You must be living in a cave. The Feds have been stripping us of our rights for decades. It's called incrementalism and they have mastered it. It's easy to boil a frog.
Posted on 11/27/2001 6:58:59 AM PST by Zviadist
National sovereignty means a government control over arbitrarily drawn territory because of the genetic or other inbred characteristics of some (never all) individuals. Try to have national sovereignty without a national government, then tell me how it isn't a statist construct.
Freedom, of course, exists prior to, and usually despite of, any government.
It is. But Ron Paul is the last person I would want representing my side in a debate. He has no credibility left. Everything he says is dismissed without consideration because we know he is a libertarian extremist.
When he starts demonstrating an ability to exercise mature judgement instead of automatically applying knee-jerk libertarian theology, then people might start taking him seriously.
And just what has changed?. If anyone (terrorist, whatever) wanted to kill you today, the feds could not stop it anymore than 80 years ago.
What deluded world do you live in that entitles you to a right to kill?.
I wonder how many of the passengers in those 4 hi jacked planes said as the planes crashed,
And I am certain every one of those dead persons were just clamoring for the feds to save them from death weren't they?. If anything, the federal government and it's million alphabet agencies totally failed each and everyone of the people who died on 9/11.
You are one complete fool if you really believe the federal government cares one iota you. The federal government only cares about itself and it's self perpetuation.
---max
Yep.
People, the Great American Experiment, started 225 years ago, is basically over. It was a failure because succeeding generations simply were not of the caliber, morally or intellectually, that those who founded this country were.
The only real question in my mind is "how much is it going to hurt when it all comes crashing down?" Or, perhaps more accurately, "what will it be like to live in a total police state?"
We're well on the way to finding out, and there really is no stopping it at this point. The election of "conservative" Dubya has, in fact, sped up the train. It's a pity, but truth is simply truth.
So you are suggesting then that even our Republic is statist in nature.
You must be living in a cave. The Feds have been stripping us of our rights for decades. It's called incrementalism and they have mastered it. It's easy to boil a frog.
LOL! Right, because he says we should follow the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, which was created to keep human nature in government under control. What the founders believed is now considered extremism.
R.I.P. U.S.A.
We tried to tell republican voters that this was the case back in 2000. There was no hearing it. It's not that we LIKE to be right about this kind of thing.
Well put. Yes, it is.
Yep. To all of your points.
Everything Ron Paul says stems from adherence to the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
But because it would make you and your ilk look bad to just admit you loathe the Constitution and its principles, you dismiss Ron Paul's words in ad-homonim attacks.
It's the oldest trick in the book: If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Typical, and utterly transparent. Don't try to sugarcoat it. Nobody's fooled.
When he starts demonstrating an ability to exercise mature judgement instead of automatically applying knee-jerk libertarian theology, then people might start taking him seriously.
Translated to plain English: "When he sells out those pesky constitutional principles and begins to 'play ball', we'll let him be our toady."
This has happened once in my lifetime. The crime was reported within minutes of it happening, the local police (much to their credit), arrested the criminal not too far away while attempting to steal someone else's property.
5 hours after the thief's arrest, he was bailed out. Both myself and my neighbor knew who the person was and we paid that person a late night visit and introduced the criminal to the undercarriage of a 1972 Ford Econoline. Problem solved.
The federal government did not protect me, did not provide for my security, did not assist me in any way. They did however consider my insurance check as income though.
As far as I am concerned the Federal goverment (aside from the Department of (perceived) Defense) is pretty much unconstitutional and about as useful (as my granddad used to say) "tit's on a tomcat".
---max
He just laughs at them, because, unlike so many of them, he has the guts to lay it all out there - telling us exactly how he feels about things. And then gets re-elected every time. Some of his cohorts sadly wish that hey had the same electorate as does Ron Paul. He is a gem!!!
He votes 100% on the Constitution. The fact that the ACLU gets it right 40% of the time is irrelevant.
I'm not a big fan of ACLU because of their selective protection of the Constitution, but they do some good work with 4th Amendment issues and some others.
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.