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

[Gay Boy]

That doesn't say anything about the constitution.

Washington believed the constitution was a LIVING DOCUMENT not meant to be taking 100% literally and open to changing of reading as time goes by.


Washington was a FEDERALIST. Federalists were LOOSE CONSTRUCTIONISTS. Loose Constructionists believed the constitution should be open to changed interpretation as time went on.

[FlameOfCallandor]

That doesn't say anything about the constitution.

Washington believed the constitution was a LIVING DOCUMENT not meant to be taking 100% literally and open to changing of reading as time goes by.

He said that?

[Tauntaun]

That doesn't say anything about the constitution.

Washington believed the constitution was a LIVING DOCUMENT not meant to be taking 100% literally and open to changing of reading as time goes by.

Paul has sort of agreed with that saying it's not a perfect document and should be changed accordingly with the times but never for an abuse of power.

[Gay Boy]

No he hasn't he has in terms of amendments.

Paul calls himself a strict constructionist. Washington was part of the loose constructionists.

Washington followed this belief:

    * Pragmatism, the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter.
    * Intent, the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.

[Gay Boy]

From the White House's own website

Presidential Number: 1st
Years he was President: 1789-1797
State Represented: Virginia
Party Affiliation: Federalist

The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in states' rights. The new party advocated a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution based on the "Necessary-and-proper clause" also known as the Elastic Clause that Hamilton used against Jefferson in arguments over the issue of a national bank

OH SHIT. FOC's WORLD IS FALLING APART FoC, Washington was Federalist and Loose Constructionist.

Ron Paul is a Anti-Federalist and Strict Constructionist. Btw Thomas Jefferson HAAAAAAAAATED Washington's policies.

Why? Because Jefferson was mr. states rights. And Washington was Mr. Fuck States Rights.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I am still waiting on where Washington said we should have a living document.

[Gay Boy]

I am still waiting on where Washington said we should have a living document.

Fucktard. Read. He was a member and a leader of a party who created that viewpoint while he was president.

[Gay Boy]

want some proof he was a loose constructionist (the core belief is the document is a living document).

How about quotes from HISTORY BOOKS:

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

In George Washington they had the perfect model: a strong leader who had proved in ... adopted a loose constructionist stance to emphasize the great power of the central government.

"The Federalist Party was made of loose constructionists and led by Alexander Hamilton and George Washington"

"Hamilton's view was “loose constructionist,” and his argument ultimately won over President George Washington"

[Gay Boy]

I could go on for hours FoC. Accept you have Thomas Jefferson but I have George Washington. Washington is as opposite of Ron Paul as you can get when it comes to the constitution.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Turn on CNN they are about to talk about the blimp.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Holy shit Ron Paul was on Mad Money and they both agree the federal reserve needs to go.

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html

[Gay Boy]

Hahaha the fucker knows I am right about Washington being a liberal on the constitution and states rights. Look at him ask for proof of my claim and then ignore it. At least man up and admit you were wrong about Washington's political positions.

I can admit Jefferson is in opposite view of me about the constitution, you can do the same with Washignton.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html

"NOW explores how the Texas congressman and his supporters are using the Internet to attract voters—and massive campaign contributions—from across the political spectrum."

/s/attract/repel

[Gay Boy]

Since FoC is too chicken to admit Washington is not on his side in terms of philosophy after he point blank asked me for proof lets look at the proof once again till he can admit he was wrong like a man!

First lets see. Lets check out the official White House website for his political party. They say:

Presidential Number: 1st
Years he was President: 1789-1797
State Represented: Virginia
Party Affiliation: Federalist

I wonder what that means though! Lets check out the definition on wikipedia.

The Federalists wanted a strong central government and had little interest in states' rights. The new party advocated a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution based on the "Necessary-and-proper clause" also known as the Elastic Clause that Hamilton used against Jefferson in arguments over the issue of a national bank

Oooo doesn't sound pro-states rights or very strict constructionist on the constitution to me!

But can we be sure he agreed with all that? Was he really a loose constructionist? Well lets check out four official history text books used in school to see.

In George Washington they had the perfect model: a strong leader who had proved in ... adopted a loose constructionist stance to emphasize the great power of the central government.

"The Federalist Party was made of loose constructionists and led by Alexander Hamilton and George Washington"

"Hamilton's view was “loose constructionist,” and his argument ultimately won over President George Washington"

Yep, ol W' was a loose constructionist alongside his anti-state rights views. But just to make sure lets see what the definition of loose constructionist is...

* Pragmatism, the belief that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter.

* Intent, the argument that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document.

Hmm so Washington thought the constitution would grow outdated and unacceptable for policy unless we see it as a living document that we can be flexible with and not follow in a strict manner as time goes on. Smart guy he was, because he was right.



Just another wacko liberal like Hillary Clinton to Ron Paul fans!

