Nuggets Talk - Ron Paul

Nuggets Talk
« Ron Paul »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 20, 2013, 2:45am

Nuggets Talk :: Off Topic :: Hangout :: Ron Paul

« Page 3 of 5 » Jump to page Go

Author

Topic: Ron Paul (Read 741 times)

CLN
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Your starting PG

Joined: Sept 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 21,489

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #40 on May 8, 2012, 8:40pm »

All politicians are fake. And so is everything you read and hear about them.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

"Anthony Carter...I still can't get over it." ~ Mike Rice

[RMC] LotharBot
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Grover is BALLIN with Bowen, Barry, Boykins, and Birdman!

Joined: Nov 2002
Gender: Male

Posts: 9,317
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #41 on May 8, 2012, 11:23pm »

Ron Paul actually has been incredibly consistent throughout his decades in the public sphere. He's as far from fake as you can get and still be a politician.

I'm not a big fan of some of his ideas, and even some of the ones I am a big fan of, I think his approach is way wrong. But I gotta give him credit for consistency. (I also gotta give him credit for not being Romney. That counts for a lot.)

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Now posting as Tom on Roundball Mining Company

pac
Skywalker

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 17,772
Location: 916

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #42 on May 9, 2012, 2:18pm »

May 8, 2012, 8:40pm, CLN wrote:

All politicians are fake. And so is everything you read and hear about them.

dude, just the f**k up.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

CLN
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Your starting PG

Joined: Sept 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 21,489

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #43 on May 9, 2012, 8:00pm »

May 9, 2012, 2:18pm, pac wrote:

May 8, 2012, 8:40pm, CLN wrote:

All politicians are fake. And so is everything you read and hear about them.

dude, just the f**k up.

Lol leave it to pac to be the one to get all butthurt over a political discussion. Sad.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

"Anthony Carter...I still can't get over it." ~ Mike Rice

pac
Skywalker

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 17,772
Location: 916

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #44 on May 9, 2012, 8:39pm »

it has nothing to do with being "butthurt" and everything to do with YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE f**k YOU ARE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

CLN
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Your starting PG

Joined: Sept 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 21,489

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #45 on May 9, 2012, 8:47pm »

So basically, you're butthurt. It's that syndrome you get when people don't agree with you on something. Seems to happen a lot.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

"Anthony Carter...I still can't get over it." ~ Mike Rice

pac
Skywalker

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 17,772
Location: 916

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #46 on May 9, 2012, 9:07pm »

fine, im butthurt... silliest f***ing rebuttals of all time, u cant even defend your own ignorance! u group paul with "everyone else" in DC??? [image]

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

CLN
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Your starting PG

Joined: Sept 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 21,489

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #47 on May 9, 2012, 9:25pm »

My rebuttals suck? All you ever do is say things like "shut up" or "ur retarded" when someone disagrees with you.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

"Anthony Carter...I still can't get over it." ~ Mike Rice

nugzin2040
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2003
Gender: Male

Posts: 800

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #48 on May 10, 2012, 1:05am »

May 8, 2012, 3:49am, pac wrote:

all this guy does is promote the constitution and wants to keep our liberties. you are worried about a randomly racist (yet undeniably true) news letter NOT written by him from 30 something years ago. amazing how people buy such ridiculous "spin".

how is ron paul fake? that is the silliest thing ive heard. how can any democrat OR republican say that? [image]

Constitutionalists are funny. Like the original constitution hasn't been amended 17 times, and Ron Paul is the only person in the planet that has figured out what the founding fathers true intent was, and all the other politicians s*it all over the Bill of Rights.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

pac
Skywalker

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 17,772
Location: 916

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #49 on May 15, 2012, 4:37pm »

I'm not sure your point? U disagree with the constitution? Really?

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

nugzin2040
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2003
Gender: Male

Posts: 800

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #50 on May 15, 2012, 11:17pm »

The constitution is to me, an evolving document. It was originally written during a time period when slavery was deemed socially acceptable. Our founding fathers came up with the Bill of Rights, which were a good list of amendments at the time, or so they deemed.

However, they were not perfect and there came a time when it became necessary to add to them. At some point in time, the people of this country might determine it is necessary to add a 28th, 29th, 30th, etc amendment to the Constitution.

Constitutionalists conclusion that we need to get back to what the founding fathers intended, is kinda f*cking retarded considered our constitution is nearly three times in length as far as amendments as it was then. It denies the history of the constitution, and delays social progress as far as those Amendments that have helped progress society and this country.

