. is this so? you agree that the above mention proceedure it acceptable in your beliefs?

If a woman needs a late-term abortion, any procedure that her doctor deems as most safe in her case should be available. It doesn't matter how icky someone else thinks it sounds - the priority is her safety. You aren't going to find many medical procedures that don't sound icky when you paint them in the worst possible light.

Meanwhile, do you know what the alternative is? Do you know how a dilation and extraction is carried out, as compared to the intact dilation and extraction?

it is allowable if the mothers life is in jeopardy, if not then how by not doing it is the mothers life in jeopardy?

It's a bit silly to say that it is allowable if the mother's life is in jeopardy when Congress has flat-out decreed that such a situation never happens - that this is never a "medically necessary" procedure.

Meanwhile, why do you think women have late-term abortions? Have you ever looked up the reasons?

You beleive that are no extenuating circumstances that one should feel justified to step outside the strict stance you are holding him by?

95+% of the time is not good enough?

Not if one is going to call himself the "defender of the Constitution", no. If you are going to claim to have the moral high ground, you damn well better have it. You certainly can't be the only person in the race who has stood before Congress and point-blank stated that you are breaking your oath of office and then given a completely inapplicable reason for doing so.

one of our inaleinable rights is privacy. means my business is my own. my body, my thoughts.

Absolutely. Too bad Ron Paul doesn't agree. In fact, he thinks a judge upholding the right to privacy should be impeached for it. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

surely, his voting records does make him the top candidate for the defender of the constitution, but for you its 100% or nothing?

His voting record does no such thing. He completely ignores the 9th and 14th Amendments. He has attempted to remove the judicial check on the legislative branch so that civil rights can be infringed with impunity at the state level. He has defended states in refusing to recognize marriages performed in other states (and DOMA), despite the clear prohibition against it in the Constitution (you don't even have to go to the Amendments to get there).

Do we have the number ? of women who are in need of late term abortions per year? How many are we talking about?

An exact number? No, I don't have it. But does it matter? Endangering the lives of patients is endangering the lives of patients. I have seen a study that came out of a single hospital. It covered 7 years of patients, with a total of 383 late-term abortions, 120 of them intact dilation and extraction.

I'd do hope that we can get to talk about some other candidates, Ron Paul supporters are enthusiastic and do hunt out any reference they may come across, It's been a hard road to bring our candidate to light. Some of the posting by other supporters have been agrumentative. I can't control them but I can continue to discuss politics constructively.

This isn't a thread on other candidates. If you want to discuss them, we'll need another thread.

But I don't believe that Ron Paul supporters hunt out any reference to him. They hunt out the references that paint him in a good light - quite often propaganda pieces with little to no substance. They'll find substances that claim that he is consistent, that he defends the Constitution, etc. But they don't bother to look at the bills he has actually proposed and voted on to see that his voting record demonstrates all of those things to be lies.

He is "consistent" until his personal ideology makes it inconvenient to do so. He upholds the Constitution until his personal ideology and bigotry makes it inconvenient to do so. He advocates "freedom of religion" by trying to ensure that the states can enforce religion. He advocates "freedom of conscience" by telling us what our conscience says. He claims to be the only candidate trying to get out of the war, while introducing bills that he claims will do so, but actually do nothing towards that goal.

For the person who created this topic, they have failed to validate their claim that Ron Paul is a racist. Ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul is rather weak in winning a debate. Abortion isn't a top tier issue so do not fret over it. Also it is fool heartedly to believe that if Ron Paul gets elected there will be unrestrained power to the states. The Supreme Court will always receive court cases from below. International Custom and Treaties will remain in place however we can expect executive agreements to be nullified and voided.

The reason I support Ron Paul is for his economic and foreign policy, in addition his tough stance on illegal immigration. Ron Paul has authored a handful of books and atleast I know he is capable of the job. Of course, the difficult part is revealing this to everyone else that he is the better of all evils.

I find it humorous how some are viewing Ron Paul's influx of campaign donations as dangerous. I read a article about how evil it is to get campaign donations from UNITED STATES CITIZENS who differ from GOP conservatives. God forbid any candidate who could unite the people. I thought a united America is what all these pundits and politicians want. If the people haven't united during the last fifty years under a stagnant policy, why would they if the majority of candidates are following the trend?

