Ron Paul
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Worth talking about</div>From the <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=108433" target="_blank">youtube thread</a>:
<!--quoteo(post=1892751:date=Jan 5 2012, 02:57 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drfuzzy @ Jan 5 2012, 02:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1892751"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifJG_oFFDK0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifJG_oFFDK0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are things I really like about Ron Paul.(in no order)
1.) He has a consistent and intellectual honesty
2.) He's not afraid to say unpopular things if he thinks they are important to say
3.) He embodies "true" conservative values rather than paying neo-con lip-service like every Republican other candidate.
And I think there are some great things he could do for this country(in no order)
1.) Ending the costly wars abroad
2.) Ending the costly "War on Drugs"(although this would cause a huge legal mess and constitutional crisis of sorts)
3.) Vetoing legislation that erodes our due process rights.
4.) Reducing intelligence and military spending.
5.) Vetoing SOPA, NDAA, and any other similar bills.
But there are certain things I find completely unpalatable(in no order)
1.) Ending the Fed.
2.) Instituting the gold standard.
3.) Does not believe separation of church and state is a part of the constitution.
4.) Vetoing bills that provide social services
5.) Possesses an overall dogmatic inflexibility.
I really want to like him, but I could not in good conscience vote for him. I would only vote for him if I thought we need to spur a revolution; the violent kind.
<!--quoteo(post=1892751:date=Jan 5 2012, 02:57 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Drfuzzy @ Jan 5 2012, 02:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1892751"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifJG_oFFDK0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifJG_oFFDK0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are things I really like about Ron Paul.(in no order)
1.) He has a consistent and intellectual honesty
2.) He's not afraid to say unpopular things if he thinks they are important to say
3.) He embodies "true" conservative values rather than paying neo-con lip-service like every Republican other candidate.
And I think there are some great things he could do for this country(in no order)
1.) Ending the costly wars abroad
2.) Ending the costly "War on Drugs"(although this would cause a huge legal mess and constitutional crisis of sorts)
3.) Vetoing legislation that erodes our due process rights.
4.) Reducing intelligence and military spending.
5.) Vetoing SOPA, NDAA, and any other similar bills.
But there are certain things I find completely unpalatable(in no order)
1.) Ending the Fed.
2.) Instituting the gold standard.
3.) Does not believe separation of church and state is a part of the constitution.
4.) Vetoing bills that provide social services
5.) Possesses an overall dogmatic inflexibility.
I really want to like him, but I could not in good conscience vote for him. I would only vote for him if I thought we need to spur a revolution; the violent kind.
Comments
Two things though:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3.) Does not believe separation of church and state is a part of the constitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would kind of ask for a citation here, but what I think is he doesn't mind religion that much in politics, as long as it doesn't find itself in any way, shape or form into the legislation. A bit of a "don't care, just leave me alone" attitude, which isn't so bad.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->5.) Possesses an overall dogmatic inflexibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This may actually be a good property if you're advocating the way of capitalism\free-market. If you want to implement what he says he wants to, you must really go the full length. The slightest hint of socialism\corporatism into the mix leaves you with an absolute terrible result, his ideas only (could) work when you're pretty hardcore about your principles.
I believe he opposes all federal taxes.
I really was falling for Ron Paul this round; he came on much stronger than in 2008. Recently, however, he's gotten a bit snarky in comments after interviews. More important than that, is the fanaticism of his base. You can't say anything bad about Ron Paul without bring holy hell upon yourself. That immediately makes me wonder and reconsider my stances. For instance, I was pretty big into Newt Gingrich because of his ideas and vows to stay positive. Recently, he's been running negative ads, so I guess he's abandoned that. So now I need to re-evaluate my stance on him, too.
The other problem I have with Ron Paul is the ending of those costly wars. Regardless of how they ended up getting pissed at us, they certainly are now. You can't expect that if we just left tomorrow they wouldn't retaliate anyway. What do we do then? Take it on the chin? Hope that a defensive posture of border protection will be enough to stop it? I just don't agree. There often isn't a right answer, and I certainly don't have one, so I tend to change as little as possible.
Which brings me to the other point. The dogma is that Ron Paul represents "true" conservatism. A term which, as far as I can tell, arrived in the media about 8 years ago. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing. There's what you call yourself and what others call themselves. This talk about who's more conservative is like two school boys hitting each other on the arm about who's Dad is more awesome.
