FoC's Ron Paul Shitheap: Patel Melts the Internets starting on pg. 24

[Gay Boy]

well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better.  so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.

actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.

I did?

I asked which early primary he will win. You replied He'll win them all.

[FlameOfCallandor]

well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better.  so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.

actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.

I did?

I asked which early primary he will win. You replied He'll win them all.

  I hope he does. He probably wont win them all. I take that back.

[recursivelyenumerable]

isn't there probably some online bookie site where we can each register our bet and they'll have someone come break our knees if we renig?

[Gay Boy]

well he apparently thinks it's 50-50 or better.  so the moral imperative of rational self-interest should compel him to take my offer.

actually he has said ron paul will win all 50 primaries.

I did?

I asked which early primary he will win. You replied He'll win them all.

  I hope he does. He probably wont win them all. I take that back.

What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?

[FlameOfCallandor]

What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?

He won't fail in NH.

[FlameOfCallandor]

What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?

You could also ask this question to guiliani...

[Gay Boy]

What if he fails to win Iowa or NH, what will you do?

You could also ask this question to guiliani...

Most consider rudy's campaign dead. It's a battle between Romney and Huckabee.

I see the first four going down as:

Iowa: Huckabee
MI: Romney
NH: Romney
SC: Huckabee

It's going to be one tight race. Unlike the dems. Whoever wins Iowa (edwards being the exception) will go on to win the nomination for them.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?

[Gay Boy]

Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?

He rose at the start of december. And he rose because of the christian right. Paul has two weeks left to surge in the polls.

The christian right had not yet picked a candidate till Huckabee rose at the CNN debate and that group picked him.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?

He rose at the start of december. And he rose because of the christian right. Paul has two weeks left to surge in the polls.

The christian right had not yet picked a candidate till Huckabee rose at the CNN debate and that group picked him.

What are you basing all of this on?

[Gay Boy]

Huckabee rose practiaclly overnight. You dont think it's possible for Paul?

He rose at the start of december. And he rose because of the christian right. Paul has two weeks left to surge in the polls.

The christian right had not yet picked a candidate till Huckabee rose at the CNN debate and that group picked him.

What are you basing all of this on?

The fact Huckabee is running almost purely on religion and the fact none of the other GOP candidates act christian enough for the powerful christian right?

[Trent Dole]

[FlameOfCallandor]

The fact Huckabee is running almost purely on religion and the fact none of the other GOP candidates act christian enough for the powerful christian right?

So you are basing it on nothing but conjecture. Got it.

[Gay Boy]

The fact Huckabee is running almost purely on religion and the fact none of the other GOP candidates act christian enough for the powerful christian right?

So you are basing it on nothing but conjecture. Got it.

And your basing Paul winning purely on hope.

[FlameOfCallandor]

And your basing Paul winning purely on hope.

Nope. Althought that does factor a little into it.

[Gay Boy]

And your basing Paul winning purely on hope.

Nope. Althought that does factor a little into it.

What factual basis are you basing it off of? Rabid supporters? That does not equal a win as dean proved.

What are you basing it off of because hope and devotion of supporters have little to do with winning.

The kennedy name and the party back then was incredible. There would have been two kennedy presidents in less than 10 years if Bobby didn't get himself killed.

[FlameOfCallandor]

What factual basis are you basing it off of? Rabid supporters? That does not equal a win as dean proved.

What are you basing it off of because hope and devotion of supporters have little to do with winning.

The kennedy name and the party back then was incredible. There would have been two kennedy presidents in less than 10 years if Bobby didn't get himself killed.
[/quote]


How about the fact that he will raise more money than any GOP candidate in the last quoter?
The fact that he wins 75% of all the straw polls.
The fact that has a huge dedicated following that will not vote for anyone else.
The fact that the traditional polls have left him off, thus proving they are invalid.

He has real support dude.

[Gay Boy]

How about the fact that he will raise more money than any GOP candidate in the last quoter?
The fact that he wins 75% of all the straw polls.
The fact that has a huge dedicated following that will not vote for anyone else.
The fact that the traditional polls have left him off, thus proving they are invalid.

He has real support dude.

Dean raised the most money, won the straw polls, and had the most dedicated following. How is Paul BETTER supported than dean?

And most tradtional polls include him but he polls under the margin of error.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Dean raised the most money, won the straw polls, and had the most dedicated following. How is Paul BETTER supported than dean?

He might not be better than dean. Let's wait till after Sunday to discuss any further. Sunday is gonna be a big day for Paul.

[Gay Boy]

Dean raised the most money, won the straw polls, and had the most dedicated following. How is Paul BETTER supported than dean?

He might not be better than dean. Let's wait till after Sunday to discuss any further. Sunday is gonna be a big day for Paul.

No it's not. He could raise 50 million and that wouldn't help him polls. Huckabee has no money yet he is on the rise.

Paul is a dead candidate unless you can find a single poll where he was in the top 3 for either Iowa or NH.

[FlameOfCallandor]

No it's not. He could raise 50 million and that wouldn't help him polls. Huckabee has no money yet he is on the rise.

Paul is a dead candidate unless you can find a single poll where he was in the top 3 for either Iowa or NH.

We'll see.

[Gay Boy]

No it's not. He could raise 50 million and that wouldn't help him polls. Huckabee has no money yet he is on the rise.

Paul is a dead candidate unless you can find a single poll where he was in the top 3 for either Iowa or NH.

We'll see.

Name one time a candidate raising money had them rise in the polls. Name one. You can't. All those months Obama outraised Hillary Hillary always crushed him in the polls.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?

[Gay Boy]

Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?

It's like people believing the world is flat. It frustrates me that you are so ignorant and know so little about history and politics.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?

It's like people believing the world is flat. It frustrates me that you are so ignorant and know so little about history and politics.

Believing in candidate that has a huge following will win is EXACTLY like believe the world is flat. 

What dont I know about history and politics? Enlighten me.

[Gay Boy]

Does it make you mad that I am so confident in our bet?

It's like people believing the world is flat. It frustrates me that you are so ignorant and know so little about history and politics.

Believing in candidate that has a huge following will win is EXACTLY like believe the world is flat. 

What dont I know about history and politics? Enlighten me.

The point is his following ISN'T huge. 5% of the country vs. candidates with over 30%.

You don't know stuff about politics because Paul doesn't.

Paul is called Dr. No because he votes no on bills he says are unconstitutional. Most of the time these bills pass, get signed into law, and never challanged by a court. If they are unconstitutional why do they become unchallanged parts of our government and lives? The mere fact no one questions that they are unconstitutional except one congressman proves to me they are perfectly within the bounds of nat. govt. to make.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Paul is called Dr. No because he votes no on bills he says are unconstitutional. Most of the time these bills pass, get signed into law, and never challanged by a court. If they are unconstitutional why do they become unchallanged parts of our government and lives? The mere fact no one questions that they are unconstitutional except one congressman proves to me they are perfectly within the bounds of nat. govt. to make.

They are unconstitutional, but nobody challenges it because the will isn't there. Most of the stuff the federal government does was not intended and does not need to be done by them. We have already been down this road so I wont go down it again. But I will say that you dont know jack shit about the foundation of the countries laws. Come back here when you take your intro government class at gay boy university.

[Phoenix Dark]

 

[Gay Boy]

Paul is called Dr. No because he votes no on bills he says are unconstitutional. Most of the time these bills pass, get signed into law, and never challanged by a court. If they are unconstitutional why do they become unchallanged parts of our government and lives? The mere fact no one questions that they are unconstitutional except one congressman proves to me they are perfectly within the bounds of nat. govt. to make.

They are unconstitutional, but nobody challenges it because the will isn't there. Most of the stuff the federal government does was not intended and does not need to be done by them. We have already been down this road so I wont go down it again. But I will say that you dont know jack shit about the foundation of the countries laws. Come back here when you take your intro government class at gay boy university.

I took that a while ago buddy. I was a poli-sci minor for 2 years before I dropped it.

And I do know the foundation of our laws and early history. I just don't think they APPLY.

That doesn't make me wrong and you right. I am a loose constructionist who believes the constutition is a living document. That is a valid and widely accepted belief of our govt. leaders and politicians and is just are valid and supported as your strict constructionist stance.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

Come back here when you take your intro government class at gay boy university.

The problem with Ron Paul fans is they drop out after the intro class.

[Gay Boy]

FoC I can use your favorite toy wikipedia to prove my point as well LOLOLOLL

One of the strongest arguments in support of the concept of a "living Constitution" is the fact that the Constitution itself is silent on the matter of constitutional interpretation. Proponents of the living Constitution note that the issue of how to interpret a legal text has spurred ongoing debate for centuries. The Constitutional framers, most of whom were trained lawyers and legal theorists, were certainly aware of these debates; they also would have known the confusion that not providing a clear interpretive method would cause. Had the framers meant for future generations to interpret the Constitution in a specific manner, they could have indicated such within the Constitution itself. The lack of guidance within the text of the Constitution suggests, therefore, that either: a) there was no such consensus, or b) the framers never intended any fixed method of constitutional interpretation. In either case, future generations are free, and in fact compelled, to reexamine for themselves how to properly interpret the Constitution.

Relating to the pragmatic argument, it is further argued that if judges were denied the opportunity to reflect on changes to modern society in interpreting the scope of Constitutional rights, the resulting Constitution either would not reflect current mores and values, or would necessitate a constant amendment process it to reflect our changing society.

Moreover, it has been suggested that a failure to take societal change into account leads to a separate problem: that of stare decisis. A Court that determines that the only proper method of interpretation is to try to reconstruct either the meaning of statutes at the time they were enacted, or the intent of the legislature that enacted it, will inevitably either overrule countless previous Court decisions that it feels were arrived at incorrectly or tie itself into logical knots in trying to make sense of contradictory opinions.

An evolving Constitution also makes sense for those who view the Constitution not as merely law, but as a source of foundational concepts for the governing of society. Of course, laws must be fixed and clear so that people can understand and abide by them on a daily basis. But if the Constitution is more than a set of laws, if it provides guiding concepts which themselves will in turn provide the foundations for laws, then the costs and benefits of such an entirely fixed meaning are very different. The reason for this is simple: if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether. While we remain bound by the rights and powers provided in the Constitution, thus, the scope those rights and powers should account for society's present experiences.

"if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether. "

[Phoenix Dark]

FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not? Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?

[Gay Boy]

FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not? Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?

he already has said the immancipation proclamation was not legal.

[Phoenix Dark]

i wasn't paying attention - i was too busy collecting my golden fish collection - must be worth a mil by now

[Gay Boy]

Alexander Hamilton, one of your founding fathers was a loose constructionist.

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not? Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?

he already has said the immancipation proclamation was not legal.

I did?

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC does the federal government have the right to enact child labor laws, or should businesses on the state level be able to decide whether they want to enslave the kiddies or not?

What gives the government this right?

Was it Lincoln's job to free* the slaves?

According to his oath of office his job was to uphold the constitution.

[FlameOfCallandor]

"if a society locks itself into a previous generation's interpretive ideas, it will wind up either constantly attempting to change the Constitution to reflect changes, or simply scrapping the Constitution altogether. "

What do you do if you do not agree with a rule anywhere in life? (such as a sports game etc...). Do you think they interpret it different or try to change the rule book.

If you leave it up to interpretation you basically leave it up to the will of the leader. Something our founding fathers tried carefully to avoid.

[Gay Boy]

Why is it a view held by some of our FOUNDING FATHERS you think?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Why is it a view held by some of our FOUNDING FATHERS you think?

Why is what?

[brawndolicious]

comparing government to a sports game is a bad comparison.  sports have an arbitrary set of rules MEANT to create challenge for fun.  that's pretty common knowledge.  government just has to do what the people want.

[Gay Boy]

Why is it a view held by some of our FOUNDING FATHERS you think?

Why is what?

the view that the constitution is a living document and is open for interpretation as society changes and should not be adheered to strictly.

Founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton held that view.

4 of our Supreme Court justices have that view as well, as did Bill Clinton.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Well shit if past presidents believed it, then it must be true!

[FlameOfCallandor]

The Ron Paul air force has launched.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/14/politics/horserace/entry3619242.shtml

[FlameOfCallandor]

[FlameOfCallandor]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

 

[Gay Boy]

Answer me. FOUNDING FATHERS agreed with my view of the constitution. Your view was not the "correct" one. There were strict constructionists and loose ones.

Both views are equally valid and supported by various founding fathers. Tell me why yours is the correct interpretation when there are founding fathers who do not agree?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

it must be fun to treat the presidential election like ilovebees

[Tauntaun]

Nice they got the blimp up, I'm really excited because his campaign has so much forward momentum.  I'll def be celebrating our independence on the 16th. 

[Gay Boy]

". The Federalist Party believed in a loose construction of the United States Constitution to allow for some latitude with regards to interpretation of the Constitution. This became commonly known as "The Elastic Clause"."

Wow, the federalist party agrees with the modern liberal interpertation of the constution that it should not be strictly adirhered too!

The Anti-Federalists, like FoC's Thomas Jefferson however were of the Ron Paul ilk.

But you know who was on the awesome side of the federalist party and loose constructionism that is a major tennat of liberalism today?


GEORGE WASHINGTON

Actually, due to the fact that George Washington approved the national bank, he became a "loose constructionist"

Hamilton’s party, the Federalists, came to be known as "Loose Constructionists"; that is, to construe loosely the Constitution, on the grounds that we are at liberty to do anything that it does not specifically prohibit.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Wow, the federalist party agrees with the modern liberal interpertation of the constution that it should not be strictly adirhered too!

The Anti-Federalists, like FoC's Thomas Jefferson however were of the Ron Paul ilk.

CONGRATUALTIONS!!

You just discovered the core disagreement about government in our country.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Tauntaun what are you doing on the 16th?

[Tauntaun]

Putting my money where my mouth is.  It's TeaParty day.

[Gay Boy]

Wow, the federalist party agrees with the modern liberal interpertation of the constution that it should not be strictly adirhered too!

The Anti-Federalists, like FoC's Thomas Jefferson however were of the Ron Paul ilk.

CONGRATUALTIONS!!

You just discovered the core disagreement about government in our country.

Yeah but I have George Washington on my side bitch.

I rather have Washington than a slave-fucker.

[Tauntaun]

Yeah but I have George Washington on my side bitch.

I rather have Washington than a slave-fucker.

I lulled. 

[Gay Boy]

Hmmm


- Supports a strong national government
- Believes we should read the constitution loosely so we will not be confined by it and be able to adjust as time goes on without being forced to make ammendments
- Strong national leader, led us in a war

OR


-The civil rights bill was unconstitutional
-Lincoln did not have the power to free the slaves
- The AMBER ALERT system to find missing children was wrong
-Smalltime congressman from the middle of nowhere

[FlameOfCallandor]

They are both awesome!

[Gay Boy]

They are both awesome!

But washington is polar opposite of you in constitutional theory. Washington would shoot Ron Paul for being such a fucktard and not getting how govt. works.

[FlameOfCallandor]

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

[FlameOfCallandor]

They are both awesome!

But washington is polar opposite of you in constitutional theory. Washington would shoot Ron Paul for being such a fucktard and not getting how govt. works.

 :tbslol :tbslol :tbslol

You are such an idiot and are soo wrong.