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.

 

Mitt Romney: I dont know what the Constitution says! Ask Ron Paul

page: 2
70
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Anyone who doesn't know what is in the constitution should never run for president.

this guy just admitted he didn't know what was in it and had to turn to good ol RP. Mitt Romney looked like a complete tool and a complete idiot.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Does a state have the constitutional right to ban contraceptives?


States don't have rights. They have powers. Do they have the power to ban contraceptives? If Ron Paul has his way, they will.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It is possible that I took it the wrong way.

Here is how I took it. It is like if a group of guys are sitting around watching football and one of them thinks of themselves as the ultimate resource on the rules of the game. A questionable call comes up that would involve an obscure rule, one guy asks another "What do you think is the correct call" and he replies "I don't know, why don't you ask our "rules" guy about it"...and they all get a rousing laugh out of it.

It isn't said with respect...it is said dripping with sarcasm. In the above scenario, I wouldn't expect the "rules guy" to get the joke either...I would expect him to jump in with his explanation of what he thinks the call should be...completely oblivous that he has been the subject of a joke.

And that is exactly what Ron Paul did...he chuckled with them...and then asked for time to "explain" what the constitution says about it. I wish we could of seen the other candidates rolling their eyes...because I'd imagine that is what they were doing.


Now maybe I'm way off...but that is how I saw it. I saw it as a sarcastic comment...not a comment out of respect. And I saw the audience reaction as laughing with Romney at Paul's expense.
edit on 9-1-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by yourboycal2
 



I can't understand that eitrher. Why is sticking to your guns when it comes to the constitution so ...ridiculous? The constitution is first and formost...well should be first and formost on everybodies list. TPTB are trying to villainize the constitutionalists and they're gaining ground..what the hell is wrong with those people.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Misoir
Does a state have the constitutional right to ban contraceptives?


States don't have rights. They have powers. Do they have the power to ban contraceptives? If Ron Paul has his way, they will.


That is wrong. Power is granted from the residents of the State, not from the Federal Government. Rights are "inalienable," but our Fed has forgotten that. So, at this stage in the game, it takes someone like Ron Paul to shutdown the Federal Governments intrusions, and return the power back to the people. Once that is accomplished, then the State's will have a right to ban contraceptives or the letter Q if a majority of the residents so desire, and that is how a "Republic" "by the people, for the people, and of the people" is supposed to be run.

People like to twist it and make it sound like it will be Ron Paul's doing. The only thing Ron Paul will be able to accomplish (hopefully!) is undoing the Federal intrusions and returning the power where it belongs.

Some people like to point at a worst-case scenario that is highly unlikely, and also is not so worse-case even if the implausible happened. What if a state, like Utah, decided to ban contraceptives? Well, the citizens would have to agree to it, and then the ones that disagreed would have to find a state that suited their lifestyle better? Hardly the end of the world.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Oh get over yourselves. Not everyone here could be able to give a good answer to such a ridiculous question when it is asked on the spot. Does a state have the constitutional right to ban contraceptives? How the hell should he know, is Mitt vying for a job on the Supreme Court? Now if they asked ‘does the government have the right to detain Americans without a trial or access to a lawyer’ I would expect to him to know the right answer to that one. I think the Paulites are grasping at straws on this one.


My friend, what a disappointment to see your generally considered thoughts placed upon a back burner long enough so you may defend ignorance.

Does a state have a "constitutional right" to ban contraceptives? The clear and obvious right to have and use contraceptives makes the answer a resounding no! However, if Romney were afraid of alienating a voter base by answering the question directly, he could have simply responded by pointing out that all states have their own constitutions and he could have begged off by simply citing his own State Constitution of Massachusetts of which he took an oath of office to protect and defend...he also took an oath to protect and defend the federal Constitution, but politics being what they are, he could have just simply cited the Massachusetts Constitution beginning with the Preamble:


The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.


(In Part)

Then followed it with the First Declaration of Rights of that Constitution:


All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.


And then he could of smiled proudly and kept his mouth shut. This is not what he did.

Further, your assertion that Romney is not vying for a position on the Supreme Court implies that rights cannot be known by common people and we are all subject to what Supreme Court Justices decree. Nothing could be further from the truth.


edit on 9-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



Originally posted by getreadyalready
I agree with you on the strategy and thinking of the GOP, but they are epically WRONG in their strategy!


I know they are wrong. If they put Romney forward, they will lose mightily, I believe.



Part of me wants to see Romney go up against Obama, get destroyed in debates, and get destroyed at the polls, just so I can say, "I told you so." After that, the country can erupt into chaos, we can bring down the whole machine, and start over.


It's funny. I have similar thoughts about Ron Paul. Just get him win against Obama so he can shake up the joint, let the pieces fall where they may and we can gather it up and start over. Because I see no smooth transitions once Ron gets the wheel. I think there will be chaos regardless which one wins. But maybe that's what we need?


