Support NeoGAF

[JohnTinker]

This one's barely worth a response. People that don't even read the fucking bill and knee jerk react, like with the Rosa Parks medal thing, when Paul opposes all congressional medals, Davy Crockett style, because they're an inefficient waste of taxpayer's money.

Hurrrrr yeah thank God we have the FDA and ban drugs from foreign markets so we can keep prices up.

Look man, you and I are both on the same side of the aisle and you're taking this ENTIRELY TOO SERIOUSLY :lol

 

[FoneBone]

This sounds like bullshit. The writing style isn't Ron Paul at all.

This is a "respected" and well-established libertarian site for which Ron Paul has been writing columns for years. I can't verify that Paul himself wrote it, obviously, but it most certainly is not "bullshit."

It seems more like you disagree with Paul, and are trying to find reasons to attack him. You don't seem to have a substantial argument

It seems like you can't bother to actually read the thread, since I and others have raised very substantial arguments already (the We The People act, which, tellingly, none of the Paul supporters have bothered to comment on; his support for states' rights to legislate private, consensual sexual acts; his "states' rights" stance on abortion, and its blatant hypocrisy when his actual record is considered; and, of course, that teensy let's-go-back-to-the-19th century thing.

 

[FoneBone]

Quoted for probably-not-going-to-be-banned-but-deserves-to-be.

People accuse libertarians of looking at capitalism's history with rose-colored glasses, but this level of hyperbole and personal attacks belies that you look at the 19th century with shit-stained glasses.

And the response to GoutPatrol's angered, but nonetheless reasoned, post, boils down to: "no u." Great.

This one's barely worth a response. People that don't even read the fucking bill and knee jerk react, like with the Rosa Parks medal thing, when Paul opposes all congressional medals, Davy Crockett style, because they're an inefficient waste of taxpayer's money.

Yes, that is exactly equivalent to a bill that calls for taxpayer dollars not to indirectly fund genocide. And then to saying that a nay vote is justified because it's a clear slippery slope to legislating fatty foods.

 

[JayDubya]

And the response to GoutPatrol's angered, but nonetheless reasoned, post, boils down to: "no u." Great.

I'm not surprised you would call that "reasoned," but that's probably because socialist wankfest trolling seems to be your bread and butter of late.

 

[FoneBone]

I would like to say at this point that I would gladly take "socialist wankfest troll" as a tag.

If you'd like to point out why the 19th century's well-documented abuses aren't such a bad thing, I'm all ears. If it makes you feel better, I won't actually respond.

 

[JayDubya]

Yes, that is exactly equivalent to a bill that calls for taxpayer dollars not to indirectly fund genocide. And then to saying that a nay vote is justified because it's a clear slippery slope to legislating fatty foods.

The similar aspect would be that people don't even read the bill or try to see where Paul's coming from, they simply have a stupid kneejerk reaction on the same visceral level of "zOMG WHY DO YOU HATE CHILDREN? / IF YOU DON'T DO X, TEH TERRISTZ HAV WUN."

Read the goddamn "Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007." The very first section advocates sanction and war. Gee, I wonder why Paul didn't like it.

If you'd like to point out why the 19th century's well-documented abuses aren't such a bad thing, I'm all ears. If it makes you feel better, I won't actually respond.

You want me to say up is down? Abuses are bad. Fraud is bad. But the whole century, in every part of the western world, the whole process of industrial revolution and technological progress was a bad thing? Um, no.

Increases in standard of living, however, massive increases of social and economic freedom... these are rather good things. The 20th Century was a pretty major downgrade for people that happen to actually, you know, like freedom.

Freedom can be abused, and those abuses should be punished when they happen, but that doesn't mean you punish everyone through removing freedom.

 

[FoneBone]

The similar aspect would be that people don't even read the bill or try to see where Paul's coming from,

I'm not seeing anything resembling a moral gray area in the bill itself, which is incredibly clear-cut, and Paul's reasoning was laughable:

Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act

Madam Speaker, HR 180 is premised on the assumption that divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.

HR 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing state and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as state assets, the federal government is giving the go-ahead for state and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.

Or hey, maybe the whole thing is all about oil.

Also, the SA banner ads just aren't really suitable for here, so certain people should probably stop with those. Though the Bioshock one was glorious.

 

[Father_Brain]

Paul on Lawrence v. Texas

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.

I don't understand why any self-identified libertarian wouldn't be appalled by this. But I suppose that's just my biased view as a supporter of the parasitic socialist state.

