A Reflection on Dr. Paul

[Liability]

I have never spent too much time liking Dr. Paul.

He does say many things I agree with, as I noted the other day.

But I find some of his positions just downright odd.

Still, every once in a while he just NAILS something.

I just now read that he said, earlier tonight, something I not only agree with, but something I think lots of our left-wing brothers and sisters can't quite grasp. Time to give some PROPS to Dr. Paul:

"The states have a right to be wrong," Rep. Ron Paul alleged . . . .

-- First Read - Tears and some confessions from GOP candidates at Iowa forum

That is intended, I gather, in a somewhat limited way, but it says an awful lot that is true.

I did not get to see the GOP candidates in that Luntz moderated "debate" thing tonight.

But I hope I can find it later on line.

It sounds like it was interesting.

Meanwhile, good for Paul!

 

[The Rabbi]

Mass is a good example. The Founders considered the states to be laboratories for the rest of the country.
A lot of what Paul says is reasonable. But much more of it is simply nuts.

 

[Liability]

Mass is a good example. The Founders considered the states to be laboratories for the rest of the country.
A lot of what Paul says is reasonable. But much more of it is simply nuts.

THAT is EXACTLY the right concept. Laboratories!

Dr. Paul GETS it.

Good for him.

 

[Katzndogz]

I started out being a big Paulite last election. Then I started paying attention to what he was saying. He starts off reasonable, logical and intelligent. Then he goes off. No other way to describe it. He goes off into some world of his own.

 

[Liability]

I started out being a big Paulite last election. Then I started paying attention to what he was saying. He starts off reasonable, logical and intelligent. Then he goes off. No other way to describe it. He goes off into some world of his own.

Yeah. That captures much of what I see of his supporters. They groove on the more intelligent things he says, which are his basic positions in Constitutional analysis.

But then he does kind of wander around, aimlessly at points, and when he strays too far off the rez, he tends to say many silly things.

Still, he should be given some well-earned accolades for the things he does get and for the issues and arguments which he "calls" correctly.

 

[kyzr]

Too old. Too many crazy ideas that would never become law. Even if he had a GOP majority, we can't reform government as radically and as quickly as Ron Paul talks about. He'd be better off talking about ideas that both parties can agree on.

 

[Katzndogz]

One memorable answer was last time he was asked "What would you do with a 3am phone call." His answer was "I wouldn't answer the phone. I don't like to talk on the phone anyway!"

Fantastic!

 

[Liability]

Too old. Too many crazy ideas that would never become law. Even if he had a GOP majority, we can't reform government as radically and as quickly as Ron Paul talks about. He'd be better off talking about ideas that both parties can agree on.

I still prefer Cain: but the smear campaign may have actually worked. Time will tell.

And I have issues with Gingrich, too. But frankly, he's been impressing lots of people, and I won't deny that I am one of those folks whom he has impressed.

I am not groovin' on Romney at all.

Perry has some good things going for him, but he has shot himself in the foot, too.

Huntsman might as well admit that he's only running as a Republican because the Dim side is in lock down.

Santorum? Too weird. Like Paul, he says some things that are just really good. But then he says some odd junk which makes it hard to take to him. And this is reflected in his dismal polling.

Bachmann has her good points, too. But I don't see her making a comeback.

Thankfully, this race is not over yet. And we all have time to contemplate stuff and select our nominee as WE see fit. The liberal Dims and the main stream media (but I repeat myself) are trying very hard to settle that matter FOR us.

But fuck them. Just because they prefer Romney doesn't make him inevitable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The states have a right to be wrong," Rep. Ron Paul alleged, dovetailing on a back-and-forth he had with Gingrich about the meaning of "liberty." "The Constitution is a restriction on the federal government, not a restriction on the states."

Incorrect.

This is the ignorance of the Constitution and its case law which renders Paul unqualified to be president, perhaps even dangerous, given the president’s authority to appoint justices to the Court.

Incorporation Doctrine applies the Bill of Rights to the states, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution accordingly.

The mechanism of incorporation is the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By the incorporation doctrine, the United States Supreme Court has held that most, but not all, guarantees of the federal Bill of Rights limit state and local governments as well as the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States have been required to respect freedom of speech, press, and religion, and most of the other guarantees.

Incorporation Doctrine: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

This manifests a troubling irony for Paul and his supporters: why restrict Federal excess but not that of state governments, particularly since the latter are more likely to violate their citizens’ civil rights.

And in Paul’s America, to whom would a citizen of a given state appeal for relief if that state should violate his rights, assuming Paul would attempt to dismantle Federal enforcement per Ex Parte Young to realize his bizarre goal.

