Funny, didn't he come out in support of Ron Paul during the 2008 election before eventually going with Obama?
[yt]j6Ki7_huT4M[/yt]
Idiot #1: LOTS of people form exploratory committees and then don't run. The purpose of an exploratory committee is to see how much support and funding there would be for a campaign before you go to the trouble of creating one. It's a standard part of running for office. TJ should know this.
Idiot #2: Ron Paul's principles are well-defined and expressed in his books.
Idiot #3: He does NOT oppose gay marriage and has stated otherwise on a number of occasions.
Idiot #4: He believes that the abortion issue is NOT a Federal issue--because no power is granted to the Federal government by the Constitution to interfere in this area (principles again).
Idiot #5: He did NOT vote against gay adoption; he voted against FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZING gay adoption.
Idiot #6: He doesn't want the Federal government deciding these things because it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to do so!
Idiot #7: Why is it so damn important to have a one-size-fits-all solution for states with diverse populations, demographics, etc.? Having states do lots of different things is a feature, not a bug.
Idiot #8: Re Fireworks: Oh, really? Prohibition doesn't work? Imagine that!
Idiot #9: States CANNOT stop women from going to other states for medical procedures; THAT'S unconstitutional as well. This is just blatant fear-mongering. What does he think states do when someone from a state where the legal age is 18 goes to a state where it's 16 and has sex with a 16-year-old? If it's legal IN THAT STATE, it's legal, and his home state has NO JURISDICTION WHATSOEVER to prosecute him for statutory rape!
Idiot #10: The closest Paul ever said about this is when he said that the First Amendment was not there to prohibit the members of a fire station from putting up a Christmas Tree--and if TJ doesn't think that's taking the First Amendment to absurd levels, then he's TEN TIMES AN IDIOT!
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 27, 2011, 05:30:27 PM
Idiot #10: The closest Paul ever said about this is when he said that the First Amendment was not there to prohibit the members of a fire station from putting up a Christmas Tree--and if TJ doesn't think that's taking the First Amendment to absurd levels, then he's TEN TIMES AN IDIOT!
Not to mention how many fire stations are volunteer with only the start-up capital paid for by the state (if even that). And even if it weren't the case, Christmas is hardly a Christian holiday. It was originally the Pagan holiday celebrating the rebirth of the sun. It's more of a generalized western time off, chill out, happy times and family holiday than anything religious, really.
Quote from: MrBogosity on April 27, 2011, 05:30:27 PM
Idiot #10: The closest Paul ever said about this is when he said that the First Amendment was not there to prohibit the members of a fire station from putting up a Christmas Tree--and if TJ doesn't think that's taking the First Amendment to absurd levels, then he's TEN TIMES AN IDIOT!
This reminds me of a class I had in my business law basics class.
The subject of the first amendment came up, and the teacher said that the first amendment on its own didn't prevent the government from doing things like putting the ten commandments on display at a courthouse. It instead prevented them from putting the ten commandments on display at a courthouse WITHOUT putting other equivalent religious icons on display at the same time, as the government couldn't favor or discriminate against one religion over another. With that in mind, most decide to avoid the issue entirely.
I don't agree with him on it, of course, but it was an interesting interpretation of the first amendment. I'll give him credit for that. =P
You say that as it was ever in question to begin with.
Stargazer5781 responds: [yt]16DueNM9ySA[/yt]