 

[JayDubya]

which is incredibly clear-cut, and Paul's reasoning was laughable:

(A) declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan are genocide;

(B) declares that the Government of Sudan has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(C) urges the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the United Nations Security Council fail to act; and

(D) calls on the Administration to impose targeted sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of assets of the Sudanese National Congress and affiliated business and individuals directly responsible for the atrocities in Darfur.

I'm rubber, you're glue...

You fucking idiot. (For good measure: You fucking idiot. You fucking idiot. You fucking idiot.)

 

[Gaborn]

This is a "respected" and well-established libertarian site for which Ron Paul has been writing columns for years. I can't verify that Paul himself wrote it, obviously, but it most certainly is not "bullshit."

Yes, he wrote it. What were his policy prescriptions? Did he advocate any government interference in this "war on Christmas"? I'll never be accused of being rabidly religious (well, at least not fairly) I'm probably much closer to agnostic or atheistic than religious. With that said I think his point is well taken. Government cannot establish a religion, that does not mean that government employees cannot be publicly religious. For example, I'm not going to hyperventilate at a cross or a Christmas tree in a secretary of state's office. Do I think he's right that there is some sort of pernicious war on Christianity? No, but I think that sometimes we think of secularism in a way that distorts freedom of conscience.

It seems like you can't bother to actually read the thread, since I and others have raised very substantial arguments already (the We The People act, which, tellingly, none of the Paul supporters have bothered to comment on;

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The We The People Act is an entirely Constitutional excercise of authority. Not dissimilar to Neocons attempts to remove marriage cases from federal courts (Marriage protection act)

his support for states' rights to legislate private, consensual sexual acts;

Well, I think they should. At the same time I think gay sex should be legal (my boyfriend would probably be unhappy with me otherwise) but I don't have much of a problem with states making that call, I believe very few states would at this point revert to a pre-Lawrence state anyway.

his "states' rights" stance on abortion, and its blatant hypocrisy when his actual record is considered;

Here I mostly agree with you. He's pro life, he HAS said that Roe v Wade was misajudicated, but he DID vote for a partial birth abortion ban. My choice? Not really, but I'm not going to be totally upset with the guy for banning PBA.

and, of course, that teensy let's-go-back-to-the-19th century thing.

Can you show me a quote where he said this? or is it just your opinion?

 

[FoneBone]

I'm rubber, you're glue...

Perhaps if you'd actually bothered to read it, you'd know that the section you quoted was merely part of the "Findings" section, summarizing a bill passed in 2004. What was that you said again?

Congress acknowledges that divestment should be used sparingly and under extraordinary circumstances. This Act is based on unique circumstances, specifically, the reprehensible and abhorrent genocide occurring in Sudan.

 

[Father_Brain]

I never thought I would see a gay man defending court-stripping legislation (which would bar him from using the courts to protect his own rights) and the rights of states to imprison him for his own private sexual behavior. Well, there's a first time for everything.

Also, neocons have nothing to do with the push against gay marriage, though they have certainly tried to take advantage of it to win elections.

 

[Gaborn]

I never thought I would see a gay man defending court-stripping legislation (which would bar him from using the courts to protect his own rights) and the rights of states to imprison him for his own private sexual behavior. Well, there's a first time for everything.

I didn't support any state imprisoning anyone for private sexual behavior. I certainly have more sense than to live in a state like Texas thank you very much. Nor will I spend money in Texas, or other states with anti-gay laws on the books. But I'm not going to spit on their free choices, other states are welcome to my money.

Edit: actually, that's not true. I bought one of those scratch off lottery tickets in Virginia I believe. I won 10 bucks though on a 1 dollar ticket, so I consider that an acceptable lapse.

 

[Father_Brain]

I didn't support any state imprisoning anyone for private sexual behavior. I certainly have more sense than to live in a state like Texas thank you very much. Nor will I spend money in Texas, or other states with anti-gay laws on the books. But I'm nto going to spit on their free choices, other states are welcome to my money.

And what about the gay men and women in less enlightened states who would suffer as a result of these laws? Sucks to be them, I suppose.

I'd love to hear why you think court-stripping laws are defensible, by the way.

 

[whytemyke]

If you think you know where the donations have come from period... you are clueless.

Considering how positive you and Stoney are that Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of taking the nomination... you sure do spend a lot of time trying to "prove" that point to the rest of us; or at least mock those of us who do support him.

What you and Stoney keep forgetting though, is we (or at least I) never started supporting Ron Paul, because we thought he could win. We support him because he shares the same ideas and principals as us. Nothing else fucking matters in my opinion. This isn't a horse race... and there is no money at stake. Its all about voicing your opinion through the support of the candidate that most represents you.

