sync0s
Well-Known Member
Liberals and their ignorant hyperbole.Ron Paul believes any law is fine as long as it's a state law and not federal. States rights FTW!
Why don't you like Ron Paul?
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
Umm no he doesn't. He feels that ALL laws, state or federal, must adhere by the principals of the US Constitution.Ron Paul believes any law is fine as long as it's a state law and not federal. States rights FTW!
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul is a fake Libertarian. He's like all the others in the official fake Libertarian party. He sees some magical quality about states. He has no stance on abortion. It's all up to each state. I do agree Roe v Wade needs to be overturned too, but his reason is because the state needs to make the law. He doesn't give a shit. Since the president has limited power at the federal level, he would have little to do. I'm ok with that. But what kind of revolution is that? I want a limited federal government, but replacing it with an all powerful state government is worse. I want both limited federal and state government.
He also hates same sex relations but hides behind state rights on that too. How far would he get if he stated states could ban hetero marriages? The reason he doesn't say that is because it's not controversial and doesn't need to hide behind the states rights excuse.
There's nothing special about Ron Paul. He has no magic tricks he knows to save us. He's a lying sack of shit like 100% of all the other politicians. He just has brainwashed followers who think otherwise. The same is true of The Obama Clan, like Bucky, or Romney's extended polygamy family, like nlxsk1.
The truth hurts.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
You know how I know you have no clue what libertarian is? You think that the position of saying the federal government doesn't (and shouldn't) have the authority to deal with a specific issue is "having no position."
FYI Ron Paul, like most real libertarians, doesn't think marriage is something the federal government (or any government, for that matter) should concern itself with.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Ok, any law not explicitly expressed in the constitution is up to each state, and all that jazz. So he has no problems with banning fags from doing evil butt sex, hetero too, or abortion. Just as long as states do it. Fuck that. It's still bullshit. He doesn't care about what's my business to fuck anyway I want, with my wife. He's a fake libertarian. I can do whatever the hell I want, as long as I don't harm others. The federal or state government has no business to interfere with my life like that. But not according to schizophrenic Ronnie who has his imaginary friend in the sky. Anything which couldn't be known or wasn't an issue, like gays or abortion, in magical constitution 225 years ago, you're fucked. You better hope your state gets it right, or move. If new issues come up, fuck you too. God bless Ronald.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Your posts are much easier to tolerate when you don't claim to be, or know, libertarian.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I know exactly. But that's not the reason he and others say it. Ronald wants a free pass from his bigotry by saying "states rights" like he's some magician with slight of hand.
Just like Obama blames Eric Holder, who he fucking appointed.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
If you were libertarian you would realize how that doesn't make sense. If somebody who (for the sake of the argument) was anti-gay and wanted to out law homosexuality, they would seek centralized power (much like Santorum). If you went the path of states rights you would be forced to swallow the fact that while some states may follow your goal, others (if not all) could go completely opposite.
Just because you may disagree with his stance on certain issues doesn't make him a fake libertarian. However, as made evident by your belief in centralized powers and a general distrust for human individuals, I could logically conclude you as a fake libertarian. Which I have.
The constitution does not state what the laws are, sheesh you need to read it once in a while so you actually know what is in it. You really have no clue when it comes to the US Constitution.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Ok, ask any question, as long as it's not constitutional in nature, state or federal. Since libertarian is a culture neutral philosophy. Unlike particular government features, like their laws and parties.
What can you stump me on?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That seems like a law to me.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Stump me. Come up with a question that even Harrekin can answer too, since libertarianism is philosophical, not political. Like I said, culture neutral issue question. Like self incrimination would not be part of Irish law.
You claim to know I'm not a libertarian. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
To the original question proposed:
Let me preface this with...
I personally think that of all the candidates of the two party system, Ron Paul is the best, because he's actually an honest guy. Do I agree with this man? No. But I respect him, because he keeps to his opinion and does not change it based on popular demand.
Why I do not like him: I do not think the private sector is the answer to issue such as pollution. I know there is reason to question the merit of global warming, so I won't bring that up, but people ought to realize that pumping a bunch of EXCESS waste into the air is bad for an ecosystem/environment. What matters more than a balanced ecosystem/environment in our world? I personally don't know, I'm pretty stumped. I think that the government should spend tax payer dollars on preserving something that important. If people could understand that we needed to protect our environment and did their part to ensure pollution was at a minimum then I would say the government would not need to do this, but this is not the case. How many stars do you guys see when you look at the sky at night, because I see 26, on a clear night. That should never be the case.
Furthermore, my stance on immigration. I don't know if Ron Paul supports illegal immigrants, but as someone who has worked alongside an illegal immigrant I do. Fuck your dumbass trust-fund babies making $15 an hour at their dad's friends work while me and pedro (using a stereotypical name to make a point) get paid $8, or in pedro's case $4, an hour to do way more work. I think that all illegal immigrants ought to be granted citizenship and be forced to take English classes, which they pay for, in order to better assimilate into our culture. They want to live here, fine by me. They need to learn how to speak English (despite the fact we have no national language, English is assumed to be our language), and pay taxes just like I do. This will also eliminate jimbo from complaining about illegals "stealing his job" because if they need to payed the same as lazy ass trust fund kids then they will be hired by work initiative and not fiscal motivation.
Also, stem cell research and abortions. I support stem cell research, I think it's fucking stupid how religious zealots have made abortions/stem cell research immoral. If you are not the mother/father to baby being aborted your opinion means nothing, period. The common argument to this is: "what if Einstein was aborted, dipshit?" My reply: "What if Hitler was aborted, fuck ass."
And, potential SCOTUS picks. I have a feeling that Ron Paul would choose a conservative judge over a progressive judge, which is something I do not agree with.
As well as his view on economics. I know lots of people here believe that the gold standard will solve a lot of problems, and I read an article by Greenspan (that I think NoDrama posted here, it was a very interesting article) where he believes the gold standard might fix some issues. And while I see the potential benefits to reverting back to a gold standard; I cannot confidently say that this will solve anything. The uber rich will always find ways to keep any lower class down, c'est la vie, eliminating something like the fed is equivalent to cutting a head of a hydra, more will sprout back that are even more vicious than the original. Look at Jackson when he took down Madison's central bank.
This is what I do not like. Again, I respect the man (even though I've acted like a jackass in this section of the forums b/c of retarded Ron Paul spam that people put up in here), but I cannot say that I agree with him. Since I've been able to vote, I've sided with Nader. If I was of age in '92, I would have voted for Zappa. I do not believe in this fucking stupid 2 party system, and I'm sorry that I do not find Ron Paul as the answer to it.
Let me preface this with...
I personally think that of all the candidates of the two party system, Ron Paul is the best, because he's actually an honest guy. Do I agree with this man? No. But I respect him, because he keeps to his opinion and does not change it based on popular demand.
Why I do not like him: I do not think the private sector is the answer to issue such as pollution. I know there is reason to question the merit of global warming, so I won't bring that up, but people ought to realize that pumping a bunch of EXCESS waste into the air is bad for an ecosystem/environment. What matters more than a balanced ecosystem/environment in our world? I personally don't know, I'm pretty stumped. I think that the government should spend tax payer dollars on preserving something that important. If people could understand that we needed to protect our environment and did their part to ensure pollution was at a minimum then I would say the government would not need to do this, but this is not the case. How many stars do you guys see when you look at the sky at night, because I see 26, on a clear night. That should never be the case.
Furthermore, my stance on immigration. I don't know if Ron Paul supports illegal immigrants, but as someone who has worked alongside an illegal immigrant I do. Fuck your dumbass trust-fund babies making $15 an hour at their dad's friends work while me and pedro (using a stereotypical name to make a point) get paid $8, or in pedro's case $4, an hour to do way more work. I think that all illegal immigrants ought to be granted citizenship and be forced to take English classes, which they pay for, in order to better assimilate into our culture. They want to live here, fine by me. They need to learn how to speak English (despite the fact we have no national language, English is assumed to be our language), and pay taxes just like I do. This will also eliminate jimbo from complaining about illegals "stealing his job" because if they need to payed the same as lazy ass trust fund kids then they will be hired by work initiative and not fiscal motivation.
Also, stem cell research and abortions. I support stem cell research, I think it's fucking stupid how religious zealots have made abortions/stem cell research immoral. If you are not the mother/father to baby being aborted your opinion means nothing, period. The common argument to this is: "what if Einstein was aborted, dipshit?" My reply: "What if Hitler was aborted, fuck ass."
And, potential SCOTUS picks. I have a feeling that Ron Paul would choose a conservative judge over a progressive judge, which is something I do not agree with.
As well as his view on economics. I know lots of people here believe that the gold standard will solve a lot of problems, and I read an article by Greenspan (that I think NoDrama posted here, it was a very interesting article) where he believes the gold standard might fix some issues. And while I see the potential benefits to reverting back to a gold standard; I cannot confidently say that this will solve anything. The uber rich will always find ways to keep any lower class down, c'est la vie, eliminating something like the fed is equivalent to cutting a head of a hydra, more will sprout back that are even more vicious than the original. Look at Jackson when he took down Madison's central bank.
This is what I do not like. Again, I respect the man (even though I've acted like a jackass in this section of the forums b/c of retarded Ron Paul spam that people put up in here), but I cannot say that I agree with him. Since I've been able to vote, I've sided with Nader. If I was of age in '92, I would have voted for Zappa. I do not believe in this fucking stupid 2 party system, and I'm sorry that I do not find Ron Paul as the answer to it.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Then I will ask you.
Abortion has two libertarian stances.
Position 1
If you give property rights to the mother, the mother has the right over her body.
Position 2
The unborn is put into a position it's not under control to change. The unborn will be subjected to agression against its own will. Libertarians mustn't use agression or coercion in order to gain their wants.
Position Bullshit
The state decides isn't an answer. It's one of the two above. Harrekin can even answer, he has no states so he can't choose Ron Paul's bullshit Position.
Abortion has two libertarian stances.
Position 1
If you give property rights to the mother, the mother has the right over her body.
Position 2
The unborn is put into a position it's not under control to change. The unborn will be subjected to agression against its own will. Libertarians mustn't use agression or coercion in order to gain their wants.
Position Bullshit
The state decides isn't an answer. It's one of the two above. Harrekin can even answer, he has no states so he can't choose Ron Paul's bullshit Position.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Interesting considering you've thrown around about many accusations of Ron Paul being a fake libertarian, yet the only evidence you provided was hyperbole at best. Seeing as I already have multiple posts quoting things you've said that are in conflict with libertarianism, I feel no such burden.
mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
I guess I would I agree with position one, assuming the father had as equal say as the mother. If they feel like killing their zygote/unborn child, and can deal with that on their conscious, who am I to judge?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Those quotings were hypothetical situations which don't exist.
I'm accusing Ron Paul, not you. You accuse me.
*" Some libertarians — and some politicians affiliated with Libertarian Party — have recently dedicated themselves to exhuming and reanimating the pernicious doctrine of “states’ rights.” As a matter of fact, last year, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr announced on national television that “states’ rights is the essence of libertarianism.”
What Ron Paul believes, fake libertarianism.
*" “decentralization” doesn’t weaken the state — quite the opposite, in fact. It strengthens the state by allowing the state’s subdivisions to more specifically tailor their policies in ways that maximize their overall power. By bowing to vox populi on the micro-scale, the state enhances its facial “legitimacy.” "
Again, Ron Paul is a fake libertarian.
I advocate limited government, to no government. I see no government (anarchy) as not possible unless you implement my hypothetical thread you use bullshit quotes from.
My real world philosophy is a mixture of socialist and capitalist libertarianism. Pure capitalist libertarianism isn't the only libertarian. Socialist libertarian ideas are in no way liberal. They may share some features with liberals.
So to conclude, I'm libertarian. Ron Paul is a statist stooge.
* http://c4ss.org/content/1120
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with that position but I respect you having it. I don't respect Position Bullshit.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Positions 1 and 2 contain an implication of serious consequence. Position 1 does not assign the fetus "person" status, while position 2 does. I do think that that determination cannot be made inside the law, but once made, it profoundly affects law. cn