The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.
This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war. — Ron Paul, from The War on Religion
?
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
Even though I despise the Fundies as much as y'all do... I think Ron Paul has a point. The Liberal/Socialist/Neocon political agenda is as much about total control and power as it is about policy and legislation. It stands to reason that they would despise and fight against any organization that challenged their complete control.
This is also why most mainstream politicians want to play down the candidacy of Ron Paul -- a candidate that wants to reduce and decentralize their power works completely against what they hope to achieve.
I'll be a little more obvious this time, since my lack of moving pictures is possibly causing sleepiness in this debateless, wordless jackoff-a-thon...
* He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
* He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
* He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
I can't be the only one to find the above a little unsettling.
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
vasudeva: I'll be a little more obvious this time, since my lack of moving pictures is possibly causing sleepiness in this debateless, wordless jackoff-a-thon...
* He Doesn't Believe in the Separation of Church and State
* He's Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
* He Doesn't Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
I can't be the only one to find the above a little unsettling.
you aren't.
p.s. (just one) i'm wondering how * Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) is supported by the constitution, exactly.
____________________ But the whole of modern so-called civilized existence is an attempt to deny reality insofar as it exists. When did Don last look at the stars, when did Norman last get soaked in a rainstorm?
vasudeva: I'll be a little more obvious this time, since my lack of moving pictures is possibly causing sleepiness in this debateless, wordless jackoff-a-thon...
* He Doesn't Believe in the Separation of Church and State
* He's Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
* He Doesn't Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
I can't be the only one to find the above a little unsettling.
* He believes in the religious freedom clause in the constitution, he just doesn't interpret it (and he's PROBABLY right) to mean that the government has to pretend religion doesn't exist, and restrict your rights to practice religion in public.
* Roe v. Wade was a pretty bad decision by the Supreme Court, actually, and while I've warmed up to letting dumb people kill their retard-babies, I'm still pretty sure that they're killing them -- in fact, since Scott Peterson got charged with the murder of his own unborn child, you could say that our justice system has been mighty inconsistent on that matter.
* The evidence for man-made global warming isn't that convincing. Unless you like to suck Al Gore's dick... Do you?
Uart: * He believes in the religious freedom clause in the constitution, he just doesn't interpret it (and he's PROBABLY right) to mean that the government has to pretend religion doesn't exist, and restrict your rights to practice religion in public.
That doesn't scan with my reading of this in a way I find comforting. You seem to say less than he does.
* Roe v. Wade was a pretty bad decision by the Supreme Court
Why? Because abortion is bad?
* The evidence for man-made global warming isn't that convincing.
So you must qualify in one of the following groups...
1) American scientists and politicians split pretty unevenly over the 'debate'
2) Fox news viewers who think the above means there is no global warming
3) Scientists and politicians from everywhere else who aren't debating global warming any more than they're debating the need for oxygen and instead are working on the problem
Please let me know which.
Unless you like to suck Al Gore's dick... Do you?
We already have a wotak.
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
Uart: * He believes in the religious freedom clause in the constitution, he just doesn't interpret it (and he's PROBABLY right) to mean that the government has to pretend religion doesn't exist, and restrict your rights to practice religion in public.
That doesn't scan with my reading of this in a way I find comforting. You seem to say less than he does.
Nope, I don't see anything wrong with it. I actually already addressed the control/power issue that Paul mentions there. What else is a problem with it? That he believes that the country was founded by Christians? I don't remember too many Hindus being at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
He's mostly commenting on the ANTI-RELIGION stance of many on the left. Which, if you subscribe to it, then I guess you won't like it. I'm not a religious person at all, but I don't feel a need to restrict your right to practice a religious belief that in no way harms me.
* Roe v. Wade was a pretty bad decision by the Supreme Court
Why? Because abortion is bad?
No, because it defied logic, and failed to address valid issues. Not to mention that the reasoning that they used to support the decision on constitutional grounds was very tenuous. Among other things.
* The evidence for man-made global warming isn't that convincing.
So you must qualify in one of the following groups...
1) American scientists and politicians split pretty unevenly over the 'debate'
2) Fox news viewers who think the above means there is no global warming
3) Scientists and politicians from everywhere else who aren't debating global warming any more than they're debating the need for oxygen and instead are working on the problem
Please let me know which.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002) Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content.
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."Bellamy later admitted that he had cited faulty data and announced on 29 May 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic organization and in 2007 published a paper arguing that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural." (Gelf Magazine, April 24, 2007)
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor...
Uart: Nope, I don't see anything wrong with it. I actually already addressed the control/power issue that Paul mentions there. What else is a problem with it? That he believes that the country was founded by Christians?
That he ascribes much importance to the idea. It wasn't founded to be Christian, in my understanding (and hope). He doesn't come out and say it, but he seems to feel -- from the above -- that church and state fit together naturally.
He's mostly commenting on the ANTI-RELIGION stance of many on the left.
In a way that I find troubling, as I do the comment about the "war on Christmas."
* Roe v. Wade was a pretty bad decision by the Supreme Court
Why? Because abortion is bad?
No, because it defied logic, and failed to address valid issues. Not to mention that the reasoning that they used to support the decision on constitutional grounds was very tenuous.
How so? I know you think it's "bad". I want to know why it's bad.
* The evidence for man-made global warming isn't that convincing.
So you must qualify in one of the following groups...
1) American scientists and politicians split pretty unevenly over the 'debate'
2) Fox news viewers who think the above means there is no global warming
3) Scientists and politicians from everywhere else who aren't debating global warming any more than they're debating the need for oxygen and instead are working on the problem
Please let me know which.
[SNIP YOUR PARROTING OF A FEW PEOPLE THAT AGREE WITH YOU]
Hey, you found a few people that agree with you. Please rush this unprecedented intelligence to Congress straight away, where they have been laboring without benefit of this crucial development. "Thank god Uart is here at last!" they will cry. One or more may ruffle your hair, you feisty one!
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
vasudeva: I'll be a little more obvious this time, since my lack of moving pictures is possibly causing sleepiness in this debateless, wordless jackoff-a-thon...
* He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State
* He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
* He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
I can't be the only one to find the above a little unsettling.
1) It is patently unconstitutional to make one's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, a qualifying criteria for holding an elected office or public trust. Allowing for folks who subscribe to some superstition (other than yours, even) to be your local Assemblyman or the President of the country, is not being against the separation of church and state--it's being for the 1st Amendment.
2) Anyone who is pro-abortion needs therapy. I am anti-abortion, and not at all afraid to admit it. The right to privacy does not equal the right to kill people. Killing people is sometimes a neccessity, and sometimes it's right; such neccessity and righteousness does not make killing people a right-not ever.
3) Sun caused global warming is far more plausible--far more plausible than the luddite argument that CO2 generated by people who bathe daily in hot water and work for a living is the cause of the globe warming up. Consider the fraction of the atmosphere that is CO2, then consider the fraction of that fraction that is generated "unnaturally" by human beings, then consider the fraction of that fraction of a fraction that these bong-smoke, macro-biotic, pyramid power, yanni indulgent reactionaries claim is the cause of doomsday.
Bong-smoke, macro-biotic, pyramid power, yanni indulgent vegetarians think global warming is caused by cheeseburgers. You see, Global Warming(TM) is a power tool used by people who don't give a fuck about you, yet want to tell you what to do, what to think, how to live, and to give them a dollar so they don't have to get a job.
LOki: It is patently unconstitutional to make one's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, a qualifying criteria for holding an elected office or public trust. Allowing for folks who subscribe to some superstition (other than yours, even) to be your local Assemblyman or the President of the country, is not being against the separation of church and state--it's being for the 1st Amendment.
This is argument by seesaw. Are we sure what you're saying above covers the issue? Are we sure he simply "doesn't hate god"? Or is it possible he "loves god" and "wants god up our asses on the 24/7"? There's a lack of information, and it isn't made any better by us not talking about it or refusing to fill in the gaps with our own guesses.
2) Anyone who is pro-abortion needs therapy. I am anti-abortion, and not at all afraid to admit it.
Cute, and punchy, but again, not the issue. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade. I don't fear his secret fetus-eating hobby is being advocated.
3) Sun caused global warming is far more plausible
Says... you. Again, I find it compelling that a huge number of actual scientists disagree with this sort of back-of-envelope decision that plenty of people smarter than both of us are dead wrong -- based on, as far as I can tell, mental inertia in most cases and a venomous bitterness toward the "whiney cuntbag jew librals" in some.
Here, I suppose, is where someone chimes in that actual scientists are catamites, amirite??
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
LOki: It is patently unconstitutional to make one's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, a qualifying criteria for holding an elected office or public trust. Allowing for folks who subscribe to some superstition (other than yours, even) to be your local Assemblyman or the President of the country, is not being against the separation of church and state--it's being for the 1st Amendment.
This is argument by seesaw. Are we sure what you're saying above covers the issue? Are we sure he simply "doesn't hate god"? Or is it possible he "loves god" and "wants god up our asses on the 24/7"? There's a lack of information, and it isn't made any better by us not talking about it or refusing to fill in the gaps with our own guesses.
2) Anyone who is pro-abortion needs therapy. I am anti-abortion, and not at all afraid to admit it.
Cute, and punchy, but again, not the issue. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade. I don't fear his secret fetus-eating hobby is being advocated.
3) Sun caused global warming is far more plausible
Says... you. Again, I find it compelling that a huge number of actual scientists disagree with this sort of back-of-envelope decision that plenty of people smarter than both of us are dead wrong -- based on, as far as I can tell, mental inertia in most cases and a venomous bitterness toward the "whiney cuntbag jew librals" in some.
Here, I suppose, is where someone chimes in that actual scientists are catamites, amirite??
1) You appear to be asserting that a guy running for President who is unashamed of his religion is also a guy who wishes to establish his religion as the national religion despite his enthusiastic defense of the notion that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
2) You're a faggot, but that's not the reason that you avoided the point. "Overturning Roe vs Wade" is a bad move when discussing the right to privacy. But when "Overturning Roe vs Wade" is brought up in political conversation, the point is ususally that Roe vs Wade is used as a defense of the "right" to kill a particular class of people--i.e abortion. I disagree with the notion that killing people should be consisdered a right, which is a notion that directly confronts the point that abortion is a right. That you consider the salient bit to be "Cute, and punchy, but ..., not the issue" is what makes you a faggot.
3) I find it compelling that a huge number of actual scientists agree that the sun, in fact, causes global warming; that the entire solar system warming up is evidence that the sun actually causes global warming rather than human CO2 emission; that fluctuations in CO2 concentrations are caused by global warming rather than the cause of global warming; that the energy output of the biggest object within light years of this planet is as significant as it looks; that the .0012% CO2 total contribution that human beings make to the planet's atmosphere is actually as insignificant as it looks.
LOki: the .0012% CO2 total contribution that human beings make to the planet's atmosphere
says who?
*edit: did you even read the first link you posted?
On 2007-09-14 at 08:15:17, mundhra craps monkey baby
____________________ But the whole of modern so-called civilized existence is an attempt to deny reality insofar as it exists. When did Don last look at the stars, when did Norman last get soaked in a rainstorm?
LOki:1) You appear to be asserting that a guy running for President who is unashamed of his religion is also a guy who wishes to establish his religion as the national religion despite his enthusiastic defense of the notion that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No. What I'm asserting is that perhaps his feelings re: separation aren't as we'd like. I've seen almost zero discussion of this so far, much less actual debate, and so here we are. I see everyone joyously comfortable with pre-conceived notions, linking youtube videos and such, but I don't see tons of evidence that they're anything but pre-conceived notions.
"Unashamed of his religion" is off the point. I know you know this.
Also, though I share your delight with Paul's single-minded constitutionality (look, his principles come historically documented in this FAQ, flip to page 43 to see how he feels about smores), what you're quoting there is the Constitution, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the Constitution, however much our popular image of him fuses the two.
mundhra said this...
mundhra: p.s. (just one) i'm wondering how * Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) is supported by the constitution, exactly.
And no one batted an eye. This is hopefully just because everyone is too busy or overlooked it. The remaining two options are:
1) The answer is obvious to everyone but mundhra and me, who are too naturally stupid to see it
2) There is insufficient practical exploration into the thoughts and motivations of the man the myth the legend Ron Paul.
Saying "oh whatever's in the Constitution, that's what his answer is" is tempting but intellectually facile, and since the chances he's actually going to win this or any near-term candidacy are probably vanishingly small, we have the luxury of doubt. Let's exercise it.
One day we'll be debating a candidate with an actual shot, and we'll need our doubt well-oiled and vrooming.
I disagree with the notion that killing people should be consisdered a right, which is a notion that directly confronts the point that abortion is a right. That you consider the salient bit to be "Cute, and punchy, but ..., not the issue" is what makes you a faggot.
Chut, dunderhead. I consider the 'salient' bit cute and punchy but useless because it has zing, but it doesn't address the issue. It wraps the issue in a glorious soundbite but is otherwise an epitaph on the discussion. Everyone agrees that killing babies is bad; this oversimplifies. I know you're a fan of oversimplification and I'm not saying it's without its benefits, so don't consider this a request to put it through its paces.
Here is the bit I would consider salient -- in practical terms, not philosophical ones: we have Roe v Wade. It's part of our country's law system, having passed muster under plenty of scrutiny. Plenty of people consider it a necessary part of their legal infrastructure, quite apart from the moral implications. It is currently legal.
So you agree, then, that Roe v Wade should be overturned?
No, I'm not asking you if abortion is bad or killing babies is wrong or should we all eat menses for breakfast. What should we do about Roe v Wade? Now that this argument has conveniently become polarized, I don't expect anyone to do anything other than defend their guess at Ron Paul's position on this, since god forbid we question the man without sucking Al Gore's dick, to quote uart's jackassery.
3) I find it compelling that a huge number of actual scientists agree that the sun, in fact, causes global warming; that the entire solar system warming up is evidence that the sun actually causes global warming rather than human CO2 emission; that fluctuations in CO2 concentrations are caused by global warming rather than the cause of global warming; that the energy output of the biggest object within light years of this planet is as significant as it looks; that the .0012% CO2 total contribution that human beings make to the planet's atmosphere is actually as insignificant as it looks.
So let's postulate a huge number of scientists who believe global warming is real, and a second and equally huge number of scientists who disbelieve. I see some choose to side with the one that offers the more convenient choice (relax and ignore) and the right to sneer (which is what I suspect a lot of armchair neocons are doing, now that anything liberal has become demonized). Why not consider that if -- just if -- the former huge number of scientists are just a little bit right, that it's catastrophic?
