10-20-2007, 08:32 PM | #202 (permalink) | |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
I maintain my stance that unless the Libertarians nominate Daniel Imperato, I will leave the "president" field on my ballot blank next year. Democrats and republicans are played out, we all know about them. Ron Paul seems to be an ideal candidate on the surface, but when it comes to the issues, I can't support him, either.
He opposes amnesty and birthright citizenship, and supports deportation. He supports forced deportation of immigrants and considers the estimate of 120,000 resulting deaths acceptable. Combined with the old stuff in the Ron Paul Survival Report (I don't buy the argument that he had nothing to do with content that went out with his signature printed on it) he comes across as xenophobic and racist. He sponsored a bill to put the burden of proof on the FDA to disprove claims that supplements and foods can cure, treat, or prevent disease before requiring those claims to be removed unless a disclaimer can make the label non-misleading. Essentially, this would reverse the process of drug approval and send us back to the days of quack medicine when the government had to race against companies to get harmful products off the shelves and crap like radium water and colloidal metals were sold by quacks as cure-alls. He sponsored a bill to abolish the federal regulation that requires banks and creditors to provide regular statements top customers. He sponsored a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve Act, and one to abolish the law that established US currency as legal tender and abolished foreign gold and silver coins as legal tender. He sponsored a bill to exempt all non-government-related health plan providers from antitrust laws while negotiating contracts with health care providers. Overall, things like making abortion a state decision and abolishing federal funding of public schools seem to me like a great way to get the government out of our lives and let religious morality take over. I'm also not thrilled with the fact that he's been to a few scientology meetings, but I think that's more about his rich supporters in the CoS wanting the IRS abolished so they don't have to deal with the whole tax exempt battle. Quote:
|
|
10-20-2007, 08:35 PM | #203 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
You hit the nail on the head, and explained one of the main reasons I cannot get behind Libertarianism. Really, it's just like RP. Some of it sounds good, but when you look into it, you quickly realize that they substitute big corporations for big government, and you don't vote for corporations. Balance is the key so far as I can tell, and the US is currently out of whack.
|
10-20-2007, 11:37 PM | #204 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
To me, Libertarianism, like Communism, is an ideal that should never be attained.
Ideal systems are like a Utopia. They are impossible in the "real" world. Both are susceptible to the worst in human nature. Government regulation is needed to keep this in check. It's just a matter of finding the right balance.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
10-21-2007, 06:04 AM | #205 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
When I say socialist, I mean foolish form of government which encourages sloth by punishing effort and puts the rights of the state above the rights of the individual in all things except recreational drug use. It is an intermediate stage of democracy before the money created by a formerly free economy runs out.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
10-21-2007, 08:55 AM | #206 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
And you still seem to be confusing a very specific type of socialism with general socialism. Quote:
|
|||
10-21-2007, 02:42 PM | #207 (permalink) | ||
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;The Supreme Court has never interpreted the powers of Congress to be limited to those enumerated below this opening clause in sec 8....On the other hand, the Court has affirmed the broader interpretation of the "general welfare" clause (in at lease one case re: social security). So, on the basis of constitutional law, Ron Paul's position on the constitutionality of the "limited" (only those enumerated) powers of the federal government is "missing a few screws."
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-21-2007 at 03:20 PM.. |
||
10-21-2007, 03:25 PM | #209 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Protecting the nation's land, air and water would reasonably be considered to be in the "general welfare" of the US.
Ron Paul on the environment and the EPA: Q: What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?This is not someone I want in a position of responsibility for environmental policy.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-21-2007 at 03:58 PM.. |
10-21-2007, 04:10 PM | #210 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
Why would the people, who designed a government based on limited powers and checks and balances, give congress the ability to raise money for whatever they thought fit in that clause (basically a blank check)? Plus their own writings refute your interpretation of their intent. Quote:
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
||
10-21-2007, 04:22 PM | #211 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
The way the Constitution works:
It was written with certain things in mind, but it was designed to be applicable to the time in which it exists. I love James Madison, he was a rad dude, and I'd buy him a drink if we were ever to meet, but he doesn't live in the 21st century. The fact of the matter is that, because of the work done by and intent of our founding fathers, the Constitution must be modern so that it can deal with the issues of the time. As such, James Madison's interpretation of the General Welfare was great for the time, but doesn't necessarily mean anything but history now. |
10-21-2007, 06:19 PM | #212 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
I agree with will.
The founding fathers didn't think it necessary for black folk or women to be eligible to vote. When, exactly, do we get to stop referring to their opinions as if they're relevant in the context of now? I would imagine, and perhaps this is an ironic thing to say given the preceding sentence, that the founding fathers would like it if we could figure shit the fuck out without constantly having to defer to them, since, you know, they're dead. From what i seem to remember, and i'm not a historian so this might not be true, a lot of the founders were lawyers- people familiar with the drafting of legal documents. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that when it comes to legal documents, the intent of the signers in reference to a signed document is irrelevant where it diverges from the contents of the signed document. There is no, "Wait, shit, i meant this to mean something other than what it says." |
10-21-2007, 07:08 PM | #213 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Neither you nor I were there to know what all the authors of said document intended. but it its well documented that various contributing authors had different thoughts in mind when considering the meaning of the general welfare clause. In addition to Madison's perspective, Alexander Hamilton had very different thoughts: The only restriction, Hamilton continues, is that money thus raised, cannot be applied for any merely local purpose. (that might apply to earmarks in today's political environment, but not agencies like the EPA, FCC, FDA,SEC....)It doesnt matter what you or I think it means. We have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the Court has NEVER interpreted the powers of Congress to be narrowly restricted to the enumerated powers that followed the general welfare clause.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-21-2007 at 08:11 PM.. |
|
10-22-2007, 05:21 PM | #214 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Sean Vannity accuses Ron Paul of rigging their post debate text message poll again. Even Though each phone can only vote once. He also responds to his apparent low polling nationally. It's because many of the polls simply leave his name off the list.
Here's his post debate interview:
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
10-22-2007, 07:27 PM | #215 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
Text polls are as worthless as online polls.
In order for a poll to have any scientific validity, the sample (those who respond) must represent, as closely as possible, the larger population (all likely Republican primary voters). These text polls and online polls are simply popularity contests of those small number of Repub voters currently tuned in or turned on in a manner that in no way represents all likely Repub voters. Yes, Ron Paul supporters are more engaged and voluntarily submit (not by random sample of the total universe) text and online polls...thats all these polls indicate. In terms of more statistically valid polls (even with the shortcoming re: RP supporters with no landline phones -- which at best means a potential 2-3% swing, according to polling experts), he is included in the CNN, USA Today/Gallup, Reuters/Zogby, American Research Group, Fox News, NBC/Wall Street Journal, ABC/Washington Post polls....so for him to say he is not included by name in many national polls is not being honest with his supporters. I guess you dont want to discuss Ron Paul's interview on his environmental policy (we dont need the EPA) that I posted...or have any further discussion on the general welfare clause that RP apparently also misrepresents to his supporters. But keep hope alive! Ron Paul may even do reasonable well in the first real test in the NH primary (the "live free or die" state)...but then again, in 1996, another Republican extremist, Pat Buchanan, beat the eventual nominee, Bob Dole in NH.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-22-2007 at 07:54 PM.. |
10-23-2007, 09:15 PM | #216 (permalink) | |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
Quote:
On another note, libertarian and Libertarian Party candidates have a tendency to attract the widest possible range of single-issue voters. Put the anti-drug-war, anti-war, anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-immigration, and all the other pro- or anti-whatever voters in a room together and see if they get along. Then ask them who they actually voted for and most will have voted for someone "who has a chance and is beter than the other guy." |
|
10-23-2007, 10:12 PM | #217 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Edit: And Ill add that most single issue 'Libertarians' really don't even know what it means. I've heard hard core socialists say they are libertarians due to the drug stance which is pretty amusing.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
10-24-2007, 04:57 AM | #218 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
So, saying Ron Paul misrepresents it is a huge stretch when it was the law of the land for so long and it's change was done in a very machiavellian way.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
|
10-24-2007, 05:28 AM | #219 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
First, Roosevelt's plan to "stack the court" (by adding a new Justice for every sitting Justice over 70 yrs of age) was never enacted....so he never "stacked the court" any more so than any other president - by waiting until sitting Justices retired or died (other than the fact that he was the longest sitting president and ultimately appointed more Justices). But putting that aside, in regard to the general welfare clause, the Butler case was in 1936 under a relatively conservative Court, BEFORE Roosevelt appointed any Justices to the Court. The majority said: The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.Although the law in question was overturned, on other grounds, the interpretation of the general welfare clause was expanded in the following year in the Helvering - Davis case, with one FDR appointee....hardly a stacked court. The Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare.No court before or after 1936-37 has ever ruled that the general welfare clause was simply a preamble...and in over 200+ years, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Ron Paul's interpretation of Sec 8 and the general welfare clause is just that- his personal interpretation. It was never the "law of the land" and for him to suggest otherwise is dishonest.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-24-2007 at 08:55 AM.. |
|
10-25-2007, 07:33 PM | #220 (permalink) | |||
Addict
Location: Illinois
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can only speak for myself. Quote:
But there's a process to do it legally. We can't afford to just ignore it and call it outdated. Last edited by Evil Milkman; 10-25-2007 at 07:37 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|||
10-25-2007, 08:05 PM | #221 (permalink) | ||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-25-2007, 08:17 PM | #222 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Why so few in such a time span of drastic changes in the evolution of the country? I would suggest because the framers also envisioned and intended that an independent judiciary would be the final interpreter of the Constitution as the fledgling nation grew and evolved.(The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court........The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made....) And in those 200+ years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in a manner that recognizes and attempts to balance the evolution of the country with the various "original intents" of the different framers..thus negating a need for amendments every time the intent of the Constitution is raised by an interested or affected person or state. The problem I have with Ron Paul and many of his ardent supporters is their unwillingness to accept interpretations of the Supreme Court if it differs with their own interpretation of "original intent" of the framers...when, in fact there were often mixed intents among and between those wise and thoughtful 18th century framers of what can be described as a purposefully broadly worded document in many sections/clauses (eg the general welfare clause and the different intents as expressed by Madison and Hamilton, the establishment clause of the first amendment, etc).
