"Read the Constitution!"
By SilentPatriot Wednesday Oct 10, 2007 4:36pm
Chris Matthews asks the GOP candidates an easy question: Does Congress need to authorize a strategic attack on Iran? When Mitt Romney says that he would have to consult his lawyers (the same disturbing answer he gave to a question about detaining American citizens without charge or trial), Ron Paul goes off and gets a strong round of applause.
Download | play 
Download | play
It's quite astonishing that a majority of the Republican candidates for President of the United States simply do not understand the Constitution and that the power to declare war lies with the Congress. Can you even begin to imagine what the founders would have to say about this?
Login or Register to post comments.
The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers... right after we waterboard them. Or something.
I'm surprised that they still allow Paul to call himself a Republican.
omg if gore doesnt cowboy up
i will be voting for ron paul
omg
It's not just the Rethuglicans who don't get that Congress declares war - the invertebrate Democrats don't either.
How come Ron Paul is the only Republican who isn't a complete retard?
You can certainly see Ron Paul's appeal after Romney's meandering gobbley-gook. I bet ole Mitt also consults his attorneys as to when he should have a bowl movement . . .
Now we're talkin'.....
"It's the Constitution stupid"
Say it loud, say it Now!!!
Astonishing and scary.
Freddie Boy Thompson tried to avoid the question when posed to him...mentioning
the "War Powers Act" as if/tho he had any idea as to what that document provides.
Almost seemed like a "set-up" question for Tommy Boy, for he immediately looked down
to the podium before him and starting reading a prepared statement relating to the War
Powers Act.
Hell, Romney was probably right in his twisted little unitarian executive world. He consults with the lawyers to see how he can subvert the Constitution and dodge Congress to do what he wants to do. A man after Bush's dark little heart.
"Can you even begin to imagine what the founders would have to say about this?"
The wouldn't say anything. They would find a bunch of nooses and immediately hang themselves.
That party is lost. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul thinks, but God Damn if I wouldn't feel better if more Republicans acted like him. At least he understands the fundamentals of our Constitution. Mitt and the rest should be ashamed of the answers they gave.
Good post. I'm glad this got brought up.
So sad, did you hear the chuckle from one of the others
during his passionate response?
These guys think he is nuts....
Super Majority '08
>WorldAsUnwill
>How come Ron Paul is the only Republican who isn’t a complete retard?
He was the only Republican on stage.
It's time to shake Tom Paine's Bones...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujjTVB-g66Y
The last Republican President was Eisenhower and he almost ran as a Democrat.
Ohio Proud @ 13:
They think that whole "Constitution" thing is crazy. They're probably just listening to Shrub and they think it's "just a god d*mn piece of paper."
I like this Ron Paul guy, if only more Republicans were as honest as he is.
We should also get to hear Guiliani's retort to Paul's comment:
....And the point of -- I think it was Congressman Paul made before -- that we've never had an eminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.
Mr. Paul: That was no country. (APPLAUSE)
That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.
Mr. Giuliani: And since September -- well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe -- maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it.
Thgat is so ridiculous. Bombing Pakistan would have not thwarted 911, the terrorists were here!
Guiliani would have had us lobbing cruise missles into Hamburg Germany, Venice Florida, Boston, NYC even, and any other city where terrorists are hiding, if he really wanted to stop the 911 attacks.
He is truly an idiot who's obsession with 911 will be his downfall- can anyone say command center?
jtmonty46 @ 16:
That is... "Republican"
The Constitution? Pfff... How quaint. Next thing he'll be talking about the Bill of Rights, Checks and Balances, or that socialist concept, "the common wealth." Commie!
I'm encouraged there were a round of applause following Paul's remarks.
If you listen carefully to the clip, you can hear the other candidates starting to laugh at Ron Paul as he finishes. Then they are drowned out by the applause from the audience. This says all there is to say about the GOP as it stands today. Completely out of touch.
Amazing how these Republicrats beat up on lawyers... then jump into bed with them the second they think we blink...
I would vote for Paul before I voted for Hillary or Obama...
It's the Constitution stupid...
None the less..
Dennis Kucinich 08!
This is great! Northwest Ohio is not all RED!
We have a pick up opportunity here!
Special Election, Dec 11- OH-5
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20071009/NEWS17/710090332
Ron Paul tells it like it is and doesn't give a rat's ass about the gang of morons and weasels on stage with him. I am becoming a fan.
The Dem's need to take a lesson from him.
I would not vote for Ron Paul but I can see how many republicans feel he is their guy. He's the only one who doesn't come across as trying out for a part in a play instead of running for the position of President of the United States.
Redradar @ 6:
And which pair of Magic underpants to wear...
Ron Paul makes the rest of the republicans look like bafoons. I pray to god he gets the nomination so I can vote for him.
waterboarding for jesus @ 25:
Ahem... *cough*... Dennis Kucinich!.. *cough*
Read the Constitution?
Sorry, his Constitution thinks women and minorities aren't as important as white landowners. I don't want to go back to those good old days, which is where he thinks we should be.
Ron Paul is a menace to modernity.
You won't have to worry about voting for Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I wish they had a chance to get past the primaries, but our corporate owners can't afford to let that happen.
It'll probably be Hillary vs. Basset Hound.
I'm sorry but anyone who says the first thing they do in a crisis is call a lawyer is someone I just don't trust. Covering their ass legally comes first? Why is that? Maybe because a lot of what they do teeters on the edge of being illegal?
Jo @ 30:
You should read it before you knock it.
Sean Upinatem @ 12:
Understanding the Constitution; now there's a novel idea.
There was a time, and I suppose it must be decades ago, when Republicans actually did understand the fundamentals of our Constitution. Back in the day, there was not such a monumental disregard of the foundations of our country with the major and lamentable exception of civil rights violations. Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves while some of us are mourning the imment implosion of the good old USA.
do the canidates not listen to who gets applause and then think you know what...they may be on to something?
honestly to think the President of the United States would go to his lawyers to see if he could declare war on a country without the approval of congress should be laughable, but today as I write this a man just stated it in a major debate..wtf is wrong with this country?
[Deleted. Don't call other posters names-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Flamebait-Sitemonitor]
Silleigh @ 358:
Hey, vists are visits, and I am sure C&L is loving this because it is helping them with their blog business. That's what it should be about anyway.
But there are some people here who take offence to Paul supporters, because they bring in a different perspective then is the norm. It is sometimes difficult for people to get out of their mentality of status quo, and some even go so far as to say Paul wants to have more corporate corruption and all the rest, when he really doesn't.
I'm afraid that his views are popular deep down in people's hearts and minds, but most people don't dare publically say that they are against such things as the CIA and the Fed. Everyone knows they are useless, I mean no other country has an intelligence agency as big as the CIA, nor do they have an influential central bank like the Fed.
But both of these entities are killing Americans slowly from the inside out. Of course we need to end them...it's clear as day.
[Deleted. Flamebait-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Flamebait-Sitemonitor]
jct @ 357:
I think what was being said is the last REPUBLICAN (not NeoCon) was Eisenhower.
I've said the same thing, though I am pretty careful to add that all the succeeding R's were really Neo's.
I recently moved to a fairly (ok, extremely) conservative area and the only lawn up signs I have seen are for Ron Paul. Make no mistake despite getting it right on Iraq, the man is no friend to progressive ideals. Still, I have no doubt he would be better than any of the other clowns on that stage. Personally I'd take ANY of the democratic candidates over him. (Hell, I'd even take Alan Colmes over RP)
ruth @ 360:
Same reason they visit this one.
I just wanted to clarify that the person stating that ron paul wants to go back to the original constitution he means the original "intent" as in it is not a living document that needs to be interpreted, amended yes but the statement " the peoples right to bear arms and maintain a militia shall not be infringed" means just that.
heres a recent interview that explains some of your other concerns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8PwoV4_Ds0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailypaul%2...
I find it so amusing that so many people think that "Paulites" are some tight-knit, close group of conspiracy-laden people who do nothing but spend all day "spamming" websites, online polls, and TV polls.
The reason why so many people think this is because these people never leave their homes nor talk to other people around them. If they did they would know that more and more people are voting for this guy based on their own, individual judgments for the best President, not because they are part of some dark conspiracy...
To those who say that "Paulites" are just a group of idiots who like to spam really have no idea at all about the mentality of this country. You would be so out of touch with the rest of the country. I don't give a rats ass if Paul has 2% in the polls. These polls are designed to support the mainstream candidates, everyone knows that. Paul always wins phone polls (where you can only vote ONCE), online polls, etc, because these votes are made by grassroots people who want the best President.
It's also time for people to stop accusing "Paulites" of campaigning instead of discussing. Excuse me!!! The last time I checked "campaigning" is another word for supporting. And the last time I checked Democrats support candidates all the time as well on blogs. It's like the kettle calling the pot black.
which of course says nothing of Ron Paul himself.
can anyone tell me exactly what fallacy this is? the closest i got was "Guilt by Association" but i believe there is a more correct one for the political world.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
here's a better example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
i like ron paul, but that was not a resounding amount of applause. i heard groans and boos underneath a few people clapping very very loudly for him. there was no marjority in that room in favor of ron paul. it's going to be a long road ahead for him.
ruth @ 363:
"The Southern states wanted individual states' rights which is CONSTITUTIONAL" because they wanted to keep slaves. You think there was no other reason besides the lofty ideal of respect for states' rights? Don't be insulting. "States' rights," in THIS point in American history, is the call of those who want Roe to fall. You didn't hear people bitching about this pre-Roe, when Republicans decided it was a good, Constitutional-sounding ploy, right up to the moment they jettisoned it with Schiavo and then picked it right back up ASAP.
Also, I'd like to know why, if states' rights are more important than federal power (and equal protection under the law for ALL American citizens), my INDIVIDUAL rights are less important than states' rights? You really, really expect me to check those at the state border??? Of course. You expect me to because you're telling me what's best for me, just like an old-fart ob/gyn would.
That's another thing Paulbots do. They talk down to those who disagree with them, calling us "misinformed," in that patronizingly schoolmarmish tone, as though we've never explored any of these issues. Then it gets worse. When we demonstrate in a public forum what idiots they are, they accuse us of being government-planted agents of disinformation. I've been fighting with one nutcase on my local Craigslist who has progressed from telling me I'm misinformed to screeching in all caps that I'm a government-paid disinformation agent, and insists that my IP is a "government address," which is fookin' hilarious.
Many of you Paul supporters are frankly insufferable and manage to do your candidate, excuse me, Chosen One much more harm than good.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 2:
I'm surprised some of us still let Lieberman call himself a Dem.
Can we trade? I mean sure, he'd easily be the furthest right wing Democrat ever... but at least he knows wtf the Constitution *says*. Thats more than I can say for half of our own party even.
Silleigh @ 373:
If you call that a rebuttle, you completely failed.
If you think that introducing some crazy dude calling you a government informant is going to somehow erase everybody else from consideration, you really need to wake up.
I could just as easily invented some crazy Obama supporter for example, and then say well, that guy is crazy so every other Obama supporter is crazy too.
And don't for one second say that Paul supporters are somehow "special" in being crazy. Crazy people are everywhere and for you to just claim that one group has more without even showing any proof just goes to show why that Paul supporter had issues with you in the first place. Your argument-making skills are just so frustratingly annoying and easy to demolish.
bro @ 375:
I didn't see you demolishing my argument about states' rights in that post. I just see you declaring that not all Paulites are crazy, basically. You're welcome to your opinion about them. I've encountered several over-the-edge Paulites throughout the intertoobs, and am entitled to draw my own conclusions. You can demolish an argument possibly, but not an opinion.
And, see, you're already "frustratingly annoyed" with me because I do not agree with you. (Lemme guess, you don't have a uterus, right?) Paulites tend to have worse-than-average anger management skills. In my OPINION, based on what I have seen on websites and forums.
Demolish THAT.
correct, you won that one.
although you could have left out the ad hominem/gloating/opinion stuff. it felt like malkin had taken the stage.
Silleigh @ 377:
OK, if you want, I can demolish your States rights argument very easily, with a catch.
You're right, individual rights MUST go above both State and Federal "rights", but I wouldn't call the laws of the States and the Fed "rights". You are very right in this respect. But that's as far as you go.
See, what those who are supportive of States rights want are not State rights to go above individual rights. No, what they want are options. Options, that's it. See, if the Federal government makes a law, then everyone must follow it, there is no "escape" from it if people find it to be intrusive or immoral. Supporting state rights actually is a step TOWARDS individual rights, because of the simple fact that LESS numbers of people fall under its jurisdiction. The best thing about having states making their own rights is that if one state has something illegal, like abortion or marijuana use for example, and another state does not, then can't you see the benefit here?
Those people who do not want to have abortion legal can move to the states that prohibit it. Those who want to smoke up can move there, those who don't like it can live in a state that bans it.
Now if the Federal government makes a law that states should be handling, like abortion and drug use, then people's INDIVIDUAL rights will be violated.
So it is here that your argument is demolished.
Oh, and your ad hominem attack at me suggesting I don't have a uterus makes you look not only like a bad arguer, but a sexist one too. To think that only males would do what you think they do makes me realize that you don't really want to talk about the issues, but rather putting others in their place in order to feel better about yourself.
