RON PAUL and you.

[n2nh]

Guess what? Yep! Still news according to the Paul supporter. I'll defer to his better judgement about what's news. Like blogs.

Quote[/b] ]Daily Kos is very definitely not the place you'd expect to see a lot of fulminating praise for right-wing conservatives. Yet the diaries are full of people who can't find enough nice things to say about Rep. Ron Paul, whose smiling face is at this moment being beamed to America from the site of the Republican debate in New Hampshire--after which, we may be sure, we will see yet another round of diaries brimming with joy about Paul's sweet words against the Iraq war. You, dear reader, may even be considering writing one or more such diaries yourself.

Before you do, fellow Democrat, please understand just one thing: Your affection for Paul is far from mutual. Through his words, his actions, and his votes in Congress, he has made one thing abundantly clear over the decades: Ron Paul hates you. By building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for.

RON PAUL hates you. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787)

[W3MIV]

Pay Paul no mind. Just another midget from Texas with more mouth than brains. Ralph Nader lopped off at the knees.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[K2WH]

I will never vote for someone that has two first names and I will never vote for someone with a name like Huckabee (too hayseedish). I won't vote for an Italian and I won't vote for a TV star.

I'm not voting.

K2WH

[w8gtf]

*yawns* more blog spam

I'll put money on the fact that the Democrats that gave tongue and cheek support to Dr. Paul are now scared because he is becoming too popular. Guess what...that genie is out of the bottle.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (w8gtf @ Dec. 28 2007,16:25)]*yawns* more blog spam

I'll put money on the fact that the Democrats that gave tongue and cheek support to Dr. Paul are now scared because he is becoming too popular. Guess what...that genie is out of the bottle.
They want to run against Huckabee, not Paul.

[kn4ds]

Can't see the Huckabee bit, either... got us a car dealer here in Macon, GA by that name...

I just could never go in a voting booth and pull a lever for a used-car salesman for President (and I know they're not the same guy)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 28 2007,20:16)]I'm not voting.
Very responsible attitude. Congratulations.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 28 2007,17:36)]They want to run against Huckabee, not Paul.
Exactly.

Huckabee will be an easy win for the Dems (assuming it's Hillary or Edwatrds).

Fred will be an easy win for the Dems.

McCain will be an easy win for the Dems.

Romney might or might not be an easy win for the Dems (but he doesn't have a chance of getting the GOP nomination)

Rudy might or might not be an easy win for the Dems (but he doesn't have a chance of getting the GOP nomination)

Ron Paul will be an easy win for the GOP assuming he can get the GOP nomination - his chances are growing by the day.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 28 2007,17:16)]I will never vote for someone that has two first names and I will never vote for someone with a name like Huckabee (too hayseedish). I won't vote for an Italian and I won't vote for a TV star.
That's real mature. But I am glad though that you will abstain from voting because people as shallow and petty as you should NOT be voting anyway.

Again, thanks for removing yuorself from the voting pool!

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,16:46)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 28 2007,17:16)]I will never vote for someone that has two first names and I will never vote for someone with a name like Huckabee (too hayseedish). I won't vote for an Italian and I won't vote for a TV star.
That's real mature. But I am glad though that you will abstain from voting because people as shallow and petty as you should NOT be voting anyway.

Again, thanks for removing yuorself from the voting pool!
He wants Romney or Hunter.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 28 2007,17:03)]Through his words, his actions, and his votes in Congress, he has made one thing abundantly clear over the decades: Ron Paul hates you.
I am sorry - what supporting evidence does this clown have to make such absurd statements? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,17:44)]Ron Paul will be an easy win for the GOP assuming he can get the GOP nomination - his chances are growing by the day.
So what are you going to do come the 6th of February and Paul hasn't won anything?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,18:04)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 28 2007,17:03)]Through his words, his actions, and his votes in Congress, he has made one thing abundantly clear over the decades: Ron Paul hates you.
I am sorry - what supporting evidence does this clown have to make such absurd statements? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Ron Paul's voting record, just like it says there in the sentence you quoted, apparently without reading.

