One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Moustacheopolis]

Actually, they're conflating rights with powers. I think UNA was hinting at this.

They do a bit of both. After all, Ron Paul says that "states' rights" are found in the 9th amendment, despite the fact that it doesn't mention the states at all.

You may be thinking of the 10th amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/b ... cript.html

That being said, I think Ron Paul's whole arguement is not so much conflation of state's rights with people's rights, but with limiting the federal government's authority and allowing the citizens of states some degree of self determination. After all, in a sense the U.S. is not "one state", but fifty, The U.S. is merely the union.

Just explaining my take on it, not neccessarily my personal opinion, though I am sympathetic to Paul's aims (wouldn't be here if I wasn't.).

[Farnhamia]

They do a bit of both. After all, Ron Paul says that "states' rights" are found in the 9th amendment, despite the fact that it doesn't mention the states at all.

You may be thinking of the 10th amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/b ... cript.html

That being said, I think Ron Paul's whole arguement is not so much conflation of state's rights with people's rights, but with limiting the federal government's authority and allowing the citizens of states some degree of self determination. After all, in a sense the U.S. is not "one state", but fifty, The U.S. is merely the union.

Just explaining my take on it, not neccessarily my personal opinion, though I am sympathetic to Paul's aims (wouldn't be here if I wasn't.).

Her point was that Ron Paul may be thinking of the 10th.

Care to elaborate on how the citizens of the United States lack self-determination? And what you mean by that?

[Dempublicents1]

That being said, I think Ron Paul's whole arguement is not so much conflation of state's rights with people's rights, but with limiting the federal government's authority and allowing the citizens of states some degree of self determination. After all, in a sense the U.S. is not "one state", but fifty, The U.S. is merely the union.

That may be true in some cases, but not in his "states' rights" arguments. His states' rights arguments are pretty much exclusively areas in which he wants to remove rights from the people and place greater authority in the hands of the states. He wants to grant the states powers currently denied to all levels of government on the basis of individual rights.

That isn't "allowing the citizens of states some degree of self determination." It is, "taking self determination away from the citizens of the states by giving their governments more power over them."

You may be thinking of the 10th amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/b ... cript.html

That being said, I think Ron Paul's whole arguement is not so much conflation of state's rights with people's rights, but with limiting the federal government's authority and allowing the citizens of states some degree of self determination. After all, in a sense the U.S. is not "one state", but fifty, The U.S. is merely the union.

Just explaining my take on it, not neccessarily my personal opinion, though I am sympathetic to Paul's aims (wouldn't be here if I wasn't.).

Her point was that Ron Paul may be thinking of the 10th.

Actually, he has stated that both the 9th and 10th grant "states' rights", so he cannot simply have gotten them mixed up.

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

There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

He makes multiple mistakes here. The most obvious, of course, is the fact that the 9th amendment doesn't even mention the states, much less grant them rights. But, more importantly, his assertion that the Constitution, at any point, grants rights to the states is patently incorrect. It's just more evidence, really, that he's never actually read it. The Constitution grants powers to the states. Rights are always reserved to the people.

[Grenville]

I like Ron Paul but he doesn't have a chance of winning that nomination

[Farnhamia]

I like Ron Paul but he doesn't have a chance of winning that nomination

What's to like? From what I can see, he wants to take the country back not to the last century but to the one before that.

[Laissez-Faire]

I like Ron Paul but he doesn't have a chance of winning that nomination

What's to like? From what I can see, he wants to take the country back not to the last century but to the one before that.

The nineteenth century was far from libertarian in political structure.

[Alien Space Bats]

What's to like? From what I can see, he wants to take the country back not to the last century but to the one before that.

The nineteenth century was far from libertarian in political structure.

The eighteenth wasn't very libertarian, either.

[Dempublicents1]

What's to like? From what I can see, he wants to take the country back not to the last century but to the one before that.

The nineteenth century was far from libertarian in political structure.

And Paul's stances are far from libertarian.

[Death Metal]

I like Ron Paul but he doesn't have a chance of winning that nomination

What's to like? From what I can see, he wants to take the country back not to the last century but to the one before that.

