Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

01-09-2012 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
Pretty amazing how Paul and Romney fumbling over their answers made frothy and his froth-filled interpretation of the constitution sound by far the smartest.
01-09-2012 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
I don't see how this relates to the Griswold right to privacy, but rather the lack of the power of government to search homes for it without a warrant. If you ban importation into that state he leaves open the possibility of banning them.

Which is a bit odd he brings it up, of course they would ban importation of them along with sale. It definitely seems like a dodge (something you and fly should be proud of, when in doubt, don't say anything that looks bad to the general public!)
01-09-2012 , 06:21 PM
lol Jesse Benton
01-09-2012 , 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
ron taking a walk mid interview, AGAIN.
Seems like a weird spot to flip out there, obviously some history that predates the video. The CNN reporter lady must have been going somewhere because what he got asked did not seem like it passed the "WE'RE OUTTA HERE" threshold.
01-09-2012 , 06:43 PM
There's a clip of her saying she's "Worried" that Ron Paul will run as a 3rd party. There's gotta be more to it.
01-09-2012 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Seems like a weird spot to flip out there, obviously some history that predates the video. The CNN reporter lady must have been going somewhere because what he got asked did not seem like it passed the "WE'RE OUTTA HERE" threshold.
Quote:
Mrs. Paul herself, attempting to campaign alongside her husband, was shoved aside by one reporter and told to 'get out of the way.'
Not surprised media could confuse her with some undecided NH voter.

Quote:
Afterward, Ms Bash could be heard apologizing to Mr. Paul’s wife. Mr. Paul then proceeded to do a previously scheduled interview with Fox News, a CNN rival.
01-09-2012 , 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Seems like a weird spot to flip out there, obviously some history that predates the video. The CNN reporter lady must have been going somewhere because what he got asked did not seem like it passed the "WE'RE OUTTA HERE" threshold.
His earlier stop at a restaurant got ruined when a literal mob of reporters swarmed him and ruined any chance of him speaking with people. So they decided their only choice was to basically cancel the stop and leave. I think she was getting to a 'you turned your back on those voters who came to see you, why don't you care about voters?' line.

I'm sure it was a mix of frustration that one of their stops got ruined by the media (which they already dislike in general), and the fact that they seem to particularly dislike CNN. Still seemed like an overreaction.
01-09-2012 , 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
I have no idea if his position is correct,
That's the going to bat part! He's totally wrong. Actually, "wrong" is charitable, that makes it seem like he picked the incorrect side of a debate.

The words he is saying in that answer just have no connection at all to the question he was asked. It's Palinesque.
01-09-2012 , 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
That's the going to bat part! He's totally wrong. Actually, "wrong" is charitable, that makes it seem like he picked the incorrect side of a debate.

The words he is saying in that answer just have no connection at all to the question he was asked. It's Palinesque.
The absolutely have some connection. Not the one you wanted, but some.

But since you are the Constitutional Law expert, go ahead and explain which parts of what he said was wrong. Challenge: Actually use the words he said.
01-09-2012 , 06:59 PM
That entire question/exchange and the way the moderator kept interjecting and following up etc etc were just flat out ******ed. Is this really the most important issue for our country? Because they were forced to spend more time talking about that than anything else.
01-09-2012 , 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
The 4th amendment does talk about searches and seizures, but that has no application to contraceptives and doesn't really have anything to do with a right to privacy. The 4th amendment is about requiring warrants?
This isn't true. Note the "Laws applied" section of the wiki you linked. If you read the opinions presented for that very case:

Quote:
The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 , as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred [381 U.S. 479, 485] in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656 , to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).
Dissenting opinion:

Quote:
The Court talks about a constitutional "right of privacy" as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the "privacy" of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth [381 U.S. 479, 509] Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but "privacy." To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given.
Quote:
One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures.
01-09-2012 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by m_reed05
That entire question/exchange and the way the moderator kept interjecting and following up etc etc were just flat out ******ed. Is this really the most important issue for our country? Because they were forced to spend more time talking about that than anything else.
It's all about creating boogeymen or "gotchas" that will force each candidate to alienate a bunch of people.

You have to learn how to speak out both sides of your mouth to keep from pissing off someone as a politician.
01-09-2012 , 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72
This isn't true. Note the "Laws applied" section of the wiki you linked. If you read the opinions presented for that very case:



Dissenting opinion:
In b4 niggardly.
01-09-2012 , 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself
ron taking a walk mid interview, AGAIN.
this is really strange to me. paul usually seems so good at coming off calm and still delivering his message. he must be so sick of this to get this upset..that being said, cnn is such a pathetic joke and that question is just absurd yet unsurprising.
01-09-2012 , 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
The absolutely have some connection. Not the one you wanted, but some.

But since you are the Constitutional Law expert, go ahead and explain which parts of what he said was wrong. Challenge: Actually use the words he said.
Hahaha, see? Going to bat for Dear Leader. "Ron Paul has to know about the Constitution, he's a Constitution guy!" The emperor having no clothes is a problem for the Imperial Guard.

