Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: 6 Rights You Could Lose

  1. #1

    Default 6 Rights You Could Lose

    hxx ttp://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/6-Rights-Lost-Under-Ron-Paul.htm

    Under President Ron P
    Last edited by sailingaway; 05-07-2012 at 01:30 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Just post them here, I don't care to go to their site.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  4. #3

    Default

    I (liberal) buddy of mine just sent this to me on facebook.

  5. #4

    Default

    Ron Paul is a marketing genius. His Tenth Amendment paleoconservative schtick sounds like a small-government philosophy - but if you look at how it would actually affect your day-to-day life, it's clear that the system he proposes would actually be much more restrictive, and much more authoritarian, than that of any of his primary opponents.

    If Ron Paul is elected president and gets the full power of Congress behind him, you can say goodbye to these six basic rights - starting with...


    1. Your right to privacy.
    In 2005, Rep. Ron Paul sponsored the We the People Act (H.R. 539), a bill intended to limit the power of the Supreme Court. While the law would appear to be a prima facie violation of the separation of powers (necessitating a constitutional amendment for enforcement), Paul took it seriously and made it a centerpiece of his legislative policy agenda.

    The law's primary function was to eliminate the right to privacy as it had been defined in past Supreme Court cases. Section 3 explicitly states that (emphasis mine)...

    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
    (1) shall not adjudicate--
    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
    (C) 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; and

    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."

    As we'll discuss below, this would have major repercussions on LGBT rights and reproductive rights, which rely on an implicit privacy right extended by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments - but because it doesn't specify what kind of privacy rights are covered by this clause, it would also overturn all search-and-seizure restrictions brought about by federal rulings grounded in the Fourth Amendment.

    End result: if put into effect, Ron Paul's policy agenda would allow unlimited government searches and unlimited government surveillance - restricted only by state-level rulings, which don't apply to federal law enforcement agencies. It would also interfere with...

    Ads

    Dinner With Barack ObamaLearn how you can have dinner with President Obama.barackobama.com/dinner-with-barack

    Wisconsin Recall UpdateTom Barrett will stand up to Scott Walker. Join us today!www.BarrettForWisconsin.com

    Clean Up Credit ReportWe Offer Credit Repair, Restoration & Education. Free Evaluation Here!www.RepairMyCreditNow.com


    2. Your right to have sex.
    It's no secret that Ron Paul's political future hinges on the Religious Right, which has controlled the Republican base for thirty years. And few things upset the Religious Right more over the past decade than Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-gay sodomy laws on the basis of the implicit right to privacy.

    Ron Paul hated this ruling, writing in an essay that "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution" and that "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex."

    So it's probably not a coincidence that Rep. Paul wrote the We the People Act while the ink was still drying on Lawrence, and specifically included a clause pertaining to privacy-rights rulings having to do with "any issue of sexual practices..." If put into effect, the We the People Act would overturn Lawrence and - especially coupled with the general prohibition on privacy rights described above - give the bedroom police more power than they have ever had before. And it would destroy federal circuit court rulings based on Lawrence's privacy standard, which have overturned archaic laws banning everything from cohabitation to sex toys.

    And if you do only have the heterosexual, missionary, married sex that would be permitted in Ron Paul's America, that could spell trouble, because Ron Paul would also eliminate...

    3. Your right to purchase and use birth control.
    It's no secret that Ron Paul wants to ban abortion; he's said so since at least 1981, when he infamously compared abortion to the Holocaust and described Roe v. Wade (1973) as "the ultimate state tyranny." Sadly, that's pretty standard rhetoric for a national Republican candidate - and his decision to join with other Republican candidates in support of a federal Human Life Amendment banning abortion is consistent with that fairly common position. But his radically authoritarian views on birth control are much more eccentric.

    The right to privacy as we currently understand it was defined not in Roe, but eight years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). It was there that the Supreme Court defined bodily autonomy as implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, establishing the very right to privacy that the We the People Act would overturn. And because the We the People Act would prohibit new privacy-related federal court cases on issues dealing with "sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction," the federal court system would be helpless to prevent future state-level bans on birth control. Ron Paul has also attacked U.S. Department of Health funding for birth control on dozens of occasions, referring to reproductive health funding as a series of "government family-planning schemes."

    And be careful how you protest in Ron Paul's America, because one of the first things to go would be...

    4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.
    Many Ron Paul supporters have taken to using a modified U.S. flag as their online profile picture - upside down, crossed out, burning, or otherwise indicative of protest. But if their candidate was actually elected, his history indicates that this would become illegal in many states.

    Ron Paul doesn't get much flak on this issue because he has consistently opposed federal constitutional amendments banning flag burning, most recently - and persuasively - in a 2003 speech. But pay special attention to how he closed that speech:
    We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
    He wasn't kidding. In 1997, Rep. Paul had already proposed a constitutional amendment:
    SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.
    And if you're familiar with the history of flag desecration statutes, you know that they have historically been enforced on a state level anyway. Ron Paul is fine with laws banning flag burning; he just wants to be sure they're not enforced by the federal government, and he wants to be sure the federal court system doesn't interfere with their enforcement.

    And this isn't the only First Amendment issue where Ron Paul runs right of center. No, he would also eliminate...

    5. Your right to exercise your own religious beliefs.
    You may have noticed section 1(A) of the We the People Act above, which would have eliminated all federal court precedents "relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion." Does this make you nervous? It should, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), because it allows any state to target minority faiths and uncommon religious practices. It also allows states to marble the distinction between religious doctrine and secular law - exactly the sort of theocratic policymaking that has done so much damage in the Middle East and elsewhere.

    The federal court system is the sole mechanism of enforcement for the U.S. Bill of Rights. By removing questions of religious free exercise and church-state separation from federal judicial consideration, Ron Paul would be, in effect, repealing those parts of the First Amendment. This is no accident. According to a December 2003 speech, he sees himself as a leader in what he appears to see as a Dominionist struggle against the perpetuation of a secular, "collectivist" state:
    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers ... Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion ... The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage."
    And all of these rights either follow naturally from, or exist in connection with, a fundamental right with which Ron Paul is not in sympathy...

    6. Your right to equal protection under the law.
    When I wrote about Ron Paul four years ago, he had no real chance of capturing the Republican nomination - and I argued that his ideas, which represented a then-unique paleoconservative agenda, could have a positive effect on what looked to be an increasingly neoconservative Republican Party:
    "...[T]here is still one Jeffersonian left in Congress, and his name is Ron Paul. However slim his chances of capturing the nomination, however impractical his ideas, his appeal to the Tenth Amendment is no thinly veiled reference to the days of segregation. He is serious about advocating Thomas Jefferson's approach in every area of government, and the consistency of his platform is both uncommon and refreshing."
    Now that the Tea Party has made Ron Paul a mainstream figure, his views are less refreshing than unsettling. We've now known for years about Ron Paul's racist book and newsletters, and much has been made, by his supporters, of anecdotal evidence suggesting that his actions have not always been as harsh as his words, or (less believably) that until recently he had no idea what had been published and sent to his constituents under his name, using his policy vocabulary, with his funds, over a period of decades.

    But this is an article about policy concerns, and intent - malicious or otherwise - is not policy. As I wrote in 2009, regarding racial profiling:
    For two consecutive years, strong segments of the U.S. Supreme Court have held that intent is the defining standard in discrimination suits. Justice Scalia's concurrence in the Crawford v. Marion County (2008) voter ID case would have legalized not only restrictive voter ID laws, but also (if followed to its logical conclusion) the old Jim Crow standards of poll taxes and literacy tests. And the Supreme Court's execrable majority opinion in ... Ricci v. DeStefano hamstrings the decent efforts of municipalities and other local governments to address real racial disparities in their midst by holding them to the impossible standard of proving, in a court of law, that racial disparities are more intentional than the attempts to address them.

    What both of these opinions have in common is that they say that intent defines discrimination--that discrimination is about the 93% and the 7%, about Sgt. Crowley and me, and not about the people who are actually affected by these policies. It is, in and of itself, a racist standard that denies the validity of the experiences of people of color.
    What matters most to me is what Ron Paul's policy agenda would do, not the state of his soul, and in that respect his record is damning. His radical commitment to a state's rights agenda has given him a Dixiecrat's civil rights platform. He has worked against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the application of Brown v. Board of Education. He has proposed amending the Constitution to retroactively strip citizenship from native-born Americans based on their parents' immigration violations.

    Does this sound like a civil libertarian to you?

  6. #5

    Default

    Love it, the authoritarian liberals are wetting their pants.

    Next thing they'll be whining about their rights to my income to pay for all their crap too.

    Fact is nobody owes us anything, and while Federalism isn't perfect it's better than Globalism.

    At least in Federalism you have the freedom to move to where the local social mores and such best suit your beliefs, but in Globalism if you don't like your alternatives you are stuck.

    Ron Paul, by limiting the Federal Government to those explicit powers granted in the Constitution, would no more take away your right to have sex or take birth control or even have abortions. If these things are done it will be by your State government, and since the Constitution doesn't pretend to establish a tyranny of the majority the States would have more power than they do now and there would undoubtedly be States that did restrict some of these activities.

    But not all would, and it would be fought out on a more local level than National or Global, and there's nothing wrong with that to me.

    Only wannabee tyrants wish for their opinions to apply to everybody all the time all over the world.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  7. #6
    Member talkingpointes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix,Az
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Realistically I should of stopped reading at "rights lost under Paul". These people are serious. I can't help it but to laugh.

  8. #7

    Default

    This guy really is confused. For example, Dr. Paul was trying to thwart a one-size-fits-all federal law about flag burning and per the 10th amendment, leave it up to the states and the people. While I doubt he personally agrees with burning our flag, I also doubt he would vote to pass any law prohibiting another American from doing it.
    “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”
    he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political
    action.
    ” -- Ron Paul


    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

    The Property Basis of Rights

  9. #8

    Default

    At least he knows Dr, Paul will be president.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    This guy really is confused. For example, Dr. Paul was trying to thwart a one-size-fits-all federal law about flag burning and per the 10th amendment, leave it up to the states and the people. While I doubt he personally agrees with burning our flag, I also doubt he would vote to pass any law prohibiting another American from doing it.
    I doubt he's confused, he's just capitalizing on other people's confusion.
    Well, I got Rand started on his campaign (just search around here to see). I advised Thomas Massie before he ran for Congress. I am currently advising 2 liberty campaigns for the state legislature. I ran the war-room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul a few weeks back. There are other things I'm probably forgetting.
    Yet I can't afford $200 to go to a seminar--Matt Collins

  11. #10

    Default

    This appears to be the meat of his objection:

    "I don't understand how you are against the idea that certain equalities and rights should be equally guaranteed no matter where you are in the US."


    "I don't quite understand how you proclaim to want to protect civil/individual rights by eradicating measures that are meant to protect them from the state and local governments."
    Last edited by Nickwanz; 05-07-2012 at 12:20 PM.

  12. #11
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    of course, they wait until Saton rum is out of the race, then they release this nonsense. where were they when we could've used this crap?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nickwanz View Post
    Ron Paul is a marketing genius. His Tenth Amendment paleoconservative schtick sounds like a small-government philosophy - but if you look at how it would actually affect your day-to-day life, it's clear that the system he proposes would actually be much more restrictive, and much more authoritarian, than that of any of his primary opponents.

    If Ron Paul is elected president and gets the full power of Congress behind him, you can say goodbye to these six basic rights - starting with...


    1. Your right to privacy.
    In 2005, Rep. Ron Paul sponsored the We the People Act (H.R. 539), a bill intended to limit the power of the Supreme Court. While the law would appear to be a prima facie violation of the separation of powers (necessitating a constitutional amendment for enforcement), Paul took it seriously and made it a centerpiece of his legislative policy agenda.

    The law's primary function was to eliminate the right to privacy as it had been defined in past Supreme Court cases. Section 3 explicitly states that (emphasis mine)...

    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
    (1) shall not adjudicate--
    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
    (C) 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; and

    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)."

    As we'll discuss below, this would have major repercussions on LGBT rights and reproductive rights, which rely on an implicit privacy right extended by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments - but because it doesn't specify what kind of privacy rights are covered by this clause, it would also overturn all search-and-seizure restrictions brought about by federal rulings grounded in the Fourth Amendment.

    End result: if put into effect, Ron Paul's policy agenda would allow unlimited government searches and unlimited government surveillance - restricted only by state-level rulings, which don't apply to federal law enforcement agencies. It would also interfere with...

