Ron Paul ........ all talk?

[Modbert]

/eyeroll

Do correct me where I'm wrong. Or does your blind worship of Ron Paul not allow you to form coherent arguments anymore?

 

[Modbert]

And you'd prefer the Federal Gov't to be the oppressor right? Typical Liberal.

No, he wants the power that has been taken by the Federal Gov't returned to the States where it belongs.

I prefer neither to be the oppressor. However, Ron Paul and yourself have no problem with a oppressive state government.

 

[WatertheTree]

And you'd prefer the Federal Gov't to be the oppressor right? Typical Liberal.

No, he wants the power that has been taken by the Federal Gov't returned to the States where it belongs.

I prefer neither to be the oppressor. However, Ron Paul and yourself have no problem with a oppressive state government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oppressive local government!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is all talk on the Liberty front. He always talks about how he doesn't want the federal government to do this or that but he has absolutely no problem with state governments being oppressive. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian, he's an Anti-Federalist who happens to hold a number of views that fall in line with Libertarians.

And you're an authority on libertarianism now? Ron Paul, as a libertarian, would certainly have a problem with oppressive state governments, just as I'm sure he has a problem with oppressive foreign governments. He realizes, however, that as an elected official of the U.S. federal government that he doesn't have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the states anymore than he would a foreign country. His goal is to do what he can within the federal government. It's other people's responsibility to do what they can with their state governments. He can't do it all.

 

[Modbert]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oppressive local government!

You don't believe a state government can be oppressive?

 

[Modbert]

And you're an authority on libertarianism now? Ron Paul, as a libertarian, would certainly have a problem with oppressive state governments, just as I'm sure he has a problem with oppressive foreign governments. He realizes, however, that as an elected official of the U.S. federal government that he doesn't have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the states anymore than he would a foreign country. His goal is to do what he can within the federal government. It's other people's responsibility to do what they can with their state governments. He can't do it all.

Ron Paul may have a problem with oppressive state governments but he wouldn't do anything about it. If Texas wanted, they could reenact sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuality. If Alabama wanted, they could put into place a law that would outlaw Atheists from running for public office. The list goes on.

Ron Paul can talk about liberty and freedom all he likes, but at the end of the day it's actions that matter.

 

[LibertyForAll]

If Texas locked down the borders and prevented people from leaving you might have a point. If they outlaw gays then the gays can just move to a state that accepts them. They should be free to indulge in thier lifestyle but they should not be free to impose that lifestyle on those with different values. They can populate their own state and outlaw heterosexuality too. Of course there won't be any people there after a generation or so but that's beside the point. They would have that right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And you're an authority on libertarianism now? Ron Paul, as a libertarian, would certainly have a problem with oppressive state governments, just as I'm sure he has a problem with oppressive foreign governments. He realizes, however, that as an elected official of the U.S. federal government that he doesn't have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the states anymore than he would a foreign country. His goal is to do what he can within the federal government. It's other people's responsibility to do what they can with their state governments. He can't do it all.

Ron Paul may have a problem with oppressive state governments but he wouldn't do anything about it. If Texas wanted, they could reenact sodomy laws and criminalize homosexuality. If Alabama wanted, they could put into place a law that would outlaw Atheists from running for public office. The list goes on.

Ron Paul can talk about liberty and freedom all he likes, but at the end of the day it's actions that matter.

I believe the Supreme Court has ruled on those issues, and as President Ron Paul would have no power to do anything about it. Regardless, as I said in the last post, Ron Paul can't do it all, even if he were President. He can't assume powers that the President doesn't constitutionally have and force liberty on everybody. It's up to people within those states to protect their rights. If Ohio passed a law criminalizing homosexuality it would be up to me, other libertarians, and anyone else who opposed the law to do what we could to change it. Not the President, whoever that would be.

 

[lizzie]

This is already been discussed in a different thread. Why would Ron Paul fly back to DC to vote on a Bill that passed overwhelmingly? If I remember correctly 14 House members didn't vote.

To stand for something.

He does stand for something. He's commonly known as Dr. No in congress because he consistently votes against big spending bills and pork.

 

[Modbert]

If Texas locked down the borders and prevented people from leaving you might have a point. If they outlaw gays then the gays can just move to a state that accepts them. They should be free to indulge in thier lifestyle but they should not be free to impose that lifestyle on those with different values. They can populate their own state and outlaw heterosexuality too. Of course there won't be any people there after a generation or so but that's beside the point. They would have that right.

So that's your idea of liberty? Just move to another state!

This is my problem with Libertarianism in a nutshell. It ignores several realities of the real world. You clearly have no concept of economic mobility, many if not most Americans cannot simply just pick up and move to another state like you seem to believe.

Furthermore, you saying they should be free to "indulge" their "lifestyle" but not free to impose that "lifestyle" on others simply by existing contradicts itself! The fact you see homosexuality as a lifestyle alone tells me all I need to know.

 

[Modbert]

I believe the Supreme Court has ruled on those issues, and as President Ron Paul would have no power to do anything about it. Regardless, as I said in the last post, Ron Paul can't do it all, even if he were President. He can't assume powers that the President doesn't constitutionally have and force liberty on everybody. It's up to people within those states to protect their rights. If Ohio passed a law criminalizing homosexuality it would be up to me, other libertarians, and anyone else who opposed the law to do what we could to change it. Not the President, whoever that would be.

Not if President Ron Paul had his way. See: We the People Act. Or are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul wasn't trying to overrule the Supreme Court with that piece of legislation?

 

[Modbert]

He does stand for something. He's commonly known as Dr. No in congress because he consistently votes against big spending bills and pork.

He votes against pork, while stuffing bills filled with pork knowing they'll pass anyway.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Texas locked down the borders and prevented people from leaving you might have a point. If they outlaw gays then the gays can just move to a state that accepts them. They should be free to indulge in thier lifestyle but they should not be free to impose that lifestyle on those with different values. They can populate their own state and outlaw heterosexuality too. Of course there won't be any people there after a generation or so but that's beside the point. They would have that right.

So that's your idea of liberty? Just move to another state!

This is my problem with Libertarianism in a nutshell. It ignores several realities of the real world. You clearly have no concept of economic mobility, many if not most Americans cannot simply just pick up and move to another state like you seem to believe.

Furthermore, you saying they should be free to "indulge" their "lifestyle" but not free to impose that "lifestyle" on others simply by existing contradicts itself! The fact you see homosexuality as a lifestyle alone tells me all I need to know.

That, however, is not the libertarian position, at all. The libertarian position is that gay people own their own property just as straight people do, and that as such the state has no right to tell them what they can or cannot peacefully do on their own property. There'd be no reason they had to leave the state.

 

[Modbert]

That, however, is not the libertarian position, at all. The libertarian position is that gay people own their own property just as straight people do, and that as such the state has no right to tell them what they can or cannot peacefully do on their own property. There'd be no reason they had to leave the state.

Except that's what Ron Paul is proposing We The People Act. He wants to give states back the right to outlaw homosexuality and criminalize it. So despite the fact they are on their own property, they would be considered criminals under the eyes of that state law.

Which is why I said Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.

Though Ron Paul certainly shows his "states rights" mantra when he voted for DOMA.

 

[Avorysuds]

/eyeroll

Do correct me where I'm wrong. Or does your blind worship of Ron Paul not allow you to form coherent arguments anymore?

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ron Paul is running as a Republican and has spent his whole time elected to the house as a Republican? Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he has many libertarian values.

Secondly Paul believes in the constitution, unlike yourself. States are allowed to run their state the way they want. In fact can you list to me where Paul "supports" states being "oppressive"?

Spare me the half truths and “I hate Ron Paul” slogan talking points, that’s why I gave you an /eyeroll… I don’t care to debate Paul to people that might say Paul is an isolationist, a racist, hates gays, or wants Iran to get a nuke when they can’t prove any of it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe the Supreme Court has ruled on those issues, and as President Ron Paul would have no power to do anything about it. Regardless, as I said in the last post, Ron Paul can't do it all, even if he were President. He can't assume powers that the President doesn't constitutionally have and force liberty on everybody. It's up to people within those states to protect their rights. If Ohio passed a law criminalizing homosexuality it would be up to me, other libertarians, and anyone else who opposed the law to do what we could to change it. Not the President, whoever that would be.

Not if President Ron Paul had his way. See: We the People Act. Or are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul wasn't trying to overrule the Supreme Court with that piece of legislation?

I don't deny that Ron Paul attempted to get the Supreme Court back to focusing only on federal issues and not state issues, as the Constitution stipulates, but that bill didn't pass so the Supreme Court's rulings are still in effect.

 

[Avorysuds]

If Texas locked down the borders and prevented people from leaving you might have a point. If they outlaw gays then the gays can just move to a state that accepts them. They should be free to indulge in thier lifestyle but they should not be free to impose that lifestyle on those with different values. They can populate their own state and outlaw heterosexuality too. Of course there won't be any people there after a generation or so but that's beside the point. They would have that right.

I don't agree... If a state outlaws gays then they have overstepped the constitution. Rights are rights and they are not based on race, sex, or sexuality. If a state tries to make a second hand citizen out of someone because they are black or white, gay or straight, male or female than the state has to answer to the constitution and our bill of rights..

 

[Modbert]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ron Paul is running as a Republican and has spent his whole time elected to the house as a Republican? Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he has many libertarian values.

Secondly Paul believes in the constitution, unlike yourself. States are allowed to run their state the way they want. In fact can you list to me where Paul "supports" states being "oppressive"?

Spare me the half truths and “I hate Ron Paul” slogan talking points, that’s why I gave you an /eyeroll… I don’t care to debate Paul to people that might say Paul is an isolationist, a racist, hates gays, or wants Iran to get a nuke when they can’t prove any of it.

Believing that states are allowed to run themselves however they want on whatever issue is how we got Jim Crow laws among other things.

Ron Paul is running as a Republican but his base is Libertarian whether you like to admit it or not. The entire time I've been on this board, the only Paul supporters have been Libertarians and not Republicans. Furthermore, Ron Paul once upon a time ran for President on the Libertarian ticket. (See: 1988)

So your argument that Ron Paul is a Republican and his Libertarianism has nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best.

If Ron Paul supports Liberty, why he would he accept and tout the endorsement of someone on his website who supports the death penalty for gays?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That, however, is not the libertarian position, at all. The libertarian position is that gay people own their own property just as straight people do, and that as such the state has no right to tell them what they can or cannot peacefully do on their own property. There'd be no reason they had to leave the state.

Except that's what Ron Paul is proposing We The People Act. He wants to give states back the right to outlaw homosexuality and criminalize it. So despite the fact they are on their own property, they would be considered criminals under the eyes of that state law.

Which is why I said Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.

Though Ron Paul certainly shows his "states rights" mantra when he voted for DOMA.

No, that's not what he's proposing in the We the People Act. He's proposing that the Supreme Court not get involved in cases they have no constitutional right to get involved in. As I've repeatedly said, his goal is to limit the federal government. This would include the Supreme Court. He wouldn't "allow" them to outlaw homosexuality, anymore than he would "allow" Iran to outlaw homosexuality. It's just that, as President, he would have no authority to do anything about it.

 

[Avorysuds]

He does stand for something. He's commonly known as Dr. No in congress because he consistently votes against big spending bills and pork.

He votes against pork, while stuffing bills filled with pork knowing they'll pass anyway.

And that's the kind of slogan bullshit talking point I was talking about. Grats, you're just another Paul hater that is willing to say anything. Have you ever had a job and not agreed with how things are done, maybe even said something to the boss? I’ll bet you still did the job the way you were hired to…