Rick Reuben wrote:Paul favors tax credits to give parents choices of private schools or home schooling.

Wonderful. The future of America under Ron Paul: creationists and preppies. Everyone else has to work when they turn ten years old, without a minimum wage or decent health care or working standards. Can't wait.

But at least that pesky currency reform issue will have been attacked.

NerblyBear wrote:Oh, I also forgot to ask:

Even given the president's relative lack of power over certain aspects of governance, what I would foresee were someone like Paul to become president is a rapid and disheartening spread of his ideologies over big media outlets like talk radio, Fox News and the like. After all, he loves big business. These right-wing outlets would be tailor made for the spreading of Paul's anti-immigrant, racist ideologies.

What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul? If you've noticed, the news agenda isn't exactly Libertarian Central.

And what exactly is Pauls' racist ideology?

Nerbly's last column got me thinking about radio consolidation. My guess is that Paul would consider Clear Channel controlled airwaves to be the end result of "healthy competition."
Currently there are regulations that prevent this, but most Libertarians don't like that.

That they also control ticket sales, who can and can not play at venues, and even how you get your local emergency news, I disagree.

Plus, the airwaves essentially belong to the public, so preventing media monopolies is a good idea.
Certain things fall outside the scope of conventional business models, and this is one of them. Considering how we got into this war, I think *less* media consolidation and focused power is what we should strive for.

-A

Rick Reuben wrote:

NerblyBear wrote: After all, he loves big business.

More of your insane allegations, unsupported by facts- so why are Giuliani and Romney getting all the big business/ defense contractor/ banking contributions on the GOP side, and Paul's second and third leading sources for contributions are active US Army and active US Navy?

Because big business knows that Paul would hurt them by cutting taxes and therefore reducing subsidies. But that doesn't mean that, once in office, Paul won't be a good libertarian and let the robber barons plunder at will. He doesn't want them to get his tax dollars, but he's fine with letting them pollute, pay bottom dollar to the working class and escape health standards.

NerblyBear wrote:And I didn't say that the federal judges would be able to start fucking with the Constitution immediately. But given the fact that it's likely that Paul would turn the balance of the Supreme Court so that Roe is outlawed, federal judges like this Kentucky dude would be sure to follow suit. Right-wingers tend to act as herds and to not ask questions or raise protests.

You really have to read up on Paul's platform. Why in the hell would Paul work towards Roe being outlawed on a Federal level, when he's against federal control?

Rick Reuben wrote:

NerblyBear wrote: he loves big business.... anti-immigrant

Hilarious... Nerbly thinks that American big business is anti-illegal immigrants. Who do you think has bribed politicians to ignore our sieve of a border, during an alleged 'terror war'? Who do you think funded the amnesty legislation? American industries that thrive on cheap undocumented labor.

You can't follow a straightforward argument. I didn't say that *big business* was anti-immigration. I didn't say that *big business* was a Ron Paul supporter. I said that, apart from tax subsidies, Ron Paul is a libertarian and he is in favor of letting big business have its way without gvmt regulations.

Skronk wrote:You really have to read up on Paul's platform. Why in the hell would Paul work towards Roe being outlawed on a Federal level, when he's against federal control?

He thinks it's unconstitutional. It's also against his religious views. The Supreme Court exists in order to interpret the Constitution and provide binding decisions for lower courts.

You're talking as though Paul would like to get rid of the Supreme Court altogether. Maybe he would? I don't know. I fail to see how one can be a "strict constitutionalist" and also against the Supreme Court, but maybe Ron Paul can resolve this apparent paradox by showing us that he's really not a strict constitutionalist at all.

Both regulation and income taxes help corporate America because with regulation comes subsidies and with income taxes comes subsidies. It's a great irony, but the fact is that Cobb County, GA, which is right by where I live right now, is the leading recipient of government funds in the entire nation. Who helped that to happen? That putrid turd Newt Gingrich. It's a quid pro quo: in return for allowing companies to be regulated, corporations receive tax dollars, protectionism and bailouts by the government.

Republicans generally want lower taxes, it's true, but not necessarily a flat tax. If you'll remember, the Ron Paul of the '96 elections was Steve Forbes, who was also in favor of a flat tax. If I'm a CEO, I want to *personally* pay less in taxes but still receive the taxes from the rest of society. Paul is in favor of eradicating taxation altogether, or at least to a great extent. Hence, while at least a fair deal of businesses support him--after all, if they didn't he wouldn't be on the boob tube for every debate--most support the other candidates, for a number of reasons but primarily because they are in favor of the current Pentagon tax system.

Alright, enough of this. I'm off to read Paul Valery's poetry. When I come back later, I'd better have some P.I.M.P.s to throw bows with me and back me up.

NerblyBear wrote:

Skronk wrote:You really have to read up on Paul's platform. Why in the hell would Paul work towards Roe being outlawed on a Federal level, when he's against federal control?

He thinks it's unconstitutional. It's also against his religious views. The Supreme Court exists in order to interpret the Constitution and provide binding decisions for lower courts.

You're talking as though Paul would like to get rid of the Supreme Court altogether. Maybe he would? I don't know. I fail to see how one can be a "strict constitutionalist" and also against the Supreme Court, but maybe Ron Paul can resolve this apparent paradox by showing us that he's really not a strict constitutionalist at all.

Ron Paul's point is the Federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue either way, to legalize or outlaw it. They've overstepped their bounds on mountains of issues.

Personally, abortion should be legal, and kept within states legislation.

Rick Reuben wrote:You must have a gallon of cola in you. Why would you even guess that Ron Paul wants to dismantle the supreme court? Skronk never said that. WTF?

Probably passages like this one:

Ron Paul wrote:The ramifications of these assertions are very serious. They mean the Supreme Court not only can invalidate the actions of Congress or the President, but also craft de facto laws that cannot be undone by the people's elected legislators! This is wildly beyond the role of the federal judiciary as envisioned by the founders. They certainly never intended to create an unelected, lifetime-tenured, superlegislature.

Our federal courts, like the rest of our federal government, have become far too powerful. When federal judges impose their preferred policies on the American people, the ability of average citizens to influence the laws under which they must live diminishes. This is why every American should read or reread the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only when we understand the proper role of the judiciary in our federal system will we stop viewing judges as purveyors of social, political, and economic rules for our nation.

The Supreme Court can prevent the Congress and the President from acting just as they choose! Stop the presses! This is an outrage!

This is pure right-wing propaganda. You can tell it is by the catch-words he uses: the imposition of "preferred policies" (as though judges didn't strive to the utmost to follow the letter of the law); "purveyors of social, political and economic rules," as though the Court hasn't been doing that since 1870, for Christ's sake.

What an ass.