Ron Paul is not distancing himself from his white supremacist, KKK, and Neo-Nazi supporters quick enough.
During the past month or so the conservative blogsphere and media has finally discovered the fact that GOP Presidential hopeful and Texas GOP Congressman Ron Paul has some very strange supporters. During the past months on Blogcritics, I have been exposing various and sundry rather tawdry aspects of the whole anti-immigration movement with profiles on John Tanton and Tom Tancredo. …
Article comments
— go to most recent comments476 - STM
Sorry Jacob, but articles are called articles and amendments are called amendments to differentiate one from the other.
When you were referring to article 9, you meant the 9th amendment. When you said article V, you meant the 5th amendment. Come on, fess up ...
You just didn't know, did you? ... and now you're trying to wriggle out of it like a terrified squirrel.
477 - Jacob
STM -- I didn't think you would read it, so here is a critical part:
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
478 - Jacob
Perhaps you should let the Congress know that you object to their nomenclature.
479 - Dr Dreadful
From the Constitution section of the National Archives website:
"The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. [my emphasis] These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the 'Bill of Rights.'
"Amendment I..."
Granted, the preamble to the BoR does refer to them as 'articles', but they are specifically named 'amendments' to avoid confusion. The Articles of the original Constitution are by and large much longer and broader in scope than the Amendments, which address specific issues left untouched by the Articles.
Why your post refers to the amendments as articles remains to be explained...
480 - Jacob
Here's more:
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
481 - Dr Dreadful
Stan, what's a dead-set goose? There's an Aussie expression I don't think I've heard before.
482 - Jacob
The issue STM raises is a red herring. He should have known what I was referring to here:
#359 Jacob
STM: You need to study Article V -- "No person shall be... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
"Forget applying Article IX when talking about Miranda rights."
It should have been obvious to any half-awake person what I was referring to.
483 - STM
Doc:
It's a fool ...
Mate, you don't have to have a long neck to be a goose.
484 - Dr Dreadful
In the words of HAL-9000:
"This conversation can serve no further useful purpose. Goodbye, Dave."
(No, not you, Dave. Go back to your number crunching.)
485 - STM
The only problem is, Jacob, I was simply arguing that many of Americans' common law rights might be protected under the 9th Amendment (which really, isn't that bad an argument), and you chose to launch into this vociferous argument shouting down any of the knowledge I might have of US law (granted, it's limited compared to that of others), and turning it into a jousting contest.
Fact is, though, I did know this: amendments are always called amendments, and the articles are always called articles - just to differentiate them.
No one with any knowledge would mix that up. That's why I think you've been furiosly trolling the internet for your spurious arguments and you actually don't have a clue as what you're talking about.
You just didn't know the difference, and that's pretty sad after you chose to shout down my perfectly legitimate argument (even if you thought it flawed, you needn't have resorted to personal insult).
Sorry old boy, but you are just wrong - plain and simple.
Stick to your conspiracy theories and how Ron Paul will save America (does it really need saving though?), and next time you want to tear shreds off someone, make sure you actually know what you are talking about.
486 - Jacob
This issue was whether Miranda was decided on Article V or Article IX. The Supreme Court cites Article V over 60 times. Article IX is not cited once.
It's that simple and it should have ended there.
To anyone who can read, it should have been clear from the outset what part of the Constitution I was referring to.
All the diversions STM created have been red herrings.
487 - Dr Dreadful
Doc:
It's a fool ...
Mate, you don't have to have a long neck to be a goose.
And re my #491:
Stan, isn't the definition of a fool someone who keeps repeating his mistakes expecting a different result?
Maybe you and me are dead-set geese to have kept on trying to argue with this idiot.
488 - STM
And my argument was simply that they might already be protected under article - oops, sorry, make that AMENDMENT 9 - if the amendment is to be taken at face value.
A good theory, too, I thought, especially since I mentioned numerous times that despite the decision of the court that a Miranda warning construes to protect a person's 5th AMENDMENT rights to silence at TRIAL, it is still simply a decision of the court and is not actually mentioned anywhere in the constitution as applying to interrogation by officers of the law after arrest but prior to trial.
But you wouldn't read that would you, and you just had to go on, and on, and on, didn't you?
And you made yourself look like a tit because you didn't know what you were talking about at any stage.
It's tragic, really.
Ron Paul's campaign is doomed if you are in any way representative of the intellectual quality of his supporters.
489 - STM
Doc, probably, so I won't bother any more.
But it is FUN. Especially now. (But still, Jacob was the one who thought it good sport to engage in an endless, ongoing argument about something he knows nothing about. Lol. He doesn't even understand the difference between a right to silence under interrogation and the right not to incriminate yourself at trial as enumerated in the 5th article - sorry, amendment :)
Sorry, I'll, umm, amend that: it was fun. I'm outta here.
Dead-set means absolute, BTW.
490 - Maggie
"It's good that you see the crisis but the enormity of it is such that it's going to take more than a candidate whistling the tune of turning back to the constitution."
-- First don't condescend to us, Les. Ron Paul supporters, of all Americans, see keenly what a disastrous state we're in.
"As I said earlier the ones in charge do not give a fuck about the constitution. It is also clear that they do not respect anybody's rights or even the concept of democracy. They will not allow the changes that Paul is advocating. He's just a wimp. He will not lead the fight necessary to clear the path so that we may enjoy our rights."
-- Everything you just said, at least as it relates to Paul, is self-contradictory. Ron Paul is very aware of the forces that oppose him. He is threatening their power like no other I have ever seen. I know they won't allow these changes, and Paul is aware of it, believe me. He recently said, when asked if he weren't scared for his life. "Every time I start up the car I tremble." How can you call this man a wimp? It takes enormous courage to do what he is doing.
He is motivating us to fight for our freedom. With his brave words and actions, he is giving us the courage we need to fight this fight. Essentially, I agree with you, in that it will take a lot more than a change in presidency to bring about real change, because these SOBs are not just going to hand over their power that easily. Don't worry, Les, the fight has just begun. I don't think you realize the power that is behind the Ron Paul Revolution. It's just begun and the momentum is awesome.
"Whatever party we build must not only run candidates but must build power to thwart any attempt at denying the will of the majority."
-- Now that's a scary statement. Would you apply that logic to the Southern states when the local governments were denying blacks the right to vote?
That's why a Constitutional republic is so much better than a social democracy.
491 - STM
And Jacob, I hope I haven't hurt your feelings too much by dumping (on) you.
It was all fun while it lasted, but now it's time for us to go our separate ways.
Goodbye ...
492 - Les Slater
Maggie,
“-- Now that's a scary statement. Would you apply that logic to the Southern states when the local governments were denying blacks the right to vote?”
I certainly would. In fact this IS the logic that played out in the Civil Rights Movement.
When I wrote, “Whatever party we build must not only run candidates but must build power to thwart any attempt at denying the will of the majority.” I realized that this party might not have a majority when it comes under attack. It still would have not only have the right, but an obligation, to resist an attack. I anticipate the attacks will by extra-legal means.
The Southern states not only had Jim Crow laws but had the Klan and other such paramilitary organizations. The resistance to these laws did indeed require the building of a force to thwart these forces. This included armed self defense. It was this resistance, this battle, in full view of the eyes of the world, that defeated Jim Crow, not the government or the Constitution.
It was the cracker Johnson that signed the legislation. It was prettied up with legal rationalization but in reality it was the organized FORCE of the Civil Rights Movement that won the battle. Even Brown was decided in the midst of this struggle. In all this it is the struggle that counts.
The 13th Amendment itself did not come about through a peaceful deliberation of the Constitution. It came about by revolutionary force. That scared a lot of people and many still resent and until this day fly the Confederate flag.
Les
493 - Christopher Rose
I've had to delete the comment with the entire US Constitution in, it was simply too big.
Please feel free to post a properly formatted link to it if you wish.
494 - Silver Surfer
Aw c'mon, Rosey ... fair go. What's the problem. It was only the entire Constitution of the United States.
Jacob needed that post to make me see the error of my ways.
495 - troll
Les - (the civil rights revolution was put down by federal intervention far short of achieving anything close to civil and righteous treatment)
folks in the movement had Jim Crow and color to organize against...what do you think workers will organize around that will spur similar forceful action - ?
496 - Dave Nalle
I imagine they'll revolt because the $250K severance packages from GM are too large.
Dave
497 - Mike In WNY
Your article, while a masterful attempt at smearing an honorable man, contains absolutely no facts to back up the assertions you make.
498 - Jacob
Mike In WNY -- Facts don’t matter to those who denigrate Ron Paul. They speak from ignorance.
For example:
#413 Silver Surfer
“Now it's time for me to fess up. Shit, I don't even fu.king know who Ron Paul is:) I'd never heard of him before I saw this thread. I still don't know anything about him except what SJ's written on here... President Paul? Nah, can't see it... I just saw a lot of lunatics blithering on and thought I'd join in.”
499 - Dr Dreadful
Re # 493:
Jacob: told you so.
500 - Dr Dreadful
Chris, my research for a recent paper led me to the discovery that the entirety of St Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica is available online. If I copy and paste it into a comment, will you still send me a Christmas card?
501 - Christopher Rose
Doc, yes, if you do, I will send you a Christmas card - with a small but lethal tactical nuke attached!
502 - Maggie
Jacob and Mike In WNY.. L O L
This crappy, lying and propagandistic article was written by a Republican, while it uses arguments like those of Chip Berlet, who is a leftist 'researcher' who studies 'right-wing' groups. We are asked to follow Berlet's moral example and demands. I find this both deeply disturbing and illuminating at the same time.
Why would a Republican quote a radical leftist? I mean it, folks, think about this one.
Here is another amazing thing in the article. "In 2004 Paul made a short statement from the floor of the US House of Representatives about his refusal to vote for the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act" The link that was provided here, rather than taking us to Paul's speech, points to an (entitlement) blog that disagreed with Dr. Paul's decision. This is not only bad journalism, it's downright propagandistic.
Daniel Sieradski is another one with an opinion that Ron Paul and we, the reader, must adhere to. If you follow that link it brings you to a page that tells you right off the bat that "Ron Paul has a Jewish problem. Last month, the dark horse Republican candidate was barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Candidate’s Forum due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel."
Say, what? It's this illogic and catering to special interest agenda that has brought this country to it's knees. (Along with the influx of communism and fascism in the last century.)
Rather than report on the fact that Ron Paul wants to withdraw all funding of foreign nations AND withdraw our troops from the 130 countries it is in...we are told that we MUST SUPPORT ISRAEL. This makes Daniel Sieradski a racist by definition And back to the Civil Rights legislation, yes this legislation IS RACIST also by definition.
rac·ism
"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
This is hands-down the worst article I have ever read.
Check out the article -- there's more of this crap. Indeed, it makes up the entire thing. My 'favorite' is the one that takes you to some skinheads bullying a black guy at the Philadelphia Rally.
I was at that rally, folks. It was huge, and reported to be 5,000 people there. So only 4,995 were decent patriots -- people who wanted deep change in our corrupt and socialistic government. Now look at the title of this article!
503 - STM
Doc: "Chris, my research for a recent paper led me to the discovery that the entirety of St Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica is available online. If I copy and paste it into a comment, will you still send me a Christmas card?"
Chris, I've just finished War and Peace, how about letting me post that?
Failing that, how about the Gettysburg address?
504 - Jacob
This is pasted as a comment on my Christmas card to Slippery Slurper.
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA.
“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.”
I hope he doesn’t bust his balls crying over it.
505 - Clavos
I wanna post the entire OED, so we can end the spelling and definition disputes once and for all.
506 - STM
Jacob.
Miranda rights protect a person's right not to incriminate themselves before they get to trial, because at trial it may result in their 5th AMENDMENT rights being threatened.
How thick are you mate, really??
It's the right not incriminate yourself at trial that is protected by the 5th AMENDMENT, not the right to protection whilst under interrogation outside the court and in police custody.
Miranda is a decision of the courts, and is not protected by the constitituion.
Could some lawyer weigh in here. Please ...
You completely missed the gist of my argument, which was: Miranda style rights that are construed to help protect a person's rights under the 5th AMENDMENT probably already existed prior to the Miranda decision and were protected by the 9th AMENDMENT if its woerding is to be taken at face value.
All you've done is regurgitate court rulings off the internet, withouit actually getting the whole idea of the argument. Which is a pretty damn simple thing to understand, really.
At least I was coming up with something original, and quite possibly valid.
You didn't even know the difference between amendments to the constitution and articles, because the first time you'd ever seen them was on the internet. How can anyone take anything you say seriously?
I bet you can't even name the capitals of Mexico and Canada, without looking them up on the web.
507 - Jacob
"I bet you can't even name the capitals of Mexico and Canada, without looking them up on the web."
LOL
508 - Clavos
The capital of Mexico is Cancun.
The capital of Canada is Canberra (or someplace).
509 - Jacob
Clavos gets an A.
510 - Jacob
STM -- Your argument is not with me, it's with the Justices on the Warren Court. It is they who ruled Miranda was based on Article V of the Bill of Rights.
Why don't you write the Court and advise them of the mistake. They should be aware that Miranda is based on Article IX of the Bill of Rights.
I'm sure that once they are informed, they would make the change.
Then write the Congress and let them know of your frustration with their nomenclature which refers to Articles in the Bill of Rights.
511 - STM
Fu.k, you really are thick mate aren't you??
One more time: Miranda is NOT protected by the constitution. It has only been construed to help protect the 5th amendment rights of a defendent at TRIAL (like it says in the constitution).
I don't doubt the courts didn't even consider that the 9th AMENDMENT might have protected those rights.
But it's aperfectly valid argument that Miranda-style rights existed prior to the 1966 ruling as they existed under common law and therefore might have been protected if you were to take that 9th article (sorry, AMENDMENT) at face value.
Someone, please, whack this man over the head with a piece of 4x2 and knock some sense into him.
BTW Clav, where does America find these folks???
PS I am heading to Canada next year, please tell me more about Canberra. Will it be an exciting place? If you can find a copy of the Canadian constitution, please post it here in its entirety so we can all have a look.
Also, isn't Cancun really big and dangerous and polluted, and full of crime?
512 - Clavos
"Someone, please, whack this man over the head with a piece of 4x2 and knock some sense into him."
Ah, mate, not only do you guys drive on the wrong side of the road, you call a 2X4 a 4X2???
"BTW Clav, where does America find these folks???"
Sad to say, they're homegrown, Stan. We don't have 'em in Mexico.
Must be something in the gringo water...
"Also, isn't Cancun really big and dangerous and polluted, and full of crime?"
Of course, mate. That's why it's the capital!!!
BTW, since you're upside down because of being on the bottom side of the world, is everyone's blood pooled in their heads down there?
513 - Jacob
"BTW, since you're upside down because of being on the bottom side of the world, is everyone's blood pooled in their heads down there?"
That explains it.
514 - STM
Lol. I've got a corrected map of the world by Mercator that has Australia, NZ, Sth Africa, Argentina and Chile at the top.
This is because no one really knows whether north is really up and south really down. It was invented by people in the northern hemisphere and just reflects their imperialist views (we want to be on top).
According to this map, Mexico becomes America's hat, and Canada becomes America's undies.
I can't believe you call a piece of 4x2 a piece of 2x4. Sh.t, one crazy mixed up place.
515 - Jacob
"I can't believe you call a piece of 4x2 a piece of 2x4. Sh.t, one crazy mixed up place."
Yeah. It even applies to the Supreme Court.
516 - Jacob
"This is because no one really knows whether north is really up and south really down."
Is that your reason for not knowing up from down?
517 - Clavos
You know, mate, that most of the gringo nutjobs are illegal immigrants, don't you?
That's what we do with all our nutjobs down south, send 'em up to gringolandia and let the Seppos deal with 'em.
518 - STM
Jacob: "Is that your reason for not knowing up from down?"
What's you reason for thinking that the 18th century came after the bill of rights?
Or that articles and amendments to the constitution are two completely different things.
Or that Spain has been incessantly invading the middle-east for then past 100 years. Of the european colonial powers, they are the ones that haven't.
Geez Jacob, you're a goose.
519 - STM
Clav: "That's what we do with all our nutjobs down south, send 'em up to gringolandia and let the Seppos deal with 'em."
Mate, those Seppos don't even have decent titfers.
Not like Mexico.
I mean, seriously, what can you expect?
520 - STM
Mate, please, go on the internet and tell me about Spain's constant invasions of the middle east over the past 100 years.
Love to hear about 'em.
Still, because you say it, it's obviously right, right??
521 - Christopher Rose
Stan, just thought I'd let you know that I have a degree in the little known art of rectal kangaroo insertion! You stuff War and Peace in a comment and I'll stuff...
;-)
522 - Christopher Rose
And Clavos, I'll do the same for you with a yacht! Anything over 30 feet will do, you can choose.
523 - Christopher Rose
Actually, the capital of Mexico is M and that of Canada is C. :-p
524 - Silver Surfer
Rosey: "You stuff War and Peace in a comment and I'll stuff..."
Ok then, how about John Howard's recent campaign speech, it its entirety. Pretty please, Chris ...
Actually, you could market the bloody thing as a cure for insomnia. Droning away and assaulting the earholes.
525 - Les Slater
Dave,
“I imagine they'll revolt because the $250K severance packages from GM are too large.”
No, those won’t revolt, …not yet. Very few are offered packages in that range. And even those that do will have to accept a much lower standard of living. Jobs for ex auto workers generally don’t pay beyond $10 an hour in Michigan. How long do you think $250K will last, never mind the much smaller amount, if any, that most canned workers will get?
The much bigger problem is that they voted for this contract in the first place. I walked the picket lines with GM workers when they were on their short strike. I found most of them quite demoralized.
Les