    Ads

    Dinner With Barack ObamaLearn how you can have dinner with President Obama.barackobama.com/dinner-with-barack

    Wisconsin Recall UpdateTom Barrett will stand up to Scott Walker. Join us today!www.BarrettForWisconsin.com

    Clean Up Credit ReportWe Offer Credit Repair, Restoration & Education. Free Evaluation Here!www.RepairMyCreditNow.com


    2. Your right to have sex.
    It's no secret that Ron Paul's political future hinges on the Religious Right, which has controlled the Republican base for thirty years. And few things upset the Religious Right more over the past decade than Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-gay sodomy laws on the basis of the implicit right to privacy.

    Ron Paul hated this ruling, writing in an essay that "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution" and that "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex."

    So it's probably not a coincidence that Rep. Paul wrote the We the People Act while the ink was still drying on Lawrence, and specifically included a clause pertaining to privacy-rights rulings having to do with "any issue of sexual practices..." If put into effect, the We the People Act would overturn Lawrence and - especially coupled with the general prohibition on privacy rights described above - give the bedroom police more power than they have ever had before. And it would destroy federal circuit court rulings based on Lawrence's privacy standard, which have overturned archaic laws banning everything from cohabitation to sex toys.

    And if you do only have the heterosexual, missionary, married sex that would be permitted in Ron Paul's America, that could spell trouble, because Ron Paul would also eliminate...

    3. Your right to purchase and use birth control.
    It's no secret that Ron Paul wants to ban abortion; he's said so since at least 1981, when he infamously compared abortion to the Holocaust and described Roe v. Wade (1973) as "the ultimate state tyranny." Sadly, that's pretty standard rhetoric for a national Republican candidate - and his decision to join with other Republican candidates in support of a federal Human Life Amendment banning abortion is consistent with that fairly common position. But his radically authoritarian views on birth control are much more eccentric.

    The right to privacy as we currently understand it was defined not in Roe, but eight years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). It was there that the Supreme Court defined bodily autonomy as implicit in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, establishing the very right to privacy that the We the People Act would overturn. And because the We the People Act would prohibit new privacy-related federal court cases on issues dealing with "sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction," the federal court system would be helpless to prevent future state-level bans on birth control. Ron Paul has also attacked U.S. Department of Health funding for birth control on dozens of occasions, referring to reproductive health funding as a series of "government family-planning schemes."

    And be careful how you protest in Ron Paul's America, because one of the first things to go would be...

    4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.
    Many Ron Paul supporters have taken to using a modified U.S. flag as their online profile picture - upside down, crossed out, burning, or otherwise indicative of protest. But if their candidate was actually elected, his history indicates that this would become illegal in many states.

    Ron Paul doesn't get much flak on this issue because he has consistently opposed federal constitutional amendments banning flag burning, most recently - and persuasively - in a 2003 speech. But pay special attention to how he closed that speech:
    We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
    He wasn't kidding. In 1997, Rep. Paul had already proposed a constitutional amendment:
    SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.
    And if you're familiar with the history of flag desecration statutes, you know that they have historically been enforced on a state level anyway. Ron Paul is fine with laws banning flag burning; he just wants to be sure they're not enforced by the federal government, and he wants to be sure the federal court system doesn't interfere with their enforcement.

    And this isn't the only First Amendment issue where Ron Paul runs right of center. No, he would also eliminate...

    5. Your right to exercise your own religious beliefs.
    You may have noticed section 1(A) of the We the People Act above, which would have eliminated all federal court precedents "relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion." Does this make you nervous? It should, regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof), because it allows any state to target minority faiths and uncommon religious practices. It also allows states to marble the distinction between religious doctrine and secular law - exactly the sort of theocratic policymaking that has done so much damage in the Middle East and elsewhere.

    The federal court system is the sole mechanism of enforcement for the U.S. Bill of Rights. By removing questions of religious free exercise and church-state separation from federal judicial consideration, Ron Paul would be, in effect, repealing those parts of the First Amendment. This is no accident. According to a December 2003 speech, he sees himself as a leader in what he appears to see as a Dominionist struggle against the perpetuation of a secular, "collectivist" state:
    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers ... Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion ... The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage."
    And all of these rights either follow naturally from, or exist in connection with, a fundamental right with which Ron Paul is not in sympathy...

    6. Your right to equal protection under the law.
    When I wrote about Ron Paul four years ago, he had no real chance of capturing the Republican nomination - and I argued that his ideas, which represented a then-unique paleoconservative agenda, could have a positive effect on what looked to be an increasingly neoconservative Republican Party:
    "...[T]here is still one Jeffersonian left in Congress, and his name is Ron Paul. However slim his chances of capturing the nomination, however impractical his ideas, his appeal to the Tenth Amendment is no thinly veiled reference to the days of segregation. He is serious about advocating Thomas Jefferson's approach in every area of government, and the consistency of his platform is both uncommon and refreshing."
    Now that the Tea Party has made Ron Paul a mainstream figure, his views are less refreshing than unsettling. We've now known for years about Ron Paul's racist book and newsletters, and much has been made, by his supporters, of anecdotal evidence suggesting that his actions have not always been as harsh as his words, or (less believably) that until recently he had no idea what had been published and sent to his constituents under his name, using his policy vocabulary, with his funds, over a period of decades.

    But this is an article about policy concerns, and intent - malicious or otherwise - is not policy. As I wrote in 2009, regarding racial profiling:
    For two consecutive years, strong segments of the U.S. Supreme Court have held that intent is the defining standard in discrimination suits. Justice Scalia's concurrence in the Crawford v. Marion County (2008) voter ID case would have legalized not only restrictive voter ID laws, but also (if followed to its logical conclusion) the old Jim Crow standards of poll taxes and literacy tests. And the Supreme Court's execrable majority opinion in ... Ricci v. DeStefano hamstrings the decent efforts of municipalities and other local governments to address real racial disparities in their midst by holding them to the impossible standard of proving, in a court of law, that racial disparities are more intentional than the attempts to address them.

    What both of these opinions have in common is that they say that intent defines discrimination--that discrimination is about the 93% and the 7%, about Sgt. Crowley and me, and not about the people who are actually affected by these policies. It is, in and of itself, a racist standard that denies the validity of the experiences of people of color.
    What matters most to me is what Ron Paul's policy agenda would do, not the state of his soul, and in that respect his record is damning. His radical commitment to a state's rights agenda has given him a Dixiecrat's civil rights platform. He has worked against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the application of Brown v. Board of Education. He has proposed amending the Constitution to retroactively strip citizenship from native-born Americans based on their parents' immigration violations.

    Does this sound like a civil libertarian to you?
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 05-07-2012 at 12:12 PM.

  13. #12

    Default

    God.. he just sent me this now..

    hxxps://www.facebook.com/#!/nicholas.prioletti/posts/404901789531045?notif_t=share_wall_create


    which is like the same article just older.

  14. #13

    Default

    You'll never win an argument against an altruist. They won't be happy until there are no more individual rights, and only collective "group" rights as dictated by central planners... aka no rights. Best to just let them cry and scream as we wean them off their dependence like heroin addicts...

  15. #14
    Untimely ripped fisharmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location! Location!
    Posts
    7,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Love it, the authoritarian liberals are wetting their pants.
    "Holy crap... you know that guy who is actually going to stop the wars we said we were going to stop?"
    "Yeah, so?"
    "He's getting somewhere."
    "Quick - make up some scary quasi-factual stories about homosexuality and abortion!"
    "Brilliant! That's obviously what got Barack into office. We can't lose!"
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  16. #15

    Default

    Rights don't come from government, they come from the Creator. Any "right" that the government gives you isn't actually right at all.
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  17. #16
    Truth is treason ... Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Empire of Lies
    Posts
    8,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickwanz View Post
    It's no secret that Ron Paul's political future hinges on the Religious Right, [...]
    I wondered, "Is this worth bothering to read?" Skimmed text. Saw this. Answer: "Nope!"
    tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito · fiat justitia, ruat caelum · sic semper tyrannis
    The Bastiat Collection - FREE PDF

    Frédéric Bastiat
    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

  18. #17

    Default

    I'm interested in picking your friend's mind. Casually start up a debate for him, he's already presented you with a platform.
    When life leaves us blind, love keeps us kind. - Linkin Park
    R3VOLUTION

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickwanz View Post
    This appears to be the meat of his objection:

    "I don't understand how you are against the idea that certain equalities and rights should be equally guaranteed no matter where you are in the US."


    "I don't quite understand how you proclaim to want to protect civil/individual rights by eradicating measures that are meant to protect them from the state and local governments."
    Why limit these questions to the US? Why not insist that if equal rights should be guaranteed around the whole world, and demand that there be a global government that will oversee the subjugation of all the nations that fail to guarantee those rights?
    I’m not a libertarian. I’m not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  20. #19

    Default

    How in God's name would he make it so that you can't buy birth control? Have they not been watching the debates?

    They have also clearly never heard Ron Paul speak of they would have seen this interview about the right to privacy:



    Or this debate in which in he says that the government needs to stay out of marriage all together:



    I think it's funny how they always cut out part of the quote on sodomy laws to make him seem bad. They always leave out "Ridiculous as sodomy laws are...". Anyway, he's right, there is no "right" to sodomy in the Constitution.

    Who will they (the person who wrote the article) be voting for? Obama?

    Last edited by DerailingDaTrain; 05-07-2012 at 01:25 PM.

  21. #20

    Default

    1. Your right to privacy.

    The Text of the bill in question

    I am not surprised that Ron Paul would support such a bill, It is very consistent with what Ron Paul campaigns upon.

    One area where I disagree with Ron Paul, is on the point where he wants to put states rights before the rest of the Constitution. I for one, prefer the current way constitutional provisions apply to the States.

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
    2. Your right to have sex.

    The Letter in question

    Again, No surprise here, in fact, it's nearly the same as point number 1.

    3. Your right to purchase and use birth control.

    Not even "almost the same" as point number 1, but this time, it refers to the exact same bill as point number 1. I think that maybe It's unfair to use the "We the people act" to say that Ron Paul is against the principle of every single supreme court ruling in history.


    4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.

    The Bill in question

    This one is a little bit damning. I know that It is again about "states rights" but in this particular instance, a constitutional amendment to affirm state's rights of something so narrow as flag burning, seems incredibly improper to me.

    5. Your right to exercise your own religious beliefs


    Again, the exact same as point number 1. Again, this is a point where I half-disagree with Ron Paul on. I agree that people should be free to pray at school if they want to, and I support the Boy Scouts upholding their religion however they feel proper. When public money subsidizes a private origination, Whether or not that organization happens to be religious is unimportant to me.

    That being said, I believe that there should never ever be any religion in our laws whatsoever.

    6. Your right to equal protection under the law.

    Again, the author is confusing policy with process, But I wouldn't be too hard on him for this one. I'm sure that many of you are guilty of the same fault
    Last edited by Sam I am; 05-07-2012 at 01:26 PM.
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Love it, the authoritarian liberals are wetting their pants.

    Next thing they'll be whining about their rights to my income to pay for all their crap too.

    Fact is nobody owes us anything, and while Federalism isn't perfect it's better than Globalism.

    At least in Federalism you have the freedom to move to where the local social mores and such best suit your beliefs, but in Globalism if you don't like your alternatives you are stuck.

    Ron Paul, by limiting the Federal Government to those explicit powers granted in the Constitution, would no more take away your right to have sex or take birth control or even have abortions. If these things are done it will be by your State government, and since the Constitution doesn't pretend to establish a tyranny of the majority the States would have more power than they do now and there would undoubtedly be States that did restrict some of these activities.

    But not all would, and it would be fought out on a more local level than National or Global, and there's nothing wrong with that to me.

    Only wannabee tyrants wish for their opinions to apply to everybody all the time all over the world.
    Well said. May I use it?
    R[∃vo˩]ution

    I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. -Ronald Reagan

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hillertexas View Post
    Well said. May I use it?
    Only if you + rep me.

    I've turned into a full-time attention whore it seems. That's me on the right

    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Only if you + rep me.
    Way ahead of ya.
    R[∃vo˩]ution

    I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. -Ronald Reagan

  25. #24
    Member John F Kennedy III's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Portland, OR (FEMA Region X)
    Posts
    11,471

    Default

    Someone stop this maniac! We can't let crazy Uncle Paul take our rights away! We need 4 more years of Obama, who has been working so hard to give us our liberties back after the filthy republicans took them away from us!
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    There would be riots in the streets, if boobus gave one shit about his honor.
    UN Agenda 21 Explained

    The Single Most Important Documentary I've Ever Found

    Robert Downey Jr will learn you how to pimp. If you ever need to know.

    How the GOP stole the nomination

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickwanz View Post
    2. Your right to have sex.
    What?!? Since when have I had this right? I'm outta here.


    Last edited by Danke; 05-07-2012 at 03:10 PM.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    What?!? Since when have I had this right? I'm outta here.


    RIP






« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •