|
On December 19 2011 07:16 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote:
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
It's also amazing how "liberal" judges are always seen as activist but "conservative" judges don't do the same at all... How could they be activist when in most cases a Conservative is merely respecting preexisting laws and actions of behaviour? Though I agree with Gingrich that the Supreme court is a joke, and has been a joke for the better part of a century, your completely right that his proposal is very short sighted. Whether it has historical precedent or not it can be abused.
This is not true at all. Just look at rulings the conservative members of the supreme court in recent years. They could've come straight from the Tea Party. Bush v Gore merely respecting preexisting existing laws? A race that close to call had never been decided by the Supreme Court before. Citizens United vs FEC merely respecting preexisting laws? Democracy hasn't be so blatantly bought by money since the Gilded Age. How on Earth is the Supreme Court 5-4 decision to let lobbyists spend unlimited sums on political campaigns (whoo even more buying-out of Washington DC than before) not judicial activism?
|
Canada11363 Posts
On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote:
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
.
Not just him though. When the Republicans were out of power, the Dems complained about Republican filibustering in the Senate, girdlocking the system. Or course when the Dems were out of power, they did the same thing with the Republicans complaining loudly. Now the Dems are out of power and the Republicans have perfected the art of filibustering. Someone has got to realize for the good of both parties, that there needs to be a limit to filibustering like in Congress so that the duly elected government can get on with governing. And when they switch places, the next duly elected government can get on with governing. However, whenever the exploit works in their favour, it is exploited even if it means grinding the government to a halt.
It's no wonder the Congress and Senate have such low polling numbers when both sides would rather see America burn to the ground rather than let the winning side actually make use of their winning. Here's a hint- you got voted out. That means enough people didn't think you did good enough job and you're getting a time out. Opposing the government is different than Obstruction and someone's got to be a little more farsighted and patch the filibustering exploit in the Senate.
How on Earth is the Supreme Court 5-4 decision to let lobbyists spend unlimited sums on political campaigns (whoo even more buying-out of Washington DC than before) not judicial activism?
Ah. So that's one of the culprit rulings that's helped flood the system with money. Corporatism at it's finest. I strongly think the best thing is to either severely limit if not cut off the ability for corporations and unions to fund political campaigns. It just opens up the entire system to legalized corruption in the name of free speech.
|
On December 19 2011 08:20 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote:
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
. Show nested quote +
How on Earth is the Supreme Court 5-4 decision to let lobbyists spend unlimited sums on political campaigns (whoo even more buying-out of Washington DC than before) not judicial activism?
Ah. So that's one of the culprit rulings that's helped flood the system with money. Corporatism at it's finest. I strongly think the best thing is to either severely limit if not cut off the ability for corporations and unions to fund political campaigns. It just opens up the entire system to legalized corruption in the name of free speech. Theres no way to get that passed with todays political climate, hell, just based on the fact that the Goverment is already in their pockets. The only surefire way to keep the Government from corruption is to remove all its meaningful powers. You can bribe a weak Government, you just wouldnt bother.
|
On December 19 2011 07:21 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 07:16 lizzard_warish wrote:On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote:
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
It's also amazing how "liberal" judges are always seen as activist but "conservative" judges don't do the same at all... How could they be activist when in most cases a Conservative is merely respecting preexisting laws and actions of behaviour? Though I agree with Gingrich that the Supreme court is a joke, and has been a joke for the better part of a century, your completely right that his proposal is very short sighted. Whether it has historical precedent or not it can be abused. I don't see how upholding the constitution against mob rule is a joke.
it's been a joke ever since FDR started pioneered openly packing for partisan reasons
|
Canada11363 Posts
On December 19 2011 12:09 lizzard_warish wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 08:20 Falling wrote:On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote:
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
.
How on Earth is the Supreme Court 5-4 decision to let lobbyists spend unlimited sums on political campaigns (whoo even more buying-out of Washington DC than before) not judicial activism?
Ah. So that's one of the culprit rulings that's helped flood the system with money. Corporatism at it's finest. I strongly think the best thing is to either severely limit if not cut off the ability for corporations and unions to fund political campaigns. It just opens up the entire system to legalized corruption in the name of free speech. Theres no way to get that passed with todays political climate, hell, just based on the fact that the Goverment is already in their pockets. The only surefire way to keep the Government from corruption is to remove all its meaningful powers. You can bribe a weak Government, you just wouldnt bother.
I imagine it would be impossible to pass for that very reason. If the corporations have significant power and the politicians in power are there at the behest of those corporations, who exactly is going to bite the hand that feeds?
For such change to happen, I think you need two things. A massive scandal that rocks the nation where the corruption is clearly the result of a broken system. And second, a person or party coming into power that actually benefits from cutting corporation/ union spending aka their donations are mostly small donations, but from a broad spectrum of people.
