What do you think of Ron Paul?

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

without intervention from the gov't, minimum wage and working hours would all be protected by unions. Marriage is under state jurisdiction. so is education, and marriage. anything not specifically provided for in the constitution is a state right. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ammendment X to the US constitution. the confederacy was right in princible, the federal gov't had no power in the affair of slaves whatsoever! (even though slavery is wrong) all ron paul does is support the constitution. you can't go wrong if you do that.

Then why did the southern states try to use the power of the federal government to make the northern states obey the fugitive slave laws? Hmm?

it probably fit under the clause of runaway 'livestock', or stolen posessions.

or they were wrong.

[Farnhamia]

Then why did the southern states try to use the power of the federal government to make the northern states obey the fugitive slave laws? Hmm?

it probably fit under the clause of runaway 'livestock', or stolen posessions.

or they were wrong.

The Constitution actually says it has power over slavery because there's a clause that says nothing should be done about slavery until 1808. And they were wrong, in principle.

But this has nothing to do with Ron Paul, save that his vision of America is decidedly ante-bellum. Or what he thinks ante-bellum America should have been like.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

what the clause says is that slaves would stop being brought into the US after 20 years.

[Farnhamia]

what the clause says is that slaves would stop being brought into the US after 20 years.

That's power over slavery, isn't it?

[New Red Nation]

I'll cry if he wins. I hate him. He is right about withdrawing from wars and all. But South Korea? No... Just no... and Lowering taxes will not help us. He will be making budget cuts and then cutting taxes? That'd make the whole point of budget cuts pointless. The government would be gaining that money from the cuts and losing money due to tax reduction.

[Farnhamia]

I'll cry if he wins. I hate him. He is right about withdrawing from wars and all. But South Korea? No... Just no... and Lowering taxes will not help us. He will be making budget cuts and then cutting taxes? That'd make the whole point of budget cuts pointless. The government would be gaining that money from the cuts and losing money due to tax reduction.

Chances of a snowball in hell > chances of Ron Paul becoming President

I wouldn't worry about it.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

what the clause says is that slaves would stop being brought into the US after 20 years.

That's power over slavery, isn't it?

it was a compromise agreed upon by the states.

[Farnhamia]

That's power over slavery, isn't it?

it was a compromise agreed upon by the states.

Yes, but it says that the government has power to regulate slavery.

Anyway, this is a threadjack. There's a thread on whether the south was justified in seceding out there, you go ahewad and present your arguments, and I'll catch up with you.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

it was a compromise agreed upon by the states.

Yes, but it says that the government has power to regulate slavery.

Anyway, this is a threadjack. There's a thread on whether the south was justified in seceding out there, you go ahewad and present your arguments, and I'll catch up with you.

so the south was not justified... i mean... Ron Paul ftw?

[Ceannairceach]

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

Why is "consistency" a reason I should support Paul? To me it says he's living in the past, which is stances on the issues further confirms.

Obviously a president with bowel consistency will spend more time doing good work than shitting out his brains.

[Farnhamia]

Yes, but it says that the government has power to regulate slavery.

Anyway, this is a threadjack. There's a thread on whether the south was justified in seceding out there, you go ahewad and present your arguments, and I'll catch up with you.

so the south was not justified... i mean... Ron Paul ftw?

Not talking about the South here anymore. Ron Paul is a reactionary fool. That's what I think of him.

[The Congregationists]

He seems like a conservative masquerading as a libertarian.

[The Forsaken Wilderness]

if by reactionary you mean 'has good foreign policy' then i agree with you. otherwise, what is wrong with defending America.

[Wikkiwallana]

He's a state totalitarian who wants to cripple the Federal government so that his home state of Texas can become the promised land, where segregation is legal; and the gays are forced to be silent.

Ron Paul needs to gtfo.

It's amazing how wrong people can be.

People like you, for example.

[Wikkiwallana]

You don't seem to understand the end result of his strategy. Giving the states more rights and freedoms would only mean a reversal of protections granted by the federal government. While obviously my original statement is hyperbolic, the notion that the south; without federal oversight, wouldn't instate a number of inherently bigoted laws against racial minorities and gays is laughable. For crying out loud, they do it now!

They still can't break the Bill or Rights, regardless of other federal laws. The idea that all of a sudden gays would have their first amendment rights taken away is laughable.

The US would return to the way it should be. Each state can decide how they want their abortion laws. The government in general would be pulled out of marriage. State and federal.

Actually, at least two of Ron Paul's sponsored bills give them implicit permission to do so, by saying that there will be no higher court allowed to overrule their choices on certain issues.

[Wikkiwallana]

Psst, he's retiring anyway if he doesn't win this race. Which he won't. Because he's a fruitcake.

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

Consistently bad is not a good thing. And his ideas of liberty can go stuff it, for all I care; I want real liberty. Lastly, government has no business legislating morality.

Oh, and as an afterthought, I have no idea what statistics you are referring to.

