The case against Dr. Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Read the rest:

I have. I only needed the first part to make my point.

Are you aware of the difference between being a citizen of a State and a citizen of The United States?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, my argument would be that the Government
punishes people who rip off uninformed people,
especially elderly ones who don't know what Bit
and Ram is all about.

So there should be some kind of consumer protection.
Do you know about Dr. Paul's stance concerning
those things?

Government is the tool of enforcement when one party injures another party.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I have. I only needed the first part to make my point.

Are you aware of the difference between being a citizen of a State and a citizen of The United States?

What does this have to do with my original point, which you claimed was wrong?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So I personally think that too much power concerning
cooperations wouldn't be a literally healthy idea - especially
concerning drugs.

That power is concentrated in few corporations because they are in partnership with government to regulate competition out of existence.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What does this have to do with my original point, which you claimed was wrong?

I did not claim your point was wrong. I encouraged you to find the true purpose of the 14th amendment.

 

[Oliver]

He is imposing his view of what constitutes a "person" using the federal government, i.e. a person begins at conception.

He is also removing certain, specific, religious constitutional issues from the court review. You don't see the problem? We would still have sodomy laws if the courts didn't have the powers that he is removing from them.

I disagree - you're drawing conclusions that had
nothing to do with sodomy whatsoever.

Fact is that the Bill itself is about the definition
of life and the legal treatment of this term.

The Bill's initial point states:

"To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."

Nothing bad about that. I would expect this point
of view from every Christian. And yes, it is an Issue
in the US beyond moral beliefs.

The Bill says that the States should have the last
word about the issue - which is completely consistent
with Ron Paul's Ideas about the Constitution and
the united STATES of America.

Plus he doesn't distinguish between race, age,
gender etc - quite surprising for a racist, isn't it?

All in all the Bill is limiting the supreme courts
power and giving this power to the state-level,
and you may remember that the Bill isn't about
sodomy or something like that.

Paul would have another stance about sodomy
since it's a different topic. To define it in another
way is pretty dishonest once you understand the
topic of the bill in question.

So what exactly is the fuss about since I read
the Bill you're complaining about?

 

[Oliver]

That power is concentrated in few corporations because they are in partnership with government to regulate competition out of existence.

And I agree - but why shouldn't a cooperation just
make up some quackery just because they know that
stupid idiots will buy every BS they believe in?

Shouldn't there be some consumer protection?

Now here in Germany we have private Media and
Government projects that analyze questionable
Products. But I have no Idea what would happen
if the Government's Health-department wouldn't
check new products and the gastronomy anymore.

But this may be a country-related thing - with
different solutions. I'm not even sure that Paul
would touch those issues unless a logic alternative.
So far he didn't sound like if this is in any way
a priority of him.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And I agree - but why shouldn't a cooperation just
make up some quackery just because they know that
stupid idiots will buy every BS they believe in?

Thats the point! If government has the power to "uphold" a false product and stifle better products than government has too much power.

Shouldn't there be some consumer protection?

The market solves this quickly, particularly in the information age in which we live.

So far he didn't sound like if this is in any way
a priority of him.

Correct. The key is monetary policy. These other issues matter not if the currency problem is not solved. Have you seen the world markets reacting to the American market recently?

 

[HereticHulk]

The harmful effects of drugs may not be known for years, possibly even decades after they hit the market. The idea that a "competitive market" would weed out unsafe drugs is idiotic beyond all belief, it's hard to be a consumer advocate when you're dead. I often wonder if what's developing as the Ron Paul cheerleeding triumvirate (Oliver, Jerome and HereticHulk) thinks before the collective it post.

The current market isn't exactly 'weeding out' unsafe drugs either.

What would be your solution?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The current market isn't exactly 'weeding out' unsafe drugs either.

What would be your solution?

I am aghast!

Reason not allow---Back to your den Reason!!!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I disagree - you're drawing conclusions that had
nothing to do with sodomy whatsoever.

Fact is that the Bill itself is about the definition
of life and the legal treatment of this term.

The Bill's initial point states:

"To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."

Nothing bad about that. I would expect this point
of view from every Christian. And yes, it is an Issue
in the US beyond moral beliefs.

The Bill says that the States should have the last
word about the issue - which is completely consistent
with Ron Paul's Ideas about the Constitution and
the united STATES of America.

Plus he doesn't distinguish between race, age,
gender etc - quite surprising for a racist, isn't it?

All in all the Bill is limiting the supreme courts
power and giving this power to the state-level,
and you may remember that the Bill isn't about
sodomy or something like that.

Paul would have another stance about sodomy
since it's a different topic. To define it in another
way is pretty dishonest once you understand the
topic of the bill in question.

So what exactly is the fuss about since I read
the Bill you're complaining about?

Did you read the other bills? That's where gay rights and freedom of religion come in.

The fuss is that he is imposing his view of what constitutes a human being using the federal government. It is very simple. He is also taking these cases involving religious establishment out of the purview of the Supreme Court. This allows the legislature to pass unconstitutional laws without a check from the judicial branch. You know that whole system of checks and balances that children learn about in school?

