Here is a mosaic of pictures of INDIVIDUAL Ron Paul Supporters. Hey They all look certifiably insane to me. Not only that but they all look like 16 year old boys who hate thier dads. I have seen the light!
V
And for an even more in depth look at hwo supports him please visit the above which breaks it down in almost every imaginable way.
V
Mick, I am only attempting to show you why I believe you view of his supporters is not accurate. The disheartening thing, is that the same view you have is exactly the one the MSM has been touting for months. It makes me wonder how you get your info and how easily you are duped by talking heads and pundints. If you have some Data that you could show me that is reputable, I am willing to look at it and discuss with you. I hope you will take the few short minutes to take a look at the sites I have presented so you may begin to understand my, and many others views. (I don’t care if you agree, but would at least like you to not think I am crazy, I am going on good information)
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Jeffrey, I pick Dr Pauls position on Foreign policy. I think that many of you here disagree with it, even some of his supporters, and I actually think it is spot on. That being non-interventionist. As a Starting point and maybe to give you a little ammo, not that you need it, I believe that us being a military presence throughout the world is a major cause of other people around the world hating us. Canada is basically equally as free as wee are, save some political quirks. But the Lifestyle that supposedly makes other people hate us is the same. I don’t see anyone running in to bomb Canada. In Fact, I think overall it is free of any worries of foreign born violence, Save maybe from the US. I am not saying that if we pull out of all our military installations around the world, that the next day, peace would flow like the amazon around the globe and everyone would love us. I do think However that My generation and those younger than myself would still have enough growing left to do to make the worl much more peaceful in the next 20 years. That alone should be enough of a reason to do it, yet the double edged sword is that it will save us, trillions of dollars as well, making some underfunded programs work temporarily, and eventually eliminated, and uor money staying in our pockets.
You see the issues are all connected so it is hard to pick just one policy. Basically, he only has one policy, that is strict adherence to the constitution. Everything he stands for stems from that basic standard. It is probably easier for you to attack one of his policies as it stands on it’s own, but that is not how they work, so I can’t in good faith present them like that. Anyways, I guess this is a starting point. Looking foward to your response.
V
[/quote]
Hey, Vegita. I’m actually surprised you picked his foreign policy ideas. I was worried you’d pick some stance (I haven’t heard of any) that I’d actually agree with paul on.
Now, paul operates for a basic flaw in his thinking. First, he makes many references back to our Founding Fathers. He tries to convince you that our Founding Fathers were Non-Interventionalist. That is patently false. Washington wanted to avoid foreign entanglements out of NECESSITY only. We weren’t ready. When we grew some, people like Tom Jefferson had to intervene to protect our trade in North Africa. James Monroe threatned intervention in his Monroe Doctrine. All the Founding Fathers intervened in Indian affairs.
Second, he said, in one of the debates, “We don’t need to be intervening. We’ll pull out and trade with them.”
This is incredibly naive. I ask moRon’s all the time, “What happens if a trade partner becomes hostile?” What happens if the impose tariffs or duties out of hostility? What happens if they impound or openly steal our goods?
See Barbary Pirates and Thomas Jefferson.
If you don’t have a credible threat of force, rogue nations will prey on our weakness.
Here is ron paul’s credo: The Original American Foreign Policy - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Note how he actually quotes Jefferson? He doesn’t reference what Jefferson had to do with the Barbary Pirates. He doesn’t talk about how our weakness directly led to the War of 1812? He didn’t tell you how Madison had to declare war on England to protect our commerce.
Want some more?
Here’s ron paul in the debate.
"Ron Paul Debate Quotes on Iraq
“I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and a Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy. No nation-building. Don’t police the world. That is a conservative, it’s a Republican, it’s a pro-American, it follows the Founding Fathers. And besides, it follows the Constitution.”
- GOP Debate, May 2007"
From http://www.fdrs.org/ron_paul_debate_quotes_on_iraq.html
Again his history is fundamentally flawed. We’ve ALWAYS been interventionalist. Republicans are no different. Remind me again, did Nixon bomb Cambodia? Was he re-elected overwhelmingly to a second term?
He repeats his false mantra about the Founding Fathers. They weren’t non-interventionalist in any sense of the word.
You must remember that we’ve tried at various times to pull our troops and our influence back. It has never worked. Think about Wilson in 1917. Think about “Europe’s War” in 1940. Think about strict neutrality.
Then apply these failure to a shrinking world. Apply that to a more mobile enemy.
Apply that to a more interdependent world.
Finally, I want you to think about ron paul advocating immediate withdrawl of all troops from Iraq before the surge had had a chance to succeed. Think about the power vacuum in the region. Think about the oil prices. Think about the recruiting bonanza that would have affored bin laden.
Vegita, this guy’s premises are flawed and his ambition too naked.
He’s a demagogue.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Jeffrey, I pick Dr Pauls position on Foreign policy. I think that many of you here disagree with it, even some of his supporters, and I actually think it is spot on. That being non-interventionist. As a Starting point and maybe to give you a little ammo, not that you need it, I believe that us being a military presence throughout the world is a major cause of other people around the world hating us. Canada is basically equally as free as wee are, save some political quirks. But the Lifestyle that supposedly makes other people hate us is the same. I don’t see anyone running in to bomb Canada. In Fact, I think overall it is free of any worries of foreign born violence, Save maybe from the US. I am not saying that if we pull out of all our military installations around the world, that the next day, peace would flow like the amazon around the globe and everyone would love us. I do think However that My generation and those younger than myself would still have enough growing left to do to make the worl much more peaceful in the next 20 years. That alone should be enough of a reason to do it, yet the double edged sword is that it will save us, trillions of dollars as well, making some underfunded programs work temporarily, and eventually eliminated, and uor money staying in our pockets.
You see the issues are all connected so it is hard to pick just one policy. Basically, he only has one policy, that is strict adherence to the constitution. Everything he stands for stems from that basic standard. It is probably easier for you to attack one of his policies as it stands on it’s own, but that is not how they work, so I can’t in good faith present them like that. Anyways, I guess this is a starting point. Looking foward to your response.
V
Hey, Vegita. I’m actually surprised you picked his foreign policy ideas. I was worried you’d pick some stance (I haven’t heard of any) that I’d actually agree with paul on.
Now, paul operates for a basic flaw in his thinking. First, he makes many references back to our Founding Fathers. He tries to convince you that our Founding Fathers were Non-Interventionalist. That is patently false. Washington wanted to avoid foreign entanglements out of NECESSITY only. We weren’t ready. When we grew some, people like Tom Jefferson had to intervene to protect our trade in North Africa. James Monroe threatned intervention in his Monroe Doctrine. All the Founding Fathers intervened in Indian affairs.
Second, he said, in one of the debates, “We don’t need to be intervening. We’ll pull out and trade with them.”
This is incredibly naive. I ask moRon’s all the time, “What happens if a trade partner becomes hostile?” What happens if the impose tariffs or duties out of hostility? What happens if they impound or openly steal our goods?
See Barbary Pirates and Thomas Jefferson.
If you don’t have a credible threat of force, rogue nations will prey on our weakness.
Here is ron paul’s credo: The Original American Foreign Policy - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Note how he actually quotes Jefferson? He doesn’t reference what Jefferson had to do with the Barbary Pirates. He doesn’t talk about how our weakness directly led to the War of 1812? He didn’t tell you how Madison had to declare war on England to protect our commerce.
Want some more?
Here’s ron paul in the debate.
"Ron Paul Debate Quotes on Iraq
“I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention, the traditional American foreign policy and a Republican foreign policy. Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy. No nation-building. Don’t police the world. That is a conservative, it’s a Republican, it’s a pro-American, it follows the Founding Fathers. And besides, it follows the Constitution.”
- GOP Debate, May 2007"
From http://www.fdrs.org/ron_paul_debate_quotes_on_iraq.html
Again his history is fundamentally flawed. We’ve ALWAYS been interventionalist. Republicans are no different. Remind me again, did Nixon bomb Cambodia? Was he re-elected overwhelmingly to a second term?
He repeats his false mantra about the Founding Fathers. They weren’t non-interventionalist in any sense of the word.
You must remember that we’ve tried at various times to pull our troops and our influence back. It has never worked. Think about Wilson in 1917. Think about “Europe’s War” in 1940. Think about strict neutrality.
Then apply these failure to a shrinking world. Apply that to a more mobile enemy.
Apply that to a more interdependent world.
Finally, I want you to think about ron paul advocating immediate withdrawl of all troops from Iraq before the surge had had a chance to succeed. Think about the power vacuum in the region. Think about the oil prices. Think about the recruiting bonanza that would have affored bin laden.
Vegita, this guy’s premises are flawed and his ambition too naked.
He’s a demagogue.
JeffR
[/quote]
Thanks for the reply. While you have some Valid points, I believe you are misunderstand several Key Points. I believe when Dr Paul references Non-intervention with regard to past presidents, I believe he is stating that they got elected on the premise that that is how they would govern, as a response to vietnam and Korea for example. I don’t think he goes as far as saying that Nixon followed that policy throughout his entire term, only that he was elected to enforce that policy. As with most politicians, he was corruptable and in fact became corrupt to his values.
With regard to Trade with other countries and them respecting us, I do not think anyone will soon forget that we still carry a pretty damn big stick. So what if we speak softly and greet the world with a smile. Any one who does us an injustice can be dealt with easily with a response of like kind and intensity. We will have no bases around the world so if someone wants to actually do some physical harm to us, they have to come here. If someone attacks us on US soil, then congress will no doubt declare WAR and our president can then use the full might of the military against them. If they steal from us, I’m not sure but I’m pretty sure going in with a military force wouldn’t be appropriate. Maybe we cut off all trade with them for a period. The premise is unlikley at best. I don’t see other countries around the globe complaining about the things you are bringing up.
Finally I would like you to explain away the theory of Blowback, which is touted by your very own CIA, and many other intellegence officials. It essentially says, that us meedling militarily in other countries has cause numerous serious consequences that have come back to hurt our national security, cost lives and money and will continue to do so. Go watch Jurrasic Park, I know it’s only a story, but the principle behind it is sound. If you try to control something that is uncontrollable, you may or may not be able to for a while, but you will never be able to forever and the longer the time of control, the more repressive the control, the more violent the uprising. Check out the french revolution and see what happened to to the powerful in that exchange. With Great Power comes Great responsibility. We are clearly abusing our power on a historical level and the uprising will get much much worse against us unless we reign in our use of such power.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Thanks for the reply. While you have some Valid points, I believe you are misunderstand several Key Points. I believe when Dr Paul references Non-intervention with regard to past presidents, I believe he is stating that they got elected on the premise that that is how they would govern, as a response to vietnam and Korea for example. [/quote]
Vegita, I was very careful to include his second term where he was overwhelmingly elected AFTER escalation of the Vietnam War.
Friend, throughout our history, we’ve had to continually remind the hostile powers of our strength. However, precipitous withdrawal under fire is a sure fire way to force us into a larger conflict. Weakness encourages aggression. It just cannot be argued.
I think about togo and his cabinet in 1941 making comments like the decadent American won’t fight.
Our defend the Home Front mentality emboldened the enemy.
That is the old paradigm. Trust me, we could not weather a nuclear device set off in our cities. Or, chemical attacks on any scale.
Did you catch the weapons grade uranium that was intercepted in Slovakia last week? Did you hear the estimates on it’s destructive potential? Did you hear how hard it is to track?
Ok, Taiwan falls immediately. South Korea follows. Where else?
Is that the message you want sent to our allies? What about the result of that on our exports?
Cut off trade with someone who is stealing your things? That’s like jimmy carter boycotting the Olympics after the soviets invaded Afghanistan. Weak and dangerous.
Someone steals YOUR things, you punish them immediately. If you don’t, you encourage others to take your things. Imagine the snow-ball effect of merchants being scared for their safety.
[quote]Finally I would like you to explain away the theory of Blowback, which is touted by your very own CIA, and many other intellegence officials. It essentially says, that us meedling militarily in other countries has cause numerous serious consequences that have come back to hurt our national security, cost lives and money and will continue to do so. Go watch Jurrasic Park, I know it’s only a story, but the principle behind it is sound. If you try to control something that is uncontrollable, you may or may not be able to for a while, but you will never be able to forever and the longer the time of control, the more repressive the control, the more violent the uprising. Check out the french revolution and see what happened to to the powerful in that exchange. With Great Power comes Great responsibility. We are clearly abusing our power on a historical level and the uprising will get much much worse against us unless we reign in our use of such power.
V[/quote]
I disagree. We are staying true to our principles in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We are protecting and nourishing the seed of Democracy. That is our best defense.
You fight a bad idea with a better idea.
Your French Revolution analogy is an interesting one. It also directly supports my proposition that people will choose Democracy most of the time.
We set the example, the world followed.
Regarding Iraq, we were hoping that our example would lead the Iraqis to cast off saddam. Unfortunately, he was effective in his suppression.
Like the French in 1778, we helped them over the hump.
I’d love to debate ron paul. I’d ask him directly: Was it a mistake for the French to intervene in our War of Independence?
We wouldn’t have been born without INTERVENTION.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Thanks for the reply. While you have some Valid points, I believe you are misunderstand several Key Points. I believe when Dr Paul references Non-intervention with regard to past presidents, I believe he is stating that they got elected on the premise that that is how they would govern, as a response to vietnam and Korea for example.
Vegita, I was very careful to include his second term where he was overwhelmingly elected AFTER escalation of the Vietnam War.
I don’t think he goes as far as saying that Nixon followed that policy throughout his entire term, only that he was elected to enforce that policy. As with most politicians, he was corruptable and in fact became corrupt to his values.
With regard to Trade with other countries and them respecting us, I do not think anyone will soon forget that we still carry a pretty damn big stick.
Friend, throughout our history, we’ve had to continually remind the hostile powers of our strength. However, precipitous withdrawal under fire is a sure fire way to force us into a larger conflict. Weakness encourages aggression. It just cannot be argued.
I think about togo and his cabinet in 1941 making comments like the decadent American won’t fight.
Our defend the Home Front mentality emboldened the enemy.
So what if we speak softly and greet the world with a smile. Any one who does us an injustice can be dealt with easily with a response of like kind and intensity.
That is the old paradigm. Trust me, we could not weather a nuclear device set off in our cities. Or, chemical attacks on any scale.
Did you catch the weapons grade uranium that was intercepted in Slovakia last week? Did you hear the estimates on it’s destructive potential? Did you hear how hard it is to track?
We will have no bases around the world so if someone wants to actually do some physical harm to us, they have to come here. If someone attacks us on US soil, then congress will no doubt declare WAR and our president can then use the full might of the military against them.
Ok, Taiwan falls immediately. South Korea follows. Where else?
Is that the message you want sent to our allies? What about the result of that on our exports?
If they steal from us, I’m not sure but I’m pretty sure going in with a military force wouldn’t be appropriate. Maybe we cut off all trade with them for a period. The premise is unlikley at best. I don’t see other countries around the globe complaining about the things you are bringing up.
Cut off trade with someone who is stealing your things? That’s like jimmy carter boycotting the Olympics after the soviets invaded Afghanistan. Weak and dangerous.
Someone steals YOUR things, you punish them immediately. If you don’t, you encourage others to take your things. Imagine the snow-ball effect of merchants being scared for their safety.
Finally I would like you to explain away the theory of Blowback, which is touted by your very own CIA, and many other intellegence officials. It essentially says, that us meedling militarily in other countries has cause numerous serious consequences that have come back to hurt our national security, cost lives and money and will continue to do so. Go watch Jurrasic Park, I know it’s only a story, but the principle behind it is sound. If you try to control something that is uncontrollable, you may or may not be able to for a while, but you will never be able to forever and the longer the time of control, the more repressive the control, the more violent the uprising. Check out the french revolution and see what happened to to the powerful in that exchange. With Great Power comes Great responsibility. We are clearly abusing our power on a historical level and the uprising will get much much worse against us unless we reign in our use of such power.
V
I disagree. We are staying true to our principles in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We are protecting and nourishing the seed of Democracy. That is our best defense.
You fight a bad idea with a better idea.
Your French Revolution analogy is an interesting one. It also directly supports my proposition that people will choose Democracy most of the time.
We set the example, the world followed.
Regarding Iraq, we were hoping that our example would lead the Iraqis to cast off saddam. Unfortunately, he was effective in his suppression.
Like the French in 1778, we helped them over the hump.
I’d love to debate ron paul. I’d ask him directly: Was it a mistake for the French to intervene in our War of Independence?
We wouldn’t have been born without INTERVENTION.
