Topic: Paul vs Obama - Minichan election.
Ks !KansasxqvM started this discussion 15 years ago #15,149
Ron Paul is rising up in polls recently (up to 2nd now) and it looks like he stands a serious chance to grab the top spot. This got me wondering, how would people vote if it were Paul vs Obama in 2012?
Recent polling data.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html
And a compilation of Ron Paul's answers from recent debate/s. 13 min long, but I figured a few might watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo
Recent polling data.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html
And a compilation of Ron Paul's answers from recent debate/s. 13 min long, but I figured a few might watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3QJL6IiNYo
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ron Paul | 19 | 68% | |
| Barack Obama | 9 | 32% |
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #265,669
Libertarians are fucking delusional. No, he does not have a chance. FFS.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,675
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,678
@265,669 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I didn't mean to imply that he had a shot at the presidency! I'm not delusional lol. I meant he had a shot at to be at the top of the polls, but even then I doubt he'd get the nomination. Your post ruined my day. :(
I didn't mean to imply that he had a shot at the presidency! I'm not delusional lol. I meant he had a shot at to be at the top of the polls, but even then I doubt he'd get the nomination. Your post ruined my day. :(
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,680
Continue statist decadence!
#BarackObama2012
#BarackObama2012
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,681
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,687
protip !!pMmAiEwOm joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,697
DECADENCE RON LIBERTY PAUL STATISM 2012
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,705
They're both fucking horrible.Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,709
haikerensguide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #265,751
I'd much rather have Ron Paul, but Obama seems to have his bro moments.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #265,798
I stopped really supporting Paul as I learned more of his religious views. He doesn't believe in separation of Church and state and is staunchly against abortion.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,834
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
He believes in upholding the constitution as it is, rather than twisting and contorting it until its become bastardized.
He believes in upholding the constitution as it is, rather than twisting and contorting it until its become bastardized.
stickybuns !bENfolDsOU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,836
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #266,107
@previous (stickybuns !bENfolDsOU)
He is personally against abortion, but because he follows the constitution, and holds to a libertarian philosophy, he would not attempt to criminalize it at the federal level. He recognizes that the federal government has no power to ban, or forbid the banning of, abortion, and so he would devolve the issue to the states.
If that's the best source you can find, even you must realize how weak it is. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and is against all forms of oppression and coercion. You should read his book "Liberty Defined" if you want to find out his policy proposals for specific instances.
He is personally against abortion, but because he follows the constitution, and holds to a libertarian philosophy, he would not attempt to criminalize it at the federal level. He recognizes that the federal government has no power to ban, or forbid the banning of, abortion, and so he would devolve the issue to the states.
If that's the best source you can find, even you must realize how weak it is. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and is against all forms of oppression and coercion. You should read his book "Liberty Defined" if you want to find out his policy proposals for specific instances.
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #266,108
@265,669 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
> Libertarians are fucking delusional.
The entirety of the statist argument: ad hominem!
Don't you have some people to coerce?
> Libertarians are fucking delusional.
The entirety of the statist argument: ad hominem!
Don't you have some people to coerce?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #266,113
@266,107 (K)
> He recognizes that the federal government has no power to ban, or forbid the banning of, abortion, and so he would devolve the issue to the states.
Of course, the federal government has no right to oppress you! Let's give that power to the state governments. The state government should be the one to tell you who to marry and what to do with your own body.
> Ron Paul is a libertarian
LOLno You're pretending one level of government oppression doesn't exist by handing it over to another. Paul wants to hand power over to state governments and rob the federal government of any judicial authority to protect the rights of American citizens.
A small federal government that is too weak to protect the rights of its citizens? This is not libertarianism. You're a moron.
> He recognizes that the federal government has no power to ban, or forbid the banning of, abortion, and so he would devolve the issue to the states.
Of course, the federal government has no right to oppress you! Let's give that power to the state governments. The state government should be the one to tell you who to marry and what to do with your own body.
> Ron Paul is a libertarian
LOLno You're pretending one level of government oppression doesn't exist by handing it over to another. Paul wants to hand power over to state governments and rob the federal government of any judicial authority to protect the rights of American citizens.
A small federal government that is too weak to protect the rights of its citizens? This is not libertarianism. You're a moron.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #266,116
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,487
@266,113 (L)
> Of course, the federal government has no right to oppress you! Let's give that power to the state governments. The state government should be the one to tell you who to marry and what to do with your own body.
