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

Originally posted by Autumnal
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.

Ummm...in what way did fail to illustrate how the deployment of surveillance drones and/or a surveillance society is unconstitutional. Please use specifics.

Also...I am sorry you felt that was "all that writing". No wonder you have such a hard time wrapping your head around eighth grade material, given your struggles with reading anything longer than a 140 character tweet. If you notice, I STARTED my post out saying that in order to completely cover the subject I would need a 1000 pages or so, given that the ways in which the government is violating the Constitution are so incredibly numerous and the case so sound.

Thanks for clarifying that 4000 characters is about the threshold of your attention span, though.

I can't help but notice that you have nothing whatsoever to back up your opinion with other than the most vague references to "200 years worth of laws" and the comically erroneous assumption that an Amendment is not part of the Constitution.

And what is this gibberish about the 19th Amendment? I have stated about 5 times over that THE 19TH AMENDMENT IS PART OF THE CONSITUTION...JUST AS ALL STRICT CONSTITUTIONALISTS BELIEVE. Likewise, I practically painted you a picture to show you how Article V of The Constitution is what made any and all of the Amendments possible.

Similarly...you accuse me of "making crazy claims". Name one...I dare you. The only things I have stated is that a U.S. citizen derives any and all civil liberties and/or rights from the Constitution and that even though the original "Founding Fathers" were racist and sexist, they were at least wise enough to build in a means by which to modify the supreme law of the land via due process to account for changes in society as they occurred. Likewise, I noted that a STRICT Constitutionalist believes that the rights and civil liberties enumerated in the Constitution should only be abridged or removed from an individual by the due process of another Constitutional Amendment instead of the unilateral control of EITHER republican or democratic executive.

Where am I incorrect about this? What do you find so controversial?

I beginning to think that you have just voted Democrat for so long that you can't bring yourself to possibly support a Republican under any circumstances and therefore you have decided that there must be a trick to Ron Paul stating that he feels YOU should have EVEN MORE RIGHTS than you currently have. Not less...MORE FREEDOMS AND MORE RIGHTS.

No surprise. Ron Paul has run as a LIBERTARIAN candidate for the presidency previously, although corruption at the state level makes it very, very, difficult for a third party candidate to get on the ballot in all 50 states...as we well know.

Don't get me wrong...I can appreciate that it makes one a little nauseous to say that they support a republican. Ron Paul is the first person from the republican party that I have EVER voted for in any election whether it is at the local, state, or federal level. However, you gotta separate the dogma and rhetoric from what how the candidates ACTUALLY have voted and behaved in the past. Very few people realize it, but Ronald Reagan...the Patron Saint of the Republicans & the Conservatives...was actually MUCH FARTHER TO THE LEFT THAN OBAMA IS. Ditto for Ron Paul. This doesn't mean Ron Paul is a "left wing extremist"...it just means that he's radically moderate, all in all.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Ummm...in what way did fail to illustrate how the deployment of surveillance drones and/or a surveillance society is unconstitutional. Please use specifics.

How did you not?

Also...I am sorry you felt that was "all that writing". No wonder you have such a hard time wrapping your head around eighth grade material, given your struggles with reading anything longer than a 140 character tweet. If you notice, I STARTED my post out saying that in order to completely cover the subject I would need a 1000 pages or so, given that the ways in which the government is violating the Constitution are so incredibly numerous and the case so sound.

What happened to that little list I asked about? Why would you need to ramble on other "violations" just to explain that little list? What a sad copout. If you cannot show the part of the constitution being violated next to its violation for a dozen or so items on one page then you do not really know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Autumnal

What happened to that little list I asked about? Why would you need to ramble on other "violations" just to explain that little list? What a sad copout. If you cannot show the part of the constitution being violated next to its violation for a dozen or so items on one page then you do not really know what you are talking about.

Read the posts.

It's right there for you in black and white. It really doesn't matter how many times you stomp your feet and refuse to read it. Anybody else on the thread need only scroll back a couple of posts to see that you didn't even take the time to read anything I posted.

I spent the entire character limit giving just a brief overview of JUST ONE of those items and pretty clearly stated that I'm not going to write a book for a grown adult who didn't do their homework in middle school. However, specific references and explanation were given and the appropriate articles, sections, and amendments, cited.

If you want more you can buy my book when it is released in Q1 of next year. I'll send you a link where you can buy it just like everyone else when it hits Amazon.com.

Later.

reply to post by milominderbinder


I know you used a lot of words and you seem to really think that means something significant. Try using less words and just actually doing what you claim to have done. Real easy.
(Action)...(Specific part of the constitution it violates)
That is all you need to write.

Of course I would really rather you addressed any of the many questions of mine that you ignored before I allow you to take this off topic any longer. You failed at your task. Now can you address any of the other points?