Why do so many just love Ron Paul?

No, that truthers are, by and large, whack jobs.

Pay attention.

 

so very true. yeah this guy knows 9/11 was an inside job and that Paul is a threat to the establishment.He pretty much has shown his true colors on what kind of work he gets paid for if you catch my drift?.

 

Paul's foreign policy is ridiculous.

 

so the commission had an agenda? expand on your conspiracy theory.

 

I don't see a conspiracy. I see a group of terrorists hijacking aircrraft and killing Americans.

 

so the 9/11 commission had no agenda other then uncover the events of 9/11?

 

his whole policy? he voted to go to afghanistan.. you didnt want bin laden caught?

 

whats really hysterical is he doesnt even know what a conspiracy is. He constantly keeps losing his credibility on this thread.All you got to have for it to be a conspiracy is two or more people involved,even if you accept the version of the governments,its a conspiracy since the official version is 19 men were involved.

whats REALLY hysterical though is that thats all their version is,is a conspiracy THEORY with no evidence or facts to back it up.The official version is the funniest conspiracy theory by leaps and bounds. He knows it. thats why he refuses to watch that video and address it because he knows that video tears apart the official conspiracy theory.

 

i love his definition of conspiracy theory......anyone who believes the american government was behined 9/11....

 

Nation building is ridicilous. Let the sand-(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s handle their own affairs, it should not be a burden put on the white man.

 

noooo his position is

1) america should not focus on america
2) the troops should NOT be within our boarders
3) we NEED to be in 130 countries
4) we NEED multiple wars on muslims.

that is in americas best interest.....

 

... you find that a compelling argument?

 

Obviously I do.

 

I'll let 9/11 know. Now that we know what you consider a compelling argument, you guys should be able to resolve all your differences.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...backup-strategy-while-seeking-the-nomination/

"Rep. Ron Paul says he’s in it to win it and the campaign boasts that it has a comprehensive strategy in place to ensure that happens.

But behind the scenes Campaign Manager Jesse Benton admits to ABC News that the team is plotting a back up strategy in case the congressman doesn’t pull in enough delegates to become the nominee.

If the campaign comes up short at the convention, Benton says the plan is to use all the delegates awarded to Paul as a bargaining chip to force the Republican Party to stick to its limited government platform."

THIS is an area and a way that Paul could do some good at long last.

Do any Paul fanatics note that it involves, "MAKING A DEAL?"

 

I get what you are saying. Every major decision over the past century could be carried out in a Constitutional manner. However, if you want to boil all policies down to what the Constitution explicitly says, a lot of positive legislative progression would have never occurred. Therefore, it is okay to go beyond the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and there is a provision that allows us to do so. It is called the Necessary and Proper Clause.

See, many of the framers of the Constitution or founding fathers knew that it would be hard to have a system of law-making confined to just the listed provisions of the document. George Washington, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton represent such people. That is why they favored a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, yet there is a difference between a liberal interpretation, and ignorance.

 

I seriously doubt even the federalists of that day, ever intended the "liberal interpretation" to lead to federal laws and powers that trump the constitution into a meaningless document. And that is what we have.

 

Many of them believed in adherence to the Constitution. However, they were not like the anti-Federalists, who eventually evolved into the Jeffersonian Democrats, who were strict constitutionalists. Ron Paul professes an ideology that is close to Jefferson, and I would argue the pre-President days of Jefferson. Jefferson the President was more or less, a Federalist.

 

One cannot argue the fact that the federalist version of our founders wouldn't even like what the federal government has become. If anything, Adams would be handing Jefferson a purse of gold in heaven saying, "(*)(*)(*)(*). You were right". Time and time again I have watched people source federal law from the federalist papers, papers that were never intended to be law. I see federalist gatherings on C-Span, I see no John Birch Society conventions on C-Span. Our federal government is out of control. It would take strict constitutionalists in every seat in Washington to shrink it 10% towards what it should be. Ridiculous.

 

The Federalist Papers were arguments for the Constitution. They were published in a New York newspaper to convince states to ratify the document.

 

If you were to insight resurrection, you could be jailed federally for violation of Federalist No. 10. No one can be jailed for violation of anti-federalist papers. That is my point. The constitution was the great compromise between all involved, and why all signed on. Since its inception, the federalists have slowly but surely taken over our nation, to the point most don't even know there was such a thing as anti-federalists. You're a logical person. Take a step back and really see the picture as a whole.

 

Look, I understand the problems with Federalism, even during its inception. The Whiskey Rebellion, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were egregious actions taken by government. However, to say that you can be jailed federally for violation of Federalist No. 10 is ludicrous. I can see that philosophical connection, but the cold, hard truth was that it was the Alien and Sedition Acts, not Fed 10 that allowed the federal government to jail people.

 

I was actually warned by a moderator on here once that I could be because I was directly calling for revolution today. A moderator who works for the government. Exact words, violation of Federalist 10.

 

You are basing your opinion on this matter on the claims of a moderator who supposedly works for the government? No offense, but unless he/she had substantive proof to back up those comments, they are disingenuous, and you are naive for believing them.

 

I have read about plenty of far more idiotic things that the US federal government has done so it threatening people with something like that does not seem that far fetched to me.