ron paul: theocratic libertarian

[nehemiah]

Ron Paul is frequently portrayed as a "sensible" conservative and staunch libertarian, thus making him increasingly attractive as a presidential candidate. He's being strongly promoted to libertarians, conservatives fed up with Bush and the Christian Right, and Democrats dissatisfied with the current crop of Democratic candidates. At the same time, though, Ron Paul demonstrates the limits of wedding libertarianism with social and political conservatism. They simply don't mesh well.

Ron Paul's consistent anti-war position has made him popular, but how many people also understand his rejection of secularism and church/state separation? How many realize that his "states' rights" rhetoric is a mask concealing a desire to use the government to promote "traditional marriage" and criminalize abortion? Ron Paul is only a "libertarian" where and when it's convenient. Much of the rest of the time, he's not merely a social conservative but a religious conservative promoting an agenda very close to that of Christian Nationalists.

If Ron Paul were a serious contender for the presidency, he'd be a significant threat to American secularism and liberty. Fortunately, he seems to have about as much chance of getting elected as I do — but this doesn’t mean that his candidacy won't influence people for the worse. In particular, I'm concerned about people learning to accept anti-secularism while making excuses for him and their support of him. The first and most important step in preventing that is to examine his ideas now and explain not only how wrong they are, but also why they represent such a threat.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm


let's discuss.

:popcorn:

another ron paul thread by nehemiah.

you're welcome.

bitches.

[GilPerreault]

Ron Paul is a libertarian a la carte. Much like Hillary is a Dem when it will get her votes, conservative when that works and a bitch whenever else.

[Green Lantern]

Wolf Blitzer just asked two republican strategists to talk about Ron Paul, and Strategist Leslie Sanchez laughed.

[kybillsfan]

I dont agree with him on everything by any means but I do agree with a lot more than anyone else who has ever took a shot at pres and actually had a chance.

[Lucidvizion]

The only socially conservative view he has that I know of is that he is pro-life.

[C Darwin]

STONE HIM!! HE'S AN ANTI-SECULARITE!!!:rockon:

Someone call the ADL!!!

[spinnakher2]

Ya'll got remember where Ron Paul comes from.

Lake Jackson, Texas.

I've had the pleasure of visitng and sometimes working there.

It's a nice rural Texas town, built because of the petroleum industry and it's close proximity to the Gulf. The people that live there are not the Texas stereotype. Bible thumpers, like they are in East and Northern Texas. They have a laid back attitude and common sense values that typify their representatives.

The slam piece that Nehemiah cites is pure political rhetoric, but something I would expect from a staunch liberal with an "anything goes" attitude.

If I were to get in an argument about Ron Paul versus the secularists, I wouldn't use something from "athiests.com".

It's like trying to make an argument citing "stormfront" as a reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

Your hate is transparent, my liege.

Try to do better.

[shiva2999]

Ya'll got remember where Ron Paul comes from.

Lake Jackson, Texas.

I've had the pleasure of visitng and sometimes working there.

It's a nice rural Texas town, built because of the petroleum industry and it's close proximity to the Gulf. The people that live there are not the Texas stereotype. Bible thumpers, like they are in East and Northern Texas. They have a laid back attitude and common sense values that typify their representatives.

The slam piece that Nehemiah cites is pure political rhetoric, but something I would expect from a staunch liberal with an "anything goes" attitude.

If I were to get in an argument about Ron Paul versus the secularists, I wouldn't use something from "athiests.com".

It's like trying to make an argument citing "stormfront" as a reason not to vote for Barack Obama.

Your hate is transparent, my liege.

Try to do better.

atheists = neo-nazi white supremacists?

:rofl:

[pmoon6]

atheists = neo-nazi white supremacists?

:rofl:That was just a example that paralleled the article he cited.

On the other hand, why can't hard core athiests have the same fanatical mindset as white supremists.

They are both extremist in nature.

[nehemiah]

there are verbatim ron paul quotes in that link.

stop w/ the horse manure, paulists.

take ron paul at his word and his actions. stop creating a mythic ron paul character.

please.

kthxbai.

[pmoon6]

Well now, we have Holcombites, Losmaniacs, Trednuts and Paulists.

Can we think any other label up?

If you like something about a certain person, you're immediately labeled as an ite or an ist.

**** all the small minded bastards that resort to minimizing others opinions because they don't agree.

OK, Tanx, Buy. Said all with a Texas twang.

Ya Yankee bastich.

[JoeMama]

Ron Paul isn't the worst guy in the world, but I stopped caring about him when I heard he opposed Lawrence v. Texas.

That's the one case where all fundies show their true colors.

He's not much of a civil libertarian if he wants to police what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

[35Pete]

Ron Paul isn't the worst guy in the world, but I stopped caring about him when I heard he opposed Lawrence v. Texas.

That's the one case where all fundies show their true colors.

He's not much of a civil libertarian if he wants to police what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Was it a state's rights issue? What was his opinion specifically?

[JoeMama]

Was it a state's rights issue? What was his opinion specifically?

Paul thinks it's okay for states to impose bans on private sexual conduct between consenting adults because there's no "right to privacy" specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Boo hoo.

Poor Texas is being denied their right to pick on the mean old gays!

[Green Lantern]

No right to privacy! Paul does not agree with the Supreme Court that privacy is the fundamental building block upon which all other civil rights are built upon? Yikes.

[35Pete]

Paul thinks it's okay for states to impose bans on private sexual conduct between consenting adults because there's no "right to privacy" specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Boo hoo.

Poor Texas is being denied their right to pick on the mean old gays!

That's something that I'd like to read. Would you point me to it please?

[shiva2999]

That was just a example that paralleled the article he cited.

On the other hand, why can't hard core athiests have the same fanatical mindset as white supremists.

They are both extremist in nature.

Huh?

What is a "hardcore atheist" and why are they "extremist" by nature?

[anEinherjer]

Kind of a fun interpretation of Dr Paul's positions. It's not worth it to try to refute them - which would be easy, but noone here who needs convincing will bother to be convinced.

[JoeMama]

Kind of a fun interpretation of Dr Paul's positions. It's not worth it to try to refute them - which would be easy, but noone here who needs convincing will bother to be convinced.

Fun interpretation?

Ron Paul: Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.”

The state shouldn't establish standards for "private sexual conduct" between consenting adults in the first place.

[35Pete]

Ron Paul: Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.”

The state shouldn't establish "standards" for private sexual conducts between consenting adults in the first place.

Can I see where this came from Joe?

[JoeMama]

Can I see where this came from Joe?

Meant to post it earlier.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

[Green Lantern]

"...there clearly is no right to privacy...found anywhere in the Constitution..."

-Ron Paul

Fascist.

[pmoon6]

Huh?

What is a "hardcore atheist" and why are they "extremist" by nature?Madelaine Murray O'Hare was a hardcore athiest and she was an extremist.

The extreme view is that one would not even consider the possibilty that there were a higher power.

The neo nazi and white supremacist won't consider anything outside their limited world view.

I would say they are both extreme in their thinking.

[Green Lantern]

Madelaine Murray O'Hare was a hardcore athiest and she was an extremist.

The extreme view is that one would not even consider the possibilty that there were a higher power.

The neo nazi and white supremacist won't consider anything outside their limited world view.

I would say they are both extreme in their thinking.

What if it were considered and dismissed? There are a number of people who have written this was their course of action.

[shiva2999]

The extreme view is that one would not even consider the possibilty that there were a higher power.


Pardon me if I disagree.

I would say that there is a greater possibility that our planet was seeded by aliens than there is a "higher power".

I don't see how not believing in something of which there isn't a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE makes one an extremist.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair may have been extreme in her actions but I don't see how her athesim was extreme.

This is like saying all vegetarians are extremists because of the actions of PETA.

[sukie]

Well now, we have Holcombites, Losmaniacs, Trednuts and Paulists.

Can we think any other label up?

If you like something about a certain person, you're immediately labeled as an ite or an ist.

**** all the small minded bastards that resort to minimizing others opinions because they don't agree.

OK, Tanx, Buy. Said all with a Texas twang.

Ya Yankee bastich.

Conspirate and Global Warmling.

[nehemiah]

still voting for him, pete?

[Green Lantern]

Do you think maybe being a doctor, and not a jurist, he does not know the underpinnings of the constitution? I had a professor who has testified in front of congress a number of times tell me that most members of congress are not well-versed in constitutional logic or precedence. She actually said they were stunningly ignorant.

[Ralonzo]

Well now, we have Holcombites, Losmaniacs, Trednuts and Paulists.

Can we think any other label up?

And then there's the no less pejorative yet infinitely amusing labels like "Paulestinian", or "aPaulogist", or "Paul Bearer".

[anEinherjer]

You guys have an interesting interpretation of what Dr Paul's positions are, and how they would apply in an America of his vision. Let's first post the entire paragraph that Joe picked from:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

What is controversial about this? The fact that people WANT there to be a "right to privacy" enshrined in our Constitution and want to apply their own definition of what means, exactly.

(As an aside, how many of you "right to privately butt**** each other" guys also believe in the right to ingest any drug you want?)

Dr Paul's belief is that the states have the right to legislate that which isn't enumerated by the Constitution and Amendments... even if a particular state wants to legislate something the other 49 states find distasteful.

Do I agree with Texas' silly sodomy laws (or blue laws in general)? Of course not. I'm all for ****ing whatever with whatever (as long as the whatever doing the ****ing or being ****ed is of legal age, and even that has limits). But I am able to separate my belief in the freedom to **** with my desire to impose that belief on everyone in the entire nation - right now there is absolutely no jurisdiction over ****ing in the Consitution or Amendments... and thus it MUST be a state matter.

Which is all Dr Paul was saying.

I believe Dr Paul understands the "underpinnings of the constitution" far better than any of us here on this board, that's for sure.

[anEinherjer]

Fun interpretation?

Ron Paul: Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.”

The state shouldn't establish standards for "private sexual conduct" between consenting adults in the first place.

Of course not, but if we're playing "rule of law", the federal gov't's isn't allowed to deny a state that right, because it's not enumerated. Which was Dr Paul's point, which you've conveniently ignored.

[anEinherjer]

By the way, I find this stuff exceedingly fun to argue, because I believe in the vision of free association and self-determination that Dr Paul espouses while simultaneously being 180 degrees opposite of him in terms of religious belief - and more virulently atheist than any of the rest of you goofballs.

[Ralonzo]

Dethklok FTW

[JoeMama]

Of course not, but if we're playing "rule of law", the federal gov't's isn't allowed to deny a state that right, because it's not enumerated. Which was Dr Paul's point, which you've conveniently ignored.

Wearing blue t-shirts isn't enumerated either.

It doesn't mean states should be able to ban blue t-shirts because they don't like them.

States' rights don't include the "right" to override personal freedoms.

The Supreme Court has ruled - and upheld numerous times - that while the "right to privacy" is not mentioned word for word in the Constitution, it's clearly found in the penumbras; the 1st, 9th, and 14th amendment.

And I would argue that it's irrelevant anyway. The 14th amendment - which guarantees equal protection of the law - is strong enough on it's own to justify overturning Lawrence v. Texas.

Certain individual freedoms, backed by a number of amendments, outweigh the whims of so-called states' rights.

Some laws require review and interpretation. Which is the entire point of the judicial branch and is completely in line with the basic judicial powers granted by the Constitution.

Paul seems more like an Articles of Confederation kind of guy. States aren't omnipotent. If they pass dumbass laws, we have a judiciary to overturn them.

[Green Lantern]

I think, anEin, you also forget the amendments have been incorportated and now apply to the states too.

[35Pete]

still voting for him, pete?

Yes.