How dare that fucking department of education tell me that I don't have the right to teach my kids whatever the hell I want and then say that they went through high school!
Yes, I'm sure that Paul had nothing to do with those comments.
Oh wait:
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.
[...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
[...]
Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
So he's not responsible enough to make sure that this newsletter didn't go out, but he's responsible enough to be president? Also, at least one of the newsletters went out with his signature on it, and another one appears to be copyright to "Ron Paul and Associates". Why hasn't he tried to get these taken down as being defamatory if they're not really his?
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.
[...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
My point about birthright citizenship is that he wants to repeal it, which can only be done by repealing the 14th Amendment. He also wants to repeal the 16th amendment, which provides for an income tax. So I don't think you could say he supports a return to the Constitution when he wants to get rid of parts of it.
What about a group that you think deserves government funding, and happens to run a pro-gay event on the side? Even if they're 100% sure that no federal funds go to that, they're still ineligible for it. Also, I find it striking that the bill only forbids federal funding for organizations that specifically promote the gay lifestyle; if he didn't want funding going to organizations that promote any lifestyle, then why didn't he say so?
Also, I'm almost positive that the word "both" in "both replete with references to God" implies that he's talking about two things, which could only be the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There were more than two drafters. Regardless, he also makes the hilariously wrong statement, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America." In the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 reads, in part "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was written by John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.
The problem with the argument of "people can move 50 miles" or whatever is that... sometimes, they can't. Poor people, or people that have jobs, can't just move whenever they want. Your point about the law of the land also ignores Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution, enumerating the powers of Congress:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Historically, the "general welfare" term has been interpreted rather broadly, motivating the creation of things like the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the FDA (all of which Paul wants to remove.)
How would you rephrase "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked...Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious..."?
Regarding your contention that these issues are best handled by the state: why? Why are they better than the federal government?
The reason I've always figured that there are laws regarding marriage is that it signifies that the other person carries a very significant weight in your life and that you would have a very good idea of their personality; so you can, for example, make medical decisions if they're incapacitated, leave for funerals and bereavement, inheritance, et cetera. Basically, marriage is a recognition that the other
So you believe that the individual should be protected against the mob? Then do you support the We the People Act, which would prohibit the Supreme Court from overturning laws discriminating against people of a certain sexual orientation or laws discriminating against people of a certain religion, as well as having the government spend money to enforce its decisions? Think about what'll happen to gay people, non-Christians, etc., especially in deep-South states such as Texas.
Your point about companies hiring illegal immigrants is kind of what I'm getting at; I don't think that the problem is necessarily solvable by building any sort of physical barrier, and doing so would violate the principles that America was founded on: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breed free." So I think that it'd be better to crack down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, which will possibly force them to hire Americans t odo the same job, stimulating the economy.
You say that the state shouldn't be able to pass laws that have to do with what grown adults do in their own home. Yet the We the People act would allow states to do this, because the federal courts couldn't hear challenges to the law's constitutionality. I just think that it would overturn too many important decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a Texas law criminalizing sodomy.
I don't believe that cooperation in the UN would necessarily involve entangling alliances; I just think that since the UN is something that a lot of other countries are participating in, it would be irresponsible of the US as a superpower to just ignore it.
Regarding your point about moral causes and Darfur, while I agree that the government shouldn't take up moral causes for the most part, lest it tend towards one particular system of morals, I think that a conflict that our own government has desccribed as 'genocide' is bad in pretty much every moral system, so that argument doesn't really apply here.
My point about the estate tax is that it's usually not much to worry about, unless there's over a million dollars' worth estate, plus exemptions for family-owned farms. It's not something that usually applies to a family leaving heirlooms to its youngest generation. The government can tax stuff it doesn't own and does so all the time; that's part of what a tax is. It doesn't own the money you make, but there's income tax, and the same goes for sales taxes, etc.
Your point about companies hiring illegal immigrants is kind of what I'm getting at; I don't think that the problem is necessarily solvable by building any sort of physical barrier, and doing so would violate the principles that America was founded on: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breed free." So I think that it'd be better to crack down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, which will possibly force them to hire Americans t odo the same job, stimulating the economy.
You say that the state shouldn't be able to pass laws that have to do with what grown adults do in their own home. Yet the We the People act would allow states to do this, because the federal courts couldn't hear challenges to the law's constitutionality. I just think that it would overturn too many important decisions, such as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas]Lawrence v. Texas[/url], which overturned a Texas law criminalizing sodomy.
I don't believe that cooperation in the UN would necessarily involve entangling alliances; I just think that since the UN is something that a lot of other countries are participating in, it would be irresponsible of the US as a superpower to just ignore it.
Regarding your point about moral causes and Darfur, while I agree that the government shouldn't take up moral causes for the most part, lest it tend towards one particular system of morals, I think that a conflict that our own government has desccribed as 'genocide' is bad in pretty much every moral system, so that argument doesn't really apply here.
My point about the estate tax is that it's usually not much to worry about, unless there's over a million dollars' worth estate, plus exemptions for family-owned farms. It's not something that usually applies to a family leaving heirlooms to its youngest generation.
The government can tax stuff it doesn't own and does so all the time; that's part of what a tax is. It doesn't own the money you make, but there's income tax, and the same goes for sales taxes, etc.
Right here, second page of the salon article I linked:
Paul describes the federal airline security system as an extra-constitutional affront to civil liberties, and thinks security should be handled by the private sector. Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants. "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked," he says. "Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."
I don't know about you, but this strikes me as "OH MY GOD HISPANICS!"
"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked," he says. "Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."
(bolded for emphasis).
The fence would be very expensive and difficult to maintain if it's to be of any deterrent.
As for your point about the establishment clause, what happens to the poor gay people who live in, say, Texas, when antisodomy laws are re-enacted? Should they be forced to basically live a lie because they can't, for whatever reason, move out of the state?
As for the 'entangling alliance between foreign powers' quote, to not make treaties with foreign nations is basically to deny the emergence of a growing global economy. The Founding Fathers, though they were great men, did not live in a world like we did. This is why the Constitution is amendable; to keep up with the times. The Founding Fathers words are not sacrosanct.
Your point that "Having American citizen parents raising you with American beliefs and values makes you an American citizen" is very dangerous thinking. Should the "un-American Communists" that McCarthy et al. uncovered have been stripped of their citizen due to their supposed lack of beliefs and values? Obviously not. America was founded on principles of being a melting pot, where citizens can come and raise afamily their own way.
True, the Darfur bill does not harm us in the least. But it does harm the victims of the genocide. And this information about whether the companies are doing business is not generally available to the public. I'll bet that you can't name 3 of the ones that would be affected without doing research, research that the average american does.
The problem with his concept of truly owning one's property is that it can lead to situations where, say, people say in their will that their descendants cannot sell the land to non-white people, or that it must stay in the family forever. So we have things like the rule against perpetuities, which says that all interests must vest within the lifespan of someone alife plus 21 years; i.e., all contingent wills must be satisfied within that period of time, or else they're void. I also don't believe that the proper solution, assuming that the tax does what Paul says it does, which I find somewhat suspect, as he cites an unnamed Stanford professor for his information on negative revenue.
Oh, and another thing: why do you think that the solution to a bad money system is to return to the gold standard? Consider this: the current amount of U.S. currency in circulation is $783 billion. Current estimates put the US's gold reserves at around $252 billion. So where does the extra $531 billion come from? The government buying massive amounts of gold; about $531 billion. At about $750 a troy ounce, that amounts to about 24,000 short tons. Estimates say that there are 22,000 short tons of gold left in the world. Therefore, the US govt would have to buy up massive amounts of gold, driving the price way up and playing hell with the dental and electronics industries.
So are you saying it's OK for Wikipedia to have an article on my left foot?
Also, see the notability guidelines, an at least somewhat objective measure of inclusion.
Re:Wow. Things really are falling apart.
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 1
So how would a return to a gold standard work with international trade? The amount of currency is fixed, so paying off our national debt would lead to massive deflation, leading to a recession and a general economic fuckup.
Slashdot Mirror
How dare that fucking department of education tell me that I don't have the right to teach my kids whatever the hell I want and then say that they went through high school!
Also, see this old issue of Reason, in which we see: Seems pretty incriminating to me
My point about birthright citizenship is that he wants to repeal it, which can only be done by repealing the 14th Amendment. He also wants to repeal the 16th amendment, which provides for an income tax. So I don't think you could say he supports a return to the Constitution when he wants to get rid of parts of it.
What about a group that you think deserves government funding, and happens to run a pro-gay event on the side? Even if they're 100% sure that no federal funds go to that, they're still ineligible for it. Also, I find it striking that the bill only forbids federal funding for organizations that specifically promote the gay lifestyle; if he didn't want funding going to organizations that promote any lifestyle, then why didn't he say so?
Also, I'm almost positive that the word "both" in "both replete with references to God" implies that he's talking about two things, which could only be the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There were more than two drafters. Regardless, he also makes the hilariously wrong statement, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America." In the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 reads, in part "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was written by John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.
So how about how Paul wants to repeal birthright citizenship, which is part of the 14th Amendment? OK, fine, it's not part of the constitution proper. But neither is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Also, he made a rather veiled attack against gays; he wants to [prohibit] the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style. Now, this could be construed as reduction of federal funding in general, but he specifically singles out organizations that promote homosexuality.
He also opposes a renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God", which it really isn't.
Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."
Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.
It's a wrist rest; look on the left and you'll see a key marked "SPACE". I made the same mistake too.
How would you rephrase "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked...Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious..."?
Regarding your contention that these issues are best handled by the state: why? Why are they better than the federal government?
The reason I've always figured that there are laws regarding marriage is that it signifies that the other person carries a very significant weight in your life and that you would have a very good idea of their personality; so you can, for example, make medical decisions if they're incapacitated, leave for funerals and bereavement, inheritance, et cetera. Basically, marriage is a recognition that the other
So you believe that the individual should be protected against the mob? Then do you support the We the People Act, which would prohibit the Supreme Court from overturning laws discriminating against people of a certain sexual orientation or laws discriminating against people of a certain religion, as well as having the government spend money to enforce its decisions? Think about what'll happen to gay people, non-Christians, etc., especially in deep-South states such as Texas.
Looks like I made the same mistake.
Your point about companies hiring illegal immigrants is kind of what I'm getting at; I don't think that the problem is necessarily solvable by building any sort of physical barrier, and doing so would violate the principles that America was founded on: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breed free." So I think that it'd be better to crack down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, which will possibly force them to hire Americans t odo the same job, stimulating the economy.
You say that the state shouldn't be able to pass laws that have to do with what grown adults do in their own home. Yet the We the People act would allow states to do this, because the federal courts couldn't hear challenges to the law's constitutionality. I just think that it would overturn too many important decisions, such as Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned a Texas law criminalizing sodomy.
I don't believe that cooperation in the UN would necessarily involve entangling alliances; I just think that since the UN is something that a lot of other countries are participating in, it would be irresponsible of the US as a superpower to just ignore it.
Regarding your point about moral causes and Darfur, while I agree that the government shouldn't take up moral causes for the most part, lest it tend towards one particular system of morals, I think that a conflict that our own government has desccribed as 'genocide' is bad in pretty much every moral system, so that argument doesn't really apply here.
My point about the estate tax is that it's usually not much to worry about, unless there's over a million dollars' worth estate, plus exemptions for family-owned farms. It's not something that usually applies to a family leaving heirlooms to its youngest generation. The government can tax stuff it doesn't own and does so all the time; that's part of what a tax is. It doesn't own the money you make, but there's income tax, and the same goes for sales taxes, etc.
Your point about companies hiring illegal immigrants is kind of what I'm getting at; I don't think that the problem is necessarily solvable by building any sort of physical barrier, and doing so would violate the principles that America was founded on: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breed free." So I think that it'd be better to crack down on companies hiring illegal immigrants, which will possibly force them to hire Americans t odo the same job, stimulating the economy. You say that the state shouldn't be able to pass laws that have to do with what grown adults do in their own home. Yet the We the People act would allow states to do this, because the federal courts couldn't hear challenges to the law's constitutionality. I just think that it would overturn too many important decisions, such as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas]Lawrence v. Texas[/url], which overturned a Texas law criminalizing sodomy. I don't believe that cooperation in the UN would necessarily involve entangling alliances; I just think that since the UN is something that a lot of other countries are participating in, it would be irresponsible of the US as a superpower to just ignore it. Regarding your point about moral causes and Darfur, while I agree that the government shouldn't take up moral causes for the most part, lest it tend towards one particular system of morals, I think that a conflict that our own government has desccribed as 'genocide' is bad in pretty much every moral system, so that argument doesn't really apply here. My point about the estate tax is that it's usually not much to worry about, unless there's over a million dollars' worth estate, plus exemptions for family-owned farms. It's not something that usually applies to a family leaving heirlooms to its youngest generation. The government can tax stuff it doesn't own and does so all the time; that's part of what a tax is. It doesn't own the money you make, but there's income tax, and the same goes for sales taxes, etc.
The fence would be very expensive and difficult to maintain if it's to be of any deterrent.
As for your point about the establishment clause, what happens to the poor gay people who live in, say, Texas, when antisodomy laws are re-enacted? Should they be forced to basically live a lie because they can't, for whatever reason, move out of the state?
As for the 'entangling alliance between foreign powers' quote, to not make treaties with foreign nations is basically to deny the emergence of a growing global economy. The Founding Fathers, though they were great men, did not live in a world like we did. This is why the Constitution is amendable; to keep up with the times. The Founding Fathers words are not sacrosanct.
Your point that "Having American citizen parents raising you with American beliefs and values makes you an American citizen" is very dangerous thinking. Should the "un-American Communists" that McCarthy et al. uncovered have been stripped of their citizen due to their supposed lack of beliefs and values? Obviously not. America was founded on principles of being a melting pot, where citizens can come and raise afamily their own way.
True, the Darfur bill does not harm us in the least. But it does harm the victims of the genocide. And this information about whether the companies are doing business is not generally available to the public. I'll bet that you can't name 3 of the ones that would be affected without doing research, research that the average american does.
The problem with his concept of truly owning one's property is that it can lead to situations where, say, people say in their will that their descendants cannot sell the land to non-white people, or that it must stay in the family forever. So we have things like the rule against perpetuities, which says that all interests must vest within the lifespan of someone alife plus 21 years; i.e., all contingent wills must be satisfied within that period of time, or else they're void. I also don't believe that the proper solution, assuming that the tax does what Paul says it does, which I find somewhat suspect, as he cites an unnamed Stanford professor for his information on negative revenue.
What? No. The planes will have lasers equipped on them. RTFS.
With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
The lasers go on the planes, they're not being fired at the planes.
You know who else was consistent? That's right. George W. Bush on the existence of WMDs in Iraq.
Oh, and another thing: why do you think that the solution to a bad money system is to return to the gold standard? Consider this: the current amount of U.S. currency in circulation is $783 billion. Current estimates put the US's gold reserves at around $252 billion. So where does the extra $531 billion come from? The government buying massive amounts of gold; about $531 billion. At about $750 a troy ounce, that amounts to about 24,000 short tons. Estimates say that there are 22,000 short tons of gold left in the world. Therefore, the US govt would have to buy up massive amounts of gold, driving the price way up and playing hell with the dental and electronics industries.
Yeah, we all know that scientific nomenclature is serious business.
So it's ok that the article might contain total bullshit, because nobody's really written anything about it?
So are you saying it's OK for Wikipedia to have an article on my left foot? Also, see the notability guidelines, an at least somewhat objective measure of inclusion.
So how would a return to a gold standard work with international trade? The amount of currency is fixed, so paying off our national debt would lead to massive deflation, leading to a recession and a general economic fuckup.
So if I understand your analogy, Wikipedia should host a copy of every single webcomic strip, in violation of copyright law?