I've watched most of your videos... and I'm still voting for Paul because I can see through your bullshit! We need dumbasses like you in the world, thanks man.
"Can you make any argument without LYING? Tell me one restaurant that is now under communal ownership because of the CRA."
another straw man. Didn't even infer such a thing. One gives up their full property rights if they are forced to do something w/their property that which they object to. If u can't grasp what my argument is here, I suggest rereading all of my posts to see where i'm coming from.
@supermariofj - "One gives up their full property rights if they are forced to do something w/their property that which they object to"
Wow, you are either painfully idiotic or purposely misleading. There's been either a lie or fallacy in every comment. Property owners still control the property in every aspect besides others occupancy rights. I've come to the conclusion that I am also an idiot if I continue to think I can convince an idiot. These will be my last comments to you.
I said "who cares" because you single out Ron Paul as the racist. Okay the Republican Party has many racist elements.But like I said, Tim Wise is a self admitted white supremacist so that would make the Democrat Party racist as well.
If the majority of whites are racist, then we shouldn't have whites being elected officials.
Is Ron Paul a racist? Really who cares. Most whites are racist. Tim Wise even admitted to being a White Supremacist. So what's the difference between Ron Paul and another white person being president?
@playmistics - That tends to be the policy on racism with Republicans and their elected officials. "Who cares?" The rest of us care a great deal because we know American history.
@Vote3rdParty Let's stop the personal attacks & move forward with the issue at hand. What's he's saying is the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL liberties, not the liberties of groups. For example, blacks shouldn't have more rights as a collective group than whites, and vice versa. That goes for any group: be it homosexuals, heterosexuals, latinos, labor unions, males, females, you name it. A homosexual has the right to choose who he/she lives with, along with other rights, like @ the workplace.
Continuing my point: A homosexual has these rights not because he's a homosexual, but because he is a human being, with inalienable rights, and in the case of being gay, the right of free will.
@supermariofj - I'm sorry? Had I personally attacked you? If Paul is for individual liberty then explain why Paul thinks gay and women's rights should be left to the states. Did Paul not learn anything from Jim Crow? Oh, yeah... Paul would allow Jim Crow and repeal the landmark Civil Rights Act which gave blacks more individual liberty. Paul was against a supreme court ruling, Lawrence v. Texas, that overturned Texas' bigoted law against gay sex.
@Vote3rdParty you did by insinuating i wasn't able to type more than 5 words. anyway, Paul would've supported repealing the Jim Crow laws (they were govt laws that segregated blacks and whites). He would only repeal the Civil Rights act because it forced private business to allow people they didn't want in their restaurants, etc. I know that is mean and wrong. But they have a right to do that. Other than that, he's for equality as much as u and I. Finally, a state has a right to govern itself...
if the people want certain laws in their state, then so be it. However I will read up on Paul's stance on this ruling and the ruling itself. I will get back to you on that. :)
@supermariofj - I wasn't insinuating anything, just asking sarcastically. Not letting blacks eat at what restaurants they choose and sit where they want is libertarian? Ever hear of occupancy rights? Paul would not have supported the repeal of Jim Crow, he has said so himself. The Civil Rights Act increased individual liberty for blacks and there is really no doubt about it. We saw the living standards of blacks rise after the Civil Rights Act. Paul is not for equality.
@Vote3rdParty Property rights are very important and should not be trumped. I believe Paul said he would repeal the Jim Crow laws in a video on youtube. If i come across it i'll reference it. Please show me where he says he wouldn't have repealed em. True the C.R.A. did increase liberties for blacks no doubt about it, but, had our govt been more libertarian-minded since the beginning we would not have a civil war or the problem of having to use the govt to enforce and legislate equality via CRA
@supermariofj - Why do property rights trump occupancy rights? Because it's so much easier to control minorities this way? There is no freedom in the "free" market. I'm not buying Paul would end Jim Crow considering his strict states rights stances and his racist newsletters from the 90's. Show me the video where he says he would use federal legislation to end Jim Crow and I'll believe it. The Civil Rights Act is what ended Jim Crow, and Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act.
... But the issue at hand here is not Jim Crow, but the modern day Jim Crow legislation "We The People Act" which diminishes the constitutional rights of gays and women and which Paul helped author.
Please watch pt 1 of this interview as well. It talks about his position on medicare, you can get more info on his stance on that, too. :) MLK practiced libertarianism, and so did Rosa Parks. Peace.
@supermariofj - I'm glad you think the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action are libertarian, since both MLK and Rosa Parks supported those measures. Paul disagrees with you.
@Vote3rdParty No. u've misunderstood my position. The CRA was NOT liberatarian in nature. MLK and Rosa Parks acted libertarian. Very big difference. That is what Dr. Paul believes. I know, I've researched him and the laws. He agrees mostly w/CRA EXCEPT the part where it forces businesses to accept customers whom they do not want to serve. Mean, I know, but that's what freedom is about. MLK and RP may have supported those laws, but because they believed those measures would bring about equality.
Unfortunately, it was at the expense of private business owners. Also, affirmative action actually discrminates very good white kids from going to inexpensive colleges nowadays. I think it's time to allow business owners the freedom to serve who they want to serve. But of course, these issues are not as important as the wars and the entitlement spending going on in the govt. That's why it's really worth voting for Ron Paul, if this is the baggage (fi you could call it that) that comes w/him.
The true baggage that comes w/other candidates is WAY more than I can handle. Plus, RP is truly the 3rd party/alternate choice you should be rooting for and voting for.
@supermariofj - Um... you said the "practiced libertarianism." According Paul in his very own newsletters MLK was "communist" and gay "pedophile." "Freedom" is about the state arresting blacks for wondering onto "white property"? You call that libertarian? MLK and Rosa Parks are the real libertarians. Ron Paul is not a libertarian but a paleoconservative. They are pretty much opposites.
@Vote3rdParty Ahhh, the old newspaper letters. Well, 1 thing can be said about those letters. Paul may have unknowlingly had a racist writing for him. Unfortunately, for the Paul-basher, he has already dealt with that very minor issue on CNN. He gets rid of that issue quite well. Anyone who follows him & knows him can vouch for his opposition to those views. You can't control what everyone else says/writes.
hahaha. That's funny. Stereotyping is hardly the racism I thought u were accusing him of. Hey, am i racist if I say if someone's white then they're probably rich? Or, since I'm Mexican, most of us are probably short and will never be football stars? C'mon, give me a break. While some of his statements are kinda "racy" (no pun intended), I take it a video from CNN where he vehemently denies such racist views written by a staffer is enough to settle the matter. Some interview 20 yrs ago? really?
@supermariofj - Well he called blacks "animals" and "racial terrorists." That's more than stereotyping. Do you see the "white people are rich" stereotype as equivalent of "black males are criminals." It's funny because Ron Paul says he opposed the drug laws because they target and hurt blacks, then he takes advantage of the fact those drug laws are there. He changed his story when more racist newsletters were discovered in 2001 and has been using the "ghostwriter" excuse ever since
@Vote3rdParty look, i dunno about someone else's personal life and what they make up in their mind. The only thing i can do, as a voter, is see for the evidence myself in his voting record, his PERSONAL statements he physically made with his mouth, how he conducts himself and how he talks. Based on that, I make educational decisions and judgements on whether or not he is telling the truth or making up excuses like most politicians. And i gotta say, this man seems to be telling the truth.
@supermariofj - Paul doesn't talk like what? Do you have a secret microphone hidden in his home? Do you REALLY know Ron Paul? Or have you only seen his public political speeches and interviews? Have you read the Ron Paul Political Report?
@supermariofj - Really? Not if they vote a certain way on issue? Like Paul's vote to ban gay adoption exposes how homophobic he is, as the Civil Rights Act exposes how racist he is.
@Vote3rdParty He's not racist, he's not anti-gay, i'll look on that issue though. and i'm pretty sure if it's true on his voting record, he did so for good reason.
@supermariofj - He is a homophobe and racist. Any logical person will look at his blatantly racist newsletters, and blatantly racist and homophobic voting record and come to the right conclusion. Paul supporters are literally the only ones that defend his racism. And the Paul supporters that accept the fact he's a racist take it as a good thing. Even if Paul went on camera and said "I'm a racist" you guys would say it was a Paul clone, and some conspiracy.
@Vote3rdParty Here's where the debate is resolved: 1st, occupancy rights only exist on public property...that's not what we're talking about here. I can go to a PUBLIC park whenever I want. BUT, occupancy rights dont exist w/regard to private property. Let me tell u, if u tried to come into my house or my business w/o my consent, I will 1st tell u to leave, and then I'd come at u w/a shotgun cuz i assume ur gonna come and steal from me. Please tell me where in the constitution...
one has the right to enter someone's private residence or property. Please. I will subscribe to these "occupancy" rights u speak of. Like I said, they do exist, but when u talk about public property...not private property.
@supermariofj - "there's no such thing as occupancy rights"... "occupancy rights only exist on public property." Looks like you disagree with yourself. "Privately owned" restaurants are not are not technically "private." They are there for public use, but for a profit. A household is really "private." That's where you take a shit, a shower, and where the magic happens. To have the state come down and arrest you being black in a "white" restaurant is not only racist, but STATIST.
@Vote3rdParty No. u can't cut and paste my quotes. Occupancy rights do not exist when we talk about private property. They do when we talk about public property. A restauraunt is private property if I'm purchasing the place and i own it. If u can't get that then there's no point arguing further. There's no such thing as "part private and full private". It's either private or not. Period.
@supermariofj - I cut and paste because you said they "didn't exist." You didn't say "Yes, they exist. It's called public property." It may be convenient for your ideology to allow dictatorships over a restaurant where the state will come down and "initiate force" if you are the wrong color or the wrong sexuality, but those are not the property norms of today. "It's either private or not. Period." Not "period." I differ with your views along with the majority of people.
@Vote3rdParty It's funny. Here you say it's not okay to have the state come in and "initiate force if you are the wrong color", yet you would be okay if the same state came in and forced the restaurant to accept anyone the people feel should be accepted. Why put up with ANY dictatorship? Sorry, but I believe the majority of people feel that's wrong. And even if the majority felt like u do, it still doesn't make it right, according to the constitution. We're a republic, not a democracy.
@supermariofj Please read the constitution carefully. You'll see property rights are very important. The CRA is a good law. But it has its flaws. It could be perfected.Unfortunately, we still have racists among us, and that will continue, but that's their right.
@supermariofj - Yes, you are exactly right. I believe government should DEFEND against the aggressor. So if a restaurant owner INITIATES FORCE on someone the government has every right to come down and defend that person. Oh, and I never said the restaurant owner had to "accept" anyone, just cannot initiate force. See, I'm a real libertarian not a pseudo-libertarian. And actually we are technically a democratic republic. Does that system suck? Yes. We deserve direct democracy.
... The constitution also says the people have a right to "peacably assemble" and the right to life and liberty. But of course the right to property trumps those, right? Because the right to property benefits the white man more than the right to liberty. But it shouldn't matter what the constitution says. All that matters is what is right and what is wrong.
@Vote3rdParty Actually it DOES matter what the constitution says, that's what gives us our laws and our freedom. Fine, i agree people have the right to peacably assemble (it says so in the const), but people have the right to do that in public places and govt property (ergo, OUR property because we pay for that), NOT private property. I can't go and "peacably assemble" at your house or your business, because that's trespassing. If you cant agree on that, then that's mob rule.
@supermariofj - Restaurants are made for the public, not comparable to a homestead. Taking away someone's occupancy rights and right to necessities like food is not libertarian. Libertarianism is being free while not infringing on another's freedom.
@Vote3rdParty Of course i'm gonna initiate force, calling the cops to remove a customer. Every owner has a right to do that. You're right though, a person has rights to their body. But i hope you believe the owner has the right to call the cops for removing a customer from their property. If you do, then we agree on the same thing. Finally, our system (constitutional-republic) isn't a perfect system, but it's the best one on earth. A direct democracy eliminates the right of the minority.
@supermariofj - I'm a libertarian, so I am against the initiation of force. Actually restaurant owners don't have the right to kick someone out of their restaurant based on race. The libertarian Civil Rights Act changed all that. Our democratic republic isn't the best system on earth. A "republic" is too close to a monarchy. Direct democracy is the only real form of democracy. The whole point of democracy is majority rule. The minority has the SAME RIGHT to vote as the majority.
@Vote3rdParty well, i'm libertarian, and i believe in force. And i mean the kind of force it takes to get somebody off my property if they trespass. CRA was hardly libertarian. The only reason it was, as a whole, good, was because it helped in bringing equality to blacks, but at the expense of property owners. anyway, i don't know how our republic is like a monarchy, but we may have to look up definitions of these terms to start mixing em up like that. Direct democracy is majority fascist rule.
@supermariofj - There's a difference between a restaurant and a homestead, but I think you know that. A black person wanted to eat is much different than someone trespassing your private personal space. The whole point of a restaurant is to be open to the public. "Direct democracy is majority fascist rule." That is perhaps the most ignorant statement ever posted on my videos. Hitler and Mussolini, fascists, were both DICTATORS. There is no democracy in fascism.
@Vote3rdParty A black person is not endanger of starving, there are a plethora of choices down a downtown strip, where many other restaurants are willing to serve him/her. That's the principle of free-market capitalism. No, the whole point of a restaurant is to make money, like any other business. What is fascism? Can u define for me fascism, because it seems u have a narrowminded definition for it? Ignorant? On the contrary, i've done my research, & fascism is found in the arms of the powerful.
@supermariofj - Really? Were you a black person living in a state with Jim Crow? You know for a fact blacks had "many choices" when they went downtown? That is the "free" market, and since whites had a monopoly over all the businesses, they have an advantage over blacks. It's so easy to be pro-private property and anti-occupancy rights isn't it? Through property norms, people decided private businesses made FOR THE PUBLIC, can be regulated. Deal with it. Racism lost this fight.
@Vote3rdParty I'm talking about free choice NOW. of course back then jim crows (govt laws) were enforced and were evil. And guess what? It also took the libertarian actions of MLK and rosa parks to get rid of those laws by engaging public sympathy.
@supermariofj - It took the federal government through DEMOCRATIC vote to get rid of those Jim Crow laws. Which means we would still have Jim Crow if you were in charge, since you believe idiotically believe that fascism = democracy. MLK and Rosa Parks just started the conversation and change people's minds. It took PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT to get rid of those anti-libertarian laws.
@Vote3rdParty when u get rid of gov't laws that limit individual liberty, i don't care if you're hitler or lbj, it's a very libertarian thing to do! hahaha. good one. sure, the democratic govt at the time repealed those laws, that's commendable. but at the same time, they forced private restaurant owners to give up their property rights. Again I agree it's not right for them to not allow blacks to eat in their restaurants, but it was not the best way to go about it. If i were in charge i'd've,
done the same thing by repealing the jim crow laws. I would've even invited MLK and rosa parks to be on my administration. They were pretty good libertarians. Let me ask u this. Where did the first integration occur in?
@supermariofj - MLK and Rosa Parks were REAL libertarians, not the pseudo-libertarians of today, the "Libertarian Party," and Tea Party. I'm glad you agree that affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act are libertarian, since both Rosa Parks and MLK were for such measures. BTW Ron Paul voted against MLK holiday, and the Rosa Parks medal. Looks like Paul has a hatred for civil rights leaders who ENHANCED libertarianism in this country.
@supermariofj - So then why are you against individual liberty of black people, Hitler? You don't even think blacks should have a right to eat in a restaurant made for the public. Don't lecture me on individual rights, Jim Crow.
"they forced private restaurant owners to give up their property rights."
Can you make any argument without LYING? Tell me one restaurant that is now under communal ownership because of the CRA.
I'm still waiting on where you got your definition of fascism.
@Vote3rdParty I already gave u the def in an earlier post of fascism. If you missed it, here it is: absolute power or rule of an individual, group, or people over the rest of the population.
I'm not against individual liberty of black people. hasty generalization. Individual liberty doesn't allow you to go into another person's restaurant & demand to be served. That's not america.
Nice name calling as well. It seems that once I've successfully dismantled ur argument u start commiting fallacies.
@supermariofj - I meant your SOURCE for that definition. Like what dictionary did you get that from? Because that definition is new to me!
And you already accepted that a man shouldn't be able to stand naked on his front lawn. So if you don't believe in absolute property rights, then why are you against letting blacks eat and peacefully essemble? (Cough) RACIST! (Cough)
@supermariofj - Fascism is dictatorship by and individual or small percent at the top that rule over a geographical area. Sounds like privatization! Perhaps you should take a basic history course to know what fascism is? If you want to change the meaning of "fascism" to democracy to SMEAR those who fought against Hitler and Mussolini, be my guest. You will pretty much be laughed out of any conversation.
@Vote3rdParty A simpler rebuttal to your "ignorant" claim: What if the majority of this country decided to take away your son/daughter simply because you aren't teaching him/her religious morals, or you're teaching him/her the morals of Allah. Careful what you wish for, direct democracy can lead to majority fascist rule. Hey, if it's a democratic govt policing you it's okay right? cuz it's democratic and the 99% of people don't agree with your child rearing & religious views?
@supermariofj - "What if the majority of this country decided to take away your son/daughter simply because you aren't teaching him/her religious morals"
That's still democracy. You can't change the definition of "democracy" to "fascism" simply because you can't think up a coupe "what if" scenarios. Fascism, does have a meaning, and that is MINORITY RULE.
"Careful what you wish for, direct democracy can lead to majority fascist rule"
@Vote3rdParty Well, this "Paultard" is gonna school you on the definition of fascism. Fascism is...wait for it....wait for it...absolute rule or power by an institution over the rest of the people. That institution can be the govt, the majority, the minority, an individual, or a theocracy/clergy.
@Vote3rdParty Ummm, i totally agree w/those posted definitions. It doesn't make a difference if the majority or minority has absolute power via a respresentative dictator who embodies their views, it is what it is. we are moving to that type of govt if we continually elect the same "demopublicans". Ron Paul is running as a true conservative/libertarian, not as a neocon republican.
@supermariofj - You "totally" agree with those definitions, yet you ignorantly called democracy (the right to vote) FASCISM! You're a nut. Ron Paul serves the establishment just like all the others. FOX & Friends (friends being the corporations) sure gave Paul a lot of time and softball questions in the last debate. Ron Paul held the first tea party, and it seems the corporations loved the idea of deregulation and cutting taxes, they need their "property rights" to maintain their monopolies.
@lasoogneypubes - Not true, he get's more coverage than Cain, Gingrich, Johnson, Santorum. He get's more coverage than the majority of the other Republican candidates. Maybe Americans just see he's way out of touch with the country on every issue accept the war and auditing federal reserve? I'm just telling you the truth, Paul got more time than most candidates in the FOX debate. Looks like Paul's part of the "NWO"! lol!
@Vote3rdParty The only reason he's "out of touch" with the rest of the country is because most of this country is full of idiots that don't know what's going on. I'm just gonna stop debating with you. You seem to be one of the many brainwashed retards that can't think for themself.
@lasoogneypubes - True, most of the country doesn't know what going on thanks to the "free" market for-profit media, and Paul supporters are among them. You are the one who is brainwashed. These right-wing false revolutions (Tea Party) always pop up during bad economic times, and when you follow the money it always leads to the corporations. Look at "The American Liberty League" which was formed during the depression. They were funded by orchestrated by big corporations. Same with the Tea Party.
@supermariofj - "Hey, if it's a democratic govt policing you it's okay right? cuz it's democratic and the 99% of people don't agree with your child rearing & religious views?"
Pathetic straw man. I never said democracy makes a bad decision good. I would just rather the majority come to that conclusion than the MINORITY FASCIST RULE from the "free" market crowd.
@Vote3rdPartyHow is that straw man? It happens all the time. Look at the death penalty. Lots of people support it. Do you think it's okay? I'm in favor of it in extreme cases, but a pure libertarian, even ron paul, is against it. If tomorrow a poll showed 60% were in favor of enacting a federal law of using the death penalty for people believed to be involved in "terrorist" attacks, would that make it okay? It's pretty real, man. There are laws, & innate individual rights that can't be violated.
@supermariofj - A straw man is when you put words in my mouth. I never said voting the wrong way is good. Remember this country was created and our constitution implemented with a democratic vote. Please tell me what system you support if you are against democracy.
"If tomorrow a poll showed 60% were in favor of enacting a federal law of using the death penalty for people believed to be involved in "terrorist" attacks"
Illogical. A dictator could implement the same policies.
@Vote3rdParty well that's where we fundamentally differ. I don't believe a decision should come from anyone, any group, majority or minority. It should come from the of law. The law of this land is the Constitution. Is that practical? Not all the time. Certain things have to be voted on, that's where I support the democratic in democratic-republic. That i submit. However, there are certain inalienable individual liberties that cannot be annulled, supsended, or taken away. By anyone or any group.
@supermariofj - "I don't believe a decision should come from anyone, any group, majority or minority. It should come from the law... the constitution"
This exposes that you've never even read the constitution. The constitution IS the LAW and that is why we have representative democracy, were the 51% or more rule over the minority, and the people have the right to vote for their representatives (democracy). Looks like you don't even agree with the document you claim to admire.
@supermariofj - They only have the "right" to do that through the STATE. You can be racist if you want, just don't FORCE your view onto others using your skewed view that the only rights that matter are property rights. Maybe because you're a racist and you know white people have a monopoly over most property? Just a thought. Our system takes away the rights of the majority. You're a for the will of the few over the will of the many? No wonder you're a capitalist!
@supermariofj That of course sounds like a great idea until your candidate does not win, or some local theocratic law is enacted which takes away one of your liberties. One does not have to think about this legislation for too long to realize that it has an incredible ability to eliminate on the local level any number of liberties. So, Ron Paul's liberty so obviously involves making more laws which take away liberty, and a pesky federal Bill of Rights cannot apply.
@timpipe No. Ron Paul is not about making laws left and right. Matter of fact, he'd repeal MANY MANY more laws than enact. Of course, even then, a president doesn't have the power to enact laws. That's the job of the legislative branch.
@supermariofj Read the 'We the People Act" and his introduction to it. It is support of local theocracy at its best. If you are not frightened by its implications, you are either not reading it right, or you have no fear of local authoritarianism. It is a direct challenge to the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment and an example of what you state that you are against (in a previous post); direct democracy.
@supermariofj Private property rights are not absolute. Well, let's say they are. I buy a house on a street near an elementary school where lots of children walk every day. At 7:30am Monday morning I walk naked out into my yard and start masturbating. I have the right to masturbate and am on my own property, so what could possibly be the problem? It is probably in the "public interest" that I am not allowed this liberty. There is a balance to be struck between liberty and public interest.
@timpipe You're very correct. No specific right is absolute. However, all rights are equal. If one is trumped by the other, then the former cannot be allowed to eliminate or intrude into the latter. A child's (and parent's) right for them to be able to go in public in peace w/o harassment is intruded in that scenario. That's how u approach every situtation, with a libertarian frame of mind. But I personally am conservative-libertarian. There are rights and wrongs.
@Vote3rdParty Trust, w/Ron Paul that'll never happen. And we won't revert to that system anymore. Well, we might under different circumstances if we continue to elect democrats and republicans/neocons.
@Vote3rdParty Paul has NEVER suggested any issue of *individual rights* which is property rights and the right to your own body should be left up to the states to decide about.
And as both gay people and women should be considered INDIVIDUALS, then the SAME rights apply to them as well.
He allways and ONLY votes by the constitution and thus he can not even vote for the some things which he would have like to vote for. He allmost only votes yes to repeal bad laws.
OBAMA, DEMOCRATS, USA ; WAKE UP ! RON PAUL DOESNT KNOW HOW TO CREATE JOBS! POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4B, POPULATION OF USA IS 310 MLN ! RON PAUL USES WORDS ;CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY , DEEP INSIDE HE DOESNT HAVE AN ANSWER HOW TO CREATE JOBS, CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER WORK LIKE ANTS, WAKE UP AMERICA, RON PAUL IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY, HE GIVES USA BAD NAME AROUND THE WORLD! WHAT KIND OF AMERICAN CALLS HIS OWN PEOPLE WAR CRIMINALS? RON PAUL MUST BE PROSECUTED!
Even Dr. Paul and Dr. Rothbard would have agreed to disagree about the proper amount of government and would rather have found common ground and pursued common goals, such as the abolition of the Federal Reserve System.
Even if you absolutely despise Dr. Paul, whom would you suggest for a replacement? There is going to be a state whether you like it or not and Dr. Paul does an endlessly better job preserving liberty than almost anyone else in office today, and certainly no worse than any of the others. Even if you are strictly believe anarchy is the only disposition of a free society, it's not an option. Even Dr. Rothbard and Dr. Paul would have agreed to disagree about the proper amount of government and woul
It is the escape from it through government favoritism and regulations. You seem to advocate libertarian socialism, a form of left libertarianism. It is advisable to understand that the allocation of private property is very dangerous even if your intentions are pure. I truly believe the Capitalist approach is the best to serve the peoples' liberty. Minarchist Capitalism has the best track record for preserving our rights.
I've researched this topic and it's really a matter of opinion depending on which form you advocate. Anarchy is a form of libertarianism. According to wikipedia, there are many schools of libertarian thought. Minarchy is what I support. That is, the elimination of the state for all purposes except to protect life, liberty, and property. The state directs the people in this effort in the form of a volunteer militia. Monopoly is never the product of free enterprise. It is the escape from it throu
Not when the very purpose of the state is to protect people's life, liberty, and property from other individuals and government. What you're implying is that libertarianism is always a philosophy of anarchy when in fact many of us value limited Constitutional Republican government and local self government. You'd better watch it with the name calling. Take a mouth like that to the streets and it's likely to get pounded in, and rightly so.
@TJU1776 - Anarchism is liberarianism. Capital "L" Libertarianism is Paleoconservatism or Objectivism. Capital "L" Libertarianism isn't really libertarian because of the the state monopoly on the use of force. When you allow individual secession from the state and undocumented immigration you are a consistent libertarian. To force someone into the state is slavery. A monopoly over the means of production like in the free market also is not compatible with libertarianism.
Evidently, you have no understanding of the difference between statism and libertarianism. The Constitution minimizes government and maxizes individual liberty. Government's only power is through force and favors. A statist document, therefore, would be the opposite, putting the state before the individual's rights. I don't have the patience to try to explain it any clearer than that. If you don't have any appreciation for such a document go live in a totalitarian country.
@TJU1776 - The state is before your individual rights. There is no amendment which allows individual secession, therefore is it an enslaving document to the state. You cannot live within U.S. borders without being a citizen. Yes, that would make Paul a statist and not a libertarian.
then we can just agree to disagree (but you're still wrong lol)
in what case, since you believe that they can't strip the supreme court of jurisdiction in these cases, do you think that they CAN strip it?
if you think they can never strip it because it would take the right to petition the court away, please provide an explanation for why they put it in the constitution, if it could never be used.
@TheCommonManUSA p.s. i think you have been the opposite of clear on why it is unconstitutional since you dodge the fact that it is specifically enumerated lol
so in what cases do you think they can strip the court of juridiction? it seems to me that you apparently think they can never strip it since you think people have the right to petition the supreme court if their state is being a dick even though the constitution SPECIFICALLY says that they can strip it
it seems that you think they put it in there just to mess with us because they can never use it (even though it's a specifically enumerated power)
just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional
you don't get a court above the supreme court if they decide that your civil rights weren't violatkd. does that mean the supreme court is unconstitutional?
why are you so gung-ho for the supreme court anyway? they take away rights as much as the rest of the government
@TheCommonManUSA except in those cases that the congress has stripped the federal court of jurisdiction lol.
it isn't an absolute right to have your case heard by a federal court, have you heard of them saying no to hearing a case?
there is no absolute right to have your case heard by the supreme court- or even in a federal court.
my point is that if it isn't an absolute right, why is it unconstitutional to strip the federal court of power if the constitution specifically gives it that power?
@TheCommonManUSA it also saves everyone from the tyranny of federal government, you think state governments can't handle their own problems and they need the feds to take care of them? the government has no power to have anything to do with marriage. the act wouldn't reverse previous decisions (i think, i'm no lawyer.) it would just make it so it can't decide future things about those subjects. I would rather be subject to state law than federal law
"Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law."
Roe v. Wade doesn't have a state party.
Obviously it wouldn't apply to cases in which a state is a party because... that wouldn't be constitutional lol
@TheCommonManUSA have you ever heard the term "original jurisdiction"?
if the supreme court has "original jurisdiction" then the congress cannot strip them of jurisdiction on that case, if they do not it is wholly within their powers.
art 3. section 2.
"... supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
@TheCommonManUSA that isn't unconstitutional at all. you can disagree with it, but the constitution clearly allows the congress to remove jurisdiction on cases from the supreme court.
that's like... to the letter constitutionalism lol
the 14 amendment applies the rights equally to all people. like ron paul's act.
gays/homos are the result of government putting sodium fluoride in U.S. tap water supplies, the toxin confuses the psychology of people including their sex. It also is a culprit of feminine behaviors in young males. This might seem ridiculous but research effects of sodium fluoride, its apart of NWO mind control.
Are you serious or are you trolling? Fluoride makes you stupid, and creative/articulate personalities are very common among the gay populace, and even if it did cause homosexuality (I can't find any studies) that doesn't change the fact that there have always been gay people in all cultures across the planet. Also if fluoride confused people in such a way they would be more bi/curious than gay. Gays, like straights, only swing one way.
@HazelHusky In regards to your opinion, yes, I agree; disregard what i said about gays/homos. What I was trying to say is that sodium fluoride confuses people about what SEX they are, not their preference in category e.g. gays, lesbos, bisexuals etc. I researched somewhere a while back and found that some people(typically teenagers) in fluoridated communities might feel more female than male, or vice versa, hindering their natural male or feminine personality. Then again, everyone is different.
1. Areas with fluoridated water usually have higher numbers of people in general. Not too many people in rural areas are going to come forward with how they feel about their gender.
2. What does being confused about your gender have to do with being gay? That's transsexual/transgendered people. Gays are typically pretty secure about their gender.
There's a reason why gays are more likely to be left handed, and there's a reason they're attracted to different pheromones.
I know for a fact that my behavior is affected by the smell of another guy (especially gay guys) and I know for a fact other gay guys feel the same. Women will also say they like the smell of a guy and for similar reasons straight guys go nuts over p***y.
If you've been with someone physically then you're either with the wrong gender or you're asexual because people are aroused by certain odors.
@HazelHusky asexual means that I can reproduce by myself lol i think you mean celibate or something
you don't know that for a fact.
you just think that it's a fact.
studies trump testimony. I like how my girlfriend smells too, that doesn't mean that if I was blind folded I could pick her out as the one that turns me on the most- it may seem that way, but in practice, they have found no evidence to suggest that people can do that.
and liking someone's smell isn't pheromones anyway.
No asexual means you aren't attracted to either sex.
I think I would know what smells i'm attracted to. I was raised to hate gay people. I did not choose to like the smell guys put off, just like girls don't choose to like the way their boyfriend's shirt smells or straight guys don't choose to go nuts over the smell of women's crotches.
I don't know what studies you're talking about. Maybe humans pheromones don't work like animal ones but it's a fact that people are aroused by smells.
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't have a girlfriend. I said I was gay. The comment of mine you first replied to about me being attracted to a guy's scent and that I can't help it and that it has nothing to do with fluoride.
@HazelHusky okay, does your boyfriend do that? the point remains the same. i didn't say anything about flouride- you may be attracted to a guys scent, but i believe you are attracted to it because it's a guy's scent, not because the scent necessarily attracts gay dudes.
ya follow? pickin' up what i'm throwing down? smell what i'm cookin? think i should stop? probably.
No. I also said that I was raised to hate gay people. When I was first aroused by the scent of a guy I was not happy (I wasn't surprised either because I never had the desire to be with a girl). I can also tell the difference between a gay and straight guy by their scent. Any gay guy can. Actually alot of people can, but it's usually mistaken for just smelling bad as the smell is not very appealing to heteros of both genders. The smell of a woman doesn't appeal to me either.
Go to any Q&A site (like Yahoo or Microsoft Answers), go to the LGBT section and just ask the gay guys. They will tell you the same thing I have told you.
Well there must be something that causes all these millions of gay guys to have the ability to tell the difference between gay and straight men by their scent. I guess all those people are liars, and assuming an entire group of people are liars is collectivist and hopefully we all know where collectivism leads.
You're just afraid of not having anything to enforce any negative views you may have about homosexuality, and since you don't take gays seriously there was a study done on that
@HazelHusky I knew this would happen, this always happens with people in a fringe group. I disagree with you, ergo I hate your group of people. I would like to make a point of order. I am bisexual. I don't hate gays. I do take gays seriously, I don't take pseudoscience seriously. What you're suggesting seems like pseudoscience so I run it through the skeptic method and you become hostile. That's another point against me accepting that you can smell sexuality.
Fringe? I remember you favoriting videos praising the racist/nationalist founding fathers (who were better than the British but still). You nationalist libertarians are the reason (no pun intended) I defected to the "cosmotarian" crowd. Sadly being the pragmatist I am i'm supporting Paul because the media completely ignores the more palatable/overall appealing Gary Johnson.
Good luck with the next American revolution! Hey look the Mexicans are coming!
I was just recalling the one time i looked at your channel and you had some founding fathers stuff on there which reeks of nationalism and the libertarians who fetishize the founders are often closed-border zealots who chastise open border minarchists and anti-border ancaps (even though their hero Ron Paul is friends with several anarchists). Some are even a part of the "info war" *gags*
I've been a libertarian for a long time so I know quite a bit about the two. Johnson doesn't have Paul's baggage (eg newsletters, bigoted friends etc.) and doesn't reach out to nationalist meathead "patriots". He also doesn't have Paul's weird/inconsistent record on gay rights. Sure Paul talks about getting government out of marriage but in the mean time he wants gay marriage banned. Most libertarians on the other hand want government to view people as individuals regardless of gender.
@HazelHusky Well, Ron votes by the constitution period. He simply wants to get the federal goverment out of most issues using the current laws which are unfortunately no longer honoured.
I've got nothing bad to say about Johnson though, I think he's quite the gentleman. But Paul has been more concisten on honouring the rule of law, which is the constitution.
@HazelHusky Also I believe most of his "weird friends" are due to the fact that he doesn't allways remember to keep his distance to some very immoral people since he much in the same whay as I try to, allways see every single person as an individual and not as part of any group.
I believe that being a libertarian philosopher he understands that every individual wants to live a free and joyful life, not at the expence of others but together with other free and joyful individuals.
This bill simply is designed to put issues such as abortion back into the hands of the states because Dr. Paul understands the federal government has no autority over such issues, by decree of the 10th Amendment. I follow Dr. Paul's speeches, legislation etc... closely and he is NOT homophobic. I'm sick of this shit. I'm openly gay, and a Libertarian, and I'll tell you how it is. The 9th Amendment, unfortunately, does NOT protect people's rights to homosexual activity either. Ask if you have ?
@TJU1776 - If you are openly gay, which is highly unlikely since 99% of Paul supporters are white/straight/christian, then you might find it concerning that in the bigoted newsletters Paul admitted to writing he said AIDS should be renamed "GRIDS, The Gay Related Immune Deficiency syndrome," and also said gays should be quarantined. That's pretty much straight up fascism. If you are consistent on the states rights issue, you must believe Jim Crow laws are okay? Banning gay sex is okay?
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Dr. Paul didn't write those newsletters. Moreover, everything I've ever heard him say is in defense of individualism and individual liberty. I've even heard him defend gays against a Christian Conservative radio show host. See "Ron Paul on Homosexuality" here on youtube. Also, any law which forces proprietors to segregate their patrons is a violation of the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian (Continued) Many people assume Dr. Paul is racist because he believes a proprietor should be allowed to hire or not hire people as he sees fit. This, however, is only because he believes private property, including businesses, should be controlled as the owner sees fit, which I agree with. It is the owner's right, even though it's wrong. Banning gay sex is an assault on individual liberty, but unfortunately, the 9th Amendment has no authority over this issue.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian (Continued) My logic is that the Founding Fathers, in spite of all their great wisdom, didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation, but only as behavior; behavior which, to them, was unnacceptable. The Constitution must be interpreted as it was intended to be when it was written. Until it is amended on this point, it really doesn't have the authority to protect our rights to homosexual behavior.
@1019079 I know it sucks to deal with modern day prejudices, but it is foolish to hold the Founders to the same standards as 21st century people. People in Europe were still being executed for witchcraft during their time. For living in the 18th century, they were extraordinarily billiant men, and if their ideals for an Anglo American Constitutional Republic would be applied to ALL Americans today, our country would be a paradise. It still is compared to others, but it's fading.
@1019079 The Constitution doesn't limit anything at all except 1. federal government power (see the10th Amendment) and 2. It prevents all government from imposing on our rights. It's just that the Founders didn't see homosexual behavior as a right. In MA, where I'm from, I'm protected because my state's Constitution's Article One states "All men are born free and equal" and later was amended to include the protection of women, homosexuals and so forth. But marriage should be in private hands.
@TJU1776 - The constitution should be flushed along with the bible and quran. It is a statist document and an outdated document written for a much smaller, much less complex country. It was also written by people who though slavery and wife beating is A okay. Would you seek advice from a slave owner?
And to all those saying "BUT THE STATES CAN DO BAD WAH!" well that's an excellent argument for world government. "BUT THE USA CAN DO BAD."
Racism can exist in any type of government, whether it be the centralized government of Nazi Germany, or the loose federation of states in pre-civil war America.
I've watched most of your videos... and I'm still voting for Paul because I can see through your bullshit! We need dumbasses like you in the world, thanks man.
Ihateregistrations1 2 months ago
That is not libertarinism at all. Instead of the country deciding what is allowed or not, the state does it.
Which means, its still someone deciding over you, no difference.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk That pretty much he is saying
sweetheart2109 1 month ago in playlist NOT Ron Paul 2012!
gays are gross man! why should us straights watch your bullshit ! fuck you all.
y0utUBeH8r 4 months ago
"Can you make any argument without LYING? Tell me one restaurant that is now under communal ownership because of the CRA."
another straw man. Didn't even infer such a thing. One gives up their full property rights if they are forced to do something w/their property that which they object to. If u can't grasp what my argument is here, I suggest rereading all of my posts to see where i'm coming from.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - "One gives up their full property rights if they are forced to do something w/their property that which they object to"
Wow, you are either painfully idiotic or purposely misleading. There's been either a lie or fallacy in every comment. Property owners still control the property in every aspect besides others occupancy rights. I've come to the conclusion that I am also an idiot if I continue to think I can convince an idiot. These will be my last comments to you.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@supermariofj don't know why this was removed. am i getting to ya???
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - Why what was removed?
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
If I'm not mistaken, didn't you support Ron Paul, in the past?
playmistics 5 months ago
I said "who cares" because you single out Ron Paul as the racist. Okay the Republican Party has many racist elements.But like I said, Tim Wise is a self admitted white supremacist so that would make the Democrat Party racist as well.
If the majority of whites are racist, then we shouldn't have whites being elected officials.
playmistics 5 months ago
Why are people like *
playmistics 5 months ago
Why are the people Ralph Nader, Rosa Clemente, Cynthia McKinney, and other liberals be friends with Ron Paul?
Noam Chomsky even talked about commonalities about Ron Paul.
playmistics 5 months ago
Why would someone like Dennis Kucinich say he would pick Ron Paul as his vp?
playmistics 5 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA amen
timpipe 5 months ago
Is Ron Paul a racist? Really who cares. Most whites are racist. Tim Wise even admitted to being a White Supremacist. So what's the difference between Ron Paul and another white person being president?
playmistics 5 months ago
@playmistics - That tends to be the policy on racism with Republicans and their elected officials. "Who cares?" The rest of us care a great deal because we know American history.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
Poor video. Misconstruing Ron Paul.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Please explain... if you are capable of typing more than 5 words.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Let's stop the personal attacks & move forward with the issue at hand. What's he's saying is the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL liberties, not the liberties of groups. For example, blacks shouldn't have more rights as a collective group than whites, and vice versa. That goes for any group: be it homosexuals, heterosexuals, latinos, labor unions, males, females, you name it. A homosexual has the right to choose who he/she lives with, along with other rights, like @ the workplace.
supermariofj 5 months ago
Continuing my point: A homosexual has these rights not because he's a homosexual, but because he is a human being, with inalienable rights, and in the case of being gay, the right of free will.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - I'm sorry? Had I personally attacked you? If Paul is for individual liberty then explain why Paul thinks gay and women's rights should be left to the states. Did Paul not learn anything from Jim Crow? Oh, yeah... Paul would allow Jim Crow and repeal the landmark Civil Rights Act which gave blacks more individual liberty. Paul was against a supreme court ruling, Lawrence v. Texas, that overturned Texas' bigoted law against gay sex.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty you did by insinuating i wasn't able to type more than 5 words. anyway, Paul would've supported repealing the Jim Crow laws (they were govt laws that segregated blacks and whites). He would only repeal the Civil Rights act because it forced private business to allow people they didn't want in their restaurants, etc. I know that is mean and wrong. But they have a right to do that. Other than that, he's for equality as much as u and I. Finally, a state has a right to govern itself...
supermariofj 5 months ago
if the people want certain laws in their state, then so be it. However I will read up on Paul's stance on this ruling and the ruling itself. I will get back to you on that. :)
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - I wasn't insinuating anything, just asking sarcastically. Not letting blacks eat at what restaurants they choose and sit where they want is libertarian? Ever hear of occupancy rights? Paul would not have supported the repeal of Jim Crow, he has said so himself. The Civil Rights Act increased individual liberty for blacks and there is really no doubt about it. We saw the living standards of blacks rise after the Civil Rights Act. Paul is not for equality.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
Comment removed
supermariofj 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Property rights are very important and should not be trumped. I believe Paul said he would repeal the Jim Crow laws in a video on youtube. If i come across it i'll reference it. Please show me where he says he wouldn't have repealed em. True the C.R.A. did increase liberties for blacks no doubt about it, but, had our govt been more libertarian-minded since the beginning we would not have a civil war or the problem of having to use the govt to enforce and legislate equality via CRA
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj A good example of practicing libertarianism is Martin Luther King Jr.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Why do property rights trump occupancy rights? Because it's so much easier to control minorities this way? There is no freedom in the "free" market. I'm not buying Paul would end Jim Crow considering his strict states rights stances and his racist newsletters from the 90's. Show me the video where he says he would use federal legislation to end Jim Crow and I'll believe it. The Civil Rights Act is what ended Jim Crow, and Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
... But the issue at hand here is not Jim Crow, but the modern day Jim Crow legislation "We The People Act" which diminishes the constitutional rights of gays and women and which Paul helped author.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty @Vote3rdParty I finally got to it. Watch video of Lawrence O'Donnell vs Ron Paul
Please watch pt 1 of this interview as well. It talks about his position on medicare, you can get more info on his stance on that, too. :) MLK practiced libertarianism, and so did Rosa Parks. Peace.
supermariofj 5 months ago
I tried pasting the reference but it wouldn't let me. Please respond if u can't find it. Peace once again.
supermariofj 5 months ago
posting*
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - I'm glad you think the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action are libertarian, since both MLK and Rosa Parks supported those measures. Paul disagrees with you.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty No. u've misunderstood my position. The CRA was NOT liberatarian in nature. MLK and Rosa Parks acted libertarian. Very big difference. That is what Dr. Paul believes. I know, I've researched him and the laws. He agrees mostly w/CRA EXCEPT the part where it forces businesses to accept customers whom they do not want to serve. Mean, I know, but that's what freedom is about. MLK and RP may have supported those laws, but because they believed those measures would bring about equality.
supermariofj 5 months ago
Unfortunately, it was at the expense of private business owners. Also, affirmative action actually discrminates very good white kids from going to inexpensive colleges nowadays. I think it's time to allow business owners the freedom to serve who they want to serve. But of course, these issues are not as important as the wars and the entitlement spending going on in the govt. That's why it's really worth voting for Ron Paul, if this is the baggage (fi you could call it that) that comes w/him.
supermariofj 5 months ago
The true baggage that comes w/other candidates is WAY more than I can handle. Plus, RP is truly the 3rd party/alternate choice you should be rooting for and voting for.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Um... you said the "practiced libertarianism." According Paul in his very own newsletters MLK was "communist" and gay "pedophile." "Freedom" is about the state arresting blacks for wondering onto "white property"? You call that libertarian? MLK and Rosa Parks are the real libertarians. Ron Paul is not a libertarian but a paleoconservative. They are pretty much opposites.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Ahhh, the old newspaper letters. Well, 1 thing can be said about those letters. Paul may have unknowlingly had a racist writing for him. Unfortunately, for the Paul-basher, he has already dealt with that very minor issue on CNN. He gets rid of that issue quite well. Anyone who follows him & knows him can vouch for his opposition to those views. You can't control what everyone else says/writes.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - He admitted to writing the racist newsletters:
/watch?v=q8aEGs0WLEc
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
hahaha. That's funny. Stereotyping is hardly the racism I thought u were accusing him of. Hey, am i racist if I say if someone's white then they're probably rich? Or, since I'm Mexican, most of us are probably short and will never be football stars? C'mon, give me a break. While some of his statements are kinda "racy" (no pun intended), I take it a video from CNN where he vehemently denies such racist views written by a staffer is enough to settle the matter. Some interview 20 yrs ago? really?
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Well he called blacks "animals" and "racial terrorists." That's more than stereotyping. Do you see the "white people are rich" stereotype as equivalent of "black males are criminals." It's funny because Ron Paul says he opposed the drug laws because they target and hurt blacks, then he takes advantage of the fact those drug laws are there. He changed his story when more racist newsletters were discovered in 2001 and has been using the "ghostwriter" excuse ever since
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty look, i dunno about someone else's personal life and what they make up in their mind. The only thing i can do, as a voter, is see for the evidence myself in his voting record, his PERSONAL statements he physically made with his mouth, how he conducts himself and how he talks. Based on that, I make educational decisions and judgements on whether or not he is telling the truth or making up excuses like most politicians. And i gotta say, this man seems to be telling the truth.
supermariofj 5 months ago
Ron Paul just doesn't talk like that.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Paul doesn't talk like what? Do you have a secret microphone hidden in his home? Do you REALLY know Ron Paul? Or have you only seen his public political speeches and interviews? Have you read the Ron Paul Political Report?
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Yeah, and i take people's stances on issues when they come directly from their mouths.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - Really? Not if they vote a certain way on issue? Like Paul's vote to ban gay adoption exposes how homophobic he is, as the Civil Rights Act exposes how racist he is.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty He's not racist, he's not anti-gay, i'll look on that issue though. and i'm pretty sure if it's true on his voting record, he did so for good reason.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - He is a homophobe and racist. Any logical person will look at his blatantly racist newsletters, and blatantly racist and homophobic voting record and come to the right conclusion. Paul supporters are literally the only ones that defend his racism. And the Paul supporters that accept the fact he's a racist take it as a good thing. Even if Paul went on camera and said "I'm a racist" you guys would say it was a Paul clone, and some conspiracy.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty btw, there's no such thing as occupancy rights.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Do you even know what "rights" are? Occupancy rights do exists as you can see all around you. It's called "public property."
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Here's where the debate is resolved: 1st, occupancy rights only exist on public property...that's not what we're talking about here. I can go to a PUBLIC park whenever I want. BUT, occupancy rights dont exist w/regard to private property. Let me tell u, if u tried to come into my house or my business w/o my consent, I will 1st tell u to leave, and then I'd come at u w/a shotgun cuz i assume ur gonna come and steal from me. Please tell me where in the constitution...
supermariofj 5 months ago
one has the right to enter someone's private residence or property. Please. I will subscribe to these "occupancy" rights u speak of. Like I said, they do exist, but when u talk about public property...not private property.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - "there's no such thing as occupancy rights"... "occupancy rights only exist on public property." Looks like you disagree with yourself. "Privately owned" restaurants are not are not technically "private." They are there for public use, but for a profit. A household is really "private." That's where you take a shit, a shower, and where the magic happens. To have the state come down and arrest you being black in a "white" restaurant is not only racist, but STATIST.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty No. u can't cut and paste my quotes. Occupancy rights do not exist when we talk about private property. They do when we talk about public property. A restauraunt is private property if I'm purchasing the place and i own it. If u can't get that then there's no point arguing further. There's no such thing as "part private and full private". It's either private or not. Period.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - I cut and paste because you said they "didn't exist." You didn't say "Yes, they exist. It's called public property." It may be convenient for your ideology to allow dictatorships over a restaurant where the state will come down and "initiate force" if you are the wrong color or the wrong sexuality, but those are not the property norms of today. "It's either private or not. Period." Not "period." I differ with your views along with the majority of people.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty It's funny. Here you say it's not okay to have the state come in and "initiate force if you are the wrong color", yet you would be okay if the same state came in and forced the restaurant to accept anyone the people feel should be accepted. Why put up with ANY dictatorship? Sorry, but I believe the majority of people feel that's wrong. And even if the majority felt like u do, it still doesn't make it right, according to the constitution. We're a republic, not a democracy.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj Please read the constitution carefully. You'll see property rights are very important. The CRA is a good law. But it has its flaws. It could be perfected.Unfortunately, we still have racists among us, and that will continue, but that's their right.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Yes, you are exactly right. I believe government should DEFEND against the aggressor. So if a restaurant owner INITIATES FORCE on someone the government has every right to come down and defend that person. Oh, and I never said the restaurant owner had to "accept" anyone, just cannot initiate force. See, I'm a real libertarian not a pseudo-libertarian. And actually we are technically a democratic republic. Does that system suck? Yes. We deserve direct democracy.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
... The constitution also says the people have a right to "peacably assemble" and the right to life and liberty. But of course the right to property trumps those, right? Because the right to property benefits the white man more than the right to liberty. But it shouldn't matter what the constitution says. All that matters is what is right and what is wrong.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Actually it DOES matter what the constitution says, that's what gives us our laws and our freedom. Fine, i agree people have the right to peacably assemble (it says so in the const), but people have the right to do that in public places and govt property (ergo, OUR property because we pay for that), NOT private property. I can't go and "peacably assemble" at your house or your business, because that's trespassing. If you cant agree on that, then that's mob rule.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Restaurants are made for the public, not comparable to a homestead. Taking away someone's occupancy rights and right to necessities like food is not libertarian. Libertarianism is being free while not infringing on another's freedom.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Of course i'm gonna initiate force, calling the cops to remove a customer. Every owner has a right to do that. You're right though, a person has rights to their body. But i hope you believe the owner has the right to call the cops for removing a customer from their property. If you do, then we agree on the same thing. Finally, our system (constitutional-republic) isn't a perfect system, but it's the best one on earth. A direct democracy eliminates the right of the minority.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - I'm a libertarian, so I am against the initiation of force. Actually restaurant owners don't have the right to kick someone out of their restaurant based on race. The libertarian Civil Rights Act changed all that. Our democratic republic isn't the best system on earth. A "republic" is too close to a monarchy. Direct democracy is the only real form of democracy. The whole point of democracy is majority rule. The minority has the SAME RIGHT to vote as the majority.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty well, i'm libertarian, and i believe in force. And i mean the kind of force it takes to get somebody off my property if they trespass. CRA was hardly libertarian. The only reason it was, as a whole, good, was because it helped in bringing equality to blacks, but at the expense of property owners. anyway, i don't know how our republic is like a monarchy, but we may have to look up definitions of these terms to start mixing em up like that. Direct democracy is majority fascist rule.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - There's a difference between a restaurant and a homestead, but I think you know that. A black person wanted to eat is much different than someone trespassing your private personal space. The whole point of a restaurant is to be open to the public. "Direct democracy is majority fascist rule." That is perhaps the most ignorant statement ever posted on my videos. Hitler and Mussolini, fascists, were both DICTATORS. There is no democracy in fascism.
watch?v=yfrQalpmdqk
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty A black person is not endanger of starving, there are a plethora of choices down a downtown strip, where many other restaurants are willing to serve him/her. That's the principle of free-market capitalism. No, the whole point of a restaurant is to make money, like any other business. What is fascism? Can u define for me fascism, because it seems u have a narrowminded definition for it? Ignorant? On the contrary, i've done my research, & fascism is found in the arms of the powerful.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - Really? Were you a black person living in a state with Jim Crow? You know for a fact blacks had "many choices" when they went downtown? That is the "free" market, and since whites had a monopoly over all the businesses, they have an advantage over blacks. It's so easy to be pro-private property and anti-occupancy rights isn't it? Through property norms, people decided private businesses made FOR THE PUBLIC, can be regulated. Deal with it. Racism lost this fight.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty I'm talking about free choice NOW. of course back then jim crows (govt laws) were enforced and were evil. And guess what? It also took the libertarian actions of MLK and rosa parks to get rid of those laws by engaging public sympathy.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - It took the federal government through DEMOCRATIC vote to get rid of those Jim Crow laws. Which means we would still have Jim Crow if you were in charge, since you believe idiotically believe that fascism = democracy. MLK and Rosa Parks just started the conversation and change people's minds. It took PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT to get rid of those anti-libertarian laws.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
Comment removed
supermariofj 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Vote3rdParty when u get rid of gov't laws that limit individual liberty, i don't care if you're hitler or lbj, it's a very libertarian thing to do! hahaha. good one. sure, the democratic govt at the time repealed those laws, that's commendable. but at the same time, they forced private restaurant owners to give up their property rights. Again I agree it's not right for them to not allow blacks to eat in their restaurants, but it was not the best way to go about it. If i were in charge i'd've,
supermariofj 4 months ago
done the same thing by repealing the jim crow laws. I would've even invited MLK and rosa parks to be on my administration. They were pretty good libertarians. Let me ask u this. Where did the first integration occur in?
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - MLK and Rosa Parks were REAL libertarians, not the pseudo-libertarians of today, the "Libertarian Party," and Tea Party. I'm glad you agree that affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act are libertarian, since both Rosa Parks and MLK were for such measures. BTW Ron Paul voted against MLK holiday, and the Rosa Parks medal. Looks like Paul has a hatred for civil rights leaders who ENHANCED libertarianism in this country.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@supermariofj - So then why are you against individual liberty of black people, Hitler? You don't even think blacks should have a right to eat in a restaurant made for the public. Don't lecture me on individual rights, Jim Crow.
"they forced private restaurant owners to give up their property rights."
Can you make any argument without LYING? Tell me one restaurant that is now under communal ownership because of the CRA.
I'm still waiting on where you got your definition of fascism.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty I already gave u the def in an earlier post of fascism. If you missed it, here it is: absolute power or rule of an individual, group, or people over the rest of the population.
I'm not against individual liberty of black people. hasty generalization. Individual liberty doesn't allow you to go into another person's restaurant & demand to be served. That's not america.
Nice name calling as well. It seems that once I've successfully dismantled ur argument u start commiting fallacies.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - I meant your SOURCE for that definition. Like what dictionary did you get that from? Because that definition is new to me!
And you already accepted that a man shouldn't be able to stand naked on his front lawn. So if you don't believe in absolute property rights, then why are you against letting blacks eat and peacefully essemble? (Cough) RACIST! (Cough)
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@supermariofj - Fascism is dictatorship by and individual or small percent at the top that rule over a geographical area. Sounds like privatization! Perhaps you should take a basic history course to know what fascism is? If you want to change the meaning of "fascism" to democracy to SMEAR those who fought against Hitler and Mussolini, be my guest. You will pretty much be laughed out of any conversation.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty A simpler rebuttal to your "ignorant" claim: What if the majority of this country decided to take away your son/daughter simply because you aren't teaching him/her religious morals, or you're teaching him/her the morals of Allah. Careful what you wish for, direct democracy can lead to majority fascist rule. Hey, if it's a democratic govt policing you it's okay right? cuz it's democratic and the 99% of people don't agree with your child rearing & religious views?
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - "What if the majority of this country decided to take away your son/daughter simply because you aren't teaching him/her religious morals"
That's still democracy. You can't change the definition of "democracy" to "fascism" simply because you can't think up a coupe "what if" scenarios. Fascism, does have a meaning, and that is MINORITY RULE.
"Careful what you wish for, direct democracy can lead to majority fascist rule"
Paultard statement of the week...
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Well, this "Paultard" is gonna school you on the definition of fascism. Fascism is...wait for it....wait for it...absolute rule or power by an institution over the rest of the people. That institution can be the govt, the majority, the minority, an individual, or a theocracy/clergy.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - Please give me your credible source for that definition of fascism. Fascism has always been DICTATOR (minority) RULE.
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator"
-Answers dawt com
"a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
-Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Please tell me what form of government you support if not one vote for each person.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Ummm, i totally agree w/those posted definitions. It doesn't make a difference if the majority or minority has absolute power via a respresentative dictator who embodies their views, it is what it is. we are moving to that type of govt if we continually elect the same "demopublicans". Ron Paul is running as a true conservative/libertarian, not as a neocon republican.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - You "totally" agree with those definitions, yet you ignorantly called democracy (the right to vote) FASCISM! You're a nut. Ron Paul serves the establishment just like all the others. FOX & Friends (friends being the corporations) sure gave Paul a lot of time and softball questions in the last debate. Ron Paul held the first tea party, and it seems the corporations loved the idea of deregulation and cutting taxes, they need their "property rights" to maintain their monopolies.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Ok hang on... Ron Paul gets was less media coverage than any other candidate. To act like Fox supports Ron Paul is absurd.
lasoogneypubes 4 months ago
@lasoogneypubes - Not true, he get's more coverage than Cain, Gingrich, Johnson, Santorum. He get's more coverage than the majority of the other Republican candidates. Maybe Americans just see he's way out of touch with the country on every issue accept the war and auditing federal reserve? I'm just telling you the truth, Paul got more time than most candidates in the FOX debate. Looks like Paul's part of the "NWO"! lol!
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty The only reason he's "out of touch" with the rest of the country is because most of this country is full of idiots that don't know what's going on. I'm just gonna stop debating with you. You seem to be one of the many brainwashed retards that can't think for themself.
lasoogneypubes 4 months ago
@lasoogneypubes - True, most of the country doesn't know what going on thanks to the "free" market for-profit media, and Paul supporters are among them. You are the one who is brainwashed. These right-wing false revolutions (Tea Party) always pop up during bad economic times, and when you follow the money it always leads to the corporations. Look at "The American Liberty League" which was formed during the depression. They were funded by orchestrated by big corporations. Same with the Tea Party.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@supermariofj - "Hey, if it's a democratic govt policing you it's okay right? cuz it's democratic and the 99% of people don't agree with your child rearing & religious views?"
Pathetic straw man. I never said democracy makes a bad decision good. I would just rather the majority come to that conclusion than the MINORITY FASCIST RULE from the "free" market crowd.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdPartyHow is that straw man? It happens all the time. Look at the death penalty. Lots of people support it. Do you think it's okay? I'm in favor of it in extreme cases, but a pure libertarian, even ron paul, is against it. If tomorrow a poll showed 60% were in favor of enacting a federal law of using the death penalty for people believed to be involved in "terrorist" attacks, would that make it okay? It's pretty real, man. There are laws, & innate individual rights that can't be violated.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - A straw man is when you put words in my mouth. I never said voting the wrong way is good. Remember this country was created and our constitution implemented with a democratic vote. Please tell me what system you support if you are against democracy.
"If tomorrow a poll showed 60% were in favor of enacting a federal law of using the death penalty for people believed to be involved in "terrorist" attacks"
Illogical. A dictator could implement the same policies.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty well that's where we fundamentally differ. I don't believe a decision should come from anyone, any group, majority or minority. It should come from the of law. The law of this land is the Constitution. Is that practical? Not all the time. Certain things have to be voted on, that's where I support the democratic in democratic-republic. That i submit. However, there are certain inalienable individual liberties that cannot be annulled, supsended, or taken away. By anyone or any group.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - "I don't believe a decision should come from anyone, any group, majority or minority. It should come from the law... the constitution"
This exposes that you've never even read the constitution. The constitution IS the LAW and that is why we have representative democracy, were the 51% or more rule over the minority, and the people have the right to vote for their representatives (democracy). Looks like you don't even agree with the document you claim to admire.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@supermariofj - They only have the "right" to do that through the STATE. You can be racist if you want, just don't FORCE your view onto others using your skewed view that the only rights that matter are property rights. Maybe because you're a racist and you know white people have a monopoly over most property? Just a thought. Our system takes away the rights of the majority. You're a for the will of the few over the will of the many? No wonder you're a capitalist!
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Short sighted. What if your candidate does not win, you have to imagine what liberties you would lose
timpipe 5 months ago
@timpipe - What liberties I'll lose if Paul wins?
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@supermariofj That of course sounds like a great idea until your candidate does not win, or some local theocratic law is enacted which takes away one of your liberties. One does not have to think about this legislation for too long to realize that it has an incredible ability to eliminate on the local level any number of liberties. So, Ron Paul's liberty so obviously involves making more laws which take away liberty, and a pesky federal Bill of Rights cannot apply.
timpipe 5 months ago
@timpipe No. Ron Paul is not about making laws left and right. Matter of fact, he'd repeal MANY MANY more laws than enact. Of course, even then, a president doesn't have the power to enact laws. That's the job of the legislative branch.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj Read the 'We the People Act" and his introduction to it. It is support of local theocracy at its best. If you are not frightened by its implications, you are either not reading it right, or you have no fear of local authoritarianism. It is a direct challenge to the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment and an example of what you state that you are against (in a previous post); direct democracy.
timpipe 4 months ago
@supermariofj Private property rights are not absolute. Well, let's say they are. I buy a house on a street near an elementary school where lots of children walk every day. At 7:30am Monday morning I walk naked out into my yard and start masturbating. I have the right to masturbate and am on my own property, so what could possibly be the problem? It is probably in the "public interest" that I am not allowed this liberty. There is a balance to be struck between liberty and public interest.
timpipe 5 months ago
@timpipe You're very correct. No specific right is absolute. However, all rights are equal. If one is trumped by the other, then the former cannot be allowed to eliminate or intrude into the latter. A child's (and parent's) right for them to be able to go in public in peace w/o harassment is intruded in that scenario. That's how u approach every situtation, with a libertarian frame of mind. But I personally am conservative-libertarian. There are rights and wrongs.
supermariofj 5 months ago
@supermariofj - Or the right for black people to eat in a restaurant without having the state come done and arrest them...
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Trust, w/Ron Paul that'll never happen. And we won't revert to that system anymore. Well, we might under different circumstances if we continue to elect democrats and republicans/neocons.
supermariofj 4 months ago
@supermariofj - I responded to your comment about democracy being "fascist," which has no historical basis. It's probably on the next page now...
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
@Vote3rdParty Paul has NEVER suggested any issue of *individual rights* which is property rights and the right to your own body should be left up to the states to decide about.
And as both gay people and women should be considered INDIVIDUALS, then the SAME rights apply to them as well.
He allways and ONLY votes by the constitution and thus he can not even vote for the some things which he would have like to vote for. He allmost only votes yes to repeal bad laws.
ToxinalX 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OBAMA, DEMOCRATS, USA ; WAKE UP ! RON PAUL DOESNT KNOW HOW TO CREATE JOBS! POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4B, POPULATION OF USA IS 310 MLN ! RON PAUL USES WORDS ;CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY , DEEP INSIDE HE DOESNT HAVE AN ANSWER HOW TO CREATE JOBS, CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER WORK LIKE ANTS, WAKE UP AMERICA, RON PAUL IS DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY, HE GIVES USA BAD NAME AROUND THE WORLD! WHAT KIND OF AMERICAN CALLS HIS OWN PEOPLE WAR CRIMINALS? RON PAUL MUST BE PROSECUTED!
democratsaresmart 6 months ago
Even Dr. Paul and Dr. Rothbard would have agreed to disagree about the proper amount of government and would rather have found common ground and pursued common goals, such as the abolition of the Federal Reserve System.
TJU1776 6 months ago
Even if you absolutely despise Dr. Paul, whom would you suggest for a replacement? There is going to be a state whether you like it or not and Dr. Paul does an endlessly better job preserving liberty than almost anyone else in office today, and certainly no worse than any of the others. Even if you are strictly believe anarchy is the only disposition of a free society, it's not an option. Even Dr. Rothbard and Dr. Paul would have agreed to disagree about the proper amount of government and woul
TJU1776 6 months ago
It is the escape from it through government favoritism and regulations. You seem to advocate libertarian socialism, a form of left libertarianism. It is advisable to understand that the allocation of private property is very dangerous even if your intentions are pure. I truly believe the Capitalist approach is the best to serve the peoples' liberty. Minarchist Capitalism has the best track record for preserving our rights.
TJU1776 6 months ago
I've researched this topic and it's really a matter of opinion depending on which form you advocate. Anarchy is a form of libertarianism. According to wikipedia, there are many schools of libertarian thought. Minarchy is what I support. That is, the elimination of the state for all purposes except to protect life, liberty, and property. The state directs the people in this effort in the form of a volunteer militia. Monopoly is never the product of free enterprise. It is the escape from it throu
TJU1776 6 months ago
Not when the very purpose of the state is to protect people's life, liberty, and property from other individuals and government. What you're implying is that libertarianism is always a philosophy of anarchy when in fact many of us value limited Constitutional Republican government and local self government. You'd better watch it with the name calling. Take a mouth like that to the streets and it's likely to get pounded in, and rightly so.
TJU1776 6 months ago
@TJU1776 - Anarchism is liberarianism. Capital "L" Libertarianism is Paleoconservatism or Objectivism. Capital "L" Libertarianism isn't really libertarian because of the the state monopoly on the use of force. When you allow individual secession from the state and undocumented immigration you are a consistent libertarian. To force someone into the state is slavery. A monopoly over the means of production like in the free market also is not compatible with libertarianism.
Vote3rdParty 6 months ago
@TJU1776 - Limited government = government controlled by private corporate dictators and that is in no way libertarian.
Vote3rdParty 5 months ago
You're probably a worthless scumbag troll working for the bankers to mislead the public anyhow.
TJU1776 6 months ago
@TJU1776 - That is the only logical conclusion isn't it Paultard? LOL
Vote3rdParty 6 months ago
Evidently, you have no understanding of the difference between statism and libertarianism. The Constitution minimizes government and maxizes individual liberty. Government's only power is through force and favors. A statist document, therefore, would be the opposite, putting the state before the individual's rights. I don't have the patience to try to explain it any clearer than that. If you don't have any appreciation for such a document go live in a totalitarian country.
TJU1776 6 months ago
@TJU1776 - The state is before your individual rights. There is no amendment which allows individual secession, therefore is it an enslaving document to the state. You cannot live within U.S. borders without being a citizen. Yes, that would make Paul a statist and not a libertarian.
Vote3rdParty 6 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA
i have taken a class. have you?
please provide to me just these answers
then we can just agree to disagree (but you're still wrong lol)
in what case, since you believe that they can't strip the supreme court of jurisdiction in these cases, do you think that they CAN strip it?
if you think they can never strip it because it would take the right to petition the court away, please provide an explanation for why they put it in the constitution, if it could never be used.
fair?
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA p.s. i think you have been the opposite of clear on why it is unconstitutional since you dodge the fact that it is specifically enumerated lol
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA okay
so in what cases do you think they can strip the court of juridiction? it seems to me that you apparently think they can never strip it since you think people have the right to petition the supreme court if their state is being a dick even though the constitution SPECIFICALLY says that they can strip it
it seems that you think they put it in there just to mess with us because they can never use it (even though it's a specifically enumerated power)
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA
once again
just because you don't like it doesn't make it unconstitutional
you don't get a court above the supreme court if they decide that your civil rights weren't violatkd. does that mean the supreme court is unconstitutional?
why are you so gung-ho for the supreme court anyway? they take away rights as much as the rest of the government
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA the states would only be a party if the people sued them for that right and it would end at the state supreme court under this act.
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA you skipped a premise before your conclusion.
i don't know how you got to "it is therefore unconstitutional" from "in all cases where the state is a party"
because the bill doesn't remove jurisdiction from cases where the state is a party.
anyone has the right to petition the supreme court... EXCEPT IN THOSE CASES WHICH I'VE listed like a million times xD
those are specifically spelled out in the constitution.
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA except in those cases that the congress has stripped the federal court of jurisdiction lol.
it isn't an absolute right to have your case heard by a federal court, have you heard of them saying no to hearing a case?
there is no absolute right to have your case heard by the supreme court- or even in a federal court.
my point is that if it isn't an absolute right, why is it unconstitutional to strip the federal court of power if the constitution specifically gives it that power?
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA it works in both ways, by the way, the supreme court has decided that marriage licenses don't have to be accepted by other states.
remember that part of the constitution that specifically says that all licenses issued by one state must be recognized by all other states?
that's why my driver's license works everywhere from california to maine
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA it also saves everyone from the tyranny of federal government, you think state governments can't handle their own problems and they need the feds to take care of them? the government has no power to have anything to do with marriage. the act wouldn't reverse previous decisions (i think, i'm no lawyer.) it would just make it so it can't decide future things about those subjects. I would rather be subject to state law than federal law
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA
wait, how is it unconstitutional?
"Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law."
Roe v. Wade doesn't have a state party.
Obviously it wouldn't apply to cases in which a state is a party because... that wouldn't be constitutional lol
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA have you ever heard the term "original jurisdiction"?
if the supreme court has "original jurisdiction" then the congress cannot strip them of jurisdiction on that case, if they do not it is wholly within their powers.
art 3. section 2.
"... supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
darris321 7 months ago
@TheCommonManUSA that isn't unconstitutional at all. you can disagree with it, but the constitution clearly allows the congress to remove jurisdiction on cases from the supreme court.
that's like... to the letter constitutionalism lol
the 14 amendment applies the rights equally to all people. like ron paul's act.
darris321 7 months ago
gays/homos are the result of government putting sodium fluoride in U.S. tap water supplies, the toxin confuses the psychology of people including their sex. It also is a culprit of feminine behaviors in young males. This might seem ridiculous but research effects of sodium fluoride, its apart of NWO mind control.
MysTeri0usMatT7 8 months ago
@MysTeri0usMatT7
Are you serious or are you trolling? Fluoride makes you stupid, and creative/articulate personalities are very common among the gay populace, and even if it did cause homosexuality (I can't find any studies) that doesn't change the fact that there have always been gay people in all cultures across the planet. Also if fluoride confused people in such a way they would be more bi/curious than gay. Gays, like straights, only swing one way.
HazelHusky 8 months ago
@HazelHusky In regards to your opinion, yes, I agree; disregard what i said about gays/homos. What I was trying to say is that sodium fluoride confuses people about what SEX they are, not their preference in category e.g. gays, lesbos, bisexuals etc. I researched somewhere a while back and found that some people(typically teenagers) in fluoridated communities might feel more female than male, or vice versa, hindering their natural male or feminine personality. Then again, everyone is different.
MysTeri0usMatT7 8 months ago
@MysTeri0usMatT7
1. Areas with fluoridated water usually have higher numbers of people in general. Not too many people in rural areas are going to come forward with how they feel about their gender.
2. What does being confused about your gender have to do with being gay? That's transsexual/transgendered people. Gays are typically pretty secure about their gender.
There's a reason why gays are more likely to be left handed, and there's a reason they're attracted to different pheromones.
HazelHusky 8 months ago
@HazelHusky there is no evidence to show that humans can detect pheromones
darris321 7 months ago
@darris321
You've never been close to anyone have you?
HazelHusky 7 months ago
@HazelHusky do you mean emotionally or physically?
i have, either way.
but just because we can smell each other doesn't mean we can detect pheromones or that they affect our behavior at all.
darris321 7 months ago
@darris321
I meant physically.
I know for a fact that my behavior is affected by the smell of another guy (especially gay guys) and I know for a fact other gay guys feel the same. Women will also say they like the smell of a guy and for similar reasons straight guys go nuts over p***y.
If you've been with someone physically then you're either with the wrong gender or you're asexual because people are aroused by certain odors.
HazelHusky 7 months ago
@HazelHusky asexual means that I can reproduce by myself lol i think you mean celibate or something
you don't know that for a fact.
you just think that it's a fact.
studies trump testimony. I like how my girlfriend smells too, that doesn't mean that if I was blind folded I could pick her out as the one that turns me on the most- it may seem that way, but in practice, they have found no evidence to suggest that people can do that.
and liking someone's smell isn't pheromones anyway.
darris321 7 months ago
@darris321
No asexual means you aren't attracted to either sex.
I think I would know what smells i'm attracted to. I was raised to hate gay people. I did not choose to like the smell guys put off, just like girls don't choose to like the way their boyfriend's shirt smells or straight guys don't choose to go nuts over the smell of women's crotches.
I don't know what studies you're talking about. Maybe humans pheromones don't work like animal ones but it's a fact that people are aroused by smells.
HazelHusky 7 months ago
@HazelHusky smells=/=pheromones.
the apocrine glands are found in abundance in the armpit. so, why is your girlfriend not sniffing your armpit? she loves that stuff, man. lol
darris321 7 months ago
@darris321
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't have a girlfriend. I said I was gay. The comment of mine you first replied to about me being attracted to a guy's scent and that I can't help it and that it has nothing to do with fluoride.
HazelHusky 7 months ago
@HazelHusky okay, does your boyfriend do that? the point remains the same. i didn't say anything about flouride- you may be attracted to a guys scent, but i believe you are attracted to it because it's a guy's scent, not because the scent necessarily attracts gay dudes.
ya follow? pickin' up what i'm throwing down? smell what i'm cookin? think i should stop? probably.
darris321 7 months ago
@darris321
No. I also said that I was raised to hate gay people. When I was first aroused by the scent of a guy I was not happy (I wasn't surprised either because I never had the desire to be with a girl). I can also tell the difference between a gay and straight guy by their scent. Any gay guy can. Actually alot of people can, but it's usually mistaken for just smelling bad as the smell is not very appealing to heteros of both genders. The smell of a woman doesn't appeal to me either.
HazelHusky 7 months ago
@HazelHusky I'm sorry, I don't believe that. It sounds like hogwash.
I would like to blindfold you and test it.
darris321 7 months ago
@darris321
Go to any Q&A site (like Yahoo or Microsoft Answers), go to the LGBT section and just ask the gay guys. They will tell you the same thing I have told you.
HazelHusky 7 months ago
@HazelHusky that's irrelevant. testimony proves nothing.
darris321 6 months ago
@darris321
Well there must be something that causes all these millions of gay guys to have the ability to tell the difference between gay and straight men by their scent. I guess all those people are liars, and assuming an entire group of people are liars is collectivist and hopefully we all know where collectivism leads.
You're just afraid of not having anything to enforce any negative views you may have about homosexuality, and since you don't take gays seriously there was a study done on that
HazelHusky 6 months ago
@HazelHusky I knew this would happen, this always happens with people in a fringe group. I disagree with you, ergo I hate your group of people. I would like to make a point of order. I am bisexual. I don't hate gays. I do take gays seriously, I don't take pseudoscience seriously. What you're suggesting seems like pseudoscience so I run it through the skeptic method and you become hostile. That's another point against me accepting that you can smell sexuality.
darris321 6 months ago
@darris321
Fringe? I remember you favoriting videos praising the racist/nationalist founding fathers (who were better than the British but still). You nationalist libertarians are the reason (no pun intended) I defected to the "cosmotarian" crowd. Sadly being the pragmatist I am i'm supporting Paul because the media completely ignores the more palatable/overall appealing Gary Johnson.
Good luck with the next American revolution! Hey look the Mexicans are coming!
HazelHusky 4 months ago
@HazelHusky Yes. I am in a fringe group.
Also, i'm not racist. Libertarians are generally for open borders, dipshit.
What video are you talking about?
I'm not a nationalist, I'm just a rationalist.
And you're an idiot.
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321
I was just recalling the one time i looked at your channel and you had some founding fathers stuff on there which reeks of nationalism and the libertarians who fetishize the founders are often closed-border zealots who chastise open border minarchists and anti-border ancaps (even though their hero Ron Paul is friends with several anarchists). Some are even a part of the "info war" *gags*
HazelHusky 4 months ago
@HazelHusky Gary Johnson is just a somewhat younger pot smoking version of Ron Paul.
ToxinalX 3 months ago
@ToxinalX
I've been a libertarian for a long time so I know quite a bit about the two. Johnson doesn't have Paul's baggage (eg newsletters, bigoted friends etc.) and doesn't reach out to nationalist meathead "patriots". He also doesn't have Paul's weird/inconsistent record on gay rights. Sure Paul talks about getting government out of marriage but in the mean time he wants gay marriage banned. Most libertarians on the other hand want government to view people as individuals regardless of gender.
HazelHusky 3 months ago
@HazelHusky Well, Ron votes by the constitution period. He simply wants to get the federal goverment out of most issues using the current laws which are unfortunately no longer honoured.
I've got nothing bad to say about Johnson though, I think he's quite the gentleman. But Paul has been more concisten on honouring the rule of law, which is the constitution.
ToxinalX 3 months ago
@HazelHusky Also I believe most of his "weird friends" are due to the fact that he doesn't allways remember to keep his distance to some very immoral people since he much in the same whay as I try to, allways see every single person as an individual and not as part of any group.
I believe that being a libertarian philosopher he understands that every individual wants to live a free and joyful life, not at the expence of others but together with other free and joyful individuals.
ToxinalX 3 months ago
This bill simply is designed to put issues such as abortion back into the hands of the states because Dr. Paul understands the federal government has no autority over such issues, by decree of the 10th Amendment. I follow Dr. Paul's speeches, legislation etc... closely and he is NOT homophobic. I'm sick of this shit. I'm openly gay, and a Libertarian, and I'll tell you how it is. The 9th Amendment, unfortunately, does NOT protect people's rights to homosexual activity either. Ask if you have ?
TJU1776 1 year ago
@TJU1776 - If you are openly gay, which is highly unlikely since 99% of Paul supporters are white/straight/christian, then you might find it concerning that in the bigoted newsletters Paul admitted to writing he said AIDS should be renamed "GRIDS, The Gay Related Immune Deficiency syndrome," and also said gays should be quarantined. That's pretty much straight up fascism. If you are consistent on the states rights issue, you must believe Jim Crow laws are okay? Banning gay sex is okay?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 10 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian Dr. Paul didn't write those newsletters. Moreover, everything I've ever heard him say is in defense of individualism and individual liberty. I've even heard him defend gays against a Christian Conservative radio show host. See "Ron Paul on Homosexuality" here on youtube. Also, any law which forces proprietors to segregate their patrons is a violation of the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
TJU1776 10 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian (Continued) Many people assume Dr. Paul is racist because he believes a proprietor should be allowed to hire or not hire people as he sees fit. This, however, is only because he believes private property, including businesses, should be controlled as the owner sees fit, which I agree with. It is the owner's right, even though it's wrong. Banning gay sex is an assault on individual liberty, but unfortunately, the 9th Amendment has no authority over this issue.
TJU1776 10 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian (Continued) My logic is that the Founding Fathers, in spite of all their great wisdom, didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation, but only as behavior; behavior which, to them, was unnacceptable. The Constitution must be interpreted as it was intended to be when it was written. Until it is amended on this point, it really doesn't have the authority to protect our rights to homosexual behavior.
TJU1776 10 months ago
@TJU1776 fuck the founding fathers then.
1019079 10 months ago
@1019079 I know it sucks to deal with modern day prejudices, but it is foolish to hold the Founders to the same standards as 21st century people. People in Europe were still being executed for witchcraft during their time. For living in the 18th century, they were extraordinarily billiant men, and if their ideals for an Anglo American Constitutional Republic would be applied to ALL Americans today, our country would be a paradise. It still is compared to others, but it's fading.
TJU1776 9 months ago
@TJU1776 The constitution doesn't limit marriage though.
1019079 9 months ago
@1019079 The Constitution doesn't limit anything at all except 1. federal government power (see the10th Amendment) and 2. It prevents all government from imposing on our rights. It's just that the Founders didn't see homosexual behavior as a right. In MA, where I'm from, I'm protected because my state's Constitution's Article One states "All men are born free and equal" and later was amended to include the protection of women, homosexuals and so forth. But marriage should be in private hands.
TJU1776 9 months ago
@TJU1776 The founder's don't say specifically though in the actual document, so all well.
1019079 9 months ago
@TJU1776 - The constitution should be flushed along with the bible and quran. It is a statist document and an outdated document written for a much smaller, much less complex country. It was also written by people who though slavery and wife beating is A okay. Would you seek advice from a slave owner?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 6 months ago
And to all those saying "BUT THE STATES CAN DO BAD WAH!" well that's an excellent argument for world government. "BUT THE USA CAN DO BAD."
Racism can exist in any type of government, whether it be the centralized government of Nazi Germany, or the loose federation of states in pre-civil war America.
Destroyer220 1 year ago