Using the constitution as if it was an enumeration of rights and an excuse to deny the liberties of the people is anti-libertarian. There is no room for debate on this.
You've got me there; the language of the 9th and 10th Amendments make that fact abundantly clear. However, considering the many, many, many recent SCOTUS decisions which do the exact opposite of protecting liberties (Citizens United, warrantless wiretaps, strip searches for jaywalking, et. al.), I'm inclined to agree with Paul on that one.
His voting against the civil rights act and connections to the Klan and neo-nazi are long standing based on his own publications, pictures, the testimony of members of those organizations in a court of law and records of campaign finance. It is the Paul supporters who attempting to spread propaganda and misinformation to deny his roots.
You should look into why he voted against the Civil Rights Act (BTW, the vote we're referring to was a completely symbolic vote taken in 2004 on the anniversary of the passage of the Act); Paul's stated rationale goes along with Libertarian principles, and actually makes a lot of sense:
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses... And it was started back then."
Can you honestly say, without a doubt, that he was wrong?
As for "associations" with racist groups, the only one I've heard of was the single memo from almost 20 years ago, released by an office under his administration and written by someone other than Ron Paul, which was quickly debunked by the man himself as not representing his beliefs on the topic. The people responsible were swiftly sacked, and those responsible for the sacking were themselves sacked (OK, not certain about the last part, but I can never resist an opportunity to reference Monty Python).
If you have empirical evidence that Paul has current and long standing positive relationships with racially motivated hate groups, you should post it. Otherwise, it's here-say.
In order to understand Paul's positions, you first must understand what it means to be Libertarian; essentially, that the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically enumerated by the Constitution, and that any power not specifically assigned to the federal government is not legally a power of the federal government, but rather the states and the People.
After writing the "We the People Act..."
... which specifically addresses the issue of federal courts overturning the will of the individual states, in blatant violation of the Constitution.
voting for the "Defense of Marriage Act"
He didn't; from Wikipedia:
He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism..." He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. He has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because he worries that with its passage “liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! 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.”
So again, he took the position he did because the Constitution, as understood by Libertarians, specifically prohibits the federal government from taking the right to decide what is and isn't legal marriage away from the states, as the Constitution does not specifically enumerate it as a federal power.
His connections to the klan and neo-nazi groups are just icing on the cake.
That is precisely the sort of "rumor and spun story" that I was talking about. Anyone who has actually done their homework on Paul can tell you the "connections" you speak of are pure bunk, propaganda devised by those who fear the return to Constitutional values Paul promises.
Gary Johnson of the libertarian party supports slavery VIA private for profit prison labor plus retarded economic beliefs.
For the record, corporate mouthpiece Gary Johnson is a disgrace to true Libertarians everywhere. Real Libertarians understand there are certain social aspects, such as imprisonment and healthcare, that should not follow the for-profit business model as there is too much incentive to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of profits.
Source: My lifetime devotion to upholding and protecting the Constitution as an actual Libertarian.
Seriously, give me one person who respects civil liberties, has integrity, and is neither a theocrat or Ayn Rand free market worshiping retard.
Well, I think I could name one, but I hesitate for the inevitable barrage of comments from simpletons who think every rumor and spun story they've heard about the man is gospel truth...
He learned something when he took office. Something scary.
Likely that the office of the President is nothing but a glorified marionette. My question is, did they at least give him the courtesy of knowing who's pulling the strings?
Neocon "Skeptic:" Uh-huYUK, I no dat I ain't come frum no durn monkey, cuz da preacher-man done told me so!
You do realize that most of the people who are "neocons" are products of the New York intelligentsia and graduates of Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, etc........
Never been to any of those places, so I couldn't say whether or not neocons originate from that region. However, I do live in the Bible belt, and thus am responding based on my personal experience... that experience is, there are a freakin' lot of 'those people' in these parts.
Right, because some troll on Slashdot would know what it means to be Libertarian more than an actual Libertarian.
Don't you have anything better to do than stalk/.? I'm sure your mom has some laundry laying about your basement lair she would appreciate if you folded...
If you were simultaneously representing yourself as a news outlet, I'd say you were therefore a piss poor news outlet.:D
So.. Fox? Or perhaps MSNBC? I won't bother mentioning CNN, as they're more of a playground than a news organization these days (whose day is it to play with the "Magic Wall?")
Honestly, you have people whining about verbatim copy pasta newsfeeds on here all the time, someone points out the same thing and its bad cos blog.
