NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Oh, well then, I concede:rolleyes:

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.

No, see its not rare. Its pretty common actually. Selective memory must be great. But then again, you seem to only comment with me when you want to take a shot at me. I debate regularally.

My callin things as I see them and not dancing around the underlying issue seems to upset you.

If I really bother you that much, put me on ignore rather then troll me.

"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?

Ron Pauls policies are aimed soley towards protecting rich, white, Christian men. His supporters, by definition, support his policies, and thus, care primarially for rich white christian men.


I fail to see whats hyperbolic.

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!

ROTFLASTC

1. It is almost admirable how you've avoided discussing Ron Paul's actual record or beliefs. When you are ready to defend the real Ron Paul and not this fictional Übermensch you've created in your own head, get back to us.

2. Tolerance means respect and/or allowance of other views. It doesn't mean allowing or accepting actions based on those views when such actions infringe the rights of others. Thus, I tolerate homophobes, but I won't stand for them oppressing gays. No one is suggesting that being a homophobe be made a crime.

3. Ya gotta love the "he'd legalize marijuana so he must really believe in freedom argument." It's like saying Hitler must have really been a good guy because he liked puppies. (I know, OMG GODWIN!).

4. So far, most of your examples of "contravening the Constitution" are clear-cut examples of enforcing the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Perhaps there is some other Constitution to which you are referring?

I fail to see whats hyperbolic.
Running from:
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!
To:
Yep. Lets just let hate and discrimination happen, and focus more on keeping the rich white guys rich.
I disagree, like you, with Melkor's position. But mischaracterising it, dismissing it with no debate, doesn't help anyone.

Oh, well then, I concede:rolleyes:


I'm just saying to show you that Chumbly isn't doing it due to any personal vendetta he may have against you, I see it too.


Ron Pauls policies are aimed soley towards protecting rich, white, Christian men. His supporters, by definition, support his policies, and thus, care primarially for rich white christian men.


I fail to see whats hyperbolic.

Are you being ironic on purpose?

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.

Which is exactly what happened in Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003). :eek:

Pray tell, WTF are you arguing against?

Which is exactly what happened in Lawrence v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html), 539 U.S. 558 (2003). :eek:

Pray tell, WTF are you arguing against?

Clearly, the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

Clearly, the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

:rolleyes:

This all started over a disagreement as to whether or not the Supreme Court should hear cases concerning the Bill of Rights. For all this talk of straw men and the general ignorance of what one actually is, this is a textbook example. I'm saying the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to overturn the Bill of Rights piecemeal or as a whole, and all you've taken away from it is that i think the Supreme Court should "be abolished." If that's honestly what you think after reading over what I've said (which I would guess you haven't--posters on this board have a tendency to ignore key passages), you might want to swat up on your reading comprehension.

And Cat-Tribe, if we do overturn these laws via Constitutional means, I haven't got a problem with it (I'll leave your knee-jerk first post alone since it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion). If that's what happened in court, I'm perfectly happy with it. What I do have a problem with is the Federal government coming in and saying "do this because we said so" because even if they're right to do it, it sets a dangerous precedent. If someone took a case to the Supreme Court and got them to overturn some ridiculous sodomy laws, more power to them: but that isn't what Paul is arguing against either. He's arguing against the Feds strong-arming states to bring them in line with what they think ought to be done without going through the proper channels: just look at what the DEA is trying to do to state marijuana farms in California. Again, it's the same song and dance but in a different key. The Feds might be wrong in one case and right in the other, but them being correct shouldn't give them the license to ignore protocol.

He's dumb and racist...

If someone took a case to the Supreme Court and got them to overturn some ridiculous sodomy laws, more power to them:

Well, I'm glad you've realized the absurdity of your former position, but it would be nice if you admitted it.

but that isn't what Paul is arguing against either.

Of course it is.

"It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment."

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas."

Try again.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I was 100% serious and think that abolishing the Supreme Court is your position. I wasn't making an obviously light-hearted comment in jest at all.


But you seem to misunderstand why the Supreme Court must be able to rule on issues dealing with the Bill of Rights. These cases aren't about the validity of our constitutional rights, but whether a given situation is a violation of somebody's rights.

I mean, if party A says "My state is violating my freedom of speech," and the state says "no we aren't," they need to go to a court to whether or not the state has violated the right.

Ron Paul is an anagram of "our plan". That tells us all we need to know about his real economic policy. From this we can only logically conclude that his libertarianism is a sham and that if placed in a position of any real power he'd introduce a command and control economy. And because of the strength of his cult of personality, most libertarians will still support him.

And Cat-Tribe, if we do overturn these laws via Constitutional means, I haven't got a problem with it (I'll leave your knee-jerk first post alone since it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion). If that's what happened in court, I'm perfectly happy with it.

i think we may just have arrived at the heart of the matter. perhaps finding out might be important here?

Well, I'm glad you've realized the absurdity of your former position, but it would be nice if you admitted it.

My "Former" position? Please elaborate.

Of course it is.

"It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment."

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas."

Try again.

I don't really think you're paying attention to what he's saying, which doesn't surprise me since I'm sure you had some preconceptions about him before reading Word One of that article. He's saying that if we want these things to be part of how we run the country we ought to put them into the goddamn Constitution, instead of adopting a 'back door' (pun intended) policy for the Feds to get what they want. If Texas and other states do not have the right to regulate social matters such as sex, there needs to be an Amendment that explicitly explains this. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place, and is also why it can be amended.

He's not defending anti-sodomy laws (but I guessed you missed the part where he called them "ridiculous" although I'm sure you'll write that off as political expediency), he's just cranky because our government seldom follows its own rules.

Let's try an intellectual exercise here. It's been alluded to a couple of times already but predictably we've been missing the forest for the trees. Let's pretend, for a moment, that we're not arguing about sodomy laws and instead we're arguing about marijuana or other drugs. Some states have legalized medical marijuana but the Feds don't like it one bit and are adopting downright oppressive measures to discourage or abolish it. The underlying issues here are more or less the same: what freedoms people have with their own bodies, etc. On one hand you want the government to step in and bring the states in line, but I would guess most of you wouldn't have a problem with states legalizing medical marijuana. This amounts to the viewpoint that the Federal Government should be allowed to slap the states around on some measures (pro-sodomy) but not others (anti-drugs).

Now I realize that one example shows the government stepping in in favor of civil liberties (sodomy) and against in another (drugs) but that's all the more to the point: the Federal Government's own standards about what can and can't be done with one's own body is stunningly inconsistent. It is for this reason that I tend to lean towards the viewpoint that they should stop farting around and put these things into the Constitution or stop doing them, since even a morally correct intervention can pave a dangerous road, especially if its in defiance of said government's own rules and regulations.

I'm not saying it's wrong to overturn sodomy laws, I'm saying the Feds should shit or get off the pot.

I'm just saying to show you that Chumbly isn't doing it due to any personal vendetta he may have against you, I see it too.



I care.


Are you being ironic on purpose?

Are we denying that rich white christian men benefit the most from Paul's policies?

Running from:

To:

I disagree, like you, with Melkor's position. But mischaracterising it, dismissing it with no debate, doesn't help anyone.

Yeah, see, my comment has to do with ALL of Melkor's posts, not just one.

You dont read, do you? I also see youve backed off your previous claims that I rarely debate. Are you conceding that was in itself "hyperbolic"?

I have better things to do than continue to argue this point with you. I stand by what I said, if I bother you, put me on ignore. I wont lose any sleep over it, I assure you.

i'm sure that this too was written by magical ghostwriting homophobic elves
To be fair, that article seems to me to be not so much homophobic as constitution-centric... though I've already stated my problems with the latter.

My "Former" position? Please elaborate.

You were insisting that Texas had the right to be wrong, and that therefore for the Supreme Court to invalidate its anti-sodomy laws was somehow an unjust imposition. Now you say "more power to them."

He's saying that if we want these things to be part of how we run the country we ought to put them into the goddamn Constitution, instead of adopting a 'back door' (pun intended) policy for the Feds to get what they want.

You do realize that the Supreme Court is not an arm of Congress and the President? While technically an institution of the federal government, it is an independent institution that hardly represents federal power: indeed, one of its tasks is to restrain federal power, to keep it within constitutional limits.

Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003, under a Republican administration with a strong record of opposing gay rights. Are you honestly going to claim that the federal government was in that case trying to get its way through the Supreme Court?

If Texas and other states do not have the right to regulate social matters such as sex, there needs to be an Amendment that explicitly explains this.

The Supreme Court argued in Lawrence v. Texas that we have an amendment that makes such a rule: the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving their citizens of liberty without due process of law. This was in accordance with long-held court doctrine about the right to privacy and incorporation, and does not represent a sudden massive expansion of federal power.

(but I guessed you missed the part where he called them "ridiculous" although I'm sure you'll write that off as political expediency)

I didn't miss that part, and I've never suggested that Ron Paul supported the law. I pointed out instead that he explicitly disagreed with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, a decision that you suggested neither you nor him had any real problem with.

This amounts to the viewpoint that the Federal Government should be allowed to slap the states around on some measures (pro-sodomy) but not others (anti-drugs).

The better example here would be civil rights legislation, actually, which actually was enacted by Congress and the President and could be reasonably compared, in terms of federal v. state power, to other Congressional attempts to limit state autonomy. Supreme Court decisions are necessarily limited in their scope and their effect, and are in a different category entirely.

Okay, I see what you mean, but I hadn't familiarized myself with the case when I wrote my initial response to CT. Unfortunately, the Constitution has some ideas about social issues that would strike many today as draconic at best (blacks as 3/5 of a person? really?!) so the spirit of the document as it's written now doesn't appear to sanction any sort of "sexual privacy;" people a couple centuries ago were more likely to abhor these things than we are, and since not even the 14th Amendment makes any express mentions of sexual privacy (even though we might want to rewrite it so it does as attitudes change) any strict constitutionalist will stick to that until it's changed.

I don't, for the record, think Paul would have a problem writing sexual privacy rights into the Constitution (Christ, for some reason I can't ever type that word right the first time), but if it really is supposed to be the Supreme Court's guiding force, they should read it to the letter and enforce it as such. As it's written right now I don't see anything unconstitutional about sodomy laws, even though they do strike me as objectively immoral. The judges saw a good opportunity to do away with a questionable policy and took it: the results may not have been damaging this time around but it sets a precedent which is dangerous in a system that relies so heavily on past rulings.

This all started over a disagreement as to whether or not the Supreme Court should hear cases concerning the Bill of Rights.

Yes, and you and Ron Paul take the absurd position that the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to enforce the Bill of Rights -- even though that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights and a 14th Amendment.

And Cat-Tribe, if we do overturn these laws via Constitutional means, I haven't got a problem with it

The Constitutional means to overturn these laws is exactly what Ron Paul wants to take away. :headbang:

(I'll leave your knee-jerk first post alone since it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion).

It was neither knee-jerk, nor my first post in this thread responding to you. See link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14133039#post14133039), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14133044#post14133044), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14133056#post14133056), and link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14133099#post14133099). But given how you've ignored my last 4 posts, you might as well stay consistent. :rolleyes:

I don't really think you're paying attention to what he's saying, which doesn't surprise me since I'm sure you had some preconceptions about him before reading Word One of that article. He's saying that if we want these things to be part of how we run the country we ought to put them into the goddamn Constitution, instead of adopting a 'back door' (pun intended) policy for the Feds to get what they want. If Texas and other states do not have the right to regulate social matters such as sex, there needs to be an Amendment that explicitly explains this. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place, and is also why it can be amended.

Apparently, you are the one not paying attention to what Ron Paul is saying (or his record).

I'm not saying it's wrong to overturn sodomy laws, I'm saying the Feds should shit or get off the pot.

That makes no fucking sense. Are you saying the federal government should either regulate everything or nothing? WTF is the point in having a Bill of Rights and a 14th Amendment?

Okay, I see what you mean, but I hadn't familiarized myself with the case when I wrote my initial response to CT.

Given that Ron Paul had specifically described that case in his comments, I stand by my assessment that you haven't really familiarized yourself with his views either. Instead, you are defending a fictional Ron Paul you have idealized.

I don't, for the record, think Paul would have a problem writing sexual privacy rights into the Constitution (Christ, for some reason I can't ever type that word right the first time), but if it really is supposed to be the Supreme Court's guiding force, they should read it to the letter and enforce it as such. As it's written right now I don't see anything unconstitutional about sodomy laws, even though they do strike me as objectively immoral. The judges saw a good opportunity to do away with a questionable policy and took it: the results may not have been damaging this time around but it sets a precedent which is dangerous in a system that relies so heavily on past rulings.

1. You, for the record, are wrong. Ron Paul has made his opposition to the concept of a right to privacy very explicit.

2. Apparently the Founders didn't understand what a Supreme Court does or should do, as the notion of judicial review and the Supreme Court striking down legislative or executive acts that violate the Constitution date back to the founding of our Republic. I'm sorry if that bother you and Ron Paul, but I'm fine with it.

3. As for where the right to privacy comes from, you've already been linked to the opinion in Lawrence (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102), which rather than just saying "we don't like sodomy laws" actually explains why they violate the Constitution. You might also check out Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 U.S. 479 (1965), in which the Court explained the basis for the right to privacy at length.

Yes, and you and Ron Paul take the absurd position that the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to enforce the Bill of Rights -- even though that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights and a 14th Amendment.


Why is that absurd? I'll grant within the the current understanding of how the US system of government works it is absurd, but that doesn't mean that the current understanding is the best way to run things.

Face it. For all the high minded talk about rights and judicial review, the US is consistently a low ranked state in most respects. So it is entirely possible that this is not the best way to do things. Possibly the legal system is not the best guardian of rights or freedom, and that failure should be recognized instead of banging our heads against the wall and trying to fix things with more of the same.

Or, you know, just keep on doing the same thing that hasn't worked.

Why is that absurd? I'll grant within the the current understanding of how the US system of government works it is absurd, but that doesn't mean that the current understanding is the best way to run things.

Face it. For all the high minded talk about rights and judicial review, the US is consistently a low ranked state in most respects. So it is entirely possible that this is not the best way to do things. Possibly the legal system is not the best guardian of rights or freedom, and that failure should be recognized instead of banging our heads against the wall and trying to fix things with more of the same.

Or, you know, just keep on doing the same thing that hasn't worked.

Assuming what you say is true, how does removing one protector of rights and freedoms -- the judiciary-- and otherwise leaving the system the same provide a better way of running things?

Or are you somehow saying that removing checks and balances from the Executive and Legislative Branches will magically turn them into defenders of our rights rather than abusers?

Assuming what you say is true, how does removing one protector of rights and freedoms -- the judiciary-- and otherwise leaving the system the same provide a better way of running things?

Or are you somehow saying that removing checks and balances from the Executive and Legislative Branches will magically turn them into defenders of our rights rather than abusers?

Well I don't think I explicitly said leave the rest of the system the same. I just said it isn't absurd to imagine that not having the judiciary the guardian of rights could be better.

And you could, for example, argue that the current state of affairs creates a moral hazard in voting preference, and hence discourages real democracy. Moreover, the same moral hazard prevents true reform in respect of how the legislative branch is chosen.

Unless you want to argue that, at present, the US is the best country in the world, and all the real problems have been solved, so everything we are doing right now is perfect.

Yes, and you and Ron Paul take the absurd position that the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to enforce the Bill of Rights -- even though that is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights and a 14th Amendment.
First, the 14th Amendment makes no provisions for the protection of sexual privacy. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. Therefore, anyone using the Constitution to guide their decisions should act accordingly, since it's also stated that any powers not expressly mentioned are denied to congress (which the Judiciary is meant to be an agent of). Second, the WTP Act is meant to PREVENT THE GODDAMN JUDICIARY FROM OVERTURNING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, not to destroy them. I love how nearly any attempt to restrain any branch of government is met with such ignorant acidity and in blanket terms. I want the government to stop taking my money, and you tell me it's for my own good. I want them to protect my rights (from criminals AND COURTS) and you twist it around into this heinous bullshit to fit your tired preconceptions about small government conservatives. If Paul doesn't think the Constitution expressly grants the states these rights, he's a automatically a homophobe.

Predictably, the rest of your post is more of the same. You talk about an "idealized" vision of Paul, but I've met the man and watched him speak in person, without bogus editing or snide commentary. I won't say that alone makes me a better judge of his character, but I find myself wondering how you're so "familiar" with a man you seem to hate so much. I don't agree with the man 100% of the time, but I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time. I'm not a fan of the Judiciary because it's the only branch of government that is immune to my own preferences, and in what's ostensibly supposed to be a democracy, they wield almost dictatorial powers. Granted, there's nine of them, but that's no guarantee that they'll arrive to a sane decision any more than Congress or the President might. Lately, the Executive branch has been expanding largely at Congress' expense, and the Judiciary (once the judges are vetted by congress) has absolutely no restraint. They may have the "Check" part down, but the "Balance" needs some work.

Paul wants to restrain the Judiciary because (as I've mentioned time and time again) it's the only non-democratic branch of our government and it can do things unilaterally that no other agency can. I'm sorry if I'm too "ignorant blue collar" for you lawyers, but I haven't got quite the rosy conception of the Courts that you apparently have. I don't want the courts to mess with the Bill of Rights on any level--state or Federal, and I doubt he wants it either. The assumption seems to be that if such a case came up, that the Courts would automatically defend them, but I seem to be the only one who acknowledges that they might not if the climate was right. Since, strictly speaking, the sodomy ruling isn't technically validated by the Constitution, I can see how he might perceive the courts to be oblivious to it. All three branches of government have made bad decisions in the past, but to hear you tell it it's been all roses and sunshine for the courts, apparently. As it stands right now, if the Supreme Court was so inclined they could do pretty much whatever they wanted to the first ten amendments and the only recourse we would have would be to wait for another court to overturn it. For all this talk of "checks and balances" there appears to be a gaping hole in that concept where the Judiciary is involved. Congress does have to vet the nominees, but once they're on the bench they can do more or less as they please until a future court disagrees with them. Sorry, but that's just not good enough for me.

That said, I don't really see the point in attempting to change your mind about the WTP Act, since it's clear you've already reached your own conclusions based on your own perspectives; something I've done as well. I don't think judges should legislate from the bench, and if you do that's your prerogative but I don't think it was never meant to be the purpose of the office.

My favorite though was this:

That makes no fucking sense. Are you saying the federal government should either regulate everything or nothing? WTF is the point in having a Bill of Rights and a 14th Amendment?

I see Dorothy walking hand in hand with a STRAW MAN (oh noez!) down yonder Yellow Brick Road. I didn't say they should regulate "everything or nothing" I said they should enforce the Constitution, and if it's faulty, Congress should rewrite key passages or make Amendments like we used to, once upon a time. If we need protections for sexual privacy, then write it in--and that's Congress' job, not the Judiciary's. All I'm saying is we should follow our own rules, and Justices have had a habit for some time now of effectively legislating from the bench. In my book, there's a bit of a difference between legislation and enforcement; the latter being the primary function of the courts, not the former.

As seems to be par for the course, you're paying about as much attention to what I'm saying as I'm sure you paid to the OMG EBIL RACIST HOMOPHOBES who want to JAIL GAYS because they happen to think the Constitution ought to be followed. Here comes Dorothy and her friend again!

In my book, there's a bit of a difference between legislation and enforcement; the latter being the primary function of the courts, not the former.
Um no. Fail. That is the job of the executive branch. Your statement that judges "legislate from the bench" holds exactly zero importance since you have no idea what the jobs of the three branches even are.

*snip*

Wait, do you have any idea of how the courts actually function in this country? You do realize that if the federal courts do not rule on the Bill of Rights, no one will?

Who, exactly, do you expect to enforce the Bill of Rights, if not the courts? Why do you even care if the courts mess with the Bill of Rights, if you're just as content with them having no meaningful existence at all? What kind of libertarian wants the government to have more power?

Well I don't think I explicitly said leave the rest of the system the same. I just said it isn't absurd to imagine that not having the judiciary the guardian of rights could be better.

And you could, for example, argue that the current state of affairs creates a moral hazard in voting preference, and hence discourages real democracy. Moreover, the same moral hazard prevents true reform in respect of how the legislative branch is chosen.

Unless you want to argue that, at present, the US is the best country in the world, and all the real problems have been solved, so everything we are doing right now is perfect.

For the sake of argument, what country IS the best country in the world, where all the real problems have been solved, and everything is perfect?