In any case, abortion and global warming are great big questions, but defending either side does little to prove out that we've sussed Ron Paul in all his Ron Paulness, which is my angle here. Shitbox's paste of his vote history was very helpful, but there's been little else but embedded videos, which, if that's what's passing for thought these days, I know who to blame (LOki, who is a giant faggot, and I once caught him licking a dog's scrotum while his big hamfists curled spasmodically with in utero babypleasure.).
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
If you want to keep your tongue, don't lick me in the Winter!
SSHOLE
Posts: 506 Registered: 10/14/2004 Offline
9/14/2007 at 14:35
Perhaps nicely structuring some no-bullshit questions regarding
A) Separation of Church and State.
B) Reasoning behind Stance on Roe vs. Wade
C) Reasoning behind Stance on Global Warming
Then posing them directly to Ron Paul... Maybe we can stop debating what we think his answers will be... I mean he has a facebook account and has done an interview in a University Dorm Room.
Steel: Perhaps nicely structuring some no-bullshit questions regarding
A) Separation of Church and State.
B) Reasoning behind Stance on Roe vs. Wade
C) Reasoning behind Stance on Global Warming
Then posing them directly to Ron Paul... Maybe we can stop debating what we think his answers will be... I mean he has a facebook account and has done an interview in a University Dorm Room.
Perhaps he wouldn't mind answering to The Swarm?
If you were running for office, would you want to be associated with us?
I'd say there's as much chance of that as there is of the rebuplican base nominating Paul.
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
Now I'd be the first to admit that I lack the political sophistication/savvy/vocabulary when trying to debate the finer points of a foreign government, especially when IMHO a lot of ppl here argue politics way better than me.
But I wonder if there is a point missed here, is the focus of the argument centered on whether or not Ron Paul is everything you want in a president, or the best candidate running at the moment.
If I was a US citizen, I'd probably approach the issues around Ron like this in my own personal head.
He Doesn't Believe in the Separation of Church and State
Considering all the candidates, would he be the next to further the right-wing xtian directive? My gut tells me that he would grind his ax on other issues, considering the mess he would inherit. I do notice that almost all candidates dance around religion, any anti/less-religion¨ stance is political suicide.
He's Not For Federally Supported Public Education
Maybe it will restore some value to the ol' sheepskin and reduce the number of ppl who have their master's degree in underwater basket-weaving. It might also entice people back to trades and encourage more training within industry. I have interviewed no less than 200 assholes with a useless degree and a sense of empowerment that a fresh Bachelors/Masters gives.
He's Not For National Health Care
Ugh, this hits home to my canuck-socialist conditioned heart. I believe that it does work and is useful for Canada (I sense Loki is looking at this with his predator-prey look and I'd be happy to play wabbit in another forum ) I think to institute national healthcare in the US would bankrupt it.
What I do believe that you need is more strict regulation of the insurance providers; I think that there needs to be a "reasonable" rate range to operate in to allow them to make money without gouging the insured. I also think that a more robust set of laws be drafted to protect the insured to make sure that the provider doesn't get to weasel out of providing care. Fundamentally, I believe that human beings in the 21st century should not profit from suffering.
He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA, As Well As Federal Environmental Protection
This is just nutso, and I don't like it at all. Industries need non-biased watchdogs that ensure that they adhere to well-defined agreed-upon standards. I also don't think he will be able to dislodge the FDA, so it isn't an issue for me. Now the effectiveness of these consumer protection groups is another matter altogether...
Roe vs. Wade
I find it's place as a right to privacy under the 14th amendment a bit tenuous from a constitutional standpoint, but it is part of the legal landscape now and I'd feel better if people closer to my generation were debating this as opposed to Oldies who will be dead soon (seriously, fuck the soon-to-be-dead elderly).
GLOBAL LOOOLING
I dunno, I have to be honest and say that I've seen good looking science on both sides of the coin although I lean more towards Gore's dick. Bottom line, I don't give a shit.
"OH WTF" you say?
I could care less; I live in a safe spot in North America, and am reasonable affluent by world standards. I care more about making a buck and having cool stuff, maybe if I was beige and lived somewhere hot I'd give a fuck. I'm not saying I couldn't get worked up about it and everything, but the honesty of my lifestyle choices tells me this. I eat steak rather than granola. drive an SUV (a weensy one), toss plastic in the garbage, do not take advantage of carbon offsets, I see floods/heat waves on the TV and switch it to the Simpsons and burn shit from time to time.
When it comes to the politico who will fuck me the least, I'd give Ron a whirl, at the very least it wouldn't be the same old 2 dicks we are used to.
On 2007-09-14 at 12:20:24, LORDKAHUNA craps monkey baby
____________________ the rice I had yesterday came out practically verbatim
LOki: "Overturning Roe vs Wade" is a bad move when discussing the right to privacy.
Roe v. Wade doesn't actually even establish the right to privacy. That was established in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. Which was also based on muddled logic. The dissent is actually better argued than the decision in that case.
Supreme Court decisions are usually based on bullshit logic though. In any case, overturning Roe v. Wade does not in any way overturn the precedent it was based on, and you'd still have a right to privacy, just not to kill babies.