I bitch, but I have to admit the summaries here are still far more grammatically and factually correct than, say, every article on Yahoo. I hate Yahoo News for their piss-poor reporting and total lack of proofreading... yet I keep going back...
I haven't the time to look up every acronym and backronym on the entire internet. I strongly suspect very few people do.
Then I would recommend the same thing I do to people in meatspace who blather on about topics they know nothing about: tell them to shut their pie-holes and learn something.
As a basic standard any news reporter should clarify at a minimum the more eldritch terms. And this isn't being particularly picky, it is a literal journalistic standard.
This is 1000% correct; I myself get rather pissed when I'm reading an article and they refer to a person by their surname without spelling out the whole thing first...
Oh, I bet I can spin it better than that -
From an earlier post by gurps_npc:
Pre-internet, estimates ranged that 10% of rural men engaged in bestiality...
Post-Internet, bestiality vanishes from 10% to almost nothing.
OK, here we go... So, access to porn eliminates bestiality... Santorum wants to ban access to porn... being against one thing that prevents another is effectively promoting the other... therefore, Santorum is promoting bestiality!!!
Too bad his candidacy is all but buried, this would be a fun game to play with the MSM.
So... electric guitars bad? What, you think if it's not written for harpsichord it's not music?
Amazing that one would even attempt to attribute the travesties of the Loudness Wars to one of the pioneers of modern music... I assume you exhibit a similar disdain for the late Les Paul?
My surprise is that there are 600K running macs to infect. I thought macs were just bought by rich people to display in there offices while they really used a PC. Clearly this article is propaganda.
...the freedom of the individual to do whatever they want, so long as it's not illegal...
Then individuals do not have the freedom to do whatever they want.
As a result, we have gone from a few hundred million to seven billion people within a century.
Uh, no. Take, for example, China; almost no personal freedom whatsoever, but over a billion people living there. Thus, it is fairly obvious that the amount of personal freedom granted to individuals is not directly proportional to that society's propensity for overpopulation.
If we value our natural world, we will find some way to check this growth sooner rather than later.
Agreed, but further limits on the freedom of the individual is not the right way to do that.
"An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area. The EPA found no contamination in water, soil, sediment or plant samples."
that's not particularly bad, let alone "spectacularly bad". Not one death? Not even a freaking heart attack?
Also from said source:
Anti-nuclear political groups disputed the Kemeny Commission's findings, claiming that independent measurements provided evidence of radiation levels up to five times higher than normal in locations hundreds of miles downwind from TMI. According to Randall Thompson, a health physics technician employed to monitor radioactive emissions at TMI after the accident, radiation releases were hundreds if not thousands of times higher.
Based on these emission figures, early scientific publications on the health effects of the fallout estimated one or two additional cancer deaths in the 10 mi (16 km) area around TMI.
Let that be a lesson: don't stop reading just because you found the part you agree with.
Why would you say that? I've been looking forward to augmented-reality glasses for a decade at least, and I already wear glasses due to poor vision. If they released a version that fairly inconspicuously worked with or supplanted regular glasses, there would be little reason for me not to buy them.
Not saying I have a problem with the tech itself; I too suffer from vision problems, so I can understand why you would look forward to such a breakthrough. My issue with it is the same issue I have with early adoption of any tech; inevitably there will be issues with the first few models that hit the streets (think iPhone antenna), and the early adopters (read: hipsters whose only rationale for purchasing the item is "ooh, look how shiny and new it is!") end up paying a premium for the 'privilege' of finding all the bugs the manufacturers didn't bother to fix.
Add in the fact that the tech is being marketed by an self-admitted advertising firm, and you should be able to see why I think so poorly of those who will jump in headfirst without consideration.
Me? I'll wait for the unlocked, non-proprietary, open source version. But then again, I like to actually own the stuff I pay for, so YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Comment Subject: "Don't trust someone who needs money."
I need money; does that mean I'm not to be trusted?
Using the constitution as if it was an enumeration of rights and an excuse to deny the liberties of the people is anti-libertarian. There is no room for debate on this.
You've got me there; the language of the 9th and 10th Amendments make that fact abundantly clear. However, considering the many, many, many recent SCOTUS decisions which do the exact opposite of protecting liberties (Citizens United, warrantless wiretaps, strip searches for jaywalking, et. al.), I'm inclined to agree with Paul on that one.