[edit] got my election years messed up
That partially covers point 5 which is persistent throughout my issues with Presidential Candidate Paul. The first two stem from a difference in economic philosophy. Beyond the immediate market repercussions ending the fed and instituting the gold standard would have the long term issues would be greater. The Fed, flawed as it may be, represents a more scientific approach to markets. It institutes monetary policies to combat inflation and provide free flow of credit. Particularly important when times are bad to prevent hard downturns. Libertarian policy is to leave everything up to the whims of the market which are very random. Essentially, it's the 'let god take care of it approach' to economics because markets are "unknowable" which I reject. We can still make valid and useful predictions about a system even when we can't fully understand it.
From this perspective instituting the gold standard is arbitrary and serves to do three things only one of which might be considered beneficial.
1.) Make people who invest it gold more wealthy.
2.) Add a buffer between our economic output and the value of our currency.(which would be unused because monetary policy is "bad")
3.) Add a direct avenue for foreign countries to mess with the value of our currency.
To talk about the separation of church and state again it illustrates two points that make him un-electable to me. First is that I think the gov't has to protect our freedoms in order for them to be maintained. This is more than the current Libertarian rule of law concept, but I feel strongly about it. Second, and more specific to the candidate himself, is it shows a rare hypocracy in an otherwise intellectually honest candidate. He redefines the first amendment in order to support his assertion. And in doing so he cherry picks much of history ignoring that the founding fathers were mostly agnostic or atheist. This comes from a man who claims to be, and often is, a strict Constitutionalist.
Finally, I think in order to have a world class economy you have to spend money on your infrastructure and people. Cutting social and physical infrastructure is selling today's seed corn.
That's not to say I think it fixes everything. Gold standard is another one of those terms that has exploded right along side "true" conservatism, and some of the folks I hear talk about it say, "this is what I've wanted for years," when they are 30 years old and years ago they probably read Marx and thought they knew everything.
The problem is currency itself. More specifically managing currency. In your utopian (or dystopian, depending on your philosophy) future of electronic currency, you'll carry a credit chit and the government can know exactly how much currency is in play at any given instant. This number can be assessed against known tangible assets, and then inflation isn't a problem anymore. Most likely because currency won't be created or destroyed anymore. And if the system is open for all to see (if I could go to money.gov and see the current amount of currency and follow were it all is and what it's doing) it would be infinitely harder for the Fed to hide market downturns by printing free money and giving it to banks, adding to our inflation.
<a href="http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/" target="_blank">http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/</a>
Interestingly, there is a good bit of evidence to the theory that the US was bamboozled into federal income tax to begin with. I think the plan without federal income tax would rest on the federal government taxing states instead of citizens.
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace†the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.â€<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wants to abolish it without replacing it with anything. Does he propose to raise corporate taxes or excise taxes? I'm calling that bluff right now. A republican who proposes to raise corporate taxes is committing political suicide. Higher excise taxes likewise cuts into corporate profits, same problem there.
By his own words, 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means tax revenue would drop by almost half. That means government spending would have to drop by an equal amount just to break even - and he wants to cut spending further. Does anyone really believe that more than half of the government budget can be cut simply by eliminating waste?
He wants to return to the late 1990s, but that was before the Bush tax breaks. Taxes were <i>higher</i> back then. How does he propose to return to those times by cutting taxes further?
I think what would happen is that those depending the most on the government - the lower class - would be hit hard. What does he propose to do for them? And where will he get funding from?
Of course you have to be very careful talking this way, because it can turn into a humanitarian moral high ground argument pretty quickly. For people on my side, it's a question of whether the government is actually helping people by mitigating so much of their pain. I don't know the answer, but I think giving responsibility for self preservation back to the person being preserved is a step in the right direction. It's a question of government responsibility, too. Is it responsible for the government to hand out free money to so many people for so long?
That's some <i>mighty</i> strong kool-aid you're drinking. Inflation occurs on the gold standard as well, and so does deflation. The advantage and disadvantage is that it slows everything down. But it's a two way street. Independent changes to the values of precious metals we use to back disproportionately affect our currency as well.
And I don't get why you think some gov't issued credit chit is my Utopian dream. How money is printed is separate from how it is backed. The gold standard would only back the dollar with how much precious medal we have in our treasury rather than the strength of our economy to generate wealth and leverage capital. No I don't think we should have some gov't issued credit chit that is tracked at all times. I don't see how that follows from Federal monetary policy. It's like saying because the gov't has a post office it knows the contents of each envelope and parcel that goes through it.
