Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[Tani Coyote]

The purpose of full faith and credit is more like: New York sentences a murderer to life, then gives him parole several decades later and lets him go. He moves to Texas. Texas can't just say "Well, if that happened in Texas, we'd have gassed him, so that's what we'll do!" Nope, beecause New York already punished him, however ineffectively, and sadly Texas has to accept that.

If Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage at all, that's a totally different issue.

Why should FFC only apply to criminal cases and not civil ones? (I believe marriage and whatnot counts as civil law I'm not sure on the specifics; as I recall civil law is merely stuff not related to crime)

 

[JollyRoger]

Why should FFC only apply to criminal cases and not civil ones? (I believe marriage and whatnot counts as civil law I'm not sure on the specifics; as I recall civil law is merely stuff not related to crime)

FFC typically applies to civil judgments - D3K's example does not happen in practice as Texas would not even typically have jurisdiction over a New York murder.

 

[Tani Coyote]

So DOMA, is, indeed, just an unconstitutional law passed to change the Constitution without an Amendment?

Wouldn't it have just been wiser to, I don't know, get the Supremes to rule on it?

That's the easiest legal way to "change" the Constitution without an amendment to my knowledge. Just interpret FFC as not applying to marriage. Boom.

 

[JollyRoger]

The Supremes would likely uphoild DOMA based on FFC, but might strike it down based on Equal Protection.

 

[sophie]

JR - have I yet mentioned just how friggen cool it is when you put your lawyer hat on? No? Because it's really friggen cool.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yes, if he actually carries out all his stuff. Russia shouldn't be the only social experiment country in the world.

 

[amadeus]

The problem with the Russia experiment is that we didn't learn anything from it that we didn't already know.

 

[tonberry]

Greenspan was not a Libertarian, but rather an Objectivist.

I know that not all libertarians are objectivists but how can you be an objectivist without being a libertarian?

 

[Traitorfish]

Not that I can vote in the US, but I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that I wouldn't vote for Paul if you paid me.

The problem with the Russia experiment is that we didn't learn anything from it that we didn't already know.

Anything that you assume you would have known, you mean. Let's at least try to be honest.

I can think of one: Calvin Coolidge. His laissez-faire policies led to greatest debt reduction and lowest unemployment in history. He was the strongest opponent of farm subsidies or government intervention in the Depression of 1921, which was deeper than the great depression but without intervention led to a quick and strong recovery.

That's awfully contentious, not least because a contemporary state, Weimar Germany, made leaps and bounds over the course of this decade under a strongly interventionist social democracy. I really doubt that it's possible to pose things as simplistically as this and really claim to be representing historical fact rather than ideological interpretation.

 

[Glassmage]

Ron Paul & Gary Johnson believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. This is the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. I love Democrats because of their liberties and freedom, and I love Republicans because of their fiscal policies. The Libertarian party is radical, but this is the good kind of radical.

 

[Cutlass]

Republican fiscal policies are endless debt. What's there to love?

 

[Traitorfish]

Ron Paul & Gary Johnson believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. This is the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

The idea of two distinct spheres, economic and social, is a libertarian hobby-horse. Nobody else really takes it seriously, or at least not outside of the internet. You certainly can't appeal to the left-leaning with this rhetoric, who are generally able to recognise the tendency of "fiscal conservatism", as you would have it, to preserve social inequalities, regardless of how "socially liberal" you might like to present yourself.

 

[Dachs]

That's awfully contentious, not least because a contemporary state, Weimar Germany, made leaps and bounds over the course of this decade under a strongly interventionist social democracy. I really doubt that it's possible to pose things as simplistically as this and really claim to be representing historical fact rather than ideological interpretation.

wellll

the Weimar state also self-destructed its own currency on purpose and screwed up the revalorization when a new currency was inevitably introduced - economic growth certainly occurred during the mid-to-late twenties but it was mostly (mostly, not wholly) a result of an influx of American cash per the Dawes and Young plans

it's not really helpful to characterize any state as noninterventionist at that point because, well, none of them were

 

[Traitorfish]

the Weimar state also self-destructed its own currency on purpose and screwed up the revalorization when a new currency was inevitably introduced - economic growth certainly occurred during the mid-to-late twenties but it was mostly (mostly, not wholly) a result of an influx of American cash per the Dawes and Young plans

Heh, fair point. Weimar Germany isn't really a good source for examples of anything outside of cabaret and architecture, so I really should've known better.

My point was really just that a binary "non-intervention = growth/intervention = depression" isn't any more realistic than the reverse. The fact that the 1921 Depression came about in a large part because of the sudden retreat of the government intervention represented by WWI can alone attest to that.

 

[Atlas14]

His economic principles are flawed, mainly that he fails to realize that a central bank like the Fed is absolutely essential for a viable modern economy.

Seems to be working well for us right now. How is it absolutely necessary, and how are severe inflation issues to be addressed as we continue to borrow craploads of money from shady sources, never intending to pay it back. I understand there are plenty of benefits to having a central bank, but what specifically is not reasonable in executing a new system that basically makes it unnecessary?

Lowering taxes is the complete opposite of what this country needs in the long term, if it wants to fix its deficit.

Cutting spending. If I don't have the money to buy something, I don't buy it. I detest oversimplification of things, but it really is that simple. Trillions spent on the War Against Terror in the appx. 8 yrs could have been saved, billions being spent on the war against drugs could have been saved, congressmen/congresswomen salaries could be cut in half, I mean the list goes on.

The root of the problem is ideology and philosophy. FoxNews tin-foil-wearing home skillets are able to convince OVER HALF OF AMERICA that it is worth our time, effort, money, and of course everyone elses' lives but theirs to fight a war against terror in Iraq, who never attacked us on 9/11...

What I'm getting is that we need to not only be smarter but SPEND smarter. The fact that we even allowed such a war in Iraq to occur is embarrassing (hypocrisy of killing other human beings while disallowing it on moral terms in our own country aside...).

I'm also for smarter taxation, not necessarily full-out cuts. Tax the people that use services and programs so that they are paying for the benefits of use, and stop taxing the general populace as a whole for every single goshdarn federal program.

His free market principles are fine by me, although I would like him to stop "opposing federal interference" and then supporting earmarks that subsidize businesses in Texas. The one good economic proposal he's proposed (that I am aware of) is an "opt-out" option for Americans who don't want Social Security.

Limited government is a big issue. While it always is tossed around that big government is a problem, many vital functions are performed by this big federal government that would be cut if Ron Paul had his way, specifically the elimination of the IRS, Department of Energy, FEMA, Department of Commerce, & the Department of Health and Human Services.

Everything he has said about civil liberties makes complete sense to me, so that part of his record is more or less spotless in my eyes.

Is Paul for cutting all of those federal departments, or simply limiting their influence and budget?

While I do like the idea of non-intervention, Ron Paul seems to be advocating almost outright isolationism. We should certainly reduce our involvement in other nations' domestic affairs, but I support foreign aid (in general) and counter-terrorism efforts in hotspots like Yemen.

The problem is that none of those are defensive. That's the entire reason the military was formed and should even exist. It's a slippery slope when you start claiming to be only supporting counter-terrorism in certain, specific locations when we know there are organizations and groups literally all around the world. The effectiveness of targeting such hotspots is minimal in my opinion, and if anything attracts more attention to the causes of terror group.

[

I'm generally a sane person, and I actually want the United States to succeed as a country. Why would you think I'd vote for Ron Paul?

EDITED FOR SERIOUSNESS: Ron Paul and Red Diamond threads don't mix. The reason is that Rep Paul isn't a serious person. The movement that's formed around him couldn't be anymore bizarrely random if I picked a congress member's name out of a hat.

Who do you support again?

The man's worldview is based on crank economists from the Seventies, yet he routinely violates his own principles whenever the shrimp farmers back home are feeling light on cash. His brilliant solution to the problem of terrorism was to suggest recruiting mercenaries to hunt down Bin Laden. He wants to roll back every governmental institution and custom that has made post-war America great. Who on earth decided this fellow would make a good president?

1. Ok, so you've opened with a general, vague attack Dr. Paul's economic worldview. What specifically do you have beef with, what would be smarter alternatives, and which other potential presidential candidate has a better world view, give specifics.

2. Other than the difference in rules that are followed, how is hiring mercenary soldiers any different than hiring standard soldiers to hunt and kill Bin Laden. You do realize that mercenary soldiers aren't beer-bellied former X-Box Live MW2 champions that have never trained in their life type of thing, right...?

3. Uhhh....no?

4. So who's your guy/gal for 2012?

 

[Cutlass]

Seems to be working well for us right now. How is it absolutely necessary, and how are severe inflation issues to be addressed as we continue to borrow craploads of money from shady sources, never intending to pay it back. I understand there are plenty of benefits to having a central bank, but what specifically is not reasonable in executing a new system that basically makes it unnecessary?

The simple fact that there isn't one. Paul's plan is reckless and idiotic and based on the fact that he doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

Cutting spending. If I don't have the money to buy something, I don't buy it. I detest oversimplification of things, but it really is that simple. Trillions spent on the War Against Terror in the appx. 8 yrs could have been saved, billions being spent on the war against drugs could have been saved, congressmen/congresswomen salaries could be cut in half, I mean the list goes on.

Except we do have the money. We just choose to waste it on tax cuts for the rich.

The root of the problem is ideology and philosophy. FoxNews tin-foil-wearing home skillets are able to convince OVER HALF OF AMERICA that it is worth our time, effort, money, and of course everyone elses' lives but theirs to fight a war against terror in Iraq, who never attacked us on 9/11...

What I'm getting is that we need to not only be smarter but SPEND smarter. The fact that we even allowed such a war in Iraq to occur is embarrassing (hypocrisy of killing other human beings while disallowing it on moral terms in our own country aside...).

I'm also for smarter taxation, not necessarily full-out cuts. Tax the people that use services and programs so that they are paying for the benefits of use, and stop taxing the general populace as a whole for every single goshdarn federal program.

That doesn't work. Without general taxation, almost everything the government does has to shut down.

 

[Narz]

Let the free market decide if I will vote for Dr. Paul. The Narzian donations lines are open.

 

[useless]

http://www.criticalreactor.com/ronpaul/newsletters/1996_Dallas_Morning_News.html

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?"Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men."If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Ron Paul has never denied those words, he's a goddamn racist.

An open racist.

Moderator Action: Please read the OP.

Also, when posting in an RD thread, you should be elaborating on the point you are attempting to make. This post does not offer any real contribution to the discussion. Given the specification in the OP, this isn't the place to be making this point anyway, but in future please remember to elaborate on articles posted and points made.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

Wait, I've just noticed: Dr. Paul? I know that he's an MD, so it's not inaccurate, but since when did people refer to politicians with honorifics? Is this some American practice that I'm unfamiliar with, or just a cynical attempt to lend a bit more credibility to a candidate who looks and talks like somebody took a spade to Albert Steptoe?

Edit: In general, I mean, not on Domination's part. It seems to be fairly widely used, and by the looks of things it originates with his own campaign.

 

[Dachs]

or just a cynical attempt to lend a bit more credibility to a candidate who looks and talks like somebody took a spade to Albert Steptoe?

bingo

It's like referring to historians with doctorates as "Dr." in publications