[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/1347/ron-pauls-newsletters-bite-his-backside

will this stuff be an issue at election?

not sure…[/quote]

Probably not, but only because (and my apologies here to markmax) Ron Paul isn’t an issue. But one of the comments just cracked me up.

I don’t want someone in the White House who is ‘better than Ron Paul’. Fact is, apart from John Edwards, the candidates are either corrupt puppets in bed with lobbyists, candidates with no real imagination who steal sound bites from other candidates and quote Lincoln too much or….like most of today’s rock groups….lack real talent that comes from hard work…..just nice faces to appeal to the youth….someone higher up will feed them the lines eventually.

snip

Ron Paul and John Edwards are the only ones I hear that actually want to change the GOVERNMENT rather than just want to be the new Big Wig Puppet of an already corrupted government.

Ron Paul and John Edwards. Nuff said.

(confession here, I would have voted for John Edwards. I thought, and still think, he had an important message. And while I don’t think the personal sexcapades of elected office holders is all that important, it was, or at least could have been for John Edwards, had he been nominated and then forced to effectively withdraw from the race. He’s a disgraceful man, for a whole lot of reasons.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
NO! Ron Paul’s belief is that it is not the jurisdiction of the Federal Government for which he is running for President. States have their own constitutions. The point of the federal GOV’s constitution was to limit the power of the Federal GOV. The federal GOV is SO FAR past what was written in the constitution, such as the patriot act, etc it is a big enough problem for him to deal with on that level solely. The founding fathers saw the failed English empire, roman empire, etc and that’s why they wrote it that way! Why do you disregard the set of lessons learned so easily and question them?[/quote]

Sorry there, it was a trick question.

I think you exaggerate a bit when you say the point of the constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. It was to codify them. And then the bill of rights, particularly the 9th and 10th amendments elaborated on those powers not codified.

I’m quite sure that Ron Paul does not believe that the 4th amendment doesn’t apply to the states. He believes that it doesn’t apply to women’s uteruses, and therefore the states are free (and in his view, encouraged) to legally violate the 4th amendment. Libertarian principles only apply to the office he’s running for.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1] He’s not just a regular lawyer but a constitutional scholar.

[/quote]

I’d be kinda inclinded to drop that argument. He was a guest lecturer. (And yes, at the school he lectured at, guest lecturers were considered professors, I’m not arguing against him using “professor” on his resume.)

It’s more an issue of what it takes to have that kind of job. My neice went to Boalt Hall at Berkeley. Graduated right in the middle of her class. She’s a bright woman. Practiced family law for a few years. Had a baby. Before she was ready to go back to work full time, she took a job as a family law lecturer at UCLA. She wasn’t a family law scholar. She worked for a firm that did divorces for three years. That was her experience. She didn’t write any deep intellectual analysis of family law. I’m sure it looks good on her resume for when she wants to get back to practicing law full time, but that little part time job doesn’t make her the go-to person on family law. It makes her someone that needed some part-time work for extra money. I’ve seen no evidence that Obama’s stint as a college lecturer/professor is any different.

I know Berkeley is not Harvard. And UCLA might not be U of Chicago. But they’re not far off.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
You seem to be questioning the whole point of the constitution. It was to protect our liberties because if you don’t the GOV takes liberties away that you may think shouldn’t be taken away. It was intended to protect the people from the GOV. Yes, people will commit crimes and be brought to justice in a court of law, but the intent was not for the Department of Homeland Security to be taking naked pictures of you at the airport, random stops on the roads for no reasons, etc.[/quote]

Not questioning the point of the constitution at all. Only questioning your assertion that interpretation is easy.

[quote=markmax33]
Yes your hard drive is your personal data, yes the information on the wires to ISP is owned by the ISP, yes your ISP servers are owned by the ISP, yes the illegal information you accessing in Holland is owned by their companies. The US has no jurisdiction over any of that without a warrant and shouldn’t be snooping.[/quote]

My question was whether the security against unreasonable search and seizure extends to your property held by another. If the ISP, or google or yahoo turn over info voluntarily, without a warrant, have your rights been violated?

[quote=markmax33]
The uterus question is odd. The GOV has no jurisdiction over that either. Ron Paul does not support federal jurisdiction over that either. It is a states issue as he has explained numerous times. [/quote]

So it’s your contention that Ron Paul believes the states have the right to invade the privacy of a woman’s uterus, irrespective of the guarantees provided in the 4th amendment? Does that extend to the rest of the 4th amendment? State and local police are not bound by the unreasonable search and siezure clause? Really?

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I’ve donated over $600 this year as well. Heck it’s tax deductible so it’s only like $300 after all the taxes we pay.[/quote]

No, it’s not tax deductible. And there is no 50% tax bracket anyway. Are taxes constitutional?

