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: 6
70
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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"


It's not that simple.

Rons answer isn't even a definite one. Someone who interprets the constitution differently might even convince people of the opposite.




posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

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.



It's not the Bible; however, it IS a list of commandments



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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.


Mitt isn't clever enough to have used that as a jab at Ron Paul. It was a deflection. Your post is a jab at Ron Paul. Mitt Romney's statement was a display of ignorance.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





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.


Hard for me to understand this point of view.

Never been around people like that. Maybe in the deep south...I dunno.

Grew up in the Navy, completely colorblind. Seems unnecessary to me, because people are not that way.

Obama, is the president... Not a white guy... When is enough, enough?
edit on 10-1-2012 by kawika because: add quote



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


I need to find a deserted island to live on...

I miss my boat...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

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.


An ancient castle built more then 200 years ago - - with only 13 states (colonies).

With a population of 2,500,000. Compared to a more diverse population 2010 - - 310,232,863.

It is a good framework. But there are reasons for amendments.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

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)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Any island would be fine. Maybe Caroline.

I wonder if it is still deserted?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


And how are the feds doing protecting everyone's civil rights? Yup....not so hot.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

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.


Of course he caught it, which is why he smiled...

But of course you also had to try another jab at Ron Paul... humm, i wonder if that's the only thing you have in common with Mitt...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Annee
 


And how are the feds doing protecting everyone's civil rights? Yup....not so hot.


That depends. Individualism can be a bit tough to protect when there are 310,232,863 people.

Plus societies do tend to be a ruling factor in determining such things. Unfortunately and fortunately at times.

When in transition - - you lose some - - but you also win some too. And I do believe we are in transition.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back on Track. I do think Mitt meant it as a jab to Paul.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I think before being able to run for President you should have to recite the Constitution on live TV. No teleprompter.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

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.


Does memorizing the Bible make someone a better Christian?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well no, but at least Mitt would know which laws he is breaking if he became President.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

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)


I very much agree. We need a more unified world. That's why I don't fear this New World Order gimmick. Really if the plan is a true global fascist regime a lot of people are going to have to die, because the Western people have fought hard to earn their rights. It might happen, I don't know. But I do know that returning to Ideological Power Tribes - as you put it - is not the way to go.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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.


Just soze you know - - I do think someone running for president should have - at least - an understanding of the Constitution - - - especially the Bill of Rights.

But as my mom (she loved quotes) always said : "It's Not What You Know - - Its Knowing Where To Find It". Pretty sure Mitt and team could find the document "Constitution". Got Smart Phone?

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.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

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.


Well we don't want to drag this discussion that way


In reality I expect both are current. I use the term World Federation for the legitimate and NWO for the conspiracy.

Where there is power - - there is corrupt power. Nature of the Beast.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



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.


What exactly does that mean? Because our past 7-8+ leaders have been progressively challenging that 200 year old document and look where it got us.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join