• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The case against Dr. Paul

Looks like "we, the people" have told Ron Paul to take a hike. Does he have the sense to drop out of the race, or will he stick around for entertainment value?
 
Richard Masters said:
The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. The SPP outlines a comprehensive agenda for cooperation among our three countries while respecting the sovereignty and unique cultural heritage of each nation. The SPP provides a vehicle by which the United States, Canada, and Mexico can identify and resolve unnecessary obstacles to trade and it provides a means to improve our response to emergencies and increase security, thus benefiting and protecting Americans.​

You seem to assume I think it is something else.
Click to expand...

I bolded the relevant sections.
 
dash said:
Thought #1:
I would recommend people here study the works, debates and videos of Noam Chomsky. There is a man who could crush every one of you dust-mites. An enormous amount of his material you would almost certainly label as "woo". He's a very, very intelligent and wise man. You people aren't intelligent, nor are you wise. One day you might acquire intelligence or wisdom. I hope you will
Click to expand...

Oh god, a Chomskyite. I'll pass on reading the maniacal and incomprehensible ravings of an anti-Semitic, anti-American windbag. That man makes me admire Christopher Hitchens.
 
Richard Masters said:
There is always more reading to do. My ignorance on this issue precludes me from taking a firm stand. In the meantime, skepticism should be my standard position.
Click to expand...
No, sometimes issues are settled. Sometimes answers are known. Sometimes the facts are in.

It's one thing to be skeptical when there is opposing information or some measure of missing information, it's another to claim uncertainty when there is no legitimate uncertainty.

In the words of a saying I heard said once, it's good to have an open mind but not so open that it allows your brain to fall out.

Richard Masters said:
The SPP has similar intentions to those ascribed to the hypothetical NAU.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. At least, not as NAU is commonly interpreted.

It amuses me no end to hear some Americans complaining about the supposed NAU and the imminent demise of their sovereignty. The U.S. has no idea of what it's like to be a small neigbour to a military, economic, and political titan. It has no idea of what it's like to be right beside a cultural juggernaut. Canada does though. We've experienced that for quite a few decades now. We're the ones who have a legitimate worry about an erosion of sovereignty thanks to being next door to a powerhouse.

But the United States having that worry? Don't be silly.
 
Corsair 115 said:
No, it doesn't. At least, not as NAU is commonly interpreted.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but you miss the beauty of Richards coment. He said they had similar intention (creating prosperity through coorperation), not that they actually are similar. Thus he can imply that they're similar, without saying anything that's technically untrue. A masterfull piece of contentless rethoric.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Oh god, a Chomskyite. I'll pass on reading the maniacal and incomprehensible ravings of an anti-Semitic, anti-American windbag. That man makes me admire Christopher Hitchens.
Click to expand...

Hey ,Chomsky is a brilliant linguists,but pollitically he is an unreconstructed Marxist who is still an apologist for the incredibly brutal Pol Pot regime,and is as good an example of the Phenenmenon of "Jewish Anti Semitism" as I have seen.
 
WildCat said:
Looks like "we, the people" have told Ron Paul to take a hike. Does he have the sense to drop out of the race, or will he stick around for entertainment value?
Click to expand...

I think he will hang on to the bitter end,in hopes of getting some television time at the GOP Convention.
I am looking forward to the antics of his followers at the Convention,though.
Should be real comedy gold.
 
Corsair 115 said:
It amuses me no end to hear some Americans complaining about the supposed NAU and the imminent demise of their sovereignty.

In tangential matters, Canadians are actually Americans. [/end tangent]

The U.S. has no idea of what it's like to be a small neigbour to a military, economic, and political titan.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It has no idea of what it's like to be right beside a cultural juggernaut. Canada does though. We've experienced that for quite a few decades now. We're the ones who have a legitimate worry about an erosion of sovereignty thanks to being next door to a powerhouse.
Click to expand...

I agree more.

But the United States having that worry? Don't be silly.
Click to expand...

The only thing that bothers me about the SPP (not the hypothetical NAU) is the involvement by Homeland Security and its possible expansion.
Click to expand...
 
Kerberos said:
Ahh, but you miss the beauty of Richards coment. He said they had similar intention (creating prosperity through coorperation), not that they actually are similar. Thus he can imply that they're similar, without saying anything that's technically untrue. A masterfull piece of contentless rethoric.
Click to expand...

Good analysis. My comment was sexy.
 
Tokorona said:
The SPP is a security partnership. It sorta makes sense that Homeland Security is involved.
Click to expand...

Trade and Security!

You do know that the individual States of the United States were considered sovereign?

When they agreed to common trade and security they were still sovereign.

They are not in practice sovereign today.

Do not think that all things happen instantly.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Trade and Security!

You do know that the individual States of the United States were considered sovereign?

When they agreed to common trade and security they were still sovereign.

They are not in practice sovereign today.

Do not think that all things happen instantly.
Click to expand...
Uh, dude, the Articles of Confederation were made moot when the Constitution was ratified...
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Where does the Constitution delineate that the States are no longer sovereign?
Click to expand...

Well, the Constitution itself.

States have limited sovereignty, as per the powers given to the Federal government in the Constitution.

Article VI, especially, comes into play here.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Where does the Constitution delineate that the States are no longer sovereign?
Click to expand...
In the preamble where it declares a new country is made called the "United States of America".

You may have heard of it. Here's an educational video for the uninformed:


Prior to that the states were sovereign, didn't work out very well.
 
TriskettheKid said:
Well, the Constitution itself.

States have limited sovereignty, as per the powers given to the Federal government in the Constitution.

Article VI, especially, comes into play here.
Click to expand...


Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 
Article VI, Clause 2.

That pretty much keeps states from being completely sovereign.

Again, they do have limited sovereignty. Some people call this "clipped sovereignty," if I'm not mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom