Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign, Forms New Org

JoeKuboj writes "Texas Rep. Ron Paul announced Thursday he is suspending his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to focus his time on building an organization to help recruit and elect 'limited government Republicans.' Paul's decision to leave the race is an acknowledgment he had no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But even in loss, Paul is one of a handful of candidates who walked away from this presidential contest a winner. His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq."

Comments

A broad base of ..

[Anonymous Coward]

insane people, who do not understand econ 101.

Re:A broad base of ..

[eclectro]

The Ronulans have always been trouble.

Re:A broad base of ..

[morari]

I don't see why. They're one of the largest presences within the Beta Quadrant.

Re:A broad base of ..

[Foobar of Borg]

The Ronulans have always been trouble.

You don't understand. These are Ronulans! You run away from them and you guarantee war! They'll be back, not with just one candidate, but with everything they've got! You know this, Mr. Science Officer, you're the expert on these people, but you've always left out that one fact. Why? I've very interested in why!

Re:A broad base of ..

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't all be obamamaniacs.

Hail OBAMA!
Hail the MESSIAH!
HE shall save us from our sins!

Re:A broad base of ..

[hwsb]

an imaginary +1 trek reference for you, sir

Re:A broad base of ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you would say the same thing about Mike Munger, the Libertarian candidate for governor of North Carolina....who happens to be an economics professor at Duke University.

Re:A broad base of ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators, thank you for proving my point.

No, I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

His presidential campaign had a broad base of support that included traditionally fiscal and socially conservative Republicans to young people who were angry about the U.S. decision to wage war against Iraq. The socially conservative Republicans were strongly against Ron Paul.

Re:No, I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the submitter has some special definition of "socially conservative" (like how liberal is completely transformed when you call it classical) then yeah, the entire tiny government thing is 100% against the current "socially conservative" movement of having the government making sure you live your life the right way.

Re:No, I don't think so

[PresidentEnder]

You're wrong. You've heard it before, you've heard evidence against your view before, and you're attached to the idea that Ron Paul's a BIG SCARY RACIST, so you don't listen. Just once, I'd like to see someone mount a real attack on the man's ideology, instead of ad hominem attacks based on lies.

Re:No, I don't think so

[debatem1]

evidence?

Re:No, I don't think so

[Omestes]

I'd like to see someone mount a real attack on the man's ideology, instead of ad hominem attacks based on lies.

But... but... isn't that the basis of ALL modern American politics?

Re:No, I don't think so

[Bloodoflethe]

That isn't evidence. That is commentary.

Re:No, I don't think so

[debatem1]

Interesting. I usually try to stay informed on politics and had missed this. The source is questionable, of course, but the original newsletters turned up soon enough, and they are indeed quite damning. To be fair, they aren't the usual caricature of racist diatribe- they avoid the 'N' word, for example- but they are filled with thinly veiled comparisons of african-americans to animals, repeated reference to black-on-white violence, and a variety of wild assertions about african-americans, their predilections, and black culture. Here's the link: L.A. Riots

Re:No, I don't think so

[debatem1]

I thought so too until I saw that they had the originals. Read them- I provide the link further up the thread. It's pretty damning stuff.

Re:No, I don't think so

[rtb61]

I think the special definition you are looking for is the GOP neocon corporatists and the gullible evangelists or the pseudo Christian lobbyist party. The republican party is dead, it died about eight years ago. Ron Paul is trying to recreate the republican party of old whilst trying to remain within the current broken framework, he is doomed to failure.

The only hope for the republican party to regain it's original conservative stance, is for the majority of the current leaders along with the corrupt corporate masters to end up behind bars where they belong.

As it stands the current republican leadership will continue to lie, cheat and steal to maintain their grip on power and profit, like a bunch of idiot children in a candy store gutsing down everything they can with a complete disregard for future consequences for the country.

Re:No, I don't think so

[PresidentEnder]

Indeed, and I've read the articles, and I've heard him speak. His legislative record does not bear out the things you're saying: his deeds match my support, not your "omg evil." I'm still waiting for the ideological debate, folks.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that he still wants to remain a Republican. This is actually good news for his sympathizers.

Whoever wins the Presidential election in November, it's clear that the Republicans are in a the midst of a deep identity crisis. This is a tremendous opportunity to swing one of the major parties in a new direction.

As they say, there is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. I think Dr. Paul is going to try to take the tide. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

Re:Interesting

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Please please please make the Republicans more libertarian. That way the Republicans will be just as crazy, but an awful lot more fun at parties.

Re:Interesting

[nategoose]

For the last decade or so the Republican party has been pretty successful at keeping roughly 3 different groups with different interests convinced that the their interests were what the Republican party was all about even though the interests of those groups often conflict.

Re:Interesting

[zippthorne]

Indeed. Also, they seem to have ignored the interests of all three of those groups to do what they really wanted: pander to the Democrats' base, for some reason.

Re:Interesting

[Kartoffel]

Agreed. One thing I've observed from the 2008 primaries: if you're not supported by a major party, you're not going to do well. There were plenty of other candidates (Gravel, Romney, etc.) whose platforms appealed to pretty good-sized chunks of US citizens, but those guys got left out in the cold by their own political parties.

Another thing I've observed is that most liberals, paleo-cons, and libertarians all agree on one thing: the neo-con republican party's platform is horrible. Ron Paul's fighting to change the GOP from within, which diverse groups might all view as a Good Thing(tm). If the Party is all powerful, don't beat 'em, BE 'em.

Not a bad plan

[CaptainNerdCave]

he could have continued running for a position he had no real hope to win, or, he could step down and start trying to rally people behind a new set of goals.

whether or not anyone here agrees with his positions or thinks he is/n't right about anything, i think we can all agree that this represents a step towards what this country's political system needs most: diversity.

Re:Not a bad plan

[foxxo]

I concur! We need a real third party in this country. And if it splits the Republicans, all the better!

Re:Not a bad plan

[7Prime]

Not sure if diversity is the problem. We've got an insanely divided party system as it is, with ultra-conservative republicans and moderate democrats (we need more liberals). We don't have a lack of diversity in ideology, no matter what these brats say about "all politicians are the same", we've got a lack of diversity in PARTIES. The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese. Of course, they're smaller countries, which has advantages too.

I guess what I'm saying is that there will always be corruption and payoffs, but the more parties there are, the more spread out those things become, and the more breathing room there actually is.

Ron Paul may have acted like a libertarian (a socially conservative libertarian), but by awknowledging the republican party, he made it clear that diversification of party power wasn't a main priority. I'll support (though maybe not agree with) a libertarian candidate, a green party candidate, or otherwise... but Ron Paul was just another republican to me, with more of a "get off my lawn" type of attitude.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Original Replica]

We need a real third party in this country.

As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system. Of course the party bigs know this and would never dream of letting the US transfer to to something like instant runoff voting or range voting. If we had instant runoff voting there would be no "spoilers" like Nader or Perot when a third party is forming. That is why Ron Paul is staying Republican, because he might change the party from within but he will never be able to start a successful third party. Our only hope of ever having a better voting system is to change it first at the State level through referendums, until a majority of States use it and develop viable third parties.

Re:Not a bad plan

[WiseWeasel]

I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain, once you get past the different tones they use to the actual meat of what they say they will do. Clearly, there is a large number of Americans that feel poorly represented by both candidates, and this leaves an opportunity for the formation of serious alternative political parties. When we factor in the revolution taking place in media distribution, it's quite possible that we are in for some serious changes in American politics.

Paul has a heavy economist and foreign relations background from the committees he's been a member of in Congress, combined with little hesitation to speak out without fear of ruffling feathers, and this has allowed him to articulate proposed radical technical changes to the structure of our country which get at the heart of the situation we currently find ourselves in. Those types of ideas would not have come from most party apparatchiks, and while it's easy to argue that they are impractical and beyond the scope of the powers granted a US president, they have illuminated some of the fundamental problems this country must wrestle with, and exposed a large number of people to some of the workings of our government, which is never a bad thing.

The fact that we're having discussions on monetary policy, the US's role in the world, and other serious issues often glanced over in most political debate is worth a great deal to this country, and anything that helps more people get involved in their government can only be to our advantage, regardless of ideology. Politics as usual as covered in classic media has been extremely shallow and limited up to this point, and we're witnessing a great shift as populism controls the distribution of information on the internet. If the Democratic and Republican parties can't tell which direction the wind is blowing, and fail to adjust their trajectory, then it is entirely possible that they might start losing support in favor of new groups.

Either way, with such a fundamental change in information distribution taking place at the national and global level, it's foolish to count on historical trends alone to predict future outcomes.

Re:Not a bad plan

[mOdQuArK!]

"Approval voting" FTW. It has most of the benefits of IRV, plus it's easier to explain to layman.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post.

Also, RP is the ONLY politician I've ever heard who doesn't talk in NewSpeak...and I am not a US citizen...not even in teh same hemisphere...

Re:Not a bad plan

[MindStalker]

The problem comes down to how the legislature is set up. The British parties are formed as a party representation, if 15% of the population votes for your party you get about 15% of the Parliament seats. Here each seat is based on geography instead of political identity. It made sense when we were a rural nation. Though some geographic representation still makes sense I think the best would be to change one of the two houses of Congress into party representation while leaving the other Geographic representation.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul may have acted like a libertarian (a socially conservative libertarian) ... but Ron Paul was just another republican to me, with more of a "get off my lawn" type of attitude. It's worth mentioning that Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988

Re:Not a bad plan

[jandersen]

As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system The problem is not "one man, one vote", but the fact that each eletorate goes to one party only; so you can have a situation where party A wins more than half the eletorates by a very small margin, while it loses less than half of the electorates by a huge margin, which means that party A wins the lection, but actually represents a minority of the voters. The reasons for having this system are no doubt historical - in earlier times, when communication was more difficult, it would not have been as easy to have direct, proportional representation; it might feel more natural or safe to people in a constituency to elect a local representative, whom they would send to the electoral college to cast the final vote for them.

There is no real need to do it this way any more - it is just because it is traditional, and of course, this system is much more easily manipulated by the big parties.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Ed Avis]

The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese.

These two sentences completely contradict each other. The United Kingdom has basically a two-party system, with government and opposition swapping places every decade or so. There is one small third party and the remaining parties are all regional/nationalist ones with only a handful of representatives.

As for Japan, it was ruled by the same single party from 1955 until 1993, and for much of the time since then.

If you want to see a system with lots of small parties, look at Italy. Germany is in between the two extremes, with four or five medium to large parties.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Ed Avis]

The British parties are formed as a party representation, if 15% of the population votes for your party you get about 15% of the Parliament seats. Here each seat is based on geography instead of political identity.

The British system is also based on geographical constituencies. It is not proportional to number of votes cast.

For example, in 2005 the Labour party won 35% of the vote but 55% of seats, making it the next government. The Conservative party got 32% of the vote and 31% of the seats, and the Liberal Democrats got 22% of the vote but only 10% of the seats. So the electoral system favours large parties and tends towards a two-party contest.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Sobrique]

I was about to point out there here in the UK, we have a third party. And a whole bunch of 'other parties'. But then realised that actually, you're right. We do have a load of parties here in the UK, and only two of them ever seem remotely credible outside the 'tactical voting' game.

Re:Not a bad plan

[mcvos]

As long as we stick to the antiquated "one man, one vote" system we will only every have a two party system. If you'd read that link, it's not the "one man, one vote" that condemns the US to a two-party system, but the "winner takes all" district system. In proportional representation systems, you also have "one man, one vote", but there every vote gets represented in the parliament, and not just the majority votes in each district.

However, that's only relevant for seats in congress. For presidential elections, approval voting would probably be the most fair way to do it without marginalising third-party candidates.

Re:Not a bad plan

[jez9999]

The most efficient forms of democratic government have lots of smaller parties in which none have enough power to filibuster each other. The english have a much more efficient government than we do, so do the Japanese.

Whilst I'm sure there are more effective democracies than the US one, please don't include the English/UK in that category.

Re:Not a bad plan

[sm62704]

We have two "real" third parties, the Green Party (I don't think they have a clear nominee yet) and the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately, this election the Libbies are running a Republican as their candidate.

The only reason they aren't considered "real" parties is that Corporate Media, run by the corporations who bribe both wings of the Republicrat Corporate party, don't want you to think of them as real or viable. If I give a ten thoudand dollar "campaign contribution" to the Republican wing of the party and another ten thousand dollars (chump change to a corporation) to the Democrat wing, it doesn't matter which candidate loses, I win. My only problem is if neither Republicrat candidate wins, so I'm not very damned likely to cover a Green or Libertarian.

This was especially telling in the 2000 elections. That was the year I decided to no longer vote for Republicrats.

In that race, the Grean Party cast Ralph Nader as its candidate. Nader got lots of mainstream corporate press, some would say in spite of (I now say because of) the fact that mathematically he had no chance of winning whatever; he wasn't on the ballot in enough states.

The Libertarians were on the ballot in 49 states, yet their candidate got nary a peep from the Corporate Media.

Union Carbide murdered more Indians than Osama murdered Americans. Jack-In-The-Box killed dozens of children with poison hamburgers. Sony put a trojan rootkit on music CDs that my daughter infected my computer with. Ford killed its customers for a ten dollar profit per Pinto. The list goes on - corporations are by their nature evil. If it comes to a choice between losing profits and killing people, the corporate CEO will gladly and willingly kill people. And corporate media is pro-corporation.

If you think we only have two real parties, you have been brainwashed by your corporate overlords.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Anonymous Coward]

In England we have three main parties, only two of which hold any real influence in Parliament, but in Wales Plaid Cymru hold a significant proportion of the vote, in Scotland the Scottish Nationalist Party not only hold a significant proportion but the First Minister is SNP, and in Northern Ireland of course both the DUP and Sinn Fein hold a large number of seats.

Outside of that, the Liberal Democrats, smaller parties such as the BNP (sadly) and independents hold a significant number of seats on councils across the entire UK.

Re:Not a bad plan

[Scrameustache]

he could have continued running for a position he had no real hope to win Like, say, sucessfully getting reelected to his republican position in Texas, maybe?

Re:Not a bad plan

[CaptainNerdCave]

a republican position? are you sure you mean that the way it reads? ;-) a little dry humor

Re:Not a bad plan

[Scrameustache]

a republican position? are you sure you mean that the way it reads? ;-) a little dry humor I meant that in a heterosexual way, not the usual republican way ;-)

Why withdraw?

[crhylove]

I mean, by withdrawing is he somehow trying to say that he'd prefer McCain to Obama? What are the benefits of withdrawal? I don't understand this action at all!

Re:Why withdraw?

[maxume]

One way to put it is that he can spend his time on something productive rather than throwing it into the abyss (setting aside the fact that he has essentially been on an information campaign for the last several months, one that he could continue).

Re:Why withdraw?

[crhylove]

Heh, I don't know. Seems like he could get numbers if any actual votes were counted this election. I think corporations don't like Ron Paul, so we can't hear him.

Things that make you go "hmm..."

[rlk]

So Ron Paul, who is (or at least claims to be) a libertarian, attracts "traditional social conservatives", who are primarily interested in having the government enforce their own beliefs on others about what consenting adults should or should not be allowed to do privately? Anybody else see anything wrong with this picture?

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Ron Paul Libertarian == Bob Barr Libertarian.

"Limited government ... except when it comes to what you do in your bedroom or what you learn in science class."

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[solafide]

[citation needed] I'm unaware of Paul wanting to restrict what you learn in science class or do in your bedroom (or outside). Mind finding a citation?

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Quattro Vezina]

Paul's "We the People Act" was designed to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and gave express permission to states to forbid homosexual conduct.

Paul doesn't believe in limited government, just limited federal government. He has no problem with individual states violating human rights with no recourse whatsoever.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Quattro Vezina]

Oh, and I've got a link to the text of the We the People Act, too.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Hubbell]

Why shouldn't the states decide what they want to do? Every state is supposed to be sovereign in it's own right, but adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America. It's a very simple concept if you aren't a fucking moron.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[drachenstern]

Sorry Quattro, but I agree with Hubbell here. The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders (the oceans and the Canadian/Mexican borders as it stands todate). I don't know if you've noticed, but we've kinda given up any hope of only defending our own borders, as we'ld need to bring all our troops home from all the remote bases around the world. Then, we'ld need to, ya know, protect our own borders. That would be a real shame, eh?

As far as what that bill means, it doesn't mean that the Federal Gov't should say homosexuality is wrong, it says that the federal gov't should keep it's f*ing nose out of my bedroom. Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't. Mind you, I live in Texas, so I know what I'm talking about when I say I'll deal with the state once the feds are gone.

Plus, "it's like a whole other country here" and I'm getting to the point where I want my brethren in this region to think that way on a more regular basis. Seems there were a couple boys back in the 1800s that thought that way and went so far as to found a seperate nation between the US and Mexico, and the leaders only gave in when the populace wanted to join with the US, just in time for the Civil War. But for to be the only State in this here Union which was previously a successful country of it's own right, to me that's pretty decent. Don't you agree?

The civil war wasn't about the Union trying to tell the South that it couldn't secede, it was about the fact that the southerners didn't want to pay exorbitant taxes to the north for manufactured goods produced in the US. If you don't believe me, go ask a civil war historian (not some re-enactment fella, and not your kids civics class teacher. A real Historian) what the Civil War was started over, and they'll tell you it had nothing to do with Slavery. That was a battle cry that was picked up half-way through, and it made Lincoln look like a bastard to the south. Not only did they now half to pay exorbitant taxes, but they had invested all that money in slaves and now the investment was pissed away too.

You'll ignore this next sentence, I know.

NOT THAT I THINK SLAVERY WAS ALL THAT GOOD OF AN IDEA.

I mean, indentured servitude, sure that was good, because that was for a reason, and that was almost slavery. There weren't as many chains, but still.

Besides, I wasn't even going to go off about slavery or anything, I just wanted to mention the bit about how f*d up it is to have the federal gov't dictate what the individual states should do, any more than the fact that the fed'l gov't should not actively regulate interstate commerce. Yet, I also think that the fed'l gov't should quit asking for taxes in my state, just so they can dole them out in some other state, to a whole lot of freeloaders. And don't think they don't do just that.

Last riposte before I go. Do you know which was the last major democratic country to give a major economic stimulus to it's citizens when the economy was in a bad way? I'll give you a hint, you couldn't use a million marks to buy a loaf of bread. And now this gov't wants to give me an economic stimulus when my economy is going down the shitter? Oh great.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Oh, sorry, you're right--Paul wants to do away with science classes (and public schools) completely! My bad--I should have realized there is a difference.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

If you don't believe me, go ask a civil war historian (not some re-enactment fella, and not your kids civics class teacher. A real Historian) what the Civil War was started over, and they'll tell you it had nothing to do with Slavery.

1: This is incorrect.

2: Slashdot is not the venue for this debate.

I will gladly meet with you in any neutral venue that you choose to defend statement 1 above.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Hubbell]

Lincoln in his own words said he would have gladly kept the Union together if it merely meant allowing the South to keep their slaves. He only freed the slaves in the SOUTHERN states in the emancipation proclamation so they would revolt and help the North in their war effort. Slaves in the north were left enslaved.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[diamondmagic]

Grandparent is correct. The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue). Lincoln made it a war directly about slavery only after the Emancipation Proclamation

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[DriedClexler]

Yes, darn that Ron Paul for not advocating that the federal government override the homosexual conduct laws in Saudi Arabia.

Wait, wait, before you mod me down, there's a point here. You have to look at *why* Paul supports laws like that. It's not because he wants to ban homosexuality, but because he wants to enforce a strict federalism: the states get to determine their own laws, with federal authority on very little. The theory is that the best long-term approach to ensuring freedom is *not* to have uniformity of laws, but to make it easy for people to "hop borders" to live in a jurisdiction with laws more to their liking. And to do that, you'd want to restrict what laws the central government can override, even when you don't like the laws it wants to override.

In other words, just as disliking laws against homosexuality does not suffice as a reason to intervene in Saudi Arabia, it doesn't suffice to "intervene" in Texas.

I by and large favor federalism over "intervene to stop anti-libertarian laws". The reason is that my vision of libertarianism not "It would be AWESOME if EVERYONE were allowed to do this list of things ..." but rather, "I genuinely don't know what the best set of laws is, so I'd prefer to allow individuals the most power to switch between and form breakaway governments to test whose political theory is the right one." That means favoring less government within a jurisdiction, but it also means *dis*favoring central jurisdictions from overriding the laws of subjurisdictions.

So, in summary, there *is* recourse -- the fact that decentralization makes it hard for any one government to get too oppressive with its laws. Is it easier to flee your state or your country?

For background, here's a blog post from a libertarian arguing the federalist position.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[solafide]

[citation needed] Being creationist does not mean being anti-science. Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education, and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[MindlessAutomata]

Why can't you believe in both...?

Now, maybe that is true of Paul, I don't know; he does lean somewhat socially conservative and is far from perfect but his exact views on this are unclear.

However, if you are for a limited federal government--and the reason one would be would be so that the individual has more say as more decisions are made locally--then you must acknowledge that other places "should" be able to pass bad laws, as that would require the large monolithic government small-government conservatives disapprove of.

It's not a judgment on whether such laws are right or not; you simply have to recognize the fact that a much smaller federal government means other places will have laws you may find abhorrent.

Let me paint a picture for you: does the fact that women are oppressed in many Middle Eastern countries mean we should take them over and govern them or establish a one-world government to correct these problems...? You probably think "no", and for the same reasons I reject your argument that some big government should protect us from more local bad laws. You can't keep praying to god for only good things to happen and not expect god to smite you on occasion, either...

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sorry, you're right--Paul wants to do away with science classes (and public schools) completely! My bad--I should have realized there is a difference.

If only you knew what a crime enforced public schooling is...I mean almost none of the founding fathers went to school so maybe it's not such a great thing after all..

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Rinisari]

He believes in following the Constitution. The Constitution is constructed such that, if it were followed to the letter, states would have the power to do anything or regulate anything not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

If the states wanted to have uniform laws, then they should amend the Constitution to permit the federal government to have a say.

This system allows for diversity in such a large country, both in population and in geographic area. Some people might want it a certain way, and that's their right. States that don't agree would have the right to put economic pressure on states doing bad things, just like the US should be doing with foreign states (aka other countries to those who don't understand the nature of a "state").

Of course I don't agree with those who commit human rights violations. However, that doesn't give me the right to force my way upon them through outright aggression or legalized violence--that's just as much of a human rights violation to me. I can simply choose not to purchase their product or otherwise benefit them, and if enough people follow my lead, the violators' hand is forced: keep violating rights and run out of money, or stop violating rights and be in business.

This is a perfect world idea, one where everyone does what is right and within their limits of person, but if we can't dream and work toward such a thing, then we're just wasting our time.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Fulminata]

Having grown up in the South, I heard this all my life. The problem is that when you look at the actual politics of the day, the only "state's right" that the North was trying to restrict was the right to determine whether or not the citizens of the state could own slaves. Other issues of taxation and economics all led back to the taxation and economics of that "peculiar institution" of slavery. This is something that most "real historians" that I've read have acknowledged. It's the amateurs that get to "state's rights" and stop there without digging into just what rights the secessionists were talking about.

Politicians in the South emphasized the "state's rights" angle for two reasons:
1) To help convince the non-slave holding majority that war was justified.
2) To try to convince foreign powers that the war was not about slavery.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Being creationist does not mean being anti-science.

I have heard that statement so often that I am forced to the conclusion that people actually believe it. Such a statement, however, is nothing more than "newspeak." Creationism (and it's bastard offspring, "Intelligent design") is not only anti-science, it is blatantly anti-science. Those Creationists and IDers who actually know anything about science have one stratagem to propagate their ideas, as identified by William Benetta: "They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."

Please, regardless of whether you are aware of these lies, or if you repeat them in earnest good faith, do not waste my time by repeating them.

Being anti-"public"-school means getting government out of forcing one choice for free education and allowing school vouchers means accountability for the (still-taxpayer-funded) schools, improving our education system. I happen to advocate homeschooling and tax vouchers, so it is difficult to argue these two points. However, one must look to motives and results. Will this actually improve our education system, or will it further dilute scarce financial resources for education? Only time will tell--yet if we have not guessed correctly, the generation that deals with the "worse choice" will suffer.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[SideshowBob]

"The Civil war was started over state's rights, not slavery (not directly at least, slavery was the key part of the state's rights issue)."

Don't play semantic games. Slavery was the issue and "states rights" was the legalistic rationale.

And if you think it wasn't about slavery for the North you haven't read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln was a well known abolitionist (as were most Republicans at the time), which Douglas used to his advantage during the debates. Lincoln tried to (in modern terms) triangulate his position. Few in the slave states believed him when he said he only wanted to forbid new pro-slavery states from joining the union. Remember that civil war had been narrowly averted a few years earlier with the Missouri Compromise.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

go ask a civil war historian what the Civil War was started over, and they'll tell you it had nothing to do with Slavery

Would these be the same "REAL historians" who will tell you that the holocaust never happened, or that the moon landing was faked?

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders

And the Articles of Confederation sure did an awesome job... The idea that you can have one country with such a weak central power structure is idiocy. It failed in the 18th century, and the Constitution was a reaction to that--it centralized power and made things actually work (to some degree).

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

If the states wanted to have uniform laws, then they should amend the Constitution to permit the federal government to have a say.

They did and we call it "The 14th Amendment". This slowly and in a round about manner lead to what is called "Incorporation" which is the enforcement of the Bill of Rights upon the states. Most people consider the Bill of Rights something we can all agree upon.

Although I generally like Ron Paul the discovery of his general disrespect for the 14th amendment and Incorporation led me to not support him. It's not like he ever comes out and says he's against these either - but if you pay enough attention to his policies it's quite clear. He wants the states to have the ability to restrain basic rights from the people. While I love state's rights restricting basic rights isn't a power they should have either.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

But for to be the only State in this here Union which was previously a successful country of it's own right, to me that's pretty decent. Don't you agree? No, the Vermont Republic (1777-1791) had 'first post.' "[With] the first written constitution for an independent state in North America (1777) and first constitution in the New World to outlaw slavery and allow all adult males to vote, regardless of property ownership", later becoming the 14th state. Wikipedia notes that California and Hawaii were independent states, as well.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Republic):

While the other three independent republics that became U.S. states (the Republic of Texas, the California Republic, and the Republic of Hawaii) used the term "president" to refer to their chief executives, Vermont used the term "governor."

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[weirdcrashingnoises]

learn something new every day. good post.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Guppy06]

"The states were originally founded to each be sovereign"

The states are not sovereign, the people are sovereign. The states are a mere artificial construct.

"with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders"

But then the Articles of Confederation couldn't manage even that, and so we adopted a new constitution that included strong republican features, such as a directly elected House of Representatives (as well as firm safeguards to prevent your "sovereign states" from interfering in their election in any way). And lo and behold, having direct interaction between the people and their national government allowed the new government to accomplish what the old one (which never acknowledged any relationship between the people and the central government) never could do.

"As far as what that bill means, it doesn't mean that the Federal Gov't should say homosexuality is wrong, it says that the federal gov't should keep it's f*ing nose out of my bedroom."

First off, marriage is a state institution that extends far beyond the bedroom, otherwise it wouldn't exist even for heterosexual couples.

Secondly, what exactly is the federal government trying to do in your "bedroom?" At worst, it may try to compel your preciously sovereign state to recognize marriages from other states just as sovereign as yours. If you want your state to cherry-pick out-of-state marriages it finds "acceptable," then other states would be justified in declaring things like your driver's license null and void within their borders, and we end back up with the chaos we had before 1789.

If you value the federal constitution so much, you really should read Article IV some time.

"Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't."

Yeah, not like we haven't heard lines like that for the first eighty fucking years of the republic. We have the Fourteenth Amendment today because entrusting states (which seem intent on putting their sovereignty above that of their own people) to right their grievous wrongs against their own people "when they get around to it" just doesn't work.

The current federal framework is one in which the protections of personal rights and civil liberties within each state can only be greater and more stringent than the general, baseline protections provided by the federal government. People only pursue "states rights" when they want their state to have less protection, fewer safeguards than those afforded by the federal government. The only "states right" the argument pursues is the right of a state to oppress its own people.

"Seems there were a couple boys back in the 1800s that thought that way and went so far as to found a seperate nation between the US and Mexico,"

Because the Mexican federal government from which you seceded didn't want slavery.

"and the leaders only gave in when the populace wanted to join with the US,"

Uh-huh. They thought it was such a bad idea that Sam Houston was ardently against the second secession.

"But for to be the only State in this here Union which was previously a successful country of it's own right, to me that's pretty decent. Don't you agree?"

Then you may want to take a look at the histories of Vermont and Hawaii. Texas' only unique claim to fame is to be the only state to secede twice, from two different unions, because it wanted to protect slavery.

"it was about the fact that the southerners didn't want to pay exorbitant taxes to the north for manufactured goods produced in the US."

After you're done with familiarizing yourself with Article IV, you can move on to Article I. No taxes, duties or excises on interstate commerce.

But if it really was about the protectionist tariffs that increased the price of foreign manufactured goods, why didn't the secession happen some time before the brand-spanking-new, ardently abolitionist

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Guppy06]

"Lincoln made it a war directly about slavery only after the Emancipation Proclamation"

The Confederate Constitution, adopted in March, 1861, predating the Emancipation Proclamation by nearly two years, predating even Virginia's secession, has some interesting differences from the original 1789 document it was trying to emulate:

• No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
• The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
• In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

But, oh no, it had nothing to do with slavery until 1863.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Omestes]

I really hate agreeing with my fans but...

1: Actually he is right, slavery was tertiary to to the civil war, freeing slaves was largly a tactical dicission after the fact. The people replying to you do a good job refuting your point, so I'll let them stand.

And;

2: Slashdot not being a good place for an offtopic discussion, you must be new here.

Though, slightly more seriously, this is why modern American education is dying, the civil war had very little to do with slavery, or the rights of blacks (as it was taught to me in high school). The civil war is to blacks, what WWII was to Jews. Good inadvertent consequences.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Quattro Vezina]

Thing is, sovereignty is highly immoral.

States should not, under any circumstance, be able to determine their own laws. There are absolute definitions of right and wrong, and it is immoral to let a government pass morally wrong laws.

I should be allowed to practice any conduct I want to in my hometown, provided it does not directly hurt others. Your "hopping borders" idea is completely incompatible with that.

The government has a moral duty to protect the rights of its citizens, and that moral duty is incompatible with state sovereignty.

The federal system is a horrible idea, and I'd love to see the constitution scrapped in favor of a document establishing a single, unified national government, barring any state and local governments from existing.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Quattro Vezina]

I'm sick and tired of morally weak people like you saying "that's their culture and that makes it alright".

No, it's not alright. If that's their culture, then their culture is a culture of evil, and it must be annihilated with extreme prejudice.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Actually he is right, slavery was tertiary to to the civil war, freeing slaves was largly a tactical dicission after the fact.

Again, I welcome you to join the debate in an appropriate neutral venue. So far no one's taken me up on the offer, so you may be by yourself, but the offer stands: I will debate any individual or group that wishes to take the affirmative for the statement (quoting drachenstern) "[The Civil War had] nothing to do with Slavery."

Slashdot not being a good place for an offtopic discussion, you must be new here.

Good point! :D Actually, my request to take this to another venue has nothing to do with it being "off topic," and everything to do with the format of debates.

What I am proposing is a formal debate, where both sides may present their cases (complete with the evidence, citations, and documentation for their views), and where the bystanders have a place to comment--separately from the actual debate, but accessible by all. Indeed, to my mind an optimum addition to said debate would be to have a team of knowledgeable experts to judge the debate.

I don't think such a debate would work as well with slashdot's setup. However, if CowboyNeil and company want to set up a separate area for such formal debates, I'll gladly use that as the venue.

The offer stands--any takers?

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jez9999]

That's still better than the Big Two's candidates, who support intrusive federal AND local government. Local government was always meant to have more power to intrude, from the day the Constitution was finished.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jez9999]

They did and we call it "The 14th Amendment" [wikipedia.org].

Wasn't that one added by the victors of a major civil war, the losers of whom would not have supported it? How can that reasonably be called 'all states coming to an agreement'?

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Raenex]

What you're arguing for is complete world war until there's one monolithic government. Just as I wouldn't want some country enforcing their ideals on my country, I don't want my country doing so to others.

You might consider debated laws like the death penalty. The United States is in a minority of countries that still has it. I don't want the rest of the world uniting against America to "annihilated with extreme prejudice".

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Thelasko]

Summary:
It says the federal court system has no jurisdiction over state laws, even if they are in direct violation of the U.S. constitution.

So, should Delaware decide to declare a state religion, and all people within Delaware are required to convert to that religion, and the Delaware supreme court upholds this law. The U.S. Supreme court has no jurisdiction to overturn this law?

I think Dr. Paul has a different interpretation of the Supremacy Clause than I do. His interpretation seems to assume that the State Supreme court upholds the U.S. Constitution. Mine says should the State Supreme Court not uphold the U.S. Constitution, The U.S. Supreme Court can overturn it's decision.

I agree that the State Supreme Court should uphold the U.S. Constitution, but they don't always do their job. That's why we have checks and balances

I was a supporter of Ron Paul, but now... I'm not so sure.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Bloodoflethe]

If you truly want a formal debate with one or more of these posters *you* should provide the venue or at least a link to an online venue in which to debate.

It's pretty standard to the one initiating the formal debate to indicate a location.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Bloodoflethe]

So you are both agreeing that it was about slaves now, yes? (Hint: if they tell the people it is about slaves to get them involved, then it has, effectively, become about slaves)

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[dwye]

> He only freed the slaves in the SOUTHERN states in the
> emancipation proclamation so they would revolt and help
> the North in their war effort. Slaves in the north were
> left enslaved.

In fact, slaves in the Southern areas that the North controlled, such as Louisiana, were also not freed.

Of course, this is at least in part because HE COULDN'T FRRE THEM. Legally, he could make such a Proclamation and give it force only in areas in *active* rebellion. Slavery in the North and in Border States had to be handled by either each state in turn (most Northern states had already ended its legality before the Dred Scott Decision ruled that no state not part of the original 13 could ban slavery [decision might have prevented one of the originals from banning it, as well, but I doubt that it was ever litigated]) or by amending the Constitution to end it. Slavery in already-liberated areas was probably even trickier, since no state legislature existed in those states that was not already in rebellion, and thus not likely to vote to ban their own slavery.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[dwye]

> the war was started because the North was determined
> to continue subjugating all states to the will of the
> federal government.

The "war" started because Pierre Beauregard, as commander of the South Carolina military, started firing on a Federal garrison. The Federal response was no different, except in scale, to that it made when John Brown tried to seize the Federal Armory in Harper's Ferry; I would have to check to see whether it was different in proportion,

Without such an incident, the whole thing might have been settled, or the Democrat's dream of peaceful separation accomplished. Sorry, the War of Northern Aggression is only in the dreams of the most ridiculous Confederate supporters, those like Granny Clampett.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[drachenstern]

Obviously they're talking about State's Right's being subverted in the better economic interests of those who live in or around the northeast and those same policymakers interests being violated. They just happened to couch it in the terms of "slavery is bad"/"slavery is good".

Oh wait, that is what you said. Hmmm.

Okay, so I agree with Fulminata up until he ignores my comments about taxation across state lines, and how the federal government was doing nothing to stop that, which was the whole point of the federal government, and they hadn't been doing their job since ole Hamilton Franklin and Jefferson stepped down. Sure those three had some different ideas about how things should be run, but they still had some common goals.

State's have the right to fair commerce between the states, and the federal government should oversee that.

Read up the page to see how apparently I'm a racist asshole, even though I have never condoned slavery.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[drachenstern]

Okay, answer to the last question first:
No, the don't have the shock value
Second portion of my post:
My tail is sufficiently between my legs. Good points that I've not had given to me in response before. Pardon me while I whimper into a corner and nurse my wounds.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Actually, I was looking at the protocol for this debate challenge almost as one would look at a duel: make the challenge, allow the person challenged to pick weapons. I don't have a venue.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[ShakaUVM]

>>Lincoln was a well known abolitionist (as were most Republicans at the time)

Quite wrong. Abolitionism was a fringe movement, even in 1860. Something like 1% of people in the north were actually Abolitionists.

Lincoln was *tarred* with the abolitionist brush by his own party, leading him to make quite a few public statements that were against his privately held beliefs.

>>Slavery was the issue and "states rights" was the legalistic rationale.

In the South, the conception of liberty (derived from the Scots-Irish lineage) was that of "Don't tell me what to do". Even though you might not understand this concept, it makes it no less important historically. People genuinely did not want the federal government to be able to regulate things that they had to right to, and were willing to fight over that. This gets confused with the states rights issue, but it's really what the Civil War was fought over.

You also have to understand that most Southerners didn't own slaves, and were more concerned about what would happen to the work force if a huge number of slaves were suddenly freed -- but many, especially poor whites -- did not like slavery. It was hard for a poor white laborer to compete with "free" labor.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul doesn't believe in limited government, just limited federal government. That's the definition of a republican. It's why libertarians, constitutionalists, and the like, are all technical subsections of republicanism.

What cause my angst about our political process, is that way too much for the debate is about powers that are not constitutionally awarded to the federal government... almost as much as the existence of the federal reserve, or the NY Thruway Authority... independent organizations that control our commerce.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Grishnakh]

Although I generally like Ron Paul the discovery of his general disrespect for the 14th amendment and Incorporation led me to not support him. It's not like he ever comes out and says he's against these either - but if you pay enough attention to his policies it's quite clear. He wants the states to have the ability to restrain basic rights from the people. While I love state's rights restricting basic rights isn't a power they should have either.

If Ron Paul had been elected, just how do think, assuming you're right about his opinion, he would have enforced that opinion upon the country? It's just like the whole "gold standard" non-issue. Just because a President thinks we should completely change our monetary policy doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. Presidents don't make laws (unless they're Bush); they only enforce them, though they do have the small privilege of introducing or advocating new laws in Congress. If Congress doesn't agree with them, their ideas go nowhere.

Not supporting Paul because of a non-issue like this is pretty silly IMO, much like electing your local Sheriff based on his views on foreign policy. After all, what were the alternatives during the primaries? Hillary, Obama, and McCain? With the problems facing the country now, worrying about a potential President's view on the 14th Amendment is just dumb.

