Ron Paul raises over 4 million in one day

[ecoli]

Paul has never said anything in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, right? How close has he come to actually bolstering their point of view? Just curious.

The closest he's come is to say that 9/11 was caused by blowback from US foreign policy, and we need to reopen investigation into the government's mishandling of foreign intelligence.

9/11 truthers seem to think that he's a truther in disguise, but there is (as you might imagine) no evidence of this.

 

No they weren't "unconstitutional in the first place". We decided that they were unconstitutional through the course of public discussion, legislation and judicial review. And in case you didn't notice, that process took 175 years (1789-1964) to complete!

True, but these things violate the spirit of the constitution... In fact, it took an amendment to the constitution to correct some problems, and the southern states were violating the constitution in their interpretation of Jim Crowe type laws.

 

There is nothing wrong with amending the constitution, as long as it's done through the proper channels.

 

 

I respect your opinion on it. But I could have sworn I'd heard you agree on the value of communitary thinking in the modern world,

yes... but what does this have to do with localized governments?

The federal government still has to power to talk with other nations, it still has the military. And, unlike Ron Paul, I don't quite believe that we should pull out of the UN.

 

and how we all affect each other to some degree. Localized governments with differing laws doesn't support that point of view. In fact this is true of both conservative and liberal points of view, whether it's local abortion law differences or local drug use law differences.

I don't understand how you think having different local law (such that legislate on things like morality issues) preclude our ability to conduct discourse with foreign nations.

 

am I missing a point?

[Pangloss]

Yes, the idea I was trying to get across in saying that communitary thinking (at least indirectly) contradicts localized governance is that if we all affect one another through our behavior then you can't have one area have one set of laws and another area have a different one. If, for example, abortion is illegal in one state then it needs to be illegal in the state next door as well, if you subcribe to the notion that "we all affect one another with our behavior". Similarly if marjiuana is legal in one state then clearly it would have to be illegal in the next. Otherwise those laws would be pointless in this increasingly mobile and informed population.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, the idea I was trying to get across in saying that communitary thinking (at least indirectly) contradicts localized governance is that if we all affect one another through our behavior then you can't have one area have one set of laws and another area have a different one. If, for example, abortion is illegal in one state then it needs to be illegal in the state next door as well, if you subcribe to the notion that "we all affect one another with our behavior". Similarly if marjiuana is legal in one state then clearly it would have to be illegal in the next. Otherwise those laws would be pointless in this increasingly mobile and informed population.

 

There's already quite a few laws that are different from one state to the next. Why should the same not be done with drugs and abortions? Let all the potheads go to the pothead state, and the baby killers go to the baby killer state. If you like the rules in one better than the other, you can move there. The only "pointless" thing is that you can't make everyone else follow your morals. The only downside is that when you travel, you need to know the rules of two states.

 

It already is somewhat this way, with different age of consent and drinking age in some states, and slightly different traffic laws. That is how the Constitution requires: any powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states, and the people.

[ParanoiA]

Yes, the idea I was trying to get across in saying that communitary thinking (at least indirectly) contradicts localized governance is that if we all affect one another through our behavior then you can't have one area have one set of laws and another area have a different one. If, for example, abortion is illegal in one state then it needs to be illegal in the state next door as well, if you subcribe to the notion that "we all affect one another with our behavior". Similarly if marjiuana is legal in one state then clearly it would have to be illegal in the next. Otherwise those laws would be pointless in this increasingly mobile and informed population.

 

The problem with this line of thought, on the surface anyway, is the alternative - which is what we have today, an increasingly powerful central government with no fiscal incentive. So, we have problem X and a list of proposed solutions. We will pick one of those solutions and never turn back for any reason. We will throw money at it, more and more, and never stop no matter how aweful the resulting failure.

 

The many sides of the issue will all tout how their solutions "would have fixed problem X". The "reasonable" position becomes an appeal to quit being "extreme" and focus on fixing the problem X with the pathetic solution already in place.

