Ron Paul (6 of 12) - opposes Stem Cell funding
Loading...
Loading...
0:57
Ron P_aul (5 of 12) - cite example of Making Decisionby TheocracyNow1,886 views- 0:41
Ron P_aul (7 of 12) - which Tax to eliminate most?by TheocracyNow2,022 views
- 1:13
Ron P_aul (1 of 12) - being against war & foreign policyby TheocracyNow3,023 views
- 0:17
Ron P_aul (11 of 12) - would you like Clinton in White Houseby TheocracyNow2,096 views
- 1:44
Ron Paul on gay marriageby tadfad412,518 views
- 0:45
Ron P_aul (8 of 12) - do you trust Mainstream Media?by TheocracyNow2,466 views
- 5:55
Stem Cell Research (featuring Ron Paul)by Docubloggers2,669 views
- 0:51
Ron P_aul (3 of 12) - Phase out the IRSby TheocracyNow2,723 views
- 9:34
Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Researchby fagan41190,428 views
- 0:29
Ron P_aul (12 of 12) - foreign policy & libertyby TheocracyNow1,930 views
- 2:36
Mitt Romney on stem cell research -- March 8, 2005by mittvsfact898 views
- 0:19
Ron P_aul (10 of 12) - Question: pardon Scooter Libby?by TheocracyNow2,999 views
- 0:13
Ron Paul on Stem Cell Researchby crisnolan5,692 views
- 2:04
January 31, 2008: Terry Jeffrey Defends Ron Paul over McCainby tonyr198830,482 views
- 9:59
Ron Paul Interviewed By Charles Goyette Pt #4by specsaregood1,673 views
- 9:33
Ron Paul Interviewed By Charles Goyette Pt #3by specsaregood2,384 views
- 7:59
Ron Paul Speaks at USC 4 of 5 (RonPaulVoices.com)by playaz332,915 views
- 3:29
Ron Paul Rally: July 6th, 2007by Galatians4163,061 views
- 8:45
Government Spendingby fruitjacket896 views
- 2:44
Greater Philadelphia Ron Paul Banner Workshopby briankelly013,955 views
lol this video kind of made me horny
bvnjb1 3 years ago
"If you say you are in favor of removing some rights under some circumstances then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant period." - 1f3rn
So it's all or none then? Do we associate all things in the constitution with each other? I'll use your own example about anti-gun activists; if we were to focus on the "gun control is against the 2nd amendment" argument (instead of the other arguments you mentioned about gun control) this might just create more resentment toward the constitution.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
"History has taught us that this type of reasoning has lead to the creation of an oppressive government." - 1f3rn
You're being a bit presumptuous there. I would've thought that history has taught us more so that blindly accepting a particular dogma and insisting that deviation from it is a slippery slope led to the creation of oppresive governments. Granted, accepting the constitution probably wouldn't mean bigger government, but oppression can still come from other sources than government...
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
"Then like I asked in my other comment, which was ignored, what would be the other cause for the expansion of an oppressive government if it did not rise to power by overturning its constitution?" - 1f3rn
I thought I adressed this rather than ignoring it, but in any case, I now have a better answer than whatever I previously gave. What if the oppressive government came from an invasion from some other country, one perhaps without a constitution or one whose constitution encouraged aggression?
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
No it does not depend on certain rights and under certain circumstances. History has taught us that this type of reasoning has lead to the creation of an oppressive government. We have a number of stipulations that state what we have a right to. If you say you are in favor of removing some rights under some circumstances then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant period.
1f3rn 3 years ago
Then like I asked in my other comment, which was ignored, what would be the other cause for the expansion of an oppressive government if it did not rise to power by overturning its constitution?
1f3rn 3 years ago
"Then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant and would be in favor of stripping citizens of their rights." - 1f3rn
That depends on which rights, and under which circumstances, but in any case, not holding the constitution to be relevant (and I wasn't dismissing it as completely irrelevant) doesn't immediately lead to stripping citizens of their rights; as I already said, if the constitution is the only thing that's stopping us, that's a problem itself to begin with.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago
Then you do not hold the constitution to be relevant and would be in favor of stripping citizens of their rights.
1f3rn 3 years ago
*That it is not the case that rejecting the stipulations in the constitution is to blame for the corruption in congress.
1f3rn 3 years ago
"Now, what is the other cause of the expansion of the police state in the US by the disarming of the citizens if it is not the rejection of its constitution?" - 1f3rn
Again, that's quite a constitution-centric approach. People shouldn't depend on 1 single document from hundreds of years ago for their legal principles; if anything, people focusing on the "gun control violates the 2nd amendment" argument makes them focus less on the other arguments, which would if anything be counterproductive.
HiddenFacedMatt 3 years ago