Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary - Page 8

Scary_Tiger · #71 11-07-2007, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Arent people still debating whether the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to carry guns? If it was as simple as you say it is I have a hard time understanding why the debate on the 2nd amendment can continue to be such a big issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a big issue because politicians and lobbyists fight against it and try to stop people from owning guns.

[ QUOTE ]
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[/ QUOTE ]

As written, it is very clear.

AlexM · #72 11-07-2007, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution isn't some obfuscated document written in Latin. It's in plain English and very clear, especially when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arent people still debating whether the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to carry guns? If it was as simple as you say it is I have a hard time understanding why the debate on the 2nd amendment can continue to be such a big issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people aren't interested in honest applications of the Constitution, they want to twist it to allow what they want government to be doing.

[ QUOTE ]
And some people still argue that the income tax is unconstitutional even though the majority seem to agree that it is not,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there are people on "my side" who want to make silly twisting interpretations of the Constitution too.

[ QUOTE ]
If the Constitution is clear I think it is surprising that so many of the current issues arise from different interpretations of the Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what lawyers do, and that's why everyone hates them. Lawyering is all about finding loopholes and twisting/bending the law and distorting it completely from the obvious intent.

[ QUOTE ]
and also the fact that slavery, state approved racism and anti-gay laws were thoguht to be in line with the Constitution earlier, but not in later stages in the history of this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Constitutional Amendment was passed to ban slavery, otherwise it would still be legal. The federal government cannot discriminate based on race or sexual preference due to the 14th amendment, but nothing prohibits the states from doing so other than ridiculous interpretations and unconstitutional laws.

Scary_Tiger · #73 11-07-2007, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The federal government cannot discriminate based on race or sexual preference due to the 14th amendment, but nothing prohibits the states from doing so other than ridiculous interpretations and unconstitutional laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

The 14th Amendment:

[ QUOTE ]
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

gamblerNC1 · #74 11-07-2007, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Ron Paul is the ONLY Reb. who can beatng he would beat Hilary. I know this sounds crazy and I am not saying he would beat her just that he is the only one who has a chnace at it. I do not think anyone who supports the war in Iraq has a chance at the White House in 2008

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do you think Hillary has a chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your point, but compared to every one on Rep. side, except Paul, she is a dove. Hitler looks like a dove compared to these guys.

DING-DONG YO · #75 11-07-2007, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The federal government cannot discriminate based on race or sexual preference due to the 14th amendment

[/ QUOTE ]

there is nothing in the constitution to this effect. You're thinking the equal opportunity and employment act.

Borodog · #76 11-07-2007, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Ron Paul is the ONLY Reb. who can beatng he would beat Hilary. I know this sounds crazy and I am not saying he would beat her just that he is the only one who has a chnace at it. I do not think anyone who supports the war in Iraq has a chance at the White House in 2008

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do you think Hillary has a chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your point, but compared to every one on Rep. side, except Paul, she is a dove. Hitler looks like a dove compared to these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, Hillary's foreign policy is indistinguishable from GWB's.

natedogg · #77 11-07-2007, 05:17 PM

Don't get me wrong. I hope you're right. I'll be voting for Ron Paul without hesitation. I just have no faith in the usual set of morons/sheep doing the right thing in the long run. They will vote against "tax breaks for the rich" and they will vote for "saving social security" and "health care for all".

I hope I'm wrong and that you are right.

natedogg

Borodog · #78 11-07-2007, 05:26 PM

Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform.

iron81 · #79 11-07-2007, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform.

[/ QUOTE ]
The same way that the US Army saved the Vietnamese villages?

Borodog · #80 11-07-2007, 05:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, Paul is the only one with a plan to "save Social Security" that can possibly work, if he can get any media attention for that part of his platform.

[/ QUOTE ]
The same way that the US Army saved the Vietnamese villages?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that supposed to be funny? Because it came off as douchey.

And no. He's the only one that can let young people opt out of SS, not cut benefits, and not raise taxes. He'll do it by saving a trillion dollars a year not maintaining a globe-straddling military empire.