After seeing so many call Ron Paul supporters “Paultards,” and Ron Paul a crazy lunatic, I am left wondering: what do so many people have against the U.S. constitution?
Thus far, from all the research I’ve done, it would appear Ron Paul is guilty only of being an avid supporter and enforcer of the constitution. Considering that every member of government is sworn to uphold the constitution, I can’t figure out why people have such a big problem with the only candidate who seems to be keeping true to our founding fathers vision of this nation.
So what am I missing? What is so wrong with the U.S. Constitution that so many would call anyone who believes in it a lunatic or a retard?
I don’t know anything about Paul so I can’t give an opinion on him.
The costitution in its original was good but, Our leaders have destroyed it. All the ammendments ratified and not ratified have twisted the constitution into a weapon against the people of The US. That is what is wrong with the constitution in my opinion. Its all the newer ammendments that have people upset, not the original parts. About 50 60 years ago they started with choking out the old and putting new ones in. Not all the ammendments are lousy, just most of them.
go look up the constitution and its ammendments, it all online. See what you think. While you are at it, look up your state’s constitution. It might be an interesting education to read both.
the us constitution does not allow for a socialist tryanny so it has to be a “living breathing document” that could be interpreted to be das capital deux…
Thank you for enlightening me. You can imagine my heart was shattered when I realized this candidate wasn’t an old, brittle piece of paper from the 1700’s.
But seriously, I hope you have something productive to add to the discussion.
Yeah, it’s definitely taken a beating over time. I’m wondering if anybody wants to share a viewpoint as to why they think even the original constitution should be ignored. It seems commonplace now that we blatantly ignore it, and break our own national laws set forth within the constitution. Does anybody on the forums consider this a good thing?
You’ve implied that hating Ron Paul is the same as hating the US Constitution. Other that the fact that “hate” is an emotionally loaded term that makes the question itself “nonproductive,” the question is framed as a false choice. I don’t have to choose between the apple [US Constitution] and what I would rather call the lemon [bitter, ranting old dude Ron Paul]. In case you aren’t getting the reference, its the apples and oranges fallacy.
I really don’t see the point of answering a prompt that presents a false choice and is framed with loaded language.
Speaks a lot about the frame of reference of the Ron Paul supporters when critically analyzed though, doesn’t it?
I do agree that both said ‘apple’ and said ‘lemon’ are brittle, and not much for making lucid and rational statements.
This thread may not have been intended to be a joke, but I find it funny anyways. Thank you for the apparently unintended levity.
I like the implication in this thread that both Ron Paul and the US Constitution are paper thin, don’t taste good, are rather old and stale, very brittle, and pretty much DOA.
I’ve searched time and again, and still can’t find in my post where I use the word hate…not that I think it’s relevant to the discussion.
I would say it speaks a lot about the frame of reference of non-Paul supporters, as you still refuse to address the question. I don’t see any critical analysis in your post.
Can you think of any bills or changes to our national law passed in the past decade that directly violates or contradicts the constitution?
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. If you disagree on this point, I’d like to see some evidence of anything he’s said or voted on that would contradict it. Again, would you like to participate in the discussion without battling straw men? A good starting point might be why you think it is a good path for our nation to stray from the constitution…unless you’re arguing that it hasn’t.
What question, do you mean the fallacious question?
Yes. Yes I can.
Was, he’s in the GOP now.
If you are talking about a form of Constitutional interpretation, he’s a strict interpreter. So what?
His interpretation of the constitution is not the problem you are pretending it is, as I’ve already sated. Your question is clearly fallacious. Ron Paul and his supporters are not very reasonable people.
Do you want to talk about Ron Paul, or the US Constitution?
If your grand thesis is that my dislike of Ron Paul, and his supporters… means I “hate” the US Constitution, then I will leave you to enjoyng this all so clever trap you think you have sprung upon me.
I gotta agree that your Ron Paul commerical OP is pretty lame, Dookydood. The American constitution is certainly one of the best out there in my view (which, btw, has NOTHING to do with my view of Ron Paul, lol). It’s supposed to reign supreme as the fundamental contract between the American people and their government and, thus far, even with the truly serious challenges to it in the last decade, has managed to survive. I think that’s because it balances established powers and protects citizens’ fundamental rights. Without the Bill of Rights, it would be a pretty scary document, more like China’s, lol.
It’s essentially a liberal document in the true sense of the word. However, the attitudes toward it depend upon the basic split of the voting population between those who tend to conform to authority (conservatives) and those who tend to challenge authority (progressives). When one particular philosophy over-dominates – meaning the pendulum swings too far from relative moderation and cooperation – there tends to be more challenges to the contract between people and government. I think the U.S. is still in the process of maturing as far as to whether its governmental structure will prevail in the long run. There are pressures upon it that the founders couldn’t possibly have envisioned, like a global economy and our diminishing natural resources and environmental problems, global terrorism (meaning that not tied to a particular ‘state’), overpopulation, technology/communication. And, significantly, the rise of a dominant middle class and the reduction of the income gap between 1950-1980 as a result of the New Deal and the determined drive of ultra conservatives to dismantle that resulting, of course, in the contemporary reduction of the middle class --although this tends to hide behind the illusion of greater prosperity that requires two working adults to achieve the same buying power–and the return of the mega-wealthy elite (considered those whose wealth is greater than the annual output of 20,000 average working Americans) and an income gap that exceeds that between the workers and the robber barons during the so-called ‘Gilded Age’.
We’ll see how it goes on the planet over the next decades. I tend to worry most about the make-up of the courts, particularly at the federal level. They have the least checks in the checks-and-balances system and when there come to be too many appointed judges at an extreme end of the political spectrum, I think the Constitution in its entirety is threatened. It becomes necessary for the voters to pay attention…and this is the branch of government to which they pay the least.
I actually am glad we are conversing about this subject, as it serves as a perfect example of why our nation is in the trouble that it is. It seems the dialogue in political matters is well below where it should be if we are, as a nation, to make responsible decisions that benefit our country.
I continuously see only ad hominem attacks in the political arena. Usually, the conversation goes as far as, “That’s a stupid idea.” Or, as clearly demonstrated above, “Ron Paul and his supporters are not very reasonable people.” And that’s where it ends, certainly not only in this case, but in many cases. It could be simply that I’m looking for a deeper and more thorough discussion of the issues in the wrong place. After all, internet forums aren’t notorious for attracting the most knowledgeable or brightest folks.
In addition, we have handy labels like Republican and Democrat, which do quite well in averting discussion from ideas to simply stamping a stereotype on an entire group of people. Maybe I’m old fashioned, or just unique, but I think discussion should be all about specific ideas, and yet so many crave first to be able to apply preconceptions by naming a party. What a depressing state of affairs.
But, despite your above statement, I consider myself a very reasonable person. If I were presented evidence of why a different interpretation of the constitution better served our nation, I would certainly have to adapt my thinking to take such evidence into consideration. Thomas Jefferson states that our country’s motto should be, “Commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” and our constitution commands in Article 1, Section 10:
And yet, here we are in the middle of a pre-emptive war that has cost trillions of dollars, killed thousands of U.S. troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and according to the CIA report, hasn’t made America any safer. And of course, this isn’t the first time the U.S. has gone to war without a declaration of war that in the end wasn’t advantageous to almost any American.
So I’m hoping that we, and anybody else on the forums, can open a discussion as to why Americans are convinced such a strict interpretation is detrimental. I am very open minded, and would love some evidence in the form of historical facts and statistics that show why the Patriot Act, pre-emptive wars, suspension of habeas corpus, and big government, are more beneficial to the people of our nation than a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The floor is all yours.
Haha, thanks. And I agree, it’s a genius document that I fear is becoming neglected habitually.
While I agree the founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned the challenges we face today, it seems they at least had the foresight to make the constitution amendable to allow room to grow, which has obviously been utilized time and again. The problem that seems to be occurring is changes are being made without the amendment process, and often times the constitution is just being blatantly ignored (see my previous post). If Americans are willing to let a government ignore the contract we have to keep our freedom due to ignorance or just a lack of caring, it would seem a serious problem.
On a side note, Jefferson’s handling of the Louisianna Purchase was unconstitutional [also, pretty much turning the USA into an empire overnight…] as he exceeded his purchasing authority. As was his handling of what became Marbury v Madison, which, in fact, empowered the SCOTUS. I’m pretty sure he was involved with some treaty shennanigans as well, with the French - causing us to take thier side against the British and soon after that, the Spanish [related to the Luisianna Purchase].
It’s a nice quote though, that’s for sure.
He also racked up a shitload of national debt, and like to bang his slaves. Ah, the good ol’ days!
Don’t get me wrong, I only know these things because I’m quite fond of the guy. And oh yeah, you do know his founding of the anti-Federalist Party with Madison, right? We call them the Democratic Party nowadays…
sorta has to do with the idea of politicians, political parties, Presidents, and the Constitution. Not sure why you think that is nonsense, or bothered to make an empty and shallow assertion like that… but like, whatever makes you happy I guess.
I’ve never met the man. Some of his ideas strike me as sound (eg- yeah, fifty+ years is probably long enough to spend in S Korea, getting out of Iraq is a great notion, etc). Some some verge on loony, such as his denial of evolution. The problem is not Paul nor Jefferson- it’s your “logic” for lack of a suitable word. Jefferson and his love of black tail is neither here nor there re the subject of adhering to the Constitution as supreme law of the land.
I guess that depends on how you interpret “All men were created equal.” I think that is relevant to “our founding ideals.” My point was, since you seem a bit confused, is that a strict interpretation to uphold “the vision of our Founder’s” might not be as simple, or as appealing as it sounds on the surface.
Anything else I need to explain to you, or would rather flash some more of your “logic” for lack of a suitable word?
The U.S. Constitution is an inanimate piece of paper. It’s as good and as powerful as a napkin at the resteraunt after a baby scribbles on it with crayons.
The constitution in practice, and “constitutional” patterns are created by the human mind. Because of this, the actual persons in the USA, and not the constitution, will be what makes all governance good or bad. Without good people, there would be no good laws made, nor would there be any good principals applied. Ron Paul only has two hands, and he can’t pull the head out of the ass of 30 million people. The issues & true cause of good and bad nations runs deeper than human imagination can comprehend.
d0rkyd00d is not the representative of Ron Paul supporters. Any candidate will have supporters with good reasoning skills, and others with bad reasoning skills. I’m sure there are plenty of Obama or McCain supporters who use fallacies. I’ll even bet there are some Huckabee supporters that can construct a good argument on some issue.
Ron Paul raises some issues that need to be raised. He’s one of the very few who have openly spoken out against the government abuses of power caused by it’s failed war on drugs, for example.
That does not mean that Ron Paul is right on every issue. No candidate is. But he’s right about some issues. And He should not be judged by the poor logic of one lone supporter.
It is also a fallacy to say Ron Paul is somehow bad because someone who supports him use fallacies.
I disagree, his constitutional fetish is quite representative of Ron Paul supporters. But, again, that is not an issue for me.
As I stated clearly, I find both the supporters and Ron Paul to be unreasonable people. To restate, I think they are mostly hot heads and the Ron Paul has some damn wacky ideas that far outweigh his good points.
I’d love for you to explain how we’ve “failed” in the “war on drugs.”
No, it’s a sign of unreasonableness, and poor reasoning - which is my primary criticism. It’s quite apt, imho. I feel the same way about most "L"ibertarians and the LP.