One can only assume an adversely effected minority of a given state would lose its rights, subject to the tyranny of the majority, in violation of the rule of law.

Consequently the states do not have the ‘right to be wrong,’ not if ‘wrong’ involves violating the civil rights of their citizens.

 

[Liability]

"The states have a right to be wrong," Rep. Ron Paul alleged, dovetailing on a back-and-forth he had with Gingrich about the meaning of "liberty." "The Constitution is a restriction on the federal government, not a restriction on the states."

Incorrect.

This is the ignorance of the Constitution and its case law which renders Paul unqualified to be president, perhaps even dangerous, given the president’s authority to appoint justices to the Court.

Incorporation Doctrine applies the Bill of Rights to the states, the states are subject to the Federal Constitution accordingly.

The mechanism of incorporation is the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By the incorporation doctrine, the United States Supreme Court has held that most, but not all, guarantees of the federal Bill of Rights limit state and local governments as well as the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States have been required to respect freedom of speech, press, and religion, and most of the other guarantees.

Incorporation Doctrine: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

This manifests a troubling irony for Paul and his supporters: why restrict Federal excess but not that of state governments, particularly since the latter are more likely to violate their citizens’ civil rights.

And in Paul’s America, to whom would a citizen of a given state appeal for relief if that state should violate his rights, assuming Paul would attempt to dismantle Federal enforcement per Ex Parte Young to realize his bizarre goal.

One can only assume an adversely effected minority of a given state would lose its rights, subject to the tyranny of the majority, in violation of the rule of law.

Consequently the states do not have the ‘right to be wrong,’ not if ‘wrong’ involves violating the civil rights of their citizens.

Wrong Adam_Clayton. The ignorance of the Constitution was just demonstrated quite tellingly by you.

The point of the States being laboratories -- and thus having the right to be wrong -- is a matter involving the use of the various sovereign democratic republics as laboratories.

It was not intended to suggest that the States were free to violate principles of justice, etc, forcefully articulated in our Federal Constitution.

So you can go beat up your straw man somewhere else.

Dr. Paul was RIGHT on the money. And as I correctly noted earlier, most of the modern day liberals (guys like you) simply cannot grasp this.

 

[Avorysuds]

I missed the Forum so I looked on YouTube, they had a Ron Paul Highlights and his answers seemed right on for me, even on the war issue. War has become like raising taxes, it's easy to raise someone else’s taxes just like it's easy to send others loved ones to war.

In all I didn't get to see the whole forum, so I dono how it went for everyone. I'll see it later I'm sure. Did anyone seem to do well, did they all do well? Forums are much better than the debates imo.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Too old. Too many crazy ideas that would never become law. Even if he had a GOP majority, we can't reform government as radically and as quickly as Ron Paul talks about. He'd be better off talking about ideas that both parties can agree on.

He's the only politician that has not said one thing and then when the political winds blow in another direction goes in that direction with his views and opinions.

 

[editec]

I concur with the sentiment that the Federal government assumes far too much authority over matters that are better left to states.

However when states laws are in opposition to FEDERAL laws, the FEDS win.

And as the SCOTUS seems to be now a creature that supports the FEDERALIZATION of this nation, I fear that states rights are pretty much a thing of the past.

Its the MONEY, really, that gives the FED so much more power than the STATES.

Revenue sharing makes the states dance to the FEDs' tune.

 

[WatertheTree]

Ron Paul is the last chance this nation has to restore political power to the people, to end the corruption and cronyism, and restore the constitution and the rule of law.

He is the last chance at peaceful resolution of the issues that divide us.

 

[PredFan]

Remember two things about Ron Paul and the POTUS:

1. The POTUS isn't Caesar, he cannot do whatever he wants to. Odds are that the things that we like about him would get done and the more looney ideas won't get support from anybody.

2. Ron Paul would be 700% better than the idiot in the White House is right now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul is the last chance this nation has to restore political power to the people, to end the corruption and cronyism, and restore the constitution and the rule of law.

He is the last chance at peaceful resolution of the issues that divide us.

In that case it's all over.
Fortunately Ron Paul isn't the last of anything, except crazy old guys who think they can get elected.

 

[Liability]

Ron Paul is the last chance this nation has to restore political power to the people, to end the corruption and cronyism, and restore the constitution and the rule of law.

He is the last chance at peaceful resolution of the issues that divide us.

In that case it's all over.
Fortunately Ron Paul isn't the last of anything, except crazy old guys who think they can get elected.

Right.

Dr. Paul is absolutely NOT "the last chance."

He is probably not even A chance.

All candidates come with some warts.

But still, with the possible exception of Huntsman, ANY of the current crop of GOP contenders (including Dr. Paul) would be a VAST improvement over the incumbent.