Wotak:

At the end of the day; yeah, I guess I am but at least I'm being honest with myself and whoever chooses to read this discussion.

Look at it this way: at least Ron Paul isn't going to have me voting against him.

Of all the candidates, he's the only one saying anything I really agree with. On the other hand, I have a problem trusting the logic of a man that doesn't believe in evolution when it comes to making such critical changes to the government I live within.

Just because I think he might be full of crap doesn't make it so. As I said, it's my opinion. I'm not going to get into a personal nut kicking contest with you over it. I'm just stating my opinions for the sake of discussion.

_{On 2008-01-02 at 17:01:12, Wotak asked to smell your dick}

He is a libertarian who dislikes corporate subsidies, so he would veto the mega-billion dollar subisidies for Big Agra, Big Pharma, nuclear power company insurance policies, Weapons-R-Us, the ADM/Cargill Great Ethanol Scam,et al. He could veto the federal highway spending that is promoting sprawl. He has also stated that he opposed so-called free trade agreements.

Hello?

Don't argue with libertarians when they are right. Many of them say that the leviathan-capitalists that dominate the world's economy could not get as big as they are in an unfettered and unsubsidized market. Newsflash: that is actually true.

Ron Paul is a Gold Bug. For the uninitiated, that means he believes dollar-value should be pegged to a gold-standard. The implications of a return to the gold standard by the Fed are grim... for Wall Street and the military, both of which depend on massive foreign loans convered by runaway printing presses. Putting a stop to this is a Good Thing. What is the net effect?

Ron Paul may have the most outrageous personal account of race you might imagine; but what is the most horrific social catastrophe in the United States for Black and Brown folk? You guessed it: the criminal (in)justice system. The malignant growth of the American Gulag has been fueled -- more than by any other cause -- by the ever-more-punative criminalization of drug use and drug addiction, and the ability fo the criminal justice system to apply this criminalization with special force against African America and Hispano-Latinas. Here's the thing. Paul opposes the criminalization of drugs. What is the net effect?

LOki:

This is the part that bothers you?

"The effect on the U.S. economy of such policies would be tremendous. Ottawa would have to react, or else we could lose the little competitive advantages that fiscal prudence has earned us over the last decade. Reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15.5% to 15% will not do it. And who knows how far the loonie would fall back again if hard money and sound finances were to prevail south of the border?

Ron Paul policies would also threaten what has been a fundamental feature of Canadian economic policy for the past two decades, free trade -- or rather, relatively free managed trade -- with the United States. Paul's idea of free trade is to get the government out of the way, not to create more international bureaucratic structures that are not accountable. That would raise interesting debates. Would the NDP and the Council of Canadians denounce the threat of genuine free trade and launch a campaign to save NAFTA?

However many votes Paul ultimately gets, we shouldn't wait for an U.S. politician to force those reforms on us, especially one who wants to do away with Yankee imperialism. Freedom is a universal, not an American value. Free markets work everywhere. Why not get rid of all this government deadweight of our own volition, and for our own good?"

Does Yankee imperialism comfort you?

LORDKAHUNA:Some of his strongest stances on taxation, immigration, foreign policy, social security and immigration would require so much of a deviation from the mean that he could be toppled 2nd term by a platform that seeks to overturn those changes. These changes are so aggressive that it would take a monumental effort to manage them in two terms, let alone one.

So where would that leave you?

Now I know we could all beat our chest about the “right thing”, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought that “right” came in only one flavour or intensity. Ron Paul appears to have the admirable quality of being unshakeable on his issues, but to me it seems that he is lacking in the political coin of the realm, compromise.

HankRearden:

Is it not better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all? It is better to seek real change, than to seek a small change that will be surely overturned somewhere down the line. If none of our efforts to seek a better government can ever be fruitful then we have only two options, 1) Give up and accept that government will never act appropriately or 2) TRY to enact change anyway.

If we are going to try for change, it makes little sense, given the often apathetic and/or ignorant political climate of America to rely on an ongoing movement of small incremental changes. Rather, the most effective way to effect change seems to be to make sudden and drastic changes and hope they stick. This is how FDR dragged us into the welfare state. There was nothing gradual or incremental about the New Deal.