If Paul had been elected President, we could have looked forward to some changes which would have really improved things: the Iraq War would be ended quickly, and all our other foreign military involvements would have been drastically downsized, saving us hundreds of billions of dollars in the defense budget. The size and scope of the Federal government would have stopped expanding as it is now, with the new Copyright Cops office they're starting up. Slashdotters in particular were rabidly against this announcement yesterday, but they still happily vote for the politicians who push this crap. Ron Paul was one of a handful of Representatives who voted against it. The borders would have been closed, and we would have transformed into a country that interacts with others through diplomacy and peaceful trade, rather than military aggression as the Democrats and Republicans do things. Without all the ridiculous expenditures in Iraq and other places, and the enormously growing deficit that causes, the value of the Dollar would have stopped plummeting, and maybe started going back up (the damage Bush has caused can't be fixed overnight). After this, there probably would have been some discussions over monetary policy and other things, which probably wouldn't have gone very far since Congress wouldn't back it up.

Instead, over the next four years, we're going to have either 1) more involvement in Iraq (and it'll get bloodier when the insurgents see that we're not pulling out after the election), a probable nuclear war with Iran, and possibly WWIII with Russia and China after we nuke Iran, open borders, further restrictions on liberties (look forward to Patriot Act 3), a new Amendment eliminating Habeus Corpus altogether, and further concentration of power in the Executive and with large corporations, or 2) more involvement in Iraq, a possible nuclear war with Iran (Obama said he might do it), possibly WWIII with Russia and China after we nuke Iran, open borders, further restrictions on liberties, a new Copyright Cops Federal agency similar to the DEA, with people getting arrested and their stuff seized every time the MAFIAA claims they saw their IP address on Limewire, an outright ban on all private gun ownership with military squads going door-to-door and searching peoples' homes for guns, and further concentration of power in the Executive and with large corporations.

In four years, I'm going to tell you all, "I told you so". If we're still alive.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Grishnakh]

I happen to advocate homeschooling and tax vouchers, so it is difficult to argue these two points. However, one must look to motives and results. Will this actually improve our education system, or will it further dilute scarce financial resources for education?

Two points:
1) The financial resources used in education are NOT scarce. If you look at the amount of money paid by States to schools per student, it's significantly more than private and religious schools cost in tuition per pupil. There is no scarcity of resources, there's only complete incompetence in properly using those resources. Rewarding that incompetence with more money is NOT the answer.

2) How can anyone be against homeschooling? Free public education availability (however poor) is an important aspect of a modern democracy, as you can't have a decent country with uneducated citizens. Even with my libertarian-leaning ideals, I think college educations should be easier for US Citizens to obtain. However, the idea of forcing parents to send their kids to state-run schools is something that can only happen in a police state. There must be the option of opting out, as long as the parents show they're providing the child an education at home.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Omestes]

I'll skip the debate, mostly due to time constraints. It would be interesting though, to see who ends up on top.

Informally, I don't think that anyone could find that the Civil War had "nothing" to do with slavery, it would be like stating that the Iraq war has nothing to do with oil. Neither may be prime causes, but they definitely contribute.

What I am proposing is a formal debate, where both sides may present their cases (complete with the evidence, citations, and documentation for their views), and where the bystanders have a place to comment--separately from the actual debate, but accessible by all. Indeed, to my mind an optimum addition to said debate would be to have a team of knowledgeable experts to judge the debate.

Thank you! It sounds like an awesome idea for a full site. I've been meaning to sit down polar opposites, have them argue, and them put it in a book, but this is a much more fascinating idea. Like /., with formal arguments for stories. I don't think /. would be a bad arena on the comment/spectator front, though I agree it would rather suck for the content itself.

I hope you don't mind me, possibly, using that idea?

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Wildcat J]

I still submit that claiming "states' rights" is being disingenuous on their part. If we're citing Wikipedia links, from the Confederate States of America article (emphasis mine):

Four of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina,[3] Mississippi,[4] Georgia,[5] and Texas,[6] issued formal declarations of causes, each of which identified the threat to slaveholders' rights as the cause of, or a major cause of, secession; Georgia also claimed a general Federal policy of favoring Northern over Southern economic interests. In what later came to be known as the Cornerstone Speech, C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".[7]

And, regarding Confederacy President Jefferson Davis:

In his farewell speech to the United States Congress, Davis made it clear that the secession crisis had been created by the Republican Party's failure "to recognize our domestic institutions [an acknowledged euphemism for slavery] which pre-existed the formation of the Union -- our property which was guarded by the Constitution."[10]

That makes it sound like slavery was, in fact, their cause, and they weren't ashamed to admit it.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[jeiler]

Go right ahead--if you set up a website like that, let me know. I'll do my best to earn some frequent flier miles there. :D

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're arguing for is complete world war until there's one monolithic government.

No. You're arguing a straw man.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Scudsucker]

There are three words that would have saved you all that typing: Supreme Court appointments. Combine just one Ron Paul appointee with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (who are against human rights in general) and bye bye Bill of Rights.

Re:Things that make you go "hmm..."

[Scudsucker]

The states were originally founded to each be sovereign, with a federal system to ensure interstate commerce and to protect the common borders

Yes, under the Articles of Confederation, and it was an absolute disaster at a time when most people lived on farms and travel was limited to horseback. Going back to that after 200 years of population growth and technical advancements would be a clusterfuck of biblical proportions.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we've kinda given up any hope of only defending our own borders

Defending our borders from what army? We have peaceful, friendly nations on two sides and the world's two largest oceans on the other two sides. Our actually defense needs are pretty damn minuscule.

Now, once the federal gov't is gone, I'll deal with my state gov't.

No dice. I don't want to drive my girlfriend to Florida for a vacation and get arrested in Kentucky because they've decided to re-ban interracial dating. Somethings have to mandated at the federal level because the states just wont do things that need to be done, or be prevented from sticking their noses where they don't belong.

The civil war wasn't about the Union trying to tell the South that it couldn't secede

Yes, it absolutely was. We had a civil war to prevent the South from leaving the Union, and the #1 reason the South left was slavery.

And now this gov't wants to give me an economic stimulus when my economy is going down the shitter? Oh great.

The problem isn't that the government is trying to do something about the ecomony. The problem is that cutting "stimulus checks" that just ad to the national debt is about the dumbest way you could go about it. The problem is that the middle class doesn't have any damn money. Slash taxes on the working class, raise it on the wealthy, repeal Taft-Hartley, raise minimum wage, and taking all the money going to Iraq and spend it on fixing our infrastructure would go a looooong way to putting us back on track.

Why Not?

[pavon]

The thing about presidential campaigns in the US is that they, more than any other event, get people talking about public policy. Half of the stuff that gets debated really has nothing to do with the presidency - it is really more the job of congress. But it is these campaigns that frame the political conversation for the next 1-3 years to come. So if you want your ideas, and your issues to have a place in this media short-list, then you are best off if you can get them into discussion surrounding the presidential election.

That is really what "no-chance" third party runs are about. And the Ron-Paul campaign has succeeded in creating a lot of discussion that wouldn't have happened if it was just an activist group. Now that the primaries are over there is no more venue to do this. Neither he nor his cause has anything to gain from being an annoying thorn-in-the side at the GOP Convention. He knew from the beginning that he wasn't going to win the nomination, and stepping down gracefully is the best thing to do.

Furthermore, I don't think there is really anything to be gained from running as an independent. First off, for good or bad, Paul has decided to work within the Republican party. Secondly, I don't really know who his campaign would draw more voters from - McCain, Obama or the Libertarian candidate. Most importantly, Paul wants to return to his congressional seat which he would have to forfeit if he made a run for the presidency. He can do more good serving another term as congressman then he would by extending this campaign another half year.

Re:Why Not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the past century or so, the actions of the president are becoming more and more pronounced, and less the job of Congress. Sure, a large number of things the president talks about like gay marriage or socialized health care, are entirely on Congress, but many of the things the current Presidents do is totally out of the scope of his job according to the Constitution.

Paul realized this was the wrong year

[Anonymous Coward]

for a serious third party candidacy, since the two major party candidates both appeal to independents, which is a rarity.

Had the two parties nominated Romney and Clinton, we might have seen any number of serious challengers, including Paul, Bloomberg, and Hagel. At least one of them would've taken 5-7 pct of the vote in November. As it is, I don't expect Barr or Nader to take even half of 1 pct between them.

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[drachenstern]

Three parties is just as bad as two. We need six or seven parties...

I guess just so long as there is no Party of Five on my presidential or congressional election stub...

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[Anonymous Coward]

each year both parties offer up more and more disgusting examples of humanity. do you really think independents want either one of these? i'd really like to see some sources cited on this and i'm not talking about your own blog.

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[The_Quinn]

Not enough parties? What about these (Wikipedia):

* Republican Party (1854)

* Democratic Party (1828 modern, 1792 historic)

* Libertarian Party (1971)

* Constitution Party (1992)

* Green Party (1996)

* America First Party (2002)

* Centrist Party (United States) (2006)

* Independence Party of America (2007)

* Jefferson Republican Party

* Moderate Party (United States) (2006)

* Marijuana Party (2002)

* Party for Socialism and Liberation (2004)

* Peace and Freedom Party (1967) - active primarily in California

* Prohibition Party (1867)

* Reform Party of the United States of America (1995) - currently divided into two factions both using the name of the "Reform Party"

* Socialist Equality Party (1953)

* Socialist Party USA (1973)

* Socialist Workers Party (1938)

* Workers World Party (1959)

* Working Families Party (1998)

* American Party (1969)

* American Centrist Party (2004)

* American Patriot Party (2003)

* American Heritage Party (2000)

* American Reform Party (1997)

* Christian Falangist Party of America (1985)

* Communist Party USA (1919)

* Democratic Socialists of America

* Freedom Road Socialist Organization (1985)

* Independent American Party (1998)

* Labor Party (1995)

* Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (1997)

* National Socialist Movement (1974)

* New American Independent Party (2004)

* New Black Panther Party (1989)

* New Union Party (1974)

* Personal Choice Party (1997)

* Populist Party of America (2002)

* Progressive Labor Party

* Ray O. Light Group (1961)

* Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

* Social Democratic Party of America (2007)

* Socialist Action (1983)

* Socialist Alternative (1986)

* Socialist Labor Party (1876)

* Unity08 (2006)

* Workers Party, USA

* World Socialist Party of the United States

(1916)

What we really need is for the government to divest itself of control over the electoral process by which it controls monies and media to squelch out all but the two parties in power.

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[Ihlosi]

If only there were some way to change that...

It's called proportional representation. You might want to add a sufficiently high threshold for entry into the parliaments (5% if you really like smallish parties, 10-15% if you want to keep the nutcases out for sure) to keep the system from exploding into a bunch of micro-parties that cannot agree on anything (see: Weimar republic as a historic example, or Italy today).

Unfortunately, this would force the two big parties to form coalitions and compromises with the smaller parties if they want to run the countries. This is something neither of the big parties likes. The big parties run the country right now. This means that the chances of any change happening are zero.

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[mcvos]

It's called proportional representation. You might want to add a sufficiently high threshold for entry into the parliaments (5% if you really like smallish parties, 10-15% if you want to keep the nutcases out for sure) A 5% threshold is quite high. I think that's about what Germany has (which has only a handful of parties). Netherland has a threshold of 0.67%, which makes it much easier for new parties to get into parliament.

One simple example of why this is good: the fastest growing party of the last 15 years is the Socialist Party. They started with only 2 seats, did good stuff, got noticed, got 5 seats the next election, 10 seats the one after that, and now, in some polls, they sometimes overtake one of the three big parties.

If they hadn't been allowed to start with 2 or 5 seats, they'd never have had the chance to grow this big. Ofcourse the downside is that sometimes a few nutcases manage to get a few seats, but they get voted out against in the next election. Besides, it's not like anyone will notice a few more nutcases in parliament.

Unfortunately, this would force the two big parties to form coalitions and compromises with the smaller parties if they want to run the countries. You assume there will always be two big parties. Netherland has three big parties, each of which wins or loses dozens of seats every election. They usually compromise with one of the other two big parties (which had kept the Christian Democrats in power for longer than the communist party in Russia until finally the labour party and the conservative liberals formed their first coalition in the '90s). Sometimes one of the largest of the smaller parties also joins in the coalition. Usually the moderately progressive liberals, but currently we've got for the first time a small conservative christian party in government, which results in hilarious situations on medical-ethical issues.

This is something neither of the big parties likes. The big parties run the country right now. This means that the chances of any change happening are zero. In the US, where two big parties have divided up the country, both would lose by changing the system, and they're the only ones who can change the system. It's unlikely anything will ever change, but that doesn't mean change is bad. It means the two parties are bad. Vote for others!

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[drachenstern]

Oh, thanks. I didn't know that.

I still want to see more on the national stage, which I think you summed up best at the bottom of your . Guess I shoulda' wiki'd that one, huh?

Re:Paul realized this was the wrong year

[Grishnakh]

It's still not enough: I don't see a "Pirate Party" there like they have in Sweden.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[drachenstern]

I don't know if you've noticed, but this site is one of the first blogs, it just has a lot more readers than your average blog. Given that the founder PROPOSED on this site, I would say that makes it a lot more personal than, say, the WSJ. Therfore, shaddup. Besides, why am I replying to an AC? Guess I oughta not hit preview->submit

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, before the financial crisis, I felt like Paul would be the best presidential candidate we could have. The economy was doing well, things in the US were pretty much going okay, and the Iraqi situation was too screwed up to be solved by anyone anyway. Ron Paul represented someone whose ambitions and ideas were so ambitious that they extended beyond presidential powers. He wanted to change policy that only the fed could change, among other things. And that's what we needed at the time. A president who would just sit around accomplishing nothing, and letting things happen around him without him knowing what was going on. That was Ron Paul's true allure. A vote for Ron Paul was a vote for the status quo - all he could muster anyway. All the things he wanted to screw up were out of his reach, so he promised a Nerf presidency we needed in our period of (now ended) economic stability.

The 13th-15th.

[Valdrax]

Why shouldn't the states decide what they want to do? Ask black people.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Hubbell]

Hence the AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION that established civil rights for them and other minorities. If you wanna have something that affects all states that isn't deemed a power granted to the legislative branch by the Constitution, try and get it amended! Otherwise, the states get to choose, or atleast should.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[drachenstern]

Okay, I'm an idiot for doing this, as now everyone'll say "He's a racist arsehole". I'm not racist, I have many black friends, I have many white friends, I don't give a holy f*k about race. I'm a facts man.

The facts are that the blacks were trading the folks that got brought over on boats as slaves long before Whitey from the South showed up with empty boats headed to the sugar/cotton farms.

The facts are that now those blacks are doing something with their lives besides swatting flies off their face in Africa.

The facts are that there were white slaves too, and black landowners/slaveowners/slavedrivers.

The facts are that anybody currently alive in the US who feels that [the history is still a good reason for active debate and hatred against a group of people who have no way to change their forefathers actions] should get up and leave the country.

Do you need help buying a plane ticket to move to Africa? (See, it's that last comment that's going to burn me, but I'm still asking, and I'm still serious. I advocate changing the system, not blaming the great...great grandkids.)

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Valdrax]

You obviously missed the parallel between you supporting a Constitutional amendment allowing states to discriminate against gay people and previous state behavior towards black people. Not that I should have had to spell that out for you.

The 14th Amendment ensures that Constitutional rights belong to state citizens as well. Read up more on substantive due process if you don't know why Lawrence v. Texas turned out the way it did.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[diamondmagic]

Mod up! No one seems to understand that if the constitution disagrees with something, you can not just write legislation and hope it is never challenged, you must amend the constitution if you don't like it.
There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This is immediately followed by everyone wondering why we suddenly have a huge executive branch and the PATRIOT act...

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Valdrax]

Okay, I'm an idiot for doing this, as now everyone'll say "He's a racist arsehole". I'm not racist, I have many black friends, I have many white friends, I don't give a holy f*k about race. I'm a facts man. Alright, let's pretend that's true. I doubt it, but let's pretend. How about some facts...

The facts are that the blacks were trading the folks that got brought over on boats as slaves long before Whitey from the South showed up with empty boats headed to the sugar/cotton farms. Fact 1: Slavery as practiced in Africa was very different from the kind of slavery practiced in the South. African slavery, like most world slavery throughout history, was a practice of taking war captives. Slavery was almost never for life, it did not extend to one's children, and a slave was not the chattel of another person. Read more here.

Observation: Two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Africans had practiced the kind of slavery that plantation owners did, that does not absolve the United States of any wrongdoing in its benefit from the trade, nor does it mean that there was no duty to put an end to rampant discrimination that followed the freeing of the slaves, from the "black laws" of the Reconstruction South that barred freed slaves from voting, owning property, being on juries, etc. to the "softer" Jim Crow laws and segregation of the 20th century.

The facts are that there were white slaves too, and black landowners/slaveowners/slavedrivers. Fact 2: White slavery was largely unknown by the time of the Revolutionary War. Even the indentured servant system recognized indentured servants as having significantly more rights than black slaves. Indentured servitude was not for life, and masters were expected to give their servants a starting package (by law) to help them found their own homes and families. Colonial Virginia, for example, required that white servants be given a rifle, some money, and some minimal provisions.

As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.) Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right, and only the most deluded or ignorant student of history would believe that there was anything resembling equality between whites & blacks in their status in society.

The facts are that anybody currently alive in the US who feels that [the history is still a good reason for active debate and hatred against a group of people who have no way to change their forefathers actions] should get up and leave the country.

Do you need help buying a plane ticket to move to Africa? (See, it's that last comment that's going to burn me, but I'm still asking, and I'm still serious. I advocate changing the system, not blaming the great...great grandkids.) First of all, why do you assume that I'm of African descent myself just because I (like most Americans) feel some disgust for the horrible and degrading institutions of slavery & segregation?

Frankly, I think the fact that you feel you have to state that you're "not a racist" shows that you damned well know that supporting the right of states to engage in discrimination is something that most sane and patriotic Americans react to with disgust.

What honestly motivated you to write this whole "go back to Africa" diatribe in response to someone stating that the problem with letting states do as they wish is the historical tendency of states to oppress unpopular groups like black people? Can it really be anything other than knee-jerk racist resentment?

Next time, if you're going to go off the reservation and rant about how racial equality is such a put-upon for the current generation, at least try to get some of your historical facts straight. Not that I think reality has a firm grip on you as is.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Anonymous Coward]

ask them what kind of mad dog goes good with fried chicken and watermelon. that's about all they know.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Moridineas]

As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.). Interesting, because I agreed with much of the rest of your post a d you seemed pretty will historically informed, but then are completely offbase (and surprised?) here.

http://www.amazon.com/NYCs-African-Slaveowners-Material-American/dp/0815315368

is the first example that came up when I searched amazon, couldn't find the book I was looking for though, it's been awhile.

I remember hearing a talk a number of years ago by I believe John Hope Franklin who mentioned black slave owners in New Orleans in fairly substantial numbers (don't remember specifics though, sorry).

Re:The 13th-15th.

[roystgnr]

Ask black people.

