Why do you like Ron Paul?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

Stagnant:

tstorm823:
Proactive monetary policy is socialism. Setting the value of money is just as socialist as setting the value of goods.

So. What.

So. Fucking. What?

If it works, does it really matter? The gold standard is a terrible idea for a myriad of reasons, and the Fed can generally be considered an overall positive force on the economy when used correctly. I honestly think that if you're using "it's socialist" (and on very, VERY shaky grounding, mind you) as a way to attempt to discredit one of the foremost economic policies of the last 50 years, you probably are just biased against anything with the slightest hint of socialism, regardless of how positive of an impact it has.

I'm not trying to discredit it based on calling it socialist. I really am using the word as an accurate describer, not an insult of any kind. And one could argue that the last 50 years have been more bad than good... but this isn't an arguement on the merits of socialism; I'm just defending my claim that the majority of people here support policies like that, and as such would be expected to have only bad things to say about Ron Paul...

generals3:

I'm sorry but it's not socialist. As far as i know using proactive monetary policies have nothing to do with political affiliation. And if it were (though this must be the first time i ever read/hear that) than the non-socialist option is really bad. Because crippling yourself just doesn't ever sound good.

Socialism is an overall economic policy, revolving mainly around government control of resources. Since resources are controlled by money in our system, controlling the value of money essentially accomplishes the same thing.

Well if that's how you see it then sure. However whether or not a country should have a FIAT currency is something i have never seen any wing in any country (but the US i guess) even debate.

tstorm823:
And one could argue that the last 50 years have been more bad than good...

No, no one couldn't. Not without seeming like a ponce with neither a sense of perspective nor a grasp on how good we have it right now.

generals3:

Well if that's how you see it then sure. However whether or not a country should have a FIAT currency is something i have never seen any wing in any country (but the US i guess) even debate.

The US only really gained a completely fiat currency 40 years ago....

generals3:
and his foreign policy, while beautiful, is very idealistic and unrealistic. Sometimes you need to stick your nose in other people's business

Whelp, that's just plain wrong.

Well, I'm not really a big Ron Paul fan, but he's the most refreshing Republican we have. Pretty much everyone else in the Republican party is a hypocrite who says they hate big government, but only when it's aimed at things that help the disadvantaged. When it comes to big government that hurts the disadvantaged and takes away people's freedoms instead of the money of the rich, they're all for it! At least Ron Paul says he's anti-government, and means, and doesn't make an exception for the few things that government should stay the heck out of.

For instance, he doesn't go "oh no that Medicare thing is terrible stuff and bloobloobloo, kids will college degrees can't find work right now, get over it and stop asking for big brother to take care of you. Government is bad and this is still no exception.", and then turns around and say "oh no but marriage benefits are only for good Christian heterosexuals" and "oh but marijuana is a gateway drug so we must lock up everyone who does it or our families won't be safe" or "oh no we must make abortion illegal and try all women who have had one for murder" or "oh no but we need to increase military spending. Sure, we may have more efficient tools of murder than the rest of the world combined, but that doesn't mean we need to relax!" like the rest of his party.

To a reasonable degree. He ain't perfect. But as far as I'm aware, he's the best the Republicans have got. If anything, I think he makes a great way to splinter the Republican party with competition from someone slightly more sane, who isn't a complete Bible thumper.

LilithSlave:

generals3:
and his foreign policy, while beautiful, is very idealistic and unrealistic. Sometimes you need to stick your nose in other people's business

Whelp, that's just plain wrong.

Well, I'm not really a big Ron Paul fan, but he's the most refreshing Republican we have. Pretty much everyone else in the Republican party is a hypocrite who says they hate big government, but only when it's aimed at things that help the disadvantaged. When it comes to big government that hurts the disadvantaged and takes away people's freedoms instead of the money of the rich, they're all for it! At least Ron Paul says he's anti-government, and means, and doesn't make an exception for the few things that government should stay the heck out of.

For instance, he doesn't go "oh no that Medicare thing is terrible stuff and bloobloobloo, kids will college degrees can't find work right now, get over it and stop asking for big brother to take care of you. Government is bad and this is still no exception.", and then turns around and say "oh no but marriage benefits are only for good Christian heterosexuals" and "oh but marijuana is a gateway drug so we must lock up everyone who does it or our families won't be safe" or "oh no we must make abortion illegal and try all women who have had one for murder" or "oh no but we need to increase military spending. Sure, we may have more efficient tools of murder than the rest of the world combined, but that doesn't mean we need to relax!" like the rest of his party.

