Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

ron paul is not a libertarian championing for personal liberty. he is an anti-federalist seeking to empower the states in oppressing individuals.

What the we the people act does is prevent the us supreme court from defending the constitutional rights of citizens when a state chooses to infringe on them. But only in such a way that it champions the conservative agenda of enforcing religious mandates and abolishing abortion one state at a time.

[Wrex]

Protip: Work on using more details. Speaking in generalities makes you come off as slightly insane.

[Nadaka]

Protip: Work on using more details. Speaking in generalities makes you come off as slightly insane.

On the contrary, I find anyone who would defend Ron Paul as anything other conservative christian theocrat who believes in pillage and burn economics and is willing to abuse or tear down the federal government to get it is slightly insane.

On DOMA: section 3 specifies that same sex marriage and civil unions are not recognized for any federal purpose, including military spousal benefits and social security survivors benefits and tax returns. Its not just about protecting anti-gay marriage states from being forced to recognize gay marriage and civil unions, it prohibits the us federal government from recognizing gay marriages and civil unions.

It explicitly uses the authority of the federal government, a violation of his anti-federalist position (but its ok because its used against the scary gays) to strip rights and entitlements from people, even when those rights and entitlements are being recognized and protected by states. It protects the "States rights" of states that are banning gay marriage and civil unions, but violating "states rights" for states allowing gay marriage and civil unions.

the WTPA explicitly enables states to enact laws that infringe on privacy, religious and gender issues without challenge or rebuke by the supreme court. If it was passed, it would mean that Utah could pass a law that only Mormons could hold office, or Michigan could make practicing Islam a crime punishable by death. The supreme court of the US is the last line of defense against the passage of unjust law. And the WTPA is designed to break that last line of defense against religious and gender/orientation oppression at the state level. It is basically Ron Paul trying to worm his way around the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine, but only for the specific ways that he wants states to be able to oppress people rights. This law really is that bad.

[Wrex]

Protip: Work on using more details. Speaking in generalities makes you come off as slightly insane.

On the contrary, I find anyone who would defend Ron Paul as anything other conservative christian theocrat who believes in pillage and burn economics and is willing to abuse or tear down the federal government to get it is slightly insane.

On DOMA: section 3 specifies that same sex marriage and civil unions are not recognized for any federal purpose, including military spousal benefits and social security survivors benefits and tax returns. Its not just about protecting anti-gay marriage states from being forced to recognize gay marriage and civil unions, it prohibits the us federal government from recognizing gay marriages and civil unions.

It explicitly uses the authority of the federal government, a violation of his anti-federalist position (but its ok because its used against the scary gays) to strip rights and entitlements from people, even when those rights and entitlements are being recognized and protected by states. It protects the "States rights" of states that are banning gay marriage and civil unions, but violating "states rights" for states allowing gay marriage and civil unions.

the WTPA explicitly enables states to enact laws that infringe on privacy, religious and gender issues without challenge or rebuke by the supreme court. If it was passed, it would mean that Utah could pass a law that only Mormons could hold office, or Michigan could make practicing Islam a crime punishable by death. The supreme court of the US is the last line of defense against the passage of unjust law. And the WTPA is designed to break that last line of defense against religious and gender/orientation oppression at the state level. It is basically Ron Paul trying to worm his way around the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine, but only for the specific ways that he wants states to be able to oppress people rights. This law really is that bad.

I wasn't disagreeing with him. At all. It's just that sometimes it's hard to state an argument convincingly, which you, as a lawyer, have no problems with.

[Nadaka]

Im not the lawyer

[Wrex]

Im not the lawyer

)_). I could have sworn truean made that last post. Whoops. Teach me not to look at the poster when replying. So, uh, redirect all comments to you, I guess?

[Descan]

It's the avatar. It looks like Trueans cat.

[Nadaka]

Im not the lawyer

)_). I could have sworn truean made that last post. Whoops. Teach me not to look at the poster when replying. So, uh, redirect all comments to you, I guess?

I do tend to er on the side of brevity (which is not something that can generally be said for Truean), so the original  tip "Work on using more details." isn't really that far off.

[Wrex]

It's not that you are wrong, per se, it's that being brief can lead to distrust when the other guy is willing to blather on for half an hour about how "Abortion is murder". THe herd listens to the loudest, after all.

[Truean]

Yes I'm wordy and I charge by the hour. Lol. Actually no. In real life I hardly say anything by comparison. Here I'm trying to talk though. Here I also throw in some stylistic elements as well. It's a crazy thing, words, somehow you can have two different people say the exact same thing to different people and not get the same message across.

It's about what you say, how you say it, who you say it to, and why you say it, rather than how long you take to say it.

Fine line between too much detail and not enough. When you're trying to stoke a thread from the second page of a message board though....

It's the avatar. It looks like Trueans cat.

Scarf, tentacles, tentacles, scarf. Close enough around here. [hug]

[Descan]

Yay, unsolicited hugs! Those are the best kind... After parcheesi and naked hugs.

[EveryZig]

It's the avatar. It looks like Trueans cat.

I never noticed that before, but it is so obvious now...

[Solifuge]

Man, I dunno, maybe I'm just too much of a seasoned burnt out vet for this, but I've seen and fought a decent chunk of the world close by and far away. I can't comprehend how the notion of the libertarian ideal of just letting anybody do whatever they want for the most part is supposed to work. Forget that being called anarchy, look at a school playground. The rest of you halfway decent people don't stand a chance against the brutes, the bastards, the bullies without some rules to keep things going. I dunno, to me libertarianism and Paul's ideas just have their head firmly planted in the sand concerning counter corruption measures, which the market will not provide and will in fact discourage. Jaded? Yes. I WANT to believe it, but I don't. Ignoring corruption is like trying to carry on your day with a sociopath pointing a gun at you whenever no one else is looking and imagining it'll be ok.

I should probably clarify that I'm not a Libertarian, nor ascribe to the pseudo-anarchy and anachronistic "Constitutional Originalism" many propose. I was just glad to see that someone stepped into the political arena, and made the deep-rooted problems in our system their focus for a change. The system is sick, and no one wants to diagnose it, or talk about how to fix it... they'd rather blather on about whether or not contraception is murder, or argue how a family of two guys raising an adopted child is not deserving of the same social benefits as a man and a woman raising one... all the while fighting in the popularity contest that is Politics, which they're forced to participate in to preserve their source of income. Those "debates" are crap any sane person could cut with a few minutes of thought, but the more airtime we give "issues" such as these, the more legitimate they seem... and while those preaching them as a political platform are busy playing at their Popularity Contest, the sickness rages on.

Griping about what's wrong or corrupt in the system is all good and fine- vital in fact- but it does nothing if one doesn't have the gumption to address the underlying problems. Do I think Ron Paul was the man with all the answers? Nope, but at least he had the presence of mind to point out the problem for a change.

[alway]

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13612739-romney-ryan-vow-not-to-cut-military-budget?lite
Romney and Ryan have promised they will not cut military spending. Yeaaahh. So they aren't raising taxes and they aren't cutting military spending.

I hope they plan on spending money on infrastructure, as there won't be enough bridges to sleep under when they finish cutting everything else in some insane plan to cut deficits.

[Euld]

Goldman Sachs steals billions, is taken to court over it, and despite ridiculous amounts of proof, is let go.

Trillions of dollars were "bailed out" to banks worldwide right out of under the Fed's noses.