For all your complaining about STRAWMEN, you seem to primarily engage in such arguments. I'll try to ignore those points and the personal insults.


First, the 14th Amendment makes no provisions for the protection of sexual privacy. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Yes. It does. Buy a clue.

Therefore, anyone using the Constitution to guide their decisions should act accordingly, since it's also stated that any powers not expressly mentioned are denied to congress (which the Judiciary is meant to be an agent of).

Um. The Judiciary is NOT meant to be an agent of Congress. Civics 101.

Second, the WTP Act is meant to PREVENT THE GODDAMN JUDICIARY FROM OVERTURNING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, not to destroy them.

First, it is interesting that it doesn't actually say or do that then.

Second, if the Bill of Rights can't be enforced by a federal court, who will enforce them? Why do you want states to have more power over our liberties?


Paul wants to restrain the Judiciary because (as I've mentioned time and time again) it's the only non-democratic branch of our government and it can do things unilaterally that no other agency can. I'm sorry if I'm too "ignorant blue collar" for you lawyers, but I haven't got quite the rosy conception of the Courts that you apparently have. I don't want the courts to mess with the Bill of Rights on any level--state or Federal, and I doubt he wants it either.

I love the "I'm ignorant blue collar and your a lawyer" argument. Yeah, you apparently are and I am. How does that make me wrong?

I don't have a particularly rosy view of the Courts, btw. I just recognize that they play an important role in our system of government and gutting them will endanger, rather than enhance, freedom.

The assumption seems to be that if such a case came up, that the Courts would automatically defend them, but I seem to be the only one who acknowledges that they might not if the climate was right.

So the solution is to take away the power of any federal court to defend such rights? Are you even listening to yourself?

Since, strictly speaking, the sodomy ruling isn't technically validated by the Constitution, I can see how he might perceive the courts to be oblivious to it.

Again, read the fucking cases. If you have some actual argument as to how they are wrongly decided, get back to us. Right now, you are just pissing in the wind.

All three branches of government have made bad decisions in the past, but to hear you tell it it's been all roses and sunshine for the courts, apparently.

I've never said any such thing. I name scores of wrong court decisions. But I don't see how giving more power to the states over our fundamental rights is either libertarian or a good idea.

All I'm saying is we should follow our own rules, and Justices have had a habit for some time now of effectively legislating from the bench. In my book, there's a bit of a difference between legislation and enforcement; the latter being the primary function of the courts, not the former.

"Legislating from the bench." Ugh. The last refuge of the clueless.

As seems to be par for the course, you're paying about as much attention to what I'm saying as I'm sure you paid to the OMG EBIL RACIST HOMOPHOBES who want to JAIL GAYS because they happen to think the Constitution ought to be followed. Here comes Dorothy and her friend again!

You are the one engaging in OMG EBIL STRAWMEN.

Although for entirely different reason, I do think it has been established that Ron Paul is a racist (see his publications and his public policies), that has no relevance here.

Wait, do you have any idea of how the courts actually function in this country? You do realize that if the federal courts do not rule on the Bill of Rights, no one will?

Who, exactly, do you expect to enforce the Bill of Rights, if not the courts? Why do you even care if the courts mess with the Bill of Rights, if you're just as content with them having no meaningful existence at all? What kind of libertarian wants the government to have more power?

Fucking lawyer-type. Leave Joe the Plumber alone.

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?

No.

I dont care about the 'morality' of laws. Not at all. Ic are about the fairness.

Murder is bad because people being murdered dont want to be murdered, while the people murdering them clearly DO want them to be - which makes the situation unfair.

Ron Paul SHOULD agree with me... but Ron Paul isn't actually a libertarian - he's one of the new breed of American PSEUDO-Libertarians that takes all the free market bullshit, but ignores all the '...and social freedom' stuff.

Ron Paul is a deregulator neo-con.

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

There's also a difference between 'please don't have gay sex here' and 'you will not fucking have gay sex here, or we'll throw your ass in jail'.

For the sake of argument, what country IS the best country in the world, where all the real problems have been solved, and everything is perfect?
My mate Kim Jong-il says he's got a country like that.

Though the guy has been known to exaggerate from time to time...

For the sake of argument, what country IS the best country in the world, where all the real problems have been solved, and everything is perfect?

But I don't want to argue that. I am simply pointing out that other than the ability to project military power and the total size of the economy, the US never ranks number one in respect of best nation categories.

Now, if you are happy with it being the biggest badass on the block, then sure, the system is working well. But if you are interested in it being ranked highly with respect to other indices, then the US is not it.

And miracles of miracles other countries have things like better child mortality rates, or better GINI curves, and they do this all without the magic of the supreme court and the constitution.

I think you should ponder really whether or not this is the best system is all. It's clearly not delivering thus far. But go ahead, and tell me things are worse in Norway as far as you are concerned.

I mean, you can view yourself as a guardian of liberty, and a defender of the poor, and all that good stuff if you are a lawyer. But the fact is, if you are talking about the US, its all been a bit of a balls up, hasn't it?

And since things are getting worse, not better, no matter how much effort you pour into this whole using the courts effort, well, maybe it's not a winning system.

Great if you want to invade other countries though.

Failed fringe populist with unsound ideas and the inability to defend them in debate.

the 14th Amendment makes any express mentions of sexual privacy (even though we might want to rewrite it so it does as attitudes change) any strict constitutionalist will stick to that until it's changed.

The US is a common law system. Given this much of the law, especially constitutional law, is not explicity laid out in legislation. Instead, case law, court opinions/decisions, explains explicitly what is implicit in the legislation..

Also, how can someone support the Constitution, a document that has one amendmendment stating the people have rights not explicitly stated in the document, while holding a strict reading the the letter of the document?

Why is that absurd? I'll grant within the the current understanding of how the US system of government works it is absurd, but that doesn't mean that the current understanding is the best way to run things.

Its absurd given the other available mechanisms to limit government power. We have democracy (which tramples rights whenever the majority wills), secession(which generally starts a war unless there is some legal method to secede such as regarding the provinces of Canada), or rebellion(which generally only occcurs when things are really really shitty).

Face it. For all the high minded talk about rights and judicial review, the US is consistently a low ranked state in most respects. So it is entirely possible that this is not the best way to do things. Possibly the legal system is not the best guardian of rights or freedom, and that failure should be recognized instead of banging our heads against the wall and trying to fix things with more of the same.

Or, you know, just keep on doing the same thing that hasn't worked.

The best guardians of freedom in a democracy are politicians who believe in freedom as well as a freedom loving populace, Given that this doesn't always occur a judiciary that protects at least some freedoms is better than none at all.


And you could, for example, argue that the current state of affairs creates a moral hazard in voting preference, and hence discourages real democracy. Moreover, the same moral hazard prevents true reform in respect of how the legislative branch is chosen.

Can you elaborate on what moral hazard you are referring to as well as give an electoral system that either avoids or mitigates it?

Therefore, anyone using the Constitution to guide their decisions should act accordingly, since it's also stated that any powers not expressly mentioned are denied to congress (which the Judiciary is meant to be an agent of).

That is completely untrue. The judiciary is a check on the power of the legislature, and the executive. It is definately not an agent of Congress,

Second, the WTP Act is meant to PREVENT THE GODDAMN JUDICIARY FROM OVERTURNING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, not to destroy them. I love how nearly any attempt to restrain any branch of government is met with such ignorant acidity and in blanket terms. I want the government to stop taking my money, and you tell me it's for my own good. I want them to protect my rights (from criminals AND COURTS) and you twist it around into this heinous bullshit to fit your tired preconceptions about small government conservatives. If Paul doesn't think the Constitution expressly grants the states these rights, he's a automatically a homophobe.

Whatever it's creators intentions, the WTP Act would limit the judiciary's ability to protect the rights given in the constitution.

Granted, there's nine of them, but that's no guarantee that they'll arrive to a sane decision any more than Congress or the President might. Lately, the Executive branch has been expanding largely at Congress' expense, and the Judiciary (once the judges are vetted by congress) has absolutely no restraint. They may have the "Check" part down, but the "Balance" needs some work.



I'm not a fan of the Judiciary because it's the only branch of government that is immune to my own preferences, and in what's ostensibly supposed to be a democracy, they wield almost dictatorial powers.

Paul wants to restrain the Judiciary because (as I've mentioned time and time again) it's the only non-democratic branch of our government and it can do things unilaterally that no other agency can.

In a democracy a nondemocratic judiciary the is a powerful check on the power of the democratic majority. Hell, the founding Father's vision of an ideal government was to combine elements of democracy(the House), aristocracy(the Senate) Granted, I'm a fan of democracy but I I think that substantive democracy requires the rights of the minority to be respected.



Granted, there's nine of them, but that's no guarantee that they'll arrive to a sane decision any more than Congress or the President might. Lately, the Executive branch has been expanding largely at Congress' expense, and the Judiciary (once the judges are vetted by congress) has absolutely no restraint. They may have the "Check" part down, but the "Balance" needs some work.

The assumption seems to be that if such a case came up, that the Courts would automatically defend them, but I seem to be the only one who acknowledges that they might not if the climate was right. Since, strictly speaking, the sodomy ruling isn't technically validated by the Constitution, I can see how he might perceive the courts to be oblivious to it. All three branches of government have made bad decisions in the past, but to hear you tell it it's been all roses and sunshine for the courts, apparently. As it stands right now, if the Supreme Court was so inclined they could do pretty much whatever they wanted to the first ten amendments and the only recourse we would have would be to wait for another court to overturn it. For all this talk of "checks and balances" there appears to be a gaping hole in that concept where the Judiciary is involved. Congress does have to vet the nominees, but once they're on the bench they can do more or less as they please until a future court disagrees with them. Sorry, but that's just not good enough for me.

No one here thinks that the Supreme Court always makes good decisions guaranteeing our fundamental rights. What we are arguing is that since the Court can do one of two things whent the constitutionality of the actions of one of the levels of government is called into question, limit the coercive power of the government or not, it's better that it sometimes limits the governments power rather than never limits the government, in a situation where the power of judicial review has been nullified.

Ron Paul has so few supporters they dont give a % of people that endorse him they give you their names.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. If the Courts can't hear these cases, you can't be imprisoned for "crimes" that pertain to them. There's all this talk about how WTP "Destroys" the Bill of Rights and the court's ability to enforce them, but without being able to hear the case, the government would not legally be able to imprison you , since prison is (as I should hope we all know) a sentence handed down from the courts after hearing a case.

But I can see how pointless it is to argue with you about the Courts. I don't think any amount of bickering is going to change either of our minds here, and for the most part the arguments against the WTP have read like a broken record.

Still, there's a few bits in here that are good for a laugh, so I'll bite.


Um. The Judiciary is NOT meant to be an agent of Congress. Civics 101.
Lolertastic. Congress and the White House pass laws, the Courts enforce them. Sounds pretty cut-and-dry to me. I think you and Tech took this phrase a little too seriously. I didn't mean to suggest it operates always at Congress' behest, simply that it deals with issues that had previously faced congress, whether recently or not.


I don't have a particularly rosy view of the Courts, btw. I just recognize that they play an important role in our system of government and gutting them will endanger, rather than enhance, freedom.

Again, if the courts can't hear your case, you can't legally be imprisoned for it. Sentences are handed down after court rulings, not before. Although for the purposes of this ongoing and hilarious misinterpretation, it seems like you think this isn't the case.


Again, read the fucking cases. If you have some actual argument as to how they are wrongly decided, get back to us. Right now, you are just pissing in the wind.
Of course I"m "pissing in the wind," because I'm disagreeing with you. Nothing new there, I'm afraid. :rolleyes:

If you want my argument, read Clarence Thomas' dissent. There's no real need to repeat myself, and he said it better than I did anyway.

I've never said any such thing. I name scores of wrong court decisions. But I don't see how giving more power to the states over our fundamental rights is either libertarian or a good idea.
And I would write the WTP protections in on a state level as well. I never said the bill was absolutely perfect as-is, I've been defending the idea that the courts in general are in need of some restraint.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. If the Courts can't hear these cases, you can't be imprisoned for "crimes" that pertain to them. There's all this talk about how WTP "Destroys" the Bill of Rights and the court's ability to enforce them, but without being able to hear the case, the government would not legally be able to imprison you , since prison is (as I should hope we all know) a sentence handed down from the courts after hearing a case.

Courts of appeal do not hand down sentences. You really have no idea what you're talking about here.

Courts of appeal do not hand down sentences. You really have no idea what you're talking about here.

Err.. if the court can't hear your case, I would guess this would somehow preclude an "appeal."

Thundersteal: You're going to tell me that the Supreme Court is a court of appeal, but mind you I think the WTP protections ought to be written in on a state level too (which you'd already know if you got to the bottom of my post before responding). Neither the state nor federal courts should have the power to overturn the Bill of Rights, and the only way to prevent them from doing that is to keep the first ten amendments out of the courts.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. If the Courts can't hear these cases, you can't be imprisoned for "crimes" that pertain to them. There's all this talk about how WTP "Destroys" the Bill of Rights and the court's ability to enforce them, but without being able to hear the case, the government would not legally be able to imprison you , since prison is (as I should hope we all know) a sentence handed down from the courts after hearing a case.

You really don't understand how the courts in our society function, do you?

No one is ever charged with violating the Bill of Rights. People are charged with breaking other laws, and they sometimes defend themselves by arguing that the laws themselves, or the government's practices in enforcing them, are unconstitutional violations of the Bill of Rights.

If the courts cannot hear cases pertaining to the Bill of Rights, this defense cannot be made: laws and policies alleged to violate the Bill of Rights, because they cannot be struck down, are in effect automatically upheld.

Edit: Also, you ignore another aspect of Bill of Rights enforcement: litigation against governments whose policies are alleged to violate it. Forbid courts from hearing such cases, and such legal action cannot be taken; in effect, governments are given free reign.

And what happens when a state court hands down, just to use a blatant example, a sentence to somebody for attending a Wiccan religious service? As it stands now, they'd go to the Supreme Court and say "Hey, that's a violation of the 1st Amendment. They can't do that."
At that point, SCOTUS would overturn the previous ruling.

With the WTP act, they'd say "hey, that's a violation of the 1st Amendment," and the state would say "no it isn't, it's not at all related" and it'd have to stop there because there'd be nobody to appeal to.

Err.. if the court can't hear your case, I would guess this would somehow preclude an "appeal."

Thundersteal: You're going to tell me that the Supreme Court is a court of appeal, but mind you I think the WTP protections ought to be written in on a state level too. Neither the state nor federal courts should have the power to overturn the Bill of Rights, and the only way to prevent them from doing that is to keep the first ten amendments out of the courts.

The We The People Act limits the courts of appeal. It does nothing to the courts that actually hand down sentencing. Even in what you want it'd do nothing, because the wording of the act is in regards to challenges to those laws. You're arguing for some fantasy version of the act that is directly opposite to what it actually says.
To repeat, the We The People Act does not in any way prevent courts from convicting people for what has been declared a crime. It only prevents the courts from hearing cases regarding the constitutionality of the laws that said people were convicted under.

you know why i like ron paul? because he supports liberty and freedom and awesomeness and ponies. just like the "we the people act", which does that too. and you can't tell me otherwise!

You really don't understand how the courts in our society function, do you?

No one is ever charged with violating the Bill of Rights. People are charged with breaking other laws, and they sometimes defend themselves by arguing that the laws themselves, or the government's practices in enforcing them, are unconstitutional violations of the Bill of Rights.

If the courts cannot hear cases pertaining to the Bill of Rights, this defense cannot be made: laws and policies alleged to violate the Bill of Rights, because they cannot be struck down, are in effect automatically upheld.

What Paul is afraid of, I think, is someone taking this defense to the Supreme Court, and getting them to decide that something that oughtn't be struck down (like, say, the freedom of press or religion) might end up falling by the wayside after all--not directly mind you--I know they can't do that, but through precedent and over time.

Still, section 4 says:
The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States

Now granted, I'd pencil in "Federal OR State" if I could, since it would close a bunch of potential loopholes. But obviously the Courts could still decide what's Constitutional and what isn't. They could still strike down unconstitutional legislation, so if someone makes the defense that a law or its enforcement is Unconstitutional, I assume they can hear the case. That said, I can see how the wording in section 3 can cause some worry, as it is a big vague.

I can understand the hostility some people might have for the WTP standards not also applying to State governments, and I'd change it if I could, but nonetheless I think the Courts wield quite a lot of potentially damaging power. I don't mind so much that some laws and regulations change over time, but if we let them rule on the Bill of Rights the possibility will always exist that they may be tampered with.

And what happens when a state court hands down, just to use a blatant example, a sentence to somebody for attending a Wiccan religious service?
Please read my posts. I'm not blithely endorsing the WTP act word for word, and I've said several times now that the same standards ought to apply to the state courts as well, or else we might as well kiss the 14th Amendment goodbye.

Please read my posts. I'm not blithely endorsing the WTP act word for word, and I've said several times now that the same standards ought to apply to the state courts as well, or else we might as well kiss the 14th Amendment goodbye.

That's great for you, but Paul authored the WTP act. It stands to reason that he does endorse it word for word. Clearly he could have written in state court standards as well, but he did not.

Once again, the provisions in the We The People Act solely limit courts hearing the constitutionality of laws restricting religious beliefs, sexual activity, and such. It does not prevent legislatures from enacting laws that do that. It does not prevent criminal courts from prosecuting people. All it does is limit hearing on constitutionality. Read the act. Don't read people's summaries of the act, read the text of the act itself, it's right there, plain as day. You have no excuse for not knowing what it says.

What Paul is afraid of, I think, is someone taking this defense to the Supreme Court, and getting them to decide that something that oughtn't be struck down (like, say, the freedom of press or religion) might end up falling by the wayside after all

This is obviously not his concern, because his entire argument is that the Court's interpretation of such freedoms is too expansive.

Now granted, I'd pencil in "Federal OR State" if I could, since it would close a bunch of potential loopholes.

Which would ruin the point, which is to prevent federal courts from messing with state governments.

But obviously the Courts could still decide what's Constitutional and what isn't.

Only within the scope of Section 3. And only for federal laws and policies.

They could still strike down unconstitutional legislation, so if someone makes the defense that a law or its enforcement is Unconstitutional, I assume they can hear the case. That said, I can see how the wording in section 3 can cause some worry, as it is a big vague.

Wait, what exactly do you think the We The People Act is supposed to do?

Section 3 isn't "a big vague", it's quite clearly-worded, and has clear intentions: preventing the courts from striking down laws or policies that are alleged to violate free exercise or establishment, from striking down laws or policies that are alleged to violate a "right to privacy", and from striking laws or policies that are alleged to violate equal protection with respect to marriage and sexual orientation.

What other interpretation of it do you have, that would retain all of the federal courts' current power to strike down unconstitutional laws and policies?

I can understand the hostility some people might have for the WTP standards not also applying to State governments, and I'd change it if I could,

You do realize that is part of the point of the bill?

"(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.

"(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

"(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges."

We The People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:)

I don't mind so much that some laws and regulations change over time, but if we let them rule on the Bill of Rights the possibility will always exist that they may be tampered with.

If we don't let them rule on the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights will have no legal existence. Governments can do as they like, without respect to the Bill of Rights.

That's great for you, but Paul authored the WTP act. It stands to reason that he does endorse it word for word. Clearly he could have written in state court standards as well, but he did not.

Wait, what's this supposed to mean? I'm not allowed to support a politician unless I agree with everything he does, word for word and act for act? That would disqualify just about everyone except myself.

Once again, the provisions in the We The People Act solely limit courts hearing the constitutionality of laws restricting religious beliefs, sexual activity, and such. It does not prevent legislatures from enacting laws that do that. It does not prevent criminal courts from prosecuting people. All it does is limit hearing on constitutionality. Read the act. Don't read people's summaries of the act, read the text of the act itself, it's right there, plain as day. You have no excuse for not knowing what it says.
I've read the act several times, including Section 4 which always gets overlooked by Paul bashers. The act doesn't prevent the Courts from striking down unconstitutional legislation.

Still, you raise a good point. Similar restraints on the legislature would be awfully nice.

The act doesn't prevent the Courts from striking down unconstitutional legislation.

What does it do, then?

Tell us.

Soheran, I'd really appreciate it if you'd realize that if I don't agree with the act word for word, I don't agree with its intentions word for word either. I think the courts could use a little more balance, but that doesn't mean I want to give the states carte blanche to defy them.