Im quite certain that he thinks abortion should be illegal..
""I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.""
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

And he only supports marriage for heterosexuals..

"At the same time, Paul is a lifelong Christian who says he personally believes in traditional marriage. In 2004, Paul said on the House floor, "I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." In August, Paul repeated, "I think that marriages should be between a single man and a single woman." "
""I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn't have this argument,"

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ron-paul-personally-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage-but/

So Im not sure if this is suppose to be satire or not..

Tubez:
Im quite certain that he thinks abortion should be illegal..
And he only supports marriage for heterosexuals..

I'd like a citation about pro-life claim.

Personally, he might be all sorts of things. But he doesn't bring his homophobic views into politics. And he does believe that heterosexual and homosexual couples should hold the same rights, and that government differences between the two should be removed.

LilithSlave:

generals3:
and his foreign policy, while beautiful, is very idealistic and unrealistic. Sometimes you need to stick your nose in other people's business

Whelp, that's just plain wrong.

Well, I'm not really a big Ron Paul fan, but he's the most refreshing Republican we have. Pretty much everyone else in the Republican party is a hypocrite who says they hate big government, but only when it's aimed at things that help the disadvantaged. When it comes to big government that hurts the disadvantaged and takes away people's freedoms instead of the money of the rich, they're all for it! At least Ron Paul says he's anti-government, and means, and doesn't make an exception for the few things that government should stay the heck out of.

For instance, he doesn't go "oh no that Medicare thing is terrible stuff and bloobloobloo, kids will college degrees can't find work right now, get over it and stop asking for big brother to take care of you. Government is bad and this is still no exception.", and then turns around and say "oh no but marriage benefits are only for good Christian heterosexuals" and "oh but marijuana is a gateway drug so we must lock up everyone who does it or our families won't be safe" or "oh no we must make abortion illegal and try all women who have had one for murder" or "oh no but we need to increase military spending. Sure, we may have more efficient tools of murder than the rest of the world combined, but that doesn't mean we need to relax!" like the rest of his party.

To a reasonable degree. He ain't perfect. But as far as I'm aware, he's the best the Republicans have got. If anything, I think he makes a great way to splinter the Republican party with competition from someone slightly more sane, who isn't a complete Bible thumper.

I would like to note i'm not pro tiny government. I believe in the benefits of a medium sized government (i'm neither a commie nor a libertarian). My point was that he wants the US to stay out of other countries' business. He doesn't believe in wars to protect one's own best interest. And while i can see how that can be a good thing i overall disagree. Sometimes a country needs a batallion of tanks and some airstrikes to be reminded that it can't just act as if it was the only country in the world. You have the army, use it. (with limits obviously, i'm not advocating 100% warmongering, but sometimes it is needed). And on that aspect Ron Paul seems or at least pretends to be too passive.

LilithSlave:

Tubez:
Im quite certain that he thinks abortion should be illegal..
And he only supports marriage for heterosexuals..

I'd like a citation about pro-life claim.

Personally, he might be all sorts of things. But he doesn't bring his homophobic views into politics. And he does believe that heterosexual and homosexual couples should hold the same rights, and that government differences between the two should be removed.

You can cheak my edit I did, which is from his own website.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.348194-Why-do-you-like-Ron-Paul?page=2#13873435

Tubez:
You can cheak my edit I did, which is from his own website.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.348194-Why-do-you-like-Ron-Paul?page=2#13873435

I see. I appear to have made a mistake on his positions here. I see his opinions, but I don't see his legal opinions exact and what he would vote for. Other than just leaving it up to the federal government. Which is at least better than the many Republicans(like Rick Santorum) who believe the federal government should step in and and outlaw abortion entirely. It's those federal government things, like Proposition 8, which would prevent progressive states from allowing gay people rights.

LilithSlave:

Tubez:
You can cheak my edit I did, which is from his own website.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.348194-Why-do-you-like-Ron-Paul?page=2#13873435

I see. I appear to have made a mistake on his positions here. I see his opinions, but I don't see his legal opinions exact and what he would vote for. Other than just leaving it up to the federal government. Which is at least better than the many Republicans(like Rick Santorum) who believe the federal government should step in and and outlaw abortion entirely. It's those federal government things, like Proposition 8, which would prevent progressive states from allowing gay people rights.

Honestly, I do not mean to insult anybody with this...

But I think all the republican nominations are completely batshit insane. I do agree that some of their position could be decent but pretty much all of them has something which would make me never ever vote for them

But then again Im a socialist from Sweden so.. I guess they are not really trying to gain my vote

Tubez:
Honestly, I do not mean to insult anybody but with this...

But I think all the republican nominations are completely batshit insane. I do agree that some of their position could be decent but pretty much all of them has something which would make me never ever vote for them

I feel this way too. Many people do. I'm about as far away from every position of the Republican Party as it gets. Maybe the only stance they have I'm with is their tendency on the issue of gun rights.

And you're right about that stuff. I was wrong, I had no idea he was so pro-life. It just goes to show how bad most Republicans are, when the best guy they pump out is Ron Paul. You know, unless you can point me in the direction of a more "progressive" or great personal rights believing Republican.

With Ron Paul, I probably only disagree with him on about %67 of things or so. With the other Republicans, I disagree with them on about %97 of things. If not more.

LilithSlave:

Tubez:
Honestly, I do not mean to insult anybody but with this...

But I think all the republican nominations are completely batshit insane. I do agree that some of their position could be decent but pretty much all of them has something which would make me never ever vote for them

I feel this way too. Many people do. I'm about as far away from every position of the Republican Party as it gets. Maybe the only stance they have I'm with is their tendency on the issue of gun rights.

And you're right about that stuff. I was wrong, I had no idea he was so pro-life. It just goes to show how bad most Republicans are, when the best guy they pump out is Ron Paul. You know, unless you can point me in the direction of a more "progressive" or great personal rights believing Republican.

With Ron Paul, I probably only disagree with him on about %67 of things or so. With the other Republicans, I disagree with them on about %97 of things. If not more.

Quite hard to keep track on what everyone think about everything so no worries, and yeah I do agree that it says quite a lot about the current republican nominations. If republicans wins the white house with any of the current nominations I will be speechless..

LilithSlave:
Personally, he might be all sorts of things. But he doesn't bring his homophobic views into politics. And he does believe that heterosexual and homosexual couples should hold the same rights, and that government differences between the two should be removed.

Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, the likely unconstitutional federal law that says that even if a state approves gay marriage, the federal government shall consider it invalid, ensuring that even those gay people who live in states that have full marriage equality will never have anywhere close to actual equal rights.

He's also a strong supporter of the Marriage Protection Act, and later the We The People Act, both of which, if approved, would make it illegal for someone to sue the federal government on the basis of discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

He is repeatedly on record as saying that marriage should be between one man and one woman, while on other occasions he's made remarks that two consenting adults should basically be able to whatever they want. I think he struggles deeply to reconcile his libertarian principles with his personal disgust towards gays. His congressional record sides with the disgust, however.

I'll give him credit, at least he is against amending the US Constitution to outlaw gay marriage throughout the country, which is the default position for the rest of the Republican candidates, and he did, eventually, support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Basically though, if you're gay Paul thinks that if your state wants to give you rights then that's okay, but your unions should never be recognised by states that don't agree (possibly in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution) nor should the federal government recognise gay unions, forever denying the right of gays to become a legal family and denying gays the juiciest benefits of marriage (big federal tax breaks, spousal immigration rights, preferential treatment if you're in the military, the right to your deceased spouse's pension and health insurance, etc.).

ten.to.ten:
snip

I don't know whether that's directed at me for saying that Ron Paul is better on these issues than other Republicans, or whether you're just expounding on the issue for the sake of it. But that's a very informative post and I'm glad it was made.

For what it's worth, I certainly never said I liked Ron Paul anywhere in this thread or anywhere really. I didn't call him a saint. I merely said he was the best Republican.

I'm glad at least that his libertarian ideals manage to interfere with his homophobia. And for this and issues of foreign policy, and other issues of civil liberties, he at least comes off as a more convincing Libertarian than Bob Barr or the like.

If I were to mention politicians I actually like and agree with on almost everything, it would be people like Dennis Kucinich. If I had my wish, all of congress would be filled with people exactly like the man.

By the way, it appears that even many Ron Paul supporters find his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act to be one of his shortcomings.

LilithSlave:

ten.to.ten:
snip

I don't know whether that's directed at me for saying that Ron Paul is better on these issues than other Republicans, or whether you're just expounding on the issue for the sake of it. But that's a very informative post and I'm glad it was made.

For what it's worth, I certainly never said I liked Ron Paul anywhere in this thread or anywhere really. I didn't call him a saint. I merely said he was the best Republican.

I'm glad at least that his libertarian ideals manage to interfere with his homophobia. And for this and issues of foreign policy, and other issues of civil liberties, he at least comes off as a more convincing Libertarian than Bob Barr or the like.

If I were to mention politicians I actually like and agree with on almost everything, it would be people like Dennis Kucinich. If I had my wish, all of congress would be filled with people exactly like the man.

By the way, it appears that even many Ron Paul supporters find his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act to be one of his shortcomings.

You do know that Dennis Kucinich loves Ron Paul, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

And he's not homophobic... sigh.

You were entirely right about his stance on gay marriage in the first place... somehow the guy telling you otherwise quoted this "I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn't have this argument," and didn't realize what that implied. Since there is no law formbidding people of the same gender from writing private contracts, that certainly would allow gay marriage 100%.

His congressional record does not specifically side against gay marriage, it specifically sides against federal involvement in the issue, and frankly, nationally acknowledging gay marriage would be more involvement in the issue than the status quo. He does think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also thinks his church services are correct doctrine and my Catholic masses are incorrect beliefs... that's not going to make him try and outlaw catholicism.

And Roe v Wade was terrible. Even if you agree with the decision, it was 100% legislation from the court which is one more example of the branches of the federal government doing whatever the hell they want without regards to the intended methods. The constitution was written to restrict the federal government; ignoring it is perilous.

And it's stupid to think that states can't have their own laws on the issue. You can go ahead and enjoy all the stupid laws states have made without being challenged by the supreme court. Abortion is something seriously considered an abomination by many people, but we can't outlaw that while we can outlaw 16 women living in one house in Pennsylvania. Riddle me that one, Batman.

tstorm823:

LilithSlave:

ten.to.ten:
snip

I don't know whether that's directed at me for saying that Ron Paul is better on these issues than other Republicans, or whether you're just expounding on the issue for the sake of it. But that's a very informative post and I'm glad it was made.

For what it's worth, I certainly never said I liked Ron Paul anywhere in this thread or anywhere really. I didn't call him a saint. I merely said he was the best Republican.

I'm glad at least that his libertarian ideals manage to interfere with his homophobia. And for this and issues of foreign policy, and other issues of civil liberties, he at least comes off as a more convincing Libertarian than Bob Barr or the like.

If I were to mention politicians I actually like and agree with on almost everything, it would be people like Dennis Kucinich. If I had my wish, all of congress would be filled with people exactly like the man.

By the way, it appears that even many Ron Paul supporters find his stance on the Defense of Marriage Act to be one of his shortcomings.

You do know that Dennis Kucinich loves Ron Paul, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

And he's not homophobic... sigh.

You were entirely right about his stance on gay marriage in the first place... somehow the guy telling you otherwise quoted this "I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn't have this argument," and didn't realize what that implied. Since there is no law formbidding people of the same gender from writing private contracts, that certainly would allow gay marriage 100%.

His congressional record does not specifically side against gay marriage, it specifically sides against federal involvement in the issue, and frankly, nationally acknowledging gay marriage would be more involvement in the issue than the status quo. He does think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also thinks his church services are correct doctrine and my Catholic masses are incorrect beliefs... that's not going to make him try and outlaw catholicism.

And Roe v Wade was terrible. Even if you agree with the decision, it was 100% legislation from the court which is one more example of the branches of the federal government doing whatever the hell they want without regards to the intended methods. The constitution was written to restrict the federal government; ignoring it is perilous.

And it's stupid to think that states can't have their own laws on the issue. You can go ahead and enjoy all the stupid laws states have made without being challenged by the supreme court. Abortion is something seriously considered an abomination by many people, but we can't outlaw that while we can outlaw 16 women living in one house in Pennsylvania. Riddle me that one, Batman.

I know what he means with that, since it's a common argument from people that do not like gay marriage. They think that government shouldnt decided what is a marriage but they have no problem having government benefits from marriage.

" But he also opposed federal "hate crimes" legislation and criticized the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case for overriding state anti-sodomy laws."

Yeah real bad of the SC to allow gay men having sex with eachother..

"He wrote in Liberty Defined that he considers protecting the unborn "a state-level responsibility." His 2007 Sanctity of Life Act would have declared "the term 'person' shall include all human life" from the moment of conception. He supports the full defunding of Planned Parenthood at home and all "family planning" measures around the world."

Source

Tubez:

I know what he means with that, since it's a common argument from people that do not like gay marriage. They think that government shouldnt decided what is a marriage but they have no problem having government benefits from marriage.

Find where Ron Paul agrees with government benefits from marriage and you have an arguement...

" But he also opposed federal "hate crimes" legislation and criticized the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case for overriding state anti-sodomy laws."

Yeah real bad of the SC to allow gay men having sex with eachother..

That's still less stupid than "men cannot knit during fishing season" in New Jersey. States are allowed to make stupid and completely unenforcible laws. If you want a stupid law repealed, you go through that states legal system...

"He wrote in Liberty Defined that he considers protecting the unborn "a state-level responsibility." His 2007 Sanctity of Life Act would have declared "the term 'person' shall include all human life" from the moment of conception. He supports the full defunding of Planned Parenthood at home and all "family planning" measures around the world."

Source

Defining a "person" at conception is legitimate, since that's the first instance someone recieves any legal protections, and it would not immediately outlaw all abortion. Killing a person is not immediately murder, and many states would regard abortion in the same light as self-defense. He supports the federal defunding of all medical programs so it's not as though he's picking on "family planning" measures...

A lot of his appeal comes from the basic states rights vs federal rights argument. He wants to get rid of a lot of the government's power and give back to the states. That's his entire political stance in a nutshell. He's also got a fair amount of good ideas with a couple of retarded ideas sprinkled throughout. It might be that compared to all the other candidates, he is the most sane comparatively.

tstorm823:
Socialism is an overall economic policy, revolving mainly around government control of resources.

Incorrect; socialism encompasses the means of production being under worker's control. Any number of economic models can make use of centralized financial planning. It is in no way socialist; you might call it social, or humane, but not socialist.

TheMatsjo:

tstorm823:
Socialism is an overall economic policy, revolving mainly around government control of resources.

Incorrect; socialism encompasses the means of production being under worker's control. Any number of economic models can make use of centralized financial planning. It is in no way socialist; you might call it social, or humane, but not socialist.

Through what method is the means of production under the worker's control? What entity is responsible for that function?

tstorm823:

TheMatsjo:

tstorm823:
Socialism is an overall economic policy, revolving mainly around government control of resources.

Incorrect; socialism encompasses the means of production being under worker's control. Any number of economic models can make use of centralized financial planning. It is in no way socialist; you might call it social, or humane, but not socialist.

Through what method is the means of production under the worker's control? What entity is responsible for that function?

Generally, a board of directors with workers' representatives on it that comprise a substantial voting block. Most companies that operate this way tend to have much higher job satisfaction, fewer layoffs, and much more reasonable pay scales, particularly for executives and upper management (i.e. no outrageous salaries when the economy's bad and top-level executives sometimes have their pay tied to the pay of the lower-level employees).

The one catch: profit tends to be lower than your standard Fortune 500 and they are almost never publicly traded. Profit is an ancillary goal for these companies. Their main goal is solid, sustainable growth. Profit is reinvested in R&D, facility management, or dispersed directly to employees, depending on the circumstances.

tstorm823:
I'm not trying to discredit it based on calling it socialist. I really am using the word as an accurate describer, not an insult of any kind.

Accurate? Socialism is far-reaching redistribution of wealth and services to make them perfectly equal.

Monetary policy is about as socialist as losing one hair makes you bald.

tstorm823:
And one could argue that the last 50 years have been more bad than good...

...primarily because the impact of 18th-19th century laissez-faire capitalism policies like Ron Paul wants, have hollowed out the economic backbone of the US on a structural level, while at the same time extreme nationalism like Ron Paul proposes lead to the Cold War and huge spending on military matters that proved useless.

But every disadvantage has it's advantage... I'm sure chairman Hu Jintao will be thrilled by all the support Paulites are gaining. All the more power vacuum for his country to absorb.

tstorm823:
You were entirely right about his stance on gay marriage in the first place... somehow the guy telling you otherwise quoted this "I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn't have this argument," and didn't realize what that implied. Since there is no law formbidding people of the same gender from writing private contracts, that certainly would allow gay marriage 100%.

There is no private contract that could come anywhere close to allowing a couple all of the benefits the state and federal governments give to married couples. I'd love you to present a private contract to the IRS and claim that since you've had a private marriage you don't have to pay as much tax, or say that this immigrant gets to live with you based on your private contract marriage. It would never happen, if gays could get all of the benefits of marriage through private means there wouldn't be as big of a push as there is to allow gay marriage federally.

There would have to be a massive overhaul of family law in the US before anything like this could actually happen, and all the libertarian Republican types like Paul have been much more interested in trying to prevent gays from getting rights and keeping the current system than for reforming the system to allow for equal rights.

tstorm823:
His congressional record does not specifically side against gay marriage, it specifically sides against federal involvement in the issue, and frankly, nationally acknowledging gay marriage would be more involvement in the issue than the status quo. He does think that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also thinks his church services are correct doctrine and my Catholic masses are incorrect beliefs... that's not going to make him try and outlaw catholicism.

Supporting DOMA is supporting federal involvement, using the muscle of the federal government to ban full marriage equality throughout the country. The way that marriage works in America, the only conscionable and intellectually honest position to have on marriage that is consistent with states rights is to allow states that want to have gay marriage to have it and for the federal government to recognise as valid any marriage a state says is valid, and this is exactly how it worked up until 1996 when DOMA interfered with it. No matter what a state like Massachusetts or New York does, gay couples in those states do not have anywhere close to the privileges that straight couples have in those states, because of DOMA and the federal government having its own definition of marriage and putting up barriers where it shouldn't.

As for whether other states that don't have gay marriage should have to recognise a gay marriage from a state that does, there needs to be a Supreme Court ruling once and for all to decide whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies to marriage.

ten.to.ten:

There is no private contract that could come anywhere close to allowing a couple all of the benefits the state and federal governments give to married couples. I'd love you to present a private contract to the IRS and claim that since you've had a private marriage you don't have to pay as much tax, or say that this immigrant gets to live with you based on your private contract marriage. It would never happen, if gays could get all of the benefits of marriage through private means there wouldn't be as big of a push as there is to allow gay marriage federally.

I thought this was going to be an irrelevant rant until you said:

There would have to be a massive overhaul of family law in the US before anything like this could actually happen,

Bingo! He has hit the nail on the head! That's what we're looking for...

and all the libertarian Republican types like Paul have been much more interested in trying to prevent gays from getting rights and keeping the current system than for reforming the system to allow for equal rights.

And then he starts conflating some more.

Supporting DOMA is supporting federal involvement, using the muscle of the federal government to ban full marriage equality throughout the country. The way that marriage works in America, the only conscionable and intellectually honest position to have on marriage that is consistent with states rights is to allow states that want to have gay marriage to have it and for the federal government to recognise as valid any marriage a state says is valid, and this is exactly how it worked up until 1996 when DOMA interfered with it. No matter what a state like Massachusetts or New York does, gay couples in those states do not have anywhere close to the privileges that straight couples have in those states, because of DOMA and the federal government having its own definition of marriage and putting up barriers where it shouldn't.

If you really wanna take the side that making states take legal precedents from other states is less government intervention than telling them they don't have to, there's surprisingly an arguement there, but even so, that doesn't at all account for the fact that what you want is marriage benefits for gay marriages as well, and libertarian principles would want none of those benefits for anyone. Giving someone more legal rights based on their lifestyle is stupid, but then we're just back to a massive overhaul of family law... Giving marriage benefits to any kind of marriage is still singling out a group to give an advantage to, it's just a larger group.

You want to fight for equality, no rights given to one group over another sounds like a good fight, not just fight to get the benefits to include a group you like. Fighting for recognition is the wrong fight.

tstorm823:
If you really wanna take the side that making states take legal precedents from other states is less government intervention than telling them they don't have to, there's surprisingly an arguement there, but even so, that doesn't at all account for the fact that what you want is marriage benefits for gay marriages as well, and libertarian principles would want none of those benefits for anyone. Giving someone more legal rights based on their lifestyle is stupid, but then we're just back to a massive overhaul of family law... Giving marriage benefits to any kind of marriage is still singling out a group to give an advantage to, it's just a larger group.

You want to fight for equality, no rights given to one group over another sounds like a good fight, not just fight to get the benefits to include a group you like. Fighting for recognition is the wrong fight.

I do get your argument, in the United States of Libertopia I wouldn't need to get married to receive any benefits from anyone, my partner wouldn't need to marry me to sponsor me for immigration purposes because there wouldn't be restrictions on immigration in the first place. Ron Paul, regardless of what he says though, supports the legislation that ensures the federal ban on gay marriage is continued and has not supported, created, or sponsored legislation that would abolish federal recognition of marriage altogether. This is discriminatory, anti-gay and anti-libertarian. Abolishing government authorised marriage also has a 0% chance of actually happening.

In the mean time I'm not going to gladly accept being fake-libartarianism's whipping boy to shoulder the burden of having no ability in the US of having my relationship recognised as a legal family entitled to protections for the sake of some blind ideological purity that thinks that banning government sanctioned marriage from one class of people is a good start.

If you believe in libertarian principles you can be an idealist and support an absolute abolition of all government sanctioned marriage in the US or you can be a pragmatist and concede that since there is no wide support to abolish government sanctioned marriage the fairest thing to do would be to allow more people to have access to it. Ron Paul is neither.

I don't really, I just think he's the best of a bad bunch (as GOP Candidates go)

I mean, he's pro-weed-decriminalization, not a religious nut, and is at least honest about things.

On the other hand, America doesn't need someone to minimize government, it needs more of the right kind.

ten.to.ten:

I do get your argument, in the United States of Libertopia I wouldn't need to get married to receive any benefits from anyone, my partner wouldn't need to marry me to sponsor me for immigration purposes because there wouldn't be restrictions on immigration in the first place. Ron Paul, regardless of what he says though, supports the legislation that ensures the federal ban on gay marriage is continued and has not supported, created, or sponsored legislation that would abolish federal recognition of marriage altogether. This is discriminatory, anti-gay and anti-libertarian. Abolishing government authorised marriage also has a 0% chance of actually happening.

Which is, I understand, the arguement for your pragmatic stance below, and you are right to fight that fight, but that doesn't make it right for Ron Paul. The behavior of a movement and the behavior of an indivdual in some position of power should not be the same thing. Ron Paul can neither accept the lesser of two evils option nor blindly push all his ideals without defeating himself immediately. I'm quite convinced Ron Paul would be working towards taking marriage out of government if it wasn't an effort that would distract from the issues that he's spending his time and legislation on- like war, and personal privacy, and transparency from the federal reserve. Since neither side with regards to marriage agrees with him, he'll essentially go with whatever will cause the least change, since practically every change brought on by federal action is a precedent for future government action.

In the mean time I'm not going to gladly accept being fake-libartarianism's whipping boy to shoulder the burden of having no ability in the US of having my relationship recognised as a legal family entitled to protections for the sake of some blind ideological purity that thinks that banning government sanctioned marriage from one class of people is a good start.

If you believe in libertarian principles you can be an idealist and support an absolute abolition of all government sanctioned marriage in the US or you can be a pragmatist and concede that since there is no wide support to abolish government sanctioned marriage the fairest thing to do would be to allow more people to have access to it. Ron Paul is neither.

I would not suggest you just accept it, but it's a far stretch to judge a man who's far from your circumstances for not championing positions the way you see them. Unless you truely think the man is stupid or evil, you can understand there are reasons why a man who is trying to end idiotic wars is whispering that government should get out of marriage instead of screaming it from the Capitol steps.

tstorm823:
Through what method is the means of production under the worker's control? What entity is responsible for that function?

There is no entity necessary for that function; the governing and the governed are one and the same. If you are asking about means of representation you might look to worker's councils. In any case it's irrelevant to your point, seeing as a myriad of economic and political models can make use of active financial policy, and they do.

Benny Blanco:
not a religious nut, and is at least honest about things.

Someone who thinks women are inferior, and nothing but property, and homosexuals are evil and should be discriminated against, is not a religious nut?

And wrapping policies based on that in excuses and disguising them with smokescreens is honest? Ron Paul wants to ban all abortion, but because he's not man enough to step up to a rape victim and tell her she's a dirty promiscuous slut who must be punished by having a baby, he wraps it in some excuse about wanting to move abortion decision to the state (the only way possible to dodge the Roe vs Wade ruling).

If anything, Ron Paul is the most dishonest GOP candidate. At least the other religious crazies dare identify themselves as such. In terms of my approval I rank Santorum somewhere in between murderers and cockroaches, but at least he isn't pretending to be something he's not. He wants to turn the US into the Christian equivalent of Saoudi-Arabia, and whomever votes for him knows that. No such honesty from Ron Paul, who even denies being a racist despite of sticking up for hardcore nazis and saying "95% if not all blacks are criminals".
Then again, Paulites want to be lied to. They don't want to publicly back a religious lunatic. They want someone who wants everything the loonies want, but claims to be different anyway.

TheMatsjo:

There is no entity necessary for that function; the governing and the governed are one and the same. If you are asking about means of representation you might look to worker's councils. In any case it's irrelevant to your point, seeing as a myriad of economic and political models can make use of active financial policy, and they do.

Sounds like you're just being silly...

The governing and the governed being one in the same is (supposed to be) the key characteristis of democracy, but that hardly matters since democracy is a governmental organization and socialism is an economic system, and therefore is completely unrelated to who is in charge. You can have democratic socialism, you can have dictatorial socialism, you could even have theocratic socialism, since you are right that a myriad of political models can use that...

