points against "slap in the face of civil rights"

[StumbleBum7]

alright i said look into ron paul if you actually want to change the country he said "Ron Paul is very much a slap in the face of civil rights, regardless of his Internet popularity"

i asked for his reason he put all this in itallics

Paul is pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion." He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction - in accordance with the federal Constitution. Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view. During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.



In 1999, Paul voted in favor of prohibiting the allocation of federal funds on four unrelated amendments to a House appropriations bill for the government of the District of Columbia. One of these amendments (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) would have prohibited "any [federal> funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." The amendment would have prevented federal money from being spent on vetting or registering the adoption of a child to any unmarried couple, same sex or heterosexual, in the District of Columbia.

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states. For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit sexual practices and same-sex marriage.

In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Rep. Paul said about the United States military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."



In 1997, he voted in favor of ending affirmative action in college admissions.


was just wondering i have basic ideas but want to make sure i do this good since a good 10+ people will definatley read this all of which are voting age could be as many as 30 read it and i dont want to lose :)

[noxagol]

Ask your friend to extrapolate why. This is the what, but why is this a slap in the face . All of these votes are in line with the Constitution.

[StumbleBum7]

all he replied with was

I seriously don't mean any offense by this, but are you retarded, or are you intentionally ignoring the information I just posted?

I really shouldn't have to correlate why offenses to civil liberties MAKES SOMEONE NOT A LIBERTARIAN.



i dont get him he doesnt get me prob one of those lost causes.

[cujothekitten]

Tell him to look up federalism. But say it in an nicer way than just "look up federalism".

[allyinoh]

In 1997, he voted in favor of ending affirmative action in college admissions.


Does this guy understand that affirmative action is just reverse discrimination?

Forget the guy, he's stupid and doesn't understand.

[dircha]

My advice would be to not give a second thought to the inconsequential internet nobody who bothered to research (probably from Ron's Wikipedia page) and write to you a 1000 word essay on why Ron Paul is a slap in the face of civil liberties.

This person believes that it is the ethical obligation of the federal government to endorse and subsidize homosexual marriage and adoption, to protect and fund the ability of a women to abort an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy under any circumstances and for any reason, and believes that the way to end racial disparity is through federal government mandated discrimination and race-based quotas.

These are radical leftist views far outside the mainstream of society, views which this person apparently supposes himself to hold with great conviction and justification.

Even if you could prove him wrong, he will not be persuaded, and he will not acknowledge the correctness of your arguments, if only because of his own ego.

Arguing with radical leftist individuals such as this is every bit as useless as arguing with Hannity neo-cons.

The very best approach is to marginalize and ignore them.

[allyinoh]

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."

What's his problem with this statement? Wow... seriously guy, dee da dee...

[quickmike]

A true libertarian would NEVER support affirmative action. Affirmative action bases itself on the choosing of someone for a position based strictly on race. Doesnt sound like the free market in action if you ask me. Does he think its a good idea that someone of one color gets a job over a more qualified applicant just because he has the right color skin?

In no way is this guy a Libertarian, and if he thinks he is, he better go back to school and learn what its all about.................... this guys arguments are laughable at best.

He sounds more like a socialist to me.

[Ninja Homer]

It may be best just to say "next" and find more people to spread the message to. If somebody actually takes the time to research Ron Paul, and still doesn't agree with him, it probably isn't worth the time to argue. There are plenty of people out there who have never even heard of Ron Paul.

[Kregener]

Ask why he/she is so adamantly opposed to letting the States decide their individual positions on abortion, but seems to have no problem with the 2nd Amendment being "legislated into oblivion" by the Federal Behemoth?

Ron Paul, while hoping we as a nation would quit murdering babies in the womb as a convenient form of birth control, really just wants no "federal money" to go toward it, and let the states decide its future.

In other words, simply follow the Constitution.

[Lord Xar]

I think what this guy doesn't understand is that "PERSONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES" Is different that socialisitic "Group" think, that this guy seems to gravitate towards.

Affirmative Action is a "group" over "individual" idea.. not only that, it is reverse discrimination in and of itself, but more than that -- it is just another way to 'group' minorities - thus retaining the racial profiling that seeems to exist NO MATTER WHAT DECADE we are in.

This guy seems to think that "civil liberties" equates with freebies or handouts or this idea that you have "GIVE" something inder to generate civil liberties...

The guy has a warped view of civil liberties therefore you two are coming from two different places...

I would just refer him to a speech or somesuch of Ron Paul's in which he covers this aspect.

[StumbleBum7]

here is a link to the thread please check it out mainly starts at page 2, newer stuff on 3. Post if you want but he says ron paul is libertarian

http://tradegamesnow.com/f_me.cfm?thid=125819

[bdmarti]

[I]Paul is pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion." He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction - in accordance with the federal Constitution.

This is a semantics issue and not a civil liberty issue. If the fetus is a life, as Paul believes, then it has rights.

The use of force is the opposite of liberty. If something is removed from the federal government's juristiction to use force, then this is by it's very nature creating more liberty at the federal level. Local politics is more easily changed, and the ability to change geographic locations to find a populace more in line with one's own opinions is a liberty that can't be ignored and is also a liberty that is eradicated when the federal government assumes juristiction over any issue.




Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.

This move allows something that wasn't allowed before. This is an introduction of more liberty. If he has a problem with state and local restrictions on liberty he should change locations or work to change them, and I'll point out again it's always easier to change local laws than federal ones.






In 1999, Paul voted in favor of prohibiting the allocation of federal funds on four unrelated amendments to a House appropriations bill for the government of the District of Columbia. One of these amendments (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) would have prohibited "any [federal> funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." The amendment would have prevented federal money from being spent on vetting or registering the adoption of a child to any unmarried couple, same sex or heterosexual, in the District of Columbia.

This is a horrible example of infringing on civil rights. It's simply absurd to say that it is the right of all people to have federal funding spent on their adoption needs.

Not only is it not a right, but the taxing of funds in the first place is a limitation on liberty to all tax payers!




Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." ...He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.

Marraige to Paul is a religious issue and shouldn't be handled by the federal government. Any bill favoring one verion of marriage over another in law is a violation of church and state separation. Any bill forcing states to recognize one religious marriage over another would be a violation of church and state separation.

Paul is right to say that all contracts should be enforced and that all the things commonly given to those that are married by government, should be applicable to all arbitrary couples. This idea, followed to it's conclusion, means that there is NO loss of liberty to anyone, and that the government refrains from using force on the states to force them to recognize religious cerimonies with certain rights.




In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act... If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit sexual practices and same-sex marriage.

Again, if he has problems with state and local laws, that should be handed at the state and local level.

States already have sodomy laws and many sex related laws.

Once again, removing these things from federal juristiction doesn't in any way limit your civil liberties.

For example: the possibility that you might get mugged today doesn't mean that the federal government's lack of laws regarding muggings and juristiction over muggings caused you to be mugged.




We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.

What's the problem here? People all have the same rights? Where is the limit on civil liberties here?

And persons in the military volunteer to give up certain privleges and live in a very particular, prescribed, manner. Nobody is forced to volunteer.

Is it a loss of civil liberties that people have to wear green when told to any more than they are expected to not be disruptive to other troops?

This one is just bizarre.



In 1997, he voted in favor of ending affirmative action in college admissions.


good.
forced discrimination of any kindis by definition a limit on liberty.

[StumbleBum7]

thanks posted what u said

[constituent]

Local politics is more easily changed, and the ability to change geographic locations to find a populace more in line with one's own opinions is a liberty that can't be ignored and is also a liberty that is eradicated when the federal government assumes juristiction over any issue.


careful (http://www.answers.com/the%20cultural%20revolution) tell that to the libs, theY might pull a crafty Chairman Mao maneuver on us.

[freedominnumbers]

The slap in the face is only so to him because he doesn't believe a fetus has the same rights he does.

Ron is right. If you believe that a human life starts at conception than endorsing abortion is endorsing the violation of one of the three (and possibly most important since it enables all others) basic natural rights, life.

Abortion is one of the hardest things for me to settle as a libertarian. On one hand you have the fetus, at what point is it a sovereign being? On the other is the mother who must carry it.

If the mother is forced to carry is that not slavery? Are you not denying the mother her truest form of property, herself?

Then there is the fetus. At some point whether conception or birth that egg and sperm become a sovereign being. The conundrum here is that neither really has a defensible claim to infringe upon the rights of the other.

It would seem to me that a libertarian view would be that a mother could demand an induced delivery of the child at any time, however the doctor could not murder the child as is done today. I think in this situation medicine would find a way to raise children outside the womb.

[unconsious767]

->Here's<- (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=52&threadid=2100297&enterthread=y&messid=27343697&STARTPAGE=9) another guy talking about the ->We the People act<- (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5739:)


What this effectively does is neuter the government from being able to upload [sic] things like the First Amendment, and other things Paul doesn't approve of. This would allow states such as Texas to be able to ban anyone other then Christians from serving in its government. Something that Texas has in its Constitution.


You don't get it do you? Passing a law like this would be unconstitutional, which is sad when it comes from someone who claims to support the constitution. In particular, look up Article 6 in the constitution. To save you the worked here it is: "to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
This bill would prevent state courts from "rely[ing] on any judicial decision involving any issue" referred to in the previous section.This would immediately make all previous federal court decisions involving these subjects inapplicable to state laws, such as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, or Engel v. Vitale.
Our republic is made to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

suggestions?

[ronpaulitician]

Paul is pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion." He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction - in accordance with the federal Constitution. Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view. During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Ron Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.
Yes, Paul doesn't agree with abortion.

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction. Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.
In order to properly settle the abortion issue, we need to define, at the federal level, when life begins. Paul's view is that it begins at conception, and he sees a foetus as an individual, with all the rights associated with that. (I don't.) Once the debate over when life begins is settled, we can then debate at which point (and by how much) the rights of the unborn individual to live (assuming we define life to begin at any point before birth) supercede the rights of the mother to control her own body. Even if we define human life to start at birth, that still doesn't automatically mean that abortion should be outlawed.

In 1999, Paul voted in favor of prohibiting the allocation of federal funds on four unrelated amendments to a House appropriations bill for the government of the District of Columbia. One of these amendments (H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587) would have prohibited "any [federal> funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." The amendment would have prevented federal money from being spent on vetting or registering the adoption of a child to any unmarried couple, same sex or heterosexual, in the District of Columbia.
Unless Paul voted FOR federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are related by blood or marriage, there is nothing mysterious about this vote, as this power does not appear to be specified in the US Constitution.

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states. For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. He spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which limited the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.
Highlighted for emphasis.

Paul does not believe the US Constitution says anything about marriage. Therefore, the federal government should stay out of it.

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation." If made law, these provisions would allow states to prohibit sexual practices and same-sex marriage.
What states would decide to do is not the issue. The issue is whether the US Constitution specifically outlines this as a federal power. If it does not, the power should either revert back to the states, or be added to the US Constitution through the process of amendment.

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
Is he bringing this up as a reason NOT to vote for Paul?

In 1997, he voted in favor of ending affirmative action in college admissions.
Affirmative action is not in line with libertarian principles. It labels people as groups instead of as individuals.

[bdmarti]

What this effectively does is neuter the government from being able to upload [sic] things like the First Amendment, and other things Paul doesn't approve of. This would allow states such as Texas to be able to ban anyone other then Christians from serving in its government. Something that Texas has in its Constitution.

The first amendment applies to congress. While we the people collectively agree that congress has no say in the items listed in the first amendment, the constitution also concedes that it is not a complete enumeration of rights and that states and individuals retain all powers and rights not given explicitly to the government.