Maybe it's his stance on not not suspending due process on suspected terrorists (which he has voted in favor of)...
Or his strong belief in civil rights (which he has voted against in favor of state rights to deny said civil rights)...
Or his want of marriage reform (which he did... by supporting DOMA)...
Or how he'd legalize drugs (not really, he'd just have the states make them illegal)...
Or how he'd fix the budget (with a plan that's not only incredibly stupid, but will never get through Congress, and he'd sooner just let the country go bankrupt by vetoing a debt ceiling raise, because you know, that will fix everything)...
Or how he'd take US troops out of all the places (including where they're actually wanted, and likely replaced by private contractors, because everyone loved Blackwater)...
Or that he loves the Constitution (which he absolutely does not)...
Or that he's an honest man (Despite the fact that he wrote a racist newsletter just to drum up extremist support, admitted to it then later lied about it)...
Or that he's a great liberator like Lincoln (he HATES Lincoln by the way, and thinks the South should have won the Civil War)...
And let's not forget he's the only moderate in a field of radicals (When he's actually more radical than the Tea Partiers)...

If anyone truly believes Ron Paul would be anything short of a disaster who pushes against civil rights, well, I have a gold-plated copy of Atlas Shrugged signed by Ayn Rand, Ghandi, the vampire LeStat, and Chuck Norris to sell you.

[Laissez-Faire]

What's to like? From what I can see, he wants to take the country back not to the last century but to the one before that.

Maybe it's his stance on not not suspending due process on suspected terrorists (which he has voted in favor of)...
Or his strong belief in civil rights (which he has voted against in favor of state rights to deny said civil rights)...
Or his want of marriage reform (which he did... by supporting DOMA)...
Or how he'd legalize drugs (not really, he'd just have the states make them illegal)...
Or how he'd fix the budget (with a plan that's not only incredibly stupid, but will never get through Congress, and he'd sooner just let the country go bankrupt by vetoing a debt ceiling raise, because you know, that will fix everything)...
Or how he'd take US troops out of all the places (including where they're actually wanted, and likely replaced by private contractors, because everyone loved Blackwater)...
Or that he loves the Constitution (which he absolutely does not)...
Or that he's an honest man (Despite the fact that he wrote a racist newsletter just to drum up extremist support, admitted to it then later lied about it)...
Or that he's a great liberator like Lincoln (he HATES Lincoln by the way, and thinks the South should have won the Civil War)...
And let's not forget he's the only moderate in a field of radicals (When he's actually more radical than the Tea Partiers)...

If anyone truly believes Ron Paul would be anything short of a disaster who pushes against civil rights, well, I have a gold-plated copy of Atlas Shrugged signed by Ayn Rand, Ghandi, the vampire LeStat, and Chuck Norris to sell you.

If you could prove even half of those statements, I might begin to believe you.

[Dempublicents1]

If you could prove even half of those statements, I might begin to believe you.

Try reading the thread.

[Fr33domland]

Maybe it's his stance on not not suspending due process on suspected terrorists (which he has voted in favor of)...
Or his strong belief in civil rights (which he has voted against in favor of state rights to deny said civil rights)...
Or his want of marriage reform (which he did... by supporting DOMA)...
Or how he'd legalize drugs (not really, he'd just have the states make them illegal)...
Or how he'd fix the budget (with a plan that's not only incredibly stupid, but will never get through Congress, and he'd sooner just let the country go bankrupt by vetoing a debt ceiling raise, because you know, that will fix everything)...
Or how he'd take US troops out of all the places (including where they're actually wanted, and likely replaced by private contractors, because everyone loved Blackwater)...
Or that he loves the Constitution (which he absolutely does not)...
Or that he's an honest man (Despite the fact that he wrote a racist newsletter just to drum up extremist support, admitted to it then later lied about it)...
Or that he's a great liberator like Lincoln (he HATES Lincoln by the way, and thinks the South should have won the Civil War)...
And let's not forget he's the only moderate in a field of radicals (When he's actually more radical than the Tea Partiers)...

