Originally posted by Mairuzu
^Already spotting fallacies in there. I already stated you aren't even worth the time but since you keep on keeping on I'll get back to you later. If I feel like it. stoned
fallacies or just being wrong...?
Paul might have said something different about universal rights that I have never seen, but the logic seems tight, imho
So you say keeping it at the federal level is better than the constitutional state level for issues on abortion and gay marriage? I'm saying its easier to move states than countries. If there are enough people to believe it to be universal then there should be enough people within those states to make it so, no?
Originally posted by Robtard
You don't know me though. 🙂
Enough stoned
Originally posted by Mairuzu
So you say keeping it at the federal level is better than the constitutional state level for issues on abortion and gay marriage? I'm saying its easier to move states than countries.
well, that might be relevant if I thought a federal government had the right to infringe those rights. Sure, in a hypothetical situation it might be easier to jump state lines than national ones, so long as both of those states uphold mobility rights and don't restrict travel, as they could now do.
how much of an exodus of the tax base does a state take before it says nobody can move out?
and really, that is just a deflection of the issue. So you do agree that there are states who would oppress people's rights, you are just saying "you don't like oppression, just leave". That is not a moral position I think is worth supporting.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
If there are enough people to believe it to be universal then there should be enough people within those states to make it so, no?
so you would argue that all states in America would uphold a woman's right to her own body if they were given the ability to?
like, you know the civil rights act, opposed by Paul, would have failed in a referendum. It would be cool, to you, if that had never passed because people didn't want it?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
So you say keeping it at the federal level is better than the constitutional state level for issues on abortion and gay marriage? I'm saying its easier to move states than countries. If there are enough people to believe it to be universal then there should be enough people within those states to make it so, no?Enough stoned
See...
Nah I just know when I'm wasting my time stoned
Originally posted by inimalist
why should they have more of a say than the average citizen?because they agree with you?
If you're versed in the nuances in American Politics (which you definitely are), you'd be quite aware of how important presidential candidate support from the military is. Don't forget about how huge American Patriotism is in electing the person you'd like to "have a beer with".
Originally posted by inimalist
do I respect their opinion about who should run the country? no, not really. Not more so than other special interest groups. shit man, how many of these types of "important" groups do you think support Obama? You think teachers and doctors are going to line up behind Paul? academics? scientists? like, this is essentially political dick measuring.the fact that soldiers might support him says absolutely nothing about his policy, and in fact, is a red herring designed to detract from any meaningful discussion of the matter.
"support paul"
"why"
"we are soldiers"
"oh..."
Sure, I agree with you that they should not get any special inspection than other interest groups but you should definitely consider the environment they are coming from. Obviously, major new corporations do not really like Paul. If a democrat had this much military support, the American Media would be going apesh*t with coverage over these guys. Remember the 2008 election? Remember Trrops for McCain ? Yeah, I do too. I see much more support for Paul than I did for McCain, from American Military personnel, so why the asymmetric media representation for Paul? It would definitely persuade the American voters as they watched how much their heroes support a particular person: "He's uhmerican cause my boys support him. Imma vote fer dat guy."
I see that you have had conversations quite a bit in this thread. Man...how can I address every interesting post within context? Internets suck for having any sort of conversation: we could talk this entire thread out out in 5-10 minutes (unless you are more verbose, verbally).
Originally posted by Mairuzu
YouTube video
he explicitly says it should be a state issue, to the point that he doesn't believe Roe v Wade should have ever been heard at a federal level...
what about this answers my issues above... I have made no factually incorrect statement about his position, I just don't think it is a good one
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're versed in the nuances in American Politics (which you definitely are), you'd be quite aware of how important presidential candidate support from the military is. Don't forget about how huge American Patriotism is in electing the person you'd like to "have a beer with"....
Sure, I agree with you that they should not get any special inspection than other interest groups but you should definitely consider the environment they are coming from. Obviously, major new corporations do not really like Paul. If a democrat had this much military support, the American Media would be going apesh*t with coverage over these guys. Remember the 2008 election? Remember Trrops for McCain ? Yeah, I do too. I see much more support for Paul than I did for McCain, from American Military personnel, so why the asymmetric media representation for Paul? It would definitely persuade the American voters as they watched how much their heroes support a particular person: "He's uhmerican cause my boys support him. Imma vote fer dat guy."
...
I see that you have had conversations quite a bit in this thread. Man...how can I address every interesting post within context? Internets suck for having any sort of conversation: we could talk this entire thread out out in 5-10 minutes (unless you are more verbose, verbally).
Oh, no totally, I'm not saying I don't understand it as a propaganda tool, but more, questioning the culture behind it entirely.
To me it is really no different than saying any group supports anything, its a fallacious appeal to some authority rather than an examination of the policies for their own merits.
(that being said, in terms of campaign contributions, Obama is second behind Paul in military donations)
Originally posted by inimalist
Like, among republicans, Paul polls around 10-20% nationally. To suggest that military support for Paul is a reason to vote for him is also to suggest that this group of people should be given more say than the 80-90% of the population, who might not be soldiers, who don't support him. It is a fallacy, and a dangerous one imho... It seems surprising to me that you would make an appeal to the violent arm of the government as a justification for why to vote for someone who you point to as a peace maker.surely you wouldn't claim that the majority of police officers should determine national policy on crime (re: they overwhelmingly support harsher punishment for drug laws)
I don't believe he appealed to the violent arm of the government. The American Military is far more than a group that kills people. The majority of them do more than dedicate their time on how to kill people.
And, police officers would be a better group to poll on what to do about US Crime because they are literally crime experts (not all of them, mind you, but many of them: it is what they get paid fora living to address). So, yes, you'd get a more relevant opinion on how to address crime from a tenured police officer than you would a Posh Wall-Street trader. You may be surprised to know that law enforcement personnel are consulted for crime related laws, at times.
This is not to say that they have a better vote: their opinion is literally better, however.
At the polls, their votes still count as one (depending on how corrupt you think the elections are).
However, the power of persuasion can be used by groups.
Use the military personnel to flex patriotic support for a particular candidate. Consult and get the support from local law enforcement to get some law passed having to do with crime: "8 out of 9 police officers support this bill".
Now, the use of "appeal to the violent arm of the government" is quite he strawman. Since Paul is about reining in the American Military and especially stopping much of the excessive occupation (and violence), your point runs opposite of Paul's position and the American Military's personnel's support of Paul.
Basically, this;
"Violent people support him!"
"Wait a minute...he's about reducing that very violence you speak of...and those people you are calling violent support him and his positions. What's your point?"
Originally posted by inimalistBut saying obama is second isnt really saying much when you tally the numbers.
Oh, no totally, I'm not saying I don't understand it as a propaganda tool, but more, questioning the culture behind it entirely.To me it is really no different than saying any group supports anything, its a fallacious appeal to some authority rather than an examination of the policies for their own merits.
(that being said, in terms of campaign contributions, Obama is second behind Paul in military donations)
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Troops marching on a nation's capital in support of a fringe politician is rarely a good sign.
Polling 10-20% support, consistently, is hardly fringe. His political positions are hardly fringe, as well.
Well, wait, I may be jumping the gun here. What do you mean by "fringe"?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Now that's not to say that I think Ron Paul is a populist military dictator in the making, that would be ridiculous. Just that saying soldiers support someone isn't in of itself a good argument for why that person should be given power.
👆
But this is uhmerica. Having troop support is important for getting votes. 313
Originally posted by inimalist
as amazing as it might sound, the words typed by someone thousands of miles away anonymously on the internet don't do much to ruin my day 😉ya dude, come north of the border and we can do this
A true gent. Very few people can set aside differences and agree to still share a bowl. Arguments can be serious business, but not THAT serious business.
Originally posted by inimalist
only if it is massively federalized in the way Paul wants it, and in what is largely consistent with American political history (ie, states have massive rights)Libertarianism isn't, by default, against a centralized government that determines rights for the nation. They might be against forcing a doctor to perform one if they had a moral issue, but I don't think they are against the idea of rights that are applied at a national level
As I understand it, Paul wants less centralization and stronger reserved powers. He believes (and correctly so) that the reserved powers have been slowly eroded into a less efficient system. The Federal government should protect unalienable rights, for sure. But there are also rights that the Federal Gov. should not be making laws on.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, that might be relevant if I thought a federal government had the right to infringe those rights. Sure, in a hypothetical situation it might be easier to jump state lines than national ones, so long as both of those states uphold mobility rights and don't restrict travel, as they could now do.
So your argument against allowing states to decide more on rights is the potential for future state laws that restrict mobility?
Originally posted by inimalist
how much of an exodus of the tax base does a state take before it says nobody can move out?
Again...you're using non-existing laws to arguing against the point. That makes no sense.
If a state, via elected representatives, turns their state into a "ghost town", why would you care? Eventually, they'd "clean up" their ways. If states are forced to compete more for citizens, obviously, the constituents would eventually pull their head out of their *ss and stop making anti-people laws. That's part of why Oklahomans still elect democrats despite being the reddest state in the union during the 2008 election. 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
you are just saying "you don't like oppression, just leave". That is not a moral position I think is worth supporting.
Yeah, it's not like our ancestors did just that when they didn't like something, in the US. I'm a Mormon...so my religion's history is rife with "**** it, we hate this state, this state and its people hate us...let's move." And they moved. Sure, thousands died in the move, but we hardly live in the era where thousands would die if they made a max state exodus.
But wait, there's more: remember the dust bowl in Oklahoma? Yeah, tens of thousands picked up and left Oklahoma for the western US. Sure, many died on the way there but far less died. Highway 66 is still "praised" in highschool history books, by the way.
So, yes, one can simply just pick up and go to another state if they hate the laws in their state. Depending on where you live, it's a 2-hour drive or less.
Originally posted by inimalist
so you would argue that all states in America would uphold a woman's right to her own body if they were given the ability to?
This is an argument that has beaten into the ground. The question to your question is:
"So you would argue that all states in America would uphold an unborn child's rights to life if the states allowed it?"
But to actually address your point: abortion rights are hardly seen as "unalienable" rights in the US. They are not guaranteed rights. As we progress with our technology, I think we will actually go back to a more conservative position on abortion and this supposed "liberal" movement about women's rights to their bodies will become nulled.
Originally posted by inimalist
like, you know the civil rights act, opposed by Paul, would have failed in a referendum. It would be cool, to you, if that had never passed because people didn't want it?
The Civil Rights Act is rife with problems. It is those problems that Paul opposed. If a bill has one thing wrong with it, Paul "no's
it. It either has to be all correct or struck down, according to Paul. He is disenfranchised with ear-marks or addendums being used to inappropriately or even unethically getting legislation passed by dishonest congressmen.
Originally posted by inimalist
Oh, no totally, I'm not saying I don't understand it as a propaganda tool, but more, questioning the culture behind it entirely.To me it is really no different than saying any group supports anything, its a fallacious appeal to some authority rather than an examination of the policies for their own merits.
I agree. And, yes, I suspected, you were already aware of the "importance" of "troops support".
Originally posted by inimalist
(that being said, in terms of campaign contributions, Obama is second behind Paul in military donations)
I did not know that. That's...remarkable. The Paul machine has very peculiar support from specific groups.
And it seems that only person making points in this thread, is you. Mairuzu is admittedly tired of the debate and the others are making small "already heard" one-lines here and there.