As regards this response of Romney's, he's an idiot. It was more important to him to get a laugh than it was to answer the question. I think people can see that if he has to defer to someone else on the panel as regards the Constitution, then he's NOT the right guy...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Just realized. In This Post I left out a large group. The Hispanic Vote!!! Can Romney or any other GOPer take a significant portion of the Hispanic Vote? I think not. Paul has a shot at making a dent there, and this is a key base for Obama. If the GOP really wants to win, they need to be looking at 3rd Party and Independent Voters, Grassroots Movements like OWS and Tea Party, and Blue Dog Democrats that are too Conservative to endorse Obama, and the Hispanic Vote.

Only one candidate makes in-roads in all those key areas vital to Obama.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I certainly agree that Romney intended the remark to be sarcastic, but sarcasm alone will not generate laughs, and it is usually bathos that generates the biggest laughs. Who, do you think, is more bathetic, Romney or Paul?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
...This man leads in the polls? I mean he literally just answered a serious question which matters to many people with essentially... Hey that's a great question now look everyone at my dancing monkey...and they bought in, just wow what a mentality.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
That is wrong. Power is granted from the residents of the State, not from the Federal Government.


I must be confused about the 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I certainly agree that Romney intended the remark to be sarcastic, but sarcasm alone will not generate laughs, and it is usually bathos that generates the biggest laughs. Who, do you think, is more bathetic, Romney or Paul?


In that situation, Romney (and yes, as usual when I talk with you...I did have to go look that word up
)

But in all honesty...I still see it as the audience laughing at Romney's sarcastic jab at Paul rather than them laughing at Romney trying to pass off the question.

That is just my take on it...I'm sure there was a mix of both in reality.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



I think there will be chaos regardless which one wins. But maybe that's what we need?


That is certainly a possibility, and maybe even a secret desire of the grassroots movement. There is a real possibility that it is too late for any significant change and the writing is already on the wall.

For my conscience's sake, I will continue to push for the best peaceful solution on the table, and I feel like that is Ron Paul for now.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I certainly agree that Romney intended the remark to be sarcastic, but sarcasm alone will not generate laughs, and it is usually bathos that generates the biggest laughs. Who, do you think, is more bathetic, Romney or Paul?


Romney, absolutely.

My 2 cents.
edit on 1/9/2012 by Amaterasu because: I failed tags again



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by getreadyalready
That is wrong. Power is granted from the residents of the State, not from the Federal Government.


I must be confused about the 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



I agree, but the State governments don't have carte blanche granted by the Federal Government, they are still accountable to their people. The State's authority is granted by the State's population. They can't just make whatever laws they feel like. Each state is also a representative government, with its own Constitution, and its own House and Senate and Governor.

So, the 10th Amendment defers to the State, instead of the Federal Law, and the State Law is a product of the people of that state.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But in all honesty...I still see it as the audience laughing at Romney's sarcastic jab at Paul rather than them laughing at Romney trying to pass off the question.


Uh - - doesn't the makeup of the audience determine the response from the audience?

It is the Republican debates. The audience is most likely heavily Republican.

I expect Romney felt safe in his response. Which I take as a jab at someone who he thinks has a know-it-all attitude.

Good public leadership is a charisma to hold the attention of your audience. If you are a Constitutionalist - - then you are probably lacking in other areas.

Charisma wins - - hire a Constitutionalist.

edit on 9-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


" How can he be in the lead of the polls, if he cannot remember the constitution that he may be sworn to defend? "


Because he , and the People backing him Controling the Media and the Polls could Care Less about Americans Constitutional Rights . Isn't that Obvious by Now ? .....





posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Good public leadership is a charisma to hold the attention of your audience. If you are a Constitutionalist - - then you are probably lacking in other areas.

Charisma wins - - hire a Constitutionalist.


Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, The "Reverend" Jim Jones, Charles Manson, and David Koresh were all charismatic leaders.

Gee, if only they had hired a Constitutionalist.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Annee
 





Good public leadership is a charisma to hold the attention of your audience. If you are a Constitutionalist - - then you are probably lacking in other areas.

Charisma wins - - hire a Constitutionalist.


Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, The "Reverend" Jim Jones, Charles Manson, and David Koresh were all charismatic leaders.

Gee, if only they had hired a Constitutionalist.



So? And they were very good at it too.

What a stupid response.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





What a stupid response.


Uh-huh. This coming from someone who joined this thread to dismiss a man versed in the very Constitution he took an oath to protect and defend, and this remark coming from someone who apparently doesn't understand when declaring "hire a constitutionalist" that those voting for Ron Paul have every intention of doing so.

Stupid is as stupid does.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join