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

[The Alchemists Guild]

The Constitution says nothing about whether or not Congress should overrule the States, nor does it imply that when and where it can do so, it should only exercise that power in extremity; that may be your legislative philosophy, but such an approach is hardly Constitutionally mandated. In truth, it is up to Congress to decide when and how it ought to exercise its legal supremacy.

Thats why I said implies.
I said nothing about mandates or legalities, simply that the amendment leads me to assume that the framers of the constitution (which oddballs like Paul seem to see as gods) thought that governing at state level was the better option in virtually every circumstance and federal law making should only be used in the situations where state level law making just doesn't fit the bill.
All I'm saying is, that's what I think they were thinking, when they wrote that amendment. A mad constitution-fetishist like Paul may be wont to translate a perceived inference into a legal stipulation. Frankly I couldn't care less if they thought the sky was green.

[Evraim]

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens. He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians. He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others. Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.
Sound a bit like tyranny?
Honestly it's very hypocritical to criticize Paul (who is in no way justified in his support for the things you mentioned), without criticizing Obama.
R. Lee Wrights 2012

The assassinations use powers Ron Paul voted for, the drone strikes (with the same powers) are not aimed at innocents, although entering any conflict is accepting collateral damage and marriage has always been a legal, and thus government, issue.

I do not believe that the majority of the civilians residing in Iraq and Afghanistan elected to participte in the conflicts occurring in those countries and yet those individuals suffer in the crossfire. Furthermore, Ravineworld inquired as to why Paul received criticism while the current administration eschewed such criticism. Naturally, there a number of adequate responses that could be made, but I wouldn't consider yours among them. You could support the policies or mention that this thread is primarily focused on Paul. There are additonal options as well.

You're rather correct with regards to marriage. However, the extent to which government ought to participate in marriage is questionable. After all, why not permit all non-coercive marriages between consenting adults? Effectively, I'm insinuating that heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, monogamous, polygamous, and incestuous marriages in which an individual willingly participates ought to be considered for legalisation. Furthermore, this begs the question: why should marriage be considered a legal matter to begin with? It's a rather interesting question to explore.

[Farnhamia]

The Constitution says nothing about whether or not Congress should overrule the States, nor does it imply that when and where it can do so, it should only exercise that power in extremity; that may be your legislative philosophy, but such an approach is hardly Constitutionally mandated. In truth, it is up to Congress to decide when and how it ought to exercise its legal supremacy.

Thats why I said implies.
I said nothing about mandates or legalities, simply that the amendment leads me to assume that the framers of the constitution (which oddballs like Paul seem to see as gods) thought that governing at state level was the better option in virtually every circumstance and federal law making should only be used in the situations where state level law making just doesn't fit the bill.
All I'm saying is, that's what I think they were thinking, when they wrote that amendment. A mad constitution-fetishist like Paul may be wont to translate a perceived inference into a legal stipulation. Frankly I couldn't care less if they thought the sky was green.

You do care what color they thought the sky was, you just said you have definite ideas about what they were thinking when they wrote the document.

I'll tell you what they were thinking. Doctor Franklin told me, in a letter, in 1788, "I'll tell you, Lady Farn, our most pressing concern last year was to get done and out of Philadelphia. I know you are very well travelled, my dear, but let me give you this advice, stay away from this fair city in the summer. Philadelphia in August would make the Devil himself weep."

[Evraim]

Thats why I said implies.
I said nothing about mandates or legalities, simply that the amendment leads me to assume that the framers of the constitution (which oddballs like Paul seem to see as gods) thought that governing at state level was the better option in virtually every circumstance and federal law making should only be used in the situations where state level law making just doesn't fit the bill.
All I'm saying is, that's what I think they were thinking, when they wrote that amendment. A mad constitution-fetishist like Paul may be wont to translate a perceived inference into a legal stipulation. Frankly I couldn't care less if they thought the sky was green.

You do care what color they thought the sky was, you just said you have definite ideas about what they were thinking when they wrote the document.

I'll tell you what they were thinking. Doctor Franklin told me, in a letter, in 1788, "I'll tell you, Lady Farn, our most pressing concern last year was to get done and out of Philadelphia. I know you are very well travelled, my dear, but let me give you this advice, stay away from this fair city in the summer. Philadelphia in August would make the Devil himself weep."

