• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul

Thoughts of Ron Paul

  • Love him

    Votes: 17 39.5%

  • Hate him

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • He's a political genius

    Votes: 2 4.7%

  • He's a wingnut

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 14 32.6%
  • Total voters
    43
Paleocon said:
I wouldn't call him a "wing-nut", but I am turned off by his de facto constitution-worship.
Click to expand...

why is that? It is the governing body of the United States, all laws are supposed to be in accordance, what is the problem with "worshiping" it?
 
iacardsfan said:
To those that think he is a "wing-nut" how do you reckon? Everything he does is based on the Constitution, looking for some feedback! Thanks
Click to expand...

Most would claim what they do is 'based on the Constitution'. That is a lot like a woman's slight smile- very subject to interpretation....
 
iacardsfan said:
why is that? It is the governing body of the United States, all laws are supposed to be in accordance, what is the problem with "worshiping" it?
Click to expand...

Because it's not perfect. If it were, there wouldn't be a process by which to amend it.
 
notquiteright said:
Most would claim what they do is 'based on the Constitution'. That is a lot like a woman's slight smile- very subject to interpretation....
Click to expand...

very true, but do they derive it from the elasticity of the constitution or the text?
 
Kobie said:
Because it's not perfect. If it were, there wouldn't be a process by which to amend it.
Click to expand...

then we amend it, not disregard it.
 
notquiteright said:
Did you by any chance mean libertarian-ism? I have met so few who call themselves any sort of CON having a curly hair bit of difference between liberalism and democrats.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was referring to classical liberalism, although modern liberalism's only significant difference with classical liberalism is that it is economically anti-liberal.
 
iacardsfan said:
why is that? It is the governing body of the United States, all laws are supposed to be in accordance, what is the problem with "worshiping" it?
Click to expand...

It seems a bit like worshiping false idols in a political sense. To kneel before the words and thoughts of 18th century patrician slave owners seems more cult-like than democratic. I swore an oath to the Constitution back in my mud eating days. But it isn't a Holy Relic or the 10 commandments. So many, to include Ron, read the Constitution as they see fit. The devil is in how to apply the thoughts of those 18th century agrarian slave owners to modern day life.
 
iacardsfan said:
then we amend it, not disregard it.
Click to expand...

But it's soo.... confusing..... :lol:


Caption: That thar funny languages they spoke in dem daze don't make no sense rightly and we young people's just can't make heads nor tails of the darned thing!!



To a liberal blogger turned MSNBC contributor, I'm sure it is just too darned confusing.
 
Ockham said:
But it's soo.... confusing..... :lol:


Caption: That thar funny languages they spoke in dem daze don't make no sense rightly and we young people's just can't make heads nor tails of the darned thing!!



To a liberal blogger turned MSNBC contributor, I'm sure it is just too darned confusing.
Click to expand...


oh boy..... thats terrifying
 
Paleocon said:
Yes, I was referring to classical liberalism, although modern liberalism's only significant difference with classical liberalism is that it is economically anti-liberal.
Click to expand...

Ahhh the old I musta left a word out deal.... gotcha. Not sure how using the same words to mean different things is very clear. Just how is classical liberalism not good for civilization?
 
In the 2008 GOP Caucus for my state, I stood up for Ron Paul. I carted my 50 inch big screen TV down there, and with big surround sound, I played this video for my county:

 
IMO, he is a man of great political integrity who possesses a ton of common sense.

I do not agree with all his positions...but if he had somehow won in 2012, America (by 2016) would be in FAR better shape then under Obama or Romney.
 
iacardsfan said:
why is that? It is the governing body of the United States, all laws are supposed to be in accordance, what is the problem with "worshiping" it?
Click to expand...

The problem is that such attributes divine attributes to a piece of paper.
 
Paleocon said:
The problem is that such attributes divine attributes to a piece of paper.
Click to expand...

without this "piece of paper" we wouldn't have a functioning government or any protections from governmental encroachment (even though that hasnt seemed to work recently haha)
 
notquiteright said:
Ahhh the old I musta left a word out deal.... gotcha. Not sure how using the same words to mean different things is very clear. Just how is classical liberalism not good for civilization?
Click to expand...

Virtually every civilization in history has had an established moral system. Classical liberalism rejects this, instead believing that man should be free to do virtually whatever he wants, regardless of the damage done to good mores or to the welfare of others.

iacardsfan said:
without this "piece of paper" we wouldn't have a functioning government or any protections from governmental encroachment (even though that hasnt seemed to work recently haha)
Click to expand...

Governments functioned before the writing of the constitution.
 
Paleocon said:
Virtually every civilization in history has had an established moral system. Classical liberalism rejects this, instead believing that man should be free to do virtually whatever he wants, regardless of the damage done to good mores or to the welfare of others.



Governments functioned before the writing of the constitution.
Click to expand...

You mean kind of like monarchies? ;)
 
Paleocon said:
Governments functioned before the writing of the constitution.
Click to expand...

There have always been forms of governing bodies unless there was a monarch or autocrat.
 
lizzie said:
You mean kind of like monarchies? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, most of the governments that existed before our constitution were monarchies, although there were also republics.
 
iacardsfan said:
There have always been forms of governing bodies unless there was a monarch or autocrat.
Click to expand...

That is correct, although in no case would it be right to worship a constitution.
 
Paleocon said:
That is correct, although in no case would it be right to worship a constitution.
Click to expand...

fair enough. I'm not out to change opinions. I was just wondering. :D
 
Mosby said:
You seem to have a severe dislike for Ron Paul. Why do you not like Ron P......oh I get it now....

Oy Vey.
Click to expand...

Because he was a con-man who built his political base in an dirty old refinery setting financed by rich old white guys and campaigned on raw racial bigotry to angry white men who lament the South lost the Civil War. All the rest was just icing around that core of support.
 
Paleocon said:
That is correct, although in no case would it be right to worship a constitution.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul didn't worship the Constitution and tossed it aside when it suited him. For example, he gave speech after speech declaring the federal government absolutely has NO authority on the abortion issue either way - when he ran as a Libertarian. He had declared so for years.

BUT, as a Republican candidate, suddenly the Constitution no longer existed and he took the diametric opposite position becoming hardcore pro-life and boasting of pro-life legislation he promoted and promotes.

He was just a scuzzy politician who would say anything depending upon what crowd he was working at the time - changing it at will to whatever would best work for him - which generally had racism and racial segregation at it's core to built and fundraise from his angry white men base.
 
joko104 said:
Because he was a con-man who built his political base in an dirty old refinery setting financed by rich old white guys and campaigned on raw racial bigotry to angry white men who lament the South lost the Civil War. All the rest was just icing around that core of support.
Click to expand...

Oh. Okay. Whatever you say, Schlomo.
 
Mosby said:
Oh. Okay. Whatever you say, Schlomo.
Click to expand...

You're an angry white man living in Virginia, right?

Who's that in your avatar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom