Ron Paul supporters continue to push their candidate and their issues, but hostility and frustration within the GOP is growing.
Beneath the still surface of the apparently secure nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate, supporters of Ron Paul are still fighting the system and doing what they can to influence the process. It appears to be an uphill battle, with many of their efforts devolving into little more than delaying tactics and spreading chaos, and in many cases generating a hostile backlash from the party establishment which is harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
First, there's the condescension. Do you honestly think that the rest of us don't want to follow the constitution? That we don't know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? The problem here is that you want to follow an edited version of the Constitution and ignore the parts you don't like. As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn't mean that we agree that it's a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing.
Then there's the videos you mention. Twaddle from Alex Jones and other JBS stooges. Most of us aren't interested in being part of the lunatic fringe.
It's not that we're unware of the problems in this country, it's that we want real solutions to real problems, not fantasy solutions to paranoid problems.
Dave
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
I should add that the constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That's what we have laws for. If it weren't, everything west of the Appalachians should be kicked out of the U.S. We can thank Jefferson (one of the signers of the constitution) and the (unconstitutional) LA purchase for that.
Sometimes I get the impression RP supporters wouldn't allow the President to hand a poor person a loaf of bread or fly on an airplane or use the service of the secret service because it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution. What it really comes down to for them though is selectively criticizing the actions of government and selectively proposing solutions, based on their own beliefs, and then using the constitution as a justification for these selected cases.
77 - Tom deSabla
"Call yourself an anarcho-socialist and show your true colors"
Now, I'm a Marxist? Wait, I thought you said I was a Bircher? Aren't they supposed to be totally different?
You're so busy slurring me you can't even keep your slurs straight.
To be clear, the point I was making is that fiat inflationary systems DO hurt the poor and they DO increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor, and they do not promote savings or productivity. Check our manufacturing since 1971 if you don't believe me.
Marx loved fiat money, high taxes and central banking. I don't. Now that I've made that clear, let's address your problems...
Dave, you're in deep denial.
Congress cannot legally and constitutionally coin money out of feathers or make worthless things into money. "Regulating the value thereof" does not imply the authority to clip the coins till they're worthless. What it means is "make regular" as in make them all the same, so that the value is consistent - that's all.
***
Dave, you (incredibly) said this?!?
"Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It's just borrowing it from the people and the national economy"
What a joke.
If that is so, then pray tell us how is it paid back?
The answer is that it isn't paid back, so it isn't borrowing. Constitutional borrowing is done by bond, and that debt is paid back, or redeemed. For you to pretend that a fiat money system is constitutional "borrowing" shows that your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking.
No, you're simply wrong again here. The point you are studiously avoiding is that there would be no need to borrow money on the credit of the United States if money could be created out of thin air. Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?
This is not circular logic at all. You still have not addressed the point, and I can tell that you won't address it.
You cannot state what part of government you would cut because you don't want to cut anything. You say that cutting "farm subsidies" would be as good a place as any to start? Yeah right. Why don't you quit faking? You and your psychotic hero McCain aren't cutting anything and you aren't fixing anything.
You also can stop pretending like you agree with Paul on some conveniently unnamed "things." If you really agreed with him, and this wasn't a hit piece, you'd say where you agreed with him. You can't say where you agree with Paul because you really don't agree, and I think you're being dishonest to say that you do.
Dude, I have bested the best, and you are not the best. Your arguments are transparent; and all you're really doing is scrambling to defend your total lack of inaction. Unfortunately, all you have to defend yourself are specious, unsupported kiddie-constitution arguments that any serious person can see right through.
It's over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.
78 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
It's over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.
I just thought I'd inform you that to 99.9% of educated people you sound like a raging lunatic who should be committed.
79 - Clavos
"It's over, son, and
youPaul lost."80 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Beat you to it, but wish I thought of that one. Good one Clavos.
81 - Jeremy Blosser
I should add that the constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional.
I don't know of anyone, really, who will claim that times don't change, or that the Constitution is perfect as it currently stands.
All most are saying is that if times require different laws, that people should have the courtesy to amend the ones that are there instead of choosing to interpret them to fit the situation. We aren't a nation of laws these days, we are a nation of relativistic opportunists who condemn or praise identical actions depending on who does them.
82 - Tom deSabla
Another fool comes into MY house?
***
"constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That's what we have laws for."
****
BWAA HA HA HA!!
Yeah, being subjected to "constant reminders" on right and wrong often does "get to be excessive" doesn't it? Yeah, I'm sure it seems "rather excessive" to my 4 year old that I constantly tell her to quit dropping food on the floor.
Maybe I should ease up a little, and let her regress eh? After all, it's only an itty bitty detail, right?
Speaking of regression, isn't that what we've really done? We've regressed away from the constitution and individual freedom. The restrictions in the constitution are not "itty bitty details" to be discarded, instead they are hard-and-fast limitations on government power with the sacred freedom of the people at stake.
People always make good excuses when they slack off and regress, but this is ridiculous. Saying that the Constitution's exact restrictions shouldn't apply anymore to actual day-to-day governance is to render it meaningless. Laws are not part of the solution in this country at all; they are part of the problem.
We do not need more allegiance to laws and less allegiance to the constitution; we need the opposite - more adherence to the constitution and less slavish devotion to foolish laws passed by foolish politicians. Let it not be said that I do not provide examples, so consider speed limits. The are the law - are they not? So, let's all obey them and see what happens.
Gridlock happens.
Reliance on laws over individual freedom is what is "delusional" - not honoring the constitution. I think the evidence is clear; everywhere we have left the constitution, we have sowed disaster.
We didn't respect the ban on standing armies; we got imperialism and troops in 140 countries - unsustainable for the long term.
We didn't stay with gold and silver; we got Central banking, worldwide inflation, and a totally corrupted economics profession - again unsustainable for the long term.
We didn't respect the the need to keep powers to what was specifically enumerated, we got the feds regulating people's personal gardens under a sick and tortured interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
We got the drug war, with no power to conduct it, and now the 4th amendment is gutted. A police state is unsustainable too.
We got a bureaucracy with no constitutional mention, and now we have a whole new set of laws (regulations) to keep track of.
We got executive orders - not in the literal words of the constitution. One of the first, if not the first, was the one by FDR where he stole the people's gold from them, so you see how these things work together. Read some of these sometime, they will chill you.
Nah, I think you're demonstrably wrong here. The literal, exact, limiting words of the Constitution are way better. They were way better 200 years ago, and they're way better now. Human nature hasn't changed one iota in the last 200 years, so I don't see why the constitution would become any less relevant.
In fact, pretending we can just "freelance" now, just because 200 years have passed, especially in light of history and current events, is not realistic to me at all. It's intellectual laziness.
But, I can see there's a lot of that going around here.
83 - Tom deSabla
"It's over, son, and you lose. Somebody clean up this mess for me please.
I just thought I'd inform you that to 99.9% of educated people you sound like a raging lunatic who should be committed."
**
Like I care what "educated people" think. Ben Bernanke is educated. So is Robert Mugabe, and he has destroyed his country.
No, pal, it's called debate. There are usually winners and losers. I declared myself the winner. I have ample reason to do so. Are you having some kind of problem with that? If so, please provide some reasons of your own - some evidence or something, and we can debate.
D * E * B * A * T * E
Try it sometime.
84 - Kyle
Tom deSabla is right. A rigid, unwavering, letter for letter interpretation of the original Constitution is the only proper way to govern a country in the 21st century. In particular, we need to rescind the right of women to vote and reinstate the 3/5 compromise.
85 - Dave Nalle
Now, I'm a Marxist? Wait, I thought you said I was a Bircher? Aren't they supposed to be totally different?
Interestingly they're remarkably similar in some ways. The Birchers did start out in opposition to communism, but they decided to deliberately mimic much of the methodology of international Stalinism to 'fight fire with fire'. The problem is that they became a little too like the Stalinists and started thinking like them. At heart, Stalinism was a very conservative, even reactionary form of communism and its influence on the JBS was profound, even if they'd never admit it.
To be clear, the point I was making is that fiat inflationary systems DO hurt the poor and they DO increase the wealth gap between the rich and poor, and they do not promote savings or productivity.
That's the inflation, not the fiat currency. There's no reason why a so-called fiat currency can't be stable and inflation resistent. Our recent inflation is anomalous. Since the end of WW2 we've had fiat currency with a mild, natural inflation which reflects the growth in the economy. Extreme inflation is certainly not inherent in a greenback dollar.
Check our manufacturing since 1971 if you don't believe me.
I'm very familiar with the evolution of our economy away from a post-industrial model to a high-techl, globally integrated system. It has zero to do with inflation or our currency system.
Marx loved fiat money, high taxes and central banking. I don't.
You clearly need to go back and read some Marx. In a true marxist system there would be no need for banks at all, nor would there be a need for currency or taxes.