What does it do, then?
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. It does what it says it does. Just read the whole thing, not just Sections 3 and 7. It's not perfect, the courts should not have the power to alter the Bill of Rights any more than the other two branches should.

Soheran, I'd really appreciate it if you'd realize that if I don't agree with the act word for word, I don't agree with its intentions word for word either.

Forget "word for word."

What, exactly, about the Act do you support?

Any part of it at all?

Wait, what's this supposed to mean? I'm not allowed to support a politician unless I agree with everything he does, word for word and act for act? That would disqualify just about everyone except myself.

You continue to avoid addressing concerns about the WTP act by saying you don't agree with every aspect of it. You continue to hold the WTP act up as an example of why Ron Paul is so great. You ignore the concern that Ron Paul, being the author of the legislation, purposely excluded any limitations on anything other than federal courts.

The entire argument is that Ron Paul has no problem with government oppression and, as you and your ilk love to put it, "legislating from the bench", as long as it is the state government that is doing it.

You continue to hold the WTP act up as an example of why Ron Paul is so great.
I'm sorry, but that's entirely spurious. I didn't bring up the WTP act as an "example of why Ron Paul is so great," his opponents brought it up as an example of why he's not so great, and on a few points, I agree with them. The WTP wouldn't be my first example if asked why I like Paul; it's just what this board has chosen to discuss. With ninety people jumping down my throat every time I post, I don't exactly get to pick and choose my own talking points. It's been like this for years now.

Apparently, because I don't agree with the WTP in its entirety I'm "avoiding" its concerns, even though I've countenanced them in several of my last posts (i.e. protections extending to state courts). Pirated Corsairs, to use the most recent example, raises a concern that I address by admitting that the Bill ought to be changed to plug that loophole.

I love how when I break from my politician of choice, I'm chastised for it. I'm somehow "ignoring" concerns that I've been talking about for my last few posts (i.e., in case you missed it the first gazillion times, state protections for the Bill of Rights). Paul has some ideas that I don't share, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss him entirely: it's just that I tend to agree with him on more issues (non-interventionism, sound money, legalize drugs, balance the budget, to name a few) than I disagree (immigration, extent of states' rights, religion).

Jesus Tapdancing Christ. It does what it says it does. Just read the whole thing, not just Sections 3 and 7.

Um, I have. And your interpretation is nonsensical. On your reading of Sec. 4, Sec. 3 is reduced to meaninglessness, at least as far as federal law goes. That does not appear to be Paul's intent; only provision (1)(A) of Sec. 3 is explicitly restricted to "the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government."

To make matters worse, you're inclined to actually defend at least part of the provisions of Sec. 3, too--that's what you've been doing throughout this thread--even as you deny that they have any effective meaning, or that you agree with them.

I'm pretty sure the incoherence in your position is due to your lack of understanding of both the court system and the We The People Act, coupled with your attempt to hide your ignorance with backpedaling when you're called on it. Unfortunately, so far you've only been digging yourself further into the hole.

It's not perfect, the courts should not have the power to alter the Bill of Rights any more than the other two branches should.

The only branch of government tasked with ruling on the meaning of the Bill of Rights is the courts. That's part of their job. If they don't have the power to so rule, no one has the power to so rule, and legislatures and executives are free to violate the Bill of Rights as they see fit.

Forget "word for word."

What, exactly, about the Act do you support?

Any part of it at all?

I support the idea that the Courts shouldn't be able to overturn the Bill of Rights. He seems to have this more or less pegged on the Federal level, but I think the states ought to be held to the same standard. If they're not, there's no real point in having the Bill of Rights in the first place since the states could simply ignore it and avoid federal jurisdiction one by one by keeping these cases out of federal courts.

States rights aside, I agree with the spirit of the bill, since it's my perception that the Judiciary is the most powerful branch of government, even though its seen some competition from the Executive branch under Bush. Paul, like most politicians, gets it wrong sometimes. I just think that if this is the worst thing he's done (and it seems to be up there, based on the reactions I'm seeing to the act), it's nothing to abandon him over.

I'm pretty sure the incoherence in your position is due to your lack of understanding of both the court system and the We The People Act, coupled with your attempt to hide your ignorance with backpedaling when you're called on it. Unfortunately, so far you've only been digging yourself further into the hole.
I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. Smells like... victory.

Yes, sections 3 and 4 are baffling, to say the least. I don't rightly know by what means the Courts could strike down unconstitutional legislation without "adjudicating." That's part of the reason why I criticized section 3 as needlessly vague.

Still, this thread seems like its becoming less about Ron Paul and more about Melkor. If you want to know why he did something or why he thinks the bill ought to pass, ask him yourself. Since I seem to be the only one who thinks Paul isn't a Nazi who wants to DESTROY FREEDOM WITH GREAT MIGHT, I'm apparently tasked with interpreting and defending his motives and intent. I never said the man was perfect, just that I endorse more of his policies than I oppose. It's not "backpedaling" at all, it's an explanation of my position that didn't occur earlier. It's gotta happen sometime.

in case you missed it the first gazillion times

I see you're entirely incapable of talking with another person without mocking their intelligence. Have a good time.

I see you're entirely incapable of talking with another person without mocking their intelligence. Have a good time.

Youre just now seeing this?

I see you're entirely incapable of talking with another person without mocking their intelligence. Have a good time.
Yeah, like it hasn't been done to me for the last 50 or 60 posts. :rolleyes:

Put yourself in my shoes. I post my opinions, and everyone jumps down my throat. Every time I log in, 20 people have responded to my latest post, and as a result, portions of my posts (sometimes very important ones) get missed. My nominal defense of the WTP act has prompted you to claim I'm "holding it up" as some sort of example of Paul's greatness, when it was never brought up by me in the first place.

The fact that almost all of this thread has been devoted to the WTP act since I entered it leads me to believe that it is of such paramount importance that the NSG public is prepared to condemn Paul entirely based on the flaws they see (because we all know one "bad" act must an evil man make). Apparently, I'm not allowed to break with him on any issue, which is a frightening and irresponsible standard. If I do, I am accused of "dodging" the concerns when all I'm doing is admitting the other side is sometimes right (gasp!). Funny how I'm the only one of the two parties here that has done that; his detractors haven't once come out and said (that I've seen) "yeah Paul has some okay ideas but I'm not thrilled about x or y"--no, it's been all "Paul introduced WTP therefore Paul = evil." Not that it's impossible or wrong to disagree with him entirely, but I'm actually trying to look at both sides of the coin here.

I support the idea that the Courts shouldn't be able to overturn the Bill of Rights.

That has nothing to do with anything. The issue is not the courts "overturn the Bill of Rights" (what kind of ridiculous boogie man is that?), it is the alleged "activist judges" of the judiciary supposedly interpreting the Bill of Rights (and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) too broadly, in a manner that displeases social conservatives.

Again, the courts are the institution tasked with enforcing the Bill of Rights. Taking away their right to interpret it does not strengthen the Bill of Rights, it eliminates their legal power. There is no one to stop governments from violating them.

He seems to have this more or less pegged on the Federal level,

How so? How does preventing federal courts from hearing claims based on the right to privacy and equal protection with respect to sexual orientation prevent them from overturning the Bill of Rights? How does it do anything but enable social conservatives to do things like prohibit abortion and discriminate against same-sex couples, by not subjecting such laws to court scrutiny on the relevant grounds?

If they're not, there's no real point in having the Bill of Rights in the first place since the states could simply ignore it and avoid federal jurisdiction one by one by keeping these cases out of federal courts.

It's worth noting, for what it's worth, that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government, not to the states, and that was perfectly in line with the "real point" since the intent was to protect against abuses of federal power. It's only through the incorporation doctrine, based on an interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that certain rights protected in the Bill of Rights have been applied against the states.

Conservatives like Ron Paul are appalled by this process, thinking it represents an encroachment by the oppressive federal government on the right of states to do things like ban abortion and promote Christianity. It's really classic collectivist dogma, if you think about it: states have rights that must be protected, while individuals do not. Not the sort of thing any Objectivist libertarian should be sympathetic to, whatever contortions he is forced into while defending favored political figures. (Sorry--admittedly you've stopped defending this position.)

States rights aside, I agree with the [i]spirit of the bill, since it's my perception that the Judiciary is the most powerful branch of government,

Which do you think has more power: Congress or the Supreme Court?

If you seriously answer "the Supreme Court"... well, your perceptions are very confused.

Paul, like most politicians, gets it wrong sometimes. I just think that if this is the worst thing he's done (and it seems to be up there, based on the reactions I'm seeing to the act), it's nothing to abandon him over.

What I think it shows most clearly is that Paul, whatever his rhetoric, is no libertarian. He is a sort of isolationist conservative who is rather hostile to the progress of social liberalism over the past few decades, and prescribes anti-federalism as a solution rather than the typical Republican option of using the federal government for their own ends. This makes him more principled than the others, perhaps, but his social agenda is still repulsive and reactionary.

I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning.

I am not leveling an ad hominem; I have responded to your arguments throughout with real arguments of my own. I am simply making an observation with which I think any objective observer would agree.

Smells like... victory.

I usually shy away from Internet acronyms, but: ROFLMAO.

Yes, sections 3 and 4 are baffling, to say the least. I don't rightly know by what means the Courts could strike down unconstitutional legislation without "adjudicating."

By striking down legislation that violates other parts of the Constitution, of course.

This is the only reasonable reconciliation of the two Sections, as best I can tell.

It's not "backpedaling" at all,

Seriously, start with your posts at the beginning and read through them back to here, and then say that with a straight face.

Yeah, like it hasn't been done to me for the last 50 or 60 posts. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I must've confused you with a moderator. I won't make that mistake again.

See what I mean?

Well, based on what I've seen of his political beliefs I'd say announcing that you are a Ron Paul supporter is inviting attacks on your intelligence.

At least he didn't become a McCain-supporter and falsely claimed to have been attacked by an angry black man.

This is getting pretty ridiculous. If the Courts can't hear these cases, you can't be imprisoned for "crimes" that pertain to them. There's all this talk about how WTP "Destroys" the Bill of Rights and the court's ability to enforce them, but without being able to hear the case, the government would not legally be able to imprison you , since prison is (as I should hope we all know) a sentence handed down from the courts after hearing a case.

But I can see how pointless it is to argue with you about the Courts. I don't think any amount of bickering is going to change either of our minds here, and for the most part the arguments against the WTP have read like a broken record.

Perhaps you are right. Your understanding of the judiciary is so ridiculous I would have better luck trying to explain this to my cats.

Maybe one of these questions will provoke some thought on your part:

(1) If a state government establishes an official religion for a state, how under the WTP can the First Amendment be enforced against said state law?

(2) How does one commit a "crime" of violating the Bill of Rights under either our current system or the WTP?

(3) If a state government wishes to imprison me in violation of the Bill of Rights, who could stop them under the WTP?

Lolertastic. Congress and the White House pass laws, the Courts enforce them. Sounds pretty cut-and-dry to me. I think you and Tech took this phrase a little too seriously. I didn't mean to suggest it operates always at Congress' behest, simply that it deals with issues that had previously faced congress, whether recently or not.

Perhaps you should read some of the relevant Federalist Papers on the function of the judicial branch:


No. 78 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed78.htm) The Judiciary Department HAMILTON
No. 79 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed79.htm) The Judiciary (con't) HAMILTON
No. 80 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed80.htm)The Powers of the Judiciary HAMILTON
No. 81 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed81.htm)The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority HAMILTON
No. 82 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed82.htm) The Judiciary Continued HAMILTON
No. 83 (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed83.htm)The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury HAMILTON


Nonetheless, your comment raises a point that undermines your whole analysis of the WTP Act. Courts don't just roam the country imprisoning people or passing laws that violate the Constitution. On either the state or federal level, the executive or legislative branch acts and the judicial branch decides whether said action complies with the Constitution. So how exactly does the judiciary threaten the Constitution without the aid of the other branches of government? And if the other branches of government are seeking to violate the Constitution, how does removing jurisdiction from such cases from the judiciary help the situation?


I support the idea that the Courts shouldn't be able to overturn the Bill of Rights.

Which is not only ass-backward, but not at all acheived by the WTP Act.

He seems to have this more or less pegged on the Federal level, but I think the states ought to be held to the same standard. If they're not, there's no real point in having the Bill of Rights in the first place since the states could simply ignore it and avoid federal jurisdiction one by one by keeping these cases out of federal courts.

You are starting to catch on. Section 3 of the Act removes federal jurisdiction over actions by the states that would violate the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. THAT IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE ACT. That is also why some of us oppose it.

States rights aside, I agree with the spirit of the bill, since it's my perception that the Judiciary is the most powerful branch of government, even though its seen some competition from the Executive branch under Bush. Paul, like most politicians, gets it wrong sometimes. I just think that if this is the worst thing he's done (and it seems to be up there, based on the reactions I'm seeing to the act), it's nothing to abandon him over.

You know, we've been a Republic with an active judiciary for well over 200 years. Where and when exactly has this massive violation of the Bill of Rights by the judicial branch occurred?


Yes, sections 3 and 4 are baffling, to say the least. I don't rightly know by what means the Courts could strike down unconstitutional legislation without "adjudicating." That's part of the reason why I criticized section 3 as needlessly vague.

Um. Sections 3 and 4 are the very heart of the fucking bill -- especially section 3. If you note, sections 5, 6, & 7 all refer back to section 3. Section 1 is just the title and section 2 is just a statement of alleged "facts."

By admitting that Section 3 doesn't make sense, YOU ARE AGREEING WITH US THAT THE BILL IS FUCKING STUPID.

The fact that almost all of this thread has been devoted to the WTP act since I entered it leads me to believe that it is of such paramount importance that the NSG public is prepared to condemn Paul entirely based on the flaws they see (because we all know one "bad" act must an evil man make). Apparently, I'm not allowed to break with him on any issue, which is a frightening and irresponsible standard. If I do, I am accused of "dodging" the concerns when all I'm doing is admitting the other side is sometimes right (gasp!). Funny how I'm the only one of the two parties here that has done that; his detractors haven't once come out and said (that I've seen) "yeah Paul has some okay ideas but I'm not thrilled about x or y"--no, it's been all "Paul introduced WTP therefore Paul = evil." Not that it's impossible or wrong to disagree with him entirely, but I'm actually trying to look at both sides of the coin here.

Actually, I made several posts about other things about Paul and his policies that are objectionable and you have simply ignored them. See, e.g., here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14133039#post14133039) and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14133099#post14133099). It is you that chose to defend the WTP Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

I don't know what Web site to check to see if Ron Paul voted for this piece of shit or not. If he did, that's enough for me to think he's a proponent of casino capitalism and NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

A bill was passed following a financial crisis in 1907 that made "bucket shops" illegal. Bucket shops were effectively places where you could bet on the disposition of stocks without owning the stocks in question. You could bet that some issue would go up or down, and that's what screwed AIG, Lehman, Bear-Stearns and the like. It had been illegal for almost a hundred years, and then a lame-duck Congress in 2000 passed a bill which skirted that illegality, and people and trading companies began trading insurance policies on mortgage-backed securities for mortgages they didn't own (credit-default swaps). Those on the right side of that kind of trade made hundreds of millions. Those on the wrong side, who didn't have friends or lobbyists in Congress, were fucked.

If THAT is "libertarian" when it comes to the economy, then fuck libertarians -- at least on the economy. Regulation was rightly seen as necessary back in 1907, and sure enough, when that regulation was sidestepped, look what happened.

So by all means, trumpet the free market all you want. You're never going to convince me that indiscriminate deregulation is anything but greedy fucks trying to game the system.

If you want my argument, read Clarence Thomas' dissent. There's no real need to repeat myself, and he said it better than I did anyway.

Curious that a self-declared libertarian would endorse Justice Thomas's authoritarian views of the Constitution. Also curious that someone allegedly concerned about activist judges would side with the most activist of the Justices on the Court.

Thomas's dissent (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent2) in Lawrence says little more than the Constitution protects neither a right to privacy (i.e., Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 U. S. 479 (1965) was wrongly decided and the Court has incorrectly followed that precedent for over forty years) nor a general right to liberty (i.e., the 14th Amendment doesn't mean what it says AND it has been wrongly interpreted to protect substantive liberty for over 120 years).

A couple of additional points are worth mentioning:

1) Thomas has not been consistent in his view of the 14th Amendment's protection of substantive liberty. For example, in Troxel v. Granville (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-138), 530 U.S. 57 (2000), Thomas agreed with the majority that a Washington statute, which allowed any person to petition for a court-ordered right to see a child over a custodial parent's objection if such visitation is found to be in the child's best interest, unconstitutionally interfered with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. Apparently whether a right must be found in the literal language of the Constitution depends on whether Justice Thomas approves of that right.

2) The idea floated by you and Thomas that the Constitution doesn't protect rights expressly named in the Constitution is stupid. It ignores the intent of the Founders and it ignores the express language of the 9th Amendment. It also would mean the following rights have wrongly been held to be protected by the Constitution:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

What's your thoughts on him, and why.

I like libertarianism, he was just batshit insane and doubted his motivation at many points

Still, this thread seems like its becoming less about Ron Paul and more about Melkor. If you want to know why he did something or why he thinks the bill ought to pass, ask him yourself. Since I seem to be the only one who thinks Paul isn't a Nazi who wants to DESTROY FREEDOM WITH GREAT MIGHT, I'm apparently tasked with interpreting and defending his motives and intent. I never said the man was perfect, just that I endorse more of his policies than I oppose. It's not "backpedaling" at all, it's an explanation of my position that didn't occur earlier. It's gotta happen sometime.

Put yourself in my shoes. I post my opinions, and everyone jumps down my throat. Every time I log in, 20 people have responded to my latest post, and as a result, portions of my posts (sometimes very important ones) get missed. My nominal defense of the WTP act has prompted you to claim I'm "holding it up" as some sort of example of Paul's greatness, when it was never brought up by me in the first place.

The fact that almost all of this thread has been devoted to the WTP act since I entered it leads me to believe that it is of such paramount importance that the NSG public is prepared to condemn Paul entirely based on the flaws they see (because we all know one "bad" act must an evil man make). Apparently, I'm not allowed to break with him on any issue, which is a frightening and irresponsible standard. If I do, I am accused of "dodging" the concerns when all I'm doing is admitting the other side is sometimes right (gasp!). Funny how I'm the only one of the two parties here that has done that; his detractors haven't once come out and said (that I've seen) "yeah Paul has some okay ideas but I'm not thrilled about x or y"--no, it's been all "Paul introduced WTP therefore Paul = evil." Not that it's impossible or wrong to disagree with him entirely, but I'm actually trying to look at both sides of the coin here.

I'm sorry, but that's entirely spurious. I didn't bring up the WTP act as an "example of why Ron Paul is so great," his opponents brought it up as an example of why he's not so great, and on a few points, I agree with them. The WTP wouldn't be my first example if asked why I like Paul; it's just what this board has chosen to discuss. With ninety people jumping down my throat every time I post, I don't exactly get to pick and choose my own talking points. It's been like this for years now.

Apparently, because I don't agree with the WTP in its entirety I'm "avoiding" its concerns, even though I've countenanced them in several of my last posts (i.e. protections extending to state courts). Pirated Corsairs, to use the most recent example, raises a concern that I address by admitting that the Bill ought to be changed to plug that loophole.

I love how when I break from my politician of choice, I'm chastised for it. I'm somehow "ignoring" concerns that I've been talking about for my last few posts (i.e., in case you missed it the first gazillion times, state protections for the Bill of Rights). Paul has some ideas that I don't share, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss him entirely: it's just that I tend to agree with him on more issues (non-interventionism, sound money, legalize drugs, balance the budget, to name a few) than I disagree (immigration, extent of states' rights, religion).

The reason people are jumping down your throat is because of your defense some of Ron Paul's policies which are inconsistent with liberty, Ron's and your libertarianism, and good government design. So we have legislation which removes the ability of the entity whose duty it is is to limit all the levels of governments' power when it comes to Constitutional rights to actually limit state and local governments' power, and instead of stating that you disagree with Ron on this you defend his position on this legislation.

*sniff* I'm really touched by the "poor me, I post inflammatory bat-shit insane arguments and then other people actually have the gall to disagree with me" routine. So, so sad. :(

For starts, let me preface my comments by stating that I'm a woman.
Preface Pt. II: I was a member of the Libertarian Party. But I didn't leave before the Ron Paul craze.

