“There’s a lot of similarities in that it is about the pursuit and you have to be patient and you have to persevere and you have to realize that sometimes you can hunt all day and it doesn’t look like you’re gonna come out with a thing and then the biggest buck in the whole woods comes out and you take it two minutes before the end of shooting time.”
He continued: “In our campaign, a lot of people didn’t think we were even in the game, and here we are at the end of the time leading up to caucuses and we proved that if you just stay out there in the woods, keep your gun ready, it might turn out okay.”
He then went on to do something no responsible hunter would ever do. He fired shots over the heads of the reporters:
In the first 30 minutes, Huckabee, Saltzman and a friend shot three birds. Their last shot flew over the heads of reporters, one of whom cried out: “Oh my God! Oh my God! Don’t shoot. This is traumatizing.”
Even Dick Cheney would probably forgo a hunting trip with Mike Huckabee. I feel slightly embarrassed for candidates who do things that so obviously pander to a population. Watching John Kerry in his hunting gear was painful, as was his trip to a country restaurant, while waiting for his catered lunch to arrive. Watching Democratic candidates show up at gay and lesbian events, when they rarely do at any other time, is patronizing to say the least. Etc., etc., etc. It’s all about what they can do about useless issues.
The biggest issues for me are:
- The national debt. Tell me how you’re going to reduce that. I haven’t heard a thing from anyone on either side about it that shows me they have a clue about what to do or how to do it.
- The war. Don’t just tell me you’re going to bring the troops home, or that George Bush is a bad CinC. tell me HOW you’re going to bring them home, and how you will do it in a way that leaves Iraq in a position to at least have a small chance at success.
- Immigration. Again, don’t tell me you have a solution. Don’t tell me you’re going to seal the borders and kick out all the illegals. Both are impossible. If you have a solution on immigration, tell me, point-by-point what your plan is. Even if I don’t agree with it, I’ll respect you if I know you thought beyong the sound bite.
- Healthcare. Most candidates have a plan. But beyond the sound bite or the talking point, they don’t explain it. If you tell me we’re going to a single payer system, tell me how you are going to accomplish that without bankrupting the system. If you can do it, I’ll be all for it. If you can’t, then I won’t. Again, I’ll respect your position if I know you can explain exactly how you plan to accomplish it.
- Education. We desperately need education reform in this country. No Child Left Behind is a farce. The only thing it accomplishes is forcing teachers to “teach to the test.” It produces students that are dumber than a bag of hammers. So far, the only person who has said anything I even remotely like is, *gasp*, Mike Huckabee. I think one of the most tragic changes in education is the virtual elimination of music and art programs.
So, take off the hunting garb. You look stupid. Don’t tell us Washington needs change. We know that. tell us how you would change it. Don’t tell us you’re the most experienced and then refuse to open up the record on your 8 years int he White House to actually show us what you did. And don’t tell me you’ll stand up to corporate interests unless you can tell me exactly what needs to be done to stand up to them, and how you’ll do it. What’s sad is that candidates who do speak to very specific points about their platform are the ones who don’t get elected. Those who just spout off the talking points and don’t get into specifics are elected in what amounts to a likeability contest.
Finally, when someone asks you who you have in mind for cabinet positions, tell us. Don’t bullshit us. We know you know and it would be very helpful to know not just about you, but about the people you’re going to surround yourselves with.
The electorate has become so dumbed down because we just accept the talking points, sound bites, and he said/she said of politics. We accept that candidates are going to waffle, flip-flop, refuse to answer, or tell us what we want to hear. And then we’re totally surprised when they get into office and we realize we elected a complete moron.
I’m waiting for the press to start pointing to Huckabee as a phony and for the mocking Web sites to go up.
Surely they wouldn’t just do that to Democratic candidates, would they?
Yes. In fact, even attempting to address the issues above can gain a candidate a reputation as being too smart. Consider what happened with the last candidate known as a policy wonk. We end up seeing widespread sentiments like this (from 2000):
I think it’s really hard to talk about a plan to reach some goal when a candidate can be effectively denigrated simply for having a plan.
I know I will get slammed for this, but Ron Paul DOES have a plan to reduce the national debt. He gets razzed for ideas like “we need to eliminate the Federal Reserve” but he has spent many years studying a branch of economics known as the Austrian school. What other candidates have studied any economics at all?
Paul’s ideas actually are a cohesive whole if you look at them in relation to each other and don’t dismiss half of them because you’ve never heard them before.
The Other Steve
The problem with getting into specifics. At least in 2004, is that every time the Democrats laid out some kind of specific plan, GW Bush would go off and try to implement half of it. Generally failing miserably. The fact is, in a years time everything changes, so any specific plan is dead on arrival and not functional.
I honestly don’t want candidates to get into specifics of what they think should be done. Because it doesn’t matter. The President doesn’t make policy, it comes from Congress. What the candidates do need to do, though, is talk about what they think is important, what is their vision, and how they intend to go about making that happen.
This isn’t that hard. The main thing differentiating between Democrats and Republicans is their vision of the future. How do they see the role of the US? What do they see as our biggest challenges, and so forth.
It’s not that complicated, and we don’t need detail and specifics.
You won’t get slammed by me. If you read Paul’s site or listen to him, you know he’s thought his ideas through, and I respect him for that. Most arguments against Paul are based on his personality. You rarely hear people talk about his economic plan or his healthcare plan. You hear them talk about his high pitched voice and how crazy he “sounds.”
Here is a man who voted against honoring Rosa Parks. Why? Not because he didn’t believe she was a great woman, but because he didn’t see it as government responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money on it. Principle.
TOS: First you say:
then you say:
That seems to be contradictory. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point.
The Other Steve
I suspect that Ron Paul only studied half the Austrian School of economics. That is the half he liked listening too.
His plan is to cut spending. Yet every time someone gives us this plan, they end up increasing spending. So why should I listen now?
Ron Paul does *not* have a plan for reducing the national debt. He has a plan that has been analyzed and found wanting. His “plan” for handling the national debt is to real economics exactly as Intelligent Design is to biology — a specious set of cherry picked assertions intermingled with carefully masked lies.
Because Ron Paul always votes against increasing spending if it is not explicitely spelled out in the constitution. I expect he would veto any spending bill he considered to contain $$ that were not the responsibility of the federal govt to spend.
As President, I will nominate highly qualified people to my cabinet and I will appoint judges to the federal bench who will uphold the law.
I will reach out to both parties in Congress to enact important legislation that will lower unemployment, provide quality healthcare to all Americans, and make our nation safer.
My administration will be pro-family, pro-environment, and pro-active. I will fight to end waste, fraud and abuse.
And finally, if elected, I promise that everybody will get a pony!
I agree with posters who are saying that at this point, candidates should NOT offer too specific a plan for things. I have heard that recommendation before on other sites.
Michael D –
Your second quote doesn’t contradict the first one. It isn’t about “specifics”, but about their overall plan, generally. At least thats how I interpret it.
And for people who hadn’t heard the story about Ron Paul voting against a Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks – it’s true but only half the story. As far as I know, Dr. Paul has NEVER voted to award the Medal to anyone up for the honor – yet at the same time, he has offered $100 from his own pocket (i.e. not our tax money) to help fund the Medal award for each recipient and challenged the rest of Congress to do the same. So far nobody has taken up his offer.
The Other Steve
You said you wanted specifics, but I’m saying you don’t need specifics, you need the overall vision and framework. The specifics will work themselves out in Congressional debate.
For instance… you said
The specifics is really simple.
We put them on a plane.
Also, the FAIR TAX.
The Other Steve
Whoa. Wait a minute. Didn’t we just have like a 300 post discussion about the Fair Tax where it was ripped to shreds on economic principles?
And as I recall, you abandoned the discussion, because it made you think too hard.
Sure, and Paul has a very restrictive view of federal responsibilities. Consider his response to Katrina:
I think libertarians of Paul’s stripe really take an oversimplified view of the world.
The Other Steve
Wow, that sounds petty.
The Other Steve
Hell, as long as he’s consistent and agrees the federal government shouldn’t have to pay to bring water to Arizona, because the idiots choose to live in a desert.
I do agree that some of our bailouts have encouraged risky behavior.
The Other Steve
Wait, haven’t you seen the latest Verizon commercials?
I recall reading that many of Paul’s supporters are techies. When I was in law school our dean told us that people with math and science backgrounds often have trouble in law school because math and science tend to be black and white. IOW – there is always one “right” answer.
But in law and politics things aren’t so simple. A classic example is Affirmative Action. Despite its good intentions, by giving preference to minority members the law discriminated against non-minorities. We can argue about whether doing so was justified, but it really was a form of discrimination.
Ron Paul makes everything sound simple. The problem is that real life is very complicated.
If we enact universal healthcare, some people will benefit, but others will lose. The same thing is true on environmental regulations, tax reform, gun control, etc. Everybody is a “special interest.”
Then there is the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” If we immediately withdrew all of our troops from Iraq this afternoon, most people would expect a bloodbath to ensue. But who would ultimately win and what the effect on our national interests would be 10 or 20 years from now is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy.
Heh. I abandoned the discussion because it was two pages into the site.
Really? His lifeteime of lunatic stands and his overlty racist posturings are just “personality?”
The guy is a fucking nutjob. And a liar.
Do some homework and learn the facts before you talk about this crazy butthead.
Jesus H. Christ, people.
Waah, boo hoo. I want all the benefits of living in a varied, (relatively) wealthy society without having to pay a single dime. I live in Maryland, why should I be “robbed” to pay for any part of I-95 that doesn’t run through my state, or public schools in Arizona, or Medicare bills for people living in New Jersey? It just ain’t fair!
Bob In Pacifica
Jest after learnin’ ’bout the Bible we’ll have ‘rithmatic. Chillen will be allowed to take off their shoes so’s that they can do higher ‘rithmatic. Noah only had to count to two, though.
Ron Paul’s solution to terrorism: Enlist blacks to chase them?
Ron Paul is a crazy person. And for you War on Christmas fans:
Wake up, kids. Cut the crap, learn who Ron Paul really is.
Okay, I just KNEW someone had to post that dailykos article here. ThymeZone, your first weblink is part of an old allegation that has been refuted half a dozen times already.
Really, is that the best smear people can do ? Something from 1992 in an old newsletter even the smear merchants agree they don’t have copies of ?
I know, it’s difficult to smear Ron Paul personally because, well, he’s still married to his first (only) wife, none of his kids got into serious trouble, he has no ties to lobbyists (gee, ever wonder WHY ?), and there have been no allegations of money corruption or bribery.
Keep trying, though, it’s amusing.
(For the record, I know Dr. Paul isn’t perfect. I don’t agree with him on everything. But he’s a damn sight better than any other Republican where it counts – giving up the powers that Bush and his administration have insisted they need. Remember that Patrick Henry said “Give me Liberty or give me death”? They don’t.)
Ron Paul is a fucking lunatic. Don’t take my word for it, do the googling and find out for yourself. Ignore the current hype, or the lazy mindfarts of people who say things like “you know he’s thought his ideas through, and I respect him for that. Most arguments against Paul are based on his personality.”
It doesn’t do any good to “think ideas through” when you’re a nutjob.
I guess in Paul’s mind, a few armed Iraqis could have stopped the American invasion of Iraq, then?
Next time you see a stealth bomber over your town, don’t get nervous, citizens. Just reach for your trusty Winchester. The gummint can’t shoot all of us.
The Other Steve
As someone from a science background, this is absolutely true. techies seem to believe there is only one way to solve a problem. This is the primary basis for most fights of Mac versus Linux versus Windows. They don’t see nuance, they don’t see supportability concerns. They’ll walk into an organization which does most of it’s development in Java and implement a solution in Python and then wonder why everybody wants to rewrite it when they leave.
Ron Paul supports jury nullification and common law tribunals, a position which puts the everyday GOP attacks on the judiciary to shame. This guy don’t need no stinking courts.
The Other Steve
I don’t know if that is fair. But certainly when we had the discussion here of the FairTax, it was pretty clear that the people supporting it had not thought their ideas through.
For you privacy fans, or Right to Choose advocates, Paul might be problematic.
ThymeZone, do I really need to point out the apples and oranges you just compared ?
(Also, “in Paul’s mind”, we had no business invading Iraq at all)
We don’t need queers raising our kids, in PaulWorld.
i guess i’ll grudgingly agree that all the candidates have a health plan. the problem is that none of the republican plans actually help anybody.
I think Huckabee will be roundly criticized by Chris Matthews for playing the gender card.
Imagine if libertarianism turned out to work really, really well in the real world. (Stop laughing– it’s just a hypothetical). And in 100 years all the industrialized countries were running swimmingly on libertarian principles. Then people would ask, “how come it took so long for libertarianism to carry the day politically?” And a big part of the answer would be, “because it attracted the sort of people who thought that black people and black helicopters were coming to get them.”
Look out, Sodomites!
Fascinating. Have you ever felt even an inkling of the same for George Bush’s brush clearing? Or his entire fake ranch, for that matter, purchased in 1999 in setup for his presidential run? The man is every bit as much of a phony when it comes to his chosen persona as John Kerry could ever have been in a ‘country restaurant’ (whatever that is). He’s afraid of horses!
I’m all for calling out phoniness in politicians. But you better damn sure include the phony republicans when you’re railing on the phony Democrats.
ThymeZone…what are we, in Poly Sci 101? Did we miss the portion of Philosophy 101 in which the concept of strawmen arguments were revealed?
