Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.21)
    "The Constitutional debate in this country has always been whether the intent of the Founders should be strictly followed or whether and to what extent the document's words should be re-interpreted in light of contemporary values."



    This debate is always a bit difficult for people to argue The simple fact is that many of the Founding Fathers argued amongst themselves about how strongly it should be followed. Jefferson actually argued that the entire Constitution should be scrapped about every twenty years or so and completely rewritten. Every argument boils down to which Founding Father's opinion you choose to value.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.22)
    "Look at what he actually says not what other people say about him or what you want to believe."

    I use to believe this, but then Bush came to office under the banner of "I'm a uniter and not a divider". If his character was more closely examined, then he probably wouldn't have been President in the first place, and we wouldn't have half of the Bush fiascos that we do.

    Paul says he hates pork, but he has 400 million in federal pork ear marked for his district. Paul says a lot of things, but when you compare his record to his words you quickly notice that there is a lot of contradiction.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2008
     (487.23)
    "Besides banning abortion goes against the whole principle of libertarianism...

    Look at what he actually says not what other people say about him or what you want to believe."

    I have looked at what he has said - he's described himself as "ferociously pro-life" and has advocated removing Federal jurisdiction over abortion.

    As for the racist agenda - he may not have a racist agenda but its pretty clear his supporters in The League of the South and other neo-confederate groups do. Now assuming they didn't conclude that he was a fellow racist based on the content of his newsletter, it's reasonable to infer that they support him because his radical program to destroy most of the power of the Federal government would help advance their own racist agenda.

    Go to "On the Issues" and look at his policy stances or look at stuff like those John Birch Society DVDs he made.

    Do you support the US leaving the UN?

    Do you support abolishing the EPA and the FDA?

    On a topic you've previously mentioned, do you agree with his position that China's human rights aned environmental protection policies should have no bearing on trade with them?

    Do you think there's a conspiracy to abolish the United states and replace it with a North American Union?

    These are his policy positions and theories which he repeatedly publicly advanced.

    Opposition to the war in Iraq, a desire to decriminalise drugs and support fro the Second amendment (because, you know, people need to prepare for that coming race war) shouldn't outweigh the fact he's a raving loon.
  1.  (487.24)
    Bored now.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.