That being said, I voted "I don't like him" and here's why:

Well, for one...I'm a woman. And while abortion rights don't apply to me since my hysterectomy of three years ago, I have lots of female friends, acquaintances and relatives and I still care about them. I also care about perfect strangers, on principle, and don't want the girl babies being born today to have their rights, freedom of choice and options squeezed by bans on birth control and abortion. This without going into how that would affect their health; condoms aren't just for birth control anymore and PLEASE...I grew up during the era immediately preceding Roe v. Wade. We CANNOT go back there.

For another...Ron Paul wanted to abolish the President's Cabinet and throw everything out to the states to decide. It should go noted that he doesn't believe in the theory of evolution (Creationists...stop, just stop. We've gone back and forth on this a million times if we've done it once. There's more evidence to support the veracity and means to verify the theory of evolution than there is to support the events described in Genesis), and...he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. Americans tend to follow their leaders' lead. Therefore, the stratum of Americans who disrespect Science in favour of "faith" and who'd love a return to the days of the Puritans, would rise through the socio-political hierarchy with minimal resistance.

Following that...remember a few years ago when Kansas banned the teaching of Darwinism in its schools? Guess what? If it were up to the states, without an Education Secretary to issue final official positional ruling, it wouldn't be just Kansas anymore: it'd be Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, West Virginia and Utah pushing Creationism as science and censoring school text books. Meanwhile, the West Coast and New England would continue to teach evolution and the Bible Belt would probably start talking smack about "Them whackjobs out on the coasts."

Think about that for a minute.

What I'm getting at is a Paul Administration would take the socio-political divisions we enjoy under Bush, and hew them even deeper. Perhaps irreparably so. At the very least we'd have United States of Canada versus Jesusland times 50. Worst case scenario, we'd have another War Between the States. Far-fetched? Not really. Wars have been fought over the contents of books before: case in point, the Crusades.

During the Obama campaign, we've been working towards an overriding goal of healing the rifts and divisions in America. That's the Change we've been talking about. So you can see why I — and most of my fellow Obamans — would be severely opposed to Ron Paul's vision of governance. Given his Congress record — he almost always votes "No" — can you imagine how many Veto stamps he'd go through should he attain the Oval Office? Washington DC would become a bully pulpit, even more than it is now. The only thing we agree on is that the troops should come home with all expediency, that's where the similarities end.

...wait, this thread got serious??

...wait, this thread got serious??

Yeah, apparently there are actual Ron Paul supporters...
:(

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

You should realize that A. A lot of prominent advocates of state rights have been those who wish to stop the federal government from eliminating various states' racist policies, and B. That there is numerous evidence that while "Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists." With various damning information check here (http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html). I hope Reason Magazine is an objective enough source for you, lol. For those who don't know, Reason Magazine is a libertarian magazine published by a libertarian think tank.

You should realize that A. A lot of prominent advocates of state rights have been those who wish to stop the federal government from eliminating various states' racist policies

Yes, but that doesn't mean all advocates of "states' rights" wish that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

I don't know what Web site to check to see if Ron Paul voted for this piece of shit or not. If he did, that's enough for me to think he's a proponent of casino capitalism and NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

He voted nay on the one that passed, but it had been placed into an appropriations bill. The one that didn't was never up to a vote.

Yes, but that doesn't mean all advocates of "states' rights" wish that.

True, but I don't see anyone saying Ron Paul's a racist because he's for state's rights.

Ron Paul was, sorry, a joke of a candidate. Kinda like all 3rd party candidates in this bloody country.

Don't get me wrong, that's not why he wouldn't have had my vote. For me it was the whole racism published in the Ron Paul Newsletter that doesn't seem to have any explanation that casts Ron Paul in a good light as far as leadership goes.

Otherwise, the general policies? Sure, I agree with many. But that's kind of irrelevant since he would never win. Kind of like Mike Gravel, who among the Democrats most captured my attention. Good man, probably a fuck of a lot smarter and more experienced and more rational. But unrealistic as a candidate in this two-party, media-run circus we're laughably calling an election. Gimme Gravel or Paul any day, though.

Meh, it's been my impression that most libertarians are basically conservatives without the religious element and with the anti-government aspect played up. So not much a fan of Ron Paul. Now if he had blue skin like that other libertarian dude I might vote for him simply out of novelty.

Yeah, apparently there are actual Ron Paul supporters...
:(

On the internet, yes. Mind you, some libertarians actually manifest themselves in the real world, but most of them are only capable of communicating with other human beings with the help of a keyboard and a computer screen.

Right. So this thread wasn't for actual discussion of Ron Paul, but rather an opportunity for mindless bashing and generalizing of libertarians.

Good to know, but maybe we should have age ratings for threads like "12 years old or younger ONLY."

Right. So this thread wasn't for actual discussion of Ron Paul, but rather an opportunity for mindless bashing and generalizing of libertarians.

Good to know, but maybe we should have age ratings for threads like "12 years old or younger ONLY."

We could, but then who would all you libertarians talk to?

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.


Mike Huckabee advocated the so-called "Fair Tax" not Ron Paul. Ron Paul wanted to start to dismantle the Federal Reserve and work to get rid of the income tax, replacing it with not another tax, but no tax. Like it was before 1913.

We could, but then who would all you libertarians talk to?

THATS FUNNY!

No really. It's hilarious that when I commented on the immaturity of mindlessly bashing, immediately someone came along and gave another example. Thanks for proving my point.

It's also funny that you seem to think I must be a libertarian.

It's also funny that you seem to think libertarianism is a young phenomenon for immature people. Given your own behavior, and if I accepted your silly premises, I would thus conclude you are a libertarian yourself.

Luckily, your silly premises are wrong, so you're just immature.

Do go on though, I'm sure you had something important to say.

Ron Paul was, sorry, a joke of a candidate. Kinda like all 3rd party candidates in this bloody country.

Don't get me wrong, that's not why he wouldn't have had my vote. For me it was the whole racism published in the Ron Paul Newsletter that doesn't seem to have any explanation that casts Ron Paul in a good light as far as leadership goes.

Otherwise, the general policies? Sure, I agree with many. But that's kind of irrelevant since he would never win. Kind of like Mike Gravel, who among the Democrats most captured my attention. Good man, probably a fuck of a lot smarter and more experienced and more rational. But unrealistic as a candidate in this two-party, media-run circus we're laughably calling an election. Gimme Gravel or Paul any day, though.

I kinda agree with you on Mike Gravel. If you were to look back through the forum, you'd find that Gravel was originally my 'pick' back in the nomination threads.

How you can reconcile putting Gravel and Paul in the same breath, though, I don't know.

Meh, it's been my impression that most libertarians are basically conservatives without the religious element and with the anti-government aspect played up. So not much a fan of Ron Paul. Now if he had blue skin like that other libertarian dude I might vote for him simply out of novelty.

I would disagree with this. Since, I'm religious and of the paleo-conservative flavor.

Really, all Ron Paul suggested and has been suggesting is that the role of government change from and overbearing, parental, welfare and warfare state to what it is specifically written in the Constitution. Are some of his supporters crazy? Not any more then McCain's or Obama's, in my opinion. You obviously don't have to have the same, literal translation of the Constitution that Paul does...but at least Paul believes in something. Which is more then I can say for the majority on Capital Hill.

Does believing in the power of the people over the power of government make him crazy?

THATS FUNNY!

No really. It's hilarious that when I commented on the immaturity of mindlessly bashing, immediately someone came along and gave another example. Thanks for proving my point.

It's also funny that you seem to think I must be a libertarian.

It's also funny that you seem to think libertarianism is a young phenomenon for immature people. Given your own behavior, and if I accepted your silly premises, I would thus conclude you are a libertarian yourself.

Luckily, your silly premises are wrong, so you're just immature.

Do go on though, I'm sure you had something important to say.

Yes, I am a libertarian and you do not see the irony of flaming the entire thread whilst not adding anything constructive yourself and then claiming that everyone else is immature?

Right. So this thread wasn't for actual discussion of Ron Paul, but rather an opportunity for mindless bashing and generalizing of libertarians.

Good to know, but maybe we should have age ratings for threads like "12 years old or younger ONLY."

So it's "mindless bashing" if we point out his failures / where we disagree with him?

Come on, the man thinks that abolishing the IRS would solve the tax problems in this country. Proof positive that he is a loon.

I kinda agree with you on Mike Gravel. If you were to look back through the forum, you'd find that Gravel was originally my 'pick' back in the nomination threads.


Shame he ended his career by joining the libertarian party.

Come on, the man thinks that abolishing the IRS would solve the tax problems in this country. Proof positive that he is a loon.

How is getting rid of one of the most ridiculous tax systems in the world, loony? What's wrong with a 2% consumption tax?

Yes, I am a libertarian and you do not see the irony of flaming the entire thread whilst not adding anything constructive yourself and then claiming that everyone else is immature?

As I said before, the libertarian movement is mainly an online happening. Ssek's responses are pretty much par for the course when slinging virtual mud to your opponents in what only an optimist would call a discussion.

What I see a lot of on the internet is a lot of mud slinging. It's done by shooting down ideas but not presenting any of your own.

Yes, I am a libertarian and you do not see the irony of flaming the entire thread whilst not adding anything constructive yourself and then claiming that everyone else is immature?

I didn't "flame the entire thread." In fact, a flame is directed at specific persons by definition. Furthermore, all I did was notice the rather rampant 'jokes' about how stupid, ignorant, immature and inept all libertarians apparently are and deduced that hey, this thread isn't really about Ron Paul at all.

Even the remarks that mention Ron Paul don't actually discuss him, but rather take an opportunity for more mindless bashing and shit-flinging.

Like this comment originally in response to something about 'Ron Paul supporters':

On the internet, yes. Mind you, some libertarians actually manifest themselves in the real world, but most of them are only capable of communicating with other human beings with the help of a keyboard and a computer screen.

See? Went from Ron Paul supporters to a slam about all libertarians. Yes, ha ha, libertarians can't communicate except by the internet. (A rather odd slam to try to make while on the internet, but whatever.)

Nor did I claim "everyone else is more immature."

As for irony, no. What you are referring to would be hypocrisy (if true), but irony is a different entity altogether. People commonly mix the two and nowadays "ironic" is almost synonymous with "hypocritical" thanks to 'common usage.' Grr. But that's a rant for another thread.

And lastly, I did contribute something mildly constructive myself, but it was hard for me to ignore the whole Bash-a-Libertarian mob behavior.


So it's "mindless bashing" if we point out his failures / where we disagree with him?

Not at all. You'll note I myself pointed out nothing but negative things about him. The mindless bashing I was referring to were comments such as the quoted one about libertarians. 'Libertarian bashing,' which isn't really the same as 'discussion of Ron Paul' you see.

I kinda agree with you on Mike Gravel. If you were to look back through the forum, you'd find that Gravel was originally my 'pick' back in the nomination threads.

How you can reconcile putting Gravel and Paul in the same breath, though, I don't know.

Well, because they're both unfavored candidates without a prayer of winning an election; because they both have policies I can agree with more than the standard Obamacain crap. Gravel is of course not a racist and/or not a completely shitty leader, nor does he have his own egocentrically titled newsletter(s) nor is he seen as the second coming by rabid fans throughout the intarwebs...

Just because I put them in the same breath doesn't mean I'm equating them. Even before the race-newsletter issue, though, I was still more in favor of Gravel.

I support the idea that the Courts shouldn't be able to overturn the Bill of Rights. He seems to have this more or less pegged on the Federal level, but I think the states ought to be held to the same standard.

The problem here is that you are ascribing a motivation to him that is not his own - one that is not, in any way, supported by the wording of the bill.

He isn't trying to keep the courts from overturning the Bill of Rights with the WTP Act. The Bill of Rights, with the exception of 10, which does address state authority, pertains to the rights of individuals.

He is trying to maintain state power against what he sees as an overreaching federal government. It has nothing to do with the rights of individuals and everything to do with what he sees as "states' rights".

The problem here is that protecting "states' rights" in these issues does so at the expense of individual rights. Doing so essentially gives state governments unlimited power to invade the privacy of their citizens, establish and prevent free exercise of religion, and refuse equal protection to homosexuals.

Like most claims of "states' rights", none of these issues are, in reality, a matter of federal vs. state power. They are matters of state vs. individual power. And, in Paul's world, the state would win.

Yes, sections 3 and 4 are baffling, to say the least. I don't rightly know by what means the Courts could strike down unconstitutional legislation without "adjudicating." That's part of the reason why I criticized section 3 as needlessly vague.

Read carefully. Note that section 3 deals with what the federal courts could do in reference to state laws and that section 4 deals with what they could do in reference to federal laws.

That distinction was not accidental. Paul intentionally left the word "state" that you wanted to add to section 4 out. Why? Because it is absolutely his intention to keep the federal courts from striking down laws passed at the state level - specifically laws alleged to unconstitutionally violate privacy, establish religion, or violate equal protection of homosexuals.

Since I seem to be the only one who thinks Paul isn't a Nazi who wants to DESTROY FREEDOM WITH GREAT MIGHT, I'm apparently tasked with interpreting and defending his motives and intent.

I don't think that about Paul. I'd have to think it about an awful lot of people in government if I did.

But Paul isn't the defender of individual liberty that he and his supporters make him out to be. He supports a more limited federal government and, for that, I can commend him.

Unfortunately, he also supports expanding the power of state governments over individuals. Thus, he's not a defender of individual liberty. Instead, he's a defender of state authority.

The fact that almost all of this thread has been devoted to the WTP act since I entered it leads me to believe that it is of such paramount importance that the NSG public is prepared to condemn Paul entirely based on the flaws they see (because we all know one "bad" act must an evil man make).

Hardly, it's just the one under discussion at the moment. And it's a good example of his defense of state authority over individual rights - which is a big part of the reason I personally disagree with him.

Funny how I'm the only one of the two parties here that has done that; his detractors haven't once come out and said (that I've seen) "yeah Paul has some okay ideas but I'm not thrilled about x or y"--no, it's been all "Paul introduced WTP therefore Paul = evil."

He often starts out on the right track but ends up somewhere off in the middle of nowhere. His speeches are great and I really thought I'd like him when I first started looking into him.

And then I examined his actual record and realized that, for all his talk about individual liberty, he doesn't do anything to protect it and much of what he does would actually remove it.


Right. So this thread wasn't for actual discussion of Ron Paul, but rather an opportunity for mindless bashing and generalizing of libertarians.

I just wish I could find some. Most of the "libertarians" I've seen - whether online or actually in politics (especially there) are "libertarians" only in that they adopt far right-wing economics.

Now, I'm more of a centrist when it comes to economic matters - maybe even slightly left-leaning. But I can deal just fine with someone who disagrees with me in that regard. I might even vote for them, depending on where they stand on other issues. But it's apparently difficult to find a politician who is actually libertarian on other issues.

As I said before, the libertarian movement is mainly an online happening. Ssek's responses are pretty much par for the course when slinging virtual mud to your opponents in what only an optimist would call a discussion.

Except it was your mud-slinging I was responding to.

I love that you think I must be a libertarian, because I disagreed with your immature generalizations and mud-slinging.

Don't throw your shit at everyone and expect me to comment on how lovely the smell is.

Mike Huckabee advocated the so-called "Fair Tax" not Ron Paul. Ron Paul wanted to start to dismantle the Federal Reserve and work to get rid of the income tax, replacing it with not another tax, but no tax. Like it was before 1913.

I'm still wondering how he's going to run a government - of any size - with no income. Any ideas?


Really, all Ron Paul suggested and has been suggesting is that the role of government change from and overbearing, parental, welfare and warfare state to what it is specifically written in the Constitution.

Oh, if only that were true...

Does believing in the power of the people over the power of government make him crazy?

Oh, if only that were what he fought for....

Except it isn't.

He fights very hard to expand government power over the people - just at the state level.

Shame he ended his career by joining the libertarian party.

Well, he did kinda get hosed by his 'own' party.

And then I examined his actual record and realized that, for all his talk about individual liberty, he doesn't do anything to protect it and much of what he does would actually remove it.


Wow, a lot of stuff to get through on that with a lot of good insight. But this caught me off guard. I understood your point that Paul, via his voting record, would seem to be more for limiting federal government authority more so then the savior of individual liberties. But I would also argue that, by abdicating some of the authority to the states, it at the least, gives people the right to vote on issues. Something that can't be done at the federal level.

Anyways, back to my question. You said that how he votes would remove liberties and I kind of wanted an explanation about how you got to that conclusion.

How is getting rid of one of the most ridiculous tax systems in the world, loony? What's wrong with a 2% consumption tax?

The IRS did not write the tax code, it simply enforces it...

Eliminating the IRS would not get rid of the tax code it would simply eliminate the people whose job it is to collect the taxes.

As to what is wrong with a federal sales tax is that it put a heavier tax burden on lower income people.

I dropped most of the posts I was going to respond to since they were already well covered, but I did want to include this.

Let's try an intellectual exercise here. It's been alluded to a couple of times already but predictably we've been missing the forest for the trees. Let's pretend, for a moment, that we're not arguing about sodomy laws and instead we're arguing about marijuana or other drugs. Some states have legalized medical marijuana but the Feds don't like it one bit and are adopting downright oppressive measures to discourage or abolish it. The underlying issues here are more or less the same: what freedoms people have with their own bodies, etc. On one hand you want the government to step in and bring the states in line, but I would guess most of you wouldn't have a problem with states legalizing medical marijuana. This amounts to the viewpoint that the Federal Government should be allowed to slap the states around on some measures (pro-sodomy) but not others (anti-drugs).

There is a difference between legalizing something (removing government interference) and legislating against something (initiating government interference).

Legalizing something, in essence, represents government inaction. It means that the individuals are left to make their own decisions, rather than being regulated by the government. If the government is taking no action, it cannot be violating the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution. As such, there is no Constitutional issue on which the Federal government should "bring the states in line" when it comes to legalization of medicinal marijuana. The states are not stepping outside of Constitutional limitations by choosing not to restrict the actions of individuals.

As a side note: If something remains legal, it does not mean that the government is in favor of it. It just means that the government will not intervene. As such, allowing something to remain legal (or returning it to that state) is not "pro-" anything. It is neutral on the issue.

How is getting rid of one of the most ridiculous tax systems in the world, loony? What's wrong with a 2% consumption tax?

The fact that it plain doesn't work in practise. Not to mention, as with most taxes that are argued to be 'fair' (i.e. not proportional) it is punitive disproportionately on the poor.

Simple math - if a person has a non-discretionary expenditure of 26k per annum, and EARNS 30k - what proportion of their wage is discretionary?

They are getting charged tax on almost 90% of their income that they have no CHOICE but to spend.

If a person has a non-discretionary expenditure of 26k, and EARNS 300k - what proportion of their wage is discretionary?

That person only gets charged on about 10% of what they HAVE TO spend.

So - that kind of tax is disproportionately heavier on the poor.


Further - the time when people spend less on discretionary spending - is when the economic picture for the whole nation is weakest. Not coincidentally - that is ALSO the point at which the NEED for government spending will increase. Consumption taxes, and their like, are weak because they make taxation 'optional' at the point when tax revenue is MOST needed.


Flat taxes, consumption taxes, etc... favour the rich. WHich is why they are intriniscally flawed. They place the burden at the feet of those least able to pay.

The IRS did not write the tax code, it simply enforces it...

Eliminating the IRS would not get rid of the tax code it would simply eliminate the people whose job it is to collect the taxes.

As to what is wrong with a federal sales tax is that it put a heavier tax burden on lower income people.

If there is no one to enforce a tax, there is no tax :P

Anyways, to your point on a federal sales tax. I disagree because it's a consumption tax. You only are taxed on what you consume. At 2%, businesses could afford to employ more people and also, offer better rates for the exchange of goods. So, in my opinion, it would give the lower class a chance to break out and up into the middle class.

If there is no one to enforce a tax, there is no tax :P
Not quite, nice try though.
Anyways, to your point on a federal sales tax. I disagree because it's a consumption tax. You only are taxed on what you consume. At 2%, businesses could afford to employ more people and also, offer better rates for the exchange of goods. So, in my opinion, it would give the lower class a chance to break out and up into the middle class.

Except for the fact that the lower your income, the higher percentage of your income is consumed by cost of living.
A federal sales tax would have the effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Mike Huckabee advocated the so-called "Fair Tax" not Ron Paul. Ron Paul wanted to start to dismantle the Federal Reserve and work to get rid of the income tax, replacing it with not another tax, but no tax. Like it was before 1913.

If you think there was no taxation before 1913 you need to learn history.

The fact that it plain doesn't work in practise. Not to mention, as with most taxes that are argued to be 'fair' (i.e. not proportional) it is punitive disproportionately on the poor.

Simple math - if a person has a non-discretionary expenditure of 26k per annum, and EARNS 30k - what proportion of their wage is discretionary?

They are getting charged tax on almost 90% of their income that they have no CHOICE but to spend.

If a person has a non-discretionary expenditure of 26k, and EARNS 300k - what proportion of their wage is discretionary?

That person only gets charged on about 10% of what they HAVE TO spend.

So - that kind of tax is disproportionately heavier on the poor.

To me, this makes no sense, because a sales tax, is based on consumption. The thing that is currently wrong with the system we have, is the fact that we're a consumer based economy. That in itself, is not terrible, except for the fact that we have no savings. With a 2% consumption tax, and no exceptions for those rich or poor, you have the ability to save.

It is all discretionary because you choose, what you buy and you choose what you save. Of course, this is assuming that savings aren't taxed.

If you think there was no taxation before 1913 you need to learn history.

The current income tax has only been in effect since 1913, so on that count he is basically correct, although it is ignoring the fact that that wasn't the first time that the U.S. had an income tax.

To me, this makes no sense, because a sales tax, is based on consumption. The thing that is currently wrong with the system we have, is the fact that we're a consumer based economy. That in itself, is not terrible, except for the fact that we have no savings. With a 2% consumption tax, and no exceptions for those rich or poor, you have the ability to save.

It is all discretionary because you choose, what you buy and you choose what you save. Of course, this is assuming that savings aren't taxed.

So in your version of reality people don't have to pay rent/mortgages, don't have to buy food or clothing?
Every expenditure is optional?
I don't think so.

Except for the fact that the lower your income, the higher percentage of your income is consumed by cost of living.
A federal income tax would have the effect of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Now your getting into inflation vs. deflation. Which, I can't argue with your point because the system is set up currently to favor those who can get the money first (banks, government contractors, etc). It's important that I be reminded that the ideas I present are in a particular world that doesn't exist. Simply because A. it will never happen and B. it will never happen. So, keep in mind that this is simply for the sake of argument.

I think you meant to say federal sales tax...but I like it the way you have it :P

Just because you have lower wages, doesn't mean you have less wealth. In a free market, goods can only be sold at rates which can be afforded. Of course, this is assuming we have a free market, which we don't in this country.

So in your version of reality people don't have to pay rent/mortgages, don't have to buy food or clothing?
Every expenditure is optional?
I don't think so.

Nope, not optional. EVERYTHING is taxed at 2%. No exceptions. And yes, expenditures are optional. They always have been. Is it cheaper to rent or or buy a home. To buy McDonalds or a steak dinner? It's up to you to decide. You make it sound as if everyone has a right to be well off. They don't. It has to be earned.

Now your getting into inflation vs. deflation. Which, I can't argue with your point because the system is set up currently to favor those who can get the money first (banks, government contractors, etc). It's important that I be reminded that the ideas I present are in a particular world that doesn't exist. Simply because A. it will never happen and B. it will never happen. So, keep in mind that this is simply for the sake of argument.
No, I'm not
I think you meant to say federal sales tax...but I like it the way you have it :P
Yes, I did mean to say federal sales tax, and now it is fixed.
Just because you have lower wages, doesn't mean you have less wealth. In a free market, goods can only be sold at rates which can be afforded. Of course, this is assuming we have a free market, which we don't in this country.
Ummm, yes it does.
Nope, not optional. EVERYTHING is taxed at 2%. No exceptions. And yes, expenditures are optional. They always have been. Is it cheaper to rent or or buy a home. To buy McDonalds or a steak dinner? It's up to you to decide. You make it sound as if everyone has a right to be well off. They don't. It has to be earned.
There are expenditures that are not optional: Housing, food, clothing. Everyone has to pay for these things. There may be choices about what specifically to buy, but not about whether or not you are going to buy something to cover these needs.

Wow, a lot of stuff to get through on that with a lot of good insight. But this caught me off guard. I understood your point that Paul, via his voting record, would seem to be more for limiting federal government authority more so then the savior of individual liberties. But I would also argue that, by abdicating some of the authority to the states, it at the least, gives people the right to vote on issues. Something that can't be done at the federal level.

Most state governments run pretty much like the federal government. You vote for representatives and they pass the laws. States may have some referendums, but no state has population-wide votes on every law. So, for the most part, people vote on the issues in exactly the same way at both the federal and state levels - by voting for representatives they expect to vote the same way they would.

Now, there are issues on which I believe that more local governments should have more power than the federal government - largely because they are, by virtue of being closer to the people, better suited to wield it.

But I also believe there are some things that should not be up to a majority vote. Government at all levels needs to be restricted from taking certain actions. This is where individual rights fall. The federal government should absolutely be kept from having the authority to infringe upon individual rights, but so should the states.

Anyways, back to my question. You said that how he votes would remove liberties and I kind of wanted an explanation about how you got to that conclusion.

It's the unfortunate byproduct of many "states' rights" arguments.

Now, I think it's undeniable that the federal government currently wields more power over the states than that which was intended. (Much of this is because the states voluntarily abdicated that power, but that's really another discussion). So there is definitely a discussion to be had about federal vs. state authority.

However, most "states' rights" arguments end up coming down to a matter that is really more about state authority vs. individual authority.

Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. The question isn't which branch of government has the authority to restrict abortion, so it isn't a federal vs. state argument. Instead, it is whether any level of government does.

Opposing that decision in lieu of "states' rights", thus is a matter of favoring government authority over individual autonomy. It would take the decision making power from the individual and hand it over to government authority.

He has similarly opposed decisions protecting religious freedom and equal protection under the law and has proposed bills that would effectively overturn those decisions, once again placing more power over the individual - power that no level of government currently has - in the hands of the state.

No, I'm not
Whether you know it or not, you are. Because prices are heavily dependent on the rate of inflation. I'll address this more when I get to your third point

Yes, I did mean to say federal sales tax, and now it is fixed.
Currently, the system is set up to favor the well off and keep the poor, poor. Hence why I agreed with your miss wording of the federal income tax. I don't know how making everyone pay the same percentage of taxes, favors the rich.

Ummm, yes it does.
This is why you have a hard time grasping my ideas. Because you (along with many others), tend to view dollars as wealth. It's not. It's just a piece of paper. The only value it has, is the rate at which banks accept it. Dollars are just a medium of exchange. If the minimum wage was at $1.00, that would be OK. Assuming that prices come down to adjust for cheaper labor, cheaper materials and the fact that no one would purchase their items if it was not affordable. Your $1.00 would go a lot farther here and abroad.


There are expenditures that are not optional: Housing, food, clothing. Everyone has to pay for these things. There may be choices about what specifically to buy, but not about whether or not you are going to buy something to cover these needs.

You are correct, but that is the beauty of having choices and shopping. Again, fast food is cheaper then purchasing a steak dinner. An apartment is cheaper then a mansion. Save and spend wisely. How does that not favor the lower class?

To me, this makes no sense, because a sales tax, is based on consumption. The thing that is currently wrong with the system we have, is the fact that we're a consumer based economy. That in itself, is not terrible, except for the fact that we have no savings. With a 2% consumption tax, and no exceptions for those rich or poor, you have the ability to save.

....unless the tax means that you're spending everything you have on food and shelter.

It is all discretionary because you choose, what you buy and you choose what you save. Of course, this is assuming that savings aren't taxed.

You choose what you buy but there is a minimum amount you have to spend to (a) survive and (b) continue bringing in money.

Most state governments run pretty much like the federal government. You vote for representatives and they pass the laws. States may have some referendums, but no state has population-wide votes on every law. So, for the most part, people vote on the issues in exactly the same way at both the federal and state levels - by voting for representatives they expect to vote the same way they would.

Now, there are issues on which I believe that more local governments should have more power than the federal government - largely because they are, by virtue of being closer to the people, better suited to wield it.

But I also believe there are some things that should not be up to a majority vote. Government at all levels needs to be restricted from taking certain actions. This is where individual rights fall. The federal government should absolutely be kept from having the authority to infringe upon individual rights, but so should the states.

It's the unfortunate byproduct of many "states' rights" arguments.

Now, I think it's undeniable that the federal government currently wields more power over the states than that which was intended. (Much of this is because the states voluntarily abdicated that power, but that's really another discussion). So there is definitely a discussion to be had about federal vs. state authority.

However, most "states' rights" arguments end up coming down to a matter that is really more about state authority vs. individual authority.

Let's use Roe v. Wade as an example. The question isn't which branch of government has the authority to restrict abortion, so it isn't a federal vs. state argument. Instead, it is whether any level of government does.

Opposing that decision in lieu of "states' rights", thus is a matter of favoring government authority over individual autonomy. It would take the decision making power from the individual and hand it over to government authority.

He has similarly opposed decisions protecting religious freedom and equal protection under the law and has proposed bills that would effectively overturn those decisions, once again placing more power over the individual - power that no level of government currently has - in the hands of the state.

You make a lot of solid points on the power of states rights. But I would defend Ron Paul as a federal legislator. He can only affect federal policy. There are rights guaranteed in the federal constitution that, if a state were to breach, could enter the federal court system. That's what the supreme court was supposed to be about.

Roe v. Wade was the biggest crock of a decision ever. Not because of any individual right, but because the court didn't base their decision off of federal laws. The supposed laws their supposed to be interpreting. If you don't want to live in a state where abortion is outlawed...then move somewhere else.

I'm not sure what bills you're reffering to where he votes against individual rights. I know he'll vote against bills that he feels aren't for federal lawmakers to decide. But I'm note quite sure of bills you refer to because if there was, his detractors would have named them a 1000 times over.

To me, this makes no sense, because a sales tax, is based on consumption. The thing that is currently wrong with the system we have, is the fact that we're a consumer based economy. That in itself, is not terrible, except for the fact that we have no savings.


The poor have lower discretionary proportion of their income - thus, less discretion to save.

The rich, even now, have savings and investments.


With a 2% consumption tax, and no exceptions for those rich or poor, you have the ability to save.


Not at all. The cost of living versus the wage index is so bad that people are having to have two-working-parent-families just to meet their non-discretionary costs.

The poor can't save on a 2% consumption tax, the rich can... just like the current tax model. The only advantage gained from the model YOu suggest, is that the RICH get taxed less.


It is all discretionary because you choose, what you buy and you choose what you save. Of course, this is assuming that savings aren't taxed.

Horseshit. Do you not understand the concept 'non-discretionary'?

If your cost of living is 25k, and you make 25k, you have NO choice what to spend and what to save.

Sure, you can rent rather than buy... buy soy instead of meat, whatever - but that's still the costs you HAVE TO spend.

And proportionally - that takes up a MUCH larger proportion of the income of the poor, than it does of the rich.

....unless the tax means that you're spending everything you have on food and shelter.

But you're assuming that prices are the same now than what they would be under a new tax system. That and assuming that poor people are too stupid to make and save money effectively.


You choose what you buy but there is a minimum amount you have to spend to (a) survive and (b) continue bringing in money.

Correct. But that isn't really making a point. I live off the same principle. Bill Gates lives off the same principle.

Roe v. Wade was the biggest crock of a decision ever. Not because of any individual right, but because the court didn't base their decision off of federal laws. The supposed laws their supposed to be interpreting. If you don't want to live in a state where abortion is outlawed...then move somewhere else.

You don't actually know what the job of the U.S. Supreme Court is do you?

Correct. But that isn't really making a point. I live off the same principle. Bill Gates lives off the same principle.

Yes, it is. Refer back to G-N-I's post where he gives a example with figures.

Proportionally a federal sales tax puts a heavier tax burden on the poor.

more recent version \/
If your cost of living is 25k, and you make 25k, you have NO choice what to spend and what to save.

Sure, you can rent rather than buy... buy soy instead of meat, whatever - but that's still the costs you HAVE TO spend.

And proportionally - that takes up a MUCH larger proportion of the income of the poor, than it does of the rich.

The poor have lower discretionary proportion of their income - thus, less discretion to save.
No, they have all of the income they make. Part of getting rid of the income tax, is that you don't tax income. They have less chance to save, of course, because they don't make as much. I argue that they could save money if their income wasn't taxed and their goods taxed minimally.[/quote]


The rich, even now, have savings and investments.
Right. And if the market falls on them, they should be allowed to fail, instead of the political nonsense we have now where no one is allowed to fail.


Not at all. The cost of living versus the wage index is so bad that people are having to have two-working-parent-families just to meet their non-discretionary costs.
This is compared to the 40's and 50's where one income would be enough to live. Tell me inflation isn't to blame for this?


The poor can't save on a 2% consumption tax, the rich can... just like the current tax model. The only advantage gained from the model You suggest, is that the RICH get taxed less.
How can they not save on a 2% consumption tax? That's ridiculous. Poor people don't need rescuing by giving them zero taxes. The top 15% of the country already pays for 95% of the income tax. Would the rich get taxed less? Sure, but is that so wrong? The poor also get taxed less with this as well.


Horseshit. Do you not understand the concept 'non-discretionary'?

If your cost of living is 25k, and you make 25k, you have NO choice what to spend and what to save.

Sure, you can rent rather than buy... buy soy instead of meat, whatever - but that's still the costs you HAVE TO spend.

And proportionally - that takes up a MUCH larger proportion of the income of the poor, than it does of the rich.

With the current system, people are in the red. They don't break even. I'd consider it a blessing to break even with cost of living and earnings. At least they wouldn't be in a crazy amount of credit debt. You wouldn't get foreclosed on.

You don't actually know what the job of the U.S. Supreme Court is do you?

To interpret law and keep the executive branch in check?

Yes, it is. Refer back to G-N-I's post where he gives a example with figures.

Proportionally a federal sales tax puts a heavier tax burden on the poor.

more recent version \/

How though? I keep having people tell me that poor people get taxed more under the system...but how?

To interpret law and keep the executive branch in check?

To determine the Constitutionality of laws that are passed, which is exactly what they did in Roe vs Wade

To determine the Constitutionality of laws that are passed, which is exactly what they did in Roe vs Wade

But what law did they cite when giving the verdict?

But what law did they cite when giving the verdict?

The Fourteenth Amendment.

How though? I keep having people tell me that poor people get taxed more under the system...but how?

Let's say your income is 30k and your non-discretionary income is 25k.
That leaves you with 5k (or 16.67% of total income) for discretionary purchases.
The FST would take an additional 2k, leaving said person with only 3k (or 10% of total income).

Now, if your income is 300k and your non-discretionary income is 25k.
That leaves you with 275k (or 91.67% of total income) for discretionary purchases.
The FST would take an additional 20k, leaving said person with 255k (or 85% of total income).


Net effect: poor people would proportionally be paying more than the rich. Or do you not see how having 10% of your income left is worse than having 85% of your income left?

The Fourteenth Amendment.

Thank you for proving my point :P

But what law did they cite when giving the verdict?
\/ This \/
The Fourteenth Amendment.

If you know nothing about the decision you should probably refrain from commenting on it until you fix your ignorance.


Thank you for proving my point :P
How exactly is that proving your point?

Their job is to determine the constitutionality of laws brought before them, which is exactly what they did.

No, they have all of the income they make. Part of getting rid of the income tax, is that you don't tax income. They have less chance to save, of course, because they don't make as much. I argue that they could save money if their income wasn't taxed and their goods taxed minimally.


You just said it - right there: "they have less chance to save, because they don't make as much".

I'm trying to ignore extra factors here like external costs and benefits (which SHOULD really be included int he conversation) and only focusing on individual income model, versus expenditure.

If there was no income tax - who sees the bigger benefits - rich or poor? Rich, obviously - higher wages means higher tax bill (even excluding proportionality or sliding scales). Add in all the other factors, and removing income tax makes a massive difference to the rich, and little or no difference to the poor.

Why? Because of the free market - what people seem not to understand (especially libertarians, for some reason) is that the market isn't governed by the ability of the POOREST to spend, but by the MEDIAN expenditure.

Which means, even with your 2% consumption tax - prices of goods would quickly rise to the break-even point.

The poor STILL wouldn't have spare cash.


Right. And if the market falls on them, they should be allowed to fail, instead of the political nonsense we have now where no one is allowed to fail.


That's not what we have - we have a model where the rich aren't allowed to fail, and big business isn't allowed to fail.

The poor are allowed to fail over and over.


This is compared to the 40's and 50's where one income would be enough to live. Tell me inflation isn't to blame for this?


You're right, it isn't. Inflation is a side-effect of something else, not a cause.


How can they not save on a 2% consumption tax? That's ridiculous. Poor people don't need rescuing by giving them zero taxes. The top 15% of the country already pays for 95% of the income tax. Would the rich get taxed less? Sure, but is that so wrong? The poor also get taxed less with this as well.


The rich (top 15%) pays 95% of all the tax burden because the rich OWNS 90% of ALL the income. They SHOULD pay most of the tax. They have most of the money, and tiny comparative non-discretionary costs.


With the current system, people are in the red. They don't break even. I'd consider it a blessing to break even with cost of living and earnings.


The poor are in the red. The poorer middleclass are in the red. Richer people that just can't handle money, are in the red.

The wealthy are still doing just fine. Businesses are still making record profits.

You don't see the problem there? It's the old 80-20 rule. 80% of the population are indebted to 20%.


At least they wouldn't be in a crazy amount of credit debt. You wouldn't get foreclosed on.

Your suggested tax model can guarantee neither of those things. More than that - you wouldn't WANT a model that COULD guarantee both those things.

You make a lot of solid points on the power of states rights. But I would defend Ron Paul as a federal legislator. He can only affect federal policy.

But some of what he tries to do in federal policy is to increase state power at the expense of individual rights.

There are rights guaranteed in the federal constitution that, if a state were to breach, could enter the federal court system. That's what the supreme court was supposed to be about.

And he opposes multiple decisions in which the supreme court did that.

In fact, he's trying to restrict the federal courts from even hearing appeals on state laws alleged to breach the constitution.

Roe v. Wade was the biggest crock of a decision ever. Not because of any individual right, but because the court didn't base their decision off of federal laws. The supposed laws their supposed to be interpreting.

No, they based it off of the Constitution, the ultimate law of the land.

If you don't want to live in a state where abortion is outlawed...then move somewhere else.

That's a nice argument in theory, but much more difficult than the people who make it let on.

But then, of course, we're back to "let the states infringe upon rights as they please." That isn't a philosophy of government I agree with.

I'm not sure what bills you're reffering to where he votes against individual rights. I know he'll vote against bills that he feels aren't for federal lawmakers to decide.

Sometimes he'll even vote for bills he claims aren't for federal lawmakers to decide! =)

(see the federal ban on intact dilation and extraction)

But I'm note quite sure of bills you refer to because if there was, his detractors would have named them a 1000 times over.

Indeed. And we have.

In fact, we've been talking about one extensively in this thread. It's ironically titled the "We the People Act".


Correct. But that isn't really making a point. I live off the same principle. Bill Gates lives off the same principle.

Bill Gates has a lot more money that he can save.

Someone who is spending absolutely everything they have on basic needs doesn't have any ability to save. Someone who has to spend only a very small fraction of what they earn to survive can save a great deal.

Thus, the very poor either get even poorer (if costs go up and they can't even afford the necessities) or remain the same. The rich get richer by saving more.

Let's say your income is 30k and your non-discretionary income is 25k.
That leaves you with 5k (or 16.67% of total income) for discretionary purchases.
The FST would take an additional 2k, leaving said person with only 3k (or 10% of total income).

Now, if your income is 300k and your non-discretionary income is 25k.
That leaves you with 275k (or 91.67% of total income) for discretionary purchases.
The FST would take an additional 20k, leaving said person with 255k (or 85% of total income).


Net effect: poor people would proportionally be paying more than the rich. Or do you not see how having 10% of your income left is worse than having 85% of your income left?

You're assuming that the rich have the same CoL as the poor? Besides that, wouldn't it be better for the lower class to have that 10% discretionary income that they currently don't have despite all of the welfare policies currently in place? Yes, I know that the rich always win in a tax system because they'll always END with more money.