The argument that guns will prevent government tyranny doesn’t hinge on the idea that citizens will be fighting government stealth bombers. The idea is that an armed society will keep the government from getting to the point where using stealth bombers against its own citizens is even an option.
I don’t agree with what the Browns did in New Hampshire, but in that case, the government did very little but patiently wait out until an opportunity for capture presented itself. They didn’t go guns ablazing nor did they use a bunker buster.
I imagine the disaster at Ruby Ridge had something to do with the Feds exercise of caution. And before you say,”But the well-armed Browns lost anyway,” keep in mind that was an extreme case. The government doesn’t have the resources to conduct such standoffs regularly. The possibility that a citizen is armed makes the need for any type of raid to be properly equipped. Each raid is more costly than it would’ve been otherwise. Therefore, the government is likely to err on the side of discretion in these kind of things…which is a very fine mindset to me.
You can’t make this shit up. States will control air quality standards. Tough shit for you folks in Kansas City, unless you can get Missouri and Kansas to agree on the standard, I guess.
If there’s one thing we need right now, it’s lower prices on gasoline to spur consumption and further delay conservation measures! And of course, the government doesn’t need the revenue, either.
Hey, this guy is a genius! Tax credits are just the thing to help people who already pay little or no taxes.
Or, take me for example. A nice tax credit would have helped out with my $150k hospital bill from 2005.
Yes, clearly Paul has “though through” these things and is just the man to lead us in turbulent times.
Yes. Because it could’ve had nothing to do with his ideas on black people (Ron Paul’s own words):
Lots of source links there, btw.
How does this argument work, anyway? It seems to me that the kind of tyranny Paul talks about largely focuses on taxation. Does an armed populace somehow deter tax increases?
His monetary ideas make FairTax seem like child’s play by comparison, eh?
Oh yeah, Ron Paul is just what we need. A guy who wants to return to the gold standard.
Okay, the debate on the Gold Standard is now open. C’mon everybody, let’s get it all out on the table!
Oh, but Paul was against the Iraq war, so the fact that he has a lifetime record of fringe and even dangerous views just isn’t relevant right now.
I’m just getting warmed up. Let me know when the BJ Ron Paul Bandwagon is scheduled to roll, will you?
I think your question is better addressed to Michael D, champion of Ron Paul’s “thought through” ideas, and champion of the FairTax.
Let me know what you two work out as an answer to your question, okay?
From The Atlantic.
The Grandest Panjandrum
I am sure these “techie” people exist, but they are limited in their ability to solve problems. Any student of science and mathematics who believes there is only one way to solve a problem would fail my freshman calculus class. Period. The hallmark of science and mathematics is the ability to solve complex problems in the most elegant manner possible. You lose the ability solve a problem of any complexity whatsoever if you believe it can only be approached from one angle. Scientists and mathematicians are some of the most creative people I know, and are not limited by a lack of imagination.
Your dean should have spent more time trying to understand the concept of empiricism and what mathematical and scientific proof are (which are indeed different from one another). His take on people with a background in science and mathematics is utter nonsense. Please, stop with this broad brush approach. Again, it is utter nonsense and quite insulting.
Critical and analytic thinking are different, but related, skills.
Tim F, what say you?
Speaking as a fairly extreme math geek who ended up in law school, nope. You see, in law school there are multiple “right” answers. The fact that I thought other students’ and professors’ reasoning to be lacking made me a bit of an opinionated prick at times, but it didn’t make me actually wrong about anything. Being overly logical and opinionated helps in law school: it encourages sound class participation; it lets you very easily and quickly cut the wheat from the chaff in your casebooks and on your exams, dramatically reducing your workload and increasing the density of substantive content in your writing; it lets you laugh at English majors playing economists arguing about law–i.e. Richard Posner and disciples–rather than take them too seriously.
The only problem with a really solid math/science background that I encountered in law school is that there’s a tendency for boredom to set in. Legal practice, where there tend to be no right answers as opposed to multiple right answers, and where logic is actively punished rather than taken as an accepted mode of argument, is, unfortunately, another matter altogether.
It’s a different matter also, of course, for law students who think they’re math/science people but aren’t really. People who try to be logical and empirical but fail at it don’t do well in law school, though they may succeed as lawyers. In law school you either need to achieve actual logical soundness or give it up as a goal in favor of dipping into the grab bag for whatever legal argument most appeals to the professor.
I like the idea of yams, they do that in a tribal society (can’t remember the name of the people now, sorry) in New Guinea. I could really get behind a change to yams as our currency!
Oh yeah, and women are in control of the society that exchanges yams too. I could get behind that too. It seems the women are the keepers of the yams ;)
From The Monthly Review.
Paul apparently didn’t hear that the 911 terrorists were admitted with paperwork into the country, and that a border fence won’t keep out the next dozen or so madmen who want to come in and kill Murricans. Or maybe he thinks that deporting millions of fruit pickers and day laborers will make America safer?
Read the whole article.
Poli Sci 101? Well, if so, TZ’s doing a good job of teaching the class. He’s showing that the best way to support a claim is to *document* it. Gosh. What a concept.
And I’m with the Grandest Panjundrum. It’s true that I taught only one way to solve most problems when I taught calculus, but that was because I needed my students to master a method. By the time you get out of the most basic classes, that’s not true; there’s not one “correct” answer to anything — in fact, there are interesting questions to which there are explicitly multiple “correct” — or at least, equally correct and mutually inconsistent — answers.
Your law school dean didn’t know what he was talking about.
Popeye and Olive Oyl?
“I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.”
Well, like spinach, yams can be eaten too. Make sure you don’t have any sweet potato luvin’ relatives, I guess! They could eat you out of house and home, literally!
That’s from a drill-down link that a couple of us have posted here so far today, via DKos. Just follow the Dkos chain on Paul and you’ll get quite an education.
Paul reminds me of times in my youth when I used to wonder how the Germans managed to vote themselves into the Third Reich.
I don’t wonder any more, when I see a guy like Paul being treated like some kind of bright white hope for America. This guy is about one notch away from being in a mental health care facility.
Well, Asti, I can see why females would want to control the availability of yams. Consumption of high levels of yam in a diet has a high positive correlation with the incidence of twinning, even within subjects.
I agree with Grandest Panjundrum and demimondian: There are few interesting problems in science and engineering for which there’s only one correct answer or one correct path to finding an answer. Especially in engineering, considering tradeoffs between nominally “correct” answers is critical.
That said, there’s a reasonable argument to be made that techies may tend to oversimplify some hard, real-world problems, especially in politics. Part of solving a problem is picking the right level of abstraction to think about it. That turns out to be really, really hard, not only in execution but in teaching it to students. “Assume a spherical cow. . .”
I said one answer, not one way to reach it. That answer might include a “range” but when you are done “solving” problems your answer is either correct or incorrect.
I’m curious, did you pass law school? And/or the Bar exam?
Often there are no “right” answers, and if you made it as far as the MBE you will recall having to select the “least wrong” answer.
The emphasis in law exams is not on the conclusion but on the reasoning process used to reach it. If you “easily and quickly cut the wheat from the chaff in your casebooks and on your exams” you will miss the bulk of the allocated points and fail.
BTW – Although Justice Posner is a generally accepted authority on Contract law, I don’t recall ever discussing economics.
WTF? What kind of law did you practice, if indeed you did? Every brief I have ever written was an exercise in logical reasoning.
BTW – I did graduate from law school and I passed the Bar exam on the 1st try, so I’m not talking out my ass.
All told, however, this view is fallacious.
If guns are banned, and then later government turns oppressive, there’s a single necessary and sufficient condition for bringing down the government: the political strength of the opposition.
If the opposition is capable, it will find a way to procure the guns. If the opposition isn’t politically capable, guns won’t save the day.
“In which to think about it” must be pointed out, just because, you know, it’s us.
But anyway, you are exactly right. The level of abstraction is important. And if it looks hard in science and engineering, then gasp at how hard it is in politics and public affairs.
We could do an interesting seminar on how abstraction error can lead to the adoption of an idea as toxic as “Ron Paul for President” by people who really ought to know better, or at least take the time to do a workmanlike job of putting all the facts on the table before making up their minds.
Ron Paul “thought through” his ideas? Heh, okay. But that’s more than we can say for a lot of people who support him, or think they do.
Wow. Jury Nullification is one of the most powerful tools people have against tyranny and you think he’s a nutjob for supporting it? If more people understood their rights as a jurist we wouldn’t have the highest per capita prison population in the world. Maybe you think that’s a good thing?
I understand your hatred for Ron Paul, he has a lot of positions that are worth taking issue with, especially when you’re a hard line Democrat. Attacking him for supporting jury nullification is both strange and seemingly pointless. It’s not like jury nullification is some kind of problem or possible to get rid of without ending the jusy system all together, so why would you bring it up in your anti-Paul screed?
Maybe it’s better than addressing his positions on things that are relevant to America…the Iraq war or our floundering economy for example. No wait, never mind these issues, lets talk about separation of church and state! Maybe when Hillary gets in office she will focus like a laser on completely cutting the church out of America while the war rages and our economy swirls down the shitter. That would be great! Ron Paul would have a sum total of zero abulity to address church and state as president since anything would have to go through congress (I have a feeling it wouldn’t be on his to do list anyway!). He would be able to address the war in Iraq, and therefore the economy to some degree by cutting defense spending, he could also turn back the clock on some of these dictatorial powers that Bush has collected including privacy issues and torture. I don’t trust Hillary or Obama to do any of those things that matter a lot to me. That’s why I will vote for Paul given the chance and I really don’t give a shit how he feels about things he would have very little influence over and that I don’t care too much about anyway.
Ending American Imperialism is the most thing important to me. By doing that several other problems would be eased or solved. He is the only candidate who even discusses the idea. And before anyone brings out the word Isolationists, it’s dishonest and inaccurate to call his position Isolationists, it’s a rove style smear. There is a lot of gray between Isolationist and Imperialist – Paul is neither. If America continues down this path of imperialism then separation of church and state will be a non-issue, there won’t be much of a state and everyone will be praying to god they have food tomorrow.
Attack his position on abortion or on federal agencies, that makes sense even though it’s small potatoes to me when I look at the big picture. There are really only a couple of issues that matter to me when we’ve slipped this far as a nation. When things are generally fine(like in the Clinton era) it’s ok to talk about abortion or welfare or a myriad of other things that affect daily life for some but not all. It’s good to look out for those less fortunate when the whole country isn’t teetering on the edge of ruin. Right now we need a politician who is right on issues of national preservation and he’s the only one who even talks about it like he notices the problem.
So you see the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t even understand the concept of money as a point in his favor? Money is a medium of exchange made legal tender by government fiat precisely to facilitate transactions that efficiently distribute goods and services in the vast majority of situations where barter breaks down because of high transaction costs. Putative money that isn’t sufficiently widely accepted simply limits the goods and services that can be transacted, thereby increasing transaction costs and market inefficiency; it therefore isn’t really money at all. Sufficient acceptance can come pretty much only from government fiat. Liquid intangible assets can, of course, act as and supplement money. Trade of commodities for goods, services, or future obligations isn’t a monetary exchange; it’s barter, with all the accompanying deficiencies.
Furthermore, money is simply a default. With limited exceptions, you can contract to exchange goods, services, and future obligations for any other goods, services, and future obligations that all parties can agree upon to be a fair exchange–hell, in the case of sex you can legally barter it away for dinner and a movie even though you can’t sell it for money. Money transactions are almost always more efficient than barter, but if barter floats your boat and you’re willing to deal with the tax complications inherent in many nonmonetary transactions, then you’re free to have at it. Just keep in mind that pretty much every time you do so you’re destroying value and hurting the economy by increasing transaction costs, and that encouraging barter as a general replacement for monetary transactions is economically ignorant.
being able to “think through” something doesn’t mean you’re not crazy.
Quite easily, with an extreme minimum of effort.
myiq — Posner’s whole theory of jurisprudence is referred to as law and economics; his position is essentially one of pure utilitarianism applied to law and justice. It’s a compelling argument in its own sphere, since it tries to measure the actual cost of a given decision rather than being based on a moralistic view of judgment.
Unfortunately, there’s a body of work by the Duncan Luce and his students which shows that there is not even a correct and consistent utility function which corresponds to human perception. That doesn’t mean that Posner is necessarily completely off-track, but it does mean that his purist approach isn’t going far.
If you want to start a subthread on jury nullification, go right ahead. Personally, I think it is a toxic idea that is grounded in what I call Insane Libertarianism nee GOPism, which hates process, hates courts, hates judges, and hates intellectual integrity. It wants to impose a nation of emotions and God’s Dominion over a nation of laws. AFAIC jury nullification, in our time, is a tool in that toolchest and should be opposed as a matter of principle.
Calling it a tool for the “opposition of tyrrany” is about one inch nuttier than suggesting that the right to bear arms is a barrier to government tyrrany. Gun rights have their merits, but defense against government tyrrany isn’t one of them, and neither is that argument viable WRT jury nullification.
The problem with jury nullification is that it is viewed romantically by people who think it is Jimmy Stewart standing up to the tyrants. Actually, it’s about the tyrants convincing the people that the laws and the judges are their enemies.
Tyrants operate wherever you give them space. They don’t dwell only on one side of a spectrum.
Ok, I’ve got a high-school’s worth of education in political history, and I can remember how the Gold Standard argument goes straight back to the 1890s and even before. In fact, if I remember correctly, the book that later became The Wizard Of OZ was based on social arguments of the time, with The Yellow Brick Road being an extortion to return to the Gold Standard.
