I didn't know Ron Paul was a Les Paul fan.

[Luckynumber3]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

He claims to be a libertarian, yet he's fine with state governments outlawing gay marriage and abortion. That's as intrusive as government can get.

Either he's so stupid he hasn't heard of the term "tyranny of the majority", or he's pandering to the far right. In either case, he's unworthy of my vote.

Don't libertarians usually rally for states rights though? I don't see a problem if he wants something nationally but allows some states to block it, and it does not seem to violate any idiology to me.

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

You missed my point, which is that he's no different than anything other politician claiming to be something he isn't. A libertarian accepting government intrusion on such personal decisions, no matter what level of government it is, is bullshitting someone.

I don't know about that, as I just said above this. Besides, he is seemingly more open that other candidates in that way, and I don't think it is possible to ever 100% agree with someone.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by Luckynumber3

Don't libertarians usually rally for states rights though? I don't see a problem if he wants something nationally but allows some states to block it, and it does not seem to violate any idiology to me.

No. Libertarians strive for the least intrusive government, and for the rights of individuals to live as they see fit:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Originally Posted by Luckynumber3

I don't know about that, as I just said above this.

See above.

Originally Posted by Luckynumber3

Besides, he is seemingly more open that other candidates in that way, and I don't think it is possible to ever 100% agree with someone.

Of course not. It's just whether his positions are beyond the pale. His willingness to permit the tyranny of the majority in issues such as abortion and equal treatment for gays means that he is not a candidate I will consider.

Everyone, of course, must draw their own lines. Bigotry is one such line for me.

[lespaul01]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

No. Libertarians strive for the least intrusive government, and for the rights of individuals to live as they see fit:

Letting the States decide individually is a helluva lot less intrusive than having the Federal Government mandate what the States can and can't do.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by lespaul01

Letting the States decide individually is a helluva lot less intrusive than having the Federal Government mandate what the States can and can't do.

Actually, the amount of intrusion upon personal liberties is the same ... it's just being executed at a different level of government.

[lespaul01]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

Actually, the amount of intrusion upon personal liberties is the same ... it's just being executed at a different level of government.

Letting the States decide individually vs the Federal Government mandating something is the same. Yah, OK.

[Duane71]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

He claims to be a libertarian, yet he's fine with state governments outlawing gay marriage and abortion. That's as intrusive as government can get.

Either he's so stupid he hasn't heard of the term "tyranny of the majority", or he's pandering to the far right. In either case, he's unworthy of my vote.

I don't see a problem with a Libertarian wanting abortion outlawed. Even if he's not religious, it would make sense to me because a libertarian would be ''for the rights of individuals to live as they see fit:'' the individual being the the operative term here. I mean if he truly sees the fetus has a ''individual being'' yet was pro abortion, he would be pandering to the left. Quote:
{We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose[. Platform Libertarian party}
As for the gay marriage begin illegal, that would be a tougher case for a libertarian to make IMO.

[mgenet]

Yeah, they're related. Except one is talented
and the other one is wooden.

[elcajon64]

Originally Posted by blackie2

I'm sure Ron Paul would only want us to all play goldtops....

The judges were looking for "Gold Standards."

So close.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by lespaul01

Letting the States decide individually vs the Federal Government mandating something is the same. Yah, OK.

Effectively, it is, to the people thus regulated. Whether it's state law or federal law banning the gay marriage, for instance, in either case the couple is barred from nuptials. Thus, my point that the amount of intrusion is the same holds true.

Any Libertarian willing to accept that sort of intrusion is a LINO.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by Duane71

I don't see a problem with a Libertarian wanting abortion outlawed. Even if he's not religious, it would make sense to me because a libertarian would be ''for the rights of individuals to live as they see fit:'' the individual being the the operative term here. I mean if he truly sees the fetus has a ''individual being'' yet was pro abortion, he would be pandering to the left. Quote:
{We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose[. Platform Libertarian party}

In which case he'd ought to provide definitive evidence that life begins at conception. In the absence of that evidence, the default position ought to be the liberty of the person we know exists.

As for the gay marriage begin illegal, that would be a tougher case for a libertarian to make IMO.

Absolutely.

[mgenet]

Originally Posted by nickw

Wow. First post (signed up forever ago but forgot about it.) Does this place not have moderators? Or do they just not care? Regardless of my lack of status here, I'll say this, that Lespaul01 guy should really learn about this neat little thing called respecting others opinions. It's not very hard, and you come across as less of a moron. Just sayin

UH OH...just sayin is back...damn...
Now the thread has gone downhill for sure.
Politics be damned.

[IsJimmyPageGod?]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

In which case he'd ought to provide definitive evidence that life begins at conception. In the absence of that evidence, the default position ought to be the liberty of the person we know exists.



Absolutely.

Seeing how he's a physician who's delivered 4,000 babies in his time, I'd be willing to bet his opinion has some credibility on this subject.

Paul has probably seen more vag then everyone on this thread combined.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by IsJimmyPageGod?

Seeing how he's a physician who's delievered 4,000 babies in his time, I'd be willing to bet his opinion has some credibility on this subject.

Not necessarily. He extracts them ... he doesn't manufacture them.

[lespaul01]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

Effectively, it is, to the people thus regulated. Whether it's state law or federal law banning the gay marriage, for instance, in either case the couple is barred from nuptials. Thus, my point that the amount of intrusion is the same holds true.

Any Libertarian willing to accept that sort of intrusion is a LINO.

You are missing the point. It is for the states to decide... Not the Federal Gov to dictate. You are just assuming that the states will ban abortion. Let the states decide, take the federal gov out of it... after all, is that not what the Constitution suggests?

What do you prefer. The Federal Government controlling abortion rules or letting the States decide as they are supposed to.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by lespaul01

You are missing the point. It is for the states to decide... Not the Federal Gov to dictate. You are just assuming that the states will ban abortion. Let the states decide, take the federal gov out of it... after all, is that not what the Constitution suggests?

What do you prefer. The Federal Government controlling abortion rules or letting the States decide as they are supposed to.

What I prefer is this decision being left to the people whose lives it will affect, rather than some government bureaucrat, no matter whether he's in a State legislature or the Federal Congress. You see, I don't think that this decision is any business of government's, at all, on any level at all.

[lespaul01]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

What I prefer is this decision being left to the people whose lives it will affect, rather than some government bureaucrat, no matter whether he's in a State legislature or the Federal Congress. You see, I don't think that this decision is any business of government's, at all, on any level at all.

I could not agree more. Not likely goona happen any time soon, though.

Is it possible think it may change your mind if you saw see a late term abortion take place where babies were put in a garbage can while still breathing.



Ultimately, Dr Pauls main argument on abortion is how can you protect Liberty if you can not protect life?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by lespaul01

I could not agree more. Not likely goona happen any time soon, though.

Is it possible think it may change your mind if you saw see a late term abortion take place where babies were put in a garbage can while still breathing.

I actually am against those, so no, I wouldn't change my mind. I don't think abortion shouldn't be regulated.

Ultimately, Dr Pauls main argument on abortion is how can you protect Liberty if you can not protect life?

Indeed. It's just that unless he can bring conclusive proof that life begins at conception, banning abortion is not within the scope of governmental power, by my views.

[Marshall & Moonshine]

Well, if a drunk driver hits a girl on a bike on her way to have an abortion, he can still be charged with murder.
So when does life begin?
I am adamantly against abortions. I think they are reprehensible.
So I'll never have one.
Nobody agrees with any candidate 100% of the time.

[Olds442]

can we please keep the political discussions to the "only politics thread" in the lounge?

[IsJimmyPageGod?]

Ok I'm gonna go back on topic:

Here is the video of Gibson USA's CEO Henry with Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul.

Testimony From Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars at PROPERTY WRONGS Hearing - 10/12/11 - YouTube

Testimony From Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars at PROPERTY WRONGS Hearing - 10/12/11 - YouTube

Has anyone seen this video? The entire hearing is quite interesting and sad.

[GuitarToneFreak]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

He claims to be a libertarian, yet he's fine with state governments outlawing gay marriage and abortion. That's as intrusive as government can get.

Either he's so stupid he hasn't heard of the term "tyranny of the majority", or he's pandering to the far right. In either case, he's unworthy of my vote.

I've never heard that from him, where did you? Unless you're talking about his stance on letting the states decide, as he feels the Federal Government doesn't need to be involved in it.

One of the main things Paul stands for is state choice over the Federal Government's last word, and I like that. He also feels the same way about education, he wants the Federal Government to just do what the Constitution says, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't feel the Government has to be involved in all the stuff it's involved in, and that includes civil rights issues. You know me Thump, I support gay marriage - but I would rather have a state by state decision with the possibility of some saying no, rather than an outright constitutional ban like some of the other candidates have supported time after time.

It's a slippery slope, but I think having the states decide is the most fair way to handle it, just my .02.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by GuitarToneFreak

I've never heard that from him, where did you? Unless you're talking about his stance on letting the states decide, as he feels the Federal Government doesn't need to be involved in it.

His website. Also, see http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro.../Gay_Marriage/.

One of the main things Paul stands for is state choice over the Federal Government's last word, and I like that. He also feels the same way about education, he wants the Federal Government to just do what the Constitution says, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't feel the Government has to be involved in all the stuff it's involved in, and that includes civil rights issues. You know me Thump, I support gay marriage - but I would rather have a state by state decision with the possibility of some saying no, rather than an outright constitutional ban like some of the other candidates have supported time after time.

As pointed out above, whether the ban is enacted on a state or on a Federal level, it is still a massive overreach of what should be considered the proper scope of government. I would rather support a candidate who doesn't dissemble on the issue in order to draw extremist voters to his cause.

It's a slippery slope, but I think having the states decide is the most fair way to handle it, just my .02.

We'll agree to disagree. I think the fairest thing is to have the couple themselves decide, because this is none of the government's business.

That is libertarianism.

[GuitarToneFreak]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

His website. Also, see Ron Paul - Gay Marriage.



As pointed out above, whether the ban is enacted on a state or on a Federal level, it is still a massive overreach of what should be considered the proper scope of government. I would rather support a candidate who doesn't dissemble on the issue in order to draw extremist voters to his cause.



We'll agree to disagree. I think the fairest thing is to have the couple themselves decide, because this is none of the government's business.

That is libertarianism.

Couples deciding as the fairest thing, I can't say I disagree with that - I just don't think we'll see anything like that unfortunately. I like the idea and wish it were they way, but I think we're a LONG way from that being reality. In the mean time there has to be a compromise, so while having the Federal or State(s) Government dictate the answer may not be fair necessarily, one of the two has to happen. I would much rather have 50 states be able to say yes or no, rather than having one guy at the top say "no dice, ban it". Maybe we'll get to a point in the future where couples decide, the idea of gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted nationwide, so maybe we'll get there one day. I'd like to see America get there one day, but for the present it has to be handled - and I like the state level idea.

Putting that aside, is there anything else you don't like about Paul? I like a good debate, and I know you're level-headed so I'd like to talk about it

[AngryHatter]

Originally Posted by lespaul01

You are missing the point. It is for the states to decide... Not the Federal Gov to dictate. You are just assuming that the states will ban abortion. Let the states decide, take the federal gov out of it... after all, is that not what the Constitution suggests?

What do you prefer. The Federal Government controlling abortion rules or letting the States decide as they are supposed to.

How about obeying the law of the land?
Abortion is legal and diminishing a woman's access to one is removing her rights.

[AngryHatter]

Originally Posted by GuitarToneFreak

I've never heard that from him, where did you? Unless you're talking about his stance on letting the states decide, as he feels the Federal Government doesn't need to be involved in it.

One of the main things Paul stands for is state choice over the Federal Government's last word, and I like that. He also feels the same way about education, he wants the Federal Government to just do what the Constitution says, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't feel the Government has to be involved in all the stuff it's involved in, and that includes civil rights issues. You know me Thump, I support gay marriage - but I would rather have a state by state decision with the possibility of some saying no, rather than an outright constitutional ban like some of the other candidates have supported time after time.

It's a slippery slope, but I think having the states decide is the most fair way to handle it, just my .02.

So when South Carolina wants to secede...it's ok.
And having women travel to states allowing her to make her own decisions is discrimination as only the poor will have trouble obtaining reproductive services.

[Marshall & Moonshine]

Oh, gay marriage is coming. I feel the same about gay marriage as I feel about abortion. Morally disgusting, both of them.
Which is why I will never ask a gay spouse to have an abortion. If I ask the government to legislate my morality, someone else will ask to legislate theirs, and they'll push into my religion.
After a short while, everyone will have their self-righteous hands in everyone else's pants and we'll all be squeezing together.
Gay marriage will get here through the courts, by the way...
Not the will of the majority. I mean, CALIFORNIA rejected it on an up-or-down voter ballot. Enter the worm, your Honor....

[AngryHatter]

That is what Thump referred to as the tyranny of the majority.
The constitution is to protect the MINORITY from the rest.

[Marshall & Moonshine]

Originally Posted by AngryHatter

That is what Thump referred to as the tyranny of the majority.
The constitution is to protect the MINORITY from the rest.

Yep, and thank God.
"Democracy doesn't work in a mental institution"
--Fat Mike

[Gibbiefan]

For all you guys that can't get past the left right argument, ask yourself this.

Has this country been getting better or worse, for liberty, freedom, economy, wars, during the last 20-30 years and more. (notice in that time both Dems and Repubs have been running the show)

You can keep voting for some "change" or the new game show host, and I guarantee you will not see anything different. If your politician du jour does not follow the Constitution, and/or sounds like a dictator you will get nothing but... "its their fault" out of any of them, all the while they conspire to take away more of our freedoms all in the name of safety.

If we don't vote for someone who actually believes in our constitutional republic, it will be gone.

Carry on with your left right bash fest

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by Marshall & Moonshine

Oh, gay marriage is coming. I feel the same about gay marriage as I feel about abortion. Morally disgusting, both of them.
Which is why I will never ask a gay spouse to have an abortion. If I ask the government to legislate my morality, someone else will ask to legislate theirs, and they'll push into my religion.
After a short while, everyone will have their self-righteous hands in everyone else's pants and we'll all be squeezing together.
Gay marriage will get here through the courts, by the way...
Not the will of the majority. I mean, CALIFORNIA rejected it on an up-or-down voter ballot. Enter the worm, your Honor....

You're comfortable with "inalienable rights" such as the freedom of association being decided by a vote? I'm not. Were it not for courts, I'd be forced to gargle your religion. I'm grateful that they stand between ideologues and my freedoms.

I have no desire to regulate your views or practices so long as they do harm others. I accept that our constitution legally prevents me from doing so, and don't want that to change.

No one is making you violate what you hold to be true. They are simply asking that you not do that to them.