RON PAUL 2012!!!!

[Jerome]

you all must admit, this is a fun election year!

[Pyrrho]

Funny how? Like a clown?

[Angakuk]

Clowns are not funny. Clowns are scary. So is this election cycle.

[IRON MAN]

Been away for a while. Extremely busy with work, (it's an evil Capitalist thing some of you guys probably aren't familar with it). Did I miss anything?

*Scans thread*

Nope. Just the usual bullshit.

I'm sooooooo sorry that Ron Paul doesn't want to use the Federal government to force the religious cunts in your state stay out of your uterus Chunky. But it's time you grew the fuck up and realised that's your job. You don't get to do an end-run around them at state level, (the proper place for that battle), by having the Federal fucking Government come in and decide in your favour.

You can't even follow along in this discussion because you're unable to even distinguish between 'Ron Paul the Christian', (voting his conscience), and 'Ron Paul the President', (staying within the confines of the Constitution).
PROTIP: The latter doesn't give a fuck about your uterus, even though the other one does - if you live in Texas). The usual reason people can't make this distinction is because they are nanny-state mentality retards in the first place. Newsflash: He isn't.

Fuckheaded thinking like yours is why the Feds are doing drug busts on people growing legal medical marijuana in California. It's just some arrogant dickhead on the other side of the aisle who thinks they should use the Federal Government to make decisions on behalf of every individual in the country too. How's that working out for ya?

You don't join a Federation to get micromanaged by a bunch of dictatorial cocksuckers in a faraway la-la-land. You join based on basic shared values. Read the Tenth Amendment until you get through your thick skull who decides the rest.

If you had two brain cells to rub together you'd want this guy as President and then use your time debating this issue against the fucking Christians in your state. And yes, if you lived in Texas that would include Ron fucking Paul. Get it?

Somehow I think you have less of a battle on your hands in Oregon.

[Qingdai]

Wow. Is he still running?

[Dingfod]

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

Wow. Is he still running?

Nah, he's just carrying water for Mitt Romney, like a good little Republican boy.

[SR71]

Iron Man, instead of me reading the Tenth, why don't you read the Ninth? Compare and contrast. See the contradiction? PROTIP: Slaves.

[ChuckF]

lawl I had completely missed the clueless libertard fantasy blabbering about the tenth amendment's real, true and secret meaning

[Ari]

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

You can't even follow along in this discussion because you're unable to even distinguish between 'Ron Paul the Christian', (voting his conscience), and 'Ron Paul the President', (staying within the confines of the Constitution).

I certainly can. They are both idiots.

[lisarea]

Ron Paul in Office (Kanye/Jay-Z Parody) -...

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by IRON CLOWN

Been away for a while.

Yep. Average IQ of the forum went up.

Did I miss anything?

Whoops! It just went down again.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

I'm sooooooo sorry that Ron Paul doesn't want to use the Federal government to force the religious cunts in your state stay out of your uterus Chunky.

Thank you and I accept your apology on Ron Paul's behalf, Irony.

Now to save time, let's skip over the rest of your flattery and sum up your arguments in your most recent post:

• 1.The federal government should not be used to dictate law in the states. Your examples: abortion and drug laws.
• 2. Ron Paul is upholding states rights via the Constitution, which is different from his personal religious beliefs.
• 3.The Tenth Amendment proscribes federal intervention in the states.

Yeah. The dividing line between state power and federal power is generally determined by our judiciary, and that line is debated and can shift about. You and Ron Paul and I obviously disagree about the role of the federal government. For example: I support a federal Civil Rights Act, whereas Ron Paul does not. I support that the federal government could act to impose an end to slavery on all states, whereas Ron Paul does not. I support the right to access of safe and legal abortions in all states, whereas Ron Paul does not.

I can disagree with the federal government about the Drug War, but I think the federal government has the power to impose those laws on the states. And here's where I think it is an important distinction to make: the vast majority of drug war prisoners are state prisoners, not federal. And what Ron Paul has stated repeatedly is that he simply wants to devolve the power to the states. So if a state wants to have draconian drug laws, that's fine by him. If a state wants to have slavery, that's the right of that state, according to Ron Paul, and no business of the federal government. If a state wants to refuse women abortions, that's the right of that state. If a state wants to have sodomy laws, wants to stone to death adulterers, wants to have no labor laws, no environmental regulations- that's the right of the state, according to Ron Paul.

I think your distinction between possible motivations behind Ron Paul's positions and actions is specious. Ron Paul reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act bill which uses the federal power to impose definition of when life begins on all states, then simultaneously imposes restrictions on the federal judiciary to rule on or hear cases on how the states then enforce said ruling. This is Paul and others using the OMG club of federalism!! to force all states to accept a pseudo-Christian anti-abortion viewpoint.

The Tenther viewpoint, and Ron Paul's position of convenience, have not been supported by Supreme Court cases that upheld, repeatedly, the constitutionality of Social Security, for example. As well, the distinction made by Tenthers regarding how it is preferable to be "forced" by the state rather than by the federal government is not clear. Is the opposition to the law, or simply to the regional size of who wields the law? How does this jibe with your earlier arguments regarding force?

Also, thanks again for dropping by, and I'm sorry you didn't have any response to my last rebuttal and had to move on, seeing as you were busy supplying the world with examples of Free-Market Libertarian principles by having your friend cut your hair, and expressing your support for slavery contracts and counterfeiting, you know, because of the freedom.

[Vivisectus]

So you feel that abortion laws should be left to the states to decide. Is this the case for all human rights issues? And why do you feel the state is the right level for it? Why not decide county by county, or drop down to even smaller units? What makes one level preferable over another?

Is it your point of view that all centralization is bad? So far you depict any federal power as the often malicious interference of technocrats in ivory towers, whereas you praise decentralization. On what grounds? Surely both centralization and decentralized decision-making have their advantages, depending on what you are trying to organize?

Also, where does this weird American habit of constitution-worship come from? I keep running into Americans that wave the constitution at other Americans, like Evangelical Christians do with bible-passages, assuring them that their interpretation is the One True Meaning. Who cares? Surely it is more important to consider what your constitution ought to say?

Is that caused by the "Keepsies and no takebacks" clause they put in, stating that it can not be re-written and only amended? Something that I feel is a pretty shortsighted rule, incidentally. Any country that does that is going to find themselves with an antiquated constitution in a few centuries. It also strikes me as essentially undemocratic: surely any sovereign people should be able to vote on the constitution that they allow to rule over them?

[Dingfod]

How about deciding human rights issues property by property, the ultimate in libertarianism?

[Kael]

Libertarians have no rights in my yard.

[Ari]

If everything were brought down to the state level, many of the same problems would exist, only at a state level. Leaving each state to deal with these problems without a framework or guide is a great way to get confusing laws that hinder trade. A great example is alcohol. After prohibition alcohol laws were given to the states to decide with no interaction with the federal government. Every state was different and something legal in one area was outlawed in another. Wine producers have recently been fighting these varied laws that sometimes make it illegal to ship their wine from one state to another. In California this lack of oversight has allowed a conservative, racist, homophobic state Alcohol control board to use its powers to shut down gay and "offensive" nightlife.

Originally Posted by IRON MAN

why the Feds are doing drug busts on people growing legal medical marijuana in California.

Currently most of the federal busts are being done by the California US attorneys, who are Californian. With control given to the state similar busts would be happening by these anti-drug pharm-puppets just under different excuses.

[Stephen Maturin]

Yeah you dumbfuck homo leftie shitheads! You don't join a Federation to get micromanaged by a bunch of dictatorial cocksuckers in a faraway la-la-land!

And you never, ever, UNDER ANY CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES include in the document establishing your Federation a provision under which laws passed at the Federation level "shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." That would be stupid as all fucking fu ... oh. never mind.

[Gonzo]

Adam Kokesh speech - YouTube

[chunksmediocrites]

Ron, bro, what happened?



I know, I know. Delegate strategy is still a go, this current count via the NYT may be inaccurate, and Ron Paul faithful are in each state working behind the scenes to make it happen.

Will Guam be Ron Paul’s first win?

Where is the Paul surge?

[erimir]

It's gonna be Romney. The other scenarios are all long shots at this point.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by erimir

It's gonna be Romney. The other scenarios are all long shots at this point.

to reflect November odds.

[lisarea]

I am p. mad that I didn't think of making a Ron Paul video game kickstarter.

Maybe I can solicit funds for a Pick Up Artist expansion pack?

Kickstarting Ron Paul

[seebs]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I am p. mad that I didn't think of making a Ron Paul video game kickstarter.

Maybe I can solicit funds for a Pick Up Artist expansion pack?

Kickstarting Ron Paul

Man, that's brilliant.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you feel that abortion laws should be left to the states to decide.

It is best left in the hands of the national government, that way when the right people get into office they can ban abortion everywhere all at once.