All that said, I’ve heard the standard called “crazy” and “kooky” and “unreasonable”, but I haven’t seen much to back up the claim. I’ve never been a big fan of faith-based monetary policy, and after watching Bush Admin clusterfucking it would be nice to know that the fate of our currency isn’t so intimately tied to the competency of our leadership.
That said, I know TZ is of the John Edwards – better to spend a trillion too much on social programs and progressive reforms than to live on-budget in a hell-hole – school of political economics. So the ability to print free money has its merits.
But then we have to come back to the Ron Paul argument against Empire and start asking the question of why we’ve got permanent military bases in Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. And we have to seriously consider how America prioritizes spending. Is hemorrhaging half a trillion a year on peace-time military activity really the best use of our national resources? Do we need unlimited free money to balance our budgets if we just learn how to be more prudent? If we pin our currency to the Gold Standard and put a real cap on how much money we can print, will that force us to become more intelligent about how we run our society?
I think, ultimately, you can’t have a society with unlimited inflation and unlimited growth. Our planet is only so big, our societies can only handle so much, our resources are finite. Simply ratcheting up how much money exists is an invitation to eventual collapse. I think the Gold Standard is a hard standard to hold to – I would just as soon see us peg our currency to something more common or readily available like kilowatts of electricity or real estate – but I can’t see how we can exist on the faith standard forever. Tanglable assets give things value. A faith-based currency just makes me think of an entire nation built on the principles of Enron.
Since I’m not generally in favor of individuals arrogating powers to themselves which they don’t possess, I’m not a big fan of jury nullification.
Oh, sorry. I forgot who I was talking to. I’ll say that in first grade English.
Jury nullification is a made-up thing which demagogues created in order to avoid justice. Juries determine facts, not interpretations, and, just as there is no right to lie under oath, there is no right to willfully enter into a false jury decision.
Perhaps my argument against jury nullification works better when viewed another way: Juries refusing to confict whites of killing blacks in earlier times in this country (in my lifetime).
It’s an ugly knife that cuts for, or against, whatever you think is right. And it is without accountability, or process, or codification, and that’s why it’s dangerous.
I’m proud of you for making this attempt at self improvement.
Before this diverges into a debate on Math & Science vs. the Humanities vis a vis the study of law, let me point out that I said “techies,” not “mathematicians and scientists.” I wasn’t referring to people with Master’s degrees and PhD’s, I was referring to people whose backgrounds were more like repair techs, where the emphasis is on find the problem and fix it. Most people with higher degrees in any subject don’t decide to switch to the study of law. I also realize that the higher maths border on philosophy.
My real point, which seems to have been ignored, is that most Paultards seem to have a simplistic view of the world and of politics.
BTW – My former law school dean is a “she,” not a “he.”
2 demerits for sexism.
I went through the entire application process at forty, with a Ph.D. in mathematics, as well as publications in a variety of fields. If Microsoft’s stock hadn’t crashed, I was going to cash out and move to Chicago…to study with Posner.
Two demerits for age discrimination.
Your rant is interesting and amusing, well written, and nicely punctuated.
But … you missed the point. Enron didn’t happen because we have paper money. It happened because rich, powerful people, left unsupervised, will fuck over the rest of us and laugh at us while they are doing it …. no matter what system we start with.
Is insult based “debate” all you know?
He just forgot, as he said, to whom he was speaking.
Heh. Heh heh. Heh heh heh.
Gosh, I’m absolutely shocked than an Internet thread on politics has devolved into a Ron Paul argument.
LOL! I can has healthcares?
This, of course, is absurdly wrong. All of the major Democratic candidates have detailed plans for health care reform.
Let me explain the extremely complicated method for finding such a plan. Type in “[name of candidate] health care” into google. Click link to campaign site.
Obama has a 15 page pdf, Hillary 16, Edwards 7, and all have dozens of links, speeches, references, and reviews.
To Michael, all of this equals “they don’t explain it.” Let’s try a little harder to not be so obtuse next time, shall we?
Yeah, sure, after the operation.
Do you deserve better? You used a bunch of big words which you didn’t understand, and I called you on it. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, say so, or expect to be granted the measure of ridicule you deserve.
Three footer on the ppGaz scale.
*distance traveled by food or beverage during spit reponse.
/runs to pantry and starts flinging yams into the composter.
The original case for jury nullification was John Peter Zenger who was accused of seditious libel. Seditious libel was defined as saying or publishing anything critical of the government. Truth was NOT a defense.
Zenger was guilty under the law, for there was no doubt he had published something critical of the government. What he wrote happened to be true, however, and the jury acquitted him.
This is the main reason that the right to a jury trial is in our Bill of Rights. Juries can refuse to convict a person who is guilty of a law the jury finds to be unjust.
During the Jim Crow era, jury nullification was misused by white juries who acquitted whites for killing African-Americans, even when the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
Most recently however, we see jury nullification arising in drug cases, especially marijuana possession.
Ok, first off, that doesn’t make any sense. You’re claiming that there is some sort of ephemeral distinction between monetary transactions and barter transactions.
If I’ve got a car and you’ve got a pony, and my car is worth $100 and your pony is worth $100 and we trade, how is that different from me selling my car for $100 so I can hand you $100 to buy my pony? If anything, the brokerage fees inherent in trading goods for cash for goods is far less efficient than simply trading goods and drives down the price of the commodities. Money ultimately flows to the brokers, and I hardly see how wealth consolidation creates value or promotes the economy.
Now, if you peg the prices of cars, ponies, or – say – oil to the dollar (as Saudi Arabia has been doing for the last sixty years or so), you have an equivalent exchange rate. Everyone knows that a barrel of oil costs $100, so handing someone a piece of paper with Ben Franklin on it is functionally equivalent to handing them a 20 gallon drum of sweet crude. The “government faith” that keeps the dollar afloat isn’t pure wistful thinking, but the knowledge that I can still buy a stamp for 47 cents or pay my taxes or remove a parking ticket or what have you with their tender. Barrels of oil are heavy and difficult to fit into wallets, so we prefer to use paper. But when I don’t have faith in the ability to buy a loaf of bread with my government issued legal tender, I may very well start making change out of the contents of my gas tank.
No one wants to replace money with guns-for-butter bartering schemes and that is precisely why a physically backed standard is valuable. The ability to pick of a $1 piece of paper and claim it as an IOU for a quart of gasoline or a half ounce sliver of gold or a 2 second blow job or whatever it is you want as your backing scheme, gives the currency tangible value that people can trust. If I don’t believe I can get anything in exchange for my money, why would I want it? And there you have the true road to economic ruin.
