The New Republic on Ron Paul

MRM · 02-02-2008, 07:39 PM

I offer wihout comment TNR's article on the good doctor.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Rearden · 02-02-2008, 07:56 PM

Ron Paul is a whinier version of Fastpat.

turbo6bar · 02-03-2008, 05:18 AM

Go Fastpat!!!

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rearden

Ron Paul is a whinier version of Fastpat.

He's the best candidate currently running for the job. Certainly the only one that seems to give a damn about the Constitution.

lendaddy · 02-03-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

He's the best candidate currently running for the job. Certainly the only one that seems to give a damn about the Constitution.

Well at least he'll get the ten commandments back in public buildings right?

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Fine by me if he does, so long as it's for historical purposes and not religious ones. The 10 Commandments have historical significance showing the evolution of law and written code in the history of humanity and how such laws/codes helped to shape society and civilization.

It'd be like displaying the Code of Hammaurabi or any other written "law". Perfectly appropriate for a courtroom in that sense - it shows written law as being necessary for stable society. Nothing wrong with that message.

I bet even Ron Paul would agree with that.

lendaddy · 02-03-2008, 05:55 AM

It's for religious purposes, Paul is a Baptist.

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rearden

Ron Paul is a whinier version of Fastpat.

It is funny because it is true, only because you can hear his voice

the · 02-03-2008, 09:21 AM

"if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,"

LOL.

MRM · 02-03-2008, 12:54 PM

What in Paul's platform or record suggests that he is more founded in the Constiution than other candidates. I know he keeps saying he is, but what does he mean? There's nothing he says that I can tell that is particularly constitutional, unless he thinks the gold standard has some basis in the Constitution. Maybe he means legalizing drugs, since the Declaration of Independence was supposedly written on hemp. (Actually I think it was written on sheep skin vellum, but who's counting?)

sketchers356 · 02-03-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRM

What in Paul's platform or record suggests that he is more founded in the Constiution than other candidates. I know he keeps saying he is, but what does he mean? There's nothing he says that I can tell that is particularly constitutional, unless he thinks the gold standard has some basis in the Constitution. Maybe he means legalizing drugs, since the Declaration of Independence was supposedly written on hemp. (Actually I think it was written on sheep skin vellum, but who's counting?)

Start by reading the 10th amendment.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by sketchers356

Start by reading the 10th amendment.

Wow! That really explains a lot!

MRM · 02-03-2008, 05:02 PM

What powers exactly does he think are reserved to the states that aren't already being exercised? Other than voting rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, both of which he says he would vote against if presented today. Considering that in 220 years of jurisprudence, including the years the years in which John Jay and James Madison were antagonists, there has NEVER been a Supreme Court decision interpreting the 10th Amendment the way Paul seems to be advocating, I find this newfound interpretation of the Constitution confusing.