I've done nothing but explain how what he said was wrong, starting from my first post, which quoted Ron Paul. You keep implying that people are twisting Paul's words, but both Max and I are going straight from the transcript. It really seems you are not reading the thread.

To briefly recap,

The 4th amendment is not what makes laws banning contraceptives unconstitutional, and it's possible Paul does understand that, because look at what he said:

Quote:
I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment.
Nothing about contraceptives, he's talking about warrants. I guess he just wanted to talk about the Patriot Act for a minute before trying to answer the question? That's the most charitable explanation.

Quote:
As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it’s not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
What part of that isn't wrong?
01-09-2012 , 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drugsarebad
Pretty amazing how Paul and Romney fumbling over their answers made frothy and his froth-filled interpretation of the constitution sound by far the smartest.
Yeah...I was actually thinking the same thing., because it seems like they basically all have the same view. States legally can restrict abortion and they should + states should not restrict birth control even if they can.
01-09-2012 , 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
when in doubt, don't say anything that looks bad to the general public!)
True...I was hoping initially that he actually changed his mind about the supreme cour't decision about Lawrence and privacy....but he was more likely trying to do what you said.
01-09-2012 , 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Hahaha, see? Going to bat for Dear Leader. "Ron Paul has to know about the Constitution, he's a Constitution guy!" The emperor having no clothes is a problem for the Imperial Guard.

I've done nothing but explain how what he said was wrong, starting from my first post, which quoted Ron Paul. You keep implying that people are twisting Paul's words, but both Max and I are going straight from the transcript. It really seems you are not reading the thread.

To briefly recap,

The 4th amendment is not what makes laws banning contraceptives unconstitutional, and it's possible Paul does understand that, because look at what he said:



Nothing about contraceptives, he's talking about warrants. I guess he just wanted to talk about the Patriot Act for a minute before trying to answer the question? That's the most charitable explanation.



What part of that isn't wrong?
But why the Supreme Court ruled it unconstituional doesn't mean Paul agrees the Constitution actually says that.

He's simply bringing up a *different* argument (if the states don't ban importation, then they can't ban the sale). Is that part false?
01-09-2012 , 07:43 PM
No break for Ron Paul following New Hampshire

Quote:
Originally Posted by yahoo
Ron Paul has confounded some political observers by taking extended breaks during some of the presidential campaign's most pivotal moments. But apparently, that habit won't continue.
Confounded at least 1 well known politics poster as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Tsao
I was pretty annoyed when I read that RP wasn't campaigning this weekend and is going home for New Years with the family. Seriously RP? You're THIS close in Iowa, and you're gonna cost me my $500 for some stupid holiday? FFFFFUUU get back to work.
01-09-2012 , 07:55 PM
meh. Paul sounded sick around the new year. And he did do 3 interviews for Sunday shows on Jan 1st. Probably did affect him a bit since there's so many dumbass voters who decide in the last few days.
01-09-2012 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72
2. He is changing his public stance on the issue.
Unlikely. But mostly quoting your post to thank you for following up on this in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
Where in the constitution does it say I have the right to vaginal sex?
Intriguingly, I believe that heterosexual sodomy was considered to be protected even when homosexual sodomy was not. It's possible that was just within the confines of marriage though, I can't recall the details so I might be wrong about this, and I think the Supreme Court mentioned this only obliquely in any case. If someone does know the answer, I'm curious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCollins
But why the Supreme Court ruled it unconstituional doesn't mean Paul agrees the Constitution actually says that.

He's simply bringing up a *different* argument (if the states don't ban importation, then they can't ban the sale). Is that part false?
It just doesn't make sense. More likely is the earlier explanation. He opposes Griswold but someone told him no to mention that. Ever.

Of interest to me is the the question of why Paul thinks the Fourth's Amendment incorporation was correctly decided. That excerpt (assuming Paul stands by it, which isn't clear--maybe he was just confused by the question) is the first indication of that fact to me. Not sure why states' rights doesn't hold true here as well.
01-09-2012 , 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sholar
Intriguingly, I believe that heterosexual sodomy was considered to be protected even when homosexual sodomy was not. It's possible that was just within the confines of marriage though, I can't recall the details so I might be wrong about this, and I think the Supreme Court mentioned this only obliquely in any case. If someone does know the answer, I'm curious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
The Supreme Court voted 6–3 to strike down the Texas law, with five of the justices holding that it violated due process guarantees, and a sixth justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, found that it violated equal protection guarantees.
So yeah, that did play a small role.
01-09-2012 , 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sholar
Intriguingly, I believe that heterosexual sodomy was considered to be protected even when homosexual sodomy was not. It's possible that was just within the confines of marriage though, I can't recall the details so I might be wrong about this, and I think the Supreme Court mentioned this only obliquely in any case. If someone does know the answer, I'm curious.
Iirc, some states had laws on the books making anal illegal altogether. Maybe married folks were exempted. Think bjs were outlawed too in some places.

      
m