Blogcritics Comments on Ron Paul Reality Check

Comment by Nelson Lee Walker on Ron Paul Reality Check

Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:03:55 EST

I just caught the very intelligent discussion between Clavos, Hal Richards, and others which included some asides referring to the idea of an Article V convention (NOT a constitutional convention). I am compelled to point out that there is no danger of such a convention 'destroying' or replacing our existing Constitution. The delegates at such can only PROPOSE amendments, they cannot change anything Any and all amendments proposed by the convention can only become law if they have been ratified by the legislatures of at least 38 states. No cockamamie or weirdo or hairbrained amendments are likely to get by that obstacle course. I am sure that however much Ron Paul loves our existing Constitution, even he would favor an amendment for Congressional Term Limits, notwithstanding his excessively long tenure.

Comment by Nelson Lee Walker on Ron Paul Reality Check

Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:02:10 EST

Comment by Nelson Lee Walker on Ron Paul Reality Check

Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:59:10 EST

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 18:05:51 EST

Hal, As for your mythical "North American Union:" if you honestly believe that such an association as is described by Corsi and others could actually be created without the participation of the american citizenry, then, IMO you and I have no common ground on which to base a substantive and worthwhile discussion. If in fact you are referring to the SPP proposal of March, 2005, then I would note that the scope of that agreement encompasses ONLY trade issues, and in no way jeopardizes the sovereignty of any of the three nations signatory to it. Oh, and I don't believe Bush ordered 9/11, either. Have a good day.

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:49:30 EST

As a businessman, I'm (and have been) very much in favor of NAFTA and CAFTA, as well as any treaty that will promote international trade. In regard to NAU: I can't say much, as I've never seen anything authoritative about it; everything I have seen has obviously sprung from the fevered imaginations of conspiracy theorists, and made up out of whole cloth. I am not a naturalized us citizen; I was born in Mexico of american parents and consequently enjoy dual citizenship. If my support of international trade and the agreements designed to facilitate it makes me treasonous in your view,there's not much I can do about that, nor do I feel a need to.

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:26:26 EST

Voil�!!! ... We have at least a suggestion of dialog here - albeit, of an somewhat conjured up nature, I would HOPE, so I'll take your reality first and then deal with the "cross purposes": I'll humbly accept your congratulation on the rotorcraft experience and wish your friend well in his/hers, as it is a worthy task -even "Fun", where the elements can create a most fascinating experience within success; and with your, "Again, you assume too much:" I stand GUILTY, as charged!!! ... BUT: Here, My assumptions become more My "questions" of your concept[s] of reality, in capacity of your "life in international business" experience, where you "see a lot of good in internationalism and globalism, particularly in trade [vis-�-vis Dr. Paul's adamancy FOR same!] and particularly for the poorer nations" !? ... My having seen this NWO Marxist mantra "at work" in its initial efforts in 1981 South Africa; its intermediate throws in 1973-76 El Peru; and unwittingly involved in this government's efforts in its final product in 1965-68 Viet Nam & Laos: I can hardly see the merits of this NWO "North American Union (NAU)" travesty concept- where the indigent labor force of Mexico is combined with the Marxist socialism of Canada, to occupy the already industrially STRIPPED- but THEN so lawfully DESTROYED- united States of America, CREATING THE LARGEST "Third World Nation" ON EARTH- AS SERVING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION to even CONSIDER "AIDING" the likes of this Kenyan (see hyperlink), OR ANY OTHER SUCH tragedy extant!!! Considering, what is this "Modern Day" E.U.-U.S.-U.N., NWO M.O. for handling Tribal "tiffs" Were I a "Kenyan" today -knowing what My ancestors, of 200+ years past, had experienced in these united States of America DURING that interim time: I think I'd be PRAYING for a "Slave Ship" at anchor offshore, to which I could at least swim - if necessary - and BEG to be taken aboard, as "Cargo"!!! Unless, but certainly IF, your "life in international business" experience is part & parcel of this E.U.-U.S.-U.N., NWO M.O. - Atheism, or whatever form of religious regime may be your "Shining Light", notwithstanding; then your stated rationale for political activism in this Nation of My Birthright, is certainly tantamount to that of, "KILL the goose that laid the Golden EGG" out of revenge, at best; or given your citizenship IS lawfully naturalized, such is in the nature of abject treason, at worst, as ANY FINALIZATION of this "North American Union (NAU)" travesty concept shall do terminal violence to both Our Declaration of Independence AND the U.S. Constitution - a treasonable offense - be it by bullet, or BASTARDIZED electronic Ballot!!! ... It was TO this form of development which I referred as being "unpalatable" and will hope that you may concur, as such.

Comment by Jet in Columbus on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 03:25:51 EST

Have you voted in the BC forum's presidential poll? If not then click here

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 03:10:42 EST

"ARE NOT necessarily those YOU or I shall find palatable when their New World Order implementations are finished" Just exactly my point: you assume that I want what you want, while I can tell, from the fact that you seek to elect Ron Paul and I emphatically DO NOT want to see him elected, that we don't find the same things palatable. Had it occurred to you that I might be a globalist, for example? From a fiscal, economic standpoint I AM. I'm also an atheist, and for that reason would prefer not to have a religious president (I know, that cuts out most , if not all of the candidates), and I DO believe we should intervene around the world wherever we see a necessity to advance our own interests. That pretty much puts your guy out of the running for me. I tried to warn you we might be at cross purposes: "Ron Paul is THE ONLY ONE sufficiently IMMERSED IN KNOWLEDGE OF, and COMMITMENT to curtailing IT in ANY MANNER AT ALL!!!" Again, you assume too much: Not sure I want to "curtail" it, Hal. Having been born and raised in a Third World country, and having worked all my life in international business, I see a lot of good in internationalism and globalism, particularly in trade, and particularly for the poorer nations... But: I congratulate you on your experience flying rotary wing aircraft; a close friend flies a medevac craft for a local hospital and I've ridden with him a few times; it's not easy flying.

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 02:40:03 EST

FINALLY!!! ... comments expressing salient basis in opinion – which I will, and for 30-months of mid-60's, S.E. Asian helicopter combat investment, I did, defend, and for "help[ing] out [My] own ignorance a bit:" I'll say, THANKS!!! ... As for My "egocentricity and hubris lead[ing] ... down the path of thinking everyone must agree with [Me], for [am I] not 'right?'" Twenty-eight years, driving helicopters around the skies of seven-Nations, on five-Continents, while living in their local economies and in service to geopolitical entities – foreign & domestic – whose governance interests I can promise you, ARE NOT necessarily those YOU or I shall find palatable when their New World Order implementations are finished, DOES tend to give a person a "leg-up" to a better "view" of what's going on in this Disney-World-Outside-the-Orlando-Gates, we've been impressed into, in that interest – which I can again promise you; Ron Paul is THE ONLY ONE sufficiently IMMERSED IN KNOWLEDGE OF, and COMMITMENT to curtailing IT in ANY MANNER AT ALL!!! ... But: Does this make Me "right"? ... NOT necessarily; albeit, in the sense of "better informed" to assess the situation at hand, I'll claim a very substantial "edge" and humbly ask that you at least give that your consideration!!! Happy New Year to you!!!

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 01:03:42 EST

Thanks, Hal! Happy New Year! And remember: "Yet ah! why should they know their fate, Since sorrow never comes too late, And happiness too swiftly flies? Thought would destroy their Paradise. Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise..." Not the Bard this time, but Gray. Just to help out your own ignorance a bit: I don't care about Paul's standings in the polls (though I'm glad they're low); it's some of his ideas I don't like. Enough of them that I won't vote for him. Your egocentricity and hubris lead you down the path of thinking everyone must agree with you, for are you not "right?" Perhaps not...I think not.

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Tue, 1 Jan 2008 00:47:50 EST

... You've just made My point, with your question here. And STM's lame attempt at sarcasm, well may come back to haunt you both!!! Enjoy your bliss!!! ... There's only a few more months left in the "Ignorance" season.

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:24:19 EST

The New Years Eve falling rounds aren't enough??? Now I gotta watch out for incoming statistics too???

Comment by STM on Ron Paul Reality Check

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:18:46 EST

You better watch out for those highly dangerous and possibly even deadly statistics Clav ...

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:03:06 EST

What's your point (#45), Hal?

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:53:08 EST

"For all [YOU] KNOW, he (not his mythical 'soul') may well be the most meritorious candidate in the race [BUT UNLESS ONE investigates and knows with CERTAINTY he ISN'T, then] ... if people don't vote for him, his 'merits' will count for naught." You embrace "the Bard"; how'bout a little Mark Twain, on Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies in life: Lies, damn lies, and statistics"! After 72-years of experiencing all three, I'll assure you, the latter is hands-down, the MOST LETHAL!!!

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:48:21 EST

Actually, Hal, I wasn't referring to (much less "basing") the "merits" of any candidate on their standing in the polls, merely pointing out the futility of wasting a lot of time discussing one who appears not to have much of a chance of being elected. For all I know, he (not his mythical "soul") may well be the most meritorious candidate in the race, but if people don't vote for him, his "merits" will count for naught.

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:28:28 EST

Clavos ... I Couldn't agree more with your "Bard" concurrence, but; one who chooses to base the merits of a Presidential candidate – or anything else, for that matter – upon a mathematical calculation that measures a mere MAXIMUM 0.00000056% of ANYTHING to determine its value – MOST PARTICULARLY, a Human soul's sufficient preparation to govern 300-million other Human souls - SPEAKS VOLUMES about the type mentality that in fact HAS IGNORED that advice FOR CENTURIES!!!

Comment by Clavos on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:45:54 EST

And once again, we are reminded of how correct the Bard was about lawyers; too bad we didn't take his advice back in the seventeenth century. What a waste of time, discussing a "candidate" who is only polling in the single digits.

Comment by Silver Surfer on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:41:17 EST

How appropriate that Joel should be the author of a work with the word "delusional" in its title.

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:13:16 EST

Woo wee there Al, your response here looks like that of some of these D.A.'s I've sent to the showers these past several years, by simply demonstrating their gross ignorance of real Law, in pro per pretrial's – even found a couple-a-judges in the process, who thought that was real neat, and got a Letter of Retraxit (just some more of that Latin for effect) from one of the D.A.'s! Albeit: I hesitate to call you an attorney, since if you were, you'd hardly be honest enough to publish, "I almost could make some sense of a comprehensible point in one place - but then it slipped away." – so perhaps the real problem here, lies more within answer to the question: "what are you on?" ... Hopefully, you may have recovered now and I'll attempt to hand-carry you through this: Dr. Ron Paul is not only My Congressman, for his full 20-years in office; he's also the brother of My CPA, Wayne Paul, through whom I have an "arms-length" relationship with Ron, and in that context; I'll assure you, a Constitution Convention is the last thing the Dr. would care to see, and he DOES LIKE VERY MUCH the Constitution we now have – as do I – so I'm compelled to wonder about the source of your ire, despite My most vehemently NEGATIVE comment – "God FORBID such should EVER TAKE PLACE!!!" – on the holding of a convention! But then, for some, this Statist mentality is difficult to overcome, so perhaps your aggravation lies with My suggested Congressionally proposed, amendment rescissions, for those reasons I feel I've fairly clearly stated there, and will simply refer you to some unrevised history for substantiation of their veracity.

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:19:25 EST

From what I've seen Ron Paul only likes the select parts of the constitutiion he agrees with and uses the 9th amendment to blow off the rest. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who likes and agrees with every syllable of the Constitution, Lumpy, and that wasn't the framers' intent. The two most prominent bits that a lot of people don't like and wish would go away (for ideological reasons) are the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Re-read some of the gun control and illegal immigration threads, if you have time. It can be quite fascinating to follow the logical gymnastics of people trying to explain why these Amendments don't mean what they clearly do mean.

Comment by Irene Wagner on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:31:50 EST

I think you may be witnessing Ron Paul's efforts to keep the federal government in check, and misinterpreting them as a desire to "blow off" parts of the Constitution he so passionately defends. The purpose of the 9th amendment is part of the Checks and Balances system, in the 9th amendment's case, to prevent the other two branches from usurping the Legislative Branch's job: writing laws that codify any rights that weren't mentioned in the Constitution (the framers knew there were some.) The 9th Amendment also prevents the Executive and Judicial Branches from REVOKING rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those rights written into law by the Legislative branch. A proper use of the Ninth Amendment, and one Ron Paul would be correct in invoking, is to prevent judicial annulment of the Second Amendment.

Comment by Lumpy on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:16:13 EST

From what I've seen Ron Paul only likes the select parts of the constitutiion he agrees with and uses the 9th amendment to blow off the rest.

Comment by Al Barger on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:19:24 EST

Woo wee there Hal, what are you on? You're sounding even more whacked out than Brother Hirschorn - and that's saying something. I almost could make some sense of a comprehensible point in one place - but then it slipped away. This looks like the kind of crazy man layman ideas of a legal argument that isn't any thing like one, but rather just crazy person speak with legal-sounding terminology thrown in. Hint: It takes more than throwing in a couple of Latin phrases to make a legitimate legal argument. Note that Hirschorn's basic point is to insist that somehow it is hypocrisy that Congressman Paul does not support his particular desire for a new constitutional convention. This is Brother Hirschorn's hobby horse, not Ron Paul's. Ron Paul seems to very much like the constitution we now have, so why would you think that his principals would require him to move to throw it out the window? Paul's goal is to decrease the size and influence of government, not simply to be as radical as possible at all times. Almost certainly, any all new constitution that today's hacks would come up with would be far more pro-government than what we already have. It would make no sense at all for anyone of a libertarian or small government persuasion to support such a thing.

Comment by Hal Richard on Ron Paul Reality Check

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:13:46 EST

Should anyone choose to exercise the TRUE import of Article V, in re TODAY'S Dilemma; It would be to: * RESCIND the pseudo-14th Amendment, with its constructive trust by operation of law "Democracy" – the ultra vires insertion of which was in DIRECT VIOLATION of ALL THREE Article V requisites' FOR de jure Amendments to that de jure, 1791 Constitution; and * RESCIND the "14th's" concomitant, currently published, 1865, 13th Amendment – which PROHIBITS ONLY PRVATE "Slavery", while succinctly ESTABLISHING Federal government slavery, based upon ANY "criminal" conviction, including nefarious "crimes mala prohibita" (Legislated crimes), which as you read this, can be no more wicked than the "Terroristic" act of challenging the Federal Income Tax, or simple as offending ones' emotional senses anymore; and * REPUBLISH THE NEVER RESCINDED, and STILL VALID[!!!], 1813,13th Amendment –succinctly PROHIBITING service IN ANY OFFICE of government in these united States of America, BY RECIPIENTS of "Honours" from any foreign State, at penalty of LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP – TO which EVERY BAR-CARD HOLDING ATTORNEY IN OFFICE IS IN SPECIFIC AND CLEAR VIOLATION (can you say: "Esquire"?)!!! While "Ignorance [MAY be] Bliss"; IT IS CERTAINLY the Achilles' Heel OF We the People of these united States of America – the Republic!!! ... May Our Triune Creator God have Mercy on Us in Our apostasy to His duly Declared supreme Sovereignty OVER this Nation (see: the 1776 Premable, in "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America")!!!