>> ^renatojj:

Abortion
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Tell that to a woman who gets raped in a state that decides it doesn't like abortion. Or to a husband whose wife dies because the state they live has chosen not to allow a medical intervention that chooses the life of the mother over the child.

Allowing states to make their own decisions on fundamental human rights is tantamount to allowing tyranny of the majority.

>> ^renatojj:

Evolution
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

>> ^renatojj:

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."
He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

It displays a lack of critical thinking. It goes to the heart of his decision making process. Do you really want a president that suspends reason when it goes against his beliefs?


>> ^renatojj:

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys
Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.


I picked this one because it was the most obvious, but it applies to many of your other arguments too. Here is the central problem with libertarianism.
Libertarians want to protect the little guy (people and by extension, businesses) from the big guy (government). This is a noble proposition, but they have the business and government on the wrong sides of the equation. What they fail to understand is that most people want to be protected by government from the activities of profit-motivated systems.


>> ^renatojj:

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal
Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.


So it's ok for, let's say, New York to legalise sexual harassment? See comment above re tyranny of the majority.

>> ^renatojj:

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States
Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.


It's not on your sovereign territory. Lots of stuff was built with the help of US tax payer money. Doesn't mean you still own it.

>> ^renatojj:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website
This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.
Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.
Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.


The fact that he took the money in the first place is not the issue. I fully appreciate the impracticality of checking the origins of donation money.
However, once he was made aware of it, he still kept the money.
There are two explanations for this:
1. He agrees with their message and will use the money to further their goals.
2. He disagrees with their message but will use the money anyway.

1 is hateful and 2 is disingenuous.

>> ^renatojj:

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.
Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.
Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Again, why is it ok for some states to allow segregation? Paul is demonstrating he does not regard these fundamental human rights as universal. He is saying that as president he is ok with allowing part of his citizenry to discriminate against other members of his citizenry.

If he feels that he is not in a position to make a call on that (and most people would see this as a solved problem), why the hell does he want to be president? The whole point of government is to make the lives of the people better through legislation (either enshrining or restricting freedoms).

Why doesn't he say that states can decide for themselves about free speech or gun control? And the answer trotted out will be "because they're constitutional rights". You know what? As great as the constitution of the USA is (and I believe it is a fantastic document that is an example to all nations), it's not perfect. Women, black people and homosexuals thankfully no longer occupy the position they did at the time of it's writing. The 4th amendment knows nothing of the internet. It should be a living document, updated with the times.

Not here but he does here on my other post.

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-why-dont-other-candidates-talk-about-drug-policy

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My heartfelt thanks to @dystopianfuturetoday for such an exhaustive and well researched list.
I'd also like to point out that RP can be just as disingenuous as the next politician. Funny how he doesn't mention his attitude towards legalising drugs and prostitution in this ad.

My heartfelt thanks to @dystopianfuturetoday for such an exhaustive and well researched list.

I'd also like to point out that RP can be just as disingenuous as the next politician. Funny how he doesn't mention his attitude towards legalising drugs and prostitution in this ad.

^ Auger8

In 2009, Portugal's Decriminalized drugs which Showed a Positive Result 5 years after for deaths from overdoses and the rate of HIV cases. The theory however was to start focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users which would decrease the number of deaths and infections. (& i have not heard Paul make this his standpoint). "Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald said.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. there is a difference between the two & legalisation of all drugs was not what was done here.

I feel very sad for you.

But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

I don't have anything against gay people. It isn't as if homosexuality is so much worse than any other sin, although all the baggage that comes with it can cause a society to become totally degenerate. Take the greeks for example.

I don't label it sin because I am afraid of it, or for a feeling of superiority. I don't think I am superior to any other human being. I call it sin because that is what God said it is. It's immoral and goes against Gods design, and nature itself. You call me intolerant but you aren't tolerant of my beliefs, so I don't think you have anything to say about tolerance.


>> ^spoco2:
Damnit SB... come here and fucking rain on a damn beautiful video.
I got into work this morning and saw the email from GetUp (the advocacy group who created this), and thought I'd give the video a watch, having no idea what it was about. I could tell there was a twist at the end... but, I guess I just don't even consider a gay relationship to be a 'twist', that it wasn't something that crossed my mind. (probably should have been, if I'd been thinking about it I would have thought what the hot topics in Australia are currently around relationships).
But really well done, really great.
It's so very sad that anyone can watch this and feel anything but joy for this 'couple' (I only put couple like that as they're actors, not real). @shinyblurry, you are filled with hate born from fear. You fear gay people because you fear anything different from your little world. You label it 'sin' to make yourself feel righteous about condemning it, but it comes down to you feeling 'icky' about two men lovin' it up because you haven't been exposed to it...
I feel very sad for you. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

Damnit SB... come here and fucking rain on a damn beautiful video.

I got into work this morning and saw the email from GetUp (the advocacy group who created this), and thought I'd give the video a watch, having no idea what it was about. I could tell there was a twist at the end... but, I guess I just don't even consider a gay relationship to be a 'twist', that it wasn't something that crossed my mind. (probably should have been, if I'd been thinking about it I would have thought what the hot topics in Australia are currently around relationships).

But really well done, really great.

It's so very sad that anyone can watch this and feel anything but joy for this 'couple' (I only put couple like that as they're actors, not real). @shinyblurry, you are filled with hate born from fear. You fear gay people because you fear anything different from your little world. You label it 'sin' to make yourself feel righteous about condemning it, but it comes down to you feeling 'icky' about two men lovin' it up because you haven't been exposed to it...

I feel very sad for you.

But on a happy note, this video has gone wonderfully for Get Up, and one can only hope our darn Prime Minister legalises it...

Just legalise it al-fuckin-ready!!

>> ^dag:

Yes, and when gay marriage is legalised, everyone's going to marry their toaster. You're going to keep all the crows away with that straw man.
>> ^smooman:
should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION



my point being, the ordinance in question, that is, no dancing in the jefferson memorial, is there for a reason. maybe some disagree with that reason, but anyone who would argue that the reason is to suppress civil liberties, i'd say you need a damn reality check. in that way, it is NO different than public indecency laws, or being disarmed by the government (gasp!) inside federal buildings despite our 2nd amendment rights.

so to put this act of civil disobedience on par with the civil rights movement of the 60's or something, is laughable at best and just plain offensive at worst.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Yes, and when gay marriage is legalised, everyone's going to marry their toaster. You're going to keep all the crows away with that straw man.

>> ^smooman:

should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.
But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.


I fully agree. In my mind I compare it with the drive to legalise Marihuana, which is somewhat comparable, in the way that both issues are depending on widespread support.

I grant you the attention-grabbing possibilities, but to be honest, the activist in the video was not the right man for the job.

Finally...
>> ^dag:
Oh, and legalised Sift marriages to anyone, or anything - even to inanimate objects ... like say an old rusty flour sifter, for example.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think we should all do it collectively in our VideoSift collective to better serve the Sift Motherland. If you are not pulling your weight - we may put you in a virtual gulag. a "Siftlag" if you will.

But seriously, these are some valid points - and we are currently looking at the whole powerpoints system with a possible redistribution of powerpoints wealth in store for the future. Oh, and legalised Sift marriages to anyone, or anything - even to inanimate objects ... like say an old rusty flour sifter, for example.

>> ^Jinx:

And what about the evidence that smoking weed can cause schizofrenia etc in certain people? Isn't smoking anything going to carry a risk of cancer?
I know weed is a lot less dangerous than alcohol or tabacco, but I don't buy that its completely harmless either. There are plenty of really good reasons to legalise pot without exhaggerating its lack of risk.


@ Matthu is basically right in this. Your doctor will most likely remind you of this if you were Schizophrenic. The psychedelics of course have a "chance" to trigger an event , but the schizoid type usually know this before hand. The first try is a bitch for almost everything. Depending on how the drug interacts chemistry wise is what creates the problem; either your body over/under-compensates or does nothing.

The last part is that some psychedelics can cause, serious, irreversible problems when used. Marijuana isn't exactly, the drug to be doing that. Secondly, Marijuana doesn't cause cancer. The fact that you're still breathing in smoke is the problem. This still doesn't cause cancer, but it can decrease your overall lung capacity. Use a bong or breathalyzer.

And what about the evidence that smoking weed can cause schizofrenia etc in certain people? Isn't smoking *anything* going to carry a risk of cancer?

I know weed is a lot less dangerous than alcohol or tabacco, but I don't buy that its completely harmless either. There are plenty of really good reasons to legalise pot without exhaggerating its lack of risk.

>> ^Reefie:
Democrat, Republican, Noonian, none of that is what matters. Either legalise weed or criminalise alcohol, either way I'll be happy.


Hell, I say legalize it all. Even the worst of it like heroine and meth. The government really should NOT be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies. At least not if they're going to call themselves a free country.