Ron Paul Wins Alaska and Washington State + Several State GOP Chairman Positions

[sdduuuude]

Gems, every one of them:

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

[briansd1]

Thanks harvey for the history lessons.

RP supporters tend to be young Ayn Rand types who don’t know much about history.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]The constitution gives the power to regulate commerce so I don’t see how that would not give them the power to tell people what they can and cannot buy.[/quote]

And, there you go. You think they have the right to tell people what they can and cannot buy and I don’t. Sometimes the purpose of a discussion is to get to a point where you disagree and just agree to disagree.

Personally, I believe that “regulate commerce” means to ensure that the transactions between individuals are not violating property rights or breaching contractual obligations.

[quote=harvey]The rich don’t own the poor today, certainly not like the slave labor conditions that existed in the late 19th century. In all the Ron Paul arguments I hear they always avoid discussing that time period in history as if it never happened.[/quote]

Probably because nobody on either side of Ron Paul think that is a good idea or is going to happen again.

[quote=harvey]The rich are getting richer today but I don’t see how Ron Paul’s policies would reverse that trend. In fact history teaches us that it would accelerate it.[/quote]

If these ideas have, as you say, never been tested, then how can history suggest that these ideas would accelerate this problem ?

You, and many others continue to, incorrectly, equate Ron Paul’s ideas with the idea that there should be zero recourse for corporations. Get that notion out of your head, please. It isn’t correct.

I believe that inappropriate government support of corporations would, for the most part, disappear and thus the corporations would lose a huge advantage. That’s the thing to realize.

[blahblahblah]

mm, stop worrying about the people on this site. Almost everyone over 30 is a lost cause, they will continue either blaming the other side for every problem under the sun or they will just adopt the “they’re all crooks but I’ve got my nice house in CV and my stocks are doing great so I don’t care” attitude. Most of the people on this site are at the top end in terms of intelligence and ability and haven’t been hit with the reality that 99% of the world lives in — yet. They sit and watch Jon Stewart and giggle about the world falling apart on their giant TVs and feel superior to everyone around them. If they drive an SUV they feel superior to the Prius driver, and vice versa. Most posters here live in tiny insulated bubbles of soft comfort.

Young people are seeing through the lies in greater numbers than ever. There are fewer and fewer people buying them each generation. The charade will not last much longer.

There weren’t a lot of old people at the Berlin Wall when it came down. Few over 30 left their houses, most stayed indoors as they were instructed to and watched TV to see what was happening.

[Anonymous]

I’ve learned that a lot of founding fathers quotes on the internet are often taken completely out of context, wrongly attributed, or just plain manufactured. A list of quotes is fun but not always useful without context. The list you posted doesn’t have any sources attributed so I am a bit suspect that they are all accurate. Here is a link that explains some “bogus founding father quotes”

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

One of the ones used by critics of “big government” is something he never said: “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/bad-government-results-too-much-government-quotation

Here’s another popular but false one:

http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/government-best-which-governs-least-quotation

It seems that Jefferson gets a lot of these, there are probably lists like this for other founders also:

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/spurious-quotations

I think it may be a bad idea to design our government around one line quotes, especially ones that the founders did not even say. I sometimes see these incorrect quotes on bumper stickers and I even have a lawyer friend that puts one in her signature line. It’s funny but also a little sad.

[briansd1]

[quote=markmax33][quote=harvey]for markmax:

the post office is in the constitution, so I don’t know how anyone could say it is not the business of the government, especially Ron Paul who likes to use the constitution as the basis for a lot of claims. Government didn’t take over the post office, they started it (Ben Franklin, actually.) This is another example of the Ron Paul folks not understanding history, which concerns me.[/quote]

Absolutely not true. The Constitution could be amended at any time. The problem is there is no exit plan once they get into a business. I don’t care how it was written into the law there is a way to legally change it.

Is it okay for tax payer to lose billions because it was written into law 200+ years ago? No…this is the problem with Ron Paul detractors, they disregard common sense and the rule of law.[/quote]

MM33, it sounds like you believe that we should be pragmatists and evaluate the purposes and consequences of laws, and change them if necessary. Am I correct?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO]mm, stop worrying about the people on this site. [/quote]

I’m glad that Ron Paul is energizing young voters, even if I disagree with them.

