Well, if you're going to discredit Wikipedia with random websites. I guess I will too.
THOMAS is the government site for bills that senators have proposed. it includes the language of the bill, what the Senators say, and everything. the blogs I linked are all well respected (I could have linked Megan McCardle's well done refutation of the gold standard, but McCardle is an idiot with other things). it wasn't random websites.
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007378.html
this on the other hand is. did YOU read this? it has all sorts of horrible shit, like the fact that the newsletters mention Paul's children IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AT ALL, it claims that Paul saying you can get AIDS from spit has all sorts of justifications, and best of all, it ignores a lot of the worst things he's said. that and remember where I said he DID admit to writing them in his 1990 campaign?
So?
that's called racial profiling, and it's completely awful. did you know most terrorist attacks in America are done by white people? maybe you are too young to remember the Unabomber. racial profiling is terrible and no one should ever engage in it. saying that security personnel who might look Muslim or Hispanic are therefore suspicious on the basis of their race is idiotic at best, and hideously racist more likely.
Lol. Did you actually read the article that you put? This goes with the 'Libertarian' aspect.
you clearly know very little about the fight for civil rights. states have always attempted to say that blacks should not be allowed to vote or have rights. it was the Federal Government that gave them this. by voting against it, Ron Paul took a stance that
states should determine if blacks can vote.
I want you to seriously consider this. seriously think about it. remember in Florida in 2000 and Katherine Harris essentially denying Al Gore victory by illegally disenfranchising black voters.
I want you to seriously consider the ethical and social and political implications of repealing the only legislation in place that prevents states from doing this legally.
do you think they wouldn't?
It is within the rights of Private organizations to decide who they want to hire and what policies they use. This is freedom of choice.
this is a SCHOOL. you cannot teach whatever you want at an accredited private institution, because by nature of it being an educational institution, it must pass legal regulations.
that and consider the ethics of what you are saying. you want to chant FREEDOM OF CHOICE but it's okay for you to chant that because you think that freedom is
yours. you don't realize what it means to be discriminated against clearly if you think it's okay to let private insititutions be racist because, oh they should have the choice big govt...stepping on those poor little country clubs...
Read it and tell me why this is a 'bad' thing. This goes with the Libertarian point of view.
the Civil Rights Act is the reason myself and every minority in this country is still around. read it and tell me why it's a 'good' thing to attempt to neuter it.
Why should the United States provide federal aid for education for other countries in general? He's an isolationist.
holy shit pal are you kidding. aid for EVERYONE BUT IRANIANS. do you not see how that is awful? how that is just racist shit?
WHOA THAT TOWELHEAD MIGHT BE A TERRORIST BY GUM.
also isolationism is impossible in the globalized world without creating a huge setback. look at the closed cities of China, which had to undergo a radical communist in order to catch up to the rest of the world. doing it now, in the age of the internet and global travel, is impossible.
#1: I see nothing wrong with that. A minor is a dependant. #2: I do not agree with this. This goes against things he's said in the past as well. #3: Know many kids that never got punished? How'd they turn out overall? #4: Leaving out that he wants to allow deductions and exemptions for other social status.
a contraceptive.
call your mom
because you have to buy a box of condoms.
you don't seem to understand that a dependent is only a dependent in
economic terms. that and countries with this kind of legislation don't experience less teen sex.
they do experience an increase in rape, teen pregnancy, and STDS
because fucking is a lot of fun and they will do it without a condom.
I'm going to assume by number 2 you mean you don't like Paul's stance.
I have known children who had "corporal punishment". let's just ignore the shakey language in the bill that defines corporal punishment (WATERBOARD YOUR SON FOR SKIPPING CLASS). I have known a lot of kids who were physically beaten as children.
I also know a lot of criminals who were corporally punished. I know the statistics show that men who were beaten as a child grow up to beat their wives. I know that every single bit of criminological research indicates a positive correlation of beatings and criminal activity in life. it's not a causation because well, it's not like everyone who gets the shit beat out of them becomes a criminal.
but there is a direct link. whatever you think of corporal punishment, the US government should not be defining it to begin with, let alone attempting to legitimize it when speaking of child abuse. it's easy to say that it's okay to beat your kids, and it's quite another when the kids are going to school with black eyes from their dad because they blamed them for mommy leaving.
why repeal the estate tax? WHY. it taxes the rich! good! they should be taxed! we need money, THIS IS HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS.
Have you missed all the anti-religious things spewed recently? And that last part is not what is actually written.
there is no such thing as a war on christmas. none. there never has been. sorry.
also here we learn a wonderful thing called context.
Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before 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. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
Paul is saying that churches compete with state. as a result, secularists attack the church. this is bad.
ergo the church should not just be equal to the state (something it shouldn't be) but supercede the state in certain matters, one of which is...Christmas.
No, he doesn't. That's not what this bill opposes, and what this was doing was removing Federal Jurisdiction over marriage. Leaving it up to the states to decide.
FOOL OF A TOOK.
God, this shit is just unbelievable. do you know what state's rights are? he's saying your right to be married STAYS IN THE STATE YOU GOT MARRIED IN. do you understand that? do you not see how insane that is! DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW POWERS CONGRESS HAS???
goddammit do you not realize that state's rights are just a way of neutering the federal government's power in an area? the Civil Rights movement was nearly ended before Birmingham because the states threw people in jail. we NEED the federal government to have power over these things. you can't just say a fucking marriage ends at a border. you can't arbitrarily shift social contracts. jesus christ that means if I married my wife and went to a marriage free state I could just fuck whores forever and in the divorce settlement she can't bring it up.
arsdagasgsda why should states be allowed to annull marriages when you enter their territory. do you not see how stupid this is?
Unshakable foe of Abortion.
what happened to Freedom of Choice? you were okay when it was private organizations stopping niggers from getting in school. why can't private individuals deal with their bodies???
This seems odd given his track record on these things.
every single reasonable paulsy on SA stopped supporting him after this. every single one.
Again. So? I am of the personal belief that the UN causes many problems with countries as you have diplomats that have no fear of reprecussion speaking rather than the countries actually communicating with one another.
you...don't know what the UN does do you?
why would we withdraw from the UN? because they have peacekeeping operations?
this idea that diplomats don't represent their countries...christ, Ralph Bunche is rolling in his grave.
Also, he's opting for the US to become a hermit, so, this makes sense from the perspective he's explained.
but it doesn't make sense from any other context. why would we EVER go to isolationism? I said this already, but this would
cripple any first world nation. you would never ever get back to first world, without once again some type of revolution. globalization is real, why would you try and HIDE from it?
Because he also wants to abolish taxes and go back to Gold.
have you used a library ever.
under Ron Paul, they won't exist. taxes pay for things. very very very important things. people would die if you didn't pay your taxes. it's that simple. they. will. die.
the gold standard is stupid and I linked a decent explanation but it's also hard to link
every economic school of thought that isn't hilariously outmoded that knows this.
Or maybe the 'New World Order' thing is taken out of context. He wasn't referring to it as a secret group. He was referring to it as a trade union.
oh lord. did you not read where he mentioned the UN? did you not notice the CONSPIRACY THEORY SHIT HE WAS SAYING? he believes there is a fucking NWO.
Maybe not Mind-Control, but you can't argue that if you're teaching someone generally they're going to believe what you're teaching them. If there's a bias towards something in the teaching, then those people receive that bias.
BUT THERE ISN'T
IB PROGRAMS ARE LIKE FUCKING NATIONAL HONORS SOCIETIES.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
So, he's predujice, racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, etc.
Though, at the same time, many of his comments if thought of with the perspective of the upholding of the constitution, of liberty, etc, you can clearly see he's going with the basic of his belief and not going to attack a single group. Since there are instances of him doing similar things when they had nothing to do with the race/gender etc. Outside of Iran, and that plays into the isolationist in him.
but that's the fucking problem. that is why omeg said I DONT' GET IT. the basics of the belief are
abhorrent. the basics of his belief are that if you remove every single pieces of social legislation and key parts of economic legislation, somehow magically it won't recess society into the dark ages.
By the way, way to just completely dismiss something I say when what I said was, "something that can be wiki'd" and it CAN be wiki'd and learned about rather comprehensively if you've ever bothered to look. Just because it's not written in a book, or because it's on wiki does not mean it's not credible. However, there's a good chance that if it is on wikipedia without source, it isn't as credible.
man, omeg and I know our shit. I'd even say I know it better than omeg, because this was totally my shtick for a month. I read bakunin and de bord and all those guys like two years ago. we don't need to be told to fucking WIKI THE DIFFERENCE, we know there isn't that much, which I'm going to outline.
I understand the Libertarianism philosophy, and I understand the Anarchistic philosophy at the most basic level. That is all I need to know to know that I agree with one and cannot stand by the other.
but you don't see how taking a federal government and separating it into 50 jabbering, Balkan League-esque, sub governments would possibly be a bad idea?
that and when you say everything is at the state leve, what stops you from saying it should be even further local?
the difference between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarianism endorses hiearchical capitalism and while anarchism is kind of hilarious a lot it at least wants to get rid of classism!
CAPTAINS.
OF.
INDUSTRY!!!!
Before you even start, I really don't care, I try look at things from an objective point of view and admit when I'm wrong and where I'm wrong. If I offended you, or made you go, "Homg you're so terrible." I really do not care. My line of thinking and opinions on various subjects are different than yours, get over it. Calling me a horrible human being is no different than me calling you a stupid naive one.
Just because you provide a whole crap load of links that give long drawn out opinions and 'facts' that can be taken out of context in a matter of seconds and I respond with my own and the reasoning for mine in a simple sentence or two does not make your's any more valid.
the fact I've done this at least five times before you have and knew about the horribly bigoted newsletters might lend me a bit more credibility tho.
Gaming World Forums
U.S Presidential Primary Thread
