Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Ron Paul 2012 Redux rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Love it. That means the ideas of liberty are catching on. People are tired of being conned by the War Party and the erosion of our civil liberties by both parties.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
いい竹やぶだ!

South Euclid
Ohio
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Paul has taken some refreshingly Libertarian stances—for example, opposition to the War on Drugs—but overall he fits in much better with his right-wing Republican opponents than with true Libertarians. Paul is vehemently anti-choice, precisely opposite of the Libertarian position. His overt racism doesn't help him stand out from the GOP, either.

Not that it's a Libertarian issue, but he has publicly denied evolution.

And a pet peeve of mine: the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) passed the House a couple of years ago with exactly one dissenting vote. Guess whose?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robigo wrote:
Paul has taken some refreshingly Libertarian stances—for example, opposition to the War on Drugs—but overall he fits in much better with his right-wing Republican opponents than with true Libertarians.


He is a Constitutionalist. This means he's working to make the federal government as small as possible which would do more for your liberty than anything else. He doesn't fit in with Republicans at all unless you mean the Old Right.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MyTwoCents wrote:

Pity Paul's not a libertarian then. He's a homophobic religious nutjob with a lot of very unpleasant supporters.


Well, thanks for being a ray of sunshine yourself.
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Jordal
United States
Austin
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Ike Clanton painted by me for Wild West Exodus
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He has my vote.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
MyTwoCents wrote:

Pity Paul's not a libertarian then. He's a homophobic religious nutjob with a lot of very unpleasant supporters.


Well, thanks for being a ray of sunshine yourself.


Read this just today - ten reasons not to vote for Ron Paul - courtesy of a non-rsp-ing bgg-er

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well there's multiple things wrong with that link. There's many reasons to vote for Ron Paul in there if you wade through how its spun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
I think it would be hilarious if Ron Paul ran third-party and turned Obama's inevitable defeat of Romney into a full-scale rout.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ron Paul's anti-drug stance is strictly federal, much like his "it's not the government's business about who gets married" line that lets liberals think, hey, Ron Paul is pro-same sex marriage! But he's not. He's not really for any of it. Ron Paul is perfectly happy to pass laws keeping you from smoking pot, gay marrying or getting equal treatment even if you happen to be black; he's just really emphatic that it should be the states doing it, rather than the federal government, because somehow he thinks this is better.

And he's sure as hell not for ending money in politics, which is the defining issue that really matters.

Ron Paul is an old crank. He has the support he has because there are some people are so desperate for politics to work that they'll vote for anybody who even appears to be a political savior. But Ron Paul ain't it. He's an old crank with wacky and destructive ideas, and nothing more.
10 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dandechino wrote:
This means he's working to make the federal government as small as possible which would do more for your liberty than anything else.


Yes. How free black people were in the 1950s, when the federal government stayed out of their way. That was true liberty!
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
dandechino wrote:
This means he's working to make the federal government as small as possible which would do more for your liberty than anything else.


Yes. How free black people were in the 1950s, when the federal government stayed out of their way. That was true liberty!


Read my statement in 2012. What would you like the federal government to do today for race relations?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
A Paul presidency isn't going to reverse Roe vs. Wade.


No, it would just appoint Supreme Court justices who would do that.

Quote:
It's not going to re-introduce a segregated military or sodomy laws or anything of the sort.


No, it would just appoint Supreme Court justices who would do that.

Quote:
Would it be enough to get me to vote for Ron Paul? Probably not; but there are others who will, and if they really do represent a fifth of the voting population then the political status quo could be in for a good shaking.


Did the 19% of voters who gave their support to Ross Perot in 1992 shake up the political status quo at all? Because I'm pretty sure they didn't, and Perot was a lot less crazy than Ron Paul is.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
The real problem is that Paul's form of Libertarianism makes no statement about what a Libertarian society would actually look like.

Libertarians pretty much agree on the concept that government should do no violence to its citizens. But after that, they're pretty vague. Where they are especially vague is on the question of how a Libertarian society would get around the problem of Majority Tyranny.

I'm hip to the Libertarian ideal that people in communities should be more active, and as a result, different communities will be run in different ways, according to local community standards. I don't want to live like the Mormons up in the Panhandle, but I have no problem with the Mormons living in a township where alcohol is harder to get and the like. That's because I don't live there.

But where I get concerned with Libertarianism is the tendency by some, like Paul, to just handwave the problems of what would happen if you got rid of the substantial protections for minorities that are ensured by the Federal Government. I could very easily see why people are concerned that in a Libertarian society under Paul, counties could just pass laws that restrict voting access to people. These laws would be passed very neatly, and with a majority of the people passing the law.

For the sake of the argument, lets assume that current civil liberties would not be infringed. Lets move beyond that and think of culture. Under a more Libertarian society, as Paul presents it, 'Majority Rules' would carry a LOT of weight. Local symphonies, dependent solely on donor support, would only play the 'classics' if they were able to survive at all. The arts in general would suffer as the NEA is dismantled. Given that the majority of Americans in our modern market WANT entertainment like Jersey Shore, Transformers 3, and Justin Bieber, there would be an accelleration as the arts get squeezed to the side. Monies for pure research would be frozen, going instead towards very market driven applications.

Yes, I know- Libertarians would never stand for that. I'm making a straw man, they would say.

I get that- what I'm trying to underscore is the extent to which Libertarians need to discuss what they value, and how that would be reflected in culture. Promoting liberty doesn't have to entail promoting the Individual above all else. Supporting community standards and State's Rights doesn't necessarily equate with Jim Crow. And limiting governments role in promoting culture doesn't have to mean the death of the arts.

But unless Libertarians address this core issue- do they see a role for society at all, or is their vision of society truly just one of individual 'atoms'- it will be easy to tar and feather them the way that they are in this and other threads.

This is why I think that its necessary for Libertarians to use this opportunity to explain how they see the promulgation of Individual Liberty as benefiting the Greater Society.

And do it without going into Austrian Economics.



Darilian
10 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Tagge
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
A Paul presidency isn't going to reverse Roe vs. Wade. It's not going to re-introduce a segregated military or sodomy laws or anything of the sort. Those aren't within the power of the president and haven't been for a long time - unless our potential President Paul decides to play Andrew Jackson and dare the Supreme Court to enforce its rulings.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. A US President doesn't have anything to do with things controlled by the Legislature or the Courts. What a POTUS can affect is military action, enforcement of laws by executive bodies (executive orders that don't permit the FBI to spend resources to investigate pot infractions for example), and make appointments. Oh, and foreign relations to a degree. So all those 10 negatives in the above link are irrelevent, but his positives are in areas that a POTUS can affect.

The only negative I see that stands (and it is a big one) is his anti-environment stance. However I would trade four years of that for a toned down military, CIA, and FBI.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Knauer
United States
Heathrow
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Libertarians pretty much agree on the concept that government should do no violence to its citizens. But after that, they're pretty vague. Where they are especially vague is on the question of how a Libertarian society would get around the problem of Majority Tyranny.


If you're looking concepts that aren't vague, a "majority tyranny" certainly isn't helping matters. If liberty is defined as the absence of rights violations ("negative liberty" in the philosophical sense), then a "tryanny" a liberty certainly isn't a concern. If the majority is violating the rights on the minority, then obviously there is a problem. As you say, there is room for many religious and ideological viewpoints as long as rights are respected.

Quote:
But unless Libertarians address this core issue- do they see a role for society at all, or is their vision of society truly just one of individual 'atoms'- it will be easy to tar and feather them the way that they are in this and other threads. This is why I think that its necessary for Libertarians to use this opportunity to explain how they see the promulgation of Individual Liberty as benefiting the Greater Society.

This "opportunity to explain" has been addressed libertarian economists. Namely, interventions lead to costly market distortions and economic unintended consequences. When costs exceed benefits, society is not profiting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shane Yeager
United States
Sykesville
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:

Yes. How free black people were in the 1950s, when the federal government stayed out of their way. That was true liberty!


Of course, the federal government is the unwavering bastion of individual rights. Why, just ask anyone in Massachusetts who can't file jointly, be assured of hospital visitation rights, or get survivor benefits for their legal spouse.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mtagge wrote:
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. A US President doesn't have anything to do with things controlled by the Legislature or the Courts.


Oh? And what exactly is the veto power - exercised or not - but a certain measure of control over laws what the Legislature does and does not pass? And what is the power to appoint Federal judges but a certain measure of control over how the courts will ultimately decide controversial issues? Those powers may not give the President direct control, but it's ludicrous to claim the President "doesn't have anything to do with" what laws get passed or how legal issues are decided.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Tagge
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Golux13 wrote:
mtagge wrote:
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. A US President doesn't have anything to do with things controlled by the Legislature or the Courts.


Oh? And what exactly is the veto power - exercised or not - but a certain measure of control over laws what the Legislature does and does not pass? And what is the power to appoint Federal judges but a certain measure of control over how the courts will ultimately decide controversial issues? Those powers may not give the President direct control, but it's ludicrous to claim the President "doesn't have anything to do with" what laws get passed or how legal issues are decided.
Yet I am living in a country with no national health care despite having two presidents who made it a priority, spent considerable political capital, and failed to accomplish anything. And the Supreme Court will look at overturing the broken healthcare law that we did get.

Presidents make all sorts of promises during the campaign that they are unable to fulfil. Ron Paul (or Rick Perry for that matter) have no power to shutter federal agencies without the consent of the Legislature, no matter how much they are opposed to them. They even have to get someone else to get to agree to propose bills in the Legislature. Judges although they can lean towards the President's ideology, are only allowed to uphold the law as written UNLESS it contradicts another law.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
United States
Santee
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting read: http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-hampshire-why-hes-necessary-2...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
Attempting to pick Supreme Court justices who will "do what you want" has been very hard on presidents over the years.


You're describing a phenomenon which has grown less and less prevalent with time and which was never really that big a thing. If you look at every single nomination from Burger to the present, the only real standout among justices diverging from those who selected them is David Souter, and Souter was at most a centre-left moderate selected by a centre-right moderate. Everybody else is a centrist selected by a centrist, a centre-right moderate or conservative selected by a conservative, or a centre-left moderate selected by a centre-left moderate. (MAYBE you can make a case for Lewis Powell, but the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time so Nixon was forced to select a moderate.)

If anything, the Court's history over the past forty years shows that generally speaking, it's relatively easy to select a justice who will ideologically conform to what you want them to do.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Given how effective the policy is, the worst thing that could happen to the republican party would be to win the abortion issue and lock in a six vote supreme court ruling overturning abortion.

Love him or hate him, Bush was extremely effective at getting what he wanted- democrat controlled congress or not. Paul would not be as effective-- and he might even be completely blocked by both parties from doing anything at all.

Neither party wants a new political movement. Winner or loser- both parties are both the winners under the current system. Both parties walk away from congress wealthy with excellent job prospects, pensions, and health care. Both parties are owned lock stock and barrel by the corporations and the military industrial complex. They no longer vote in the country or the citizen's best interest.

I'm against several of Paul's positions but I $upport him despite being certain he will never win. I can see the current mainstream parties are leading us into a definate loss in my lifetime. Less civil liberties, less privacy, less income, lower standard of living, way too much money spent on defense.*

One thing I note here in this discussion is the tendency for liberals to not give other people the freedom to hold opinions liberals do not like.

An american citizen has a right to be homophobic, anti-abortion, etc. and to state that is their opinion. Then we vote, then we get a decision and we all live with it for a while. I disagree with most of their opinions but I support their right to express them.

In my judgement, Paul would be the best place for my vote if he could win. His more extreme positions would be mitigated by the bureaucracy. He MIGHT actually stop the increase of government spending. He will not succeed in cutting it.

----

* yes you can now have sex about any way you want, but if you try to talk back to the government you are going to get pepper spray and "free speech" zones. The government will track everything you do via electronic records and true privacy is basically gone. Any ability to resist militarily is gone unless the economy collapsed someday and the military became insupportable.

It's way to late to fight it short of a major movement but the two parties artfully use abortion, religion, and propaganda to keep the populace split down the middle.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Me
United States
Bowling Green
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
dandechino wrote:
This means he's working to make the federal government as small as possible which would do more for your liberty than anything else.


Yes. How free black people were in the 1950s, when the federal government stayed out of their way. That was true liberty!


I think we're talking about freedom from government control, not freedom from dumbasses. You seem to be mixing apples and oranges.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
Bush was as Christian Right as we're likely to see in this country, but even he couldn't deliver a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade.


Roberts and Alito will both vote to overturn Roe. The only reason Bush couldn't "deliver" that Supreme Court is because he didn't get one more opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Me
United States
Bowling Green
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeeDambis wrote:
davidme wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
dandechino wrote:
This means he's working to make the federal government as small as possible which would do more for your liberty than anything else.


Yes. How free black people were in the 1950s, when the federal government stayed out of their way. That was true liberty!


I think we're talking about freedom from government control, not freedom from dumbasses. You seem to be mixing apples and oranges.

It was a bit more like long-standing, institutionalized, enforced-as-a-last-resort-by-sheet-wearing-secret-hate-groups dumassery. That has little to do with freedom and much to do with the tyranny of the majority - and a small government is ill-equipped to handle issues like that.



I heard arguments that those issues were becoming better, faster without government before government intervention and became better, slower afterwards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Me
United States
Bowling Green
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, and I guess it's too complex to make a spreadsheet of, so we'll never know for sure. But I do think that everything is not just hunky-dory now and that government's involvement in most affairs tends to screw things up in proportion to the size of the government.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.