I noticed this as soon as you accused "Paulites" of becoming annoyed because you won't agree with them. Why should agreement be the ultimate goal? Can't you just live and let live and let people have their opinions that are different than yours? I noticed that about women. Most women will not stop hammering at you until you say you agree or you are sorry. Well, if you accuse males of being confrontational, it's only because they just want to be able to have their opinions and not have to convince others all the time.
WorldAsUnwill @ 5:
He is, just not when it comes to Presidential powers. On virtually everything else he is at least as insane as any other winger and more than most.
Jo @ 46:
Within the original Constitution is the means to change the Constitution...hence the legal amendments, ratified by all the states. Ron Paul is very knowledgeable about the Constitution, and you clearly have not checked into his record. What you say is just absurd. I am floored at your ignorance. Ignoring the Constitution has brought us the "Patriot Act," dozens of "executive orders" allowing a president to declare himself a dictator over everything, illegal "police actions" aka wars (unfunded except by printing of paper money), and on and on. All the candidates, except for Ron Paul, will end up as baby-Bushies if elected, dancing the same old dance to the same old song. There's not a dime's difference between them. Except for Ron Paul.
Kucinich/Paul '08 or Paul/Kucinich '08, whichever you prefer. the only 2 real candidates/people.
Chris S @ 301:
Chris,
Why should I register as a Republican?
Because of the Republican Party and what they have supported this Nation is not for the better.
I loathe what the Republicratic Parties have done to the American Constitution, It's values and principles.
I loathe that they have created the worlds greatest humanitarian crises facing the world, Iraq, and the inflation of world wide terrorist strikes.
I loathe that the Republicans lack an appreciation of diversity, freedom, and religion.
Now, why should I register for a Party that I've only grown to loathe?
Just so I can vote for Ron Paul?
... Think about that for a moment.
Who benefits if I join your team?
Why is Ron Paul still on your team?
Does Ron Paul endorse/support modern Republicanism?
Get Ron Paul to divest himself from the Neo-Fascist Republican Gang of Perpetrators, then we can talk. Until then...
... Many Americans do not appreciate being conned, even by a Republican who won't leave his Party because of misplaced loyalties because currently, those same Republicans are now know as the:
GANG
OF
PERPETRATORS!
Why should I endorse that?
.
Ron Paul is a just a darn good American. Simple as that.
Question;
Why isn't Ron Paul the pack leader and not Mitt, Rudy, and Thompson lower tier candidates?.
Ron Paul pwns!!!!
Hillary voted for the Iraq war... and the PATRIOT Act.... not once, BUT TWICE!!!! She is the worst neo con of them all! Her and Obama and Edwards are saying we will nto be out of Iraq by 2013. What kind of garbage is that. They should switch over to the GOP, since they all voted for the PATRIOT Act.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Paul, Kucinich, Gravel, or richardson....
The rest are traitors.
Yeah, 8 Jacobin warmongers and 1 true republican American.
Robt @ 384:
And why aren't Kucinich and Gravel at the head of the Democratic pack? Especially when most Americans want us out of Iraq.
Just follow the money into politician's pockets and into the corporate media, and you'll find your answer. How many people even heard of Ron Paul et al? If they have, they heard either that they are nuts or that they are not serious contenders.
The people have spoken. But no country is free unless the press is free. This next election will prove that.
John Samsonite @ 321:
Who's callin' who a troll?
WashStateBlue has been postin' here fer at least a year- probably much longer- and posts on threads concernin' many differerent topics.
The Paulists who show up here, however, only post on Paul-related threads. Don't see ya on the K.O. threads, the LNMC threads...not even on the open threads!
Ya know, it's a damned shame that the supporters of the folks Paul caucuses with don't letchya post on their blogs. It's not as if Paul is runnin' fer the Democratic nomination, ya know.
And, yes, this is a liberal/prog blog. See that Koufax Award thingamajig? It's an award fer lefties. Does it surprise ya that lefties don't welcome with open arms supporters of a guy who would kill New Deal and Great Society programs?
Be gracious. Take yer lumps. But don't accuse regulars at this site of bein' trolls.
Curtilingus @ 104:
Actually, Skull and Bones does accept women.
Jo @ 46:
bro @ 378:
I didn't refer to "Federal rights." You did in that statement, for the first time I've seen. The phrase "states' rights" is what is commonly used in this context.
We no longer live in a society where every individual who believes he should have a particular right can freely locate to another state to live with like-minded individuals. We belong to families with different beliefs whom we nonetheless may need to stay close to. Our jobs transfer us. This is a silly argument. Swapping state rule for federal rule doesn't help in many cases; an individual's rights may still be just as easily trampled. Have you looked around at many state governments or legislative bodies? They can be run just as badly as the federal government can be, and many state legislatures are gerrymandered to hell and back and very difficult to change via vote.
'Fraid not. See above. Basic American, AMERICAN, rights should not be subject to the whim of state legislatures. If that were the case, how many states would allow African Americans to vote? I can think of a few which would probably not.
I observed you probably don't have a uterus. It's telling that not ONE Paulite here has commented on the argument I made against returning abortion to the states. I don't believe that's an ad hominem attack, just an observation that it's usually certain males who think women should just chuck their own right to reproductive determination for some "greater good." They don't seem to GET that, if you CAN get pregnant, reproductive rights are deeply fundamental. Women cannot enjoy any of this "greater good" stuff if they don't get to control whether or not to end a pregnancy.
You yourself stated something about my "argument making skills being frustratingly annoying," when I'm simply pointing out some home truths.
Now you're getting whiny and far more sexist than I ever dreamed of being. Agreement IS the ultimate goal -- for Paulites, endeavoring to swell their ranks and encourage Dems to register as Republicans to vote for Paul. I haven't seen this kind of evangelization of politics since Ross Perot was running, and it wasn't as bad then. It's FINE with me if you want to vote for Ron Paul. But you and your friends should stop jumping on every mention of Paul like fleas and preaching His word, and then getting annoyed when people point out what a Paul presidency would actually point us toward. Do you think every state should have its own FDA, its own Centers for Disease Control, its own mechanism for building (interstate) highways, etc.? That's not practical and it's not cost-effective.
And please, tell me why I should have to cross a state border or two or three (I live in the South, you see) if I need to end a pregnancy. In what universe does that make sense?
OK, I'm a Paulite. I admit it.
And I can certainly understand that people at a Democrat site would find many - many - things in Paul's overall governing philosophy to disagree with.
But I don't think that Paul supporters and Democrats should be at each other's throats, because the differences between us are not the most urgent dangers facing America today.
