| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote: if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:06 Adila wrote: Which Constitution was that? If you are referring to the original written by the Founding Fathers, then there's a large population of people that the Constitution didn't protect at all. And who did it leave out? | ||
|
Vore210
Ireland256 Posts
Uh, the slaves? Womens rights and the right to vote? The rights of children? That's the majority of the population right there. The American constitution was written for white male landowners. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:01 MrBitter wrote: wtf, the Constitution was written to protect our liberty. edit: I was pushing for Cain before he botched up so much. I really like the idea of a business man in office instead of a politician. With Cain kinda' botching his bid, though, I am also hopping on the Ron Paul bandwagon. A ton of the rights we enjoy from the constitution come from amendments. If Ron Paul were alive before these amendments were passed he probably wouldn't be fighting for these rights. That doesn't make him principled, that just means he has the ability to read and interpret an old document. Alternatively, if instead of the 2nd amendment being the right to bear arms it was the right for gays to be married then I am fairly certain that Ron Paul would be for gay marriage and he would believe the states should be allowed to ban guns. I agree that it makes him consistent, but principled? I don't think it takes great principle to take your marching orders from people that died hundreds of years ago. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:28 BlackJack wrote: I don't think it takes great principle to take your marching orders from people that died hundreds of years ago. Something that no one else seems able to do. Unless it aligns with their agendas, then they will call upon it conditionally. At the very least, you know where Ron Paul stands in regard to laws. From where do everyone else take their marching orders from? The Constitution is still the law of the land. If you have an issue with the Constitution itself, that's a different matter. With all of the politicians that are waffling over their stances, it says a lot about someone who's been consistent. | ||
|
MooseyFate
United States237 Posts
On December 20 2011 01:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 19 2011 22:28 BlackJack wrote: I don't think it takes great principle to take your marching orders from people that died hundreds of years ago. Something that no one else seems able to do. Unless it aligns with their agendas, then they will call upon it conditionally. At the very least, you know where Ron Paul stands in regard to laws. From where do everyone else take their marching orders from? The Constitution is still the law of the land. If you have an issue with the Constitution itself, that's a different matter. With all of the politicians that are waffling over their stances, it says a lot about someone who's been consistent. They take their marching orders from whoever pays them. Usually large corporations/banks/lobbyist. Every other politician serves the true Green Party. They will never bite the hand that feeds. That's why I like Ron Paul, he sees money as a tool and not a goal like the rest of these greedy career politicians. Political Office use to be a SERVICE. You SERVE the country and the people who live there. It was an HONOR. Now its a career path with great financial benefits. Agree with Ron Paul or not, you can't argue that his stances aren't his own. These other clowns couldn't order at McDonalds without getting approval from JP Morgan. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 20 2011 01:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Something that no one else seems able to do. Unless it aligns with their agendas, then they will call upon it conditionally. At the very least, you know where Ron Paul stands in regard to laws. From where do everyone else take their marching orders from? The Constitution is still the law of the land. If you have an issue with the Constitution itself, that's a different matter. With all of the politicians that are waffling over their stances, it says a lot about someone who's been consistent. It's not the job of the President or Congress to follow the Constitution to the letter. It's their job to legislate and protect the laws created for the good of the public. They are to exercise as much of their power possible to give the people what they want and need. It is the Supreme Court's job to determine if those actions are legal under the Constitution. | ||
|
bayside
United States82 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:28 BlackJack wrote: A ton of the rights we enjoy from the constitution come from amendments. If Ron Paul were alive before these amendments were passed he probably wouldn't be fighting for these rights. That doesn't make him principled, that just means he has the ability to read and interpret an old document. Alternatively, if instead of the 2nd amendment being the right to bear arms it was the right for gays to be married then I am fairly certain that Ron Paul would be for gay marriage and he would believe the states should be allowed to ban guns. I agree that it makes him consistent, but principled? I don't think it takes great principle to take your marching orders from people that died hundreds of years ago. Your point is valid, but isn't that what we vote our politicians in office for? To swear an Oath to the Constitution, if the Constitution said every Thursday we should wear clown shoes and skip to work (As ridiculous as that sounds, if that is what we did, and it was good enough to be in the Constitution, then why shouldn't we follow it.) Instead of Politicians following the Constitution we have ones that do not abide by it, take for example Executive Orders can be used to declare war without declaring War for 180 days, this clearly violates the Constitution, so you think that we should have one person who can enact any law he so chooses and go to war with anyone that he pleases... Sounds like a dictatorship to me, and don't tell me your a Communist... any intelligent human being who has actually read any of the Marxist Theory would realize that it is impossible to sustain. Back on point, also have you heard of the Patriot Act? How about the NDAA, did you know that I can come and arrest you on the thought that you could be a potential terrorist for say supporting Vegans. Did you know that they have been consistently piggy backing laws to take away your Freedom of Speech. (Piggy Backing laws are simple: A general law that makes sense, but somewhere in the middle, there is a completely random line that says they can do this) If you didn't know, everything you download, or do on the internet is logged via IP, sent to your internet provider, then sent to your friends, the Federal Government to examine and to determine whether or not you are a threat, or even a possible threat. Another great example of this is a Ron Paul supporter went to a rally and was selling bumper stickers for 5 USD, on his way back home at the airport, the TSA detained him for having over 1000 USD in cash and Ron Paul bumper stickers. Here is another great example: The Occupy Wallstreet, and Occupy the Fed Movements have been getting beaten, and detained for an unknown amount of time due to them being "Potential Terrorists." You should wake up and see the real world, the debt crisis was all forged by these huge banks, to allow them to lobby for more and more laws to strip your rights, and to give them more leniency while they run away with your money. A bank on average makes 9 USD to your 1 USD put into it. Smell the roses before you get blackbagged, stripped of everything you ever loved, had, or even wanted. We are on the verge of 1984. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Our Iowa forecast, reflecting PPP poll, now shows: Paul 24, Romney 21, Gingrich 16, Perry 11, Bachmann 11, Santorum 10 | ||
|
ILIVEFORAIUR
United States173 Posts
Yeah!!!!! Ron Paul 2012!!! I'm totally voting for the only non-homophobic GOP candidate! | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:06 Adila wrote: Which Constitution was that? If you are referring to the original written by the Founding Fathers, then there's a large population of people that the Constitution didn't protect at all. The key point is that the Constitution was NOT written to protect people it wa written to limit government. ie it wasn't meant to be a barrier that people could hide behind, it was meant to be a barrier that the government was stuck behind. Ron Paul recognizes that. He realizes that although he might like all the laws to be X way he should NOT have that much power. That is an incredibly principled stance (ie I believe I am right and that horrible things are going on, but I should not have the total authority to correct them because no human being should) So although Ron Paul does not believe in overseas wars, that doesn't mean he could declare peace with someone Congress actually declared war on. (although the President has a Lot of authority in terms of how a war goes... ie he could keep all our troops at home even if we were at war with someone.) and I don't think he would either. The idea of the Constitution is that people Have liberty unless they give it up, and the Constitution is a list of the liberties the people have given up to the federal government, combined with a checks and balances design to ensure that it does not overreach (although that could definitely be improved). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote: If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right. Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.html LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example. Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have. Did I miss the part of the thread about Ron Paul's comment on The Tonight Show where he said Bachmann "hated Muslims" ? I'm no Bachmann supporter, but making that accusation is enough for me to disregard Ron Paul completely going forward. Well she either really hates muslims, or she is frantically trying to win the votes of the Americans that do. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 07:55 Kaitlin wrote: Did I miss the part of the thread about Ron Paul's comment on The Tonight Show where he said Bachmann "hated Muslims" ? I'm no Bachmann supporter, but making that accusation is enough for me to disregard Ron Paul completely going forward. She has certainly made it seem like she hates Muslims. Also, at Krikkitone above. I completely agree with you. Ron Paul understands that it doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, he still has to follow the Constitution. | ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 19 2011 22:28 BlackJack wrote: A ton of the rights we enjoy from the constitution come from amendments. If Ron Paul were alive before these amendments were passed he probably wouldn't be fighting for these rights. That doesn't make him principled, that just means he has the ability to read and interpret an old document. Alternatively, if instead of the 2nd amendment being the right to bear arms it was the right for gays to be married then I am fairly certain that Ron Paul would be for gay marriage and he would believe the states should be allowed to ban guns. I agree that it makes him consistent, but principled? I don't think it takes great principle to take your marching orders from people that died hundreds of years ago. Well although you are right, technically if you took the meaning of constitution literally, things like slavery would have been illegal to start with, the abolition of slavery ammendment just clarifies this, of course no one wanted to free the slaves even though a literal interpretation of constitution would kind of demand it because it was a culturally accepted thing, and the southern economy relied on it (hence why they try to cecease.) If anything the slavery example serves an as an example to show that just because it's already in the constitution doesn't mean it's actually been followed, so I feel like it's being pretty damn principled to attempt to ENFORCE the constitution, given that we've clearly had empirical evidence of it not being actually enforced, although everyone takes it for granted as if it is. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:31 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ron Paul is sliding. He needs a PR team and work his media savvy He's doing anything but sliding. His numbers have only increased in the last week. He's now leading most Iowa polls by a couple points, and all indications show he is poised to win Iowa and have an excellent chance at taking NH too. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
"[Nobel Prize in Economics Winner] Paul Krugman is a clown, I love reading his stuff when I want to read something that's stupid and wrong." -Some random guy on the internet lol. Now, I just want someone to play Supervillain or Newt? with me! | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 20 2011 08:40 tree.hugger wrote: Should've known this thread would be awful. Now, I just want someone to play Supervillain or Newt? with me! Since when does having a nobel prize in economics mean that you're a credible economist? He's an agenda driven propaganda spouting machine... Let's look at anothe pair of Nobel Prize winners: | ||
| ||
|
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Monday Night Weeklies
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
|
|
|
EPT