This isn't a comparrison of poor and rich. I wouldn't insult poor people by doing that. I'm suggesting that the poor might not be so poor if they were taxed in a manner that rewarded saving over spending.

I actually have to leave for right ow, just letting you guys know so that you don't think I'm ditching you here. I hope to get back to this, tonight.

Don't throw your shit at everyone and expect me to comment on how lovely the smell is.

Relax, I wasn't fishing for compliments.

You're assuming that the rich have the same CoL as the poor? Besides that, wouldn't it be better for the lower class to have that 10% discretionary income that they currently don't have despite all of the welfare policies currently in place? Yes, I know that the rich always win in a tax system because they'll always END with more money.
Yes, because we're talking about the minimum that has to be spent, not what the rich choose to spend. the specific numbers are arbitrary, but that does not invalidate the example.
This isn't a comparrison of poor and rich. I wouldn't insult poor people by doing that. I'm suggesting that the poor might not be so poor if they were taxed in a manner that rewarded saving over spending.
How does a consumptive tax reward saving?

You make a lot of solid points on the power of states rights. But I would defend Ron Paul as a federal legislator. He can only affect federal policy. There are rights guaranteed in the federal constitution that, if a state were to breach, could enter the federal court system. That's what the supreme court was supposed to be about.

Roe v. Wade was the biggest crock of a decision ever. Not because of any individual right, but because the court didn't base their decision off of federal laws. The supposed laws their supposed to be interpreting. If you don't want to live in a state where abortion is outlawed...then move somewhere else.

I'm not sure what bills you're reffering to where he votes against individual rights. I know he'll vote against bills that he feels aren't for federal lawmakers to decide. But I'm note quite sure of bills you refer to because if there was, his detractors would have named them a 1000 times over.

But what law did they cite when giving the verdict?

Thank you for proving my point :P

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and/or Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)?

As explained at length in Roe and Casey, the Fourteenth Amendment protects a substantive liberty that includes the right to privacy and the right to choose. The right to privacy was recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 U. S. 479 (1965). The idea of a general liberty interest that includes fundamental rights being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment dates back some 120 years or more. See, e.g., Mugler v. Kansas (http://supreme.justia.com/us/123/623/case.html), 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887)

He wants to send the government back to its rightful role, that is why I love him.

He wants to send the government back to its rightful role, that is why I love him.

Its "rightful" role in invading privacy, controlling over our bodies, establishing official religion, denying equal opportunities, denying equal protection under the law, etc?

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and/or Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)?

As explained at length in Roe and Casey, the Fourteenth Amendment protects a substantive liberty that includes the right to privacy and the right to choose. The right to privacy was recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 U. S. 479 (1965). The idea of a general liberty interest that includes fundamental rights being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment dates back some 120 years or more. See, e.g., Mugler v. Kansas (http://supreme.justia.com/us/123/623/case.html), 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887)

I have a lot of people to cover so excuse me if this is a tad rushed. I also apologize because my understanding of the judicial system is not up to snuff.

Obviously, my argument would be that the 14th amendment would apply for my argument as it pertains to the pursuit of: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course the definition of life will NEVER be finished...but do we really want courts to decide for us? The way the 14th amendment was interpreted, in my opinion, was incorrect as abortion laws were being made in the mid 1800's while this amendment was enacted in 1868. It's because of this, I feel that abortion is the right of the states, or even cities/counties to decide.

Of course, it doesn't help that Roe's lawyers lied about her being raped. Or the fact that Roe later tried to get her own decision overturned. The debate will always continue, however, and no one will ever truly be satisfied, unfortunately

Its "rightful" role in invading privacy, controlling over our bodies, establishing official religion, denying equal opportunities, denying equal protection under the law, etc?

That's laughable as he wished to turn the right of abortion to the states. Being a doctor who delivered thousands of babies, I believe he has insight on the issue. At least, I think that's what you meant by invading privacy.

Denying equal opportunity and equal protection? Can you elaborate as I'm not sure where this came from.

That's laughable as he wished to turn the right of abortion to the states. Being a doctor who delivered thousands of babies, I believe he has insight on the issue. At least, I think that's what you meant by invading privacy.

Denying equal opportunity and equal protection? Can you elaborate as I'm not sure where this came from.

Currently the Constitution and SCOTUS are the safeguards against states denying these protections (which have been granted by the federal government).

That's laughable as he wished to turn the right of abortion to the states. Being a doctor who delivered thousands of babies, I believe he has insight on the issue. At least, I think that's what you meant by invading privacy.

Gaining insight into constitutional jurisprudence by being a doctor makes about as much sense as gaining insight into sound fiscal policy from being a plumber

oh...wait..

Denying equal opportunity and equal protection? Can you elaborate as I'm not sure where this came from.

I'm not entirely surprised. if you don't understand how the question of abortion rights relates to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, then I fear you really don't have a leg to stand on in this discussion.

Obviously, my argument would be that the 14th amendment would apply for my argument as it pertains to the pursuit of: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Aside from the fact that you're confusing the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") with the due process clause ("life, liberty, or property"), you're also ignoring the word "person": the Court was faced with this issue in Roe v. Wade and ruled rather reasonably, I think, that considering that the references to "person" in the Constitution tend to reference post-natal entities, and that the general attitude of the law toward fetuses hardly befit a legal classification of persons, they have no Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Of course the definition of life will NEVER be finished...but do we really want courts to decide for us?

Do we really want popular majorities deciding on whether or not to respect a right as private and fundamental as whether or not to bear a child?

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was faced with exactly this conflict, and the majority opinion advanced something of a compromise option in an attempt to reconcile the issue. Why don't you actually read the decision?

I have a lot of people to cover so excuse me if this is a tad rushed. I also apologize because my understanding of the judicial system is not up to snuff.

Obviously, my argument would be that the 14th amendment would apply for my argument as it pertains to the pursuit of: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course the definition of life will NEVER be finished...but do we really want courts to decide for us? The way the 14th amendment was interpreted, in my opinion, was incorrect as abortion laws were being made in the mid 1800's while this amendment was enacted in 1868. It's because of this, I feel that abortion is the right of the states, or even cities/counties to decide.

Of course, it doesn't help that Roe's lawyers lied about her being raped. Or the fact that Roe later tried to get her own decision overturned. The debate will always continue, however, and no one will ever truly be satisfied, unfortunately

1. I'll put that down as NO -- you haven't read Roe and/or Casey. You should, especially if you are going to criticize them.

2. The 14th Amendment says nothing about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence. The 14th Amendment does say that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." BUT the 14th specifies that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens" and thereby strongly implies that one must be born to be a person under the 14th Amendment. Not a single Justice in the history of the Republic has argued that a unborn child is a person under the 14th Amendment.

3. Even if an unborn had rights under the 14th Amendment, there is nothing that says such rights would trump a woman's right to control her own body.

4. Yes, we want courts to protect fundamental freedoms. That is the whole point of having a Bill of Rights.

5. Jane Roe's later personal opinions about the decision are irrelevant. As is any claim (false regardless) that she was raped. Neither her personal opinion nor how she got pregnant effect either Roe or Casey.

6. Personally, I think most Americans are satisfied with the state of the law regarding abortion. About 90% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Under Roe and Casey, abortion can be banned (and is in almost every state) once the fetus is viable -- which may states err on the side of caution and set at 20 weeks -- unless there is a threat to the life or health of the mother. Regardless, there are almost no abortions performed in this country anywhere close to the time the unborn is ethically (let alone legally) a person.

On to the fun parts!

You just said it - right there: "they have less chance to save, because they don't make as much".
Right, and this will never change regardless of the tax system. Keep in mind, my tax system is only in comparison to the current one. Or any system you would propose in rebuttal.

I'm trying to ignore extra factors here like external costs and benefits (which SHOULD really be included int he conversation) and only focusing on individual income model, versus expenditure.

If there was no income tax - who sees the bigger benefits - rich or poor? Rich, obviously - higher wages means higher tax bill (even excluding proportionality or sliding scales). Add in all the other factors, and removing income tax makes a massive difference to the rich, and little or no difference to the poor.

Why? Because of the free market - what people seem not to understand (especially libertarians, for some reason) is that the market isn't governed by the ability of the POOREST to spend, but by the MEDIAN expenditure.

Which means, even with your 2% consumption tax - prices of goods would quickly rise to the break-even point.

The poor STILL wouldn't have spare cash.

Again, why are we comparing the rich vs. poor? I'm not looking for equality, I'm looking to give the lower class the best opportunities to exceed from an economic stand point.

The free market, is about maximums. Not mediums. Maximizing profits, savings, deals, stuff, etc. It's through this system that you find the median (of course, we don't have a free market but we're speculating). What I don't understand about your reasoning is that the prices of goods would rise so dramatically. The only argument for that case would be if demand was dramatically higher. Which, would support my case because people would have more money to begin with. Not to mention that the ridiculous tax cuts that would happen with the insertion of a 2% consumption tax would mean dramatically higher profits...which allows those companies to pass that cash to their work force and to the consumer.


That's not what we have - we have a model where the rich aren't allowed to fail, and big business isn't allowed to fail.

The poor are allowed to fail over and over.
I'm in full agreement with you here. It violates every moral code, I know. And it asserts my arguments that A. We don't have a free market and B. The current system is WAY too "top heavy". Oh, and that we have a slightly fascist government.


You're right, it isn't. Inflation is a side-effect of something else, not a cause.

I would invite you to tell me what that something else, is. Inflation is a cause of many problems. It's why your dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. There's a part of inflation called the: Cantillon effects. Named for a Nobel Prize winner. It's where we the people see the effects of inflation but those who are closest to the money supply (government, corporations, banks, etc.) are least effected by it. It's why energy, food and precious metals have become so much more expensive in the past 10 years.


The rich (top 15%) pays 95% of all the tax burden because the rich OWNS 90% of ALL the income. They SHOULD pay most of the tax. They have most of the money, and tiny comparative non-discretionary costs.
Why? Why should they have to pay more for incurring success. In my opinion however, there is a moral hazard for taxing success. I understand the bitterness of many people on this issue when people who should be prosecuted, are bailed out. In that respect, I have no argument and can even sympathize with those who feel this way.

I digress, we're not comparing the rich to the poor. We're measuring to see if the poor would do better or worse under my ideas.

The poor are in the red. The poorer middleclass are in the red. Richer people that just can't handle money, are in the red.

The wealthy are still doing just fine. Businesses are still making record profits.

You don't see the problem there? It's the old 80-20 rule. 80% of the population are indebted to 20%.
The poor are in the red on the current system. Some middle class families I know are in the red, as well and were nearly foreclosed on. That's the system now. It isn't working for all the reason you've been stating: It grossly favors the rich and expects too little of the poor. It's why politicians try so hard to get poor minorities to buy houses they can't afford.


Your suggested tax model can guarantee neither of those things. More than that - you wouldn't WANT a model that COULD guarantee both those things.

I didn't suggest my model could do those things. I was saying that based on the 5K in the black ratings for CoL you conjured up, that lower class people would be thrilled with that. My system still gives them room to blow that 5K and perhaps financially ruin themselves.

I agree with his foriegn policies, but I strongly dislike his domestic policies.

He wants to shut down most departments (e.g. Department of Education) in the cabinent and leave such duties to the states, while I feel this would disenfranchise the poorer states (read Mississippi).

He wants to repeal the 17th amendment. I feel this would create a situation where state legislatures would be elected based on who they would appoint to the Senate. This combines the worst aspect of a parlimentary government with the worst aspect of the two-party system.

And that's all I feel like mentioning here.

Its "rightful" role in invading privacy, controlling over our bodies, establishing official religion, denying equal opportunities, denying equal protection under the law, etc?

That's laughable as he wished to turn the right of abortion to the states. Being a doctor who delivered thousands of babies, I believe he has insight on the issue. At least, I think that's what you meant by invading privacy.

Denying equal opportunity and equal protection? Can you elaborate as I'm not sure where this came from.

1. Wants to leave abortion to the states? Then why is he the sponsor of the Sanctity of Life Act, a federal law that would declare life begins at conception and declare that all unborn human beings are "persons"? Also relevant to his wish to invade privacy is his sponsorship of the We The People Act which prevents federal courts from protecting the right to privacy.

2. I notice you didn't dispute that he wishes to establish an official religion. He would amend the Constitution to create prayer in school. He would teach creationism. Etc, etc, etc.

3. Denying equal opportunites and equal protection under the law? Opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Supports discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples. Opposed to gender pay equity. Opposed to affirmative action. Opposes hate crime legislation. Wishes to amend the Constitution to end birth-right citizenship (which is most ironic considering his abortion stance). Etc, etc, etc.

I obviously will never be able to catch up with everyone, so I apologize.

Yes, I misquoted the 14th amendment to say pursuit of happiness over property. I warned all of you that I was rushing. I do apologize for the misquote, however and I still apply my point, there.

It's precisely because the rights of the unborn have not been 100% defined that we end up with this debate. It's weird because if a doctor harms the fetus, you get sued and if you kill a pregnant woman you can be tried for double murder. Yet, abortions are OK. It makes no sense legally or morally.

It is correct to say that Roe's opinion afterwards are irrelevant. I was just making a moral point, not a legal one. That is my fault, however as I didn't want to make it a moral argument...I should shut up now.

The only real problem I have with current abortion law is that you don't have to inform the parent when getting an abortion and under 18. It's a state issue though so not really intended for this debate.

Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to abortion. For instance, crime rates dropped significantly some 20 years after Roe v. Wade. The only argument I can provide is moral, which I now recognize. And it's probably why i should stop debating the issue for the time being as I will offer nothing new to the discussion.

1. Wants to leave abortion to the states? Then why is he the sponsor of the Sanctity of Life Act, a federal law that would declare life begins at conception and declare that all unborn human beings are "persons"?
Also relevant to his wish to invade privacy is his sponsorship of the We The People Act which prevents federal courts from protecting the right to privacy.

2. I notice you didn't dispute that he wishes to establish an official religion. He would amend the Constitution to create prayer in school. He would teach creationism. Etc, etc, etc.

3. Denying equal opportunites and equal protection under the law? Opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Supports discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples. Opposed to gender pay equity. Opposed to affirmative action. Opposes hate crime legislation. Wishes to amend the Constitution to end birth-right citizenship (which is most ironic considering his abortion stance). Etc, etc, etc.

1. The sanctity of life act would define that conception is life. It wouldn't ban abortions. It might be an argument that would come later, but even then, the people wouldn't stand for the absolute abolition of abortion, anyways. For him, it's an important issue since he delivered so many babies. In that respect, you can't blame him for believing that conception is life. He has more of an argument than I ever will.

2. What? He wouldn't establish any religion, in the United States. And by his wish of getting rid of the department of education, he would effectively give the choice of school prayer to the states or more appropriately, to the school districts.

3. The civil rights act of 1964 gives special protection under the law. Not equal. He voted against the federal ban on gay marriage. Again, he opposed special protections, not equal. Same. Same. Supports an amendment change to the 16th amendment to read that both of your parents have to be citizens to be born a citizen, in this country. It would certainly take away some incentive for those who would come into the country illegally. That's simply his interpretation of the amendment as he reads it and wished to clarify.

On to the fun parts!

Right, and this will never change regardless of the tax system. Keep in mind, my tax system is only in comparison to the current one. Or any system you would propose in rebuttal.


Right - whichever tax model you promote here, it's not going to make it any 'easier' for the poor to save.


Again, why are we comparing the rich vs. poor? I'm not looking for equality, I'm looking to give the lower class the best opportunities to exceed from an economic stand point.


That's why we're comparing the rich and the poor. Any tax structure that removes the graduations that increase with increased income... is going to be proportionately more unfair on the poor. For the reasons I've already elucidated... mainly, that 'cost of living' is proportionately higher for poor people.


The free market, is about maximums. Not mediums. Maximizing profits, savings, deals, stuff, etc. It's through this system that you find the median (of course, we don't have a free market but we're speculating). What I don't understand about your reasoning is that the prices of goods would rise so dramatically. The only argument for that case would be if demand was dramatically higher. Which, would support my case because people would have more money to begin with. Not to mention that the ridiculous tax cuts that would happen with the insertion of a 2% consumption tax would mean dramatically higher profits...which allows those companies to pass that cash to their work force and to the consumer.


You say you don't understand why prices would rise - but again - I already explained. Prices don't settle on the lowest income, they settle at the median income.

The only way to bring prices to a level where anyone can afford them... is to level the playing field.


I would invite you to tell me what that something else, is. Inflation is a cause of many problems. It's why your dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. There's a part of inflation called the: Cantillon effects. Named for a Nobel Prize winner. It's where we the people see the effects of inflation but those who are closest to the money supply (government, corporations, banks, etc.) are least effected by it. It's why energy, food and precious metals have become so much more expensive in the past 10 years.



Why? Why should they have to pay more for incurring success.


Why should people be punished disproportionately for net getting rich?


In my opinion however, there is a moral hazard for taxing success.


A 'moral' hazard?


I understand the bitterness of many people on this issue when people who should be prosecuted, are bailed out. In that respect, I have no argument and can even sympathize with those who feel this way.

I digress, we're not comparing the rich to the poor. We're measuring to see if the poor would do better or worse under my ideas.


And inequity is a bigger problem than tax brackets.

How is getting rid of one of the most ridiculous tax systems in the world, loony? What's wrong with a 2% consumption tax?

Nothing, and a 2% consumption tax would be okay with me, so long as the government didn't tax:

- Food (basic ingredients)
- Shelter
- Water
- Air
- Clothing

Taxing those would create a privileged class and the have-nots would die. That ain't cool.

Another point I'd like to make: for an old man to stand over a young woman, not related to him and not living in his household, and tell her what she can or can't do in regards to her body, is intrusive government. A federal ban on abortion, which Ron Paul supports, even tries to promote, is VERY intrusive government. That, is where I see hypocrisy showing. Libertarianism: it ain't just for men anymore. Womens' equality hinges on their right to choose.

Right - whichever tax model you promote here, it's not going to make it any 'easier' for the poor to save.
Oh, it can make it easier. It's certainly impossible under the current system and situation. Only made more difficult by the fact that the government is propping up prices with these bailouts. I argue my system puts more money into the hands of lower class citizens.


That's why we're comparing the rich and the poor. Any tax structure that removes the graduations that increase with increased income... is going to be proportionately more unfair on the poor. For the reasons I've already elucidated... mainly, that 'cost of living' is proportionately higher for poor people.

It favors those who save. It's based on consumption, not earnings. What makes you think someone who earns more money won't spend more then someone with a lesser income?

I'll get to your second point a few points down.


You say you don't understand why prices would rise - but again - I already explained. Prices don't settle on the lowest income, they settle at the median income.

The only way to bring prices to a level where anyone can afford them... is to level the playing field.
But if that were truly the case, no one would be able to afford anything in ANY system. The only way, theoretically, that could be remedied is if there was no currency whatsoever and a sanctioning body controlled the entire system by dividing every item equally amongst the people. You can't just make everyone have a similar income because even if you were able to poof that outcome, the balance would find a way to tilt as some are better with money then others.

Thankfully, this isn't the case and we won't have to resort to that. Again, the free market isn't about settling at the medium it's about finding the maximum value.


Why should people be punished disproportionately for not getting rich?
Why should the government support them for not getting rich? What moral authority does government have? Or better yet, what could they do that churches, charities or rich people don't already provide for the majority of the lower class?


A 'moral' hazard?
A tax structure that has graduations with an increase an income is unfair for those incurring success. Why should successful people HAVE to "bail out" poor people? Of course, no one uses this sort of language in this context because we, as people (myself included), have a bias against the wealthy. let's face it, they have more stuff and we want it. But they shouldn't HAVE to support anyone...but they do with their tax dollars and beyond that with charitable contributions.


And inequity is a bigger problem than tax brackets.
I agree wholeheartedly. Though i would say the tax brackets only play into that mentality. The unfairness happening on wall street in proportion to guys like us is absolutely ridiculous.

an amusing two headed cow. market forces are not going to build the kind of world i want to live. (yes i know procustianism isn't going to do that either, so please spare me stating the obvious) a world in which everyone can find opportunities for gratification. only not destroying the kind of strange, wonderful, interestingness that everyething would other wise be can bring that, or freedom, or peace.

Nothing, and a 2% consumption tax would be okay with me, so long as the government didn't tax:

- Food (basic ingredients)
- Shelter
- Water
- Air
- Clothing

Taxing those would create a privileged class and the have-nots would die. That ain't cool.

