Libertarianism also apparently does not believe in apostrophes.
I just checked, and there are no records of Malik Shabazz contributing funds to any Federal candidate in 2008, 2010, or 2012.
But, if the shoe was on the other foot WRT campaign contributions from an owner of a well-known racist website, I’m willing to bet you that the Obama campaign would return the funds.
Seriously! All you have to do is quote his platform.
Actually it can be summed up in just one sentence: “I don’t wanna and you can’t make me.”
:p:D:p
The Paul campaign should put this statement on placards and march through black neighborhoods (why am I reminded of the start of one of the “Diehard” movies?).
Yeah, it’s self-refuting, but it was useful reinforcement of the delusional nature of Paul supporters’ beliefs.
Well Congressman Paul wants to do away with the Federal Reserve. Every country in the world today has a central bank (or in a few cases shares one across multiple countries). The US tried free banking in the 1800s and it was a period of neither price nor output stability: depressions were a recurring problem. When pushed, Ron Paul supporters refer to a guy out of Oakland who claims we actually have high inflation, but won’t release his methodology.
This attachment to wacky but superficially plausible ideas in the face of hard experience causes outsiders to question Ron Paul’s stability. As for his supporters:
…and when we read things like this, many perceive a whiff of fanaticism. Eric Hoffer discussed a personality type that reflects such views in his 1951 classic The True Believer.
I’m not sure what the antidote to Ron Paul is. But I’ll venture that if you’re interested in economics, you might familiarize yourself with an introductory economics textbook: old editions are available at reasonable prices.
I daresay fiscally responsible libertarians have more in common with the Democratic party than do the anti-contraceptive brigade or the neocons. The Democratic Party has a conservative, moderate and liberal wing. The national Republican Party of DC shared all three wings during the 1960s: now they only have crazy conservatives and conservatives who fear being primaried by crazies.
Yeah slick politicians do things like that. Mitt Romney would have done the same thing. Hooray for the left-wing Mitt Romney. Obama is the better man for taking GE money and bowing to their interests? Lol no wonder the progressives are in shambles trying to defend this guy.
Paul is in favor of civil rights because he supports the right of restaurants to serve blacks if the restaurant owner wants to. Is that a fair summary?
[QUOTE=Paul JJ]
The same goes for abortion. The Sancitity of Life Act someone brought up would use the constitutional authority of Congress to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction on the matter of abortion.
<snip>
The willful ignorance of the US Constitution is dangerous.
[/QUOTE]
No kidding.
Congress doesn’t have the authority to set the jurisdiction of federal courts?
It isn’t often that a post on this message board leaves with with absolutely nothing to say. This was very nearly one of those rare occasions.
How strong is one’s the dedication to the Constitution if that person is so afraid that the courts will actually apply the Constitution to a controversy, therefore the courts should not be allowed to hear such cases? How different is that from “we had to burn the village in order to save it?”
Pfft. Real Libertarians consider Marbury unconstitutional.
To an extent, yes; Congress has the authority to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction. It doesn’t have the authority to strip federal courts generally of the original jurisdiction provided for in the Constitution, which includes federal question jurisdiction under which Roe v. Wade was decided.
Congress could bar the removal of abortion cases to federal courts, but that would just mean plaintiffs would file them in federal courts.
It’s different because it’s more like: “We had to burn the executive appointed overlords of village because they are making decisions we gave them no authority to make.”
I’m not sure if that’s in favor of civil rights or apathy about civil rights.
“Executive appointed overlords?” Why do you hate the Constitution?
Who’s “we”? Anyway, this contention is functionally indistinguishable from “we had to burn the overlords because they made decisions we didn’t like.”
I don’t hate the Constitution. It was intended to be a document that gave specific powers to the federal government. Our society wants to give many more powers to the government than the Constitution allows. If this is true, why pretend that we still follow the Constitution? If the answer is because it has some really good parts like the first 8 amendments, then lets write a new constitution including those 8.
Instead we introduce life-changing legislation like the Affordable Care Act based on the shakiest of Constitutional grounds. I would rather have a modern constitutional convention, so we can see what everyone thinks about the government’s role in our life. Out of this convention, we would have a document that could be interpreted similarly by anyone and everyone. If you read Hamilton and Jefferson, their interpretations aren’t as wildly divergent as say Barack Obama and Ron Paul.
In my opinion, this would focus the country’s energy on the important issues of the day like the federal role in health care, the economy, education, surveillance, and military intervention. At the very least I would know what my government is allowed to do. Can they assassinate citizens? Can they issue executive decrees that force everyone to pay for contraception? Can they conduct preemptive quasi-wars? Can they spy on citizens without warrant? Can they fund only schools that follow their rules? Right now these questions are answered by the people in the government who are the least likely to be held accountable to the people of the U.S.
The Supreme Court hasn’t answered the question of whether the government can assassinate citizens or conduct preemptive quasi-wars, and almost certainly never will, given the political question doctrine.
The general point of the Constitution is to place this power to interpret laws in the hands of people who are experienced, well-vetted, and free from popular passions so that the law is interpreted in a way reserved from political pressure.
If you want important issues to be decided on the interests of the people and holding everyone in government accountable through regular elections, look at California: they elect judges, vote on referendums, recalled a governor not too long ago, and are generally more more small-d democratic than the Federal government is. And I think the Federal government runs much better than the government of California.
Let me say, thank god for unelected judges on Federal courts. A good amount of the progress that our country has made in the last 60 years is due to the courts: desegregation, civil rights, right to counsel, Miranda, and other things among them. I understand that Ron Paul is opposed to some of these things on technical grounds, but I say again, thank god those issues were not left in the hands of elected bigots, tough-on-crime politicians, and divisive political bombthrowers.
I have yet to read this entire thread but anything involving race and politics is bound to bring hours of laughter while I watch people argue, lemme get some popcorn first. By the way, I think it’s pretty common knowledge that no it’s not “normal” for the average black person to vote for any Republican but I mean duh… However since there are still thousands if not a few million of black people (that make up the 10% or whatever it is) that do vote Republican, then obviously one guy on facebook voting Republican still leaves a few million left and then some that would have to vote Republican before it would even come close to “abnormal”. Because, since when does one person doing something become a representation of an entire race?