The state governments are similarly bound by constitutions, and governed by elected officials. State governments should not oppress people, which is why we should insist upon state constitutions being adhered to, and electing libertarians at the state level.
> LOLno You're pretending one level of government oppression doesn't exist by handing it over to another. Paul wants to hand power over to state governments and rob the federal government of any judicial authority to protect the rights of American citizens.
I'm not pretending anything. You are pretending that two levels of government oppression are superior to one! Paul wants to adhere to the constitution, which sets distinct limits for federal and state powers.
> A small federal government that is too weak to protect the rights of its citizens? This is not libertarianism.
And yet this is the one defined in our constitution, bequeathed to us by the founders, who were willing to die for liberty - the ultimate libertarians.
> You're a moron.
Statists enrich the debate once again. Thanks.
> Of course, the federal government has no right to oppress you! Let's give that power to the state governments. The state government should be the one to tell you who to marry and what to do with your own body.
The state governments are similarly bound by constitutions, and governed by elected officials. State governments should not oppress people, which is why we should insist upon state constitutions being adhered to, and electing libertarians at the state level.
> LOLno You're pretending one level of government oppression doesn't exist by handing it over to another. Paul wants to hand power over to state governments and rob the federal government of any judicial authority to protect the rights of American citizens.
I'm not pretending anything. You are pretending that two levels of government oppression are superior to one! Paul wants to adhere to the constitution, which sets distinct limits for federal and state powers.
> A small federal government that is too weak to protect the rights of its citizens? This is not libertarianism.
And yet this is the one defined in our constitution, bequeathed to us by the founders, who were willing to die for liberty - the ultimate libertarians.
> You're a moron.
Statists enrich the debate once again. Thanks.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,492
Is Ron Paul really going to be the 2012 Republican candidate?
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,493
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,494
Ks !KansasxqvM (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,495
@266,493 (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
He just likes disagreeing with people and insulting them. He's 'special', if you know what I mean.
He just likes disagreeing with people and insulting them. He's 'special', if you know what I mean.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,496
@266,113 (L)
I don't understand the second guys points at all. A more localized authority structure is beneficial to most organisms. It's also necessary for the evolution of law.
I don't understand the second guys points at all. A more localized authority structure is beneficial to most organisms. It's also necessary for the evolution of law.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,498
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,501
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,502
@266,487 (K)
Someone who truly believed in liberty would protect people from government interference, not "devolve" (read:avoid) the issue and grant another level of government carte blanche to interfere with people while tying their hands against appeal.
Someone who truly believed in liberty would protect people from government interference, not "devolve" (read:avoid) the issue and grant another level of government carte blanche to interfere with people while tying their hands against appeal.
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,503
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,509
@266,116 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
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, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.*
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
*Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
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, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.*
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
*Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,681
@266,502 (L)
He is a libertarian and a constitutionalist. Someone truly interested in liberty would completely overthrow all governments. Ron Paul will restore liberty by adhering to the constitution.
He is a libertarian and a constitutionalist. Someone truly interested in liberty would completely overthrow all governments. Ron Paul will restore liberty by adhering to the constitution.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,708
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #266,755
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,008
@266,681 (K)
> He is a libertarian and a constitutionalist.
I have trouble swallowing such a claim. Here is why:
From Paul's own We The People Bill:
So... Wait. The Federal government is prohibited from ruling on issues of privacy, equal protection, or free exercise of relgion?? Really? What happens when these state governments try to violate our constitutional rights? Why would you tie our hands like this?
Let me get this straight: Ron Paul wants to disallow federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution? What are these constitutional protections worth if they can't be defended? What happens when states violate your constitutional rights? Who do you appeal to?
> Ron Paul will restore liberty by adhering to the constitution.
LOLno
His economic policy (destroy income tax, destroy the FED, gold standard) is sadly misinformed. Ron Paul will be happy when he legislates the federal government out of everything but paying his own salary. His stance on civil rights is so lenient that it is lacking. The only sad thing about him not getting more media attention is that people won't get a chance to see how insane his ideas really are.
> He is a libertarian and a constitutionalist.
I have trouble swallowing such a claim. Here is why:
From Paul's own We The People Bill:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-
(1) shall not adjudicate-
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-
(1) shall not adjudicate-
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
So... Wait. The Federal government is prohibited from ruling on issues of privacy, equal protection, or free exercise of relgion?? Really? What happens when these state governments try to violate our constitutional rights? Why would you tie our hands like this?
