Ron Paul - Our Constitution...has failed.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Well then you read it wrong, and I'm still pissed about having someone else's words rammed down my throat, so I'm not predisposed to do your work for you.

The other thing I found interesting about your post was the assumption that moral Constitutionalists like Ron Paul are no better than John McCain.

Doesn't feel very good when someone does it to you, now does it?

And I didn't even use pretend quotation marks like you did.

No, I'd agree with that. I have no respect for politicians. Sorry Gunny. I like you as a person and think you're a good guy, but I seriously disagree with the course of action you've taken (being involved in politics). I love Ron Paul as a person and believe now that he is out of congress he'll be able to do far more good (it also important to note that Ron Paul was a terrible politician; his own words no less!). Sorry that you're pissed, but it is not my intention to blow smoke up your rear. I am an atheist, but my best friend is a Christian. That doesn't mean I don't respect and love him. It also doesn't mean I'm going to pull punches when we talk about "touchy" subjects.

Anyway, what doesn't feel good is that you're acting offended. I feel like I didn't understand your words and, therefore, asked you to clarify. But apparently you don't respect me enough to continue the debate. One sentence would have been ok. It wasn't a tall favor I was asking. In fact, i thought I was being respectful by making sure that I got a full understanding of your position instead of continuing to debate a misunderstanding.


It's late. Don't worry about it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No, I'd agree with that. I have no respect for politicians. Sorry Gunny. I like you as a person and think you're a good guy, but I seriously disagree with the course of action you've taken (being involved in politics). I love Ron Paul as a person and believe now that he is out of congress he'll be able to do far more good (it also important to note that Ron Paul was a terrible politician; his own words no less!). Sorry that you're pissed, but it is not my intention to blow smoke up your rear. I am an atheist, but my best friend is a Christian. That doesn't mean I don't respect and love him. It also doesn't mean I'm going to pull punches when we talk about "touchy" subjects.

Anyway, what doesn't feel good is that you're acting offended. I feel like I didn't understand your words and, therefore, asked you to clarify. But apparently you don't respect me enough to continue the debate. One sentence would have been ok. It wasn't a tall favor I was asking. In fact, i thought I was being respectful by making sure that I got a full understanding of your position instead of continuing to debate a misunderstanding.


It's late. Don't worry about it.

Try asking for clarification BEFORE cramming your words into someone else's mouth.

I've been on these boards now since 2007, is there anybody here who is a regular that doesn't know that's my biggest pet peeve in a debate? Don't tell me what I said. I'm rather in a better position to know what I said than you are, no?

Less than half of America votes, period. the fraction that does, if you can instill morality in a majority of those, (at the end of the day only ~20ish% of Americans) enough to bring real numbers of moral Constitutionalists in government, when we can start affecting the kinds of reforms in government to restore liberty to America.

If repealing the drug war is some kind of tyranny just because a group of elected people do it, then I don't really know what to tell you except that I disagree vehemently. The drug war is tyranny. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty. I understand that that's not good enough, that some won't be happy until every inhabitant of the continent is defending their compounds from bandits at rifle point, but while you try to eradicate government without using politics, I will be using politics to eradicate the drug war, and every other offense to liberty that I encounter along the way.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Which I would have to say it would, I have no illusions that Mordor on the Potomac would honor the 10th any more than it would the other nine.

Hahahaha! Mordor on the Potomac! Awesome...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Try asking for clarification BEFORE cramming your words into someone else's mouth.

I've been on these boards now since 2007, is there anybody here who is a regular that doesn't know that's my biggest pet peeve in a debate? Don't tell me what I said. I'm rather in a better position to know what I said than you are, no?

Less than half of America votes, period. the fraction that does, if you can instill morality in a majority of those, (at the end of the day only ~20ish% of Americans) enough to bring real numbers of moral Constitutionalists in government, when we can start affecting the kinds of reforms in government to restore liberty to America.

If repealing the drug war is some kind of tyranny just because a group of elected people do it, then I don't really know what to tell you except that I disagree vehemently. The drug war is tyranny. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty. I understand that that's not good enough, that some won't be happy until every inhabitant of the continent is defending their compounds from bandits at rifle point, but while you try to eradicate government without using politics, I will be using politics to eradicate the drug war, and every other offense to liberty that I encounter along the way.

I joined the boards 23 days before you did. Why on earth should I know your preferences? It was one sentence which I politely asked you to correct since it was incorrect. Sheesh.

The drug war is tyranny, of course. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty, I agree. I'd love to see the drug war eliminated. But how do you really do that? Do you really think electing politicians will shut down an industry that brings in trillions for government control? You hold up Ron Paul as a moral Constitutionalist, but he even said that politics is not the way to bring about change, unless you use it to educate. And it's not even that great as an education tool.

If you choose to use politics to try and bring about changes through policy, that is, of course, your choice. But please don't be dishonest and try to lump yourself in with Ron Paul any longer. In his last speech to congress, Ron Paul said his entire political career was a failure. What we will see from Dr. Paul in the coming years will do more for Liberty than he's done in his entire life.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Do you really think electing politicians will shut down an industry that brings in trillions for government control? You hold up Ron Paul as a moral Constitutionalist, but he even said that politics is not the way to bring about change, unless you use it to educate. And it's not even that great as an education tool.

