You know, for better or worse, the only thing that I have ever seen Ron Paul defend and base every single of his arguments upon, is the US Constitution -- maybe to a literal fault -- but that's it. Ron Paul doesn't come up with anything new, it isn't just "his view" -- every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So when I hear people ridicule him as "a kook", "a nutcase", etc. -- rather than just wrong --, I just keep thinking that they are also saying that the Founding Fathers were also "loonies" -- or that they think that the Constitution is completely outdated & nearly useless -- or perhaps "a living document".
If that really is the case -- and someone thinks that the Constitution and Bill of Rights really is completely outdated and in need of revision -- then I'd like to see someone with the stones to try and amend & revise it -- and I mean that, float revisions and potential amendments and see how that goes.
Because as far as I know, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the only contract that we citizens have with our Federal Government -- it's the only thing that we have to hold DC politicians to their part of the bargain, while we hold up our end.
But if people want to continually set the Constitution aside or ignore the parts that are difficult -- and/or label every politician who expects other politicians to follow it in all their decisions, "a nutcase" or "a lunatic" -- then it seems to me that then we deserve what we get from DC.
And I don't have to want Ron Paul for President to see that.
Bravo, my friend. Well said, indeed.
Yes, I've *heard* that, but I remain unconvinced that Ron Paul really has a clue about what a lot of the Constitution even says. Basically, his argument seems to be that whatever he think, is therefore "constitutional," therefore, his viewpoints are constitutional. Essentially, the argument is that whatever Ron Paul says must be constitutional, therefore if someone disagrees with Ron Paul and thinks he's a kook about some things, then they must not believe in the Constitution.
That's not a good argument. That's bullhockey.
Ron Paul is great on spending issues. He's great on sovereignty issues. But these are also NOT the issues that people on here call him a kook about.
Unfortunately, he's a kook because of his ridiculous opinions about foreign policy. And let us note - there is no such thing as a "constitutional" position on foreign policy. Isolationism is not demanded, nor even implied, by the Constitution. The Constitution never stipulates what sort of a foreign policy the United States are to conduct - it merely stipulates that the President conducts it, and Congress approves of it.
Yet, Ron Paul and his followers seem to think that his particular foreign policy viewpoints are demanded by the Constitution. They are not. As such, the claim "every single idea that he defends is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" is patently incorrect. Likewise, the Constitution never demands that we be on a gold standard (though the position has merits and I *tend* to agree with RoPaul on that).
Look, I know a lot of folks on here are just jolly for Ron Paul. And I agree that on issues such as spending and federal overreach, national sovereignty, etc. he is good. But he is very, very bad on several important issues. That's simply the way it is, and is why he don't get no respect on FR.