LORDKAHUNA: I don't hate his message, a lot of it tugs at those areas of the heart and mind that make you think "FUCKING RITE!" in a kind of buzzwordy way. I would like to see a positive change for America, and many of the principles he speaks about make sense, until I try to envision a way that he can actually make them happen.

LORDKAHUNA: Some of his strongest stances on taxation, immigration, foreign policy, social security and immigration would require so much of a deviation from the mean that he could be toppled 2nd term by a platform that seeks to overturn those changes. These changes are so aggressive that it would take a monumental effort to manage them in two terms, let alone one.

LORDKAHUNA: Now I know we could all beat our chest about the “right thing”, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought that “right” came in only one flavour or intensity. Ron Paul appears to have the admirable quality of being unshakeable on his issues, but to me it seems that he is lacking in the political coin of the realm, compromise.

LORDKAHUNA: Ron would have to be a unifying force across all government and interest elements to achieve what he says he can achieve, but he has stolen all the couch cushions and made a little fort, to play in that fort you have to follow all his rules. The thing is bigger kids have the ability to kick the shit out of the he-man guvmint haters club, eat all the snax that his mom made for all the members AND steal his bike.

LORDKAHUNA: What I believe is that you just need to start with pointing in the right direction, elect candidates that can make lasting incremental positive changes, and find a way to keep the stupids from fucking it up.

LORDKAHUNA: I just don’t see RP as your horsey.

LORDKAHUNA: There are a bunch of negative aspects; points that seem to be outright overlooked by his overzealous supporters, stuff that really gives me pause and makes me think that there are horns poking at that halo that is jammed on his head. I just don't want to be overly negative about the dude.

LORDKAHUNA: But then again, I might be full of shit, I am a commie canuck afterall.

LOki: This make no sense...outside of a flakey "it's always been wrong and alway will be wrong, so attempts to right this are futile" sort of sensibility.

He has clearly stated that reversing that dependency would have to be achieved incrementally.

I'm not sure Ron Paul lacks the ability to compromise; he'd never be in politics at his level if that were true. Yet, OTOH, willingness to compromise one's principles is not something I'm looking for either. Of course, is good to have sound, sensible principles in the first place.

I'll bet you have a better suggestion (other than me).

There are a bunch? Like he's an anti-semite Stormfront shill, neo-con, flat earther, 911 was an inside job, Christian, black guys can run real fast racist? That bunch of negatives? Are you about to make this LOki point and LOLz @ U d00d?

Grain of salt taken. Thanks for the bacon!

LORDKAHUNA: Now I anticipated this point/counterpoint response and realize that there is really no way I can play this game without looking doofy.

LORDKAHUNA:

I appreciate your interpretation, but thats not what I said.

LORDKAHUNA:

Not trying to be a dick, I really do want to see where he has clearly stated that, it would go a long way towards changing my opinion of the dude.

LORDKAHUNA:

I can agree with you in part, a certain amount of savvy has allowed him to operate at his level, but do you think he would bend on any of his principles to push another through?

LORDKAHUNA:

I kinda like this dude, he is no Loki tho.

LORDKAHUNA:

Well, for a dude who carries the personal liberty torch as much as he does, why does he table stuff like this? “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” To me, this puts him on the wrong side of a pretty basic human rights issue. It would have been one thing to not have a public opinion on this matter, he is outright opposed to dinksie to bumsies ever being equal with straights.

LORDKAHUNA: His environmental track record doesn't make me feel any better:
A bill to amend the Clean Air Act.

LORDKAHUNA: A bill to repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977.

LORDKAHUNA: A bill to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

LORDKAHUNA: A bill to repeal all Federal regulations and taxes on the production of fuel. (I don't have a huge beef with the tax bit, but I do believe in regulation, laff away)

LORDKAHUNA: A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from promulgating any federal emergency energy conservation plan which would restrict recreational boating. (HAHA, fucking WHAT?!?)

LORDKAHUNA: He has twice tried to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things states that government contractors are paid fairly, and prohibits any kind of kickback to those choosing the contractor when the jobs are tendered.

LORDKAHUNA: He also tabled legeslation to kill OSHA twice (I know it has it's problems) without a occupational safety alternative.

LORDKAHUNA: On fleet footed beige ppl:
A bill to provide that the Internal Revenue Service may not implement certain proposed rules relating to the determination of whether private schools have discriminatory policies.

