Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Oh, and I've got a link to the text of the We the People Act, too.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
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.
On what you learn in science class. (See question 4.)
More detail on that.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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
Wonder what the public key field is for?
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.
"Approval voting" FTW. It has most of the benefits of IRV, plus it's easier to explain to layman.
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.
Tweet, tweet.
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.
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."
We can't all be obamamaniacs.
Hail OBAMA!
Hail the MESSIAH!
HE shall save us from our sins!
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
Deleted
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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.