We currently have a Chief Executive who has people tortured. Who has people held in extrajudicial detention. Who spies on Americans and ignores the 4th Amendment. Who has led us into one quagmire and who is itching to lead us into another. The major candidates running for the nomination in his party are tripping all over themselves to embrace his legacy and compete with each other to see who can top it.
The funny thing about Romney's answer is that he's getting grief for it because it expresses doubt that he has the right to invade Iran without a war declaration. The other non-Paul candidates said nothing about lawyers because they're so sure they can ignore the Congress they don't even have to ask for legal advice. Romney's answer is being treated as a gaffe because it wasn't bloodthirsty enough and unConstitutional enough. That is the state of discourse in the Republican party today.
Yes, a Paul presidency would include policy initiatives you wouldn't agree with. But the other candidates hold Bushite positions that threaten the Republic itself. That's why the Paul candidacy is important. The Bush legacy in the Republican party has to be smashed, and anybody who stands up to smash it - Democrat, Paul supporter, Libertarian, Green, Constitution Party member, etc. - should try to have a little solidarity.
After the neocons are gone, we can then compete among ourselves to see what direction to take from there. And you know what? The voters are with YOU GUYS on a lot of the libertarian agenda that you're afraid of, so you'll have your share of victories. And won't that be a lot better than what we have now?
Sure Brian, it would be great!
But...
The Pualies are here evangelizing to the liberals and telling us we should jump on over to the Republican banner.
Not going to happen.
And their condescension and scolding are more than annoying.
This thread was about RP's performance, which was good. Much better than any of the other candidates.
The Paulies have turned it into campaign central.
They so far off topic by doing that and so adamant about their Republican views as to be ubber trolls.
They don't like it when you point it out to them, but that is what they are.
As I and others have said, this is a progressive liberal blog, calling the regulars names and trying to convince them that voting conservative is the only way to a better future is NOT going to go over well.
That and RP is bat shit crazy.
When the leading Republicans think "read the Constitution" is a laugh line...well, that says it all...
OK, I see your point.
Still, "You guys should vote for OUR GUY!" is a step up from "Max Cleland is a dirty traitor!" and "John Kerry shot himself to get those medals!" But I can see how it would be annoying.
Since it obviously makes no sense to ask you to vote for him, maybe you could send him $10 at his website. Think of it this way: if he makes it to the convention with any delegates, it's very likely that Minneapolis will turn into Chicago 1968 and that will undermine the eventual nominee.
[Yeah, I know. That asking for money part is tongue in cheek.]
Ron Paul is showing the Democrats how they should be behaving. Hillary & Obama are in the same mold as 1/2 the Rethug field.
His appeal is undeniable especially when juxtaposed with the current lot of hypocritical Republicans. He's at least consistent in his beliefs. However, his libertarian beliefs such as a capitalistic utopia created by non-regulated free markets is a fairy tale. The consumer would take it up the ass even more than we currently do. But you have to respect how he cuts out the bullshit and sticks to his principles.
The rest of the Repub candidates seem to be measuring whose is longer while Ron Paul tells them to zip up their damned pants.
rduke @ 29:
man, what an election year it would be if Kucinich was the dem nominee and Paul the repub nominee. There would be some of the most reasonable debates since before the 60's!
Wow, that was a fucking scary answer from Romney. Ask the lawyers? Are you fucking kidding me? Scary, scary, scary.
pissed off patricia @ 38:
Very observant. Now, I will go and gouge out my mind's eye.
Why does the best Democrat running for office have to be a Republican?
If Texas is sticking to its republican traditions, it will go Ron Paul.
Not me, its Tancredo all the way!
........psyche!!!!
Fran Townsend tried to defend Mitt's answer yesterday by saying before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq, lawyers were called to the white house. Her defense was feeble at best.
Yellow Elephant Safari @ 2:
Whatever Paul is,Libertarian,Republican-the rest of them are Authoritarians.
Clinton was much more "Republican" than these guys...
Weaseldog @ 33:
I am not knocking our Constitution with amendments. I am knocking Ron Paul's vision of women's role in a modern world. The Constitution he quotes is the original, without the amendments.
My guess? The founders would consider them all morons who aren't fit to lead a parade of clowns let alone run a nation... Idiots who have no business trying to become the president of the United States...with Mitt being the biggest baffoon of them all in this snippet... That's my guess.. The lack of basic knowledge in these people who would claim to have the right stuff to lead this country is beyond unbelievable, beyond rediculous, beyond astonishing... It's fucking dangerous, it's insulting to the very concept of representative democracy. I'm not a big Ron Paul fan, but he got it totally right on this.. He should have given Mitt more hell for his specific cluelessness................JD
Regarding "States Rights" and "Federal Rights"...that's all bullsh%t. There are only unalienable rights...that they belong to WE THE PEOPLE, not to any level of government. The government's job is to protect those rights.
At least, that's the American philosophy...
Brian @ 395:
Sure! Right after you donate $10 to Hillary. ;)
This is getting scary folks
Every time I hear Ron Paul speak I become more certain that he's my man I don't agree with everything he says but it's way over 50% which is more than I can say for anyone else It's too bad that he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell
I'll bet one thing he would have been right at home casting his vote in the Continental Congress circa 1782
Symes @ 397:
How about Kucinich? My wife supports Kucinich and has been after me to donate.
Brian @ 399:
Excellent! Now your talking.
The RP bots have been claiming RP's the only way and ignoring Kucinich (who is FAR less of a nut job than RP ever will be).
I'm still not going to give RP any money though, sorry.
Kucinich on the other hand has already got money from me, with more on the way.
People need to stop with this "bla bla bla can't win the election therefore I won't vote for them". That's the most ridiculous statement i've heard, and it's that kind of thinking that causes us to end up with facist, corporate-shill scumbags like Giuliani and Hillary as nominees.
Rev. Yearwood "Ron Paul better than a lot of Democrats"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbP-qFHoLAw
I know there are a lot of people in this thread who think that those of us who support Dr. Paul are tin-foil hat wearing nut jobs. That's fine with me, I don't mind the ad hominem attacks. I find it better to just ignore them. There seems to be no shortage of these attacks from both sides. I visit sites from all political spectrums on a daily basis, simply to learn and attempt to understand the positions. I rarely comment, but rather enjoy what others say about certain subjects. I must admit, what I do not understand is why people feel the need to result to insults, name calling, and out right lying.
With that in mind, this video link of Rev. Yearwood I think should counter the numerous earlier postings that suggest that Dr. Paul is a racist.
Ok...Have at me.
I am a forty year member of the Democratic party and will be voting for Ron Paul in the primary mostly because of the war but also for other reasons. I am female and am unclear about the morality of abortion but can't understand why anti-draft men would force a woman to go through a pregnancy and endure a very painful and potentially life-threatening birth when the fault is only half hers (if that, in cases of rape or other power imbalance).
