Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I know he's a strict constitutionalist - but I don't think I could go as far as to vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal.

Doesn't he believe that congress has any authority?

It doesn't surprise me. I strongly suspect that Ron Paul is a racist.

Ooohh, easy fellas. All he said is that there's no constitutional basis for taking taxpayer's money to give her a medal.. The money should come from donations, of which there would be tons.

Donations - that's utterly absurd. Ron Paul and his drones would make a prison of your constitution.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

^ great quote.

But I suspect it is misused as justification for leaders who have no qualms (pardon the pun) about trampling on the constitution.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence..."

*snip*

"They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment..."

*snip*

"...laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind..."

I don't know, dag. It seems pretty explicit to me. I'd be interested in learning your rationale for this interpretation I hadn't considered.

I doubt Ron Paul is against amendments in general. But that's a seperate issue isn't it? If the congress wants the power to use tax money to give civilians medals then they need to vote on it first. It seems Paul just wants to obey the law. If the law is subverted or ignored then you should all have a problem with it. Not just go, "oh well... my leaders always do whats best, who needs old laws anyways". The world was full of war and violence back in the day the constitution was drafted. I really don't think planes and bombs have changed how delicate foreign policy needs to be.

Ron Paul: The Second Life President of the United States

Everyone is always saying he won't get the votes because his name isn't known. But with all that money, he can buy all the airtime he needs to get his name out there. Also, all this media coverage - even if it's "Who is Ron Paul" is still free advertising.

I really hope he makes it. He would save this country from the downward spiral it's in.

Makes perfect sense qualm, Rosa Parks (symbol) Paul (another symbol) "Racist" card (label)- hate this sort of bullshit-think for the stink that it is....MG Paul is not one of the scenarios, and like those before him who have tried, he will be used and abused, but not be president-the spiral is always headed towards the solenoidal center, we're simply nearer that center as we go the way of all contrived systems....some break down faster than others.

I find it interesting that CNNs Blitzer just tries to make Ron Paul look bad by quickly listing those bills that Ron Paul voted against. I guess the boss of CNN doesn't like Dr. Paul.

Racist? He calls her a hero. He just doesn't see the constitution specifying the means for congress to spend taxpayer money on a medal for someone. He says that he would have preferred to purchase one with donations, and then offered to donate.

If anything, it shows his consistent stance and how he votes in congress on this stance.

There are some issues that I disagree with him on. However, I am sick of the status quo with typical Democrats and Republicans (I am a registered Republican). I want change. He is my candidate.

dag wrote:

I know he's a strict constitutionalist - but I don't think I could go as far as to vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way.

It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money.

Qualm - the constituion clearly defines the process for amendments. How, exactly, could a strict constitutionalist "make a prison" of the rules that specify how to change and evolve that document?

If anything, I believe a candidate that supports to the constitution (as they take an oath to do) would at least agree to the groundrules (and therefore the various checks and balances) by which all must (should) play.

My comment about making a prison of your constitution was appended to this quotation:

""Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson

Whats wrong with having a set of rules as a guideline that you should stick by except in extraordinary cases? Not just because you want to give a congressional gold medal all willy-nilly and spend my damn money on it. Sorry, but I've got more important things to spend my money on like nonsense wars

Join the Ron Paul R EVOL ution!

Qualm - yeah. Duly noted. But my question was directed at your comment "appended" to the quotation. Care to respond? Or not...

I don't think Ron Paul simply "supports" the constitution, or is just innocently concerned with upholding the constitution; I think he's made a weapon of it. I think he's fundamentally dishonest on this point. He's a right-wing libertarian proponent of Austrian School economics. Towards this end I suspect he has a hidden agenda. I also have strong and reasonable suspicions that he's a racist. Now when Ron Paul votes against awarding a medal to Rosa Parks and claims that it would be unconstitutional to do so I just have to smile.

Qualm unless you are just making stuff up do you have any real reason to think he's a racist? Anything we can look at also? I think he's called her steadfast, of high ideals, courageous and a hero. All he's done is voted down a medal, which is just a silly symbol anyway. Whether she has it or not doesn't change the respect people have for her. Including by the sound of it... Ron Paul.

manfromx wrote:

All he's done is voted down a medal, which is just a silly symbol anyway. Whether she has it or not doesn't change the respect people have for her. Including by the sound of it... Ron Paul.

manfromx asks: "Qualm unless you are just making stuff up do you have any real reason to think he's a racist?"

I do. I've already written about it on another of the now countless Ron Paul threads so I'm going to copy/paste to here:

My earlier posts:

****

Ron Paul: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."



I don't believe his pathetic "blame the employee" excuse. (Where he says these statements aren't his but the words of an employee of the Ron Paul Survival Report.)

(In the following post I explain why I don't believe his explanation.)

Grimm, I don't merely choose not to believe him on a whim. His denial is not believable. Think about it for a minute. The best case scenario is that Ron Paul is telling the truth that he didn't write those words. But THEN it's not even remotely plausible that an employee would write such blatantly racist views as quoted above, which were published in the Ron Paul Survival Report, unless it was clearly understood that such views spoke to the people who were Ron Paul's audience at the time. (Rather damning, I'm afraid.)

And then if this was not the case then such an action by this phantom employee would clearly be the work of a mercenary sort of enemy or rogue infiltrator who was setting out to damage Ron Paul. But Ron Paul doesn't make this claim. Ron Paul says very little. Occam's Razor, man.

The last rather bizarre possibility is that this was just an incident that's equivalent to some lout grabbing the microphone at the radio station. How silly is that? This would collapse the truth that Ron Paul's staunchest support has in fact always come from the extreme right-wing militia, skinhead and neo-Nazi crowd...to the realm of mere coincidence.

No, now that he's a "serious" candidate the time is for backpedalling and denials. Or silence, better yet.

There won't be any Kramer meltdowns, unfortunately. (Certainly not during an ELECTION CAMPAIGN.)

****

from here: http://politics.videosift.com/video/Freedom-is-Popular

Qualm - you stated earlier that Paul's vote not to award Rosa Parks the congressional medal of honor was racially motivated, but it would seem to me that Grimm has effectively refuted that conclusion - based on a verifiable, publicly recorded fact - that is, the identical action carried out in the face of a similar motion to honor a couple of white folk.

As for the few statements "quoted" above - I have seen the same tripe paraded across the internet as the "proof" that Dr. Paul is a racist and no more. Nothing. Nada.

I would think that a hardcore racist as you (and others) make him out to be would have a bit more baggage on display like say, political speeches (of which I am sure there are many for one with such a long political career), interviews (lots of them), a voting record, and a political paper trail supporting your thesis. I have found none - other than the same worn, disputed quotes on offer here. And yes, I've looked (google is my (and your) friend). Quite the contrary, you can find writings of his that strike a decidedly anti-racist note.

You are entitled to your opinion but that would appear to be all it is...

Except that's not what I said. What I said was: "Now when Ron Paul votes against awarding a medal to Rosa Parks and claims that it would be unconstitutional to do so I just have to smile."

In other words viewed within the context of Ron Paul's racist comments his Rosa Parks vote adds further shading.

I think you're just trying rationalize away Ron Paul's racism. Those comments are explicitly racist. He's offered a higly dubious explanation for these. They aren't "tired"; they've never been properly scrutinized.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'election 08, president, republican, situation room, cnn, Doctor No' to 'ron paul, election 08, president, republican, situation room, cnn, Doctor No' - edited by Grimm