We can paint many a picture where one group of people clearly believes something is a "right" while another group does not.

When there is a conflict of rights exists, it is generally the case that the power to arbitrate/mediate/legislate these conflicts rests with the government, be it local or federal. To use a rand-ian definition: government is an entity with a near monopoly on the use of force over a geographic area.

Now, clearly we don't all agree on everything. We don't all agree what the complete enumeration of "rights" would be. We don't all agree on how best to arbitrate conflicts between those rights.

The genius of the constitution is that is allows subsets of the whole geographic area to handle things differently, while the whole geographic area shares a few explicit powers like defense and a post office.

Under our constitution it should be possible to have a socialist state living peacefully next to a libertarian state. These states would have little in common with the exception of currency, common defense, and a few other powers delegated explicitly to the federal level. Then within socialist state, or even within libertarian state, you could have communist town. You could have a Muslim town and a Christian town and a Jewish town. Within these towns, the laws would reflect the religion in question as interpreted by the local populace.

The key freedom of the people would be the freedom to move to different geographic areas where they feel better about the government or better able to influence the government.

This system is not perfect, and some people won't like some laws in some areas. This is unavoidable!

Yet the alternative is to oppress from the federal level and assume that congress will properly limit itself and get everything "right." History shows that congress doesn't properly limit itself and that they don't often get any issue "right" as so many people are left dissatisfied by their laws. Being federal laws, those upset people can't simply change geographic locations within the states because the laws are the same everywhere, and yet their ability to influence the federal government is next to nothing.

Take for instance the issue of abortion. We clearly don't all agree. If left to our own devices, there would over time be a purposeful migration of persons with strong beliefs on the matter to states with laws matching their beliefs. At the same time, the issue would lead to constant debate and many different laws on the matter. If allowed, some states would outlaw abortions and others would limit them, still others would perhaps try to throw money at the problem by streamlining the adoption system or even allowing mothers to profit within such a system.
When the federal government claims authority on the matter you instead get to have people that are vehemently morally and religiously opposed to abortions paying for them with federal tax dollars. Is that fair?
How about people, again religiously opposed to the concept, being forced to pay via income tax for stem cell research?
How about people who are morally opposed to the death penalty having to pay for executions?

These problems go away as you strip the federal government of it's power and allow people to move freely to different geographical areas.

If laws are "too oppressive" at a local level then the market will have an effect as people migrate away or the laws serve to exclude otherwise profitable persons and businesses from working in and around the government in question. People will become discontent with their local laws and work to change them or move. If neither happens successfully, it is likely that the local government in question will shrivel up. The key is the freedom to move!

People all too often think they should have everything the way they want it where they are, particularly if they see things are like that somewhere else. If these people can't influence their local government, they should move to where the "good" laws are in their opinion.




You don't get it do you? Passing a law like this would be unconstitutional, which is sad when it comes from someone who claims to support the constitution. In particular, look up Article 6 in the constitution. To save you the worked here it is: "to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


The Texas legislature is NOT an office of or under the jurisdiction of the United States government.

I personally see this as a foolish requirement, but there are plenty of states with constitutions that forbid such tests for their state and local governments. Live in one of those states.




This bill would prevent state courts from "rely[ing] on any judicial decision involving any issue" referred to in the previous section.This would immediately make all previous federal court decisions involving these subjects inapplicable to state laws, such as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, or Engel v. Vitale.
Our republic is made to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

The federal government is only tasked with a very few enumerated duties. You should look into it. The constitution sets explicit limits on what the federal government can and can't do and on what the states can't do. You can check out what states aren't allowed to do under article 1 section 10. Everything else is left up to the states.

The tyranny that is most directly prevented is tyranny at the federal level. Tyranny at more local levels is combated by allowing persons living in any one state or locality to move to any other state of locality freely.

[unconsious767]

Thanks!