But let's just take a direct quote from wikipedia page on socialism and say "Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy."

And then I head over to the page for "economic systems" and don't find a myriad of them, I find 7.

Market economy ("hands off" systems, such as Laissez-faire capitalism)
Mixed economy (a hybrid that blends some aspects of both market and planned economies)
Planned economy ("hands on" systems, such as state socialism)
Traditional economy (a generic term for older economic systems)
Participatory economics (a system where the production and distribution of goods is guided by public participation)
Gift economy (where an exchange is made without any explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards)
Barter economy (where goods and services are directly exchanged for other goods or services)

And of those, 2 of them have any suggestion of social of government control of currency or resources, planned and participatory. (I'm not counting mixed as it would be redundant). And the main article for both those economies says "is a form of socialism." And clearly mixed would be "is half socialism."

I really have no idea where you're getting your ideas from.

Blablahb:

Benny Blanco:
not a religious nut, and is at least honest about things.

Someone who thinks women are inferior, and nothing but property, and homosexuals are evil and should be discriminated against, is not a religious nut?

And wrapping policies based on that in excuses and disguising them with smokescreens is honest? Ron Paul wants to ban all abortion, but because he's not man enough to step up to a rape victim and tell her she's a dirty promiscuous slut who must be punished by having a baby, he wraps it in some excuse about wanting to move abortion decision to the state (the only way possible to dodge the Roe vs Wade ruling).

If anything, Ron Paul is the most dishonest GOP candidate. At least the other religious crazies dare identify themselves as such. In terms of my approval I rank Santorum somewhere in between murderers and cockroaches, but at least he isn't pretending to be something he's not. He wants to turn the US into the Christian equivalent of Saoudi-Arabia, and whomever votes for him knows that. No such honesty from Ron Paul, who even denies being a racist despite of sticking up for hardcore nazis and saying "95% if not all blacks are criminals".
Then again, Paulites want to be lied to. They don't want to publicly back a religious lunatic. They want someone who wants everything the loonies want, but claims to be different anyway.

OK, I think I did say I didn't particularly like him.

Not all the coverage has made it his side of the Atlantic. I'm sure I would have remembered racist or misogynistic comments if they'd been aired here, nor do I recall anything on the Daily Show international edition.

If it's any consolation, I don't get to vote in US elections and if I did I'd be backing Obama.

tstorm823:
Sounds like you're just being silly...

Socialism could be enacted many ways, as the concept of 'worker ownership' could be enacted many ways.

There is of course socialist libertarianism - sometimes just called Anarchism - with the state and private property (in terms of the means of production) abolished, and everything run communally by the workers themselves.

rp2012:
I like him because he has the most pragmatic views. He promotes liberty and believes that everyone should be allowed to do what they want with their own body. If you think you know a lot about ron paul you should check out the cool quiz at Ron Paul Quiz

Hi mr bot/spammer, he doesnt believe that everyone should be able to do what they want with their own body since if he did he would support abortion.

And yeah he really supports peoples freedom..

"I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.""

Agema:

Socialism could be enacted many ways, as the concept of 'worker ownership' could be enacted many ways.

There is of course socialist libertarianism - sometimes just called Anarchism - with the state and private property (in terms of the means of production) abolished, and everything run communally by the workers themselves.

Right, but that only shows that socialism can encompass more than what I have described, not that it doesn't include what I've described, and that's what was being claimed.

Tubez:

Hi mr bot/spammer, he doesnt believe that everyone should be able to do what they want with their own body since if he did he would support abortion.

Unless the fetus isn't the mother's body and is instead a unique person... You need to completely ignore his arguement to call his stance inconsistent, so give it a rest.

tstorm823:

Agema:

Socialism could be enacted many ways, as the concept of 'worker ownership' could be enacted many ways.

There is of course socialist libertarianism - sometimes just called Anarchism - with the state and private property (in terms of the means of production) abolished, and everything run communally by the workers themselves.

Right, but that only shows that socialism can encompass more than what I have described, not that it doesn't include what I've described, and that's what was being claimed.

Tubez:

Hi mr bot/spammer, he doesnt believe that everyone should be able to do what they want with their own body since if he did he would support abortion.

Unless the fetus isn't the mother's body and is instead a unique person... You need to completely ignore his arguement to call his stance inconsistent, so give it a rest.

Well I do not see a bunch of cells as a human being so I will completely ignore that argument until you show me some proof that some cells = human

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked