Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
681

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
So both of you, push and jeaton, are on record, along with Dr. Paul, of being willing to violate Constitutional law for some particular purpose, however nobly you judge it?
[/quote]

Constitutionality can only be judged by the principles upon which the constitution was founded. If those principle are based on the protection of individual liberty against government aggression but then we see that it also contains “loopholes” that allows government to violate individual liberty then we must in principle say that the constitution is Unconstitutional under certain purviews of the law; however, in those cases it should be amended to bring it back to its foundational principles - e.g., slavery.[/quote]

Incomprehensible double talk, but I note:

Let’s remove the passive voice. So who does the judging?
[/quote]

Errrrryyyyyyooooonnnnnnne!

States, the executive, municipalities, juries.

Nullification, sniff.[/quote]

You entirely misunderstand the question. The States and the Executives, etc. cannot be judges of the law. They are all constrained to follow it and they cannot remove the right of judicial review as the “final arbiter.” I repeat myself, but some points deserve repeating, and some readers need tireless instruction in the facts.
[/quote]

Oh hell yes they can.

If they get the order to enforce an unconstitutional law, they, bear with me here, just dont.

The SCOTUS under Marshall invented its supremacy when it comes to interpreting the constitution out of thin air.

See the SCOTUS on the Fugitive Slave Act and “liberty laws” and the states and peoples reaction to it. [/quote]

Thanks, once again, for proving my point.

None of these laws removed themselves from SC review.
The Congress or States can re-write laws with the information of the SC judgment, but it cannot prevent the SC from review on appeal by parties with standing.

Thanks so much. Next time read me carefully and save yourself the strained synapses.[/quote]

Well yes, the SC can voice an opinion.

So can you, I and the cookie monster.[/quote]

But the SC is legally charged with the responsibility, and the cookie monster understands more about the US Constitution than you do. I will refrain from any comparisons to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

682

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Huh? Paul really isn’t my go to candidate but I can say that I like his stance on illegal immigration and that is ridiculous for you to say.

[/quote]

So you like what he said about the fence being designed to keep Americans in? Like whatever you want but don’t try to tell me Ron Paul is a conservative.[/quote]

Reference please? I’m having trouble finding him stating that[/quote]

Google not working?

683

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Huh? Paul really isn’t my go to candidate but I can say that I like his stance on illegal immigration and that is ridiculous for you to say.

[/quote]

So you like what he said about the fence being designed to keep Americans in? Like whatever you want but don’t try to tell me Ron Paul is a conservative.[/quote]

Reference please? I’m having trouble finding him stating that[/quote]

Google not working?
[/quote]

Do you know what a fence is?

What if the good doctor was just describing how a fence works because he wasn’t sure a neocon understood this?

East Germans get it, I think…?

684

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Huh? Paul really isn’t my go to candidate but I can say that I like his stance on illegal immigration and that is ridiculous for you to say.

[/quote]

So you like what he said about the fence being designed to keep Americans in? Like whatever you want but don’t try to tell me Ron Paul is a conservative.[/quote]

Reference please? I’m having trouble finding him stating that[/quote]

Google not working?
[/quote]

Do you know what a fence is?

What if the good doctor was just describing how a fence works because he wasn’t sure a neocon understood this?

East Germans get it, I think…?[/quote]

Or the palestinians for that matter.

685

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Do you know what a fence is?

[/quote]

Is this a trick question?

That doesn’t make any sense LIFTI. Let’s just look at what he actually said and how it can be interpreted. Paul said:

“I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in.”

How do we interpret that? That the intent of the fence is to prevent Americans leaving the country as refugees and entering Mexico as asylum seekers. That is the ONLY way to interpret what he said. Now if you can’t literally smell the batshit there then I don’t know what to tell you.

[quote]
East Germans get it, I think…?[/quote]

I’m sure they do. The Berlin Wall was to keep West Germans out of East Germany - that was the line. Very similar sort of batshit yes.

686

SM - Ron Paul was saying a fence was a BAD idea because it could be used to keep Americans in, if the Government decided that was something that needed to be done. Nice try in trying to turn Dr. Paul’s stance on his head though. Next time take a clip of audio in context, not just a twenty second portion of the total.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Huh? Paul really isn’t my go to candidate but I can say that I like his stance on illegal immigration and that is ridiculous for you to say.

[/quote]

So you like what he said about the fence being designed to keep Americans in? Like whatever you want but don’t try to tell me Ron Paul is a conservative.[/quote]

Reference please? I’m having trouble finding him stating that[/quote]

Google not working?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ [/quote]

687

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Huh? Paul really isn’t my go to candidate but I can say that I like his stance on illegal immigration and that is ridiculous for you to say.

[/quote]

So you like what he said about the fence being designed to keep Americans in? Like whatever you want but don’t try to tell me Ron Paul is a conservative.[/quote]

Reference please? I’m having trouble finding him stating that[/quote]

Google not working?

Haha. Nothing more intelligent than a smartass remark. Yes I did google it and I didn’t find anything resembling your…statement. But I guess when someone says “fence”, you interpret " locked up with no rights".

688

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

If judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder, how does the beholder respond and still respect the rights of the beholden?

It is not, as Dr Paul intimates, by preventing judicial review of law. (However questionable the principle is among legal scholars, it still has not been successfully challenged in over 200 years. Neither of us want the Executive to have that right, and I do not want Congress to prevent “the redress of grievances” in a court of law.)

Perhaps judicial activism is restrained by carefully crafted legislation, or better, by the judges themselves. So when someone argues their ideologic purity, and doesn’t vote, and Mr Obama is elected to another 4 years–with no electoral restraints on his actions–let that someone not act all disappointed when he appoints 3 more Sotomayors or Kagans to the bench.[/quote]

Do you think many judges have been guilty of activism via an exlusively ‘original intent’ constitutional interpretation - i.e. by ignoring the ‘original meaning’ and ‘abstract principalism’ involved? This is what Scalia argues I believe.

689

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Haha. Nothing more intelligent than a smartass remark. Yes I did google it and I didn’t find anything resembling your…statement. But I guess when someone says “fence”, you interpret " locked up with no rights".[/quote]

Don’t know what you’re talking about buddy. There’s the crackpot Paul quote you asked for. Enjoy.

690

Ron Paul predictions back in 2002…Still think he’s crazy?

691

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Haha. Nothing more intelligent than a smartass remark. Yes I did google it and I didn’t find anything resembling your…statement. But I guess when someone says “fence”, you interpret " locked up with no rights".[/quote]

Don’t know what you’re talking about buddy. There’s the crackpot Paul quote you asked for. Enjoy.[/quote]

Like other things he says, this came off way too conspiracy like. But, he doesn’t stand for open borders. A wall/fence on the border is what hes against.

692

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

Like other things he says, this came off way too conspiracy like.

[/quote]

Seems to be a common problem/theme with Paul doesn’t it?

So he’s against open borders AND against having a wall/fence on the Mexican border…I’ll just leave that one I think.

693

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Overturn the NDAA

http://vizfact.com/ron-paul-introduces-legislation-to-overturn-the-ndaa/

694

Ron Paul at the Personhood USA Pro-Life Presidential Forum

695

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ron Paul at the Personhood USA Pro-Life Presidential Forum

[/quote]

25 minutes? This sums it up in 9 seconds:

696

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Ron Paul at the Personhood USA Pro-Life Presidential Forum

[/quote]

25 minutes? This sums it up in 9 seconds:
[/quote]

Bahahahahahahah!

9 seconds is good for a bull rider but not for someone who wants to actually understand context you fucking idiot.

697

Ron Paul ‘conservative:’

“Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who blames the US for the 9-11 attacks, attracted a higher percentage of Democrats than percentage of Republicans in New Hampshire last night.”

698

SM you are now on ignore. Enjoy your time there. Few other posters have that honor. Be proud of your comrades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8 - Here is a longer video. SM you will have a problem of understanding the subjects IN CONTEXT. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA&list=PLC7FF9A2A960E4AA8&feature=plpp_play_all - 6 parts to the video series.

699

Surprisingly, Paul did quite well tonight. He spoke well and the crowd responded quite often. Good debate all around.