Paul is pretty much the antithesis of anything the Democratic party would support.

Paul would bring a return of all that was bad about the 19th century, which, apparently, his supporters want, suffering as they do under the illusion that such a return would find them in the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge, rather than the role that it would really find them in: that of Bob Cratchit

[KL1ZB]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 27 2007,20:04)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,17:44)]Ron Paul will be an easy win for the GOP assuming he can get the GOP nomination - his chances are growing by the day.
So what are you going to do come the 6th of February and Paul hasn't won anything?
A better question is, what would you do with all your free time if you stopped trolling?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,19:04)]So what are you going to do come the 6th of February and Paul hasn't won anything?
Honest question.

I'm going to take a couple of weeks vacation probably and then get back to making money.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,19:09)]Paul would bring a return of all that was bad about the 19th century, which, apparently, his supporters want,
Actually we just want a return to the Constitution and so does Ron.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 28 2007,19:14)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 27 2007,20:04)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,17:44)]Ron Paul will be an easy win for the GOP assuming he can get the GOP nomination - his chances are growing by the day.
So what are you going to do come the 6th of February and Paul hasn't won anything?
A better question is, what would you do with all your free time if you stopped trolling?
I'm not trolling. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance on "Super Duper Tuesday", and even his most hardened followers will see that come the following day.

Come the 6th, the Democratic race is probably going to be down to Clinton, Obama, and maybe Edwards, and the Republican race is going to be down to two or three out of Giuliani, Romney, and maybe McCain.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,21:12)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,19:09)]Paul would bring a return of all that was bad about the 19th century, which, apparently, his supporters want,
Actually we just want a return to the Constitution and so does Ron.
No, actually you don't.

Ron Paul's idea of "constitutional" bears no resembles to what the founding fathers meant the constitution to be, as can easily be seen by his disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson's supreme court on constitutional matters.

You want a wacky interpretation of the constitution which would put this country right back in the later part of the 19th century, without all the problems that made the Gilded Age so horrible for all but the very rich.

[MGthemidget]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 28 2007,17:03)]Guess what? Yep! Still news according to the Paul supporter. I'll defer to his better judgement about what's news. Like blogs.

Quote[/b] ]Daily Kos is very definitely not the place you'd expect to see a lot of fulminating praise for right-wing conservatives. Yet the diaries are full of people who can't find enough nice things to say about Rep. Ron Paul, whose smiling face is at this moment being beamed to America from the site of the Republican debate in New Hampshire--after which, we may be sure, we will see yet another round of diaries brimming with joy about Paul's sweet words against the Iraq war. You, dear reader, may even be considering writing one or more such diaries yourself.

Before you do, fellow Democrat, please understand just one thing: Your affection for Paul is far from mutual. Through his words, his actions, and his votes in Congress, he has made one thing abundantly clear over the decades: Ron Paul hates you. By building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for.

RON PAUL hates you. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787)
Um Yeah, I wonder if RP thinks 9/11 was an inside job?

[NA4BH]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:21)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 28 2007,19:14)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 27 2007,20:04)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,17:44)]Ron Paul will be an easy win for the GOP assuming he can get the GOP nomination - his chances are growing by the day.
So what are you going to do come the 6th of February and Paul hasn't won anything?
A better question is, what would you do with all your free time if you stopped trolling?


Come the 6th, the Democratic race is probably going to be down to Clinton, Obama, and maybe Edwards
Who else is running for the Democrats? I would say you narrowed that one down scientifically. Just had to ask. Sorry.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (NA4BH @ Dec. 28 2007,21:35)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:21)]Quote[/b] (KL1ZB @ Dec. 28 2007,19:14)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 27 2007,20:04)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,17:44)]Ron Paul will be an easy win for the GOP assuming he can get the GOP nomination - his chances are growing by the day.
So what are you going to do come the 6th of February and Paul hasn't won anything?
A better question is, what would you do with all your free time if you stopped trolling?