[Howard Alan Treesong]

he's also refused point blank to say whether or not the government should have chlid labor laws. apparently he thinks it's okay for 7-year-olds to lose fingers in the textile mills! ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR

[Gay Boy]

he's also refused point blank to say whether or not the government should have chlid labor laws. apparently he thinks it's okay for 7-year-olds to lose fingers in the textile mills! ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR

He won't answer questions he is afraid to admit the truth on.

He has been claiming we should follow Paul because the OMG FOUNDING FATHERS. But when shown proof some founding fathers didn't give a fuck for states rights or following the constitution strictly he talks about blimps and more meme images. 

[brawndolicious]

even jefferson, who was the principal author of the declaration of independence and strongly for state's rights, said this:

Jefferson’s quote, "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

hmm.

[Gay Boy]

BUT BUT BUT BUSINESSES WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS.

Even so Jefferson was pretty strict constructionist,  but he was a slave fucker after all!

Still the mere fact he has been taking credit for washington and worshiping him the past year and to see him run away like a fucking baby when presented with the fact washington's political views were liberal, pro-central government, anti-states rights, and loose constitutional interpretation is the highlight of this thread to me. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

he's also refused point blank to say whether or not the government should have chlid labor laws.

I'm ok with child labor laws, just not by the federal government.

[FlameOfCallandor]

even jefferson, who was the principal author of the declaration of independence and strongly for state's rights, said this:

Jefferson’s quote, "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Don't contribute unless you know what you are talking about.

[FlameOfCallandor]

BUT BUT BUT BUSINESSES WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS.

Even so Jefferson was pretty strict constructionist,  but he was a slave fucker after all!

Still the mere fact he has been taking credit for washington and worshiping him the past year and to see him run away like a fucking baby when presented with the fact washington's political views were liberal, pro-central government, anti-states rights, and loose constitutional interpretation is the highlight of this thread to me. 

I do like washington.

George Washington is a fucking anarchist compared to any president of the past 75 years. You fail. GTFO.

[Howard Alan Treesong]

so each state should have its own varying standards?

what if an unscrupulous state tries to lower the work age and workplace safety in order to attract businesses? should that be allowed? are children's lives a free-market commodity?

[FlameOfCallandor]

NEW FLASH!! YOU CAN LIKE SOMEONE YOU DON'T AGREE 100% WITH

[FlameOfCallandor]

what if an unscrupulous state tries to lower the work age and workplace safety in order to attract businesses? should that be allowed? are children's lives a free-market commodity?

Why and how would they do this?

[FlameOfCallandor]

The only critic of Ron Paul they found on PBS was some douchbag that thinks government's role is to level the playing field.  

[FlameOfCallandor]

They lower the fucking legal working age in their state?  What else would he mean.

So the state's constituents would want it then?

[FlameOfCallandor]

So you're ok with that.  Majority rules?

On a state level, yes.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Jesus Fucking Christ

[Gay Boy]

Washington would spit on ron paul's face for his idiotic views on the constitution. They dont agree on a single issue.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Jesus Fucking Christ

Let me clarify a little bit. I wouldn't support it 100% but at least it's in the proper place if done through each state.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Washington would spit on ron paul's face for his idiotic views on the constitution. They dont agree on a single issue.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Hey Gay Boy, Do you like paying into social security knowing you will never see a dime back.

[Gay Boy]

Hey Gay Boy, Do you like paying into social security knowing you will never see a dime back.

I didn't know its impossible that in the next 55 years no president will try and fix it. Thanks for the heads up, hows the time machine treating ya?

[FlameOfCallandor]

No it's not.  there should be universal values that transcend the fucking constitution.  ITS A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER.

Should our leaders rule at their own whim? What do they follow if they dont follow the rule of law?  

[FlameOfCallandor]

I didn't know its impossible that in the next 55 years no president will try and fix it. Thanks for the heads up, hows the time machine treating ya?

What does your candidate say about social security?

[FlameOfCallandor]

When I'm president Im going to make an executive order that every citizen give me $100 a year. Then Im going to make it illegal to criticize me. Then im gonna make secret prisons for people who do. Then Im going to throw lawyers in prison if they try to fight me. AFter all out law is just a piece of paper, who needs it..

[Gay Boy]

FoC is right guys. STATES should make the most important decisions. I mean I cant think of any example of letting states decide important issues ever caused any problems.

Like slavery. I mean letting the states decide who has slavery and who doesn't caused no problems. There was no strife at all with the states that voted differently due to no national consensus. It was all dandy. The central govt never had to come in and make a executive decision once and for all at all during this. As FoC said "slavery was on it's way out anyway".

And gay marriage? Having states decide that was FUCKING BRILLIANT. I mean has anyone seen any sort of controversy or strife and problems with states deciding on their own? I never heard anyone complain one bit, everyone fucking happy as can be with it.


