0 votes

Nimrod Alert!

If anybody is feeling extra specially upbeat today, they can go and beat up this jerk for his especially thorough attack article. I'm just not up to it today. :-Q

One of the nice things about the movement is that it is not necessary to do everything yourself. Sometimes, we just have to move over and let more skilled hands and clearer heads take care of things. :-)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank You

Thank you all for addressing this jerk. I just wasn't up to it yesterday. You have to have a certain level of positive emotional energy to spend when defending principles against hysterical Nimrods like that and I just didn't have it yesterday. I will probably put in my $.02 today.

My response to Nimrod...

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution is very clear that any issues not directly addressed in the Constitution are to be remanded to the states for decision. Dr. Paul is anti-gay marriage, anti abortion, anti drug abuse, anti-prostitution, etc. But as he has stated many times, these issues are to be handled by the states, not the federal government.

Dr. Paul’s voting record shows he is a strict Constitutionalist. For this reason, he is called “Dr. No” on Capital Hill. If it is not covered in the Constitution, he votes against it. All of the issues in your friend’s paper are things that the Constitution forbids Federal government from being involved. They are to be handled by the states. It is not a question of morals, it is a question of how our Republic is set up (according to the Constitution).

I have seen first hand, the results of the “war on drugs.” It is a joke. There is more drug abuse today then there was 17 years ago when I started my paramedic career. The drugs are worse and more dangerous. It would be a more effective program were it run by the states individually.

The Constitution says the Federal government should not ban gay marriage either. The states must individually do that. That is what separation of “church and state” was really meant to deal with. The first amendment says that the federal government cannot establish any laws with respect to religion. The states can establish gay marriage (a religious issue – addressed specifically by the Bible), or establish that gay marriage is not recognized. Colorado passed laws in the last election specifying that marriage was between man and woman. And that is where that law must be passed, according to the Constitution – at the state level. I think that the states must decide against gay marriage (and I have voted to back that up) and not the Federal government. I believe that because it is what the Constitution says. Does that mean I am a conservative with no morals? Of course not!

The abortion issue should have never gone to the federal courts. The fact that it did is a violation of the 10th Amendment. If it had stayed with the state court, it would still be illegal. Instead, we have Roe v Wade and now your tax dollars paying for planned parenthood to conduct abortions – another issue that Ron Paul is against. His answer to the abortion issue is to establish in the Constitution that life begins in the womb. When that happens, abortion will be considered murder (just as it would be if a baby right out of the womb were to be killed).

The point is not whether these things should be illegal (we know they should), the point is whether the Constitution allows the Federal government to interfere in the law making of the individual states. I think that as Roe v Wade demonstrated, if the states handled these things themselves, we would have been (and would still be) better off.

Ron Paul is not a conservative without morals (he actually has very high morals and is a believer), he is a conservative who thinks the federal government should actually follow the Constitution instead of giving it lip service and violating it every time no one is looking. This is easy for politicians to do, since most of our country does not even know what it says. I, for one, cannot vote for candidates that continue to trample the Constitution. We are losing too many freedoms and the government is getting more and more involved in my life, my right to preach, my right to proclaim my Lord as He has ordered me to and my privacy. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will set those things straight. He has a ten year voting record in the House of Representatives to back that up. His record speaks far more than any Google search can ever do. The rest of the candidates can’t say that… Besides, the rest of the politicians are bought off by special interests and have no regard for your personal life or welfare.

Here is a You Tube link that has a list that covers most everything I am talking about, in regards to Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=84FF44D803A6B772

Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Ron Paul - Lion of the Constitution

You're Right

Both you and I feel that moral issues are important. I think that we also have an understanding that morals imposed by force are inherently wrong, except where the morals of one violate the property rights of another. Inherent in the power to impose morality that does not violate property rights is the ability to turn that same power against the wielder. In other words, if I pass a law restricting your views on something which you consider moral, you may later on, pass similar restrictions on my moral views. It's best if such things are left alone.

I personally am against abortion, but I believe that there can be extenuating circumstances. For example, if the pregnancy is caused by rape, incest or [maybe even] failure of reliable birth control methods, the woman's property rights (to her own body) have been violated and the results curtail her free use of said property. It is possible to justify abortion in such cases. In other cases, it could be said that the woman entered into an implied contract and should bring the baby to term. If we understand the concept of property rights to be the basis for all just law, such a contract cannot morally be abrogated because, once conception occurs, the contract involves 3 people, not just the two original parties. While the original parties may want to invalidate the contract, it can be safely assumed that the new party is unwilling. :-)

If we look at laws from the point of view of property rights, everything sorts itself out - just laws should protect property rights. Dr. Paul understands this.

And I'm going to shut up now, because, not only is this off-topic, but I'm beginning to sound like a blasted lawyer! :-P


The article points out only that Ron Paul voted NO on these issues for the right's of all the state's to make those laws.

Let's all remember that the most important issue that is said by Ron
Paul is returning ALL power back to the state's and that way we all have
our individual liberty that we are sorely lacking now.

I also do agree the JB is one big dumb Neo-Con and his article tells
me that we are strong and that Ron Paul is the man to beat.

I know that Ron Paul is anti-abortions biggest VOICE and with this article it re-enforces it even more than before.
I also sent him a nice stinging Pro-Ron Paul e-mail and made sure that he
understood just what a Constitutionalist is suppose to be !!!!

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

Is this a hit piece?

While it has a lot of misleading section headers like: "Not strong on National defense" it also then says "military aggressiveness weakens national defense" and "declare war or don't go to war" and "does not favor going to war with Iran."

Throughout the article, the author lists a lot of things that any sensible reader would probably support. Remember, 30% still supports Bush. Meaning that 30% might just be unreachable by any sort of intelligent communication.

"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."

Creepers Freepers

That "writer" is just another brownshirt with a Leader Fixation.

He's baiting us

If ever I saw a baiting....LOL...No one could be that uninformed.
Ignore him and the silence will be deafening. :-)

Just say Yes to Dr No

GoodSamaritan's picture

JB Williams

Is a warmongering NeoCon - not a Constitutionalist as he claims. If he were, he would know that the reason Dr. Paul voted the way he did on virtually every piece of legislation mentioned in the article is that there is no Constitutional authority for federal involvement in those areas.

Perhaps someone paid him to write this hit piece. It is full of half-truths and misrepresentations. For example, he clearly does not understand what he is talking about when he refers to Dr. Paul as an isolationist. He makes the common (deliberate?) mistake of confusing isolation with non-intervention.

Notice this line that shows Williams thinks the Constitution is a "living" document: "He claims that the constitution somehow prevents us from protecting our national security interests abroad. He also fails to recognize that the national security threats are much different today, as compared to those present in 1776."

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

scathing article

I commented that I intend to vote for Ron Paul and that he should not have spent so much time on an article about such an insignificant candidate.


No need to visit that site.

To be honest, he's probably just hoping for hits on the web site to increase advertising.