Come the 6th, the Democratic race is probably going to be down to Clinton, Obama, and maybe Edwards
Who else is running for the Democrats? I would say you narrowed that one down scientifically. Just had to ask. Sorry.
There are eight people running as Democrats: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gavel, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson.

(or did Gavel recently drop out and make it 7?)

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,21:12)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,19:09)]Paul would bring a return of all that was bad about the 19th century, which, apparently, his supporters want,
Actually we just want a return to the Constitution and so does Ron.
No he doesn't. Once again Paul is CLUELESS about the Constitution. Read my signature below. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 28 2007,18:16)]I will never vote for someone that has two first names and I will never vote for someone with a name like Huckabee (too hayseedish). #I won't vote for an Italian and I won't vote for a TV star.

I'm not voting.

K2WH
I guess that your attitude about names would keep me from getting your vote if I ran for public office.

Not that it would matter. I have no interest in running for public office.

And I have THREE first names. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Dec. 28 2007,20:46)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,21:12)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,19:09)]Paul would bring a return of all that was bad about the 19th century, which, apparently, his supporters want,
Actually we just want a return to the Constitution and so does Ron.
No he doesn't. Once again Paul is CLUELESS about the Constitution. Read my signature below. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. ~Dr. Ron Paul

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 28 2007,23:22)]Quote[/b] ]The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. ~Dr. Ron Paul
Good quote. Perfect example of Ron Paul missing clue.

Note especially the confused use of "democracy" and "republic".

Perhaps this quote from Thomas Jefferson will help you understand:

Quote[/b] ]The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.

The United States has always been a representational democracy. The founding fathers knew that there is no dichotomy that separates democracy from republic, and Jefferson long and loudly proclaimed that the only way for the United States to operate was via majority rule.

As to the founding fathers protecting fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, Jefferson wrote

Quote[/b] ]Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.

what Paul, and those who parrot the claim that "The United Stats is a Republic, not a democracy" fail to understand is that the projection of the minority from the majority is not merely the Constitution, but rather, the size and nature of the majority required to change the Constitution.

[al2i]

I see the freedom philosophy is frightening the usual control freaks all over the boards. Good. It is a great day in America! One of the best can remember! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,01:08)]I see the freedom philosophy is frightening the usual control freaks all over the boards. Good. It is a great day in America! One of the best can remember! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
It's disheartening to see so many Americans AFRAID to embrace freedom and liberty from central (federal) government control. I can tell you the younger folks like myself, those around 40 and younger, will not stand for the Baby Boomers driving up the National Debt, then steal it for their selfish, immoral desires. The faster we get the sixties generation out of my and the X-Gen's pockets, the better.

SCREW the Sixties' Generation and their self-serving Socialist views as an aging, selfish population -- the brats of great WWII generation that wanted (and spoiled) so much for their "children."

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 29 2007,01:56)]SCREW the Sixties' Generation
I'm flattered OM, but you are not my type. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[n2nh]

Agreed.

We have The Beatles, The Stones, Cream, Janis, Jimi and Morrison.

They have Madonna (the girl kisser), Freddie Mercury (the man kisser), Prince (the baby loser) and Michael Jerkson, er. Jackson (who just LOVES kids).

I can't wait until they find out just how good it is to put your retirement in a bank that will find a way to take it from them. I don't care, I got Social Security and unless we manage to be conquered, I got security.

OTOH, his bear is much more intelligent and has much better taste...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,07:40)]...I don't care, I got Social Security and unless we manage to be conquered, I got security.
Not if they stop working, you don't. Your SS will go the way of your call in your latest avatar.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,07:40)]...I don't care, I got Social Security and unless we manage to be conquered, I got security.
Not if they stop working, you don't. Your SS will go the way of your call in your latest avatar.
The money is there. If it isn't someone's getting a nice steel room. Not my problem. They can just print more.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,08:04)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,07:40)]...I don't care, I got Social Security and unless we manage to be conquered, I got security.
Not if they stop working, you don't. Your SS will go the way of your call in your latest avatar.
The money is there. #If it isn't someone's getting a nice steel room. #Not my problem. #They can just print more.
The money is NOT necessarily there. Hasn't been for forty years. Bobby Byrd's been spending it on more half-empty gummint office buildings in the wilds of West-By-God Virginia -- among a host of other pork-barrel-demands from the other "girls" in the gilded Bordello on the Potomac.

LBJ and Sam Rayburn took the SS trust fund out of the "lock box" so that it could be mixed with general revenue funds to support his war and the Great Society.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,08:04)]They can just print more.
Spoken like a true, yeller-dog Demokrat.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,07:15)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,08:04)]They can just print more.
Spoken like a true, yeller-dog Demokrat.
Dude, it's yellow stain AWOL boy who is doing this to shore up the money market and banks. Just WHY do you think the dollar is tanking against every currency in the world right now?

Because King Neocon and his band of merry 'tards keeps printing greenbacks and backing all those dollars with the same amout of silver.

Said like a true cowardly hypocritical neocon MF. Ah, too bad the Demoncrats aren't any different.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:21)]the Republican race is going to be down to two or three out of Giuliani, Romney, and maybe McCain.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Where do you live?

Down here in the South - Rudy, Romney, and McCain don't have a chance! None of those 3 will win the GOP nomination.

It's between Fred, Ron, and Huck.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:25)]Ron Paul's idea of "constitutional" bears no resembles to what the founding fathers meant the constitution to be, as can easily be seen by his disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson's supreme court on constitutional matters.
The supreme court was wrong. Marshall was one of the worst justices this country has ever seen.

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,04:14)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,08:04)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,06:54)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,07:40)]...I don't care, I got Social Security and unless we manage to be conquered, I got security.
Not if they stop working, you don't. Your SS will go the way of your call in your latest avatar.
The money is there. #If it isn't someone's getting a nice steel room. #Not my problem. #They can just print more.
The money is NOT necessarily there. Hasn't been for forty years. Bobby Byrd's been spending it on more half-empty gummint office buildings in the wilds of West-By-God Virginia -- among a host of other pork-barrel-demands from the other "girls" in the gilded Bordello on the Potomac.

LBJ and Sam Rayburn took the SS trust fund out of the "lock box" so that it could be mixed with general revenue funds to support his war and the Great Society.
The money WAS there.

We've been wasting it on militaristic folly in the Middle East. Far more money has been wasted on the military than any of your typical cutesy little examples about government.

A classic example was right here in Modoc County. Some Reagan era boob decided we needed backscatter radar to track Soviet bombers right before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Billions of dollars were spent on this project both here and in the Christmas Valley in Oregon. The transmitter was in Oregon, the receiver was in Tulelake.

Backscatter Radar (http://www.transistor.org/personal/eastern_sierra/4j-unusual%20antennas.jpg)
Christmas Valley Oregon (http://www.transistor.org/personal/eastern_sierra/5j-christmas%20valley%20radar%20site.jpg)
These arrays are (were) miles long (http://www.transistor.org/personal/eastern_sierra/6j-radar%20from%20side.jpg)

We drove out to the Tulelake site last week. Antennas all gone. The receiver and transmitter were tested a few times but never put on line.

This is just ONE military boondoggle that cost billions. What else is out there?

Dave NX6D
Tulelake, CA

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 29 2007,10:58)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:25)]Ron Paul's idea of "constitutional" bears no resembles to what the founding fathers meant the constitution to be, as can easily be seen by his disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson's supreme court on constitutional matters.
The supreme court was wrong. Marshall was one of the worst justices this country has ever seen.
Jefferson thought so, too.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 29 2007,10:58)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:25)]Ron Paul's idea of "constitutional" bears no resembles to what the founding fathers meant the constitution to be, as can easily be seen by his disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson's supreme court on constitutional matters.
The supreme court was wrong. Marshall was one of the worst justices this country has ever seen.
Jefferson thought so, too.
But Jefferson only had three others to compare him too.

