NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your thoughts on him, and why.

New World Order disinformation op.

And here I thought that only the South Park creators still mourned the premature downfall of this libertarian hero.

A thread on the internet about Ron Paul? Nonsense! Why, next you'll tell me that people will be making poorly spelled captions to pictures of cats or some such thing! It's a world gone mad I tellz ya, a world gone mad!

This thread seems to be about five or six months behind schedule.

I know he wants to have a national sales tax. Big mistake, espically in this economy. You want to promote buying not stall it with taxation on goods.

If he'd drop that issue, I'd probably have more intrest in him.

I don't know who he is but I imagine him to look like Ron Jeremy in a pope hat.. Does he look like Ron Jeremy in a pope hat?

I don't know who he is but I imagine him to look like Ron Jeremy in a pope hat.. Does he look like Ron Jeremy in a pope hat?

He looks like Ron Jeremy in 30 years time... in a pope hat.

anyone the corporate media doesn't want us to hear has to have SOMEthing going for them, in his case though, i'm sorry to say, i haven't quite figgured out what.

Another proof that American big-L Libertarianism is just a socially acceptable way to be in the conservative fold.

You know, of course, that there is only one permitted world-view. That of the European social-democrat or the American liberal. Conservatism is allowed only if it is 'moderate' conservatism (i.e. basically a different shade of the above views).

Anything else is REGRESSIVE and RACIST. So Ron Paul is verboten.

ARE WE CLEAR, CITIZEN?

SIR YES SIR!
*would you like to know more?*

Setting aside the fact that I disagree with Libertarianism in many ways, the thing I like least about Ron Paul is that his devotees think they're clever.

I think he's a loon, because of the policies he's tried to get legislated.

1) He's racist.
2) He's stupid.
3) He's fucking crazy.

I think he can still win this.

1) He's racist.
2) He's stupid.
3) He's fucking crazy.

But don't you essentially think all libertarians are fucking crazy?

I'd rather be fucking crazy with Ron Paul than sane with the Congress Democrats.

How dare anybody accuse Ron Paul of racism? Just because he wrote (or approved, if his claim of ghostwriting is true) that black people are all "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" doesn't mean he's a racist!

But don't you essentially think all libertarians are fucking crazy?

I'd rather be fucking crazy with Ron Paul than sane with the Congress Democrats.

No, I rather like the idea of libertarianism. I do however find a lot of folks who claim to be libertarians are fucking nutso though.

What's your thoughts on him, and why.

Who?

You know, of course, that there is only one permitted world-view. That of the European social-democrat or the American liberal. Conservatism is allowed only if it is 'moderate' conservatism (i.e. basically a different shade of the above views).

Anything else is REGRESSIVE and RACIST. So Ron Paul is verboten.

ARE WE CLEAR, CITIZEN?
Yes, if your man hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, go for the persecution/censorship angle.

It's not as if this site displays a wide range of political views, stretching much further than social-democracy and US 'liberalism'.

Oh, wait...

Ron Paul!!!
but seriously, he sucks.

Yes, if your man hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of winning, go for the persecution/censorship angle.

I did not allude to any persecution or censorship.

Nor is Ron Paul running (except in his Congressional district). Therefore it's pointless to point out he can't win the Presidency.

I did not allude to any persecution or censorship.

Nor is Ron Paul running (except in his Congressional district). Therefore it's pointless to point out he can't win the Presidency.

Which makes your avatar absolutely idiotic then doesn't it? What do you figure the odds are that another person from your congressional district posts or reads here?

I did not allude to any persecution or censorship.
You merely implied there was some sort of political groupthink going on...

Which makes your avatar absolutely idiotic then doesn't it? What do you figure the odds are that another person from your congressional district posts or reads here?

Do you figure that if you call me idiotic I'm going to break down, start crying, and accept how awesome you are?

My avatar is very simple in its purpose. One, it is to express my support of Dr. Paul's activities as Congressman and founder of the Campaign For Liberty. Two, it is to express my believe that of the candidates that ran in the 2008 election, Ron Paul was the best candidate. Not perfect - perfect doesn't exist - but the best.

You merely implied there was some sort of political groupthink going on...

I didn't imply, I was explicit. The majority of posters on this forum steer generally to the left (and please don't start going OMG B-B-BUT I KNOW A RIGHT-WING POSTER because that'll just be expressing your misreading of my statement).

Go to any of the threads about Palin/FailCain/the Republican party, it's all either bashing them, or parodying them (sometimes quite humorously).

I didn't imply, I was explicit. The majority of posters on this forum steer generally to the left
And that left involves far more than social-democracy or US 'liberalism'.

What's your point?

And that left involves far more than social-democracy or US 'liberalism'.

What's your point?


Well, I am sorry, I forgot there are also socialists, communists, and left-wing anarchists in here.

My point is as follows: The most common opinion on this forum is that conservatism and libertarianism are silly/insane/selfish, and that people who follow their more radical varieties are crazy, insane, or evil.

If you believe that, of course you must think Ron Paul is a demented madman.

In truth, Ron Paul is somewhere on that weird edge between radical conservatism and libertarianism. He is fully as crazy as you believe these phenomena to be. If you're a leftist, he's probably not for you.

Collosal berk.

I strongly dislike Ron Paul and the whole "Libertarian" ideology. Dramatically reducing government regulations and taxation in the name of "freedom"? When millions are dying from poverty due to unemployment in a recession or struggling to survive on or below a subsistence wage, while those who are already rich enjoy more wealth than they do now, I don't call that "freedom". And as for the argument that people will voluntary donate through charity enough to provide for the disadvantaged...that shows a remarkable naivety or deliberate ignorance of human nature and historical examples of small government, non-redistributive systems before the development of the modern redistributive state.

Yes, maybe some people who are poor should have worked harder in school (though socio-economic circumstances undoubtedly influence ability to succeed in school, a fact that would only be worsened under Libertarian levels of economic inequality). The idea that because they lack qualifications and skills they should be left to die in unemployment or jobs either at or less than a subsistence wage is utterly disgusting. Not everyone can get a cosy middle-class job, not everyone has the entrepeneurial ability to set up their own business, indeed the economy requires this so entrepeneurs can find people to employ in their businesses. These people are needed if the economy is to make money, and should thus be respected by ensuring they have a reasonably comfortable existence.

In conclusion it is nothing more than a selfish kid mentality of "fuck everyone else, I'm not sharing", and should not even be granted the status of being called an "ideology".

See? Above.

See? Above.

Shame its true, isn't it?

And as for the argument that people will voluntary donate through charity enough to provide for the disadvantaged...that shows a remarkable naivety or deliberate ignorance of human nature and historical examples of small government, non-redistributive systems before the development of the modern redistributive state.


That's not really one of their main arguments at all.


The idea that because they lack qualifications and skills they should be left to die in unemployment or jobs either at or less than a subsistence wage is utterly disgusting.

Not every libertarian believes this at all.


In conclusion it is nothing more than a selfish kid mentality of "fuck everyone else, I'm not sharing", and should not even be granted the status of being called an "ideology".

This is an extremely simplistic summary of the libertarian ideology.

You know, of course, that there is only one permitted world-view. That of the European social-democrat or the American liberal. Conservatism is allowed only if it is 'moderate' conservatism (i.e. basically a different shade of the above views).

Anything else is REGRESSIVE and RACIST. So Ron Paul is verboten.

ARE WE CLEAR, CITIZEN?
Jesus godding Christ, this is not groupthink, this is just us taking the piss of your incredibly weak choice for Pres.

Bringing the dollar back onto gold - how? Will the government, which is supposed to not really do anything under Paul buy it? Do you have any idea how much this will cost and how much inflation this will obviously produce as money has to be printed to buy gold at an inflated rate when everyone hears about the US buying it?

"State's Rights" on Abortion - How is abortion not something that women should have a choice over? This is a very, very weak attempt for him to try to reconcile his old-fashioned views with Libertarianism and it dies on its arse.

National Sales tax in lieu of income tax - means that the government is prone to lose vast amounts of money basically to consumer confidence. As well as confidence in the markets with banks. Genius!

I can go on, so I will.

His six-point plan to secure the borders is rubbish.

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines" - genius... genius... really very feasible...

"Enforce visa rules" - Eh how? If they're not being enforced at the moment, how will this change magically in the future?

"No amnesty" - So you spend a ton of time and money hunting for people, excellent.

"No welfare for illegal aliens" - Genius, so instead of getting their kids into schools, they can kick about causing petty crime. Awesome.

"End birthright citizenship" - What, for everyone? Just brown people? What?

"Pass true immigration reform" - Note that he doesn't really give any details of what this would be. Ho hum.

You know what would be a better way to spend the money? Making Mexico suck less.

Ron Paul is like Jesus: it's entirely possible he's a basically ok guy, but his supporters put me off.

is is a very, very weak attempt for him to try to reconcile his old-fashioned views with Libertarianism and it dies on its arse.

I don't want to divert this thread into an abortion argument, but suffice it to say I don't agree abortion should be a right in the sense that Planned PArenthood thinks it.

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines" - genius... genius... really very feasible...

Why this unfeasible?

o you spend a ton of time and money hunting for people, excellent.


And then the GTFO.

Note that he doesn't really give any details of what this would be. Ho hum.


Yes, he does. He supports more visas for people legitimately working.

Ron Paul is like Jesus: it's entirely possible he's a basically ok guy, but his supporters put me off.

Jesus had good policy his followers twisted to their own ends.
Ron Paul has horrifying policy his followers try to twist as palatable.

How amusing. This isn't exactly a haven for libertarians. All of the open-minded tolerant leftists here will hate you.

*reads posts* Yup.

"Change" is such a nice sounding word, but neither major party candidate will provide any real change. Seriously, you Obama supporters. Biden??? Yeah, there's some change. And McCain, who chooses his running mate just to grab some Clinton supporters who want a woman in a position of power in the White House? McCain who took the idea of campaign finance reform and created an even worse mess than what existed before he muddled around with everything? And BOTH candidates voted FOR the bank bailout plan. Yeah, there's some change for ya - handing money to big business failures.

Ron Paul stands for small government and individual freedoms. All his opponents can do is point to one old newsletter and shout, "racism!" or complain that he's a kook. I for one like the ideas of abolishing the income tax, eliminating the federal reserve, transferring welfare, education, etc. back to the states, cutting spending across the board, ending federal foreign aid, and changing to a non-interventionalist foreign policy. Since Ron Paul withdrew from the election, I'll be voting for Chuck Baldwin. I don't entirely agree with his immigration policies, but at least he will try to end the encroachments of government on individual liberty. And no, he won't try to create some sort of theocratic government.

*ponders amusing himself by starting a Barr v. Baldwin argument

I don't want to divert this thread into an abortion argument, but suffice it to say I don't agree abortion should be a right in the sense that Planned PArenthood thinks it.
And why's that?
Why this unfeasible?
The literally thousands of miles of coast and land all around the US are a fairly big obstacle to actually trying to block it off. Not to mention simple corruption in the border guards - the kind of people who are into people trafficking are also often linked to drug cartels, and I'm sure they're willing to pay thousands to yer border guards to get hundreds of thousands in profits out of it, let's be honest.
And then the GTFO.
If you catch them, doubtless spending thousands upon thousands of dollars per head on getting rid of very cheap labour. Awesome. And then might well come back anyway, making the whole exercise a waste of time in the exact way which he slams the War on Drugs.
[QUOTE]Yes, he does. He supports more visas for people legitimately working./QUOTE]
Is that it? That is somehow going to fix what he claims is an utterly broken system? Fantastic. Genius.

The literally thousands of miles of coast and land all around the US are a fairly big obstacle to actually trying to block it off.

Why? All you need to do is block off the Mexico-US border.

If you catch them, doubtless spending thousands upon thousands of dollars per head on getting rid of very cheap labour. Awesome. And then might well come back anyway, making the whole exercise a waste of time in the exact way which he slams the War on Drugs.

In previous immigration enforcement operations, like the ones Eisenhower ran, a dozen illegals leave for every one busted every time an operation goes down

That is somehow going to fix what he claims is an utterly broken system? Fantastic. Genius.

THe whole problem with US immigration policy is like this:

It's extremely difficult to come in legally, and yet, if you live in Mexico or Canada, it's way, way too easy to get in illegally.

It should be just the reverse.

Why? All you need to do is block off the Mexico-US border.
And yet later in this same post you say that Canucks are causing problems too. You going to block that off, as well as the sea?
In previous immigration enforcement operations, like the ones Eisenhower ran, a dozen illegals leave for every one busted every time an operation goes down
Awesome. Well let's hope nothing's changed in the last fifty-odd years, then, eh?
THe whole problem with US immigration policy is like this:

It's extremely difficult to come in legally, and yet, if you live in Mexico or Canada, it's way, way too easy to get in illegally.

It should be just the reverse.
Do you not think that you should embrace a free labour market as well as a free market for goods and services?

And yet later in this same post you say that Canucks are causing problems too. You going to block that off, as well as the sea?

Awesome. Well let's hope nothing's changed in the last fifty-odd years, then, eh?

Do you not think that you should embrace a free labour market as well as a free market for goods and services?

Do I need to point out that all 19 9/11 hijackers came from Canada? I'm not sure she realizes that. Of course the block the Mexican boarder but leave the Canadian one open smacks of "Keep the brown people out" anyway.

Do I need to point out that all 19 9/11 hijackers came from Canada? I'm not sure she realizes that. Of course the block the Mexican boarder but leave the Canadian one open smacks of "Keep the brown people out" anyway.

Because you know, I'm a white, anglo-saxon, Christian. And female. Go make some more assumptions.

And yet later in this same post you say that Canucks are causing problems too. You going to block that off, as well as the sea?

For one, it may be a good idea to block off Canada. I do not know how many people come in from Canada. If their number is as great as those coming in from Mexico, then, yes, it is a good idea.

Do you not think that you should embrace a free labour market as well as a free market for goods and services?

I do not think a free labor market must necessarily come with an open border.