Part of the problem with Roe v. Wade is that they used the Right to Privacy as justification. That's not cool, because it isn't relevant. The only way it becomes a privacy issue is if we establish that killing fetuses is a-okay -- which we haven't definitively done (see Scott Peterson case).
What the court did was say, "you have a right to privacy, so enjoy your abortion!"
What I do believe that you need is more strict regulation of the insurance providers; I think that there needs to be a "reasonable" rate range to operate in to allow them to make money without gouging the insured. I also think that a more robust set of laws be drafted to protect the insured to make sure that the provider doesn't get to weasel out of providing care. Fundamentally, I believe that human beings in the 21st century should not profit from suffering.
I can't remember if I addressed this in another thread or if it was on another site, but you're on the right track. I actually want people to stop accepting employer-provided health insurance. Instead making the Ins. companies have the people they insure as their clients. That'll make them more responsive.
Right now, they don't care, because as long as they provide well enough that your employer doesn't get in trouble, and they don't cost a lot of money, they'll get business.
He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA, As Well As Federal Environmental Protection
This is just nutso, and I don't like it at all. Industries need non-biased watchdogs that ensure that they adhere to well-defined agreed-upon standards. I also don't think he will be able to dislodge the FDA, so it isn't an issue for me. Now the effectiveness of these consumer protection groups is another matter altogether...
There will always be a Ralph Nader. Trust.
what you're quoting there is the Constitution, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the Constitution, however much our popular image of him fuses the two.
He has said that he wants to interpret the Constitution as literally as possible.
I'm sure he'd make exceptions for the "extra rights" that are tip-toed around in the 9th and 14th amendments (right to privacy, etc.), but he's pretty clear about not doing anything the constitution doesn't say he's supposed to.
So yes, quoting the constitution IS like quoting Ron Paul.
LORDKAHUNA: He Doesn't Believe in the Separation of Church and State
Considering all the candidates, would he be the next to further the right-wing xtian directive? My gut tells me that he would grind his ax on other issues, considering the mess he would inherit.
Yes... I guess so. I suppose I wouldn't interpret anything he's said or done as zealotry, except for lawfulness, so I'd agree with this on practical grounds.
He's Not For Federally Supported Public Education He's Not For National Health Care He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA
Personally, I left these bits out of my post because I'm not sure I care about them. He's not into Socialism; I get that, and am curious, and would maybe like to see some movement in that direction. I don't really know enough about that crap works.
As for the abolishment of the FDA and EPA and such... I share the cynicism I've seen some other smart posters point out as regards the hand-waving about commercial enterprise rushing in to fill the federal gap and then being democratically voted for with human dollars. That seems to assume a lot more elegance and savvy on the dynamic of crowds, which are pretty fucking stupid about most things in my entirely elitist opinion. Witness Wal-Mart for Example 1.
Uart: Supreme Court decisions are usually based on bullshit logic though. In any case, overturning Roe v. Wade does not in any way overturn the precedent it was based on, and you'd still have a right to privacy, just not to kill babies.
How does the precedent operate in the absence of the law? I thought overturning the law nullified the precedent, or at least countered it with an equal and more modern contrary precedent. Spill some law talk out of your brain.
Part of the problem with Roe v. Wade is that they used the Right to Privacy as justification. That's not cool, because it isn't relevant.
I can see it in a kind of poetic sense. That is, if little in the official documentation outlines the rights we have to our physical selves, a related right might be shelved in under a broad privacy umbrella -- the right to own the space I occupy, whether in meat or in spirit. At least, that's how I've always guessed the original thinking went.
what you're quoting there is the Constitution, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the Constitution, however much our popular image of him fuses the two.
He has said that he wants to interpret the Constitution as literally as possible.
Which still doesn't make him a living embodiment of the Constitution. He is totally capable of making non-Constitutional decisions at any time, and, as mundhra points out, he may already be doing so. Your perception is not the same thing as his intent. His intent is not the same thing as fact, and so forth.
I'm sure he'd make exceptions for the "extra rights" that are tip-toed around in the 9th and 14th amendments (right to privacy, etc.), but he's pretty clear about not doing anything the constitution doesn't say he's supposed to.
So yes, quoting the constitution IS like quoting Ron Paul.
Haha. You arrive at this conclusion through logic that completely sucks in a totally cute, almost SoFickingWat-esque, way.
If what you're saying here is "I, uart, am totally confident in my reading of this human and am complacent going his way, bar none", that's fine, and I can't say you've picked a bad bucket to put your sweet little uart apples in, but it's this defenseless complacency that I'd like to see quashed and replaced with fact.
On 2007-09-14 at 19:44:49, vasudeva craps baby wotak monkeypigeon
____________________ slippedhole> I am on to you and your evil intentions. I am the true protector of this website and am willing to do battle with you.
Uart: Supreme Court decisions are usually based on bullshit logic though. In any case, overturning Roe v. Wade does not in any way overturn the precedent it was based on, and you'd still have a right to privacy, just not to kill babies.
How does the precedent operate in the absence of the law? I thought overturning the law nullified the precedent, or at least countered it with an equal and more modern contrary precedent. Spill some law talk out of your brain.
When a Judge decides a case, if the statutory law (the shit congress does) doesn't happen to fully cover an issue, he has to check the previous decisions of his and all superior courts, and if another case is similar, use that decision to establish a "rule." If there is NO similar case, he gets the option of just making something up (well, that's the jist anyway).
If he makes something up, he creates a precedent that is binding to all courts below him. Any superior court can overturn that precedent and make it null. In fact, that same judge can change his mind and overturn himself a week later if he feels like it (but lower-courts can't).
How does this apply to Roe v. Wade? Well Roe v. Wade's precedent is essentially a tack-on to the "Right to Privacy" precedent. That right is based in another case (Griswold v. Connecticut). Overturning Roe, therefore, wouldn't NECESSARILY overturn the right to privacy -- it could, but you'd also have to overturn Griswold. What overturning Roe v. Wade would accomplish is to say, "an abortion has nothing to do with your right to privacy."
Ron Paul:The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
You might want the government to disavow all knowledge of god or religion. If you feel strongly about that, you probably shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.
If you are a reasonable person who is capable of not caring if their money says "In God We Trust," then you'd be safe to assume that Ron Paul will not in any way violate your freedom of religion. All he's really going on about here is that he wants to have a goddamned Christmas tree in the White House if he's president (oversimplifying, but you get it, I hope).
I'm not intimidated by references to an unspecified "God" on money, public buildings, or documents. It doesn't offend me, and the constitution doesn't say that the government can't do that. What it says (and Ron Paul is correct) is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That says, as I read it, that Congress can't tell me what religion to be. Ron Paul also reads it that way.
So what is it that bothers you? You don't want the government to put "God" on your money? Is that such a big deal?
LOki:1) You appear to be asserting that a guy running for President who is unashamed of his religion is also a guy who wishes to establish his religion as the national religion despite his enthusiastic defense of the notion that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No. What I'm asserting is that perhaps his feelings re: separation aren't as we'd like. I've seen almost zero discussion of this so far, much less actual debate, and so here we are. I see everyone joyously comfortable with pre-conceived notions, linking youtube videos and such, but I don't see tons of evidence that they're anything but pre-conceived notions.
"Unashamed of his religion" is off the point. I know you know this.
Also, though I share your delight with Paul's single-minded constitutionality (look, his principles come historically documented in this FAQ, flip to page 43 to see how he feels about smores), what you're quoting there is the Constitution, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the Constitution, however much our popular image of him fuses the two.
1a) Fine. You question his feelings regarding the separation of church and state. I'm sure you question every presidential candidate's feelings about the separation of church and state--I know I do. But in your questioning in this particular case, you presented a worry--a concern, if you will--the basis of which is somewhat of a mystery if it's not Ron Paul's lack of shame regarding his religion.
1b) "Unashamed of his religion" is off the point all by itself, but pulling it out of the full assertion is what makes it off the point.
1c) Of course Ron Paul is not the Constitution, but there is little in anything he has said that demands that he endorses the government establishment of religion in contradiction to the the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
What I see here is panic over his statements regarding free exercise--Constitutionally protected free exercise. Odd that so few defenders of Constitionally protected rights have "concerns" regarding infringments upon that particular clause, but insted have "concerns" when it is suggested that said clause is to be taken as seriously as the "make no law" clause, or the free press clause.
vasudeva:
mundhra said this...
mundhra: p.s. (just one) i'm wondering how * Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) is supported by the constitution, exactly.
And no one batted an eye. This is hopefully just because everyone is too busy or overlooked it. The remaining two options are:
1) The answer is obvious to everyone but mundhra and me, who are too naturally stupid to see it
2) There is insufficient practical exploration into the thoughts and motivations of the man the myth the legend Ron Paul.
Saying "oh whatever's in the Constitution, that's what his answer is" is tempting but intellectually facile, and since the chances he's actually going to win this or any near-term candidacy are probably vanishingly small, we have the luxury of doubt. Let's exercise it.
One day we'll be debating a candidate with an actual shot, and we'll need our doubt well-oiled and vrooming.
I disagree with the notion that killing people should be consisdered a right, which is a notion that directly confronts the point that abortion is a right. That you consider the salient bit to be "Cute, and punchy, but ..., not the issue" is what makes you a faggot.
Chut, dunderhead. I consider the 'salient' bit cute and punchy but useless because it has zing, but it doesn't address the issue. It wraps the issue in a glorious soundbite but is otherwise an epitaph on the discussion. Everyone agrees that killing babies is bad; this oversimplifies. I know you're a fan of oversimplification and I'm not saying it's without its benefits, so don't consider this a request to put it through its paces.
Here is the bit I would consider salient -- in practical terms, not philosophical ones: we have Roe v Wade. It's part of our country's law system, having passed muster under plenty of scrutiny. Plenty of people consider it a necessary part of their legal infrastructure, quite apart from the moral implications. It is currently legal.