Congress cannot legally and constitutionally coin money out of feathers or make worthless things into money. "Regulating the value thereof" does not imply the authority to clip the coins till they're worthless. What it means is "make regular" as in make them all the same, so that the value is consistent - that's all.
LOL. Ok, if you want to reinvent the English language and redefine words I guess you can read any silly thing you want into the Constitution. Trust me as a guy with a MA in English, 'regulate' and 'regularize' are NOT synonyms. Buy a dictionary.
***
Dave, you (incredibly) said this?!?
"Printing fiat currency IS borrowing money. It's just borrowing it from the people and the national economy"
What a joke.
If that is so, then pray tell us how is it paid back?
It's given back in the form of goods and services purchased with the greenback dollars.
The answer is that it isn't paid back, so it isn't borrowing. Constitutional borrowing is done by bond, and that debt is paid back, or redeemed. For you to pretend that a fiat money system is constitutional "borrowing" shows that your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking.
I'd suggest that all of this silliness shows that you have little or no understanding of how paper money works. Perhaps your fear is based in ignorance. That would explain a lot.
No, you're simply wrong again here. The point you are studiously avoiding is that there would be no need to borrow money on the credit of the United States if money could be created out of thin air. Why would Congress need that power to borrow if they could simply create out of thin air all the money they needed?
Because you can only draw your money from the active economy up to a sustainable limit before you end up with inflationary problems. Doh.
You cannot state what part of government you would cut because you don't want to cut anything.
Um, but I already said I'd cut farm subsidies. Then I'd cut all education funding. Then I'd eliminate the War on Drugs. Then I'd privatize welfare and the various other entitlement systems like social security. Finally I'd privatize the military.
You say that cutting "farm subsidies" would be as good a place as any to start? Yeah right. Why don't you quit faking? You and your psychotic hero McCain aren't cutting anything and you aren't fixing anything.
McCain is pretty well known for his efforts to cut or eliminate farm subsidies.
"Subsidies are a mistake, and I don't believe that anybody can say that they're a fiscal conservative and yet support subsidies which distort markets & destroy our ability to compete in the world, as well as our ability to get cheaper products into the US" - John McCain
You also can stop pretending like you agree with Paul on some conveniently unnamed "things." If you really agreed with him, and this wasn't a hit piece, you'd say where you agreed with him. You can't say where you agree with Paul because you really don't agree, and I think you're being dishonest to say that you do.
The places where I agree with Paul should be obvious to anyone with a lick of sense. Obviously we agree on issues like eliminating the state run school system, on repealing the 16th amendment, on drastically cutting government spending. But no, I don't agree with him on nativism, protectionism or anti-corporatism. Nor do I like his do-nothing position on most civil liberties issues.
all you're really doing is scrambling to defend your total lack of inaction.
I'm proud of my 'lack of inaction'.
Dave
86 - Dave Nalle
You bet. Gold has sure done a bang-up job of holding its value...
The value of gold goes up during times of inflation. The gold price was absolutely flat for most of this century, until the super inflation of the late 70s, when it shot up in value to over $600 an ounce. It then steadily declined as the economy improved and then shot up again recently with the current recession. When the economy was at its best in the late 90s the inflation adjusted value of gold was comparable to the price in the 1960s. But of course, if you bought gold in 1983, with inflation you're still at a loss at the current price. So gold doesn't necessarily hold its value.
Dave
87 - Kyle
Dave, I'm really enjoying watching you smack down Paultards, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on eliminating all education funding. I'm all for trimming the fat so to speak, and allowing free market economics rule most commodities, but education and health care are exceptions. Everyone deserves access to those, and I would think it would be a detriment to our economy in the long run if a portion of the population wasn't able to afford an education.
I'm with you on privatizing social security, as long as there was some provision in place for people who couldn't afford some kind of insurance against unemployment. I'm not sure where I'd stand on privatizing the military. Would they be free to provide services to other nations, like other private businesses?
88 - Dave Nalle
Kyle, I was talking just about the federal government on the education issue. I don't think they should play a role in education. It ought to be done by local communities, where I would hope the standard would be to privatize as much as possible and eliminate administration above the level of principal as much as possible,
As for privatizing the military, I think it would have to be done under some sort of charter arrangement, where the US sponsored private military contractors to give them some protection and accountability. And under those terms hiring out to foreign powers with US government approval would make sense.
Dave
89 - Kyle
It was my understanding that the DOE really just provided money for scholarships and grants for those who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford education, and really played a minimal if nonexistant role in setting curricula (though I would support the existence of some minimal standards across the board, lest some backwards states try to teach children that the theory of evolution is an evil anti-religious conspiracy or deny them basic health education, for instance). I do agree that the involvement should be kept minimal, though.