If anyone truly believes Ron Paul would be anything short of a disaster who pushes against civil rights, well, I have a gold-plated copy of Atlas Shrugged signed by Ayn Rand, Ghandi, the vampire LeStat, and Chuck Norris to sell you.

If you could prove even half of those statements, I might begin to believe you.

Half of them are good. The other half are just bullshit, especially the racism charge, which is nothing but libel.

[Death Metal]

Gladly.

1) He voted in favor of the Authorized Use of Military Force Act of 2001, which allows the Administrative Branch to effectively say anyone may have been involved with 9/11 and they would become a wanted man.

Text of Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:
His Vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

2) He spoke against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which repealed the infamous state-supported "Jim Crow" laws, while also implying that racist business practices should be protected over people's right to go where they please without persecution and segregation, while also ignoring that it paved the way for further civil rights legislation including the Voting Right Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 78688.html

Note that in the article, he also implies that slavery shouldn't have been made illegal. Why? "Because it fostered racial tensions".

3) Support of the Marraige Protection Act, which not only affirmed DOMA, but made it bulletproof against major courts: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... 03313:@@@P

4) On Ron Paul's favoring of PMCs, legislation he introduced to grant PMCs Letters of Marque to hunt down terrorists: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107h ... 3076ih.pdf

Constitutional yes, but look at what Blackwater did in Iraq behind the US Military's back. Our approval in foreign countries is bad enough without sponsoring renegade actions.

5) Ron Paul's racist newsletter drama: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... ?mobile=nc

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/former ... wsletters/

Also, Ron Paul s links to white-supremacy groups: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

6) Ron Paul against the debt ceiling raises, which, while not preferable to solving the debt entirely at all, are necessary to keep the government from shutting down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

7) Ron Paul on a public speech saying the South was right in the Civil War, because state rights to allow slavery are more important than getting rid of slavery: http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/arc ... ry/251766/

I'd look for more, but just listening to the guy defend the South in the above clip gives me a headache.

[Death Metal]

especially the racism charge, which is nothing but libel.

It's not libel because there's strong evidence that shows he might just be racist. See above post, including links to white-supremacy groups.

[Dempublicents1]

Half of them are good. The other half are just bullshit, especially the racism charge, which is nothing but libel.

Which do you believe to be "just bullshit"? The fact that he lent his name to and profited off of a series of newsletters that often printed racist and homophobic material is indisputable. He may not have personally written them, but it is ample evidence that he either agrees with those views or is perfectly happy pandering to them.

[Dempublicents1]

2) He spoke against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which repealed the infamous state-supported "Jim Crow" laws, while also implying that racist business practices should be protected over people's right to go where they please without persecution and segregation, while also ignoring that it paved the way for further civil rights legislation including the Voting Right Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 78688.html

Not to mention his "We the People Act" which would turn back the clock on religious freedom, privacy rights, and equal protection - taking us backwards at least a century on those.

[Death Metal]

Half of them are good. The other half are just bullshit, especially the racism charge, which is nothing but libel.

Which do you believe to be "just bullshit"? The fact that he lent his name to and profited off of a series of newsletters that often printed racist and homophobic material is indisputable. He may not have personally written them, but it is ample evidence that he either agrees with those views or is perfectly happy pandering to them.

Plus those white power ties are suspicious at the very least.

[Death Metal]

2) He spoke against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which repealed the infamous state-supported "Jim Crow" laws, while also implying that racist business practices should be protected over people's right to go where they please without persecution and segregation, while also ignoring that it paved the way for further civil rights legislation including the Voting Right Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 78688.html

Not to mention his "We the People Act" which would turn back the clock on religious freedom, privacy rights, and equal protection - taking us backwards at least a century on those.

OH MAN I FORGOT THE WE THE PEOPLE ACT

Which is also outright unconstitutional as it allows Congress to trump the Supreme Court in judiciary matters...

[The Black Forrest]

What will be interesting is when he finally takes a dirt nap. Will the son inherit the throne?

