Ron Paul is about half genius.

blackascoal said:
This is 200 years after the Constitution was written and today we live in a modern society. The Constitution is not the only authority in America. Laws and legislation have been written to address the needs of a modern society with socio-ethical responsibilities.
Click to expand...

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is, those laws that violate it are illegitimate.

What do you tell seniors when you pull the rug from under them? .. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?
Click to expand...

You make a fool of yourself engaging and agreeing with this retarded fearmongering and hyperbole.

You could not pull the rug out from under seniors with both hands and a team of mules. Seniors have more wealth than any other age group. SS is a system that takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Those elderly truly in need could easily be taken care of with much less, by local governments or charities.

Further, your statements here are dishonest. Paul has called for no overnight repeal of SS. He has called for a transition.
 
Just like the christains also have a mnadate to convert the world as well. and have a long history of using force to do it.
 
uscitizen said:
If libertarians had their way we would be LASA - Loosley Associated States of America.
We would devolve in to ethnic, poor, rich, redneck, etc states.
As diverse as totally different countries.
Much like Europe has become.
Only we would work backwards to get there.
Click to expand...

This is stupid. A government does not define a society. It can take steps to control the society but it cannot define it.
 
Both are wrong. and much of what we in the us are calling Islamic extremeism is not that at all, but people that just happen to be muslims fighting back in the only way they can against their opressors.
 
blackascoal said:
This is 200 years after the Constitution was written and today we live in a modern society. The Constitution is not the only authority in America. Laws and legislation have been written to address the needs of a modern society with socio-ethical responsibilities.

What do you tell seniors when you pull the rug from under them? .. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?
Click to expand...

The constitution is the supreme authority, and it overrides mere laws.

But I think what RS is trying to say is that he takes a limited view of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses.
 
Watermark said:
This is stupid. A government does not define a society. It can take steps to control the society but it cannot define it.
Click to expand...

Male Bovine Excrement!
The religious right has been using our govt to define our society for years.

Gay marriage is just one issue. Abortion. MJ laws and a myrid of other social laws on the books.
 
uscitizen said:
Male Bovine Excrement!
The religious right has been using our govt to define our society for years.

Gay marriage is just one issue. Abortion. MJ laws and a myrid of other social laws on the books.
Click to expand...

And what did that do to define our society?

Gays still call themselves married.

People still smoke pot.

Women still had abortions in whenever it was illegal in certain states.

The government may have put it under a veil of secrecy but the beliefs of the people usually remain unchanged if freedom of speech and other such things remain. The society evolves itself and the goverment is usually just an irrational force..
 
uscitizen said:
Just like the christains also have a mnadate to convert the world as well. and have a long history of using force to do it.
Click to expand...

And that's why the evangelicals despise Ron Paul.
The Republican Party is controlled by the Arlington Group.
The Arlington Group is an evangelical umbrella of groups such as Focus On The Family and the Christian Coalition. They have two goals:
1. Take over the Republican Party....they have done that.
2. Castrate the Constitution and establish a Christian Theocracy
Their battle cry: America Is A Christian Nation!

Ron Paul defends the Constitution and is a thorn in their side.
 
LMAO..............

WC Grouch said:
And that's why the evangelicals despise Ron Paul.
The Republican Party is controlled by the Arlington Group.
The Arlington Group is an evangelical umbrella of groups such as Focus On The Family and the Christian Coalition. They have two goals:
1. Take over the Republican Party....they have done that.
2. Castrate the Constitution and establish a Christian Theocracy
Their battle cry: America Is A Christian Nation!

Ron Paul defends the Constitution and is a thorn in their side.
Click to expand...


This from the former 'Alter Boy'...uh huh...little brother smells a set up...lol;)
 
Damocles said:
A shame that. However, name one other candidate on the national stage that is arguing to only pursue declared wars. I know you won't be able to, because they don't exist.

You can ignore how each tempest we begin using the failure that is the "War Powers Act" rather than requiring a Declaration has been more full of fail than the last, it is a progressive march deeper into the Great State of Failure. We should elect a Senator from there. We have one from the Great State of Denial, named Senator Tapper....

Maybe Kerry, who somehow took Bush's aggressive stance toward Iraq in the 2000 Election cycle to mean that he really wouldn't attack Iraq, he just meant to use the army for negotiations....
Click to expand...

Yes I can .. Dennis Kucinich.

On the war in Iraq, Kucinich has staked out a position even more antithetical to the Bush administration than those of rivals such as Dean and former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun. He has opposed the war from before its start, as one of a minority of House Democrats who voted no on the war authorization resolution supporting the administration. He then joined an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to prevent Bush from going to war without a returning to Congress for a formal declaration of war.
http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20031228kucinich40elect3p3.asp

Paul is correct on many issues regarding the US penchant for war and he speaks the truth about Iraq, although I'm antiwar for different reasons than Paul, he does indeed speak the truth about Iraq.

However
 
Watermark said:
The constitution is the supreme authority, and it overrides mere laws.

But I think what RS is trying to say is that he takes a limited view of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses.
Click to expand...

"Supreme" authority or not, the Constitution was not designed for a modern society. There are a plethora of modern-day issues that aren't in the Constitution .. such as ..

Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Order
Executive Privilege
Freedom of Expression
(Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
God
Impeachment means removal from office
Innocent until proven guilty
Intellectual Property
It's a free country
Judicial Review
Jury of Peers
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Marriage
Martial Law
No taxation without representation
Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
"Of the people, by the people, for the people"
Paper Money
Political Parties
Primary Elections
Privacy
Qualifications for Judges
The right to privacy
The right to travel
The right to vote
The separation of church and state
The Separation of Powers Clause
Slavery
"We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Constraints on the people
Education
Student, Animal, Gay, Lesbian Rights
The word "democracy"
Abortion
Age discrimination
Capitalism

The Constitution is a living document and is altered and amended as Americans get smarter and as society changes. Life is not static, it's dynamic, and trying to literally live by the original Constitution is like trying to literally live by the bible.
 
Kucinich is the equal and opposite of R. Paul. Just in a different party. IMO. Both men have their strong convictions, they both stick to them hard. You fall more into the Kucinich category I fall more into the Paul category. Who do you think I would support?

Anyway, If the Constitution needs fixing, there is a process for that other than just ignoring it. It is called Amendments.

The Declaration protects states from just such messes as this one. It was there for a reason.
 
RStringfield said:
You make a fool of yourself engaging and agreeing with this retarded fearmongering and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

More trance-like zombie thinking.

Goddamn dude, this kook is your candidate. Don't you even know what the hell he's said?

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." Washington Post, 7/9/06]

“Something must be done to phase out the government’s involvement in Social Security. Pension and annuity plans should be the concern of the people, not the government. Political control of these things will lead only to bankruptcy and misery for retired persons.” CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988

"Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing

You could not pull the rug out from under seniors with both hands and a team of mules. Seniors have more wealth than any other age group. SS is a system that takes from the poor and gives to the rich. Those elderly truly in need could easily be taken care of with much less, by local governments or charities.
Click to expand...

INCREDIBLY ridiculous. "Charities" .. Leave seniors to "charity"????

I call this trance-like whatthefuck duplicity.

First you argue that Paul doesn't want to eliminate SS, then you try to explain why it's a good idea.

YIKES

Further, your statements here are dishonest. Paul has called for no overnight repeal of SS. He has called for a transition.
Click to expand...

“Something must be done to phase out the government’s involvement in Social Security. Pension and annuity plans should be the concern of the people, not the government. Political control of these things will lead only to bankruptcy and misery for retired persons.” CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988
 
Damocles said:
Kucinich is the equal and opposite of R. Paul. Just in a different party. IMO. Both men have their strong convictions, they both stick to them hard. You fall more into the Kucinich category I fall more into the Paul category. Who do you think I would support?
Click to expand...

On many important issues I don't disagree with that.

Anyway, If the Constitution needs fixing, there is a process for that other than just ignoring it. It is called Amendments.

The Declaration protects states from just such messes as this one. It was there for a reason.
Click to expand...

The Constitution will always need fixing which is why I call it a living document. Thus, the argument that "it's not in the Constitution" isn't really much of an argument given that there is a world of issues that aren't in the Constitution. Often it doesn't require amending the Constitution to put any particular issue there, but simply passing the law or creating a program that deals with it.

Social Security isn't in the Constitution isn't really an argument.
 
blackascoal said:
On many important issues I don't disagree with that.



The Constitution will always need fixing which is why I call it a living document. Thus, the argument that "it's not in the Constitution" isn't really much of an argument given that there is a world of issues that aren't in the Constitution. Often it doesn't require amending the Constitution to put any particular issue there, but simply passing the law or creating a program that deals with it.

Social Security isn't in the Constitution isn't really an argument.
Click to expand...
But it is a clear position based on an interpretation. Clearly the SCOTUS believes that the SS program is within the purview of the Federal government, thus that argument is long over.

However, attempting to simplify that the argument is solely that is pretense. It isn't that simple. It hasn't been for a long time. Most simply disagree that the federal government is the best place to handle it, you disagree with them, there is a debate and a vote of representatives. It is how government works.

"Ron Paul will return us to Feudalism" is much the same type of argument. First, he wouldn't. He has never argued the dissolution of the Constitution and a return to Serfs, nor is he ever going to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top