We The People

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
No, you have not shown him to be inconsistent on the Constitution. Let me re-word my last sentence there.

I had

“If you consider abortion to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction.”

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t talking about you

"If abortion is considered to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction. "[/quote]

State courts have sovereignty over prosecution of homocide except in cases such as those where a federal official is murdered or federal property destroyed during the crime. But that is besides the point anyway, because Ron Paul is not suggesting that people involved in abortion be charged and tried for murder and even if he was that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point was that he is supporting legislation that, according to his previously professed positions(see video above), is unconstitutional. There’s the inconsistency.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
No, you have not shown him to be inconsistent on the Constitution. Let me re-word my last sentence there.

I had

“If you consider abortion to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction.”

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t talking about you

"If abortion is considered to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction. "[/quote]

State courts have sovereignty over prosecution of homocide except in cases such as those where a federal official is murdered or federal property destroyed during the crime. But that is besides the point anyway, because Ron Paul is not suggesting that people involved in abortion be charged and tried for murder and even if he was that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point was that he is supporting legislation that, according to his previously professed positions(see video above), is unconstitutional. There’s the inconsistency.[/quote]

No, its not.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
No, you have not shown him to be inconsistent on the Constitution. Let me re-word my last sentence there.

I had

“If you consider abortion to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction.”

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t talking about you

"If abortion is considered to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction. "[/quote]

State courts have sovereignty over prosecution of homocide except in cases such as those where a federal official is murdered or federal property destroyed during the crime. But that is besides the point anyway, because Ron Paul is not suggesting that people involved in abortion be charged and tried for murder and even if he was that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point was that he is supporting legislation that, according to his previously professed positions(see video above), is unconstitutional. There’s the inconsistency.[/quote]

No, its not.

[/quote]

Sorry, I keep forgetting about the Ron Paul ‘leadership principle.’

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
No, you have not shown him to be inconsistent on the Constitution. Let me re-word my last sentence there.

I had

“If you consider abortion to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction.”

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t talking about you

"If abortion is considered to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction. "[/quote]

State courts have sovereignty over prosecution of homocide except in cases such as those where a federal official is murdered or federal property destroyed during the crime. But that is besides the point anyway, because Ron Paul is not suggesting that people involved in abortion be charged and tried for murder and even if he was that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point was that he is supporting legislation that, according to his previously professed positions(see video above), is unconstitutional. There’s the inconsistency.[/quote]

No, its not.

[/quote]

Sorry, I keep forgetting about the Ron Paul ‘leadership principle.’[/quote]

No, you just dont understand his positions and do not care to.

While I think Paul goes too far in his views of foreign policy, and is completely naive when it comes to Islamists, there should be equal concern over republican senators who’d throw us into another conflict with Pakistan. Or, Iran. We’re already stretched out and hemorrhaging money. We’re done as the world’s superpower. Demographically, financially, education-wise, done. Time to draw inward for a couple of generations and replenish our social, financial, and intellectual stocks.

If the Republicans insist on being the slash entitlement spending, war longer and possibly more, but don’t raise taxes party, they don’t have much longer as a serious party in the country.

We’re coming home from around the world. Be it by a planned and orderly withdraw, starting fairly soon. Or later, but more abruptly. Because we bankrupted ourselves, having pretended to be a healthy lone superpower all the way up to the brink. Either way, it’s inevitable.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
No, you have not shown him to be inconsistent on the Constitution. Let me re-word my last sentence there.

I had

“If you consider abortion to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction.”

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t talking about you

"If abortion is considered to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction. "[/quote]

State courts have sovereignty over prosecution of homocide except in cases such as those where a federal official is murdered or federal property destroyed during the crime. But that is besides the point anyway, because Ron Paul is not suggesting that people involved in abortion be charged and tried for murder and even if he was that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point was that he is supporting legislation that, according to his previously professed positions(see video above), is unconstitutional. There’s the inconsistency.[/quote]

You are right about the homicide, but this is different. I don’t really get into the abortion arguments that much, so I could be missing some info, but I am unaware of any states passing legislation on this. So a federal law would be valid unless it was in contradiction to a state law.

It’s not hypocritical for him to point out that the states have the power to make this decision, while simultaneously being against it himself. As a matter of fact I’m sure that many pro-choice individuals would really appreciate that. You accuse him of breaking the rules when he refuses to even bend them. Most other politicians would and do just lie by omission.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
No, you have not shown him to be inconsistent on the Constitution. Let me re-word my last sentence there.

I had

“If you consider abortion to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction.”