Say, did you receive any letters from Hamilton, Farn?

[The Alchemists Guild]

You do care what color they thought the sky was, you just said you have definite ideas about what they were thinking when they wrote the document.

I'll tell you what they were thinking. Doctor Franklin told me, in a letter, in 1788, "I'll tell you, Lady Farn, our most pressing concern last year was to get done and out of Philadelphia. I know you are very well travelled, my dear, but let me give you this advice, stay away from this fair city in the summer. Philadelphia in August would make the Devil himself weep."

I have an opinion on what they thought, I may be right I may be wrong.
But tbh it would probably be better to say: "It would be as inconsequential to the running of america or any other nation if they thought the sky was green" If they thought it was green it would be an interesting piece of trivia.
I say this because they wrote a constitution which has been very successful (in some peoples eyes this means they were very smart, so anything they thought might be worth listening to) for all I know they may have been every-men who lucked out, which is not that unlikely as I wouldn't be typing this or anything else about them had their constitution been a failure.

[Farnhamia]

You do care what color they thought the sky was, you just said you have definite ideas about what they were thinking when they wrote the document.

I'll tell you what they were thinking. Doctor Franklin told me, in a letter, in 1788, "I'll tell you, Lady Farn, our most pressing concern last year was to get done and out of Philadelphia. I know you are very well travelled, my dear, but let me give you this advice, stay away from this fair city in the summer. Philadelphia in August would make the Devil himself weep."

Say, did you receive any letters from Hamilton, Farn?

I never knew Hamilton. Doctor Franklin recommended me to Mr. Madison and I received a very nice letter from him, but we were never great correspondents. Madison was always ... Well, Franklin called him, affectionately, "the busiest body we have our young nation."

I didn't visit the United States, or North America at all, until 1875, so I'm afraid I didn't know the Founding Fathers, save Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams, the 2nd President, that is, when he was Minister to Great Britain. I liked Mr. Adams, but ZOMG! could that mad talk and talk and talk!

[Death Metal]

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens.

Prove that he has used it. Also, he got rid of that privlege when he signeed the NDAA.

He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians.

The generals underneath him, and the intelligence agencies, are responsible for minimalizing civilian casualties. Drone strikes have also managed, succesfully, to hit purely military targets with no civilians harmed. Drone techology does work, but it's the intelligence that keeps civilians safe.

He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others.

Show me where he vetoed a drug decriminalization bill that went to his desk. Besides, the other extreme- unregulated drug use- has it's downsides too, which most people keep conviently forgetting.

Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.

Yes, to make marriage open to people regardless of gender orientation. To IMPROVE freedom. Unlike Paul, who uses it to LIMIT freedom. See the difference there?

Sound a bit like tyranny?

Nope. Apart from that first bit, which sounds like an empty conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it, the rest sounds like democracy.

Honestly it's very hypocritical to criticize Paul (who is in no way justified in his support for the things you mentioned), without criticizing Obama.

Not really, the drug thing (if true) is the only legitimate claim against him. While it would be nice to have regulated drug use (equal to alcohol) instead of outright criminalization, the fact that he doesn't use executive power to remove those laws shows restraint and respect for the Constitution, things Paul has shown not to have.

R. Lee Wrights 2012

Maurice Sendak 2012.

[Death Metal]

Also, on the drone front, need I remind you that the one operation that Obama has been known to have personally overseen, it was a precision ground strike, with no civilian bystanders wounded or killed?

This is speculation, but Ron Paul's record shows he would have left hunting down Bin Laden to PMCs, and experience with the gulf conflict has shown that if he left it up to the former Blackwater, they probably would have raided and bombed several civilian homes while missing Osama's completely, and if they DID hit Osama's compound, they would have paid no mind to collateral damage, so it's very likely that all the data on Al Qaeda captured in that operation would have been lost.

Sorry, I don't and will not trust a man who supports Letters of Marque post-Blackwater-in-Iraq to even have an honorary post in the Armed Forces.

[Ravineworld]

I'm pretty sure he'd also be criticizing Obama were this thread about Obama.

Indeed. But this is the one tactic the Paul-heads have left. Ignore any legitimate claims that seem to cast their candidate in a bad light, and try to shift the discussion to someone else.

