He wants the feds to shoot teenage stoners? I don't know.
And yeah, he's in legal support of anti-choice, which is completely hypocritical given his opposition to the state legislating pretty much anything. If it was just a personal belief, it wouldn't matter at all.
I think it's essentially that he doesn't have any particular beef with drug laws in concept, just the federal ones.
Oh, ok, I gotcha'.
I never really thought of it that way. He so often struts his stances with a focus on the dissolution of consolidated power that I regularly fail to come away with his view on what those now independent power blocks should do with that power. Does that make sense?
I feel like abortion is almost the only issue where he's come right out and said "It should be a state issue... but I think this". Most other stuff just seems to be left vague.
Like Cauld, I work about 5 blocks from the Target Center, and I thought about going and checking out RonCon. The problem was that tickets sold out (they cost a mere $17.76) and I wouldn't have been able to get in.
I needed exercise anyway, so I rode my bike to St. Paul and was there when The Man prevented Rage Against the Machine from playing, then marched with peace protesters on the Xcel.
I kinda like Ron Paul; I'm on the middle ground that he's a lunatic, but also represents many of the ideals that Republicans used to be about. We'd have been be better off if the Republican party had evolved into Ron Paul than George W. Bush.
I'd also like to note that Jesse Ventura (whom I also like, so shove it) spoke at RonCon, and he will be speaking again at NaderCon on Thursday (they're only charging $10 to see Ralph). That Jesse. Never misses an opportunity to open his blessed mouth.
Unlike Ron Paul, Ralph Nader can choke on my cock and die, by the way.
I agree with Dracomicron's opinions with one slight addition. On his way to his cock-choking demise, Nader should stop and pick up Tucker Carlson. Then they can both die and the world wins.
I'm going to stay out of the thread after this, but I find it ironic that Ron Paul supporters are being referred to as Paultards and then a comment is made about how they say they are mistreated.
I mean I could go into the 30 or 40 circlejerk Obama threads and refer to all of you as idiots and obamatards but whatever.
Can you tell me what legislation Ron Paul wrote up and pushed through?
I'm going to stay out of the thread after this, but I find it ironic that Ron Paul supporters are being referred to as Paultards and then a comment is made about how they say they are mistreated.
I mean I could go into the 30 or 40 circlejerk Obama threads and refer to all of you as idiots and obamatards but whatever.
Can you tell me what legislation Ron Paul wrote up and pushed through?
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited September 2008
Gary Johnson isn't just a pot activist. In his ill-fated turn as New Mexico Governor, he, near the end of his first and only term, advocated for the legalization of pot. And cocaine. And heroin.
Not really a sound set of political instincts on that Gary Johnson.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
You know, I never thought of it that way. But you're right.
Fuck.
No no you have it all wrong. We pay contractors. Privateers just take what they want. I believe the technical term is either "plunder" or maybe "booty".
You know, I never thought of it that way. But you're right.
Fuck.
No no you have it all wrong. We pay contractors. Privateers just take what they want. I believe the technical term is either "plunder" or maybe "booty".
Maybe that is the way to go then! We don't even have to pay them, they pay themselves!
1) Non-Interventionism. Why do we have bases in Japan and Europe?
This complaint always bugs me. This allows us to kill off small wars before they get big. And by doing this allows countries in those areas to focus on producing goods and services rather than militaries which is also to our benefit since it gives us increased leverage in negotiations with those countries as well. If you think our protection of the oceans and borders of various countries doesn't get payed back in cheaper goods then I don't know what to say. Also, by having all those military forces under our control we have a much more responsive force than we would if we had to cooperate with other nations. Another benefit is that by using our military to do something besides guard Iowa we're ensuring that at least some of our people have actual experience with conflict opposed to none which will be vital should an actual war ever arise.
So that's everything off the top of my head.
Why is it necessary for the US to be the world's policeman? Isn't preventing or lessening the escalation of wars one of the primary jobs of the UN? I would even argue that US intervention in foreign affairs has led to the problems we are facing today. Operation Ajax led directly to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. US support of the Muhajeen in Afghanistan led to the Taliban and Al Quada. The Korean War led to an isolated and dangerous North Korea.
As to your second point, how is it truly beneficial to Americans to support the economies of other nations? The taxpayers spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually to keep military bases overseas. That's money that could be spent on health care, education and infrastructure. Of course this allows host nations to focus their economy of production, which may in turn lead to cheaper foreign goods in the US (I don't know if that's true). But, what is the true cost? Sure, goods may be cheaper, but when Americans buy them that money is not circulated in the US, since US companies are not producing the good being sold. I'm no Alan Greenspan, but I'm pretty sure that spending - production = bad economy..