[Wikkiwallana]

What's laughable is your poor understanding of history. The states have seldom respected the constitution and the protections it is supposed to apply until it was either made to do so by the feds or the court. Suppressing freedom of speech, the right to protest; have all been attacked in the past. What makes you think they can't happen again?

And we're not just talking about freedom of speech here, but a whole myriad of federal protections such as equal opportunity employment and housing, minimum wage and the 40 hour work week, the list goes on and on!



The States would not be pulled out marriage because the feds are. What kind of crack are you smoking?

without intervention from the gov't, minimum wage and working hours would all be protected by unions. Marriage is under state jurisdiction. so is education, and marriage. anything not specifically provided for in the constitution is a state right. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ammendment X to the US constitution. the confederacy was right in princible, the federal gov't had no power in the affair of slaves whatsoever! (even though slavery is wrong) all ron paul does is support the constitution. you can't go wrong if you do that.

For a guy who "supports" the constitution, he's sure trying to neuter the 1st and 14th amendments. And he wants to fully repeal the 17th.

[Ceannairceach]

Consistently bad is not a good thing. And his ideas of liberty can go stuff it, for all I care; I want real liberty. Lastly, government has no business legislating morality.

Oh, and as an afterthought, I have no idea what statistics you are referring to.

clearly not do the research on ur own time ... as to your opinions of him as bad , its blatantly clear by your posts and attitudes you simply hate hate his philosophy entire and as such cannot be relied upon as serious. id like to see the stats on where hes been bad .., hah

That's not how it works. If you say something, it is on you to back it up.

[Ceannairceach]

That's not how it works. If you say something, it is on you to back it up.

indeed, and im still waiting for wikki to show me wen where and how ron paul wants to get rid of the 1st amendment...

How about while he looks, you show some of the statistics you mentioned.

[New Conglomerate]

In this thread we have repeatedly pointed out that is not the fact.

Furthermore, if we are going to pretend he is all that consistent and for liberty the reasons given for that stance it does leave him as being alone.

In how, you have people like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders who have also long followed their value system regarding the government also. For example, both of them opposed the passage of the Patriot Act, Iraq War and Sanders was of the only 7 senators to vote against the new defense apportions bill.

Thus, this entire argument that Paul is the only one consistent is also a lie.

i do not see him as only one consistent , i see him as only one consistent of the republican party these days , who canm say otherwise

The Republican Party is an opportunistic mess. Being the most consistent wouldn't be that hard.

Also, consistency is not always a good thing. When your views are factually incorrect, it's usually wise to change them.

[Ceannairceach]

How about while he looks, you show some of the statistics you mentioned.

no as i replied to his comment which was before mine so technically i am asking for his research first , thanku, but yes really would like to see exactly where ron wants to throw out the 1st amendment

Wut? You said he was the only consistent, liberty-driven, moral choice, as backed my statistics. You said this first. I demand you show these statistics.

[AiliailiA]

If he said that, he's lying:



That's from his official campaign web site.

Which equals with restoring choice to the state.

Specifically removing "state decisions on life" from federal court jurisdiction is no small intervention (in fact, it is unconstitutional which is why he wants to change the constitution by repealing parts of it). Then a federal definition of life as beginning at conception would make abortion equivalent to murder under existing state laws.

So the "choice" he would "restore" to the states would be a requirement that they change their laws in order to remain just as they are now.

You can try to pass that off as states rights but it won't fool anyone. Those changes are specifically aimed at taking away a constitutional right (as determined by SCOTUS) from women.

[New Conglomerate]

The Republican Party is an opportunistic mess. Being the most consistent wouldn't be that hard.

Also, consistency is not always a good thing. When your views are factually incorrect, it's usually wise to change them.

absolutely agreed, however in ron pauls situation that is more than far from the case

No, it isn't. Global Warming exists no matter your ideology.

[New Conglomerate]

Which equals with restoring choice to the state.

Specifically removing "state decisions on life" from federal court jurisdiction is no small intervention (in fact, it is unconstitutional which is why he wants to change the constitution by repealing parts of it). Then a federal definition of life as beginning at conception would make abortion equivalent to murder under existing state laws.

So the "choice" he would "restore" to the states would be a requirement that they change their laws in order to remain just as they are now.

You can try to pass that off as states rights but it won't fool anyone. Those changes are specifically aimed at taking away a constitutional right (as determined by SCOTUS) from women.

Because he actually would prefer the Articles of Confederation to the actual constitution.

[Ceannairceach]

Wut? You said he was the only consistent, liberty-driven, moral choice, as backed my statistics. You said this first. I demand you show these statistics.

yes but i did not say he was the only consistent one though, check your own statistics , im waitin on wikki, told you this, moving on. my point is the man is the most consistent one the republicans have and in greater comparison one of the most consistent ones left

nice how we label the ones we fear most .. lets face facts here, in terms of consistency, liberty and morality, Ron Paul ONLY one there is , statistically speaking alone

Notice those words? Yeah, they're yours... You said them first, now back them up. Show me these statistics.