Paul is a very, very, very, very, very, very (and 25 more very's) flawed politician.
With that said, he is significantly better than everybody else in the two parties.
And he is giving a huge contribution to the libertarian movement by getting young people to adore him so much, which to an ancap should be a bad thing (he is a minarchist, meaning that the people who like him will most likely be minarchists as well)
Gary Johnson, R. Lee Wrights, Ralph Nader (for contributions to the green party), and Jesse Ventura (for getting the reform party on the radar) are far better choices. With that said, Paul gives new excitement to the libertarian movement, and the anti-war movement

[Ravineworld]

Well, Obama supports, and consistently uses the executive privileges to assassinate american citizens.

Prove that he has used it. Also, he got rid of that privlege when he signeed the NDAA.

He also supports drone strikes on villages, often killing innocent civilians.

The generals underneath him, and the intelligence agencies, are responsible for minimalizing civilian casualties. Drone strikes have also managed, succesfully, to hit purely military targets with no civilians harmed. Drone techology does work, but it's the intelligence that keeps civilians safe.

He also supports arresting people and throwing them in jail for using marijuana, heroin, and other drugs, even when they don't harm others.

Show me where he vetoed a drug decriminalization bill that went to his desk. Besides, the other extreme- unregulated drug use- has it's downsides too, which most people keep conviently forgetting.

Oh, and he supports federal government involvement in things like marriage.

Yes, to make marriage open to people regardless of gender orientation. To IMPROVE freedom. Unlike Paul, who uses it to LIMIT freedom. See the difference there?

Actually, Obama has consistently shown that he doesn't support Gay marriage and that he thinks the feds should be able to tell people who can and cannot be married.
By supporting the war in afghanistan, he is a butcher, a murderer, and a thief. OK, I know I sound a little radical when I say that, but when 300,000-1,000,000 innocent civilians have been killed by US forces, and then he goes and supports the war responsible for that slaughter, it really makes him look bad.
Oh, and he unconstitutionally committed money, and supplies to libya. Didn't even go through congress to do so.

[Death Metal]

Uh-huh. So you're suggesting that a million people have been killed by US troops directly in Afghanistan.

That's a death rate of 34/1000... double the UN estimate of 17/1000. And the UN estimate factors in disease, starvation, non-military murders, suicides, etc etc.

Your numbers don't make sense. Then again, very little of your anti-Afghanistan war rhetoric makes sense. It's a good fight to fight.

And he does support gay marraige, and spoke in support of the overturning of the gay-marraige ban in Califronia.

Also, his Libya plan was perfectly legal. He didn't declare war on Libya, he provided non-combat assistance to allies who were involved with Libya. As is his right.

[Death Metal]

And the Libertarian party is more un-American and inherently corrupt than any other political movement this country has ever seen. If they gain leadership it will bring the death of the country. I will die before I kneel.

[Ravineworld]

And the Libertarian party is more un-American and inherently corrupt than any other political movement this country has ever seen. If they gain leadership it will bring the death of the country. I will die before I kneel.

How is advocating freedom, minimal government, and lower taxes "inherently corrupt"?
If libertarians came to power, it isn't like they'd establish a one-party dictatorship (although we already live in a two-party dictatorship, and americans are consistently told that they have 2 choices in the elections)

[Death Metal]

And the Libertarian party is more un-American and inherently corrupt than any other political movement this country has ever seen. If they gain leadership it will bring the death of the country. I will die before I kneel.

How is advocating freedom, minimal government, and lower taxes "inherently corrupt"?
If libertarians came to power, it isn't like they'd establish a one-party dictatorship (although we already live in a two-party dictatorship, and americans are consistently told that they have 2 choices in the elections)

They don't advocate freedom. They advocate the repeal of federal freedoms and rolling back to state laws which strangle freedom.

Minimal government? My ass. Their goal is minimal federal government, which is bad. Instead they prefer corporations taking over (also bad), or state government having authority (also bad).

Lowering taxes? More like removing taxes, which would bankrupt the country.

Libertarian party needs a lite truth in advertising. They should call themselves the Authoritarian Confederates.

[Ravineworld]

Uh-huh. So you're suggesting that a million people have been killed by US troops directly in Afghanistan.

That's a death rate of 34/1000... double the UN estimate of 17/1000. And the UN estimate factors in disease, starvation, non-military murders, suicides, etc etc.

