Ron Paul doesn’t just oppose affirmative action, he opposes all civil rights measures, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - you know, the one that allows black people the LIBERTY to drink out of drinking fountains not marked colored? He voted against MLK day. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289). He even voted against recognizing the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling on its 50th anniversary, which is beyond petty. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll176.xml He wants to dissolve all civil rights protections and allow government sanctioned discrimination at the state level, giving a new meaning to the term "state"-ism.

Why do you think he flip flopped on Gay rights in 2010? If this guy has been so ‘consistent’, fair and unprejudiced, why did it take him until 2010 to get on board with tolerance towards gay people? Is it possible that this deity among men could just be doing some old fashioned political pandering? Of course not! We must not challenge the Ron Paul hive mind!

Let’s take down your last two points (Ron Paul on the UN, Ron Paul is rational) with one stroke.

Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

Let me say that again. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQKQudNpkh0

One more time. Let the inanity of this sentence wash over you like a tropical shower. Ron Paul opposes the UN because he thinks it is a New World Order plot to steal our guns and take over America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Does any of this seem rational to you?

>> ^bobknight33:

Agreed.
However how could any black person vote Democrat, the party that created the KKK to keep people from voting Republican? The Vast majority of Blacks were Republican all the wall up through Dr. Martin Luther King. Then things changed. Strange that the party of lynching became the party of entitlements which in-turned re-enslaved people. >> ^therealblankman:
All good points but I still can't believe Ron Paul, as smart as that man is, allowed that hateful racist shit to be published under his name.



Well, what happened was that the southern Democrats and "Dixiecrats" abandoned the party in droves thanks to the civil rights reforms started under JFK and consummated under Lyndon Johnson with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the later Voting Rights Act. Those same southern rednecks and racists found a warm reception in the Republican party and now form the base for that party and its radical wing, the "Tea Party". These same people are also behind the more recent gerrymandering in Texas and elsewhere, as well as the blatantly racist tactic of denying poor blacks and other minorities their franchise under the guise of "Voter Registration Reform".

Lyndon Johnson. Man, you've got to hand it to him. The man had them all fooled... they thought he was one of them, a "Good Old Boy", and would maintain the status quo of racism and segregation. He turned out to be the greatest Presidential advocate for civil rights since Lincoln. Call me a revisionist, but leaving Vietnam aside (which is impossible, I know) Johnson was truly heroic in forcing civil rights down their collective bigoted throats. A lot of heroes came out of that time, a lot of martyrs too- including Martin Luther King.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'julie andrews dick van dyke 1964, disney' to 'julie andrews, dick van dyke, 1964, disney, mary poppins' - edited by bareboards2

Forgot to mention; this is from 1964, released on RCA (International). My first sift, enjoy...

I like having Libertarians in discussions because they're a good voice to have because market forces are potential solutions to various issues, because sometimes we do turn away from market forces too soon. However, the philosophy just flat breaks down as any other philosophy does, and I think this debate kinda proves it. Stewart keeps coming back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced public businesses open to the public to desegregate. According to libertarian philosophy, the free market should have ended segregation by citizens who were conscientious objectors to boycott any public business that was practicing racial segregation. If you notice in the debate, Napolitano skirts this when pressed, and kept saying the gov't should have desegregated gov't institutions, but that skirts the issue of what should have been done in privately owned public businesses. It's a point where libertarian philosophy breaks down, and true hardcore libertarians either know it and try to avoid it because it is so unpalatable to the general population, or they will outright admit that would be their stance and advocate for it.

Public schools are another example. The simple fact of the matter is the general population was not generally educated until the gov't began public schools, and society is all the better for it.

Ah yes---own property, as opposed to it owning you. I don't believe one can own property, but I believe it can be claimed by someone.

And as goes the example of positive liberty, of course they can impose it with violence. They can also craft multiple ways around the whole argument by policies that hold down black individuals in other ways (Which they have done so a thousand different ways.) So instead of being out in the open, they are now cloak-and-dagger, which still is better than the old days I suppose.

A good example of negative liberty is found in the movie industry. American History X probably slashed into racism these days more (Since our young have the attention span of gnats and wouldn't listen to a long speech) than anything else (Warning, that was a very unverifiable statement.) Positive liberty would disdain such a video, one that is full of violence and racism and it's universal motivation is greed--to acquire property from the movie's sale. Of course, since it has a good "message" it would not be prohibited, of course...

