Sooner or later

[AJ Antimony]

Sooner or later I think Ron needs to get harsh in order to get this Revolution moving again at optimist levels. I mean it's hard to remain optimistic knowing sooo many people just aren't here anymore for some reason.

Remember that interview Ron had on CNN a couple weeks ago when he called Obama's Iraq policy "a fraud"?

This is what he needs to do. He needs more interviews/videos of him saying stuff the media likes to hear. He needs to talk about more of Obama's/Clinton's fraudulent foreign policy, he needs to flat out challenge the other candidates. For example...

"I'll flat out endorse Hillary if she can show me in the Constitution where it says the federal government is allowed to create universal health care."

or "You know I find it interesting. Barack Obama's campaign is nothing but 'change' yet he hasn't really defined what exactly he's changing from and how he's going to do it. If the government already spends too much then why is Obama proposing to spend even MORE money which we don't have? If he wants us out of Iraq, then why does he keep voting to fund it?"

I know Dr. Paul isn't the type of person to go on the offensive, but Republican debates don't last forever... he's going to have to find a new way to light a fire under the people and get them as fiery as they were before the primaries.

 

[AndrewJackson]

He was much harsher back when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.

Look at this video of him owning a fatty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Watch him on TrashTV from 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k&feature=related

He cleaned house back then!

 

[FrankRep]

He was much harsher back when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.

Look at this video of him owning a fatty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Watch him on TrashTV from 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k&feature=related

He cleaned house back then!

It's a great way to make people hate you.

 

[AJ Antimony]

It's a great way to make people hate you.

The media already hates him, what does he have to lose? The media love shots because it interests viewers/people. It's not like the Revolution will get weaker if Ron Paul speaks up for it...

 

[FrankRep]

The media already hates him, what does he have to lose? The media love shots because it interests viewers/people. It's not like the Revolution will get weaker if Ron Paul speaks up for it...

The people, not the media.

 

[AJ Antimony]

The people, not the media.

They will hate him if he lies. But if he speaks the truth and backs it up, I don't think anyone will hate him. The only way people hate Ron Paul is when Fox News tells them to.

 

[Mickeys]

Here is hte problem with your understanding of the Constitution. It does NOT have to specifically meantion Health Care. I am not in favor of Universal Health Care at all. I have a great job and have great coverage. But it does NOT have to be specifically mentioned by name to be constitutional. It doesn't. And don't say it does becuase it makes you look stupid. To think that people in the 1780s were going to write something that was the ONLY book of law for the entire rest of the country's existence is idioitc. You do realize that there are a LOT of laws that exist today that are not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution or any amendment. Pretty much any law that has to do with technology that came about after 1780.

I ma not sure if you realize that this isone of the reasons why Ron Paul only got 5% of the vote.

 

[j650]

I'm not sure it was meant by the founders to have the Constitution be set in stone and not allow for a debate or adaptation as society and technology improves. Did some of the founders as President follow an absolutely strict interpretation of the Constitution? Did Jefferson declare war on the Barbary Pirates? Alien and Sedition Acts? Lousiana Purchase? Technology has improved greatly since the late 18th century. Our role in the world has changed greatly since the late 18th century. We have new problems that need realistic solutions. Going back to the 1780s is not one of them.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not sure it was meant by the founders to have the Constitution be set in stone and not allow for a debate or adaptation as society and technology improves.

Agreed, and that is why the Founders and the Framers gave us a process of amendment. If something must change or be added, then we are required to go through the process of amending the Constitution.

Did some of the founders as President follow an absolutely strict interpretation of the Constitution?

Some did, some did not.

Did Jefferson declare war on the Barbary Pirates?

Thomas Jefferson used letters of Marque and Reprisal, the actual Constitutional instrument designed to combat STATELESS terrorists. This is the same instrument which was specifically designed for fighting groups like Al Qaieda.

People do not seem to understand, The Barbary Pirates and Al Qaieda only really differ in their century of operation. The Barbary Pirate's War was fought CONSTITUTIONALLY and we won in short order. The Iraqi war is being fought UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, and we will be there for a century without victory.

Alien and Sedition Acts?

Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to the four acts of the Alien and Sedition acts, he opposed them bitterly as being unconstitutional. One of his first acts as President was to pardon and order the release of all who had been convicted of violating them. Specifically, Jefferson denounced them as violating the 10th Amendment, stating that the Federal Government was trying to exercise undelegated powers.

Lousiana Purchase?

The Louisiana Purchase was not known to be unconstitutional, whether it was or was not was a question of intense debate at the time. Thomas Jefferson was not sure if it was unconstitutional or not, and was determined to decide upon it's constitutionality before answering Napoleon, but when Napoleon began to withdraw his offer, he went ahead and submitted the treaty to Congress for their approval or disapproval, in order to not miss the deadline.

The issue is that the framers never even thought of the concept of actually adding land to the United States, and therefore simply did not address the issue AT ALL. there was neither a yea or a nay in the Constitution, nor was it considered to be a delegated or undelegted power. It simply was not a concept that the Constitution addressed at all.

Therefore he did the closest thing to 'right' he could have as President: punted the problem over to Congress to let "the people" decide given the total lack of Constitutional guidance on the subject.

The debate, at the time, was less of whether it WAS or WAS NOT Constitutional, but rather whether it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be Constitutional. It just wasn't addressed.

Technology has improved greatly since the late 18th century. Our role in the world has changed greatly since the late 18th century. We have new problems that need realistic solutions. Going back to the 1780s is not one of them.

So you propose to return to a 10th century dictatorial tyranny because you think an 18th century Constitution is archaic?



o O

 

[Shed]

He was much harsher back when he ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.

Look at this video of him owning a fatty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo

Watch him on TrashTV from 1988: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k&feature=related

He cleaned house back then!

That was funny but I wouldn't like to see Ron Paul act like that today.

 

[acptulsa]

So you propose to return to a 10th century dictatorial tyranny because you think an 18th century Constitution is archaic

They called the eighteenth century the age of enlightenment. In some ways we're more enlightened now, to be sure.

In other ways I really scratch my head...

 

[libertarian4321]

"Here is hte problem with your understanding of the Constitution. It does NOT have to specifically meantion Health Care. I am not in favor of Universal Health Care at all. I have a great job and have great coverage. But it does NOT have to be specifically mentioned by name to be constitutional. It doesn't. "

Actually, it does. I suggest your take a look at the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution.

"And don't say it does becuase it makes you look stupid. "

Generally, once one gets past 6th grade, rational argument is preferred to childish ad hominem attacks. Of course, for some, the ability to debate never gets above "name calling."

"To think that people in the 1780s were going to write something that was the ONLY book of law for the entire rest of the country's existence is idioitc. "

Its not the "only" law, but it is the supreme law. Nor did the founders assume that the original document would remain relevant forever, hence the reason they created the AMENDMENT process- so that the Constitution could be changed as needed.

"You do realize that there are a LOT of laws that exist today that are not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution or any amendment."

Yes, the Constitution is ignored by our government on a daily basis. That doesn't make it right.

"Pretty much any law that has to do with technology that came about after 1780."

Correct, and utterly meaningless.

"I ma not sure if you realize that this isone of the reasons why Ron Paul only got 5% of the vote."

Much of the American populace is as ignorant as you Mickey. We have a nation of uneducated and apathetic voters. However, that is not a significant reason that Ron Paul did poorly in the Republican primary.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here is hte problem with your understanding of the Constitution. It does NOT have to specifically meantion Health Care. I am not in favor of Universal Health Care at all. I have a great job and have great coverage. But it does NOT have to be specifically mentioned by name to be constitutional. It doesn't. And don't say it does becuase it makes you look stupid. To think that people in the 1780s were going to write something that was the ONLY book of law for the entire rest of the country's existence is idioitc. You do realize that there are a LOT of laws that exist today that are not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution or any amendment. Pretty much any law that has to do with technology that came about after 1780.

I ma not sure if you realize that this isone of the reasons why Ron Paul only got 5% of the vote.

There are a whole lot of laws on the books today that are unconstitutional. The Founders intended most everything to be left to the states and to the people.