It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul 8/28 Interview On Fox News With Chris Wallace

page: 3
50
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Implied powers are what has caused this whole mess. There is nothing implied, that is the lawyers looking to validate their reason for ripping off the American populace. The Constitution should be followed verbatim, as it was written. To do otherwise is to commit an act of treason.




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kbriggss
 


there is no such thing as the "right plan", but when you listen to the other candidates whom are spewing globalist war hawk type rhetoric it is clear to see that Ron Paul's plan is the only plan actually worth considering as anything else is simply a re hashed version of the republican status quo. For this, Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Cain, Romney, etc etc... can all simply go to hell as far as I am concerned for that is where they belong. They are all or have been at one point...Big government supports or strong armer';s for it.

Its time to stop trying to find a person with a golden cock and start realizing no one is perfect or says everything you just fall head over heels for and agree with 100%. Look at the voting record and let that be your guide. In the end you will get the same answer every time..

Mathematically it looks like this.

RP = 30 Years + Consistency - Big Gov Rhetoric
30 Years + Consistency [Doctor, Serviceman]
Your next President of United States

- simple
"



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


That's an insane position.

And it contradicts Ron Paul who thinks the current constitution is flawed and needs to be changed.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I think the saddest part of this interview is when Ron Paul says he “seeks limited power b/c he will follow the constitution.” This is sad because it implies that our leaders actually have the option of whether or not they want to follow it. I blame it on us. We have become unprincipled. We always seem to care if the constitution is not being followed when ideas that are counter to our beliefs are being passed. But when we have agreement, we tend to feel all actions are justified. I think this is what people don’t understand about Paul. He would accept many counter intuitive lifestyles in order to protect his own personal worldview from being legislated. Just because you allow certain acts doesn’t mean you agree with those behaviors. Even CS Lewis, who talked about Christian virtues said the most unvirtuos kind of man, is the man who wants to impose his lifestyle choices and virtues on everyone else.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Snorkelbacon
 


You're just being confused by his self-aggrandising conflation of two principles.

The US has LONG been a nation, from the very start really, that disagreed on the role of various bits of the government. The right has, most recently, made the vice presidential role into a huge deal... but... that isn't unconstitutional.

The constitution is pretty damn vague about a lot of stuff (which is why following it verbatim is almost impossible). Two people read it and get different things, which is why the courts exist.

If there weren't multiple ways to read the constitution the SC would be pretty useless.

At any rate, when Paul saying he:

“seeks limited power"

and

"he will follow the constitution”

those are two separate things.



Bush claims he followed it (and the SC agreed).



Seeking limited power is a completely separate idea.

That quote is the conflation of these two separate ideas, for one purpose, politics.


edit on 29-8-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here's an interview that aired today on Fox News Sunday with Ron Paul:


HQ video on this website.

The first thing he brings up is Ron Pauls comments on FEMA with our current situation with Hurricane Irene, I was sure he would get some flak for that. But he defends himself and gives the reasons for why he thinks that way.

Wallace asks him about his "unconventional" viewpoints, and Ron Paul talks about how it's strange that freedom, liberty, a balanced budget, and a Constitutional and limited government are seen as "unconventional". He spins it around and says our state of government for the past 50 years has actually been the unconventional one. Chris Wallace rubs me the wrong way...

Ron Paul then talks about how he would follow the Constitution as president and this really stuck out:

"The constitution was written to restrict the government, not to restrict the people"


Wallace also asks him about his recent comments about Gaddafi and asks if he thinks it's a good thing that Libya is rid of Gadaffi. Paul agrees that it's a good thing, but talks about our government doing business with him 5 years ago and asks "Was that a good thing?", BOOM!

Then he branches out and talks about how Libya won't end up as a perfect, happily flourishing democracy because there are talks about how we might need troops on the ground to maintain order. Paul then says logic tells us we shouldn't be dealing with our foreign policy in this manner, we can't pretend like we can pick the dictators around the world because that's been unsuccesful.

He also brings up how his foreign policy is what attracts lots of people and gets him lots of support, because he gets more donations from those who are active in military duty than all other candidates combined.

Then they discuss the economy, Bernanke, and a few other things.

It's good to see Ron Paul getting some Sunday air time on the big networks.
edit on 28-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


i don't know why you guys have such a hard on for Ron Paul. he's going nowhere. he's not gonna be your next president. so what he won the ATS Straw Pool. big deal. so he's some guy who is at times witty and thought provoking. wow. it's like saying a girl is pretty. pretty girls come and go by the handfuls.

Maybe Ron Paul is one of your sacred False Flags. ever think of that?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Even in Obamas book, Dreams From My Father he states," My problem with the constitution is it’s a charter of negative liberties, and doesn't state what the government ought to do." My question is why would a bunch of guys write a document that mostly just says what the government can't do? It doesn't make sense that they would be so precise in limiting the government. 90% of the document is written to take away the governments freedom, and yet somehow they really meant to to give government total control to imply their power whenever not specifically addressed? I mean that seems illogical and inconsistent.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Good to see the trolls of ATS are losing and turning to derailing threads and insults rather than debating the topic..

I'm not American but I wish we had a few Ron Pauls in our corrupt Aussie Government.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by kro32
 


Implied powers are what has caused this whole mess. There is nothing implied, that is the lawyers looking to validate their reason for ripping off the American populace. The Constitution should be followed verbatim, as it was written. To do otherwise is to commit an act of treason.


The Supreme Court would disagree with you and they happen to be the "Law Of The Land". They alone are the ones that determine what is Constitutional which was a power given to them by the founders so to disagree with that power is to disagree with the foundation of the Constitution. You may not agree with their rulings but those rulings DO determine how the Constitution will be interpreted.

This is why Ron Paul is completely wrong when he says if it's not in the Constitution it is a States Right. The infamous Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland overrules the 10th amendment because they say it does and Ron Paul by disagreeing with this shows that he does not agree with the power the founders gave the Supreme Court in the Constitution.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 



The infamous Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland overrules the 10th amendment because they say it does and Ron Paul by disagreeing with this shows that he does not agree with the power the founders gave the Supreme Court in the Constitution.


No it doesn't..
It means Ron Paul, and many others, disagree with the BS interpretations handed down by a Government selected, corrupt supreme court..

For the people my ass...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


If i saw ron paul i would hug him.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I'm not a scholar by any means, and it sounds like you know a lot more than i do, so I'm asking this question very honestly because i'm curious about your statement on the courts. So if the supreme courts, for whatever reason, decided we no longer had the right to free speech, or any guns period, or that it was ok for U.S. citizens to be searched without probable cause for whatever reason, then there ruling would be constitutional? If yes, can the courts ever make an unconstitutional ruling?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
And not ONE of the other candidates could expand with such detail on any of the issues brought up in this interview. Honesty answers, sincerity and truth were on full display and I loved it!

All other candidates would be nothing more than soundbite after soundbite.

No other candidate deserves our vote more than Ron Paul!



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snorkelbacon
reply to post by kro32
 


I'm not a scholar by any means, and it sounds like you know a lot more than i do, so I'm asking this question very honestly because i'm curious about your statement on the courts. So if the supreme courts, for whatever reason, decided we no longer had the right to free speech, or any guns period, or that it was ok for U.S. citizens to be searched without probable cause for whatever reason, then there ruling would be constitutional? If yes, can the courts ever make an unconstitutional ruling?


Unfortunately you are correct. Whatever they decide would be Constitutional however there are checks and balances even on them. Congress could add more members to the Supreme Court beyond the 9 they currently have and stack the court to overturn their decisions. FDR tried this but Congress wouldn't allow it.

The President could also issue an executive order that could only be overturned by the Supreme Court if the case is brought before them which could be prevented from ever happening.and also the Congress along with the States could amend the Constitution to overturn a Supreme Court decision.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

What a great interview.He threw back every gotcha question this clown threw at him and turned it in to an informative answer.I can't help but think anyone who listens to him that really wants to take back America and live "free" would not consider him.
The idea that Perry is so far out just tells me people are doing the same thing they did with Obama,listining to the silver tongue political BS and falling for it.He and Romney are clones that will say what you want to hear and do what they want once in office.Can't people see this ,havent we seen enough of the political clone's to know that they are just that...............clones and puppets with nothing new.
Paul is common sense and logic and thats what the people don't get,they won't analyze and think outside the box and really listen to what he says,I know this was my problem in the past with RP.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


So by your own admission, the SC has already done this. The right to bear arms. There is no way to interpret this. Banning any sort of firearm violates this right. Freedom of speech is another. By restricting what can be said, anywhere at anytime, is a direct violation. On TV you cannot say certain words. That is a violation. Now we have hate crimes, and while I do not approve of such conduct, to charge a person for what they say about another race violates that right. So there you have clear violations of our rights, upheld by the SC which means they have committed an act of treason.

The SC members should not be affiliated with any party, but a neutral body. This is the only way a fair and impartial court can operate.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 



The SC members should not be affiliated with any party, but a neutral body. This is the only way a fair and impartial court can operate.


Yeah but that wouldn't suit the agenda of a Government hell bent on walking all over people's constitutional rights..

They need excuses and that's where the SC comes in..
We can all just blame them later when we have no freedom of speech or guns left to argue with.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Awesome interview. It seems like Ronnie handles himself better and better as time goes on. Can't wait til he's up against Obie!



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Ron Paul is the man.

FINALLY a politician who doesn't beat around the bush and not answer peoples questions! This is something I can respect.

Honestly if this man doesn't become the official Republican representative/nominee in the 2012 presidential race then you can no longer be skeptical about the polls/votes being rigged.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I can honestly say without a doubt that this is one politician that seems to have his head screwed on straight. I really, REALLY hope that he becomes the official Republican candidate. I sincerely hope he isn't a fake. Or another Obama.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join