I can fully understand, however, why an obstetrician (Ron Paul) would be against the procedure. It is a matter of having seen tiny little feet, not necessarily a matter of wanting to keep women in their place. My daughter, a liberal Democrat and a doctor, refuses to do the procedure but will refer her patients.
Giving the decision about legality to the states is preferable, though, than giving it to the federal government which could just as easily ban all abortions as legalize them. Getting your protest heard locally is always easier for the average person. And, if worse comes to worse, you can still move away, which you couldn't do as easily if the Feds banned abortion.
I would appreciate it if Silleigh would respond to my last paragraph. I don't want to debate the morality as I am not sure I can say with any certainty either way.
I don't know about racist, but he was the ONLY member of Congress to vote against awarding a Congressional medal to Rosa Parks. That's pretty bad.
Paul also voted against a congressional award for his friend Ronald Reagan!
His point is simple, if congress wants to reward someone they can do it with THEIR OWN POCKET MONEY. NOT the taxpayers cash.
He even volunteered $100 of his own cash if the other congress critters would do the same. Guess what happened. No one took him up on his offer! Imagine that! It is so easy for these sleezeballs to spend OUR money but God forbid THEY should have to foot the bill for one of their bright ideas.
DW @ 401
I fail to understand your point on this. You seem to start off by implying that he is racist because he was the only one not to vote for the medal for Rosa Parks. But then you explain why he votes against ALL of these types of irrational spending of OUR money. At least he is consistent. He cannot be accused of flip-flopping/policy evolution, or whatever spin the media(both left and right) try to attribute to the supposed "top-tier" candidates from both parties.
I submit to you, we are Americans first. Just because someone has an R or D after their name does not mean that that person will genuinely represent what you think your party stands for. Hence the RINO/DINO tags. I would hope that people cast votes for candidates who desire the best for our people and our country. Our candidates should truly say what they mean and mean what they say, and have a record to back it up. Actions speak louder than words, and I would hope that most people are tired of the lip-service that comes from Washington. The only true throw-away vote is the one where you vote with the herd instead of voting your conscience.
What an absolute hero this Ron Paul is, he is by far the best candidate for president, including the democratic candidates.
If you look at what the democrats are doing in congress and the house, I'd seriously reconsider giving them your vote for the white house, these spineless gits don't deserve it.
Paul is not afraid to speak out against these idiots in the republican party, so nothing but praise for him.
If I could vote, I'd vote for him.
koko the talking gorilla @ 238:
In a speech to congress, Ron Paul said:
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.
We're not worthy of the United States the Founding Fathers gave us. I'm tired of all the arguing and bickering. Nobody researches anything anymore, they just create their own opinions based on whatever they want to believe. No one wants peace, really. It's hard, it requires patience, and everyone wants peace to happen RIGHT NOW without any thought of the effort and sacrifice such an idea requires. Sure, we want peace, but our way or the highway. Well, peace costs something, and you gotta give up something to get it. We're so tight-fisted on our own ideas of rights and freedoms, but we don't give a second thought to the religions of other people and their own ideas of freedom. Read the Constitution... Puh. That's all Ron Paul has in his arsenal is that he's some kind of Constitution guru. He gets it wrong half the time just like everybody else. This next election is gonna be disastrous, no matter how you look at it. As Americans, we all need a serious catastrophe to get us back to our humility we once had and what once made us great.
alicegardener @ 403:
That's one of the best posts i've seen on this site. Usually people either get branded as anti choice, or anti life, when in reality both sides have perfectly good and genuine reasons for believing in what they do.
I think Dr Paul's opinion on abortion is respected because as a doctor he knows better than anyone about this issue. It's his experiences that are driving his stance on abortion, not his religious beliefs. Unlike say Brownback who thinks wearing a condom is murder.
Mitt Romney is a blithering idiot. The moron kinda had the sense that he was fucking up but didn't know why, so he tried to bullshit his way through with nonesense. Mitt, you stupid fuck, go home. You aren't qualified for dog catcher (especially after the way you abuse your own dog).
Ron Paul nailed it.
alicegardener @ 403:
Hello, Alice. I'll do my best:
It's unlikely that the federal government will once again ban abortion. Those in power for the last 7 years have had time to do so, yet they don't because they know the public won't stand for it. They dangle the possibility like a carrot in front of their religious-right base, but never actually give the religious right what it wants.
However, we've seen laws restricting abortion passed in many, many states. Some states already have laws banning abortion, which will go into effect the minute Roe falls. This link is from over a year ago, but it gives a pretty good picture of the possibilities:
(sorry, this is a USA Today link that got truncated)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/jk8lu
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-abortion-states_x.htm
Look at that map. Think about this (if those Guttmacher Institute projections are still valid): How is a poor woman living near the Gulf Coast supposed to get an abortion if she needs one quickly? The closest state that *might* help her is North Carolina. She might have to aim for either New York or New Mexico. That could effectively prevent her from ending an unwanted pregnancy as early as possible (or at all), and I think everyone agrees that early is preferable to late whenever possible.
Also, even women who oppose abortion sometimes find themselves in need of one, and change their minds (even if only briefly). We can't concentrate all women in states likely to retain protection for abortion rights. And the whole "you can move away" argument doesn't take into consideration the nature of our lives today, family and job attachments.
It's kind of like saying, "If you believe African Americans should be able to vote, you should live in these states, and move away from these other ones." Reproductive determination should be a basic American right that should not depend on what state you live in.
I have been really snippy in this thread, partly because I am tired of people like Ron Paul trying to make women's daily lives more difficult, either because they oppose abortion or support states' rights, because the result is the same for many American women. Over 20 years ago I marched in reproductive rights protests. I really, really don't want to have to do it again, let alone fight it on at least 22 fronts in the states that would likely restrict abortion significantly.
I hope this has been helpful... you sound reasonable and thoughtful, no matter what your political beliefs. Sorry it took me so long to reply.
malky @ 406:
Democrats in Congress? Like Rep. Dennis Kucinich(who's solution to the war in Iraq is the same as Paul's). Sounds like ya haven't heard about the filibusterin' Republicans in the Senate.
And there's barely a Democratic candidate who doesn't speak out against the GOP. Those Democrats, unlike Paul, aren't Republicans- LIKE PAUL, WHO IS!!!
I'd have a lot more respect fer the man if he wasn't a Republican. If he was an indy or if he was a Democrat, who knows, I might consider votin' fer him. But he doesn't caucus with the Democrats because his political beliefs are much, MUCH more closely aligned with the far right of the Republican Party.
So , in case ya haven't gotten it through yer head yet, let me clarify:
Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is a Republican.
Rinse, lather and repeat.
Silleigh @ 359:
You got that right. Names I never seen before are here rimming paul.
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 413:
They don't post on other threads. They come to threads with Paul in the headlines only. They don't joke with the rest of us on Jon Stewart threads. They don't post at the LNMC. Where are they when we discuss David Vitter or Larry Craig?
They aren't part of this community. They are cloddish campaigners. And they deserve all of the shit they get.
@ tHeGaMeOfLiFe, Andy K: Heh. To be fair, I've been reading (and loving) C&L, including comments, for what seems like a VERY long time, yet I almost never comment here.
Occasionally something makes me mad enough to uncloak. This would be one o' those things. (And thank the gawds for Preview here, else I'd have really scrooed up the formatting, quoting, etc.)
Andy K @ 414:
No offense, but some of "the rest of you" seem to have a mis-informed view of what Ron Paul believes in, what the constitution says, or how the system works. People are that "aren’t part of this community" are posting here because this thread includes posts that are making misleading or false statements (which are based on ignorance, fear, malice, or maybe a little of each?)
Hi Silleigh You tickled my funny bone. Think of all those lonely women-less men if all women went to states allowing reproductive rights. That would get their attention.
But seriously, I do think about the serious difficulty some women would face getting themselves to another state - no money, family pressure, violence even. Even if there were an equivalent of the Underground Railroad, that is not a good solution.
However I don't think I would trust anti-abortion legislators in Congress (or the President, the way that branch of government has been grabbing power recently) to hold off forever just because they have been milking votes for seven years. Seven years is a blip in history.
Reproductive rights should perhaps be added to the US Constitution in the form of an amendment. It would be much harder to overturn and would be relatively more democratic that either a court decision or a vote of Congress. Ron Paul might not agree but he would definitely follow the constitution as amended.
Andy K @ 412:
is that that "open mind" talking, the one that's "like a parachute"?
he's actually a libertarian running on the republican ticket so he gets some air time. don't let that nuance bother you though. you know.
Actually,the people who claim that a free market would hurt the consumer are a little misguided. The fact is that competition helps the consumer. Right now, laws, taxes, and regulations favor the corporations. If we can get that little bit about "corporations" having the same rights as "individuals" then we will be rolling again. Local govt. is far better. You think a D.C. legistlator gives a rat's ass about what's going on in Bumf%&K, Idaho as much as someone who lives in Bumf%&k, Idaho. Trying to control on a national level is too complicated. The U.S.A: is made up of many regions and varying cultures with different traditions and the peoples of these regions should be able to decide how their region should be, not some power/money/glory hungry prick halfway across the country. Ron Paul 2008!
WashStateBlue @ 258:
Why isn't Ron Paul leading the pack? Because its all bullshit. The next president has already been chosen. Democracy is a sham. It worked for awhile, but then the power brokers figured out how to circumnavigate it. I live in Europe and probably will stay here. I cannot imagine going back to live in a land so utterly corrupt where the people are so clueless and in such denial. Shame, because I love America. What I see now doesn't look much like the America I was born and raised in so many years ago. We were never perfect, but we were sure a helluv a lot more honorable than we are now.
Silleigh, I wanted to add thankyou for your efforts for me and other women whether or not we agree with abortion. At least we have the choice to use our own minds and hearts instead of being forced to choose one way for the other. You may be tired but young women will take up the task. I believe that.
This is SAD!
Most of you are uniform and ill informed!
You know not what Ron Paul is about!
You know not of what the Republican AND THE DEMOCRATICS are doing to US!
We ALL need to WAKE UP!
The most principled, constitutionally correct candidate to ever run for the office of President of the United States is treated with disrespect consistently by the media.
Ron Paul is the one WE NEED!
You need to read http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
Then you WILL know who he is.
Then see these links and educate yourselves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyttEu_NLU
Napolitano - Unconstitutional Patriot Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SU0zuUzrSg
Then this….. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America+F...
Then this.. Hillary Exposed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl
You all need to WAKE UP!
Here’s More…
1. Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/
2. Security and Prosperity Partnership (Blueprint for a North American Union)
http://www.spp.gov/
3. NASCO Supercorridor (North American Union Super-Highway)
http://www.nascocorridor.com/
4. Mexico's Vicente Fox admits everything on Larry King
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=49877
5. London stock trader urges move to 'amero' (creepy)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53124
6. Introducing the "Amero"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amero
7.Is it Global warming or Global Governance?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443&q=Global+war...
8. Monopoly Men. This is about the FRB..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778
9. Candidates@Google: Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
Educate yourself.
Do your own research, then come back when you're prepared to debate:
The Revolution will not be Televised!
Ron Paul is a stinking Libertarian. His anti-war stance is the only thing I agree with him on. He is wrong about a million other issues. He's a one trick pony.
To those,
Who say something like this....
"Ron Paul doesn't like ______ because he voted against it. He's a bad guy."
or this:
"Ron Paul is against Pro Choice because he's an OBGYN. You'll never have a choice with him!"
I have learned a thing or two about Ron Paul since I first heard of him. Usually when Ron Paul votes no on something, it is because he doesn't believe the federal government should dictate that issue. Not that he is against it, and usually it's a matter of who decides an issue. States themselves or the federal government which dictates to all states.
As an example, he states the question in this way: Is it fair if for your tax dollars to the federal government go to an expensive award? He thinks not. He's a fiscal conservative, meaning he penny pinches everything. He doesn't spend your cash on anything that isn't constitutional or necessary. If it involves a good cause or a bad cause, he votes no on constitutional grounds - even if he is looked upon as heartless. He truly thinks of the peoples money as important, and his voting record proves it.
Also on the pro choice womens issue, he is completely pro choice. He believes in protecting life to protect liberty "that's his argument", however he says the decision should be in the hands of the state. Not the federal government, and that the people should decide. He has said repeatidly that he doesn't want to be president to decide what you can and can't do. So at first glance Ron Paul seems extreme until you look under the surface and realize the reasons WHY he votes the way he does.
Marc
asdf @ 418:
Do ya know what coat-tails are? Who do ya think Paul, as the GOP candidate fer POTUS, would have ridin' his coat-tails into Congress? Hint: the answer is not Libertarians.
Marc @ 425:
So Paul should support first tri-mester abortion because the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional, right? Regardless of whether any state would disregard the 14th Amendment?
No,
Ron Paul doesn't support people killing babies himself. He delivered over 4000 babies, so he has a good reason to think that way, and that is his choice. He supports the people and the states to decide the issue. He doesn't try to force his personal beliefs on others. So yes - you can kill your babies if you want at the "state level". He's not against your decision to do so. I'm not sure why some think he's against you deciding for yourself.
Marc
Marc @ 428:
Not my question.
Roe v. Wade ruled unconstitutional a state's right to ban first tri-mester abortions, based on the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. What would Paul, as the head of the Executive branch of the Federal govrnment, do to enforce the decision if a state did try to ban the procedure? Selectively enforce the Constitution or attempt to negate the 14th Amendment? Amend the Constitution to give a right to the states? I mean, I gotta figure if a guy is a strict Constitutionalist he must respect the document as is and the responsibilties detailed within. Right?
Ron Paul is the only politician who even sounds like he is telling the truth.
Jon Stewart said Ron Paul is a principled politician on the Daily Show.
He is the only Republican candidate with the courage to take an anti-war stance.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
http://wwwcom/snippets/47/ron-paul-at-the-debates/
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Please take time to research his record and platform before you trash him.
As they use to say on "Laugh In":
"Verrrrrrry interesting. But stupid!"
Pardon me for interrupting your rhetoric, but could I take just a moment to get back to the original question?
"Does Congress need to authorize a strategic attack on Iran?"
The answer should have been "No."
Thompson cited the War Powers Act, and it must have been too confusing for people who aren't aware of it and what it does, because it was apparently ignored (except derogatorily) by everyone who has contributed here.
Maybe we should all go read it.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/warpower.htm
The 1973 War Powers Act states that the president must 'consult' with Congress 48 hours before starting an attack ... not that Congress can stop it.
The president can keep troops in place for 60 days, and if Congress refuses to allow an extension or declare war, the president can be obliged to withdraw.
While you're at it, read your history over the past 30 years. This is how American presidents since Ford have been authorized to send troops to foreign lands.
ron paul sure has honesty, integrity and guts...
i just wish i agreed with his libertarian ideology. if so he'd have my support.
but the LAST thing this country needs is less regulation. and i fear his policies would make it easier for corporations to control the living world.
kucinich '08
Soon the backwoods folks from Georgia will insist that king george take their wives on their wedding night.
Ron Paul is not a confused neo-con / neo-christian nut bag is what the difference between him and the rest of those fools on stage. Honestly, I think that most of them know that there is more water in hell than hope in this election that a republican will win. They just like their names with Presidential Candidate attached to it. Not to mention it improves their resumes....
Jo @ 30:
Actually, the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments allow everyone over 18 to vote.
The Continuing War Powers Controversy
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-constitution?cat=biz-fin
Jo @ 46:
Try reading Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
There is no amendment regarding war powers.
Public schools don't teach kids to read the Constitution while showing them how to apply a bit of logic to it. They point to where it says slave and tell the kids that the Founders were racist. They point to the womens voting thing and say the Founders were woman haters. They lie to the kids. That is where the problem is on why so few average Americans understand the Constitution. They've never looked at it from a logical perspective. It's all fear and hate.
Ron Paul would be a great President....
IF this was agrarian Virginia circa 1789?
But, unfortunately, he's bat shit crazy, wants to dismantle FDA, FAA, IRS....wants woman and them damn pushy Darkies back in their place? And don't get him started on the Gold Standard or the UN?
He's like that entertaining nutty guy that speaks up at City Council meetings, who makes a lot of sense, till you talk to him after and he hands you the pamphlet explaining how space aliens controlling the world banking systems have put Catholics and Jew in charge of the world wide plot to suppress REAL AMERICANS and ban the bible.....
Big Deal
So one repug is talking about the constitution as if he's progressive.
ron paul reminds a flaming racist.
What's worse than an administration who has disdain for the Constitution of the United States? One who uses the constitution against its people.
I agree with you, Jack Damage. The one thing all these guys, sans Paul, have in common is their lack of knowledge about the way our government is supposed to run. Not one of them seems to hold any previous knowledge or curiosity.
We have had one of those for the past almost seven years and we see where that has gotten us. Especially one that allowed someone else to steer the biggest of all wheels.
I have a feeling there are some capable repubs who could do a much better job but they are going to sit this one out for two reasons. The first reason being they assume the dems are going to win this one. The second reason being they don't want to have to deal with all the shit bush is leaving behind.
BTW -- Squeaky. I haven't heard Sen. Hillary cackle like the excitable ron paul. paul has nothing on John Dean.
StirFry @ 43:
I disagree....Most of the red-neck, conservative, right-wing conservatives here in Texas
(some of whom are my neighbors) will go with whomever the MSM endorses(being either
Romney or Guiliani). They will do so because they are toooo lazy and uninformed and/or
uneducated to really know who is the best candidate in their party...so they listen to
Rush Limpbag or watch Faux Noise and that is the source they rely upon when going to
the polls and casting their votes. Sad and disgusting, but that is the reality of those
Repig idiots who reside in Dallas/Ft.Worth/Houston.
And, I sure hope you are just jesting when you indicate that Tancerdo is your choice. He
is almost as despicable as Hunter.
Let's see....
To begin with, we're in the middle of an unprecedented two year long Presidential election cycle where a billion dollars, or more, is going to spent and essentially pissed away, for a job that pays just $400K a year, before taxes, and that's just for starters.
A Presidential campaign, which on both sides where the so-called "debates" we have look more like an episode of American Idol, than say a Lincoln-Douglas/Kennedy-Nixon, or a Carter-Ford debate, for that matter, where everything is reduced to meaningless sound-bites and thirty second negative attack ads which have, and will, focus on the most trivial of issues like hair, cleavage or lapel pins, instead of anything at all substantive, like, say, education and health-care.
Then there's the death of Habeas Corpus, the annihilation of our Civil Liberties through the Patriot Act, and other means, both legal and extra legal, our embrace of torture as a continuation of policy by other means, Extraordinary Rendition, The War On Drugs that has effectively, for all intent and purposes, completely destroyed both the 4th and 8th Amendments to the US Constitution, among others, domestic spying on our citizenry, a voter turnout in our Presidential elections is barely 60% of all eligible voters, and less than 50% of the overall population, and whatever else you can think of that you'd want to throw into this mess of a mix.
Like aspiring Presidential candidates revealing their gross and willful ignorance of the limits set on Presidential powers, as laid out in The US Constitution, and hardly anyone saying so much as: Boo!
Playoff sports and America's Top Model get higher ratings on the TV then this, nobody cares, nobody's really paying attention.
Welcome to Rome With Television, people.
It's the Circus Maximus brought to you in living color, and on a high definition plasma screen 10 stories high.
Caligula and Nero would feel right at home in this environment, and Eva Braun would have no problem getting a job at FOX News or on MSNBC.
Given all that, I believe the Founders, especially Jefferson, would not only be appalled and aghast as to how far off the beam our leaders have strayed and taken The United States of America, but I also believe that they would think that things are seriously out of whack right now and may be in need of some re-adjustment before they become irreparably broken.
But that's just me.
Your mileage may vary.
~nwa
Amazing.
I live in California, and personally I know lots of Democrats that are switching parties to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and possibly the general election too. Ron Paul has broad support from both ends of the spectrum.
Ron Paul has got it together. He knows what he is talking about. He is more anti-war than any of the Democrats currently running (and of course the other Repubs too).
He is also a practicing OBGYN who has delivered over 4000 babies. So he knows a thing or two about the medical industry.
I daresay he has the Dems outflanked on every issue!
Simply amazing.
"Read the Constitution" is a glib catch phrase. Unfortunately the devil is always in the details. The Constitution is not a clearly written document. Men and women who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of the US Constitution cannot agree on its interpretation. Many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4. Some of the most important constitutional issue of our lives are decided in our highest court by the legal equivalent of a coin flip.
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 55:
Where are you getting the idea that RP would use the Constitution against the people? Where has he said that he wants to hold down women and people of color? Am I missing something?
Jackson @ 50:
Yes! And this is the point I was trying to make, dammit! Ron Paul's version of the Constitution is the original. Without amendments! As a woman, I say he is a menace, and I mean it!
Shit, if you guys could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement. I'm not going back to coathangers and dirty back alleys for the right to limit the size of my family. In this respect, Ron Paul is no better than Bush. Only more dangerous, in that he appeals to men who never look at issues the way women do.
geez, what is this? ron paul does and says the things about this war and about the leadership of the right that we have waited patiently to hear from the dem leadership and we are still waiting. Ron Paul needs to get out of the republican party and join and be a leader for the other side. he unmasked romney and showed him for what he was, a stammering figurehead unable to really make and stand behind decisions. in reality, just what the republican party ordered. he has a damned good chance to be their candidate.
I find it fitting that "SilentPatriot" posted this as they have tried to silence this patriot by the name of Ron Paul. Is it prophetic that the GOP convention is going to be in St.Paul?
Ron Paul is the "Champion of the Constitution" unlike George "Dubya" Bush who thinks it's just a "g0d damn piece of paper". I doubt Bush has ever read it. It's obvious Romney hasn't read it.
Ron Paul is gaining more and more support as time goes on. Out of all the Presidential candidates guess who has received the most campaign contributions from US soldiers?
YEP...RON PAUL!
Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul received as much from our military personnel as all of the other Republican candidates COMBINED. It amounted to 26.23 percent of all military contributions to presidential candidates of both parties. The next highest candidate was Sen. Barak Obama, with 24.02 percent, followed by: Sen. John McCain, 18.31 percent; Sen. Hillary Clinton, 11.08 percent; Gov. Bill Richardson, 5.59 percent: Mitt Romney, 4.05 percent; John Edwards, 2.63 percent; Rudy Giuliani, 2.44 percent; Mike Huckabee, 1.84 percent; Tom Tancredo, 1.63 percent; Duncan Hunter, 1.05 percent. The remaining candidates each received less than 1 percent.
It just goes to show you the national polls are a fraud!
Hillary Clinton VOTED FOR the Iraq war. Ron Paul VOTED AGAINST it. Figure that one out!
No wonder Bush is secretly advising Hillary behind the scenes.
Sean Upinatem @ 12:
Basically he would let lawyers run the US.
Aaron Kinney @ 60:
Yeah, he's perfect if you like the taste of Chromium in your drinking water...
rduke @ 23:
Well said! My dream would be a Paul/Kucinich or a Kucinich/Paul ticket.
Those are the only two people running for president that have ANY morals or principles, and have ANY intelligence.
Ron Paul also said he couldn't support any of the other Repub candidates if they got the nomination. Some think he might run on a third party ticket.
Palooka @ 14:
I was going to say the same thing.
Jo @ 63:
He doesn't want the federal gov't to have anything to do with abortion. He wants to leave that up to the states, as the 10th amendment would want it to be. If you want abortion, don't look to the President, it's not his job to worry about it, it's up to your state.
God, the RP supporters are shrill!
Hey trolls (RP campaigners, that would be you), You are just pissing people off.
If you really liked RP you'd best be getting along about now before you drive away the fence sitters.
Or are you too stupid to even realize that much?
Ah... Mitt Romney doesn't have time to consult with Congress but he has time to consult with lawyers.
Of course, Mitt may be right. During the past seven years, Bush has rewritten the Constitution so much maybe lawyers are now responsible for authorizing declarations of war instead of Congress.
What's up with Ron Paul? For a Republican he sounded so... SANE.
Sorry I didn't reply earlier...
Aaron Kinney @ 163:
So because I want the government to regulate food and water, you consider that tantamount to a big central mama agency controlling us all? Do you feel oppressed by the fact that your tap water doesn't cause diarrhea? Yes, the Tenth Amendment reflects the will of the people but you're reading from it what you want to see. If you think the Tenth Amendment doesn't allow for Congress to represent the people in a representative democracy then why have a Congress at all in a form of representative government? Why not just have a direct democracy and have every citizen vote directly on every single issue that Congress considers. That wouldn't make sense because clearly we live in a representative democracy.
No one is talking about air traffic control on a global scale. I was talking about air traffic control in these United States which is regulated by the FAA last time I checked. And yes, I'd rather have the federal government regulate air traffic control than a private company with a profit motive. I don't see how the Constitution doesn't allow for this.
Thee Yankee News @ 423:
This is why ron paul can win.
Curtilingus @ 92:
This is exactly what I was waiting to hear. Ron Paul is for limiting Presidential power too, meaning that if he where president he would OF COURSE have to go through Congress and deliberate over minimizing the Federal Government. He would help to minimize the pork in Government. And he said exactly that in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev4AEyac10o&mode=related&search=
Hes also is the only republican who seems to know that the Military Inudstrial Complex exists and that the Health Care Industry is corrupt. He would not turn America into a "Free Market Libertarian Utopia doomed to fail" that some are saying becuase he would be moderated by the Checks and Balances of Government that is outlined in the Constitution, the way the system is supposed to work!
Jo @ 94:
Just because you say that, doesn't make it true.
I've no idea why you're so eager to take that as a fact. He's never done or said anything that would lead anyone to that conclusion.
Lyon @ 106:
I plan on voting for Paul because he wants to strip away the power and leverage that the government has given to corporations. Given today's political climate and the degradation of the rule of law and the constitution, maybe Paul is not conservative at all. The changes he wishes to see are radical, and quite populist. He's a better liberal than the democrats, while at the same time being a better conservative than the republicans
Login or Register to post comments.