Decius wrote:

His candidacy, as Dean's before it, represents the power of grass roots media to make opinions, but in the early days of broadcast media in the 1930's an inexperienced culture created a cult of personality around politicians like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. I fear that this case is similar. His campaign's success is a combination of anti-immigration xenophobia and nationalistic fevor (painted with imagry of the founding fathers and the overuse of the word freedom without real meaning).

Mother Jones published an excellent ven diagram which illustrates the difference between Ron Paul's positions and Libertarian thought. Ironically they drew their diagram such that Ron Paul's name appears exactly where libertarians put Hilter in their own political diagrams.

Now, I'm not saying that Ron Paul is going to start overfunding the military and running death camps, but if you don't beleive in the doctrine of incorporation, you're sure as hell not a libertarian.

Wow, you really don't like him. Godwin's Law invoked right out of the gates and everything.

Hijexx wrote:
Wow, you really don't like him. Godwin's Law invoked right out of the gates and everything.

I don't like anyone who says that the Constitution of the United States of America should not protect my individual right to freedom of speech, particularly if they are a serious political candidate who has millions in funding and support from a substantial percentage of my friends. I care more about my right to freedom of speech than I do care about lower taxes.

I have a feeling that if he really looks like a serious contender lots of serious people who are currently ignoring him will start explaining exactly what his words mean and that will break the spell. I don't think those people are taking him seriously right now. I think they are in for a shock that is almost as big as the shock his supporters are in for when they find out what is policy proposals actually imply.

Decius wrote:

Hijexx wrote:
Wow, you really don't like him. Godwin's Law invoked right out of the gates and everything.

I don't like anyone who says that the Constitution of the United States of America should not protect my individual right to freedom of speech, particularly if they are a serious political candidate who has millions in funding and support from a substantial percentage of my friends. I care more about my right to freedom of speech than I do care about lower taxes.

I have a feeling that if he really looks like a serious contender lots of serious people who are currently ignoring him will start explaining exactly what his words mean and that will break the spell. I don't think those people are taking him seriously right now. I think they are in for a shock that is almost as big as the shock his supporters are in for when they find out what is policy proposals actually imply.

Whatcha talking about WRT curtailing of 1st amendment? Curious. As someone who has not made their mind up yet (God if I had hair right now I'd be pulling it out by the handful, fuck all these candidates for real, Ron Paul is close but his abortion stance is fucked) I'm open to hear the bad. Just haven't run across anything about Ron Paul being against 1st amendment, this is news to me, would love to hear you espouse.

Ron Paul paints himself as a constitutionalist.
Ron Paul on 1st Amendment

I'm not sure what the argument against him is? I certainly don't think he's a Hitler. I don't think he'll get us universal healthcare either though. I'm undecided right now - the 2 things that bother me about him are that he is anti-choice - says he's hands off and will leave it to the states - but that is effectively going to limit abortion....and secondly, it bugs me that he voted for the bankrupcy law reform that I didn't agree with.

What bothers me about him is that he's going to be so pro big business, and I think that's part of the problem. But, there's a whole lot I like about him...so I am considering voting for him, although I've never voted Republican and I'm over there on the political compass close to Mandela and Ghandi.

Decius wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that Ron Paul is going to start overfunding the military and running death camps, but if you don't beleive in the doctrine of incorporation, you're sure as hell not a libertarian.

I don't like anyone who says that the Constitution of the United States of America should not protect my individual right to freedom of speech, particularly if they are a serious political candidate who has millions in funding and support from a substantial percentage of my friends. I care more about my right to freedom of speech than I do care about lower taxes.

I'm not a fan of the doctrine of selective incorporation. I believe that the entire Bill of Rights should be fully incorporated, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. However, even those who adopt the selective approach typically include the First Amendment. Has Paul stated that he believes that the Constitution does not (or should not) protect individuals against censorship by state governments?

Decius wrote:
His campaign's success is a combination of anti-immigration xenophobia and nationalistic fevor (painted with imagry of the founding fathers and the overuse of the word freedom without real meaning).

When you say "anti-immigration," are you referring to illegal immigrants or all immigrants? More to the point, to which is Paul referring? I think you've addressed that question in a previous post, but I just wanted to make the distinction, for the sake of clarity.

There are many in this country (myself included) who want to get illegal immigration under control, but at the same time, we should not do anything to penalize those who observe the law and come here legally. If Paul is against illegal immigration, then I support his position. There's nothing xenophobic about that. If Paul is against legal immigration, and/or supports policies that penalize those who have gone through the trouble of entering this country legally (to work, reside, whatever), then I have a problem with him.

Back in November, you brought up Paul's sponsorship of the Social Security for Americans Only Act of 2007. I agree with you that any proposal that would penalize those who were here legally (before and after citizenship) and who've paid into the system is a bad idea, and I hope it doesn't pass, as-is.

You seem to be convinced that the negative consequences of this bill (as they pertain to those who were/are legally in this country) are by design, and that it's Paul's goal to punish all immigrants, be they legal or not. If that's Paul's design, then he's clearly in the wrong, as far as I'm concerned. Those who support such an effort are misguided at best, xenophobic at worst.

Given that I currently have no other evidence to suggest that Paul is against legal immigration, I still have to allow for the possibility that it wasn't Paul's intention for the bill to harm those who've played by the rules for years (or decades). Maybe the bill simply needs more work, so that it isn't retroactive, and so that it applies only to those initially entering the system [for example, Sec. 233(b) could be amended so that existing agreements will not terminate on 12/31/2007]. Yes, I would expect the sponsor of a bill to know exactly what it proposes, but sometimes, especially with Congress, good intentions get lost in the details. Not that I'm making excuses for Paul or anyone else in Congress, but before I condemn the man as being incompetent, uncaring, a xenophobe, a racist, or anything else, I need to see a definite pattern of behavior. To date, I haven't seen it.

Of course, were it up to me, Social Security wouldn't exist, so this would be a non-issue. ;)

Stefanie wrote:
I'm not a fan of the doctrine of selective incorporation. I believe that the entire Bill of Rights should be fully incorporated, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. However, even those who adopt the selective approach typically include the First Amendment.

This is a complicated statement to unwind. Personally, I would prefer a policy which totally incorporates the first 9 amendments to the Constitution, excepting the second. (Explaining my thoughts about the second is complicated and off topic here.) I beleive the author of the 14th amendment stated that he intended it to incorporate the first 8, and I think that is the right legal result. However, that is not the legal result that our courts have reached, prefering instead a "selective" model, if you will, in order to retain the right to regulate contracts. I don't think this direction was necessary, but it is the one we've been following for over 100 years.

Regardless of whether you prefer total or selective incorporation, it is clear both from the legislative intent and judicial precident that the 14th Amendment incorporates most, if not all, of the bill of rights. Ron Paul disagrees.

Has Paul stated that he believes that the Constitution does not (or should not) protect individuals against censorship by state governments?

Yes, here:

"It’s important to recognize that the First amendment applies only to Congress. Remember, the first sentence starts with "Congress shall make no law..." This means that matters of religious freedom and expression should be decided by the states, with disputes settled in state courts."

When you say "anti-immigration," are you referring to illegal immigrants or all immigrants? More to the point, to which is Paul referring? I think you've addressed that question in a previous post, but I just wanted to make the distinction, for the sake of clarity.

I assert that:

1. Ron Paul understands exactly what his bill would do. He is anti-immigration.
2. The anti-illegal immigration movement is largely xenophobic.

In regard to point 1, while its possible that this bill was a mistake, there is no evidence to suggest that. Its impact is extremely clear from its language, and it is featured as a primary example of Ron Paul's positions on social security and immigration by his political campaign. I do not think they would hold up a poorly formed idea in such a way.

The stated idea behind the bill is to deny legal immigrants social security benefits based on the theory that the reason illegal immigrants seek amnesty is to get access to these benefits. Supporters of the bill talk of stopping the Mexican run on social security. There are several problems with this theory:

A. The bill would den... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]