Both Drewlio and now it seems Itzotica as well have never read anything by Ron Paul nor have studied Ron Paul's record. If they have, they will not be making such claims.

For the person who created this topic, they have failed to validate their claim that Ron Paul is a racist. Ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul is rather weak in winning a debate. Abortion isn't a top tier issue so do not fret over it. Also it is fool heartedly to believe that if Ron Paul gets elected there will be unrestrained power to the states. The Supreme Court will always receive court cases from below. International Custom and Treaties will remain in place however we can expect executive agreements to be nullified and voided.

The reason I support Ron Paul is for his economic and foreign policy, in addition his tough stance on illegal immigration. Ron Paul has authored a handful of books and atleast I know he is capable of the job. Of course, the difficult part is revealing this to everyone else that he is the better of all evils.

I find it humorous how some are viewing Ron Paul's influx of campaign donations as dangerous. I read a article about how evil it is to get campaign donations from UNITED STATES CITIZENS who differ from GOP conservatives. God forbid any candidate who could unite the people. I thought a united America is what all these pundits and politicians want. If the people haven't united during the last fifty years under a stagnant policy, why would they if the majority of candidates are following the trend?
I disagree. I think the many citations directly from Ron Paul's own voting record have done more than enough to validate that claim, as well as all the others made here about Ron Paul. I also am less than swayed by your airy dismissal of all the hot-button issues of US politics and your little exercise in fortunetelling in which you apparently expect your predictions of the future to override our concerns about Mr. Paul's past. The OP and the other critics of Paul have presented facts. You have expressed attitude and tea-leaf reading skills. I do not think it is the OP who has failed.

As for Paul lying...what do you expect? All politicians do it. No exceptions. So why all the shock and awe when he does it? Hell, I'd be concerned if he didn't ever lie about anything.

Note that I am not pro-Paul, just astonished that he's being singled out for lying, while everyone else can squeak by.

*sigh*

This "argument" has already been dealt with ad naseum.

My OP shows Paul not just lying, but lying about a centerpiece of his campaign. He repeatedly claims: "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." But, as I showed, he openly voted for a measure that he himself said was unconstitutional. If he can't be trusted on something so basic to his candidacy, how can he be trusted at all?

And feel free to show how other candidates are such open liars and hypocrites to the same degree.

A doctor, An OB/GYN at that, votes for the banning of Partial Birth Abortion.

After delivering some 4000 odd babies, having and 100% pro life rating and stating that even though the constitution doesn't allow the gov't to interfer in the private lives of men and women he will vote for the banning of such an awful procedure. To me that is a man of principle and a guardian of life. *snip*
There is additional parts to this here : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c108lZTntP::

And then to be called a nut.. walk me thru your logic here.

First and foremost, you miss the point which is that Ron Paul said the PBABA was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and then HE VOTED FOR IT ANYWAY.

How is that acting like "a man of principle"?

Yes, I am additionally disturbed by Ron Paul's willingness to jettison the right to privacy and other fundamental constitutional rights.

And, pray tell, how outlawing partial-birth abortion saves a single life instead of endangering women.

For the person who created this topic, they have failed to validate their claim that Ron Paul is a racist. Ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul is rather weak in winning a debate. Abortion isn't a top tier issue so do not fret over it. Also it is fool heartedly to believe that if Ron Paul gets elected there will be unrestrained power to the states. The Supreme Court will always receive court cases from below. International Custom and Treaties will remain in place however we can expect executive agreements to be nullified and voided.
*snip*

I thought I made it clear in the OP that, although Ron Paul is a racist, I wasn't going to argue that point. Instead, I argued that he is a liar and a hypocrite about a most basic campaign issue. I don't see you arguing with those facts.

You may say that the right to privacy and abortion is not an important issue. I disagree. But that is beside the point that Ron Paul is a liar and a hypocrite.

And it is foolhardy to believe that if Ron Paul is elected he will try to carry out his stated policies and positions? If he takes positions that are so ludicrous that they are not likely to be implemented, is that supposed to be a good thing?

but I have the feeling that you are trying to tell me that you approve of partial birth abortion. is this so? you agree that the above mention proceedure it acceptable in your beliefs?