Republican vs Democrats, ect is all a bunch of fucking soap opera shit, that is pointless to me. Its just as idiotic as the fucking video game console wars over on the gaming network.

If you want to discuss and debate his ideas and principals then I am all for it. But this thread should have been posted in the official polling thread... and actually considering the source (rightwingnews) shouldn't have been posted at all.

But I guess Stoney has to fill his daily quota of political threads. So what can you do?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

Actually... October 15th will be fully updated with Q3 donation reports for the candidates. It's pretty telling that nearly 100% of Paul's money has come from individual donors.

Damn. Looking at those numbers as of the end of July is pretty impressive. 3 million on hand, only 600 grand spent and zero debt.

 

[FoneBone]

The We The People Act is an entirely Constitutional excercise of authority. Not dissimilar to Neocons attempts to remove marriage cases from federal courts (Marriage protection act)

I'm failing to see how any of that is actually an argument in support of its existence, though. (Or an argument against what I said about it. Its being constitutional isn't sufficient to make it right.)

Well, I think they should. At the same time I think gay sex should be legal (my boyfriend would probably be unhappy with me otherwise) but I don't have much of a problem with states making that call, I believe very few states would at this point revert to a pre-Lawrence state anyway.

You'd better hope so, because in Paul's ideal world, if any states did pass sodomy laws, the We the People act would make it impossible to challenge them.

Here I mostly agree with you. He's pro life, he HAS said that Roe v Wade was misajudicated, but he DID vote for a partial birth abortion ban. My choice? Not really, but I'm not going to be totally upset with the guy for banning PBA.

His law declaring that life begins at abortion is far, far worse. As that would make all abortion murder. At the federal level.

 

[FoneBone]

And what about the gay men and women in less enlightened states who would suffer as a result of these laws? Sucks to be them, I suppose.

You're forgetting that "If you don't like the laws, just move" is a straight-faced argument among the states'-rights crowd. (That worked so well under Jim Crow.)

 

[Father_Brain]

You're forgetting that "If you don't like the laws, just move" is a straight-faced argument among the states'-rights crowd.

Shit... you're right.

Seriously, gaborn, what would it take to get you to realize that you're one of the people who would suffer the most in Paul's theocratic faux-libertarian utopia?

 

[Gaborn]

And what about the gay men and women in less enlightened states who would suffer as a result of these laws? Sucks to be them, I suppose.

Basically? My short answer is yes, with limited exceptions. I believe most gay men and women with sense would not wish to live in a state that banned gay sex (I'm less concerned with states that ban gay marriage because I believe those won't last all that long). I understand that in some cases (if they're poor, if they're minors) it may be difficult or nearly impossible for a gay person to flee such states, and for them I certainly think that such laws are wrong, ill advised, and will continue to lobby against them. I think it's dangerous to regulate private behavior. But I think and hope that more and more people would protest these laws if they were still constitutional and business in that state would drop.

It's a slightly different topic but that's similar to my view of discriminatory businesses. I view discrimination as wrong. I think most people would refuse to shop at an openly racist business (say a business put up a sign "no blacks welcome for service" for example). I oppose the discrimination such businesses represent, but I believe there are enough decent people in the world that such attitudes are not economically feasible to maintain.

I'd love to hear why you think court-stripping laws are defensible, by the way.

In short because the constitution authorizes court-stripping it's defensible. Remember that such an attempt in areas would keep all views available. Even if the worst case scenario (in my view) happened and the MPA was passed, gay marriage would still be legal in Massachusetts for example. The disadvantage from my perspective of course, would be that a federal court decision could not legalize gay marriage nationally, but at least a federal court (the worst case there being the supreme court) could not rule there was NO right in the federal constitution or federal law to gay marriage. It'd basically split the debate to 50 states. On other issues I'm not sure that it's a GREAT thing, but I don't see the problem with it.

Edit:

Seriously, gaborn, what would it take to get you to realize that you're one of the people who would suffer the most in Paul's theocratic faux-libertarian utopia?

theocratic faux-libertarian utopia? You're kidding, right? He's a Christian, he's not a theocrat. hell, he's one of the few republicans in the house that has opposed attempts to ban gay marriage at a federal level, he's NEVER been a "theocrat" in his career and if the worst thing you can point to is a ban on PBA then I'm sorry if I'm not going to run screaming in terror, lots of people on all sides of the abortion issue have problems with PBA.

 

[avatar299]

I never said he'd win (though who knows in the primaries, stranger things have happened) but I still think he is the best candidate because of his POLICIES, and I don't give two wet shits from michael moore's morbidly obese ass about his support.

His going to be the guy we all wished we voted for 5 years from now.

 

[Stoney Mason]

If you think you know where the donations have come from period... you are clueless.

Considering how positive you and Stoney are that Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of taking the nomination... you sure do spend a lot of time trying to "prove" that point to the rest of us; or at least mock those of us who do support him.

What you and Stoney keep forgetting though, is we (or at least I) never started supporting Ron Paul, because we thought he could win. We support him because he shares the same ideas and principals as us. Nothing else fucking matters in my opinion. This isn't a horse race... and there is no money at stake. Its all about voicing your opinion through the support of the candidate that most represents you.

Republican vs Democrats, ect is all a bunch of fucking soap opera shit, that is pointless to me. Its just as idiotic as the fucking video game console wars over on the gaming network.

If you want to discuss and debate his ideas and principals then I am all for it. But this thread should have been posted in the official polling thread... and actually considering the source (rightwingnews) shouldn't have been posted at all.

But I guess Stoney has to fill his daily quota of political threads. So what can you do?

LOL. I didn't notice this little gem of a post until somebody quoted it but whenever somebody directly references me in a post I like to respond.

A.) Ron Paul won't win the nomination. I know you live in fantasy land where anything is possible but I leave in the real world. I've never said that invalidates his cause however. How you still can't manage to make that distinction after all this time baffles me as I've been pretty clear on this issue.

And B.) as far as my "daily quota of political threads" you do realize you are not obligated to post in them right?

 

[Gaborn]

His going to be the guy we all wished we voted for 5 years from now.

Well, if you're right I get first dibs on the "don't blame me, I voted for Paul" T-shirts.

 

[Karma Kramer]

LOL. I didn't notice this little gem of a post until somebody quoted it but whenever somebody directly references me in a post I like to respond.

A.) Ron Paul won't win the nomination. I know you live in fantasy land where anything is possible but I leave in the real world. I've never said that invalidates his cause however. How you still can't manage to make that distinction after all this time baffles me as I've been pretty clear on this issue.

And B.) as far as my "daily quota of political threads" you do realize you are not obligated to post in them right?

I was wondering why you hadn't replied :lol

A) My main point is that you seem to always respond to Ron Paul supporters by simply saying, "he's not going to win lawl." You seem to have an obsession with reminding us... when we don't really care in the big picture; because we didn't start supporting him with the concept of him taking office. I know thats hard for you to understand, "supporting a candidate, you know will lose," but its far better than supporting a candidate simply because they are the most popular.

B) I overall enjoy most of the threads you post... but come on here... rightwingnews?! Please stoney... is it really that slow of a day for you?

 

[FoneBone]

It's a slightly different topic but that's similar to my view of discriminatory businesses. I view discrimination as wrong. I think most people would refuse to shop at an openly racist business (say a business put up a sign "no blacks welcome for service" for example). I oppose the discrimination such businesses represent, but I believe there are enough decent people in the world that such attitudes are not economically feasible to maintain.

Oh, Jesus Christ, it's the old "the Free Market would have gotten rid of Jim Crow" fallacy. Econ 101 will tell you that people are not always perfectly rational actors. They may rather lose a little profit than compromise their bigoted ideologies.

at least a federal court (the worst case there being the supreme court) could not rule there was NO right in the federal constitution or federal law to gay marriage. It'd basically split the debate to 50 states. On other issues I'm not sure that it's a GREAT thing, but I don't see the problem with it.

Surely you can at least acknowledge that this is clearly not Paul's intent with the law.

theocratic faux-libertarian utopia? You're kidding, right? He's a Christian, he's not a theocrat. hell, he's one of the few republicans in the house that has opposed attempts to ban gay marriage at a federal level, he's NEVER been a "theocrat" in his career and if the worst thing you can point to is a ban on PBA then I'm sorry if I'm not going to run screaming in terror, lots of people on all sides of the abortion issue have problems with PBA.

He's against theocracy at the federal level (except, apparently, for abortion), but most certainly not at the state level. This is the point of the We the People act.

 

[Father_Brain]

theocratic faux-libertarian utopia? You're kidding, right? He's a Christian, he's not a theocrat. hell, he's one of the few republicans in the house that has opposed attempts to ban gay marriage at a federal level, he's NEVER been a "theocrat" in his career and if the worst thing you can point to is a ban on PBA then I'm sorry if I'm not going to run screaming in terror, lots of people on all sides of the abortion issue have problems with PBA.

Paul's positions:

-wrote a federal-level abortion ban
-supports stripping the rights of federal courts to hear church/state cases
-believes individual states should be allowed to impose official state religions, thus opening the doors for democratically elected theocracies in more conservative parts of the country
-voted to prohibit federal funding for gay adoption in DC
-supports DADT

In addition to the marriage and sodomy law stuff mentioned above. If he still sounds like your ideal candidate, well, have fun with that.

On a related note, at least the Log Cabin Republicans will criticize the anti-gay positions of a GOP candidate they endorse, instead of finding rationales to defend them.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I was wondering why you hadn't replied :lol

A) My main point is that you seem to always respond to Ron Paul supporters by simply saying, "he's not going to win lawl." You seem to have an obsession with reminding us... when we don't really care in the big picture; because we didn't start supporting him with the concept of him taking office. I know thats hard for you to understand, "supporting a candidate, you know will lose," but its far better than supporting a candidate simply because they are the most popular.

B) I overall enjoy most of the threads you post... but come on here... rightwingnews?! Please stoney... is it really that slow of a day for you?

I'm mixed on Ron Paul (especially the crazy notion of "supreme state's rights") but personally my observation is that I'm generally more polite to him than most of the liberals are on this board. I could do a search but I'm pretty sure I've made posts commenting on his very positive performances in most of the Republican debates, his attacks on the war in Iraq have been stronger and more cogent than the democrats for the most part, and the observation that he should be proud of the campaign he's run.

I always say he has no chance of course of actually getting the nomination which is the closest an opinion could be to a fact because you always have to balance reality with an opinion and idealism but I've also said some of that is due to factors out of his control like the media, and the demographics of the republican party.

To repeat my purpose in starting this thread wasn't ha ha, what a loser Ron Paul is. That was what other people's opinion were when they posted. This is a legit thread because it examines Ron Paul through the light of the traditional republican base. (Note there is not a single vote there against Rush Limbaugh) The fact that it is right wing news.com is precisely the reason I did post it because of their bias.

 

[Gaborn]

Oh, Jesus Christ, it's the old "the Free Market would have gotten rid of Jim Crow" fallacy. Econ 101 will tell you that people are not always perfectly rational actors. They may rather lose a little profit than compromise their bigoted ideologies.

I said nothing about Jim Crow. I think on average people are far less inclined to racism today, though of course it's virtually impossible to quantify by how much, but I would say that fundamentally racist perspectives are 10% as common as they were during Jim Crow. I'd guess that a few racist businesses would survive if discrimination laws were repealed (mostly in the deep south) but I'd bet more would lose most of their customers, and still other people with racist views would be unwilling to act on them even if it were legal because of fear of losing business. Do you think we're still as racist as we were in say 1950? Or better yet, 1948 with he Dixiecrats when Strom Thurmond won 1.1 million votes?

Surely you can at least acknowledge that this is clearly not Paul's intent with the law.

Well, I think Dr. Paul has a result with it he'd prefer, but I see no way for him to force it. This is an analogy that is not perfect and may be insulting to Dr. Paul, but imagine you're standing in front of a tiger in an old fashioned zoo cage You're just out of the Tiger's claws reach if it were to strech fully to get you. it has no way to harm you. Should you be upset that it sees you and wants to eat you? I think not, instead I'd just enjoy it's beauty (though obviously prefer it was in better conditions... but that's neither here nor there)

He's against theocracy at the federal level (except, apparently, for abortion),

Is PBA really that important to you? I mean, really?

but most certainly not at the state level. This is the point of the We the People act.

It seems to me that the WTPA doesn't speak to any of that. It certainly will never ban abortion in Connecticut or California or Rhode Island or Oregon or Michigan, etc.

 

[FoneBone]

Do you think we're still as racist as we were in say 1950? Or better yet, 1948 with he Dixiecrats when Strom Thurmond won 1.1 million votes?

No, but I don't see any good reason why that assumption needs to actually be tested through deregulation.

Is PBA really that important to you? I mean, really?

It seems to me that the WTPA doesn't speak to any of that. It certainly will never ban abortion in Connecticut or California or Rhode Island or Oregon or Michigan, etc.

How many times do I have to post this? Partial birth abortion bans are nothing by comparison.

 

[Father_Brain]

Is PBA really that important to you? I mean, really?



It seems to me that the WTPA doesn't speak to any of that. It certainly will never ban abortion in Connecticut or California or Rhode Island or Oregon or Michigan, etc.

Good god, have you read the last few posts? Paul wrote the Sanctity of Life Act, which - guess what - would ban abortion (yes, ALL abortion) at the federal level, and includes court-stripping on the issue for good measure.

 

[Gaborn]

Good god, have you read the last few posts? Paul wrote the Sanctity of Life Act, which - guess what - would ban abortion (yes, ALL abortion) at the federal level, and includes court-stripping on the issue for good measure.

Why are you so opposed to court stripping? You've never articulated why you think this particular constitutionally granted authority is a bad thing. Regarding your recent posts though, personally I oppose the sanctity of life act, but as far as I can see it would 1. Strip federal courts from abortion cases. 2. end federal funding of abortion. It can't really take power away from the states to make decisions. Then again, considering how much most Republicans support Giuliani despite his position on social issues which most neo-cons find to be negative (Personally I like most of them, but not for the reasons Giuliani supports them necessarily) and despite his anti-gun stance and despite his serial marriages and his cheating on his wife, etc I suppose I can forgive RP on 2 issues (abortion and Immigration).

I'm not gonna respond to the stripping issue with church/state cases because I'm not sure what your problem is with a constitutional power.

-believes individual states should be allowed to impose official state religions, thus opening the doors for democratically elected theocracies in more conservative parts of the country

Well, first I'd like to see a quote for this, second how would this be different than what states like Mississippi or Alabama behave anyway without such a provision?

-voted to prohibit federal funding for gay adoption in DC

He has opposed federal funding for a lot of things. I don't believe the federal government should be funding gay or straight adoptions either.

-supports DADT

So does hillary, obama, giuliani, mccain, romney, etc. hell, it was Clinton's policy, should I vote Democrat in your view?

In addition to the marriage and sodomy law stuff mentioned above. If he still sounds like your ideal candidate, well, have fun with that.

You know he has consistently voted against the federal marriage amendment, right?

 

[FoneBone]

It can't really take power away from the states to make decisions.

No, I can't see how defining abortion as murder at a federal level would take power away from the states. No way.

 

[FoneBone]

I'm not gonna respond to the stripping issue with church/state cases because I'm not sure what your problem is with a constitutional power.

Why does it matter if it's constitutional? What does this even mean? You actually seem to be arguing that every theoretical law that would be considered constitutional in nature is inherently "right". It's horrible, potentially oppressive policy in practice.

You know he has consistently voted against the federal marriage amendment, right?

But supports a law that would prevent any challenges to gay marriage bans in individual states.

 

[Gaborn]

Why does it matter if it's constitutional? It's horrible, potentially oppressive policy in practice.

Howso? Giving each state the power to define it's own laws is oppressive? It matters if it's Consititutional because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if you do not like it you are free to work to amend that provision of the constitution.

Edit: the MPA would also stop any further attempts to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts for all practical purposes.

 

[Father_Brain]

Why are you so opposed to court stripping?

Because the courts are the primary recourse for minorities to combat the tyranny of the majority. The goal of these measures is to perpetuate and protect that tyranny.

He has opposed federal funding for a lot of things. I don't believe the federal government should be funding gay or straight adoptions either.

"He has opposed a lot of things" is your best response to a blatantly homophobic vote that had no effect on straight adoptions?

So does hillary, obama, giuliani, mccain, romney, etc. hell, it was Clinton's policy, should I vote Democrat in your view?

Actually, the Democratic candidates all oppose DADT and favor allowing gays to serve openly, whereas all the Republican candidates have pledged to continue it.

You know he has consistently voted against the federal marriage amendment, right?

A stopped clock is right twice a day, I suppose.

By the way, social conservatives are not "neocons."

 

[FoneBone]

Howso? Giving each state the power to define it's own laws is oppressive?

Oppressive to the residents of the states (who might have something to lose from the establishment of a state religion, or religiously discriminatory laws, for which there would be no recourse beyond the state Supreme court in Paultopia), not to the states themselves.

No, seriously, does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you people?

 

[Father_Brain]

No, seriously, does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you people?

Simple answer to a simple question:

Yes, it does mean nothing to Paulites.

 

[FoneBone]

I think you meant "No, it doesn't."

 

[Gaborn]

Because the courts are the primary recourse for minorities to combat the tyranny of the majority. The goal of these measures is to perpetuate and protect that tyranny.

