The case against Dr. Paul

Oliver said:
I know, the Constitution is out-dated - that's my
stance as well. But at least I thought that Constitution
and declaration of independence were pretty American
Values.

Turns out that this isn't the case - despite all the
Patriotic BS-talking all the time.

Doesn't matter to me - my stance is: :popcorn2
Click to expand...

This is a bill sponsored by Paul. Do you see any conflict with the American constitution? You have stated that you are more informed than most Americans about constitutional issues. Impress us:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1094

ETA: Even us Canadians can potentially be impressed by your knowledge of American jurisprudence.
 
Drudgewire said:
Yes, the 94% of those just voting on his side of the fence is little. :D
Click to expand...

What a dishonest, non-sequitur, hyperbolic comment.

When you prove to me that that your anti-Oliver cult makes up 94% of the voting population, I'll have to reconsider.
 
Oliver said:
I know, the Constitution is out-dated - that's my
stance as well. But at least I thought that Constitution and declaration of independence were pretty American Values.
Click to expand...

OK, so you support RP because according to you he defends the Constitution, and at the same time you think it's antiquated...
 
Pardalis said:
OK, so you support RP because according to you he defends the Constitution, and at the same time you think it's antiquated...
Click to expand...

Well, since Ron Paul believes the Constitution ought to be amended as if it were a breathing, living document, what's the contradiction?
 
Pardalis said:
What do you want Oliver? What do you want people to say?
Click to expand...


I would love to see that people understand that the
elections are a circus, aka:entertainment, rather than
a free choice out of various Ideas.

You can't miss that third parties are locked away
for some reason you have to answer to yourself.

You also can't miss that delegates are voting for
Americans rather than Americans themselves.

And you can't miss the fact that some people are
being called as being "Front-Runners" while others
are called "Third-party losers" all the time, no matter
what success they have.

Living under a parliamentary system, you should
be able to differ those things on the fly - but for
some reason, you fail to point out critical differences
in the democratic process.

I don't really understand why you fail to do so.
And by that I mean that the parliamentary system
isn't perfect either - but it's far more democratic
from what I see in the US.

So why don't you see that all of this is a farce
and Paul was a loser from the very beginning, even
a loooooooong time before someone dug up the
News-letters?

Swimming with the mainstream?
 
Last edited:
Richard Masters said:
Well, since Ron Paul believes the Constitution ought to be amended as if it were a breathing, living document, what's the contradiction?
Click to expand...

So he's the "champion" of the Constitution, yet the Constitution can be whatever you want it to be.

Oliver said:
I would love to see that the elections are a circus,
aka:entertainment, rather than a free choice out of
various Ideas.
Click to expand...

No, I meant here, on this forum. What do you want exactly?

Richard Masters said:
Data is a synonym for information.
Click to expand...

Factual information.
 
Richard Masters said:
What a dishonest, non-sequitur, hyperbolic comment.

When you prove to me that that your anti-Oliver cult makes up 94% of the voting population, I'll have to reconsider.
Click to expand...
Thankfully I couldn't possibly care less about making you reconsider anything... since like Ron Paul you're a non-issue.

And I'm not anti-Oliver by any means. I love the First Amendment and the right to free speech... even if it's really, really stupid speech.
 
Pardalis said:
So he's the "champion" of the Constitution, yet the Constitution can be whatever you want it to be.

No, I meant here, on this forum. What do you want exactly?

Factual information.
Click to expand...


Well, it would be a start to have a reasonable debate
in which every argument isn't automatically turned
into "Anti-Americanism" or "Ron-Paul-Nutism".

That isn't possible in here since many grew up in
the believe that the US is "Nr.One" on all issues.
But it turns out that this isn't true - and those who
grew up this way have to learn this as well, which
might take some time and homework concerning
other western countries.

You ignored my parliamentary point - was I right
about "swimming with the Mainstream"?
 
Richard Masters said:
If properly amended, basically.
Click to expand...

So it really doesn't matter if he's the "champion" of the constitution then.

Primary sources are factual information.
Click to expand...

Your link is not a primary source, it is a partisan source which gives no numbers, no names, nothing of value that would give us some idea of how many people support him outside the US.
 
Oliver said:
Well, it would be a start to have a reasonable debate in which every argument isn't automatically turned into "Anti-Americanism" or "Ron-Paul-Nutism".
Click to expand...

There are dozens of threads about Ron Paul already, with many people giving their best opinions about him. Again, what's the point of this one?
 
Oliver said:
I would love to see that people understand that the
elections are a circus, aka:entertainment, rather than
a free choice out of various Ideas.

You can't miss that third parties are locked away
for some reason you have to answer to yourself.

You also can't miss that delegates are voting for
Americans rather than Americans themselves.

And you can't miss the fact that some people are
being called as being "Front-Runners" while others
are called "Third-party losers" all the time, no matter
what success they have.

Living under a parliamentary system, you should
be able to differ those things on the fly - but for
some reason, you fail to point out critical differences
in the democratic process.

I don't really understand why you fail to do so.
And by that I mean that the parliamentary system
isn't perfect either - but it's far more democratic
from what I see in the US.

So why don't you see that all of this is a farce
and Paul was a loser from the very beginning, even
a loooooooong time before someone dug up the
News-letters?

Swimming with the mainstream?
Click to expand...

I prefer parliamentary systems too. It changes nothing about the fact that Ron Paul is irrelevant and unpalatable to most American voters.

In a proportional representation parliamentary system, he might be able to lead a fringe party and get some seats. Even then, he would never be able to form a government.
 
Pardalis said:
So it really doesn't matter if he's the "champion" of the constitution then.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. He votes consistently in favor of the Constitution.

Your link is not a primary source, it is a partisan source which gives no numbers, no names, nothing of value that would give us some idea of how many people support him outside the US.
Click to expand...

It has direct references to the primary sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom