Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Khorum

That said, the last sixty years saw some truly egregious federalist excesses like the New Deal welfare programs and SCOTUS activist rulings that really erode state rights and need serious reform and correction.

Not to mention a lot of the initial opposition to the Constitution by anti-federalists are showings signs of being true. The idea that the bill of rights are the only rights we have is absurd. And that's exactly what the government is doing with wiretapping.

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

I haven't heard anything about that, but some vaccines are detrimental to health, and have been shown to cause severe developmental impairments such as autisim and Asbergers. Seeing as the vaccinated individual is not under threat of catching the virus from the infected one, how is that a violation of the rights of others? If you don't vaccinate, you take your chances, if you do, you're safe.

I havent seen any actual proven link between autism and asbergers.. thats more of a rumor that parents of autistic kids use to blame something afaik. My mom is a therapist and works with developmentally delayed kids and goes to the training all the time and just last week was talking about how she wished they knew what caused autism =/

As far as tax breaks to home schooled kids.. meh they pay public school money cause its a state mandate.. but everyone does, grandma pays it and has no kids, the diabetic next door with no kids pays it.. none of them get tax cuts for it and they dont use it either..

Plus a tax break for home schooling without really strict regulation and oversight is just gonna mean the welfare moms 'homeschool' their kids and use the money for meth or whatever it is they do.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by darksensei

Not to mention a lot of the initial opposition to the Constitution by anti-federalists are showings signs of being true. The idea that the bill of rights are the only rights we have is absurd. And that's exactly what the government is doing with wiretapping.

Huh?

[tjac]

Originally Posted by Kaio

They both are probabyl on the other spectrum of the IP laws from which you prefer. You know they will support whatever teh corporate lobbyists are telling then and hillary has probably already helped them.

Yep. Hillary has a big Hollywood push behind her and Giuliani seems comfortable sacrificing privacy. Neither of those really work in favor of public domain IP.

[Khorum]

See, he's about to get into the nuances that distinguish Paul's strict constructionism from Jacksonian Republicanism.

The debate between Libertarians and Republicans would be more vigorous and brutal than what we have with the dems today. But with the Libertarians, you don't get those raised hackles about something sordid and unamerican with their foreign socialist demagoguery and lazy collectivism. The debate between individual libertarians and federalists had defined American political discourse until the New Deal.

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Huh?

Khorum was saying how the federal government had overstepped it's bounds on several issues regarding state's rights. I was saying, using wiretapping as my example, it's also imposing authority they don't have over personal liberties. They think, because the constitution doesn't outright forbid it, it's not a right. The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
The absurd comment was commentary, government can't give people rights they only oppress them.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by darksensei

Khorum was saying how the federal government had overstepped it's bounds on several issues regarding state's rights. I was saying, using wiretapping as my example, it's also imposing authority they don't have over personal liberties. They think, because the constitution doesn't outright forbid it, it's not a right. The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
The absurd comment was commentary, government can't give people rights they only oppress them.

Courts have, for quite awhile, applied the Fourth Amendment to wiretapping, so it's not as if there's not an explicit constitutional right involved (unless you don't buy that wiretapping falls under the Fourth Amendment, which is pretty far outside of the mainstream given the caselaw). Anyway, the wiretapping stuff has been vastly overblown and outright misrepresented; there are other issues arising from the War on Terror (Padilla's treatment, for instance), that demand much more attention and pose potentially more serious threats to rights. But overall the impact of this stuff on the rights of the people has been minimal. People are worked up because things are trending in a bad direction, but things haven't progressed very far at all with respect to American citizens.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by darksensei

The absurd comment was commentary, government can't give people rights they only oppress them.

I couldn't tell if this was sarcasm or not.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

I couldn't tell if this was sarcasm or not.

It's not, really. I've heard this argument before, that the government does not "give" rights. You are, at core, totally free. The government then takes rights from you, systematically, and this is how we have rule of law. When they "give" you a right back, they aren't really givign you a right, rather lifting the restriction placed on the right that you already have. Semantical bullshit imo.

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by chaos

It's not, really. I've heard this argument before, that the government does not "give" rights. You are, at core, totally free. The government then takes rights from you, systematically, and this is how we have rule of law. When they "give" you a right back, they aren't really givign you a right, rather lifting the restriction placed on the right that you already have. Semantical bullshit imo.

Way to summarily dismiss a serious philosophical debate that's gone on for hundreds of years. God forbid someone acknowledge that positions other than their own can be reasonable.

[The Ancient]

Fucking hippies.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Havelock

Way to summarily dismiss a serious philosophical debate that's gone on for hundreds of years. God forbid someone acknowledge that positions other than their own can be reasonable.

Look no offense, but take your philosophy and shove it up your ass. It has no bearing on reality, whether or not we come into being with rights or are granted them by the government, it is a purely semantical argument.

[FulorianC]

Originally Posted by Tolanin

Plus a tax break for home schooling without really strict regulation and oversight is just gonna mean the welfare moms 'homeschool' their kids and use the money for meth or whatever it is they do.

Welfare moms don't pay taxes... THEY'RE ON WELFARE.

[darksensei]

CNBC round table discussing Ron Paul.

YouTube - Post Ron Paul Interview Discussion on CNBC 11-8-07

[Dabamf]

Originally Posted by chaos

Look no offense, but take your philosophy and shove it up your ass. It has no bearing on reality, whether or not we come into being with rights or are granted them by the government, it is a purely semantical argument.

No, it's not. It has huge implications. If we are not born with natural rights, a government is ethically allowed to do whatever it wants, to impose any law it wants. A "government-given right" is an oxymoron. If you view rights as what the government allows, then they are privileges. And after all, privileges can be taken away.