But yes, I secretly hate the Constitution. And America. If only I could see the wisdom of Ron "Internet Sensation" Paul...

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

blackhill
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 738

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #51 on May 16, 2012, 12:02am »

May 15, 2012, 11:17pm, nugzin2040 wrote:

What a bunch of parchment. If you don't follow the Constitution, you no longer have rule of law, you have rule by men (e.g., Congress and the President).

Do you really want to leave it up to Congress or Bush/Obama to determine what rights Americans have and what the limits of government are?

Human nature is dark. The Constitution, warts and all, is intended to limit the power of government and ensure that we have the liberty to lead our lives as we see fit.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

CLN
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Your starting PG

Joined: Sept 2005
Gender: Male

Posts: 21,489

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #52 on May 16, 2012, 1:00am »

That seems like a silly argument. The Constitution was written by men. Men who held the same positions our current government leaders hold today. Just because it was 250 years ago doesn't change that fact. As the world adapts, so do we as a country and our laws as well. Which is exactly why the Constitution has been amended so many times throughout it's existence, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I agree that the core values this country was built on need to remain intact, but to act like we must never grow and adapt is pure foolishness.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

"Anthony Carter...I still can't get over it." ~ Mike Rice

[RMC] LotharBot
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Grover is BALLIN with Bowen, Barry, Boykins, and Birdman!

Joined: Nov 2002
Gender: Male

Posts: 9,317
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #53 on May 16, 2012, 2:28am »

Just a slight caveat: slavery was not "socially acceptable" when the constitution was written. Slavery was *controversial* when the constitution was written, and in fact was the most significant issue of the day. A number of technical details, like the balance between the House and Senate, were developed specifically in order to cause deadlocks when dealing with slavery because it was such a significant controversy that any side gaining an edge would have likely led to war. Which, not surprisingly, is what happened after Dred Scott and the Buchanan presidency tipped the balance of power toward slavery.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Now posting as Tom on Roundball Mining Company

nugzin2040
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2003
Gender: Male

Posts: 800

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #54 on May 16, 2012, 2:20pm »

I should expand on my point(s). I think the Bill of Rights is an amazing historical document, and one that should be honored and respected. But, at the same time the US is as great of a country as it is because of our ability to adapt. To respect the past, yet look to improving the future. We have the oldest Constitution in the world today because of our willingness to do so. Those that do not, see a change in the type of government in existence usually, almost always not for the better.

Some of our founding father's had reservations about the Constitution. Were weary it seemed of the common man having such a role in government. Benjamin Franklin, had doubts on whether it would be in existence long-term. He went so far to say there were parts of the Bill of Rights that he did not agree with, that it would eventually lead to despotism, but that it was the best constitution they could hope to write. That it was amazing that people of all different schools of thought and bias were able to agree to these central points. While it did not come to pass quite like he stated, Franklin expected the government to change as time went by. I imagine most people did.

Our founding fathers went on a leap of faith in forming a government where the common man had as big of a role as it did. In general, I'd say their faith was rewarded as it is the citizens of this great country that have spoke out and for change in this country time and time again. I don't think me criticizing a constitutionalist view is me having faith in Bush, Obama, or any other leader throughout history. It's me having faith that the American people will push for change in this country when it is truly needed... even if I have doubts that push will always take place.

Blackhill, you say that human nature is dark. If that's the case, what exempts the Constitution from being influenced from the same human nature? Personally, I believe humankind is capable of both amazing things but also of things I'm not always particularly fond of. I hope there's a lot less of the latter, but history often suggests otherwise...

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

blackhill
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 738

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #55 on May 16, 2012, 5:37pm »

May 16, 2012, 2:20pm, nugzin2040 wrote:

I should expand on my point(s).

Blackhill, you say that human nature is dark. If that's the case, what exempts the Constitution from being influenced from the same human nature? Personally, I believe humankind is capable of both amazing things but also of things I'm not always particularly fond of. I hope there's a lot less of the latter, but history often suggests otherwise...

Human nature is dark. Exhibit A for that proposition would be the history of mankind. The Framers of the Constitution took into account this dark view of human nature by making sure that a tyrant could not gain too much power, hence the separation of powers. The framers of the Constitution also took into account this dark view of human nature by limiting the power of the government so that it would not trample on the people.

Some of you try to frame the argument that to be believe in the strict construction of the constitution is to be against growth or adapatation. Nonsense. The Constitution is to change through the Amendment process. In that sense, and that sense only, is it a living, breathing document.

Go ahead and downplay the importance of the Constitution being followed carefully whilst the President sends troops into undeclared wars, Congress passes measures like the Patriot Act which are in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, President's declare a national War on Drugs even though the federal government has no right to tell us what to put into our bodies (this understanding was once universal, hence the 18th Amendment).

No document before or since has given people more rights thaN the Constitution and the amendments thereto. Letting politicians pick and choose which parts of the Constitution should be followed is a recipe for disaster; just look at this country if you think a government, unrestrained by the Constitution, will make wise choices.

Corporate welfare is being handed out like candy thanks to perverse interpretations of the commerce clause. US citizens can be arrested and imprisoned for life without trials and the government is trying to to take over the Internet. None of this would occur if we had proper respect for the Constitution.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

pac
Skywalker

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Dec 2006
Gender: Male

Posts: 17,772
Location: 916

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #56 on May 17, 2012, 4:28pm »

ive seen this "adapt" word a few times with very little reasoning behind it. what exactly are we adapting to? we have gotten away from the constitution because this government is corrupt as shit, not because its "old".

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

[RMC] LotharBot
Moderator

member is offline

[avatar]

Grover is BALLIN with Bowen, Barry, Boykins, and Birdman!

Joined: Nov 2002
Gender: Male

Posts: 9,317
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #57 on May 17, 2012, 5:43pm »

May 17, 2012, 4:28pm, pac wrote:

what exactly are we adapting to?

When done right, or when done wrong?

When done right, we're adapting to changing understanding of our world and the people in it (say, by revoking the "right" to own slaves or by extending the vote to non-whites, non-males, and non-landowners). When done right, we're adapting to changing technology (noting that "freedom of the press" extends not merely to the printed word, but to the broadcast word and the electronic word). When done right, we're filling holes in the system (like presidential succession in the 20th and 25th amendments, ensuring we don't have a power struggle if the president dies or is incapacitated.)

When it's done wrong, we're creating fake "constitutional rights" that never existed, or creating illegitimate means by which the government can suppress rights.

The system was intentionally developed in order to allow the first type of adaptation. That's why there's an amendment process and a supreme court. The second type of adaptation is just a nasty side-effect.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Now posting as Tom on Roundball Mining Company

blackhill
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Male

Posts: 738

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #58 on May 18, 2012, 12:43am »

Yeah, amend the Constitution, don't change what it means. If the limits of government are whatever the powers of be claim them to be, human nature indicates that tyranny will arise. The Constitution was specifically designed to guard against tyranny. For over 30 years, Ron Paul consistently voted in line with Constitution. Other congressmen swear to uphold the document, but they don't even understand it.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

nugzin2040
Mark Pope's Devout Disciple

member is offline

Joined: Mar 2003
Gender: Male

Posts: 800

Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #59 on May 18, 2012, 12:28pm »

The problem is what one person would call a "perverse interpretation," another group would claim "what was always intended." People fight so much on the constitution, not necessarily because the government is "corrupt as hell," but because there is a vagueness in certain laws that allow people to come up with alternative conclusions.

It's somewhat like religion in the sense that are thousands of different branches of Christianity, each believing in their interpretation to rules and laws, due to the vagueness and contradictions that exist in a text that is deemed holy. Course there's churches that likewise will claim they are a "Biblical," church that upholds the teachings of the Bible, but much like constitutionalists there is considerable different schools of thought on what was truly intended.

We have a supreme court, where Justices are selected that are among the most knowledgeable and experienced in regards to law in our country. Why do they disagree so often if it is such a clear cut situation? Because it is not nearly as cut and dry as "constitutionalists" claim it is. Is the system perfect? No.

Personally, I have no issue with there being some federal regulation with the internet. Would be perfectly fine with it being regulated in an international sense even, particularly if such regulation, considerably cut down on internet crimes against children and the like. Far as internet piracy goes, I'll admit that I watch streams of Nuggets games that don't come with NBA League Pass Broadband, among other copyrighted stuff. But I don't have any problem with companies trying to protect their intellectual rights. It just needs to be done in a different way then SOPA imo.

Also, don't have really an objection with the government banning certain foods and drugs that are deemed by an independent committee to be possibly fatal upon one time use. Medicine that was supposed to be tested more thoroughly that was later found to have terrible complications. If anything, I feel the requirements for medical drugs to be released in our country are too relaxed, and seem to be designed for pharmaceuticals to make as much money as possible--American safety be damned. There's a reason why European countries don't usually touch medical drugs from the United States for ten years.

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

« Page 3 of 5 » Jump to page Go

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free