TZ I agree that jury nullification is a double edged sword, no doubt there, it can be used for good or bad. It can be used to exonerate a white man who killed a black man out of bigotry or it can be used to exonerate a black man who was the victim of racial profiling and/or crooked cops. Or it could be used to invalidate an archaic law like the sodomy laws some places have.
It is a powerful tool that should be used responsibly, I never argued otherwise. My point was that Paul’s opinion about something he couldn’t change is irrelevant. No president can really do anything for or against jury nullification since it’s inherent in having a jury and trial by jury is codified in our system. The only scenarios i could envision to eliminate jury nullification are to eliminate trial by jury, put it all in the hands of a judge or start prosecuting jurists for “dishonest” votes and that seems like quite a horrible idea for obvious reasons.
Once again, I didn’t say “no one,” I said “most people.” Most people who have spent 10 years working on a degree and then several more working in a profession aren’t finacially able to drop everything and begin a new field of study.
What age discrimination? I never met a PhD who was in their teens, although I understand there are some prodigies like that.
BTW – I started law school at the age of 38. 4 demerits back at ya.
Enron was printing its own money. They called it “stock”. Nothing about Gold Standards or deficit spending would have prevented Enron. But the reason Enron’s stock collapsed was because they were basing it on non-existent property. The reason faith-based money is a bad idea is because it is based on non-existent property.
What’s the matter TZ, feeling left out?
15 yards for piling on.
Im opposed to anything called “faith based” because I assume that rich assholes in Texas will rig into something that benefits them and fucks me over :)
Sorry for breaking this up into a second post.
1) You would not call almost any legal brief you’ve ever read “an exercise in logical reasoning” if you had the background in math and formal logic to know what logical reasoning is. Legal writing is almost uniformly horribly convoluted and illogical. I say that as a former Law Review editor who, in addition to picking through the Law Review submissions of professors who were 90% illiterate and 99% illogical, spent a lot of time just reading legal briefs for fun. Sound logical argument is relatively concise, has deductions that flow from accepted and clearly stated premises, and is by definition broadly persuasive; legal arguments tend to meander and cite to everything under the sun in order to hide bad logic, almost always rely on hidden premises for which there is no underlying agreement, and–if you want them to be legally effective–are tailored to appeal to the specific prejudices of the judge or other reader rather than to be broadly logically persuasive.
2) I worked for a few years for the New York City Law Department, primarily on real property tax matters. My work outside of real property tax was focused on writing responsive papers in related litigation areas. I can’t count the number of ways in which my job required me to accept as true things that were simply manifestly false in order to get the job done, and I can say with certainty that the biggest difficulty I had with my writing was the need to divorce it from logical argument in order to meet expectations. I can say the same about acceptance of falsehoods for the job of the opposition attorneys I encountered, and, with less authority, for the attorneys I’ve known who practiced in other areas.
Well, I was a Law Review editor so good they named an award after me when I graduated; 159 raw on the MBE–don’t know how many questions were tossed that year or remember what my scaled score was–putting in essentially no study time outside the bar review class, easy pass of the Bar.
Trust me when I say law school and the Bar were exceedingly easy due mostly to my math background.
Hey, it was a good snarkjoke. Unsportsmanline behavior, penalties offset.
Replay the down.
Isn’t that what the appeals process is for? Black man gets pegged by racist cop / crooked system. Jury convicts on false or misleading evidence. Appeal is made. Evidence is reviewed. If the evidence is shitty, higher court judge throws it out and determines whether the verdict has been invalidated. If not, sentence stands. If so you get a retrial, reduced sentence, or acquittal.
I never really understood how Judges could simply overrule a jury and I never particularly liked it. The role of a Judge, in my mind, was never to determine innocence or guilt. His job was just to make certain that all the legal eagles obeyed the rules of the game.
You’ve made several assumptions about me without showing yourself to be any more knowledgeable. Hell you can only insult people to “refute” their positions. If you have a hard time with the language I use I would call that a problem with your education and not mine. If you’re claiming there’s something I don’t understand while you do, feel free to point it out and educate me further. If you can’t do that then you may as well bother someone who might give a shit about your pathetic insults.
Well, actually, the road to ruin lies in not being able to predict, over a short period of time, what I’ll get for my $1, or, conversely, what I’ll need to do/provide/broker for my $1 return. The problem with a commodity-based tie is that the value of exchange over a long period of time not only need not be constant, but, in fact, needs to vary.
Take commodity PC’s. How much does a commodity PC cost? How much will a computer with the same capacity cost in eighteen months? (Recall that commodities are truly interchangeable. Since capacity is positively correlated with power consumption, I need to limit to a fixed capacity.) Half as much? So my computer dollars inflate by 100% every eighteen months? Ouch!
That’s why we don’t tie to a fixed commodity, or even to a commodity basket, but rather use surrogate measures of the “value of a dollar”, such as M1 or M2. And to do that, we need a single central monetary authority, such as a national bank.
It’s all in the phrase-ology. Frank Luntz can eat his heart out.
I don’t need to show myself knowledgeable to show you a fool.
Exactly and precisely correct.
God, shit like this is perverse. It reminds me of Hitler shouting at his generals for failing to defend Berlin with 2,000 preteens. Unintentional Godwin, I just really can’t think of another situation where defeat was so complete, so inevitable, and entirely self-inflicted. Chaos was the only feasible outcome under Cheney’s leadership. Don’t you dare act like anyone who can’t wave a magic wand and fix everything is simply lazy.
How can we keep troops in Iraq in a way that leaves Iraq in a position to at least have a small chance of success? Anyone ever consider that question? Because if you actually ask Iraqis (gasp!) the overwhelming majority say that they want us out, we’re fucking up their country, and they think our troops ought to be killed. Good luck transforming a million unprovoked deaths into flowers and candy. Christ.
That’s true, but you failed to do either, you just showed yourself to be incapable of an upfront discussion. Try again.
The point is well taken. But I must raise once more.
As I said slightly later, the problem for Paul isn’t that he can’t change it. It’s that he has to represent the other side. If he is going to be president, he can’t do it by running on a platform of “ignore the government.”
I want a guy who stands up for good, solid government, not dismantled, crippled, half-baked government with pockets of “common law” holding it together.
Well, I’ll never agree with Paul on getting rid of the National Bank. Although I will agree that the bank is technically unconstitutional. The solution, however, should be to pass a damn amendment and make it legal, not disband it. Likewise with the Department of Education and a number of other fundamental federal institutions. I would be more than happy to see an amendment requiring the US Government to provide education to all citizens below the age of 18. And I think “legalizing” education and a national bank would go a long way towards cementing a firmer foundation for the country. At the very least, you wouldn’t see the Norquist “drown government in the bathtub” bullshit slip in so easily.
In a sense, you’re right. By being forced to constantly shift ground from one indefensible claim to another, you’ve actually shown yourself a fool.
