Ron Paul supporters who will not support the GOP nominee are Liberals

I agree but you would also expect a President to appoint someone qualified to make sure that everything runs as it should. If he has a newsletter under his name he should appoint someone he trusts will do a good job in that position.

If you appoint someone and that person screws up thereby making you look bad you can't really blame them and say its their fault. It is the appointees fault for picking someone who made them look bad.

 

You seem like a reasonable guy. Why did you put RP's name after each one as if he had said it, when you know (*)(*)(*)(*) well he didn't? Not to mention those are all from the same one article. Written by the same one guy. Slipped through at the same one time. You are being extremely disingenuous. I want to be able to trust your opinion, however, being this shady on a subject I do know about, makes me question the validity of your statements on threads I know little about.

 

People make mistakes all the time. The entire house of glass that is our system relies on the public belief that 1000s of people, over the course of half a century, the majority from ivy league schools, from both parties but all neoliberals, just happened to all support the grandiose mistake of our current economic climate and state of affairs. I'll take the guy whose subordinate screwed up in a newsletter over those whose beliefs led us to this mess, any day of the week.

 

Can you point to a single poll that backs up this lunacy you speak of about Paul having a snowball's chance in hell of beating Obama?

 

I'm not making anything up. You said it yourself.

Of course you are and you have said so if Paul doesn't get the nod from the GOP. Why do you lie like this?

You just contradicted yourself. Again. Well done.

This lunacy you spew doesn't help you. If they are all socialists like Obama why do they disagree so often?

Which is of course another bald faced lie as I've proven over and over again from issues to the judges they would appoint that you keep running from.

Yes you are. You have said it yourself.

Complete truth. You have said if Paul can't get the nod you want Obama to win. You just supported watching everything burn to the ground if your perfect candidate doesn't get the nod.

He wont win. Accept reality. This is the point you become an Obama supporter because you refuse to support the one party that can defeat him.

Translation: I can't debate the points.

Keep spewing this lie all you want and ignore my arguments against it from policies to judge appointments.

If you vote for Obama like you are planning thats right.

Keep lying all you like. I've given you 5-4 decisions, differences in policies and what judges will be nominated to the court between Conservative and Obama presidencies.

You have done your best to run away from those facts because you aren't serious about looking at reality. Its Ron Paul and F the country if he doesn't get it.

 

I would rather have a president that puts in conservative judges and follows conservative policies than watch Obama continue to ruin this country with his policies and liberal judges.

If Liberals and Conservatives are the same why are there so many 5-4 decesions in the Supreme Court? Why did Obamacare get through ONLY on liberal votes? This moronic notion some nutty Paul supporters believe both parties are the same is laughably exposed by basic policy votes and judge decisions. Wake up to reality.

 

For the 4,543rd time. Because he has a chance to beat Obama. That is the best and only reason. Get Obama out.

 

"Conservative" judges tend to support the Right of Property while "liberal" judges tend to support the Civil Rights of the Individual. We actually need federal judges that support both the Rights of Property and the Civil Rights of the individual.

I would agree that there is a problem with split decisions by the Supreme Court as obviously any law subjected to Constitutional scrutiny should be unquestionably Constitutional and that is only reflected when there is a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in support of it's Constitutionality. I have long maintianed that we need a Constitution amendment that requires concurrence by the entire Supreme Court when it comes to a law being Constitutional. If even one judge doesn't believe the law (or action of government) is Constitutional then it should be struck down as being unconstitution. The Rights of the People take precedent over the actions of government, period.

 

Assuming this is in reference to Romney then, based upon his statements this weekend, he's no better than Obama. Romney stated that he would impose "conservative" values on the American People while Obama is imposing "liberal" values on the American People. Both are wrong because a president, once elected, has to represent both conservatives and liberals as the Office of President is a national office for ALL Americans and not just the liberals or conservatives.

 

I would say maybe not unanimous, but certainly more than a simple majority. After all, it takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment and it takes a 2/3 majority to override a veto. A 5 to 4 decision shouldn't be good enough to determine Constitutionality.

 

1st off, the split supreme court decisions are over social issues, something the supreme court shouldn't have people for or against. Like Shiva says, they are just there to rule on constitutionality of legislation.

Now as to your claim the "both parties are the same" mantra is false. Some people don't give 2 (*)(*)(*)(*)s about "social issues". Some people believe in "if what my neighbor is doing doesn't hurt me, they are free to do so". That is the belief that the historical foundation of our nation was built upon. That is why there were no "drug laws" or "prostitution laws" for the 1st 100 years. With the majority of the nation far more religious than you could ever be. Some of us just care about small government vs large government. Some just care about state sovereignty vs federalism. Some just care about national sovereignty vs globalism. Some just care about noninterventionism vs interventionism. Some believe the constitution was meant to be the law of the land vs some theoretical set of guidelines. All the candidates outside of Paul, the rest of the GOP field and Obama, are for large government. Our founders were not. They are all federalists. Half our founders were anti-federalist, to which we no longer have ANY representation. All of them support globalism. Our founders, even the federalists, were strict believers in staying out of foreign affairs and unions with other nations. That not only means they were anti-free trade with foreign nations, but anti-U.N., anti-WTO, anti-interventionism, anti-world policing and by all accounts, would have hung CFR members as traitors on the spot.

If you don't give 2 (*)(*)(*)(*)s about gay marriage or abortion, you have no representation. The worst thing economic conservatives did was the unholy alliance they made with the religious right. So now if the economics are as statist as the democrats, the republicans still get to call themselves conservatives because of their religious want for moral regulation. This unholy alliance needs to be shattered. Not today. Yesterday.

 

I am no fan of Obama AT ALL.

But how can Obama ruin America with 'liberal judges' when there are only 4 judges appointed by Democratic Presidents on the Supreme Court?

Or does it not take a majority to win in the Supreme Court any longer?

 

BTW - did/do you agree with TARP, the auto bailouts, trillion dollar deficits, ANY government Stimulus packages or the QE's?

 

I would always error on the side of protecting the Rights of the People and a requirement for a unanimous decision to support the Constitutionality of any law or government action provides the maximum protection of the Rights of the People. It still doesn't mean that those Rights cannot be violated but ensures that any law or government action is overwhelmingly considered to be Constitutional regardless of any political leanings by the Court.

Remember one thing, the Supreme Court is a part of the same government that the US Constitution is intended to limit. In a very real sense we have the fox guarding the chicken coop and I would prefer limiting the fox as much as I would limit the actions of the chickens.

 

You sold me. I agree. I'll remember when we take the old girl back and write a new one.

 

I find no reason to take the "old girl back" (US Constitution) "and write a new one" as a simple Amendment requiring unanimous consent of the Supreme Court to support the Constitutionality of any law or government action accomplishes the goal of protecting the Rights of the Individual.

Of course this would be a tough Constitutional Amendment to get as it's not going to originate in Congress as it works against the interests of the Politicans that have no intention of complying with the Constitution in the first place. They always seek ways to circumvent it because if they didn't then we wouldn't have any unconstitutional laws to start with. So it would be left to the States to propose the Amendment through a Constitutional Convention and that hasn't happened since 1786.

 

Oh, I completely understand that is your reasoning, I am simply amazed at the lengths you'll go to to accomplish it. You think Romney can beat Obama because he is a "true politician" and because he is "slick". If someone "slicker" came along then you would likely vote for them instead. In short, you want a politician's politician that is more slippery than a wet noodle (aka a two faced charlatan). Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

 

Uploaded by RonPaulFriends2. We can all rest assured that this is completely unbiased. [That was sarcasm]

 

The funny thing is I know of no one who chose Romney for his ideology. I've been asking for months. He is not anyone's first choice. I do not understand why anyone would believe he can beat pbama. I can yell just as loudly that Romney will give the election to pbama, and Ron Paul is the only one who can beat him. But I know hundreds of people who have supported Ron Paul for years.

 

LOL. You say "no need to take the girl back", then proceed to point out one of a plethora of ways nothing will ever change, not to mention the original document completely circumvented and neutered. The constitution was intended to be so solid in wording that it was protected from ever being circumvented and neutered. Listen quietly, and you will hear the rattling of our forefathers sabres from the afterlife. Do you seriously want to wait until we are completely just another global state, where any attempt to regain representation of the people is met by a force of a billion?

 

This post is a joke, right? Are there people out there on the fence who take the anti-Paul crowd seriously? Paul is seriously trouble for text book neocon trolls. Tough to argue on one thread about biased media, than jump in another and treat the "official" story as gospel.

 

It was an investigative piece done by a local Fox affiliate. Call it what you want.

Here's the follow up on the story.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP-mYq4DaJI"]Reality Check - Mystery Writer of Ron Paul's 'Racist' Newsletters Uncovered! - YouTube[/ame]

 

What if you believe the rest of the GOP candidates are no better?

 

Actually the founders knew quite well that whatever they did the inherent problem with politicans in government is that they always exceed their authority. There was no way that they could draft any document that would prevent this expansionist creep and that was left of us to address. They provided the Amendment process as well as some fundamental protections but that was about the limitation of the safeguards they could incorporate.

The rest is left to us and it certainly doesn't help when both Republicans and Democrats ignore the Constitution. Even Ron Paul opposes several parts of the US Constitution and the protection of all inalienable Rights which few seem to realize. Paul is, for example, opposed to the inalienable Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli that is protected by the 14th Amendment. That is a primary reason why no one should consider Ron Paul to be a Libertarian. Paul also opposes the inalienable Right of Sovereignty (protected by the 9th and 14th Amendments) for pregnant women as he opposes the Right of Choice for a woman related to pregnancy. Finally he opposes same-sex marriage which is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

Do you have any proof he opposes those things? From watching the debates, he doesn't believe the fed gov't should be involved. Those are states rights.