Posted on 01/08/2008 8:08:31 AM PST by Poser
At my polling place this morning, a Ron Paul supporter tried to hand me a Constitution. I told him I was insulted. He asked why.
“How did you know he was a Ron Paul supporter? Is electioneering at the polls illegal?”
Um... The big Ron Paul sign and button?
“So if Fred Thompson gave you a pamphlet with his positions would you consider that insulting even if you knew his positions?”
No. It is possible that I don’t know all candidates positions on everything but every voter should have read the Constitution.
(If you haven’t figured it out, I’m being a bit sarcastic here)
"While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all fifty states would be equally invalid." - Ron Paul column: Federalizing Social Policy, January 31, 2006
He's a Stephen A. Douglas Democrat, or a Jerry Ford Republican, when it comes to abortion, not a Ronald Reagan pro-life conservative.
And he obviously has no conception of the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment protections for the lives of the innocent. And, he has no conception of the overall purpose of the Constitution, as spelled out in its pretext, or Preamble:
What is the Constitution intended to accomplish? It's right there...
"...to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND our POSTERITY."
Hmm. Well, that's one to weigh against the 12,536,211 (and counting) leveled against Ron Paul supporters by the neocons here and elsewhere.
[sigh]
““How did you know he was a Ron Paul supporter? Is electioneering at the polls illegal?”
Um... The big Ron Paul sign and button?”
The first question was rhetorical. My second question is the key.
By the way... Did anybody else notice that the Republican ballots were pink and the Democrat ballots were blue?
Conspiracy I tell you!
May have been a good opportunity to highlight the areas of the Constitution Paul ignores, such as honoring treaties, subsection ten of section 8, etc...
He was assuming I was unfamiliar with its content. He was wrong.
Makes sense to me. Clinton is very mannish and Rudy likes to dress in drag, and for a long time they were supposed to both win in landslides.
I also take those little versions of the Bible that I'm occasionally offered. I've read it a time or two but it sure beats twiddling your thumbs in the dentist's office. Somebody gives you an odd look and you can do what I do - start breathing heavily and say "I only like the bloody parts." It's great not to have people sitting next to you... ;-)
You're not supposed to point that out. It f$%&s up their cognitive dissonance.
That was my thought. What cad would troll for votes at the polls? What State would allow it?
Oh brother, dude. If that's an "insult," you are beyond thin-skinned. This sounds like the set-up to a Jerky Boys phony phone call to a personal injury lawyer.
“That was my thought. What cad would troll for votes at the polls? What State would allow it?”
I call it “The Gauntlet O’ Hacks” or as Howie Carr might say, the Hack O’ Rama.
A favorite exercise is to guess which local pol will be supporting which candidate. I was 100% correct this morning. The bitchy RINO was holding a Hillary sign and the yuppie former Mayor was wearing an Obama pin. I had never seen the Paulista before butt... He was a hippie who needed a shave and a bath (or is that redundant?)
>He was assuming I was unfamiliar with its content. He was wrong.<
If someone was handing out toothbrushes and offered you one would you be offended too? Is that person assuming that you hadn’t brushed your teeth this morning?
I think the person should have given forced a box of Tampax into your purse and refused it back.
He's a Stephen A. Douglas Democrat, or a Jerry Ford Republican, when it comes to abortion, not a Ronald Reagan pro-life conservative.
Unless I'm confused, Reagan worked towards a prolife amendment, not a prolife federal law, thus implicitly agreeing with Mr. Paul. The Constitution, properly interpreted, presently leaves this issue to the states.
If you want to change that, an amendment is required.
“I think the person should have given forced a box of Tampax into your purse and refused it back.”
Some guys can’t take a joke.
Neither Paul, nor Thompson, nor Giuliani, nor Romney, nor McCain, nor Huckabee agree with that platform - all at one time or another declaring that if states want to be able to allow the killing of babes in the womb, they should be able to do so.
They are all "pro-choice for states," and in agreement with Jerry Ford, not Reagan.
The Constitution, properly interpreted, presently leaves this issue to the states.
The only way you can believe that is if you agree with Judge Blackmun that unborn children are not persons.
And you also have to ignore the pretext, or Preamble, of the Constitution, as Blackmun did in Roe, which declares the purpose of the document: "...To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND our POSTERITY."
If you do believe that unborn children are persons, and still claim that states can allow their killing, you're, in fact, worse than Blackmun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.