Current Topics
Round Table For Week Of April 13th-April 19th, 2014
by logtroll
0 seconds ago
The New American Center: Why our nation isn't as divided as we think
by NW Ponderer
Today at 04:20 PM
Militias ‘mobilizing’ to support embattled Clark County rancher
by NW Ponderer
Today at 03:19 PM
University asks for ideas on how to have fewer white people
by Ardy
Today at 01:26 PM
Has Rush Limbaugh Finally Reached the End Of The Road?
by Scoutgal
Today at 12:16 PM
Chick-fil-A Looks to Lower the Heat on Gay Marriage
by Scoutgal
Today at 11:54 AM
How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission
by NW Ponderer
Today at 10:56 AM
How Privileged Are You?
by Spag-hetti
Today at 12:24 AM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Golem
Yesterday at 11:23 PM
UNICEF's 'Poo2Loo' campaign targets open defecation in India with ...
by Ardy
Yesterday at 10:55 PM
Racist, rabid-right Republicans
by california rick
04/15/14 10:18 PM
An interesting take on county rule
by Jeffery J. Haas
04/15/14 08:03 PM
Liberals Are Seriously Exaggerating the Loss of Colbert 'The Character'
by NW Ponderer
04/15/14 07:29 PM
Google Buys Drone Company Titan Aerospace
by Golem
04/15/14 01:23 PM
Why do republicans so despise and hate Obama
by california rick
04/14/14 12:49 PM
Forum Stats
6003 Members
55 Forums
14000 Topics
243645 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 01:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 22 >
Topic Options
#209924 - 01/21/12 02:56 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: AustinRanter]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
'
Originally Posted By: AustinRanter

Numan, forgive Ron Paul for the pot error promise thingy.

People who run for president often forget what presidential powers are....

I am quite sure that Ron Paul does not forget for a moment what presidential powers are and are not.

What he is counting on is that the vulgar herd does not have a clue as to what those powers are.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
#209928 - 01/21/12 03:07 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: california rick]
Ardy Offline
veteran

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 11120
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
Originally Posted By: california rick

I find this statement odd given that Representative Paul is already aware of Lawrence v Texas and knows that this matter is settled law by the SCOTUS



Paul is also probably aware that the earth is more then 6000 years old.... which does not prevent him from acting like he can understand people who have that opinion.... and possibly may have that opinion himself

People can have all sorts of peculiar opinions.... they can even hold self contradictory opinion.

I suggest that we simply focus on Paul's opposition to a war mongering foreign policy... when we get that issue sorted out, we can move on to all these other issues.
_________________________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Top
#209931 - 01/21/12 03:21 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: Ted Remington]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 25426
Loc: CA USA
Originally Posted By: churlpat lives
Since his campaign appears near dead, I suggest we call his followers Paul Bearers.


ROTFMOL
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#209932 - 01/21/12 03:28 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: california rick]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 25426
Loc: CA USA
Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
Rick, this thread is not about the Patriot act, please return to topic and stop being such a Paulbot.

Excuse me, being a "Paulbot" is about the Patriot Act. Hello!?!



No, that is only one issue. So maybe you are just being a Johnny One Note. I do have to ask you...if you are so het up on keeping your freedom, why do you demand that we vote for someone who is so anti-gay as to want to lock you back up in the closet(which you claim to abhor and want to force others out of)??? You will be trading one perceived prison for a real one with RP is elected and gets to implement his policies. Hmm
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#209933 - 01/21/12 03:31 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: california rick]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 10327
Loc: Downey, California
Originally Posted By: california rick

There's pot, then there's "medical" marijuana.


NO, there ISN'T...not here in Tex-ass.

Rick, you think it's going to be OKAY to live in what is essentially a collection of fifty sovereign republics protected by a central army (more on that later) but I don't think most people cotton to that idea....

...if they only realized that THAT IS what awaits them in a Ron Paul administration.
_________________________
"Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek,
to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?"

---Benjamin Bratton

Top
#209935 - 01/21/12 03:40 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: Bill Cravener]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 10327
Loc: Downey, California
(more on that later!)

It's LATER!

Since Ron Paul believes that money and property equal freedom, what's to stop the army of right wing libertarians from PRIVATIZING THAT PORTION of the military industrial complex that deals specifically with pursuing an oil/dollar hegemony campaign against all those nice brown people in the rest of the world which happen to be living on top of great big piles of the stuff?

Yep, one nice big happy Blackwater style family!

No he is NOT privatizing the military, he is only making a sound economic decision which, in what I imagine would be the words of a Ron Paul military spokesman, frees the rest of the military to pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy as he promised.

Never mind that we would now have an INTERVENTIONIST MERCENARY army which dwarfs the non-interventionist army in size, scope and capability, Ron Paul is simply making an economic adjustment which frees us of the enormous debt that comes from running a large oil seeking publicly funded military.

He's just selling off that part which the corporations, which already own the rest of the government, WANT.

And since they would now OWN that part of the military, they are now free to do as they wish.

Don't like it? Go hire a lawyer to stop them!
Or, pick up your shotgun and wait for the war party to arrive at your doorstep because in a Ron Paul administration you have the right to defend yourself against any enemy that wants you dead, all you have to do is buy a large enough private army to protect yourselves.

What? Those enemy soldiers come from a country whose government doesn't play by Ron Paul's rules and doesn't differentiate between corporate and government sponsored armies?

Oh well, too bad, it's because they're communists of course!
_________________________
"Our options for change range from basically what we have plus a little more Hayek,
to what we have plus a little more Keynes. Why?"

---Benjamin Bratton

Top
#209941 - 01/21/12 04:12 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: california rick]
Ardy Offline
veteran

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 11120
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
Rick, this thread is not about the Patriot act, please return to topic and stop being such a Paulbot.

Excuse me, being a "Paulbot" is about the Patriot Act. Hello!?!



Too bad
I had hoped that I had finally found a candidate who thought that the non-interventionist foreign policy was kinda important... rather than a smoke screen for all these other issues.... which are what is really important to the Paul bearers.



Edited by Ardy (01/21/12 05:08 PM)
_________________________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Top
#209952 - 01/21/12 04:51 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: Ardy]
AustinRanter Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 3643
Loc: Austin, Texas
If Paul's non-intervention was his only position.

IMO...(I've stated before)

Even though I know that if Paul was president, he couldn't implement many of his positions. The facts remain, Ron Paul’s political positions are complex, somewhat unorthodox, and are often driven by his ideology to disempower, redefine and restructure the federal government - with little regard for the practical consequence to society.

To assume that because of his unorthodox political positions that he is a breed outside of the Washington norm and would bring a better solutions to our nation, I believe is a serious mistake.
_________________________
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" wink

Yours Truly - Gregg



Top
#209970 - 01/21/12 06:00 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: california rick]
Ozymanithrax Offline
member

Registered: 04/11/11
Posts: 1343
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: Ozymanithrax
In Paul's own words, "Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

I find this statement odd given that Representative Paul is already aware of Lawrence v Texas and knows that this matter is settled law by the SCOTUS in 1996 and to invoke 'state rights' - which Texas has already asserted - violated the fourteenth amendment's "liberty" protected in "due process" of intimate relationships.

If you read what I linked Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution you wpu;d have notcied that Ron Paul does not believe in settled law.

Quote:
ned that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.


The right to privacy under the 14th Amendment is settled law though dozens of Supreme Court Cases. Ron Paul states it doesn't exist. He has no respect for settled law.

Should he be elected, he will have a Department of Justice that will follow his philosophy.Since right to privacy, settled Constitutional law, doesn't exist, he would not see any reason to defend those cases.

Both Obama and Bush have chosen parts of law that they do not defend. Obama does not defend the Protection of Marriage Act, a highly discriminatory law. How will Ron Paul's Justice Department protect laws that he beleves don't even exist, though they are settled constituitonal law.

Paul suppots the Citizens United Case, a case that swept away more than a century of settled law. HIs reasoning is that the owners of corproations are people and they can do anything they want. Again, this case swept away a century of settled law. Ron Paul doesn't respect settled law.

Ron Paul doesn't believe that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship of those born here. This is anothe piece of settled law from the 1860's. It is an amendment to the Constitution. Ron Paul has no respect for settled law.

Your comment on "settled law" is utterly wrong in light of Ron Paul's own words. For Ron Paul, settled law means nothing. His comments in Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution show that he is happy to sweep away settled law concerning a right to privacy and the separation of chruch and state.
_________________________
“If you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated." Saul Alinskey

Top
#209976 - 01/21/12 06:22 PM Re: The Paulbot enigma. [Re: Scoutgal]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 35477
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
...maybe you are just being a Johnny One Note...

Originally Posted By: Ozymanithrax
...Ron Paul does not believe in settled law.

The ideal you seek from me is this: Which is more important to me, individual freedoms prior to NDAA and the Patriot Act - or - who I love.

Individual freedoms. I'm an American first, a gay man 2nd.




(Besides, those 'prison stories' exist for a reason. Hello! I'm covered. wink )


_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
Page 5 of 22 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 21 22 >

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 10 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
xiawei, Marzman, kyleyoung8, Retread, solafeian
6003 Registered Users
A2