Originally posted by galdur
Ron Paul is 76 years old today (born August 20, 1935).
With all due respect, isn´t that really way too old to be running for the presidency?
Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Originally posted by davewr25
reply to post by Thundersmurf
I never said that change is impossible, but as long as people continue to accept the lies that are presented and the people in power continue to be in power, they will not allow change. As long as the system is structured the way it is, change is not going to happen. The reason I continue to state that one man can't make a difference is because as long as a group of people elects a "leader," the leader is one man. Collectively, as opposed to accepting what we are given, maybe the pawns should quit the game.
Then why write this thread? You seem opposed to the whole political system; is this thread about expressing your opinion about one candidate? or just generally hating on our decision to have faith in him?
The way I see it is, beating them at their own corrupted system (the voting/political system). We know that the structure has to change and if enough people are behind something then they become the majority. Majority rules.
Interesting thread so far. A few quality points made...
Originally posted by balon0
So Ron Paul can win and get assassinated the next day.
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by Habit4ming
Well, he´s been in congress for decades and during this time the federal debt has gone up some 1800% and government has grown massively. So, his influence there seems to have been minimal, at least as the policies of the one-party political system is concerned. I find it very unlikely that this lack of influence has somehow been elevated now after all this time.
Originally posted by LargeFries
reply to post by davewr25
davewr25, here is a follow-up letter to my previous post. i thought you would get a good laugh from it as well, as pathetic as the truth is:
Rhino_man: Why does Ron Paul hate the Constitution?
In 2009, he authored a bill that would have allowed the states to establish government churches and to persecute and discriminate based upon religion or sexual preference. It also would have stripped the Judiciary branch of its power to rule on the Constitutionality of state laws, something which is enumerated in the Constitution.
Holy Fark! I thought you were talking out your ass for a moment and then went and actually read the bill..
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws. Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states. Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act. Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal. Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.
That's scary. It completely breaks the separation of powers and would basically enable states to trample on protected rights as they see fit.
WTF happened Ron Paul? You used to be cool.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- ...
Originally posted by stonebutterfly
Thank You sir for posting this!!!! I see you are getting the backlash beacuse you dont support his ATS Holiness. Its ok, they have fallen for rhetoric of a different kind, playing upon thier hopes and dreams. Ron Paul will actually be worse than your normal run of the mill politician. He is preying on our bad situation right now, and will only make it worse. He will stop all help to poor people if he has his way. He must think only the elite should live in this country. As a human being, it is our responsibility to help lift our fellow man. Anything less is pure greed and selfishness. ive said my peace. S& F to the op!!!!
Originally posted by Red Cloak
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Red Cloak
.....promote the general welfare."
It's in the preamble
Then that means that people also have the right to healthcare.
Originally posted by bftroop
Originally posted by Red Cloak
Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by LargeFries
Although I believe everyone should have free access to healthcare, can you point out to me where the constitution gives that "right" to every American?
So isn't Ron Paul correct in saying that it is not a "right"?
Aren't you just grabbing for straws here?
Why don't you post the rest of what Paul said from your link? It puts it in perspective.
edit on 19-8-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
Where does it say in the Constitution that people have the right to clean water? Kindly point it out to me.
Where does it say you have to pay taxes!?
Amendment XVI - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.