Ron Paul Fox Debate

[cannon_fodder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE

Ron Paul talking about the Iraq war in the FoxNews debate.  Seriously polarizing stuff within the Republican Party, listen to the crowd in the first 2:30 minutes... wild cheering for both pulling out of Iraq AND for staying put.  

Keep in mind, Ron Paul is to the Republican Party what Dennis Kucinich is to the Democrats - albeit better inarticulated and not quite as far out there.  This is not an endorsement, but at least someone is rocking the boat.  He's way off on too many policies for me to actual want him to lead, but at least he is thinking outside the box.  Scary thing is, even his most wack job ideas - when explain, make some sense.

Anywho, video is worth the first 3 minutes anyway (Friday lack of motivation on display here).

[Conan71]

I was loosely listening in when he was on.  He's not there to win the nomination, but he might be able to have some influence on the platforms.

Rudy sure could use a little botox, he looked awful.

[cannon_fodder]

I just watched Hannity v. Ron Paul after the nomination, I'm kind of scared because the more I listen to him the more I want to taste the koolaid.  I disagree with the "illegal" war think and several other notions,  but I disagree with everyone on something.  He would still scare me as a leader though, maybe.  But so would Hilldog.  
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn2JTi1U59k&mode=related&search=)

Less involvement in foreign wars
Smaller Government
More reliance on personal responsibility

I'm scared I may actual vote for this guy in what, a year from now?  Or has the OK primary been moved to Jan. 2nd yet?

[cannon_fodder]

His religious views kind of alarm me too.  He wants a "profoundly Christian nation that is tolerant of other religions."  Generally he is hostile to secularism and thinks separation of Church and State is merely to prohibit an official religion.

He also supports legislation to strip jurisdiction of the courts for various things.  Including stripping jurisdiction on marital matters, sexual matters, and abortion so that each state can do as it pleases.  An interesting idea on some areas, not so much on others.  For instance, he wanted to allow states to be able to make "same-sex sexual practices" illegal.  I have problems with that from a basic liberty perspective (how does that hurt you or I so why should the government care).

Seems like he allows his religious perspective to interfere with his libertarian perspective from time to time.  He wants less government in our daily lives, but wants to dictate what other adults I can have sex with in my house.  Seems contradictory to me.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder



Less involvement in foreign wars- check
Smaller Government- check
More reliance on personal responsibility- check

He's got my attention.  Finally, someone who is an old-school GOP.

[RecycleMichael]

I like him too and I have never voted for a Republican for President.

That is why he has no chance.

The republican party will never put up a presidential candidate that appeals to democrats...and they usually don't have to. They have won five of the last seven going the other way.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder



His religious views kind of alarm me too.  He wants a "profoundly Christian nation that is tolerant of other religions."  Generally he is hostile to secularism and thinks separation of Church and State is merely to prohibit an official religion.

'nuff said.  That's all we need is a hard-line Christian "mullah" running the country.  Pass.

[cannon_fodder]

I hear ya Conan, but the rest of his platform is pretty solid.  I don't think he can win, but maybe he can rock the boat on some of those other issues.  Plus, the Congress and Courts would be able to temper some of his more extreme positions... lest he pull a Chavez and disband them.   Not yet convinced, it is a two way street with him.  But worth a look I think.

[Nick Danger]

You can learn more about what he really stands for at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

He's definitely got my vote!

Nick

[deinstein]

No thanks.

I like my National Park System.

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment overalls the 10th Amendment.

Oh, and I think environmental regulations are pretty neat.

[cannon_fodder]

deinstein -

I understand those issues and agree with you, Paul is not against them.  He just believes the constitution provides for a limited government, and that there is no authorization for the government to have a national parks system or about half the other crap that it does.  part of me is comfortable with the status quo, but part of me agrees.

How is own and operate wilderness park's one of the president's enumerated powers?

Just kind of spits on the whole limited government thing and as they take it further and further I'm getting tired of it.  Essentially, everything is connected to something so they can do anything.  Way out of line for a limited government.

[iplaw]

quote:Generally he is hostile to secularism and thinks separation of Church and State is merely to prohibit an official religion.

So would have a few of the founders from what I can gather...not that I think it should be any other way than what it is...I agree with Jefferson on this one 100%...but incidentally I think his views on Marbury were right on too though.

/ducks to avoid whatever CF throws  []

[cannon_fodder]

/throws a copy of the 2006 register bound into a single volume at IP.

While I concur with Jefferson that the notion of the courts being the final say because the courts said they have the final say is clearly begging the question, I would put forth the result is a more stable government.  The courts tend to uphold the status quo much longer than the knee-jerk reaction of a populace legislature.

Not too mention the clarity of issues.  While much legal writing is criticized as being overly succinct and vexing for laymen, the verbosity of the legislature is legendary.  Most of the members voting on the laws have not read them in their entirety as they generate nearly a pallet worth of new laws per session (what was the national spice again?).  Nor does their girth provide any clarity to the issues the purport to resolve.  Imagine how horribly muddled, done and undone, and utterly hideous the volumes deciding constitutional issues would have become (think abortion from 1992 to 2010).  

and on top of all that, leaving the constitution to pure majority rule would eliminate the rigid framework and difficulty involved with changing the rules that were set up to begin with.  Amendments are not needed if the legislature can read whatever it wants, whenever it wants.  As corrupted the interpretation may be at present, at least the courts do so at a snails pace.

[iplaw]

quote:/throws a copy of the 2006 register bound into a single volume at IP.

What are you...Barry Bonds?

quote:As corrupted the interpretation may be at present, at least the courts do so at a snails pace.

Not to mention that you and I get to make a couple of dollars in the process...[]

[Conan71]

Geez, if I didn't know any better I'd swear I'd just overheard a conversation between a couple of attornies. []