Let me get this straight: Ron Paul wants to disallow federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution? What are these constitutional protections worth if they can't be defended? What happens when states violate your constitutional rights? Who do you appeal to?
> Ron Paul will restore liberty by adhering to the constitution.
LOLno
His economic policy (destroy income tax, destroy the FED, gold standard) is sadly misinformed. Ron Paul will be happy when he legislates the federal government out of everything but paying his own salary. His stance on civil rights is so lenient that it is lacking. The only sad thing about him not getting more media attention is that people won't get a chance to see how insane his ideas really are.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,018
@previous (L)
> I have trouble swallowing such a claim. Here is why:
> So... Wait. The Federal government is prohibited from ruling on issues of privacy, equal protection, or free exercise of relgion?? Really? What happens when these state governments try to violate our constitutional rights? Why would you tie our hands like this?
You tackle these issues at the state level. Our hands are not tied, we can deal with this at the state level. Why tie our hands with a constitution at all? Why not have an absolute monarch? Federalism is a key component of the constitution, and the cornerstone of our liberty.
> Let me get this straight: Ron Paul wants to disallow federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution? What are these constitutional protections worth if they can't be defended? What happens when states violate your constitutional rights? Who do you appeal to?
Precisely! The true test should be whether state laws violate the state constitution, and whether federal laws violate the federal constitution. They can be defended, at the appropriate level. When a state violates your rights guaranteed to you by the constitution of that state you appeal to the justice system of that state.
> LOLno
Compelling argument.
> His economic policy (destroy income tax, destroy the FED, gold standard) is sadly misinformed.
I heartily lol'd at your attempt to color the debate with the weasel word "destroy". Yes, Ron Paul wants to repeal the income tax, end the federal reserve, and allow competing currencies. These are all excellent economic and political plans, based on a sound understanding of history and economic theory.
> Ron Paul will be happy when he legislates the federal government out of everything but paying his own salary.
Ron Paul would be most happy with no government at all, but people aren't ready for that yet. Paul proposes limiting the federal government to its constitutional roles of defence, justice, interstate commerce etc.
> His stance on civil rights is so lenient that it is lacking.
There is obviously a fundamental disconnect in our political philosophies here. There has never been a stronger advocate for civil rights than Ron Paul.
> The only sad thing about him not getting more media attention is that people won't get a chance to see how insane his ideas really are.
The more people know about Ron Paul, the more they like him.
> I have trouble swallowing such a claim. Here is why:
> So... Wait. The Federal government is prohibited from ruling on issues of privacy, equal protection, or free exercise of relgion?? Really? What happens when these state governments try to violate our constitutional rights? Why would you tie our hands like this?
You tackle these issues at the state level. Our hands are not tied, we can deal with this at the state level. Why tie our hands with a constitution at all? Why not have an absolute monarch? Federalism is a key component of the constitution, and the cornerstone of our liberty.
> Let me get this straight: Ron Paul wants to disallow federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution? What are these constitutional protections worth if they can't be defended? What happens when states violate your constitutional rights? Who do you appeal to?
Precisely! The true test should be whether state laws violate the state constitution, and whether federal laws violate the federal constitution. They can be defended, at the appropriate level. When a state violates your rights guaranteed to you by the constitution of that state you appeal to the justice system of that state.
> LOLno
Compelling argument.
> His economic policy (destroy income tax, destroy the FED, gold standard) is sadly misinformed.
I heartily lol'd at your attempt to color the debate with the weasel word "destroy". Yes, Ron Paul wants to repeal the income tax, end the federal reserve, and allow competing currencies. These are all excellent economic and political plans, based on a sound understanding of history and economic theory.
> Ron Paul will be happy when he legislates the federal government out of everything but paying his own salary.
Ron Paul would be most happy with no government at all, but people aren't ready for that yet. Paul proposes limiting the federal government to its constitutional roles of defence, justice, interstate commerce etc.
> His stance on civil rights is so lenient that it is lacking.
There is obviously a fundamental disconnect in our political philosophies here. There has never been a stronger advocate for civil rights than Ron Paul.
> The only sad thing about him not getting more media attention is that people won't get a chance to see how insane his ideas really are.
The more people know about Ron Paul, the more they like him.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,020
@previous (K)
> The true test should be whether state laws violate the state constitution
LOL constitutionalist indeed! You would so readily throw off constitutional protections to establish individual states outside of the protection of constitutional rights?
> Why not have an absolute monarch?
You are arguing for autocracy now? I am trying to preserve what protections we have under the constitution. There is a difference between granting autonomous power to an individual monarch and granting rights to the population. Obliviously you don't understand the differences between the two.
This is no libertarian philosophy. This is autonomous state government operating with no constitutional oversight.
> based on a sound understanding of history and economic theory.
Defend the gold standard. Why is it that it didn't work in the past?
> Paul proposes limiting the federal government to its constitutional roles of defence, justice, interstate commerce etc.
He has shown that he plans no role of constitutional "justice" in any sense for the federal government. He plans on having no tax revenue. How does this work exactly?
> Ron Paul would be most happy with no government at all
LOL I'm sure. The government that doesn't protect our rights at all governs best, correct?
> The true test should be whether state laws violate the state constitution
LOL constitutionalist indeed! You would so readily throw off constitutional protections to establish individual states outside of the protection of constitutional rights?
> Why not have an absolute monarch?
You are arguing for autocracy now? I am trying to preserve what protections we have under the constitution. There is a difference between granting autonomous power to an individual monarch and granting rights to the population. Obliviously you don't understand the differences between the two.
This is no libertarian philosophy. This is autonomous state government operating with no constitutional oversight.
> based on a sound understanding of history and economic theory.
Defend the gold standard. Why is it that it didn't work in the past?
> Paul proposes limiting the federal government to its constitutional roles of defence, justice, interstate commerce etc.
He has shown that he plans no role of constitutional "justice" in any sense for the federal government. He plans on having no tax revenue. How does this work exactly?
> Ron Paul would be most happy with no government at all
LOL I'm sure. The government that doesn't protect our rights at all governs best, correct?
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 42 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,039
@previous (L)
> LOL constitutionalist indeed! You would so readily throw off constitutional protections to establish individual states outside of the protection of constitutional rights?
The states are already established lol. They are under the protections of their own constitutions.
> You are arguing for autocracy now? I am trying to preserve what protections we have under the constitution. There is a difference between granting autonomous power to an individual monarch and granting rights to the population. Obliviously you don't understand the differences between the two.
I was taking your logic to its ridiculous conclusion. I don't know if you fail to understand my argument, or if you are deliberately misrepresenting it here.
> This is no libertarian philosophy. This is autonomous state government operating with no constitutional oversight.
They operate under the constitution of the United States, which prohibits them from foreign relations etc.
> Defend the gold standard. Why is it that it didn't work in the past?
Paul advocates competing currencies. http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul766.html
> He has shown that he plans no role of constitutional "justice" in any sense for the federal government. He plans on having no tax revenue. How does this work exactly?
There are taxes other than the income tax.
> LOL I'm sure. The government that doesn't protect our rights at all governs best, correct?
The government that doesn't violate our rights governs best.
> LOL constitutionalist indeed! You would so readily throw off constitutional protections to establish individual states outside of the protection of constitutional rights?
The states are already established lol. They are under the protections of their own constitutions.
> You are arguing for autocracy now? I am trying to preserve what protections we have under the constitution. There is a difference between granting autonomous power to an individual monarch and granting rights to the population. Obliviously you don't understand the differences between the two.
I was taking your logic to its ridiculous conclusion. I don't know if you fail to understand my argument, or if you are deliberately misrepresenting it here.
> This is no libertarian philosophy. This is autonomous state government operating with no constitutional oversight.
They operate under the constitution of the United States, which prohibits them from foreign relations etc.
> Defend the gold standard. Why is it that it didn't work in the past?
Paul advocates competing currencies. http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul766.html
> He has shown that he plans no role of constitutional "justice" in any sense for the federal government. He plans on having no tax revenue. How does this work exactly?
There are taxes other than the income tax.
> LOL I'm sure. The government that doesn't protect our rights at all governs best, correct?
The government that doesn't violate our rights governs best.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,044
@previous (K)
> The states are already established lol.
No one is arguing that they aren't lol.
> They are under the protections of their own constitutions.
That's the problem that you fail to see.
> They operate under the constitution of the United States
Ahh.. The problem is that under Paul's plan, they don't. Under Paul's plan, the federal government is actually prohibited from ruling on whether state laws violate the federal constitution. Why is that and how is that a protection of constitutional rights?
> Paul advocates competing currencies
Could you describe why this would work and why it would be better?
> The government that doesn't violate our rights governs best.
Unfortunately, Paul is setting us up for a massive violation of our rights with no constitutional protection.
> The states are already established lol.
No one is arguing that they aren't lol.
> They are under the protections of their own constitutions.
That's the problem that you fail to see.
> They operate under the constitution of the United States
Ahh.. The problem is that under Paul's plan, they don't. Under Paul's plan, the federal government is actually prohibited from ruling on whether state laws violate the federal constitution. Why is that and how is that a protection of constitutional rights?
> Paul advocates competing currencies
Could you describe why this would work and why it would be better?
> The government that doesn't violate our rights governs best.
Unfortunately, Paul is setting us up for a massive violation of our rights with no constitutional protection.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,076
It's November 2013, and the US is deep in the grip of a civil war. President Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy lead to the outbreak of a devastating regional war in the Middle East, driving the price of oil above $500 per barrel and breaking the already fragile global economy. The Paul Administration was forced to declare the first US default in history and immediately resigned, leaving the country without a functioning governmental, financial or economic system. The country has split into a hundred little fiefdoms, some claiming inheritance to the old states of the fractured union, others made up of like-minded individuals determined to export their views from coast to coast. The southern states are under the de-facto control of Mexican cartels, who pushed north into their rightful territory.
SCO forces are pushing west through Germany and Finland, determined to collect their debts from the insolvent European nations. No longer backed up by the might of the US military, resistance is piecemeal and limited to guerilla actions. Deep in a bunker under Tel Aviv, Netanyahu receives word that the thin blue line has snapped, and Arab League troops have swarmed into the city. He presses his fingers to his temple, and breathes two words, two words that end the worldwide moratorium on the use of nuclear warheads, two words that end the world: activate Samson.
Chinese satellites immediately fixate on the vast swarm of 200 missiles arcing gracefully from the tiny strip of land in the Levant. Their targets are capitals and holy sites of eskimo nations and the entirety of Israel itself, finally cleansed in fire from heaven. SCO immediately retaliates by launching neutron bombs at major European population centres, to demoralise the already broken nations into a full unconditional surrender and annexation.
War... war never changes.
SCO forces are pushing west through Germany and Finland, determined to collect their debts from the insolvent European nations. No longer backed up by the might of the US military, resistance is piecemeal and limited to guerilla actions. Deep in a bunker under Tel Aviv, Netanyahu receives word that the thin blue line has snapped, and Arab League troops have swarmed into the city. He presses his fingers to his temple, and breathes two words, two words that end the worldwide moratorium on the use of nuclear warheads, two words that end the world: activate Samson.
Chinese satellites immediately fixate on the vast swarm of 200 missiles arcing gracefully from the tiny strip of land in the Levant. Their targets are capitals and holy sites of eskimo nations and the entirety of Israel itself, finally cleansed in fire from heaven. SCO immediately retaliates by launching neutron bombs at major European population centres, to demoralise the already broken nations into a full unconditional surrender and annexation.
War... war never changes.
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #268,153
@268,044 (L)
> No one is arguing that they aren't lol.
Reread your post, bro, because you did.
> That's the problem that you fail to see.
That's the solution that you fail to see.
> Ahh.. The problem is that under Paul's plan, they don't. Under Paul's plan, the federal government is actually prohibited from ruling on whether state laws violate the federal constitution. Why is that and how is that a protection of constitutional rights?
The constitution actually limits the states in certain areas, and Paul does not advocate removing those limitations (on foreign policy etc).
> Could you describe why this would work and why it would be better?
Google it, read one of Paul's or someone else's books about it.
> Unfortunately, Paul is setting us up for a massive violation of our rights with no constitutional protection.
Reducing the size of government educes its ability to violate our rights.
> No one is arguing that they aren't lol.
Reread your post, bro, because you did.
> That's the problem that you fail to see.
That's the solution that you fail to see.
> Ahh.. The problem is that under Paul's plan, they don't. Under Paul's plan, the federal government is actually prohibited from ruling on whether state laws violate the federal constitution. Why is that and how is that a protection of constitutional rights?
The constitution actually limits the states in certain areas, and Paul does not advocate removing those limitations (on foreign policy etc).
> Could you describe why this would work and why it would be better?
Google it, read one of Paul's or someone else's books about it.
> Unfortunately, Paul is setting us up for a massive violation of our rights with no constitutional protection.
Reducing the size of government educes its ability to violate our rights.