Your numbers don't make sense. Then again, very little of your anti-Afghanistan war rhetoric makes sense. It's a good fight to fight.

And he does support gay marraige, and spoke in support of the overturning of the gay-marraige ban in Califronia.

Also, his Libya plan was perfectly legal. He didn't declare war on Libya, he provided non-combat assistance to allies who were involved with Libya. As is his right.

And you criticize me for ignorance. I'll get the sources out if you need them.
Obama doesn't support marriage equality. [quote]Obama supported legalizing same-sex marriage when he first ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996,[22] was undecided about legalizing same-sex marriage when he ran for re-election to the Illinois Senate in 1998,[23] and supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and for U.S. President in 2008.[22] Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, but stated in a 2008 interview that he personally believes that marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."[24] He supports civil unions that would carry equal legal standing to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believes that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states.[25][26][27][Wikipedia says, along with sources/quote]
And you misspelled marriage (I'm kidding, I'm kidding, although you did misspell it)
How is it a good fight to fight. Every civilization has collapsed while fighting in the middle east, particularly the pakistan and afghanistan area (soviets, british, macedonia, rome, persian, the list goes on.) Afghanistan is the un-winnable war that every civilization gets baited into. We started off 2001 with a fairly low debt. Every year since, our debt has gone crazy. We now sit on 14 trillion dollars in debt. You know how much money we have spent in afghanistan? http://costofwar.com/en/http://87billion.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html. 3.3 trillion dollars down the drain, or 1 trillion, depending on the estimate, and we still have yet to defeat al-queda, it took us 10 years to get bin laden, and we continue killing civilians.
Funny, because a $50 handgun in the hands of the pilots in the 9/11 planes could have prevented all of that money being spent.

[Ravineworld]

How is advocating freedom, minimal government, and lower taxes "inherently corrupt"?
If libertarians came to power, it isn't like they'd establish a one-party dictatorship (although we already live in a two-party dictatorship, and americans are consistently told that they have 2 choices in the elections)

They don't advocate freedom. They advocate the repeal of federal freedoms and rolling back to state laws which strangle freedom.

Minimal government? My ass. Their goal is minimal federal government, which is bad. Instead they prefer corporations taking over (also bad), or state government having authority (also bad).

Lowering taxes? More like removing taxes, which would bankrupt the country.

Libertarian party needs a lite truth in advertising. They should call themselves the Authoritarian Confederates.

OK, you clearly have absolutely no idea when it comes to the libertarian movement.
Most in the libertarian movement are opposed to state regulations on social behavior.
The letting "corporations take over" part has no basis in reality. Radicals in the party support that, but they are a small minority within the movement. Most of the libertarians in the movement are in line with Gary Johnson's beliefs, which simply support a small, limited tax, socially liberal, government.
Once again, you are confusing Paulist libertarians, with the rest of the group

[The Alchemists Guild]

Once again, you are confusing Paulist libertarians, with the rest of the group

Just as the meek won't inherit the earth, the arseholes will inherit the political movement if/when it becomes popular. In fact that's almost a prerequisite.

[Ravineworld]

Once again, you are confusing Paulist libertarians, with the rest of the group

Just as the meek won't inherit the earth, the arseholes will inherit the political movement if/when it becomes popular. In fact that's almost a prerequisite.

Most are moderates. Paul is more aligned with the constitution party, if any party (his belief's constitute one of the most bizarre set of beliefs in the modern political system).
The libertarian party is more aligned with Gary Johnson's belief's.

[Death Metal]

Even if rhetoric matched policy, small and limited tax is incompatible with America today (it didn't work in pre-Constitution America either, albeit tax was more limited) and the corporate takeover would be inevitable as an unintended consequence.

We need a large government. Not overly large, mind you. A father who guides and supports us, instead of being domineering, or leaving us to be latchkey kids.

Moderate option.

[Ravineworld]

Even if rhetoric matched policy, small and limited tax is incompatible with America today (it didn't work in pre-Constitution America either, albeit tax was more limited) and the corporate takeover would be inevitable as an unintended consequence.

We need a large government. Not overly large, mind you. A father who guides and supports us, instead of being domineering, or leaving us to be latchkey kids.

Moderate option.

How would corporate takeover be inevitable?
With large government, corporations can corrupt it (using lobbyists), and then use it's size (and it's federal reserve system) to get free handouts.

[Dempublicents1]

Just as the meek won't inherit the earth, the arseholes will inherit the political movement if/when it becomes popular. In fact that's almost a prerequisite.

Most are moderates. Paul is more aligned with the constitution party, if any party (his belief's constitute one of the most bizarre set of beliefs in the modern political system).
The libertarian party is more aligned with Gary Johnson's belief's.

You mean the libertarian party that has run Ron Paul on the ticket, as well as other Paul-esque candidates?

As far as I can tell, the national Libertarian party only cares about laissez faire economics. Actual individual freedom can go stuff itself.

[Ravineworld]

Most are moderates. Paul is more aligned with the constitution party, if any party (his belief's constitute one of the most bizarre set of beliefs in the modern political system).
The libertarian party is more aligned with Gary Johnson's belief's.

You mean the libertarian party that has run Ron Paul on the ticket, as well as other Paul-esque candidates?

As far as I can tell, the national Libertarian party only cares about laissez faire economics. Actual individual freedom can go stuff itself.

that was almost 20 years ago.
The party was basically founded by Rothbardians and Objectivists, but in the 21st century, it's turned into a far more moderate party.
Johnsonite's are the future of the party. They are the moderates, but they are just radical enough that they fit in and don't compromise their core values.

[Death Metal]

Even if rhetoric matched policy, small and limited tax is incompatible with America today (it didn't work in pre-Constitution America either, albeit tax was more limited) and the corporate takeover would be inevitable as an unintended consequence.

We need a large government. Not overly large, mind you. A father who guides and supports us, instead of being domineering, or leaving us to be latchkey kids.

Moderate option.

How would corporate takeover be inevitable?
With large government, corporations can corrupt it (using lobbyists), and then use it's size (and it's federal reserve system) to get free handouts.

Well, depending on what you mean by small, it's much easier to get away with corruption (Ask Raul Martinez, former mayor of Hialeah Florida, who ran the government like a mafia to fill his own pockets, got arrested by the state, but managed to intimidate witnesses to refuse to testify in his sentencing hearing. And despite this, STILL got re-elected.) so lobbyists will be able to buy government employees much easier, and with less employees to corrupt comes less resources needed to do so. A government with 10,000 employees is one hundred times easier to buy than a government with 1,000,000.

Or, if the government is small as in depowered, then lobbyists won't have to even bother. Without a government capable of regulating or enforcing regulations, corporations will be able to exploit consumers while using underhanded tactics to destroy any opposition.

So yes, both are corruptible, but small government either makes it easier, or makes it so corporate takeover can happen by just shoving the government aside.

[Dempublicents1]

You mean the libertarian party that has run Ron Paul on the ticket, as well as other Paul-esque candidates?

As far as I can tell, the national Libertarian party only cares about laissez faire economics. Actual individual freedom can go stuff itself.

that was almost 20 years ago.
The party was basically founded by Rothbardians and Objectivists, but in the 21st century, it's turned into a far more moderate party.
Johnsonite's are the future of the party. They are the moderates, but they are just radical enough that they fit in and don't compromise their core values.

4 years ago they ran Bob Barr. I'll be happy if they really are moving away from that, but I haven't seen much evidence of that so far, especially given the continued speculation that Paul may seek the Libertarian nod and have a good chance of getting it.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012 ... -decision/

[Ravineworld]

that was almost 20 years ago.
The party was basically founded by Rothbardians and Objectivists, but in the 21st century, it's turned into a far more moderate party.
Johnsonite's are the future of the party. They are the moderates, but they are just radical enough that they fit in and don't compromise their core values.

4 years ago they ran Bob Barr. I'll be happy if they really are moving away from that, but I haven't seen much evidence of that so far, especially given the continued speculation that Paul may seek the Libertarian nod and have a good chance of getting it.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012 ... -decision/

If Paul seeks the nomination of the libertarian party, I will have greatly mixed feelings. On the one hand, it will probably prove to be the best year for the party, and we may see a libertarian in a debate.
On the other, well, it'll be Ron Paul, a ferocious cultural conservative "states rights" advocate and continued master of fringe politics. But I'd rather take a little bit less war and government over Interventionism any day.