Music to the ears of this Roosevelt Democrat.
I didn’t study outside of class or even take bar review, and passed everything easily. California doesn’t release the scores of successful bar exams, so I don’t know my score.
I gave credit to my background in history and poli-sci, along with my enormous hypothalamus.
There’s absolutely no question about the constitutionality of a national bank. The constitutionally enumerated powers of the Congress include power to lay and collect taxes, pay debts, and coin money *and regulate the value thereof* (that last phrase is taken directly from Article One, section 8). Look at what I said about the need for a national bank — I asserted it was a necessity to control the “value of a dollar”. That’s exactly the “regulat[ion] of value [of the coin]” which the Constitution talks about.
Please, put it back in your pants.
:: this post is protected by the Sorry It Had To Be Done rule ::
The “cool smilie” in my 1:56 post is actually an eight followed by a parenthesis.
There’s one thing the religious nuts and the libertarinuts have in common, you can’t reason with them or dissuade them with facts. You are wasting your energy, demi.
OMG, a five footer. That is fucking funny.
If my goal were to change anybody’s mind, you’d be right. However, since I’m actually building up these arguments on the fly, I’m learning something as I go along.
Not to mention, I’m avoiding work that I ought to be doing, while having fun. Score!
TZ I do see your point and I don’t even disagree with you. I don’t think Ron Paul would make a great President. I just think he is the only one on both sides of the election that is looking at what I see to be the real problem. I acknowledge that health care, gay rights and abortion are all important issues among many others and he has unusual stances on all of those things that could easily lead to abuse and I don’t like that. The bottom line though is that he is the only candidate to truly call out what I see to be the biggest problem in America – runaway imperialism. When the other candidates ignore the matter or ridicule discussion of it then I don’t know where else to look. We are not the police of the world and trying to be is breaking our nation. We cannot care for our own people and infrastructure when we throw more money than we have at a problem that we can’t solve(Iraq) or even worse, a goal that we can’t accomplish(world police) and shouldn’t even if we could. These are issues of national survival to me and so they outweigh other issues. If another candidate will address these things then I would love to look at their other platforms and evaluate them as a candidate. Until that happens I have to look at the one guy who is talking about the most important thing in my eyes.
If you don’t believe that we have an over-reaching foreign policy or you support an over-reaching policy then I can understand why his stance there isn’t important or even is offensive to you but he is the only one who has a stance on this issue and that matters to me.
Interfering in other nations affairs is the default stance of our politicians. When it wasn’t obviously leading our nation down a path to ruin it bothered me but not as much for sure. Now that it is, I am highly concerned that every politician seems to think there is no alternativeor no need for one. There is an alternative and that alternative would address many of our pressing problems. I wish other politicians would explore or even acknowledge them.
I happen to think a Ron Paul presidency would be a lot of fun. The entire Washington establishment would go so bonkers, it would make the Clinton years look like nap time at the old folks home.
Bu-but, he’s said he’ll get us out of Iraq.
Here’s what I don’t get about the Paulitics. If you ignore his “OMGBLACKHELICOPTERZNATOWORLDORDER” supporters you’re left with people who like him because 1. He’s said he’ll get us out of Iraq pronto and 2. He’s … different. When confronted with all the other fucked up crazy ass shit he’s said, frinstance:
(Ken Blackwell’s not from DC) or:
Yipee! I don’t know about you, but I love the idea of the Fuck Police peeking in my bedroom window! And be prepared to kiss Roe v Wade bye-bye in a lot of places if he gets his way. But don’t worry. If you don’t live in a state that suddenly has a population boom you won’t have to pay for the little brats to go to school or anything. That would be “robbery.”
But I digress. When confronted with Paul’s own words, people, and not completely stupid people, people who are fed up with Bush43, will shuffle their feet and say that’s OK because Congress will keep him in check.
Doesn’t that blow your god damned mind? After the past seven years with The Great Elder Cthcheney and his side-kick Drunken Draft Dodging Frat Boy doing whatever the fuck they want, sensible people will claim we should let someone who is more of a blatant freak into the White House because Congress will keep him from getting too carried away.
If they can’t manage that with a straight face they’ll claim that getting the troops out of Iraq (and I assume Afghanistan) is the most important thing right now.
Am I the only one who has ever heard a politician lie like a mad bastard to get elected?
Laugh? Cry? Go have a drink?
Well, that’s true. It’s too bad, in my view, that this idea has to be advanced by a guy who unfortunately has left a trail that makes him out to be a crank.
Ultimately, the anti-imperialism position gets weakened by that, I believe.
Unfortunately too, I think the imperalist tendency in this country comes from the grassroots, from the people, and is only reflected by opportunistic politicians. That’s what really worries me.
Even if Paul pulled off a miracle (from his viewpoint) and got himself elected, he’d be like Jimmy Carter, surrounded by an establishment that hates him and powerless to manipulate that establishment.
Q: What do you call someone who graduated in the bottom 1/3 of their law school class, barely passed the bar exam, and was a mediocre (at best) lawyer?
A: “Your Honor”
What did I call someone who graduated from Swarthmore and Columbia Law School, high in the classes, and went on to be a judge? And taught me how it all really works?
If anyone ever wonders why I am always standing up for the judciary, this is why.
Of course, it would look better if I could spell it ….
That’s the part that makes him acceptable to me. He would have the power to recall the military and slash defense spending as well as eliminate the spying on American shit and torture. After that he can stop and go home for all I care, let another president with sane domestic policies take over in 2012. Hillary maybe, I think she would be a good president after all of this shit is cleaned up, I just don’t trust her to do so since she has said and done nothing to convince me that she might. I can believe Paul because he has consistently done what he said he would do even when it was something I don’t necessarily like.
So your dad was a lawyer who got benched?
I suppose that’s a plausible scenario, although it depends on a lot of unproven assumptions. One is that Paul doesn’t have a big ego and decide to go nutzo when he sees his power being truncated by the establishment. Two is that his simplistic view of the world wouldn’t cause him to use the power he does have, CIC for example, to do something really grossly idiotic and dangerous.
Yes, I know that we have the same problem today with the current Clown in Chief, but I’d really like to have a sane, coolheaded person in there for a while. Just to give us a breather.
My dad graduated from Okie-Dokie University with a MBA and he taught me two things:
Always cut the cards
Store beer in a cool dark place.
Now, let me get this straight. Here’s a guy who’s used dog-whistle code words for years, whose grasp of American history leads him to suggest that the Lincoln started the civil war, and that the South would have eventually released the slaves, and you think he’d pull back from the abuses that his longest-time supporters *most want*?
And you wonder why I think you’re clueless?
Yes, a judge. And a really good one.
In those days, judges ran for election regularly, and he was very popular as a liberal Dem in a very, very red state at the time. He just won people over with his sincerity.