And read the fourteenth amendment posted in this thread. That was when we learned that the State government couldn't be trusted to run freely and violate rights.

 

[ZenFountain]

Oliver, you need an education in the American legal system and constitution to understand how Paul's H.R. 776 bill works. In a nutshell, the bill overturns Roe v. Wade by using an archaic clause in the constitution:

Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Ron Paul reads that as congress having the power to explicitly remove federal jurisdiction on federal laws. Notice in H.R. 776, Sections 3 & 4, explicit removal of jurisdiction from federal appellate and district courts. This is not a normal feature of bills, it's what you might call a Ron Paul special as he's also tried the same tactic in a bill to insulate DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) from the courts. Google "Ron Paul judicial tyranny" for more information, also note how's paranoid about gays despite clever obfuscations.

By removing jurisdiction of a law from federal courts, it effectively means that the bill can never be challenged and overturned in the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction. What it means to Joe Citizen is that they actually have less freedom. If I thought Ron Paul's bill was wrong, normally I could challenge it in a federal court, but not with his little clause on jurisdiction. It's an archaic clause and arguably not in the context of the constitution, the founding fathers never used it and the concept of judicial review was well established in their day with Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Ron Paul knows bills with this feature will never fly, nevertheless he brings his perennial captain kooky bills to the floor so he can tell his supporters what a great job he's doing in congress.

Summary: Ron Paul being stupid.

 

[Damien Evans]

Now I know why you are all so cynical about Ron Paul. Oliver keeps owning you and you can't raise any significant arguments. You have formed a little anti-Oliver cult.

Hmm, opposite day must really exist.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I did not claim your point was wrong. I encouraged you to find the true purpose of the 14th amendment.

Oh, teh TRUE purpose !

You should examine what the 14th actually did.

That implies that what I said it did was not, in fact, what it actually did, which means that I was wrong.

Now, do you have any defense for Ron Paul forcing his views on personhood and conception?

 

[ZenFountain]

The current market isn't exactly 'weeding out' unsafe drugs either.

What would be your solution?

The market and FDA do weed out unsafe drugs. Some get through and are eventually pulled, but they do get pulled and consumers can seek damages. Two high profile examples would be fen-phen and Vioxx. For every unsafe drug that does go to market there are hundreds, if not thousands that are not thanks to extensive mandated testing and clinical trials. I'd rather fight to reform the FDA from possible corruption and collusion than undo 100 years of hard fought consumer advocacy. It's as though you've never read The Jungle, I'm perpetually amazed at RP supporter's enthusiasm for all things 19th century.

 

[Corsair 115]

Judging from what Ron Paul said during the Republican debate a month or two back, he apparently believes the whole "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" nonsense.

This illustrates he's either a few cards short of a full deck, or easily buys into conspiracy foolishness.

Hmm, opposite day must really exist.

"Opposite Day, I've heard of that!"
"You have?"
"No! What is it?"

 

[Oliver]

Did you read the other bills? That's where gay rights and freedom of religion come in.

The fuss is that he is imposing his view of what constitutes a human being using the federal government. It is very simple. He is also taking these cases involving religious establishment out of the purview of the Supreme Court. This allows the legislature to pass unconstitutional laws without a check from the judicial branch. You know that whole system of checks and balances that children learn about in school?

And read the fourteenth amendment posted in this thread. That was when we learned that the State government couldn't be trusted to run freely and violate rights.

I've read the link to the homosexual fund that
doesn't make much sense from a libertarian POV
and I've read this Bill:

Family Protection Act - States as the purpose of this Act the abolition of Federal governmental policies which interfere with the freedom of the American family.

Title I: Education - Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act. Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to provide for the orderly termination of the affairs of such Department.
Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.
Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.

If you read both bills, they are in no way pushing
religious believes or any racial ideas - quite the
opposite, they're both trying to keep the federal
level and the Government in general out of those
topics -aka- "Governent shouldn't decide above
the Parents wishes - nor should there be a fund
for anyone being favored by the Government for
some reasons.

To me, all of this is exactly what I suspected from
my understanding of Paul's-, the Independents- and
the Constitutionalists POV. There is nothing racial
nor religious in those Bills being posted in this thread.

I may criticize the religious background of the
Bills concerning their morality - but both bills
don't hold any religious moral points that aren't
conform with general moral standards all across
the United States.

And it's true that Paul thinks the local State should
decide about those things since America is a pretty
huge country anyway - the constitution is meant to
support the people, meaning the local opinions,
State and Church have to be separated and everyone
should have the same opportunity and treatment,
no matter what color a skin is, how old someone
is and what his or her sex is.

I fail to see how this is inconsistent with Paul's
stance, inconsistent with a constitutional Ideology
in general or the Independent or the basic Republican
principles, even if I have to admit that I have to
look up the historical definition of US-conservatism
to fully understand the republicans basic and traditional
stances from the beginning of the independence from
England.

Concerning the fourteenth amendment: I admit that
I have to look into the historical background of it.

Paul says that the Forefathers didn't have illegal
immigrants in mind back then - and that would make
sense since they didn't have this problem back then.

But from the top of my head, I cannot determine if
it's still accurate and how it was meant initially. I
don't even know if this still matters nowadays
since the circumstances changed dramatically.

Taking the fourteenth amendment literally, I tend
to think that a child being born in America, automatically
is an American Citizen - but unfortunately, the
amendment fails to even mention illegal people, so
I cannot come to a conclusion without understanding
the forefathers Ideas about illegals or what their
Idea may have been if there were illegals at the
time.

Concerning the struggle between the States and
the federal level:

I know this is a complicated issue taking modern
and traditional circumstances into account. From
the traditional POV and the constitution, the intend
of it was to limit the Governments power and give
it to the people.

Fact is that the Power shifted towards the federal
Government which pretty much isn't in line of the
constitutions intend. So I cannot blame Paul for
sticking to the traditional Background - I could
blame him for being stubborn and for not going
"along with the modern times". So this is also
a struggle between the future and the past. And
it might get even worse - taking a country into
account which holds a lot of Ideas that are pretty
much outdated according to European Ideas about
the world.

But at least I can say that Paul holds traditional
values and sticks to it - while I don't see that the
other Candidates speak to the people - instead
speaking along with the polls.

So I assume that you're rather a candidate going into
the future and letting the traditional things behind. Which
is okay and plausible on it's own - pretty much as plausible
as the old way of sticking to traditions.

So both sides are basically right - no one is a Nut
because he choses one side.

How do you think about the generational and
traditional conflict - especially in a country that
sticks to so many traditions, especially religious
ones? Complicated, isn't it?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

snip

Sigh. Did you read the Gay Sex thread? The bills I am referring to are right there.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1369. Exclusion of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1510. Removal of jurisdiction over religious freedom-related cases

They all have to do with allowing the government to violate the establishment clause and circumvent the courts from protecting our rights on these religious issues.

 

[Oliver]

Judging from what Ron Paul said during the Republican debate a month or two back, he apparently believes the whole "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" nonsense.

This illustrates he's either a few cards short of a full deck, or easily buys into conspiracy foolishness.

"Opposite Day, I've heard of that!"
"You have?"
"No! What is it?"

Wrong - you missed his point.

His point was that there are people who favor Globalization
and those who don't. Simple as that - and factual as well.
Both Ideas exist - including the People who hold one stance
of the Isle.

Oliver, you need an education in the American legal system and constitution to understand how Paul's H.R. 776 bill works. In a nutshell, the bill overturns Roe v. Wade by using an archaic clause in the constitution:

Article 3, Section 2:

Ron Paul reads that as congress having the power to explicitly remove federal jurisdiction on federal laws. Notice in H.R. 776, Sections 3 & 4, explicit removal of jurisdiction from federal appellate and district courts. This is not a normal feature of bills, it's what you might call a Ron Paul special as he's also tried the same tactic in a bill to insulate DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) from the courts. Google "Ron Paul judicial tyranny" for more information, also note how's paranoid about gays despite clever obfuscations.

By removing jurisdiction of a law from federal courts, it effectively means that the bill can never be challenged and overturned in the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction. What it means to Joe Citizen is that they actually have less freedom. If I thought Ron Paul's bill was wrong, normally I could challenge it in a federal court, but not with his little clause on jurisdiction. It's an archaic clause and arguably not in the context of the constitution, the founding fathers never used it and the concept of judicial review was well established in their day with Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Ron Paul knows bills with this feature will never fly, nevertheless he brings his perennial captain kooky bills to the floor so he can tell his supporters what a great job he's doing in congress.

Summary: Ron Paul being stupid.

I will look into it tomorrow because I'm too tired right
now after spending the whole night about it here in
Europe.

But I will dig into it after some sleep. :">

 

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul sponsored legislation that would allow quackery to flourish unchecked by any government agency. Thus:

Ron Paul states that he doesn't even care if supplements and drugs work or are safe.

Source?

This is why homeopaths and other quacks love Ron Paul and his legislation.

Here's legislation sponsored by Ron Paul that gives free rein to quacks making any claim they want about their quackery, free from Department of Health and Human Services regulations.

Did you even read the legislation?

(E) The Secretary shall allow with reasonable and concise disclaimers not to exceed three sentences claims of the type described in subparagraph (1)(B) not authorized under this subparagraph or subparagraph (5)(D) unless the Secretary determines that--

`(i) there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim; and

`(ii) the claim is inherently misleading and incapable of being rendered nonmisleading through the addition of a disclaimer.​

Gives quacks free rein?

It's specifically targeted at homeopaths by amending this statute.

How many times does this have to be spelled out for you Richard?

At least until you (1) read the legislation, or (2) stop spreading half-truths.