How my hope for this country was restored

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: DerekWilson


And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Of course he shares the beliefs of the people who did his newsletter, because he not only wrote articles in it, but he published it with his name on it. For decades. This wasn't a simple one issue thing, this was over decades of letting people write articles under his name, and people involved in those articles continue to work in his campaign staff.
Try this, send out a email newsletter and make it look like Anand is writing it. Now, fill the letter with articles calling MLK a gay pedophile, or calling all black people animals. See how long it takes until you a fired. Now, the complete opposite happened with the Paul newsletters.

Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

Wow... Below is a snippet from the Wiki on that Bill...

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced.

I say no thank you. :thumbsdown:

i see no problem with this bill. this is a state issue anyway and that is what RP believes in. putting the power back in the states not the federal government.

Ron Paul Statement Of Faith

Here's a clip from that:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called ?population control.? Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

In short, Ron Paul would like to see the end of legalized abortion. Maybe it's just me but I've had enough of the current evangelical crackpot president vetoing things like (edit: federal funds for) stem cell research to 'protect the unborn'. Again, no thanks. :thumbsdown:

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/5/2007--Introduced.

We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.

Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.

Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.

Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

Yes, the first time I read this bill I thought it was rather ludicris.

But in researching the 2nd Amendment found that this was exactly how the Constitution was understood from it's creation till about the 1870's. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 changed pretty much everything.

Until the 14th the Coinstitution was basically a pact between the federal government and the states. And yes, it was a limitation on the fed gov. It was NOT seen as a pact between the federal gov and citizens. Each state had it's own Constitution - that was the pact between citizens and their (state) government.

Concepts like freedon of speech and the right to bear arms were not seen as rights that could be guaranteed to citizens because they were seen as God-given inalienable rights that were supra-Constitutional (i.e., exceeded anything that could be guaranteed by a constitution - you can't guarantee what is beyond you).

The effect of the 14th, and how it has been interpreted, has greatly weakened states' rights, our own rights, and significantly changed the political process resulting in the supremecy of the two-party system IMO. I recognize the civil attrocitites it corrected, but the manner in which it acheived was il-conceived and I think could have been done without the attending negatives.

In sum, Ron Paul's position is "old school" constitutionally correct.

Fern

well said. it appears that the people in here dont agree with our the USC and want a big federal government to run everything. they love the idea of taking away states rights and citizens rights. they call RP a whack job but his ideals are based strictly out of the USC. whould these same people call the founding fathers of our country whackjobs?

The 14th amendment was conceived as a protection for minority rights, but ultimately has been used to recognize and protect corporations as "persons", granting them all the rights (yet non of the penalties) afforded persons in this country. The corporation wasn't an American institution during the founding fathers' era. It became so in the following century, thanks to efforts of big business comingling with government. It has continued through to the present, where republican administrations (and even democratic ones to a degree) allow corporate welfair to continue and undue lobbyist influence on the legislative branch to persist.

I don't think RP is a whack job. I just think he chose the wrong party to align himself with. If he was an independent or libertarian or something else then I would consider him more seriously.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: DerekWilson


And before anyone asks, yes I've read the bullshit about racism and the newsletter scandal garbage ? It's really easy for me to believe that Paul does not share the beliefs of the people who wrote the newsletter being part of AnandTech. I am positive that Anand doesn't read 100% of the material that goes up on his site. Even after that, I'm sure he disagrees with some of his editors' points sometimes, but we all have the freedom to publish what we truly believe about a product or technology. And beyond that, this forum has his name on it, and I'm sure that there are things here Anand disagrees with and that someone could get the wrong impression about him thorough.

Of course he shares the beliefs of the people who did his newsletter, because he not only wrote articles in it, but he published it with his name on it. For decades. This wasn't a simple one issue thing, this was over decades of letting people write articles under his name, and people involved in those articles continue to work in his campaign staff.
Try this, send out a email newsletter and make it look like Anand is writing it. Now, fill the letter with articles calling MLK a gay pedophile, or calling all black people animals. See how long it takes until you a fired. Now, the complete opposite happened with the Paul newsletters.

Now, have you ever looked at Paul's voting record and bills he's written? Take at look at HR300. HR300
You tell me he is for civil liberties after reading that.

Wow... Below is a snippet from the Wiki on that Bill...

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, unless those cases were a challenge to the constitutionality of federal law. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would prohibit federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Because the bill forbids federal courts from hearing "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion," a practical effect of this bill might be that atheists could be banned from holding public office in Texas, as its state constitution requires the acknowledgment of a supreme being.[4] However, historically this technicality has not been enforced.

I say no thank you. :thumbsdown:

i see no problem with this bill. this is a state issue anyway and that is what RP believes in. putting the power back in the states not the federal government.

Yes, disenfranchising people is a states right. States do not have the power to remove rights from people, just the same as the Fed Government doesn't have the right. Sorry, states proved they should not be the last line in deciding civil rights with things like Jim Crow, and the wonderful bills from Texas like the one above. How about Texas legislating sexual conduct between two consenting adults? That isn't a states right issue, thats states going over civil rights. Thankfully we had the Supreme Court around to slap laws like that down.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
I've made a decision that even if he's not on the ballot I will be writing in Ron Paul's name on all presidential elections until he's dead. And maybe even after ? he'd still have more sense than many of these guys even after he's gotten a bit ripe.

I LOL'ed

And I agree with you 100%. RP forever. The movement will live on long after he is gone.

:laugh: That's what they said about Perot... and he created a whole new party.

At least can take solice that AT was loosened from the grip of the Evangelical Republicans that hate America.

No such luck in sight for the Copprations that own the country yet though.