So you agree, then, that Roe v Wade should be overturned?
As an excuse to consider abortion a right? Absolutely.
vasudeva:
No, I'm not asking you if abortion is bad or killing babies is wrong or should we all eat menses for breakfast. What should we do about Roe v Wade? Now that this argument has conveniently become polarized, I don't expect anyone to do anything other than defend their guess at Ron Paul's position on this, since god forbid we question the man without sucking Al Gore's dick, to quote uart's jackassery.
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.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
It appears to me Ron Paul's point is that all people have a right to life, but have no right to end the life of another. I can agree with this. My agreement does not mean I think abortion = murder, and it's not clear to me that an anti-abortion, pro-life stance neccessarily denies that abortion can be available, legal, and safe--but abortion as a right actually demands that one person has a right to snuff out the life of another, and I'm not down with that particular notion.
vasudeva:
3) I find it compelling that a huge number of actual scientists agree that the sun, in fact, causes global warming; that the entire solar system warming up is evidence that the sun actually causes global warming rather than human CO2 emission; that fluctuations in CO2 concentrations are caused by global warming rather than the cause of global warming; that the energy output of the biggest object within light years of this planet is as significant as it looks; that the .0012% CO2 total contribution that human beings make to the planet's atmosphere is actually as insignificant as it looks.
So let's postulate a huge number of scientists who believe global warming is real, and a second and equally huge number of scientists who disbelieve. I see some choose to side with the one that offers the more convenient choice (relax and ignore) and the right to sneer (which is what I suspect a lot of armchair neocons are doing, now that anything liberal has become demonized). Why not consider that if -- just if -- the former huge number of scientists are just a little bit right, that it's catastrophic?
Because I don't care if everyone calls themselves a "scientist" and then declares that leprechauns ride unicorns on rainbows to get to the pot o' gold at the end--nor do I accept someone's doomsday predictions just because I'll enjoy the surprise of them not being true. I'm more likely to be critical of the bad news delivered by the guy who gets paid when he delivers bad news and gets nothing when he delivers "everything's ok"--particularly when my personal sense of panic is too weak to overcome my secure knowledge that the big ball of fire in the sky is actually so fucking hot it warms this planet, that there is unambiguous evidence that global warming and cooling occurs naturally, that said warming and cooling has been happening long before human beings could possibly have had an impact, and as it turns out, the insignificant bit of CO2 we produce now can't have an impact that is more significant than the warming impact of the sun, and the appurtenant increase in water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas 10,000X more potent than CO2, but does not have the politically useful characteristic of coming out of the tailpipe of the 21st century technologies that golden era luddites are so furiously opposed to.
vasudeva:
In any case, abortion and global warming are great big questions, but defending either side does little to prove out that we've sussed Ron Paul in all his Ron Paulness, which is my angle here. Shitbox's paste of his vote history was very helpful, but there's been little else but embedded videos, which, if that's what's passing for thought these days, I know who to blame (LOki, who is a giant faggot, and I once caught him licking a dog's scrotum while his big hamfists curled spasmodically with in utero babypleasure.).
You only cast said blame because you know I'll accept it laughing.
Inflation and the devaluation of my fucking $ is a bloody tampon topic on my plate.
Three years ago, my wife and I bought our first (and hopefully only) home. We entered into a contract for 30 years and assumed responsibility for a 160K debt. It's a scary thing to jump into but you're reassured that it is an investment.
Today, my 160K home barely qualifies for a 130K loan, even after we've spent well over 20K in remodeling/home improvements in the 3 years we've been here. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
Every year the insurance companies I'm forced to shovel $ into, raise their rates. My government doesn't regulate this. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
Every year the fuel I rely on to get to and from work and to warm my home gets more expensive and my government refuses to regulate this. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
How is it that property taxes increase as the value of my home is plummeting? I want to hear some political talking heads address this little situation.
Pharmaceuticals cost more here than pretty much anywhere in the world. My government refuses to regulate this. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
Wedge topics:
Abortion: I don't really fucking care. If human life were sacred, we wouldn't have wars. They kill people too. Unborn baby life is no more sacred than the dead Iraqis our tax dollars pay for.
Church/State: The Constitution says separation. I do too. Keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate. Practice whatever superstition you want to, just keep it out of my government.
Gay stuff: Who fucking cares? I mean, seriously. Lowbrow bullshit.
Guns: The Constitution says they are yours. I don't have any but don't have any problems with my neighbors having them.
Privacy: The Constitution is supposed to be protecting mine - why is it not?
Currently, I see no potential presidents providing justification for a vote based on the issues that are important to me - namely my capitalistic concerns and my ability to retire in comfort.
I'm not sure how things look in other places in America, but here in Michigan it's pretty fucking bleak. Every day the back pages of the papers that used to hold neat little columns of job opportunities are getting smaller while the foreclosed homes noticed replace them. I am not exaggerating. The foreclosure notices fill an average of two pages and it's constant.
This represents a fucking political issue to me that is not being addressed by anyone to my satisfaction.
Our infrastructure is crumbling, our dollar is being destroyed and our futures are being funneled into the middle east so that mega corporations can profit on the backs of our soldiers at the expense of human lives... for no reason other than some bullshit notion of "safety".
Our nation is run by profiteers with one hand up some random political puppets ass manipulating its talking head, while the other hand is stuffing profits into it's bottomless pocket.
I can't even come up with a good reason to vote for anyone that doesn't have the balls to leave the wedge topics alone and focus on fixing the economic stability of Americans who just want to live and let live.
uart: * Roe v. Wade was a pretty bad decision by the Supreme Court
Why? Because abortion is bad?
I suspect that Ron Paul is not for or against abortion in a political sense. He is against Row v. Wade, not because it was a bad Supreme Court decision (it was) but rather because he sees abortion as a state's rights issue under the 10th Amendment, and feels that the federal government has no business being involved.
____________________ < nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
Wotak: Inflation and the devaluation of my fucking $ is a bloody tampon topic on my plate.
Three years ago, my wife and I bought our first (and hopefully only) home. We entered into a contract for 30 years and assumed responsibility for a 160K debt. It's a scary thing to jump into but you're reassured that it is an investment.
Sounds like you and your wife made an oopsie
Today, my 160K home barely qualifies for a 130K loan, even after we've spent well over 20K in remodeling/home improvements in the 3 years we've been here. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
Yes, the government should ensure that WOTAK never loses money on an investment...
Every year the insurance companies I'm forced to shovel $ into, raise their rates. My government doesn't regulate this. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
No, they do regulate this. They're the ones forcing you to shovel money into an insurance policy that you seem to think you could do without.
Every year the fuel I rely on to get to and from work and to warm my home gets more expensive and my government refuses to regulate this. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
1) Every candidate is funded by ExxonMobile
2) the government doesn't explore for, drill, refine, or pull oil out of the sky
3) Even if they did, it wouldn't be their place to
4) They DID raise gas taxes... you know, to encourage you to take public transport (prob. solved?)
Pick one. What would you want them to do? Mandate a price? yaaay Capitalism! (what?)
How is it that property taxes increase as the value of my home is plummeting? I want to hear some political talking heads address this little situation.
Because the government is corrupt and YOU let them get this kind of bullshit power. Quit accepting government domination of your life, and maybe you can get change. This of course means that you need to be against government control even when it might help you out in the short term.
Pharmaceuticals cost more here than pretty much anywhere in the world. My government refuses to regulate this. Why is this problem not being addressed by all of the candidates?
Lets set prices for all goods and put major industries out of business / cause foreign companies to leave american markets because WOTAK has the sniffles. The drugs are cheaper elsewhere because other countries mandate a price -- we, therefore pay for what the pharma company should be making elsewhere. If we mandate lower prices, we risk killing the Pharmaceutical companies.
Ironically, the socialism of the rest of the world, combined with our big, bleeding, American hearts, is causing the problem. Socialism will not fix it.
Wedge topics:
Abortion: I don't really fucking care. If human life were sacred, we wouldn't have wars. They kill people too. Unborn baby life is no more sacred than the dead Iraqis our tax dollars pay for.
Yeah, but at least the Iraqis get to shoot back. Fetuses are (usually) unarmed.
Church/State: The Constitution says separation. I do too. Keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate. Practice whatever superstition you want to, just keep it out of my government.
The constitution doesn't actually say "separate." What it says is that the gov't cannot establish a national church. Check it out.
Privacy: The Constitution is supposed to be protecting mine - why is it not?
The constitution does not in any sort of way offer you a right to privacy. The Supreme Court pulled that right out of their ass and will enforce it as they see fit. Ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg to help you.
Currently, I see no potential presidents providing justification for a vote based on the issues that are important to me - namely my capitalisticsocialist concerns and my ability to retire in comfort.
When you want the government to do everything for you, and bail you out when you do something dumb, that is socialism, not capitalism. You may have greedy, rather than egalitarian desires, but that's why MOST people support socialism anyway.
I'm not sure how things look in other places in America, but here in Michigan it's pretty fucking bleak. Every day the back pages of the papers that used to hold neat little columns of job opportunities are getting smaller while the foreclosed homes noticed replace them. I am not exaggerating. The foreclosure notices fill an average of two pages and it's constant.
The banks fucked up. People fucked up by trusting the banks. It isn't the government's job or responsibility to clean your ass after you shit your pants.
This represents a fucking political issue to me that is not being addressed by anyone to my satisfaction.
If everyone chipped in and gave you a dollar would you feel better?
Our infrastructure is crumbling, our dollar is being destroyed and our futures are being funneled into the middle east so that mega corporations can profit on the backs of our soldiers at the expense of human lives... for no reason other than some bullshit notion of "safety".
The US Government has pursued a policy of constant inflation since Woodrow Wilson was president. It is starting to bother you now? Ron Paul would probably put an end to that -- at least he'd try.
) I think to institute national healthcare in the US would bankrupt it.