Another point I'd like to make: for an old man to stand over a young woman, not related to him and not living in his household, and tell her what she can or can't do in regards to her body, is intrusive government. A federal ban on abortion, which Ron Paul supports, even tries to promote, is VERY intrusive government. That, is where I see hypocrisy showing. Libertarianism: it ain't just for men anymore. Womens' equality hinges on their right to choose.

I would say that if poor people can't survive a measly 2% tax on food that there is a HUGE problem. It's only 2% That's two cents per dollar! However, I'm certainly not against lowering taxes on any item so I say amen to that! :D

I'm trying to avoid the abortion debate as I mentioned earlier. But the argument against that is, obviously, that the mother doesn't have the right to determine who lives and who dies. Nor does the government. Hence, the dilemma for many like me, who are fairly anti-government but wants to ensure rights for the unborn. It's a cruel clashing of ideology for many in the Libertarian party (which I am not a member of).

Why? Why should they have to pay more for incurring success. In my opinion however, there is a moral hazard for taxing success. I understand the bitterness of many people on this issue when people who should be prosecuted, are bailed out. In that respect, I have no argument and can even sympathize with those who feel this way.
They should pay more because they have more with which to pay. What is unfair about that?
I digress, we're not comparing the rich to the poor. We're measuring to see if the poor would do better or worse under my ideas.
No, they wouldn't. Depending upon your definition of poor, under the current system they have no actual tax burden where as under yours they would.

Of course the definition of life will NEVER be finished...but do we really want courts to decide for us?

No, we want individuals to decide for themselves. And, luckily, that's precisely what the court ruled. The court doesn't get to decide if I have an abortion. My neighbor doesn't get to decide. The legislators in the capital of my state don't get to decide. Congress doesn't get to decide. I do, because I am the one with the authority to make that decision - not government.

That's laughable as he wished to turn the right of abortion to the states.

.....so that they could invade the privacy of women.

Being a doctor who delivered thousands of babies, I believe he has insight on the issue.

I would agree, if he didn't flat-out lie about medical indications for abortion and if he hadn't voted for a bill that does absolutely nothing to stop abortion but does endanger pregnant women.

As a doctor, I would expect him to recognize these things. The fact that he does not makes it clear that either he is simply a shitty doctor, or his medical judgment is clouded by his personal ideology. Either way, it makes his "insight" into the matter pretty much useless.

At least, I think that's what you meant by invading privacy.

Part of it. He also thinks the states should be able to invade our privacy by dictating which consenting adults we can have sex with and how we can do it.

Denying equal opportunity and equal protection? Can you elaborate as I'm not sure where this came from.

See his positions regarding homosexuals.

I'm trying to avoid the abortion debate as I mentioned earlier. But the argument against that is, obviously, that the mother doesn't have the right to determine who lives and who dies. Nor does the government.

No, but she does have the right to determine how her own body is used. And the government does not.

Hence, the dilemma for many like me, who are fairly anti-government but wants to ensure rights for the unborn.

You can give the unborn every right that those who are already born have, and they still wouldn't have the right to use someone else's body against her will. As such, she could still abort the pregnancy.

The Ron Paul campaign turns out to have been significantly more sane than the John McCain campaign. Ashley Todd was told to go away (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/ashley-todds-instability_n_138485.html) by the Ron Paul people when she tried her nonsense while working for them.

They should pay more because they have more with which to pay. What is unfair about that?
Because you're taxing success. I've seen cases where people purposely made less to stay in a lower tax bracket there by netting more money (they were right at the borderline near the 6 figure mark so it's a good example to use over some 7-8 figure guy). There's something wrong with that. Money, is your property. It's yours and a government who takes it away to invest in what? Nonstop war? The national debt? FEMA? A failing education system? Energy plans that MIGHT come around by 2025? I say the rich, and I dare say that corporations could invest that capital WAY better then the government ever could!

No, they wouldn't. Depending upon your definition of poor, under the current system they have no actual tax burden where as under yours they would.
They have a tax burden out of their paychecks. I made less then $5,000 last year and I paid nearly $800 in taxes (Granted, my mom did my taxes and I got $300 of it back, I know that most poor people aren't that fortunate, however). And despite all of the social welfare granted by local, state and the federal governments, poverty is still on the rise. Comparatively to before when poverty was slowly decreasing.

Because you're taxing success. I've seen cases where people purposely made less to stay in a lower tax bracket there by netting more money (they were right at the borderline near the 6 figure mark so it's a good example to use over some 7-8 figure guy). There's something wrong with that. Money, is your property. It's yours and a government who takes it away to invest in what? Nonstop war? The national debt? FEMA? A failing education system? Energy plans that MIGHT come around by 2025? I say the rich, and I dare say that corporations could invest that capital WAY better then the government ever could!
Which has a better record on trying to help the less fortunate? I'll give you a hint, it isn't Corporations.
They have a tax burden out of their paychecks. I made less then $5,000 last year and I paid nearly $800 in taxes (Granted, my mom did my taxes and I got $300 of it back, I know that most poor people aren't that fortunate, however). And despite all of the social welfare granted by local, state and the federal governments, poverty is still on the rise. Comparatively to before when poverty was slowly decreasing.
Amazingly enough when the economy is strong and more people are employed poverty shrinks, and when there is a recession and unemployment rises poverty levels rise.

They have a tax burden out of their paychecks. I made less then $5,000 last year and I paid nearly $800 in taxes (Granted, my mom did my taxes and I got $300 of it back, I know that most poor people aren't that fortunate, however). And despite all of the social welfare granted by local, state and the federal governments, poverty is still on the rise. Comparatively to before when poverty was slowly decreasing.

The taxes you paid were for Social Security and Medicare. Payroll taxes. That money you got back was your income tax returned to you. Unless you intended to do away with payroll taxes in addition to federal income tax, you'd still pay that $500, and under your plan, you'd pay an additional $90 in your consumption tax, assuming you spent all that money you earned in the year.

No, we want individuals to decide for themselves. And, luckily, that's precisely what the court ruled. The court doesn't get to decide if I have an abortion. My neighbor doesn't get to decide. The legislators in the capital of my state don't get to decide. Congress doesn't get to decide. I do, because I am the one with the authority to make that decision - not government.
That's a fair way to interpret it. I interpret it differently because I give the fetus more value than you would but that was very well written.



.....so that they could invade the privacy of women.
No, because there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. it was a point I had made earlier about the time line of events. I still think abortion should be a state issue, instead of a court decision. But, we could go around in circles...I already have been *sigh*



I would agree, if he didn't flat-out lie about medical indications for abortion and if he hadn't voted for a bill that does absolutely nothing to stop abortion but does endanger pregnant women.

As a doctor, I would expect him to recognize these things. The fact that he does not makes it clear that either he is simply a shitty doctor, or his medical judgment is clouded by his personal ideology. Either way, it makes his "insight" into the matter pretty much useless.
How did he lie about medical indications for abortions? That abortions to save the mother's life are currently 1% of all abortions? And voting to protect the fetus is something he believes in, because his medical experience indicates to him that the fetus is life (likewise there are doctors who feel that their experience says a fetus is not life). Did you consider that his insight and ideology might coincide?


Part of it. He also thinks the states should be able to invade our privacy by dictating which consenting adults we can have sex with and how we can do it.
They already have laws that say that. In some states you can only do missionary. Yes, I know that's not what you intended your question to be, but that isn't the point. You, the individual have a MUCH better chance of affecting change at the state level then at the federal level.



See his positions regarding homosexuals.
That they should be treated equally and that don't-ask-don't-tell is flawed because it doesn't take into account heterosexual disruptions? At least, that's what I've heard him say. Gaywired.com endorsed him during the primaries. Also here's a quote:

Sure. They can do whatever they want, they can call it whatever they want just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me personally accept what they do but they can...gay couples can do whatever they want. Matter of fact, I liked to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function.



You can give the unborn every right that those who are already born have, and they still wouldn't have the right to use someone else's body against her will. As such, she could still abort the pregnancy.
I believe it was with their will when they decided to have intercourse without protection/birth control.

1. The sanctity of life act would define that conception is life. It wouldn't ban abortions. It might be an argument that would come later, but even then, the people wouldn't stand for the absolute abolition of abortion, anyways. For him, it's an important issue since he delivered so many babies. In that respect, you can't blame him for believing that conception is life. He has more of an argument than I ever will.

1. Let's see. The man would remove the Constitutional protection of abortion rights and the right to privacy, he is personally opposed to abortion, he has voted for federal anti-abortion laws, and he sponsors a law that would define that a human being is a legal person at conception. That is more than just "leaving it to the states."

Regardless, we don't leave our fundamental rights to the states. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Fourteenth Amendment, as the Supreme Court explained in 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.

2. As for his alleged expertise because he has delivered babies, this is a fallacious appeal to authority as most doctors don't agree with him about abortion. The American Medical Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Fertility Society are among some of the many medical associations that support abortion rights.

2. What? He wouldn't establish any religion, in the United States. And by his wish of getting rid of the department of education, he would effectively give the choice of school prayer to the states or more appropriately, to the school districts.

Again, removing the Constitutional protection against the establishment of religion and advocating school prayer/creationism/etc at the state or local level is equivalent to advocating the establishment of religion.

EDIT: Also, Ron Paul has expressed his contempt for the First Amendment and lied about the Constitution regarding religion. Paul claims the Constitution is "replete" with references to God -- when in fact it is purposefully devoid of any such reference. Paul openly argues that there should be no such thing as separation of Church and State:

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

***

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
link (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm)

3. The civil rights act of 1964 gives special protection under the law. Not equal.

Utter bullshit. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects any individual from discrimination on the basis of "such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." White Christian males receive the same protection as any minority group.

He voted against the federal ban on gay marriage. Again, he opposed special protections, not equal. Same. Same.

*sigh*

He voted for a ban on gay adoptions. He supports "don't ask, don't tell." He opposes hate crime legislation. He opposes protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He supports DOMA. On the state level, he opposes same-sex marriage. He opposed the Lawrence decision in which the Supreme Court held sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Across the board, the man supports discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples.

Supports an amendment change to the 16th amendment to read that both of your parents have to be citizens to be born a citizen, in this country. It would certainly take away some incentive for those who would come into the country illegally. That's simply his interpretation of the amendment as he reads it and wished to clarify.

Actually, it is the 14th Amendment that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen. It isn't a clarification that he seeks, but rather a whole-scale revision.

I gave just a few examples of the many ways in which Ron Paul opposes equal opportunities and equal protection under the law. You haven't even tried to rebut all of those examples and I can provide more if necessary. My comments about him stand.

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.

Economics: ur doin it wrong!

Actually, it is the 14th Amendment that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen. It isn't a clarification that he seeks, but rather a whole-scale revision.


As usual, your comments reflect little penetration of constitutional law, Cat.

The fact that both parents should be American citizens for the 14th Amendment to apply is clearly implied, and just needs to be clarified, just like all the other amendments.

For example, if your parents aren't citizens, you can and should be tortured, under the Eighth Amendment.

Which has a better record on trying to help the less fortunate? I'll give you a hint, it isn't Corporations.
That's a very closed mind mentality.

Here's a list of all the corporate sponsors of the American Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org/sponsors/corporatelist.html

Walmart gave $272.9 million in fiscal year 2006. Now combine that with the donations from churches, regular people or simply rich individuals who aren't tied to corporations. I'm not trying to fault the government for having good intentions, however, it's organizations like Habitat for Humanity and American Red Cross that help way more then FEMA, ever could.

Amazingly enough when the economy is strong and more people are employed poverty shrinks, and when there is a recession and unemployment rises poverty levels rise.
Because, during good times companies can employ more people? Supply side economics actually does have some truth to it Although, the good times were a falsehood (getting into economic theory here).

The fact is, no matter how hard to government tries A. The Government can't afford medicare, medicaid and social welfare and B. The welfare Government does provide is considerably less effective then private enterprise.

No, because there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. it was a point I had made earlier about the time line of events. I still think abortion should be a state issue, instead of a court decision. But, we could go around in circles...I already have been *sigh*

*sigh*

You should really read Casey, which explains at length how the right to abortion is a fundamental liberty protected by the 14th Amendment, just like many other unenumerated rights.

You also should consider that the 9th Amendment expressly contradicts the "if it isn't expressly there, it's not protected by the Constitution" argument.

I posted this earlier. Here is a list of just some of the Constitutional rights that aren't expressly spelled out in the Constitution, but are nonetheless protected:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?



How did he lie about medical indications for abortions? That abortions to save the mother's life are currently 1% of all abortions? And voting to protect the fetus is something he believes in, because his medical experience indicates to him that the fetus is life (likewise there are doctors who feel that their experience says a fetus is not life). Did you consider that his insight and ideology might coincide?

As to his lies, Dem is referring, in part, to this:

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

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

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

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


Further, although you are right that few abortions are for medical necessity, even fewer abortions are carried out beyond the earliest stages of pregnancy. Essentially all late-term abortions are medically necessary.


They already have laws that say that. In some states you can only do missionary. Yes, I know that's not what you intended your question to be, but that isn't the point. You, the individual have a MUCH better chance of affecting change at the state level then at the federal level.

Um. No. There is a right to privacy protected by the Constitution that says the government has to stay the hell out of consensual sex between adults.


That they should be treated equally and that don't-ask-don't-tell is flawed because it doesn't take into account heterosexual disruptions? At least, that's what I've heard him say. Gaywired.com endorsed him during the primaries. Also here's a quote:

Sure. They can do whatever they want, they can call it whatever they want just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me personally accept what they do but they can...gay couples can do whatever they want. Matter of fact, I liked to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function.

I listed some of the many ways Paul advocates discrimination against gays in my earlier post.

Regardless, the "let's get rid of marriage in order to save it from the gays" argument is odious.


I believe it was with their will when they decided to have intercourse without protection/birth control.

Sorry, but most women that have abortions were using some form of protection/birth control when they got pregnant.

Regardless consenting to sex is no more consenting to carry a child to birth than consenting to a car ride is consenting to a crippling accident.

That's a fair way to interpret it. I interpret it differently because I give the fetus more value than you would but that was very well written.

Thank you, but don't jump to conclusions about the value I might assign to a fetus. My guess is that we're more similar on that than you think.

No, because there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding TV either. Does that mean that the government can control all networks as they see fit?

it was a point I had made earlier about the time line of events. I still think abortion should be a state issue, instead of a court decision.

I don't think abortion should be a state or a court decision. It should be an individual decision. Luckily, that's what the courts said too.

How did he lie about medical indications for abortions?

He made the claim that late-term abortions are never medically necessary. This was apparently based in him never having such a situation come up in his own practice.

And voting to protect the fetus is something he believes in, because his medical experience indicates to him that the fetus is life (likewise there are doctors who feel that their experience says a fetus is not life).

He voted for a ban on a particular abortion procedure. This ban does not stop a single abortion from happening - not one. So it doesn't really matter what he thinks of abortion itself or what protections he thinks the fetus should get.

What the ban does do is keep a woman and her doctor from having all the options on the table in choosing the best procedure to use for a medically indicated abortion. It also makes doctors fearful enough of accidentally breaking the law that they add unnecessary steps (and thus risks) to the abortion procedures that they do use.

Thus, the only effect of the bill is endangering women.

Did you consider that his insight and ideology might coincide?

Of course they coincide. His "insight" comes from his ideology.

They already have laws that say that.

And Lawrence v. Texas made it clear that such laws are unconstitutional.

In some states you can only do missionary.

Those laws are sometimes still on the books, but are essentially unenforceable.

Yes, I know that's not what you intended your question to be, but that isn't the point. You, the individual have a MUCH better chance of affecting change at the state level then at the federal level.

I shouldn't have to "change" it. The government - at any level - doesn't have the authority to make such laws.

That they should be treated equally and that don't-ask-don't-tell is flawed because it doesn't take into account heterosexual disruptions? At least, that's what I've heard him say. Gaywired.com endorsed him during the primaries.

Paul actually supports keeping the don't ask/don't tell policy.

Then he says homosexuals shouldn't be kicked out of the military for no reason.

It would appear that Paul is rather conflicted on that particular issue.

He also opposes extending equal protection under the law to homosexuals, so I don't think he's really going for "treated equally" here.

Also here's a quote:

Sure. They can do whatever they want, they can call it whatever they want just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me personally accept what they do but they can...gay couples can do whatever they want. Matter of fact, I liked to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function.

I always like this quote, because it shows what a hypocrite he is.

Guess who is married and taking advantage of the protections he claims shouldn't be provided?

I believe it was with their will when they decided to have intercourse without protection/birth control.

(a) Birth control fails. Is it your contention that abortion should be legal only for those who used contraceptives?

(b) What you're saying here is that women give up their rights to determine what is done with their own bodies by consenting to sex. Is that really the position you want to go with?

No, because there is nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion. it was a point I had made earlier about the time line of events. I still think abortion should be a state issue, instead of a court decision. But, we could go around in circles...I already have been *sigh*
So according to you the only rights that exist are the ones that are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights? Sorry, but that is not how it works.
I believe it was with their will when they decided to have intercourse without protection/birth control.
No-one has ever gotten pregnant while using birth control? That's news to me, especially since an ex-girlfriend of mine was conceived despite the fact that the father was wearing a condom and the mother was on the pill.

That's a very closed mind mentality.

Here's a list of all the corporate sponsors of the American Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org/sponsors/corporatelist.html

Walmart gave $272.9 million in fiscal year 2006. Now combine that with the donations from churches, regular people or simply rich individuals who aren't tied to corporations. I'm not trying to fault the government for having good intentions, however, it's organizations like Habitat for Humanity and American Red Cross that help way more then FEMA, ever could.
Right, the only time poor people need help is during natural disasters...

Because, during good times companies can employ more people? Supply side economics actually does have some truth to it Although, the good times were a falsehood (getting into economic theory here).
Yes there is some truth to it, I fail to see however, how this is justification for putting more of the tax burden on the poor.
The fact is, no matter how hard to government tries A. The Government can't afford medicare, medicaid and social welfare and B. The welfare Government does provide is considerably less effective then private enterprise.
Ignoring the fact that the government has been affording it...

Tis is the last one for the day...I'm tired...

1. Let's see. The man would remove the Constitutional protection of abortion rights and the right to privacy, he is personally opposed to abortion, he has voted for federal anti-abortion laws, and he sponsors a law that would define that a human being is a legal person at conception. That is more than just "leaving it to the states." Regardless, we don't leave our fundamental rights to the states. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Fourteenth Amendment, as the Supreme Court explained in 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.

2. As for his alleged expertise because he has delivered babies, this is a fallacious appeal to authority as most doctors don't agree with him about abortion. The American Medical Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Fertility Society are among some of the many medical associations that support abortion rights.

I keep going around and around and around on abortion. No one here that I've been debating is going to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. And since I work under that assumption, it's impossible for us to continue the debate without going to a full medical evaluation which only serves to feed into the debate as there is no conclusion there, either. I'm done with the abortion issue.

It's not a fallacious appeal to authority. I think you were in the middle of posting when I mentioned in another post that doctors are divided on the issue. My point was that Paul has more insight into the issue then I do.

Again, removing the Constitutional protection against the establishment of religion and advocating school prayer/creationism/etc at the state or local level is equivalent to advocating the establishment of religion.
The Constitution actually prohibits the prohibiting of free religious excersise. Personally speaking, I'm annoyed by "faith-based, government sponsored" programs and think they shouldn't exist. But when it comes to prayer...you don't have to pray. I know a lot of people who don't. We're so fearful of prayer in schools that a lot of districts don't even allow moments of silence.


Utter bullshit. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects any individual from discrimination on the basis of "such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." White Christian males receive the same protection as any minority group.
If that's the case, why did it need to be written in the first place? I thought there were already state laws that prohibited my rights being taken away from me. Besides, it's not like to black people who go and kill me for being white will be tried for a hate crime.


*sigh*
I know, me too.


He voted for a ban on gay adoptions. He supports "don't ask, don't tell." He opposes hate crime legislation. He opposes protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He supports DOMA. On the state level, he opposes same-sex marriage. He opposed the Lawrence decision in which the Supreme Court held sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Across the board, the man supports discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples.
I mentioned earlier he only supports don't ask don't tell if it applies to heterosexuals as well. It's that whole equality thing. He voted against FUNDING gay adoptions. He opposes legislation that gives people special protection. It's why he's against affirmative action and so-called gender equality. Should minorities have special rights over the middle class white guy? Hell no! Actually, Paul wishes the states would get out of marriage and undoubtedly, one of these days, a state will get out of the marriage business. Wouldn't supporting a decision against sodomy laws prove he's for sexual rights?