Sounds like my granddad. Except that he drank the beer, he didn’t store it much. He drank a lot of it. And whiskey.
Heh. Myiq, my grandfather is the one you want to go after — a top graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law who practiced commercial law in Chicago until the nineteen-sixties. Brilliant man, etc., but…ethics isn’t something one associates with that kind of person. (And, yes, the astronomer is the *other* grandfather. Who, just to close the circle, taught at Swarthmore for years.)
Well kids, it’s been fun, the Ron Paul rally starts over at the park in an hour.
I leave you to your own devices for a while.
Thanks to all for a very enjoyable exchange.
I knew we were blood!
Keep an eye on the place while I’m gone, will ya?
And try to keep up with your book-learnin’
That’s true but so does electing any politician to the presidency. At least Paul has a proven track record of doing what he said he would do, even when it’s unpopular. He says he will do something that I think is vital to our nation while all other politicians seem to think it doesn’t even need to be done or laugh at the idea. What choice do I have?
I guess I look at it this way. Imagine America is a family going on vacation and the government is mom and dad while the people are the children in the back seat. Right now mom and dad are having a fierce Disney World vs. Universal studios argument(which is no doubt important to the vacation) while the kids are in the back seat being ignored as they scream about the oncoming semi-truck that the parent behind the wheel doesn’t seem to notice. If crazy uncle Ronnie sees the truck and wants to drive, I say let him.
pseudonymous in nc
The nature of reporting affects all this, John. When reporters get assigned to follow candidates every damn day, they tune out of the stump speech, they ignore the policy details, because they’re looking to file copy, and the editors demand something else.
If you take a look at the Australian election, conducted over six weeks, you’ll see a fair amount of campaign trivia, but there’s not enough time for trail reporters to get bored shitless with, y’know, the details of policies that actually matter. The nature of campaigning demands idiotic stunts like Huckabee’s.
I don’t give a shit about his personality, though I will say that it’s easy to retain consistency when you aren’t in a position to hold actual power. My argument against his ideological position is that it’s 19th-century, and acting like the expansion of the presidency and the federal government in the 20th century was just some random aberration won’t suffice.
pseudonymous in nc
Oops, that was Michael D., wasn’t it.
If you’re a GOP candidate, it’s really important to pander to that big stupid moron constituency. Huckabee was just doing the Republican equivalent of kissing babies.
Yeah, shooting at reporters is a positive trait for Republicans.
Robert Johnson and myiq2xu,
While you guys are busying showing your pedigrees and yes they are impressive I am well on my way on being THE guy that you can have a beer with at a bar. I’ve got it all down, the laugh, the jokes, the watery, cheap beer and the beernuts.
And in America, we know which of us are going to be successful!
But how many businesses have you mis-managed, huh, smart guy? I bet you’ve never even made fun of a woman on death row.
Darn it, Jake, how many times have I told you that it isn’t the number of businesses you’ve mismanaged, but the number of times that Daddy’s friends have had to bail you out?
Not now, dammit! I’m busy watching an infomercial on the Shark steam cleaner!
The Other Steve
No. Instead they’d pass No Child Left Behind and make certain the system failed.
You have made the same error you accuse RP of, that is analyzing the Constitution from an opinion basis rather than the writings and history surrounding it. In point of fact regarding the 2nd, hunting was mentioned as a side benefit of the Amendment – nothing whatever to do with the purpose which was an armed citizenry responsible for the maintainence of a free state, note, a free state, not the US govt, not NY, a free state. It regarded the ability of the citizenry to oppose tyrrany, whether external or internal.
RP read the 4th as not affecting abortion, in point of fact Madison was concerned with the ability of a woman to control her body, via abortion. Reading the Constitution to promote a particular view point is risky business, your failure on the 2nd is as egregious as RP’s on the 4th or God in government.
While a judge can “instruct” a jury he can force a jury, jury nullification exists whether it is popular or not and while I’ve heard of judges instructing juries to the contrary, the only recourse is an appeal if they do it.
I don’t like RP, while I don’t think he’s a loon, he’s an extremist on an agenda that would be bad for the nation. But when you oppose an analysis of the Constitution, it would pay you to follow your own recommendation of research.
The Other Steve
Ron Paul is an interesting case. How on earth did he ever get elected, and how did he keep getting elected? It seems to me he’s in a safe red-zone, and the fact that he is opposed to abortion is all that matters.
As for the imperialism. You know, that’s the one thing that the Democrats are pretty much in agreement on, and I would disagree as I see both Obama and Edwards at least talking about this. Maybe not specifically, but they reject the overall theory.
I would like to see our defense budget reduced. But such an argument has to be made on intelligent grounds, not lunacy theories like Ron Paul has. By that I mean. the permanent bases in Germany and Japan? Well maybe it’s time those countries ponied up for their own defense instead of relying upon the US.
I realize that is scarey, as it might start a new arms race in different parts of the world. But military expenditures are a drain on a nation’s economy. The US has for years drained our economy, such that we are not competitive with the economies of these other G8 nations.
I think this case could be made by a President. But nobody is going to listen to some guy rant and rave about how the Constitution doesn’t allow for it. Especially when it’s not really true.
Show me please. Sure they say “let’s get out of Iraq… sometime”. That’s far from denouncing our imperialist adventures around the globe. I could definitely get behind a Democrat who had the same or similar outlook on imperialism as Ron Paul and who also had the measure of integrity to convince me they were serious about it(Edwards and Clinton are pretty much out based on integrity). If that becomes available I imagine a lot of Paul’s support will evaporate.
Correct me if I’m wrong, I certainly haven’t heard everything the man has said, but What I recall him saying is not that the constitution doesn’t allow it but that the founders advised against it, big difference.
This has been another edition of Michael D. has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about.
The Other Steve
Well we’ll see. The problem with most of the Democratic candidates is they’re afraid to articulate such statements because they know they’d spend all of their time defending it against Wolf Blitzer.
Ron Paul doesn’t much care, cause he knows he has no hope of winning, and he wants to get on Wolf Blizter to make the statement.
It’s a different way of politics. I wish there was a way that you could have someone who shot off at the mouth like Paul, who could actually get past the media circus and win. Such is not the case in America, and I don’t see this changing like ever.
Raise taxes and/or reduce benefits.
And now you know why you’ve never heard a thing from anyone on either side.
Objection. I have never heard the man speak. However, I have read a cross-section of the shit he’s said and written so I don’t need to comment on his voice. I don’t care if he sounds like James Earl Jones or Daffy Duck.
He’s a fuck case.
I know it sucks for the Republican voters right now but your presidential candidates come in only one flavor: Crrrrap.
“Oh my God! Oh my God! Don’t shoot. This is traumatizing.”
If you’re really freaked out, who uses a word like traumatizing as an excited utterance? At least have the decency to say “Are you trying to kill us?!” or something. Idiot press corps.