Comments on: The Issues According to Paul’s Website http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/ Blog Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:00:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jake Hogan http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/comment-page-1/#comment-17370 Jake Hogan Sun, 01 Mar 2009 10:53:09 +0000 http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=73#comment-17370 My guess is too much could be past college degree. Some education is great though but it greatly depends on your professors. Some honestly want you to learn the real truth. Others just cram stupid info into your head. My guess is too much could be past college degree. Some education is great though but it greatly depends on your professors. Some honestly want you to learn the real truth. Others just cram stupid info into your head.

]]> By: Scott http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/comment-page-1/#comment-8483 Scott Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:20:50 +0000 http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=73#comment-8483 "Too much home schooling would result in America falling further behind other nations in our education level." What is "too much"? “Too much home schooling would result in America falling further behind other nations in our education level.”

What is “too much”?

]]> By: sidfaiwu http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/comment-page-1/#comment-210 sidfaiwu Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:23:40 +0000 http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=73#comment-210 I'm glad you find him as wacky as I do, Santini. I think you are correct, he practices buffet-style libertarianism; he chooses the tasty bits, but passes up parts that don't appeal to him (or his voters). Thanks for the link to Locke's <em>Second Treatise of Governemtn</em>. I have not read that work by Locke yet and will have to check it out. I’m glad you find him as wacky as I do, Santini. I think you are correct, he practices buffet-style libertarianism; he chooses the tasty bits, but passes up parts that don’t appeal to him (or his voters).

Thanks for the link to Locke’s Second Treatise of Governemtn. I have not read that work by Locke yet and will have to check it out.

]]> By: Santini http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Santini Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:16:31 +0000 http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=73#comment-209 Wow, I think this guy is crazy. He says he is a libertarian but supports Social Security?? He is against invasion of privacy <i>except</i> when it involves Roe v. Wade, which again contradicts his stance that he is a libertarian! I believe I am as close to a functional libertarian as one can get and still find a way to vote for the present candidates on all levels of government. I am a staunch believer in personal freedoms as long as they do not violate another’s personal freedoms and liberties. Hell, John Locke’s <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm" rel="nofollow"> Second Treatise of Government </a>is one of my favorite political theory books! I also believe in personal responsibility, I would like to see the size of the Federal Government be reduced, less involvement of the Fed in State issues and that judges should be strict constructionists, well to a point. I understand that the Constitution is a living breathing document and that <i>some</i> judicial interpretation is important but today politicians want to appoint judges to implement their personal and religious beliefs and that is a <b>COMPLETE</b> violation of the Constitution and the separation of Church and State. Paul is <b>NOT</b> a libertarian, he is a mish-mosh of many things and most of them are not good things. I need not expand on the whole isolationism ideal of Paul’s, Snurp breaks it down wonderfully and no, that was not too harsh, that was dead on! Sid gets the 2nd amendment, too bad most politicians don’t! Yes personal defense is a good thing but the Constitution does not guarantee the right for all people to bear arms just because! It is a guarantee that a State can form a militia to defend the States freedom! That is to stop imperialistic Presidents from coming in and taking away our limited Democracy we all enjoy! Why are people making border security and immigration such a big deal?? Ok, yeah that is a rhetorical question, I know why but I disagree with their assessment of how <i>bad</i> it really is. Truly, aside from the Native Americans (notice the word native!) we are ALL immigrants to this country! And American is suppose to be the melting pot of the world, where we are free to live, worship, believe, not believe and think as we please! It is not a nation where you are suppose to be a Christian or where you are suppose to know English as your first language. We are suppose to accept all cultures and people alike and I believe that is what a libertarian believes. Paul does take a strong stance for privacy and personal liberty, at least he has got that going for him…only when it doesn’t have to do with Roe v. Wade! That’s my two cents, for what it is worth… Wow, I think this guy is crazy. He says he is a libertarian but supports Social Security?? He is against invasion of privacy except when it involves Roe v. Wade, which again contradicts his stance that he is a libertarian!

I believe I am as close to a functional libertarian as one can get and still find a way to vote for the present candidates on all levels of government. I am a staunch believer in personal freedoms as long as they do not violate another’s personal freedoms and liberties. Hell, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is one of my favorite political theory books!