Again, it's the idea that homosexuals, blacks and Hispanics are the same as a 73 year old white guy. You can't have equality AND special protection. The same as you can't have separate but equal.


Actually, it is the 14th Amendment that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen. It isn't a clarification that he seeks, but rather a whole-scale revision.
Because he believes that having American citizens as a parent is implied. That's the only change he would seek as that's all he's ever said.

I gave just a few examples of the many ways in which Ron Paul opposes equal opportunities and equal protection under the law. You haven't even tried to rebut all of those examples and I can provide more if necessary. My comments about him stand.

I did rebut them all I just didn't give you answers you wanted to hear. Obviously with abortion, you'll always feel that the mother should have the right over the fetus. Knowing that, we can safely assume that we don't need to address it further.

My question to you is: Do you believe special protection is needed to guarantee equal protection? I'll assume your answer is yes. But then the question becomes: Does believing you don't mean that you are not for equal rights?

So according to you the only rights that exist are the ones that are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights? Sorry, but that is not how it works.

That is exactly how it works.

Legislatures can and should be expected to directly and specificly address every conceivable right in all situations for all time. That's why laws require no interpretation or application within factual context.

You and Cat buy into this "unenumerated rights" business, well guess what?

Pythagoras said "If shit ain't numbered, shit ain't legit, bitches."

And he was greek.

OK, THIS is the last one. Because it's short.

Right, the only time poor people need help is during natural disasters...
It's just an example. All I wanted to prove is that corporations give billions every year.


Yes there is some truth to it, I fail to see however, how this is justification for putting more of the tax burden on the poor.
2% sales tax on the poor is NOT a burden. It's 2 cents per dollar. 2 dollars for every 100 dollars. 20 dollars for every 1000 dollars SPENT on goods.


Ignoring the fact that the government has been affording it...
Hence why there is an 11 Trillion dollar national deficit. The country will declare bankruptcy in the next 15 years if we don't get off of this path.

If that's the case, why did it need to be written in the first place? I thought there were already state laws that prohibited my rights being taken away from me. Besides, it's not like to black people who go and kill me for being white will be tried for a hate crime.

Fail (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2007/01/black_children_.html)


I mentioned earlier he only supports don't ask don't tell if it applies to heterosexuals as well. It's that whole equality thing. He voted against FUNDING gay adoptions. He opposes legislation that gives people special protection. It's why he's against affirmative action and so-called gender equality. Should minorities have special rights over the middle class white guy? Hell no! Actually, Paul wishes the states would get out of marriage and undoubtedly, one of these days, a state will get out of the marriage business. Wouldn't supporting a decision against sodomy laws prove he's for sexual rights?
Which is just ridiculous

That is exactly how it works.

Legislatures can and should be expected to directly and specificly address every conceivable right in all situations for all time. That's why laws require no interpretation or application within factual context.

You and Cat buy into this "unenumerated rights" business, well guess what?

Pythagoras said "If shit ain't numbered, shit ain't legit, bitches."

And he was greek.

lol

I've seen cases where people purposely made less to stay in a lower tax bracket there by netting more money (they were right at the borderline near the 6 figure mark so it's a good example to use over some 7-8 figure guy).
Then you've seen some exceedingly stupid people. If you earn more income than the borderline to the next tax bracket, only the amount over that borderline is subject to the higher rate. There is no possible way you net more money by earning a lower gross.

Hence why there is an 11 Trillion dollar national deficit. The country will declare bankruptcy in the next 15 years if we don't get off of this path.

And it couldn't be because of other expenditures that do not aid U.S. citizens...
:rolleyes:
Not too mention the fact that this is also because of politicians thinking that taxes should be cut even when spending is up.

It's just an example. All I wanted to prove is that corporations give billions every year.
Or it's the example you gave because it is the only one that works for your premise...
2% sales tax on the poor is NOT a burden. It's 2 cents per dollar. 2 dollars for every 100 dollars. 20 dollars for every 1000 dollars SPENT on goods.
It's more of a burden than nothing.

Also as has been pointed out before increasing the taxes on spending discourages spending, which tends to slow the economy. Not a good thing in a recession.

That's a very closed mind mentality.

Here's a list of all the corporate sponsors of the American Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org/sponsors/corporatelist.html

Walmart gave $272.9 million in fiscal year 2006. Now combine that with the donations from churches, regular people or simply rich individuals who aren't tied to corporations. I'm not trying to fault the government for having good intentions, however, it's organizations like Habitat for Humanity and American Red Cross that help way more then FEMA, ever could.


You don't actually know what FEMA does, do you?

That's the problem with this kind of argument - you have no IDEA what a certain body actually does, so you argue that it's job can either be ignored, or must be better served by some other entity.

The Red Cross can't do FEMA's job - although they are a partner agency in a lot of FEMA work. Did you know that? Habitat for Humanity just isn't on the same scale as the Red Cross or FEMA, so they argument they 'help way more' than FEMA shows nothing except your ignorance.

Are there problems with FEMA? Absolutely. Have there been mismanagement issues? Absolutely. But that's what happens when you allow nepotism and political croneyism to make your upper level appointments.


Because, during good times companies can employ more people? Supply side economics actually does have some truth to it Although, the good times were a falsehood (getting into economic theory here).

The fact is, no matter how hard to government tries A. The Government can't afford medicare, medicaid and social welfare and B. The welfare Government does provide is considerably less effective then private enterprise.

Unfortunately, this whole section is bullshit. The simple fact that nations like the UK and Canada do manage to provide social services makes a liar of it. All organisations - government or otherwise - are inherently wasteful, in proportion to two factors: 1) how transparent and accountable they are, and 2) their incentive to be frugal.

I keep going around and around and around on abortion. No one here that I've been debating is going to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. And since I work under that assumption, it's impossible for us to continue the debate without going to a full medical evaluation which only serves to feed into the debate as there is no conclusion there, either. I'm done with the abortion issue.

Well, done in the sense that you didn't really address the voluminous well-researched and precisely applicable cases and principles that Cat-Tribes put forward, that you ignored.

Buy, hey, screw that guy.


It's not a fallacious appeal to authority. I think you were in the middle of posting when I mentioned in another post that doctors are divided on the issue. My point was that Paul has more insight into the issue then I do.

So, he has more insight then you by virtue of being a doctor, yet you ignore all the doctors who don't agree with what you already believe.

So, "more insight" means "doctor who agrees with Shoujou" and less insight is
"doctor who disagrees with Shoujou". So, your claim that his medical practice qualifies him seems to be something you apply selectively.


The Constitution actually prohibits the prohibiting of free religious excersise. Personally speaking, I'm annoyed by "faith-based, government sponsored" programs and think they shouldn't exist. But when it comes to prayer...you don't have to pray. I know a lot of people who don't. We're so fearful of prayer in schools that a lot of districts don't even allow moments of silence.

Even if that were true, you're at school for something else. Pray howeveryou want, on your own time and not in a tax payer funded building on tax payer time.


If that's the case, why did it need to be written in the first place? I thought there were already state laws that prohibited my rights being taken away from me. Besides, it's not like to black people who go and kill me for being white will be tried for a hate crime.

This paragraph right here is profoundly revealing of you. You don't understand why additional civil rights legislation was necessary? You think State laws have a clean record on protecting individual rights? You, uh...looked at many cases from that time?


I mentioned earlier he only supports don't ask don't tell if it applies to heterosexuals as well. It's that whole equality thing. He voted against FUNDING gay adoptions. He opposes legislation that gives people special protection. It's why he's against affirmative action and so-called gender equality. Should minorities have special rights over the middle class white guy? Hell no! Actually, Paul wishes the states would get out of marriage and undoubtedly, one of these days, a state will get out of the marriage business. Wouldn't supporting a decision against sodomy laws prove he's for sexual rights?

Again, it's the idea that homosexuals, blacks and Hispanics are the same as a 73 year old white guy. You can't have equality AND special protection. The same as you can't have separate but equal.

So...marriage is a "religious" thing, not a "state" thing? States and civil authorities don't recognize, legislate to, license, form, and dissolve them? Their practical effects, on property, medical rights, visitation, and any host of associated aspects aren't governed by, you know, government?

They should be run by religions? So, people not in a religion shouldn't have secular access to marriage? Religions should decide the marriage tax situation, how marital property is distributed, and a host of other LEGAL functions? Religions should dictate marriage law?


Because he believes that having American citizens as a parent is implied. That's the only change he would seek as that's all he's ever said.

Let's try some quick math: If one parent isn't a citizen, the born child isn't...so let's extrapolate that from the beginning, with each iteration de-citizened, so if only ONE of your ancestors wasn't a citizen, all of the in intervening ones aren't, then YOU aren't...hmmm.


I did rebut them all I just didn't give you answers you wanted to hear. Obviously with abortion, you'll always feel that the mother should have the right over the fetus. Knowing that, we can safely assume that we don't need to address it further.

My question to you is: Do you believe special protection is needed to guarantee equal protection? I'll assume your answer is yes. But then the question becomes: Does believing you don't mean that you are not for equal rights?

If you read the policies Cat advocated, they seem to simply bring the class in question to have equal standing under the law, not more. You've made a very poor case thus far for "special protection".

I keep going around and around and around on abortion. No one here that I've been debating is going to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt.

You keep saying this.

Apparently, if we don't believe the fetus gets special rights over the mother's body - rights that no other entity has - we aren't "giving it the benefit of the doubt"?

The Constitution actually prohibits the prohibiting of free religious excersise.

Indeed it does! But Paul seeks to remove judicial oversight on state laws when it comes to religious freedom. What this means is that state governments would be able to prohibit free religious exercise, as there would be no mechanism by which the federal courts could declare such laws unconstitutional.

Personally speaking, I'm annoyed by "faith-based, government sponsored" programs and think they shouldn't exist. But when it comes to prayer...you don't have to pray. I know a lot of people who don't. We're so fearful of prayer in schools that a lot of districts don't even allow moments of silence.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a school that doesn't allow you to take a moment to be silent and, if you so chose, pray.

What people may have shied away from is enforcing a special moment of silence particularly for prayer.

If that's the case, why did it need to be written in the first place?

Because it wasn't happening.

I thought there were already state laws that prohibited my rights being taken away from me.

Sometimes. And sometimes state laws attempt to take your rights away from you. That's why we have judicial review.

Besides, it's not like to black people who go and kill me for being white will be tried for a hate crime.

If there is sufficient evidence that you were targeted for your ethnicity, that is precisely what would happen.

I mentioned earlier he only supports don't ask don't tell if it applies to heterosexuals as well.

.....which doesn't make any sense. If the policy were applied to heterosexuals, every married member of the military who claims a spouse on forms would be discharged for letting people know his sexual orientation.

It's that whole equality thing. He voted against FUNDING gay adoptions.

Wrong. He voted to prohibit adoptions by gay couples in DC.

He opposes legislation that gives people special protection.

It's amazing how "equal protection" often becomes "special protection" in the eyes of the majority.

Actually, Paul wishes the states would get out of marriage and undoubtedly, one of these days, a state will get out of the marriage business.

I'm sure that's why he invited the state into his own marriage, right?

Wouldn't supporting a decision against sodomy laws prove he's for sexual rights?

You misread. He opposed the decision. He thinks states should be able to prohibit sexual practices between consenting adults.

I did rebut them all I just didn't give you answers you wanted to hear. Obviously with abortion, you'll always feel that the mother should have the right over the fetus.

Or, rather, the right over her own body. There is a difference.

With respect to same-sex marriage, it's worthy of mention that Ron Paul explicitly mentions the issue (and no other) in the We The People Act with respect to the equal protection clause:

"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate... 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;"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:

"Special rights", indeed.

:rolleyes:

Oh, it can make it easier. It's certainly impossible under the current system and situation. Only made more difficult by the fact that the government is propping up prices with these bailouts. I argue my system puts more money into the hands of lower class citizens.


No, it can't make it easier, and I've already explained why, twice.


It favors those who save. It's based on consumption, not earnings. What makes you think someone who earns more money won't spend more then someone with a lesser income?


You answered your own question there - if the tax is on consumption, then people who can AVOID spending, WILL avoid spending. They will invest their money and - consequently - not spending will actually increase their wealth.

But that's not the poor - because we have so far agreed that the poor have bigger issues to satisfy and so can't invest, and that your model won't change that.


But if that were truly the case, no one would be able to afford anything in ANY system. The only way, theoretically, that could be remedied is if there was no currency whatsoever and a sanctioning body controlled the entire system by dividing every item equally amongst the people. You can't just make everyone have a similar income because even if you were able to poof that outcome, the balance would find a way to tilt as some are better with money then others.


Actually, that's not the only way - you're very fond of absolutes, aren't you?

But, did you even think about what you are typing? You are saying that there is no reason to make everyone's wages equal... because some people are better with money, than others.

How is that a reason to NOT make sure everyone earns the same? Isn't giving people the ability to choose the fundamental of the free market? Isn't the amrket NOW, less free than it would be with equal income, simply because this market is only TRULY free to those who HAVE disposable income?


Thankfully, this isn't the case and we won't have to resort to that. Again, the free market isn't about settling at the medium it's about finding the maximum value.


Median, not medium.

And the free market isn't about 'finding the maximum value'. That's a crock of shit. The free market is about buyers and sellers finding maximal returns for minimal investors - which means there is ALWAYS a breakeven point - a point at which the good or service is as expensive as the market can allow, as cheap as the purchaser can be allowed to pay, and sales-versus-profit is at it's best ratio.

This breakeven (in general... there are certain product classes that fall outside it, but that's a whole other business lecture) is NOT determined by the lowest income, not by the highest. It's not even determined by the mean average. What it IS determined by, is the range at which the highest number of earners earn - the median income.


Why should the government support them for not getting rich? What moral authority does government have? Or better yet, what could they do that churches, charities or rich people don't already provide for the majority of the lower class?


How do you think someone becomes successful?

Hard work? Good luck? Sensible investments?

It's all bullshit. It's the flavour text. What makes Person A more wealthy than Person B, is that they have more of the money.

Sounds self-evident, but think about it.

You have a service I want or need. I give you some of my money, and you render the service. Which of us is now 'wealthier'?

And how did you get there?

Youa re buying into class warfare - you are assuming that the rich and the poor are separate entities, and there are a lot of rich people with a vested interest in MAKING you think that. But, they're not. Rich people are rich because the top of the pyramid has income from a much broader base at the bottom. It really is as simple as that.

Now think about your question: 'why should the rich be punished for being successful'? They're not being 'punished' by paying a bigger burder of the tax, while they hold a bigger burden of the income. But they are ONLY 'wealthy' because they are MADE wealthy by those around them in the money-matrix.


A tax structure that has graduations with an increase an income is unfair for those incurring success. Why should successful people HAVE to "bail out" poor people? Of course, no one uses this sort of language in this context because we, as people (myself included), have a bias against the wealthy. let's face it, they have more stuff and we want it. But they shouldn't HAVE to support anyone...but they do with their tax dollars and beyond that with charitable contributions.


Why shouldn't successful people have to bail out those less successful?

What is this entitlement mentality you propose? If you are more successful than me, does that mean you DESERVE to be? Did you work harder? From what I've seen of the world, it's quite the inverse - the guy who knocks his lungs out 80 or 100 hours a week does it for his whole life, and dies little richer than when he started... and the guys who make the big money get great benefit packages, easy jobs in nice offices, and work sweet hours.

Me personally, I don't 'want the stuff' the rich people have. I want EVERYONE to have 'enough' and I don't care if I never have a yacht or a villain the South of France.

My question is - why is my desire for everyone to have food on the table, and a place for their kids to sleep... LESS important than the 'right' of some guy to take 12 vacations a year?

I keep going around and around and around on abortion. No one here that I've been debating is going to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. And since I work under that assumption, it's impossible for us to continue the debate without going to a full medical evaluation which only serves to feed into the debate as there is no conclusion there, either. I'm done with the abortion issue.

Fine.

But note: You fail to recognize that abortion law in the United States already "give[s] the fetus the benefit of the doubt." 60% of abortions in the U.S. are performed in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy and 90% occur in the first 12 weeks. Generally, abortion is illegal past 20 weeks or so, which is well before a fetus develops significant brain function.

It's not a fallacious appeal to authority. I think you were in the middle of posting when I mentioned in another post that doctors are divided on the issue. My point was that Paul has more insight into the issue then I do.

Almost all major medical organizations in the United States support keeping abortion a matter between the woman and her doctor. Why if you trust the opinion of one doctor (Ron Paul), why don't you trust the judgment of either women or their doctors?

The Constitution actually prohibits the prohibiting of free religious excersise.

The First Amendment forbids any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is often referred to as the separation of Church and State -- which Ron Paul openly opposes both by his words and his policies.

Personally speaking, I'm annoyed by "faith-based, government sponsored" programs and think they shouldn't exist. But when it comes to prayer...you don't have to pray. I know a lot of people who don't. We're so fearful of prayer in schools that a lot of districts don't even allow moments of silence.

Bullshit. Voluntary prayer in school is allowed. The issue is state-sponsored or encouraged prayer.

Regardless:

Thirty-four states either require or permit prayer, moments of silence, meditation, reflection at the start of or during class. Thirteen states require all schools to participate, 10 states allow the students/teachers the option to participate, seven states give discretion to the local district board to make the decision and four states allow voluntary participation by students/teachers but also authorize local districts to require participation.

link (pdf) (http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/77/89/7789.pdf)

Note, this is despite the fact that Supreme Court held a "moment of silence" law was unconsitutional in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html), 472 U.S. 38 (1985).


If that's the case, why did it need to be written in the first place? I thought there were already state laws that prohibited my rights being taken away from me.

Are you really that ignorant of history? Segregation ring a bell?

I'm usually skeptical of Wikipedia as a source, but read this at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Or this: http://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim64c.htm#1964cra64

Besides, it's not like to black people who go and kill me for being white will be tried for a hate crime.

Um. Yes, black people can and have been convicted of hate crimes against whites.

I mentioned earlier he only supports don't ask don't tell if it applies to heterosexuals as well. It's that whole equality thing.

Doublespeak. He said that disruptive heterosexual behavior should be "dealt with" IF it is disruptive. But under "don't ask, don't tell" merely being a homosexual is considered disruptive.

He voted against FUNDING gay adoptions.

False. He voted against allowing gay adoptions.

He opposes legislation that gives people special protection. It's why he's against affirmative action and so-called gender equality. Should minorities have special rights over the middle class white guy? Hell no!

How do pay equity laws create special rights?

How do laws that apply equally to everyone give some people special protection?

You really just don't know what you are talking about here.

Actually, Paul wishes the states would get out of marriage and undoubtedly, one of these days, a state will get out of the marriage business.

Marriage isn't just a religious matter. It is a legal institution that involves literally hundreds of independent legal rights and benefits. It is also a fundamental right under the Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Again, your "let's abolish marriage to save it from the ebil gays" argument fails.

Wouldn't supporting a decision against sodomy laws prove he's for sexual rights?

Um. It would. BUT HE OPPOSED THE DECISION!!

Again, it's the idea that homosexuals, blacks and Hispanics are the same as a 73 year old white guy. You can't have equality AND special protection. The same as you can't have separate but equal.

And Ron Paul is against equal opportunities and equal protection under the law. That has nothing to do with special protection.

I'm wary of most Republicans, to be honest.

Having said that, I did a survey where it compared my views to those of the then-active presidential candidates. Ron Paul came in as the one with views most comparable to mine.

Caught me by surprise, but I guess it's the whole socially liberal, fiscally conservative thing.

I'm wary of most Republicans, to be honest.

Having said that, I did a survey where it compared my views to those of the then-active presidential candidates. Ron Paul came in as the one with views most comparable to mine.

Caught me by surprise, but I guess it's the whole socially liberal, fiscally conservative thing.

...except he isn't socially liberal.

Most of those quizzes tended to work off of what the candidates say rather than actual voting patterns or what they've actually done.

Ron Paul talks as if he is socially liberal but, in the end, he isn't.

Most and foremost he thinks its 1918 and that isolationism works in this day and age