Ron Paul and the "Wacko" Label

[LibertyForAll]

In this thread I learned that if you don't trust the government you are considered wacko and a conspiracy theorist. I am saddened that the brainwashing of america has reached this level. There are many intelligent people on this board and so many of them blindly follow their party and their government. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I investigate and evaluate facts. When contrary facts are presented I try to remain open to them and evaluate them fairly. I have changed my mind many times because of later evidence that refuted facts I held to be true. Some of hold fundamentalists in such disdain because they believe dinosaurs never existed despite being shown fossil records, yet you all do the same when it comes to your belief in the governments "version of the truth".


Why can we not question what we are told? Do politicians lie? Most would tell you that they do. So why believe what they say? Spinning, 0mmission, and deflection are dishonest. Ignoring facts that don't fit your argument is also dishonest. I am sure most of you can admit that politicians do these things all the time and yet we are supposed to trust the fact that they give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Wake Up!!!!!

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

It could be that a fair amount of the case law ignores the Constitution.

Nope, not since Marshall.

What good is checks and balances and separation of powers when only one branch is considered the final "answer" on constitutionality?

Even the framers were in disagreement over the issue, with Hamilton of course being in support of such an idea (color me shocked ), and others being against it.

But considering they debated the issue and yet decided not to include that power in the constitution, I'd say judicial review ought to be VERY limited as a final decision on constitutionality.

 

[LibertyForAll]

He labels himself. From there it just takes looking at libertarian philosophy and realizing, like Marxism, it requires a basic shift in human nature to work.

I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that if we leave the market alone it will chew us all up and spit us out and only the select wealthy will reign supreme?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's been happening for over a century here, and we've certainly not had an unfettered market. In fact we continue to add regulations everywhere you turn around, and somehow the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

You want to blame it on one or two isolated deregulations like glass steagal, or GLB, or whatever, like somehow our entire economic health hinges on just those few. It's ridiculous.

People call laissez faire econ crazy and say it will never work, yet no one's ever seen it in action. There's ALWAYS been some kind of crippling regulation keeping the little guy out of competition somewhere.

How about this, anybody who sends out hundreds of "newsletters" with his name and signature on it, containing racist material, and then claims total lack of knowledge and blames "others" for it, certainly has a few screws missing. Remember, Ron Paul also belongs to that other wacko club called "9-11 Truther".

These lies are tiresome and have been refuted ad nauseum ...so ...neg.

 

[LibertyForAll]

His interpretations of the constitution are simply taking the words literally, and not using their vagueness to claim authorization for anything and everything.

You can call it extreme, but then I would call the left's interpretation extreme.

How about erring on the side of caution and minimalism and then go from there?

What's so bad about that? Some people don't get free shit then? Tough.

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

Fuck your case law. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the court is the final answer on constitutionality. It doesn't even give them the authority for judicial review. The court awarded ITSELF that power.

You are, as usual, exactly correct. Even a cursory glance at the history of judicial review proves this to be true. People should go read about it.

 

[Paulie]

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

Fuck your case law. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the court is the final answer on constitutionality. It doesn't even give them the authority for judicial review. The court awarded ITSELF that power.

You are, as usual, exactly correct. Even a cursory glance at the history of judicial review proves this to be true. People should go read about it.

The framers debated it but didn't include the power in Article 3.

I don't even see how there's room to argue about it. It's simply not a power given to the judiciary.

 

[Paulie]

The legislative branch ought to have more say on constitutionality than the judicial branch.

We the people don't have a voice in the judicial branch. We should be deciding for ourselves what we want the interpretation to be, and the only way to do that is through our representatives. We're supposed to be forcing our representatives to REPRESENT us.

 

[Crackerjack]

Ron Paul has a simplistic view of the Constitution which ignores 200 years of case law.

It could be that a fair amount of the case law ignores the Constitution.

Nope, not since Marshall.

What good is checks and balances and separation of powers when only one branch is considered the final "answer" on constitutionality?

Even the framers were in disagreement over the issue, with Hamilton of course being in support of such an idea (color me shocked ), and others being against it.

But considering they debated the issue and yet decided not to include that power in the constitution, I'd say judicial review ought to be VERY limited as a final decision on constitutionality.

I always thought it was pretty cool how the Court just up and decided it would be the final arbiter on constitutionality like that. [/sarcasm]

But yes, the idea that decisions by the Court should be afforded such a high degree of deference has long bothered me.

 

[rightwinger]

The legislative branch ought to have more say on constitutionality than the judicial branch.

We the people don't have a voice in the judicial branch. We should be deciding for ourselves what we want the interpretation to be, and the only way to do that is through our representatives. We're supposed to be forcing our representatives to REPRESENT us.

