Ron Paul quotation - Is it a hoax?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're rarely going to agree with a candidate on everything so you've gotta take the good with the bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I once read somewhere the lesser of two evils is still evil something something voting jackbooted thuggery something something purple monkey dishwasher.

Can't quite remember from who or when, but I feel like it's been a long time since I've heard it around here. Seems to be an interesting inverse correlation between shrill cries of "the lesser of two evils is still evil something something voting jackbooted thuggery something something purple monkey dishwasher" and Ron Paul avatars on this forum, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn I hate it when I agree with Dvault.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hate being wrong too. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Before this thread gets too hijacked about voting for the lesser of two evils -- which I concede I started -- can we get back to laughing at Paul's O'Reilly-esque column about liberals stealing Christmas and this mythological Constitution that's apparently replete with God references?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, get back to your ridiculous attacks on the man for a minor semantic misstep. It makes you look ever so rational.

[tame_deuces]

I'm not American so I don't really have much thoughts about Ron Paul. So I'm not pro or anti in anyway, so don't read my comment that way.

I would however expect someone running or holding high office not to make public errors about the content of his nation's constitution, and that shouldn't really be an unreasonable expectation.

[Scary_Tiger]

Still waiting to hear the places where God is mentioned in the Constitution.

And yes, at the start I thought he might have meant the founders writings were replete with references to God, but then I reread the sentence and read "both" replete with references, referring to the Declaration and Constitution.

I think it's likely that's what he meant, but is likely distorting things to promote his views.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not American so I don't really have much thoughts about Ron Paul. So I'm not pro or anti in anyway, so don't read my comment that way.

I would however expect someone running or holding high office not to make public errors about the content of his nation's constitution, and that shouldn't really be an unreasonable expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Yes, the Constitution isn't replete with references to God (although as pointed out, it does mention him), but the writings of the Founders in general are. His point in that article is that the people who created this country were very much God-fearing types, and he's completely correct."

No, minor semantic mistakes when someone writes hundreds of thousands of words is not a big deal. It's going to happen. Expecting perfection out of a human is plain stupid. His point was correct, and that's what matters. It's also entirely possible that he meant the two documents combined, not separately, which would be correct.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not American so I don't really have much thoughts about Ron Paul. So I'm not pro or anti in anyway, so don't read my comment that way.

I would however expect someone running or holding high office not to make public errors about the content of his nation's constitution, and that shouldn't really be an unreasonable expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, however, where Ron makes minor slip-ups about irrelevant issues such as whether God is mentioned very much, other politicians ignore vast swathes of the constitution and enact appalling legislation like the Patriot act, Military commissions act, etc etc etc. A little perspective is required here.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Still waiting to hear the places where God is mentioned in the Constitution.

And yes, at the start I thought he might have meant the founders writings were replete with references to God, but then I reread the sentence and read "both" replete with references, referring to the Declaration and Constitution.

I think it's likely that's what he meant, but is likely distorting things to promote his views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it was hyperbole. It probably was not intentional though, just a flow of consciousness kind of thing. No big deal and anyone who makes a big deal out of it is being ridiculously nitty.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not American so I don't really have much thoughts about Ron Paul. So I'm not pro or anti in anyway, so don't read my comment that way.

I would however expect someone running or holding high office not to make public errors about the content of his nation's constitution, and that shouldn't really be an unreasonable expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, however, where Ron makes minor slip-ups about irrelevant issues such as whether God is mentioned very much, other politicians ignore vast swathes of the constitution and enact appalling legislation like the Patriot act, Military commissions act, etc etc etc. A little perspective is required here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most politicians don't profess to be constitutional experts. Most politicians are policy-oriented: they want to do things because they think they will have beneficial results. They will usually leave it to lawyers and judges to determine whether or not their plans are constitutional.

RP, on the other hand, has an entire ideology built around the notion that he understands the Constitution very well. Many of his interpretations run counter to the judgments of the Supreme Court. IOW, his claim is that he is the best authority on the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution. For him to make such a ridiculous mistake is pretty damning to that claim.

[Ron Burgundy]

His ideology is not that he's a constitutional expert. It's that the federal govt has passed far too many laws that violate the constitution. THere's a hell of a lot of people who agree with this, regardless of whether or not they think God is an integral part of the constitution.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not American so I don't really have much thoughts about Ron Paul. So I'm not pro or anti in anyway, so don't read my comment that way.

I would however expect someone running or holding high office not to make public errors about the content of his nation's constitution, and that shouldn't really be an unreasonable expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point, however, where Ron makes minor slip-ups about irrelevant issues such as whether God is mentioned very much, other politicians ignore vast swathes of the constitution and enact appalling legislation like the Patriot act, Military commissions act, etc etc etc. A little perspective is required here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most politicians don't profess to be constitutional experts. Most politicians are policy-oriented: they want to do things because they think they will have beneficial results. They will usually leave it to lawyers and judges to determine whether or not their plans are constitutional.

RP, on the other hand, has an entire ideology built around the notion that he understands the Constitution very well. Many of his interpretations run counter to the judgments of the Supreme Court. IOW, his claim is that he is the best authority on the meaning and interpretation of the Constitution. For him to make such a ridiculous mistake is pretty damning to that claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. Take any prolific writer, dig through all their work, and you are bound to find mistakes about things they are experts at. All this shows is that the man's human. I would be much more concerned about someone who never made any kind of mistake like this ever.

Of course, it's quite amusing that all of you haters can't get the man on his issues so you have to attack him for stupid crap like this. We just need to get Redbean in here now.

[Borodog]

bobman ruined my fun. Last time I checked "Our Lord" is an explicit reference to God.