Should be noted that the caucus features same day registration and no photo ID requirement. Things that make you go "hmmmmmm."
There's no black people in Iowa, so obviously there's no blacks to disenfranchisefraud. Wait crap, I mean there's no criminals in Iowa. Tomato tomahto /GOP
So the GOP theme seems to be states' rights trump human rights?
Yep. States' Rights trump everything. They seem to forget that we tried having a very weak federal government once. It didn't work out.
In Santorum's case, things that make Dominionist Jesus cry trump states' rights. In at least one debate he said that state governments can't allow things that are immoral or something.
Basically, states have the right to do anything except legalize same-sex marriage, contraception, abortion, sodomy between consenting adults, drugs, or dancing.
So the GOP theme seems to be states' rights trump human rights?
Yep. States' Rights trump everything. They seem to forget that we tried having a very weak federal government once. It didn't work out.
In Santorum's case, things that make Dominionist Jesus cry trump states' rights. In at least one debate he said that state governments can't allow things that are immoral or something.
Basically, states have the right to do anything except legalize same-sex marriage, contraception, abortion, sodomy between consenting adults, drugs, or dancing.
Unless they think they can back door ban any of those at which point they will do it at the state level then piss and moan about how the Supreme Court oppresses Christians.
Should be noted that the caucus features same day registration and no photo ID requirement. Things that make you go "hmmmmmm."
IOKIYAR
Same day registration is the exception to the no photo ID requirement. (as in, you have to have an ID to do that).
I'm actually ok with that, but one of the MSNBC people (Maddow I think) was trying to turn this into a story. Sadly, I don't think it really worked.
Pretty sure it's just ID and not photo ID, which are two different levels of requirement. Most people can identify themselves (social security card, water bills, that kind of thing) regardless of age or race. PHOTO ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor, blacks, and the young (AKA Democrats).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
A Pizza Ranch manager in Boone, Iowa, has renamed the restaurant’s chicken salad “Santorum Salad,” after Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.
That's it. I'm done. I'm printing out 1000 copies of the first page of Google results for 'Santorum' and heading up to Iowa, where I will hand them out to reporters and stupid restaurant owners. This stuff is going to kill Jon Stewart, and then what will we do?
Should be noted that the caucus features same day registration and no photo ID requirement. Things that make you go "hmmmmmm."
IOKIYAR
Same day registration is the exception to the no photo ID requirement. (as in, you have to have an ID to do that).
I'm actually ok with that, but one of the MSNBC people (Maddow I think) was trying to turn this into a story. Sadly, I don't think it really worked.
Pretty sure it's just ID and not photo ID, which are two different levels of requirement. Most people can identify themselves (social security card, water bills, that kind of thing) regardless of age or race. PHOTO ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor, blacks, and the young (AKA Democrats).
It could be, I wasn't listening that closely. Still, since the caucus is run by the GOP it's going in my file of GOP goosery.
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union."
The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
It's only a bad thing when the federal government comes into your bedroom.
Lawndart on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union."
The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
It's only a bad thing when the federal government comes into your bedroom.
The Texas sodomy laws date back to 1836. This is explained in Ron Paul's new history textbook. The Civil Right's Act traveled back in time, and killed Sarah Conner's many great grandmother which prevented the state senator that would have made Texas a libertarian paradise from ever being born.
The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
It's one thing to be originalist or a strict constructionist as far as our constitution is involved, and another to ignore the development of constitutional law for the past two centuries.
The SCOTUS, a constitutional institution, has recognized a right to privacy arising out of the so-called "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights - and the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by that same constitutional institution to incorporate much of the Bill of Rights against the states.
I'd be curious if Ron Paul disagrees with the unanimous decision in Marbury v Madison, or would he have to accept that some of the most important parts of how our government works can only be found in between the lines of our laws?
The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
It's one thing to be originalist or a strict constructionist as far as our constitution is involved, and another to ignore the development of constitutional law for the past two centuries.
