Ron Paul Interviewed by Wolf Blitzer
tags:
Stumble ThisRon Paul interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on the Nov 08 Situation Room
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
ron paul,election 08,president,republican,situation room,cnn,Doctor No Ron Paul Interviewed by Wolf Blitzer
Comments  playlists with this video Must See by ImaMonster
• Save America.. by firedoggod
• Aussie Pep Rally by choggie
who voted for this video dag
- Grimm
- siftbot
x30who has this post bookmarked Constitutional_Patriot
- firedoggod
- ImaMonster
- Grimm
Ron Paul Interviewed By Wolf Blitzer Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments          | ||||||||||||||
Doesn't he believe that congress has any authority?
"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
But I suspect it is misused as justification for leaders who have no qualms (pardon the pun) about trampling on the constitution.
*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 really hope he makes it. He would save this country from the downward spiral it's in.
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.
Ron Paul-
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.
""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
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
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...
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.