One classic example of this is how Ron Paul bleats and bloviates about how important the right of privacy is (even though there is no such right according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution), but this didn't prevent him from authoring the atrocious "We The People Act", which would have denied federal courts jurisdiction over "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".
Then there's his idea that we should go back to the gold standard, which would be a great way to fight off inflation, and would also be an even greater way to completely squash economic growth and innovation.
Then there's his idea that we should go back to the gold standard, which would be a great way to fight off inflation, and would also be an even greater way to completely squash economic growth and innovation.
Seriously, I'm still waiting to hear any argument that makes a 100% commodity backed currency a good idea.
Like Cauld, I work about 5 blocks from the Target Center, and I thought about going and checking out RonCon. The problem was that tickets sold out (they cost a mere $17.76) and I wouldn't have been able to get in.
I needed exercise anyway, so I rode my bike to St. Paul and was there when The Man prevented Rage Against the Machine from playing, then marched with peace protesters on the Xcel.
I kinda like Ron Paul; I'm on the middle ground that he's a lunatic, but also represents many of the ideals that Republicans used to be about. We'd have been be better off if the Republican party had evolved into Ron Paul than George W. Bush.
I'd also like to note that Jesse Ventura (whom I also like, so shove it) spoke at RonCon, and he will be speaking again at NaderCon on Thursday (they're only charging $10 to see Ralph). That Jesse. Never misses an opportunity to open his blessed mouth.
Unlike Ron Paul, Ralph Nader can choke on my cock and die, by the way.
Wait, there's a NaderCon? Where at? I liked Jesse too.
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
Exactly. His entire political position can basically be summed up as "punt."
I'm going to stay out of the thread after this, but I find it ironic that Ron Paul supporters are being referred to as Paultards and then a comment is made about how they say they are mistreated.
I mean I could go into the 30 or 40 circlejerk Obama threads and refer to all of you as idiots and obamatards but whatever.
You know what's ironic?
The fact that Paultards will create their own Ron Paul currency with Ron Paul's face on it, launch their own Ron Paul blimps, create photoshops and paintings where Doctor Ron Paul is nursing the nation like he's the nanny or where Ron Paul is about to place 10,000 volts of electric current through a 200 year old piece of aged parchment, will literally spam the internet insisting that Ron Paul is truly the only hope for the nation and that we're all doomed if we don't vote for him -- and then they accuse Obama supporters of seeing him as a messiah figure. Because they support a man who isn't Ron Paul.
I like how apparently, if you disagree with someone, they're obviously certifiably insane.
I'll admit that some of his supporters are a bit zealous, but referring to anyone who agrees with him on anything as a Paultard just seems to be mob mentality.
I disagree with Obama on many things, and he definitely has some excessively zealous supporters, but I don't refer to people who support him as Obamatards. Both Paul and Obama have good ideas and bad ideas.
Obama supports attacking Pakistan, a sovereign nation, if Al'Qaeda is there. He also buys into the whole "Iran is evil" thing, and just happens to be a lot less retarded about it than McCain, which isn't hard.
Paul is wrong about the gold standard, but right about the federal reserve system being retarded.
I like how apparently, if you disagree with someone, they're obviously certifiably insane.
I'll admit that some of his supporters are a bit zealous, but referring to anyone who agrees with him on anything as a Paultard just seems to be mob mentality.
Yes. What would give people that idea?
Are all his supporters that bad? Hopefully not. But this is the type of "movement" that Ron Paul has inspired.
I disagree with Obama on many things, and he definitely has some excessively zealous supporters, but I don't refer to people who support him as Obamatards. Both Paul and Obama have good ideas and bad ideas.
How excessively zealous are we talking here? Did Obama supporters go out of their way to ruin the internet last fall? In what way are they equivalent?
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Perfect!
Ron Paul keeps saying that he would like to return to the ideals of the founding fathers.
But he never specifies on which ideals he's referring to.
But hey if you want to make it illegal, that's cool too.
I would swear he's come out as pro-life, and said that he doesn't believe it's ever medically necessary...?
Which, IMO, makes him every bit the doctor Bill "I've seen a vegetative state; this is something very different" Frist.
I heard an interview with him (Ron Paul) on NPR during the primary. He was clearly, explicitly, emphatically pro-life 100% abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I actually posted here on the subject at the time.
I actually kind of respect the guy for being so clear on such a controversial subject. Dude did not pussyfoot around: he is completely certain all forms of abortion should be illegal at the federal level.
I like how apparently, if you disagree with someone, they're obviously certifiably insane.
I'll admit that some of his supporters are a bit zealous, but referring to anyone who agrees with him on anything as a Paultard just seems to be mob mentality.
I disagree with Obama on many things, and he definitely has some excessively zealous supporters, but I don't refer to people who support him as Obamatards. Both Paul and Obama have good ideas and bad ideas.
Obama supports attacking Pakistan, a sovereign nation, if Al'Qaeda is there. He also buys into the whole "Iran is evil" thing, and just happens to be a lot less retarded about it than McCain, which isn't hard.
Paul is wrong about the gold standard, but right about the federal reserve system being retarded.
Wow... what a narrow spectrum of human behavior you buy into.
Here's a thought... cheering loudly at a Barak rally? Not insane.
Chasing an asinine reporter down the street? Paultarded.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I heard an interview with him (Ron Paul) on NPR during the primary. He was clearly, explicitly, emphatically pro-life 100% abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I actually posted here on the subject at the time.
I actually kind of respect the guy for being so clear on such a controversial subject. Dude did not pussyfoot around: he is completely certain all forms of abortion should be illegal at the federal level.
Really? Because if you speak to any of his pro-choice supporters, they walk away with a completely different impression of what he thinks on the matter. Strange!
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Andrew Jackson, actually.
(I was so proud I remembered that, I just had to say it)
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Andrew Jackson, actually.
(I was so proud I remembered that, I just had to say it)
Fuck. I knew it was one of the two... I just chose Adams because I remember how big a dick he was.
Yeah, and seriously, making me feel sorry for Sean Hannity is all the ammo I will ever need against Ron Paul.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Could someone kindly point out to me where Obama has stated that he supports attacking Pakistan? And also where he calls Iran evil? Because, you know, we actually have citations of Ron Paul's ridiculous policies.
But hey if you want to make it illegal, that's cool too.
I would swear he's come out as pro-life, and said that he doesn't believe it's ever medically necessary...?
Which, IMO, makes him every bit the doctor Bill "I've seen a vegetative state; this is something very different" Frist.
I heard an interview with him (Ron Paul) on NPR during the primary. He was clearly, explicitly, emphatically pro-life 100% abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I actually posted here on the subject at the time.
I actually kind of respect the guy for being so clear on such a controversial subject. Dude did not pussyfoot around: he is completely certain all forms of abortion should be illegal at the federal level.
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Andrew Jackson, actually.
(I was so proud I remembered that, I just had to say it)
Fuck. I knew it was one of the two... I just chose Adams because I remember how big a dick he was.
Yeah, and seriously, making me feel sorry for Sean Hannity is all the ammo I will ever need against Ron Paul.
I'm not the American history scholar that some of you are, but....
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Andrew Jackson, actually.
(I was so proud I remembered that, I just had to say it)
Fuck. I knew it was one of the two... I just chose Adams because I remember how big a dick he was.
Yeah, and seriously, making me feel sorry for Sean Hannity is all the ammo I will ever need against Ron Paul.
I'm not the American history scholar that some of you are, but....
To be fair, everything sounds better when it comes from KITT.
as we can clearly see from that second example.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
[paraphrase] Ron Paul Sucks and I hate Him. He's an Inconsistent Hypocrite[/paraphrase]
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
[paraphrase] Ron Paul Sucks and I hate Him. He's an Inconsistent Hypocrite[/paraphrase]
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Posts
And yeah, he's in legal support of anti-choice, which is completely hypocritical given his opposition to the state legislating pretty much anything. If it was just a personal belief, it wouldn't matter at all.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Oh, ok, I gotcha'.
I never really thought of it that way. He so often struts his stances with a focus on the dissolution of consolidated power that I regularly fail to come away with his view on what those now independent power blocks should do with that power. Does that make sense?
I feel like abortion is almost the only issue where he's come right out and said "It should be a state issue... but I think this". Most other stuff just seems to be left vague.
I needed exercise anyway, so I rode my bike to St. Paul and was there when The Man prevented Rage Against the Machine from playing, then marched with peace protesters on the Xcel.
I kinda like Ron Paul; I'm on the middle ground that he's a lunatic, but also represents many of the ideals that Republicans used to be about. We'd have been be better off if the Republican party had evolved into Ron Paul than George W. Bush.
I'd also like to note that Jesse Ventura (whom I also like, so shove it) spoke at RonCon, and he will be speaking again at NaderCon on Thursday (they're only charging $10 to see Ralph). That Jesse. Never misses an opportunity to open his blessed mouth.
Unlike Ron Paul, Ralph Nader can choke on my cock and die, by the way.
Subtle.
Didn't you hear? He didn't support Iraq, sheep!
Not really a sound set of political instincts on that Gary Johnson.
I mean, they're backed with gold, right?
No no you have it all wrong. We pay contractors. Privateers just take what they want. I believe the technical term is either "plunder" or maybe "booty".
Maybe that is the way to go then! We don't even have to pay them, they pay themselves!
Why is it necessary for the US to be the world's policeman? Isn't preventing or lessening the escalation of wars one of the primary jobs of the UN? I would even argue that US intervention in foreign affairs has led to the problems we are facing today. Operation Ajax led directly to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. US support of the Muhajeen in Afghanistan led to the Taliban and Al Quada. The Korean War led to an isolated and dangerous North Korea.
As to your second point, how is it truly beneficial to Americans to support the economies of other nations? The taxpayers spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually to keep military bases overseas. That's money that could be spent on health care, education and infrastructure. Of course this allows host nations to focus their economy of production, which may in turn lead to cheaper foreign goods in the US (I don't know if that's true). But, what is the true cost? Sure, goods may be cheaper, but when Americans buy them that money is not circulated in the US, since US companies are not producing the good being sold. I'm no Alan Greenspan, but I'm pretty sure that spending - production = bad economy..
If you ask me, some of the stupidest of the stupid ideas that Ron Paul advocates are as follows:
He doesn't believe the 14th Amendment applies the the Bill of Rights to state governments. This means that while he's in favor of limiting the power of the federal government, he's actually in favor of dramatically increasing the power of state governments to infringe upon the rights of their citizenry.
One classic example of this is how Ron Paul bleats and bloviates about how important the right of privacy is (even though there is no such right according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution), but this didn't prevent him from authoring the atrocious "We The People Act", which would have denied federal courts jurisdiction over "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".
Then there's his idea that we should go back to the gold standard, which would be a great way to fight off inflation, and would also be an even greater way to completely squash economic growth and innovation.
Seriously, I'm still waiting to hear any argument that makes a 100% commodity backed currency a good idea.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Wait, there's a NaderCon? Where at? I liked Jesse too.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
Really, Ron Paul is insane.
The chairs also have seatbelts.
Exactly. His entire political position can basically be summed up as "punt."
You know what's ironic?
The fact that Paultards will create their own Ron Paul currency with Ron Paul's face on it, launch their own Ron Paul blimps, create photoshops and paintings where Doctor Ron Paul is nursing the nation like he's the nanny or where Ron Paul is about to place 10,000 volts of electric current through a 200 year old piece of aged parchment, will literally spam the internet insisting that Ron Paul is truly the only hope for the nation and that we're all doomed if we don't vote for him -- and then they accuse Obama supporters of seeing him as a messiah figure. Because they support a man who isn't Ron Paul.
I'll admit that some of his supporters are a bit zealous, but referring to anyone who agrees with him on anything as a Paultard just seems to be mob mentality.
I disagree with Obama on many things, and he definitely has some excessively zealous supporters, but I don't refer to people who support him as Obamatards. Both Paul and Obama have good ideas and bad ideas.
Obama supports attacking Pakistan, a sovereign nation, if Al'Qaeda is there. He also buys into the whole "Iran is evil" thing, and just happens to be a lot less retarded about it than McCain, which isn't hard.
Paul is wrong about the gold standard, but right about the federal reserve system being retarded.
Yes. What would give people that idea?
Are all his supporters that bad? Hopefully not. But this is the type of "movement" that Ron Paul has inspired.
How excessively zealous are we talking here? Did Obama supporters go out of their way to ruin the internet last fall? In what way are they equivalent?
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Perfect!
Ron Paul keeps saying that he would like to return to the ideals of the founding fathers.
But he never specifies on which ideals he's referring to.
I heard an interview with him (Ron Paul) on NPR during the primary. He was clearly, explicitly, emphatically pro-life 100% abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. I actually posted here on the subject at the time.
I actually kind of respect the guy for being so clear on such a controversial subject. Dude did not pussyfoot around: he is completely certain all forms of abortion should be illegal at the federal level.
Wow... what a narrow spectrum of human behavior you buy into.
Here's a thought... cheering loudly at a Barak rally? Not insane.
Chasing an asinine reporter down the street? Paultarded.
Really? Because if you speak to any of his pro-choice supporters, they walk away with a completely different impression of what he thinks on the matter. Strange!
They were yelling expletives, throwing things, and basically re-enacting scenes from "I Am Legend" and "Dawn of the Dead."
Those fuckers actually made me feel sorry for Sean Hannity. What the hell, dudes?
Andrew Jackson, actually.
(I was so proud I remembered that, I just had to say it)
Fuck. I knew it was one of the two... I just chose Adams because I remember how big a dick he was.
Yeah, and seriously, making me feel sorry for Sean Hannity is all the ammo I will ever need against Ron Paul.
Steam | Twitter
I'm not the American history scholar that some of you are, but....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmWiC9HPCnwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9NUNWollc0
Yeah, when you make normal humans feel sorry for Sean Hannity, you're doing it wrong.
To be fair, everything sounds better when it comes from KITT.
as we can clearly see from that second example.
Can anyone with photoshop skills make it so that the constitution unintentionally bursts into flames?
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.