As for privatizing the military, I think it would have to be done under some sort of charter arrangement, where the US sponsored private military contractors to give them some protection and accountability.
Like Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Raytheon, et al?
(Sorry if this is considered a derail. I just felt a break from the paranoid ravings of the Paulbots would be nice)
90 - John McCain Forum
John McCain is JESUS!!!
And this is a great article. These Ron Paul people need to stop making niose. And for the rest of us, who know McCain is our only chance to carry on the neoconservative legacy, be sure to join the official John McCain Forum and show your support!
91 - daddysteve
The country is going broke. Your grandkids are going to pay my share of the national debt 'cause I'm never going to earn enough. As a 48 yr. old republican, I've seen plenty of election cycles. If there is one thing you can be sure of, the two party system won't support any candidate they think is really about change. Of course I don't think Americans really WANT change.
92 - Huckans
Dave,
John Huckans from Post #39 above. Please comment on the points in Posts # 24 and 25. Also, you said in Post#30 about MSM:
"I'm fully aware of the complaints about it. The evidence to support those complaints is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM. Paul got way more exposure than any of the other also-rans."
I mentioned Saul Anuzis to you--did you forget to respond?
Huckans
93 - Huck
I'm a long time Republican. The GOP party bosses handed us huge losses in 2006 and have pushed forth more RINOs and a nominee that has little real support while totally shutting out conservative candidates. The question is - do they want us conservative Republicans sticking around after November, or do they want us to build up the Libertarian party? So far it looks like they want us to leave and many of us are.
94 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
My Statement:
""constant reminders of what the constitution says get to be excessive. The absolutely unwavering commitment to limit government to specific, absolutely literal interpretations of the constitution and nothing else, as if the founding fathers would know exactly how to run a government over 200 years in the future, is IMO completely delusional. What is important in our constitution are the principles and the process. Not every little bitty detail of how to run a government and doing nothing beyond that. That's what we have laws for."
Jerremy Blosser @81 in response to me:
I don't know of anyone, really, who will claim that times don't change, or that the Constitution is perfect as it currently stands.
Jerremy read the next post by another RP supporter.
Tom deSabla @ 82
BWAA HA HA HA!!
Yeah, being subjected to "constant reminders" on right and wrong often does "get to be excessive" doesn't it? Yeah, I'm sure it seems "rather excessive" to my 4 year old that I constantly tell her to quit dropping food on the floor.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. People like this guy who think the Constitution is some kind of moral code.
95 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
A more accurate analogy would be that you tell your kid to stop dropping food on the floor without referring to the constitution (it's not a specifically authorized power of parents to tell their children what to do in the constitution, where then do they get this power?).
96 - Tim
Well, as I read these comments, there are alot of bickerings going on, and no one seems to be facing the fact that we're simply all toast.
We can't fight the beast - it's too late. We've fought to keep our second amendment pea-shooters, but by electing and financing this government, we've given them apache helicopters, F-16s, and nukes, not to mention sarin gas and biological weapons. We've fought over taxes and to keep our puny bank accounts, while financing the Bank of International Settlements with our purchasing of frivolities for our comfort and by demonstrating our compliance by accepting an unconstitutional tax collection system.
Does anyone really think that they're simply going to give up all the power we've given them while we've been immersing ourselves in TV, movies, basketball, and Coors Light? And does anyone really think we can fight them as Jefferson suggested far before the advent of super weapons?
They've been only too happy to give us what we want in order to get what THEY want, while we didn't even recognize, or care, that we were giving it to them.
And now we're complaining about the results of what "we the people" have done, or more accurately, have failed to do.
Wake up? It's too late - we've already been dead a long time.
97 - Tim
Sorry about the repeats - it was slow loading, and I thought it was my PC that was causing the problem....I kept clicking the silly button :-)
Silly me.....
98 - Kyle
It's ok. Your computer was probably bogged down by all the Alex Jones YouTube videos you were watching.
