There is a lot of Ron Paul Hate Up In Here

[R.C. Christian]

Which begs the question: If he is so insignificant then why so much attention and why so much hate? Are unending wars and the unraveling of the order as you know it really that big a deal?

 

[hortysir]

There is also a lot of Ron Paul ass-kissing too

 

[R.C. Christian]

I'll give you that. That avatar is disturbing however!

 

[jillian]

Which begs the question: If he is so insignificant then why so much attention and why so much hate? Are unending wars and the unraveling of the order as you know it really that big a deal?

attention is only paid to him when paulians start spouting his nonsense....

knowing someone is an idiot isn't the same as "hating" them. i'm not sure why certain people get confused by things like that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which begs the question: If he is so insignificant then why so much attention and why so much hate? Are unending wars and the unraveling of the order as you know it really that big a deal?

It’s not ‘hate, ‘ at least as far as I am concerned.

And it’s not really about Paul, either.

There are a significant number of Americans who agree with Paul, and his policies, most of which simply wrong, such as his position on ‘states’ rights.’ for example. Paul warns of the tyranny of the Federal government yet would allow Americans to be subject to the tyranny of state and local governments. A loss of civil liberties is a loss of civil liberties, regardless the source.

 

[Jackson]

It isn't hate. It's a realistic view if his foreign policy.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Which begs the question: If he is so insignificant then why so much attention and why so much hate? Are unending wars and the unraveling of the order as you know it really that big a deal?

attention is only paid to him when paulians start spouting his nonsense....

knowing someone is an idiot isn't the same as "hating" them. i'm not sure why certain people get confused by things like that.

Are you sure about that? The further this country drifts to lack of compromise then the further it drifts toward hate. This country is on the brink of some fairly serious calamity.

But yes, hate is a powerful word. I should have said "dislike".

 

[R.C. Christian]

It isn't hate. It's a realistic view if his foreign policy.

So am I to assume you're a proud southerner who disagrees with Paul's foreign policy?

 

[Dot Com]

He's against policing the world and establishment types, from both sides of the aisle, will do what it takes to get that money train going.

 

[KSoze]

attention is only paid to him when paulians start spouting his nonsense....

Complete BS, a great deal of the threads are look at what a kook Paul is and aren't even started by his supporters. Look at how dumb his foreign policy is, look at how dumb his portfolio is, blah blah

 

[Clementine]

Which begs the question: If he is so insignificant then why so much attention and why so much hate? Are unending wars and the unraveling of the order as you know it really that big a deal?

attention is only paid to him when paulians start spouting his nonsense....

knowing someone is an idiot isn't the same as "hating" them. i'm not sure why certain people get confused by things like that.

I think some on the left go out of their way to attack any opponents of Obama's. Ideally, they would discuss his accomplishments, but what he's done over the last three years is why his approval rating went lower that the former worst president ever. Many criticize Obama's policies and are accused of hating him or being racist. Shame some can't tell the difference between criticizing bad policy and personal attacks. I see personal attacks way too often and name calling in lieu of articulate explanations of why one disagrees. Perhaps I am expecting too much.

 

[Crackerjack]

Following the Constitution to the letter frightens a lot of people, unfortunately.

 

[Douger]

What's to be expected? murkins don't want........

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Ron Paul had a better understanding of the Constitution and its case law, and acknowledged the danger posed by state and local governments to our civil liberties, I’d be more inclined to support him.

Following the Constitution to the letter frightens a lot of people, unfortunately.

That there are those who are ignorant of the Constitution’s case law is just as unfortunate.

 

[Crackerjack]

If Ron Paul had a better understanding of the Constitution and its case law, and acknowledged the danger posed by state and local governments to our civil liberties, I’d be more inclined to support him.

Following the Constitution to the letter frightens a lot of people, unfortunately.

That there are those who are ignorant of the Constitution’s case law is just as unfortunate.

I am well aware of case law. Much of the decisions are frankly wrong.

Unfortunate is you making assumptions about others whom you do not know.

 

[Avorysuds]

One important thing to note is it's the same 6-8 people that do 97% of all the Ron Paul hate on these boards.

That's a pretty honest assessment btw.

 

[Crackerjack]

One important thing to note is it's the same 6-8 people that do 97% of all the Ron Paul hate on these boards.

That's a pretty honest assessment btw.

Everyone has to have a hobby, I guess.

 

[pegwinn]

Which begs the question: If he is so insignificant then why so much attention and why so much hate? Are unending wars and the unraveling of the order as you know it really that big a deal?

It’s not ‘hate, ‘ at least as far as I am concerned.

And it’s not really about Paul, either.

There are a significant number of Americans who agree with Paul, and his policies, most of which simply wrong, such as his position on ‘states’ rights.’ for example. Paul warns of the tyranny of the Federal government yet would allow Americans to be subject to the tyranny of state and local governments. A loss of civil liberties is a loss of civil liberties, regardless the source.

His States Rights position is in sync with the tenth amendment. Nothing more than that. Personally if I have to choose which government could be more oppressive I'd go with local over federal. If I no longer like Texas or my county, I can move. Switching countries is a whole 'nother ballgame.

If Ron Paul had a better understanding of the Constitution and its case law, and acknowledged the danger posed by state and local governments to our civil liberties, I’d be more inclined to support him.

Following the Constitution to the letter frightens a lot of people, unfortunately.

That there are those who are ignorant of the Constitution’s case law is just as unfortunate.

I am not a lawyer so I am not totally certain what you are calling "case law". Is that another term for "precedent"? If so, then I don't think that precedent is a good thing to base a decision on.

If a panel of eminent mathematicians declared 2+2 to be 3.9 ..... that would be wrong. If a later panel of eminent mathematicians called up that decision and decided the question was already answered, that would be equally wrong.

 

[hortysir]

I won't call it hate.
I like the curmudgeon.
I'm a realist, also.

He's not electable, however much I like his ideas.
VP possible but not likely.
Sec. of something, maybe. Not State, though. He is no diplomat.

That's why I can't see him as Pres.
I don't want him behind a microphone in front of the world.

He's that uncle that tells those great stories but you don't let him carve the turkey.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

His States Rights position is in sync with the tenth amendment.

Nonsense, the 10th Amendment says noting about ‘states’ rights’:

From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth A]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.

United States v. Darby

All Federal laws trump state laws, per the Supremacy Clause, and states have no authority to alter or ignore Federal laws. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

Personally if I have to choose which government could be more oppressive I'd go with local over federal. If I no longer like Texas or my county, I can move. Switching countries is a whole 'nother ballgame.

What you ‘choose’ is thankfully irrelevant – the fact is that for most of the 20th Century state and local governments have been the most flagrant violators of civil rights, from segregation and voting rights violations during the 50s and 60s, to laws recently struck down criminalizing homosexuality, such as the Texas ‘sodomy’ law ruled un-Constitutonal in 2003.

The states for the most part have been the bane of civil liberties.

If I no longer like Texas or my county, I can move. Switching countries is a whole 'nother ballgame.

For millions of Americans moving isn’t an option, due to employment, family, or lack of resources. Americans shouldn’t have to flee a given state to realize their Constitutional rights; indeed, that’s the purpose of the 14th Amendment, to ensure every person in the United States enjoys his civil liberties, regardless of jurisdiction.

I am not a lawyer so I am not totally certain what you are calling "case law". Is that another term for "precedent"? If so, then I don't think that precedent is a good thing to base a decision on.

If a panel of eminent mathematicians declared 2+2 to be 3.9 ..... that would be wrong. If a later panel of eminent mathematicians called up that decision and decided the question was already answered, that would be equally wrong.

Case law isn’t determined by ‘eminent judges,’ nor some sort of authoritative body; case law develops over years – perhaps decades – representing the opinions of many judges who have reviewed similar cases time and again. Eventually a consensus is established by which judges agree to follow when reviewing a similar issue.