You misunderstood what I meant. I wasn’t talking about you

"If abortion is considered to be murder, then that would mean that the federal gov’t DOES have jurisdiction. "[/quote]

State courts have sovereignty over prosecution of homocide except in cases such as those where a federal official is murdered or federal property destroyed during the crime. But that is besides the point anyway, because Ron Paul is not suggesting that people involved in abortion be charged and tried for murder and even if he was that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

The point was that he is supporting legislation that, according to his previously professed positions(see video above), is unconstitutional. There’s the inconsistency.[/quote]

You are right about the homicide, but this is different. I don’t really get into the abortion arguments that much, so I could be missing some info, but I am unaware of any states passing legislation on this. So a federal law would be valid unless it was in contradiction to a state law.

It’s not hypocritical for him to point out that the states have the power to make this decision, while simultaneously being against it himself. As a matter of fact I’m sure that many pro-choice individuals would really appreciate that. You accuse him of breaking the rules when he refuses to even bend them. Most other politicians would and do just lie by omission.[/quote]

He’s not just saying the states have the power to make this decision while simultaneously being against it himself. He’s saying abortion is a state issue but he is supporting FEDERAL anti-abortion legislation. Don’t you see? He’s saying only states have the power to legislate about abortion yet he is supporting FEDERAL abortion legislation! - i.e. We the People Act, Sanctity of Life Act.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
While I think Paul goes too far in his views of foreign policy, and is completely naive when it comes to Islamists, there should be equal concern over republican senators who’d throw us into another conflict with Pakistan.
[/quote]

Which senators and how do you imagine they would go about doing that? Also, in light of the fact that Pakistan is at war with the US already, how does that even make sense?

Iran has been fighting a proxy war on the US since 1979. State sponsored Iranian terrorists have killed hundreds and hundreds of US servicemen/women and civilians. I know this might sound crazy - it is - but the Ayatollahs believe the following;

That they must attack the US, Israel and the West in particular in order to ‘prepare the way’ for an Imam from the eighth century who has been in suspended animation and needs to be awakened. They intend to start a nuclear war to do so.

This is the reality of what we are dealing with. That’s why even an extreme left person like Obama has been stepping up attacks on Neo-Taliban/al-Qaeda over the last few years. That’s why he is increasing drone capabilities to target al-Qaeda in Somalia and Yemen. Because he KNOWS how dangerous these people are from his daily intelligence reports, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and elsewhere.

That’s what the America First Committee argued for in the 30’s - right up until the Pearl Harbour attack.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
While I think Paul goes too far in his views of foreign policy, and is completely naive when it comes to Islamists, there should be equal concern over republican senators who’d throw us into another conflict with Pakistan.
[/quote]

Which senators and how do you imagine they would go about doing that? Also, in light of the fact that Pakistan is at war with the US already, how does that even make sense?

Iran has been fighting a proxy war on the US since 1979. State sponsored Iranian terrorists have killed hundreds and hundreds of US servicemen/women and civilians. I know this might sound crazy - it is - but the Ayatollahs believe the following;

That they must attack the US, Israel and the West in particular in order to ‘prepare the way’ for an Imam from the eighth century who has been in suspended animation and needs to be awakened. They intend to start a nuclear war to do so.

This is the reality of what we are dealing with. That’s why even an extreme left person like Obama has been stepping up attacks on Neo-Taliban/al-Qaeda over the last few years. That’s why he is increasing drone capabilities to target al-Qaeda in Somalia and Yemen. Because he KNOWS how dangerous these people are from his daily intelligence reports, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and elsewhere.

That’s what the America First Committee argued for in the 30’s - right up until the Pearl Harbour attack.[/quote]

You don’t have to agree me. Our financial situation will dictate a withdraw. Saw an article (I’ll find it later) where the republicans in that deficit sub-committee are starting to fear they may have to sign onto one of two things; tax raises and preserve the military budget, or cut the military budget and preserve tax rates. And that’s the short term. Long term, we’re broke.

The republican party is quickly melting down into the stupid war party. It thinks it’ll continue the wars (perhaps even extending into Pakistan and/or Iran.), make some gentle spending cuts to entitlements (you saw what Romney did to Perry over Soc. Sec.)…all the while not raising taxes.

We’ll withdraw. That, or the GoP turns into the perpetual war/high tax party. A party too afraid to upset their already war weary (and increasingly so) population with talks of real Medicare and SS cuts/reform.

Republican historian Robert Kagan:

“A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation. There is already a sense around the world…that the United States is in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun.”

Also, Medicare/SS accounts for nearly half the federal budget. Defence spending(which includes such things as veterans’ pensions and homeland security) is only 20% of the federal budget.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Republican historian Robert Kagan:

“A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation. There is already a sense around the world…that the United States is in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun.”

Also, Medicare/SS accounts for nearly half the federal budget. Defence spending(which includes such things as veterans’ pensions and homeland security) is only 20% of the federal budget.[/quote]

If it unnerves them so, let them raise their own taxes, cut their programs, and build up their own militaries. Good luck preserving that 20%, cutting the nearly 50% substantially, and not raising taxes. The military budget will be cut. Welfare is welfare. You’re not going to convince anyone to subsidize S.Korean defense while cutting their SS and Medicare back home. You’re not going to convince anyone we can’t spend more on education while having to build or rebuild schools in Afghanistan.

The argument is pointless as it is, we’re not going to be THE superpower anymore. We’re on the wane. Our presence will be dramatically reduced.

Even the tea-partiers don’t want their SS and Medicare touched. But they don’t want their taxes raised, either…Guess what will increasingly draw tea party/libertarian/conservative attention? Defense and our commitments around the globe. That, or they can support a high taxation-perpetual war party.

And of course, if you cut the total budget through cutting entitlement dramatically, defense percentage share will climb higher. So up goes a graphic of an even bigger defense share and a shrunken everything else share. Not going to sit well.

The GoP is doomed if it becomes the insincere "our financial situation is so dire that must dramatically reduce and reform entitlements…but yeah, no tax raises. And, and, we can continue to subsidize the defenses of other’s (who then taunt us for not having single-payer healthcare, which they partially pay for with defense savings), fight wars, possibly expand the fronts (Pakistan and Iran), but still not raise taxes (specifically on the wealthy).

The only thing that might save us from another 4 years of Obama is his inability to get us out of recession he inherited. At this point it shouldn’t even be a might. If, if, the GoP wins the presidency it has 4 years to demonstrate that this country is in dire long term trouble. It had better be damned convincing if it thinks it’ll be allowed to extract real savings from SS and Medicare. But, it darn sure won’t be convincing selling “Nah, we can continue to defend non-US states, fight wars, and not increase taxes.”

Otherwise, it’s YET ANOTHER 4 years of a deficit increasing republican, frightened away from SS and Medicare cuts and reform when the public backlash over his proposals threatens his re-election. Presiding over a still recovering (hopefully it even fills like a recovery. Jobless recoveries aren’t much to celebrate in the minds of voters) economy, and still waning US power. And that will pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the GoP.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If the Republicans insist on being the slash entitlement spending, war longer and possibly more, but don’t raise taxes party, they don’t have much longer as a serious party in the country.
[/quote]

Last I checked republicans were also the party of smaller government. And I think quite a bit could be solved if the federal government was perhaps cut in half. And of course the nanny state ended permanently.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

If the Republicans insist on being the slash entitlement spending, war longer and possibly more, but don’t raise taxes party, they don’t have much longer as a serious party in the country.
[/quote]

Last I checked republicans were also the party of smaller government.
[/quote]

Um…

When did you last check ?

[quote]Last I checked republicans were also the party of smaller government. And I think quite a bit could be solved if the federal government was perhaps cut in half. And of course the nanny state ended permanently.
[/quote]

Even if they were the party of smaller government [when was this?], the American people aren’t. The beginning of Perry’s demise started with referring his to SS as a “ponzi” scheme. We’ve got Romney basically sounding like a Democrat in it’s defense. The last survey of tea party folk (the tp even!) I’ve seen puts on display the usual malarky about SS and Medicare, “Cut fraud and waste, then leave them alone…” That wouldn’t even come close to making them solvent for the mid/long term…

By 2025 we’re paying interest, SS, and Medicare. Anything else is paid for with whatever borrowed money we can still get. Who is our front runner now? Mr. Romney-care, flip-flop, perfect hair.

Honestly, they’re all terrible candidates. They know they can’t make deep enough cuts to offset zero tax raises, and/or continue to fight these wars (possibly expanding them). We’ve got candidates, but we don’t have any leaders. The two parties, Dumb and Dumber.

We’re done as a super-power. We’re done–regardless of how anybody feels about foreign policy–being the policeman. We’re done with keeping tax rates down. And we’re done with untouchable social programs. We just haven’t caught up to all that, yet. But it 'aint far off.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Last I checked republicans were also the party of smaller government. And I think quite a bit could be solved if the federal government was perhaps cut in half. And of course the nanny state ended permanently.
[/quote]

Even if they were the party of smaller government [when was this?], the American people aren’t. The beginning of Perry’s demise started with referring to SS as a “ponzi” scheme. We’ve got Romney basically sounding like a Democrat in it’s defense. The last survey of tea party folk (the tp even!) I’ve seen put on display the usual malarky about SS and Medicare, “Cut fraud and waste, then leave them alone…” That wouldn’t even come close to making them solvent for the mid/long term…

By 2025 we’re paying interest, SS, and Medicare. Anything else is paid for with whatever borrowed money we can still get. Who is our front runner now? Mr. Romney-care, flip-flop, perfect hair.

