Ron Paul "Loons" at it again!!!

[Paulie]

Agreed since that's what we have had for a very long time now with a heavily stacked liberal Court and it has been hugely detrimental. But I said nothing about wanting either conservative or liberal judges. I want Constitutionalists who understand that they are to interpret the existing law and that it corrupts the whole purpose of the Court to legislate from the bench as well as violates the integrity of the Constitution.

I don't really understand how you can go on about the constitution, but say that Ron Paul is the last GOP candidate you'd vote for...he's the only one who ABIDES by the constitution!! Romney said in a debate that he'd have to "check with the lawyers" before making a decision...CHECK WITH LAWYERS???? All you have to do is check with the CONSTITUTION! And Ron pointed that out to him with great fervor, I must say.

Likewise with Rudy on the constitution...he'd launch a war against Iran without it being DECLARED by congress...something that doesn't happen anymore in US Government, war declaration, and it's the only constitutionally legal way to go to war. You don't vote to let the president decide if he wants to go to war, you vote to DECLARE it, go FIGHT it, and come home when you're finished...you know, "mission accomplished"?

McCain has even referred to Ron as "the most honest man in congress". So that means that McCain and the rest of congress must lie sometimes then, or else he would be referring to HIMSELF as the most honest. You want to vote for someone who lies? McCain is a stubborn war hawk, and an obvious flip-flopper...just check his record.

Huckabee would let illegals stay here because it's "religiously moral". Is that not absurd?? What does religion have to do with our national immigration LAWS??

Tancredo isn't even close to being electable, if electability plays a role in your decison, and has barely enough money to compete now as it is. Likewise for Hunter.

That leaves Fred. Another flip-flopper, a fake conservative trying to pose as a Reagan protege', when Reagan HIMSELF would endorse Paul before Fred. Reagan and Paul were good friends throughout his administration. He claims "old fashioned conservative vaules". Old fashioned?? Neo-conservatism is hardly old fashioned conservatism. The only thing Fred has going for himself is that wife of his.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't really understand how you can go on about the constitution, but say that Ron Paul is the last GOP candidate you'd vote for...he's the only one who ABIDES by the constitution!! Romney said in a debate that he'd have to "check with the lawyers" before making a decision...CHECK WITH LAWYERS???? All you have to do is check with the CONSTITUTION! And Ron pointed that out to him with great fervor, I must say.

Likewise with Rudy on the constitution...he'd launch a war against Iran without it being DECLARED by congress...something that doesn't happen anymore in US Government, war declaration, and it's the only constitutionally legal way to go to war. You don't vote to let the president decide if he wants to go to war, you vote to DECLARE it, go FIGHT it, and come home when you're finished...you know, "mission accomplished"?

McCain has even referred to Ron as "the most honest man in congress". So that means that McCain and the rest of congress must lie sometimes then, or else he would be referring to HIMSELF as the most honest. You want to vote for someone who lies? McCain is a stubborn war hawk, and an obvious flip-flopper...just check his record.

Huckabee would let illegals stay here because it's "religiously moral". Is that not absurd?? What does religion have to do with our national immigration LAWS??

Tancredo isn't even close to being electable, if electability plays a role in your decison, and has barely enough money to compete now as it is. Likewise for Hunter.

That leaves Fred. Another flip-flopper, a fake conservative trying to pose as a Reagan protege', when Reagan HIMSELF would endorse Paul before Fred. Reagan and Paul were good friends throughout his administration. He claims "old fashioned conservative vaules". Old fashioned?? Neo-conservatism is hardly old fashioned conservatism. The only thing Fred has going for himself is that wife of his.

Ron Paul is last on my list because along with some good stuff, he advocates enough policy that I consider wrong and/or or dangerous and/or counterproductive to the American way of life, some of it bordering truly on looney tunes, that I think he is not a good candidate as President. The only reason I would vote for him over any Democrat running is that I'm reasonably certain he would not appoint socialist judges and would be far more likely to appoint constitutionalists to the federal and Supreme courts. And I think it highly unlikely he would be able to get most of his more screwy stuff through Congress because he would not have much support from the people for those.

As for the others, yes every single one of them has some negatives. I don't have to denigrate anybody to note that either as I don't consider it possible that any human being on earth is going to be lacking in some weaknesses, mistakes, errors in jugment, or dubious history. Every one of them (and us) has done many things that would have been done differently knowing what we know now. So you look for the candidate you can most trust to carry through on his campaign rhetoric along with the candidate proposing what you most want to see done for the country. For me, I trust Ron Paul to carry through on his campaign rhetoric. I just don't agree with much of that rhetoric/

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

you happend to miss the part where the FEDS said it's ILLEGAL to use those spamming techniques... unless you condone that type of activity and behavior? I love it when Paulites try to justify bad behavior. what's next?

Yes it's illegal, and no one's condoning it. But there is no proof that Ron Paul supporters even did this, much less the official Ron Paul campaign. By your logic, we should be outraged that the Viagra corporation is sending out all these scam emails. For all we know, this could be an attempt to make him look bad by one of his opponents.

Ron Paul is a ******* creep but I wouldn't be shocked if he was able to convince enough retards to vote for him and thus win the Presidency. We only have to look at the likes of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney to see that both sides are willing to put up pond scum as their front-runners at this early stage. Either way it would be like voting for the lessor of two evils. Do you vote for an evil ***** like Hillary Clinton or a ************ like Mitt Romney. If we are really lucky we might get someone who talked out of their ass like Barack Obama or a ******* ass-twisting, issue dodging like Rudy Guiliani. My vote, if I vote at all, will go to the lessor of the two evils. If it is between the whore Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney I will vote for Mitt Romney. If it is between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney I will vote for Barack Obama. If it is between Clinton and Guiliani I will vote for Guiliani. If it is between Ron Paul and Barack Obama I would vote for Obama but if it is between Paul and Clinton I would vote for Paul. It's not like it matters which of these asslickers I vote for since they intend to screw us over anyways. Now when and if our country becomes free and we decide the Constitution has to go than we can talk about how all the hard work put into this tyrannical document by those who wrote it is finally undone. It's time that we abolished the Constitution.

The ONLY politician who would ever entertain the idea of abolishing the constitution and replacing it with something better (or nothing at all) would be Ron Paul. He supports the right of states to secede, for crying out loud. Besides, if we got back to what the constitution really intended, you'd be a hell of a lot closer to the decentralized government model of the articles of confederation anyhow.

 

[Gunny]

Yes it's illegal, and no one's condoning it. But there is no proof that Ron Paul supporters even did this, much less the official Ron Paul campaign. By your logic, we should be outraged that the Viagra corporation is sending out all these scam emails. For all we know, this could be an attempt to make him look bad by one of his opponents.



The ONLY politician who would ever entertain the idea of abolishing the constitution and replacing it with something better (or nothing at all) would be Ron Paul. He supports the right of states to secede, for crying out loud. Besides, if we got back to what the constitution really intended, you'd be a hell of a lot closer to the decentralized government model of the articles of confederation anyhow.

Going strictly by the original Constitution, states did indeed have a right to seceed. They joined voluntarily as an "experiment," and should have been allowed to go their own way as they saw fit.

I believe however, that following the Civil War the law was reworded to make secession illegal.

 

[William Joyce]

Funny, the minute someone thinks, after the last 7 years, that repuiblicans held the line on "taxing and spending", I know they aren't making any decisions based on fiscal conservatism and it's all about the religious right or "staying the course" in Iraq.

True, only it's more accurately the Judeo-Religious Right at work.

 

[William Joyce]

Snowman:

Justin canceled our date after he found out I was a non-smoker.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes it's illegal, and no one's condoning it. But there is no proof that Ron Paul supporters even did this, much less the official Ron Paul campaign. By your logic, we should be outraged that the Viagra corporation is sending out all these scam emails. For all we know, this could be an attempt to make him look bad by one of his opponents.



The ONLY politician who would ever entertain the idea of abolishing the constitution and replacing it with something better (or nothing at all) would be Ron Paul. He supports the right of states to secede, for crying out loud. Besides, if we got back to what the constitution really intended, you'd be a hell of a lot closer to the decentralized government model of the articles of confederation anyhow.

The thing is that conservatives don't WANT decentralized government for everything. The Constitutional authority for the federal government awas carefully thought through, intelligently debated, and has served us well. Nor do we want states seceding along with all the investment owned by all the people and thus not promote the general welfare, but harm it.

What we do want is for the federal government to restrict itself to those things that must be decided and managed by the federal government such as international treaties, the national defense, interstate regulations for banking and securities, management of the commonly shared airways both for transportation and communication, management of shared coastal waters, etc. I don't have a huge problem with federal ownership of certain irreplaceable resources such as national parks or great projects such as space exploration that would be impractical if done in the private sector.

The federal government should not be involved in private issues that do not affect the whole such as abortion, stem cell research, bulding libraries and YMCAs in places that don't have one, dispensing charity, or preserving self esteem or other issues by which the people's affection can be manipulated and opens the doors for self-serving votes, graft, and corruption by our elected leaders.

Personally I think each state should pay its own elected Senators and representatives as well as provide any retirement, health plan, benefits, etc. That would keep our elected representatives from being able to vote themselves money which can also be an extremely corrupting thing.

 

[Annie]

The thing is that conservatives don't WANT decentralized government for everything. The Constitutional authority for the federal government awas carefully thought through, intelligently debated, and has served us well. Nor do we want states seceding along with all the investment owned by all the people and thus not promote the general welfare, but harm it.

What we do want is for the federal government to restrict itself to those things that must be decided and managed by the federal government such as international treaties, the national defense, interstate regulations for banking and securities, management of the commonly shared airways both for transportation and communication, management of shared coastal waters, etc. I don't have a huge problem with federal ownership of certain irreplaceable resources such as national parks or great projects such as space exploration that would be impractical if done in the private sector.

The federal government should not be involved in private issues that do not affect the whole such as abortion, stem cell research, bulding libraries and YMCAs in places that don't have one, dispensing charity, or preserving self esteem or other issues by which the people's affection can be manipulated and opens the doors for self-serving votes, graft, and corruption by our elected leaders.

Personally I think each state should pay its own elected Senators and representatives as well as provide any retirement, health plan, benefits, etc. That would keep our elected representatives from being able to vote themselves money which can also be an extremely corrupting thing.

I liked what I bolded, a lot. I also think they should be barred from any lobbying position or a seat on the board or opening a consulting business for at least 5 years after leaving office.

 

[Shogun]

I liked what I bolded, a lot. I also think they should be barred from any lobbying position or a seat on the board or opening a consulting business for at least 5 years after leaving office.

I totally agree with that.

also, I'd throw in mandatory Drug tests each month.

 

[Annie]

I totally agree with that.

also, I'd throw in mandatory Drug tests each month.

I'll go along with that and throw in school boards for the drug testing too!

 

[Paulie]

I totally agree with that.

also, I'd throw in mandatory Drug tests each month.

I can agree with that. Why should cops have to take mandatory drug tests, but the people who write the laws that those cops uphold, should not?

 

[Shogun]

VIVA LA DRUG TESTS!


Yes, if they piss dirty then they lose their elected position... I enjoy the hell out of the ganj and hate drug tests but, I figure, if I have to take em then so should the scandalous bastards running the government.

Would anyone be too opposed to major jail time for corruption as well? 20 years MANDATORY MINIMUM?


In my state our governor's family is chock full of either fellow politicians OR lobbyists OR former politicians who are NOW lobbyists. Like a family business. What do you all think would be workable solutions to reduce this pattern of political behaviour? To me, it SCREAMS corruption.



Perhaps our RP supporters would like to clarify his position on Lobby reform..

 

[Foxfyre]

And while we're at it, many of us who have been showing up for work, doing our jobs, and paying our taxes can be subject to random or regular drug tests. If we fail the test, we don't work. I don't really have a huge problem with that because I would like to think that the crane operator lifting a 5-ton beam onto a roof or the guy piloting my airplane or the physician performing brain surgery are sober and/or not in serious withdrawal at the time.

Now fast forward to the part where they take a substantial cut of the taxes they confiscate from us and dispense it to people who did absolutely nothing to earn it.

I wonder how it would shake out if recipients of any form of government charity, courtesy of us, would have to pass a drug test to get it?

I suppose Mr. Paul might object to that though. What do you think?

 

[Paulie]

Perhaps our RP supporters would like to clarify his position on Lobby reform..

Here's a pretty good write-up on it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/013554.html

I wonder how it would shake out if recipients of any form of government charity, courtesy of us, would have to pass a drug test to get it?

I suppose Mr. Paul might object to that though. What do you think?

I would venture to guess that he would oppose. Even I don't agree with him 100%. But that's so far down near the bottom of my list of issues I'm concerned with.

 

[Shogun]

Granted, there are some jobs that it makes sense to test on. However, the vast majority is just a waste of money. I'll agree, drug tests should be the discretion of the employer... but if I can't smoke a joint legally then a politician shouldn't be able to do drugs wile preaching a drug war platform.


I'll see your mandatory drug tests for public assistance programs and RAISE you the removal of food stamp programs in favor of community food banks and generic good repositories. It absolutely grinds my teeth to see a welfare mother selling her food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar in order to have cash for smokes and alcohol. I literally see this abuse at least once a month where I work. I want those in need to have help available but i have no pitty for those who abuse the system. Generic food repositories would provide local employment in ghettos AND maintain food distribution to those who need it without giving grocery stores incentive to ignore abuse of the system for the sake of increased sales.


Of course, I'd use the legalization of marijuana as the dangled carrot for anyone who is law abiding and does not rely on public assistance too so.... It would be an important cog in the wheel.

 

[Paulie]

Of course, I'd use the legalization of marijuana as the dangled carrot for anyone who is law abiding and does not rely on public assistance too so.... It would be an important cog in the wheel.

I'm hearing you brother, I'm hearing you.

I'd rather see massive federal spending cuts, no more income tax, and legalized, taxed marijuana. I'm a 'Paulite', so I must be a pothead. But I digress...back to topic.

 

[Shogun]

* Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)



http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm#Government_Reform



I guess I can understand how he thinks that the GOVERNMENT should not regulate lobby influence since a person of great character could ignore the temptations thereof...


it's sound constitutionally.. but I don't think it's very realistic.

 

[Annie]

* Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)



http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm#Government_Reform



I guess I can understand how he thinks that the GOVERNMENT should not regulate lobby influence since a person of great character could ignore the temptations thereof...


it's sound constitutionally.. but I don't think it's very realistic.

Shogun, are those RP's votes? If so, I'll admit I'm shocked!

 

[Shogun]

Thats what the website says...

linky linky..


Perhaps our local Ron Paul advocates would like to clarify...

 

[Paulie]

* Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)



http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm#Government_Reform



I guess I can understand how he thinks that the GOVERNMENT should not regulate lobby influence since a person of great character could ignore the temptations thereof...


it's sound constitutionally.. but I don't think it's very realistic.

It shows his character. The man who gets the least amount of special interest money in congress, is one of only a select few out of all of them to vote NO on those lobby and campaign finance bills. That tells me there must be something about the bills that benefits the congressmembers who voted YES. It's certainly not because he'd like to cover anything up. He's a principled man. Just one more example of how he votes exactly how he speaks.

Shogun, are those RP's votes? If so, I'll admit I'm shocked!

Shocked in a GOOD way? Because if so, it just goes to show that you ought to do more homework on him. And I mean that in a respectful way Kath, I promise.