What does that have to do with government? Government has nothing to do with people being irresponsible. That's what people do, it's what they've always done. People are imperfect, they eff up from time to time, always. There's no reason to think that having a small government is going to have any effect on that.
guess you know it was not them who screwed it up. Blame your big government corporatist boys that you love so much.
except that i'm not clueless, so maybe you're projecting you are the guy that goes in for nwo fairy tales, right?
I agree completely. But the government has already done that and gone past it. The constitution put in place all the standards necessary for a fair and functional society. The problem is now the government bends and twists the constitution to fit its needs. The people are far more competent than the government gives them credit for. And even if they aren't, at least give us competent people a right to opt out of all this government help. You know... the government help thats so awesome they have to legally force you on it? sheesh....
I think to try and pretend that Ron Paul and the forefathers' ideals are different, when both tried to seriously stick to the constitution, is really a wasted argument on your part. The best argument in this situation is to simply say the laws 200 years ago simply don't fit with today's society. Of course I would disagree, that is why the constitution HAS an amendment process. If the government wants to alter things they could at least do it "legally" so to speak. The constitution WAS designed to be able to properly adapt to keep up. It does not need to be twisted, raped, and murdered into whatever progressives wish for it to say.
Another completely stupid and pointless argument. Nobody, not even Obama, would try to say that about Ron Paul I would be willing to bet money on it.
You can't deny Ron Paul's ideals as following the constitution. It really isn't a valid argument. Like I said before, the only argument worth trying to make is are these ideas still good for the times. (sorry, the answer we were looking for was YES they are.)
ron paul said, "the constitution says that only gold and silver can be legal tender" the constitution doesn't tell congress they can't declare what legal tender is, it does say states can't declare what legal tender is sure i can, he's a liar, you can't trust what he says
The Constitution is NOT a list of what the federal government cannot do. It is NOT a list of prohibitions on the federal government. The Constitution IS a list of what the federal government is authorized to do, with ALL ELSE being DENIED to it by default. The absence of specific constitutional authorization for anything means that the federal government is denied/prohibited by default. Amendments 9 & 10 are probably the clearest and most simple explanation of that point: AMENDMENT IX RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. AMENDMENT X POWERS RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. About the money issue, take the following from the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt. So, from that we have: 1. The federal government can coin money. 2. States cannot coin money. 3. States have the authority of determining what can be used as a tender in payment of debts by default, because the federal government does not have that specific constitutional authorization. 4. States are then prohibited by the Constitution from making any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts. (Which also additionally proves that #3 is correct.) In order for the Federal Reserve to be legal, as per the highest law of our land, it MUST be specifically authorized by the Constitution. It is not, therefore it is forbidden by default. By the way, in case you weren't aware - the Federal Reserve is our nation's THIRD incarnation of a central bank.
you don't seem to have read article 1, section 9 - limits on congress which enumerates what congress is prohibited from doing george washington, alexander hamilton, james madison, the supreme court and congress and many more, disagree with you
It's still in its infancy. But Americans (and others) are giving up more of their sovereignty all the time in favor of international governance.