Those two reasons I think is the main reason we have such harsh laws in Canada (no corporate/ union funding and private individuals have a maximum limit.) The Liberal's sponsorship scandal provided the outrage and the Conservatives had a broader support of small donations vs the Red Machine (Liberals) that relied much more heavily fewer, but larger donations. Since then the Red Machine has broken down and has been trying to rebuild for awhile.
|
On December 19 2011 06:41 Adila wrote:
It is just amazing how short-sighted he is sometimes. If you give that power to the "conservatives" now, that means you're giving the same power to the "liberals" if/when they take control.
It's also amazing how "liberal" judges are always seen as activist but "conservative" judges don't do the same at all...
Activist judges are judges who decide against your personal views. Truth be told, judging isn't a purely logical activity, and personal opinions about overall law are required.
|
On December 19 2011 00:37 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2011 23:06 ryanAnger wrote:
People are going to shit bricks when Paul wins Iowa. And I really think he will. His ability to campaign in specific areas far surpasses everyone else in the running, especially Newt (he's not really doing much of anything on the campaign trail). His national numbers are low, but national polls this early never matter. In 2008, McCain was polling fifth place during this period. Once Paul wins (or at least gets a close second) in Iowa, the GOP is going to have to realize he's a force to be reckoned with, and he will get the national media coverage that he's not currently.
Regardless of what you (referring to the at least semi educated reader and contributor of this thread) think about his policies, the average American doesn't know or care enough about politics to be critical of his views. To the average American, Ron Paul is going to look like a politician who isn't corrupt, doesn't flip flop, has served in the military, has had a career outside of politics, and adamantly supports withdrawal from war.
That last one: that is what will allow him to win the GOP nod, and then the general. According to recent national polls, 78% of Americans want out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, think the war has been an enormous waste of time and resources, and want nothing to do with any potential war in the future.
Ron Paul is the only candidate (Obama included) that is willing to do that. To the average American, that is his biggest selling point. They just don't know it yet. Yes, and we saw how well winning Iowa did for Huckabee 4 years ago. You guys seem to think that EVERYBODY would support Paul if they just knew what he stood for, but that's not the case. Right now, his staunch supporters have it easy, seeing how they only have to deal with fringe attacks on his stances and politics. If he were to gain the spotlight beyond, "How do you explain Ron Paul's energetic support?!" I'm not certain his campaign could handle the scrutiny. Not because he has so much to hide, but it takes a lot of experience and charisma to deflect attacks. Personally, I hope he does well in Iowa so he will at least get the media attention he's deserved, even if I don't agree with half of his policies and think he hasn't a chance overall.
You do realize that Obama won Iowa in 2008 and went on to be our President. Also, they were pretty much saying the same thing about him but, his "young" supporters helped him get into office basically. Now we're seeing this happen to Ron Paul which is why so many hard core Obama fans are fearful of him stealing all their votes. 
|
Why should Obama voters be scared of a guy that isn't even really liked by the Republican base?
Paul's main asset seems to be that his competition is abismal... Else he would probably have allready done (really) good in earlier elections/preliminaries?
Seriously.. Every 4 years the Paul-o-mania starts again. When judging by the internet he should be in the white house since 4-8 years allready but he never even came close...
Seems weird to me.
|
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty.
|
And do you know what the purpose of the Constitution is?
|
On December 19 2011 18:52 BlackJack wrote:
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty.
Not sure if trolling or....anyways, what do you mean by him not caring about peoples liberty? That's all he preaches 24/7 rofl. Show me what positions he's actually taking and how it fringes on peoples liberty.
|
On December 19 2011 19:28 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 18:52 BlackJack wrote:
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty. Not sure if trolling or....anyways, what do you mean by him not caring about peoples liberty? That's all he preaches 24/7 rofl. Show me what positions he's actually taking and how it fringes on peoples liberty.
No, what he preaches is following the constitution and state's rights.
Let's take the War on Drugs. It just so happens that some drugs are illegal on a federal level. He believes that if states want to legalize drugs they should be able to. You may think this is good, personal liberty, choosing what to do with our own bodies, etc. However if drugs are legalized on the federal level and states want to criminalize drugs then they should be allowed to do that, too. So in this instance freedom is being taken away by the states instead of the federal government.
So in the end, it's not about legalizing drugs because people should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their body. It's all about giving the states the right to regulate drugs however they choose, regardless if its more or less freedom for the people.
Q: But you would decriminalize it?
