5 votes

Smear Attempt: Ron Paul Is Wrong About The Fifth Amendment

Blatantly biased smear attempt by an amateurish writer.

Lets flood this guys comment section.

Comment viewing options

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

He mentions a "secret memo" and

when you click on it you get...Some people have seen it but it doesn't give any details (if in fact it exists) and irregardless the mere words "secret memo" goes against everything the constitution stands for. Obombya needs to be impeached before he tears this country apart, return his nobel peace prize, and report directly to Guatanamo for the rest of his days.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

Smear or True Belief?

I think what we're missing is that he really believes what he's writing. We know better so we say he's smearing Ron Paul.

I tried to point out what's wrong with his argument in a blog post I wrote (plug!), but what do we do to educate all the people who eat this kind of "All Terrorists Should Die" attitude a lot of Americans have?

GREAT JOB! LOL, 2 pages all

GREAT JOB! LOL, 2 pages all PRO-PAUL!!!

The guy's argument is severly flawed.

He says that we are at war with al Qaeda, however, what was signed in 2001 was explicitly to go after OBL and those responsible for 9/11. If they cannot prove that these two men had anything to do with 9/11 then the directive which passed Congress and signed by the President, does not apply to them. A declaration of War was, up until this May when the military budget was passed, did not apply to groups, or individuals unless identifiable by a specific uniform.

If we were to accept their argument we could also prove their argument false there also: If they were so convinced of this legal statute then why didn't they send drones after "Jihad Jane," instead of police. I suppose he thinks it is perfectly fine to use a police force to act as a military force, however, there is no acceptable statute which grants this.

So, if police aren't used for wars and we're at war with al Qaeda, and "Jihad Jane" was al Qaeda, then why did we use police and not a drone strike?

The argument is illogical or inconsistent with logical arguments and therefore must be treated as to allow the federal government to negate civil liberties. Civil liberties which the Constitution most effectively guarantees.

According to his logic,

According to his logic, Congress can declare war against any group or person, and the government can legally kill them without due process. Ridiculous.

theres a few good responses.

theres a few good responses. this guy is attempting to smear the good doctor we need to show him its unacceptable

bump this thread

bump this thread