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Ask a question and I will show you the constitution works. You can’t just randomly say the constitution is outdated when the topics in it apply universally without the influence of technology. The technology argument is not applicable.[/quote]

I got another one for you. The 4th amendment is written in the context of the 18th century. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”. Is the hard drive sitting in your laptop computer inside your house an “effect”? (or a paper). How about the email or chat logs you sent or recieved through the yahoo or aol or gmail server where it still resides? How about your daily backups through mozy or some other backup service? And if you have one, how about your uterus?

Please be careful how you answer. There are dangerous people out there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=hslinger]It’s for bankruptcies

“The head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees the mortgage-financing companies, met with 19 Democrats and discussed a proposal that would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce principal amounts on loans.”

House R’s wont go for this anyway.[/quote]

hslinger, in effect, this is giving BK judges the power of “cramdown,” something they have never had.[/quote]

Not true. They did have it. Unquestionably before the late 70s. And after changes to the bankruptcy laws at that time (I’m pretty sure it was during the Carter administration) most bankruptcy courts continued with chapter 13 cramdowns. A supreme court case involving American Savings in the early 90’s ended cramdowns on principle residences. They’re still allowed for investment property.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33
Well then welcome to being a Ron Paul supporter, he’s the only one that will address it.[/quote]

Not quite. There have been a handful of Democrats and one Socialist in congress that have been on it for many years.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Unequal redistribution of wealth = The GOV and federal reserve bailout the big banks and the big bank CEOs make millions of dollars in bonuses while millions of Americans are losing their jobs and losing their homes. This is horrible and should concern all Americans.[/quote]

Ok, I didn’t understand, now I do. The source of my confusion is that “redistribution of wealth” has been a catch phrase used by critics of Obama administration and attempts to increase taxes on upper income taxpayers. It’s often been assailed as socialism.

You’re talking about something at the opposite end of the spectrum. And despite the somewhat awkward wording, it’s something we entirely agree on.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
NO! Boom and bust cycles are required in a free market. The huge green you see is the federal reserve’s $14.8T of debt and the unequal redistribution of wealth. Our redline will be much larger than anything previously seen and will trump the rest of history.[/quote]

I think you’re confusing federal debt (which is about $14 trillion) and federal reserve debt, which was less than $2.5 trillion at the beginning of the year.

And please explain the “unequal redistribution of wealth”. Do you really mean unequal? Which would mean the redistribution isn’t the same for everyone. Which would make the word unequal unnecessary because redistribution would mean the same thing. Or do you mean unequalled, as in it’s never happened before? Because historically it has happened before. We’ve had much higher taxes than we have currently.

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]4th am. No unreasonable searches or seizures.

Well that’s clear? No interpretation needed?

What did the founding fathers mean by unreasonable searches in the context of sayan Internet search on your home computer to some server in Finland for child porn of Asian kids?

Do you think they really had an opinion?

Is Rand even a real name?[/quote]

I’m pretty sure the Constitution didn’t give Al Gore the authority to invent the internets.

/me shakes fists at the clouds.

[SK in CV]

[quote=eavesdropper]
However, my teenage daughter is supposed to do her own laundry. Her lack of interest combined with complete laundry-related illiteracy poses a potentially serious threat to our equipment during the 4 times a year she actually breaks down and does her laundry. Like when she tries to stuff 30 pairs of heavy jeans into the washing machine with 3 cups (not “capfuls”) of detergent, and “forgets” to change the water-level from medium to extra-large. Fun for all!![/quote]

I just quoted that paragraph because I thought it was funny in a been there, done that sort of way. (and it wasn’t me trying to stuff the 30 pair of jeans into the washing machine. I’m a guy. I own 2 pair of wearable jeans at any one time.)

But on the bigger question. Seriously. $1,700? For that kinda money it really ought to do something better than just blow hot air. Even if it only does it like…i dunno, once a week. If it did, I might have to check which height is better.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]I’ve seen a few Ron Paul interviews and I think in every one of them he answers several questions with “The Constitution says…”

He seems pretty sure of what it says and what it means.

It’s almost as if he’s suggesting that every Supreme Court justice never actually read it or just totally missed the point.

Where does it say these Supreme Court guys get to be the last word on the Constitution anyway?[/quote]

Marbury v. Madison would be a good place to start.

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]I think Ron Paul opposes the civil rights act as beyond constitutional authority. He’s got a super narrow view of what’s constitutionally kosher, certainly not a view the us supreme ct follows.

IMO , constitutionalists and originalists are not really rooted in the reality of life.[/quote]

In fairness, I think that was his son, Rand Paul. Maybe Ron too, but the big news about it was Jr.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]I’m pretty sure that 100% divided by 3 = 33%. That is pretty simple for ya![/quote]

That’s good math. But it still doesn’t win an election, doesn’t get you to 270.

[Author]

Posts