[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Again, the entire point of a Constitution is that it’s not subject to arbitrary interpretation. It lays out the rules under which a government functions. If you swear to uphold the Constitution, and then routinely violate it, you’ve violated the oath.
[/QUOTE]
But what if my interpretation, which you would call a violation, is backed up by a line of SCOTUS decisions going back decades or centuries, and yours is not?
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Again, I’m not familiar enough with what exactly strict construction entails to answer that. I do believe that willfully violating what the Constitution clearly says under the name of “interpreting” is invalid, and dishonest, yes.
[/QUOTE]
The problem there is that not everyone has the same idea about what the Constitution “clearly” says.
[QUOTE=T_SQUARE]
I’m pretty libertarian, but the gold standard thing is just bat shit insane. Anyone who advocates returning to a gold standard has proven they know nothing about basic economics, so that leaves Ron out in the cold in my book.
[/QUOTE]
Right. Gold Standard to real Economics is like a law making pi= 3.
I agree with E-Sabbath in that I doubt if Alan Greenspan actually supports a return to the Gold Standard. He did write that article, but it doesn’t actually advocate the return. wiki “He has come under criticism by Harry Binswanger,[12] who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he actually believes that “we did extremely well” without a central bank and with a gold standard.[13]” In other words, Greenspan has written an article 26 years ago, and has made noises in support of that general theory, but has never taken any real action toward an actual implimentation of said standard. In other words, it’s a nice/interesting theory but not practical.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
He’s the sponsor of HR 300, which would deny the Supreme Court and other federal courts any jurisdiction over
If I’m reading that right, Alabama could pass a law proclaiming the Southern Baptist Church to be the Established Church of the State of Alabama and be immune from any challenge (based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) in any federal court. Conversely, the State of Alabama could outlaw the practice of Southern Baptism without being subject to any check by the federal courts, as the bill would strip the federal courts from jurisdiction over free exercise as well as establishment of religion cases. A state could also outlaw abortion or bring back sodomy laws.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, that law would be struck down immediately. It’s a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And, um, I think the superhighway sounds kind of interesting, if a silly way to handle trade over a 2000-mile border.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I was just thinking how funny this thread would be if it were about Ru Paul.
[/QUOTE]
Ru Paul is his [del]son[/del] [del]daughter[/del] spawn. And Mrs Paul is his wife. You know, the lady who makes stuffed codpieces.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
And, um, I think the superhighway sounds kind of interesting, if a silly way to handle trade over a 2000-mile border.
[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the entirely mythical “NAFTA Superhighway,” or the real (that is, seriously projected) “Trans-Texas Corridor”?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Are you referring to the entirely mythical “NAFTA Superhighway,” or the real (that is, seriously projected) “Trans-Texas Corridor”?
[/QUOTE]
I meant the myth. A “trans-Texas corridor” is only silly if it’s needlessly dependent on one highway route.
Another thing about Paul’s campaign that I’m finding increasingly disturbing is not just the number of “9/11 truthers” who are flocking to it, but racists of the worst sort. The worst sort.
Now… not voting for Paul just because lunatics and hatemongers support him would be silly. But I do find it worrisome that so many of that wackjobs support Paul in the first place. And I have to admit, it makes me wonder what I’m missing about Paul. What is it about him that appeals to them so strongly?
His writings have appeared, for example in the American Free Press, a paper run by Willis Carto, a Holocaust denier, anti-Semite, and someone who has glorified the SS in the past. I don’t know if Paul has allowed his writings to appear there… and I don’t know if Paul has spoken forcefully to denounce this cranks and to get his stuff removed from the AFP, but absent a strong and clear message from Paul, an unelectable crank begins to look a bit less benign.
Researching Paul on the 'net is rather difficult given the mass of, shall we say, vocal netizens who support him. Can anybody with stronger google fu than I have confirm that Paul has specifically mentioned and repudiated the AFP by name, or that he’s returned St-rmfr-nt’s owner’s contribution and/or asked them to stop advertising for him?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Another thing about Paul’s campaign that I’m finding increasingly disturbing is not just the number of “9/11 truthers” who are flocking to it, but racists of the worst sort. The worst sort.
[/QUOTE]
That raises an interesting question. Why and how would “White Nationalism” find common ground with Libertarianism? Or do they support Paul purely and strictly because he is opposed to U.S.'s policy of support for Israel and intervention in the MENA?
And Paul doesn’t like the UN. But I don’t know how/why they would think Paul was racist.
To address Brain Glutton’s question: Don’t marginalized groups tend to congregate? Even when they have nothing overtly in common - so long as they don’t disagree on major points, they share the status of ‘the outsider’ and find common ground because of that.
I believe that the major third party here in NY, the Independence Party (formerly the Independence Fusion Party), was formed, as the name implies, by merging several different marginalized groups to make one that could conceivably have an effect on a state-wide level. (I’m not claiming that the Independence Party has the support of the White Supremecists, just mentioning it as an example of the phenomenon I’m mentioning.)
I agree with FinnAgain - if Ron Paul is being published in the magazine mentioned and hasn’t done anything to rectify that, it does reflect badly on the candidate.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Yeah, well, that law would be struck down immediately. It’s a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
[/QUOTE]
Which law would be struck down immediately? HR 300, or the hypothetical Alabama law?
[QUOTE=control-z]
And Paul doesn’t like the UN. But I don’t know how/why they would think Paul was racist.
[/QUOTE]
Well, for instance… some racist quotes appeared in a newsletter he ran. He claimed that they weren’t written by him, but they still went out in his letter.
Specifically in an interview he confirmed that they were in that newsletter, and said that he’d apologized, but said:
Perhaps the racists don’t believe his denial?
At the very least it worries me that things went out under his name that he didn’t specifically approve, if that’s what happened.
He also went on to say
Which sounds good, in theory… but would’ve made things like civil rights legislation and current anti-discrimination legislation, functionally impossible. Perhaps racists see in Paul a chance to get their bigotry back into full swing in practice as well as screed?
For me, it also goes a bit beyond simply reflecting badly, which I think it still does. The more I gnaw on it, the more letting something like that go without a strong, forceful, and specific denunciation… the more it seems like Paul is using them. Perhaps he is willing to allow their support in order to get greater name recognition? And if that is true, it certainly makes me wonder what else he’d be willing to use folks like that for, or do for them if it came to it. I have nothing substantial on that front, but it certainly gives me a vague feeling of disquiet.
It does seem odd, however, that when faced by substantial support from st-rmfr-nt, Vanguard News Network and the Nationalist Coalition, his campaign responded simply by saying:
Huffpost covered for him, stating:
But they then provide a quote which seems to leave quite a bit of doubt in their pat answer.
All in all, I find this situation disturbing, and I for one would certainly prefer a denunciation that’s a hell of a lot stronger than “We don’t know who these people are”.
Maybe something along the lines of “We know whose these people are, and they represent a disgusting ideology. We will immediately and without delay return every cent given to us by organizations such as this and demand that they stop including our banners on their websites.”
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Maybe something along the lines of “We know whose these people are, and they represent a disgusting ideology. We will immediately and without delay return every cent given to us by organizations such as this and demand that they stop including our banners on their websites.”
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why they would say that if they really DON’T know who the people are. That would just be a lie.
And to clarify, the quote “Not standing up for Ron Paul against the un-American Jewish media and neo-cons” was from a Stormfront message board member, not a spokesperson for anyone in particular.
FinnAgain, that does look pretty ambiguous, at best.
Like you, I’m considering it pretty damning, really. But it doesn’t change anything for me. I’d already been unable to vote for Ron Paul based on his support for the gold standard, and then his concerns about the so-called NAFTA Superhighway. (Which, as part and parcel of the whole package, is being done without Congressional oversight. And so what’s his solution? Passing a bill in the House to make working on the NAFTA Superhighway illegal, when his contention all along was that it was an illegal plan. Where is the logic there? I expect my lunatics to fake better logic than that, dammit.)
This simply icing on the cake.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
To address Brain Glutton’s question: Don’t marginalized groups tend to congregate? Even when they have nothing overtly in common - so long as they don’t disagree on major points, they share the status of ‘the outsider’ and find common ground because of that.
[/QUOTE]
Not where there is no other common ground to find. E.g., White Nationalists might join forces with the Socialist Party USA and other third parties to push for reformation of the ballot-access laws, but they would never vote for a Socialist Party or Green Party candidate; their politics are fundamentally in conflict. With Libertarians (and libertarian-leaning Republicans), they share a hostility to the welfare state and affirmative action – but the Libs oppose those things because minimal government and personal autonomy are central to their ideology, while the WN’s oppose them because such programs, in their view, favor minorities at the expense of whites.
[QUOTE=OtakuLoki]
Having said that the issues that I disagree with him on, I disagree so strongly, that I could never in good conscience vote for him. The idea of returning to the gold standard, for one; his position on vaccination, for another.
[/QUOTE]
From his web site
Debt and TaxesWorking Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
AGREE - I would just prefer lower taxes if they are accompanied by reduced spending.
American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.
DISAGREE - Sounds like Ross Perot with his scare mongering.
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.
DISAGREE - The “we armed Al Quaida” argument is bullshit. We worked with the Afghans during the Cold War when they were invaded by a much stronger Soviet army. We were friends with Stalin and the Russians 40 years before that when we were fighting Hitler. Alliances are formed as a matter of convieneince and politics, not because we are BFFs.
Life and Liberty
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
DISAGREE - Thus losing my vote
The Second Amendment
I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms.
DISAGREE - Hi…I’m Ron Paul. I’m crazy because I introduced which bill:
A) H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (required purchasers to wait up to five days for a background check..but I want to kill something NOW!!) and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
B) H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
C) H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
D) H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.
The answer is E, all of the above
Social Security
Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken. (Read more…)
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.
AGREE - We should secure our borders. Except…
He makes statements like “Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law…Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally”
To quote Lewis Black “how are you going to deport 10-20 million people?! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND!?!”
That’s all I have time to write about. At best he seems to be a naive idealist, the likes of Jimmy Carter or at worst he sounds like an isolationist, xenophobic, right-wing conspiracy nut. And that seems to be the people who I’ve met who support him.
[QUOTE=control-z]
I don’t know why they would say that if they really DON’T know who the people are.
[/quote]
Yes, but after it was pointed out to them, that was their response.
[QUOTE=control-z]
That would just be a lie.
[/quote]
Or a game of political-hot-potato. Half of one, six dozen of another…
[QUOTE=control-z]
And to clarify, the quote “Not standing up for Ron Paul against the un-American Jewish media and neo-cons” was from a Stormfront message board member, not a spokesperson for anyone in particular.
[/QUOTE]
I thought I was quite clear. The quote was in direct opposition to Huffpost’s claim that Paul’s racist supporters’ “…support is based on Paul’s libertarian opposition to government generally,” At least one of them felt it was because Paul was standing against the “un-American Jewish media and neo-cons”.
In any case, I provided the direct link from which I pulled quotes, so I don’t know if any clarification was really necessary.
Oh, I agree, I called him an unelectable crank with full deliberate intention. He’s just too wacked out to be of any use, from his neo-isolationism and spurning of alliances to his strange and unpalatable libertarianism, to his bizarre strict constructionism… I’ve got more than enough reasons to think this loon has no place holding power.
Or as you summed it up:
He strikes me as a nutbar and not much else. But as long as I was criticizing him as an intellectual exercise, pointing out his strange relationship with America’s racists was indeed icing on the cake.
[QUOTE=msmith537]
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them.
DISAGREE - The “we armed Al Quaida” argument is bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
But, Paul does not appear to be making it.