LORDKAHUNA: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. So being born in the USA doesn't make you a citizen? Why punish an innocent and make them a person without citizenship?

LORDKAHUNA: I guess to clarify, these are just a few things that bug me, but rock out dude.

LOki:
I love you for your courage in this. GLEEE!

Sure it is.

I think it was in one of those first vids I posted.

What do you mean?

On the plus side, he sees no need for further gun control, nice. I'd like to see him see a need for less.
On the neg side, he sees a need to get into the personal healthcare account that I worked for, (and should be the sole decider regarding how it is spent) and give a portion of it to some shitknuckle I don't give a fuck about. Fuck him.

Mike Gravelsite: Senator Gravel advocates a universal healthcare system that provides equal medical services to all citizens, paid for by a retail sales tax (a portion of the Progressive Fair tax). Citizens would pay nothing for health benefits.

First, Federal funding. Ron Paul is always throwing a stick in the spokes of the Federal Spending Machine. Very much of Paul's politics resides in the notion that social policies, like all this "Family Values" stuff, are far beyond the Constitutional scope of the Federal Government, and are better handled locally, or at the State level at most. I think he's right.

Let me point this out to you--there is a school of thought regarding government, that as an appurtenance to society to promotes society, government should (at least) be bereft of influences that are anti-social; homosexuality at it's very benign best has a socially neutral impact. If you subscribe to the school of thought that asserts government should promote society, then you must also subscribe to the notion that government should protect society from the anti-social. Species death by NAMBLA bath-house reproductive retardedness is anti-social.

Here's the real deal though; if you wish homosexuality to be a human rights issue, then it cannot be a life style issue. You choose your life style, you choose your hair style, but they do not make you human; I would assert that sexuality does not either. But the choosing does, and so does recognizing the inherent validity of that part of human-ness that is choosing. The same goes for the validity of that part of human-ness that is sexuality, and it is not just a life style. Homosexuality is no more a life style than heterosexuality is, it therfore is not a valid, or acceptable "alternative" life syle. Claiming so undermines the rights issue.

(Regarding the Clean Air Act change) First, I have no idea what critera you used to decide if this was bad action.

Clean Air Act is not what it sounds like, and does not do what it sounds like it does. Despite the restraint exercised in the name of it's claimed intent, what it in fact does is grant federal jurisdiction over the air. The kind of jurisdiction that if they arbitrarily decide that CO2 is an air pollutant, and you're emitting CO2, you can be fined, imprisoned, or both. Welcome to the federal police state.

There are better ways to achieve clean air, but they involve respecting private property--those are notions that those subscibing to authoritarian paradigms are unwilling to contemplate.

Regulations DO NOT protect you; they shield them form litigation, and from criminal proceding.

An amendemnt to restict the jurisdiction of the United States. What's your problem?

Laffing. And pointing.

Yeah. The Secretary of Energy is not an elected official, his bullshit plans are not subject to a vote, and his "state of emergency" should not be interfering with the manner in which I choose to burn my gasoline, or run my boat.

Are you out of you fucking mind?

Besides being patently racist, the Davis-Bacon Act is wrong for reasons already thoroughly discussed, but I'll paraphrse here: it's theft.

The Copeland Act just protects the theives from having their stolen wages stolen back.

So what? And you know right where I'm coming from, and I still ask, So what?

Why should the IRS, whose directorship is unelected, and whose rules are unvoted upon, be making rules regarding the policies of private schools?

Why is it punishment to not be a US citizen?

After all, USA sucks, we're all a bunch of Christian zealots, shooting guns off our back porches, while drinking PBR, just waiting for a queer to come by by so we can drag him behind our shitty red pick-up truck; and all those fuckers that scream BUSHSUX all the time are sure it sucks--denying citizenship is a favor, yes?

Or do you suppose the real reason might be to stop a certain kind of illegal immigrant that plays the system by wheeling her fat belly into this country just in time to drop sprog--now this little crotch monkey, and it's immediate family are getting US entitlements (which are bullshit in the first place) that they contibuted nothing to deserve--perhaps that's it. Maybe?

Since I'm against proper US citizens collecting bullshit entitlements, I am cetainly against citizens created upon some bullshit technicality collecting bullshit entitlements too. I'm just betting Ron Paul agrees, and that is the real point of this business.

How did I do?

LORDKAHUNA:

For example, would he be willing to soften his stance on Immigration in order to reform Free Trade (or vice-versa)?

LORDKAHUNA:



YEAH, LOOKIT THAT FUCKING ANIMAL!
I think this is an issue where you and I will diverge philosophically, I’m pro-universal healthcare and you are nuts (lolbait).

LORDKAHUNA:

This isn’t him throwing a stick, he is bottom-lip-deep in the family-values shitpool on this issue and you are channeling him through the Lokifilter

LORDKAHUNA:

I think this is your interpretation and reasoning behind RP’s stance on the icky faggos. Ron Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004 which placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders (it’s goofy to have straights be able to transfer marriage rights across the US and not the married homos). He also said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage, this sounds a lot like Churchy Churchness values leaking into your government.

LORDKAHUNA:

{lebowski]I believe that this is, like, your opinion, man.{/lebowski}
So exercising one’s ability to make a lawful life-style choice is not a human right?

LORDKAHUNA: And it is ok for the government to say that one decision is more valid and can partake in government sponsored programs and another cant?

LORDKAHUNA:

Well this: to postpone for one year the application of certain restrictions to areas which have failed to attain national ambient air quality standards and to delay for one year the date required for adoption and submission of State implementation plans applicable to these areas, and for other purposes.

So this was an agenda free motion to allow certain areas to continue pollution without penalty, to buy time because…? This is the type of thing that removes teeth from legislation.

Oh shit, I forgot, pollution sources will stop polluting because they are good neighbors.

LORDKAHUNA:

This is more Loki-preaching, and I’ll listen and maybe convert, but the issue was RP trying to weaken the effectiveness of the Act. I don’t see in human nature where a level of “respect” would ever result in less pollution, unless the damage has already been done and the polluters were saving face.

LORDKAHUNA:

And what would happen if the regulations do not exist, or were removed. What would the framework be to determine what emissions are ok and what are not?

LORDKAHUNA:
Well this touches on where we disagree, regulation. And dredged fill can deposit pollution down waterways that span states, so a higher authority should regulate.

LORDKAHUNA:

Again, what goes into fuel also exits into the air, all your USA air. Better regulated federally IMO.

LORDKAHUNA:

What if it was a sensible temporary plan that would benefit the majority of US citizens during a time of crisis? What if the Secretary of Energy was placed in that position by his merit as a public servant in that particular field, where is the bullshit?

LORDKAHUNA:

YES



The Davis-Bacon Act ensures that the government doesn’t fuck over American workers by allowing fly-by-night contractors and their ilk. It’s not theft, when contractors compete on the basis of skill and productivity, you all benefit. When they compete to have the lowest wages or labor standards, you all lose.

LORDKAHUNA:
The Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act generally prohibits federal contractors or subcontractors engaged in building construction or repair from inducing an employee to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is entitled under his or her employment contract and requires such contractors and subcontractors to submit weekly statements of compliance.
Err, wat?

LORDKAHUNA:

OSHA can save lives, I know and I know that you know what can happen in an unsafe work area. Yes I know that we can leave business to it’s own devices and let evolution work itself out, but that doesn’t keep the stupids from sticking their arms in tri-acid, at least with a OSHA mandated guard 75% of the stupids get to hug their stupid kids when they go home at night.

LORDKAHUNA:

That would make more sense if he was advocating a ban on IRS looking into all policies of private schools, I just found it odd that discrimination was specified.

LORDKAHUNA:

Not exactly what I said (I made it bold and added "ANY" so you can see it better).

LORDKAHUNA:

AW HELL NAW, I NUB THE USA.

LORDKAHUNA:

Who says they can’t contribute?

LORDKAHUNA:

Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door. Maybe this is one of the reasons your country is great, maybe people drop crotch-issue there because they believe that their life would be better?

nocal: for all this talk about ron paul defending the constitution, and strict interpretations and such:

have you read the constitution? do you realize that we have no individual right to vote guaranteed therein? i hope ron paul gets elected and does exactly what you say he will do...and subsequently you can't vote again

Nice try fuckpants.

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society.
[...]
North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost."

nocal: