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

[Dempublicents1]

By Ron Paul's system, they would. He would limit Federal courts so they would not be able to constitutionally check state actions.

Hence, if a state decided that banning homosexuality and punishing it by death was a good idea, and the state constitution didn't prohibit it, federal courts could not stop it. Only state courts could, based upon state constitutions.

It allows states the power to do things that are not allowed on ANY level of government now.

these funny little agreements on human rights that America signed would prevent this.

How? The federal government wouldn't be able to do anything to enforce them on the states. Ron Paul has been very clear in his position that states have the "right" to pass laws imposing penalties for homosexuality and that the federal government does not have the authority to intervene.

[The Aryan Nations]

its your right as an american to believe that. as much as you liberals hate freedom of expression, it is a fact that you retain that right. this is not Canada (but my opinions on Canada are for a different thread)

Come on, man. Don't drop the "all you liberals think ___" bomb. You're catching me in the blast.

im speaking of the BLEEDING HEARTS (which i recognize do not make up all liberals- should have made that clearer) i have had the pleasure of interacting with on this thread. they seem to think that i am not entitled to my opinion if it offends some small minority.

on a semirelated note...

[The Aryan Nations]

these funny little agreements on human rights that America signed would prevent this.

How? The federal government wouldn't be able to do anything to enforce them on the states. Ron Paul has been very clear in his position that states have the "right" to pass laws imposing penalties for homosexuality and that the federal government does not have the authority to intervene.

1. by international Authority. pretty obvious.

2. [citation needed]

(although i personally disapprove of them, on a purely scientific basis)

[Dempublicents1]

Forget marriage - they all think that. Ron Paul thinks states should be able to imprison people for engaging in consensual sex with a member of the same sex. Of all the other candidates running, I'm fairly certain only Santorum would publicly agree with that.

And, of course, he also supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

p1 [citation needed]

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.

- Ron Paul

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

As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he apparently changed his mind on it. Of course, his listed reason for doing so is "It was applied exactly as it was written and as it was meant to be applied." So either he supported it for years without ever looking at what it did, or he's playing politics with his "change of mind".

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... anged.html

[Dempublicents1]

The lack of regulations hurt the economy.

Banks and lenders used dirty tricks and legalese to put people into contracts that they could possibly pay, and to have it more expensive to get out of these deals.

The insurance companies can deny you coverage because you neglected to not that you had a cold last month.

Some states allow employers to fire people without a reason. Sometimes they don't even have to pay you for the week when they do so (personal experience).

Deregulation would make things worse.

>Making it easier for businesses to do business will make economy worse.

Correction: Making it easier for businesses to screw people over will make the economy worse.

[Lackadaisical2]

Come on, man. Don't drop the "all you liberals think ___" bomb. You're catching me in the blast.

Pretty sure that fits the definition of trolling as given in the OSRS.

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Eh, I'd say it lacks the necessary fire to be really insulting, hes keeping comments on a political classification constrained to political criticisms.
[/not a mod, as if that isn't obvious]

How? The federal government wouldn't be able to do anything to enforce them on the states. Ron Paul has been very clear in his position that states have the "right" to pass laws imposing penalties for homosexuality and that the federal government does not have the authority to intervene.

1. by international Authority. pretty obvious.

2. [citation needed]

(although i personally disapprove of them, on a purely scientific basis)

1. Really? They definitely stopped us (and everyone else) from torturing people, etc.

[Arkinesia]

He's still not really the best option in my opinion but I'd hands-down pick him over Obama. The latter is so political he's spineless.

Who would you say is the best option?

I mean the best option possible.

Ron Paul is the best option actually running imo though.

[Dempublicents1]

You know how you make sure "most Americans get their choice"? You leave it up to said Americans, instead of putting it in the hands of the government - any government.

Approving of state governments being able to discriminate based on sex doesn't make it so that most Americans get their choice. It makes it so that some Americans get to make choices for others that should only be made by individuals in the first place.

you seem to not understand the concept of voting. i suggest you read up on why a republic works.

I understand the concept of voting. I also understand the concept of individual rights. Having a republic does not mean "All powers imaginable rest with the government." The Constitution was meant to restrict government action at all levels.

its your right as an american to believe that. as much as you liberals hate freedom of expression, it is a fact that you retain that right. this is not Canada (but my opinions on Canada are for a different thread)

Wow, way to avoid the question. I couldn't figure out what the hell you were responding to for a second there.

Meanwhile, it's funny being called a liberal. I'm really more of a classic conservative. I think that, for the most part, the government (all government, not just the feds) should leave me (and others) the hell alone. Show me a compelling interest or GTFO. That's why the completely idiotic argument that "If we give more power to the states to oppress you, you'll be more free!" rubs me the wrong way.

[Dempublicents1]

How? The federal government wouldn't be able to do anything to enforce them on the states. Ron Paul has been very clear in his position that states have the "right" to pass laws imposing penalties for homosexuality and that the federal government does not have the authority to intervene.

1. by international Authority. pretty obvious.

Did I miss some international agreement where the US agreed to let international authorities somehow directly enforce anything on state governments?

2. [citation needed]

Has been given.

[Death Metal]

As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he apparently changed his mind on it. Of course, his listed reason for doing so is "It was applied exactly as it was written and as it was meant to be applied." So either he supported it for years without ever looking at what it did, or he's playing politics with his "change of mind".

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... anged.html

And who says Ron Paul never flip-flopped

[Grave_n_idle]

As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he apparently changed his mind on it. Of course, his listed reason for doing so is "It was applied exactly as it was written and as it was meant to be applied." So either he supported it for years without ever looking at what it did, or he's playing politics with his "change of mind".

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... anged.html

And who says Ron Paul never flip-flopped

No one who has paid attention.

[Maurepas]

Given a choice of "other" and the two, I'm going "other", myself.

[Cromarty]

Not that impressed by either candidate. I would have no eagerness to vote for either, but if I were compelled, I would vote for almost any candidate before I would vote for Ron Paul - so Obama would be the default choice.

What is so bad about Ron Paul though? Even if he has some extreme views, has has plenty of logic and reason to back them.

Because he's a racist homophobic dick?

[Death Metal]

Given a choice of "other" and the two, I'm going "other", myself.

The problem is, as cynical as it sounds, a third party candidate will never have a fair shot.

Even Perot couldn't get on the ballot on every state, and he was arguably the most popular independent candidate we've had in recent elections.

[Maurepas]

Given a choice of "other" and the two, I'm going "other", myself.

The problem is, as cynical as it sounds, a third party candidate will never have a fair shot.

Even Perot couldn't get on the ballot on every state, and he was arguably the most popular independent candidate we've had in recent elections.

Probably true, that doesn't mean I have to like the fact, and given the choice I'd prefer neither of the bought-and-paid-for major parties.

And in this instance, I was helpfully given the choice.

[Maurepas]

What is so bad about Ron Paul though? Even if he has some extreme views, has has plenty of logic and reason to back them.

Because he's a racist homophobic dick?

Logical and Reasonable racist homophobic dick?

[Gauntleted Fist]

I would write in Link, with Navi as his VP. That way we could have a VP that yells "LISTEN!" at the president all the time so maybe they would actually listen to the citizens for once.

[Maurepas]

I would write in Link, with Navi as his VP. That way we could have a VP that yells "LISTEN!" at the president all the time so maybe they would actually listen to the citizens for once.

And the auto-targeting would probably help dispatch of Link's enemies in the House,

[Cromarty]

Because he's a racist homophobic dick?

Logical and Reasonable racist homophobic dick?

Racist homophobic dick who has an image of being logical and reasonable.

I.E. A Politician.

[Maurepas]

Logical and Reasonable racist homophobic dick?

Racist homophobic dick who has an image of being logical and reasonable.

I.E. A Politician.

I actually don't think he's that great a Politician really. He has a tendency to just let his subordinates do whatever fuck-all they want. Not exactly Nixon we're dealing with, you know?

It's that nobody ever asks him about his racist homophobia at the debates and appearances. At the GOP debates, it's always about consistency, vague social views about drugs, etc., and Foreign Policy. And all of those areas Ron Paul tends to shine, because he holds views alot of Americans also hold. I even tend to agree with him in the Republican debates, he's won hands down at all of them.

Of course, then you read his newsletters and realize he wants states to issue wheelbarrows full of gold coins to compete with the Dollar for no apparent reason,

[Death Metal]

What is logical and reasonable about having a newsletter published in your name that says the gays have secret agendas to destroy the country exactly?

And yes, he disavows them now... but he didn't ten years ago.

Even if I agreed with with his views (and obviously I do not), RonPaul is not an infallible political messiah. No matter how much his supporters want him to be.

EDIT- Speaking about the drug laws thing... that's one thing I can actually almost agree with him on. Problem is, he's anti-regulation, and I feel that drugs need to be at least as regulated as alcohol is.

[Yootwopia]

So has anyone given any non-stupid reasons to support Paul since about 11pm UK time last night?

[Death Metal]

So has anyone given any non-stupid reasons to support Paul since about 11pm UK time last night?

No.

Unless you count "he's not Obama", but we all know how well that worked for Kerry.

[Maurepas]

EDIT- Speaking about the drug laws thing... that's one thing I can actually almost agree with him on. Problem is, he's anti-regulation, and I feel that drugs need to be at least as regulated as alcohol is.

Actually, most alcohol regulation in the US tends to be at the State level. But I agree, I think all drugs should be handled the way alcohol is handled in the US, it's a tried and true system. A Goldilocks system of sorts.

[Milks Empire]

So has anyone given any non-stupid reasons to support Paul since about 11pm UK time last night?

Nope. Just the same old worn out and debunked ones.