There's a recent book, by James Simon, What kind of nation : Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the epic struggle to create a United States that does a good job of discussing Jefferson and Marshall, although the title is far more sweeping that the text, which is about the struggle over the court, not the country.

It always cracks me up when later day "Constructionists" dismiss the entire history of the court by waving their hands at Marshall, but claim to revere the Founding Fathers, forgetting that Marshall was, indeed, one of those very fathers.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 29 2007,07:57)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:21)]the Republican race is going to be down to two or three out of Giuliani, Romney, and maybe McCain.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Where do you live?

Down here in the South - Rudy, Romney, and McCain don't have a chance! None of those 3 will win the GOP nomination.

It's between Fred, Ron, and Huck.
Your political barometer needs resetting. I'd explain it to you, but I think I'll just let events demonstrate it for you.

Nobody but the fringes are taking "Fred, Ron" seriously, even "down here in the South", and Huckabee is in the process of self destructing.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 29 2007,07:58)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 28 2007,21:25)]Ron Paul's idea of "constitutional" bears no resembles to what the founding fathers meant the constitution to be, as can easily be seen by his disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson's supreme court on constitutional matters.
The supreme court was wrong. Marshall was one of the worst justices this country has ever seen.
In other words, when you say you agree with the "Founding Fathers", you're really saying that you are picking and choosing among the wide array of positions held by those founders and trying to legitimize your view because someone around at the time of the revolution expressed it.

Like it or not, John Marshall, who was around for the revolution, and participated in the ratification of the United States Constitution, is the "Founding Father" of the United States Supreme Court.

You're going to have to do more than just wave "founding father" at us to dismiss Marshall.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 29 2007,09:53)]In other words, when you say you agree with the "Founding Fathers", you're really saying that you are picking and choosing among the wide array of positions held by those founders and trying to legitimize your view because someone around at the time of the revolution expressed it.

Like it or not, John Marshall, who was around for the revolution, and participated in the ratification of the United States Constitution, is the "Founding Father" of the United States Supreme Court.

You're going to have to do more than just wave "founding father" at us to dismiss Marshall.
Marshall was a big government monarchist who wanted the US to be like England.

He was NOT someone who liked liberty and the rule of law.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 29 2007,15:33)]Marshall was a big government monarchist who wanted the US to be like England.

He was NOT someone who liked liberty and the rule of law.
Nonsense. None of the Federalists were "monarchists," not even Alex. Hamilton.

The delegates to the Consitutional Convention in Philadelphia could not reach a unanimous verdict on nearly any part of that document -- it was pure compromise. In effect it was an argument between factions that was not resolved then, and continues unresolved today. And that, in the final appraisal, is the genius of the Constitution. It was John Marshall who gave us a Constitution that is not a petrified memory shattered by Nullification before the Last of the Founders went to his grave.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 29 2007,12:33)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 29 2007,09:53)]In other words, when you say you agree with the "Founding Fathers", you're really saying that you are picking and choosing among the wide array of positions held by those founders and trying to legitimize your view because someone around at the time of the revolution expressed it.

Like it or not, John Marshall, who was around for the revolution, and participated in the ratification of the United States Constitution, is the "Founding Father" of the United States Supreme Court.

You're going to have to do more than just wave "founding father" at us to dismiss Marshall.
Marshall was a big government monarchist who wanted the US to be like England.

He was NOT someone who liked liberty and the rule of law.
John Marshall was a Federalist, but certainly not a monarchist.

If you're going to argue against Marshall, at least argue against what he really was.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 28 2007,17:16)]I will never vote for someone that has two first names and I will never vote for someone with a name like Huckabee (too hayseedish). #I won't vote for an Italian and I won't vote for a TV star.

I'm not voting.

K2WH
Why wouldn't you vote for an Italian ? Wouldn't it make more sense to vote for someone based on the merit of what their policies are, past perfornance, qualification etc. rather than race, religion or nationality ?

Not granted, i won't vote for Rudy either but that's because I think he'd make a lousy president, not because of his name.