Dr. Paul will have my vote in the NY primary. But, don’t worry my neoconservative friends. Ron Paul has little chance of winning the Republican nomination. We’re not ready for a real conservatie. Instead, we’ll end up with one of the other clowns. If we’re lucky, Dr Paul will have enough influence on the party to bring it more in line with traditional conservative values. If not, the Republican Party will evolve into a regional party.

Greg in NY

Patriotism
by Ron Paul

Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.
I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. (emphasis added)
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.
Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?
Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.
Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.
The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.
All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.
Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.
Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.
A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.
Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.
If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.
The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.
We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.
Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.
We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.
The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.
The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.
Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.
We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.
These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.
We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.
The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.
The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.
The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.
Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.
Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.
A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.
Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.
Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.
The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.
Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.
Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?
Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Thanks for proving my point.

1. If Lacey’s Law is unconstitutional, then so is his sanctity of life act.
Congress cannot shut the Supreme Court out of cases. Thus, his act would be immediately ruled as unconstitutional.
Congress may set any rules they wish for the lower courts, but for the Supreme, they can’t set any. Thus, you must either admit that his ruling holds no teeth…or that it is unconstitutional.

2. If half steps are unconstitutional, then Ron is siding with the liberals as a big government type, and is the least qualified of any candidate on either side of the line.
At least the liberals make open their disdain for our constitution. Ron Paul refuses to take steps to restore it, despite being the Constitutional candidate. He is the most dispicable of all those running.

And yet you HAVEN’T addressed my point. If Ron is unwilling to take small steps to try and rein in government, he’s not willing to rein in government at all. It is idiocy to claim to support the Constitution, yet refuse to uphold it, even in half. Every Ron Paul supporter is an idiot.

Listen, fool. You have compared me to Hitler. If THAT is not an emotional appeal, I don’t know what is. There is zero emotion in what I’m saying. I defy you to find an instance of any emotion.

Look dude. You sit there pretty high and mighty. Paul REFUSES to cut government. Because cutting government by 50…70…even 90% is unconstitutional…you tell me. This is the worst argument I’ve ever dealt with. It is an argument devoid of logic, reason, or fact. If someone will not vote to cut government by a fraction, they will not vote to cut it period.

I’m done with you. You’re a fool, and calling me a big gov’t liberal, while supporting a man who refuses to bend to get 70% of what he wants makes you look imbecilic. I’m tired of you.

Relish in obscurity.

And none of the above comments address some of Paul’s other problems, such as:
His public musings to Hugh Hewitt that the Courts should be allowed to decide war policy.
His public support of jailing Scooter Libby…not because he was guilty, but because he had supported the war…
His utterly weak foreign policy approach of “ignore what goes on everywhere else”.
A perplexing (for a claimed libertarian) tendency to be against free trade…
His association with truthers and other fringe lunatics.
A sort of “everyone else is doing it” attitude in recent years when it comes to justifying his recent fondness of earmarks and pork.

I’m not trying to pick on you Freedom, but it seems that like all Paulists, you seem to think that frequency and repetition are substitutes for real argument. And they aren’t.

I have not engaged in any name calling and I challenge you to point out where I did so or retract the accustation.

Regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (not Violence against the Unborn Act) Paul’s NO VOTE was clearly cast in recognition of the 10th Amendment. You cite the 10th Amendment in your post, but I wonder if you truly believe in it in that you will fault a Congressman for honoring it.

Paul’s legislation would immediately recognize the life and “personhood” of unborn children. That would in-effect nullify Roe on the spot.

Further, it DOES remove the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction in these matters. Did you read it?
****************

“Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance…”

****************

You said:
“I’m not really being emotional here. Though I tire of your lackluster arguments that ignore my original points. Not once have you addressed my original point about the need for half steps in reversing the move towards socialism. Instead you called me an “ends justift the means” type (inferring liberal), and adressed an argument I’d never made. ”

Yes, I did address your initial point of the need for “half-steps.” Paul does not vote on unconstitutional legislation. I said that at the very beginning. Your term “half-steps” is really a euphemism for unconstitutional legislation. And, you advocate such legislation in order to return to limited government. That, sir, is indeed a doctrine of “the end justifies the means.”