Consider a door. A guy knocks on your door, you open and ask what he wants, and maybe lets him in. If a guy climbs in through the window, you call the cops, or throw him out of the house.

By all means, let more people in through the door. Many more people, provided they didn't commit crimes in their home country.

For one, it may be a good idea to block off Canada. I do not know how many people come in from Canada. If their number is as great as those coming in from Mexico, then, yes, it is a good idea.
Right, you know that your land border alone with Canada is in the thousands upon thousands of miles, aye? Not to mention the kind of seaborne operations you'd need to stop people getting in that way.

Where is the money going to come from? Is it going to be a wall? Or what?
I do not think a free labor market must necessarily come with an open border.
Why not?

If you have a free trade in goods and services, why doesn't it make sense to be able to take the best workers from around the world to produce them?
Consider a door. A guy knocks on your door, you open and ask what he wants, and maybe lets him in. If a guy climbs in through the window, you call the cops, or throw him out of the house.
Uhu... people moving into a country is not quite the same as housebreaking, though. One is an invasion of personal space with no reason given or obvious, the other is not.
By all means, let more people in through the door. Many more people, provided they didn't commit crimes in their home country.
What, any crimes at all? Even speeding tickets?

Where is the money going to come from? Is it going to be a wall? Or what?

Well, not a literal wall, but a various set of stuff - fences, cameras, etc. - to block people from crossing.

According to Congress, it would cost 3 million dollars per mile to wall off the US-Mexico border. That's 1,969 miles. Assuming Congress lied, and it actually costs 6 million dollars per mile (that's 100% in cost overruns), it'll cost about 10 billion dollars to wall off Mexico.

America wastes more money in Iraq every month.

It has given more money to Israel in the last four years of the Bush Presidency.

That's less than half a percent of the US government budget.



If you have a free trade in goods and services, why doesn't it make sense to be able to take the best workers from around the world to produce them?

Well, you can't exactly just take a bunch of goods from Europe to America and bring them in, can you? Even a container of toys or bread involves a bunch of inspections, rules to be followed, etc.

Even when you go in from a country with which the US has a visa agreement you need to show your passport. I don't see why this is so onerous.

What, any crimes at all? Even speeding tickets?

You know precisely what I mean. Robbery. Rape. Murder. Possibly money laundering. There's certain stuff that, if you do it, you're probably a shift character and probably are going to do it again.

I voted "I like him but he's not my preference"

I like how even within the Republican party he slams the ridiculous notion that terrorists hate the US for its "freedoms" and takes into account that they attack us because we're "over there" (as in, in the middle east; and come on, do you really think they'd give enough of a damn how we lived our lives as to kill themselves just to kill us until our foreign policy affected them? I'm gonna borrow the wording someone on youtube comments used to describe sam harris's position on ESCR to use it to describe Ron Paul's stance on terrorist motivations; "it's a sad day when stating the obvious becomes genius)

I have yet to watch the presidential debates between Obama and McCain, but I think it might have been interesting to see a presidential debate between Obama and Ron Paul... aside from the obvious contrast on economics, I've also heard there are issues for which Obama's are the ones arbitrarily labelled "right-wing" and Ron Paul's are the ones arbitrarily labelled "left-wing" (such as their respective positions on the death penalty, for example) and it might have looked like a bit of a "role reversal" of party candidates... speaking of role reversals, he also points out the change in what has been considered "republican" foreign policy so as to suggest that the republican party has "lost its way"...

But one of the main things considered good about him is one of the things I'm not so sure is necessarily good... that he's a constitutionalist. Look, we should have guidelines for government, so long as we can change them gradually and carefully, but I really don't think modern societies should have to cling specifically to the words of a bunch of dead slave owners from centuries ago. Times change, so societies change... we can see this with Japan and the European Union. I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, but we should be willing to look beyond it. We should think of social principles in and of themselves, not for what people who wrote what arbitrarily happen to be the "founding principles" of the country you arbitrarily happen to be in (especially considering that different countries have different constitutions) have to say about it.

In fairness, I should point out that while I despise the economic policy of Ron Paul and his ilk, I *do* have a lot of sympathy for his views on foreign policy and terrorism. Some social policies I would also agree with if he was a proper libertarian, focusing on the rights of individuals rather than states like he seemed to do regarding abortion and gay rights if I remember correctly.

In fairness, I should point out that while I despise the economic policy of Ron Paul and his ilk, I *do* have a lot of sympathy for his views on foreign policy and terrorism. Some social policies I would also agree with if he was a proper libertarian, focusing on the rights of individuals rather than states as he seemed to do regarding abortion and gay rights if I remember correctly.

The thing is, he focuses on the rights of states and not people.

Well, not a literal wall,

but a various set of stuff - fences, cameras, etc. - to block people from crossing.


Erm, that's a wall.

*scuttles away*

Erm, that's a wall.

*scuttles away*

Indeed.

All I meant is that it's not necessarily a physical set of bricks, it could be any other kind of wall.

Erm, that's a wall.

*scuttles away*

A fence is a cheap wall, one that can be bypassed by anyone with a set of wire snips and a couple minutes time. So unless you plan to physically monitor the whole width of our boarders it still wouldn't work.

The thing is, he focuses on the rights of states and not people.


So clearly you didn't actually follow RP's campaign or read his platform.

A fence is a cheap wall, one that can be bypassed by anyone with a set of wire snips and a couple minutes time. So unless you plan to physically monitor the whole width of our boarders it still wouldn't work.

Did you read my post or are you just pretending?

So clearly you didn't actually follow RP's campaign or read his platform.

Didn't he say that issues of abortion and decisions on regulations regarding sexual practice should be left up to states? Shouldn't a libertarian be saying that individuals should be free to make their own decisions in these spheres, rather than them being regulated by government, of any level?

Didn't he say that issues of abortion and decisions on policy regarding sex should be left up to states? Shouldn't a libertarian be saying that individualsshould be free to make their own decisions in these spheres, rather than them being regulated by government?


Yes, he believes in a states' rights solution to the abortion issue. There are pro-life libertarians, as you know.

Regardless, the fact Ron Paul takes a states' rights view on certain issues is not the same as 'focusing on state rights instead of individual rights'.

Abortion is not the be all-end-all of all issues.

In fairness, I should point out that while I despise the economic policy of Ron Paul and his ilk, I *do* have a lot of sympathy for his views on foreign policy and terrorism. Some social policies I would also agree with if he was a proper libertarian, focusing on the rights of individuals rather than states like he seemed to do regarding abortion and gay rights if I remember correctly.

The whole point of states vs national government is championed by...Walter Block, I think. The idea is that, even if the smaller, more localized government is "more tyrannical," it's best to put the law in the smaller constituencies since it's easier to change, rather than a national government which, if they have a change of heart, is almost impossible for the average citizen to affect.

The whole point of states vs national government is championed by...Walter Block, I think. The idea is that, even if the smaller, more localized government is "more tyrannical," it's best to put the law in the smaller constituencies since it's easier to change, rather than a national government which, if they have a change of heart, is almost impossible for the average citizen to affect.

That would be somewhat sensible if you didn't realize our states are larger than most independent countries.

That would be somewhat sensible if you didn't realize our states are larger than most independent countries.

So you mean the states should in fact have a degree of sovereignty?

That would be somewhat sensible if you didn't realize our states are larger than most independent countries.

umm...that's actually remarkably irrelevant, but thanks for bringing it up anyway. So? It's still a local-er form of government, which is a step up from a centralized bureaucratic mandate from a swamp in Virginia.

Yes, he believes in a states' rights solution to the abortion issue. There are pro-life libertarians, as you know.

Regardless, the fact Ron Paul takes a states' rights view on certain issues is not the same as 'focusing on state rights instead of individual rights'.

Abortion is not the be all-end-all of all issues.

Hmm...but, as a libertarian, even if he's opposed to it himself, shouldn't he be allowing people to make their own moral choices on the issue. If he's opposed to people making their own moral choice on the issue and believes it to be objectively wrong, why let individual states decide? If its wrong, local majorities shouldn't decide the issues, and it should be banned at the national level. If he accepts that people make their own choices on the issue and it isn't clear cut, individuals should be allowed to make their own choices. His position seems a bit of an illogical cop-out.

Well, not a literal wall, but a various set of stuff - fences, cameras, etc. - to block people from crossing.

According to Congress, it would cost 3 million dollars per mile to wall off the US-Mexico border. That's 1,969 miles. Assuming Congress lied, and it actually costs 6 million dollars per mile (that's 100% in cost overruns), it'll cost about 10 billion dollars to wall off Mexico.
And it's still going to be a waste of time. Because the largest problem with any security system is the people involved.
America wastes more money in Iraq every month.

It has given more money to Israel in the last four years of the Bush Presidency.

That's less than half a percent of the US government budget.
Wasted money is wasted money, wherever it goes.
Well, you can't exactly just take a bunch of goods from Europe to America and bring them in, can you? Even a container of toys or bread involves a bunch of inspections, rules to be followed, etc.

Even when you go in from a country with which the US has a visa agreement you need to show your passport. I don't see why this is so onerous.
Aye, having inspections, making sure people are not criminals, fair enough. Arbitrary caps on people and goods - no thanks.
You know precisely what I mean. Robbery. Rape. Murder. Possibly money laundering. There's certain stuff that, if you do it, you're probably a shift character and probably are going to do it again.
Right, and do you start kicking out Americans who have done such things, or what?

umm...that's actually remarkably irrelevant, but thanks for bringing it up anyway. So? It's still a local-er form of government, which is a step up from a centralized bureaucratic mandate from a swamp in Virginia.

No it's not. The crux of the argument is that on a country-wide level the government is nigh impossible to influence as an individual, the sheer size of the US states means that it's also nigh impossible to influence a state's government.

Right, and do you start kicking out Americans who have done such things, or what?

*chants*

"American jails for Americans only!"

And it's still going to be a waste of time. Because the largest problem with any security system is the people involved.

Of course SOME people will get through. But it'll become more difficult. You won't have MILLIONS of people.

Aye, having inspections, making sure people are not criminals, fair enough. Arbitrary caps on people and goods - no thanks.

I agree perfectly and so does Ron Paul.

, the sheer size of the US states means that it's also nigh impossible to influence a state's government.

It's difficult, sure, but LESS difficult. Even the largest US state still holds only 11% of the total population and has tons of representatives. The smaller states are small enough for people to be able to make appointments with their state senators and scream at them if they want to.

Of course SOME people will get through. But it'll become more difficult. You won't have MILLIONS of people.
And where is the actual benefit in spending millions in maintainance of this wall and wages for its guards to keep them out if they come to your country to work again?
I agree perfectly and so does Ron Paul.
No, he doesn't, he wants more visas. That's not "as many skilled workers as you like, so long as they're not real baddies", it's " have a few more maybe, aye".

My point is as follows: The most common opinion on this forum is that conservatism and libertarianism are silly/insane/selfish, and that people who follow their more radical varieties are crazy, insane, or evil.
Could have said it earlier.

How amusing. This isn't exactly a haven for libertarians. All of the open-minded tolerant leftists here will hate you.
Hate is the wrong word.

Although I fundamentally disagree with Nozick-style right-libertarians, I appreciate it as much more than some insane ideology. Some of Paul's issues are interesting, and no matter what one thinks about the man, his comments (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAokoMgSDc&feature=related) on the Iraq war in the Republican nomination debates were bang on the mark.

But his 'libertarianism' seems inconsistent. At times he wants the state to clear out of our lives; while at others he seems fully supportive of state intervention into sensitive areas. And I simply don't understand what a 'libertarian' is doing flirting with a closed-border immigration policy.

And where is the actual benefit in spending millions in maintainance of this wall and wages for its guards to keep them out if they come to your country to work again?

You cut down on the actual criminal types that come in to commit crimes or to fake papers and pretend to be citizens so they can falsely claim benefits.

I didn't imply, I was explicit. The majority of posters on this forum steer generally to the left (and please don't start going OMG B-B-BUT I KNOW A RIGHT-WING POSTER because that'll just be expressing your misreading of my statement).

Go to any of the threads about Palin/FailCain/the Republican party, it's all either bashing them, or parodying them (sometimes quite humorously).

You say that like NS is supposed to be a completely balanced population. It isn't. You're trying to shame NSG into feeling like it treats Ron Paul unfairly. It won't work.

See? Above.

That's your defense of a legitimate attempt to delineate why someone doesn't like Ron Paul? And you say the problem is with us?

You cut down on the actual criminal types that come in to commit crimes or to fake papers and pretend to be citizens so they can falsely claim benefits.
And why can't falsification happen in a system of visas? I know a few people who came to my old college (eh high school to you chaps I guess) to work on extremely dodgy visas (tourist visas, IIRC) who got away with it.

Sounds like an expensive waste of time to me, tbqh.

You're trying to shame NSG into feeling like it treats Ron Paul unfairly. It won't work.

I'm not trying to shame anybody into anything.

I'm trying to point out a fact:

Ron Paul is on the verge of libertarianism and conservatism. Some of his positions (abortion, immigration) are more conservative than libertarian. OThers (drugs, prostitution) are more libertarian than conservative.

But at any rate, starting a thread on a majority-left-wing forum and asking whether they like a right-wing candidate is not Sparta.

It's madness.

I'm not trying to shame anybody into anything.

I'm trying to point out a fact:

Ron Paul is on the verge of libertarianism and conservatism. Some of his positions (abortion, immigration) are more conservative than libertarian. OThers (drugs, prostitution) are more libertarian than conservative.

But at any rate, starting a thread on a majority-left-wing forum and asking whether they like a right-wing candidate is not Sparta.

It's madness.

You could of pointed that out in one post and left it drop. Instead you've made 10 posts and my ignore list. Good for you.

1. 'could of' is not proper English. 'Could have is'.

2. I am now completely heartbroken about you not respecting me. Some guy on the Internet, whose name, location, IQ I don't know, does not respect me and put me on their IGNORE LIST! HOW WILL I LIVE?