Honestly, they’re all terrible candidates. They know they can’t make deep enough cuts to offset zero tax raises, and/or continue to fight these wars (possibly expanding them). We’ve got candidates, but we don’t have any leaders. The two parties, Dumb and Dumber.

We’re done as a super-power. We’re done, regardless of how anybody feels about foreign policy, being the policeman. We’re done with keeping tax rates down. And we’re done with untouchable social programs. We just haven’t caught up to all that, yet. But it 'aint far off.[/quote]
A couple of things here:
“‘Cut fraud and waste, then leave them alone…’ That wouldn’t even come close to making them solvent for the mid/long term…”

A pyramid scheme is by definition a form a fraud and insolvent. If you take the Government at their word to the SCOTUS at the time of it’s passage, SS is actually just a tax not tied to the “trust fund”. If you believe those government officials that claim the “trust fund” is funded by SS payment, then it is a pyramid scheme.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Last I checked republicans were also the party of smaller government. And I think quite a bit could be solved if the federal government was perhaps cut in half. And of course the nanny state ended permanently.
[/quote]

Even if they were the party of smaller government [when was this?], the American people aren’t. The beginning of Perry’s demise started with referring to SS as a “ponzi” scheme. We’ve got Romney basically sounding like a Democrat in it’s defense. The last survey of tea party folk (the tp even!) I’ve seen put on display the usual malarky about SS and Medicare, “Cut fraud and waste, then leave them alone…” That wouldn’t even come close to making them solvent for the mid/long term…

By 2025 we’re paying interest, SS, and Medicare. Anything else is paid for with whatever borrowed money we can still get. Who is our front runner now? Mr. Romney-care, flip-flop, perfect hair.

Honestly, they’re all terrible candidates. They know they can’t make deep enough cuts to offset zero tax raises, and/or continue to fight these wars (possibly expanding them). We’ve got candidates, but we don’t have any leaders. The two parties, Dumb and Dumber.

We’re done as a super-power. We’re done, regardless of how anybody feels about foreign policy, being the policeman. We’re done with keeping tax rates down. And we’re done with untouchable social programs. We just haven’t caught up to all that, yet. But it 'aint far off.[/quote]
A couple of things here:
“‘Cut fraud and waste, then leave them alone…’ That wouldn’t even come close to making them solvent for the mid/long term…”

A pyramid scheme is by definition a form a fraud and insolvent. If you take the Government at their word to the SCOTUS at the time of it’s passage, SS is actually just a tax not tied to the “trust fund”. If you believe those government officials that claim the “trust fund” is funded by SS payment, then it is a pyramid scheme.
[/quote]

And if it is a fraud then we don’t owe it.

And why, oh why hasn’t Ron Paul ever been able to get his audit of the Federal Reserve? He’s been pushing for that thing since ZEB was my age.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

He’s not just saying the states have the power to make this decision while simultaneously being against it himself. He’s saying abortion is a state issue but he is supporting FEDERAL anti-abortion legislation. Don’t you see? He’s saying only states have the power to legislate about abortion yet he is supporting FEDERAL abortion legislation! - i.e. We the People Act, Sanctity of Life Act.[/quote]

I understood that. I guess I didn’t communicate it correctly. That’s still not hypocritical. He believes it’s morally wrong, so why should he not support legislation to do the right thing?

There is room for debate between where the powers of the federal and state gov’ts meet. I think he believes that you could pass a federal law, and then the states could pass a contradictory state law. And then the state law would supersede the federal one. At least that’s my understanding of it. And I know many people would disagree with that - but there simply is room for debate.

I’ll try this just one more time. Direct quote from Dr No:

“The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue”

NOTE: RP sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act - an act which establishes a FEDERAL LAW that life begins at conception.

I N C O N S I S T E N C Y!

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ll try this just one more time. Direct quote from Dr No:

“The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue”

NOTE: RP sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act - an act which establishes a FEDERAL LAW that life begins at conception.

I N C O N S I S T E N C Y![/quote]

Still no.

Not that you could not find any, but not in this case.

Of course, that would require to know the general outline of Roe vs Wade, what the USSC miraculously discovered in the US constitution and how that hinges on the legal definition of “person” and how a legislative declaration of the Sanctity of Life Act played into this, but then again, Australians, legal subtleties, go shoot a Kangaroo or look pretty on a surf board or something.

Wait, you cant have guns, go club a Kangaroo.