99 - Meredith Jane
Dave and all who think like him: delegates are part of the legal process involved in choosing our president-you should actually be thanking we Ron Paul supporters who went to the state conventions to try and retain your liberty-we paid out of our pockets for time and money to be committed to just having our voices heard,(it is quite an expense & ordeal to go thru for the ordinary person) and this is the thanks we get-you know what is so amazing to me? The people who were there as support of McCain don't really believe in him, they are just supporting him because they feel he is the only choice rather than voting democrat( I talked to a lot of people there and you could also gauge by the applause when they spoke of McCain-very weak/even a reporter commented on that fact)-you guys are going to get what you deserve, if America doesn't wise up, a lot of people who voted republican in the primaries are going to now switch either to supporting a third party, or Obama-you can thank yourselves, I give McCain very little chance of winning-you will get a president who will only increase our taxes and further do away with our freedoms, hope you guys will be happy with what you have chosen, by refusing to do the right thing and make a stand for truth and honor for your country. At least all the Ron Paul supporters will be able to say, "we did our best" thats a whopping lot more than the rest of you can say. By the way, in spite of people like you Dave, who keep reporting negatively, more and more people are awakening to the truth. Go Ron Paul-you are the man we desperately need for our country's dignity,economy, and liberty restored.
100 - Tim
Thank you, Kyle.
I actually can't stand Alex Jones' conspiracy theory methodology - and he makes what truth he manages to insert in his ravings look really bad.
If anything, it's my lack of blogging experience. I usually don't participate because of all the hateful and un-intelligent comments.
Tim
101 - Dr Dreadful
I kept clicking the silly button
Tim, what browser are you using? I've looked carefully, but I can't find the 'Silly' button anywhere on mine...
102 - Tim
Good one, Dread :-)
103 - Dave Nalle
We didn't respect the ban on standing armies; we got imperialism and troops in 140 countries - unsustainable for the long term.
There's no ban on standing armies in the Constitution. That amendment was never ratified. And the only way we have troops in 140 countries is if you count marine guards at embassies.
We didn't stay with gold and silver; we got Central banking,
You do understand that we got a central bank TWO years after the Constitution was ratified, right? Voted on and approved by the same guys who wrote and voted in the Constitution.
As for making the Constitution the equivalent of the Bible the way so many of the Paulites seem to do, that's one of the things which makes them pretty weak as libertarians. The Constitution is a very neat basis for a government, but it's not a truly libertarian document. Libertarianism goes back to principles of natural law which transcend and are more important than the Constitution, which is an imperfect way of trying to represent those basic principles in the form of a government.
Dave
104 - Dave Nalle
It was my understanding that the DOE really just provided money for scholarships and grants for those who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford education, and really played a minimal if nonexistant role in setting curricula
About 6% of all funds for public education come from the federal government, through all sorts of grant and aid programs. Things like special needs education, school lunch programs and grants for schools in poor and rural areas account for a lot of it. But there's some federal money in just about every school and with the money come demands for certain standards and the inclusion of certain elements in the curriculum. Thus you can have a federally implemented program like No Child Left Behind imposed on all the schools nationwide, even though they aren't directly managed by the federal government.
As for privatizing the military, I think it would have to be done under some sort of charter arrangement, where the US sponsored private military contractors to give them some protection and accountability.
Like Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Raytheon, et al?
Not exactly. They all bid for contracts to the specifications of the military. I was thinking more in terms of a charter than a contract. Like a Letter of Marque as authorized under the Constitution, where the government assigns authority to a private military force to pursue it's enemies.
Dave
105 - Dave Nalle
Huckans. Sorry, I don't see any questions in those posts you reference which haven't already been answered or really need an answer.
And I didn't see any earlier mention of Saul Anuzis. What did you want to discuss about him? I hear he's received death threats from Ron Paul supporters. Should we discuss that?
Dave
106 - Guy Fawks
The GOP is fast becoming public enemy #1. The Constitution is layed out to protect true American citizens against its enemies, whether foreign or domestic. It is quite obvious that "We the People", have a problem with domestic enemies infiltrating our government and committing treason against our liberty. The Constitution is our tool to rid ourselves of these bastard children seizing control of our nation. The present Revolution started as a collective voice of reasoning. However, Americans are beginning to realize that reasoning with these bastard children is not working. But we are definitely not left without recourse. Congress has the right to declare war on the enemies of the United States of America. Ron Paul is a congressman and he is seeing firsthand just what exactly is going on within our government. The American people just need to fully awaken themselves and read between the lines. The Revolution is your last defense on the road leading to tyranny. As you all can clearly see, your voice no longer matters to the establishment. Your back is against the wall and there is only one way out from here on. If you choose not to progress forward in reclaiming your birthright, the establisment will continue using your children to fight their wars, taking your homes, your jobs, and taxing you out of existance. Do not relinquish your right to fight for your freedom. Two hundred and some odd years ago, freedom was obtained, although not without cost. None of you have anything to fear but fear itself.
107 - Clavos
Very impassioned (if somewhat incoherent) plea, Fawks (sic), but what exactly are you advocating?
You never really say...
108 - Huckans
Huckans here. In your Post #21 you said:
"As for the Federal Reserve, we all know what it is, but that doesn't mean that we agree that it's a bad thing. Most libertarians think that privatizing government institutions is a GOOD thing."
To which, Post #25 responded:
"You mentioned that the Fed can't be all bad because it's privatized, and that that is what libertarians' goal is. That's incorrect, libertarians goal is for a free market. for instance if the government passed a law requiring you to buy your chicken from Tyson's that would indeed be a product produced by a private company but it would be a far cry from being a free market. Its the same with the Federal Reserve and their product (The Federal Reserve Note)."
Your comment to this?
The first paragraph of your article stated:
"Beneath the still surface of the apparently secure nomination of John McCain as the Republican candidate, supporters of Ron Paul are still fighting the system and doing what they can to influence the process. It appears to be an uphill battle, with many of their efforts devolving into little more than delaying tactics and spreading chaos, and in many cases generating a hostile backlash from the party establishment which is harming efforts to move the party in a more pro-liberty direction."
Post #24 said:
"Up here in Washington the McCain supporters walked out of the convention, attempting to break the quorum so we couldn't debate resolutions. We spent 45 minutes counting people, then when we still had enough people to continue, they all came rushing back in from the hallway. They proceeded to stall another 45 minutes while they could all return, and by then we didn't have enough people vote to extend the convention.
Who's being disruptive here?"
Doesn't this contradict at least your first paragraph?
You said in your Post #30:
"I'm fully aware of the complaints about it (the MSM). The evidence to support those complaints is pretty sketchy, especially when it comes to persecution in the MSM. "
Then I asked you in Post #39 (which you did not respond to) and re-asked in Post #92 are you not aware of what Saul Anuzis tried to do in Michigan one year ago? What of the comments by Michael Steele after "The First in the South?" What of Fox News' TV graphic following the Iowa Straw Poll? What of the AP's article for the Presidential Trust DIner? What of Fox's exclusion in the penultimate debate? What of Stephanopoulos' "that's not going to happen." What of Carl Cameron's "Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability. Do you have any, sir??" (Jan 13) (and don't forget the tone). What about Anuzis' buddy on Oct 13.
Do you need more?
Cheers.
109 - Dave Nalle
Ok fine, I'll give you a response, but the 'questions' are still pointless.
On the Fed. Your comparison to Tyson is ridiculous. The Fed serves an entirely different function. The idea behind making it a joint private/public institution is to not make it a government monopoly and to give the nation's banking institutions a stake in its existence. This is the way that national banks have been structured since 1792. It IS more of a 'libertarian' approach because it's not just a government body and involves private entities as well.
On the disruptive thing. The article does cover the oppressive and abusive behavior of some of the party insiders. Their perspective would be that they acted that way because of the threat posed by Paul supporters. Their bad behavior does not excuse the bad behavior of Paul folks. In the same way that some idiots blame all deaths in Iraq on the US because they wouldn't have died if we hadn't invaded, don't all disruptions at these conventions get credited to the Paul supporters because if they weren't trying to stage their 'revolution' then there would have been no misbehavior in response?
What the hell does Anuzis have to do with anything? I was talking primarily about the MSM. Your examples are lovely, but the truth is that Paul was a fringe candidate polling at under 3% nationwide and was treated exactly like a fringe candidate, and somewhat better than Kucinich and Gravel.
Dave
110 - Tim
Hey! It's Tim, Ron Paul supporter from comment #32, checking in.
Dave! I don't know where you find the time, but your comments are great! Tom DeSabla is a truly formidable adversary, and you have risen to the challenge every time, despite the fact that the discussion is clearly beyond the scope of the original article.
As for the meaning of the term "regulate", here is a very interesting page that discusses the use of the term "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment.
I can only speculate as to how the term should be applied to the "Coinage Clause", but it leads me to believe that Tom DeSabla's argument on this point deserves closer consideration.
If we apply the modern usage of the term in the phrase "regulate the value thereof," it becomes a very dangerous provision. Value is subjective to the individual, and in the aggregate is determined only by the market. The only way Congress could "regulate the value thereof" in the modern sense is through decree and by forcefully imposing on the people what the value of a thing ought to be. This may be what "legal tender" laws are intended to do, but not being an expert (yet), I can't really go into detail on it.
Tom DeSalle's proposition, that the phrase allows the government to coin only consistent money, and allows the people to "regulate the value thereof" in the modern sense, is much more palatable. If this was not the intent of the authors, it should have been. The Constitution should be amended to clarify.
Let me know where I am wrong. I look forward to reading more of your work!
111 - huckans
Huckans here again.
I think you are clouding the Federal Reserve issue and that the Tyson Food analogy is fairly accurate. We have given a monopoly to a quasi-private cartel to create our money. The Constitution nowhere states that Congress has the exclusive right to create our money (or transfer that exclusive right to another entity).
Also, the comment from Washington State (Post #24) does, in fact, contradict your first paragraph in the following sense. You said in this paragraph that the tactics of Paul's supporters "generated" the backlash. From the Washington report, it was clearly the other way around. It was not a backlash but a "forelash" by the GOP which generated the very reasonable feeling of being wronged.
With regard to one of many many examples of persecution (which you condescendingly referred to as "lovely"), you are putting much too fine a point on whether or not Saul Anuzis is a part of or simply ancillary to the MSM. Let me refresh your memory (I know you will say that you don't need the refresher, so to preserve your apparently fragile sensibilities you can just pretend it is a refresher for your readers).
From Wikipedia:
"On May 16, 2007 Anuzis called for banning U.S. Representative from Texas, Ron Paul from further Republican primary debates after the congressman made a comment on blowback from US foreign policy and 9/11.[1] While this assertion was also made in the 9/11 Commission Report and by CIA specialists on bin Laden, the comments provoked controversy from some who interpreted Paul's remarks to be critical of America. The Michigan GOP Headquarters was overwhelmed by the volume of phones and emails received in protest because of Anuzis' petition against Ron Paul's inclusion in the debates. This caused them to resort to shutting down their phones, taking their "contact us" form and phone number off their website, and callers leaving messages until Anuzis' voicemail and Blackberry were full. An unofficial petition to ensure Paul appears in future debates garnered more than 12,000 signatures, the official petition garnered more than 7,000 signatures, while Anuzis' petition had 14 when he decided to withdraw it."
The point is that Anuzis was seeking to ban Paul from MSM debates. Your point that Anuzis is not himself part of the MSM and is therefore not a good example of MSM persecution is rather specious. (In fact, I find most of your arguing to be disingenuous sophistry!)
In addition, Anuzis is a good friend of Tim Skubick (the gentleman in the last link I sent you here repeated for your convenience ). Also, Anuzis founded two telecommunications companies during his "breather" from Michigan politics. Like many political insiders, Anuzis has connections within the MSM and he was hoping that they would do his bidding. Come on, Dave.
Cheers
112 - Russell
I'm not so much a Dr Paul supporter as I am a firm believer that the government is way too big for it's britches and it refuses to hear the voice of Us commoners,of which the government is supposed to be made up. He is the only 1 pushing this truth and he,along with his supporters are being made to look like radical fanatics. The more major media tries to show this as being authentic news instead of the Constitutional violations being committed by the vast majority of Our elected officials, the moree they reveal the fact that the government controls what is aired to the public. Those without internet access do not have a clue top what's truly happening in this country.
113 - Guy Fawks
Clavos,
What am I advocating? How about a reality check for starters. Obviously you are unable to relate to your fellow Americans. Why should it matter to you if someone elses son or daughter is being sent home from a foreign land, in a body bag? Why should it matter to you that families are having their life savings foreclosed upon? Why should it matter to you that Americas workforce is seeing their jobs being outsourced to foreign countries? Why should it matter to you that the list can go on and on? Really, because after all, you just want to hear what is being advocated. Right? With all that has been said, all that has been done, and all that is seen up to this point, it's quite hard to believe that anything more than a troll would find the gall to ask, "What are you advocating?" For you Clavos, I don't know what more I can tell you other than you should consider yourself fortunate that you are not experiencing what many other Americans are now dealing with on a daily basis. Hopefully you never have too!
The winds of change are blowing across this nation and if you listen very carefully, you'll understand that the true American spirit rides upon that wind. Crisis has a very unique way of uniting. "It is not the people who should fear the government, but rather the government that should fear its people."
One more thing Clavos, indeed, I am passionate about being an American. Do you have a problem with that?
114 - Clavos
Fawks,
From which part of my question did you infer that I'm "unable to relate to my fellow Americans?"
Your "reality check" is still nothing more than a complaint, not an advocacy.
You say you're "passionate about being an American," (which property, unless you're a naturalized citizen, is only an accident of birth), yet your moniker celebrates a British hero.
Your litany solves nothing, nor does it offer even a single suggestion leading to a solution. My question remains unanswered:
What are you advocating?
115 - Cindy D
Clav,
You may want to retract that statement that Guy Fawkes was a British hero. It makes for a better argument on your part.
116 - Clavos
True, Cindy. Historical figure is a better description; I was using "hero" in the generic sense, but it doesn't fit Mr. Fawkes in any sense.
117 - William D Berg
I agree that the Ron Paul folks should stop being disruptive. They need to follow John McCain's lead and "cross the aisle" so to speak and work with the establishment Republicans. Just like how when Republicans and Democrats work together they make things so much better.
Standing your ground has no place in politics and you Paultards should give it up.
118 - Bill Moore
When you start to see a revolution take place here it will be like the revolutions of the 60s...riots in the streets, protests left and right. People are fed up.
But guess what? Barack Obama is the one who is getting all of the people fired up. It is his ideals that will be the guiding light of those who want to turn the country upside down. It will be like the 60s and socialism will be the underbelly of the revolt. They will have their impact.
Yet just when you have a whole lot of people fired up and their passion is based on free markets they get surpressed by Republicans! Why? Just because they're not all that inspired by killing people in the middle east?
Now you'll have another generation of Americans inspired by the socialist agenda.
You all had your chance. The freedom message will take a very marxist(environmentalist) turn and free markets will yet again be surpressed.
119 - Dave Nalle
Bill, the problem is that the agenda of the Paulistas is kind of hard to tell from the socialist agenda in a lot of areas.
And I think the best word to describe the historic Guy Fawkes would be'terrorist'.
Dave
120 - Tom deSabla
Ok, the mess is still here, I see.
Nalle is still squirming and spitting like a snake, and many others are making sympathetic clucking sounds at him, so...
Please Standby,
121 - Al Barger
DAVE NALLE IS A LYING NEOCON NAZI BASTARD SHILL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT RON PAUL IS THE ONLY HOPE THAT THE COUNTRY CAN SURVIVE. HE'LL PUT THE COUNTRY BACK ON A GOLD STANDARD, SHUT DOWN THE JEW BANKERS RUNNING THE COUNTRY AND RON PAUL WILL KEEP THE NEGROES AND HOMOSEXUALS DOWN.
THANK GOD FOR A TRUE CHRISTIAN IDENTITY CANDIDATE LIKE RON PAUL.
122 - Clavos
It would appear that Brother Barger has escaped again...
123 - Guy Fawks
Clavos,
Perhaps I should retract the statement I made about you being unable to relate to fellow Americans. Most of your kind enjoy the status of dual citizenship. Because this year is an election year, you're suddenly more patriotic and American than those of us who have lived here our entire lives. After you've cast your vote to ensure McCain becomes masterpuppet of the empire, it's back to the homeland for you and your (fellow americans).
I find it quite humorous that Ms. D, Mr. Nalle, and yourself have so quickly swung into action to run a background check on one Mr. Fawks. I guess the suspicion I stated earlier about you being a troll, has certain validity. Your trio has just compromised itself. Perhaps the three of you should consider using the moniker of "Larry", "Mo"' and "Curly".
Once again, you've asked me what I am advocating. Tell me, what is it that you think I am advocating? You act, I'm going to react. You cause, I'm going to effect. In the simplest way of putting it, it's really all up to you and your kind.
Clavos (Mo), you should really spare yourself all the trouble and just go back to the homeland now. You're not cut out for Americanism. I know, I know, they told you that it would be easy to pass yourself off as one. They are very misleading. Hell, I would suppose they even misled you into believing that Ben-Gurion is your national hero. Wonder just what it was that he was advocating back then, that has now turned into the genocide of people everywhere (or "goy" if you prefer using the term).
124 - Ben
You're highly-negative psycho candidate has lost. Get over it!
125 - Clavos
Careful, guy. Each of your comments is more incoherent than the preceding one; soon, even you won't understand them, which would be a pity, since you left the rest of us a long time ago.
"Most of your kind enjoy the status of dual citizenship."
And what "kind" would that be, Guy?
"I find it quite humorous that Ms. D, Mr. Nalle, and yourself have so quickly swung into action to run a background check on one Mr. Fawks."
You do realize we were talking about the man who plotted to blow up the British Parliament in 1605, don't you?
On second thought, maybe you don't.
So, when are you going to answer my question?
What ARE you advocating? Are you ashamed of it? Is that why you don't answer?
Maybe you don't even know what you should be advocating.