hugo Posted February 6, 2008 Posted February 6, 2008 It is not my interpretation of it just like this comment you posted was not your opinion but another man's opinion your using. The point he clarly misses though is if the specific points given were the only intended uses of federal government and power, then the general part would have been worthless right? If this was the case, they could have simply said that the following were the on;y things allowed, but that is not what they did, they allowed the general term to stay. The only way to change it is to go back to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Federalist Paper #41 was not just any man's opinion. The paper was written during the ratifying process by the man labeled the Father of our Constitution. As long as we accept judicial activism and turn our heads to the gross abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses we will continue to allow Washington to gain more power.. There is a proper way for the constitution to change with the times: amendments. We have two Supreme Court judges, Scalia and Thomas, who give hope that there is a possibility at some time of returning to the founder's intent of a limited federal government. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted February 6, 2008 Posted February 6, 2008 The only way to change it is to go back to the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Federalist Paper #41 was not just any man's opinion. The paper was written during the ratifying process by the man labeled the Father of our Constitution. As long as we accept judicial activism and turn our heads to the gross abuse of the commerce and general welfare clauses we will continue to allow Washington to gain more power.. There is a proper way for the constitution to change with the times: amendments. We have two Supreme Court judges, Scalia and Thomas, who give hope that there is a possibility at some time of returning to the founder's intent of a limited federal government. And yet Federalist paper #41 still includes the general comment "general welfare of the United States" and your not admitting that the reason for that general statement was to allow for change as seen fit by future generations. As I already pointed out, the rest of the paper is very clear so if these reasons were the only ones to be allowed, there was no reason for the general comment to be included. You cannot have a federal government that is limited, this is the lesson we learn or we don't. Sooner or later, a all powerful government will slowly take steps to completely take over everything. It will happen with tiny baby steps to be sure, but it will happen. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ~ William Pitt the Younger The very concept of having a federal government is what causes the corruption we have today, the only way to stop it is to completely remove it's power to control the States. In my opinion of course. Quote
hugo Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 And yet Federalist paper #41 still includes the general comment "general welfare of the United States" and your not admitting that the reason for that general statement was to allow for change as seen fit by future generations. You really need to read #41 again. It specifically states that the general welfare duties are limited to those proscribed in ARTICLE I SECTION 8. The Amendment process is what allows for change. Let me repaet these quotes: I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794) "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817 From FP41: But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 You really need to read #41 again. It specifically states that the general welfare duties are limited to those proscribed in ARTICLE I SECTION 8. The Amendment process is what allows for change. No it does not. If the intent was to draft a very specific set of reasons, that was simple to do, all they had to do is list the duties (as they did) and leave off the general statement. Even a 10 year old could figure that out, but by including the general statement "first" that means the following was examples, not limitations. If they wanted the general statement as fluff or leadup but still wanted to define the following examples as the "only" use of the federal government, they could also have added something like "limited to the following" just before the list, but they did not do that. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. Again, these were not stupid people, if they wanted to draft a list of very specific and limited jobs of government, they could have done that. The general statement is not only a part of the paper but is also the "first" part and that means it has a greater weight to the writer than the "examples" that follow. But, let's assume for a moment that they just messed up and never intended the general statement to be included or given weight in the first place. What is the difference? My point is based on how things naturally flow, not what a few words say on a piece of paper. By having "any" excuses for an all powerful government like these several jobs detail, you have created a monster that is destined to take over. It is impossible to control something like that. Even if your right and you make them admit your right, they will just vote in an amendment to give them the power that way, they have the control, not the piece of paper. Once you give men the power to be all powerful, they will be corrupted. Let me repost my quotes: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ~ William Pitt the Younger The idea that an all powerful government can be controlled is simply wrong because that government is run by men, and men are the problem, not the government. Quote
hugo Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Yes, once you give people power they will abuse it. That is why there were many safeguards in the constitution against federal power. Most specifically Article I Section 8 which documented the only powers the federal government woulkd possess. I suggest you study the ratification process of the constitution. The fact that the Constitution has been viciously assaulted by both the right and left is no reason for us lovers of liberty to not fight to get the original constitution back. Of course, that would mean swimming against the tide, not simply putting up mild resistance. From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative": Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments All we need id two or three more USSC judges on our side. Sadly, I doubt McCain appoints the judges we truly need. Justice Scalia on "The Living Constitution" BS There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
snafu Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 ... All we need id two or three more USSC judges on our side. Sadly, I doubt McCain appoints the judges we truly need. "When I was running for president in 1999 I promised that, in appointing judges, I would not only insist on persons who were faithful to the Constitution, but persons who had a record that demonstrated that fidelity," the letter said. McCain tries to make his case with conservatives - CNN.com Let's just hope he's a man of his word. Quote "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's just insane!" Penn & Teller NEVER FORGOTTEN
timesjoke Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Yes, once you give people power they will abuse it. That is why there were many safeguards in the constitution against federal power. Most specifically Article I Section 8 which documented the only powers the federal government woulkd possess. I suggest you study the ratification process of the constitution. The fact that the Constitution has been viciously assaulted by both the right and left is no reason for us lovers of liberty to not fight to get the original constitution back. Of course, that would mean swimming against the tide, not simply putting up mild resistance. If there were so many safeguards, then why did it all get so blown out of wack? Because man created the safeguards, and men can change or ignore them. The original intentions of the founding fathers was to "not" have an all powerful government lording over the States. The States were all supposed to be independant so if we go back to the "true" constitution, we must remove 99% of everything the federal government now does. And I support that fully. We should not have welfare, we should not have any federal social program of any kind, not even social security. All we need id two or three more USSC judges on our side. Sadly, I doubt McCain appoints the judges we truly need. And what good will changing justices do? Do you think all this mess happened in just a couple years? It will change nothing, sure, you can have a few changes in the short term, but then a few other justices retire or die and new justices come in and it all swings back the other way again. You cannot have an all powerful government and expect it to be controled, the very notion is rediclious. It sounds good on paper just like socialism sounds great on papar, but it is the reality of man that screws it up. It is the men involved in the system that makes it impossible to control due to the corruption that "will" insert itself into that system. Think of it another way, there is not one federal politician that will allow the power to go back to the states now, they are too important in their minds to be reduced to nothing so they will simply draft a new amandment to cover what you try to take away with changing justices. It is like how they vote themselves pay increases and better benefits. Quote
wez Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Posted by TJ We should not have welfare, we should not have any federal social program of any kind, not even social security. Well, appears we agree on this point TJ... They actually get in the way of smaller groups of individuals establishing their towns and communities as they fit... Like I said many times, they are their own worst enemy and will lose it by their own hand in time. Quote
hugo Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 McCain tries to make his case with conservatives - CNN.com Let's just hope he's a man of his word. McCain showed his disrespect for the Constitution with McCain/Feingold the greatest attack on the 1st Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It will take a crisis to return this nation to the ideas of our founders. Funding the medical bills of the ageing baby boom generation may be that crisis. The socialists stole the liberal mantra in the US. Classical liberals had to adopt the term libertarian. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
snafu Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 McCain showed his disrespect for the Constitution with McCain/Feingold the greatest attack on the 1st Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It will take a crisis to return this nation to the ideas of our founders. Funding the medical bills of the ageing baby boom generation may be that crisis. The socialists stole the liberal mantra in the US. Classical liberals had to adopt the term libertarian. First I want to say you got me wishing that Ron Paul had a better shot. For the first time my wife and I agree on a political stance. But I degrees.. I'm reading the McCain/Fengold act and I don't see the problem. I think the soft money donations should be withheld. And this was a bipartisan reform that was passed by the senate 60-40. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 The Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also called the McCain-Feingold bill after its chief sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold. Final passage in the Senate came after supporters mustered the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to shut off debate. The bill passed the Senate, 60-40 on March 20, 2002, and was signed into law by President Bush on March 27, 2002. In signing the law, Bush expressed concerns about the constitutionality of parts of the legislation but concluded, "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns … Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." The bill was the first significant overhaul of federal campaign finance laws since the post-Watergate scandal era. The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove the money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also more than doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,300 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications," a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election. This provision of McCain-Feingold, sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Vermont Independent James Jeffords, as introduced applied only to for-profit corporations, but was extended to incorporated, non-profit issue organizations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund or the National Rifle Association, as part of the "Wellstone Amendment," sponsored by Senator Paul Wellstone. The law was challenged as unconstitutional by groups and individuals including the California State Democratic Party, the National Rifle Association, and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), the Senate Majority Whip. After moving through lower courts, in September 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, McConnell v. FEC. On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold; the vote on the court was 5 to 4. Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion; they were joined by David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, and opposed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. Since then campaign finance limitations continue to be regulated in the Courts. In an interesting case, in 2005 in Washington State, Thurston County Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that media articles and segments were considered in-kind contributions under state law. The heart of the matter focused on the I-912 campaign to repeal a fuel tax, and specifically two broadcasters for Seattle conservative talker KVI. Judge Wickham's ruling was eventually overturned on appeal in April of 2007, with the Washington Supreme Court holding that on-air commentary was not covered by the State's campaign finance laws. (No New Gas Tax v. San Juan County). In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions on campaign finance. In Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission, it held that certain advertisements might be constitutionally entitled to an exception from the 'electioneering communications' provisions of McCain-Feingold limiting broadcast ads that merely mention a federal candidate within 60 days of an election. On remand, a lower court then held that certain ads aired by Wisconsin Right to Life in fact merited such an exception. The Federal Election Commission appealed that decision, and in June 2007, the Supreme Court held in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court declined to overturn the electioneering communications limits in their entirety, but established a broad exemption for any ad that could have a reasonable interpretation as an ad about legislative issues. Indicating the new Court majority's temperament, Roberts' opinion declares flatly, "Enough is enough." Also in 2006, the Supreme Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, Randall v. Sorrell, the Court also struck down Vermont's contribution limits as unconstitutionally low, the first time that the Court had ever struck down a contribution limit. I would see limitations as a good thing. Quote "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's just insane!" Penn & Teller NEVER FORGOTTEN
wez Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 First I want to say you got me wishing that Ron Paul had a better shot. if he's not on the ballot, I'm writing in his name regardless.. Quote
hugo Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 First I want to say you got me wishing that Ron Paul had a better shot. For the first time my wife and I agree on a political stance. But I degrees.. I'm reading the McCain/Fengold act and I don't see the problem. I think the soft money donations should be withheld. And this was a bipartisan reform that was passed by the senate 60-40. I would see limitations as a good thing. Notice that the USSC vote on the constitutionality was 5-4 and that the three conservative judges Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas were in the minority. Gotta go now. Will go in depth on McCain/Feingold later. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
ImWithStupid Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I think that Congressonal "earmarks" and Presidential "signing statements" should be made unconstitutionl. All the earmarks are just a sh t pot of money going to crap that has nothing to do with the bills intent. As for the Presidential signing statements, G.W. showed how much that can be abused. Quote
ImWithStupid Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Ron Paul is living a delusion. I understand he has some good ideas on going back to what the Federal government was supposed to be like. The thing is, it took us a little over 200 years to change to where we are, and it is going to take a long time to change back with anything short of another revolution and even that would probably lead to chaos. Ron Paul as President would ensure that nothing, not even good things, will get accomplished the entire time he is in office, barring a veto overide. Quote
wez Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Ron Paul is living a delusion. I understand he has some good ideas on going back to what the Federal government was supposed to be like. The thing is, it took us a little over 200 years to change to where we are, and it is going to take a long time to change back with anything short of another revolution and even that would probably lead to chaos. Ron Paul as President would ensure that nothing, not even good things, will get accomplished the entire time he is in office, barring a veto overide. It started with revolution, and unfortunetly, will most likely end the same way. Once people have "power", they don't relinquish it willfully.. History has repeated this lesson many times over.. Quote
ImWithStupid Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 It started with revolution, and unfortunetly, will most likely end the same way. Once people have "power", they don't relinquish it willfully.. History has repeated this lesson many times over.. George Washington was the exception. He wanted to model himself after his hero, the great Roman Emperor Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. Cincinnatus was a Roman statesman who gained fame for his selfless devotion to the republic in a time of crisis and for giving up the reins of power when the crisis was over. Although he was a historical figure, his career has been much embellished by legend. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus@LeadershipNow.com Theodore Roosevelt somewhat did this too by refusing to run for office after serving just under two terms. He later didn't like the way the Presidency was going and tried to run again under the Bull Moose Party. Quote
hugo Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Back to debating. From Scalia's dissenting opinion on McCain?Feingold This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads" that incumbents find so offensive. To be sure, the legislation is evenhanded: It similarly prohibits criticism of the candidates who oppose Members of Congress in their reelection bids. But as everyone knows, this is an area in which evenhandedness is not fairness. If all electioneering were evenhandedly prohibited, incumbents would have an enormous advantage. Likewise, if incumbents and challengers are limited to the same quantity of electioneering, incumbents are favored. In other words, any restriction upon a type of campaign speech that is equally available to challengers and incumbents tends to favor incumbents. Beyond that, however, the present legislation targets for prohibition certain categories of campaign speech that are particularly harmful to incumbents. Is it accidental, do you think, that incumbents raise about three times as much "hard money"--the sort of funding generally not restricted by this legislation--as do their challengers? See FEC, 1999-2000 Financial Activity of All Senate Rush was right when he labeled it the Incumbant protection Act. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
ImWithStupid Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 Thank you Hugo. For both staying on topic and ignoring the background noise. Quote
snafu Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 The BCRA was a mixed bag for those who wanted to remove the money from politics. It eliminated all soft money donations to the national party committees, but it also more than doubled the contribution limit of hard money, from $1,000 to $2,300 per election cycle, with a built-in increase for inflation. In addition, the bill aimed to curtail ads by non-party organizations by banning the use of corporate or union money to pay for "electioneering communications," a term defined as broadcast advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election... I'm looking at the soft money issue of it but where dose it say advertising smears pertains to only incumbents? Quote "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's just insane!" Penn & Teller NEVER FORGOTTEN
timesjoke Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 There are more people that believe Bush planned 9/11 than want Ron Paul for President, that should be a clue. Quote
hugo Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 There are more people that believe Bush planned 9/11 than want Ron Paul for President, that should be a clue. True intelligence is rarer than idiocy. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
hugo Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 I'm looking at the soft money issue of it but where dose it say advertising smears pertains to only incumbents? The incumbents have a natural advantage. The more they limit campaign spending the better their chances of reelection are. More importantly, it is an infringement on political speech,. The primary purpose of the 1st was to protect political speech. Thankfully, parts of McCain/Feingold have already been ruled unconstitutional Supreme Court allows issue ads in federal elections - CNN.com, McCain is no friend of the Constitution. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 True intelligence is rarer than idiocy. That all depends on where you look. I can find truly intelligence any time I want, but I know where to look. RP is a great kind of guy to offer a counterbalance to the wackos on the other side, a perfect counterbalance. He would be a terrible President however because of his radical stands. He would turn everyone away from him, conservative and liberal. Most of the Country tends to be sowhere in the middle of politics, not on the outside fringe like he is. Sure, I like a few of his ideas, but most of them such as being an isolationist and never using military might for any reason outside of American borders, are just too far out into space to even consider him as a viable Presidential canidate. Quote
snafu Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 I think it was IWS that said he was delusional. That best describes Ron. He has good views but some are impossible to obtain. Quote "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That's just insane!" Penn & Teller NEVER FORGOTTEN
hugo Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 That all depends on where you look. I can find truly intelligence any time I want, but I know where to look. RP is a great kind of guy to offer a counterbalance to the wackos on the other side, a perfect counterbalance. He would be a terrible President however because of his radical stands. He would turn everyone away from him, conservative and liberal. Most of the Country tends to be sowhere in the middle of politics, not on the outside fringe like he is. Sure, I like a few of his ideas, but most of them such as being an isolationist and never using military might for any reason outside of American borders, are just too far out into space to even consider him as a viable Presidential canidate. Paul's views are really a combination of Robert Taft's and Barry Goldwater's views. Both once leaders of the Republican Party when it stood for limited government and America first. I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Barry Goldwater Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.