Other than this being obvious pro-democratic propaganda - Ron Paul is obviously not for the people - I think it is interesting that I can count at least 14 bills or positions that Ron Paul supports that are in direct contradiction to his supposed libertarian position. If they are true, the author was correct when they added the "I'm a Bush-" bit.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Ron Paul: Not a People's People Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
lol the man that wants to get rid of the department of education voted for school prayer? huh? please reference these lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act
I see RP is against the 14th amendment and hence against universality of the bill of rights. If a state wants to be a theocracy, that's okay!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Ron Paul is an idiot. Allowing no state religion on the federal level, while allowing state religion on the state level is exactly the same. CENTRALIZED RELIGION TRAMPLING ON THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS>
As for school prayer in public schools... Ron Paul has tried to take the back door in. He wants to make it legal for students to take time out to pray in class. This, of course, would lead to division, pressure on non-believers to conform with the group, and a general sense of group presense by the majority. Such a system has no place in public places, on the state or federal level. Religion is a private practice that should be exercised privately or in private meeting places expressedly set up for shows of religion. The laws Ron Paul supports are a way of dividing the populace, of religiousizing the classroom. SHAME ON RON PAUL FOR BEING AGAINST THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion
"He wants to make it legal for students to take time out to pray in class."
He is not trying to bring religion into the classroom, he is respecting the religion of others as some need to pray at specific times of day.
"I see RP is against the 14th amendment and hence against universality of the bill of rights. If a state wants to be a theocracy, that's okay!"
He's against the federal supreme court imposing its will on states.
"Religion is a private practice that should be exercised privately or in private meeting places expressedly set up for shows of religion."
Says you.
Of course, what is private if all is communal? If religious acts are not to be practiced on publicly owned land, and there is no such thing as "private property", where does one practice their freedom of religion?
"He is not trying to bring religion into the classroom, he is respecting the religion of others as some need to pray at specific times of day."
They can pray outside the classroom.
"He's against the federal supreme court imposing its will on states."
Then he's against the fourteenth amendment, which states:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And he's against Article three of the constitution, which states:
"to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
And finally, he's against the spirit of the Declaration of Independence:
"Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness"
"Says you."
No, says the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress = government. Public school = government institution. Therefore, religion can not be established in the classroom. Remember, the founders were against religion in government because one sect of Christianity had gained control, which caused a intense amount of division in the populace, which was divided into a multitude of different sects. Bringing prayer into classroom, even if only voluntary, would recreate and focus in on the type of divisions that plauged England.
"Of course, what is private if all is communal?"
All is communal? Don't be silly.
"If religious acts are not to be practiced on publicly owned land, and there is no such thing as "private property", where does one practice their freedom of religion?"
But there is private property, so I dont understand your point. Are you asking me a hypothetical question about communism?
"They can pray outside the classroom."
Not if they are supposed to be praying when they are supposed to be in class.
"Then he's against the fourteenth amendment"
Maybe so, but if you can reference something showing he's specifically against section 1? Section 2 - 4 are quite different.
"And he's against Article three of the constitution, which states"
Reference please.
"And finally, he's against the spirit of the Declaration of Independence"
Please explain.
"Congress = government. Public school = government institution. Therefore, religion can not be established in the classroom. Remember, the founders were against religion in government"
And the founders were against government in the schools.
The bill Ron Paul is supporting only further provides weight to the first amendment as it provides protection to those who wish to practice their religion. Having this restricted within public schools individuals are mandated by law to attend violates their first amendment right.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Paul isn't pushing a law in regards to an establishment of religion, he's pushing a law through that prevents government from prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
"But there is private property, so I dont understand your point. Are you asking me a hypothetical question about communism?"
You do not believe individuals have rights to private property. In Canada, I have no guaranteed right to private property. All is eminent domain.
Correction: I don't beleive that capitalist private property will continue. I think the wage/capital relation will lead to poverty in the long run, because the wage/capital relation is based around profit.
As for private property, I am for personal private property, including personal objects and places of residence, vis-a-vis the state or lack thereof.
So you're for personal property that the state has control of, right?
Do you mean eminent domain?
I didn't know the government owned my Wii or the blueberries I like to pick in the summer, but if you think so!
Your Wii has no use to the government, but watch out, picking blueberries instead of purchasing them and supporting your economy might become illegal!
The point is, if you own a piece of land, you'd agree the government should be able to tell you what you can dow ith that property, right? They should be able to tell you if you're allowed to run a business on that land or that you can only build a house, no?
"Your Wii has no use to the government, but watch out, picking blueberries instead of purchasing them and supporting your economy might become illegal!"
Ah-huh.
"The point is, if you own a piece of land, you'd agree the government should be able to tell you what you can dow ith that property, right? They should be able to tell you if you're allowed to run a business on that land or that you can only build a house, no?"
In relation to democratic law, yes, they should be able to tell you what you can and can not do. Personal property is different, though..
"In relation to democratic law, yes, they should be able to tell you what you can and can not do. Personal property is different, though.."
In what way? What is the magical line you draw between property the government can legislate over and property government cannot legislate over?
"In what way? What is the magical line you draw between property the government can legislate over and property government cannot legislate over?"
Democratic legislation will always be limited, Josh. Democratic legislation that would be strong enough to regulate the use of personal property would no longer be democratic. And I don't mean democratic party democratic. I mean communistic and socialistic and anarchistic as well..
There's already all kinds of legislation over the use of personal property. My questions was, where is the line? If you believe in private property, at what point is property not able to be legislated over by the government? Should there be any restriction on government?
Such as? What kind of restrictions are we talking about?
Don't answer my questions with a question. You're the one that seems confused on private property. Please answer my questions.
"Don't answer my questions with a question. You're the one that seems confused on private property. Please answer my questions."
You are the one who brought it up. Which restrictions? I betcha if there are restrictions, they have something to do with trampling other peoples' rights. For example, smoking in public places.
Post a Comment