Lots of people don't get prosecuted.  Sometimes, it's not worth it..other times, people just don't agree with the laws and won;t be the enforcers of those laws if they don't absolutely have to.  In a victimless crime, it's pretty much up to the feds (or whoevers) discretion whether or not to act.

I'm sure you understand.

(July 26, 2016 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 26, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: For me, the best candidate would be if you mixed most of Ron Paul's social issues and foreign policy with Bernie Sanders' fiscal policy, and Obama's attitude on science. That'd be my perfect candidate. The closest we have to that is Jill Stein, though she's thinks homeopathy is real medicine which is sad.

Wait, wait?  Ron Paul is a statist and christian dominionist loon.   The one is a vehicle for the other and the whole simply repackaged as "libertarianism" to put a smiling face on the subtle knife.  

When you say most, do you just mean "legalize it"?  

You don't know much about Ron Paul, then. He basically wants to get the federal government out of everything. He wants to end the fed reserve, legalize drugs, get government out of marriage, and stop interfering with other countries. Ron Paul is the opposite of a statist. I don't think that is a good idea considering that gives businesses the freedom to discriminate against people, but yeah.

(July 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 26, 2016 at 6:43 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Whatever a traditional American might be, I find it tends to be a self-serving description. I'm sure the Know-Nothings considered themselves traditional Americans par excellence, though I question their 'good manners' when it came to kindness and hospitality to immigrants (Trump is nothing if not a throwback to these people). Perhaps you meant the good manners traditional Americans displayed when they were enslaving others, wiping out the native tribes, and stealing much of Mexico at bayonet point. Wait! No, you must mean the good manners -- not to mention the rugged individualism -- of the robber barons who made vast fortunes by gaming the political system for their own benefit.

No.  I mean the ones who I described in my post.

 

Quote:And it's your party that attempts to pass legislation at the states levels designed to suppress minority turnout at elections. Are you ok with that? Is that also part of your traditional American display of 'good manners' and respect for democracy and law?

If you're talking about voter ID laws, what you're saying is not true.  These laws are to help ensure that only people registered to vote actually do vote and that they only vote once each election.  I guess that requiring people to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle was designed to suppress minority drivers.  Gee, I had to show my ID to use my credit card recently!  When I applied for my passport I had to show appropriate documentation.  Should we allow low income people to get a passport without proper documentation?  The lack of democracy and respect for the law is a trait of the people who perpetrate voter fraud.

Quote:As for elitism, all I can say is that you seem to have a shaky grasp of the Founders' generation and their views on democracy and the salt of the earth common man. These days, when I hear people rail against 'the elites', it seems like little more than class resentment. "Elite" only becomes a dirty word when "ism" is attached to it. The thing is, the true elites -- i.e., people of real achievement and expertise and not merely those with wealth and the most toys or purchased political influence -- aren't the ones who apply the suffix. It's the people who resent them, and those who hope to gain by stoking that resentment, who do.

We have elites in the government who seem to be above the law.  They remind me of royalty.

You basically mean people that lived the way they did in the 40's and 50's, all racist and homophobic, while forcing their woman to make a sammich for 'em. Yeah, "traditional 'Murican."

Oh, so registration doesn't suppress things now? GREAT! So we can require you to register your gun. That's not suppressing anything now, by your own admission.

To conservatives, an elitist is merely someone who reads.

(July 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: You don't know much about Ron Paul, then.

....well.....

Quote:He basically wants to get the federal government out of everything.

Yeah...to give more power to the states, which they will then use to do all the things the fed prevents them from doing.   The man doesn't believe that separation of church and state is a thing...and appointed his dominionist buddy Gary North as director for home school curriculum development.  How does this curriculum describe itself? It will “teach the Biblical principle of self-government and personal responsibility, which is also the foundation for a free market economy."

...probably just a coincidence.

Quote:He wants to end the fed reserve, legalize drugs, get government out of marriage, and stop interfering with other countries.

b-mine

-Because then they wouldn't have to give marriage licenses to gays......., and because he's a statist..and pursuant to the above, states could discriminate against them (or anyone else...for anything really) freely..in accordance with the will of the people and all that, if it weren't for the pesky fed. What's Roe v Wade but another abuse of federal power anyway...while we're on the subject?

...probably just a coincidence.

Quote:Ron Paul is the opposite of a statist. I don't think that is a good idea considering that gives businesses the freedom to discriminate against people, but yeah.

The opposite of a statist, in modern american parlance, would be a federalist...is Ron paul a federalist? OFC not. Apparently he's not a dominionist either...even though he shares their beliefs, his platform enables their policies, he appoints dominionists as fucking -educators-....and dominionists broadly support him. They're probably all wrong about the guy...and it's just a coincidence.

All he has to do to make this sort of shit fly under the radar is tell people they can smoke tax free weed out of Bunker America. Well I'll be damned...maybe I would let this place turn into a truly christian shithole, a collection of little theocratic fiefdoms -willed by the people of said state-.... if those are the terms of negotiation. No, no..wait...I wouldn't, he can go fuck himself.

I scoff at any pro-lifer who would call him/herself a Libertarian. How much more invasive can the gov't get than climbing into a woman's womb?

(July 26, 2016 at 8:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: You don't know much about Ron Paul, then.

....well.....

Quote:He basically wants to get the federal government out of everything.

Yeah...to give more power to the states, which they will then use to do all the things the fed prevents them from doing.   The man doesn't believe that separation of church and state is a thing...and appointed his dominionist buddy Gary North as director for home school curriculum development.  How does this curriculum describe itself? It will “teach the Biblical principle of self-government and personal responsibility, which is also the foundation for a free market economy."

...probably just a coincidence.

Quote:He wants to end the fed reserve, legalize drugs, get government out of marriage, and stop interfering with other countries.

b-mine

-Because then they wouldn't have to give marriage licenses to gays......., and because he's a statist..and pursuant to the above, states could discriminate against them (or anyone else...for anything really) freely..in accordance with the will of the people and all that, if it weren't for the pesky fed.  What's Roe v Wade but another abuse of federal power anyway...while we're on the subject?

...probably just a coincidence.

Quote:Ron Paul is the opposite of a statist. I don't think that is a good idea considering that gives businesses the freedom to discriminate against people, but yeah.

The opposite of a statist, in modern american parlance, would be a federalist...is Ron paul a federalist?  OFC not.  Apparently he's not a dominionist either...even though he shares their beliefs, his platform enables their policies, he appoints dominionists as fucking -educators-....and dominionists broadly support him.  They're probably all wrong about the guy...and it's just a coincidence.

All he has to do to make this sort of shit fly under the radar is tell people they can smoke tax free weed out of Bunker America.  Well I'll be damned...maybe I would let this place turn into a truly christian shithole, a collection of little theocratic fiefdoms -willed by the people of said state-.... if those are the terms of negotiation.  No, no..wait...I wouldn't, he can go fuck himself.

Yeah, giving the power to the states so that they can run themselves like their own country, so horrible. Remember, if the federal government has the ability to force states to do the things you like, it also has the ability to force the states to do the things you hate. Imagine Trump at the helm of all that federal power, and others that think like Trump in congress. Yeah, a powerful federal government isn't looking too great now, is it.

Statism means you believe in government control of everything. Ron Paul is the very opposite. He believes that everything about one's life should be in the hands of that individual. That isn't a statist in any sense of the word, nor is teaching that in school a theocratic notion. It's more of a philosophical one. So he doesn't like abortion. Ok, whatever. 

Tell me, what actual policy that he supports is truly statist or theocratic? Aside from the whole abortion issue, I can't think of any.