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.
Originally posted by AlienStalker
reply to post by dadgad
So what was wrong about the op's vid?
Romney diverts the question of constitutionality to Paul....in other words saying "I don't know *%$# about the constitution, ask someone who does"
Originally posted by dadgad
Rons answer isn't even a definite one. Someone who interprets the constitution differently might even convince people of the opposite.
Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
reply to post by Annee
Or at the very least, he would defend to the death that state's right to make the decision for itself, in accordance with the powers non-specifically granted to it by the constitution.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You do realize that Mitt said that as a jab to Ron Paul...right???
I don't think Ron Paul caught that either.
Realtors had the right to interview any perspective home buyer - - and deny them. I grew up in an all white Christian neighborhood. And did they ever - - work to keep it that way.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
reply to post by Annee
Or at the very least, he would defend to the death that state's right to make the decision for itself, in accordance with the powers non-specifically granted to it by the constitution.
Let me present my viewpoint as simply as I can. Others can come in with more details and literary wordiness.
I am old enough to remember how things were before the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Act. Prior to that people could create communities of "same think" and legally keep everyone else out. It sounds good in some ways - - but it can create a power group that squashes and overrides those not like themselves.
Realtors had the right to interview any perspective home buyer - - and deny them. I grew up in an all white Christian neighborhood. And did they ever - - work to keep it that way.
Eventually groups like the NAACP - - hired white realtors that would break through the system and sell to blacks. Oh - those were fun times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is - - - Civil Rights should never be given to states. Civil Rights should be protected Federally.
Ron Paul has voted against individuals Civil Rights. He hides his true nature behind the Constitution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it - - most supporters of Ron Paul are the young idealistic - - - that did not live in the times before certain Civil Rights became Federal Law. They are not seeing the full picture - - they are short sighted. IMO.
Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Annee
In other words its a framework.
Only the Supreme Court can rule if we are out of limits. The law is not the Constitution - - it is the Supreme Court.
No. More like a barbed wire electric fence,
with a moat, and sharks and gators in the moat.
The court has some ability to adjust where the fence is, but it is a big deal to move it. Lots of digging and pouring concrete, and electric wiring.
Originally posted by dadgad
You mention a very valid point. The so to say dark side of Libertarianism which due to blind idealism is too easily overlooked. It's no secret that Libertarianism has been affiliated with racism. I myself am also one who doesn't believe a word of Ron Pauls denial of knowledge about the things written in his journal. (for over a decade!). The thing is to them freedom actually also means the freedom to be racist, homophobic and exclude minorities.
So I completely agree that Civil Rights should be federally protected, and at all costs.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You do realize that Mitt said that as a jab to Ron Paul...right???
I don't think Ron Paul caught that either.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Annee
And how are the feds doing protecting everyone's civil rights? Yup....not so hot.
Originally posted by tooo many pills
I think before being able to run for President you should have to recite the Constitution on live TV. No teleprompter.
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by dadgad
You mention a very valid point. The so to say dark side of Libertarianism which due to blind idealism is too easily overlooked. It's no secret that Libertarianism has been affiliated with racism. I myself am also one who doesn't believe a word of Ron Pauls denial of knowledge about the things written in his journal. (for over a decade!). The thing is to them freedom actually also means the freedom to be racist, homophobic and exclude minorities.
So I completely agree that Civil Rights should be federally protected, and at all costs.
Thank you.
I get a lot of - Look at history - history repeats itself - Imperialism fails. Well Duh! I just did look at history.
Do I want a bunch of "Ideological Power Tribes" like in the Mid-East today - - - all fighting for their ideology to be the ruling force of their country? Hell NO!
In reality - we have never been where we are today politically. We have never had the global communications we have today - - - and the cooperation (varies) of other major powers looking forward to a unified world. This is not history repeating itself - - - this is NEW.
We can only go forward - - - not backward to Ideological Tribes.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by Annee
Well no, but at least Mitt would know which laws he is breaking if he became President.
Originally posted by dadgad
I very much agree. We need a more unified world. That's why I don't fear this New World Order gimmick.
I personally want a leader who is going to move the country forward. I don't want to be "stuck" by a 200 year old document - - if it interferes with progression - - then I want a leader to challenge it.