What was Washington thinking when he said important matters should be determined by the national government and not the states? And that the consitution will not apply to us any longer in the future if we follow it strictly. What a crazy!

[FlameOfCallandor]

When I'm president Im going to make an executive order that every citizen give me $100 a year. Then Im going to make it illegal to criticize me. Then im gonna make secret prisons for people who do. Then Im going to throw lawyers in prison if they try to fight me. AFter all out law is just a piece of paper, who needs it..

Jesus way to miss the point.

You didn't have one.

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC is right guys. STATES should make the most important decisions. I mean I cant think of any example of letting states decide important issues ever caused any problems.

I never said it was a perfect system. Im only saying it's better than an all powerful central government.

[Gay Boy]

then why in all cases does the central government always have to step in and solve the states mess like with slavery and civil rights?

In both cases nothing got done when it was up to the states, it was a big mess. It took power central government focused presidents to solve both problems by ignoring states rights and issuing national laws.

[FlameOfCallandor]

then why in all cases does the central government always have to step in and solve the states mess like with slavery and civil rights?

In both cases nothing got done when it was up to the states, it was a big mess. It took power central government focused presidents to solve both problems by ignoring states rights and issuing national laws.

They dont. We have already been over this.

[Gay Boy]

then why in all cases does the central government always have to step in and solve the states mess like with slavery and civil rights?

In both cases nothing got done when it was up to the states, it was a big mess. It took power central government focused presidents to solve both problems by ignoring states rights and issuing national laws.

They dont. We have already been over this.

Jesus fucking Christ. You just said the central government DIDNT need to step in to solve slavery and civil rights?

You thought the states would fix it on its own?

[FlameOfCallandor]

We had this debate a few pages back. You're just going in circles now.

[Gay Boy]

FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. 

We had the good guys, the north saying we needed a strong central government to fix the mess with slavery and other issues seperating the south and the north.

The south, the bad guys, said we should leave the issues to the states on issues like slavery.

What does FoC say? THE SOUTH HAD IT RIGHT.

You are insane, thats like siding with Hitler for WWII.

Tell me HOW the states were solving the slavery issue at all.

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. 

Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Hey Gay Boy, do you think divorce should be illegal?

[Gay Boy]

FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. 

Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?

No. Because they wanted to keep slavery.

You really think the south should have won? Jesus Christ man.

[FlameOfCallandor]

FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. 

Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?

No. Because they wanted to keep slavery.

Thats not what the civil war was about. Most High schoolers know that.

This just in Cheebs is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

[Gay Boy]

FoC is basically siding with the south for the civl war here kids, he is picking the fucking BAD GUYS of one of the bloodiest wars in our history. 

Wow you are so fucking simple. Why are they the bad guys? Because they lost?

No. Because they wanted to keep slavery.

Thats not what the civil war was about. Most High schoolers know that.

This just in Cheebs is NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

I know it wasnt about that fucktard but I brought up the civil war as an example because you said slavery should have been decided by the states.

Here is a new one for you then. The south was hell bent against civil rights for blacks in the 60's. No chance of it EVER passing on a state level there. Blacks were given rights due to a strong central government.

Should it have been left to the states? States like texas would never have passed it till the 70's if not longer.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Here is a new one for you then. The south was hell bent against civil rights for blacks in the 60's. No chance of it EVER passing on a state level there. Blacks were given rights due to a strong central government.

Should it have been left to the states? States like texas would never have passed it till the 70's if not longer.

It still would have passed without any force from the federal government.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Hey cheebs is divorce illegal?

[TVC15]

Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights!  Makes a lot of sense, right?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights!  Makes a lot of sense, right?

Who decides "human rights." Thats a very arbitrary term.

[TVC15]

Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights!  Makes a lot of sense, right?

Who decides "human rights." Thats a very arbitrary term.

So you think that minorities having equal rights to white folks was an arbitrary decision?  That doesn't make logical sense to you?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Because what's right is that state's rights are more important than human rights!  Makes a lot of sense, right?

You said it better than me.  THAT WAS MY POINT.

What if I decide that it's a human right to be "Cleansed" by the theologians and para-military on a weekly basis. does that supersede the rule of law?

[Howard Alan Treesong]

the Civil War? I believe you mean the War of Northern Aggression!

[TVC15]

But that does not logically follow.  How is ethnic cleansing similar to minority rights, in the least?

[FlameOfCallandor]

So you think that minorities having equal rights to white folks was an arbitrary decision?  That doesn't make logical sense to you?

Not at all. Everyone should be treated equally. No one is more important than any other.

[TVC15]

So you think that minorities having equal rights to white folks was an arbitrary decision?  That doesn't make logical sense to you?

Not at all. Everyone should be treated equally. No one is more important than any other.

Unless you live in the south and decide otherwise, right?