He is a Republican, and there has not been any decent Republican since Nixon.

He is a Republican, and there has not been any decent Republican since Nixon.

Surely you mean since before Nixon.

...Nixon was decent? Nixon, the guy who (on his own admission) felt physically sick when he heard people talking about freedom?

He has a few good ideas and a lot of bad ones.

In other words he's remarkably similar to most politicians.

He is a Republican, and there has not been any decent Republican since Nixon.I liked Bush Snr :-/

Ron "[Israel is] an aggressive, National Socialist state" Paul?

Ron "[Israel is] an aggressive, National Socialist state" Paul?

When and where did Ron Paul state that?

[That said, Israel is agressive, nationalist, and socialist. Not 'Nazi' in the NSDAP sense, but definitely nationalist, socialist, and aggressive.].

He is a Republican, and there has not been any decent Republican since Lincoln.

Corrected for historical accuracy.

No it's not. The crux of the argument is that on a country-wide level the government is nigh impossible to influence as an individual, the sheer size of the US states means that it's also nigh impossible to influence a state's government.

Well, I guess it just means we'll have to cut it down even more locally, then, won't we? ;)

When and where did Ron Paul state that?

[That said, Israel is agressive, nationalist, and socialist. Not 'Nazi' in the NSDAP sense, but definitely nationalist, socialist, and aggressive.].

Right here. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL387.pdf) It's from the March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Corrected for historical accuracy.

Eisenhower was decent. Although maybe that's just rose-tinted glasses.

Corrected for historical accuracy.

And Lincoln certainly wasn't an angel when it came to civil rights either.

Corrected for historical accuracy.

...are you kidding? Lincoln was a tyrant and had no respect for individual liberty. He was a terrible president.

Ron Paul?

no.

Right here. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL387.pdf) It's from the March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Oh the NEWSLETTERS AGAIN.

Oh well. I don't really believe RP wrote them, and even if he did, I don't care either way about his opinion on Israel.

Israel doesn't deserve a dime of US support.

The people who founded Israel engaged in mutual slaughter just as happily as they killed Arabs (look up 'Operation 'Season'), and the guys who ended up on top were bona fide Leninists who celebrated Stalin's birthday as a national holiday until he was denounced by the CPSU.

Yes, Israel is nicer now than it was in the 1970's. It's still a horrible place.

Eisenhower was decent. Although maybe that's just rose-tinted glasses.He hated democracy too much for my taste.

P.S. I read the ariticle you linked to. It is mostly a rather biased description of the Hasbara.

And yet the Hasbara exists.

Right here. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL387.pdf) It's from the March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Don't you understand? Just because Ron Paul writes something in his newsletter, doesn't mean he believes it! Just like when he said the blacks are all "semi-criminal or entirely criminal," and that we should "prepare for the coming race war," he did not actually believe that.

Oh the NEWSLETTERS AGAIN.

Oh well. I don't really believe RP wrote them, and even if he did, I don't care either way about his opinion on Israel.


Ah, the old, "it was ghostwritten, Ron Paul just gave it his seal of approval," argument. So he's not actually racist or anything else like that, he's just so stupid that he doesn't read things that he has ghostwritten for him before publishing.

It's ghostwritten. The style of writing is different from RP's own. Everybody who looked at the newsletters, including the original TNR guys who dug them up and the NYT agree.

Not, as I said, that I care.

[Mind, outside the use of the words 'national socialist', there's nothing actually factually WRONG in that article, as I explained].

It's ghostwritten. The style of writing is different from RP's own. Everybody who looked at the newsletters, including the original TNR guys who dug them up and the NYT agree.

Not, as I said, that I care.

[Mind, outside the use of the words 'national socialist', there's nothing actually factually WRONG in that article, as I explained].

And as I pointed out, it doesn't matter if it's ghostwritten. If you have somebody ghostwrite for you, and you approve the article, you imply that you take the position as your own.

So, either:
1) Ron Paul believes the things in his newsletters. That is, he believes that black people are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and that we need to prepare for "the coming race war," or
2) Ron Paul is an absolute idiot who puts his seal of approval on things that he has not read.

Either way, it makes him a poor candidate for any office.

Yes, he believes in a states' rights solution to the abortion issue. There are pro-life libertarians, as you know.

Regardless, the fact Ron Paul takes a states' rights view on certain issues is not the same as 'focusing on state rights instead of individual rights'.

Abortion is not the be all-end-all of all issues.

Nor is it the only issue on which Ron Paul would remove liberty from individuals and hand it to the states. (Well, except when he's voting for federal bans, that is.

His "We the People Act" makes it clear that he thinks individuals have no right to religious freedom, privacy, or equal protection under the law. The federal government might be restricted in these things but, in the government Paul wants, the states are free to infringe upon those rights with impunity.

And as I pointed out, it doesn't matter if it's ghostwritten. If you have somebody ghostwrite for you, and you approve the article, you imply that you take the position as your own.

So, either:
1) Ron Paul believes the things in his newsletters. That is, he believes that black people are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and that we need to prepare for "the coming race war," or
2) Ron Paul is an absolute idiot who puts his seal of approval on things that he has not read.

Either way, it makes him a poor candidate for any office.

It's sad when supporters actually have to resort to characterizing their candidate as inept to try and argue that he's not racist, isn't it?

It's sad when supporters actually have to resort to characterizing their candidate as inept to try and argue that he's not racist, isn't it?

Indeed. "He's not an asshole, just a dumbass."

No, I rather like the idea of libertarianism. I do however find a lot of folks who claim to be libertarians are fucking nutso though.

I'm not a huge fan of far-right economic policies, but I like the general stance of libertarianism on keeping the government out of my personal life.

Unfortunately, most of the "libertarian" candidates in this country, including Ron Paul, are really just into right-wing economics.

Ron Paul stands for small government and individual freedoms.
Unless, of course, you want your constitutional right to abortion, be gay (and I'm talking about sex, not marriage here) or serve your State government without believeing in god.

It's very simple with me.

I'd rather have a complete, certified, 1-IQ-point idiot I agree with on the issues than a 180-IQ guy who I disagree with.

Especially as a libertarian president wouldn't have to be very smart anyhow.

It's very simple with me.

I'd rather have a complete, certified, 1-IQ-point idiot I agree with on the issues than a 180-IQ guy who I disagree with.

I like how you are basically admitting that Ron Paul is an idiot.

As for me, policy agreement isn't enough. Competence is required too.

I would rather have a president with whom I disagree, but is intelligent enough to not utterly destroy the country, than one I agree with who is such a fool that their presidency will be a mess comparable with Bush's.

Especially because a very intelligent person is likely take opposing arguments into consideration, and will indeed encourage people they disagree with to present them with reasonable arguments. Personally, I'd go as far as putting political opponents in my cabinet.
A stupid person, on the other hand, is likely to avoid listening to any argument from any person who disagrees with them.

You see, I recognize that, as a human, I'm flawed enough that I am probably sometimes wrong. Indeed, I would expect any intelligent person to realize this about themselves.


Especially as a libertarian president wouldn't have to be very smart anyhow.

Indeed, he probably wouldn't be.


All that said, I don't think Ron Paul is a *complete* idiot. He's intelligent enough to manage a presidential campaign. And so, I think it's likely he knew all the racist things that were being printed in his name, and that he therefore probably agreed with them.

Now, you might not thing that being that incredibly racist is enough to disqualify a candidate. Or hell, you might even agree with some of it. Given that I do not know you, I cannot really say. But for me, such racism would be enough to disqualify a candidate that I agreed with on virtually everything else.

And you know what else? If Ron Paul actually came out and admitted "yeah, I wrote/approved all that stuff. That was one of the worst mistakes of my life, and I hereby renounce my old racist views," I might actually respect him a little bit more. I still wouldn't vote for him, but I'd at least respect him.

But I doubt he will do that. Because I think he still holds those views.

Actually I know precisely why that crap was printed. But that'd require delving into the different varieties of people in the Libertarian movement, and specifically the nature of Lew Rockwell, and I don't feel like doing this on a public forum with a guy who hates all libertarians and thinks they're all stupid.

If you want detail, TG or PM me. I'm out.

It's very simple with me.

I'd rather have a complete, certified, 1-IQ-point idiot I agree with on the issues than a 180-IQ guy who I disagree with.

Especially as a libertarian president wouldn't have to be very smart anyhow.
The rest of the world wouldn't.

Surely you mean since before Nixon.

He signed numerous Environmental Protection acts, and signed other acts that prevented discrimination. He was the first president to cut military spending since before FDR. He ended the Vietnam War. He recognized China, improved relations with Russia by allowing trade, and signed the SALT treaty.

Personally he was despicable, but his policies were admirable.

Really?

People are still talking about that incompetent loon? Really?


He. Fucking. Lost. Badly. America has rejected his policies. Game over Paul. GTFO.

Ron Paul stands for individual freedoms as long as youre a white, rich, christian, straight male. Anyone else, well, sorry.

*soup Nazi voice*
No freedoms for you!



EDIT: That, and I disagree with so called "states rights" anyway.

Ahahahaha!

I assume you think I'm an Anglo-Saxon, rich, Chirstian, straight, and male.

[you're only right on one. Guess which).

Ahahahaha!

I assume you think I'm an Anglo-Saxon, rich, Chirstian, straight, and male.

[you're only right on one. Guess which).

The fact that Ron Paul only supports Anglo-saxon, rich, christian, straight males doesn't mean that people who aren't any of these won't vote for him or support him.

Even though he's batshit insane. Why, for example, would a person who has an ideology by the name of Libertarianism support stuff which takes away freedoms? Why would he go for mercantile and nationalist policy, instead of a free market and global policy? Granted, globalism isn't necessarily a given, but with the needs of the free market, it almost should be.

There's very little liberty about him.

Ahahahaha!

I assume you think I'm an Anglo-Saxon, rich, Chirstian, straight, and male.

[you're only right on one. Guess which).

I dont care. Doesnt mean that people who arent the ones who will benefit the most from Ron Paul cant support him. Women in working class families (some of them maybe even single moms) support Sarah Palin, even though they wont benefit, and will actually be hurt, by her policies.


People can be stupid, self destructive, or blind. Which one are you?


Oh, one more funny thing about Paul. Its so sad its almost cute that he thinks an isolationist policy would work in the 21st century, especially in a democracy.

I said almost cute.

Why would he go for mercantile and nationalist policy, instead of a free market and global policy?

How do you manage to spin 'free trade for all' as mercantile?

How do you manage to spin 'free trade for all' as mercantile?

How do you manage to spin "Those durn foreigners are taking our jobs! we must build a wall!" as free trade?

Right here. (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL387.pdf) It's from the March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

How do you manage to spin "Those durn foreigners are taking our jobs! we must build a wall!" as free trade?

Let's allow as many people legally in as want to come, and if someone still comes over illegally, throw him out. Has nothing to do with hating brown people or ze ZOMG JOBS.

Any Constitutionalist/Conservative Libertarian gets my vote.

I vote yes, i like him.

Let's allow as many people legally in as want to come, and if someone still comes over illegally, throw him out. Has nothing to do with hating brown people or ze ZOMG JOBS.

Except, he doesn't want to allow as many as want to come. This should be obvious from the fact that he wants to isolate the U.S. and that he is only advocating increasing the number of visas.

On top of this, considering his racist (or alternatively, stupid) attitudes, I find it hard to believe he'll support letting more mexicans (or anyone else for that matter) in, even if they have no criminal record.

Any Constitutionalist/Conservative Libertarian gets my vote.

I vote yes, i like him.

Ron Paul being a "constitutionalist" is a strange misconception.

[Ron Paul's Border Control policy]Has nothing to do with jobs
"Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything" - http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

On top of this, considering his racist (or alternatively, stupid) attitudes, I find it hard to believe he'll support letting more mexicans (or anyone else for that matter) in, even if they have no criminal record.

He's voted time and time again to increase visa quotas. He's in fact voted for EVERY proposal to do so.

This should be obvious from the fact that he wants to isolate the U.S.

No, he doesn't. Opposing NAFTA/CAFTA/UN membershiop =/= isolation.

He's voted time and time again to increase visa quotas. He's in fact voted for EVERY proposal to do so.

Visa quotas, for who?

You are aware that the quotas apply to different countries, correct?

No, he doesn't. Opposing NAFTA/CAFTA/UN membershiop =/= isolation.

Yes, yes it is. Especially that.

It's economic and political isolation.

He's voted time and time again to increase visa quotas. He's in fact voted for EVERY proposal to do so.

And yet, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Yep, still a racist.

No, he doesn't. Opposing NAFTA/CAFTA/UN membershiop =/= isolation.
Err aye, opposing all of those things are a step towards US isolation, you cannot honestly say that this is not the case.

Visa quotas, for who?

You are aware that the quotas apply to different countries, correct?

No, that's only the green-card 'lottery quotas', because their purpose is to ensure 'diversity'.

General green-card issue is different, and so are HB-1 and other work visas.

No, he doesn't. Opposing NAFTA/CAFTA/UN membershiop =/= isolation.

Yes. Yes it does.

Err aye, opposing all of those things are a step towards US isolation, you cannot honestly say that this is not the case.

Liez!!!11111! Only Dawkter Ron Paul can svaez us!!!111!

Err aye, opposing all of those things are a step towards US isolation, you cannot honestly say that this is not the case.

...that's a ridiculous argument. You can have free trade and foreign relations without the existence of transnational abjudication/rulemaking bodies.

Just how people had foreign relations and trade for millenia without these bodies existing.

Whose turn is it to point out the bill Paul wrote that would have rendered all of our money completely worthless?

Whose turn is it to point out the bill Paul wrote that would have rendered all of our money completely worthless?

I guess yours. But dont waste your time, youll just get this pseudo libertarian screaming "OMG U R TEH IGNORANT DAWKTER PAUL WILL SAVEZ US!!1!!"