His voting against the civil rights act and connections to the Klan and neo-nazi are long standing based on his own publications, pictures, the testimony of members of those organizations in a court of law and records of campaign finance. It is the Paul supporters who attempting to spread propaganda and misinformation to deny his roots.
You should look into why he voted against the Civil Rights Act (BTW, the vote we're referring to was a completely symbolic vote taken in 2004 on the anniversary of the passage of the Act); Paul's stated rationale goes along with Libertarian principles, and actually makes a lot of sense:
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."
Can you honestly say, without a doubt, that he was wrong?
As for "associations" with racist groups, the only one I've heard of was the single memo from almost 20 years ago, released by an office under his administration and written by someone other than Ron Paul, which was quickly debunked by the man himself as not representing his beliefs on the topic. The people responsible were swiftly sacked, and those responsible for the sacking were themselves sacked (OK, not certain about the last part, but I can never resist an opportunity to reference Monty Python).
If you have empirical evidence that Paul has current and long standing positive relationships with racially motivated hate groups, you should post it. Otherwise, it's here-say.
In order to understand Paul's positions, you first must understand what it means to be Libertarian; essentially, that the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically enumerated by the Constitution, and that any power not specifically assigned to the federal government is not legally a power of the federal government, but rather the states and the People.
After writing the "We the People Act..."
... which specifically addresses the issue of federal courts overturning the will of the individual states, in blatant violation of the Constitution.
voting for the "Defense of Marriage Act"
He didn't; from Wikipedia:
So again, he took the position he did because the Constitution, as understood by Libertarians, specifically prohibits the federal government from taking the right to decide what is and isn't legal marriage away from the states, as the Constitution does not specifically enumerate it as a federal power.
His connections to the klan and neo-nazi groups are just icing on the cake.
That is precisely the sort of "rumor and spun story" that I was talking about. Anyone who has actually done their homework on Paul can tell you the "connections" you speak of are pure bunk, propaganda devised by those who fear the return to Constitutional values Paul promises.
So if you support healthcare for all, then you have to be for every cable channel as well, even if you don't watch them.
Pants.
On.
Head.
Retarded.
Without healthcare, people die. Without cable, they have to get off their lazy asses and do something. Not even close to the same thing.
Gary Johnson of the libertarian party supports slavery VIA private for profit prison labor plus retarded economic beliefs.
For the record, corporate mouthpiece Gary Johnson is a disgrace to true Libertarians everywhere. Real Libertarians understand there are certain social aspects, such as imprisonment and healthcare, that should not follow the for-profit business model as there is too much incentive to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of profits.
Source: My lifetime devotion to upholding and protecting the Constitution as an actual Libertarian.
Seriously, give me one person who respects civil liberties, has integrity, and is neither a theocrat or Ayn Rand free market worshiping retard.
Well, I think I could name one, but I hesitate for the inevitable barrage of comments from simpletons who think every rumor and spun story they've heard about the man is gospel truth...
He learned something when he took office. Something scary.
Likely that the office of the President is nothing but a glorified marionette. My question is, did they at least give him the courtesy of knowing who's pulling the strings?
Neocon "Skeptic:" Uh-huYUK, I no dat I ain't come frum no durn monkey, cuz da preacher-man done told me so!
You do realize that most of the people who are "neocons" are products of the New York intelligentsia and graduates of Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, etc........
Never been to any of those places, so I couldn't say whether or not neocons originate from that region. However, I do live in the Bible belt, and thus am responding based on my personal experience... that experience is, there are a freakin' lot of 'those people' in these parts.
It's their methodology; to wit -
Skeptic: I do not believe that your results accurately reflect reality, and therefore would like to see further experimentation.
Neocon "Skeptic:" Uh-huYUK, I no dat I ain't come frum no durn monkey, cuz da preacher-man done told me so!
Living in the midwest, I tend to see the latter far more than the former.
So... we should only trust rich people?
Good call, I'm sure they are all fair, honest, and equitable in their decision making. After all, that's how they got to be rich, right?
Right, because some troll on Slashdot would know what it means to be Libertarian more than an actual Libertarian.
/.? I'm sure your mom has some laundry laying about your basement lair she would appreciate if you folded...
Don't you have anything better to do than stalk
If you were simultaneously representing yourself as a news outlet, I'd say you were therefore a piss poor news outlet. :D
So.. Fox? Or perhaps MSNBC? I won't bother mentioning CNN, as they're more of a playground than a news organization these days (whose day is it to play with the "Magic Wall?")
Honestly, you have people whining about verbatim copy pasta newsfeeds on here all the time, someone points out the same thing and its bad cos blog.
I bitch, but I have to admit the summaries here are still far more grammatically and factually correct than, say, every article on Yahoo. I hate Yahoo News for their piss-poor reporting and total lack of proofreading... yet I keep going back...
it's positively masochistic...
I haven't the time to look up every acronym and backronym on the entire internet. I strongly suspect very few people do.
Then I would recommend the same thing I do to people in meatspace who blather on about topics they know nothing about: tell them to shut their pie-holes and learn something.
As a basic standard any news reporter should clarify at a minimum the more eldritch terms. And this isn't being particularly picky, it is a literal journalistic standard.
This is 1000% correct; I myself get rather pissed when I'm reading an article and they refer to a person by their surname without spelling out the whole thing first...
Lowther? What the fuck is a Lowther????
From an earlier post by gurps_npc:
OK, here we go... So, access to porn eliminates bestiality... Santorum wants to ban access to porn... being against one thing that prevents another is effectively promoting the other... therefore, Santorum is promoting bestiality!!!
Too bad his candidacy is all but buried, this would be a fun game to play with the MSM.
The Libertarian viewpoint is that, even if some people consider it harmful, people should still have the right to view it.
No; the Libertarian point of view is that so long as one person's actions do not harm another, what fucking business is it of yours what they do?
"We refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram."
So... electric guitars bad? What, you think if it's not written for harpsichord it's not music?
Amazing that one would even attempt to attribute the travesties of the Loudness Wars to one of the pioneers of modern music... I assume you exhibit a similar disdain for the late Les Paul?
My surprise is that there are 600K running macs to infect. I thought macs were just bought by rich people to display in there offices while they really used a PC. Clearly this article is propaganda.
Wait, 600K???
Ye Gods, it's a hipsteritis pandemic!!!
I think Apple would sacrifice security for usability.
He who sacrifices security for usability deserves neither. - B33Fr4nk1760
...the freedom of the individual to do whatever they want, so long as it's not illegal...
Then individuals do not have the freedom to do whatever they want.
As a result, we have gone from a few hundred million to seven billion people within a century.
Uh, no. Take, for example, China; almost no personal freedom whatsoever, but over a billion people living there. Thus, it is fairly obvious that the amount of personal freedom granted to individuals is not directly proportional to that society's propensity for overpopulation.
If we value our natural world, we will find some way to check this growth sooner rather than later.
Agreed, but further limits on the freedom of the individual is not the right way to do that.
...some prehistoric plumb sauce.
I prefer prehistoric square sauce myself.
Or God just planted evidence to test our faith.
Oblig:
"... I think God put you here to test my faith, dude."
- Bill Hicks, R.I.P.
Pretty sure you're right (sans the ugly makeup); I just can't resist a good Mel Brooks reference.
That guy is one funny-ass Jew.
quoted from your source:
"An inter-agency analysis concluded that the accident did not raise radioactivity far enough above background levels to cause even one additional cancer death among the people in the area. The EPA found no contamination in water, soil, sediment or plant samples."
that's not particularly bad, let alone "spectacularly bad". Not one death? Not even a freaking heart attack?
Also from said source:
Let that be a lesson: don't stop reading just because you found the part you agree with.
Chernobyl is the closest to 'spectacularly bad', but no, those aren't bad as in widespread dispersal into the environment.
the 30km diameter exclusion zone around Chernobyl would beg to differ.
All could be much much worse.
Yes, they could, which is all the more reason that paranoia about nuclear plants is justified.
Why would you say that? I've been looking forward to augmented-reality glasses for a decade at least, and I already wear glasses due to poor vision. If they released a version that fairly inconspicuously worked with or supplanted regular glasses, there would be little reason for me not to buy them.
Not saying I have a problem with the tech itself; I too suffer from vision problems, so I can understand why you would look forward to such a breakthrough. My issue with it is the same issue I have with early adoption of any tech; inevitably there will be issues with the first few models that hit the streets (think iPhone antenna), and the early adopters (read: hipsters whose only rationale for purchasing the item is "ooh, look how shiny and new it is!") end up paying a premium for the 'privilege' of finding all the bugs the manufacturers didn't bother to fix.
Add in the fact that the tech is being marketed by an self-admitted advertising firm, and you should be able to see why I think so poorly of those who will jump in headfirst without consideration.
Me? I'll wait for the unlocked, non-proprietary, open source version. But then again, I like to actually own the stuff I pay for, so YMMV.