The SCOTUS, a constitutional institution, has recognized a right to privacy arising out of the so-called "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights - and the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by that same constitutional institution to incorporate much of the Bill of Rights against the states.
I'd be curious if Ron Paul disagrees with the unanimous decision in Marbury v Madison, or would he have to accept that some of the most important parts of how our government works can only be found in between the lines of our laws?
Exactly; he's not ignoring the development of constitutional law, he thinks that any development is itself invalid. And he's not alone, Thomas agrees wholeheartedly, and Scalia agrees when it suits his preconceived ideas of how things should be.
I still maintain a lot of Americans--not all of them, but a lot--don't like the idea of a Catholic sitting in the oval office, even today. The track record isn't stellar: the only Catholic finished his term, quite early, with a giant section of his head missing.
There was or is a large creepy subculture of Protestants that would block another Catholic getting that far again. Not sure what organization they were called but they were in a documentary by Pelosi's niece.
We can blame a lot of things on the Pope--the banishment of Liberation Theology, scandals, etc.,--but I think this one isn't his fault. Catholics represent almost a quarter of all Americans--and one president in the last 44! We've had a Quaker as a president, come on!
America still has a long way to go with minorities being presidents and in high ranking positions in society in general. Latin America, Germany, Britain and Australia have already elected female president counter-parts before it has.
Women in office is a whole other issue--I don't think it's helped by the fact that the American President is both Head of Government and Head of State, which is seriously a sort of "big cojones" office usually reserved for military dictatorships or colonial administrations. Even Belarus has a Prime Minister. Unfortunately, vesting that amount of power in a single individual office can have the unintended effect of really limiting what kind of otherwise entirely competent people can be elected to it (and there have been female dictators--look at Catherine II. Or Indira Ghandi.)
The religious aspect is more uinquely American (though not completely), I guess smacking of this sort of latent idea of the country being a "Protestant" one--in this giant camp of Protestants--and that a Catholic president is directly in opposition to that. I would have thought this would have vanished by the 21st century, with the rise of non-Christian faiths in America along with an awareness of faiths even more foreign than dastardly Catholicism, but apparently not.
The funniest part of it is that, as far as I've ever seen, it's entirely one-sided.
Like, the Catholics just don't seem to give a shit about protestants one way or the other.
Ahem- Hellsing....
Yes, but by this reasoning, the Catholic church is also opposed to big boobs, Nazis, and people with obscene numbers of teeth.
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
While I kind of think Ron Paul's opinion on the matter probably isn't as nuanced as he or his supporters think it is, it honestly would freak me out to have anybody near the presidency that at least doesn't believe our Bill of Rights should be incorporated against the States.
As a small example, think of a United States where no state is under any obligation to provide the following rights:
-Speech, press, assembly, establishment (no official state religion) and exercise of religion
-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, warrant requirements, protection from double jeopardy and self-incrimination
-Rights to speedy, public trials by impartial juries, and to know what you are accused of and who is accusing you of it
Here in the US, specifically, there aren't many "throwback" Catholics who live in the hills, hide from progress, and fear everyone not from their church. They USED to be just as virulently anti-protestant as the baptists were anti-methodist and the methodists were anti-presbyterian and so on. But somewhere along the way creeping secular power and the erosion of their sacred laws that let them murder gays and lynch people they could declare "ungodly" drove most religious folk into ecumenicalism. And since the "old" catholic groups tend to have been urban (irish and italian catholics) they more likely to "get the memo" that it was christian vs. secular instead of sect vs. sect now.
But the unbranching family tree of Rednecksville, Flyoverstate tends to be baptist (or the like) and tends to be the group that still engages in sectarian suspicion.
And the thing is these people make a small percentage of the population, VERY small. But they are the ones most likely to be motivated by hatred for gays or muslims or atheists. They are the group that the Republican has to win in the primary, since they're going to vote GOP, but they might not vote for YOU.
Kerry was a Catholic. No one cared because he was a democrat. The only reason I remember is because his position on stuff like abortion came up and the RCC not-so-subtly weighed in.
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
Because, as we have pointed out several times, Paul says the right things for the wrong reasons. For example, he opposes the Fed because he wants to destroy it and restore the gold standard.
While I kind of think Ron Paul's opinion on the matter probably isn't as nuanced as he or his supporters think it is, it honestly would freak me out to have anybody near the presidency that at least doesn't believe our Bill of Rights should be incorporated against the States.
As a small example, think of a United States where no state is under any obligation to provide the following rights:
-Speech, press, assembly, establishment (no official state religion) and exercise of religion
-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, warrant requirements, protection from double jeopardy and self-incrimination
-Rights to speedy, public trials by impartial juries, and to know what you are accused of and who is accusing you of it
And these are the unambiguous ones!
That's not fair, I am pretty sure he believes VERY strongly that the federal government should force all states to comply with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
This always puzzled me. Whenever I hear someone in a tv show or trial saying they refuse to incriminate themselves it just makes me think they've admitted guilt.
While I kind of think Ron Paul's opinion on the matter probably isn't as nuanced as he or his supporters think it is, it honestly would freak me out to have anybody near the presidency that at least doesn't believe our Bill of Rights should be incorporated against the States.
As a small example, think of a United States where no state is under any obligation to provide the following rights:
-Speech, press, assembly, establishment (no official state religion) and exercise of religion
-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, warrant requirements, protection from double jeopardy and self-incrimination
-Rights to speedy, public trials by impartial juries, and to know what you are accused of and who is accusing you of it
And these are the unambiguous ones!
It's not like you have to pretend. Just ask your grandparents.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.
I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.
Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.
I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.
Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.
Which Greenwald does!
Also, if you're not white.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
While I kind of think Ron Paul's opinion on the matter probably isn't as nuanced as he or his supporters think it is, it honestly would freak me out to have anybody near the presidency that at least doesn't believe our Bill of Rights should be incorporated against the States.
As a small example, think of a United States where no state is under any obligation to provide the following rights:
-Speech, press, assembly, establishment (no official state religion) and exercise of religion
-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, warrant requirements, protection from double jeopardy and self-incrimination
-Rights to speedy, public trials by impartial juries, and to know what you are accused of and who is accusing you of it
And these are the unambiguous ones!
That's not fair, I am pretty sure he believes VERY strongly that the federal government should force all states to comply with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
All too true. I skipped it for obvious reasons.
My guess, like I alluded to, is that he probably just disagrees with Griswold v Connecticut (which clearly established the right to privacy, and a 7-2 decision at that), and just took off from there without thinking too hard on what he seemed to be saying.
Eighty years ago, Greenwald's column would have been about how progressives are irrationally afraid of Benito Mussolini because he makes the trains run on time, and we're all supposed to be in favor of public transportation when a Democrat does it.
SammyF on
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.
I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.
Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.
What? No, here's his core argument, no strawman involved since this forum in particular is a giant example: "The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy."
It's funny because that's pretty much what you just did in the second paragraph.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.
I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.
Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.
Which Greenwald does!
Also, if you're not white.
You guys managed to miss the whole point of the article.
This always puzzled me. Whenever I hear someone in a tv show or trial saying they refuse to incriminate themselves it just makes me think they've admitted guilt.
Practically speaking, yes it can seem that way when you colloquially "plead the fifth" in the face of a question (although it's not a plea so the correct terminology would involve you simply invoking or exercising your right to not self-incriminate). Of course, you may be a witness in a trial and the right protects you from being forced to make the tough decision to either perjure yourself or face having statements you were obligated to make used against you later.
Legally speaking, it goes a bit farther and means that you are under no obligation to assist your prosecutor in any way, including submitting to interviews or even really speaking at all.
What? No, here's his core argument, no strawman involved since this forum in particular is a giant example: "The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy."
It's funny because that's pretty much what you just did in the second paragraph.
I just can't see giving praise to Ron Paul for any of his good positions when the base reasoning behind those good positions are awful. Its like complimenting the glass work on a house built in a swamp.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Eighty years ago, Greenwald's column would have been about how progressives are irrationally afraid of Benito Mussolini because he makes the trains run on time, and we're all supposed to be in favor of public transportation when a Democrat does it.
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.
I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.
Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.
What? No, here's his core argument, no strawman involved since this forum in particular is a giant example: "The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy."
It's funny because that's pretty much what you just did in the second paragraph.
His core argument is a laughable strawman, since pretty much every "progressive" has admitted that Paul has some valid foreign policy points. Greenwald is instead pretending that it's not "progressive" to think that the giant mountain of shitty positions Paul endorses outweigh the small number of sane ones he endorses.
What's hilarious is that Greenwald has played the exact same game with Obama and Obama supporters.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This always puzzled me. Whenever I hear someone in a tv show or trial saying they refuse to incriminate themselves it just makes me think they've admitted guilt.
Welcome to the downside of jurors not knowing the law.
You guys managed to miss the whole point of the article.
Glenn Greenwald does not support Ron Paul.
Yes, I admit to not getting that the whole point of an article praising Ron Paul for being the only major candidate to raise important and vital political points doesn't count as "supporting" Ron Paul.
I'm going to write a 5,000 word essay about how awesome cookies are, the whole point of that essay being, obviously, that I don't like cookies.
Posts
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/02/9899530-santorum-wins-support-of-tlcs-duggar-clan
There's no black people in Iowa, so obviously there's no blacks to disenfranchisefraud. Wait crap, I mean there's no criminals in Iowa. Tomato tomahto /GOP
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In Santorum's case, things that make Dominionist Jesus cry trump states' rights. In at least one debate he said that state governments can't allow things that are immoral or something.
Basically, states have the right to do anything except legalize same-sex marriage, contraception, abortion, sodomy between consenting adults, drugs, or dancing.
Same day registration is the exception to the no photo ID requirement. (as in, you have to have an ID to do that).
I'm actually ok with that, but one of the MSNBC people (Maddow I think) was trying to turn this into a story. Sadly, I don't think it really worked.
Unless they think they can back door ban any of those at which point they will do it at the state level then piss and moan about how the Supreme Court oppresses Christians.
Good?
Pretty sure it's just ID and not photo ID, which are two different levels of requirement. Most people can identify themselves (social security card, water bills, that kind of thing) regardless of age or race. PHOTO ID requirements disproportionately affect the poor, blacks, and the young (AKA Democrats).
That's it. I'm done. I'm printing out 1000 copies of the first page of Google results for 'Santorum' and heading up to Iowa, where I will hand them out to reporters and stupid restaurant owners. This stuff is going to kill Jon Stewart, and then what will we do?
It could be, I wasn't listening that closely. Still, since the caucus is run by the GOP it's going in my file of GOP goosery.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html
Ron Paul, 2012:
Ron Paul, 2003:
It's only a bad thing when the federal government comes into your bedroom.
It's really a question of how folksy the jackbooted thugs are.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
The Texas sodomy laws date back to 1836. This is explained in Ron Paul's new history textbook. The Civil Right's Act traveled back in time, and killed Sarah Conner's many great grandmother which prevented the state senator that would have made Texas a libertarian paradise from ever being born.
It's one thing to be originalist or a strict constructionist as far as our constitution is involved, and another to ignore the development of constitutional law for the past two centuries.
The SCOTUS, a constitutional institution, has recognized a right to privacy arising out of the so-called "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights - and the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by that same constitutional institution to incorporate much of the Bill of Rights against the states.
I'd be curious if Ron Paul disagrees with the unanimous decision in Marbury v Madison, or would he have to accept that some of the most important parts of how our government works can only be found in between the lines of our laws?
Exactly; he's not ignoring the development of constitutional law, he thinks that any development is itself invalid. And he's not alone, Thomas agrees wholeheartedly, and Scalia agrees when it suits his preconceived ideas of how things should be.
Yes, but by this reasoning, the Catholic church is also opposed to big boobs, Nazis, and people with obscene numbers of teeth.
It falls apart, I tell you!
Whats so idiotic about that article? He points out that in today's political climate, praising a candidate's stance on something is too often equated with endorsing the candidate. Then he goes on to tear apart the whole "well, he's not worth consideration because of x and y" - not because Ron Paul deserves a pass, but that Obama is not given the same treatment.
As a small example, think of a United States where no state is under any obligation to provide the following rights:
-Speech, press, assembly, establishment (no official state religion) and exercise of religion
-Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, warrant requirements, protection from double jeopardy and self-incrimination
-Rights to speedy, public trials by impartial juries, and to know what you are accused of and who is accusing you of it
And these are the unambiguous ones!
But the unbranching family tree of Rednecksville, Flyoverstate tends to be baptist (or the like) and tends to be the group that still engages in sectarian suspicion.
And the thing is these people make a small percentage of the population, VERY small. But they are the ones most likely to be motivated by hatred for gays or muslims or atheists. They are the group that the Republican has to win in the primary, since they're going to vote GOP, but they might not vote for YOU.
Kerry was a Catholic. No one cared because he was a democrat. The only reason I remember is because his position on stuff like abortion came up and the RCC not-so-subtly weighed in.
Because, as we have pointed out several times, Paul says the right things for the wrong reasons. For example, he opposes the Fed because he wants to destroy it and restore the gold standard.
That's not fair, I am pretty sure he believes VERY strongly that the federal government should force all states to comply with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
This always puzzled me. Whenever I hear someone in a tv show or trial saying they refuse to incriminate themselves it just makes me think they've admitted guilt.
It's not like you have to pretend. Just ask your grandparents.
The idiotic aspect of it is that Greenwald builds a giant strawman, claiming that "progressives" oppose Ron Paul not for any rational reason, but because his opposition to some aspects of American foreign policy make pro-Obama "progressives" freak out and quake in fear.
I get where Greenwald's coming from, since if you have an ultra-isolationist foreign policy stance, and ignore every single aspect of Paul's domestic policy stances other than his stance on drugs, he becomes the magical civil liberties candidate.
Except, you know, unless you have a uterus and/or enjoy fucking people with the same type of genitals as you.
Which Greenwald does!
Also, if you're not white.
All too true. I skipped it for obvious reasons.
My guess, like I alluded to, is that he probably just disagrees with Griswold v Connecticut (which clearly established the right to privacy, and a 7-2 decision at that), and just took off from there without thinking too hard on what he seemed to be saying.
What? No, here's his core argument, no strawman involved since this forum in particular is a giant example: "The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy."
It's funny because that's pretty much what you just did in the second paragraph.
You guys managed to miss the whole point of the article.
Glenn Greenwald does not support Ron Paul.
Practically speaking, yes it can seem that way when you colloquially "plead the fifth" in the face of a question (although it's not a plea so the correct terminology would involve you simply invoking or exercising your right to not self-incriminate). Of course, you may be a witness in a trial and the right protects you from being forced to make the tough decision to either perjure yourself or face having statements you were obligated to make used against you later.
Legally speaking, it goes a bit farther and means that you are under no obligation to assist your prosecutor in any way, including submitting to interviews or even really speaking at all.
I just can't see giving praise to Ron Paul for any of his good positions when the base reasoning behind those good positions are awful. Its like complimenting the glass work on a house built in a swamp.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What.
His core argument is a laughable strawman, since pretty much every "progressive" has admitted that Paul has some valid foreign policy points. Greenwald is instead pretending that it's not "progressive" to think that the giant mountain of shitty positions Paul endorses outweigh the small number of sane ones he endorses.
What's hilarious is that Greenwald has played the exact same game with Obama and Obama supporters.
Welcome to the downside of jurors not knowing the law.
Yes, I admit to not getting that the whole point of an article praising Ron Paul for being the only major candidate to raise important and vital political points doesn't count as "supporting" Ron Paul.
I'm going to write a 5,000 word essay about how awesome cookies are, the whole point of that essay being, obviously, that I don't like cookies.