Ron Paul: The Movie.. Let's see you debunk this.

page: 3
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 



I can unravel your wall of text with one sentence.

Legislation is law.

Grasp that for a moment.


Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


and

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States


The general welfare part gives free reign of Congress to pass any law they want and to fund it. If it nullifies an Amendment or any other particular in the Constitution it won't hold up in Court.

Your other ramblings were just about the Amendment process, which has nothing to do with Ron Paul as he never tried to Amend the Constitution to remedy any of his accusations either.

edit on 30-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I'm sorry is this the part where you are quoting the section of the Constitution that allows for Medicaid, Medicare, Income Tax, Mandating Union Wages and Social Security?

Is that what you are quoting here or are you still trying to deflect, misdirect, and change the subject?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Your other ramblings were just about the Amendment process, which has nothing to do with Ron Paul as he never tried to Amend the Constitution to remedy any of his accusations either.

edit on 30-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)


Never tried to Amend the Constitution you say?

Well here is some information from THIS THREAD which claimed Ron Paul had no Legislative success. You should remember this thread, you were a big part of it. If you check the OP's source, which according to you , you have already done so, you would have noticed a few things which directly show your statement to be another bold faced lie.

H.J.Res. 116: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. -1998

H.J.Res. 129: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims. - 1998

H.J.Res. 82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags. -1998

H.J.Res. 80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags. -1998

H.R. 407: Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1999

H.R. 5078: First Amendment Restoration Act -2000

H.J.Res. 81: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. -again in 1999

H.J.Res. 45: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens. -again in 2001

H.J.Res. 42: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. -2003

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. -again in 2003

I could keep going but whats the point? You have already shown everyone that you will ignore actual facts in favor of your own diluted opinion.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Your other ramblings were just about the Amendment process, which has nothing to do with Ron Paul as he never tried to Amend the Constitution to remedy any of his accusations either.

edit on 30-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)


Never tried to Amend the Constitution you say?

Well here is some information from THIS THREAD which claimed Ron Paul had no Legislative success. You should remember this thread, you were a big part of it. If you check the OP's source, which according to you , you have already done so, you would have noticed a few things which directly show your statement to be another bold faced lie.

H.J.Res. 116: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. -1998

H.J.Res. 129: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims. - 1998

H.J.Res. 82: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags. -1998

H.J.Res. 80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags. -1998

H.R. 407: Second Amendment Restoration Act of 1999

H.R. 5078: First Amendment Restoration Act -2000

H.J.Res. 81: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. -again in 1999

H.J.Res. 45: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in the business in competition with its citizens. -again in 2001

H.J.Res. 42: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. -2003

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. -again in 2003

I could keep going but whats the point? You have already shown everyone that you will ignore actual facts in favor of your own diluted opinion.


Hahaha, are you really trying to brag about his failed legislative record? He made hundreds of pieces of legislation yet only ever passed one Bill in his entire career his waste of time amendments never got any support whatsoever. They were just gestures of opinion on his part.

So which one of those failed pieces of paper are you going to try to claim is worth more than outhouse wipe, to say he actually tried for State ratification? You need to get two thirds of the States to ratify an Amendment, I will be satisfied if you can show me he got more than One State to officially ratify any of his phoney Amendments to prove intent and I will admit you win the argument that he tried to Amend the Constitution.
edit on 30-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
I'm sorry is this the part where you are quoting the section of the Constitution that allows for Medicaid, Medicare, Income Tax, Mandating Union Wages and Social Security?

Is that what you are quoting here or are you still trying to deflect, misdirect, and change the subject?


Yes, that was the part. If you are too uneducated to realize it or too stubborn to ever admit Ron Paul is wrong, it is your personal problem. I quoted you the exact part that gives Congress the authority to legislate and fund anything to their hearts content for the welfare of the United States. You lost the argument, move on to the next feable position Ron Paul stands for that makes him look like a kook.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


Your an absolute joke... and you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about and you have been caught in yet ANOTHER bold faced lie.

Article 1 of the Constitution actually establishes the first of 3 branches of Government. The Legislature.

Section 1 establishes the name of the Legislature to be the "The Congress" a two body part.

Section 8 lists specific powers of Congress, including the power to establish and maintain an army and navy, to establish post offices, to create courts, to regulate commerce between the states, to declare war, and to raise money. Section 8 also includes the Elastic Clause which allows it to pass any law necessary for the carrying out of the previously listed powers.

These are the accepted interpretations of what those articles and sections mean. You can be taught this at any law school. So are you claiming that Articles 1 section 1 and section 8 are taught wrong to lawyers everywhere and that your interpretation is correct? So Yale, Harvard, and everyone else is wrong... but you are correct?

Maybe you can explain to all of us how Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8 allow for any of the programs previously mentioned or perhaps you would like to change your answer entirely?

I will even help you out a littler bit because I really do feel sorry for you. I have no idea how you have made it through life thus far being willfully ignorant.

As I have already said Article 1 establishes the first of the three branches of the government, the Legislature. Article 2 establishes the second of the three branches of government, the Executive. Article 3 establishes the last of the three branches of government, the Judiciary.

So by all means, please explain this new interpretation of the Constitution to us all. Speaking only for myself, I am fascinated, but that may only be due to me being so "uneducated"
edit on 30-12-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
And that kids, is how we shut down a Troll.

Point, set, match.

Thanks for playing TP.




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I know I'm late here at ATS, and I pride myself on watching documentaries and getting the most info I can.

I hadn't heard of this one, tyvm! S&F.

Ron Paul 2012.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
Reply to post by MrWendal
 


The blind support of RP on ATS confuses me because members are always complaining about Obama and other politicians and RP is just another politician in my eyes. He is not a savior. If you really want to deny ignorance, you'll encourage people to look beyond politicians and their petty lies. We need revolutionary change and that won't come with an old stalwart like RP.


Hmmm... Agreed that RP is a politician, but I contend not in the same vein as a Politician. I do not blindly support him. His consistency and integrity have gained him a fanatical following. Why? Because absolutely no other politician in D.C. has shown this AND thinking people are sick of it.

When you talk about revolutionary change, it ultimately will come back to the theory of government. Once you overthrow a system, another system WILL replace it. You can either purposefully and thoughtfully craft that system or you can organically allow some form of dictatorship to develop. Reinventing the wheel is not the answer (potentially), so barring that, look at the person who has a track record you respect, in this case RP, and put him in a position that he MIGHT be able to do something about it.

And here is why I think RP supporters are accused of worshiping him as a messiah. The harder the MSM tries to shove these clearly inferior and inadequate candidates down our throats, the more we will dogmatically cling to the superior option. It's like being stranded in the ocean - you can either choose to drown, float with a life jacket, or cling to a lifeboat fully provisioned with fresh drinking water. You can drown using any one of them, but your chance of arriving safely and alive goes up as your options improve. I certainly am not going to choose to voluntarily drown, and no matter how hard the various flavors of life jackets are shoved in my face, as long as I have the option I'm gonna choose the life boat EVERY time.





top topics
 
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join