 

Meanwhile, we'll NEVER know if ANY of the various sides' proposed solutions would have been better to solve X or not.

 

Think of the Public Education system for X - that's a good one for this template.

 

 

 

Tough problems would be better solved if we spread out the solutions. Problem X will be better solved when 50 different states can all exercise their own respective solutions. That's potentially 50 different ideas being measured against each other - rather than the 1. The best solution will be obvious and states will want to emulate. We have a much better chance of solving problem X, rather than just dealing with problem X on the central, one-size-fits-all plan.

 

 

Yes, the obvious is..well obvious. A good solution by the same central government becomes 100% rolled out and consistent. But, the odds of picking the correct solution the first time is apparently pathetic and we never go back to try other ideas. That would mean listening to the other side, or some such forbidden inter-partisan mingling.

[Pangloss]

There's already quite a few laws that are different from one state to the next. Why should the same not be done with drugs and abortions? Let all the potheads go to the pothead state, and the baby killers go to the baby killer state. If you like the rules in one better than the other, you can move there. The only "pointless" thing is that you can't make everyone else follow your morals. The only downside is that when you travel, you need to know the rules of two states.

 

That's not the only down side. You're right in saying that we have minor (and occassionally not so minor) legal differences from state to state, but there is also a sense of unity that you don't want to undermine by creating vast legal differences between the states. Differences that, in effect, define the state -- and by implication, the people who live there. To do so would cause increased division and decreased unity.

 

Before the civil war: "The United States are going to...."

After the civil war: "The United States will...."

 

That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

 

The problem with this line of thought' date=' on the surface anyway, is the alternative - which is what we have today, an increasingly powerful central government with no fiscal incentive. So, we have problem X and a list of proposed solutions. We will pick one of those solutions and never turn back for any reason. We will throw money at it, more and more, and never stop no matter how aweful the resulting failure.

[/quote']

 

You're right, that's a problem, but your solution feels (to me) like two steps back for one step forward, rather than the other way around.

 

I'm not opposed to ANY legal differences between the states, but I do think that resolving major cultural differences by letting each state become a haven for "X" is a huge mistake that we've already learned from once and should not be inclined to learn from again.

 

Your points are valid, guys. I'm just saying there's no simple solution here. Throwing it at the states is saying "we can't fix this". We can do better than that. You don't give up just because a problem is hard. You find common ground and you move forward. That's how issues get resolved.

[Mr Skeptic]

Pangloss, are you suggesting we abolish the 10th Amendment?

 

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[ParanoiA]

Your points are valid, guys. I'm just saying there's no simple solution here. Throwing it at the states is saying "we can't fix this". We can do better than that. You don't give up just because a problem is hard. You find common ground and you move forward. That's how issues get resolved.

 

See, I get that from a lot of folks. They see it as pawning it off to the states rather than doing them the favor of allowing them their own say.

 

That's actually counter-intuitive to the concept and spirit of freedom - choice. You're rationalizing the denial of localized choice as "not giving up" - as if you've somehow shucked your responsibility because you didn't make a decision for us.

 

I also don't believe the degree of unity you advocate is worth the price of losing the elegance and beauty, to me anyway, of richly diverse state governments and cultures. In fact, I'm not so sure they would stay that way, naturally anyway.

 

My politics and lifestyle isn't the same as my parents, yet I was raised under the same government, same city, almost the same neighborhood. Families and friends don't all think the same way, so I'm not sure how diverse each state can really get. Although it would be nice to have a real "sin city"...

[bascule]

Your points are valid, guys. I'm just saying there's no simple solution here. Throwing it at the states is saying "we can't fix this".

 

Even as a strong proponent of gun rights, I'm willing to admit I believe that the 2nd amendment is something I think would work better as a states rights issue.

[ParanoiA]

He's opposed to gay marriage, supports "don't ask don't tell" and opposes gay adoption. All unrealistic positions in 2007.

 

To follow up on his gay marriage stance, here's his position, which comes from this.

 

I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

 

Not sure where I stand on this. Ultimately I don't think government on either level, state or federal, should have anything to say about it.

 

But his position does appear to be more about power distribution than moral legislation.

[DrDNA]

But his position does appear to be more about power distribution than moral legislation.

 

Good is no? Is good yes.

 

The founding fathers were REALLY big on power distribution.

[ParanoiA]

Well I don't mind the power distribution argument, except it's built on the notion that government should have any authority over an institution that's clearly a private matter covered under civil liberties.

 

However, we are talking about licenses and being "recognized" by the government as married, so on one hand they're not really removing a right, but rather denying a privilege. It's interesting.

[iNow]

However, we are talking about licenses and being "recognized" by the government as married, so on one hand they're not really removing a right, but rather denying a privilege. It's interesting.

 

This interesting thing reminds me a bit of the water fountains whose use had been designated based on complexion. In other words, very soon to be a quaint old-fashioned form of moronic.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, are you suggesting we abolish the 10th Amendment?

 

Nope, I'm not an absolutes kind of guy, Skeptic. I'm a compromise/middle-ground kind of guy. I readily admit that there are many issues better handled at the local level. Money that is collected locally and spent locally should be managed locally, for example.

 

But what we're discussing here are issues that SHOULD be decided at the national level. Don't we all agree that the states are not the place to decide issues like immigration, access to healthcare, equal rights and so forth? But its the states that issue drivers licenses, manage healthcare systems, marry people and deal with job discrimination! The states are the bleeding edge of management and enforcement of issues that we've debated collectively and nationally as Americans. So really we're coping out and letting the states handle the details, which in fact are the most important part.

 

Hiding behind the 10th Amendment instead of taking a position on an issue (in general) is a dodge that politicians sometimes use BECAUSE we've let states go 18 different directions on the details. They can't take a position because if they do it might cost them votes in X state or Y state or Z state. So really it's our own fault that this happens, because of short attention spans and lack of interest in the details. That's another subject, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't entirely blame Ron Paul for participating in this.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hiding behind the 10th Amendment instead of taking a position on an issue (in general) is a dodge that politicians sometimes use BECAUSE we've let states go 18 different directions on the details.

 

Hiding? You must mean obeying. If you want all the states to follow a rule, you need to make that rule an amendment to the Constitution. Nobody is saying you can't do this, but there are rules for doing so and they must be followed. If you don't like this, then you need to repeal the 10th Amendment.

[ParanoiA]

Hiding behind the 10th Amendment instead of taking a position on an issue (in general) is a dodge that politicians sometimes use BECAUSE we've let states go 18 different directions on the details. They can't take a position because if they do it might cost them votes in X state or Y state or Z state. So really it's our own fault that this happens, because of short attention spans and lack of interest in the details. That's another subject, but I guess what I'm saying is I don't entirely blame Ron Paul for participating in this.

 

Particularly when Ron Paul doesn't HIDE his position at all, like his pro-life stance, yet still respects state's rights.

 

Maybe you can pin down most politicians as "hiding" behind the 10th amendment to avoid sharing their opinion, but I don't see that here.

 

Clearly, Dr. Paul sees an imbalance of power between federal and state and many of his positions are consistent with empowering states. And the details, in my opinion, are supposed to be up to them.

 

We're not advocating a confederation here, and a federation requires state powers, by definition. Are you sure you're taking the "middle" ground here?

[DrDNA]

Paul reminds me of the founding fathers. So I would like to see a mock election or primary involving some of the founding fathers today. They were so far beyond what we now consider "center", it is crazy.

 

I doubt that Washington, Jefferson, or any of the founding fathers would ever stand a chance in a presidential election today.

 

Can you imagine what kind of pictures the mainstream, the donkeys and the elephants would draw and the tales they would tell in order to discredit them; especially if they were running as third party candidates?

[Pangloss]

Hiding? You must mean obeying. If you want all the states to follow a rule, you need to make that rule an amendment to the Constitution. Nobody is saying you can't do this, but there are rules for doing so and they must be followed. If you don't like this, then you need to repeal the 10th Amendment.

 

Nonsense. Under your absolutist interpretation of the 10th Amendment we would never have been able to create most federal agencies or regulations that exist today.

 

If that's something you dislike, fine, but don't act like we've never done it before. The 10th Amendment is probably the most circumvented part of the Constitution, and you yourself have reaped tremendous benefits from our doing so, whether you care to admit it or not.

[DrDNA]

Much like the 2nd ammendment in California and New York, for all practical purposes the 10th amendment might as well not even exist for all states. It has been almost completely usurped.

[bascule]

Much like the 2nd ammendment in California and New York, for all practical purposes the 10th amendment might as well not even exist for all states. It has been almost completely usurped.

 

Yep, the 10th amendment is pretty useless when the federal government can blackmail states into passing laws they want by withholding federal funding.

 

You want to keep your drinking age at 18? Guess you don't want the money to maintain your interstate highways!

[DrDNA]

The tenth puzzels me. How can the states tolerate it? And I still want to know how in the heck CA and NY can get away with their gun control laws. It doesn't make any sense. Completely unconstitutional.

 

I guess they are both just a simple matter of soil science......slow erosion theory......slowly erode it and we shall slowly become complacent.

[john5746]

Paul reminds me of the founding fathers. So I would like to see a mock election or primary involving some of the founding fathers today. They were so far beyond what we now consider "center", it is crazy.

 

Yes, maybe he knows how to lead an 18th century nation.

 

I doubt that Washington, Jefferson, or any of the founding fathers would ever stand a chance in a presidential election today.

 

Can you imagine what kind of pictures the mainstream, the donkeys and the elephants would draw and the tales they would tell in order to discredit them; especially if they were running as third party candidates?

 

You don't think they had dirty politics in the old days? You assume these guys would be the best candidates today? We tend to look back in history as black and white, instead of the present gray.

[ecoli]

You don't think they had dirty politics in the old days? You assume these guys would be the best candidates today? We tend to look back in history as black and white, instead of the present gray.

 

Well, I think they handled political disputes much better back in the day.

 

I would love to see Clinton and Guiliani battle out the issues in a gun duel.

[ParanoiA]

The tenth puzzels me. How can the states tolerate it? And I still want to know how in the heck CA and NY can get away with their gun control laws. It doesn't make any sense. Completely unconstitutional.

 

I guess they are both just a simple matter of soil science......slow erosion theory......slowly erode it and we shall slowly become complacent.

 

Exactly. I predict in a hundred years there will be no states. They'll just be lines for tradition. Some people will still complain, and the feds can respond with "Hey, you've been giving up your power for 200 hundred years...what did you think was going to happen?" Of course, they won't be federal anymore either, obviously.

 

Yes, maybe he knows how to lead an 18th century nation.

 

Or maybe he knows the constitution was designed for a federation, not a unitary state. I get the whole argument that our framers and forefathers were not omniscient saints, but that doesn't invalidate the theory that there's an imbalance in this federation, has been. The central government has been gaining more and more power. Now it's time to swing it the other way - keep things in check. At least, that's my perogative.

[DrDNA]

Exactly. I predict in a hundred years there will be no states. They'll just be lines for tradition. Some people will still complain, and the feds can respond with "Hey, you've been giving up your power for 200 hundred years...what did you think was going to happen?" Of course, they won't be federal anymore either, obviously.

 

"well, we've had soil errosion for hundreds of years so why are you complaining?......so what, the president has been making war for hundreds of years without congress...there's nothing you can do about it now.......and a big fat finger in my eye with a big stumpy thumb up my butt....war on terror...mission accomplished!.....I think I'll have me a piece of that there pie. I like pie.........speak with a southern accent.....kiss the babies......oh baby! sweet Jesus almighty! your mommy is GOOOD looking........Just because KBR Haloburton gave him $300 million doesn't mean he treats them any different.....I gots to find me a good looking young intern with big boobs...Say, what's your name?....ZZzzziiipppp say hello to Mr Smiley.....hey, looky there no new taxes......I needs to bomb the axis of evil.........Cheney is getting young boys killed in Iraq so he can steal their hearts for his transplants....Mr Cheney's office just called. He wants to know if you would like to go bird hunting with him.....snort some cocaine in my daddy's bathroom....fly in an air force helicopter with the presidential seal on it...I was born a poor deprived black child........stick my chest out and look presidential.......super size version of that free health care for everybody, it looks yummy and its free!....don't forget to scream hail Jesus loud in a church when the camera is on you...I'm scared of clowns....Sadam tried to kill my daddy.....dance on the Helen Degeneres show....The glaciers are melting! I would like to thank the Nobel Prize committee and the academy awards committee.........congress did not know there were no WMDs.....I'll take illegal aliens for $500 please Alex........It was yellow cake uranium damn it!.....Excuse me, but I don't see anything on your resume about oral sex.....if he gets in your way just kill him...He hates those cans!.......I am the only candidate that was mayor of NY on 911. Therefore, I am strong on terror. I am the only terror candidate....I'm divorcing my wife (have you told her yet?) no, not yet. is the camera still on?...It was an inside job......You people don't seem to understand. we need phone tapping. We need internment without due process. We need waterboards and other forms of torture. we are in a war on terror.....she's a strong woman to put up with Bill and his promiscuous ways all those years...My father had the audacity to dream of his own hope. (were you and your daddy close?) no. we were not so I'm writing a book about all the wet dreams he had when he left my mom and I and then I'm running for president....I'm picking out a thermous for you. Not just any thermous. Its blue......who is Oprah supporting? but Oprah has never voted....All I need is this lamp. And that's all I need......." :doh: :doh:

 

Or maybe he knows the constitution was designed for a federation, not a unitary state. I get the whole argument that our framers and forefathers were not omniscient saints, but that doesn't invalidate the theory that there's an imbalance in this federation, has been. The central government has been gaining more and more power. Now it's time to swing it the other way - keep things in check. At least, that's my perogative.

 

 

 

"But the constitution was written for the world of hundreds of years ago. We've outgrown it. And the 2nd Amendment was written to protect them from wild animals like big mean ugly grizzly bears, so you don't need a gun cause there ain't no grizzly bears here.....I've got my thumb in my butt and it feels good...here take my rights.......FLUSH".

 

 

Well, I think they handled political disputes much better back in the day.

 

I would love to see Clinton and Guiliani battle out the issues in a gun duel.

 

I'm all for it! Maybe we'd get lucky and they'd both get fatally wounded. Then we would just have to figure out how to get the rest of the "centrist" donkeys and elephants that are sending this country straight down the crapper to do it.

 

Yes, maybe he knows how to lead an 18th century nation.

 

Yeah. I see what you mean.

We need a leader that knows how to play ball in the 21st century. Somebody that knows how to accomodate all the special interests and special interest groups. Not somebody that stands firmly BEHIND the US Constitution and ON TOP OF principles. That would be crazy wouldn't it?

 

 

You don't think they had dirty politics in the old days? You assume these guys would be the best candidates today? We tend to look back in history as black and white, instead of the present gray.

 

Dirty politics isn't the issue.

Adherence to a sworn oath to uphold the US Constituiton is.

That is exactly what I expect from my president. And that is exactly what we have not been getting. And I know we won't get it from the current field of mainstream politicians (including Rudy, Hillary, Edwards, Obama, McCain, etc...).

You appear to be much more easily satisfied than I, so what do you expect to get?

[ecoli]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3839318&page=1

 

Article and video where the two economic minds "battle it out". Good debate.