Edit: Also because you've made a point of it, I recognize the Real-Scotsman fallacy when talking about true conservative so I'll clarify. I mean traditional conservatism of 60 years ago. Fiscal conservatism instead of cut all the taxes we can and spend as much as possible on defense. Moral integrity through Christian values instead of rampant affairs while declaring ###### marriage wrong. Limiting gov't intrusion into people's lives instead of the patriot act and other similar bills. Hawkish, sure, but actual hawks and not chicken-hawks. Basically conservatism as an intellectually coherent ideology instead of lip service to get votes then doing the opposite of stated values.
Money is only a derivative of actual wealth. The point of the gold standard is to make sure that derivative isn't too wild.
I didn't mean to imply that electronic currency was your specific utopia. I apologize for that confusion. I mean 'you' in the way a guy like me talks about a disinterested 3rdparty to illustrate a point in a discussion. "Now you have your apples over here, and your oranges over there." The apples and the oranges don't belong to the person I'm talking to, it's just a figure of speech.
Now, on to monetary policy. If the Fed's point is to curb inflation and maintain credit flow, it <i>must</i> have an idea of how much money is out there. That is the reason it does money supply calculations. M1, M2 and all that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply). My point about electronic currency is that it would take these calculations out of the realm of statistics (which is a crazy realm where gravity doesn't work) and into the realm of straight up algebra. It's not like your analogy. The point of the post office is to maintain communication, not to understand what the communication is saying.
I'm all for fiscal conservatism, too! I think most everyone is. That's why I discriminate on my purchases. When choosing between defense and social spending, what methods to you use to discriminate between what is a conservative choice and what isn't? Or, more better, which is <i>most</i> conservative? That's really what needs to be argued.
All of us, conservative, liberal, libertarian, imperialist, and communist alike are intelligent people. What separates us is <i>why</i> we break the way we do on specifics.
Hehe, I had to convince myself of this. Suppose 'g' is the total number of units of 'valuable stuff' in the world. v1 is the set number of dollars per 1 unit of this stuff. (think $1200/1oz gold). M1 is the calculated necessary number of dollars to represent the that wealth:
M1 = v1*g.
If we add more dollars, say we double it, the only thing that can change is v1. M2 = 2M1, from above, v1 = M1/g, so:
v2 = 2*v1. This means it will now cost twice as many dollars to buy the same unit of value. Inflation.
If we get rid of half the value in the world but keep money the same, still the only thing that can change is v1.
M1 = v3*(g/2), v3 = (2M/g), and again v3 = 2v1.
Of course you have to be very careful talking this way, because it can turn into a humanitarian moral high ground argument pretty quickly. For people on my side, it's a question of whether the government is actually helping people by mitigating so much of their pain. I don't know the answer, but I think giving responsibility for self preservation back to the person being preserved is a step in the right direction. It's a question of government responsibility, too. Is it responsible for the government to hand out free money to so many people for so long?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone except the upper class depends on the government. When the road net breaks down, where will you drive your car? The rich will drive on private toll roads. When law enforcement collapses under the strain of shrinking funding and growing crime, who will enforce the law? The rich will live in gated communities with private guards. When the power supply and the water supply break down, where will you get power and water? The rich will have private plants in their gated communities. When you lose your job, how will you avoid starving? How will you keep your children from starving? Will you nobly stick to your ideology while your family dies of malnutrition, or will you in your desperation rob a grocery store for food? And with consequences like that hanging over your head, are you not more a slave than ever? You can't quit your job, because the consequences are too grave. And your employer knows that.
It is <i>hopelessly</i> naïve to think that you can just completely abandon people and assume that they will be fine. They won't be fine. Some of them will. A lot won't. Do you really think that people have the savings to survive for however many years it takes to reach full employment again? And do you think they will graciously starve to death like gentlemen if they can't make it? This proposal wouldn't help the lower class. It would crush them, grind them underfoot. They don't have the means to support themselves through lean times because they don't get to grow fat during plentiful times.
The lower class are the ones who need help the most. They do not own the means of production. They are incapable of sustaining themselves except by the grace of the upper class. And the upper class is driven solely by self-interest. They will hang on to everything they can, even as society collapses around them.
Ron Paul's followers love to talk about revolution. If he gets to enact his policies, they just might get one. But I don't think they would like it.
Anecdotally, I have known a few people who were kicked out of the door and abandoned by their parents at a young age, like you talk about. They are all to some extent cynical, jaded people who believe that this is a dog-eat-dog world where you have to trample people underfoot to make it to the top. And how couldn't they? They weren't shown solidarity. They weren't given help or support. They were cast out and abandoned by people they thought loved them. Human beings aren't made for that, we thrive in social structures based on mutual support. We are not solitary creatures, we need each other. It speaks of a certain detachment from humanity if you think it is in people's best interest to be abandoned and left behind.
If it's so easy for the human race to die of starvation we never would have made it this far. And you're damn right I'd steal from a store before I'd let my family die. I'd kill. I'd even torture if I had to. My morals aren't supplied by the government - they are delivered through the conduits of love, duty, and respect that I feel for the people who are close to me.
Also, 21 is hardly too young to leave the nest. :P
You would steal to support your family. You'd torture. You'd kill. I don't condemn you for that, like I said before the urge to survive is strong. But don't call it moral. Because you wouldn't hurt or harm only people who have hurt or harmed you, who have put you in that situation. You would hurt or harm innocents. You would put THEM closer to the edge, you'd increase the chance that they in turm would have to steal, to torture, to kill to support or protect themselves and their families. You'd perpetuate the cycle of violence and hate.
I would prefer that it didn't come to that. I would prefer to live in a world that has moved beyond that. I would prefer that society would step in before it goes that far. I would prefer that you would get the help you need. But we all know the bystander effect. Would your neighbours help you? Maybe, if they had a surplus to help you with. Maybe they're barely scraping by themselves. And the people all the way down the street are further removed from your suffering and have a much easier time telling themselves that someone will come along and help you. Someone else. Not them. Not the bystanders.
So who is going to step in? Who is going to help you, if not your impoverished neighbours? Society as a whole. If we take a large enough group of people, the cycle of up and down peters out. Some have more than they need, others have less than they need. Years hence maybe those two groups have switched places, but if they all work to support each other none of them need to suffer for it. But that isn't going to work without organization. These structures only arise spontaneously at <i>very</i> small scales. See the israeli kibbutzim of the early and middle 20th century for an example. And even they didn't last.
This is the role government must fill. <i>Must</i> fill. There is no arguing this point with me, <u>government <i>must</i> fill that role.</u> If you cannot agree with that basic premise, just say so, ignore everything I say and move on, <u>because it will be impossible for us to find common ground otherwise.</u> If you cannot agree with that basic premise, for GOODNESS sake say so and the discussion (at least between us) is over, because we cannot possibly discuss anything if we don't agree on this.
We live in a different world today. We can't simply return to subsistence farming. We can't, and we don't want to, because we have seen that there's a better way. Child mortality is down. Life expectancy is up. Education levels are up. Those are all advances. We can't abandon the cities, move into the country one and all and farm our small plots of land, because we would have to give all that up. Return to having seven or eight kids and see two or three of them reach adulthood. Die giving childbirth - or see our wives die. Starve when the crops fail, because everyone is so high and mighty and self-righteous that they'd rather let us starve to death than extend a helping hand. "It's for your own good" they'd say. "If you can't make it on your own you don't deserve to make it at all" they'd say.
You know what? For people who think evolution is a lie made up by satan, the modern republican party sure likes to see the weak perish.
But you know what, I exaggerate. I apologize for that. I have engaged in hyperbole. We don't starve to death, not really. Not in the western world, at least. Even the homeless don't. They can survive on the food people throw away. Or what they steal. Or beg. But that is something that happens to people. They lose their homes - first they have to sell the house they own, IF they own one, and when that money runs out they can't pay the rent and get evicted. But you're right, they don't starve to death. They tend to die of exposure on the first cold winter nights, but they don't starve to death.
Is that the shining city on the horizon?
Sorry, when you qualify it it makes sense. I just hate blanket assertions like "the gov't causes inflation" because they're wrong.
<!--quoteo(post=1893037:date=Jan 7 2012, 01:51 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 7 2012, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Now, on to monetary policy. If the Fed's point is to curb inflation and maintain credit flow, it <i>must</i> have an idea of how much money is out there. That is the reason it does money supply calculations. M1, M2 and all that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply). My point about electronic currency is that it would take these calculations out of the realm of statistics (which is a crazy realm where gravity doesn't work) and into the realm of straight up algebra. It's not like your analogy. The point of the post office is to maintain communication, not to understand what the communication is saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I kind of understand this argument, but I still don't think it logically follows. I guess that someone somewhere thinks this is a good idea, but it's probably the same person who thinks putting microchips into people to track them all the time is a good idea.
It's honestly kind of a moot point. The gov't can track our spending and our location by subpoenaing our bank records and mobile phone records.
<!--quoteo(post=1893037:date=Jan 7 2012, 01:51 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 7 2012, 01:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1893037"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm all for fiscal conservatism, too! I think most everyone is. That's why I discriminate on my purchases. When choosing between defense and social spending, what methods to you use to discriminate between what is a conservative choice and what isn't? Or, more better, which is <i>most</i> conservative? That's really what needs to be argued.
All of us, conservative, liberal, libertarian, imperialist, and communist alike are intelligent people. What separates us is <i>why</i> we break the way we do on specifics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is the main issue I have with Ron Paul and Libertarianism in general. It's not a discussion of cost/benefit; it's ideology.
If the republicans pick Ron Paul, I predict that sufficiently many democrat voters (swing voters especially) will decide that that guy doesn't sound so bad, and either stay at home or vote republican.
A sufficiently repulsive candidate like Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum (heehee, Santorum!) could revitalize the democrat voters and swing the vote back in Obama's favour. Threats like federally mandated bans on abortion, ###### marriage, the reinstitution of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or other more oppressive policies could energize democrat voters sufficiently to re-elect Obama on a "better him than some crazed fundie" basis.
Ron Paul doesn't seem to pay more than the party-mandated lip-service to religiosity, and his general "state's rights" approach might cause people to think that they can just govern themselves at the state level and not have to worry about the president. A Ron Paul candidacy would have a big dampening effect on democrat votes.
But the question I can't answer is what effect he'd have on republican votes. He isn't popular within his own party, and he isn't popular among the fundies. And while the fundies are staunch republican voters that would never swing to the democrats, satan's own party, there's always the risk that they'd boycott the election and simply stay at home rather than vote for yet another godless heathen who doesn't pray often and public enough for their tastes.
So here are my bets: Will the republicans nominate Ron Paul? Against. If they nominate him, will he win? For.
Oh, you mean like how the United States was actually intended to run? "State's rights" should exist, and if they did, many of the so called issues that bog down politics would be solved on a local level. If people in CA want to allow ###### marriage; go for it. If people in TX want to ban it; go for it. The same can be said for just about any issue including the war on drugs (some states may want to decriminalize marijuana while others will not, I'd imagine every state would keep the nasty drugs illegal), abortion, etc.
What works on one coast may not work on another and crap like that shouldn't be forced on people.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But the question I can't answer is what effect he'd have on republican votes. He isn't popular within his own party<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's popular with traditional, what I like to call 'real' or 'actual,' republicans. He's not popular with neoconservatives (McCain, Bush, Romney, Giuliani, etc) which, unfortunately, have taken over the republican party at this point.
I won't go too deep into this topic but creating the federal reserve and instituting an income tax provides the federal government with too much income. They use this income for stupid things that do not benefit the citizens. It's encouraged and promoted a mindset that the government doesn't need to be run in a financially responsible manner.
What works on one coast may not work on another and crap like that shouldn't be forced on people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I half agree with you. I think that more things should be decided at the state level. I don't think ###### marriage is one of them. Allowing states to disenfranchise certain groups has never been the purpose of states rights, it was just historically tolerated linearly with racism.
After reading, or having a basic understanding of, the constitution one thing is clear; ###### marriage (for or against) has no right being brought up on a federal level. The only acceptable approach is for congress to attempt to pass an amendment to the constitution.
Of course, amending the constitution is pretty difficult. So is getting a declaration of war.
That's probably why the last few presidents have just said '###### you' to the constitution and have done whatever they want anyway. After all, it's up to the american people to make sure their elected officials are keeping their oaths to the constitution. Why should they pay attention to current events when the Kardashians are so entertaining....
I'm simply asking for clarification here, since I am not a constitutional scholar.
I think that civil rights are very much a matter of federal policy, if nothing else then simply for the sake of consistency. As long as the states remain part of the federal union, there must be consistency in civil rights between the states. So if you're married in one state and then move to another, that state cannot declare your marriage null and void.
But it doesn't work like that right now. Some states allow same-sex marriage. Other states don't allow it, but recognise same-sex marriages performed in other states, while the third group of states doesn't allow it at all. This leads to your civil rights changing as you move from state to state, which is an unfortunate state of affairs. Civil rights need to be handled at the federal level, because civil rights need to remain consistent. The civil war showed as much.
But perhaps the civil war was a mistake. Perhaps individual states should have the right to secede, to quit the federal union entirely, and to decide for themselves which parts of the constitution they want to follow. Sovereignty, right?
As for "real" republicans, that smells like "no real irishman." Do "real" republicans make up the majority of the party? Do "real" republicans refuse to vote for someone who isn't "real?" If you answer yes to both of those, then by definition the party leaders are also "real" republicans, and Ron Paul is the one who's part of some freakish minority.
If you ask me, the republican party is internally divided and will never achieve ideological consistency unless they externalize that division as well. In other words, it's time to split the party. If, as you allege, there is a core body of "real" republicans, why don't they leave the nutjobs behind and create a new party? They could call it the Sanity Party.
The republican party isn't a sacred institution that must stand for a thousand years. It's a framework for making consistent political decisions. If the framework is falling apart, let it fall. Pick up the pieces, leave the useless refuse behind to fester in their own idiocy, and start up again younger and stronger. By letting themselves get dragged along by jingoistic fundie whackjobs, the "real" republicans aren't doing anyone any favours.
You would think it would already be covered by the constitution, isn't there a whole bunch of stuff in there about freedom of expression and religion and speech and whatever?
You would think that 'freedom to be ######' would be extrapolated from the general theme of things.
Or at the very least, the ability to get married should come under freedom of religion, as that should prevent people saying 'nuh uh our religion owns the concept of marriage so you can't disagree with it'.
So you have "states rights" republicans who would have you IGNORE people's rights in favor of states rights.
And you have people like Ron Paul; he actually says that "states don't have rights" per se, people do.
<b>
These are two very different views of "states rights". I prefer the latter.</b>
There are examples in history of the federal government stepping in and protecting people's rights (civil rights movement), BUT YOU ALSO have many examples where the federal government was the bad guy and the states were trying to protect people's rights (native americans, helloooo!).
The bottom line is you've gotta understand what liberty means. When there's a dilemma about that, you go down a step toward more local govt to hash it out. No pun intended...
Simply not true. That kind of thinking rightfully went out the window with the Jim Crow laws.
Edit: Probably no one will read this, but there is all ready an amendment to the constitution that covers this, specifically the first. There's no reason for ###### marriage to be treated differently from regular marriage other than for religious reasons.
And this is exactly what bothers be about Ron Paul and many of his supporters. He'll require "strict" following of the constitution for the first amendment so it doesn't include a separation of church and state, but use a "spirit" argument for the second so that he can oppose handgun regulation. He's claiming to be a strict constitutionalist while picking and choosing.
Sadly he's still better than the other candidates in this regard. At least he's asking the questions.
Instead try to make a 1% Wallstreet tax.
It would pay for social security and infrastructure.
Otherwise i can only warn, that since years there is basicly no diffrence between politicians and these people* anymore.
And this deal includes most of your media.
Goodbye. Have fun.
*say Goldman Sachs and friends...
Or Bechtel. Haha. Do you know what they lately tried to pull of in Bolivia or how much they love Saudi Arabia? Bush. Osama.
Wolfowitz. Iraq. The IMF.
Goldman.
Oh look there we are again.
A little sandbox and nobody cares.
Oilspill? "We do not pay."
Say BP and Shell (Africa).
Tax?
"Not with me!"
Now i know children and some of them can be quite bad, but nothing matches the world of these grown ups.
Also, lol at Ron Paul thread. I should come to off-topic more often. This seems appropriate: http://memegenerator.net/Ron-Paul
And if Texas got invaded by Mexico and California didn't want to provide money and manpower to defend them? The problem is if you take the "state's do only what they want" policy too far, then they effectively become different nations.
And again, this is why when we did actually become different nations for a small time, remember that? It's why the Federal government will never allow the union to deteriorate to that point again. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for state's rights, I'm legally stoned right now due to mine. But I'm not going to pick up a gun to defend my right to smoke a doobie. At the same time, I don't think Wyoming's going to send the National Guard over the border because my state decided they want to allow adults to make decisions for themselves.
But then, I I'm not exploiting a race of people, and treating them as if they were farm animals for profit either. That's just the most horrific example from American history I can think of (not comparing the situation) that illustrates my point, which is; the Federal government exists to insure that all people within it's collective reach have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And if one state wants to ban a group of people from starting a family, or living together for that matter because of the gender of their partner, it violates their rights. And often (not saying always) the justification is religious.
And gay people have peen petitioning for a redress of their grievances for a while now.