JeffR
[/quote]
Again, You make some good points, but you do little to answer the counterpoints I brought up specifically. I don’t care about Nixons second term, the populace doesn’t have enough time in one term to realize when something isn’t being handled they way they were told it was going to be. Almost any rational adult understands that the machinery of government takes a long time to slow, stop and then change directions. That is why many voted for bush the 2nd time.
If we are really going to start debating policies of past presidents and thier effects, we need to cite articles by historians to back up our claims. I know I haven’t done that but niether have you and I think to be fair, we should at least have some sources for our claims.
I don’t so much care about the past, I care more for the future anyways. I understand that things are not even close to the same as they were even back to the 60’s. Information spreads at the speed of light nowadays and hidden agendas have a much harder time staying hidden. Government corruption in the past was allowed to go unfettered for ages because too few would come out against it for fear of action against them or thier families. This goes for every nation and empire in the world.
Why the time is right for Ron Paul NOW is that the government run medias of the world (including our government heavily influenced one) Can no longer blind us with thier lies. At least not in free countries. I know there are still places like china where the internet is regulated by the government, but I assume it will be exceedingly hard to do so in the future.
The Internet is rapidly approaching the point where our thoughts are literally transferred to a media and saved for all to see. If 10,000 people in china speak out against the government online, they can be easily controlled. If 100,000 do it, it will be a harder job, but they too could be silenced. If millions speak out, it will be very hard for ANY government, no matter how much control they currently have to control the ideas of individuals for that long.
I have a vision of the future that you obviously don’t have. I have a vision of a future where peoples actual thoughts can be measured and weighed and taken into account. In the future, Governemnts will not be able to lie to thier populace, and if they attempt to do something on thier behalf that the populace is opposed to, there will be a vocal uprising, and if that is not impactful enough, there will be a physical uprising.
No longer will governments be able to oppress the masses for thier own gain. They will not be able to fight wars for thier own interests, on our backs, and at our expense. America leads the way in many things, and the Ron Paul Revolution is just the beginning of what I speak. Ron Paul may very well not win the nomination, or the presidency, But the World will take notice. The people will not stand by and accept the fate that we are handed by power hungry groups who seek to use us for thier own benefit. It may not be this presidential election cycle, Perhaps the next one. Perhaps it isn’t Ron Paul, but another of similar values, who is sharper and more presidential looking, who has refined policies that can garner more support while still staying true to the people. In my lifetime, I will see this revolution bear the fruits of its labor.
V
Dondero…is that you…?
and if so…your bias is known to the world.
Ca. 2005
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Dondero%20-%20Bush%20was%20right,%2005-03-03.htm
[quote]Vegita wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Thanks for the reply. While you have some Valid points, I believe you are misunderstand several Key Points. I believe when Dr Paul references Non-intervention with regard to past presidents, I believe he is stating that they got elected on the premise that that is how they would govern, as a response to vietnam and Korea for example.
Vegita, I was very careful to include his second term where he was overwhelmingly elected AFTER escalation of the Vietnam War.
I don’t think he goes as far as saying that Nixon followed that policy throughout his entire term, only that he was elected to enforce that policy. As with most politicians, he was corruptable and in fact became corrupt to his values.
With regard to Trade with other countries and them respecting us, I do not think anyone will soon forget that we still carry a pretty damn big stick.
Friend, throughout our history, we’ve had to continually remind the hostile powers of our strength. However, precipitous withdrawal under fire is a sure fire way to force us into a larger conflict. Weakness encourages aggression. It just cannot be argued.
I think about togo and his cabinet in 1941 making comments like the decadent American won’t fight.
Our defend the Home Front mentality emboldened the enemy.
So what if we speak softly and greet the world with a smile. Any one who does us an injustice can be dealt with easily with a response of like kind and intensity.
That is the old paradigm. Trust me, we could not weather a nuclear device set off in our cities. Or, chemical attacks on any scale.
Did you catch the weapons grade uranium that was intercepted in Slovakia last week? Did you hear the estimates on it’s destructive potential? Did you hear how hard it is to track?
We will have no bases around the world so if someone wants to actually do some physical harm to us, they have to come here. If someone attacks us on US soil, then congress will no doubt declare WAR and our president can then use the full might of the military against them.
Ok, Taiwan falls immediately. South Korea follows. Where else?
Is that the message you want sent to our allies? What about the result of that on our exports?
If they steal from us, I’m not sure but I’m pretty sure going in with a military force wouldn’t be appropriate. Maybe we cut off all trade with them for a period. The premise is unlikley at best. I don’t see other countries around the globe complaining about the things you are bringing up.
Cut off trade with someone who is stealing your things? That’s like jimmy carter boycotting the Olympics after the soviets invaded Afghanistan. Weak and dangerous.
Someone steals YOUR things, you punish them immediately. If you don’t, you encourage others to take your things. Imagine the snow-ball effect of merchants being scared for their safety.
Finally I would like you to explain away the theory of Blowback, which is touted by your very own CIA, and many other intellegence officials. It essentially says, that us meedling militarily in other countries has cause numerous serious consequences that have come back to hurt our national security, cost lives and money and will continue to do so. Go watch Jurrasic Park, I know it’s only a story, but the principle behind it is sound. If you try to control something that is uncontrollable, you may or may not be able to for a while, but you will never be able to forever and the longer the time of control, the more repressive the control, the more violent the uprising. Check out the french revolution and see what happened to to the powerful in that exchange. With Great Power comes Great responsibility. We are clearly abusing our power on a historical level and the uprising will get much much worse against us unless we reign in our use of such power.
V
I disagree. We are staying true to our principles in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We are protecting and nourishing the seed of Democracy. That is our best defense.
You fight a bad idea with a better idea.
Your French Revolution analogy is an interesting one. It also directly supports my proposition that people will choose Democracy most of the time.
We set the example, the world followed.
Regarding Iraq, we were hoping that our example would lead the Iraqis to cast off saddam. Unfortunately, he was effective in his suppression.
Like the French in 1778, we helped them over the hump.
I’d love to debate ron paul. I’d ask him directly: Was it a mistake for the French to intervene in our War of Independence?
We wouldn’t have been born without INTERVENTION.
JeffR
Again, You make some good points, but you do little to answer the counterpoints I brought up specifically. I don’t care about Nixons second term, the populace doesn’t have enough time in one term to realize when something isn’t being handled they way they were told it was going to be. Almost any rational adult understands that the machinery of government takes a long time to slow, stop and then change directions. That is why many voted for bush the 2nd time.
If we are really going to start debating policies of past presidents and thier effects, we need to cite articles by historians to back up our claims. I know I haven’t done that but niether have you and I think to be fair, we should at least have some sources for our claims.
I don’t so much care about the past, I care more for the future anyways. I understand that things are not even close to the same as they were even back to the 60’s. Information spreads at the speed of light nowadays and hidden agendas have a much harder time staying hidden. Government corruption in the past was allowed to go unfettered for ages because too few would come out against it for fear of action against them or thier families. This goes for every nation and empire in the world.
Why the time is right for Ron Paul NOW is that the government run medias of the world (including our government heavily influenced one) Can no longer blind us with thier lies. At least not in free countries. I know there are still places like china where the internet is regulated by the government, but I assume it will be exceedingly hard to do so in the future.
The Internet is rapidly approaching the point where our thoughts are literally transferred to a media and saved for all to see. If 10,000 people in china speak out against the government online, they can be easily controlled. If 100,000 do it, it will be a harder job, but they too could be silenced. If millions speak out, it will be very hard for ANY government, no matter how much control they currently have to control the ideas of individuals for that long.
I have a vision of the future that you obviously don’t have. I have a vision of a future where peoples actual thoughts can be measured and weighed and taken into account. In the future, Governemnts will not be able to lie to thier populace, and if they attempt to do something on thier behalf that the populace is opposed to, there will be a vocal uprising, and if that is not impactful enough, there will be a physical uprising.
No longer will governments be able to oppress the masses for thier own gain. They will not be able to fight wars for thier own interests, on our backs, and at our expense. America leads the way in many things, and the Ron Paul Revolution is just the beginning of what I speak. Ron Paul may very well not win the nomination, or the presidency, But the World will take notice. The people will not stand by and accept the fate that we are handed by power hungry groups who seek to use us for thier own benefit. It may not be this presidential election cycle, Perhaps the next one. Perhaps it isn’t Ron Paul, but another of similar values, who is sharper and more presidential looking, who has refined policies that can garner more support while still staying true to the people. In my lifetime, I will see this revolution bear the fruits of its labor.
V[/quote]
Vegita,
You surprised me. I didn’t take you for a revolutionary. However, your physical uprising comment was quite telling.
You know what: It would take blood for ron paul to be elected and to govern. He cannot form consensus. His party thinks he’s crazy. The democrats love him because they could beat him. He’d have no mandate and no chance. Worse, whenever he tried and failed, you’d hear him regurgitate his “Well, you just don’t follow the Constitution.”
I’ll tell you that the Constitution’s beauty is it’s flexibility. It is also open to interpretation. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST WAY TO INTERPRET MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTION.
paul, in his arrogance and inflexibility, thinks he can.
Oh, I lost instant respect for you when you implied that I’m a sheep in the system.
BS.
Do I know everything going on in our government? No, I do not. However, that is the essence of a REPUBLIC. I SHOULDN’T know everything. I elect Representatives who MUST keep things private. They must earn my trust. Then, I want them to produce results.
Like no attacks on the U.S. mainland since 2001.
I’d like to tell you straight up that it’s you and the rest of the moRon’s who are the sheep. Do you think for one second that ron paul cares about you?
Seriously. This guy twists and distorts historical facts and documents to SUIT HIS AGENDA. His agenda is power.
JeffR
I put off learning about this guy for a long time. Now that I have, I’m in.
In the past I’ve always voted for the Libertarian candidate, just for the hell of it. I don’t actually believe a 3rd party candidate can win in this country. If one were to win the popular vote in every state, it wouldn’t matter. The Electoral votes would go to whatever Dem or Republican candidate took the state. If someone knows differently, please educate me.
Anyway, now that there is a Republican candidate with the right ideas (except about gun control - ha ha) I won’t have to throw away my vote.
no point to voting but if i was american id atleast vote for him to say i tried.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ll tell you that the Constitution’s beauty is it’s flexibility. It is also open to interpretation. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST WAY TO INTERPRET MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTION.
[/quote]
The constitution isn’t flexible in its interpretation – the language is defined and it is understood to mean specific tangible concepts. It is flexible because we can change it. When we change it we must follow it to the letter or there is no point to having it.
A Constitutionalist follows the letter of the law and when he finds a flaw in it he argues through the legislative process to change it. The constitution is a contract between the government and its citizens. If the contract is broken by the government should we have no recourse – as we would in any other contractual agreement?
We have ignored this contract for so long we don’t even know why it exists anymore.
[quote]on edge wrote:
I don’t actually believe a 3rd party candidate can win in this country.[/quote]
If everyone who’s sick and tired of the two interchangeable parties, who swap places every decade to pretend there’s a democracy going on, actually went and voted for a 3rd, that third would win handily.
There are too many sheeps who are afraid of “wasting their vote” so they simply cast it for whichever one of the duopoly they currently hate the least.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Age does matter, you might be a smart guy at 28, but I bet you’ll be a smarter guy at 35.[/quote]
Following that logic, Ron Paul, at 72, would be much smarter than you. Not to mention his many years of experience in the government.
You don’t understand his policies because you aren’t yet mature enough to properly understand them.
If age matters, of course.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I’ll tell you that the Constitution’s beauty is it’s flexibility. It is also open to interpretation. THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST WAY TO INTERPRET MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The constitution isn’t flexible in its interpretation – the language is defined and it is understood to mean specific tangible concepts. It is flexible because we can change it. When we change it we must follow it to the letter or there is no point to having it.
A Constitutionalist follows the letter of the law and when he finds a flaw in it he argues through the legislative process to change it. The constitution is a contract between the government and its citizens. If the contract is broken by the government should we have no recourse – as we would in any other contractual agreement?
We have ignored this contract for so long we don’t even know why it exists anymore.[/quote]
lifty,
What exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
Get the point?
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
lifty,
What exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
Get the point?
JeffR
[/quote]
First of all it should be: “high” crimes and misdemeanors – these are such that can only be committed by “high” government officials as noted in the English common law tradition.
These crimes and misdemeanors only apply to official personage – government officials, military officers, etc.
“Crimes and misdemeanors” are defined individually under the law.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
What exactly are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”[/quote]
The code names given by the Secret Service to Bush and Cheney.