A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.
|
On December 19 2011 19:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 19:28 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On December 19 2011 18:52 BlackJack wrote:
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty. Not sure if trolling or....anyways, what do you mean by him not caring about peoples liberty? That's all he preaches 24/7 rofl. Show me what positions he's actually taking and how it fringes on peoples liberty. No, what he preaches is following the constitution and state's rights. Let's take the War on Drugs. It just so happens that some drugs are illegal on a federal level. He believes that if states want to legalize drugs they should be able to. You may think this is good, personal liberty, choosing what to do with our own bodies, etc. However if drugs are legalized on the federal level and states want to criminalize drugs then they should be allowed to do that, too. So in this instance freedom is being taken away by the states instead of the federal government. So in the end, it's not about legalizing drugs because people should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their body. It's all about giving the states the right to regulate drugs however they choose, regardless if its more or less freedom for the people. Show nested quote +Q: But you would decriminalize it?
A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.
And I'm not even sure how you're going to enforce state drug laws. Would you need border checks between states?
|
Yes and that's exactly what your founding fathers intended - for states to be able to regulate themselves for the most part. Look at what has just been happening with the NDAA act in your country
|
On December 19 2011 19:52 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 19:45 BlackJack wrote:On December 19 2011 19:28 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On December 19 2011 18:52 BlackJack wrote:
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty. Not sure if trolling or....anyways, what do you mean by him not caring about peoples liberty? That's all he preaches 24/7 rofl. Show me what positions he's actually taking and how it fringes on peoples liberty. No, what he preaches is following the constitution and state's rights. Let's take the War on Drugs. It just so happens that some drugs are illegal on a federal level. He believes that if states want to legalize drugs they should be able to. You may think this is good, personal liberty, choosing what to do with our own bodies, etc. However if drugs are legalized on the federal level and states want to criminalize drugs then they should be allowed to do that, too. So in this instance freedom is being taken away by the states instead of the federal government. So in the end, it's not about legalizing drugs because people should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their body. It's all about giving the states the right to regulate drugs however they choose, regardless if its more or less freedom for the people. Q: But you would decriminalize it?
A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there. And I'm not even sure how you're going to enforce state drug laws. Would you need border checks between states?
No, I'm sure it will just be a jurisdiction thing where if you get caught in that state then you get in trouble. Kind of like how some counties are dry counties that can ban alcohol distribution.
In fairness, he is right that he doesn't have control over the states and he can't prevent states from passing their own laws. My issue is more about his rhetoric than his position. His rhetoric should emphasize the the federal government shouldn't be allowed to regulate these things because of personal liberty, not because it should be regulated by the states instead.
|
|
|
So many Ron Paul supporters here on 4c-- TeamLiquid.
|
On December 19 2011 19:45 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 19:28 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On December 19 2011 18:52 BlackJack wrote:
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty. Not sure if trolling or....anyways, what do you mean by him not caring about peoples liberty? That's all he preaches 24/7 rofl. Show me what positions he's actually taking and how it fringes on peoples liberty. No, what he preaches is following the constitution and state's rights. Let's take the War on Drugs. It just so happens that some drugs are illegal on a federal level. He believes that if states want to legalize drugs they should be able to. You may think this is good, personal liberty, choosing what to do with our own bodies, etc. However if drugs are legalized on the federal level and states want to criminalize drugs then they should be allowed to do that, too. So in this instance freedom is being taken away by the states instead of the federal government. So in the end, it's not about legalizing drugs because people should have the freedom to do whatever they want with their body. It's all about giving the states the right to regulate drugs however they choose, regardless if its more or less freedom for the people. Show nested quote +Q: But you would decriminalize it?
A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.
Marijuana dispensaries is suppose to be legal in California but, guess what? The federal government has shut down hundreds of them this year because they hate competition. Here's some of his stances on it:
Legalize medical marijuana.
Paul co-sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:
Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:
the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or
a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.
Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR2592 on Jul 23, 2001
Ron Pauls' stance on legalizing drugs
|
On December 19 2011 18:52 BlackJack wrote:
Ron Paul seems awesome when you first hear him because it sounds like he is standing up for liberty of the people against the government. But then when you get to know his position he's actually just saying "It should be the job of the states to oppress people, not the federal government!" Okay...? He's basically a religious person that has 2 bibles. One is his Christian bible and the other is the Constitution. He cares ten times more about following the constitution than he does about your liberty.
wtf, the Constitution was written to protect our liberty.
edit:
I was pushing for Cain before he botched up so much. I really like the idea of a business man in office instead of a politician.
With Cain kinda' botching his bid, though, I am also hopping on the Ron Paul bandwagon.
|
On December 19 2011 22:01 MrBitter wrote:
wtf, the Constitution was written to protect our liberty.
Which Constitution was that? If you are referring to the original written by the Founding Fathers, then there's a large population of people that the Constitution didn't protect at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
