Asterisk-Free Libertarianism--The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters)

Liberty Reborm ^ | 8-26-07 | JJ Jackson

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

No amount of hurling slurs like “neo-con” or “fascist” or “globalist” at those that exposed Mr. Paul will make a difference in the truth. Such tactics don’t work for liberals and they will not work for you.

BUMP! ;)

[elhombrelibre]

Carter subverts America out of righteous malice. Ron Paul does it out of opportunism and ego. There is a small difference, as EEE points out.

[elhombrelibre]

Also, Carter wasn't as big with dope users and Holocaust deniers as Ron Paul.

See this website that supports him.

www.outlawjournalism.com

His supporters are a weird bunch.

[SJackson]

A companion quote to your tagline. And one of the main reasons I couldn’t vote for a ‘disengagement’ candidate like Ron Paul (even without the coddling of ‘truthers’ whose postmodernist and anti-American view of history must be snubbed out as harshly as Parker and Stone did, with ridicule).

His inability to recognize radical Islam is clearly a problem, though if you note post 32, we won't have funding for a military anyway, or border security. Until he proposes a rational alternative.

I agree his support from and relationships with various conspiracy freaks and right wing nuts is an issue.

[SJackson]

Gee, Paul supporters accuse detractors of being neocons, globalists and democrats on FR, I never would have guessed.

[caltrop]

Take a look at www.ronpaullibrary.org

Select US Foreign Policy and read numbers 54, 70, 86 and 89. That should get you started but there’s plenty to refer to.

[SJackson]

Also, Carter wasn't as big with dope users and Holocaust deniers as Ron Paul. See this website that supports him. www.outlawjournalism.com His supporters are a weird bunch.

You might note

Why Is This Canadian Pot Dealer Campaigning for Ron Paul?

"It's my belief," says Emery, who has been a follower of Paul, a 10-term Texas congressman, for decades, "that if Ron were elected, he'd rescind the indictment against me immediately. Or at least he'd appoint an attorney general who would pardon any nonviolent drug offender, clear out the jails, and end the drug war."

Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, says the fledgling campaign welcomes all support. But Emery shouldn't necessarily expect amnesty from a Paul administration. "You would see a cooling of the federal war on drugs [under Paul]," Benton says. "But Ron believes in the rule of law, and I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free."

Yet, if George Bush can commute the sentence of a perjurer like Scooter Libby, certainly Ron Paul could pardon a prince like Marc Emery, the seedman thinks. Facing an extradition hearing in November along with two others accused of the seed conspiracy, Emery is already planning appeals and other maneuvers to delay his likely Seattle trial until 2009, when a more friendly administration might take office.

A prominent Canadian drug dealer supports Paul in hopes of an amnesty, the the campaign responds the fledgling campaign welcomes all support.. Welcomes support from a drug dealer under indictment in the US. May explain his relationship with these groups, he'll accept support from anywhere.

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, and “welcomes all support” is yet one more reason why I see Ron Paul as a phony and a problem. His supporters here act as if it’s just a strange coincidence that Holocaust deniers, John Birchers, neo-Nazis, pot heads, skin heads, 9/11 truthers, (and on and on with a list of weirdos could I go) etc. are in his camp. I see it as a deliberate policy of encouraging these sorts when any decent candidate would disavow these people even if it meant dropping from 1% to .05% in the polls. Not Ron Paul, though. He keeps them with him so his folks can say he’s surging.

[allmendream]

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

What is Unconstitutional about the 16th Amendment anyway? We may not like it, but it is pretty clear wording. Are we not for a common sense reading of the Constitution?

[SJackson]

What is Unconstitutional about the 16th Amendment anyway? We may not like it, but it is pretty clear wording. Are we not for a common sense reading of the Constitution?

I'm the wrong person to ask, I think it's fine. Of course I consider both the courts and the amendment process constitutional as well.

[tpaine]

Like you, I like Hunter, Thompson, or Gingrich. I also like Paul.
But we all know the only viable candidate of that bunch is Thompson.

So why the constant nitpicking of Paul? -- Do you really believe he is some sort of boogyman?

[George W. Bush]

Another blatantly dishonest article from you. Hardly surprising.

The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.

Produce proof that any of Ron Paul's earmarks have passed the relevant budget committees and made it past reconciliation.

But then, that would spoil your entire little ongoing trollfest, wouldn't it? Because there are no Ron Paul earmarks that have been funded. We can find plenty of others for House leaders and committee chairmen and the senior minority leaders on the committees. But none for Ron Paul.

Produce these earmarks.

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Another blatantly dishonest attack on Ron Paul earmarks which simply do not exist.

[SJackson]

I’m not nitpicking him. I think the article made a relevant point. His supporters make all sorts of nonsensical claims on FR, from Ron as the heir to Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy to the unconstitutionality of the income and social security taxes. Are you suggesting that shouldn’t be addressed on long threads, allowing those unfamiliar with him to accept those positions?

[SJackson]

The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.

None of his earmarks get funded?

An interesting use of time then.

[DugwayDuke]

“You can always tell when the marching orders are given to a group by the sudden shift in the common language they use to refer to a certain situation. It’s like when Rush Limbaugh compiles montages of several media types from different organizations all using the exact same (and often obscure) term or description for an event. You know there was a memo sent out somewhere.” - JJ Jackson

“Ron Paul gets my vote for a lot of reasons. His belief in ... a strong national defense centered on America’s interests...” - Caltrop.

I’m suprised that you would not notice that ‘centered on America’s interests’ is a phrase commonly used by paleo-conservatives and libertarians to refer to the ‘Jewish lobby that controls our national policy’.

“...the reason our armed forces exist is to defend the US and not wander around the world looking for trouble or maintaining large permanent forces overseas...”

I guess then that you agree with the ‘truthers’ and Ron Paul that we were attacked because of our troops overseas?

[tpaine]

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

What is Unconstitutional about the 16th Amendment anyway? We may not like it, but it is pretty clear wording. Are we not for a common sense reading of the Constitution?

Congress does not have the power to constitutionally enforce the collecting of "taxes on incomes", under the provisions of the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Our "papers and effects' are subject to unreasonable seizures, and in effect we are made to testify against ourselves, in violation of due process.

[George W. Bush]

None of his earmarks get funded?

You know they don't. That's why the CoC types that want fed money to renovate their stupid theater say, when congratulated by the local paper, that it's all fine for Ron Paul to submit their earmark to the appropriate committee but that they'd like him a lot more if only he would vote for porky earmarks.

The problem is that to get your own porky earmarks, you have to collude with the other porksters in Congress. And Ron Paul won't do it. Therefore, he gets no earmarks that he submits.

An interesting use of time then.

How ignorant and malicious can you be? Really.

He has an earmark list that was less than 70 items, each a single page made from a word processor template. These earmark requests are submitted to the relevant committee.

My estimate is that it probably takes about one afternoon for a single staffer to type them up and deliver them to the appropriate committee.

[gondramB]

>>If you want to spend money on studying shrimp then use the amendment process to make such idiotic spending constitutional. Otherwise you are just a hack like any other politician would be who espoused certain beliefs while acting contradictory to them.<<

That’s what the “unconstitutional spending” knock on Paul is?

The Federal government regulates interstate commerce. Studying a big industry that generates a lot of interstate trade is really low on my list of problems with the candidates.

[DugwayDuke]

“And he has formal plans developed by his advisors to streamline the federal government, and to finance the government on the 10%-15% or so of revenues left after aboloshing the income and social security taxes, which are unconstitutional, doesn’t he.”

I think they’ve completed Ron Paul’s economic plan. You might look on scrappleface. It should show up there first.

It’s my understanding that the release was delayed while Ron Paul’s advisors worked out the details of restoring the gold standard while simultaneously reinvorating the wild american shrimp industry. I think they’re related. Somehow.