Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
"Break America up into nation-states????"
Please cite the source of this quote so we can see the full context of the statement.
Do a bit of research on the Political Cesspool where Paul has been a guest many times. It's the radio program for the White Citizens Council ... you'll find him listed under P, right above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php
Did Eric Dondero force your candidate to be a frequent guest on a white nationalist radio show? .. Or maybe that wasn't actually Ron Paul appearing. Perhaps it was an "aide", a "ghostwriter". a ghost.
The ONLY congressperson to get a 100% rating from John Birch Society.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M
It's not surprising since Ron Paul's main campaign issue is the Constitution and regardless of their other views and discrepancies, the Constitution is their mainstay as well.
I am aware of the activities of the White Nationalist Movement--as I have told you before, Jews are not excluded from their bigoted aims and I would not support Ron Paul if I felt he advocated their views.
And there are Ron Paul supporters in their ranks. I am also aware that there are 9/11 conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul. The fact is that Ron Paul, and all political candidates, will attract a lot of support from many kinds of people...some of whom do not have good values as far as the traditions of a constitutional liberal democracy is concerned.
But as Ron Paul said the other night on Fox News, to support the candidate or allow him a forum does not mean that HE endorses their views. It means that they endorse HIS views. Whether they see his views favorable for them or not is irrelevant to whether I believe they would be favorable according to my values.
There are many views of other parties and candidates that are favorable to unsavory types of people and organizations. It is simply not as easily indicted as this example you provide here.
Frankly, I don't care what mostly powerless White Nationalist groups think about who ought to be President. I am much more concerned about the interest groups that have a serious capacity to endanger our rights.
There are racist, bigoted, socially ignorant people who still have sense enough to know that rampant corporate welfare and warfare are not good for America and our way of life.
I used the Bush analogy as comparison to the scum of the bottom .. and said Paul would be worse than that.
Let me just put it out there for you...If you think Bush is better than Ron Paul...a close friend and political ally to Dennis Kucinich...you're not a liberal.
I respect your right to have an opinion.
No, you don't. Otherwise you would use persuasion for what you thought was important rather than distraction to try to keep the Ron Paul candidacy in the background despite the important distinctions he is making in the Republican Primary...distinctions that could protect YOUR RIGHTS.
I also do not support HR 1146, but I understand and appreciate the spirit and the philosophical consistency behind Ron Paul's support of it. And I even agree with some of his arguments for why he does not prefer our involvement in the UN and NATO and consider them legitimate concerns.
I can disagree with someone and still understand their reasoning. I disagree with Charlie Rangel on his bill to institute the draft, but I understand that he introduced it for specific reasons that many would consider noble.
With all due respect, I don't believe that. I would think more of Paul supporters if they just came out and said they don't give a damn about Paul's racist beliefs. Just say you aren't black or hispanic so why should you care?
Well, what would the black and hispanic Ron Paul supporters say? Are they race traitors for appreciating the message in a way you can't? Frankly, many of my views are derived from the troubles I feel are inequitably forced on minority groups by our government, so I'm naturally offended by this notion. The smallest minority is the individual.
even Jefferson didn't want to ratify it unless it was modified or including what became the Bill of Rights.
That's right. Because the Constitution without a Bill of Rights was a formula for unlimited amounts of government power. Things like the Patriot Act could be passed and the government could be fully nationalized and unitary, which was entirely in contradiction to the revolution. The revolution would about home rule much more than it was about taxes.
The colonists would gladly pay more taxes to their States than to England as long as they were represented by their State. They certainly weren't going to let the central government retain a Constitution that let them do whatever they wanted and ruin Federalism, despite the efforts of some.
Most people will tell you that the only failing of the Bill of Rights was that it didn't go far enough in PROTECTING rights, not only because it included slavery, but it limited important protections for the emancipated as well.
There were a plethora of issues that the founders were unable to come to consensus on to say "Congress shall make no law..." including medical freedom, privacy and we tangle with that today.
So, what's your beef? Do you want a strong Bill of Rights that is respected or do you not wish to recognize it because it doesn't meet your immediate vision for what government ought to make society do? What sacrifices will you be making to our liberties in ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to modern society.
And I believe in a modern society that respects its Constitution and has enough sense of justice to amend the Constitution when they want to change the contract between the government and the people.