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-25-2007 at 09:18 PM.. |
|
10-25-2007, 09:29 PM | #223 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
Government is what keeps these evil corporations afloat.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
|
10-25-2007, 09:33 PM | #224 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
|
|
10-26-2007, 01:44 PM | #225 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Illinois
|
Quote:
|
|
10-26-2007, 03:55 PM | #227 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
|
|
10-26-2007, 09:15 PM | #228 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: In transit
|
Quote:
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are. |
|
10-27-2007, 01:52 AM | #229 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
The restraints that the elite have not already paid for lobbyists and "studies" and PR campaigns....and political contributions to repeal or to roll bacK,,,, ....And....they don't seem to recognize that it is the elite who paid the money to convince Paul's supporters to think what they think....and to believe what the wealthy elite spend the most to convince them of.....that politics is not about the forced...under the guise of the political process and the rule of law.....re-distribution of wealth and power....when the reality is....that the forced consolidation of wealth and power has been nearly ceded exclusively to the elite....and if you still think for yourself....it should be fucking obvious to you....but they have paid huge sums to convince you that they aren't using politics to force wealth and power from you to them...and THAT YOU SHOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT EITHER: </h3> Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 10-27-2007 at 02:07 AM.. |
||||||
10-27-2007, 12:23 PM | #230 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Illinois
|
Quote:
|
|
10-28-2007, 06:37 AM | #231 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
Ron Paul on the environment and the EPA:Were you around in the early 70s before the federal environmental laws? With all its faults, can you deny the accomplishments of the EPA and Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, etc.? Do you really believe that "private property owners" would have done the same without federal regulation? The pre-1970s state of the environment would suggest that private property owners failed miserably.....dumping raw sewage in lakes, rivers and streams, spewing toxic chemicals out of their smokestacks, burning rubbish in open dumps..... Or, like samcol, you can just ignore it Here is why Ron Paul is at low single digits (1-4%) in all national polls. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aYCr_718ccI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aYCr_718ccI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2007 at 07:39 AM.. |
|
10-28-2007, 08:48 AM | #232 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: In transit
|
Quote:
Honestly... do you guys really beleive that if Ron Paul were elected, we'd immediately backtrack to industrial revolution era, and start putting 7 year olds in all our factories to haul the toxic wastes down to the closest river? Do you really think people are going to die en mass if we *phase* medicare out and slowly transition to another system? Do you really believe his stance is to blow up all these regulatory agencies immediately, letting the chips fall where they may while he sits back and watches chaos ensue? Thats what it sounds like. Because something isn't regulated by the federal government, doesn't mean the states cant regulate it. Thats the whole idea... let states pick up where the feds leave off, and take over many regulatory roles that the federal government handles now. Host: If Ron Paul were going to be that good for big business and the "elite", why isn't he a frontrunner? Even though Ron Paul doesn't take donations from corporations, with the powerful elite and mega-corps backing him in other ways, he would be the most popular candidate right now, bar none. He would be getting more facetime on the TV networks, than any other candidate. He's pro free market, not a corporatist.
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are. Last edited by sprocket; 10-28-2007 at 08:52 AM.. |
|
10-28-2007, 09:36 AM | #233 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
Why isn't every corporation supporting him if the free market is so great for them? Oh, ya dc, your wonderful FEMA gives fake news conferences and shovels money out to the wrong people faster than it can take it in. I'm sure you'd love to send you kids to college with some other families' hard working money who might not of been able to send theirs. The more federal funding for schools the worse our kids score on tests. The greatest generation got their education in one room school houses, not giant federal brainwashing camps. If your EPA is doing such a great job why are 10 states suing them for their lackluster air control policy? Social security is one of the biggest ponzi schemes ever. Gun control, abortion, not even worth debating anymore of this video... Ron Paul supporters are anarchists. I've heard it all now.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. Last edited by samcol; 10-28-2007 at 09:42 AM.. |
|
10-28-2007, 09:50 AM | #235 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Indiana
|
Quote:
No, but he's a spokesman for everything big government how much better government performs the bigger it is.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. |
|
10-28-2007, 10:27 AM | #236 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
|
|
10-28-2007, 10:39 AM | #237 (permalink) | |
Psycho
Location: In transit
|
Quote:
He's often said he wants to work to limit much of the power that the executive branch currently holds.
__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are. |
|
10-28-2007, 11:02 AM | #238 (permalink) |
immoral minority
Location: Back in Ohio
|
I am concerned about corporations running wild without regulation, and their desire to make as much profit as possible isn't always in the best interest for the country. There has to be some checks and balances on corporations as well.
His foreign policy is one of the best. We are spending too much money, and we need to find other ways to deal with the problems then with military force all the time. But not dealing with them at all doesn't always work either, but congress should decide if we need to go into Darfur, Burma, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan... not the president. His fiscal policy and how inflation and the federal reserve system screw most Americans over makes a lot of sense, but he is the only one talking about it. As for the EPA. It could be more efficient, but you could also just pass laws stating that these substances are banned, you can't sell your products if your pollution levels are over this amount, and you have to dispose of all waste appropriately. I don't like the idea of private property everywhere, since most people who buy land want to get a return on their investment and can't just leave it alone. And it isn't that he would be able to wipe out entire agencies really quickly, but they do need to be downsized and each state should be able to tax and raise money for their own programs. Healthcare could be a state issue, some states might have universal healthcare, others might have HSAs, others might just have the same system that we have now. FEMA could be done by the national guard of each state, if they weren't deployed all the time. Each state could define what threats could happen (floods, wildfire, riots, snow/ice, earthquakes,...) and they would be prepared to help people in need. Neighboring states could also step up and help if it is really bad. Even though I don't like taxes, I think balancing our budget and paying down the national debt is more important than giving tax refunds out when the government collects too much money. So, while Paul wants to get rid of the IRS, I don't think it will happen. The thing is, all of the other candidates seem to want to become president to be powerful and the leader of the free world. Where Paul want to drastically reduce spending, give the power back to the states and the local people, and work with everyone around the world. |
10-28-2007, 12:21 PM | #239 (permalink) | |||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
The "big money" in the US already controls the presidents it puts into office. Ron Paul is a wildcard....Bush is easily controlled, and there has been little regulatory enforcement and few consequences, because of it. So why would the wealthiest want to change anything. Do you think that the financial community, addicted to fractional reserve banking, in an era just after substantial rollback of regulations put in place in the 1930's to prevent abuses and conflicts of interests between banks, brokerages, and insurance businessed owned by the same entities, would support Ron Paul, and his proposals, now? Here is what happens after a 25 year campaign designed to persuade you that government is "the enemy". It's also an example of what would happen if EPA enforcement was eliminated or transferred to local control. Atmosphere and water move from one state to another. It makes no sense to try to regulate the environment via each state. Big business installed Bush, Bush installed Jimmy Palmer, and he's still at EPA region 4: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
10-28-2007, 12:38 PM | #240 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
I have said that it is in the best interest of the citizens and the states that some functions like regulating the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, securities and banking, the civil rights of citizens, etc....are best performed by the federal government. That doesnt it mean it cant be more efficient. Clinton/Gore had the right idea with their National Partnership for Reinventing Government . They eliminated 250+ outdated government programs, slashed more than 160,000 pages of regulations, cut more than 640,000 pages of internal rules, and (with a Repub Congress) balanced the federal budget for the first time in 30 years. They just didnt have the balls to follow through and do more because of a lack of support from the Repub Congress and external (ie lobbyists) pressures. All the more reason for serious campaign finance reform, which Ron Paul opposes. Ron Paul's arguments that these federal government functions are unconstitutional are false. His "states rights" argument that these are state mandated responsibilities in the Constitution is also false and would result in the ultimate in inefficiencies and inequities. And his argument that industry/private property owners make better self-regulators is simply absurd...with no basis in fact anytime in US history. He is an extremist who wants to return to a 19th century federal government in a 21st century world. Again, all of which explains why he has no mass appeal and is stuck at low single digits in the polls.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-28-2007 at 02:15 PM.. |
|
Tags |
learn, paul, ron, step, thread |
|
|