I also believe in personal responsibility, I would like to see the size of the Federal Government be reduced, less involvement of the Fed in State issues and that judges should be strict constructionists, well to a point. I understand that the Constitution is a living breathing document and that some judicial interpretation is important but today politicians want to appoint judges to implement their personal and religious beliefs and that is a COMPLETE violation of the Constitution and the separation of Church and State.

Paul is NOT a libertarian, he is a mish-mosh of many things and most of them are not good things. I need not expand on the whole isolationism ideal of Paul’s, Snurp breaks it down wonderfully and no, that was not too harsh, that was dead on!

Sid gets the 2nd amendment, too bad most politicians don’t! Yes personal defense is a good thing but the Constitution does not guarantee the right for all people to bear arms just because! It is a guarantee that a State can form a militia to defend the States freedom! That is to stop imperialistic Presidents from coming in and taking away our limited Democracy we all enjoy!

Why are people making border security and immigration such a big deal?? Ok, yeah that is a rhetorical question, I know why but I disagree with their assessment of how bad it really is. Truly, aside from the Native Americans (notice the word native!) we are ALL immigrants to this country! And American is suppose to be the melting pot of the world, where we are free to live, worship, believe, not believe and think as we please! It is not a nation where you are suppose to be a Christian or where you are suppose to know English as your first language. We are suppose to accept all cultures and people alike and I believe that is what a libertarian believes.

Paul does take a strong stance for privacy and personal liberty, at least he has got that going for him…only when it doesn’t have to do with Roe v. Wade! That’s my two cents, for what it is worth…

]]> By: sidfaiwu http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/comment-page-1/#comment-208 sidfaiwu Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:55:44 +0000 http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=73#comment-208 I'm with you, Snurp, Ron Paul is a dangerous isolationist. Like you said, US sovereignty is not in any danger from being members of any of these international organizations. If the costs of membership ever out weigh the benefits of membership, we can always drop out at that time. Frankly, I'm shocked at the amount of internet support this clown has. I’m with you, Snurp, Ron Paul is a dangerous isolationist. Like you said, US sovereignty is not in any danger from being members of any of these international organizations. If the costs of membership ever out weigh the benefits of membership, we can always drop out at that time. Frankly, I’m shocked at the amount of internet support this clown has.

]]> By: Snurp http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/index.php/2007/11/the-issues-according-to-pauls-website/comment-page-1/#comment-205 Snurp Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:00:35 +0000 http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/?p=73#comment-205 I find I'm quite amazed every time I hear about how he wants to basically cut off the entire international chain of connections that the US has built over the past 60 years. Call me some kind of anti-state Euro liberal, but I consider connections to other nations that allow us to increase interaction and reduce barriers, be they trade or otherwise, vitally important to a more stable future. For the US to just try to drop out of the world, especially given the role it has (whether people like that or not)...it kind of scares me. "These evil globalists want to steal our children's souls and make them...multicultural!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!" Perhaps that was excessive, but I noticed on his page that he describes NAFTA as the "spawn of powerful special interests." His terminology on the site as a whole sets off alarms in my head. As far as the United States' sovereignty, I don't think it'll disintegrate any time soon, and for the most part isolationism doesn't make problems better. It does, however, piss other countries off. I find I’m quite amazed every time I hear about how he wants to basically cut off the entire international chain of connections that the US has built over the past 60 years. Call me some kind of anti-state Euro liberal, but I consider connections to other nations that allow us to increase interaction and reduce barriers, be they trade or otherwise, vitally important to a more stable future. For the US to just try to drop out of the world, especially given the role it has (whether people like that or not)…it kind of scares me. “These evil globalists want to steal our children’s souls and make them…multicultural!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!”

Perhaps that was excessive, but I noticed on his page that he describes NAFTA as the “spawn of powerful special interests.” His terminology on the site as a whole sets off alarms in my head. As far as the United States’ sovereignty, I don’t think it’ll disintegrate any time soon, and for the most part isolationism doesn’t make problems better. It does, however, piss other countries off.

]]>