FoC's Ron Paul Shitheap: Patel Melts the Internets starting on pg. 24

[FlameOfCallandor]

That doesn't change the fact you are voting for someone more socially conservative than Rudy or Romney.

Bet less authoritarian...

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Treaty Power of the President does not extend beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, but are limited by the Constitution, and any exercise of such Executive Power inconsistent with the Constitution shall be of no legal force or effect.

  Heaven forbid the president obey the law!!!



 

[Van Cruncheon]

ouch, that's a pretty complete condemnation of paul's record. ah, the blindness of ideologues!

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Yeah, it's good to have his hyper-insanity all nicely outlined in one place.

[Gay Boy]

Wow. Ron Paul is a complete asshole.

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.


H.R.2424: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Wow. Ron Paul is a complete asshole.

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

Why should any foriegn student get federal aid?

H.R.2424: To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

If he was president i dont think this law would disapear.

[FlameOfCallandor]

ouch, that's a pretty complete condemnation of paul's record. ah, the blindness of ideologues!

Most of that stuff looks pretty good, and its consistant with scaling back the federal government.

[Gay Boy]

Wow. Ron Paul is a complete asshole.

H.R.5842: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.

Why should any foriegn student get federal aid?

Why pinpoint Iranians?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why pinpoint Iranians?

Im not sure of his reasons, but why not?

[Fragamemnon]

Fucking crackpot loonies, the whole lot of them.

Honest Money Act - Amends Federal law to repeal the status of U.S. coins and currency as legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks).

[Howard Alan Treesong]

FoC, I have to drive to work, but by the time I arrive I expect an explanatinon from you detailing:

1) Why is gold valuable?
2) Are things besides gold valuable?
3) Why should we return to a gold standard?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why pinpoint Iranians?

I googled that House resolution.

I got this

"H.R.5842
Title: To compromise and settle all claims in the case of Pueblo of Isleta v. United States, to restore, improve, and develop the valuable on-reservation land and natural resources of the Pueblo, and for other purposes"

That blog looks fishy.

[FlameOfCallandor]

3) Why should we return to a gold standard?

Im not up to speed with the gold standard stuff, but from what I gather if we did have gold, the federal government couldnt just make more and increase inflation.

Like I said this is probably the least known part about his stuff. And I will say again, we wont go to the gold standard if he is president.

[Gay Boy]

Why pinpoint Iranians?

I googled that House resolution.

I got this

"H.R.5842
Title: To compromise and settle all claims in the case of Pueblo of Isleta v. United States, to restore, improve, and develop the valuable on-reservation land and natural resources of the Pueblo, and for other purposes"

That blog looks fishy.

That is from the 109th congress. The number resets every two years for HR's. This is not from that. From the OFFICAL congress library:
H.R.5842
Title: A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-22]

[FlameOfCallandor]

Ah ok, I didn't realize how many House resolutions their were. I don't know. If i wrote the bill I would have just said no federal money for any foreign student. Maybe he was just using all the anti Iran mentality going on up there. But still, it doesn't seem like his style.

[Human Snorenado]

Paul wrote that bill during the Iranian hostage crisis.  REACTIONARY REMOVING THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS MUCH?

Like a lot of commenters said on that blog, if you're a left leaning person that wants to support someone who is against the war, has been against the war, voted against the war, says they will end the war and doesn't support the Patriot Act, then vote for Dennis Kucinich.  Who has an equally good (ie NONE) chance to win as Ron Paul.

If you want to vote for Libertopian Happy Crappy Puppies n' Sunshine Nonsense (ie NO TAXES, LESS GUBMINT, THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING, GUNS FOR E'RBODY!), then vote for Ron Paul.  But saying you're supporting/voting for the man because he's "honest" or "supports the constitution" is lazy and stupid, which thinking about it are defining traits of Texans in general and FoC in specific so I guess he really is right in your wheelhouse, eh?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

There was inflation back when we were on the gold standard, you know.

Now I'd like for you to explain how such a staunch libertarian and defender of personal freedoms could have sponsored half-a-dozen anti-reproductive freedom bills!

[FlameOfCallandor]

Paul wrote that bill during the Iranian hostage crisis.  REACTIONARY REMOVING THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS MUCH?

Since when are Iranian citizens considered american citizens?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Now I'd like for you to explain how such a staunch libertarian and defender of personal freedoms could have sponsored half-a-dozen anti-reproductive freedom bills!

Probably because hes an OBGYN.

[FlameOfCallandor]

If you want to vote for Libertarian Happy Crappy Puppies n' Sunshine Nonsense (ie NO TAXES, LESS GUBMINT, THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING, GUNS FOR E'RBODY!), then vote for Ron Paul.  But saying you're supporting/voting for the man because he's "honest" or "supports the constitution" is lazy and stupid, which thinking about it are defining traits of Texans in general and FoC in specific so I guess he really is right in your wheelhouse, eh?

Kucinich isn't for smaller government which is the core of all the issues in America right now. You guys have this delusion that if Ron Paul were elected president everything he wants would pass. If nothing else it's time that the Federal government was stripped of alot of its power. Do we really need a no fly list with 750,000 people? Do we need the NSA listening in on calls without a warrent? Do we want the government defining extreme thoughts as terrorism? All this shit does is limit liberty. But you guys want bigger government and liberty. It doesn't work that way pal. You cant have a large monolithic government and liberty from it at the same time.

[Human Snorenado]

If you want to vote for Libertarian Happy Crappy Puppies n' Sunshine Nonsense (ie NO TAXES, LESS GUBMINT, THE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING, GUNS FOR E'RBODY!), then vote for Ron Paul.  But saying you're supporting/voting for the man because he's "honest" or "supports the constitution" is lazy and stupid, which thinking about it are defining traits of Texans in general and FoC in specific so I guess he really is right in your wheelhouse, eh?

Kucinich isn't for smaller government which is the core of all the issues in America right now. You guys have this delusion that if Ron Paul were elected president everything he wants would pass. If nothing else it's time that the Federal government was stripped of alot of its power. Do we really need a no fly list with 750,000 people? Do we need the NSA listening in on calls without a warrent? Do we want the government defining extreme thoughts as terrorism? All this shit does is limit liberty. But you guys want bigger government and liberty. It doesn't work that way pal. You cant have a large monolithic government and liberty from it at the same time.

I can have a large, monolithic government focused more on issues that I care about (health care, education, economic inequality) or I can have a large, monolithic government focused on issues I'm opposed to (wars, loosening restrictions on corporations, curbing civil liberties I support).  A smaller federal government that gives up it's powers is not about to happen, so I might as well try to make the option that I like more feasible. 

[Mandark]

Kucinich isn't for smaller government which is the core of all the issues in America right now.

But you guys want bigger government and liberty. It doesn't work that way pal. You cant have a large monolithic government and liberty from it at the same time.

Wrong on both counts.  Plenty of problems come from the private enterprise side of the equation, and it's perfectly possible to have a heavily-regulated economy that doesn't devolve to a police state.

Look at the Netherlands.  They're way closer to social democracy than the United States, and are also way more liberal on social issues like gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I can have a large, monolithic government focused more on issues that I care about

And how exactly do you make sure they are focused on your issues? Who gets to decide the important issues?

(health care, education, economic inequality) or I can have a large, monolithic government focused on issues I'm opposed to (wars, loosening restrictions on corporations, curbing civil liberties I support). 

What happens when your definition of these things doesnt meet what the government's definition is? Why give the government any of this responsibility or power to curb civil liberties.

A smaller federal government that gives up it's powers is not about to happen, so I might as well try to make the option that I like more feasible. 

It's already happening, if you cant see it, then you are blind.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Now I'd like for you to explain how such a staunch libertarian and defender of personal freedoms could have sponsored half-a-dozen anti-reproductive freedom bills!

Probably because hes an OBGYN.

Cool, I didn't know being an OBGYN gave you absolute power over women's bodies. Time for a career change!

[FlameOfCallandor]

Wrong on both counts.  Plenty of problems come from the private enterprise side of the equation, and it's perfectly possible to have a heavily-regulated economy that doesn't devolve to a police state.

Look at the Netherlands.  They're way closer to social democracy than the United States, and are also way more liberal on social issues like gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.

libertarians are okay with all that.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Cool, I didn't know being an OBGYN gave you absolute power over women's bodies. Time for a career change!

I'm pro-choice, but I at least see that someone who is a medical doctor and delivered over 4,000 babies might have a right to feel that the way he does. He's isn't some Jesus freak that has double standards on the whole issue.

[Human Snorenado]

I can have a large, monolithic government focused more on issues that I care about

And how exactly do you make sure they are focused on your issues? Who gets to decide the important issues?

(health care, education, economic inequality) or I can have a large, monolithic government focused on issues I'm opposed to (wars, loosening restrictions on corporations, curbing civil liberties I support). 

What happens when your definition of these things doesnt meet what the government's definition is? Why give the government any of this responsibility or power to curb civil liberties.

A smaller federal government that gives up it's powers is not about to happen, so I might as well try to make the option that I like more feasible. 

It's already happening, if you cant see it, then you are blind.

I'll respond to each point... why I'm doing this I don't know.  I should just let you have your echo chamber and be done with it.  I guess I also enjoy tilting at windmills.

A. Well, I would vote for candidates that support my priorities, and also hassle whoever represents me to let them know how I feel.  Right or wrong, that's how our system works.  As for who decides which issues are important to me.... man, you're stupid.

B. When the government does a shitty job, I'll let them know by either bitching at them or voting their asses out of office.  That's kind of how this representative democracy thing works.  We give this government license to address societal ills and when they fail we fire them and hire somebody else.  As to why give them this power, it's part of a social contract.  I choose to continue living in this society and if, in order to have some of the problems that I think should be fixed actually addressed and corrected, I might have to give up my freedom of not having 100% of my paycheck come home with me, or the right to buy lead covered toys to give to my nephew.

C. If you honestly think that the federal government has lost power in the last 25 or so years, you really are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged and I encourage you to go suck on a fucking tailpipe.  Show me how this is happening.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

I'm pro-choice, but I at least see that someone who is a medical doctor and delivered over 4,000 babies might have a right to feel that the way he does. He's isn't some Jesus freak that has double standards on the whole issue.

If he's not a Jesus freak, then why has he introduced bills trying to eliminate the separation of church and state?

[FlameOfCallandor]

C. If you honestly think that the federal government has lost power in the last 25 or so years, you really are fucking distinguished mentally-challenged and I encourage you to go suck on a fucking tailpipe.  Show me how this is happening.

They arent losing power, they are gaining way more power than was intended for the federal government.

As to why give them this power, it's part of a social contract.

I mean why give them the power to fuck up in the first place. I understand social cotnract, give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order.
but it should be as little as possible.

I might have to give up my freedom of not having 100% of my paycheck come home with me, or the right to buy lead covered toys to give to my nephew.

This is the most rediculous aargument. You dont have to give up your paycheck to not have lead toys. WTF.

THINK OF THEM THR CHILDREN!!!! HUr Hur

[Mandark]

Wrong on both counts.  Plenty of problems come from the private enterprise side of the equation, and it's perfectly possible to have a heavily-regulated economy that doesn't devolve to a police state.

Look at the Netherlands.  They're way closer to social democracy than the United States, and are also way more liberal on social issues like gay marriage, drug use, prostitution, etc.

libertarians are okay with all that.

THAT'S THE POINT, genius.

The Netherlands has a big, scary welfare state and massive government regulation of their healthcare system, but that hasn't affected freedom.  Hell, look at Europe in general.  The social democratic parties and states are the ones who support the most social and cultural freedoms, and are against expanding police state powers.

And how exactly do you make sure they are focused on your issues? Who gets to decide the important issues?

By lobbying, caucusing, and voting based on those issues.

Look, there is no toggle switch between Jeffersonian Utopia and Taxachussets Police State.  It's possible for the government to assume a variety of roles in different parts of society.

The big government stuff that scares/pisses off people like me (though I won't presume to speak for anyone else in the thread) are the assertions by the executive branch that it has some blanket authority to do X without being checked by the other two branches.

It's different to have Congress pass a law that clearly delineates the government's role in a matter, sets up a transparent process for its dealings with citizens/corporations/institutions, and that doesn't violate the restrictions established in the Constitution or other laws.  That's how the process is meant to work.

So if we want, say, a bill that reduces CO2 emissions, then we lobby for a bill that sets up rules in order to do just that.  It's not like they're on Congress saying "In order to have the power to limit pollution, we need to pass this Government Does Anything It Wants bill, then use that discretionary power to clamp down."  Then suddenly OMG jack-booted thugs.




Short version:  The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.

[FlameOfCallandor]

If he's not a Jesus freak, then why has he introduced bills trying to eliminate the separation of church and state?

Because that seperation is not in the constitution.  It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion'
Many states had official religion at the time of ratification.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Short version:  The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.

When has government ever said "oops we have too much power, we need to resend some of it.    Few and far between.

Just like taxes (which basically equates to power) the more you give the more they spend and the more they will want. Not government agency ever asks for less money than the year before.

[Human Snorenado]

Short version:  The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.

When has government ever said "oops we have too much power, we need to resend some of it.    Few and far between.

Just like taxes (which basically equates to power) the more you give the more they spend and the more they will want. Not government agency ever asks for less money than the year before.

WAY TO MISS THE POINT

Seriously, guys.  Let's all just tiptoe out of here quietly, let him make post after post with pictures of Rondroids at their rallies and links to articles.  Then, after Paul flames out of the primaries we all need to bust up back in here like a gang of drunken hooligans for the pointing and laughing.  And if Willco has any stones, he'll nuke FoC.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

If he's not a Jesus freak, then why has he introduced bills trying to eliminate the separation of church and state?

Because that seperation is not in the constitution.  It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion'
Many states had official religion at the time of ratification.

If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.

Also, it sounds like Paul doesn't believe in giving any credence to the decisions and rulings of the judicial branch--which would mean that the tyranny of "the Constitution!!1" is just as bad as the tyranny of the executive branch.

[Fragamemnon]

If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.

 

A man after my own heart.

[Mandark]

Short version:  The expansion of government involvement in one area DOES NOT automatically equal government involvement in all other areas.

When has government ever said "oops we have too much power, we need to resend some of it.    Few and far between.

Just like taxes (which basically equates to power) the more you give the more they spend and the more they will want. Not government agency ever asks for less money than the year before.

MISSING THE POINT.

If you govern through legislation, then executive branch agencies can't just expand their own mandates cause they want to.  You have to change the law, which means Congress, which means a public and transparent process and people who need votes in order to keep their jobs, which means accountability.

You're basically making the large-print version of Road to Serfdom by Freidrich Hayek.

His basic argument was that economic collectivism would lead inevitably to dictatorship and the loss of rights.  Economic freedom (defined as private ownership and markets) was tied to social freedoms, so restricting one would inevitably restrict the other.

He wrote that in 1944, worried by the labor movement in the UK.  They passed a national healthcare act two years later, among other reforms.  Somehow, the UK stayed a democracy, and his book looks really, really silly in retrospect.

Or look at South America.  By and large, the biggest free market reformers were military juntas who suppressed elections, Chile being the most notable example.

If you think businesses shouldn't be regulated, then argue it on the merits of that particular issue.  Don't pretend that child labor laws push us down a slippery slope towards autocracy.

[FlameOfCallandor]

WAY TO MISS THE POINT

What was the point?

[FlameOfCallandor]

If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.

I dont believe that.

[Gay Boy]

If you actually believe this then fuck you and die. "The United States was founded as a Christian nation!" meme is the most virulent political cancer of the past 5 years.

I dont believe that.

you said states are allowed to declare official religions!

[FlameOfCallandor]

If you govern through legislation, then executive branch agencies can't just expand their own mandates cause they want to.  You have to change the law, which means Congress, which means a public and transparent process and people who need votes in order to keep their jobs, which means accountability

You just advoctated Ron Pauls own feelings!

If you think businesses shouldn't be regulated, then argue it on the merits of that particular issue.  Don't pretend that child labor laws push us down a slippery slope towards autocracy.

Where did i say that this?

[FlameOfCallandor]

you said states are allowed to declare official religions!

any states had official religions at the time of ratification. You think they would have ratified the constitution if it meant otherwise?

[Gay Boy]

you said states are allowed to declare official religions!

any states had official religions at the time of ratification. You think they would have ratified the constitution if it meant otherwise?

so if something was ok when the constitution was ratified it should be ok now?

The constitution point blank declared slavery legal with the 3/5th rule. The constitution was WRONG. Not everything that was going on at the time was good for the nation. Washington and his pals weren't perfect.

[FlameOfCallandor]

so if something was ok when the constitution was ratified it should be ok now?

unless amended. You have to change the law for the law to be changed. You cant just will it to change. You are such a fucking idiot when it comes to this.

[Mandark]

If you govern through legislation, then executive branch agencies can't just expand their own mandates cause they want to.  You have to change the law, which means Congress, which means a public and transparent process and people who need votes in order to keep their jobs, which means accountability

You just advoctated Ron Pauls own feelings!

No, Ron Paul thinks that Wickard v. Filburn and other rulings by the Supreme Court sent the Constitution into exile, so 90%+ of what Congress does is unconstitutional.

I'm talking about a shift of authority within the government.  Paul wants to strip it entirely.  That's a weeeeeeee little difference.

[Gay Boy]

so if something was ok when the constitution was ratified it should be ok now?

unless amended. You have to change the law for the law to be changed. You cant just will it to change. You are such a fucking idiot when it comes to this.

so you really think states should have official religions purely cause there was no amendment? Doesn't that go against your precious Thomas Jefferson?

[FlameOfCallandor]

No, Ron Paul thinks that Wickard v. Filburn and other rulings by the Supreme Court sent the Constitution into exile, so 90%+ of what Congress does is unconstitutional.

It is. Where does the constitution give the federal government the right for a Department of Education? (one example)

Paul wants to strip it entirely. [/b]

He only wants to strip the authority it doesn't need to actually fulfill its duties.

[FlameOfCallandor]

so you really think states should have official religions purely cause there was no amendment? Doesn't that go against your precious Thomas Jefferson?

No i don't did i say that?

[Human Snorenado]

Guys, seriously.

STOP TALKING TO IT.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Guys, seriously.

STOP TALKING TO IT.

This is a very valid and interesting point. I am so glad you have real contributions to this discussion.

[Gay Boy]

foc who did you vote for in 2004.

[Mandark]

FoC, what books have you actually read about libertarianism, the writing of the constitution, etc?

Cause it seems like you're just repeating Cliff's Notes versions that you get from Ron Paul, without understanding any of it.

[Human Snorenado]

Guys, seriously.

STOP TALKING TO IT.

This is a very valid and interesting point. I am so glad you have real contributions to this discussion.

As opposed to your MO of "ask someone a question, have it answered, make a point completely unrelated, ignore responses, rinse and repeat."

If you were smarter I'd think you were doing it on purpose just to fuck with people's blood pressure, but since I know you breathe through your mouth and are from Texas, we'll stick with the "FoC is just spectacularly stupid" theory.

[FlameOfCallandor]

foc who did you vote for in 2004.

Kerry.

[FlameOfCallandor]

As opposed to your MO of "ask someone a question, have it answered, make a point completely unrelated, ignore responses, rinse and repeat."

What have I ignored? Your ignorant Texas redneck rants?

[recursivelyenumerable]

there's a really interesting post (that touches) on libertarianism and stuff on top of the front page at one of my favorite bloggy sites, http://idiocentrism.com

All three of these principles have an ethical and political skew. For example, “economic rationality” is in theory a purely formal definition (neither a description of actual behavior nor a proposed ideal). According to this definition, a sociopath can be completely rational, whereas a seeming self-sacrificing individual must be seen either to be irrational or else secretly selfish after all. Economic rationality does not forbid generosity or fellow-feeling, but these are merely treated as consumption options. An economic actor who does not have a taste for generosity or decency will be completely rational in behaving cruelly within the bounds of law if that's what works for him. In short, this definition of rationality assumes individuals with no necessary social commitments, and while it is possible to tweak the system and patch in the possibility of individuals who follow extra-economic ethical principles, they are at best equally as rational as cold-bloodedly selfish individuals or even successful sociopaths. (...)  The scientific blind spots and engineering biases I've been describing have been institutionalized and have also been developed into a toxic ideology called libertarianism. (...)

[Gay Boy]

foc who did you vote for in 2004.

Kerry.

Kerry was more big govt. than bush, how did that fit your small govt. criteria.

[FlameOfCallandor]

foc who did you vote for in 2004.

Kerry.

Kerry was more big govt. than bush, how did that fit your small govt. criteria.

At the time i was really interested in getting out of the war. and I thought the democrats wanted to do that. I also didnt realize that they were big govt. That election was freshman year of college for me. I was swept up in all the rhetoric about "democrats are for poor people and want to save society" "Republicans are evil because of bush, booooo"

[Mandark]

tennin: Without having read that yet, and knowing you might have already seen this, there was a post at Cosmic Variance and a response at Crooked Timber on economics and the utility-maximizing model that all the kids are so wild about.

[FlameOfCallandor]

there's a really interesting post (that touches) on libertarianism and stuff on top of the front page at one of my favorite bloggy sites, http://idiocentrism.com
m. (...)

Im reading it right now, Ill look into it.