Nice rhetoric but of course the reality is that none of these areas would harm minorities disproportionately. Are minorities going to be harmed if states decide the marriage issue as they have done for centuries? Last I checked most of the "action" as it were is occurring at the state level anyway because there isn't a federal question on marriage rights until a state recognizes marriage. Now with Massachusetts we may have a federal case IF and only if we can prove DOMA is unconstitutional (and not just horrifically homophobic law from a Democrat)

"He has opposed a lot of things" is your best response to a blatantly homophobic vote that had no effect on straight adoptions?

Actually that's not entirely true. The bill he voted on was federal funding for adoptions by unmarried couples which includes gay and straight couples.

Actually, the Democratic candidates all oppose DADT and favor allowing gays to serve openly, whereas all the Republican candidates have pledged to continue it.

Actually Hillary's view is DADT was "applied poorly" I can't find barack on that issue, perhaps you can show me his "opposition" John Edwards has talked a lot about his "journey" on this issue from bigot to at least politically adroit, Bill Richardson still thinks sexuality is a choice... etc. Gravel and Kucinich do support gay equality though, not that they're particularly sane on most issues.

By the way, social conservatives are not "neocons."

true, but many neo-cons are socially conservative on issues.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Actually Hillary's view is DADT was "applied poorly" I can't find barack on that issue, perhaps you can show me his "opposition" John Edwards has talked a lot about his "journey" on this issue from bigot to at least politically adroit, Bill Richardson still thinks sexuality is a choice... etc. Gravel and Kucinich do support gay equality though, not that they're particularly sane on most issues.

She views it as a stepping stone. Which is what it was because the military (and most republican politicians at the time) were opposed to allowing gays to serve openly. Ron Paul made a wonderful speech about individual rights at one of the debates and then failed to raise his hand to say they should be able to serve openly.

-5 respect points from me on that particular issue.

EDIT: Barry Goldwater on the issue

Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the InevitableBy Barry M. Goldwater

The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut"

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in Congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that's just stupid.

Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

(Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987)

 

[Gaborn]

She views it as a stepping stone. Which is what it was because the military (and most republican politicians at the time) were opposed to allowing gays to serve openly. Ron Paul made a wonderful speech about individual rights at one of the debates and then failed to raise his hand to say they should be able to serve openly.

-5 respect points from me on that particular issue.

Well, I agree that Ron Paul should have been stronger on the DADT issue, but personally I have a hard time picturing him vetoing an attempt by congress to formally end DADT or DOMA for that matter. I agree with you that was a disappointing moment for him, but honestly it's an issue that I think could potentially become even less relevant in the (highly improbable but not 100% impossible) event that we need to re-institute the draft in the near future. If that were to become a necessity I'm pretty darn sure women and gays would both be drafted.

 

[May16]

I never said hey need a government to tell them what to do. I just said they were stupid. The government thing just usually happens.

 

[JayDubya]

No, seriously, does the phrase "tyranny of the majority" mean nothing to you people?

Why sure it does, and I use it often. To describe the selfish destructiveness of the masses voting themselves a free lunch.

 

[FoneBone]

So it's utterly meaningless at a state level (at least, for anything other than evil social services). Gotcha.

 

[Cheebs]

One thing I hope Libertarians realize after this primary is that Libertariens are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is the party of big government. Just a "different" big government than democrats. Republicans want to spend tons on unneeded wars. Democrats want to spend tons on endless amounts of domestic policies. I do not see this changing in the near future.

There is nothing wrong with being a Libertarian but the Republican Party does not want you anymore and Ron Paul's obvious defeat and absolute mockery from the party at large should convince you of this.

Either you suck it up and pick one of the two big government candidates in the general or you vote third party.

 

[Father_Brain]

Nice rhetoric but of course the reality is that none of these areas would harm minorities disproportionately.

You're right. I certainly can't think of any Supreme Court decisions of note on gay rights, abortion, or church-state issues in which a minority successfully challenged oppressive state law - and if these things don't matter in the real world, they surely won't in Paultopia, where they'll never be able to reach federal courts.

Actually that's not entirely true. The bill he voted on was federal funding for adoptions by unmarried couples which includes gay and straight couples.

You're splitting hairs. As that link indicates, the primary point of that bill was to ban gay adoption.

Actually Hillary's view is DADT was "applied poorly" I can't find barack on that issue, perhaps you can show me his "opposition" John Edwards has talked a lot about his "journey" on this issue from bigot to at least politically adroit, Bill Richardson still thinks sexuality is a choice... etc. Gravel and Kucinich do support gay equality though, not that they're particularly sane on most issues.

Wrong. All the Dems oppose it, and all the GOP candidates support it. Period. There are a few differences of opinion among the Democratic candidates of how exactly to go about repealing DADT, but that's it.

 

[FoneBone]

You're right. I certainly can't think of any Supreme Court decisions of note on gay rights, abortion, or church-state issues in which a minority successfully challenged oppressive state law - and if these things don't matter in the real world, they surely won't in Paultopia, where they'll never be able to reach federal courts.

Whatever. The free market will surely force such laws to end eventually, so no worries!

Ooh, responsible government spending!

Paul says yes on local earmarks

Congress' 'Dr. No' on spending looks out for his own Texas district

08:14 AM CDT on Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – He's known as "Dr. No" for all his votes against government spending, but Texas Rep. Ron Paul isn't saying no to spending in his district.

Mr. Paul, a Republican presidential candidate and physician, has requested earmarks for about 50 items, largely for water projects, according to request letters released by his office.

In written requests he submitted to the House Appropriations Committee, the Lake Jackson Republican asked for $8.6 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Texas City Channel and $10 million for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge. He also asked for money for a nursing program, expansion of a cancer center at Brazosport Hospital, a seafood testing program, a Children's Identification and Location Database and $8 million for Wild American Shrimp Marketing requested by the Texas Shrimp Association.

Tom Lizardo, a Paul aide, said Mr. Paul has always asked for spending for his district in response to local requests.

"He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district," Mr. Lizardo said.

However, Mr. Paul usually votes against final spending bills containing his earmarks when they reach the House floor. So far this year he has voted against funding bills for military construction, veterans and state-foreign operations. He did not cast a vote when the Homeland Security and legislative funding bills were on the floor.

Many lawmakers feel they are better off requesting funding for specific projects in their districts rather than waiting for a bureaucratic agency to decide which project is funded. Mr. Paul agrees, Mr. Lizardo said.

 

[Gaborn]

You're right. I certainly can't think of any Supreme Court decisions of note on gay rights, abortion, or church-state issues in which a minority successfully challenged oppressive state law - and if these things don't matter in the real world, they surely won't in Paultopia, where they'll never be able to reach federal courts.

None of those decisions would be reversed with this though. In a sense we'd freeze the laws as they are now and fight it out on the states with this being the baseline. It's not as if this would be a step back.

You're splitting hairs. As that link indicates, the primary point of that bill was to ban gay adoption.

I'm not splitting hairs at all. You stated: ""He has opposed a lot of things" is your best response to a blatantly homophobic vote that had no effect on straight adoptions?"
and I would submit to you that Your statement was false. Furthermore, you are assuming his motive was "homophobic" rather than that he opposes federal funding in most areas, he does not like the federal government funding things that he believes are the province of the states. If there was ever a bill to grant more federal funding for married couples to adopt I guarantee you he would veto it. Please stop distorting his record and then when you're called out on it claim that the person that corrects your factual inaccuracies is "splitting hairs"

Wrong. All the Dems oppose it, and all the GOP candidates support it. Period. There are a few differences of opinion among the Democratic candidates of how exactly to go about repealing DADT, but that's it.

Interesting, I could have sworn I read something different from a different source but I'll take your word for it. If Hillary and Obama were serious about it though they'd introduce legislation today to get rid of the policy. Talk is cheap.

Edit:

FoneBone: You'll note he then votes against the final spending bill because he fundamentally does not believe in earmarks, but does believe that his district's needs deserve an up or down vote. Should a lawyer represent a man he knows is guilty? SHould a doctor treat a man regardless of his ability to pay? It's fundamentally the same issue. Dr. Paul is doing his job for his district and leaving it up to the democratic process.

 

[FoneBone]

It's not as if this would be a step back.

There's nothing stopping those decisions from being negated by new state laws. Which, again, there would be no way to repeal beyond the state level.

 

[Gaborn]

There's nothing stopping those decisions from being negated by new state laws. Which, again, there would be no way to repeal beyond the state level.

Well, I hate to shock your conscience but there is no way to enforce supreme court decisions without the executive branch supporting them (check for example how many schools were desegregated after brown v board and before the civil rights act of 1964, or what happened to the Seminole after the Court ruled in their favor).

 

[Father_Brain]

Well, I hate to shock your conscience but there is no way to enforce supreme court decisions without the executive branch supporting them (check for example how many schools were desegregated after brown v board and before the civil rights act of 1964, or what happened to the Seminole after the Court ruled in their favor).

...what? What does this have to do with his point?

For what it's worth, I'll concede your point on the adoption funding, absent any comment from Paul on his rationale for the vote.