Yes, I know Huntsman is a believer in Global Warming. I'm just saying that when someone says that they'll "trust the experts", you have to be careful on how they pick who the "experts" are.
You're making a very, very big assumption that most rank and file employees actually give a shit how good the President is to their company, and that they would put that ahead of themselves. I highly doubt that. I'm guessing most of them would put their own interests ahead of their employers.
Actions speak louder than words. He's introduced bills against gay marriage. I've never seen him introduce a bill removing the federal recognition of straight marriage. Until I see that, I will not believe his bullshit stance. It is merely a cover so he doesn't have to actually say he's against gay marriage.
it seems reasonable that it would lead to more American jobs in the long run as we'd have to make things we needed and wanted here
That's not reasonable in the slightest. What do you think would happen to all of the American jobs that are in place selling shit to other countries? And do you honestly think that American consumption of goods would make up for the worldwide consumption that we'd lose?
Anyone who advocates the point that shutting down foreign trade would improve American jobs is an idiot who has done no study of history.
No, it's not. Are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul did not introduce the "We, The People" act with the intent of banning courts from ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans?
Further, what does that say about Ron Paul's "strict Constitutionalist" stance? That he doesn't want to follow the Constitution when it clashes with his religious beliefs? Because I can't see any reason why he would think that in this issue, the states would be allowed to violate the Constitution.
This verbal diarrhea from someone who's defending a candidate who is often billed as being the "best candidate for civil liberties!" and "the only candidate who will uphold our freedoms!"
Other than that, it is pretty much entirely a state issue.
And states have to follow the fucking Constitution, same as the Federal Government. Until anyone campaigns to remove the recognition of straight marriage from all governments, I won't take anyone who sees this seriously, as they are simply anti-gay marriage.
I will not take anyone who says anything like that seriously until they actually campaign for the removal of straight marriage from government recognition.
What that federal court ban (I haven't read up on it) would do is stop the judiciary from legislating from the bench, overriding the decision made by the states. This is a crucial idea, as legislating from the judiciary has led to erosion of our Bill of Rights.
That is the most retarded thing I have read so far, and it shows why libertarians simply should not be put into positions of power. Seriously? Telling a state that they have to follow the fucking Constitution is "legislating from the bench"? And this from people who appear to fucking worship the Constitution? What the fuck is wrong with you? And courts upholding this shit is what's "eroding our rights"?
Ron Paul is even less in his interest, as Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about the working class. Ron Paul wants to gut just about every environmental protection and every employee and working condition protection. Somehow he believes that the mining company would want to keep doing those things out of the goodness of their hearts.
Blah blah blah, I'm going to ignore the realities of the situation.
Yes, there is a spoiler effect, and yes, it does pretty much force someone to vote a certain way, or risk having the other person they really don't want into office win.
This isn't a fucking race and you don't get brownie points for "picking the winner."
Maybe not, but how you vote can definitely make it easier for someone you really don't like to get into office.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions. So don't give me that bullshit that he's not against gay marriage.
And I'll believe the stance that he wants to "get the federal government out of marriage altogether" when he introduces a bill to remove recognition of straight marriage from the federal government.
and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties
Yes, he has that perfect civil liberties stance of being against gay marriage.
And no, I don't believe the idea that he's against government in all marriage. Get him to introduce a bill that removes recognition of straight marriage from the federal government, and then maybe I'll think about him.
And with his "let the states decide!" bullshit, how would conservatives like it if states were to decide whether or not you could have guns?
"Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements
That's the problem. Many of us DON'T believe in the free market. Which is one of the main reasons why I cannot support Ron Paul, or many of his positions. He has this religious-like faith in the free market that, quite frankly, is completely unfounded.
Except the Constitution expressly gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. In the matter of deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not, they have the final say.
So try to get ballot measures enacted in your state to change the voting system to IRV or something else that would lessen the effect of the 2 parties.
Now is it stated that those are actual donations from those companies, or are the donations from people who happen to work at those companies? One of the most often repeated piece of misleading information is that Obama took a bunch of money from BP and Big Oil. As it turns out, no, he didn't take the money directly from those companies, but many of the employees donated a few bucks to his campaign, and apparently the forms ask what company you work for.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know Huntsman is a believer in Global Warming. I'm just saying that when someone says that they'll "trust the experts", you have to be careful on how they pick who the "experts" are.
You're making a very, very big assumption that most rank and file employees actually give a shit how good the President is to their company, and that they would put that ahead of themselves. I highly doubt that. I'm guessing most of them would put their own interests ahead of their employers.
Actions speak louder than words. He's introduced bills against gay marriage. I've never seen him introduce a bill removing the federal recognition of straight marriage. Until I see that, I will not believe his bullshit stance. It is merely a cover so he doesn't have to actually say he's against gay marriage.
it seems reasonable that it would lead to more American jobs in the long run as we'd have to make things we needed and wanted here
That's not reasonable in the slightest. What do you think would happen to all of the American jobs that are in place selling shit to other countries? And do you honestly think that American consumption of goods would make up for the worldwide consumption that we'd lose?
Anyone who advocates the point that shutting down foreign trade would improve American jobs is an idiot who has done no study of history.
Yes, because the people have really been able to control the Telcoms, right?
You're still going through puberty, aren't you?
No, it's not. Are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul did not introduce the "We, The People" act with the intent of banning courts from ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans?
Further, what does that say about Ron Paul's "strict Constitutionalist" stance? That he doesn't want to follow the Constitution when it clashes with his religious beliefs? Because I can't see any reason why he would think that in this issue, the states would be allowed to violate the Constitution.
This verbal diarrhea from someone who's defending a candidate who is often billed as being the "best candidate for civil liberties!" and "the only candidate who will uphold our freedoms!"
Ron Paul does not support gay marriage. Ron Paul supports the rights of states to ban gay marriage.
Read my comment again. Actually read it. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A LAW, STATE OR FEDERAL, IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IS A FEDERAL ISSUE, DUMBASS.
It is an issue for the Federal Courts, because they are the ones that decide whether a law violates the Constitution.
Or are you one of those idiots that doesn't think the States have to follow the Constitution.
Nope. However, whether a state ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution IS a Federal issue.
Other than that, it is pretty much entirely a state issue.
And states have to follow the fucking Constitution, same as the Federal Government. Until anyone campaigns to remove the recognition of straight marriage from all governments, I won't take anyone who sees this seriously, as they are simply anti-gay marriage.
I will not take anyone who says anything like that seriously until they actually campaign for the removal of straight marriage from government recognition.
What that federal court ban (I haven't read up on it) would do is stop the judiciary from legislating from the bench, overriding the decision made by the states. This is a crucial idea, as legislating from the judiciary has led to erosion of our Bill of Rights.
That is the most retarded thing I have read so far, and it shows why libertarians simply should not be put into positions of power. Seriously? Telling a state that they have to follow the fucking Constitution is "legislating from the bench"? And this from people who appear to fucking worship the Constitution? What the fuck is wrong with you? And courts upholding this shit is what's "eroding our rights"?
Ron Paul is even less in his interest, as Ron Paul doesn't give a shit about the working class. Ron Paul wants to gut just about every environmental protection and every employee and working condition protection. Somehow he believes that the mining company would want to keep doing those things out of the goodness of their hearts.
Finally, please explain to me how the Party of Goldman Sachs can in any way be perceived as having the interest of the working class in mind?
First, you're going to have to explain how the Republicans in any way can be perceived as having the interest of the working class in mind.
Blah blah blah, I'm going to ignore the realities of the situation.
Yes, there is a spoiler effect, and yes, it does pretty much force someone to vote a certain way, or risk having the other person they really don't want into office win.
This isn't a fucking race and you don't get brownie points for "picking the winner."
Maybe not, but how you vote can definitely make it easier for someone you really don't like to get into office.
And don't say that if one doesn't vote for either party means they're throwing away their vote because that just keeps the two party BS rolling.
Except it's a mathematical inevitability.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would ban federal courts from hearing issues on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans. You know, the very court system the Constitution itself sets up to hear these kinds of questions. So don't give me that bullshit that he's not against gay marriage.
And I'll believe the stance that he wants to "get the federal government out of marriage altogether" when he introduces a bill to remove recognition of straight marriage from the federal government.
and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties
Yes, he has that perfect civil liberties stance of being against gay marriage.
And no, I don't believe the idea that he's against government in all marriage. Get him to introduce a bill that removes recognition of straight marriage from the federal government, and then maybe I'll think about him.
And with his "let the states decide!" bullshit, how would conservatives like it if states were to decide whether or not you could have guns?
"Well, quite frankly I don't understand all the details, but if you believe in the free market you try to work out a way to solve those problems through contractual arrangements
That's the problem. Many of us DON'T believe in the free market. Which is one of the main reasons why I cannot support Ron Paul, or many of his positions. He has this religious-like faith in the free market that, quite frankly, is completely unfounded.
Except the Constitution expressly gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution. In the matter of deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not, they have the final say.
And such actions are completely immoral and should not be considered at all, except in the most extreme of cases.
Well, yeah. They'd all prefer one of their own getting into office than Obama staying there.
So try to get ballot measures enacted in your state to change the voting system to IRV or something else that would lessen the effect of the 2 parties.
Depends on who he deems to be the "experts". Would you want him taking advice on environmental policy from scientists at BP?
Now is it stated that those are actual donations from those companies, or are the donations from people who happen to work at those companies? One of the most often repeated piece of misleading information is that Obama took a bunch of money from BP and Big Oil. As it turns out, no, he didn't take the money directly from those companies, but many of the employees donated a few bucks to his campaign, and apparently the forms ask what company you work for.