Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On The Way Out, Ron

[Minimalist]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...as-failed/

Ron Paul Departs With ‘Our Constitution Has Failed’

[cratehorus]

hitler said his generals failed him

[Cato]

Ron Paul Departs With ‘Our Constitution Has Failed’

You didn't actually listen to his speech, did you?

Chris Good, the author of the 700 word summary of a 52 minute speech that you quoted, seems to have listened only to the first, middle and last two minutes before opining.

What did Ron Paul say in his speech that wasn't true? I'll pick on your quote of 'Our Constitution has failed'. You throw this out as if there were no basis for the opinion. When was the last time the U.S. 'declared' war? Per the Constitution, which branch of government has the authority to declare war? You know where I'm going. To say that the Constitution hasn't failed you must now buy into the myriad of euphamisms created that have allowed tens of thousands of our citizens to die in battle without a declaration of war. Ignoring several 'small' conflicts since WWII we have Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Constitution hadn't failed, we would have declared war or not have been engaged. Just one example.

[Minimalist]

The constitution that a shitbag like Paul is talking about was written in 1789.

All the changes since then are outside of his world view.


By the way, that was the headline of the story. I've heard all I ever care to from Paul...and his fucking stupid-ass son.

[Cato]

The constitution that a shitbag like Paul is talking about was written in 1789.

All the changes since then are outside of his world view.


By the way, that was the headline of the story. I've heard all I ever care to from Paul...and his fucking stupid-ass son.

The original draft began in '87. All but NC and RI ratified in '88. To say it was written in '89 is a little off the mark. There were no changes to the Constitution while waiting for NC and RI. The simple fact is that the Constitution was not written in 1789.

I get that you hate Ron Paul, but you have fuck all to say about the content of his speech even though it was the basis for your thread (well, twice removed after your admission of only reading the headline).

[Tiberius]

The US is losing its most consistent and outspoken congressman. That should be a sad thing whether you like him or not.

[TaraJo]

The US is losing its most consistent and outspoken congressman. That should be a sad thing whether you like him or not.

I'll say he's the most consistent Republican, largely because the rest of the party has gone batshit insane. I'm still holding out hope that the party reforms around his ideals, largely because he's much more reasonable and willing to cooperate with politicians of other parties. I still can't say I agree with him, but at least he seems more like someone I could respect and even pass meaningful legislation with.

[Silas Stingy]

The US is losing its most consistent and outspoken congressman. That should be a sad thing whether you like him or not.

That's a curious opinion. Do you also admire the BNP because they are "outspoken"?

You opinion accepts that the political system of the US is a good one for all, and that people who would not have benefited from Ron Paul having more influence in government than he actually had, and it wasn't very much, should regret his leaving because he was "outspoken".

Ron Paul is a wealthy libertarian and a racist who accepted campaign contributions from American Nazis. Not much in common with me. I won't miss him, and neither will the working class and poor of America.

[Tiberius]

He is outspoken in a good way. A republican who doesn't simply pander to his party.

He is not a racist. I thought we'd cleared up this issue before.

[Autumnlicious]

Both Pauls pander to the GOP when it suits them. Which seems to have happened often enough.

I wonder how the gradient lies for RP aligning with the GOP.