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.

 

More bad news Paul supporters: Ron Paul polling low in his home state of Texas

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Exactly. His fan base is attracted to his anti war policies along with pro legalization of marijuana. They fail to realize his other ideas are dangerous and insane.

So I guess your think the current state of this country is just Peachy.

Lets just follow the path were on for another 4, 8 years.

By then we'll be what, maybe 20, 25 trillion in debt, paying interest on it with numbers most

countries would love to have as a GNP.

The current push to a more Police minded State with less and less Liberties, ya those Paul folks

sure are delusional.


I don't think I even came close to saying we're in a peachy status as a country, did I?

Our system has failed us, for one reason or another. We can sit here and debate why but it won't get us anywhere as we probably disagree on reasons.

We need to change things around mainly because nothing is working. Paul has some solid ideas but they aren't proper solutions...but yet again, everything else the Republicans and Democrats are proposing aren't necessarily effective either.

If I had to, I'd vote for Paul but since it's an option, I'll keep my dignity and not vote for someone who doesn't represent me. Sure, compared to Obama he may be a saint on a few levels...but Paul is far from the best solution to the country's failed policies and system, whether you agree or not.



OK...so who is the "best" solution for the country's failed policies and system? Hell...I PROMISE to vote for this mysterious candidate that you know about too. In fact...I will write in ANY candidate that I feel is both "better" and who is willing to take the job.

Do tell. I'm totally all ears on this.




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


For the record, I'm still waiting for you to ask whatever questions you claim it is I'm dodging....it can't be the repeated questions about what legal action to take, as I've answered that one repeatedly. You simply refuse to accept the answer, or don't think the outlets exist. Not sure which.

So please, ask away!



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Ummmm...The Constitution is what GIVES you the right to vote and own land. Without the Constitution it would STILL be only white males who had the vote.



Ummmmm.....no..... It is the 19th amendment that gives me the right to vote and entire series of law changes spanning 200 years that gave me the right to own property in the US.

Maybe you just need to refresh your history.

Why are you all so caught up on race anyway?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Ummmm...The Constitution is what GIVES you the right to vote and own land. Without the Constitution it would STILL be only white males who had the vote.



Ummmmm.....no..... It is the 19th amendment that gives me the right to vote and entire series of law changes spanning 200 years that gave me the right to own property in the US.

Maybe you just need to refresh your history.

Why are you all so caught up on race anyway?


The 19th amendment is PART OF the Constitution. You can't just exclude the amendments to make it convenient for your argument. LOL. Likewise, I'm not sure what race you are but the 13th Amendment is what made it possible for former slaves to own property.

As for my knowledge of History, I have a Master's Degree in History from the University of Wisconsin...does that count at all?? Similarly you accuse me about "being hung up on race" when 2/3 of your posts are spreading disinformation that it was something other than the Constitution which gave women and racial minorities the right to vote and own property.

This doesn't mean that the "Founding Fathers" weren't racist and sexist...they absolutely were. If that hadn't been, those rights would have been included in the first ten Amendments...you know...the AMENDMENTS that provide any and all civil liberties enjoyed by any American irregardless of year that the Amendments were signed.

Ironically, your understanding of the Constitution is poor that if you negate the validity of the Amendments there is nothing prohibiting your return to slavery as chattel property...along with every other man, woman, and child in the United States irregardless of race, color, creed, nationality, or sex.

Where did you ever get the idea in your head that the Constitution somehow DOESN'T include the Amendments?? It's one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard in my life.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


For the record, I'm still waiting for you to ask whatever questions you claim it is I'm dodging....it can't be the repeated questions about what legal action to take, as I've answered that one repeatedly. You simply refuse to accept the answer, or don't think the outlets exist. Not sure which.

So please, ask away!


Oh. I just tuned your nonsensical drivel out. Perhaps I missed what sort of legal action you suggested when I stopped reading your posts.
Feel free to refresh my memory as to specifically what "legal action" constitutes in your mind. As cited previously...please draft a Summons and Complaint and post it here. I cannot begin to fathom what sorts of powers you think the judicial branch could lend to the process...but apparently you know better. Please show us, oh Wise One. Alternatively, I'm also cool if you just stop wasting my time spouting nonsense about a legal system which you have clearly never been involved in.

Lastly, you seem to be ignoring my statement that stating that even such a mythical and vaguely defined "legal action" existed...I feel it would be a fool's errand anyways. Given that any such litigation is ultimately bound for the Supreme Court, I do not have any faith in their ability to function as the highest court in the land in a manner that isn't rife with corruption. They demonstrated this pretty clearly when The Supreme Court halted the recount in FL in 2000, despite not having the power to do so.

Likewise...even if the Supreme Court WAS able to render a lawful decision on the matter...I just don't see how a highly politicized three ring circus of a court case could possibly help Ron Paul's campaign. Thus...I wouldn't do it ANYWAYS. Mostly...because I think it's stupid.

At any rate...get your Brief in to me ASAP and show to the thread your amazing new inventions of law which heretofore have not existed since the Magna Carta. I'm totally dying to see what you come up with.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Autumnal: While I completely agree with the idea that white folks whining about affirmative action is ridiculous...I must say that you really DO NOT know your history OR much about the Constitution at all.
The Bill of Rights itself is composed of AMENDMENTS 1-10. Citing an Amendment isn't "stretching" nor is ignoring them in any way being a "strict constitutionalist".


Actually I know my history pretty well because my right to vote is not in the bill of rights. Citing an amendment most certainly is stretching it. Amendments are changes to the constitution. You cannot be a strict constitutionalist AND accept the idea that the constitution should be open for changes. Reality does not function that way.


It is simply not possible to be ANY sort of "constitutionalist" (strict, or otherwise) and disregard the Amendements. Contrary to popular opinion, the "Founding Fathers" disagreed much, were quite candid about their own fallibility, and absolutely, categorically, KNEW that was FAR FROM PERFECT.


You are confused. Break this up.


It is simply not possible to be ANY sort of "constitutionalist" (strict, or otherwise) and disregard the Amendements.


How are you a strict constitutionalist while accepting and allowing changes to it?


Contrary to popular opinion, the "Founding Fathers" disagreed much, were quite candid about their own fallibility, and absolutely, categorically, KNEW that was FAR FROM PERFECT.


Yeah, I never disputed any of that. I am not sure what this sentence has to do with anything. It is like adding any other well known tidbit to the end of something for no reason. It makes me think you believe you are talking to someone you know and can then rebut things that they think. You are not and you cannot because it was not in my head or in my post.



Likewise...don't interpret this to mean that the "Founding Fathers" weren't largely racists, sexists, and slave-owners....because THEY WERE. Unfortunately, the better part of the Eastern and Western world was racist and sexist at this time. This doesn't make EXCUSES for this...it simply acknowledges reality. Likewise, I'm not saying that the 13th Amendment got rid of racism...or even set all of the slaves free in PRACTICAL SENSE. One could argue that some Southern black sharecroppers were held in a state of quasi-slavery until well after WWII. Similarly, racism and sexism didn't just "go away" with the Amendments....OR with the election of a black president for that matter. Both are still alive and even thriving in some parts of the country.

However, construing the Amendments to not be part of the "real" Constitution is to blatantly not understand the document OR American History.


I never said they are not part of the real constitution as it stands today.

I guess you need to explain to me what a strict constitutionalist is then.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
The 19th amendment is PART OF the Constitution. You can't just exclude the amendments to make it convenient for your argument. LOL. Likewise, I'm not sure what race you are but the 13th Amendment is what made it possible for former slaves to own property.


Time for you to go back to civics class and learn all about the amendments. You should start with the first 10 and go from there. You will be amazed at what you can add to this discussion when you have done that. You and I will have productive things to exchange at that point.

I am not a former slave. My race has nothing to do with anything I have posted. I was talking about the right to vote, that is 19. The right to own property for me is NOT in the constitution at all.
That is something that happened through a series of law changes spanning over 200 years but it is not in the constitution at all. Sorry.



As for my knowledge of History, I have a Master's Degree in History from the University of Wisconsin...does that count at all??


Apparently not since you seem to know very little about what we have discussed so far and I do not have a Masters in history so that just makes me giggle.


Similarly you accuse me about "being hung up on race" when 2/3 of your posts are spreading disinformation that it was something other than the Constitution which gave women and racial minorities the right to vote and own property.


I never said anything about racial minorities getting the vote or right to own property. NOT IN ONE SINGLE POST. You should try reading.


This doesn't mean that the "Founding Fathers" weren't racist and sexist...they absolutely were. If that hadn't been, those rights would have been included in the first ten Amendments...you know...the AMENDMENTS that provide any and all civil liberties enjoyed by any American irregardless of year that the Amendments were signed.


I think you better check that masters degree again. Former slaves could not own land until the 13th and women could not vote until the 19th. Neither of those is in the first ten.
Maybe it is your math teacher that needs to be punished?



Ironically, your understanding of the Constitution is poor that if you negate the validity of the Amendments there is nothing prohibiting your return to slavery as chattel property...along with every other man, woman, and child in the United States irregardless of race, color, creed, nationality, or sex.


Where was the irony?

Damn, does anyone know how to use that word around here? I understand the constitution and the amendments apparently better than you because I have corrected you many times about the amendments. What you do not understand is the point of returning to a strict following of the original constitution. Otherwise the term strict constitutionalist means nothing.



Where did you ever get the idea in your head that the Constitution somehow DOESN'T include the Amendments?? It's one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard in my life.


Never. I never said any such thing but you have been so busy being wrong that you did not have time to read my posts I guess.



Try again. I have faith you can do better.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


If you tuned me out then how is it possible that I am wasting your time?

This "draft a summons" deflection is downright silly. You are asking a person who DOESNT believe it is going on to make your case for you. The only reason you would do this is to deflect from the fact that you are doing nothing but crying about this so-called fraud. You want someone else to do it for you.

And again, I have told you some outlets that you could take you evidence. You still either dont believe they exist or dont want to acknowledge that they do because that would be an admission that you were flat out wrong.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Autumnal: While I completely agree with the idea that white folks whining about affirmative action is ridiculous...I must say that you really DO NOT know your history OR much about the Constitution at all.
The Bill of Rights itself is composed of AMENDMENTS 1-10. Citing an Amendment isn't "stretching" nor is ignoring them in any way being a "strict constitutionalist".


Actually I know my history pretty well because my right to vote is not in the bill of rights. Citing an amendment most certainly is stretching it. Amendments are changes to the constitution. You cannot be a strict constitutionalist AND accept the idea that the constitution should be open for changes. Reality does not function that way.


It is simply not possible to be ANY sort of "constitutionalist" (strict, or otherwise) and disregard the Amendements. Contrary to popular opinion, the "Founding Fathers" disagreed much, were quite candid about their own fallibility, and absolutely, categorically, KNEW that was FAR FROM PERFECT.


You are confused. Break this up.


It is simply not possible to be ANY sort of "constitutionalist" (strict, or otherwise) and disregard the Amendements.


How are you a strict constitutionalist while accepting and allowing changes to it?


Contrary to popular opinion, the "Founding Fathers" disagreed much, were quite candid about their own fallibility, and absolutely, categorically, KNEW that was FAR FROM PERFECT.


Yeah, I never disputed any of that. I am not sure what this sentence has to do with anything. It is like adding any other well known tidbit to the end of something for no reason. It makes me think you believe you are talking to someone you know and can then rebut things that they think. You are not and you cannot because it was not in my head or in my post.



Likewise...don't interpret this to mean that the "Founding Fathers" weren't largely racists, sexists, and slave-owners....because THEY WERE. Unfortunately, the better part of the Eastern and Western world was racist and sexist at this time. This doesn't make EXCUSES for this...it simply acknowledges reality. Likewise, I'm not saying that the 13th Amendment got rid of racism...or even set all of the slaves free in PRACTICAL SENSE. One could argue that some Southern black sharecroppers were held in a state of quasi-slavery until well after WWII. Similarly, racism and sexism didn't just "go away" with the Amendments....OR with the election of a black president for that matter. Both are still alive and even thriving in some parts of the country.

However, construing the Amendments to not be part of the "real" Constitution is to blatantly not understand the document OR American History.


I never said they are not part of the real constitution as it stands today.

I guess you need to explain to me what a strict constitutionalist is then.


OK...ready?

A strict Constitutionalist believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

That's it. Nothing more. The Amendments are one and the same as the Constitution that was originally signed and ratified.

So...where are you confused on this?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by milominderbinder
The 19th amendment is PART OF the Constitution. You can't just exclude the amendments to make it convenient for your argument. LOL. Likewise, I'm not sure what race you are but the 13th Amendment is what made it possible for former slaves to own property.


Time for you to go back to civics class and learn all about the amendments. You should start with the first 10 and go from there. You will be amazed at what you can add to this discussion when you have done that. You and I will have productive things to exchange at that point.

I am not a former slave. My race has nothing to do with anything I have posted. I was talking about the right to vote, that is 19. The right to own property for me is NOT in the constitution at all.
That is something that happened through a series of law changes spanning over 200 years but it is not in the constitution at all. Sorry.



As for my knowledge of History, I have a Master's Degree in History from the University of Wisconsin...does that count at all??


Apparently not since you seem to know very little about what we have discussed so far and I do not have a Masters in history so that just makes me giggle.


Similarly you accuse me about "being hung up on race" when 2/3 of your posts are spreading disinformation that it was something other than the Constitution which gave women and racial minorities the right to vote and own property.


I never said anything about racial minorities getting the vote or right to own property. NOT IN ONE SINGLE POST. You should try reading.


This doesn't mean that the "Founding Fathers" weren't racist and sexist...they absolutely were. If that hadn't been, those rights would have been included in the first ten Amendments...you know...the AMENDMENTS that provide any and all civil liberties enjoyed by any American irregardless of year that the Amendments were signed.


I think you better check that masters degree again. Former slaves could not own land until the 13th and women could not vote until the 19th. Neither of those is in the first ten.
Maybe it is your math teacher that needs to be punished?



Ironically, your understanding of the Constitution is poor that if you negate the validity of the Amendments there is nothing prohibiting your return to slavery as chattel property...along with every other man, woman, and child in the United States irregardless of race, color, creed, nationality, or sex.


Where was the irony?

Damn, does anyone know how to use that word around here? I understand the constitution and the amendments apparently better than you because I have corrected you many times about the amendments. What you do not understand is the point of returning to a strict following of the original constitution. Otherwise the term strict constitutionalist means nothing.



Where did you ever get the idea in your head that the Constitution somehow DOESN'T include the Amendments?? It's one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard in my life.


Never. I never said any such thing but you have been so busy being wrong that you did not have time to read my posts I guess.



Try again. I have faith you can do better.


Well...this explains everything. Apparently you seem to think that when Ron Paul speaks of returning to the Constitution he also means to subvert that same Constitution by arbitrarily disregarding all of the Amendments as well as all other legislative acts since then.

This is beyond uneducated and poorly read. You do not understand the law, history, what a Constitutionalist is, and have clearly not read any of Ron Paul's books. Or many other books, for that matter.

A strict Constitutionalist believes in things like 11 million words in the tax code ought not to supercede the Bill of Rights. Likewise, it eschews executive orders which subverts the supreme law of the land and instead demands such drastic changes to one's civil rights may only be removed by another Amendment.

Ever wonder how it is we have a failed "War on Drugs"...yet Prohibition needed a Constitutional Amendment to restrict alcohol sale and consumption? This is nothing more than what we should have been doing all along.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

A strict Constitutionalist believes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

That's it. Nothing more. The Amendments are one and the same as the Constitution that was originally signed and ratified.


By this logic you're going to also have to include two centuries of legal precedence based on the Constitution and the amendments as established by the Supreme Court and other courts. I don't see how Paul enacts his agenda without rewriting large portions of that.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


If you tuned me out then how is it possible that I am wasting your time?

This "draft a summons" deflection is downright silly. You are asking a person who DOESNT believe it is going on to make your case for you. The only reason you would do this is to deflect from the fact that you are doing nothing but crying about this so-called fraud. You want someone else to do it for you.

And again, I have told you some outlets that you could take you evidence. You still either dont believe they exist or dont want to acknowledge that they do because that would be an admission that you were flat out wrong.


Can you read?

1. I wouldn't take legal action because it is a fool's errand and cannot possibly help THIS election.

2. I keep asking you to draft your "summons and complaint" to see precisely what sort of "legal action" you are advocating. I keep telling you flat out that there is no legal mechanism in the entirety of US Law in which I, myself could file suit.
-I can't ask for monetary damages because I am not in a district in question...nor has Ron Paul in any way lost ANYTHING yet. If there is election fraud...but your candidate still wins the presidency...what the hell are you suing over?
-Election fraud is a crime...but a common citizen cannot press criminal charges.
-I can't sue for specific performance because there is no specific contract to compel a party to adhere to.
-I can't stop an election in progress...because the judicial branch does not have this authority.

So...you tell me...what sort of "legal action" should I take? You claim to be the smart one. I know you disagree about the evidence...but let's just hypothetically say I have irrefutable evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony, video and audio recordings, and even DNA...just for the sake of argument. Now...what sort of "legal action" should I take knowing that all above are off the table before you even start?

C'mon smart guy...step up to the plate or quit whining.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Round and round you go.

Never said you specifically should file suit. I said advocate legal action. As I've said, many times, talk to a constitutional lawyer. Present you irrefutable evidence.

They really do exist.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Well...this explains everything. Apparently you seem to think that when Ron Paul speaks of returning to the Constitution he also means to subvert that same Constitution by arbitrarily disregarding all of the Amendments as well as all other legislative acts since then.


You are wrong on two levels. One, this is in response to the "STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST" title specifically.
Two, now that you bring it up...how do you return to the constitution as it is? Are we violating the constitution now?


This is beyond uneducated and poorly read. You do not understand the law, history, what a Constitutionalist is, and have clearly not read any of Ron Paul's books. Or many other books, for that matter.


Your reading comprehension is pisspoor at best then because I said "STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST" several times.


A strict Constitutionalist believes in things like 11 million words in the tax code ought not to supercede the Bill of Rights. Likewise, it eschews executive orders which subverts the supreme law of the land and instead demands such drastic changes to one's civil rights may only be removed by another Amendment.


Where is that happening?



Ever wonder how it is we have a failed "War on Drugs"...yet Prohibition needed a Constitutional Amendment to restrict alcohol sale and consumption? This is nothing more than what we should have been doing all along.


And this has nothing to do with anything being discussed between the two of us, the rest of your post, or anything in any of my posts.

I await your list of constitutional violations being carried out today.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   


Two, now that you bring it up...how do you return to the constitution as it is? Are we violating the constitution now?

YES!!! Now you're getting it!!! The entire country at the local, state, and federal level has not been at all concerned about whether or not their "laws" are in any manner Constitutional. For example, if we ACTUALLY obeyed the Constitution in a STRICT sense:
1. Any and all executive orders ever signed by any president whether republican or democrat are immediately illegal. An executive order is nothing short of a royal decree and the whole idea here is SUPPOSED to that we have a representative government, separation of powers/authority, and a system of checks and balances.

2. The government does not have the authority to tell ANYBODY who they will marry or fornicate with and it is irrefutably unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness based upon their sexual preferences or reproductive habits, assuming such habits do not deny others of the same. Thus, we are constitutionally obliged to leave these poor women and homosexuals ALONE so long as it involves consenting adults.

3. Religious groups are all taxed the same as anyone else, given that the power to tax is vested ONLY in Congress and Congress is also bound to make no law respecting religion nor prohibiting the free practice thereof. Seems fair to me, since they have become largely lobbying organizations anyways.

4. Lobbyists and those who accept lobbying dollars are guilty of TREASON, the only offense besides murder in this country which is punishable by death. The Constitution is pretty specific about what is to happen to governmental representatives who accept bribes and/or have foreign conflicts of interest.

5. Military spending gets cut by a SPECTACULAR amount. The Constitution expressly forbids standing armies for periods of longer than 2 years and requires that the nations civil DEFENSE (not OFFENSE) is to be provided by a CIVILIAN militia. Likewise, a standing NAVY IS Constitutional and expressly provided for in the Constitution. Thus, way back in 1776 it was still more or less common sense that Naval power was necessary to keep shipping lanes open and deter foreign invasion...but that maintaining sh*&^loads of ground troops and bases was costly, inefficient, and mostly stupid.

6. All the wars end IMMEDIATELY. The troops still left in Iraq come home because the vote in Congress is null and void, as it was obtained under false pretenses. The war in Afghanistan is over because not only did the we purportedly kill Osama Bin Laden, but the Federal gov't has ALSO announced that al-queda is fractured and defeated...much as the congressional vote allowed for. Needless to say, we also get the hell out of the ENTIRE Middle East, period.

7. The failed "War on Drugs" is OVER. You cannot tell people what they can eat, drink, or smoke. Even the also failed policy of Prohibition required an actual Amendment to the Constitution. This means that they can't pass these nonsensical laws by tagging it onto the highway funding or social security in order to get them passed, as well as requiring ratification at the state level, more than a lousy 50.1% "majority" to make major changes to our rights/legal system, etc.

8. The Patriot Act, The NDAA, NDRA, and countless other pieces of Fascist legislation go into the shredder. You simply cannot imprison people without trial/representation, torture people, or become a surveillance society. Period. It doesn't matter WHAT bill Congress passes. Only a Constitutional Amendment could affect such rights.

9. The CIA, NSA, and FBI are immediately dissolved. Much to the delight of minorities (especially Native Americans) and pretty much every country in the world with oil other than perhaps Canada, Britain, and ourselves.

You know...with all the trillions and trillions of dollars we would save on pointless wars & espionage for the benefit of oil companies, and keeping 20X more prisoners per capita than the Chinese do...I bet we could pretty easily afford things like Federal Health Insurance option (NOT an unconstitutional mandate.Obama's original proposal before Pelosi got in there and fu*&^ed it up was REALLY good). Hell...maybe we could even build out an infrastructure for hydrogen pumps instead of gasoline, seeing as how this has been stopping fuel cell vehicles in their tracks for the last 20 years. At the very least we might be able to buy books to put in our schools, huh?


Your reading comprehension is pisspoor at best then because I said "STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST" several times.


Yes...I am speaking of only a STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST perspective. You have a horrible misunderstanding that Strict Constitutionalism for some doesn't include the Amendments...where did you get it from??
Strict Constitutionalism is a LIBERtarian ideal, and thus is predominantly concerned with civil LIBERTIES.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Round and round you go.

Never said you specifically should file suit. I said advocate legal action. As I've said, many times, talk to a constitutional lawyer. Present you irrefutable evidence.

They really do exist.


OK...and what "legal action" is this attorney supposed to take BEFORE the election is over? A "constitutional attorney" cannot file criminal charges, cannot file a civl suit on their OWN behalf, cannot bring a class action suit that Ron Paul's campaign might have been jeopardized since he may STILL well be not only the Republican nominee, but also our next President, and cannot ask the judicial branch to intervene in an election.

You haven't solved any of the problems with the idea that there is no "legal action" which can possibly be taken at this point by ANYBODY in the country other than a District Attorney, State Attorney General, Federal Prosecutor, or Federal Attorney General all of which have the ability to file criminal charges. So...why haven't they done so? I'm not sure...but I'm guessing it's for the same reason that the AIG and Goldman-Sachs boys are still free to walk the streets. LOL
Namely...CORRUPTION.

Think about it...have you ever been involved in a minor routine legal action? Even something as simple as being in a car accident at no fault of your own and getting some medical bills and auto repairs paid for? What's rule #1?? YOU CAN'T FILE SUIT UNTIL TREATMENT IS DONE, BECAUSE UNTIL IT'S FINISHED...YOU CAN'T ESTABLISH THE EXTENT OR SEVERITY OF THE DAMAGE DONE. This is seriously Law 101 type of stuff. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time wrapping your head around it.

Lastly...as I've stated about 20 times over...turning the problem into a media circus of court case and trial I feel would HURT the campaign more than help it.

So....why do you remain so confused? Why would I want to do something to that I feel would hurt the campaign of my candidate of choice? When I owned my business I could have sued suppliers and customers virtually every day...but I normally didn't make it practice because it's bad business and likely to be more DETRIMENTAL to me than what I could hope to "win".

...why are you so puzzled over this? I thought I was being pretty straight forward with you. Where are you lost?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Two, now that you bring it up...how do you return to the constitution as it is? Are we violating the constitution now?

YES!!! Now you're getting it!!! The entire country at the local, state, and federal level has not been at all concerned about whether or not their "laws" are in any manner Constitutional. For example, if we ACTUALLY obeyed the Constitution in a STRICT sense:


Please try again and cite what parts of the constitution is being violated with each of these.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Two, now that you bring it up...how do you return to the constitution as it is? Are we violating the constitution now?

YES!!! Now you're getting it!!! The entire country at the local, state, and federal level has not been at all concerned about whether or not their "laws" are in any manner Constitutional. For example, if we ACTUALLY obeyed the Constitution in a STRICT sense:


Please try again and cite what parts of the constitution is being violated with each of these.

The ndaa is unconstitutional just like the patriot act.

There are a few more.
edit on 17-5-2012 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Please try again and cite what parts of the constitution is being violated with each of these.


Oh, for the love of christ...are you serious!?! Well...I'm only allowed 4000 characters at a time, so let's just look at a single issue here since identifying ALL the reasons these things are unconstitutional could easily span 1,000 or more pages of a standard size paperback. Let's just take our surveillance society and the deployment of drones:

USING THE DRONES to set up a permanent surveillance society blatantly violates Article I, Section 8.12 and runs contradictory to Article I, Sections 8.16, 8.17, & 8.18. In addition, it is at least a debatable point of contention that the Federal government would have grossly overstepped the limits of it's charter in Article IV, Section 4. That such a step as deploying surveillance drones occurred without a Constitutional Amendment violates the sum total of Article V. Similarly, drone deployment categorically violates Amendments IV, IX, & X in no uncertain terms and could arguably be construed to violate Amendment I and run contradictory or in conflict with Amendment II. And lastly that the STATES are using these Federal drones is a violation of Amendment XIV, Section I.

Specifically, the deployment of surveillance drones violates Article I, Section 8.12 via the utilization of military hardware on domestic soil in times of peace, as Section 8.12 expressly forbids standing armies/military forces and even puts a maximum of only a two-year time limit on TEMPORARY standing armies/military forces on domestic soil. Likewise, Article I, Section 8.16 is ARGUABLY IN CONFLICT, due to the express provision that such long-term security operations are to be performed by the non-professional CIVILIAN MILITIA. incidentally, this was even further clarified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 as a direct result of the STANDING ARMIES being disguised as a "police" force for "Reconstruction" in the South for well over a decade AFTER the conclusion of the Civil War. It should be noted that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 does not supplant any Constitutional rights which civilians have...it just more or less restates them given that the Constitution was being ignored.

Similarly, even though Article V does not have anything whatsoever to do with surveillance, it is nevertheless being violated as Article V expressly states that any changes to the rights, powers, procedures, etc. outlined within the Constitution can only be achieved by a Constitutional Amendment. Therefore, subverting the Bill of Rights without a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is a violation of not ONLY of said Amendments in the Bill of Rights BUT ALSO Article V, which requires that a Constitutional Amendment be passed to do so. Article V is what allows the Constitution to adapt and change with the times, thus I would surmise that you in particular would have a soft spot for it given that without it the damn country could want women to be able to vote, yet it would still be impossible to establish this as an inalienable right simply for lack of a mechanism by which to establish it.

As for Amendment's IV, IX, & X...they pretty much speak for themselves so I'll just post them verbatim and in their entirety. If you are unable to see how the deployment of surveillance drones violates these Amendments on your own, I will simply not be able to help you. I would wager that part of your misunderstandings stem from the fact that you have not ever read the Constitution in it's entirety, thus I'm hoping this is of use to you.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Amendment X
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.

...and this is only a fraction of just one single issue!! I could go on and on, but I gave up teaching History and Social Studies when I got my second Master's degree in business. Although I do find it enjoyable, I simply do not have the time necessary to teach grown adults what their middle school social studies teachers failed to do. I hope I have at least pointed you in the right direction, to begin doing your own research in earnest, though.

Let me know if you have any REAL questions and I will be happy to answer them. However, it's not my job to do everyone's homework for them...you will have to supply some of the effort on your own.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


So you cannot even do one with all that writing?
That is a shame. I took you seriously. Almost. The fact that no matter how many times I mention it, the 19th amendment seems to be in your blind spot should really have clued me in. Keep up the great work. Paul will be king of his own planet someday. The only way you can really help make that happen is to run around forums making crazy claims and then getting mad at people when they ask you about them.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join