For myself (and ONLY myself) as a Voluntaryist, I look on voting as a defensive measure. I'm doing it because, given the choice of having the shit beaten out of me 365 days a year as opposed to 1 time a year....I'll take the once a year. That doesn't mean I like having the shit kicked out of me. It doesn't mean I agree with having the shit kicked out of me. It just means I'm doing it on the off chance I can get a reprieve. Its about breathing room.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I joined the boards 23 days before you did. Why on earth should I know your preferences? It was one sentence which I politely asked you to correct since it was incorrect. Sheesh.

The drug war is tyranny, of course. Eliminating it will restore some measure of liberty, I agree. I'd love to see the drug war eliminated. But how do you really do that? Do you really think electing politicians will shut down an industry that brings in trillions for government control? You hold up Ron Paul as a moral Constitutionalist, but he even said that politics is not the way to bring about change, unless you use it to educate. And it's not even that great as an education tool.

If you choose to use politics to try and bring about changes through policy, that is, of course, your choice. But please don't be dishonest and try to lump yourself in with Ron Paul any longer. In his last speech to congress, Ron Paul said his entire political career was a failure. What we will see from Dr. Paul in the coming years will do more for Liberty than he's done in his entire life.

I guess people just hear what they want to. No point in even addressing the rest of your post if that's what you took from his farewell speech. After all, even if I tried to answer you will just see what you want to and not what I'm actually saying. Waste of effort.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I guess people just hear what they want to. No point in even addressing the rest of your post if that's what you took from his farewell speech. After all, even if I tried to answer you will just see what you want to and not what I'm actually saying. Waste of effort.

This was really disappointing, Glen.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I doubt if any document would have been successful in defending liberty, given that it's not the paper itself that must do that.

It's the people's responsibility to restrain their governments.

I always kind of LOL at the 'constitution is a failure' threads. It's a piece of paper. It's not like it was ever going to come to life and put on the boxing gloves. 'That stupid constitution let us down.'

If we wanted to be more accurate, we'd say that the American people are a failure.

However, I do believe it is in some ways prophesized that the Constitution will be a starting point in returning our fed.gov to its proper, limited role. Jefferson said it himself:

"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802

Think about that for a moment. I can't think of anything more descriptive of the Ron Paul movement.

Who are we? The watchful. What are we doing? Rallying and recalling all who will listen.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This was really disappointing, Glen.

Yes, yes it was. Perhaps some reflection is in order, Nate.

 

[BAllen]

The reason for the moral decline is very simple. The marxists of The Frankfurt School in New York. They deliberately destroyed us with their demoralization plans. They created the hippie to oppose the Authoritarian personalities of the conservatives. They spoke of freedoms, but it was a lie, a trojan horse. People like Jane Fonda have been useful idiots.

 

[Pericles]

I doubt if any document would have been successful in defending liberty, given that it's not the paper itself that must do that.

It's the people's responsibility to restrain their governments.

I always kind of LOL at the 'constitution is a failure' threads. It's a piece of paper. It's not like it was ever going to come to life and put on the boxing gloves. 'That stupid constitution let us down.'

If we wanted to be more accurate, we'd say that the American people are a failure.

However, I do believe it is in some ways prophesized that the Constitution will be a starting point in returning our fed.gov to its proper, limited role. Jefferson said it himself:



Think about that for a moment. I can't think of anything more descriptive of the Ron Paul movement.

Who are we? The watchful. What are we doing? Rallying and recalling all who will listen.

Winner - those who expected the Constitution to protect them have expected what never was and never can be. The Constitution serves as the ruling guide, which the active and brave citizenry use as the standard for government conduct, which they monitor and control via the states and their militias. To change the basics concepts of having powers split among different parts of the body politic has been disrupted, and has led to ruin.

 

[DamianTV]

All paper doctrines will fail if no one is willing to enforce them.

Thus, by the same token, we could easily say that the Bible had failed just as hard because, although many people know the material contained in the Bible (and its various flavors), the words themselves do not prevent those very same people from committing those exact heinous atrocities.

That goes for every system, every book, every law, every doctrine, every rule, statute, contract, and even simple verbal agreements. They are all meaningless if they are not observed. Not only does our Government flat out refuse to observe our Constitution, they do everything in their power to subvert its meaning.

 

[nobody's_hero]

All paper doctrines will fail if no one is willing to enforce them.

Thus, by the same token, we could easily say that the Bible had failed just as hard because, although many people know the material contained in the Bible (and its various flavors), the words themselves do not prevent those very same people from committing those exact heinous atrocities.

That goes for every system, every book, every law, every doctrine, every rule, statute, contract, and even simple verbal agreements. They are all meaningless if they are not observed. Not only does our Government flat out refuse to observe our Constitution, they do everything in their power to subvert its meaning.

Exactly. And there is certainly a serious lack of willingness to enforce our constitution, a document which might not actually be that bad if it were actually, you know . . . followed.

We can also observe how things work in countries that have no constitution at all. Having something written down is perhaps slightly better. You don't have to be a lawyer to see the wisdom in 'putting something in writing.' But, even there, I must admit that we have many contracts that aren't worth the paper they're written on, because no one will honor or enforce them.

 

[UMULAS]

I want a social contract theory that would have both strict and loose interpretations of the constitution, oh wait....

And when I mean loose interpretation, I mean the proper and necessary clause, it has to be both of them, yet congress takes everything proper and necessary.

For EX: Thomas Jefferson contradicted himself during the Louisiana Purchases yet he did it and admitted that it was unconstitutional, though there can be a refute that he just expanded the executive powers, he looked at it in a strict view of the constitution.

 

[Anti Federalist]

///