...that's a ridiculous argument.
No, it isn't.
You can have free trade and foreign relations without the existence of transnational abjudication/rulemaking bodies.
Aye, but pulling out of international trade and policy-making organisations is a way to make the US more isolated from the world stage.

...that's a ridiculous argument. You can have free trade and foreign relations without the existence of transnational abjudication/rulemaking bodies.

Just how people had foreign relations and trade for millenia without these bodies existing.

So then, tell us, oh mighty one, what Dr. Paul's motivation for opposing these things is, if its not to neuter foreign relations and stifle free trade.

I guess yours. But dont waste your time, youll just get this pseudo libertarian screaming "OMG U R TEH IGNORANT DAWKTER PAUL WILL SAVEZ US!!1!!"


Pseudo-libertarian?

I like how people who profess to despise libertarianism also claim to be the arbiters of what 'real' libertarianism is.

I guess yours. But dont waste your time, youll just get this pseudo libertarian screaming "OMG U R TEH IGNORANT DAWKTER PAUL WILL SAVEZ US!!1!!"
Eh yer not really helping here at all. Hyperbole is not your friend in this debate, Ron Paul can, and should, be annihilated without it.

...that's a ridiculous argument. You can have free trade and foreign relations without the existence of transnational abjudication/rulemaking bodies.

Just how people had foreign relations and trade for millenia without these bodies existing.

Hmm, people had foreign relations for millenia through:

warfare
isolation
mercantilism

Most foreign relations prior to the 20th century and even in the 20th century was full of hatred between groups of people, little trade except by traveling merchants and little contact, besides diplomats and armies.

The U.N. exists as an international forum for discussion. To leave it is to effectively isolate yourself politically.

NATO exists as a military alliance with like-minded countries. To leave it is to effectively isolate yourself in a military fashion.

Various trade groups exists as an economic alliance. To leave it is to effectively isolate yourself in an economic fashion.

Pseudo-libertarian?

I like how people who profess to despise libertarianism also claim to be the arbiters of what 'real' libertarianism is.

Well, considering Ron Paul's stance on social issues, that would make him, and arguablly any of his supporters, pseudo libertarians.

Two things:

First, he opposes against the Civil Rights Act because it politicized race relations. When you politicize an issue (especially social issues) it brings out the worst in pretty much all politicians. He opposed it because he's consistent almost to a fault; not because he wants to lynch black people or burn crosses in their yards.

Second, shortly after the New Republic printed their slander, the Austin NAACP chairman gave a radio interview wherein he declared the article's writers had no idea what they were talking about. Who do you think would know more about Ron Paul's racial proclivities? Someone in his community, or liberal writers 2,000 miles away determined to find dirt on all Republicans? Pointing to the New Republic's "revelations" of 14 Jan is like pointing to Der Angriff as proof that all Jews are evil and not to be trusted.

Oh, and Godwin can sit on a cactus. If the shoe fits I'm gonna shove that sucker on. The allegations of racism were made so that no one would have to countenance his policies. It gave the liberals license to say "Oh, he's a racist" and dismiss him out-of-hand, like I've seen a few of you do. There's nothing the man has ever said or done personally that points undeniably towards racism.

...that's a ridiculous argument. You can have free trade and foreign relations without the existence of transnational abjudication/rulemaking bodies.

Just how people had foreign relations and trade for millenia without these bodies existing.
we survived for millenia without the internet, electricity and, for a while, fire . . .doesn't mean we should go back to the caves . . . .

So then, tell us, oh mighty one, what Dr. Paul's motivation for opposing these things is, if its not to neuter foreign relations and stiful free trade.

1. Stifle is the proper spelling.

2.

The motivation behind CAFTA/NAFTA is a noble one. The notion, as far as I can discern, is such:

"If we just repeal our trade tariffs, people will cheat on free trade by establishing various other rules that will be unfair to importers or exporters, or by subsidizing their home industries. Instead, let's have a treaty that centralizes a lot of our economic rules, but also prevents people from cheating."

However, the drawback is the loss of sovereignty and control over these rules on the local level, which prevents a country from making their rules MORE relaxed from what is agreed upon.

As more and more rules are introduced, you lose more and more national sovereignty.

Now, such agreements are NOT actually necessary for free trade. As such there's no good use for sacrificing your sovereignty to them.

2. Same for the UN. International rulemaking authority = loss of sovereignty to some tiny extent. Yet an ever-growing extent nonetheless.

Honest Money Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2756).
Section 5103 of Title 31, U.S. Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5103.html).

Two things:

First, he opposes against the Civil Rights Act because it politicized race relations. When you politicize an issue (especially social issues) it brings out the worst in pretty much all politicians. He opposed it because he's consistent almost to a fault; not because he wants to lynch black people or burn crosses in their yards.

Second, shortly after the New Republic printed their slander, the Austin NAACP chairman gave a radio interview wherein he declared the article's writers had no idea what they were talking about. Who do you think would know more about Ron Paul's racial proclivities? Someone in his community, or liberal writers 2,000 miles away determined to find dirt on all Republicans? Pointing to the New Republic's "revelations" of 14 Jan is like pointing to Der Angriff as proof that all Jews are evil and not to be trusted.

Oh, and Godwin can sit on a cactus. If the shoe fits I'm gonna shove that sucker on. The allegations of racism were made so that no one would have to countenance his policies. It gave the liberals license to say "Oh, he's a racist" and dismiss him out-of-hand, like I've seen a few of you do. There's nothing the man has ever said or done personally that points undeniably towards racism.


Yep, Ron Paul isnt a racist and it was just mean old liberals out to get him (never mind that his own party was slandering him too).

I think your tin foil hat might be a bit too tight.

Honest Money Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2756).
Section 5103 of Title 31, U.S. Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5103.html).

...that is the most fucking epic thing I've ever read on the Internet.

...that is the most fucking epic thing I've ever read on the Internet.

You honestly think the guy knows anything about economics after reading that?

It is not possible to maintain a gold standard, because gold, amusingly enough, varies too!

You honestly think the guy knows anything about economics after reading that?


Have you read anything about monetary theory? Like, I don't know, Carl Menger?

Here's a hint: Money is possible without legal tender laws.


It is not possible to maintain a gold standard, because gold, amusingly enough, varies too!

So...? [Note Ron Paul's 'gold standard' is actually a free banking process but I bet that's too subtle a difference for many people]

...that is the most fucking epic thing I've ever read on the Internet.
Weak.

Have you read anything about monetary theory? Like, I don't know, Carl Menger?

Here's a hint: Money is possible without legal tender laws.

Yeah, and here's a thought: Why do you think we have legal tender laws?

There's a reason for that: Bartering, etc... doesn't work when the system gets too large.

So...? [Note Ron Paul's 'gold standard' is actually a free banking process but I bet that's too subtle a difference for many people]

So it doesn't work to remove legal tender, because you end up with something else acting as legal tender.

This has varied between gold, weight, etc...

Usually, it does nothing to make trade any easier.


Legal tender, regardless of what it is, exists to make sure that you can buy a yacht, while providing a service that the person making the yacht doesn't actually want.

So it doesn't work to remove legal tender, because you end up with something else acting as legal tender.

Do you even UNDERSTAND the term 'legal tender'?

Money PREDATES legal tender laws and they are NOT REQUIRED to have money.

http://mises.org/story/3158

Do you even UNDERSTAND the term 'legal tender'?

Money PREDATES legal tender laws and they are NOT REQUIRED to have money.

http://mises.org/story/3158

Yes, but you know, I'd rather not have a bunch of private institutions in a large global economy making money.

Mainly because I like having a reasonable expectation that the money I use is not forged.

There is no reason to believe that any private mint would be harder to forge than a government mint, quite the opposite really.

So how often do you think Scotland suffers from fake Scottish pounds?

They'd probably be equal in the sense of being hard to forget. At least the mints of reasonably respectable institutions like CitiBank.

Also, I take it you no longer think RP's views on currency are COMPLETELY INSANE, only that you disagree with them. IT's good we resolved it - it was never my plan to persuade you to AGREE with RP or to become a libertarian

He opposed it because he's consistent almost to a fault;

[Ron Paul will] never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yep, that's real consistent, all right.

So how often do you think Scotland suffers from fake Scottish pounds?

They'd probably be equal in the sense of being hard to forget. At least the mints of reasonably respectable institutions like CitiBank.

Now, the more types of money there exists, the easier it will be for fraud to run rampant, because it will require more effort and more work to produce the same value. When you can commit fraud between twenty or a hundred different denominations of coins and bills, which do you think is more likely to have one that's easier?

It is wholly inefficient to have private mints, especially when these will be able to cause inflation pretty damn easily.

The difference between money and a bolt, as the article uses as an example, is that people won't notice if money is fake, not if it's a good fake. You usually need special means to notice fake money, which is why banks and such have these means at their disposal.

A bolt or the weight of a pound of meat is easily measured by anyone and, believe it or not, a pound of meat is sometimes also fooled with, because of the way that weights work. Try to sell a faulty bolt and it becomes really obvious, due to the nature of the work involved.

How can the article (and possibly you) Not notice the difference between money and goods?

Furthermore, the article's argument about worn coins is stupid: Coins are frequently worth more than what they are made of, because they have to, in order for the economy to work. Coins are not made out of gold, either, so you're not really losing any value at any point in time.

So how often do you think Scotland suffers from fake Scottish pounds?
Enough for shops round where I used to live in SE England to put up signs saying that thry do not accept them due to a counterfeiting problem.

But then, there's an anecdote for everything on the internet.

Yep, Ron Paul isnt a racist and it was just mean old liberals out to get him (never mind that his own party was slandering him too).

I think your tin foil hat might be a bit too tight.While Melkor is batshit insane to the point of unintended comedy, he rather has a point here, I'm afraid. After having looked at TNR... I'm sorry, but it's no more of a legitimate source than, say, the Prawda or Fox News or the Daily Mail or whatever. As such, unless a more... Legitimate source for Ron Paul's alleged racism is presented, I'd treat such claims really carefully.

Besides, the race-card is played so ludicrously often in US politics, I'd say it deserves its own Godwinisation.

He agrees, as I do, that elected official's powers are granted to them by the constitution, and ONLY by the constitution. No other powers can or should be implied or implemented.

While Melkor is batshit insane to the point of unintended comedy, he rather has a point here, I'm afraid. After having looked at TNR... I'm sorry, but it's no more of a legitimate source than, say, the Prawda or Fox News or the Daily Mail or whatever. As such, unless a more... Legitimate source for Ron Paul's alleged racism is presented, I'd treat such claims really carefully.

How much more of a legitimate source can you get than the actual newsletter?

Yep, that's real consistent, all right.

You're goddamn right it is. The "We The People" Act is (please read this carefully) meant to keep the Bill of Rights out of Federal courts because said courts do not and should not have the power to alter the Bill of Rights. The Judiciary is the only branch of our government that isn't democratic and it needs to be restrained as such. People pay more attention to Congress and the Presidency, but the courts wield much more power on an individual basis. The "We The People" Act is meant to protect these rights you mentioned, not destroy them.

Also,

Yep, Ron Paul isnt a racist and it was just mean old liberals out to get him (never mind that his own party was slandering him too).

I think your tin foil hat might be a bit too tight.
Get real.

The New Republic is very rarely sympathetic to the Republicans, just like how my local newspaper is seldom kind to the Democrats. It's mildly amusing that you're biased enough to think I am wearing a "tin foil hat" for suggesting we take this kind of journalism with a grain of salt. The New Republic is precisely as unreliable as corresponding Republican rags and for the same reasons.

Get real.

The New Republic is very rarely sympathetic to the Republicans, just like how my local newspaper is seldom kind to the Democrats. It's mildly amusing that you're biased enough to think I am wearing a "tin foil hat" for suggesting we take this kind of journalism with a grain of salt. The New Republic is precisely as unreliable as corresponding Republican rags and for the same reasons.

Yeah, but then there is, you know, the actual news letter.


Or did evil liberals and journalists ghostwrite the news letter and forge Ron Pauls approval?


Tin foil hat? Check.

I'm betting Lew Rockwell ghostwrote it.

You're goddamn right it is. The "We The People" Act is (please read this carefully) meant to keep the Bill of Rights out of Federal courts because said courts do not and should not have the power to alter the Bill of Rights. The Judiciary is the only branch of our government that isn't democratic and it needs to be restrained as such. People pay more attention to Congress and the Presidency, but the courts wield much more power on an individual basis.

The Judiciary System does not alter the Bill of Rights. To suggest that it does reveals a gross misunderstanding of the process of judicial review. To deny judicial review on the state level would be expressly unconstitutional, as it would contradict the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You may not like what the Constitution says, but that does not mean that the Constitution does not say this. The We The People Act is unconstitutional, and nothing short of the repeal of Article III of the Constitution can change that.

o deny judicial review on the state level would be expressly unconstitutional,

Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of the courts, and to take or add issues from it.

How much more of a legitimate source can you get than the actual newsletter?The one whose authenticity is questioned to the point where most people agree that he's unlikely to have written them? Yes, of course - most people would say 'Err, no, that wasn't me, that one kind of slipped through, really!', given the situation. The thing is - with a part-time libertarian depending on a conservative voter-base, the idea of the articles being ghostwritten by an ill-placed author strikes me as fairly feasible (Text analysis issues aside).

It certainly makes him a fantastic dumbass for not reading them before release (In addition to the decent number of other issues he's... Naive about), but frankly, it wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened. And pandering to the retards to get their votes, regardless of whether one actually agrees with them, is a common practice throughout the political spectrum.

That, and Lew Rockwell is to blame.

Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of the courts, and to take or add issues from it.

Tell that to Article I. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html)

Yeah, but then there is, you know, the actual news letter.


Or did evil liberals and journalists ghostwrite the news letter and forge Ron Pauls approval?


Tin foil hat? Check.

If the Democrats can forgive Biden for cribbing speeches 20 years ago, it's not too much of a stretch to forgive Paul for ghostwritten (what part of that term don't you understand, anyway?) statements from 20 years ago too.

Also, it's worth pointing out that when this was brought to light, Ron Paul stood up and acknowledged a moral responsibility for the content of his newsletter, even though he probably didn't read it at the time. Usually, the MO of most politicians is to avoid the accusations rather than countenance them, and Paul had the character to stand up and say "yeah, I fucked up." It's been a long time since I've seen an American politician do that.

The Judiciary System does not alter the Bill of Rights....

Yes, hence:

[The Act is...]meant to keep the Bill of Rights out of Federal courts because said courts do not and should not have the power to alter the Bill of Rights.

Why am I not surprised you ignored the part I bid the reader pay special attention to?

EDIT: still, it kinda makes me giggle that you're opposed to this act because it's "unconstitutional," when our government has been systematically ignoring the document for the better part of a century now. If you want to get that precise about the Constitution, you might want to also take a look at things like declaring war without congressional consent (which the Democrats have also done--the ignorance of our Constitution has been going on for a lot longer than 8 years), entitlement programs, the federal reserve (*cough*goldandsilveraslegaltender*cough*), and a pile of other programs and policies not authorized by the document.

Also, the We The People Act restrains Federal courts, not state courts. Might want to try actually reading the bill.

If the Democrats can forgive Biden for cribbing speeches 20 years ago, it's not too much of a stretch to forgive Paul for ghostwritten (what part of that term don't you understand, anyway?) statements from 20 years ago too.

Apperantly I understand it more then you do, if you think that means Paul had no say it its publishing.

Tell that to Article I. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html)


To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

THIS.

Congress can impeach judges.

Congress can abolish all the district courts, and it can prohibitthem from taking certain cases.

Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Subject-matter_jurisdiction

Article Three is not self-executing with respect to the subject-matter over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress decides, from among the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will actually have.

Yes, hence:



Why am I not surprised you ignored the part I bid the reader pay special attention to?

I did read that. Perhaps you did not read my reply, since you seem to think that the Judiciary would be able to alter the Bill of Rights without the act. It cannot. It can interpret it. It cannot alter it. If you cannot understand the difference between the two, that is your fault.

THIS.

Congress can impeach judges.

Congress can abolish all the district courts, and it can prohibitthem from taking certain cases.

Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Subject-matter_jurisdiction

Funny you should link Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Original_and_appellate_jurisdiction)

Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and controversies in which a state is a party.
The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction,

I did read that. Perhaps you did not read my reply, since you seem to think that the Judiciary would be able to alter the Bill of Rights without the act. It cannot. It can interpret it. It cannot alter it. If you cannot understand the difference between the two, that is your fault.

Just because it can't do it now doesn't mean someone won't try eventually. He's trying to lay down the framework to prevent it from happening. 20 years ago if you asked someone on the street if you thought we'd lose habeas corpus, it would likely have provoked a similar response to the above.

t cannot. It can interpret it. It cannot alter it

Interpreting is much the same as altering when it comes to legal decisions.

Namely, in the sense that the court can (and sometimes does) alter its interpretation of a passage from the Constitution to something completely different. Consider the transition from US v. Miller to DC v. Heller.

Apperantly I understand it more then you do, if you think that means Paul had no say it its publishing.

Wait, what? You're really grasping for straws now. I didn't say he had "no say" I just said he probably didn't read it at the time.

Just because it can't do it now doesn't mean someone won't try eventually. He's trying to lay down the framework to prevent it from happening.
A framework that happens to strip all protections granted by the Fourteenth Amendment? Forgive me for my skepticism.

Any attempt to appeal to the Act's allowance of state courts to hear these cases is useless. The Fourteenth Amendment brings the states under the Bill of Rights, and thus the Supreme Court must be able to hear such cases.

EDIT: still, it kinda makes me giggle that you're opposed to this act because it's "unconstitutional," when our government has been systematically ignoring the document for the better part of a century now. If you want to get that precise about the Constitution, you might want to also take a look at things like declaring war without congressional consent (which the Democrats have also done--the ignorance of our Constitution has been going on for a lot longer than 8 years), entitlement programs, the federal reserve (*cough*goldandsilveraslegaltender*cough*), and a pile of other programs and policies not authorized by the document.


Your (unfounded) assumptions as to my political beliefs speak less of weakness in my arguments and more of weaknesses in yours.

Wait, what? You're really grasping for straws now. I didn't say he had "no say" I just said he probably didn't read it at the time.

So hes an idiot then.


Hes either a racist or an idiot. Take your pick. I know which one I pick.

A framework that happens to strip all protections granted by the Fourteenth Amendment? Forgive me for my skepticism.

Any attempt to appeal to the Act's allowance of state courts to hear these cases is useless. The Fourteenth Amendment brings the states under the Bill of Rights, and thus the Supreme Court must be able to hear such cases.

Okay, here's the thing: If a state does something loony (which they do from time to time) and the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, what happens to us if they make a loony decision too? The We the People act seems cognizant of the fact that judges are very occasionally out of their minds, and I see it as an attempt to localize the damage rather than (potentially) allowing it to spread to a Federal level via the Supreme Court. As a general rule, I'm in favor of measures taken to restrain the federal judiciary, since it can unilaterally do things that neither of the other two branches can. This, along with the fact that judges serve for life puts an inordinate amount of power in their hands and I'd rather not take the risk that they might damage the Bill of Rights.
Your (unfounded) assumptions as to my political beliefs speak less of weakness in my arguments and more of weaknesses in yours.

Nothing in that statement assumes any knowledge of your beliefs. I'm saying the government apparently has no problem raping the Constitution and that closer examination is necessary if you think that unconstitutional measures haven't been passed. I don't think WTP is expressly unconstitutional, but even if it was it's a lot less inimical to the document than declaring war without Congress or establishing a central bank. The Bill of Rights is already protected (by the 14th Amendment even) on a state level, but currently is not protected on a federal level. The 14th Amendment should prevent states from contravening the Bill of Rights and the WTP act would prevent the fed from overturning or altering said rights. Again, I'm failing to see how the WTP act "strips away" the 14th Amendment.

Hes either a racist or an idiot. Take your pick. I know which one I pick.
Right, because we all know congressmen have nothing better to do than read their own propaganda. If you canvassed congress right now, I'd be willing to bet the majority of them aren't intimately aware of the content of their handouts, leaflets etc. That's why they organize committees for their re-election instead of doing everything themselves. Maybe if he never slept..

Jesus had good policy his followers twisted to their own ends.
Ron Paul has horrifying policy his followers try to twist as palatable.
using that logic, how is any other candidate different?

Jesus godding Christ, this is not groupthink, this is just us taking the piss of your incredibly weak choice for Pres.

Bringing the dollar back onto gold - how? Will the government, which is supposed to not really do anything under Paul buy it? Do you have any idea how much this will cost and how much inflation this will obviously produce as money has to be printed to buy gold at an inflated rate when everyone hears about the US buying it?

"State's Rights" on Abortion - How is abortion not something that women should have a choice over? This is a very, very weak attempt for him to try to reconcile his old-fashioned views with Libertarianism and it dies on its arse.

National Sales tax in lieu of income tax - means that the government is prone to lose vast amounts of money basically to consumer confidence. As well as confidence in the markets with banks. Genius!

I can go on, so I will.

His six-point plan to secure the borders is rubbish.

"Physically secure our borders and coastlines" - genius... genius... really very feasible...

"Enforce visa rules" - Eh how? If they're not being enforced at the moment, how will this change magically in the future?

"No amnesty" - So you spend a ton of time and money hunting for people, excellent.

"No welfare for illegal aliens" - Genius, so instead of getting their kids into schools, they can kick about causing petty crime. Awesome.

"End birthright citizenship" - What, for everyone? Just brown people? What?

"Pass true immigration reform" - Note that he doesn't really give any details of what this would be. Ho hum.

You know what would be a better way to spend the money? Making Mexico suck less.

The government won't have any significant role in returning to the gold standard, the people will use the gold amongst themselves, like some communities are already doing.

As to abortion: Man kills pregnant woman= double homicide; woman asks doctor to kill her baby= no punishment... WTF, that logic makes absolutely no sense, and since when do mothers have the right to decide if their child will live or die? If a woman even accidentally kills her newborn child, does she not receive punishment!? Abortion is simply irresponsible and childish (except in the case of rape or miscarriage or something along those lines), like a guy dumping a girlfriend because shes pregnant, in fact, that could easily lead to an abortion! We need to abandon this reckless mentality that we can do whatever we want, it's turning us into monsters!

income tax and sales tax is more personal preference(I'd rather not give up part of my paycheck...)

I don't see what isn't feasible about securing our borders... There wasn't much of a problem with it before. Besides you've got to secure our nations sovereignty, it's our civic duty, without it we're... not a nation. The Social Contract theory defines a state as: having it's own territory, populace, sovereignty, and government.

No welfare or amnesty for illegals: They shouldn't be here, and if they get kicked out, then they're not here... Why should I be responsible for another country's citizens? Why should I pay them? I don't know them. What are they doing for me? Ron Paul does give specifications on immigration reforms it's just that the media never paid him any attention so you never saw it...

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x201/flyingv66_2007/Paul.jpg

Really?

People are still talking about that incompetent loon? Really?

Nixon was not incompetent.

He. Fucking. Lost. Badly. America has rejected his policies. Game over Paul. GTFO.

Oh.

Abortion is simply irresponsible and childish (except in the case of rape or miscarriage or something along those lines)So you think it acceptable to execute a child for the crime of its father?

There. That should be enough for a few pages of e-rage

I'm not starting from scratch, but rather echoing some past points I've made.

Ron Paul is against the separation of Church and State. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13468515&postcount=325)

What about his very public opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

His opposition to the provisions of the 14th Amendment?

What about H.R. 4982 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.4982:), H.R. 3863 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:), and H.R. 5842 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:)?

Ron Paul is a lying hypocrite. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208967&postcount=1)

His attempt to gut the judiciary and/or the Bill of Rights with the We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:)?

Okay, here's the thing: If a state does something loony (which they do from time to time) and the case is appealed to the Supreme Court, what happens to us if they make a loony decision too? The We the People act seems cognizant of the fact that judges are very occasionally out of their minds, and I see it as an attempt to localize the damage rather than (potentially) allowing it to spread to a Federal level via the Supreme Court. As a general rule, I'm in favor of measures taken to restrain the federal judiciary, since it can unilaterally do things that neither of the other two branches can. This, along with the fact that judges serve for life puts an inordinate amount of power in their hands and I'd rather not take the risk that they might damage the Bill of Rights.


Nothing in that statement assumes any knowledge of your beliefs. I'm saying the government apparently has no problem raping the Constitution and that closer examination is necessary if you think that unconstitutional measures haven't been passed. I don't think WTP is expressly unconstitutional, but even if it was it's a lot less inimical to the document than declaring war without Congress or establishing a central bank. The Bill of Rights is already protected (by the 14th Amendment even) on a state level, but currently is not protected on a federal level. The 14th Amendment should prevent states from contravening the Bill of Rights and the WTP act would prevent the fed from overturning or altering said rights. Again, I'm failing to see how the WTP act "strips away" the 14th Amendment.


Right, because we all know congressmen have nothing better to do than read their own propaganda. If you canvassed congress right now, I'd be willing to bet the majority of them aren't intimately aware of the content of their handouts, leaflets etc. That's why they organize committees for their re-election instead of doing everything themselves. Maybe if he never slept..

:headbang:

The very purpose of having a Bill of Rights and a 14th Amendment is so that some things aren't left to popular vote. That isn't giving too much power to the judiciary, but rather keeping the checks and balances our system was designed to have.

Do you really disagree with the following? West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Just because it can't do it now doesn't mean someone won't try eventually. He's trying to lay down the framework to prevent it from happening. 20 years ago if you asked someone on the street if you thought we'd lose habeas corpus, it would likely have provoked a similar response to the above.

You kind of shoot yourself in the foot here. The Executive and Legislative Branches have been trying to take away the writ of habeas corpus from "enemy combatants," but the Supreme Court keeps saying they can't do that. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/06-1195.html), 553 U.S. ___ (2008).

So tell us again how weaking the judicial branch protects freedoms. :rolleyes:

You almost have to admire the degree of delusional devotion of those that deny Ron Paul is racist -- despite his (1) publishing racist newsletters, (2) opposition to anti-discrimination laws, and (3) support for racist policies.

I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on many social and most economic issues, because an unregulated market like the one ol' Ronnie proposes causes major depressions (would Libertarians be against the FDIC BTW?). Also, the fact that he wants to gut the Judiciary and voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just horrifying

I like Ron Paul more than any other candidate, even though he's not running anymore.

Most people are turned off his ideas, because they seem stupid. I know lot's of people who didn't like his plan to abolish the IRS. But if it's really costing more money than it's making.. It might be a good idea to at least put it on hold for a while. And the Libertarian ideology just works for me, I think he could have done wonders for the country. And I hope he runs again.

Yep, that's real consistent, all right.

You don't even have to go to matters of interpretation.

He flat-out stated that he was voting for a bill he found to be unconstitutional:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

You're goddamn right it is. The "We The People" Act is (please read this carefully) meant to keep the Bill of Rights out of Federal courts because said courts do not and should not have the power to alter the Bill of Rights.

Not alter it, no. But they do have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional when those laws violate the protections set forth in the Bill of Rights.

Without that line of appeal, the state governments have the ability to violate those rights with impunity.

The Judiciary is the only branch of our government that isn't democratic and it needs to be restrained as such. People pay more attention to Congress and the Presidency, but the courts wield much more power on an individual basis. The "We The People" Act is meant to protect these rights you mentioned, not destroy them.

Yeah. "Protect" them by ensuring that we can't actually appeal to have them enforced. Sounds lovely.

Not to mention the fact that his reasons for the bill are quite clear. He doesn't want to see homosexuals treated equally under the law (his reason for trying to keep equal rights issues out of the courts). He doesn't want to see women retain the rights to their own bodies (his reason for declaring the right to privacy off-limits - despite touting it when he wants to oppose things like the Patriot Act). And he wants to protect the states' "rights" to establish religion as they please.

Also, it's worth pointing out that when this was brought to light, Ron Paul stood up and acknowledged a moral responsibility for the content of his newsletter, even though he probably didn't read it at the time. Usually, the MO of most politicians is to avoid the accusations rather than countenance them, and Paul had the character to stand up and say "yeah, I fucked up." It's been a long time since I've seen an American politician do that.

Actually, that's not precisely true. When they were first brought up - in his race for the House seat, he claimed that the statements had merely been taken out of context and were not racist at all. A couple of years after he was already in office, he claimed that he hadn't written them.

It wasn't until they were brought up in this election, that he claimed any moral responsibility.

The Bill of Rights is already protected (by the 14th Amendment even) on a state level, but currently is not protected on a federal level. The 14th Amendment should prevent states from contravening the Bill of Rights and the WTP act would prevent the fed from overturning or altering said rights.

Or, you know, protecting them. The 14th Amendment doesn't keep states from passing laws that violate individual rights. It just makes it clear that such laws are unconstitutional.

Again, I'm failing to see how the WTP act "strips away" the 14th Amendment.

It makes it pretty much unenforceable.

Right, because we all know congressmen have nothing better to do than read their own propaganda.

He wasn't a congressman at the time.


The government won't have any significant role in returning to the gold standard, the people will use the gold amongst themselves, like some communities are already doing.

Good thing we've all got oodles of gold lying around!

As to abortion: Man kills pregnant woman= double homicide; woman asks doctor to kill her baby= no punishment... WTF, that logic makes absolutely no sense, and since when do mothers have the right to decide if their child will live or die?

Mothers have the right to decide what will be done with their own bodies. If refusing the use of her body means that someone else - even her child - dies, she still has that right.

If a woman even accidentally kills her newborn child, does she not receive punishment!?

Um......no.

Ron Paul is O.K. I prefer Pat Buchanan because I'm more of a conservative than libertarian.

He's going to win Montana for Obama.

He's going to win Montana for Obama.

we can only hope he accomplishes something worthwhile.

I'm not trying to shame anybody into anything.

I'm trying to point out a fact:

Ron Paul is on the verge of libertarianism and conservatism. Some of his positions (abortion, immigration) are more conservative than libertarian. OThers (drugs, prostitution) are more libertarian than conservative.

But at any rate, starting a thread on a majority-left-wing forum and asking whether they like a right-wing candidate is not Sparta.

It's madness.

Wait, you KNOW the tilt of this forum, and you expected calm reactions while slinging incendiary comments like you have? You sir, are a silly, silly man.

It's very simple with me.

I'd rather have a complete, certified, 1-IQ-point idiot I agree with on the issues than a 180-IQ guy who I disagree with.

Especially as a libertarian president wouldn't have to be very smart anyhow.

And this statement proves it.

Where is the 'Ron Paul is Evil' option? :(

Predictably, a flood of posts has been forthcoming to the effect of "NU UH HE IZ TEH RACIST." Ever since (or, perhaps, even immediately before) the Civil War, any attempt to advocate states rights is automatically linked to racism: interestingly, the black people I've talked to about Ron Paul seem a lot less interested in his racial ideas than the white ones; the white middle class in this country feels so guilty about the injustices of the past (to black men, but not Indians) that they will bend over backwards to see racists where none exist. My best friend is a black man, and I'm generally pro state's rights--I'll bet a few of you would call me a racist for it, and would also be happy to assume that if given the chance, a handful of southern states would sanction roaming lynch mobs.

There's some high-toned and fancy talk about "checks and balances" but as it stands right now, the Supreme Court could bludgeon the Bill of Rights if it really wanted to. Of course the Bill of Rights isn't supposed to be subjected to popular vote, but if that's the case, why not make them inviolate by protecting it from the Courts as well? I don't think the Bill of Rights should be tampered with either by the state or Federal government--if you want to make the case that state courts should also be thusly restrained fine, but that's not what I'm seeing here. What I'm seeing is people gesturing wildly at the WTP Act and saying "Oh noez another ebil libertarian!"

Paul isn't generally known for being outspoken about social policy; he tends to be more interested in economics and it would be awfully useful to us to have someone in office that knew how it worked. And no, Barack "throw money at it like everyone else has and see if it works this time" Obama does not qualify as an economic expert, in my book. Again, if you want to make the case that Paul is wrong on economics that's all well and good, but pretty much all I'm seeing here is knee jerk bullshit. A few of you have done your research and I'll be the first to credit you for it, but as a general rule I've not read many intelligent criticisms of his actual policies. Only one or two of you (as far as I can tell) have actually bothered to look up his legislation and if you don't agree with it that's your right, but reading The New Republic or any other publication and blithely assuming it speaks nothing but Gospel Truth is myopic and irresponsible. It's usually not hard to label southern Republicans racists (just like people used to do with southern Democrats, believe it or not) and his detractors have responded in classic form.

Paul isn't generally known for being outspoken about social policy; he tends to be more interested in economics and it would be awfully useful to us to have someone in office that knew how it worked. And no, Barack "throw money at it like everyone else has and see if it works this time" Obama does not qualify as an economic expert, in my book.

of course, your book is laughed at by economic experts...

Paul isn't generally known for being outspoken about social policy; he tends to be more interested in economics and it would be awfully useful to us to have someone in office that knew how it worked. And no, Barack "throw money at it like everyone else has and see if it works this time" Obama does not qualify as an economic expert, in my book.

Given the current climate, actually addressing a claim that Ron Paul would be a positive influence, because of his ideas on economics, seems a little redundant.

of course, your book is laughed at by economic experts...

Yeah, because we've all seen how well the "subsidize everything!" policy has worked in the past. Get real. Remember that "Economic Stimulus" plan that didn't stimulate our economy at all? Remember the bailout that didn't restore any confidence in the markets?

I got three hundred bucks from those bastards in Washington. Three hundred lousy goddamn dollars, and they expect me to stimulate the economy? We've spent a damn sight more than that on the Iraqis and look where it's gotten us. They can laugh at it all they want, it doesn't make them right.

Given the current climate, actually addressing a claim that Ron Paul would be a positive influence, because of his ideas on economics, seems a little redundant.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess based on this that you're one of those people who thinks that "lack of regulation" was the driving force behind the recent financial crisis. Am I right or were you getting at something else? Because I won't bother to tell you how ridiculous that idea is unless I'm sure that's what you were getting at.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess based on this that you're one of those people who thinks that "lack of regulation" was the driving force behind the recent financial crisis. Am I right or were you getting at something else? Because I won't bother to tell you how ridiculous that idea is unless I'm sure that's what you were getting at.

Lack of regulation is never the driving force. It is, however, the reason why a driving force can be driving without a driver.

Lack of regulation is why it IS a crisis.

Remember that "Economic Stimulus" plan that didn't stimulate our economy at all?

to quote his grand shrillness (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ex=1359003600&en=666576ca1e66bdcb&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) of the ancient and hermetic order of the shrill:

"House Democrats and the White House have reached an agreement on an economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the plan — which essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape — looks like a lemon.

Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective."

Remember the bailout that didn't restore any confidence in the markets?

yes, though you'll note that the reason has been the free-marketeers in charge being flaky and reluctant to actually address the underlying issues

Okay, here's why that's bullshit:

Banks are failing because they lent a lot of money to people who weren't creditworthy. The most damaging aspect of this (due to the size of the loans involved) was, of course, the housing/mortgage market. People started falling behind because they shouldn't have been loaned the money in the first place (I know--I'm one of them, and I didn't even take out a mortgage: I've only got about 7kish in debt but I've not been able to make a dent in it for a full year now on account of the APR's they stuck me with).

Why were banks lending so extensively? Because interest rates were lower than Bill Clinton's standards at an intern party. Regulation from the Federal Reserve created those low interest rates, which inflated the housing bubble to its bursting point.

The recent famous real estate bubble was created by government interventions and dysregulations aimed at promoting home ownership, including unnaturally low overnight rates set by the Federal Reserve, and legislatively mandated lowering of lending standards. It was in the politicians' best interest to promote home ownership at all costs, since nothing makes a typical materialistic American voter feel better than to be able to lounge around in his very own suburban McMansion purchased on credit he can never hope to pay back. This politically-motivated tampering with the free market created the bubble which has so spectacularly blown up in our face.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Absurdity such as this is all the reason I need to dislike Paul.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Absurdity such as this is all the reason I need to dislike Paul.

i'm sure that this too was written by magical ghostwriting homophobic elves

I saw him talking when he was still running for the candidacy, and I thought what he was saying seemed plausible and I tended to agree with him on a couple things. It inspired me to go to his website to read more on his policies, when I got to his economic policies I had to close the window, he had no idea what he was talking about (which makes him perfect to be a presidential candidate) and would not only wreck the US economy but the worlds as well.

i'm sure that this too was written by magical ghostwriting homophobic elves

*dons haz-mat suit and grabs a 2x4 with a nail in it*

Can you read? Because at the top it says "by Rep. Ron Paul, MD." He wrote it himself. I'm sure it offends your communist sensibilities to no end, but it strikes me as a reasonable interpretation of the document meant to guide our government (i.e. the Constitution). I don't myself agree with Paul's apparent hostility towards the idea of the separation of church and state (at least, insofar as it's implied in that article) but it's a fart in the wind compared to the bullshit bipartisan politics has put us through for the last handful of decades.

I'd rather have a president that I disagreed with here and there but would overhaul our ridiculous tax code, end this empire building overseas, and do away with this "government within a government" (Federal Reserve) than one who would endorse a "stay the course" policy, since it's pretty obvious where that's gotten us so far.

I get the impression, reading over the Bill of Rights, that the founders had a rough idea of how the nation would be shaped--that it would eventually take shape as a 'melting pot' of various cultures, religions, beliefs, etc; and it seems as if they wrote the Constitution with this vision in mind: that different regions would have different ideas and views. I think they saw it coming in the sense that some people living in some areas would have different ideas about how to handle social issues, and the Constitution reflects that. If some whackjobs in Texas want to arrest people for putting their reproductive organs in certain orifices that's their business: people should have the right to be wrong. I don't agree with it myself, but who am I to say that you have to live a certain way or believe certain things? It's not like someone's holding a gun to your head and saying "LIVE IN TEXAS OR I'LL SHOOT YOU." To use an extreme example, Muslims have some weird ideas about how women should be treated: does that mean we should throw them all in cages?

For all the preaching the modern left does about "tolerance" they seem to have remarkably little. I don't myself think anti-sodomy laws are moral or even enforceable, but education--not force--is and always will be the best way to combat this kind of thinking. I don't think Paul's complaints stem so much from the fact that he wants LOL GENOCIDE for all gays so much as they come from the means by which the Feds exert their will on each state. Remember how in the '70's the Feds decided they wanted to raise the drinking age to 21? Without the ability to simply issue a decree to that effect, they went to each state and said "you get no highway funding unless you do this." It's the same song and dance but in a different key.

Can you read? Because at the top it says "by Rep. Ron Paul, MD." He wrote it himself.

so he is a motherfucking racist asshole, then?

If some whackjobs in Texas want to arrest people for putting their reproductive organs in certain orifices that's their business: people should have the right to be wrong.

Strange, it would seem that the natural position for people actually interested in liberty would be against letting governments restrict consensual sexual practices.

I don't myself think anti-sodomy laws are moral or even enforceable, but education--not force--is and always will be the best way to combat this kind of thinking.

Combating "this way of thinking" is a secondary priority to ensuring that that "way of thinking" cannot use state power to abridge people's rights. I am much less concerned for what people think than I am for what people do.

Strange, it would seem that the natural position for people actually interested in liberty would be against letting governments restrict consensual sexual practices.


Combating "this way of thinking" is a secondary priority to ensuring that that "way of thinking" cannot use state power to abridge people's rights. I am much less concerned for what people think than I am for what people do.

why do you hate my freedom to oppress people so much? go back to russia!

*If some whackjobs in Texas want to arrest people for putting their reproductive organs in certain orifices that's their business: people should have the right to be wrong.

And this is where we disagree. Why should whackjobs in Texas have the right to make unjust and unethical laws just because there are a lot of like-minded whackjobs around them? They have all the right in the world to not stick their reproductive organs in certain orifices, but what gives them the right to codify their stupidity and force it down the throats of more reasonable people? "States' rights" should not extend to creating bad law.

I don't agree with it myself, but who am I to say that you have to live a certain way or believe certain things? It's not like someone's holding a gun to your head and saying "LIVE IN TEXAS OR I'LL SHOOT YOU."

No, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head, but why should someone have to move to a different state just so they can be treated fairly under the law? Why do states have the right to force reasonable people to either suffer under unethical law or leave? The "if you don't like it, there's the door" line of argument is one of the worst failures of an argument out there. Saying the option is there to leave does not excuse these actions.

*To use an extreme example, Muslims have some weird ideas about how women should be treated: does that mean we should throw them all in cages?

I'm not sure where this suggestion of cages came from. It certainly didn't come from any reasonable argument opposed to you. To speak to it, though, no we should not throw them all in cages, because that would be idiotic and very racist. But, alternatively, we should not carve out a state for them where they can codify their bigotted beliefs into law simply because they have the majority.

Not that I support state Rights or Ron Paul, and also not that I think anyone in this thread specifically is guilty of this, but I do find it strange that so many people cream themselves at the prospect of self determination and independence for every single insignificant area in Europe (for instance) that wants it so, since they hold the value of self determination so important, and yet when Ron Paul aims to provide more self determination to various states in the US, they froth at the mouth at such an idea, despite these states usually being much larger and more populous than these areas in Europe.

For all the preaching the modern left does about "tolerance" they seem to have remarkably little.

I missed this gem. I never get tired of hearing this particular tired line. The left IS tolerant. You, like pretty much everyone of a conservative persuasion, simply confuse tolerance with acceptance. I can tolerate your opposing viewpoints and grant you the right to speak them unhindered. I certainly won't shout you down or hurl accusations of treason at you merely for having a different view than I do. But just because I can tolerate your views does not mean I need to accept them. I can let you speak your views, and then I can just as easily tell you why I believe them to be bigotted and selfish and wrong. Tolerance, not acceptance.

I missed this gem. I never get tired of hearing this particular tired line. The left IS tolerant. You, like pretty much everyone of a conservative persuasion, simply confuse tolerance with acceptance. I can tolerate your opposing viewpoints and grant you the right to speak them unhindered. I certainly won't shout you down or hurl accusations of treason at you merely for having a different view than I do. But just because I can tolerate your views does not mean I need to accept them. I can let you speak your views, and then I can just as easily tell you why I believe them to be bigotted and selfish and wrong. Tolerance, not acceptance.

This displays a typical leftist double-standard. For anyone who does not accept the tenets of the leftist is automatically branded intolerant, or worse, bigoted/racist/sexist you name it. Therefore, in the mind of a leftist radical tolerance does equal acceptance. Again it's simply the left refusing to confer any legitimacy on opposing viewpoints because, in a fair stand-up fight/debate, most of the left's stances on issues would be found to be ridiculous.

You personally may not feel the same way as the people I just described, although your words here seem to bely that, but please don't try to defend the left by saying they are tolerant.

This displays a typical leftist double-standard. For anyone who does not accept the tenets of the leftist is automatically branded intolerant, or worse, bigoted/racist/sexist you name it. Therefore, in the mind of a leftist radical tolerance does equal acceptance. Again it's simply the left refusing to confer any legitimacy on opposing viewpoints because, in a fair stand-up fight/debate, most of the left's stances on issues would be found to be ridiculous.

You personally may not feel the same way as the people I just described, although your words here seem to bely that, but please don't try to defend the left by saying they are tolerant.

A double standard would be crying about the left being intolerant while, in the same breath, denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as being anti-America, a terrorist sympathizer, treasonous, et cetera. Allowing you the right to speak your mind without trying to silence you is all the tolerance someone needs to be afforded. I'm sorry if you feel that tolerance should extend to conferring legitimacy, or if you're upset by accusations of bigotry that follow the voicing of your opinions, but none of that is necessary for tolerance. In reasonable discourse in the United States, the right is afforded all the tolerance they require.

This displays a typical leftist double-standard. For anyone who does not accept the tenets of the leftist is automatically branded intolerant, or worse, bigoted/racist/sexist you name it. Therefore, in the mind of a leftist radical tolerance does equal acceptance.

if actor x does not accept the beliefs and engage in the actions required to count as tolerant, then they just are intolerant. this has no bearing on whether actor y is tolerant of x.

Again it's simply the left refusing to confer any legitimacy on opposing viewpoints because, in a fair stand-up fight/debate, most of the left's stances on issues would be found to be ridiculous.

funny, this seems to be the opposite of the standard experience. any issue in particular you are thinking of as an example?

Okay, here's why that's bullshit:

Banks are failing because they lent a lot of money to people who weren't creditworthy. The most damaging aspect of this (due to the size of the loans involved) was, of course, the housing/mortgage market. People started falling behind because they shouldn't have been loaned the money in the first place (I know--I'm one of them, and I didn't even take out a mortgage: I've only got about 7kish in debt but I've not been able to make a dent in it for a full year now on account of the APR's they stuck me with).

Why were banks lending so extensively? Because interest rates were lower than Bill Clinton's standards at an intern party. Regulation from the Federal Reserve created those low interest rates, which inflated the housing bubble to its bursting point.

Who is this supposed to be a reply to? You can avoid a lot of this kind of confusion by pressing that little 'quote' button.

Why were banks lending so extensively? Because there was no reason not to - because there was no regulation, and maximising returns means dealing with as many customers as possible.

Why were customers borrowing? Because interest rates were so low.

It's a textbook mistake to conflate the reasons why two different factions in a transaction act as they do.

yet when Ron Paul aims to provide more self determination to various states in the US, they froth at the mouth at such an idea, despite these states usually being much larger and more populous than these areas in Europe.

Texas is not clamoring for independence from the US. If it were, I would agree that forcing it to remain part of a political union with which it does not wish to take part is a greater wrong than permitting it to continue enforcing anti-sodomy laws, but as it stands, I see no problem with using legal processes to compel it to stop violating individual rights.

It is, incidentally, something of a different matter when the federal government attempts to impose other sorts of policies. For instance, to borrow Melkor's example, I don't really have a problem with the drinking age at 21, but I don't think the federal government should attempt to bring states in line with such a policy. It seems to me that states (and local political communities more broadly) should have a right to make such decisions for themselves. It's just that I don't think any government has the right to restrict private, consensual sexual behavior. The people of a state have the right to decide how their government is to exercise its authority, but they do not have the right to exercise government authority in a place where the government has no (rightful) authority.

If some whackjobs in Texas want to arrest people for putting their reproductive organs in certain orifices that's their business: people should have the right to be wrong.


No, they shouldn't. No one should have the 'right' to create or enforce laws that infringe on the 'rights' of other, consenting adults.

Those whackjobs should be allowed to think their stupid shit, and even talk about it - provided no violence is incited - but they should never be allowed to apply it to others.


For all the preaching the modern left does about "tolerance" they seem to have remarkably little.


Yes, which is why the 'modern left' continues to create these extensive constructs of restrictive laws that... wait, that's not them is it?

The 'left' is almost defined by tolerance - and, to be honest, that's both the greatest strength AND greatest weakness.


I don't myself think anti-sodomy laws are moral or even enforceable, but education--not force--is and always will be the best way to combat this kind of thinking.

A cute sentiment that unfortunately doesn't always apply in reality - because, quite simply - those who most need such education, shit their pants whenever such education is even speculated about.

Education is part of the solution - but it's not going to be the WHOLE solution.

I love the line "the left are intolerant because they assume any right-wing person is intolerant."

No. We assume any intolerant person is intolerant.

If you believe that gay people should not have equal rights, then you hold a bigoted belief.
If you believe, to quote a certain conservative president, that atheists should not "be considered patriots or even citizens of the United States," then you hold a bigoted belief.
If you think that "we can safely say that 95% of blacks are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," then you are bigoted beyond belief.

I could go on, but you get the point. Now, it just so happens that such beliefs have a strong tendency to show up primarily in conservatives. And while we don't immediately assume bigotry on the part of any self-identified conservative, we know to be on the lookout for beliefs such as the ones above.

Texas is not clamoring for independence from the US.

Really? I've heard differently, maybe not the actual authorities of Texas, but I've heard that a very large portion of its population wants Texas to be more independent from the federal government. But then I don't really know anything about Texas.

I've heard that a very large portion of its population wants Texas to be more independent from the federal government.

Maybe. And I don't have a problem with that, as a general proposition.

"We want to be able to ban sodomy without federal government meddling"--that, I have a problem with.

Maybe. And I don't have a problem with that, as a general proposition.

"We want to be able to ban sodomy without federal government meddling"--that, I have a problem with.

As do I, but If I were coming from a perspective that self determination of any area is a fundamental right, keeping to this principle regardless of the consequences, does not nescecerally make me homophobic.

I get the impression, reading over the Bill of Rights, that the founders had a rough idea of how the nation would be shaped--that it would eventually take shape as a 'melting pot' of various cultures, religions, beliefs, etc; and it seems as if they wrote the Constitution with this vision in mind: that different regions would have different ideas and views. I think they saw it coming in the sense that some people living in some areas would have different ideas about how to handle social issues, and the Constitution reflects that.

Meh, perhaps they did, though I assume the founders would be shocked that the US has lasted as long as it has. In any case, changes to the contitution, most prominently the 14th Amendment

If some whackjobs in Texas want to arrest people for putting their reproductive organs in certain orifices that's their business: people should have the right to be wrong. I don't agree with it myself, but who am I to say that you have to live a certain way or believe certain things? It's not like someone's holding a gun to your head and saying "LIVE IN TEXAS OR I'LL SHOOT YOU." To use an extreme example, Muslims have some weird ideas about how women should be treated: does that mean we should throw them all in cages?

Huh? A government is using coercion/force to enforce sex between consenting adults and you don't seem to have much of a problem with it?.You implicitly use the "if you don't want to follow a governments particular laws don't live there" argument that you have disagreed with in the past. You use a strawman of caging muslims with funky ideas when all most in this thread want is to limit the governments powers of coercion.

Remember how in the '70's the Feds decided they wanted to raise the drinking age to 21? Without the ability to simply issue a decree to that effect, they went to each state and said "you get no highway funding unless you do this." It's the same song and dance but in a different key.

Wow, witholding funding is exactly like taking power away from the states. It not like they couldn't privitize the highways,.

I think more than a few of you aren't looking at the situation in strictly practical terms. As oppressive as anti-sodomy laws are, they're even less enforceable than anti-drug legislation and for many of the same reasons. Plenty of gay sex goes on in Texas, I'm sure, and the wide majority of them don't get locked up for it, I would guess. I don't happen to live there myself, but I would be fairly surprised if it was common practice for police to burst randomly into peoples' houses to see where they were putting their penises. I would guess that most of the people who have been arrested under that statute got caught doing it in public or something equally outrageous.

Still, I can see pretty plainly the writing on the wall here: none of you believe that people have the right to be wrong, and despite your exhortations to the contrary, this only reinforces my thesis that "tolerance" is just a buzzword to the wide majority of you. I myself don't care what people do with their reproductive organs in their free time, but I'm not going to shove that morality down a Leviticus-quoting hothead's throat. I'm sure you'll all be happy to call me a homophobe, intolerant racist asshole etc etc (since we all know all libertarians are), but I say "bring it on." I'm the only one in this discussion who isn't flipping his lid over some crazies in Texas that I don't agree with 100% of the time. Like I said, I disagree with Paul here and there, but he has a hell of a lot more character than anyone else I've seen run for president in my lifetime, and he doesn't change his views to suit political expediency.

Predictably, the lot of you missed the main point I was trying to make, instead preferring to latch on to the easy attacks, implicitly to the effect "OMG HE HATES TEH HOMOZ." Paul's complaints have more to do with how the Federal Government exerts itself on the state: the man might not personally endorse homosexuality, but if he's socially permissive enough to call for the legalization of marijuana, it should go without saying that he thinks people should be more or less free to do what they will as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. He seems to be reasonably religious, so he might not even think homosexuality is moral, but in his eyes I'm sure neither is marijuana use: it's just not something the government has any business enforcing, pro or against. He has a very (justifiably) cynical view of how the federal government wields its power, and their tendency to circumvent to Constitution on everything from states rights to foreign policy is fairly well documented.

Lastly, the point I brought up using the Muslims is not a "Straw Man:" it never ceases to amaze me how consistently that term is misused on this board. If you think it's wrong for the state to impose their morality on Muslim ideas of sexuality, then it must also follow that the same is true for Christian ideas of sexuality. I don't myself think that either religion hit the proverbial nail on the head in that area, but it doesn't mean that we should go around bludgeoning them with clubs or legislation.

EDIT: and by the way, I never held up the modern right as paragons of tolerance, I'm simply pointing out that when it comes to politics, the two sides have a lot more in common than either one will admit. The left loves to talk about how we should all be living in harmony etc etc... EXCEPT THOSE FAG HATING ASSHOLES! BURRRRNNN THEEEEMMM!

Still, I can see pretty plainly the writing on the wall here: none of you believe that people have the right to be wrong, and despite your exhortations to the contrary, this only reinforces my thesis that "tolerance" is just a buzzword to the wide majority of you.

Then you are ignorant of what has been written.

There have been a number of responses that quite clearly said that people have the right to be wrong - provided they don't DO anything to anyone else. Thinking stupid shit in your own head - fine. Legislating it - is bullshit.

If you're argument is SERIOUSLY that opposing discrimination... makes people intolerant, then I'm afraid you simply dont understand what tolerance means.

Lastly, the point I brought up using the Muslims is not a "Straw Man:" it never ceases to amaze me how consistently that term is misused on this board.

The left loves to talk about how we should all be living in harmony etc etc... EXCEPT THOSE FAG HATING ASSHOLES! BURRRRNNN THEEEEMMM!


Saucer of irony for table 6.

:rolleyes:

If you're argument is SERIOUSLY that opposing discrimination... makes people intolerant, then I'm afraid you simply dont understand what tolerance means.
Let's take a look at this statement, shall we? What is discrimination? Dictionary.com defines 'discrimination' as

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

Now, if you take, say, gay-haters, and categorize them accordingly and make the case that they deserve no right to live according to their own ideas (flawed as they may be) you're not really "tolerating" their views, are you? It kind of sounds to me like you're trying to fight fire with fire, by saying that the only true "tolerance" is to reject all ideas that don't jibe with your own--which is exactly what the gay-hating homophobes are also doing.

My argument, in effect, is "live and let live." You're never going to convince these people that they're wrong, they'll just quote Bible verses at you until they're blue in the face--I've seen it happen time and time again. People are so anxious for change that they expect it right now, and that's simply not practical. The general assumption here seems to be that we can change everything for the better through legislation and while this is sometimes true, it's silly to assume that it's some kind of magic bullet to erase all prejudice from the human psyche.

Human attitudes regarding race and sexuality have been slowly becoming more moderate over a period of history spanning almost all the way back to the dawn of civilization, and these ideas are almost never changed by laws alone. They're changed by living together from generation to generation and slowly accepting that one's neighbor does not share your attributes or proclivities. In all probability we will not in this lifetime see an end to racism or gay-hate, but if it does happen eventually it will be a cultural force and not a legislative one.

I think more than a few of you aren't looking at the situation in strictly practical terms. As oppressive as anti-sodomy laws are, they're even less enforceable than anti-drug legislation and for many of the same reasons. Plenty of gay sex goes on in Texas, I'm sure, and the wide majority of them don't get locked up for it, I would guess. I don't happen to live there myself, but I would be fairly surprised if it was common practice for police to burst randomly into peoples' houses to see where they were putting their penises. I would guess that most of the people who have been arrested under that statute got caught doing it in public or something equally outrageous.

There is truth to this, but it'd true about a number of laws. That doesn't mean that is ok that the law exists.

Still, I can see pretty plainly the writing on the wall here: none of you believe that people have the right to be wrong, and despite your exhortations to the contrary, this only reinforces my thesis that "tolerance" is just a buzzword to the wide majority of you. I myself don't care what people do with their reproductive organs in their free time, but I'm not going to shove that morality down a Leviticus-quoting hothead's throat. I'm sure you'll all be happy to call me a homophobe, intolerant racist asshole etc etc (since we all know all libertarians are), but I say "bring it on." I'm the only one in this discussion who isn't flipping his lid over some crazies in Texas that I don't agree with 100% of the time. Like I said, I disagree with Paul here and there, but he has a hell of a lot more character than anyone else I've seen run for president in my lifetime, and he doesn't change his views to suit political expediency.

The right to be wrong end's when it concerns government coercion. This is the basic libertarian doctrine. Balloon up to 500 pounds. Major in some subject that has almost no job opportunities. Join a weird religion. Just don't sick the government on me.

Predictably, the lot of you missed the main point I was trying to make, instead preferring to latch on to the easy attacks, implicitly to the effect "OMG HE HATES TEH HOMOZ." Paul's complaints have more to do with how the Federal Government exerts itself on the state: the man might not personally endorse homosexuality, but if he's socially permissive enough to call for the legalization of marijuana, it should go without saying that he thinks people should be more or less free to do what they will as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. He seems to be reasonably religious, so he might not even think homosexuality is moral, but in his eyes I'm sure neither is marijuana use: it's just not something the government has any business enforcing, pro or against. He has a very (justifiably) cynical view of how the federal government wields its power, and their tendency to circumvent to Constitution on everything from states rights to foreign policy is fairly well documented.

I have a very cynical view of state and local governments. These are the governments that ban prostitution, drugs, consensual sex, and whatnot. I don't see why having the federal government limit the coercive powers of the states is a bad thing. Its a very very good thing, IMO. I don't see why libertarians often have such rosy pictures of state and local governments when they are governments and thus coercive enitites.

Lastly, the point I brought up using the Muslims is not a "Straw Man:" it never ceases to amaze me how consistently that term is misused on this board. If you think it's wrong for the state to impose their morality on Muslim ideas of sexuality, then it must also follow that the same is true for Christian ideas of sexuality. I don't myself think that either religion hit the proverbial nail on the head in that area, but it doesn't mean that we should go around bludgeoning them with clubs or legislation.

What are you talking about? Who here want's to force Christians to violate their ideas of sexuality? Who here wants to use government coercion to force muslims to adhere to violate their ideas of sexuality when all parties are consenting?

What are you talking about? Who here want's to force Christians to violate their ideas of sexuality? Who here wants to use government coercion to force muslims to adhere to violate their ideas of sexuality when all parties are consenting?

I lol'd. Given how unpopular anti-sodomy laws are, it seems like an awful lot of us are trying to force Christians to violate their ideas of sexuality. They (okay, some of them) actually believe that homosexuality is immoral, and they're attempting to live accordingly.

I think more than a few of you aren't looking at the situation in strictly practical terms.
If this is the start of a counter argument, you automatically fail. Epically. Questioning a practical application of common sense to law is not a good place to start arguing that you are the one in the right as opposed to some one else.

Given how unpopular anti-sodomy laws are, it seems like an awful lot of us are trying to force Christians to violate their ideas of sexuality.
Really? I wasn't aware there was a law on the books of any "liberal" state to forces Christians to have anal sex.

I lol'd. Given how unpopular anti-sodomy laws are, it seems like an awful lot of us are trying to force Christians to violate their ideas of sexuality. They (okay, some of them) actually believe that homosexuality is immoral, and they're attempting to live accordingly.

No one is forcing Christians to sodomize/be sodomized. Limiting they're ability to coerce others does not mean they are coerced.

No one is forcing Christians to sodomize/be sodomized. Limiting they're ability to coerce others does not mean they are coerced.
Fair enough, but they're only attempting to enact laws they believe are moral. Isn't that what the rest of us are also doing?

Fair enough, but they're only attempting to enact laws they believe are moral. Isn't that what the rest of us are also doing?

Very true, but it doesn't stop us now does it?

Very true, but it doesn't stop us now does it?

Thank you! No, it doesn't (and it shouldn't). For all the arguing I'll do with (almost) all and sundry here, I should hope its not lost on us just what effect this kind of discourse has: I'm sure it would be difficult to convince some of us otherwise, but believe it or not I actually don't support anti-sodomy laws any more than I support anti-drug legislation and for the same reasons. But at the same time I recognize that all of us--no matter what we call ourselves--have a very real desire to see our morality reflected in legislation, whether its at a local or federal level. I can't bring myself to fault anyone for it, since if I did I couldn't avoid invalidating my own morality by holding the same standard to myself.

For the record, I do still believe in an Objective morality, but that doesn't mean I'm going to burn someone's house down or throw them in a cage for picking the wrong one. I'll just do what I'm doing here: rant to high heaven and hope someone out there listens.

For the record, I do still believe in an Objective morality, but that doesn't mean I'm going to burn someone's house down or throw them in a cage for picking the wrong one. I'll just do what I'm doing here: rant to high heaven and hope someone out there listens.

If you believe in objective morality, then surely you believe in an objectively correct way to govern?

Fair enough, but they're only attempting to enact laws they believe are moral. Isn't that what the rest of us are also doing?

You could say the same for a murderer: "She's just doing what she thinks is right. Isn't that what the rest of us are also doing?"

This is just an absurd reductionist attempt to abolish distinctions. You would never stand for it if anyone wielded it against you.

Wow, just wow...

All I have to say is that I'm glad you are not running my country Melkor, I do believe that if you were I'd strongly consider extreme measures

You could say the same for a murderer: "She's just doing what she thinks is right. Isn't that what the rest of us are also doing?"

This is just an absurd reductionist attempt to abolish distinctions. You would never stand for it if anyone wielded it against you.

Slippery slope. There's a bit of a difference between saying "Please don't have gay sex here" and killing people.

Thank you! No, it doesn't (and it shouldn't). For all the arguing I'll do with (almost) all and sundry here, I should hope its not lost on us just what effect this kind of discourse has: I'm sure it would be difficult to convince some of us otherwise, but believe it or not I actually don't support anti-sodomy laws any more than I support anti-drug legislation and for the same reasons. But at the same time I recognize that all of us--no matter what we call ourselves--have a very real desire to see our morality reflected in legislation, whether its at a local or federal level. I can't bring myself to fault anyone for it, since if I did I couldn't avoid invalidating my own morality by holding the same standard to myself.

I never thought you were for anti-sodomy laws and similar legislation. That was why I found it so odd that you seemed to be arguing against your libertarian beliefs.

For the record, I do still believe in an Objective morality, but that doesn't mean I'm going to burn someone's house down or throw them in a cage for picking the wrong one. I'll just do what I'm doing here: rant to high heaven and hope someone out there listens.

Wouldn't your Objective morality prevent you from burning and imprisoning other people?

Slippery slope. There's a bit of a difference between saying "Please don't have gay sex here" and killing people.

Depending on one's morality perhaps not.

Slippery slope. There's a bit of a difference between saying "Please don't have gay sex here" and killing people.

But is there any meaningful difference between enforcing a state not to enact anti sodomy laws, and forcing a state not to legalise murder? Both are violating it's self determination, but you just have a lower threshold than other people, because you seem to believe it's only justified to violate their self determination when things like legalising murder is at stake. Why is your threshold any better than Soheran's?

I lol'd. Given how unpopular anti-sodomy laws are, it seems like an awful lot of us are trying to force Christians to violate their ideas of sexuality. They (okay, some of them) actually believe that homosexuality is immoral, and they're attempting to live accordingly.

So....your arguement is....we should let Christians discriminate against gays, because otherwise we're dicriminating?


Yeah, youre just as loony as Paul.

I never thought you were for anti-sodomy laws and similar legislation. That was why I found it so odd that you seemed to be arguing against your libertarian beliefs.
With respect, I don't honestly think that advocating one's right to be wrong as "against" libertarian beliefs. People should be free to live their lives whether they live morally or not, to a reasonable degree. Anti-sodomy laws do hurt people who don't deserve it and that's why I'm not thrilled with them, but frankly, I've got bigger fish to fry. They ought to be repealed, but it should be done within the framework of our own Constitution.

But for what it's worth, as far as contravening the Constitution goes, you can do a lot worse than forcing states to repeal anti-sodomy laws: it just happens to be the course this discussion has taken.

Wouldn't your Objective morality prevent you from burning and imprisoning other people?
Well, yes. For this (and many other reasons) I oppose many of the measures I seem to be defending. But as far as I can tell there isn't actually a huge amount of prison space being used on homosexuals, nor are they being burned at the stake. Anti-sodomy laws are, for the people who believe in them, nothing more than "feel good" legislation that gives them the idea that they're living in a "moral" community, even though the law (as a practical measure) doesn't actually stop people from doing it.

So....your arguement is....we should let Christians discriminate against gays, because otherwise we're dicriminating?
Society has bigger problems to deal with than obsessing about what $RELIGION thinks about $SEXUAL_PRACTICE, whether it's Christians or Muslims or Pagans or whatever. You're not going to stop this discrimination from happening simply by legislating against it any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racism in America. Next please!

Society has bigger problems to deal with than obsessing about what $RELIGION thinks about $SEXUAL_PRACTICE, whether it's Christians or Muslims or Pagans or whatever. You're not going to stop this discrimination from happening simply by legislating against it any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racism in America. Next please!

Yep. Lets just let hate and discrimination happen, and focus more on keeping the rich white guys rich.


We're done here.

You're not going to stop this discrimination from happening simply by legislating against it any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racism in America.

because anything that doesn't completely fix everything is an abject failure!

the lesson is, "never try"

With respect, I don't honestly think that advocating one's right to be wrong as "against" libertarian beliefs. People should be free to live their lives whether they live morally or not, to a reasonable degree. Anti-sodomy laws do hurt people who don't deserve it and that's why I'm not thrilled with them, but frankly, I've got bigger fish to fry. They ought to be repealed, but it should be done within the framework of our own Constitution.

A right to believe homsexuality is wrong is a lot different from a right to ban homosexual acts. You did not appear to make that distinction.

But for what it's worth, as far as contravening the Constitution goes, you can do a lot worse than forcing states to repeal anti-sodomy laws: it just happens to be the course this discussion has taken.

The 9th and 14th amendments make pretty good cases on limiting the states' ability to legislate sexual relations.


Well, yes. For this (and many other reasons) I oppose many of the measures I seem to be defending. But as far as I can tell there isn't actually a huge amount of prison space being used on homosexuals, nor are they being burned at the stake. Anti-sodomy laws are, for the people who believe in them, nothing more than "feel good" legislation that gives them the idea that they're living in a "moral" community, even though the law (as a practical measure) doesn't actually stop people from doing it.

There probably aren't many, but there may have been a few, In any case there are other acts, drugs being the biggie, that do imprison a significant number of people, but they have similar moral reasons on why they were enacted.

You're not going to stop this discrimination from happening simply by legislating against it any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended racism in America. Next please!
I agree we can't change everyone's minds away from nonsensical discrimination, but surely you'd concede that the Civil Rights Act, and other legislation like it in differing countries, made headway in preventing institutionalised racism? Bob the racist Window-cleaner might still be able (as he should be) to spout off his idiocy to friends and family, but woe betide him (and his profits) if he takes this racism into the public.

I feel, perhaps similarly to yourself, that perceptions need to be changed, not enforced, though I don't see all anti-discrimination legislation as useless. Moreover, as folks have talked about above, there's a major difference in tolerating others hateful thoughts and speech, and allowing those thoughts to be put into practice legally.

We shouldn't be entirely unwilling to advocate our morality towards others.



We're done here.
Good, for your hyperbolic comments help not one jot.

Good, for your hyperbolic comments help not one jot.

Do you have anything better to do than comment on how my "hyperbolic comments help not one jot"? Because you seem to regularly quote me just to tell me Im not helping.

And many times, such as this one, my comments arent hyperbolic. Theyre pretty much exactly whats being said, or are an undertone to what is being said.


:rolleyes:

Theyre pretty much exactly whats being said, or are an undertone to what is being said.


I have to concur with Chumbly here, vitriolic simplifications of your opponents argument is not particularly useful.

Do you have anything better to do than comment on how my "hyperbolic comments help not one jot"? Because you seem to regularly quote me just to tell me I'm not helping.
You regularly aren't.

It's rare to see a politically-based post from you that doesn't involve a hasty generalisation of someone's position, or words in HATE CAPZ. Seeing as this is a debate forum and all, it'd be nice to see some debating.

And many times, such as this one, my comments arent hyperbolic.
"Lets just let hate and discrimination happen, and focus more on keeping the rich white guys rich" isn't silly exaggeration? You honestly think Melkor wants to focus on keeping white guys rich?

Slippery slope.

Reductio ad absurdum, actually. The trouble is that your logic actually does lead to such a conclusion, if "Well, they think it's right, and I do what I think is right too, so...." is actually good enough for you.

There's a bit of a difference between saying "Please don't have gay sex here" and killing people.

Agreed. But I do not think the line of reasoning you have advanced, the essential effect of which is to abolish distinctions, can recognize this distinction either.

A murderer may well believe that what she does is right. But the mere fact that she does so is not enough for us: we say, "She violated another person's rights", and we use coercion to prevent her from doing it again. Similarly, the people (well, the majority) in a given society may well believe that prohibiting sodomy is right. But this, too, should not be enough of us. People have the right to be wrong, but not to the extent of permitting them to violate the rights of others.

What sort of objection could you level against the latter reasoning that would not apply to the former reasoning? I mean, I can think of a few possibilities, but none of them are in line with your argument.