It's still a stupid law. That's like voting for a law to put ***s in a concentration camp to get out the message that you don't think *** marriage should be legalized. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you know what I mean. It's extreme and doesn't accomplish the purpose he intended.
That's beyond a bad analogy, it's a non sequitur. The reason Ron Paul voted for that bill was because it also contained measures to end the availability of social programs for illegal aliens. Ron Paul has publicly stated on several occasions that he disagrees with the building of the wall, and that even it built it will accomplish nothing.
Ron Paul's platform on ending illegal immigration is centered on ending the availability of welfare and publicly funded social programs for illegal immigrants, which provisions that bill also contained, and which provisions were the only reason he voted in favor of the bill.
Quote:
The US has a responsibility to intervene in some instances. Non-interventionist foreign policy is what allowed Hitler to rise to power and start WWII.
Addressed above. The US has no responsibility to use force of arms to intervene in any situation in which 1) the US Congress does not declare war.
And Just War doctrine denies the just cause of any war which is not the response of a direct attack or imminent attack upon the US and her direct interests.
Interventionism involves a lot more than simply force of arms and warfare. Interventionism CAUSED the rise of Adolph Hitler, and if not for historical revisionism, then more people would know that. Likewise American interventionism in the 50's (specifically the overthrowing of the Iranian gov't and the installation of the Shah) CAUSED the Middle East's hostility towards the US, and likewise interventionism in CREATING Al Qaida in an effort to combat the USSR in Afghanistan CREATED Al Qaida in the first place.
The concept that non-interventionism created Hitler is just propagandistic nonsense from the same man who thought that Putin was the president of Germany.
Quote:
Of course it has the authority, and if it doesn't, then it should. Keynesian economics, google it.
Keynesian economics has been universally debunked, and is the cause of the onset of our current depression and fiscal collapse of the US Dollar. Even Allan Greenspan is not a Keynesian -- he bounces back and forth between Monatarism and the Austrian School.
The only people left who uphold Keynesian economics are the big government interests who stand to profit from the fiscal irresponsibility of the "broken window" theory of economic development.
Quote:
I will admit that I have no idea what the Breton Woods agreement is. However, switching to a system of using precious metals as money, if that is really what he wants, it an even dumber idea than just using the gold standard.
Not switching, legalizing. Ron Paul's plan is to revoke the tax on hard commodities such ad gold and silver, and legalize their use as a COMPETING currency, then allowing the free market to choose for themselves which currency is stronger.
As it is, the Federal Reserve is headed headlong towards bankruptcy, and the legalization of competing currency will allow Americans to get out of the collapsing dollar before it takes them down with it.
The long range plan then, is to allow Americans to remove themselves from a failing system (which we are currently obligated to remain in by law) and then allowing the "best currency system to win."
This will allow the Federal Reserve system to go bankrupt SLOWLY (as opposed to quickly, like it is doing now) by removing pressure, and allowing Americans enough time to extract themselves from it before it collapses completely.
As it stands, we have no other option, and are required by LAW to remain within an unconstitutional monetary system that is failing quickly, and we have nowhere to go to escape the coming financial ruin of depression and hyperinflation.
Quote:
I could care less about "state's rights." States aren't individuals. The last thing we need is politicians electing other politicians. The more opportunity we have to allow the direct will of the people to be represented (at all levels of government), the better.
States are not individuals, the are supposed to be sovereign nations unified by a common defense. Have you even read the Constitution?
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If something that the Federal Government does, does not fall into one of those seven categories, then it is in violation of the purpose and intent of the founding document of this nation.
And besides, if You are truly opposed to State's Rights, then you should be leading a movement to revoke the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Quote:
Campaign finance laws fight corruption and make it harder (although, of course, still not impossible) for politicians to be "bought." And it is perfectly possible for independents to raise money if they aren't rich. It just can't come from rich individuals with an agenda or corporate lobbyists.
McCain Feingold did nothing of the sort. McCain Feingold's main purpose was to prevent coordination between an official campaign and any grassroots effort. In the last 15-20 years, we have been subject to a whole hose of misnamed bills. These include the "Patriot Act" which is anything BUT patriotic, and the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which if anything INCREASED the access of corruption to our current political system.
John McCain is a skilled propagandist, and was able to sell the concept of creating a bill that PROTECTED lobbyists and special interests, RESTRICTED the ability of grassroots efforts to work with an official campaign, and directly VIOLATED the first amendment by restricting speech on the part of 'free' individuals, by tagging it with the NAME of "campaign Finance Reform."
Do you likewise believe that if America produced a bill stating that "all non-evangelical Christians should be gassed to death" that it should be supported so long as we NAME it the "Religious Freedom Protection Act"?
Quote:
If you are referring to your right to sell, purchase, and/or consume addictive, dangerous, mind-altering substances, you will get no sympathy from me.
This has nothing to do with someones right to buy and sell anything, it has everything to do with the Constitutional limits on Government power. If you think the Federal Government should be involved in dictating what people are and are not allowed to consume, then you should be required to do it legally, via an amendment to the US Constitution. At least during the Prohibition of Alcohol, our politicians respected the Constitution enough to do it with a Constitutional Amendment. The way it is being done today is ILLEGAL. And where exactly does it end? If our government can ban cannabis because it is harmful and addictive, then what about McDonalds? Chocolate? Ice Cream?
The reality is, that the Federal government has no business regulating what people are or are not of their own free will allowed to consume.
The effect of the war on drugs, on the ground, is truly frightening.
Our prisons are bursting at the seams filled with non-violent offenders. Crack dealers on the streets are making outrageous profits and selling poison. We have spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to stop the flow of drugs, which are MORE available today than when the war on drugs started.
Just like in the 1930's, the prohibition of alcohol CREATED bootlegging, revenuers, and the mob, violent criminals like Al Capone and violent crimes like the St Valentines Day Massacre, today prohibition of drugs has CREATED a vast criminal infrastructure and gangs, like the Bloods, the Crips, and MS-13.
The War on Drugs has been an utter failure on all points. Hundreds of Billions have been spent, and the drugs they sought to prevent are more available than ever. Violent crime is rising in every corner of the nation around the illegal drug trade, and people are dying in the streets each and every day, usually including innocent bystanders.
Quote:
Yes, America should be governed by a document signed by the king of a different nation, nearly 800 years ago.
---------
his response
America SHOULD be governed by a document called the US Constitution, which the vast majority of Washington DC has forgotten about. I, on the other hand, took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will take that oath seriously until the day I die. I am also willing to give my last breath and last drop of blood to uphold that oath I took as a US Marine, and that is why Ron Paul is the ONLY Presidential candidate I can in good conscience support.
We MUST restore a respect for the US Constitution in America and in Washington DC. Without that, America will fail, and is well on her way to failing already.
