rollingstone.com— His anti-war stance has not only helped him bank more campaign cash than Iraq-backer John McCain, it has garnered him more contributions from military families than any candidate in the race.
Nov 28, 2007View in Crawl 4
"Anti-war is the hate America first liberal view of foreign policy."This makes no sense. A true anti-war ideology might essentially be pacifism, but that is completely different from hating one's country. It is also completely different than what most people understand when they hear "anti-war," which is anti-iraq-war, which is exactly what Ron Paul is.
Slavery apologists?"I don't like slavery at all I'm American Indian""I don't think you really understand the gravity of a civil war. Countrymen killing countrymen."What is your problem? He's only saying he thinks slavery could have been ended without a civil war, like in other parts of the world, not that slavery shouldn't have ended at all. How is that DEFENDING it? For that matter, why do you insist that no other option existed, just that the slaveowners had to all die, die, die?! You act like nukes should have been dropped to end slavery, regardless of how many slaves would have also died. (Gee, sounds like the modern belief that the only way to liberate a country is through bombing it....)Do you just have some weird vicarious hatred towards slaveowners? Because I seriously doubt it's something you've personally experienced, so it looks a little odd for you to act so rabidly, as if you're taking it personally.A: Hey look! There's some slaveowners in Southeast Asia! Let's send ncurses there, he'll take 'em on barehanded, he hates slavery so much!B: Actually... I don't think he's ever even donated to global anti-slavery organizations.A: What? Really? Then why does he act like it's such an eminent evil that guns are the ONLY possible solution, ever, even if it means killing his own relatives?B: Probably because he's just exaggerating his beliefs to try to support a shoddy argument with emotion instead of logic?A: Yeah, probably....
Well, that's the problem... American's "pooling" our money together, at the point of a gun. Roads and such, fine, but when it comes to wealth redistribution and welfare, these things just shouldn't exist. And if they didn't, there would be nothing for an "illegal" to milk. The only people who would be visiting our country would be those wanting to take advantage of liberty by working hard and prospering.You can't import poverty. Only the things that cause poverty, like socialistic ideas... and most immigrants, since the start of America came here to get away from the excess government that was keeping them down. Immigrants built this country. Unless you're Native American, I don't see why you think letting in people with less money than you who want to work hard is going to somehow drag you down (especially considering a growing population means a growing economy!)
Okay, admittedly, I read and replied to your comment before I had my morning caffeine intake, so I misread the part about the Texas state constitution. But that's still besides the point, for as far as my understanding goes, any individual rights explicitly guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overridden by individual States' constitutions.Also, even if this bill did pass and your interpretation is correct and the scenario you described played out, that politician could always challenge the Constitutionality of the "We the People" bill in Federal court. But even if this bill didn't pass, the SCOTUS pretty much decides on their own what cases they will hear and what they won't, so there's no guarantee that such a case would make it before our highest court under current circumstances.All that being said, I've still never seen anything from Ron Paul that indicates to me that he would attempt to bypass the Bill of Rights in this way, and in fact, he has demonstrated time and again how the rights protected by the US Constitution cannot be overridden by the states and require that a Constitutional amendment be passed and then ratified in order to do so.
tschauNov 29, 2007
"Anti-war is the hate America first liberal view of foreign policy."This makes no sense. A true anti-war ideology might essentially be pacifism, but that is completely different from hating one's country. It is also completely different than what most people understand when they hear "anti-war," which is anti-iraq-war, which is exactly what Ron Paul is.
tao52nycNov 29, 2007
YOU get up there and try it, sometime. Then YouTube us the video of your attempt afterwards.
krunk4everNov 30, 2007
Ditto. Washington has semi-opened primaries. You get to select which party you want to vote for on each ballot.I mentioned this awhile ago, but I personally prefer Gravel or Kucinich, but Paul has a much higher chance of succeeding, and between Paul and Obama or Clinton, Paul has my vote.<a class="user" href="http://www.krunk4ever.com/blog/2007/10/03/ron-paul-has-my-vote/">http://www.krunk4ever.com/blog/2007/10/03/ron-paul ...</a>
waynethemanNov 30, 2007
Slavery apologists?"I don't like slavery at all I'm American Indian""I don't think you really understand the gravity of a civil war. Countrymen killing countrymen."What is your problem? He's only saying he thinks slavery could have been ended without a civil war, like in other parts of the world, not that slavery shouldn't have ended at all. How is that DEFENDING it? For that matter, why do you insist that no other option existed, just that the slaveowners had to all die, die, die?! You act like nukes should have been dropped to end slavery, regardless of how many slaves would have also died. (Gee, sounds like the modern belief that the only way to liberate a country is through bombing it....)Do you just have some weird vicarious hatred towards slaveowners? Because I seriously doubt it's something you've personally experienced, so it looks a little odd for you to act so rabidly, as if you're taking it personally.A: Hey look! There's some slaveowners in Southeast Asia! Let's send ncurses there, he'll take 'em on barehanded, he hates slavery so much!B: Actually... I don't think he's ever even donated to global anti-slavery organizations.A: What? Really? Then why does he act like it's such an eminent evil that guns are the ONLY possible solution, ever, even if it means killing his own relatives?B: Probably because he's just exaggerating his beliefs to try to support a shoddy argument with emotion instead of logic?A: Yeah, probably....
waynethemanNov 30, 2007
Well, that's the problem... American's "pooling" our money together, at the point of a gun. Roads and such, fine, but when it comes to wealth redistribution and welfare, these things just shouldn't exist. And if they didn't, there would be nothing for an "illegal" to milk. The only people who would be visiting our country would be those wanting to take advantage of liberty by working hard and prospering.You can't import poverty. Only the things that cause poverty, like socialistic ideas... and most immigrants, since the start of America came here to get away from the excess government that was keeping them down. Immigrants built this country. Unless you're Native American, I don't see why you think letting in people with less money than you who want to work hard is going to somehow drag you down (especially considering a growing population means a growing economy!)
waynethemanNov 30, 2007
So we've heard. Fortunately, few here believe it, and even those who do don't care because they're still interested in promoting his message.
booyaman1Nov 30, 2007
Okay, admittedly, I read and replied to your comment before I had my morning caffeine intake, so I misread the part about the Texas state constitution. But that's still besides the point, for as far as my understanding goes, any individual rights explicitly guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be overridden by individual States' constitutions.Also, even if this bill did pass and your interpretation is correct and the scenario you described played out, that politician could always challenge the Constitutionality of the "We the People" bill in Federal court. But even if this bill didn't pass, the SCOTUS pretty much decides on their own what cases they will hear and what they won't, so there's no guarantee that such a case would make it before our highest court under current circumstances.All that being said, I've still never seen anything from Ron Paul that indicates to me that he would attempt to bypass the Bill of Rights in this way, and in fact, he has demonstrated time and again how the rights protected by the US Constitution cannot be overridden by the states and require that a Constitutional amendment be passed and then ratified in order to do so.
xanjamanuoNov 30, 2007
Because of the core values that party stands for. C'mon now....