Again, the issue isn't PBA itself, but rather Ron Paul's lies and hypocrisy.

The issue of partial-birth abortion is complicated, not least of which because the whole concept of "partial-birth abortion" is one made up by the pro-life contingency.

Regardless, I do approve of the use of the safest method of abortion for women, particularly when their life or health is at stake.

it is allowable if the mothers life is in jeopardy, if not then how by not doing it is the mothers life in jeopardy?

You aren't making sense. In the PBABA of 2003, partial-birth abortion is never allowed -- not even when the mother's life is in jeopardy. Sometimes, so called "partial birth abortion" procedures are necessary to best preserve the life and health of the mother, but they are nonetheless now banned.

You beleive that are no extenuating circumstances that one should feel justified to step outside the strict stance you are holding him by?

I have no clue what you are talking about.

95+% of the time is not good enough?

I have no clue what you are talking about.

surely, his voting records does make him the top candidate for the defender of the constitution, but for you its 100% or nothing?

Feel free to show that other candidates have openly voted for a measure THEY SAID WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Do we have the number ? of women who are in need of late term abortions per year? How many are we talking about?

Again, this is a side issue. Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare and almost always because of the life or health of the mother is threatened. Estimates of how many such abortions occur each year are disputed. But does it really matter if Ron Paul's vote endangered the lifes of a few hundred or a few thousand women?

For the person who created this topic, they have failed to validate their claim that Ron Paul is a racist.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5

He claimed years later that he didn't write it, but even if he really did have someone else write it for him, he chose to publish it under his own name.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:
Woot for discrimination against Iranians!

His extreme positions on immigration and citizenship are also indicative of racism.

Abortion isn't a top tier issue so do not fret over it.

It is part of a larger issue - that of civil rights - an entire grouping of issues on which Ron Paul's record is abysmal. It is also enough of an issue to him that the "defender of the Constitution" will willingly break his oath of office.

Also it is fool heartedly to believe that if Ron Paul gets elected there will be unrestrained power to the states. The Supreme Court will always receive court cases from below. International Custom and Treaties will remain in place however we can expect executive agreements to be nullified and voided.

Unrestrained power to the states (especially in areas of civil rights and religion) is something he's been working to get while in Congress:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00300:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04379:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.05739:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.3893:

It's so important to him that he introduces it year after year after year. And, as president, he'd be able to pack the courts with judges who agree with the idiotic idea that states have the "right" to infringe upon individual civil rights.

The reason I support Ron Paul is for his economic and foreign policy, in addition his tough stance on illegal immigration.

And immigration in general, for that matter.

I'm not a big fan of isolationism. It never got us anywhere 100 years ago, I see no reason to think it's a good idea now.

I still want to know why "The federal government can't infringe upon civil liberties, but the state and local governments can" is being seen as a "Libertarian" viewpoint. It doesn't sound very Libertarian to me.

The idea that Ron Paul could be seen as a Libertarian is laughable to me.

Decentralization of government power is a libertarian goal, and I know Paul supports that, as he believes foremost that government should represent the values of the citizens as closely as possible. So it is also likely that he supports government decentralized to its lowest level, but being a federal legislator doesn't see that as his role.

He is also a social conservative and has been open about that, but in almost all arguments I have seen from him he has stated that government control is not the answer.


Gay Marriage: (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=346)

"In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage."


Abortion: (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446)

"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue."

"The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population."

"Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues."



He has also opposed the National ID Card, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq/War on Terror. Obviously these are all the position of a lying, inconsistent, dimwitted nutjob.


Compared to Robertson endorsed Giuliani or the "who would go to war quicker" democrats, Paul is a veritable saint, in spite of a vote for an unconstitutional bill or an (likely unknowing) acceptance of a $500 donation from a white supremacist.


EDIT: Note that I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I will not be voting for him.

Decentralization of government power is a libertarian goal, and I know Paul supports that, as he believes foremost that government should represent the values of the citizens as closely as possible. So it is also likely that he supports government decentralized to its lowest level, but being a federal legislator doesn't see that as his role.

(a) No level of government should be able to infringe upon civil rights. None. Period. It doesn't matter if it's the town council or Congress. If that is not a Libertarian ideal, then I really can't say that I see anything at all good about Libertarianism anymore.

(b) Yeah, he does believe government should "represent the values of citizens." In fact, it should represent the majority religion and sexuality quite well. Damn those minorities, though.

He is also a social conservative and has been open about that, but in almost all arguments I have seen from him he has stated that government control is not the answer.

And that's why he advocates states banning abortion? That's why he advocates states treating homosexuals as second-class citizens?

Seriously, have you bothered to look into him at all?


Gay Marriage: (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=346)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Apparently, the Constitution doesn't regulate the states. Go figure.
[*snip*]

Exactly my point. Ron Paul quite obviously believes that the States have the "right" to infringe upon the civil liberties of every US citizen, despite the fact that those rights are protected by the US Constitution. Moving the oppression closer doesn't help anyone. If anything, it makes it worse.

So, once again, how is "States can infringe upon your civil liberties at will," a Libertarian ideal?

Meanwhile, Paul has been quite clear that he thinks the states should ban abortion. In fact, he's so concerned about it that he has taken steps towards that goal at the federal level, despite his supposed "state's rights" stance.

Compared to Robertson endorsed Giuliani or the "who would go to war quicker" democrats, Paul is a veritable saint, in spite of a vote for an unconstitutional bill or an (likely unknowing) acceptance of a $500 donation from a white supremacist.

No one who advocates for any level of government having the "right" to infringe upon my individual rights is a "saint" in my book, by any measure.

Decentralization of government power is a libertarian goal, and I know Paul supports that, as he believes foremost that government should represent the values of the citizens as closely as possible. So it is also likely that he supports government decentralized to its lowest level, but being a federal legislator doesn't see that as his role.

He is also a social conservative and has been open about that, but in almost all arguments I have seen from him he has stated that government control is not the answer.


Gay Marriage: (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=346)

"In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage."


Abortion: (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446)

"Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue."

"The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population."

"Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues."

He has also opposed the National ID Card, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq/War on Terror. Obviously these are all the position of a lying, inconsistent, dimwitted nutjob.

Compared to Robertson endorsed Giuliani or the "who would go to war quicker" democrats, Paul is a veritable saint, in spite of a vote for an unconstitutional bill or an (likely unknowing) acceptance of a $500 donation from a white supremacist.

EDIT: Note that I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I will not be voting for him.

1. The lying and hypocrisy you have carefully avoided touching (other than to mock its importance). I wonder why.

2. Should we judge Ron Paul by just some of his pretty words (carefully edited by you) or by everything he has said and actually done? Despite his protests, he has supported federalization of the issues of abortion and marriage.

3. Ron Paul's position on abortion is typical. He wants it left to the states primarily because he believes it can be banned at the state level. His argument ignores not just the logic and precedent behind Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), (and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)), but also entirely ignores the existence of the 14th Amendment! The 14th Amendment isn't contrary to the Constitution, it is part of it.

4. Has Paul returned the donation from the white supremacist now that it is public knowledge?

Also, that blog posted by Kinda Sensible People listed a particular pair of duplicate bills:

-- Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag

H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

H.J.RES.82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.

Wonderfully enough, these were proposed by Ron Paul to prove a point. He insisted that legislation against flag burning could only be done by amending the First Amendment. This was a challenge to anyone who wanted to do this to do it the constitutional way, which of course they wouldn't.

When introducing the amendment to the House, Paul said this:

As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.

It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. . . .

It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.

First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people -- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach.

Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.


Compare obvious nutjob Ron Paul to civil liberties supporter Hillary Clinton (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396) who actually co-sponsored and supports the unconstitutional kind of flag burning ban.

Compare obvious nutjob Ron Paul to civil liberties supporter Hillary Clinton (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396) who actually co-sponsored and supports the unconstitutional kind of flag burning ban.

And Clinton has what to do with this thread? Oh, right. Nothing. Attempting to bring her up is intellectually dishonest.

And Clinton has what to do with this thread? Oh, right. Nothing. Attempting to bring her up is intellectually dishonest.

If we are going to judge a presidential candidate's principles and consistency, it serves us well to bring in comparison for a standard of judgment.

And of course, I have used the vast majority of my last two posts to defend Ron Paul without mention of any other presidential candidate, but you go ahead and ignore that.

Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.

Seems rather inconsistent with the idea that state government can and, in some cases, should impose values on their citizens through coercion, doesn't it?

It's like telling a sniper that they can't shoot someone, but then handing a gun to the person standing right next to them and saying, "Yeah, go ahead. Have fun!"

If we are going to judge a presidential candidate's principles and consistency, it serves us well to bring in comparison for a standard of judgment.

Why? Cannot someone be judged on their own merits? And if you were to bring up a candidate, it might serve you better to bring up one that people on this forum actually support.

Seems rather inconsistent with the idea that state government can and, in some cases, should impose values on their citizens through coercion, doesn't it?

It's like telling a sniper that they can't shoot someone, but then handing a gun to the person standing right next to them and saying, "Yeah, go ahead. Have fun!"

As I said, I imagine that he holds state governments to the same standard he holds federal governments, since he believes these issues should be decided at the community level.

Why? Cannot someone be judged on their own merits?

It is rather difficult to judge someone or something in a vacuum.


And if you were to bring up a candidate, it might serve you better to bring up one that people on this forum actually support.

That is irrelevant, but I don't even know who that would be.

As I said, I imagine that he holds state governments to the same standard he holds federal governments, since he believes these issues should be decided at the community level.

....except he doesn't. You can imagine it all you want, but it simply isn't the case. If it was, he wouldn't be constantly arguing that states can (and often should) break those standards. He would uphold the Constitutional restrictions on the states as well as those on the federal government, but he doesn't.

"Community", to him, apparently means "anything not federal."

As I said, I imagine that he holds state governments to the same standard he holds federal governments, since he believes these issues should be decided at the community level.

States area allowed to do whatever they damn well please without even the threat of court intervention under Ron Paul.

....except he doesn't. You can imagine it all you want, but it simply isn't the case. If it was, he wouldn't be constantly arguing that states can (and often should) break those standards. He would uphold the Constitutional restrictions on the states as well as those on the federal government, but he doesn't.

"Community", to him, apparently means "anything not federal."

I don't remember him saying that states can and should break constitutional standards, rather that federal government can't judge this.

I will agree with you that he relies far too much on states rights, but he has consistently argued against government solutions to social problems.

And furthermore, abortion is not a settled libertarian issue, and he does espouse the libertarian argument on gay marriage, that government should not be a factor in marriage whatsoever.

I don't remember him saying that states can and should break constitutional standards, rather that federal government can't judge this.

....which comes down to the same thing. If the people cannot appeal to an authority outside the state government in order to enforce constitutional restrictions, the states can effectively break constitutional standards at will.

And furthermore, abortion is not a settled libertarian issue, and he does espouse the libertarian argument on gay marriage, that government should not be a factor in marriage whatsoever.
Yeah, the federal government. Ron Paul doesn't give a shit what the states do and will protect their right to do it. If the states decide you have to marry whoever they want you to, you wouldn't be able to challenge that under Ron Paul. Look up the We the People Act. Everyone supporting Ron Paul doesn't know shit about him or are in the same crackpot ship.

Yeah, the federal government. Ron Paul doesn't give a shit what the states do and will protect their right to do it. If the states decide you have to marry whoever they want you to, you wouldn't be able to challenge that under Ron Paul. Look up the We the People Act. Everyone supporting Ron Paul doesn't know shit about him or are in the same crackpot ship.

VCS did say that he doesn't support Ron Paul.

If the "We the People Act" does not still provide the protections of the constitution (especially those of the first amendment), to citizens against state governments, it is hard to reconcile the act with libertarian principles, at least as Paul translates them through the constitution.

I will have more rights granted to me by my state than by the gov't

SECTION 2. Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

I could qoute from a number of posts but as many different people have said the same thing I will answer them as they are.

1st) Many people have called Ron Paul a racist, somewhat due to his border security and immigration ideals, but if people bothered to look at them carefully you would see that he is not racist at all quite the opposite "Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods" (from the Ron Paul 2008 site) he says IMMIGRANTS FROM ALL COUNTRIES ie no matter who you are all where you are from all people will be treated the same is that not the ideals of some one who is not racist?, yes he does want to stop immigration but only illeagal immigration they are after all breaking the law of the US, is that to racist how? because it is mainly Mexicans who are breaking the law but if an Australian or european or african came to America illeagaly he to would want them deported, he wants these people deported because many of them are paying no tax and yet use taxpayers faclities and money (you are paying more tax than needed because they broke the law), remember he does not want to stop a cetain kind of illeagal immigrants all kinds are on his sights perhaps those people who argue against these people from being deported and stopped from entering the country by breaking the law of the US also say that murder's, convicted pedophilies and other people who break the law should not be sent to jail.

2nd) So called Racist he wants all people to be treated excatly the same something which the fore fathers wanted, of course left wing bigots don't want this because they believe that groups of people based on the ethnic background should be given special treatment they fail to see that this is true racisim as people are being treated differently due to the color of their skin, this may be special government grants or other privliges. Ron Paul whishes that people are no longer grouped as either black white latin american or any other type but that all people are themselves currently this is not happening thanks to the liberals who have been racist themselves and placed people above others and into groups Remember you do not have to treat a group or someone poorly due to their skin color say not hire them because they are black, you just have to treat them differently because of their skin color say hire them because they are black (of course if you took a liberal view on this does that example not mean that you are discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin a white guy not getting a job because he is white).

3rd) Abortion. Yes he does not support abortion, but one of the reason he was a sponser of HR300 was little to do with abortion and more to do with state powers as the federal court (An unelected court as many liberals like to remind me) has power over the state governments which are elected by the population and in by a majority Once again we see democratic ideals fall because of what a few men and women may think (This is a seperate issue about how a minority of people demand a certain type of liberty even if 99% of the population are agianst it think gay marriage abortion and other issues). However back to Ron Paul he says that all humans should be treated with respect and have liberties (something which the left say they believe in, more like liberties when they want it and not when it goes against something they disagree with sort of like the racist issue), ron Paul wishes that the unborn fetus also has "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" just like the constitution says another thing which he wishes to protect Is that proof that he whishes to protect what the constitution says? asked to those who say he does nothing of the sort

Now there are things that I believe what Dr Paul says is correct there are others which i think are totally wrong like his economic policies (which very few if any people have mentioned) like wanting to abolish the Federal bank's independence and an aim to balance the budget every time (a very bad idea), I also don't agree with his plan to resign from the UN America must maintain some dominance within world rather than let the likes of China who is building up their defence forces and their secret aim to invade Aisa as well as Putin's ideals to make Russia into a super power surpassing the feats of the Soviet Union resigning from the UN will play into the hands as they will have a free run across Europe and Aisa

According to Wikipedia, Hal Turner has endorsed Ron Paul. That's reason enough to utterly oppose the bastard. Thank God Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell.

According to Wikipedia, Hal Turner has endorsed Ron Paul. That's reason enough to utterly oppose the bastard. Thank God Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell.

Aren't you Imperial Brazil? You're confusing me.

Aren't you Imperial Brazil? You're confusing me.

No, I am not.

I will have more rights granted to me by my state than by the gov't

Your state is government. To make a distinction between "state" and "government" is silly.

Meanwhile, even if that is true for you, it certainly isn't nationwide. ALL government entities in this country are bound by the US Constitution. Removing those restrictions removes protections from all US citizens.

Your state is government. To make a distinction between "state" and "government" is silly.

Meanwhile, even if that is true for you, it certainly isn't nationwide. ALL government entities in this country are bound by the US Constitution. Removing those restrictions removes protections from all US citizens.

which is why several racist groups want to see Ron Paul elected.

1st) Many people have called Ron Paul a racist, somewhat due to his border security and immigration ideals,

His own comments make it quite clear without even looking at his immigration policies - which are not only harsh on illegal immigration, but also continue to make it near impossible for anyone to immigrate legally. When people have to wait 10 years to immigrate, we can't exactly blame people for giving up on the legal route.

2nd) So called Racist he wants all people to be treated excatly the same something which the fore fathers wanted,

No, he doesn't. He thinks members of the LGBT community, for instance, should be treated as second class citizens. He personally voted for a budgeting amendment in DC that would have kept same-sex couples from adopting and has supported states in their efforts to deny equal protection under the law to LGBT persons.

of course left wing bigots don't want this because they believe that groups of people based on the ethnic background should be given special treatment

People in a place of privilege always think a subjugated group is getting "special treatment" when they are finally treated equally.

3rd) Abortion. Yes he does not support abortion, but one of the reason he was a sponser of HR300 was little to do with abortion and more to do with state powers as the federal court (An unelected court as many liberals like to remind me) has power over the state governments which are elected by the population and in by a majority

Of course the federal court has power over the state governments. The courts are meant to be a check on the legislative powers of the various levels of government - to make sure that none of them fail to adhere to the US Constitution. Ron Paul seems to think that states should be able to break the restrictions in the Constitution with nowhere for the people to turn when their state government chooses to infringe upon their civil rights.

Once again we see democratic ideals fall because of what a few men and women may think (This is a seperate issue about how a minority of people demand a certain type of liberty even if 99% of the population are agianst it think gay marriage abortion and other issues).

All people deserve equal protection under the law and they are guaranteed that right by the US Constitution. It doesn't matter if 99% of people think they should be treated as second-class citizens. That's why we are not a pure democracy, which would allow the majority to subjugate the minority in any way they see fit. Instead, we are a Constitutional Republic, with restrictions on what the government can and cannot legislate.

I will have more rights granted to me by my state than by the gov't
Not under Ron Paul. Once the states lose the threat of Constitutional challenges, they are free to do what they want.

Not under Ron Paul. Once the states lose the threat of Constitutional challenges, they are free to do what they want.
No, Drewlio is right. If Ron Paul gets his way, Drewlio will gain a whole bunch of new rights. For instance, Drewlio's wife's body will become Drewlio's property, legally speaking. Drewlio will also have the right to discriminate against people of non-white races, against homosexuals, against women, and basically against anybody he doesn't want to treat like a full human being. Drewlio will gain the right to own and operate an organization that takes government money to spread a purely sectarian religious agenda, using the tax dollars of American citizens for his own personal gain. And much, much more!

Drewlio will get plenty of new rights if Ron Paul wins. It's just that those rights will come at the expense of his fellow citizens.

No, Drewlio is right. If Ron Paul gets his way, Drewlio will gain a whole bunch of new rights. For instance, Drewlio's wife's body will become Drewlio's property, legally speaking. Drewlio will also have the right to discriminate against people of non-white races, against homosexuals, against women, and basically against anybody he doesn't want to treat like a full human being. Drewlio will gain the right to own and operate an organization that takes government money to spread a purely sectarian religious agenda, using the tax dollars of American citizens for his own personal gain. And much, much more!

Drewlio will get plenty of new rights if Ron Paul wins. It's just that those rights will come at the expense of his fellow citizens.

Whhhhhoooooaaaaaa Nellie!!! I'm stopping my horse and hoping I won't have to get off. Those aren't implications but rather just examples as I play Vanna White to your Pat Sajak right?

If the "We the People Act" does not still provide the protections of the constitution (especially those of the first amendment), to citizens against state governments, it is hard to reconcile the act with libertarian principles, at least as Paul translates them through the constitution.

How about you look up what the We the People Act does?

No, Drewlio is right. If Ron Paul gets his way, Drewlio will gain a whole bunch of new rights. For instance, Drewlio's wife's body will become Drewlio's property, legally speaking. Drewlio will also have the right to discriminate against people of non-white races, against homosexuals, against women, and basically against anybody he doesn't want to treat like a full human being. Drewlio will gain the right to own and operate an organization that takes government money to spread a purely sectarian religious agenda, using the tax dollars of American citizens for his own personal gain. And much, much more!

Drewlio will get plenty of new rights if Ron Paul wins. It's just that those rights will come at the expense of his fellow citizens.
Indeed. I frankly don't think those so-called "rights" are even worth contemplating. Who wants to treat their spouse as property? Why would you treat them as anything other than an equal whom you love? That's why you married them, right? Jesus...

Indeed. I frankly don't think those so-called "rights" are even worth contemplating. Who wants to treat their spouse as property? Why would you treat them as anything other than an equal whom you love? That's why you married them, right? Jesus...

Apparently, the sort of people who support Ron Paul. ;)