Ron Paul quotation - Is it a hoax?

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
sound as retarded as Bill O'Reilly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please. Flavor Flav could destroy Bill ORLY in a debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul, Apparent Defender of the Constititon, Savior Unto Thee...anyone know if has he actually read the thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you $100 if you can prove there's a congressperson who's voting record has upheld the principles of the constitution more accurately than RP.

The God comment is stupid. But using that one article to discredit RP after all he has done to defend the constitution will only make you look stupider.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you $100 if you can prove there's a congressperson who's voting record has upheld the principles of the constitution more accurately than RP.

[/ QUOTE ]

James Madison was a congressman, and I'm sure he did much better than RP, since he wrote the thing. Ship it?

[Ron Burgundy]

Right now I mean, smartass.

[zasterguava]

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination"

wait, is he talking about the religious or the anti-religious?

"the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view."

Yeah, right. Because the 'elitist left' is far more powerful than the extremist elitist fundamentalist Christian lobby.

"ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation"

well yeah one can presume that the 'anti-religious' might want to do that, ldo. But lets not generalise here, eh, Paul? I mean that can get us into deep water like implying blacks are more genetically inclined towards crime.

Seriously, Ron Paul sounds disgusting here and in other instances. Its a shame because some of his material has moved me somewhat but its becoming increasingly overshadowed by his bs writers.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now I mean, smartass.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, ship the money liar.

[Borodog]

While I wouldn't have used the word "replete", both documents explicitly mention God, so you all sound pretty silly.

Also, LOL at taking a fraction of one sentence, written by a man who has written hundreds of thousands of words on the subject, and bunching your panties up over it.

If I slipped up my turns of phrase in my written prose as little as Dr. Paul does I would count myself as a world class wordsmith.

If you're going to get all hysterical, at least make fun of the way he speaks. He's a terrible orator; he gets so excited about the topic that he trips over his words, uses the wrong words, leaves out entire words, etc. Yet still the message resonates.

Too bad for the haters.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't have used the word "replete", both documents explicitly mention God, so you all sound pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Constitution cite please? The closest it gets is referring to "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

And it's not a trivial point. That whole article is a long rant where RP tries to shoehorn his idiosyncratic position into a strained (in this case, entirely unsupported) view of the Constitution. It's characteristic of his position on everything.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
While I wouldn't have used the word "replete", both documents explicitly mention God, so you all sound pretty silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol what? I've read my Constitution up and down and I can't find the word "God" anywhere. Help plz:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#articlei

But yeah, yeah, "everyone else" sounds pretty silly. Apparently giving Paul fellatio for months on end has you guys embracing his completely fictional reading of the Constitution. Good thing libertarians have avoided all those personality-cults those stupid statists always get involved in.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
But using that one article to discredit RP after all he has done to defend the constitution will only make you look stupider.

[/ QUOTE ]

A defender of a document he apparently hasn't taken the time to ever, you know, read.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you $100 if you can prove there's a congressperson who's voting record has upheld the principles of the constitution more accurately than RP.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to whose standards? It's a ridiculously subjective criteria; trying to deduce what constitutes "accurately upholding the principles of the Constitution" has essentially been a never ending debate since the document was signed.

Similarly, I'll give you a $100 if you can prove I don't like the color blue.

[Copernicus]

"Yeah, right. Because the 'elitist left' is far more powerful than the extremist elitist fundamentalist Christian lobby."


Uhhhh...yes, it is. Both poles have plenyt of money to throw at politicians, but between the ACLU and the liberal bent of most courts and their willingness to legislate from the bench, the extreme left is far more powerful than the extreme right.