We need young people to vote in greater numbers.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]What would “regulate commerce” mean if didn’t mean control what is bought and sold?[/quote]

Speaking of bogus quotes. The clause is this:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Not between citizens.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey]so I am a bit suspect that they are all accurate.[/quote]

Me, too, but I still like them and they really aren’t too far off of the ideas Jefferson expresses in his writings. Ideas that drove the constitution.

And your commerce point is really off the mark.

[Anonymous]

[quote]Personally, I believe that “regulate commerce” means to ensure that the transactions between individuals are not violating property rights or breaching contractual obligations.[/quote]

I don’t think all commerce involves a contract. I’m not sure if it even involves property rights in every case. There are no contracts when someone goes grocery shopping. Is that not commerce?

Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The supreme court has ruled many times on this stuff and it’s silly to claim that they’ve been wrong over and over again for 200+ years.

[quote=sdduuuude]You, and many others continue to, incorrectly, equate Ron Paul’s ideas with the idea that there should be zero recourse for corporations. Get that notion out of your head, please. It isn’t correct.[/quote]

That’s where the 19th century history comes into play. We had recourse back then too. There were tort laws there was no law preventing people from suing corporations for damages. It just didn’t work because the corporations had all the power. Even if you could sue and win, how much money is going to give “recourse” for a dead family member?

The difference between then and now is regulation, *not* recourse or private property rights. There has always been recourse and property rights, it is the regulation that ended the horrible conditions of that time. And now Ron Paul wants to eliminate the one thing that differentiates how things were then vs. now. Yes, many people equate his ideas with the 19th century because what he promotes sounds exactly like the situation we had in the 19th century and I’ve never heard anyone give a single reason why it would be different (except property rights, which isn’t any different!)

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude]”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Not between citizens.[/quote]

Are you saying that “among the several States” only means between when the states themselves, like if California buys something from Arizona?

I’ve never heard anyone claim that the commerce clause of the constitution did not apply to people.

This is another Ron Paul phenomenon though that I don’t think is productive. These nitty-gritty semantic debates about the text of the constitution always come up. And it seems that the hundreds of supreme court decisions in our history are always just ignored or brushed aside as irrelevant.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=harvey][quote=sdduuuude]”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Not between citizens.[/quote]

Are you saying that “among the several States” only means between when the states themselves, like if California buys something from Arizona?

I’ve never heard anyone claim that the commerce clause of the constitution did not apply to people.

This is another Ron Paul phenomenon though that I don’t think is productive. These semantic debates about the text of the constitution always come up. And it seems that the hundreds of supreme court decisions in our history are always just ignored or brushed aside as irrelevant.[/quote]

For all your talk of history lessons, you should have gotten this right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[Anonymous]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=harvey][quote=sdduuuude]”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Not between citizens.[/quote]

Are you saying that “among the several States” only means between when the states themselves, like if California buys something from Arizona?

I’ve never heard anyone claim that the commerce clause of the constitution did not apply to people.

This is another Ron Paul phenomenon though that I don’t think is productive. These semantic debates about the text of the constitution always come up. And it seems that the hundreds of supreme court decisions in our history are always just ignored or brushed aside as irrelevant.[/quote]

For all your talk of history lessons, you should have gotten this right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause%5B/quote%5D

I did not read the link but I’m going to assert that the commerce clause does in fact apply to citizens and not just business between state governments. In fact claiming otherwise really doesn’t make any sense and would mean that just about every federal law involving business for the past 200 years is invalid. If you believe that then I don’t see much reason for us to discuss much more as that’s just a little too far out there for me.

And if you are just going to respond with generic Wikipedia links, then I’m out.

[sdduuuude]

harvey – Agree that we end it here.

Again, this quote says it all for me:

[quote=harvey] … so I don’t see how that would not give them the power to tell people what they can and cannot buy.[/quote]

That isn’t one I made up or misattributed. You said it.

If that’s what you believe, I understand 100% how you are not in a position to support Ron Paul.

[Anonymous]

I’m not denying a I said the quote above. I do believe that the constitution unambiguously gives the federal government the power tell people what they can and cannot buy. There is freedom of speech and religion, etc. but there is no freedom to “buy and sell anything you want” guaranteed by the constitution. And I’m totally ok with that because I think it does far more good than harm.

I’m pretty sure most Americans would agree with me on this one and that is why Ron Paul’s popularity will always be limited.

Anyway, I’ve spent a little too much time on this! Thanks for the chat.

Take care

[Author]

Posts