Nope....Part of checks and balances

Someone has to tell the legislative branch when they are stepping over the line. And they often do

The Judicial Branch needs to be exempt from the whims of the public and decide based on Constitutional and Judicial precedence

 

[Crackerjack]

The Judicial Branch needs to be exempt from the whims of the public and decide based on Constitutional and Judicial precedence

What if the precedence is bad?

I'm assuming you aren't a fan of Citizens United, right? Now that it's precedence, the Court is bound to follow its ruling there. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[Paulie]

The legislative branch ought to have more say on constitutionality than the judicial branch.

We the people don't have a voice in the judicial branch. We should be deciding for ourselves what we want the interpretation to be, and the only way to do that is through our representatives. We're supposed to be forcing our representatives to REPRESENT us.

Nope....Part of checks and balances

Someone has to tell the legislative branch when they are stepping over the line. And they often do

The Judicial Branch needs to be exempt from the whims of the public and decide based on Constitutional and Judicial precedence

Checks and balances? Who checks and balances the court when they make a final ruling?

This is just your opinion. The framers never gave the judicial branch that power. It's not even VAGUELY mentioned in the constitution as a power.

Hamilton seemed to support the idea of judicial review, but even he ultimately said that the power was in words only and not actions. The court can have an opinion on legislation but not a final binding decision on constitutionality. They simply do not have that power.

 

[Polk]

It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.

 

[Unkotare]

God willing you'll live long enough to eat those words, jackass. You know what the problem is with people like you? And I don't just mean liberals, either, the stupendous gullibility spans BOTH sides of the aisle. The government pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining, and you DUMBFUCKS believe them!!

You idiots will watch the Zapruder film and STILL claim Oswald shot Kennedy from behind. You can read military and diplomatic cables from November 1941 and STILL believe that FDR didn't know the Japs were coming. You can watch 3 steel structures collapse into their footprints at freefall speed and STILL believe they weren't 'helped' down, even though NOT ONE had ever collapsed in HISTORY!

I hate to quote Franco, but you fucks are DUPES!

You choke on a gnat, yet swallow a camel WHOLE!

You conspiracy nuts are not wanting for zeal.

You can call me all you want.

Good. You're a fucking and you seriously need professional help. You are more than likely suffering from a form of Schizophreni. There are medications that can help you control it before it gets any worse.

 

[Paulie]

Someone has to tell the legislative branch when they are stepping over the line. And they often do

Yes, SOMEONE has to...WE THE PEOPLE.

If we don't like a law that was passed we have all the power in the world to force our representatives to change it.

That we don't, and would rather follow American Idol because it's more interesting, is not the fault of the legislature. The checks and balances that the legislative branch has is based on THE PEOPLE.

These representatives are not little congressional district dictators. They answer to us.

 

[Unkotare]

Not so much a wacko as having too much faith that his ideas will have positive results. The constitution was not perfect and neither are DR Paul's interpretations. I see too much blind faith and too little critical thinking from him and his camp. Wacko? Maybe not, but certainly not reasonable or eager to closely examine the side effects of these untried policies.

First of all, I agree with what you say...he has too much faith in his ideas...ideas that are a product of his ideology...and he is blind to the short AND long term consequences of many of them.

However, that is exactly how I saw Obama as a candidate and see Obama as our President. He is committed to his ideology and this does not allow him to recognize the short and long term consequences of his ideas

We are a divided country as it pertains to ideology. That is part of what makes America great. Top have an ideologue in the highest position is not in the best interest of overall satisfaction of the populace.

The problem with your analysis is that Obama HASN'T led as an idealogue. Can you give an example where he has done anything major without at a least attempting to go for a compromise?

Are you really this stupid? Let me guess, you also really believed NK would give up their nuke program for some rice, didn't you?

 

[Crackerjack]

It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.

What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?

 

[LibertyForAll]

It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.

What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?

A dog will kill its puppy if it is different. I thought we were supposed to be above that though.

 

[Crackerjack]

It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.

What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?

A dog will kill its puppy if it is different. I thought we were supposed to be above that though.

Some of us are, but apparently not enough.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neither of the Pauls seem to think things through. They both make outrageous statements without ever considering how their beliefs, opinions or plans would work or what they would do. Even though Ron Paul is 75+ years old, he seems very naive. His kid is just plain racist and dumb. No thought at all.

Neither Ron nor Rand are actually Libertarians.

I knew and worked with Dave Nolan in Denver in the 70s. In its purest form, Libertarianism is beautiful and appeals to the very naive as well as anarchist wannabes.

Libertarianism is a lot like Communism is that both work very well on paper but will never work in real life.

What is it with you non-libertarians trying to assert who is or who isn't a libertarian?

 

[Unkotare]

It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.

What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?

You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.

 

[Rocko]

It's because Paul's positions are way outside the mainstream.

What a terrible crime that is! Gotta always follow the herd, right?

You should work as a campaign manager. You could garuantee your candidate loses every time.

I think paul's campaign manager has that down pact already.