interesting insight on ron paul from an insider:

[achilles28]

Quote from DAS Trader:



According to PPP, the majority of Bachmann supporters list none other than Ron Paul as their second choice, so I don't see the faux racism or his nuanced and Constitutional argument on the civil rights act slowing him down one iota. If anything, I expect his numbers to continue their steady and deliberate climb.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1218925.pdf

I really hope so. I mean Ron was the father of the Teaparty, for crying out loud. Bachmann is constitution lite.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

Two thumbs up!


I can't even imagine the stupidity that must be required for someone to call this "racism".

It was easy at founding, blacks and women weren't citizens.

 

[Mvector]

Quote from achilles28:

The CR65 answer was a nuanced one. There is no authority granted in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to dictate to private business who they must serve. Period. That's all he meant. Of course, be it right or left, the MSM has their agenda. And in this case, Matthews pursued it vigorously to smear Paul as a cold-hearted racist, when the argument had zero to do with race.

It really comes down to law. We are a nation of laws, or not. We can't pick and choose which Constitutional amendments to follow, and not others. But that's exactly what we've done for the past 100 years.

Anyway, here's a good example of Ron Pauls viscous racism:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Rv0Z5SNrF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know some people who were also helped by Dr. Paul and that was one of the reasons I decided to actively support him - he is an action guy with excellent character - very very hard to find in this world.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Mvector:

I know some people who were also helped by Dr. Paul and that was one of the reasons I decided to actively support him - he is an action guy with excellent character - very very hard to find in this world.

I hope more of these character stories find their way to Ron's SuperPac.

Maybe you could email and let them know? They could use it in a campaign ad?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from achilles28:

The CR65 answer was a nuanced one. There is no authority granted in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to dictate to private business who they must serve. Period. That's all he meant. Of course, be it right or left, the MSM has their agenda. And in this case, Matthews pursued it vigorously to smear Paul as a cold-hearted racist, when the argument had zero to do with race.

It really comes down to law. We are a nation of laws, or not. We can't pick and choose which Constitutional amendments to follow, and not others. But that's exactly what we've done for the past 100 years.

Anyway, here's a good example of Ron Pauls viscous racism:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Rv0Z5SNrF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No no, don't think that I agree with msnbc, I do not in this case.

I have to admit that they baited Paul into giving them the sound byte that they wanted, and he gave it to them. I was very frustrated when I saw this on YouTube. We will be seeing this many times if he threatens Mittens, believe me.

Between that, and the newsletters, they have all the ammo they need. I assure you, if you are a student of political assassination, they have all they need.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from achilles28:

The CR65 answer was a nuanced one. There is no authority granted in the Constitution that empowers the Federal Government to dictate to private business who they must serve. Period. That's all he meant. Of course, be it right or left, the MSM has their agenda. And in this case, Matthews pursued it vigorously to smear Paul as a cold-hearted racist, when the argument had zero to do with race.

It really comes down to law. We are a nation of laws, or not. We can't pick and choose which Constitutional amendments to follow, and not others. But that's exactly what we've done for the past 100 years.

Anyway, here's a good example of Ron Pauls viscous racism:

So you are suggesting that that CR64 was unconstitutional then?

 

[jem]

Quote from RCG Trader:

So you are suggesting that that CR64 was unconstitutional then?

I am for civil rights. so do not take this the wrong way.

But, anytime you have the federal govt claiming more power under the 14th amendment or its right to regulate interstate commerce.... you usually have the federal govt attempting to seize a power it was not given...

Note powers not given to the Federal Govt were explicitly reserved to the states by the Constitution.

 

[Crispy]

Quote from jem:



But, anytime you have the federal govt claiming more power under the 14th amendment or its right to regulate interstate commerce.... you usually have the federal govt attempting to seize a power it was not given...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html


"Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government's actions. For if a judicial decree of "unconstitutional" is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of "constitutional" is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power."

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

It was easy at founding, blacks and women weren't citizens.

And for good reason. At least at that time.