[POLL] Is Ron Paul fit for Presidency?

[RabidMongoose]

Yeah, man, we should just give up our civil liberties and let the state governments decide what basic rights individuals have...that sure worked out realllly well in the past.

Screw the Bill of Rights!

 

[DCal430]

Actually, no 14th Amendment right now would make segregation mandatory in places like Alabama, where segregation is mandated by their state Constitution. Moreover, it would also result in other things like some states forcing all people running for office to have particular religious beliefs.

These are actual real world problems that would come into immediate effect and are only not observed because of the 14th Amendment and the resulting incorporation doctrine. So a vote against Ron Paul is a vote for civil liberties and rights.

Ron Paul is the most anti-civil liberties candidate out there today.

Paul Bots think Ron Paul is a defender of the bill of rights, when he is in fact one of its greatest enemies.

 

[DCal430]

Yeah, man, we should just give up our civil liberties and let the state governments decide what basic rights individuals have...that sure worked out realllly well in the past.

Screw the Bill of Rights!

The idea that we should let states and local governments decide if we should have basic rights and liberties is ludicrous.

You could have states making laws saying women and blacks cannot own property. SCARY.

 

[yhelothar]

LOL Paul Bots are clueless about what the constitution says, just like Ron Paul.

FYI The Supremacy Clause does not say all federal law is the supreme law of the land. Nor does it say the states are bound by the bill of rights. Please study the supremacy clause, federal and state powers under the constitution, and the 14th amendment.

Here's the Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So are you saying the bill of rights is not part of the constitution?

 

[DCal430]

Here's the Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So are you saying the bill of rights is not part of the constitution?

The Bill of Rights as written bound only the federal government and not the states. It is specifically for the federal government, not the state governments. The 14th amendment changed that.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Yeah, man, we should just give up our civil liberties and let the state governments decide what basic rights individuals have...that sure worked out realllly well in the past.

Screw the Bill of Rights!

Your assumption that all 50 states will, in a conspiracy, strip our civil liberties in an organized, deliberate way, when laws are up to them, is more nutty than the paulbots or candidate Paul you openly criticize.

 

[Siddhartha]

I am concerned about Mr Paul's age. I remember how Mr Reagan was in his second adminstration.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

All politicians do is to sweet talk the majority of the nation by using things the previous did no do as a selling point.

I wonder if one came out thats honest and straight forward like OI! i have 3 kids 1 kid from another woman

 

[DCal430]

I am concerned about Mr Paul's age. I remember how Mr Reagan was in his second adminstration.

Reagan likely had full blown dementia during most if not all of his second term. SCARY.

 

[dank69]

Your assumption that all 50 states will, in a conspiracy, strip our civil liberties in an organized, deliberate way, when laws are up to them, is more nutty than the paulbots or candidate Paul you openly criticize.

Your assumption that he assumes that all 50 states will, in a conspiracy, strip our civil liberties in an organized, deliberate way, when laws are up to them, is more nutty than the paulbots or candidate Paul you openly criticize.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Your assumption that all 50 states will, in a conspiracy, strip our civil liberties in an organized, deliberate way, when laws are up to them, is more nutty than the paulbots or candidate Paul you openly criticize.

Maybe not all 50 states, but you are a naive child if you think that many states won't strip away certain rights.

Sorry, but I believe in the Constitution as it is today. I believe in individual rights and liberties. Obviously Ron Paul and a few of his Paulbots who have actually been programmed to know this do not believe in individual rights and liberties.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here's the Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So are you saying the bill of rights is not part of the constitution?

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all governments, federal and state, are bound by it. But what does the Constitution say about which provisions apply to which governments? That is the question which the supremacy clause does not answer.

The SCOTUS decided this question in 1833, Barron v. Baltimore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

In a nutshell, the court said that since the Constitution specifically puts limitations on the states' powers in Article 1, Section 10, had the framers intended the limitations in the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, the amendments would have said so. The court also points out that the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law," referring to the U.S. Congress. The presumption was that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that interpretation has never been challenged by anyone, ever. It wasn't until adoption of the 14 Amendment that the SCOTUS decided that the Bill of Rights now applied to the states.

Ron Paul opposes incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Think about that. If the Bill of Rights already applied to the states before incorporation by way of the 14 amendment, then what is there to oppose? Nothing.

Seriously, just give it up before digging yourself further into a hole.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

How is Ron Paul any less qualified than the Fascist Pig who is currently our President?

 

[xj0hnx]

Maybe not all 50 states, but you are a naive child if you think that many states won't strip away certain rights.

You are a complete idiot if you think that the states are just going to start "stripping away our rights". Float this around in your pea brain, those same states ...legalize gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and create more freedoms that the federal government doesn't. You assumption that they will turn everyone into slaves is as absurd as you recent shtick here has been.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You are a complete idiot if you think that the states are just going to start "stripping away our rights". Float this around in your pea brain, those same states ...legalize gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and create more freedoms that the federal government doesn't. You assumption that they will turn everyone into slaves is as absurd as you recent shtick here has been.

It's already on the books, Paulbot. Examples would be Alabama's constitution still requiring segregation (and their active refusal to remove this from their constitution) and other states requiring belief in a supreme being to pursue political office.

Yet another example of a Paulbot who has no idea about reality. LOL.

I now expect the Paulbot to get angry. Get angry, Paulbot!

You need to get reprogrammed, Paulbot. You need to understand that the Constitution provides minimum protections through the Bill of Rights and Ron Paul wants to remove those minimum protections. Some states already give more protections to individuals, even beyond those under the federal Constitution. Ron Paul doesn't change anything except to remove those minimum protections of basic civil liberties and rights.

Maybe it's a bug in your Paulbot software.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's already on the books, Paulbot. Examples would be Alabama's constitution still requiring segregation (and their active refusal to remove this from their constitution) and other states requiring belief in a supreme being to pursue political office.

Yet another example of a Paulbot who has no idea about reality. LOL.

I now expect the Paulbot to get angry. Get angry, Paulbot!

Angry? LOL, you're the one that wants to round up everyone that doesn't agree with you and ship them out of the US. You really think that a fool like you crying "Paulbot" (you need some new material by the way) is going to make me "angry" BWAHAHA? I find your projection kind of interesting, but other than that, you are irrelevant, fun to poke, and laugh at, but irrelevant.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Angry? LOL, you're the one that wants to round up everyone that doesn't agree with you and ship them out of the US. You really think that a fool like you crying "Paulbot" (you need some new material by the way) is going to make me "angry" BWAHAHA? I find your projection kind of interesting, but other than that, you are irrelevant, fun to poke, and laugh at, but irrelevant.

Angry Paulbot sighted!

 

[tluxon]

Anti-Paulbot needs a productive job...

 

[brencat]

Sure he's qualified. But NO I don't want him as president. His isolationist (err... "noninterventionist" bfffshhh, yeah right) foreign policy and desire to cut the military budget more than 50% automatically disqualify him in my eyes. And yeah, that military industrial complex means jobs (which we need right now in the current depression).

 

[feralkid]

How, exactly, would he be the greatest ever?

His economic policies would return us to the 19th century. Returning to the gold standard would almost instantly destroy our ability to be an effective export country, it would open us up further to countries depreciating their currencies and flooding our country with cheap goods, it would instantly trigger huge amounts of wealth redistribution to the upper classes, inevitably triggering riots and/or revolution.

His definition of "rights" would return us to the 19th century. Gays, women and african americans (as well as other minorities) would suffer huge setbacks in rights. More riots/revolutions.

What I don't understand is what was so fucking great about the 19th century? Does anybody even know how much life sucked then?

We have achieved *HUGE* strides in making and keeping this country as the best in the world. We have problems but reverting back to 100+ years ago isn't the way to solve problems, it's hearkening back to what never really was. In the 99 years since the Federal Reserve was created we went from a country barely on the world stage to the greatest economic superpower on the planet. In the last 100 years we have improved the rights, health, wealth of every person in this country.

What the fuck is so appealing to reverting back?

 

[woolfe9999]

You are a complete idiot if you think that the states are just going to start "stripping away our rights". Float this around in your pea brain, those same states ...legalize gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and create more freedoms that the federal government doesn't. You assumption that they will turn everyone into slaves is as absurd as you recent shtick here has been.

Dangerously faulty reasoning here. Your argument relies upon the voluntary restraint of government and voters. According to your logic, we could get rid of the federal constitution and just have faith that the federal government won't trample on individual rights either.

Are you really comfortable with your only protection being a state constitution which can be amended by simple majority vote? Suppose the 51% decides one day that they don't like the 49% so much.

If we could rely on the restraint of government and/or the electorate in perpetuity, we wouldn't need any legal protection of individual rights.

 

[tluxon]

Sure he's qualified. But NO I don't want him as president. His isolationist (err... "noninterventionist" bfffshhh, yeah right) foreign policy and desire to cut the military budget more than 50% automatically disqualify him in my eyes. And yeah, that military industrial complex means jobs (which we need right now in the current depression).

Oh yeah? And just how do you think those "jobs" are paid for? Don't you get it? The military-industrial complex is designed to break down the working middle class so they can consolidate control globally without the pesky middle class being able to stop them.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That's also why the government "education" system teaches their own version of "history".

 

[jessieqwert]

Magneto 2012!

 

[nageov3t]

I heard a compelling theory tonight... Ron Paul isn't running for President, he's creating a base and a movement for Rand Paul to run for President on.

 

[IonusX]

Magneto 2012!

cobra commander 2012.. COOOBBBBRRRAAAA