[Wikkiwallana]

Maybe it's his stance on not not suspending due process on suspected terrorists (which he has voted in favor of)...
Or his strong belief in civil rights (which he has voted against in favor of state rights to deny said civil rights)...
Or his want of marriage reform (which he did... by supporting DOMA)...
Or how he'd legalize drugs (not really, he'd just have the states make them illegal)...
Or how he'd fix the budget (with a plan that's not only incredibly stupid, but will never get through Congress, and he'd sooner just let the country go bankrupt by vetoing a debt ceiling raise, because you know, that will fix everything)...
Or how he'd take US troops out of all the places (including where they're actually wanted, and likely replaced by private contractors, because everyone loved Blackwater)...
Or that he loves the Constitution (which he absolutely does not)...
Or that he's an honest man (Despite the fact that he wrote a racist newsletter just to drum up extremist support, admitted to it then later lied about it)...
Or that he's a great liberator like Lincoln (he HATES Lincoln by the way, and thinks the South should have won the Civil War)...
And let's not forget he's the only moderate in a field of radicals (When he's actually more radical than the Tea Partiers)...

If anyone truly believes Ron Paul would be anything short of a disaster who pushes against civil rights, well, I have a gold-plated copy of Atlas Shrugged signed by Ayn Rand, Ghandi, the vampire LeStat, and Chuck Norris to sell you.

If you could prove even half of those statements, I might begin to believe you.

All the proof you could want.

Edit: whoops, I need to watch where I place my text.

[Wikkiwallana]

Gladly.

1) He voted in favor of the Authorized Use of Military Force Act of 2001, which allows the Administrative Branch to effectively say anyone may have been involved with 9/11 and they would become a wanted man.

Text of Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.64:
His Vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

2) He spoke against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which repealed the infamous state-supported "Jim Crow" laws, while also implying that racist business practices should be protected over people's right to go where they please without persecution and segregation, while also ignoring that it paved the way for further civil rights legislation including the Voting Right Act: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/0 ... 78688.html

Note that in the article, he also implies that slavery shouldn't have been made illegal. Why? "Because it fostered racial tensions".

3) Support of the Marraige Protection Act, which not only affirmed DOMA, but made it bulletproof against major courts: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... 03313:@@@P

4) On Ron Paul's favoring of PMCs, legislation he introduced to grant PMCs Letters of Marque to hunt down terrorists: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107h ... 3076ih.pdf

Constitutional yes, but look at what Blackwater did in Iraq behind the US Military's back. Our approval in foreign countries is bad enough without sponsoring renegade actions.

5) Ron Paul's racist newsletter drama: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... ?mobile=nc

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/former ... wsletters/

Also, Ron Paul s links to white-supremacy groups: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

6) Ron Paul against the debt ceiling raises, which, while not preferable to solving the debt entirely at all, are necessary to keep the government from shutting down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

7) Ron Paul on a public speech saying the South was right in the Civil War, because state rights to allow slavery are more important than getting rid of slavery: http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/arc ... ry/251766/

I'd look for more, but just listening to the guy defend the South in the above clip gives me a headache.

Ooh, I'm adding this to my bundle.

[Wikkiwallana]

What will be interesting is when he finally takes a dirt nap. Will the son inherit the throne?

He's not running for reelection to focus on campaigning for Presidency, so it might happen sooner, like when he loses the race.

[Fr33domland]

especially the racism charge, which is nothing but libel.

It's not libel because there's strong evidence that shows he might just be racist. See above post, including links to white-supremacy groups.

No, there isn't. All there is is a few cherry picked quotes out of thousands of pages written over 20 years.

[Death Metal]

It's not libel because there's strong evidence that shows he might just be racist. See above post, including links to white-supremacy groups.

No, there isn't. All there is is a few cherry picked quotes out of thousands of pages written over 20 years.

And the Anonymous discovery, that was just an accident?

Or when he reiterated things in these newsletters on public forum:

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

He also supported a claim on the swiftness of African-Americans by saying that's because they snatch purses and get away with it.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... ?mobile=nc

And that doesn't sound at least questionable to you?

[Fr33domland]

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

He also supported a claim on the swiftness of African-Americans by saying that's because they snatch purses and get away with it.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... ?mobile=nc

And that doesn't sound at least questionable to you?

Bullshit. Show me the proof that he has made or defended these statements.