Regarding the ARM crisis… again YOU ignore the fact that without the Fed Reserve and fiat money we wouldn’t have had this problem with inflation (which is what drove the housing prices up to the point where ARMs were offered to buyers to keep the party going). I have stated and restated this several times. I won’t do it again. You are clearly incapable of understanding this point. I feel like I’m trying to teach algebra to a 1st grader here (not trying to insult you, just trying to communicate the frustration of repeating certain facts over and over and seeing them go over the head of the hearer, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Now, to your numbered points:
1. I did address this and I just did so again in this post. Hopefully you got it this time.

2. Point 2 is interesting and I’ll do some investigating into why this is so. It could be that Osama was directly attributed to 9/11 and thus Afghanistan was justified, while Iraq was not. But, as for the technicality I will check into it.

3. I’m not sure why you went this direction. You slam Paul for honoring the 10th Amendment and then you want to rally behind the 10th Amendment. I think you’re the one being hypocritical here.

Lastly, you attempt to cloak your ignorance of the difference of “principle” and “principal” by pointing to them as “typos.” You carry a lot of pride, WolvenBear.

My posts and responses have been courteous and controlled. It is you who have been blathering and clamorous. I suspect you will respond to this by getting into another emotion tirade and AGAIN asking for answers to your questions that you seem to think go unanswered. But, an argument is won on reason, not decibel levels. Hitler once said something to the effect of “if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough the people will believe you.” That seems to be your debating style. Short on substance and facts and long on emotion, drama, and accusations.

All of your points have been addressed multiple times and I am going to look into the Afghanistan thing. I suspect you’re going to get all worked up again and type out another emotion-filled post in response. Don’t bother, because I will not respond to the same old nonsense. Someone has to be the adult here and walk away.

Proverbs 18:2

Again, you ignore the argument. I didn’t say Paul was soft on abortion. Nor did I even bring up Paul’s record on abortion. I simply used it as an example.
But if we truly wish to examine his record, let us do so. Paul voted against Lacey’s Law, the Violence against the Unborn act, and similar such laws. And even though he voted to ban Partial Birth Abortion, he was a leading critic of the bill (somewhat understandably). His current bill is damn near useless. And the coverage that you link to is ridiculously dishonest. It claims that not only have Republicans done nothing to ban abortion (they have), but that somehow Paul’s bill would overturn Roe vs Wade (it wouldn’t). As more honest pundints who are in favor on Paul’s bill (myself included) have realized, it takes abortion out of the hands of federal courts only, not the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court could easily rule this law unconstitutional, which they most likely would. Even with the current court, Paul’s legislation would not hold water for long.

So once more, you ignore what I have clearly said, in favor of what you wish I said. I clearly stated that my story was an example about the half measure of compromise.

I’m not really being emotional here. Though I tire of your lackluster arguments that ignore my original points. Not once have you addressed my original point about the need for half steps in reversing the move towards socialism. Instead you called me an “ends justift the means” type (inferring liberal), and adressed an argument I’d never made. You continue to make some imaginary distinction between “declaration of war” and “authorization of force”, ignoring that both follow the constitutional demand that Congress give the President the OK before he goes off to battle. And you further ignore that he didn’t need that OK, but still sought it anyways. You continue to blame inflation on our money supply, while stories routinely come on the news of people buying 300-500 thousand dollar houses with ARMS…people who couldn’t afford them under ANY rate.

I repeat, if my case was as foolish as yours, I’d focus on a typo as well.

Look, bud. I’m not going to keep pointing out where your logic fails. If you want a further debate, address the following points, or don’t bother:

1. If Ron Paul is against big government, why does he constantly vote against measures to reduce governmental size? If governmental reduction is the goal, he will either vote for legislation (unconstitutional) that will reduce gov’t, or he will vote to keep gov’t bloated. So far he has consistantly voted for the latter.

2. As Katzen points out, Paul is opposed to the Iraq war while supporting the Afghanistan one. Neither had a declaration of war. Paul is being hypocritical. Defend that.

3. Actually address the fact that the Constitution has been ignored. Yea, the 10th Amendment says that all powers not specifically granted to the feds are reserved to the states. But I can point out a hundred examples of that being ignored (and in many cases held up by the SCOTUS) over the past decade. In a Congress dominated by liberals, and a Supreme Court with 4 out of 7 believing in a “living breathing Constitution” (key words for “it means whatever I want it to mean”), Paul’s tactics will not only accomplish nothing, but will advance the liberal agenda.

I’m not going to hold my breath. You haven’t addressed any of these points so far, instead deviating off on misspellings and name calling. I doubt this time will be different.

You seem like an emotional guy and you get worked up pretty easy. You should stick to basing your arguments on reason and not emotion. You continue to state that I ignored your points, but I addressed them previously. If you think I skipped one, please point it out and I’ll address it. Otherwise, you’re just restating your arguments to which I’ve already responded.

Since you brought up the new issue of abortion I will comment on it. Ron Paul has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in Congress.

*****
The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.

Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.[1]
******

Don’t try and misrepresent Paul as being soft on abortion. He vehemently opposes it and works to eliminate it. You have to ask yourself why he didn’t get much support in a Republican Congress?

Here’s a great write up on it:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071130.html

For the record, a typo is an error in typing not due to ignorance. Your “typo” was prevalent numerous times in multiple emails. That isn’t a “typo.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typo

I wasn’t falling back on spelling mistakes, I was kindly pointing out that you had a booger in your nose in public.

Thank you for the spelling lesson.

That said. This was never an “is not, is too” discussion. You blather on about unconstitutionality without ever once adressing my actual argument. You clamor on about some “ends justify the means” argument that I never once made while deliberately ignoring the rather simple point I made. It is not that my argument was hard to understand; you just chose to ignore it.

But I will restate it even more simply for you:
Ron Paul has repeatedly voted against smaller government, and against even a small return to the original framework of the Constitution, due to…you know, I can’t even understand his logic.

You can play whatever little word games you want, or take a typo that I made out, but your basic point doesn’t hold water. Every single vote that Paul has cast against reform has been a vote against the Constitution. You can dress it up as high mindedness all you like, but it’s no different than the liberal do-gooder mentality…just on the other side of the spectrum. Results don’t matter, all that counts is intentions! That’s not the way the world works, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows it.

Ron Paul is a fool who lives in a pretend world where the Constitution has never been violated or ignored. He is the equivalent of the 6 year old, who when confronted with uncomfortable reality, sticks his fingers in his ears and starts saying “lalalalala”. Is it any wonder he attracts people by the dozen who are unable to articulate a simple point?

I will give one final example, in the hopes that this will sink through to you, where nothing else has:

I am staunchly anti-abortion. It is one of (if not the) most awful practices that mankind has ever come up with. I don’t think it should ever be legal (abortion is almost never medically needed).
That said. I live in the real world. Abortion IS legal. Whether or not it should be is irrelevant. It IS legal. And I have to work within that framework.
If I am a legislator, and a bill comes across my desk to ban abortions in the third trimester, I will sign it. Without hesitation.
If I refuse to vote for it (because abortion should ALWAYS be illegal, not just the last three months), then I am casting my vote in favor of keeping abortion legal through all 9 months. I would be directly voting against my beliefs. And I am voting to keep the status quo, despite my belief that abortion is evil.

This is what Paul does constantly. He claims government needs to be smaller, but votes against reforms that would reduce, even in miniscule amounts, the size of the federal government. It is not enough to talk the talk. He needs to walk the walk. And the record shows that he doesn’t.

That said, I don’t blame you for preferring to point out a typo I made in a long winded post as opposed to debating the facts of the matter. If my case was as bad as yours…I’d fall back on spelling mistakes too.

I’m not going to get into an “is not, is too” discussion. I’ve laid out my case, without being argumentative, and you’ve laid out yours.

I’ll let the readers decide which it believe. I’m not fond of repeating myself, especially when you can use the scroll bar to re-read my answers that seems to address your “new points” adequately.

By the way, it is “principles” not “principals.” One is a noun and the other is an adjective.