But no, I read it right then.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.
I think you're reading it wrong.
Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.
Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.
From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.
Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.
The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.
That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

As far as positive liberty, it seems just a state of mind more so than the actual concept of liberty.
...
Negative liberty is the vastly closer-to-freedom expression. That's not to say positive "liberty" is a bad thing--but like I said, it is more state-of-mind than actual freedom (I guess you could argue that freedom of thought is the only freedom that matters. Or that freedom to agree as a society is still freedom...)
Of course, I could be reading the whole thing wrong...in which case, ah, it happens--we are human after all.

I think you're reading it wrong.

Let's set property aside for a minute. My favorite positive vs. negative liberty example comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Specifically Title VII, which both Rand and Ron Paul said they oppose as being a limit on (negative) liberty.

Title VII basically bans discrimination in privately owned public spaces, like stores, restaurants, theatres, etc. It gives all people the positive liberty of being able to participate in the economy, no matter their race, gender, or creed. They can shop in any shop, apply for any job, and purchase services freely. They've been empowered to fulfill their own potential.

From the negative liberty (and absolutist property) point of view, this is a decrease in liberty -- it involves the state placing a constraint on people's ability to do as they wish with their property. They can no longer put a "Whites Only" sign in the window, and they cannot enforce that policy with violence anymore because an external constraint has been placed on them that limits their "freedom" to do so.

Thing is, "property" is also an external constraint inconsistent with negative liberty. If I want to drive a car, but have no money to buy, rent, or lease one, it's illegal for me to do so, even if there's thousands of idle ones available for me to use in the parking lot. That's an external constraint being imposed on me too.

The only real way to consider property compatible with liberty is by fiat (as libertarians/objectivists do), or to think of it as a sort of positive liberty. You are empowered to acquire objects, and become their master. You are empowered to bequeath that right to whomever you choose. You are entitled to fair compensation if someone damages or steals your property. You are entitled to fair compensation for your labor. And so on.

That's why I get so frustrated with people who have the gall to tell me that I don't understand liberty. Usually they're saying that because they haven't ever been exposed to the other side of the philosophical debate.

Thanks.

Going to one of those links led me to this commentL

I was 18 and a sailor in Japan in 1964 when I heard this for the first time. My little Kyoko taught me the words. Now I'm an old man but the song is still young and fresh. Love the memories. Probably see ya soon Kyu...




>> ^Kofi:

@bareboards2 It's called Sukiyaki -
Original - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXQ31F1A-k
One of many covers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FwLrRXGf0&feature=related

From YouTube:




"In 1964, Lyndon Johnson needed pants, so he called the Haggar clothing company and asked for some. The call was recorded (like all White House calls at the time), and has since become the stuff of legend. Johnson's anatomically specific directions to Mr. Haggar are some of the most intimate words we've ever heard from the mouth of a President.

"

I especially enjoyed the sound effects that LBJ uttered and did not apologize for.

So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source. I've got hundreds of these..it's not exactly a secret among palentologists that the evolutionary theory has more holes than swiss cheese. Another issue is just the dating itself..take these quotes out of context:

Curt Teichert of the Geological Society of America, "No coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings".

Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... " (Waterhouse).

richard mauger phd associate professor of geology east carolina university In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained

... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age." (Armstrong and Besancon)

professor brew: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it iscompletely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method.

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9

Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209

A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon." In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years old, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such `confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man." (“Secular Catastrophism”, Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21)

“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53) (emphasis mine)

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of science, January 1976.

Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: "How do you date fossils?" His reply: "By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found." Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, "Of course, how else are you going to do it?" (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

"Material bodies are finite, and no rock unit is global in extent, yet stratigraphy aims at a global classification. The particulars have to be stretched into universals somehow. Here ordinary materialism leaves off building up a system of units recognized by physical properties, to follow dialectical materialism, which starts with time units and regards the material bodies as their incomplete representatives. This is where the suspicion of circular reasoning crept in, because it seemed to the layman that the time units were abstracted from the geological column, which has been put together from rock units."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1979, p. 49.

"The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity."—*B. Schaeffer, *M.K. Hecht and *N. Eldredge, "Phylogeny and Paleontology," in *Dobzhansky, *Hecht and *Steere (Ed.), Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (1972), p. 39

"The paleontologist's wheel of authority turned full circle when he put this process into reverse and used his fossils to determine tops and bottoms for himself. In the course of time he came to rule upon stratigraphic order, and gaps within it, on a worldwide basis."—*F.K. North, "the Geological Time Scale," in Royal Society of Canada Special Publication, 8:5 (1964). [The order of fossils is determined by the rock strata they are in, and the strata they are in are decided by their tops and bottoms—which are deduced by the fossils in them.]"The geologic ages are identified and dated by the fossils contained in the sedimentary rocks. The fossil record also provides the chief evidence for the theory of evolution, which in turn is the basic philosophy upon which the sequence of geologic ages has been erected. The evolution-fossil-geologic age system is thus a closed circle which comprises one interlocking package. Each goes with the other."—Henry M. Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972), pp. 76-77

"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organism as has been determined by a study of theory remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."—*R.H. Rastall, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10 (14th ed.; 1956), p. 168.

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 53.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Let us begin with this definition of "quote mining" from Wikipedia: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
Thank you, shinyblurry, for your cut&paste, thought-free, research-absent, quote mining wall of nonsense. The only part you got right is that you should google each and every one of these quotes to find out the context, something you actually didn't do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even the late Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory prior to his recent death, confessed "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology..."

This Steven J. Gould quote is discussed in talk.origin's Quote Mine Project. Gould was a proponent of Punctuated Equilibria, which proposes a "jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change" in evolution. The quotes that are taken out of context are arguing that the fossil record does not indicate a gradual change over time as Darwin suggested. The specifc quote above is discussed in section #3.2 of Part 3. Far from an argument against evolution, Gould was arguing for a specific refinement of the theory.
More to the point, your own quote says "extreme rarity", contradicting your primary claim that transitional fossils do not exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal... ...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book... ...there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

Dr. Patterson is discussed on a page dedicated to this quote in the Quote Mine Project. This page touches on the nature of scientific skepticism. As Dr. Patterson goes on to say, "... Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." This is the nature of pure science. We can say that a piece of evidence "indicates" or "suggests" something, but there is nothing that may be held up as "proof" unless it is testable. As a man of principle, Dr. Patterson would not indicate one species evolving into another simply because there is no way to be absolutely sure that one fossil is the direct descendant of another. We can describe the similarities and differences, showing how one might have traits of an earlier fossil and different traits similar to a later fossil, but that is not absolute proof.
Incidentally, this is probably where the main thrust of the creationist argument eventually lands. At this level of specificity, there is no known way of proving one fossil's relation to another. DNA does not survive the fossilization process, so we can only make generalizations about how fossils are related through physical appearance. This will be where the creationist claims "faith" is required. Of course, you might also say that if I had a picture of a potted plant on a shelf, and another picture of the potted plant broken on the floor, it would require "faith" to claim that the plant fell off the shelf, because I did not have video proof. The creationist argument would be that the plant broken on the ground was created that way by God.
>> ^shinyblurry:
David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) ... Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...

This quote is from 1974. Think maybe some of those gaps might have gotten smaller since then? Doesn't really matter, because the scientist in question goes on to explicitly state that this does not disprove evolution. He then discusses hypotheses which might explain his perceived gaps, such as Punctuated Equilibrium. A brief mention of this quote is found in the Quote Mine Project at Quote #54.
>> ^shinyblurry:
N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:
My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed… The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.

First of all, Nilsson is only famous to creationists. To scientists, he's a bit of a wack-job. But that neither proves nor disproves his findings, it only goes to show that creationsists will frequently embellish a scientist's reputation if it will increase the size of the straw man argument. His writings would naturally include his opinions on the weaknesses of what was evolutionary theory at the time (1953!) in order to make his own hypothesis more appealing. He came up with Emication, which is panned as fantasy by the scientific critics. Perfect fodder for the creationists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.
The popular press. Newsweek Magazine. 1980!!! What year are you living in, shiny???
>> ^shinyblurry:
Wake up people..your belief in evolution is purely metaphysical and requires faith. I suppose if you don't think about it too hard it makes sense. It's the same thing with abiogenesis..pure metaphysics.
Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record. 2

Well, now you're just quoting some anonymous creationist. Any evidence whatsoever that the gaps between major groups are growing wider? No? Can't find anything to cut and paste in reply to that question?
>> ^shinyblurry:
You've been had..be intellectually honest enough to admit it and seek out the truth. Science does not support evolution.

I wonder, shiny, if in your "intellectually honest search for the truth" if you ever left the creationist circle jerk? Your quotes are nothing but out of context and out of date.

It clearly was intended to add some flexibility; otherwise, there's no point of it being in the document at all. There will always be debate about how far you can/should take it. That debate is healthy because it prevents abuse.

The value of interpreting it my way is undeniable though. The average American's life has been undeniably improved by the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. It's also extremely difficult to argue against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being positive for the US overall. Most Americans would agree Social Security overall has been very positive, ditto Medicare and Medicaid, despite flaws in those programs. That's why I brought those up. Feel free to rail against them, but you're not gonna persuade anyone outside of the Ron Paul's of the world.

Can that interpretation be abused? Yes, won't deny that. But so far, it's been far more positive than negative.

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.

Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

I know that it is unrealistic of me to expect that the constitution will be followed when it has been ignored for the last century, but I can continue to hope.

>> ^heropsycho:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Don't need to amend the Constitution. How do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meat Inspection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pure Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, and other extremely valuable pieces of federal legislation are constitutional?

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Don't need to amend the Constitution. How do you think Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Meat Inspection Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pure Food and Drug Act, Clean Air Act, and other extremely valuable pieces of federal legislation are constitutional?

>> ^maestro156:

>> ^srd:
So to reduce Pauls standpoint to its essence: if it isn't explicit in the constitution, then it's evil. Human decency and common sense can go love off.
Hey, you want to provide goods and services to everyone for sake of "human decency and common sense", then fine. Amend the constitution, and have at it.
But unless you can obtain a 2/3 majority vote in Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states, you're bound by the constitution to find other _voluntary_ means of providing those goods and services.

>> ^heropsycho:

This is where libertarian philosophy just breaks down. And once you prove it doesn't work all the time, then it becomes time to have a rational conversation. I don't mean to single out libertarian philosophy; all political philosophies break down at some point. Pure capitalism does nothing to address corporate corruption or actions which hurt society as a whole. Communism does little to motivate people to work hard and innovate because most people simply are not willing to work hard for society as a whole. Every single one of those philosophies however still have value, and can provide tools and ideas on how to solve society's ills.
My problem with Ron Paul and other libertarians is they refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us even when it's staring them in the face, and there's so very little argument against it, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because if he admits that law was a good idea, it means you can't just follow Libertarian philosophy 100% of the time. Sorry, but the real world is complex and complicated!


You mean, "Ron Paul and some libertarians." I believe in state's power, as libertarians do, but Paul does take it too far... I just think state's should compete with each other and people should decide where they wish to live (And thus support.) You don't like Arizona? Move to Ohio and pay taxes there. That, if you will humor me, kind of Boycott will force Arizona to change. Unfortunately, most people are to dumb, lazy, and unmotivated to know their power...

So, what I am saying--is that you are 100% right. Thank you for this truly articulate response. It was much better than other comments.

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

He wants to be President, and? You imply he is a worse choice than say, the current President (Who has left open a facility to torture, predominately, Muslims,) or the President/s before him (a President who used a degree to fight two wars without batting an eye as to why.) I would hope you can admit he would have been FAR better than Obama or Bush…

So Paul has an issue with property rights and the government telling you what to do? Thoreau also had problems with that line of thought. I think the greater part of their argument, that he fails to articulate, is that---when a government takes power, it always takes more power in time. And when it has the power, it finds a way to abuse it. We see that has happened.

Oh, and I am so glad that the law in 1964 protects minorities... except that the wealthy and white have found 1 million loopholes around it with other laws... Blacks commit a crime? More punishment and jail time than a white. Blacks need a job? No, go away... How about, blacks need welfare? Sure, so long as you don't make anything of yourself. WE STILL HAVE JIM CROW LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY. GET OVER IT. ONLY SOCIETY AT LARGE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM. AND WE WON’T, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO.

So glad that the useless law does something ineffectively... Oh, and go to certain bars in PA as a black man, and lets see how far the patrons let you go before removing you. Glad that a law will protect your rights as your being stabbed to death--then protects him as the white, racist judge laughs and acquits his friends.

I also think the problem; we don’t ask, what is the principle behind Paul’s actions? Racism? No... Nor greed (The reason pot is illegal, for example.) It is relying on humanity to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as so often the case, Humanity is horrible (See Rome, genocide, and religion)--and we blame Paul for being naive; and he is. But so are we. Instead of holding accountability to the sign holders we laugh at Paul’s ignorance. Instead of blaming the murderer, or rapist, we blame the politicians who have not put laws out there to "protect us.”

Kind of like--"Well, she was wearing slutty clothes so we should blame her for being raped!" I know, I know, that is a far-fetched comparison, but it still fits to some degree. Both people do not deserve to be attacked for their statements (One who was making a statement by dressing physically attractive, and the other one who makes a statement verbally with good intentions.) But, as is the case, people do punish both in society.

I think Paul would be better off being a liar so he could actually get elected--because, though people may do it unintentionally, they elect the bad guy because the good guy always loses. But then, if he did become a winner through deception, he would just be another in a mold of thousands.

The funny part is that in matters such as this, Paul would have no sway in the agenda; he would only have a say in matters of Liberal agendas (Close Gitmo, stop wars, debt, cut down the drug war, end the Patriot Act., etc.) So even if you did elect him, Netrunner, you would get the best of both worlds. No gold standard, but most of your agenda would be fulfilled… Of course, Liberals suck at thinking logically (Even the part of me that is liberal, and there is quite a bit, has this problem.)

Speaking of society, here is my example…
http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching