new thread
...and does he relate to Mr Brown in any way and should be care!
John.B
He's the only truly anti-war candidate. The only one that will end the nightmare in Iraq and prevent an attack on Iran.
some info
Fine but is he prelivant to conversations about longhair here lol!
John.B
Qualities about Ron Paul that would make him a Perfect President.
1. Strict Adherence to the Constitution. If you don't like something that is in the Constitution, you should draft a new Amendment, not ignore it.
2. No undeclared wars. You know wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.
3. Has never voted for raising taxes, I am sure many Americans want their taxes lowered, and not just for the rich.
4. He is however anti abortion and if that is his only flaw, I am willing to look past it.
5. States Rights, not Federal rights.
If and when he gets the Nomination, he would wipe the floor with any Democrat. Hillary and Obama = More war.
Except that the Libertarians have never figured out to win
an election and get people to vote for them.
And Gene Burns will be the first to admit that.
(Ran for president as the liberarian candidate years ago.)
I don't know much about him. However, in online polls he is ahead of all the other Republicans, but in RL polls he is trailing at the rear. I also see that Obama is leading Hilary online, whereas RL polls are reversed. I think I would sooner the RL nominees were Barry Obama and Ron Paul rather than Hilary and Rudi Giuliani.
The RL polls are mostly rigged by organizations like fox who make their money by preselecting the canidiates for us. Internet Polls show Ron Paul leading though.
Remember it's very early in the process. In 2004 at this stage in the campaign Howard Dean looked like the shoe in for the democrats. The November 2008 is light years away.
The big mo will start in Iowa, progress to New Hampshire,
etc.
By the middle of February all will be settled in each party.
Friends,
There is little relationship between Ron Paul's views and Mr. Brown of GB. Two different worlds. But note that I did not srart this OT thread, but I do continue it.
If he were a Republican, he might be the sanest Republican from Texas, or anywhere else. However he runs as a Republican, but is in fact a Libertarian, a view that the Republican party espouses in principle but never in practice. It simply means minimal government, and minimal governmental intrusion into personal matters.
If he were a consistent libertarian, however, he would say that abortion is a matter among a woman, her partner, her family, and her source of values, and the state should keep out of it, but this is the problem with libertarians -- they are not consistent.
Libertarians pose an important philosophical issue about government. Should the city be responsible for maintaining the street in front of my house, or should each of use be responsible for personal repair of potholes. We democrats, think it is more efficient to pay tax, so that the city can repair all of the street at once, and save us as individuals from personal negotiations with pavers, or putting up with the one guy who decided that the street in fron of his house could continue to be full of pot holes.
Or, should the city maintain a standard for sewer removal, or should individual homes be permitted to flush their toilets onto the personal property, even if the run off spilled over into your yard.
The libertarian position suggests at its best that government should not be involved inside your home, in your bedroom, in your love life, or on your head, but proponents of this view are inconsistent when it comes to the issues of when neighbor meets neighbor.
As far as I am concerned, I like Ron Pauls thinking. I would like him to be the Republican Nominee, for his views demand some clarity. But given the failure of rationality among Republican leadership, his nomination has slim chance.
I doubt that Ron Paul has a position on hair, and if pushed I would be curious to know what it is.
I am pleased not to have to deal with this issue, for I am a Democrat, and I am confident that every democrat candidate would say that hair length is a civil rights issue which should be determined only by the individual, or if a minor, by their parents, and if voluntarily attending a private school, by the school policy, but I am confident that in regard to hair that all the democrats would make a LIBERTAIRAN point of view regarding hair in public schools, as long as hair rules were not different between men and women, for our hair does not flow into the neighbors yard, etc.
Caledonian
Caledonian
The traditional libertarian view would be that you can grow your hair as long as you would like, and your employer can hire who he wants. This was their approach when it came to racial discrimination as well as longhair discrimination and all other kinds. The problem with that was, of course, that loss to society as a whole was great when segments of the population were unable to function at their greatest potential because of the roadblock effect of ubiquitous discrimination for petty reasons that mostly survived due to the momentum of tradition.
As transportation and communication have improved, we've learned the world is a much more diverse place and that much of it is now on our doorstep. Civil rights have generally moved forward with each generation as we've realized the scary people who were different from "us" were really harmless. Where this has not happened is with drug use and abortion. These acts while giving freedom can also be harmful to others, and public opinion on them has shifted little.
Since having long hair is really harmless, we can expect over time for longhair discrimination to decrease.
That's my take on it all....
Bill
Trying very hard not to choose sides on this potentially inflammatory topic....
This argument works only if you don't consider the fetus to be a member of the family. If the fetus is a member of the family, surely (s)he deserves a voice, too. Here, the Bill of Rights has something to say when it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The very first one mentioned is "Life".
Of course, if you believe an unborn baby is just an unviable tissue mass, then it's a reasonable argument.
Another way to look at it is that a person has certain freedoms, which he should be free to excercise until they infringe on the freedoms of others. Abortion certainly infringes upon the freedoms of the fetus. I think the difference in opinion is whether these freedoms exist or not.
But when it comes to abortion I like the way Barney Frank phrased
it. "Republicans believe that life begins at conception and
ends at birth."
As a former Libertarian i'd point Libertarians agree that
the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, that government
should be small, and just about nothing else.
Those are probably the only thing on the planet they agree on.
Everything else there is sharp disagreement.
I came to the conclusion years ago the libertarians will never
get elected. So i'm no longer in the libertarian party.