The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

[easterbunny]

the same with weed is the same the pauls

they look crazy as they mature

they start of strong and die off in the end

and usually the offspring fucks you up faster than the parents

just saying

(and i bet he still walks around in the robes in private) just an opinion

 

[Carthoris]

The Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the powers of regulating interstate trade to Congress. This has been upheld in many Supreme Court cases. I will provide a list of cases if you desire.

One of the most interesting early cases is Gibbons v. Ogden. The SCOTUS is in charge of interpreting the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause is also relevant. It's Article VI. Check Ableman v. Booth.

The problem with the Constitution is that you either take it or leave it. Sweeping change as suggested by Ron Paul does not follow stare decisis and will not stand up in the SCOTUS, thereby rendering his ideas impossible IMHO.

I'll go back and listen to the Rand Paul segment.

What are you replying to?

 

[budlover13]

the same with weed is the same the pauls

they look crazy as they mature

they start of strong and die off in the end

and usually the offspring fucks you up faster than the parents

just saying

(and i bet he still walks around in the robes in private) just an opinion

Wow Bunny.

 

[Girdweed]

What are you replying to?

I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.

I'm all for States' rights.

The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws.

The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"

I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.

If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.

He does have several good points.

 

[UncleBuck]

A private golf course isn't a business anymore is it? It is a club asset

they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.

by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.

i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.

 

[budlover13]

they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.

by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.

i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.

So you have a choice then. Congratulations! RP will give you more imo.

 

[UncleBuck]

You boyfriend Dan started a thread called something along the lines of "State rights are fucking awesome, fuck the feds". Does this only apply when it is something you like?

yes, you libertarians are so much holier than thou. never making insults, especially not ones that use homosexuality as some kind of an insult. fucking asshole.

i would reference the constitution on a case by case basis for where state rights apply.

we have a landmark case on abortion decided on by the SCOTUS. i can not recall off the top of my head one that deals with cannabis, perhaps your smarmy, holier than thou ass can enlighten me.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ron Paul holds that all people are created with the right to be who they are to begin with and don't need laws to give them rights they are given naturally by a government who doesn't have the right to give them the right anyway. - FACT

yes, we have those rights naturally. the government can insure them through legislation.

you seriously think our rights can be "given" to us by the government?

Ron Paul knows the economy will collapse eventually and require a complete overhaul. It is like deciding to fix your leaking engine now or wait til it runs out of oil. Rep and Dem want to wait til the engine is junk before any action - FACT

i'm sure if ron paul was POTUS and vetoed any measures we took to stabilize the economy, we'd all be singing his praises right now.

LOL!

Ron Paul thinks men and women have the same liberty. Women outnumber men and have the same right to vote - how could men oppress women in this circumstance? The answer - they couldn't. Ron Paul doesn't think the government needs to make laws about things they have no right to make laws about - FACT

not fact. check his fucking website.

There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. - ron paul, 11/28/2007

and how can men oppress women? look out your fucking window. check a fucking HR department. 80 cents on the dollar and you seem to think they should not be in charge of making decisions about their own body and their own health. you seem to think a fucking unborn fetus should take precedent over a fucking citizen of our nation.

oh, btw....it was the government who insured a woman's natural right to vote. shove that in your pipe and smoke it. i hope you choke on it.

i admit, a little hostile at the moment. i will burn one.

 

[UncleBuck]

Whites definitely face discrimination in prison. The government allows them to be abused in prison. In many communities blacks outnumber whites - why aren't whites protected as minorities in those communities? Are whites incapable of being minorities?

again, i'll be sure to go cry some crocodile tears for you poor, persecuted white males and your long history of oppression in this nation of ours.

 

[UncleBuck]

You might accuse me of justifying racism or being racist, but that isn't what this is about. This is about the right of each person to be and do what they want as long as they aren't hurting someone.

i am not accusing you of being racist. i am pointing out that your views allow racism, segregation, discrimination, and the like to happen.

Not letting someone shop at a store isn't hurting anyone, its not helping them, but it isn't hurting them. I have absolutely not responsibility to any other citizen other than to not hurt them.

bullshit.

have you checked a history book? back before civil rights, blacks had a limited selection to choose from. choice was taken away from them, and they were often left with inferior choices. i thought you were pro-choice?

seriously dude, check a fucking history book. segregation, discrimination, and the like DID hurt your fellow citizen. only a blithering fucktard would deny this historical fact.

 

[Olan]

(pardon my English) I find it Interesting how Americans Debate Dr. Ron Paul's position on this or that. It would seem to me since America is ruled by a ruling class of mostly well-to-do lawyers who historically break about half of their campaign promises and then vote to trespass against the high law of the country the Constitution on a nearly daily basis, I would vote for anyone who had the moral fortitude to do what they said they would do and vote how they promised they would vote for decades. This man is not advocating violence to my knowledge, so what could possible be the concern? are so many people so entwined in the outcome of one or two small political issues that they would vote against someone who has a different opinion on the subject, even if they were historically the only leader who hasn't lied to the american people? In my opinion most countries would elect this man then build a statue of him when he was done.

 

[Girdweed]

In my opinion most countries would elect this man then build a statue of him when he was done.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[Parker]

I get what you're saying and it doesn't sound that unreasonable from our perspective today. But if you go back to the south at the time of civil rights legislation, it was necessary. If we are talking about most areas of the country today, sure, what you're saying might be true in some areas. But it wasn't true when talking about the south in the 60's. The theoretical arguments you guys are making isn't what was going on in the south. Whites only businesses were thriving and most of the goods/services black folks had access to were substandard.

When Ron Paul argues against the civil rights act that is a segregationist argument, because without the government stepping in, the result was segregation. Think about what you're really arguing here. Don't think only about the modern implications, but also the implications of the time when it became law. Do you really believe segregation was justified based on property rights?

Government was the main one that wanted segregation. Remember the busing fiasco? They bus lines didn't want to loose their black customers.
In answer to your question yes property rights are something that should not be taken away by government. A government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away everything that you have.

I think one of the things that would come out of not having the Civil rights Act is we would have seen more black owned businesses. Blacks as a percentage are the lowest self employed. If enough people can't go into a store and there is a market someone will open up a store for them.

 

[Parker]

I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.

you haven't proved much. you mentioned stare decisis but fail to mention the SCOTUS was set up to be the weakest of the 3 judicial branches. Quite a few people disagree withe ruling since a ruling judge should have recused himself. Another example of power going to someones head.

I'm all for States' rights.
The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws.

no it doesn't, it states the Feds have specific (enumerated) duties The Federalist papers tell us this. General Welfare is a mission statementnothing more than "Go where no man has gone before" It doesn't mean carte blanche for Congress. Otherwise why have the listed specific and enumerated powers?

The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"

why is that a problem?

I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.

incorrect you've mis spoken again
if you thing the interstate commerce clause was for the feds to regulate commerce you dont get the idea behind the foundation of the Constitution. The commerce clause has been interpreted more and more broadly which was against the founders wishes.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Meaning the commerce which takes place between states. Regulating the Commerce between the States implies only the right to create standard procedures that will control the way the States deal with each other.

If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.
He does have several good points.

It's not disassembling our system. Its putting things back in place to where our founders wanted them.

Go back to the Federalist and Non Federalist papers
"The commerce clause gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce — not any “matters that have significant spillover effects across state lines.” The Constitutional Convention rejected the wording of the Virginia Plan, which arguably would have let the Federal government regulate any activity with interstate spillover. In other words, the Founders made the deliberate decision to leave many activities with spillover effects to the states."

 

[ginjawarrior]

I think one of the things that would come out of not having the Civil rights Act is we would have seen more black owned businesses. Blacks as a percentage are the lowest self employed. If enough people can't go into a store and there is a market someone will open up a store for them.

WOW i'd thought id seen it all but i have honestly never heard that one before

your trying to say one of the ways "blacks" arent empowered is because its too easy for them to buy stuff??

 

[Carthoris]

I stated that some of Ron Paul's ideas (specifically dealing with States' rights) are unconstitutional. He said to prove it. I did.

I'm all for States' rights.

The problem is that the Constitution clearly specifies that the Feds trump States' laws.

The other problem is this question, "Why States' rights and not municipal rights?"

I'd like to see the Federal Government relax quite a few things and spend less money. These two things can be done within the contructs of the Constitution. Ron Paul's ideas are outside of the framework established by the Constitution and interpreted by the SCOTUS.

If we want to scrap the Constitution and start over, argue that point. Disassembling our entire system can not be done the way that Ron Paul is suggesting IMHO. That's why he's not taken seriously by his opposition.

He does have several good points.

The Constitution reserves all the rights for the states and the people that are not specifically given to the federal government. All laws are given to interpretation, and all laws are looked at for intent for the most part during a court case. However, what it boils down to is which ideals our Supreme Court Justices hold. The interstate commerce law is applied illegally on many things, and outside of the intent and scope of the law. Kind of like the stand that the interstate commerce clause allows universal healthcare or outlawing marijuana. It does neither.

He could take a play from the Roosevelt playbook and add 20 justices to dilute opposing ideas. lol.

 

[Carthoris]

they make money and balance books like any other business. they just don't advertise themselves as being 'open to the public' like a public course a local muni.

by the way, that is a good example of government doing it better than the private sector can. the munis i have played all over the country are always better courses than private/public courses that charge the same price.

i once played pumpkin ridge here in portland, both their private and public courses. i like the local munis (redtail and heron lakes) much better. more challenging and just as well maintained. and i don't have to pay a $25k annual membership or $150 in peak season. in peak season, the munis are $30 - $40 for a better, more challenging course.

Many businesses never advertise at all outside of a small sign over their business. That is most definitely not the difference.

That is an opinion about doing it better. Mostly those people are paying more so they don't have to play with you.

 

[NoDrama]

truth stings a bit, doesn't it?

ron paul does not support civil rights: FACT
ron paul would have let the economy collapse: FACT
ron paul does not support more liberty for women: FACT

Ron Paul ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS Civil rights, what he wouldn't support is the civil rights ACT.
Presidents don't have the power to decide whether or not a economy will collapse, they can influence things somewhat, but since 1913 it is now solely in the hands of the Federal Reserve.
Ron Paul supports liberty and justice FOR ALL.

These are the real facts.

 

[londonfog]

How can you be for Civil rights but would vote against something that gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters..WTF...The equal protection clause of the of the 14th Amendment cleared the fake claim that property rights beats racial discrimination...Glad Ron Paul will not make it out the primary!!!!! Ron Paul stated "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry" again WTF..someone tell the man about the 1954 landmark Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of education,the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He actually thinks these cases made race relations worst.. WTF .. hmmmm maybe it made it worst for him due to him having to deal with the other race more up and personal..I myself would hate to see how it would be without it...

 

[NoDrama]

How can you be for Civil rights but would vote against something that gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters..WTF...The equal protection clause of the of the 14th Amendment cleared the fake claim that property rights beats racial discrimination...Glad Ron Paul will not make it out the primary!!!!! Ron Paul stated "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry" again WTF..someone tell the man about the 1954 landmark Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of education,the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He actually thinks these cases made race relations worst.. WTF .. hmmmm maybe it made it worst for him due to him having to deal with the other race more up and personal..I myself would hate to see how it would be without it...

Back to American History 101 with you. Blacks had the vote in the 19th century there guy. February 26, 1869 to be precise. The act also did not give anyone any rights, rights cannot come from a piece of paper, the act made it criminal to discriminate.

Those things did make racial relations worse initially, only after they had been implemented and a generation of ill conceived race generalizations were proven false did things come together. IMO the act has served its purpose, time to go the way of the dodo. Do we really need government to tell us" Hey you ARE DIFFERENT than other people, therefore we have special programs for you." ??