Okay, but white people can feel free to answer too:

Slavery was once practiced in Vermont, in Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Connecticut, in Rhode Island, in New York and New Jersey, in New Hampshire... In each case it was ended because the state was allowed to "decide what they want do" without waiting for the entire country to support that decision. So my easy question is: should these states have been allowed to end slavery on their own, without fear that a majority vote on a national level could have overturned their decision? And the harder question is: if centralized decision making had been allowed to keep slavery from being prohibited one state at a time, how much longer would it have taken before abolitionism became the majority belief?

If compromising federalist principles hastened the release of the remaining slaves, I'll stipulate an "ends justify the means" on that one. But you can't pull out "States' rights are bad because a few states might do bad things" without stopping to consider that sometimes a few states might do good things too. The nice thing about letting each state make its own decisions is that, for questions where they don't all agree with each other, sometimes just comparing the effects of the different choices they make is enough to help people understand which decisions are bad and which are good.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.)

Not that it affects the argument one way or another, but...

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Masters-Family-Color-South/dp/0393303144/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213336625&sr=8-1

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Nazlfrag]

He assumed it to be true, then made an excellent point. I'd hardly call that offbase.

Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right, and only the most deluded or ignorant student of history would believe that there was anything resembling equality between whites & blacks in their status in society.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Anonymous Coward]

As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. Larry Koger. Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1985.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Moridineas]

Critical reading--I neither cited nor mentioned what you quoted (and indeed said I agreed with most of the rest of his post!). I said his grasp on the facts in the one sentence were off!

I say interesting because my reaction when I'm reading something and find myself agreeing--and then find someway in which the author is completely wrong / offbase / whatever, I think, hmmm, maybe I need to reevaluate my opinions!

Though, actually.. since you mention it... I wouldn't entirely agree with the statement you quoted. I'm not arguing that there was an equality between whites and blacks, of course there was not. I will say that in the rural south, poor whites (ie, non-plantation owners, non-merchant/cityfolk class) had it very badly. Of course everybody looks down on everybody else (nobody wants to be at the bottom of the social ladder) but I remember reading some texts years ago that recorded slaves talking disdainfully about the poor white trash who in SOME ways were as bad or worse as the slaves. Of course, they had freedom, so that really removes the equation, but anyway...

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Yusaku Godai]

There were, in fact, black slave owners in the US, though not many. But there were blacks who came over from Africa and Europe as free men, and kept slaves just like most other people at the time who could afford to. I don't have any citations handy at the moment as I need to get back to work, but I just thought I should point that out, as it's the one flaw in your otherwise excellent posts on this thread.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[Bloodoflethe]

Creole slave owners, iirc - half black. There were several blacks that owned property there too and had servants that were black.

And for some reason I'm having that weird word disassociation that comes when you see a word repeated too many times. 'Black' is starting to sound strange as a word. 'Is' does too. I mean, really, sound it out! Iiiizzzz.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[drachenstern]

Ahh, I agree on the need to reevaluate, he had some really good points. I'll reply to that in a minute, but...

See, you know something about the civics of the South pre-1850 too, don't you? I don't think he gets that there were rich-people slaves, and then there were drawn and quartered cause boss-man got drunk slaves. They didn't all get treated like shit.

Re:The 13th-15th.

[drachenstern]

Okay, I'm an idiot for doing this, as now everyone'll say "He's a racist arsehole". I'm not racist, I have many black friends, I have many white friends, I don't give a holy f*k about race. I'm a facts man.

Alright, let's pretend that's true. I doubt it, but let's pretend. How about some facts...

The facts are that the blacks were trading the folks that got brought over on boats as slaves long before Whitey from the South showed up with empty boats headed to the sugar/cotton farms.

Fact 1: Slavery as practiced in Africa was very different from the kind of slavery practiced in the South. African slavery, like most world slavery throughout history, was a practice of taking war captives. Slavery was almost never for life, it did not extend to one's children, and a slave was not the chattel of another person. Read more here.

Observation: Two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Africans had practiced the kind of slavery that plantation owners did, that does not absolve the United States of any wrongdoing in its benefit from the trade, nor does it mean that there was no duty to put an end to rampant discrimination that followed the freeing of the slaves, from the "black laws" of the Reconstruction South that barred freed slaves from voting, owning property, being on juries, etc. to the "softer" Jim Crow laws and segregation of the 20th century.

I never agreed with slavery as it was established in the colonies. I believed in indentured servitude. Alas, poor me, I wasn't born 200+ years ago to right the wrongs. Apparently two rights don't make a restitution in this country?

Also, the slaves in Africa were chattel, don't ever believe otherwise. They were traded and they were mistreated. Sure, they were enslaved by similar groups, but they didn't become slaves for the village elders or something. There slavery was in the same veins as that of the Egyptians (ask a Jew about that slavery) and in the same vein as the Babylonian slavery, and in a similar vein to Roman slavery. All three of those cultures learned slavery from the African slavers.

The facts are that there were white slaves too, and black landowners/slaveowners/slavedrivers.

Fact 2: White slavery was largely unknown by the time of the Revolutionary War. Even the indentured servant system recognized indentured servants as having significantly more rights than black slaves. Indentured servitude was not for life, and masters were expected to give their servants a starting package (by law) to help them found their own homes and families. Colonial Virginia, for example, required that white servants be given a rifle, some money, and some minimal provisions.

As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.) Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right, and only the most deluded or ignorant student of history would believe that there was anything resembling equality between whites & blacks in their status in society.

Largely unknown!=not happening. It was largely unknown that people could eat in public and it not be a bad thing, and it was largely unknown that people could travel faster than 45 miles per hour. What does largely unknown have to do with anything? It did happen. It was a fact. And yet you never knew about black slaveowners in America? How did you miss that in civic ed? Apparently there are more on /. than just myself who have heard of it, so I'm not going to cite what they've already cited.

The facts are that anybody currently alive in the US who feels that [the history is still a good reason for active debate and hatred against a group of people who have no way to change their forefathers actions] should get up and leave the country.

Do you need help buying a plane ticket to move to Africa? (See, i

Re:The 13th-15th.

[ShakaUVM]

>>As for black slaveowners in America: Citation please. (i.e. I call B.S.)

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Masters-Michael-P-Johnson/dp/0393019063

There was something like 10,000 black slaveowners in 1860, compared with about 400,000 white slaveowners.

One of the largest slaveowners (in the top 1% of slaveowners) in South Carolina at the time right before the Civil War was a former slave named William Ellison. He was a brilliant guy, who invented a way of sharpening cotton gin blades in a way that they held their edges a lot longer; farmers all the way from Kansas would send their blades to him to be sharpened. Demand for his services grew so much that he ended up buying quite a large number of slaves to work in his machine shops. He (along with another black slaveowning family) got a bench on the floor of the local church, and successfully sued white people for money owed him when they didn't pay up. He was known as a harsh master, bred slaves for sale, and hired slave catchers to bring back runaway slaves.

Things got bad for blacks during the tense months leading up to the Civil War, so he and his family fled to the North, but apparently his sons (college educated in Canada) tried to enlist in the Confederate Army, and the family actually bought a lot of confederate war bonds to support the war effort. After the war ended, their slaves were freed and the bonds were defaulted, bankrupting their family just like all the white plantations.

When I was in Sumter County, the local museum took a group of us out to his house, and we toured his plantation, and visited his grave. Fascinating story, and very different from the common perception of slavery, and black slaveowners (who we perhaps assume bought slaves merely to free them).

Actually, he's a creationist.

[Valdrax]

On what you learn in science class. (See question 4.)
More detail on that.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip: The legislative (iebranch is supposed to write laws. The Executive (ie, President) branch is supposed to enforce/execute the laws. If you remember that and take a look at what presidential candidates are proposing, you'll realize his extension/usurpation is far less than anyone else.

Happened once already

[WindBourne]

reagan beat Poppa Bush because of his promising everything to the religious right wingnuts. Prior to that, pubs NEVER gave into all the items that they now claim, but never back. Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations (except covertly; nam was started covertly by Eisenhower), balanced budget, pushed small gov, and wanted gov out of ppls lives. Now, they say all the above while waging war every couple of years, run up monster deficits, double the size of gov, push all sorts of legislation to control ppl, spy on us illegally, still ignore the promises that they made to religious right wingnuts except at election time, and are horribly corrupt.

Re:Happened once already

[grylnsmn]

Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations (except covertly; nam was started covertly by Eisenhower),

Actually, Truman is the one who first sent troops to Vietnam, not Eisenhower.

Re:Happened once already

[WindBourne]

Thanx. I actually, thought it did start with Eisenhower. It would be interesting to see if they were tech advisors as claimed by truman or troop advisors as is implied in wiki.

Re:Happened once already

[Guppy06]

"Before reagan, pubs wanted us to stay out of other nations"

Unless they really wanted to build a new canal. Or just plain shoot at some Spaniards and their former subjects.

Re:Happened once already

[Grishnakh]

Unless they really wanted to build a new canal.

I don't remember the military having to be called in to take over Panama. The previous poster meant using military force. Don't be such an idiot.

Re:Happened once already

[Guppy06]

"I don't remember the military having to be called in to take over Panama."

You mean the Colombian province?

why stop now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had really hoped he'd was going to continue his campaign though to the end. He could have done to McCain what Perot and Nader did in the 90's and 2000 elections. We need someone to keep some votes away from the third term of Bush.

Re:why stop now?

[Anonymous Coward]

do not attempt to assign logic to the actions of a mad man.

Re:why stop now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had really hoped he'd was going to continue his campaign though to the end. He could have done to McCain what Perot and Nader did in the 90's and 2000 elections. We need someone to keep some votes away from the third term of Bush. While it's true we don't need a third term of Bush, do you really think we need a second term of Carter?

Re:why stop now?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy the line that McCain is just another Bush, you need to step away from the Democrats' Kool-Aid. McCain is one of the most moderate Republicans to run for President in most of our lifetimes.

Re:why stop now?

[jafuser]

I love how a candidate who supports the suspension of habeas corpus is now considered a "moderate".

America is lost.

Ironic.

[Valdrax]

There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional. This statement is ironic considering that the topic of discussion was Ron Paul's proposed Amendment to overturn a Supreme Court decision overruling exactly the kind of Constitution-ignoring legislation you decry.

Re:Ironic.

[chill]

No, it wasn't.

His proposal was to invoke the rights of the Legislature under Article III, Section 2 to create an exception where the Supreme Court doesn't have appellate jurisdiction. That wouldn't overturn the existing decision, but would prevent the SCOTUS from ruling on a future re-write or similar law.

Re:Ironic.

[diamondmagic]

I am absolutely not decrying constitutional amendments. I am decrying the causes of supreme court decisions, it means either the supreme court read an invisible ink paragraph in the constitution, wrote a new law for congress, or congress overstepped their authority and passed the law before the necessary amendment (maybe something else too, but that should mostly be it). None of those cases should be necessary if we elected people who knew the limits on authority for each branch and position. That said we are not going to be electing good people any time soon, so more such checks and balances could be used to make sure everyone stays well within their limits.
In a nutshell, these supreme court decisions are symptoms. We want to make the causes go away, while at the same time making these symptoms show through clearer.

Re:Ironic.

[paitre]

Which is precisely the idea behind amending the Constitution.

If they ruled something un-Constitutional, then there's nothing stopping someone from trying to make it Constitutional by Amending it.

Duh?

Re:Ironic.

[MyVoiceIsMyPassport]

There is this class of people who seem to think you can just pass any law you like, it is the supreme courts job exclusively to decide what is constitutional.

President Andrew Jackson used his power to interpret the Constitution independently when he allowed the Second US Bank contract to expire in 1833. There was nothing the other branches could do about it.

Not long after that, the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to interpret the constitution for everyone else, which Congress has done nothing about. The Supreme Court is the most powerful branch now because it has the last word.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the most hard core Ron Paul fans would even know he still had a presidential campaign. Indeed. The only thing about this news of him "suspending" (read: ending, but not wanting to look like admitting defeat) his campaign that I found surprising was that he still had one.

Hubbell and diamondmagic

[jeiler]

As I told Drachenstern, this is not the forum for such a debate. However, I extend my offer of meeting on neutral ground to debate this issue with either or both of you.

Re:Hubbell and diamondmagic

[diamondmagic]

Simply saying "this is incorrect" and offering no citation or insight is... exactly the opposite of insight.
More importantly, if you don't want a discussion, just don't reply. This is after all the Slashdot discussion system. Don't force me to resort to a uid match point out you have the highest uid of all the ancestors to this post. No, I won't do that. (jk, jk)
Don't take any of this personally, please :-)

Re:Hubbell and diamondmagic

[jeiler]

I never said I did not want to discuss this topic--indeed, this is an area of great interest to me. I said that this is not the proper venue, and offered to meet you on any neutral venue of your choice to continue the discussion. Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth, especially since what you are implying that I said is almost the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Re:Hubbell and diamondmagic

[Raenex]

I said that this is not the proper venue Why is it not the "proper" venue?

Re:Hubbell and diamondmagic

[jeiler]

I personally would opt for something where formal debate could be more easily structured, where the debate and commentary on that debate were in separate threads, where observers could not interfere with the debate, and where debaters could not interfere with the commenters. Perhaps even where debaters could not read the comment thread until the debate was concluded.

Re:Hubbell and diamondmagic

[Raenex]

What you're looking for is a courtroom with a judge and a jury. That's not going to happen. Slashdot is as good a place as any to hold this debate, as this is where it currently resides. This open discussion has already yielded plenty of quality comments, and everybody is free to form their own opinion. Sure there's some cruft too, but that's the nature of open discussion.

Not difficult to find differences at all

[weston]

I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain

It's not difficult at all to find substantial differences. At least one was all over the news today:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/

We've recently discussed some substantial differences in tech policy and in advisor selection on slashdot.

I get it that to some extent, certain political realities force every mainstream candidate into certain positions. But it's wildly wrong to take the further step and equate all their positions, and furthermore, it's dangerous.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[WiseWeasel]

You make a good point, and I should have qualified my statement by requiring 'many' differences. You do highlight a significant difference on a very important issue. That being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table, such as what our foreign policy in general should be towards other countries. It's not often that we get to support such radical notions as humility in foreign relations, or greater trust in the regulatory power of the free market to keep corruption in check, given our terrible, terrible representation in the legislature. After such high aspirations, the differences between the remaining candidates seem insignificant by comparison. I will admit that this is likely a false impression, and that there are some substantial differences that might favor one candidate over the other. I just can't help but feel let down by the reduced expectations, however.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[7Prime]

Exactly. This is why I find the, "all candidates are too similar" arguement to be so disturbing. For fuck's sake, I heard it back in 2000 against Bush and Gore. "Bush/Gore...what's the difference?" Holy shit, how naive are these people? If they can't tell the difference between a philistine semi-fascist war-monger, and an intellectual-minded left-leaning "let's listen to the experts" leader... then I don't know what else to tell ya.

Now isn't quite as extreme as the year 2000, which may have been the most extreme in the nation's history. But still the differences are very clear. The main difference, once again, is in the roll of privatization vs. government. THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. It may not be "abortion" it might not be "should we go to war", but it's the kind of decision that leads a type of decision on substantial issues. For instance, War in Iraq would not have been an issue if not for the fundimental roll that private contracts/armies played.

Do you think that massive privatization is a good thing for the country? If yes, vote McCain, if No, vote Obama... that should be a pretty defining issue.

Secondly, how do you want your leader to communicate with other individuals/leaders? This is a big decision because it shows how likely the person is to be able to convince other people/leaders to follow through with their plans. Both McCain and Obama are fairly wise individuals, and project themselves fairly possitively. But McCain has the ability to intimidate (which isn't neccessarily a bad thing), where as Obama is more likely to adopt inspirational speak. As an idealist, I tend to like Obama's style better... but there is a time and place for the kind of communicative pattern that McCain has.

And we haven't even gotten to the issues yet. But the issues aren't really as important as the philosophy behind them. The bottom line is, most of the important decisions a president will make, we can't even guess at this point (Bush's legacy, no one could have expected in 2000, for instance). Who's going to best processes the incoming issues? Who's going to make decisions that fit with your particular world view.

The fact is, Obama and McCain are wildly different candidates. If you think they're similar, you're either not paying attention, or you probably are just saying that because you don't like either of them. If that's the case, then just say you don't like either of them. I think that they're of the highest caliber politicians we could ask for, personaly. As a liberal democrat, I of course strongly endorse Obama. But I couldn't ask for a better republican opponant.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Logic and Reason]

Now isn't quite as extreme as the year 2000, which may have been the most extreme in the nation's history. That you can even say this with a (metaphorically) straight face shows that you have no historical perspective, or at least are prone to wild exaggerations.

Do you think that massive privatization is a good thing for the country? If yes, vote McCain, if No, vote Obama... that should be a pretty defining issue. If you think McCain will actually bring about "massive privatization", I've got a bridge to sell you. Bush talked the "small government" talk, too, and he's done fuck-all to back it up.

In fact, the entire Republican party has basically abandoned its stance on limited government (while still paying lip service to it, of course, so as not to alienate too many conservative voters). Ron Paul was one of the only candidates who was actually serious about limiting the size and scope of the federal government, and he was ridiculed and ignored for it.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Thelasko]

If they can't tell the difference between a philistine semi-fascist war-monger, and an intellectual-minded left-leaning "let's listen to the experts" leader... then I don't know what else to tell ya. To be fair, Bush billed himself as against "nation building," and claimed he would hire the best and the brightest as his advisers. He turned out to be much different. What surprises me more, is the number of people who remained loyal after he didn't follow through with his promises.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[dwye]

> Now isn't quite as extreme as the year 2000, which
> may have been the most extreme in the nation's history.

More extreme than 1984 Mondale vs. Reagan?
More extreme than 1964 Johnson vs. Goldwater?
More extreme than 1952 Stevenson vs. Eisenhower?
More extreme than the 1860 4-way race?

The most evenly split, certainly. Most extreme? Hardly.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Anonymous Coward]

But the issues aren't really as important as the philosophy behind them.
..
The fact is, Obama and McCain are wildly different candidates.

Here's a philosophy: Washington knows what is best for you, and should have the power to determine your fate. The tenth Amendment of the constitution is quaint and obsolete and should be ignored. Presidential and congressional opinions matter when it comes to abortion, healthcare funding, etc, because the federal government is in charge of handling those issues.

Which candidate is that? Oh right, both of them.

To overdramatize, Godwinize, and hyperbolize: this is Hitler vs Stalin. They're different, yet the same.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Jaeph]

This is all a matter of perspective, right?

From where I'm sitting, they both want to take my money and spend it for me.

From where you're sitting, you think it's important where the money goes after they take it from you. I really don't care at that point - I just want them to stop taking my money.

-Jeff

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick reminder. During the year 2000, Bush was not a "war-monger".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-FiXTgKFo

Unfortunately, he never followed through on what he told everyone.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Scudsucker]

This is all a matter of perspective, right?

No.

From where I'm sitting, they both want to take my money and spend it for me.

And there are a lot of people in this country who can't see past their own nose, just like you.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Scudsucker]

Bush talked the "small government" talk, too, and he's done fuck-all to back it up.

Actually they've done a lot to privatize government services and operations. They've outsourced guarding officials in Iraq (Blackwater) and vast amounts of intelligence processing.

In fact, the entire Republican party has basically abandoned its stance on limited government

"Limited government" was only ever a marketing slogan in the first place; really it means "cut spending on stuff we don't like". Democrats do the same thing of course, but at least they aren't two-faced hypocrites on the issue.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Scudsucker]

that being said, the scope of their differences is still fairly limited when compared with the issues Paul was putting on the table

Can you name a single issue, other than ass-kissing devotion to Israel, where Obama and McCain are on the same page? Iraq, taxes, abortion, torture, spying, regulation, lobbying, veterans, diplomacy...not only are these two not on the same page, they're not on the same planet.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[matthaak]

What I really like about your post is that you point out how unimportant individual issues are compared to the philosophies behind them. As a conservative looking for a candidate I agree with you, the liberal democrat, completely. I'd even go so far as to say that the constant regurgitating of the same old items "hot-button" issues, even things as broad and vague as "the economy", "healthcare", and "the war" serve only to distract us from the more important philosophical changes happening in Washington.

Where I disagree with you completely is in your identification of the primary philosophical divide. Public vs. Private isn't nearly as important as Centralized vs. De-centralized. That is the core philosophical battle in this country. (Of course, a philisophical "purist" would probably say that the divide is even more to the core than that: between the materialist (the mind is the brain) and the dualists (the mind is separate from the brain.)) Even IF I were to agree that the divide is Public vs. Private, I would encourage you to check into the massive privatization efforts that took place under Clinton and previous administrations. If you think our troops were pealing their own potatoes under Clinton or providing diplomatic security services, think again. People think they've unraveled this dark secret about Cheney's conflict of interest because he ran Haliburton through the Clinton years. Well, who do you think was cutting the checks to Haliburton?

No, the issue is Centralization vs. Decentralization. On that front, I really don't see much difference between our current candidates or Bush vs. Gore for that matter. In fact, the "Centralists", if you will, have had their way for at least a century, possibly more. THE reason I supported Ron Paul so strongly is because he was a strong Decentralist. For starters, he understood the paradox of what is *supposed* to be a decentralized economy (as compared to, say, Soviet Russia) that is being manipulated by a central bank. Secondly, he talked openly about the problem of our constant War-making being one of too many powerful players from private industry and the government (i.e. the Military-Industrial Complex) having to much power concentrated in Washington. You can talk all you want about whether Iraq was the right place to go to war or not or whether we should have gone to war in Darfur (a very fashionable suggestion among the interventionists these days) but in the end there will always be war as long as so much power is centralized in the hands of so few executives, both private and public.

When discussing national politics, centralized often gets equated to public, and decentralized to private, but I think there are plenty of examples to the contrary. You can have decentralized public services. You can have universal healthcare in Illinois or Massachusetts or Cook County, for example. You can even have decentralized federal departments. I think the FAA does a good job manning traffic control towers, for example. And you can certainly have centralized private organizations. Look at most of our fortune 500 companies and how they choose to structure their organizations.

But there is a whole world of decentralization out there; of independent ISPs (God, I LOVE Interlync), of independent retailers, heck the entire blogging phenomenon is one of decentralizing the dissemination of information. And not even "big" always equates to "centralized." Besides the aforementioned FAA, you have companies like Best Buy, that try tirelessly to share information and best practices not from the center out, but at the fringes (their CEO gave an excellent interview on CEO Exchange / PBS about this.) In fact, I think companies that are really excelling in these tough economic conditions are the ones that are starting to understand decentralization and harness its power. These companies tend to have flatter hierarchies, like Apple, where you'd think that everything centers around Steve Jobs, but then he says he works *directly* with about 100 people of all diffe

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[WiseWeasel]

Compare their actual promises, not their rhetoric. You have to look at what they actually say they will do. Chances are, at the end of the day, what we do in Iraq will be the same with both, what we do in Iran will be the same, both will close Guantanamo (because the Supreme Court just took away its purpose), both will try to manage the recession in similar ways (leave it up to the Fed), both will fail at fixing health care, both will attempt to salvage the 'No Child Left Behind' program, and both will continue to use the US Army as the world's police instead of as a defense force, both will continue to operate the hundreds of US military bases around the world at a huge financial cost to our country.

When we compare to a truly different candidate such as Ron Paul, who was serious about humility in foreign relations, about deferring authority over government programs back to the states, where the level of representation isn't quite as poor as at the national level, and about significantly cutting federal spending and trying to get our finances and government services in order so we DON'T pop the Social Security and Medicare bubbles. I wouldn't try to compare either current main party candidates to Paul's track record of working in these directions.

Although Obama does SEEM LIKE a decent guy, with a good head on his shoulders, I have little faith that he will respond to our debt crisis appropriately, and his recent lip service to AIPAC shows that he's just as capable of hubris and notions of ruling the world as any of these other jackasses we've had as president lately. So we'll see, he may be a step above McCain, and he may even be less destructive to our country, but as far as I'm concerned, neither of them have shown that they understand what the real problems are, nor that they are capable of facing them head-on. My vote will not be going to either of them. Obama talks a decent game of lip service to libertarians, but I'm not stupid enough to think that he's even on the same page.

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[Scudsucker]

Compare their actual promises, not their rhetoric.

Yes, you should get on that, because you still haven't shown a single issue where they are on the same page.

Chances are, at the end of the day, what we do in Iraq will be the same with both,

McCain wants to leave troops in. Obama wants them out.

what we do in Iran will be the same

Are you on crack? Iran has replaced Saddam as the new boogyman for the Republican party, not for Obama.

both will close Guantanamo (because the Supreme Court just took away its purpose),

Obama would close Guantanamo because it's wrong. McCain would only close it because he was forced to; did you not hear him call the Supreme Court decision one of the worst in our history?

both will try to manage the recession in similar ways (leave it up to the Fed),

No. Obama wants large middle class tax cuts while ending the Bush cuts. McCain wants more corporate and capital gains tax cuts that would only benefit the wealthy while adding trillions to our national debt.

both will fail at fixing health care

Working class Americans want health care. Businesses want health care so they can stop dealing with providing employee insurance. Obama is going to have a large Democratic majority in both the Senate and the House. We have a better chance at fixing it now than at any time in our history.

both will attempt to salvage the 'No Child Left Behind' program, and both will continue to use the US Army as the world's police instead of as a defense force, both will continue to operate the hundreds of US military bases around the world at a huge financial cost to our country.

And your basis for this is, what exactly. You're grasping at straws.

When we compare to a truly different candidate such as Ron Paul

Ron Paul would be a disaster. He is completely opposed to federal regulation or oversight, but is just fine with states sticking their noses as far into your business as they please.

My vote will not be going to either of them. Obama talks a decent game of lip service to libertarians, but I'm not stupid enough to think that he's even on the same page.

Not liking a candidate that doesn't support your pet issues is perfectly understandable. But how much do you really want to be in Iraq for another four years? How about a war with Iran? Do you really want another few trillion dollars added to our national debt, debt with Libertarians are every bit as liable for as Democrats and Republicans? Do you want to see our currency lose half it's value again?

Re:Not difficult to find differences at all

[WiseWeasel]

Obama has never promised to pull out of Iraq. His presentation to AIPAC shows he's just as capable of beligerant diplomacy with Iran as McCain. As for Obama wanting a large middle class, that's very nice, but there's no indication he has any plans to that end, and he hasn't said anything substantial. Again, pretty words and no promises.

You sound like you've taken a big swig of the Kool Aid, and you show a completely superficial understanding of what Paul actually proposes. The point of allowing states to have a larger say over their policy is that, besides being how the constitution of this country was structured, we have much more representation at the state level than at the federal level, that the citizens will be able to keep things more in check. Our representation at the federal level is so poor, and so prone to corruption, that there is a need to decentralize more power to where it will be accountable to voters.

This last administration has clearly demonstrated the hazard of centralizing power at the federal level, and you just haven't learned your lesson. You are prepared to keep supporting the centralization of power, with single points of failure for the entire country, even though you should know that it will be abused, and voters will be helpless in fixing the problem, since it takes too much dirty money to get elected to federal office. So yeah, Paul is right, let the states have more of the federal government's power, and let the voters have a bigger say over their government, and let them vote with their feet by moving to a different state if theirs screws up too badly.

"Social conservative" in the US

[tepples]

Unless the submitter has some special definition of "socially conservative" In the United States of America, "social conservatism" tends to mean some measure of theonomy, based on a (selective) interpretation of the Torah. For example, social conservatives would be more likely:

• to offer adoption instead of feticide to women with unwanted unborn children ("thou shalt not kill"),
• to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life"), and
• not to provide for civil unions of same-sex couples that are analogous to marriage ("a man who lies with a man the way one lies with a woman commits an abomination").

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people in the country since its inception including the founders of the country could be summed up as mostly "socially conservative." In the old days, we just called these "cultural traditions."

Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.

Signed,

Big City slashdot Lib.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, social conservatives would be more likely:

• to offer adoption instead of feticide to women with unwanted unborn children ("thou shalt not kill")

If you're looking for an unbiased to use, it's called "abortion". But if you want to look like a partisan hack who uses words like "feticide" to demonize those who disagree with you, go right ahead.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[aproposofwhat]

Also, if he were strictly correct in his neologism, 'foeticide' would be the correct term.

In the English speaking world, a foetus isn't a fetus unless you're a slack-jawed Cletus.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[zippthorne]

# to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life")

Negatory there chief. "An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye."

not to provide for civil unions of same-sex couples that are analogous to marriage ("a man who lies with a man the way one lies with a woman commits an abomination").

Yeah, you're probably right there, though. On the other hand, there's no compelling state interest in same-sex marriage. Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[zippthorne]

What? I thought feticide was pretty clever. The use of the -cide suffix ranges from homicide (pretty clearly wrong) to germicide (which you better perform before making those fries). It straddles the fence, and has the meaning that the reader puts into it.

Generally, I would not expect an abortion proponent to read the "homicide" meaning into it, though.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[TubeSteak]

Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all. Marriage* is conducive to stable families.
Stable families are good for babies
Babies grow up, get jobs, and pay taxes.
The State runs on taxes.

Not only does the State have a compelling interest in marriage, the State has a compelling interest in figuring out how to lower the divorce rate.

*I mean marriage as in the legal contract between two people, not the religious ceremony.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[isorox]

# to offer adoption instead of feticide to women with unwanted unborn children ("thou shalt not kill"),
# to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life"), and


Hmm, don't these contradict each other? How can you execute someone without killing?

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Raenex]

That argument applies to everything we do. "The state knows best for you and society". Anybody who is for limited government should keep government out of marriage and any other "family values" issues.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[AvitarX]

Sounds to me like the State has a compelling interest in civil unions, and none in marriage.

Marriage is a ceremony (even if it is a quick and simple one), the State should not care. All they care about is the contractual union of 2 people.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[JCWDenton]

This is exactly what Dr Paul has always maintained. Marriage is a religious ceremony and it's not for the state or federal government to interfere. He supports contracts between people.

It's one of the many reasons I vigorously support Dr Paul. His principled and informed view on issues guided by the constitution and the fact no one has a right telling others what to do.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Entropius]

Yes, but those cultural traditions weren't forced on anyone. That was the whole point of the "freedom of religion" bit: acknowledging that the cultural traditions of the majority shouldn't be imposed on minorities.

Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.

I'm white and have no problem keeping my culture. I can go to concert halls and see the music of my ancestors played; I can go to a restaurant and eat European food; I can go to any church I care to.

I agree that there's been an artificial glorification of minority culture in some respects (ever seen a Black History Month in an elementary school? It's disgusting), but this is no threat to "white" culture.

You certainly can keep your religion; you're just expected to not harass other people with it. If that's a problem, well, it's not my problem that your superstitions require you to heckle others with little nametags that say "Elder Bob".

And religion is NOT what makes the core of any culture. That's an absurd claim. Cultures with indigenous religions often manifest core cultural traits IN their religions (qv. ancient Greece), which is a different matter -- the culture came first, the religion was created to fit it.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Entropius]

Fetus is the US spelling.

Foetus is the British spelling.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, there's no compelling state interest in same-sex marriage. Perhaps we should evaluate whether there is a compelling state interest in marriage, at all. I used to agree with this argument but I don't anymore. Marriage basically boils down to a contract. Contract disputes and resolutions are currently handled by the state. So, unless you're arguing that the state has no business in resolving contract disputes then there is a compelling state interest in determining the validity of marriages (i.e. contracts) and their terms. Stemming from that I'd argue that the states role in determining the validity of a marriage should be limited to determining if both (or more) parties joined the contract knowingly and in good faith.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet they tend to be oddly silent about shellfish.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[sm62704]

I was goping to rebut your comment, until I remembered both the illegal Rastafarians and the illegal indigineous American religions.

Like the Rastafari, I see marijuana as a religious sacrament (although that's about all I agree with them on)

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

But try promoting a White History Month or Irish History Month or British History Month or, heaven forbid, a Confederate History Month in those same schools. Try promoting a White Entertainment Television cable network, White Miss America pageant, White Congressional Caucus, Organization of Concerned White Clergy, National Association for the Advancement of White People, etc.

It isn't about whether you are able to practice your culture, it is whether you are able to promote it and keep it alive without being summarily attacked because of it.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Sloppy]

To continue to camaign after losing is brain dead.

Perhaps you have not identified all of the purposes of campaigning.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[tepples]

Killing is wrong. The "life for a life" goes directly against the "big ten" that Moses brought down; "thou shalt not kill". I addressed this in another comment.

If you are for letting men marry men, how can you be against incest?

Incest results in an increased likelihood of genetic defects in the offspring. Homosexuality doesn't because there is no offspring.

True, homosexuality is a sin under the law of Moses. However, I don't think it's necessarily man's job to back God's law with force.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about whether you are able to practice your culture, it is whether you are able to promote it and keep it alive without being summarily attacked because of it. I'm not making the connection between keeping your culture alive and forcing schoolchildren in another state to learn about your ancestors. Can't you just practice your own culture without having other people validate it? I'm having no trouble keeping my culture, despite there being no month dedicated to it.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Hatta]

Negatory there chief. "An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye."

Then why do so many so called conservatives call for imprisoning those who smoke marijuana?

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Scrameustache]

In the English speaking world, a foetus isn't a fetus unless you're a slack-jawed Cletus. Fetus is the US spelling. You say potato, I say potato ;-)

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

"An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye."

So why does the same book that says "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" also require the death penalty for adultery?

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[geekoid]

"Marriage* is conducive to stable families."
wrong.

"Stable families are good for babies"
Nothing to do with Marriage.

You don't need to be married to have kids.
You don't have to be married to have a stable Family
You do not need opposite genders to have a stable family.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[geekoid]

"He supports contracts between people."

HAHAHAHahaha... have you actually read up on his history and voting record? Please.

"His principled and informed view on issues guided by the constitution and the fact no one has a right telling others what to do."

Funny, his votes on certain issues, and his racist history tells another story.

Your just to cowardly to admit your party has screwed up, so you want to vote for someone who isn't in an opposite party...Or worse, you're a liebertarian.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[JCWDenton]

Perhaps you should look beyond the party mindset. My passionate fondness for the doctor isn't because he's a Republican ('the new kind') but because he doesn't fit the mold of either party and, as has been said before, he doesn't fear speaking his because his arguments are based on reason, reasearch and principles.

I'm pretty aware of his past and voting record (more so than most I'd think) and whenever I'm puzzled by his vote (or even when they make perfect sense) I still try and find out about his particular motivations which always make perfect, logical sense. Perhaps you'd also like to know I read all his speeches and statements online which are in perfect accordance with his voting record. You should try reading some, perhaps you'll find them very revealing.

This video should be right up the street of the average slashdot reader: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5792391565012624048&hl=en (speech here: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr0522107.htm ) or his recent speech on the farm bill should demonstrate his principal standing and familiarity with the issues: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst060108.htm .

Here's a bill sponsored my Dr Paul I'm particulary interested in, in seeing passed: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/hr3835.html H.R. 3835: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers

Excerpt:
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.

            No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.

EC. 9. USE OF SECRET EVIDENCE TO MAKE FOREIGN TERRORIST DESIGNATIONS.

            Notwithstanding any other law, secret evidence shall not be used by the President or any other member of the executive branch to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions.

I'm not a republican supporter because it's the same as being a democrat supporter, supporting the same system which is so very flawed and which disgraces the country and treads freely on liberty. There's nothing wrong with being a libertarian either. What could anyone have against peace and liberty? I'm in fact very comfortable with people who call themselves libertarian because I know they have no inclination in telling me on how I should live my life.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Captain Splendid]

Now days, only if you are non-white are you allowed to keep your culture, except for your religion, you cannot keep that unless you change it to be more politically correct and secular. Yes, we know that religion is what makes the core of any culture, but you cannot keep it.

That is hands down of the dumbest comments I've ever seen in Slashdot.

Unless of course I'm missing the hordes of white Christian churches being forced to shut down or something. And nobody's telling you you can't listen to your pat Boone records, so what's the fucking problem?

One of the greatest lies ever perpertrated in the last quarter century is the myth of the persecuted white Christian. Try reading up on some real persecution and get back to me, you credulous retard.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Raenex]

Marriage is a religious ceremony and it's not for the state or federal government to interfere. He supports state rights to define marriage laws.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[JCWDenton]

To quote the man himself:

PAUL: I'd let California do what they want. And I didn't vote for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but the states can do it. This can be solved so easily, all you have to do is legalize contracts, you shouldn't even be involved in defining marriage. I think marriage should be a religious and personal ceremony and anybody who wants to call themselves married can. And if they don't want to, that's all right too. If I don't like somebody else calling themselves married, so what? It doesn't bother me any, so I just leave them alone. It's when people call themselves married and want to impose their will on other people and say, "Because now I am married, you will treat my spouse in a certain way," and demanding something either from government or from certain insurance company, that is forcing themselves on somebody else. People should be left alone. If they want to be married, fine. If they want to call it marriage, fine. But they don't have the right to impose it on other people.

source: http://www.infowars.com/?p=2420

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[Raenex]

Whether he believes the states should be involved in marriage or not, he still believes the states should have the power to do so. Read those first two sentences again: "I'd let California do what they want. And I didn't vote for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, but the states can do it." [emphasis mine]

Also another quote, from his speech against amending the constitution, but for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act:

"I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage."

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[sm62704]

homosexuality is a sin under the law of Moses.

Your sin is none of my business, mine is none of yours, and neither is government's business.

Incest results in an increased likelihood of genetic defects in the offspring

Thes days we have biorth control and abortion. And if increased rick of genetic defects is a reason fro a law, they should put Monsanto and Dow's Presidents in prison for the nasty stuff they spew into the invironment.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[tepples]

I don't think it's necessarily man's job to back God's law with force. Your sin is none of my business, mine is none of yours, and neither is government's business. So we agree on this point.

Thes days we have biorth control Agreed. Abstinence is not the only way to keep sperm away from an egg.

and abortion. But that doesn't mean the federal government has to steal my money and give it to abortion clinics.

And if increased rick of genetic defects is a reason fro a law, they should put Monsanto and Dow's Presidents in prison for the nasty stuff they spew into the invironment. If what the critics of big chemical companies say is true, we might see some action as soon as we get an administration that's less likely to fellate big business.

Re:"Social conservative" in the US

[sm62704]

But that doesn't mean the federal government has to steal my money and give it to abortion clinics.

Agreed there too - in fact more than agreed; I have friends with no health care whatever, whose only recourse is the emergency room.

If what the critics of big chemical companies say is true, we might see some action as soon as we get an administration that's less likely to fellate big business

Since either Obama or (more likely) McCain will win, there's not much chance of that happening. Still, I'll probably vote Green if they're on the ballot in Illinois.

I too approve of approval voting

[tepples]

On my English Wikipedia user page, I state that I too approve of approval voting. Approval voting is a special case of range voting; placing the options at 0% (thumbs down) and 100% (thumbs up) simplifies things for voters below the median. In turn, plurality voting is a special case of approval voting that requires no more than one thumbs up per race. But is there anything in the United States Constitution or federal statute that specifies the method of voting in a way that excludes approval voting? For example, Amendment 17 specifies "two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof", but doesn't go into detail about how they are elected.

Re:I too approve of approval voting

[mOdQuArK!]

As far as I know, aside from the description of how the Electoral College is supposed to operate, the U.S. Constitution leaves the question of what process to use for voting for candidates up to each state legislature (one of the reasons why it has been so hard to enforce any kind of national standard on voting procedures).

Re:I too approve of approval voting

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the purpose of linking your Wikipedia user page? It adds absolutely nothing to your point, just makes you look like an attention-whoring jackass.

Re:I too approve of approval voting

[Anonymous Coward]

To show he has a life outside of /. perhaps?

Re:I too approve of approval voting

[JeepFanatic]

The Constitution was designed such that elections are left for the states to control - see Article 1 Section 4. Before the 17th Amendment, US Senators were chosen by the state legislatures as a type of balance against the power of the federal government over the states - by the Senators depending upon reelection by the "state" - see Article 1 Section 3 (this is something I believe we should consider returning to).

The 17th Amendment didn't need to specify any further "how" the Senators should be elected other than by the people of the each state and was worded specifically to fit with the original wording.

Re:I too approve of approval voting

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

IIRC, I think the fear of approval voting is that it will eventually degenerate into the type of approval voting that occurred in the former Soviet Union.

Again, IIRC, in that case, the ruling party picked a candidate and put him on the ballot and the proletariat could then vote yea or nay. It was not very democratic at all and was really just a way to judge how much dissension they would likely have if the candidate received the position.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we log in on the posting form anymore? That's where I logged on about 90% of the time. Is it disabled only for some countries? (I am not in the US now)

Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why is this news on slashdot?

Many Slashdotters are strongly freedom-oriented. They tend to like free software and civil liberties, among other types of freedom. Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate. How is this confusing?

Ron Paul was a fringe candidate ... only the most hard core Ron Paul fans would even know he still had a presidential campaign.

Wow, are you Big Media or do you just buy their story hook, line and sinker? The truth is he got between 3% and 24% in the various primaries and caucuses. That's a respectable showing for a candidate, and he did better than several candidates who Big Media deemed "worthy". Have a look at how the NYT covered him on my blog. This is a snapshot of race results when he came in second in Nevada. They refused to list Ron Paul because they were crusading against him and managing the perception you have. Funny, the Democrats' race added up to 100% but the Republicans had a big missing percentage of voters, where could they have gone?

Now, why would reporters now boldly in the tank for Obama have it in for Ron Paul and back a strong socialist for the Republican nomination? We'll leave this as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Slashdotters are strongly freedom-oriented. They tend to like free software and civil liberties, among other types of freedom. Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate. How is this confusing?

Because it's one thing to pimp your favorite software or tech, but another when the editors openly pimp for political candidates. How is this confusing?

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

No, many Slashdotters are relatively upper-middle-class techies and therefore the "fuck you, I've got mine" objectivist/libertarian views promoted by pseudo-philosophers like Rand and pseudo-politicians like Paul greatly appeal to many of them. Supporting social conservatism and corporatism is taboo for obvious reasons, as you rightly point out, but there's no reason a considerably less altruistic philosophy wouldn't fit in with their views. Now that Paul's obscure, Obama's the next pick because 1. bubble sort and 2. he's young and smart, as opposed to the Stevens-ite McCain who doesn't know a CAT5 cable from the one used in his annual geriatric colonoscopy.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is he got between 3% and 24% in the various primaries and caucuses.

...in a non-competitive primary race with exceptionally low turnout.

Re:Freedom

[Omestes]

I don't like Ron Paul, or even agree with libertarianism, but I agree with you 100%. Both of the hardcore idealist canidates in this election were screwed by the media, even before voting began. Kucinich, and Paul. They shouldn't be in the same sentence, I know, but they both must be doing something right based on their massive anti-fan-base.

Standing up for principles, perhaps?

The media painted both of them into being amusing monkeys, dancing to keep the debates amusing, while the "big boys" debated. I tend to read the "big boys" as synonymous with "bland, flavorless, oatmeal".

If I had my wish we'd have a Kucinich/Paul ticket, or visa versa, things would actually get done, and both of them are more honest than the political survivors.

Re:Freedom

[Guppy06]

"Many Slashdotters are strongly freedom-oriented."

For their own personal definition of "freedom." Freedom for whom? Freedom from what?

"Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate. How is this confusing?

Because Ron Paul wants to eliminate many, perhaps most, of the protections of aforementioned civil liberties.

Re:Freedom

[Entropius]

I hear this crazy guy got over 90% in a primary in Utah and didn't get the nomination ... his candidacy must be being suppressed!

Re:Freedom

[lilomar]

So by your thinking, Paul is anti-freedom.

Which means that he is still news to the aforementioned pro-freedom nerds.

Re:Freedom

[Bloodoflethe]

There needs to be a mod: -1 replied to wrong post.

Re:Freedom

[Scrameustache]

Kucinich, and Paul. They shouldn't be in the same sentence, I know Shouldn't be in the same sentence?
They're the only two members of the US government that seem honest, they're each others' equivalent across the aisle.

The ideal two-party presidential campaign would be Paul vs Kucinich.

Re:Freedom

[xenocide2]

Many Slashdotters are strongly freedom-oriented. They tend to like free software and civil liberties

I'd really love to hear why the hell libertarians, a group strongly in favorite of private property rights and a small government, like GNU, an organization dedicated to creating a public interest in software. Even if you argue that copyright is bogus, GNU is trying to compel people to disclose source code and give universal access. Good examples of this would be the Tivoisation clause in GPLv3, or the Affero public license.

As best I can tell, libertarians prefer the "free" part a bit more than the "liberated" part of Free software.

Re:Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

There's so much debate about what a 'real' libertarian is, but IMHO the core is volunteerism, that is freedom to chose how to run your life. Who you associate with, how you associate, etc.

Some libertarians, the anarchocapitalist sect, think we need no government at all. That if you want a police force, enough people can come together to hire a policeman. This is pretty close to the GNU model of voluntary communal interaction and cooperation. I think the layers are a significant difference in terms of achievability, but the idea is the same.

GNU is completely dependent on copyright, you can't assume it's a bogus idea and still have a GPL. So, that's personal property rights, and people are choosing how to use their property without anybody compelling them. If somebody coerced you into using GPL'ed software that would be a completely different matter, but I've never heard of that.

Re:Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

For their own personal definition of "freedom." Freedom for whom? Freedom from what?

Mostly from the whims of a corrupt strong centralized government.

Because Ron Paul wants to eliminate many, perhaps most, of the protections of aforementioned civil liberties.

Really? Which ones?

Re:Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

You americans have the most fucked up idea of what a socialist is, this black and white thinking is alarming, there are NO SOCIALISTS in any of the parties. To think so, you'd have to be brainwashed.

Over here we define it as somebody who conflates government with society and holds primacy of society over the individual. This leads to miserable government attempts at charity and violence inherent in the system.

Re:Freedom

[Grishnakh]

You're pretty dense, aren't you?

The GPL rests on private property rights. Morons like you seem to think that "private property" somehow requires commercialization, and selling things, but it doesn't. The GPL is used to protect privately-owned source code, so that it can't be used in ways the owners don't like. The code is provided to the public to be used as the creators like, but the license keeps them from using it ways they don't; this is why it's completely different from public-domain code or BSD-licensed code. This is why people who don't like private property rights don't like the GPL.

It makes perfect sense why libertarians would favor the GPL.

Re:Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

Standing up for principles, perhaps?

Quite true. I abhor the violence inherent in Kucinich's platform, but I do respect the guy for being honest about it.

Re:Freedom

[xenocide2]

But the GPL at its core involves a third party, in what is otherwise a contract between two individuals. The copyright holder and those who would modify it (Affero basically removes the distribution clause in a world full of webservers running code users never otherwise see). But the copyright holder is deliberately sacrificing self-interest for this third party, the public. It could have stated that any changes must be made available to the copyright holder, something several upstreams bitch about, but instead it simply asks that source is given to users and anyone who asks.

Why then, would a rational, self interested libertarian start a GPL project? I can understand the desire for source code exchange in kind (a great barter that the IRS can't estimate). But you don't need GPL for that, and the GPL protects source code in ways that protects the public interest (access), which I've always assumed is something libertarians weren't interested in.

Re:Freedom

[Scudsucker]

Ron Paul was the freedom-oriented candidate.

Only from the Feds. He doesn't have a problem with states cornholing citizens.

Re:Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

Only from the Feds. He doesn't have a problem with states cornholing citizens.

Fair point. The idea some states would move more towards corniholing and others more towards freedom, and citizens would vote with their feet. Proponents of any one type can 'prove' that their system is the better one.

Right now our 'laboratory of democracy' is hopelessly homogenized.

Re:Freedom

[Scudsucker]

The idea some states would move more towards corniholing and others more towards freedom, and citizens would vote with their feet.

So the "freedom loving Libertarians" would get rid of the FDA (safe food) and OSHA (safe workplaces) but have no problem with states mandating school prayer and re-banning interracial marriage? That doesn't make any damned sense at all.

Re:Freedom

[bill_mcgonigle]

So the "freedom loving Libertarians" would get rid of the FDA (safe food) and OSHA (safe workplaces) but have no problem with states mandating school prayer and re-banning interracial marriage? That doesn't make any damned sense at all.

The FDA does a pretty terrible job and there's no way to replace it when it does so. There's no reason a third-party certification organization (most likely a non-profit) couldn't do as well or better, and if they do get bad you fire them and give the contract to another organization. Would you pay a penny more per tomato for salmonella testing on lots? I would. We can't get the FDA to do that. Would you buy drugs that haven't been tested? I wouldn't, but if people want to take that risk why should I tell them they can't, especially if they're terminal, for instance.

All the same can be said of OSHA, except there people have freedom to chose to work for employers who won't demand that they do insane things. Yes, it take a bit of gumption on the part of the citizenry to be a free people.

School prayer in public schools would violate the first amendment and the government has no business sanctioning marriages - that's what churches are for. I wouldn't have any problem with states having stock legal packages for people who want to codify rights of survivorship, power of attorney, or anything else, so long as it's mutually agreed upon.

You don't need a big federal government to take care of you like a parent.

And apparently this is a lamestream media meme...

[weston]

One more thing: I think it's especially interesting that this sentiment isn't just from supporters of Candidates like Paul (who is in fact starkly different from most candidates on several fronts). This portrayal of the general presidential election as one of small differences is actually apparently a mainstream media meme:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obamacain8-2008jun08,0,543931.story
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aH8EMkkeMCtw&refer=politics

Not unanticipated, or without precedent:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/how-will-the-campaign-be-covered/

I think the question is: Why? Why, when there are easily locatable differences are there people who seem to like level them? I can understand why Paul looks different compared to Obama and McCain, but that's not even who we're talking about -- we're talking about a media that played up the heat of the contest between Obama and Clinton, but now appears to be playing down the much greater gulf.

Maybe it's because McCain appears to be a moderate if you average his positions:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14577.html
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15649.html

Or maybe it's some inner working of mainstream "journalism" that's just too mysterious for me.

Or maybe it's true what my acquaintances who've worked in the Senate have said: McCain's great in front of the cameras, assiduously cultivates one media image, but in private, he's at best a tyrant and quite possibly mentally instable (note: before you try to pass that off on partisan rancor, note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff).

But that's a rumor, one you can't verify unless you also have the acquaintance of Senate staff, and I don't expect you to believe a random poster on the internet about this. Just whatever you do, don't fall for the line that McCain and Obama are somehow twins, that voting for either won't make a difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080528/pl_nm/usa_politics_issues_dc

Who you cast your vote for absolutely matters this fall. If you absolutely HAVE to -- vote for Ron Paul or your favorite third party candidate to send a message, sure. Everybody has that right and it's a legitimate use of a vote. But make sure you really understand who the candidates are before you cast your vote. If you genuinely think Obama and McCain are the same, you quite simply haven't done that yet, and your vote will be cast irresponsibly.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The executive branch generally has a large deal of influence over the legislative branch, whether you like it or not. Remember, the Executive branch can say "No" 99% of the time. And that power allows him to permit things he doesn't like to get through in exchange for legislators passing things they don't like. Welcome to reality.

Who says that's conservatism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an atheist and I consider myself to be a 'social conservative' in many ways. I'd call 'social conservatism' the belief that one should make their own way in life - you know - individual responsibility, individual achievement, etc. So, I really don't know how much weight your 'theonomy' take on 'social conservatism' carries, as I - and many like minded others - couldn't care less about any brand of 'biblical' principles.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

Those sound like economic ideals, not moral. "Social conservatism" has to do with how you live morally, generally-- whereas what you seem to be advocating is just "economic conservatism", or "right-wing economics", "libertarian economics", etc. . One can be economically conservative, socially liberal (Libertarian), economically and socially conservative (stereotypical republican, but...), etc. . Social-conservative economic-liberals are considered fascist pig-dogs by everybody, of course. Point is, from your description I wouldn't call you a social conservative, but an economic conservative and/or social liberal. What you consider 'social conservatism' (the belief that one should make their own way in life) is not at all the definition normally used in American politics. Either the definition where you are from is different, you aren't describing something correctly, or your definition is flat-out wrong for your culture and context.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the definition where you are from is different, you aren't describing something correctly, or your definition is flat-out wrong for your culture and context. ...or maybe, just maybe, your preconceived ideas on just what social conservatism means need a little expanding. The idea that we should each accept individual responsibility for our own lives and actions goes a lot deeper than just economics. Individualism has a strong moral component. It's not just about 'greedy capitalists' hell bent on making a buck.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

...or maybe, just maybe, your preconceived ideas on just what social conservatism means need a little expanding.

Social conservatism means what people think it means. If you are the only person that uses this definition, your definition is both useless and misleading. I do not expand my accepted definitions because a single person holds it. If somebody told me tomorrow that the moon is defined as an object made of green cheese, I would not add that to my list of accepted definitions. It would be useless clutter in my mind.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Bloodoflethe]

Social Conservation

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Bloodoflethe]

To be fair, I will also post what I think you are referring to: Economic Individualism

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[dlcarrol]

True, but beside the point.

Speaking as an American, the lack of historical context in the use of our words is probably the major problem in American politics. I don't say this as a pedantic grammarian (which I am-- don't call me out!), but rather as a key to understanding the flow of history (including economics and cultural morays).

The fact that we don't know how classical liberals (small government) relate to social liberals (small morality)-- and how they don't , means we confuse the two and get the worst of both.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got all the way to the right article but failed to realize, even after I spelled it out, that I wasn't referring only to economics. Individualism is more than just money. You should have linked to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

By linking to only the 'Economic Individualism' part of the article you show that you are still missing the point. I don't think that people should only be responsible for their lives economically, but overall. Read the rest of the article that you originally linked to to understand exactly what I mean.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and individualism is very much a part of social conservatism - especially in the US. You can deny that if you want, but you'll be wrong. I think you're arguing against the 'straw man' version of social conservatism that you've seen attacked on dailykos or perhaps even on the Daily Show. It's a shame that you don't realize that such characterizations are, well, nothing but characterizations. No one is telling you to alter your definition of words based upon the opinions of a single individual. However, for your own sake, you really should try to realize that your own opinions are also those of a single individual. You're not right just because you think you are. Social conservatism isn't merely some paleo-religious world view just because you, and perhaps a few people you take your ideas from, think it is. Educate yourself on the American social conservative school of thought and you'll find the strong tradition of individualism that I've spoken about previously. Until you do that however, I don't think you're in a position to offer me anything other than your own flawed, individual opinion on the subject. And, as you have so aptly pointed out, that alone is not enough to base any kind of argument on.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Bloodoflethe]

Oh I agree. In fact I'd read the entire article before posting. It is simply that you continue to apply the term social conservatism to this. My, perhaps too subtle, point is that you are missing the whole picture in that regard. Many social conservatives are far from individualists. Honestly, it seems that most people think they are individualists but can't handle the critical thinking necessary to be functional in that particular 'ism'.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

I don't know what either of my purported sources of opinion are. I know what I've read in my textbooks, and I know what I've seen in terms of opinion. Economic conservatism is different from social conservatism. The logical expansion of economic conservatism is actually closer to social liberalism-- what I would say you have. Conservatism itself isn't just one philosophy you can attribute to anything. If you want to disagree with my (conservative) texbooks and my logic, fine, but don't attach my beliefs to places they don't come from.

Educate yourself on the American social conservative school of thought and you'll find the strong tradition of individualism that I've spoken about previously.

What's funny is that everything I'm talking about came from my education, and my education labels this as economic conservatism and economic liberalism-- old-school Liberalism.

I don't think you're in a position to offer me anything other than your own flawed, individual opinion on the subject.

Well, you yourself mentioned two examples that apparently agree with me. As it stands, you've shown more support for my position than your own. Strange, huh?

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is that everything I'm talking about came from my education, and my education labels this as economic conservatism and economic liberalism-- old-school Liberalism. All I can say is that it sounds to me like you were on the receiving end of a poor, or at least very incomplete, 'education'. Social conservatism has a very strong individualist tradition in the US. I know you want to tell me that your 'education' tells you differently, but you're just wrong. Are you even a US citizen? You really sound to me like someone who doesn't even live in the country trying to tell me how it works. No intelligent person from the US would make the glaring errors you've repeatedly committed. You're making the mistake of painting all of social conservatism with some broad brush that your 'education' has given you. If you were as educated as you think you are you'd realize that large political movements aren't nearly so easy to pidgin hole. It may appeal to you to think that you can drop all of social conservatism into some nice wastebasket of religious nonsense, but you can only do so by remaining ignorant of all the parts of it that don't fit that mold. Somehow, I don't think the prospect of remaining willfully ignorant has ever stopped you from saying or doing anything before. Enjoy *knowing* that you're right - especially when you're wrong.

Re:Who says that's conservatism?

[Devin Jeanpierre]

Are you even a US citizen?

No, but your intelligence should tell you that it doesn't take a citizen to know politics.

You really sound to me like someone who doesn't even live in the country trying to tell me how it works.

I have lived in the United States Virgin Islands for the past 4 years. Of course, there is no Republican presence here, that must be the reason I am so blatantly wrong. :)

No intelligent person from the US would make the glaring errors you've repeatedly committed. You're making the mistake of painting all of social conservatism with some broad brush that your 'education' has given you.

Somebody linked to the wikipedia article on this, which seemed to support my view of it. I have more support than you do, and I am, quite honestly, all evidence presented accounted for, correct. I did not paint a gigantic social movement with the same brush, I painted a single aspect of it with the same brush, which was entirely accurate. The Republican party, and its "conservative image" is composed of Social liberals, Social conservatives, Economic liberals, Economic conservatives, and almost all combinations of those axes. I could not paint it with one brush. I can paint social conservatism with one brush, and I can be correct in doing so. My textbook agrees, TV agrees, websites agree, and, for what it's worth, Wikipedia agrees. What doesn't agree? Apparently in your blasting of my ignorance you failed to provide a single source supporting your sentiment. You just continue to think I'm wrong, seemingly hypocritically so. Throughout this argument, I have gained more support for my views than lost, and yet you claim I am being "willfully ignorant". Well, I'm just agreeing with the data in front of me. Maybe you should have done a better job providing a reason, any reason, to cause me to change my mind before labeling me a mindless foreign zombie who refuses to correct his ignorant views, which are so obviously untrue. It's quite apparent that you never intended to convince me in the first place, you're just yet another AC trolling for responses. You win, my logic was obviously flawed, especially when it came to entering this senseless thread in the first place.

RON PAUL and BARACK OBAMA 2008 agenda for dummies

[Kyoon]

This is the role assigned to Ron Paul by the illuminati http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22have+the+candidate+who+was+supposed+to+lose%22

That's just empty rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul doesn't believe in limited government, just limited federal government. He has no problem with individual states violating human rights with no recourse whatsoever. That's just not true. Just because Ron Paul doesn't believe that the federal government should be telling states how to write their civil rights legislation doesn't mean that he opposes civil rights. Why don't you do a little research into Ron Paul's views of limited government and individual rights? Why don't you do that and find for me even one single quote where Ron Paul has come out in favor of actively oppressing anyone? Why don't you do that? You won't do it because you can't. You can put words in Ron Paul's mouth all you want, but you can never make him actually speak them. The kind of demagoguing you're engaging in is not helpful and it just perpetuates the politics as usual status quo. Maybe the status quo is good enough for you, but the rest of us want some real change and not more of the same kind of dishonest politicking you're throwing at us.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Raenex]

Just because Ron Paul doesn't believe that the federal government should be telling states how to write their civil rights legislation doesn't mean that he opposes civil rights. I don't see why the states shouldn't follow the Bill of Rights. That is, if these rights were so important as to be explicitly listed as protected from violation by the federal government, why is it ok for the states to violate them?

Now some argue that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Whether it legally does or doesn't, why is Ron Paul against protecting such fundamental freedoms? Is free speech not worth protecting? Due process? Liberty?

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

The bill of rights wasn't meant to be a delineated list of the rights of US citizens. It has become such, but to our detriment. The bill of rights was originally meant to spell out in very plain terms that there were some things that federal power simply was not allowed to do or forbid. The bill of rights was never intended to be a complete or comprehensive list of our rights. By allowing it to become such, we actually loose rights in that the government can argue that any right not spelled out in the bill of rights isn't necessarily a right at all.

The idea that the bill of rights wasn't simply a limitation of federal power, but rather a delineation of rights that applied to the states came about as a result of a process called 'incorporation':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Before incorporation, the bill of rights was taken to simply be an expression of the limits of federal power and nothing more. It wasn't believed that the federal government had the authority to make decisions for the states concerning the issues discussed in the bill of rights, nor was it believed that the bill of rights was a delineated list of our rights. Incorporation changed the thinking with respect to both of those things in a way that people who believe in limited government disagree with.

Those who believe in limited federal government tend to believe that incorporation was an unjustified expansion of federal power and that the issue of the rights of the citizens of the states should have been left to the states themselves. It's not a matter of not believing in civil rights, it's just a matter of not wanting the federal government to make broad decisions on the subject for the states. It's also a matter of not wanting the bill of rights to be seen as a comprehensive list of rights instead of as a specific - and non-exclusive - list of limits on the power of federal government. I don't believe that my rights are limited by what is written in the bill of rights and neither do most people who believe in limited government. That sort of thinking takes rights away from us all. It allows the federal government to appropriate for itself all authority it isn't specifically denied in the bill of rights - which wasn't the original intent at all.

Proponents of limited government aren't opposed to the contents of the bill of rights. We are opposed to the idea that the federal government should be able to claim that it has the authority to limit our rights to those spelled out in some short list, as well as the belief that the federal government has the authority to enforce those claims on the states. I hope this has cleared up the issue for you.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Raenex]

The bill of rights was never intended to be a complete or comprehensive list of our rights. I agree, and I'm not arguing that they are. I'm arguing that they are fundamental rights that were deemed so important that they were explicitly listed.

Proponents of limited government aren't opposed to the contents of the bill of rights. We are opposed to the idea that the federal government should be able to claim that it has the authority to limit our rights to those spelled out in some short list, as well as the belief that the federal government has the authority to enforce those claims on the states. That's a straw man. The question is NOT whether federal government should have expanded rights beyond what is listed in the Constitution. The question is: Are these fundamental rights, so important that they were enshrined into the Constitution, worth protecting at all levels of government?

Ron Paul says no, and he seems motivated by lettings states impose Christian fundamentals on it's citizens. Personally, I like having freedom of speech and the other rights granted in the Bill of Rights no matter what state I happen to live in.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm arguing that they are fundamental rights that were deemed so important that they were explicitly listed. Yes, they were listed originally as limitations of federal power. Making them more than that is not a good idea for the reasons I described in my last post. The bill of rights should not be viewed as a delineated list of rights whose interpreted content the federal government is free to impose upon the states. That actually gives the federal government more power than originally intended and takes power away from state governments, as well as jeopardizing any rights not specifically spelled out in the bill of rights. That's why it's not a good idea.

That's a straw man. The question is NOT whether federal government should have expanded rights beyond what is listed in the Constitution. I am attacking no straw man in my statements. That doesn't even make sense. Maybe you meant to say that my comment was a red herring? That's not a fair characterization of what I said, but it would at least make sense in context. Anyway, the idea that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying that the bill of rights is a list of granted rights rather than a list of limitations of federal power isn't something to be glossed over and is critical to understand if you want to understand the thinking of Ron Paul and other proponents of limited government on this issue. Even beyond that, it's actually a very important concept if you value your rights at all. I don't believe that my rights are limited to what is spelled out in the bill of rights and I don't believe the federal government should be able to behave as if they are, nor do I believe the federal government should be able to act as if it has the authority to force such views on the states. If you feel the same way then you shouldn't be so enthusiastic about the federal government claiming to have authority to issue such proclamations.

The question is: Are these fundamental rights, so important that they were enshrined into the Constitution, worth protecting at all levels of government?

Ron Paul says no No, he isn't saying that at all. He's saying that the state governments should protect those rights at the state level. He's saying that because he doesn't want the federal government to be in the business of delineating our rights or telling the states what those rights mean for all the reasons I've already given.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Grishnakh]

Ron Paul says no, and he seems motivated by lettings states impose Christian fundamentals on it's citizens. Personally, I like having freedom of speech and the other rights granted in the Bill of Rights no matter what state I happen to live in.

There's lots of states who have Constitutions echoing the Bill of Rights very closely, and many times going even further. However, there's many Americans who don't like this, and want these rights to be restricted. Maybe you should move to one of the states where these rights are more closely guarded, and let those people move to states where they're not (like Alabama or Mississippi). That way, you can both be happy.

No one's preventing you from packing up and moving to another state. In fact, moving between states is almost trivially easy, unlike moving to another country. That's why it's a good idea to allow states more autonomy, so people still stop trying to push their ideals on everyone over the whole country.

Of course, realistically, it's unlikely that any state, given the power, would remove free speech, as that's something that most Americans believe strongly in (even when they don't, they still like to throw the term "free speech" around).

The problem with the idea that strong, centralized government can work in a large country is that this rests on the idea that you can get everyone to agree on most things most of the time, which is clearly ridiculous. Look at how much people are arguing now about things like gay marriage, lesbos kissing in a baseball stadium, etc. The only way such a country is going to survive and not collapse due to internal pressures (as the Roman Empire did), is to allow people to have different laws in different regions. You want equal rights and privileges as a gay person? Great, move to the west coast states. You can't stand the idea of gay people having the same freedom as you? Great, move to Mississippi. You want legal access to abortion services? Move to the west coast states or new england. You think abortion is murder? Move to Alabama, and worry about the people in California about as much as you worry about the people in Europe.

Remember, good fences make good neighbors.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Raenex]

Yes, they were listed originally as limitations of federal power. I think these same limits would be good for all levels of government, for exactly the same reason that they are good for the federal government.

I don't believe that my rights are limited to what is spelled out in the bill of rights I don't either, and I don't think that requiring the states to respect the same fundamental rights that the feds must respect limits your rights to the Bill of Rights. That's why I say it's a straw man. You are attacking an argument I am not proposing.

He's saying that the state governments should protect those rights at the state level. Then there's nothing wrong explicitly stating that the Bill of Rights must be respected by the states -- are they fundamental rights worth protecting or not? The states already yield to laws where the federal laws have priority. I think it makes sense that there's some basic rights that all citizens should have protected from all levels of government.

Entrusting the states to respect these rights on their own is not as good as explicitly stating they must. I don't want my basic freedoms to be denied just because I cross state lines.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

I think these same limits would be good for all levels of government, for exactly the same reason that they are good for the federal government. I do, too. However, I think it should be up to states to determine how to go about doing that. I don't want the federal government involved in that process. That wasn't a power the federal government was originally meant to have. As I have explained repeatedly, there are many problems associated with ceding to the federal government the power and authority to fill that roll so I'd rather they just kept their nose out of the issue. I don't any way to clarify that further.

I don't either, and I don't think that requiring the states to respect the same fundamental rights that the feds must respect limits your rights to the Bill of Rights. That's why I say it's a straw man. You are attacking an argument I am not proposing. I'm not 'attacking' the idea that my rights aren't limited to what is spelled out in the bill of rights as an idea that you're against. I'm offering it as part of an explanation as to why it's bad to give the federal government the kind of power to tell states what rights they must respect and what those rights mean. I don't know how to make that any clearer at this point.

Entrusting the states to respect these rights on their own is not as good as explicitly stating they must. I don't want my basic freedoms to be denied just because I cross state lines. The point is that the federal government was never supposed to be in a position to tell the states what they *must* do with respect to the rights of their citizens in the first place. As I've repeatedly pointed out, there are many problems associated with putting the federal government in that role and giving them that kind of power. That's why I, and other advocates of limited government, oppose that kind of thinking. I think states are perfectly capable of protecting the rights of their citizens. I don't want or trust the federal government to be in a position to tell everyone in the country what their rights are. I've said this several times and I don't know how to say it any other way.

I don't think you and I differ in our appreciation of the value of our rights in that we both believe our rights are very important and that the government shouldn't be in a position to arbitrarily delineate or claim to have the authority to delineate those rights. I think the real issue here is that you simply don't believe that the states can be trusted to protect your rights. I'd encourage you to apply that same healthy skepticism to the federal government as well. I'd rather have that power devolved to the various states where it is closer to the people being governed than concentrated in the hands of the rather distant federal government that wasn't even intended to have that kind of power in the first place. I think this would make the exercise of that power more responsive to the people being governed and make the elected representatives wielding that power more accountable as well. If you'd rather trust politicians in Washington than those in your own state capitol than I don't know what else to tell you.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Raenex]

I believe basic freedoms are worth protecting at the federal level, even if that means some states are annoyed. "move out of the state" clearly wasn't a trivial option for blacks who had basic liberties suppressed before the Civil Rights movement.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Quattro Vezina]

Why the hell should I be forced to leave my hometown if I don't want to be forced into someone else's religion?

People who want basic "rights to be restricted" should sit down and shut up.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

People who want basic "rights to be restricted" should sit down and shut up. People who can't even be bothered to understand what is being said before spewing forth an ass load of rhetoric should sit down and shut up first.

Idiot.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Raenex]

I think the real issue here is that you simply don't believe that the states can be trusted to protect your rights. I'd encourage you to apply that same healthy skepticism to the federal government as well. I'd rather have that power devolved to the various states where it is closer to the people being governed than concentrated in the hands of the rather distant federal government that wasn't even intended to have that kind of power in the first place. I think these rights are too important to be left to ad hoc protection -- they should be pledged to be upheld by the states for the same reason the feds pledged to uphold them. I don't see where else to put a central clearing house of common rights for citizens of the United States, except under the Constitution and ultimately overseen by the federal government.

You haven't offered a concrete alternative, except to say let the states do as they please, without any checks, balances, or commitments. That same answer wasn't good enough for the feds, and the Bill of Rights was created.

I understand your concerns, and surely there are problems, but ultimately I prefer federal protection of fundamental rights.

Re:That's just empty rhetoric

[Anonymous Coward]

So why are you talking? Have a nice, warm cup of shut the fuck up, shithead.

Re:And apparently this is a lamestream media meme.

[Moridineas]

note that these acquaintances (plural) that I've received these opinions from were *Republican* Senate staff). FWIW I've heard the exact same thing from a friend of mine who was a Republican Senate staffer. Said Mccain was a total prick and incredibly abusive to his staffers.

The R3VOLUTION continues...

[psykocrime]

I'm kinda bummed out about Ron Paul dropping out, but also excited by the hope that many of his supporters will choose to support Bob Barr now. Barr is currently the best hope for Freedom and Liberty among Presidential candidates.

Of course there are others of us running for various other offices who also adhere to the ideals of small government, rule of law and the principles Ron Paul has been advocating. My own campaign for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina might be of interest to some of you, for example. http://www.philrhodes2008.com/

We can regain our Freedom, if we choose to.

Re:The R3VOLUTION continues...

[JCWDenton]

And to back that one up:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html

Re:The R3VOLUTION continues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain to me how Barr is half the candidate Ron Paul is. Look at his views pre-2006! He was one of the strongest supporters of the war on drugs, he voted for the war in Iraq, he was a leader of the Clinton impeachment, he authored the Defense of Marriage Act, he voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for banning Wicca in the military, and oh yeah, there's this too: http://tinyurl.com/6odfce

What is wrong with you Bob Barr people? He may have changed all these views to match what Ron Paul has been saying, but just because he says he's a libertarian now doesn't make it so.

Re:The R3VOLUTION continues...

[Grishnakh]

Thanks for the heads-up. I only knew what I saw on his campaign site. I don't trust flip-flopping politicians at all. I don't believe McCain when he says he's changed his view on border security and amnesty, so I'm not about to believe Barr if he previously voted for all that wacky stuff and is now claiming to be libertarian. A true libertarian wouldn't stand for any of that crap. Ron Paul's not even a true libertarian (he's still socially conservative on many issues), yet he's against the idiotic war on drugs.

Re:The R3VOLUTION continues...

[psykocrime]

I'm skeptical of Barr's supposed "road to damascus moment" as well, but I know a number of people - whose opinions I respect - that know Barr personally and have said he means well at heart. And for him to go to the extreme of quitting the GOP and joining the LP and running as a Libertarian, I think has to mean something. Flip-flopping is one thing, but going to the extreme of quitting an established party and joining a 3rd party is a big step for a guy who was once "part of the machine."

Is Barr my first choice for President in general? No, I'd rather have Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby. But is Barr > (Obama | McCain)? In my opinion, yes, which is why I'll support him despite his past.

Re:jesus fucking dailykos

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off Jesus, nobody asked for your oppinion here!

srsly guys

[indy_Muad'Dib]

when the hell did /. become Digg?

leave the garbage politic talk for the diggtards like they leave the tech news to us.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[Devin Jeanpierre]

It's funny, as one of the pro-Paul arguments I heard a lot was "Sure, he disagrees with your views, but he believes the power should be held by the States, so he won't actually do anything you don't like!".

Re:And apparently this is a lamestream media meme.

[zippthorne]

You don't need the staffer. Just look at how he's responded to criticism of his pet project, the incumbent protection act (a.k.a campaign finance "reform"). Or more recently, what he's been saying about illegal immigration.

He's pretty squarely in the prima donna category.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Maybe it's because 2 isn't nearly enough

[Moraelin]

Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?" If the answer is "neither", in a sense, yes, they're both the same.

Essentially it's like having to choose between two women as your wife. (Assuming you're a guy.) One is cute, but is really a guy in drag, dumb as a brick and only talks about his/her hypochondriac imaginary diseases. The other is smart and has big tits, but weighs 300 pounds at 5 ft tall, is butt-ugly and is the stereotypical rabid man-hater. Which one, would you say, better represents your tastes in women?

And if you have an urge to say, "whoa, dude, that's a false dichotomy. There are more kinds of women than that!", congrats, then you get my point perfectly. It shouldn't be a dichotomy in the first place.

Way I see it, it's the same in two-party politics. You have to choose between two package deals, and you're lucky if one issue of each really represents your views.

Re:Maybe it's because 2 isn't nearly enough

[jblake]

In your analogy, does the drag queen represent Obama or McCain?

Maybe I would understand it if this were a car analogy... you know what they say about slashdoters experience with women.

Re:Maybe it's because 2 isn't nearly enough

[Grishnakh]

His woman analogy was perfect, and which one the drag queen represents is irrelevant. Even a complete virgin Slashdotter can relate to his analogy, because even as a virgin, he's sure to have some idea of what he'd like in a woman, if he could get one, and the two "women" portrayed in that analogy are certainly not what almost any virgin Slashdotter would be interested in.

He's exactly right. As a voter, I don't feel that either of these two bozos (Obama or McCain) represent me at all, and because of that, I will not vote for either. I'm not sure yet whether I'll write in Ron Paul, or vote for Bob Barr or that other guy, but it sure as hell isn't going to be Obama and McCain. I heard enough about that stupid "don't throw your vote away" garbage in the last several elections, and I've had it. I really don't care whether Obama or McCain wins. Either way, we're totally fucked as a country, just in somewhat different ways. Fucked is still fucked. Once again, with the broken Primary process, the American people has succeeded in taking a race between many candidates in both parties, with different positions, and narrowing the field down to the two absolute worst choices on each side. So I'm going to vote for someone I feel represents me, and when either Obama or McCain gets elected and things go to hell, don't blame me because I didn't vote for either one of them: the rest of you idiots did.

Re:Maybe it's because 2 isn't nearly enough

[Scudsucker]

As a voter, I don't feel that either of these two bozos (Obama or McCain) represent me at all, and because of that, I will not vote for either. I'm not sure yet whether I'll write in Ron Paul, or vote for Bob Barr or that other guy, but it sure as hell isn't going to be Obama and McCain. I heard enough about that stupid "don't throw your vote away" garbage in the last several elections, and I've had it. I really don't care whether Obama or McCain wins.

Interesting. So you don't care if your share of the national debt goes up another $5,000? How about $10,000? Do you think the U.S. government should be in the business of torture? How about spying on you with no probable cause or even suspicion?

Being disgruntled that there isn't a candidate more to your liking is a perfectly reasonable position. But sitting with your thumb up your ass come November is stupid, given the fact that this election will have a HUGE impact on your life, regardless of how much you like or dislike the candidates.

The irony is that Ron Paul is a liberal

[Colin Smith]

i find it ironic that the Democratic party in the US is accused of being liberal when in fact they are social democrats. Ron Paul's policies are closer to true liberalism than either of the larger parties.

  Z

Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

Ron Paul is an isolationist, when measured against current American policies. After Iraq, this is the direction the country is going to go in once the oldies that remember Pearl Harbor die off.

(myOpinion)This is not good news for the United States or the world. (\myOpinion)

Try defending your thoughts by replying instead of using moderation as a weapon.

Re:Isolationism rising

[Anonymous Coward]

Try defending your thoughts by replying instead of using moderation as a weapon. Come on now, this is slashdot. The only way your comment is going to see the light of day is if someone with mod points likes what you've said and decides to bump it up. Even then, your comment won't stay visible for long unless it's either very uncontroversial or is sufficiently popular to survive the ensuing mod battles wherein people who don't like what you've said will make every effort to bury your comment. That's the whole point of the mod system really - to make sure that unpopular comments can be buried so that people won't have to see them unless they really go looking. It's nice for weeding out trolls and stupid comments (yes, those are both very subjective terms) but it can be bad in that good ideas can be effectively silenced simply because they aren't popular or are poorly presented. Such is life.

Re:Isolationism rising

[Anonymous Coward]

(myOpinion)This is not good news for the United States or the world. (\myOpinion) Oh right, because a United States invasion of Iran would be WONDERFUL news for the world. Fucking ridiculous.

You're calling Ron Paul an "isolationist" because he wants to make it more difficult to engage in war as an instrument of foreign policy. The term is non-interventionist, and are you nuts? Paul says we should trade with countries and not make war with them. Apparently that just doesn't sit well with you.

Try defending your thoughts at ALL when you say something so absurd, and maybe you wouldn't have to worry about people moderating you into oblivion. You give no reason why this direction is bad news for the world.

Re:Isolationism rising

[Scrameustache]

the oldies that remember Pearl Harbor The US had been providing aid to England, who was officially at war with Japan.
Japan sent a letter to the government of the united states, declaring war.
Japan sent a giant fleet of war planes towards a military base, on foreign soil, in full view of the worlds' most advanced radar system in the world.

The declaration of war was ignored, the radar operators were told to shut up and turn off their equipement, and the attack was said to be a cowardly surprise attack on the united states, rather than the business-as-usual military action against a military target not on US soil.

I can't wait for the generations that bought into the propaganda of the "cowardly attack on the US" to die off. The truth shall set the rest of us free.

Re:Isolationism rising

[Thelasko]

The reason we have the international policies we have today is a direct result of intervening in WWI (not Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor in WWII). Although it may have been unavoidable, it established the US as the world police ever since. It angered those who lost the war and set the stage for WWII. The end of WWII brought out the Cold War. Many say no shots were fired in the Cold War, but I beg to differ. Many countries were used as pawns (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam) which is why we have the problems we have today.

Our international policy has only served to spread war, not end it. Many argue that this is a result of not following Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points after WWI (I agree). We have to realize that the world is not a giant chessboard and that going to war only results in more war. We need to get out of the entangling alliances that George Washington warned us about. NATO has served it's purpose but the cold war is over. I disagree with Dr. Paul about the UN, I don't consider it an entangling alliance, but a means of solving international differences without resorting to war.

Continuing our current policy will only serve to escalate the situation. We need to have an open dialogue with all nations. This is why, considering Ron Paul is out of the race, I choose to vote for Barack Obama.

Re:Isolationism rising

[geminidomino]

Interesting. Probably a result of public education, but I've not heard any of that. Have a cite?

Re:Isolationism rising

[Scrameustache]

Interesting. Probably a result of public education, but I've not heard any of that. Have a cite? For all of that? Nope, I didn't get that recently off the net... maybe if you'd ask for a particular, but google those facts for yourself.

Heck, they mentioned the declaration of war in that aweful Pearl Harbor movie, but that's no reason to watch it.

Re:Isolationism rising

[psykocrime]

Ron Paul is an isolationist, when measured against current American policies.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. If "current American policies" don't allow for that distinction, then current American policies are seriously broken.

Re:Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

You make a clear argument and if everyone in the world was as thoughtful and international law-abiding as you, you'd have a good plan that I would agree with whole-heartedly (I'm not being a sarcastic ass here, I see where you're coming from).

But there are jerks in this world that would like to kill us, so that makes you wrong... dead wrong. Failing to recognize enemies and treat them as such is a fatal mistake many countries have made (see France c. WWII).

(And you are correct about WWI really being the end of our isolationism. But we were in no mood for open conflict after WWI, hence lend-lease and our provocation of the Nazis and Japanese)

Re:Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

Isolationism by any name is still the same. What is the difference, as you see it?

Re:Isolationism rising

[matthaak]

Typically, isolationism refers to a combined military and economic policy whereby military non-interventionism is combined with economic protectionism. In other words, an isolationist doesn't just believe the US would be better off not meddling in foreign wars and political matters, they also believe there is no need to have economic ties with other nations, or at least that they are more trouble than they are worth, and so advocate prohibiting imports and exports or at least very high tariffs in the interests of creating a sort of self-sufficient, isolated, nation. Non-interventionism, on the other hand, seeks only to eliminate military adventurism abroad while acknowledging the need for and in fact encouraging open, unfettered, trade with any and all other nations.

Re:Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

Aw, dammit... I had this pretty awesome multi-paragraph reply to your post, but the slashcode just ate it, and I don't feel like retyping it.

My basic point though was that I grudgingly accepted your definition, but took issue with the fact that Paul seems to think that we can neglect our military obligations and somehow it won't affect our economic position. Military and economics are inexorably linked.

Re:Isolationism rising

[Thelasko]

But there are jerks in this world that would like to kill us, so that makes you wrong... dead wrong. Failing to recognize enemies and treat them as such is a fatal mistake many countries have made (see France c. WWII). Those enemies also require the capabilities to kill (i.e. on US soil). Most of them do not (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba did but does no longer, Afghanistan does and has proven so). The only reason we are involved with those conflicts are entangling alliances. Remember, France and Germany were very close together. Quite the opposite from Iran. I'm not saying we should ignore them all together. We should keep an eye on them to make sure they can't harm us. At the moment they can't, so quit fueling the fire. It will only serve to motivate them to develop the capabilities to harm us.

Re:Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

God Damnit, WTF?! Posting a contrary opinion kills my fucking karma, when they mod my EVERY SINGLE COMMENT redundant. Can't they handle and defend their own viewpoints??! /. is full of fucking hypocrites! I bet whichever asshole modded me down has a "real problem" with censorship too. UGH!!!

I swear, to fix meta-moderation, they should focus more on the negative mods than positive ones. How many times have spam/flame emails been modded insightful, vs non-conforming opinions being censored? Anyway, I'm sure you don't care, I just needed to vent... /rant

Re:Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

I would respond with a good retort, but I fear being modded down. I've flip flopped... RON PAUL RULEZ!

(there, is that what you wanted to hear mods? ya F'in wankers)

Re:Isolationism rising

[Thelasko]

I've found fear of being modded down is no reason to withhold expressing an honest opinion. I've posted some pretty ignorant things on Slashdot, but they didn't hurt me because other people responded with insightful and informative comments. Sometimes the mods are unfair, but a good retort is always favored over,

ya F'in wankers

Re:Isolationism rising

[religious freak]

hehe, point taken :)

Very true

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely correct. Liberal in most of the rest of the word means approximately what libertarian does here. The only reason that US 'liberals' call themselves liberals is because they couldn't sell themselves with the brand name of socialist or social democrat (which sounds too much like socialist) due to most of America having commie-phobia. Pointing this out to US 'liberals' is typically an exercise in futility, as most simply do NOT want to hear it - although it can be fun to watch them turn beet red while frantically telling you how wrong you are.

Re:Very true

[Grishnakh]

I thought "liberal" meant basically they wanted change, while "conservative" basically meant they didn't. So liberals, in the US view, want to change things by raising taxes and making things more socialist with big government social programs, welfare, etc. Remember, the USA pretty much started out "libertarian", and has gone progressively more socialist over time.

I get a little bit closer

[tepples]

AC wrote:

If you're looking for an unbiased to use, it's called "abortion". Abort, as opposed to Retry and Fail?

But if you want to look like a partisan hack who uses words like "feticide" to demonize those who disagree with you, go right ahead. For one thing, "feticide" (or "foeticide" for Brits who cling to Saint Isidore of Seville's spelling error) has no more inherent bias than "herbicide", "insecticide", "pesticide", or "spermicide". For another, "everyday is an abortion" wouldn't scan where "everyday is a feticide" does.

Re:I get a little bit closer

[Anonymous Coward]

Abort, as opposed to Retry and Fail? I simply cannot believe that you have never heard the term "abortion" used in this way. It is the established term for an aborted pregnancy.

For one thing, "feticide" ... has no more inherent bias than "herbicide", "insecticide", "pesticide", or "spermicide". Then by analogy, "feticide" should be defined as "a substance used to kill a fetus". We still need another term to describe the medical procedure by which a pregnancy is aborted.

An eye for an eye

[tepples]

to recommend execution of people convicted of murder who have lost their appeal ("a life for a life") Negatory there chief. "An Eye for an Eye" is an argument FOR justice and AGAINST escalation. As in, against the previous unchecked vigilantism. It's better phrased, "no more than an eye for an eye." I knew that, and that's why I restricted this characterization to convictions for murder. I added it mostly to address the preference of "social liberals" for life imprisonment over putting criminals down.

Re:An eye for an eye

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew that, and that's why I restricted this characterization to convictions for murder. I added it mostly to address the preference of "social liberals" for life imprisonment over putting criminals down. You still don't get it. You're trying to use "eye for an eye" to say that we should give reciprocal punishment to everyone. It really means that punishments should never exceed this maximum.

Re:An eye for an eye

[Charbox]

What is the conservative response to wrongful execution? "Oh, well"?

I can never understand social conservatives, who rail against the government for all its imperfections, and then go on to support the death penalty when they know full well that they are supporting the regular killing of the innocent in so doing. It's dissonant, incongruous, and just plain self-contradictory.

Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[tepples]

How can you execute someone without killing? In "thou shalt not kill" from Exodus 20, the Hebrew word popularly translated "kill" (ratsah) more specifically meant "murder". Ordinary killing is harag.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[Entropius]

Right, but many Southern Baptists (the "core" of the religious social-conservative bloc in the US) think that the King James Version of the bible is divinely inspired, and that the English in it is actually more correct than the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic.

So, regardless of what the original said, a Southern Baptist would read it as a proscription against "killing".

That is, if they insisted on logical consistency, which they don't. The Bible is to be interpreted literally verse-by-verse, except when that would be inconvenient.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[GreyWolf3000]

"Right, but many Southern Baptists (the "core" of the religious social-conservative bloc in the US) think that the King James Version of the bible is divinely inspired, and that the English in it is actually more correct than the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic."

Do they really? Source, please.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[Anonymous Coward]

But under that interpretation you can't use "thou shalt not kill" against abortion. Causing a woman to have a miscarriage was classified as damage to a man's property. It is not murder according to the Bible.

Either (1) the bible supports life in general, and therefore the death penalty is verboten, or (2) the bible only prohibits murder, in which case it does not prohibit abortion. If you try to have it both ways then you're just cherry-picking the Bible for things you already agree with.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[Grishnakh]

Obviously, you didn't grow up in the South. I for one don't need a source to confirm what many years of contact with these people taught me.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[Grishnakh]

As an aside, most of the Southern Baptists and other fundies who believe the Bible is "without error" don't even know what Aramaic is. Again, from personal experience.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[tepples]

If you try to have it both ways then you're just cherry-picking the Bible for things you already agree with. You're right that it is selective interpretation or "cherry-picking", as I pointed out above.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[geekoid]

Yes, and how is execution not murder?

Another thing in the bible that when it gets difficult to live by the hypocrites change it's meaning...again.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[Entropius]

Exactly. I did grow up in the South, and the KJV-Only crowd is common enough down there that I figured no citation was necessary to confirm the existence of what is, for Alabama, a relatively garden-variety form of crazy.

Re:Harag (kill) vs. ratsah (murder)

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yes, and how is execution not murder?

Let's see...murder is unlawful killing. Execution is done in accordance with law, and therefore, by definition, NOT unlawful.

QED.

Neologism my behind

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if he were strictly correct in his neologism, 'foeticide' would be the correct term. If you think "feticide" is a neologism or a spelling error, feel free to express those views in the talk page for this article.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[sm62704]

Well modded. To the cowardly parent, if you don't have the balls to sign your pseudonym (let alone your real name) why should I hive a zit about your offensive opinion?

Only the most hard core Ron Paul fans would even know he still had a presidential campaign.

I voted for him in the primary, and it's news to me. And I'm a nerd. Ergo, it's news for nerds (although since McCain has the delegates to win, it is no longer "stuff that matters").

This stuff belongs on your personal blog, not a site billed was "news for nerds".

Slashdot IS my personal blog, you insensitive clod!

Re:jesus fucking dailykos

[sm62704]

Ron Paul did!

Here's an idea: Contribute to the discussion.

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

You're totally right. Abortion has nothing to do with killing fetuses... wait... what?

What is it with people always taking everything personally? Anyone says anything that might possibly be related to something that's politically charged and then someone has to type something inflammatory and make it that way rather than considering the unemotional dictionary definition of the words typed, like it's some kind of anathema to have a descent discussion or debate about a topic without getting insulted.

I guarantee you that if tepples had said

to offer adoption instead of another choice to women with unwanted unborn children ("thou shalt not kill"),
Someone would have said

If you're looking for an unbiased term to use, it's called "feticide". But if you want to look like a partisan hack who uses words like "choice" to demonize those who disagree with you, go right ahead.

Attitudes like that turn my stomach. And now I've got a mess to clean off my keyboard. I hope you're happy.

In Russia, Governator votes for YOU

[tepples]

[In Soviet Russia,] the ruling party picked a candidate and put him on the ballot and the proletariat could then vote yea or nay. In California, I believe they called this a "recall". But seriously, under the system that you describe, what percentage was needed to disapprove a candidate?

Re:In Russia, Governator votes for YOU

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

A 0% would not be surprising, though I don't know the answer. Honestly, I don't think they kept a true tally back then anyway. They just let people vote no to give them the illusion of choice.

...Suddenly, I feel very bad about our own two part system.

Re:How Is This News For Nerds??!!!

[drachenstern]

Okay, it's my post, how was this insightful/interesting? I figured funny maybe. Hmm, I give up

Money's far from the only issue

[weston]

If the ulimate value is your tax rate, then I suppose that's a defensible opinion.

If you care about habeas corpus (and other issues about whether or not the POTUS has absolute power), well, then, congratulations, you've found something that distinguishes one candidate from the other, regardless of how indistinguishable you may find any other position.

wtf is wrong with slashdotters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand how everyone on /. bitches about how the government is taking away their rights, spying on them, and is still in Iraq, but then a candidate shows up who actually wants to fix all the crap that's wrong with our government, and all you people can do is talk shit about him, because you can't think for yourselves, you'd rather have the media think for you. If you actually listen to what the man says, you'd see how much you agree with him. McCain hates you, Barack hates you, and Hillary hates you. They want to crush your rights and waste your money. You guys make no sense at all when it comes to politics.

Moron.

[GradiusCVK]

Why shouldn't the states decide what they want to do?
Ask black people.

Well, if ever there were a perfect example of "insight on slashdot", this is it... pithy, witty, and completely factually wrong.
Slavery was the status quo when the Constitution was ratified. Slavery wasn't abolished in the Constitution at that time because it couldn't possibly have been done nationwide when support was so divided. If this country had been formed under the iron hand of perfectly centralised state control that it appears the OP desires (see how much you can infer from three words?), then slavery would have been strengthened and sympathizers would have been jailed... slavery was simply too important to the economies of most states, despite a vocal, passionate minority that felt it was ethically wrong. Slavery was eventually abolished nationwide because individual states had the freedom and authority to govern themselves, a few experimented with abolishing slavery and found it worked for them, and eventually more people were brought around to that point of view. Hell, even Massachusetts recognized slavery until 1783. Go ahead, ask black people. If the person you ask has a clue, he or she will tell you that, thanks to states rights, a radical minority opinion was allowed to become widespread enough that the country eventually erupted into war over it... thank God the right side won.
Since I'll bet the OP also happens to be a gun control advocate, I'd like to close with this: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can't be defended through legislation at the national level, no matter how hard we may try. That's why the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights tell us to arm ourselves so we can defend by force those points of view we feel are worth dying for. The second amendment wasn't written to defend against King George or wild animals or whatever the fuck glib response you hear from the left, it was meant so our own government wouldn't dare take the liberties with our money and freedom that it has been recently. Sad so many of us are begging the government to finish the job and take them all away.

Serious Political Debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul /b/

Paultards

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an old friend wind up on my "straight to trash" filter because he kept sending Ron Paul related Emails. I finally took him off because I heard the phrase "Paultard" and wanted to share it with him. I wound up putting him back on filter after I got his reaction to that. Funny stuff.

RON PAUL 2012

[llZENll]

For someone who came from virtual obscurity to where he is today, he has a shot at making it in 2012. Younger people who supported him will be 4 years older and have more influence. Others who didn't support him or know of him may remember his name which will be very beneficial.

Lincoln was a fervent abolitionist

[Anonymous Coward]

And Lincoln himself was outspoken about his anti-slavery views as he ran for the Republican nomination in 1860. It's not as if he suddenly had a change of heart on slavery two years into the Civil War.

You Hit it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudos!

The cowardly parent is likely some angry Hitlery supporter who still thinks she's a viable candidate, even though she is a recently puss-filled zit that has just drained all over America's ass (and the AC poster's face).

Or worse yet, a John McSame idolater. Talk about losers! McSame, at 73, is the sacrifice fly candidate that will succeed in getting whatever nightmare who is his running mate, an unelected presidency after a few years, if even that much.

Mr. Paul IS Mr. Smith Goes to Washington!

You ignorant slut.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Japan sent a letter to the government of the united states, declaring war."

You're out of your fucking mind. I hope you don't believe your own revisionist bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Breaking_off_negotiations

What kind of a douchebag makes claims that "the radar operators were told to shut up and turn off their equipment" without any shred of evidence? God you're ignorant. What's more hilarious is that you think "truthers" like yourself are going to be the ones believed in 20 years time. Yeah, everyone's going to totally come around to the fact that Pearl Harbor was the United States' fault.

Christ, I'm a progressive and you make me sound like a neo-con.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

just their usual bullshit

[Scudsucker]

In the Democratic primary, the media couldn't find enough differences between Hillary and Obama, even though they're on the same page on most of the issues. Now it's all about how similar Obama and McCain are, even though the only thing they have in common now is kissing Israel's ass.

who would you rather have a beer with?

[Scudsucker]

Maybe because for Joe Sixpack what matters is "how well they reperesent _my_ point of view?"

Why didn't you just go with the 2004 slogan and spare yourself the time of coming up with something new? Only this time the media is talking about "who shares your values". Same bullshit, different meme. Drop the self-centered BS and ask yourself if having your share of the national debt go up another $5,000+, much of it going to Iraq, is something that interests you.

Fucktard

[Anonymous Coward]

You're rationalizing a defense of the indefensible. STFU, cock gobbler.