Ron Paul: The Movie.. Let's see you debunk this.

Star and flag; make it go viral. I made a thread about the blatantly obvious coordinated media attack against Ron Paul. The good thing is, many more people are not getting their news, at least exclusively, from the big 6 MSM outlets. They're getting in online and using their own brains to make decisions about how to interpret "the news".

I find it fantastic that even Glenn Beck is pointing out how the MSM is deliberately smearing Ron Paul.

Spread the word to everyone you know. This election HAS to be an election about freedom vs. tyranny because that IS what it's all about. You may not agree with everything Rob Paul says, but my god, we are at the precipice where our very freedoms and the Constitution are in serious jeopardy.

Has anyone else noticed what I have noticed?

With all the Ron Paul threads floating around, we see the same people in all of them bashing Ron Paul left and right, and yet not a single one of them has shown up in this thread?

Am I the only one who has noticed or find this just a bit interesting? Guess it is tough to debunk facts

I prefer this movie where you get to see how looney he really is for calling everything unconstitutional.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Aww how cute. You finally stepped in this thread to make your case.

I have a question. After watching your video it should be easy to prove how looney Ron Paul is, by your own words, so can you show us where in the Constitution it says the Federal government has the authority to create programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Mandate Union Wages, Income Tax and everything else listed in your video?

If it is Constitutional, you should have no problem copying the text and proving your claim. It should be very easy to do, it is a simple question of weather or not the Constitution authorizes these things or not. So by all means, show us all and prove once and for all that Ron Paul is just some crazy guy. If you can do that, I will be the first person to make a thread denouncing Ron Paul and calling him looney.

Please spare me your opinion, I will spare you mine. Just show me the text.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Aww how cute. You finally stepped in this thread to make your case.

I have a question. After watching your video it should be easy to prove how looney Ron Paul is, by your own words, so can you show us where in the Constitution it says the Federal government has the authority to create programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Mandate Union Wages, Income Tax and everything else listed in your video?

If it is Constitutional, you should have no problem copying the text and proving your claim. It should be very easy to do, it is a simple question of weather or not the Constitution authorizes these things or not. So by all means, show us all and prove once and for all that Ron Paul is just some crazy guy. If you can do that, I will be the first person to make a thread denouncing Ron Paul and calling him looney.

Please spare me your opinion, I will spare you mine. Just show me the text.

That's easy, those programs have had years of scrutiny and the Supreme Court has not ruled them Unconstitutional.
Only the Supreme Court can rule something Unconstitutional, NOT Ron Paul.
If he really wanted any of those to be declared unconstitutional he would create and present a case for it before the Supreme Court.
Instead he tries in his utter disdain and contempt for the Constitution, to bypass the Constitution itself and strike down anything he deems as unconstitutional.
A pure lunatic in action.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That's easy, those programs have had years of scrutiny and the Supreme Court has not ruled them Unconstitutional.
Only the Supreme Court can rule something Unconstitutional, NOT Ron Paul.
If he really wanted any of those to be declared unconstitutional he would create and present a case for it before the Supreme Court.
Instead he tries in his utter disdain and contempt for the Constitution, to bypass the Constitution itself and strike down anything he deems as unconstitutional.
A pure lunatic in action.

edit on 29-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

WRONG and you have clearly shown your complete ignorance to how the process works. ANY court can deem something unconstitutional. That is the job of ALL courts. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort. When you have been to every other court and exhausted every appeal, you can take your case before the Supreme Court and they make the final and last ruling. However, not anyone gets a case heard by the Supreme Court. they can pick and choose which cases they hear. Every year roughly 5000 request are made to the Supreme Court which is known as a petition for writ of certiorari. Each Justice has a number of Law Clerks who read through each single petition for writ of certiorari and submit a "cert memo" regarding the writs they review to the justice they are assigned. The judges review the memos and hold a conference to determine which of these cases should go on the court's docket. This is known as the "Ruling of Four" because you must have 4 Justices who agree to hear the case.

I could go on and on blasting and chipping away at you clear attempt at misdirection, but instead I am going to ask you again to do the same thing I asked you before.

Show us the text!

You made a claim, now prove your claim. Posting anything besides the text to prove your assertion is nothing more than deflection, misdirection, and your attempt to change the subject to anything else besides proving your assertion. So stop the games, show me the text!

reply to post by MrWendal


Yes it is the job of the Judicial Branch of government to determine Constitutionality, of which the Supreme Court is the highest representative, it is NOT the job of one nutjob like Ron Paul to determine Constitutionality.

Thanks for agreeing with me and the law of the land.

Edit, almost forgot,

What "text" are you raving about that I must present? The title of this thread is about "Movie" not text so I provided a Movie in rebuttal, therefore there is no requirement for any text whatsoever. But if you need one you can watch the movie I provided over and over again making your own text. Maybe it will help to sink in for you.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Silly silly poster.

For starters, I did not prove your point. You said if it was unconstitutional the Supreme Court would have stepped in and declared it so. I said wrong and proved it.

Secondly, the text I am raving about is in response to your first post in this thread, which was completely off topic. Not once have you attempted to use anything in the OP or videos in the OP to make a point, instead you posted your own video with a statement that said,

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
I prefer this movie where you get to see how looney he really is for calling everything unconstitutional.

The video cites examples like Medicare, Medicade, Income tax, and everything else I listed in my reply to you. So my response to you was, if he is looney for saying these things are unconstitutional, then you should have no problem showing us where in the Constitution the Federal Government is authorized to create these programs. It is a very simple question, so show us the text that proves your claim.

How amusing to me how your goal is to distract and take threads off topic and you managed to only confuse and distract yourself. So please, focus and remember which Ron Paul thread you are in while you are promoting your agenda and try to stay on topic.

Which by the way, your video was completely off topic and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but instead of pointing out the obvious, I decided to play along, so please do try to keep up.

edited to add: Do not make a claim that your video was a rebuttal of the OP. It clearly is not because your video does not address a single thing listed in the OP or the movie. Nice try, but how about you try something like honesty instead? What you posted in your edit is a bold faced lie.

reply to post by MrWendal


All you proved was that Ron Paul is NOT as passionate in his belief that any of those things are unconstitutional. He would have championed at least one cause to bring it before the Judicial Branch of government for review and state his case against its Constitutionallity. You know, actually follow the Constitution he pretends to uphold.

He has done no such thing, only ranted and raved about things he thinks are unconstitutional. It's like peeing in the wind because you are too lazy to use the urinal 10 steps away.

It is not always easy to spot a troll, but after engaging one it soon becomes apparent.
For example, after researching Ron Paul, and watching a movie such as the one you posted, you KNOW he will be attacked by every corrupt institution we are governed by. But, these institutions will not accept feedback comments, or if they do, they censor them. The reason, of course, is that they don't deal in FACT, and the reader will call them out on it.
Same on ATS. If you engage a troll, they will not deal in fact. They can't. They have to resort to lies and distortions. I particular abhor the comment, "you just proved my point", when nothing of the sort took place. The tactic, of course, is NOT to make any sense, to lead you into frustration. After all, we ARE talking about trolls.
What used to work, was the appeal to the ignorant masses. You know, "everyone KNOWS Ron Paul is a kook", or something along those lines. Because of the diligent work of people like YOU OP, and others like my humble self, we have slowly gotten real people to take a closer look...not to fall for the traps laid by the trolls in ALL media and forums. They have to be pissed that we have done so well.
The internet has done wonders for truth. Anyone that has not taken advantage of the wealth of knowledge posted here on ATS, and other remarkable sites, is by choice ignorant in so many ways....like how to spot a disinformation campaign among other things.
Keep up the good work.
.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by MrWendal

 

All you proved was that Ron Paul is NOT as passionate in his belief that any of those things are unconstitutional. He would have championed at least one cause to bring it before the Judicial Branch of government for review and state his case against its Constitutionallity. You know, actually follow the Constitution he pretends to uphold.

He has done no such thing, only ranted and raved about things he thinks are unconstitutional. It's like peeing in the wind because you are too lazy to use the urinal 10 steps away.

So you are going to remain off topic and refuse to answer any direct question or was my request and question too complicated?

With all the talking your doing, you are refusing to prove your initial point. I could not care any less about your opinion, I just want to see the proof of your claim. Is that too hard to understand?

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by MrWendal

 

All you proved was that Ron Paul is NOT as passionate in his belief that any of those things are unconstitutional. He would have championed at least one cause to bring it before the Judicial Branch of government for review and state his case against its Constitutionallity. You know, actually follow the Constitution he pretends to uphold.

He has done no such thing, only ranted and raved about things he thinks are unconstitutional. It's like peeing in the wind because you are too lazy to use the urinal 10 steps away.

So you are going to remain off topic and refuse to answer any direct question or was my request and question too complicated?

With all the talking your doing, you are refusing to prove your initial point. I could not care any less about your opinion, I just want to see the proof of your claim. Is that too hard to understand?

Ron Paul can continue to rant and rave about all the things he thinks are unconstitutional, he has never used the Constitution to prove a single one of his rants.

The burden of proof is on his shoulders to prove they are Unconstitutional and just saying his opinion does not count, he has to get the Judicial Branch to overturn at least one thing that he identifies as Unconstitutional.

He has failed to do so or even try. In the same way you have also failed in trying to shift the burden of proof.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


I am not sifting anything. You made the claim and therefor the burden of proof lies with you. So show us the text where the Constitution authorizes Medicare, Medicaid, Income Tax, Social Security, etc etc as you presented as a rebuttal to the OP.

It is also the same burden of proof I held myself to in the OP. I posted the links to support my conclusions. If you are correct in your conclusion, or even have a basis for your conclusions, it should not be hard to show us why you believe as you do. So please, by all means, prove us all wrong and make myself and others look like idiots and show us the text.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I am not sifting anything. You made the claim and therefor the burden of proof lies with you. So show us the text where the Constitution authorizes Medicare, Medicaid, Income Tax, Social Security, etc etc as you presented as a rebuttal to the OP.

It is also the same burden of proof I held myself to in the OP. I posted the links to support my conclusions. If you are correct in your conclusion, or even have a basis for your conclusions, it should not be hard to show us why you believe as you do. So please, by all means, prove us all wrong and make myself and others look like idiots and show us the text.

They are in fact Constitutional Laws until the Judicial Branch says otherwise.
What is so hard to understand?
Simplest thing to ever prove of all time.

Now answer why Ron Paul never tried to use the Constitution to challenge any of those laws that he identifies as being unconstitutional. Specifically challenging them in the Courts? Why are they still laws if all that is needed is for savior Ron Paul to walk into a courtroom and save us all from these injustices?

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
They are in fact Constitutional Laws until the Judicial Branch says otherwise.
What is so hard to understand?
Simplest thing to ever prove of all time.

I agree it should be the simplest thing to prove of all time, so please prove it. Show us where in the Constitution it says that Congress or the Federal Government has the authority to create these programs.

Now answer why Ron Paul never tried to use the Constitution to challenge any of those laws that he identifies as being unconstitutional. Specifically challenging them in the Courts? Why are they still laws if all that is needed is for savior Ron Paul to walk into a courtroom and save us all from these injustices?

I will be more than happy to answer your question once you answer mine. Fact is, this is your tactic that you use in every thread. You ask a question not related to the thread topic and you harp on it, all the while failing to prove your own claims. So once you answer my question, I will be more than happy to explain yours. Let's take this conversation one step at a time.

So I ask again... please prove your claims. Show us the text.

Has anyone seen the latest nonsenes article from CNN?

Paul primary victory unlikely, candidates agree

Bachmann is throwing a fit! (Kinda like an anti-Paul troll on ATS we have all come to know)

"He's not going to, Wolf," Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" on Thursday. "It's never going to happen. Never going to happen, Wolf. It is never going to happen."

reply to post by MrWendal


You want the text? Go get a copy of the Constitution. In it you will find that only the Judicial Branch can strike down a Law as unconstitutional.
Every law is constitutional until they (the Judicial Branch) say otherwise, its as simple as that. This includes all of the laws Ron Paul rants and raves about.
The burden is on him to prove they are unconstitutional. He's had 14 years of doing nothing about it in the service of this country. He had ample time to find like minded people, gather support, gather money for legal costs and get together a team of lawyers to present his case for at least one example of unconstitutional law to challenge in the courts. Guess he was too busy gathering Pork for his reelections to concern himself with bothering, or wasting his time with failed Presidential runs.
Take it up with Ron Paul, he is the one making the charges that they are unconstitutional, the total burden of proof is on him.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


It's a good thing you showed up. Ironically, you validate the OP tremendously.

Proof is in the pudding I guess. Ask and you shall receive.

reply to post by The Sword

Reply to post by MrWendal

Ron Paul, like every other man, is fallible.

I was honest. I was suckered by Obama. Don't let yourself be suckered by RP.

For nearly 30 years Ron Paul has been a solitary paragon of virtue walking through the halls of Congress all alone. He always stands up for what is right. His accomplishments are many, and include....... umm..... uhhh... well. what has he done? Not a lot for 30 years....

My point is, he hasn't influenced our laws or our people in any significant way. He's been pretty much a small district politician typical of small district leeches who just wanted to keep a job for 30 years. He's done nothing to write home about.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by MrWendal

 

You want the text? Go get a copy of the Constitution. In it you will find that only the Judicial Branch can strike down a Law as unconstitutional.

Here is a link to the US Constitution. Can you please point out the Article and Section which authorizes the Federal Government to create programs and policies such as Medicare, Medicaid, Income Tax, Social Security, Mandating of Union Wages, and everything else listed in the video you posted?

US Constitution

Fact is you can not. I know you can not because the quoted statement above is inherently wrong. You are probably wondering how so? I will do my best to explain it in the simplest possible terms. The job of the Judicial Branch is to review laws. In order for laws to be reviewed, one must bring about a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of the law. In order to bring about a lawsuit, you must be an injured party and be able to prove harm. So to strike a law down as "Unconstitutional" does not start with the Judicial Branch. It starts with We the People. People like Ron Paul, people like myself, people like you. More on this later as I continue to dissect your inane, deflecting, misdirecting ramblings.

Every law is constitutional until they (the Judicial Branch) say otherwise, its as simple as that. This includes all of the laws Ron Paul rants and raves about.

Well that is simply wrong and shows you have no clue about how this system you support actually works nor it's history. As an example of how far off base your statement is, let us look at the right of Blacks to vote and the 15th Amendment. Today we would say denying a Black person the right to vote is Unconstitutional. However back in the 1800's they were not allowed to vote and the Supreme Court obviously did not stand up and say, "This is Unconstitutional!" as a matter of fact, It was the position of the Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants whether or not they were slaves, were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens. Feel free to look into Dred Scott vs Sandford for this ruling which was upheld by a vote of 7-2.

Furthermore, all these "laws Ron Paul rants and raves about" are not actually laws. They are Policies and they are programs. They are not laws. So how can someone like Ron Paul claim that the Department of Education is Unconstitutional? The easy answer is because there is no enumerated power of the federal government to regulate education. Mr. Paul would be 100% correct in making this claim. However, Congress does have the power to pass legislation funding all kinds of programs, including programs that fund education. In those funding bills (called appropriations), Congress can condition payment on the states compliance with certain conditions, like requiring schools to meet minimum test scores, or requiring schools institute affirmative action hiring policies. Therefore, Congress can ‘regulate’ education by its power of the purse.

The burden is on him to prove they are unconstitutional.

Wrong, as usual. Ron Paul does not have to prove that these Policies are Unconstitutional. The authority is not granted by the Constitution, so that Constitution itself is all the evidence you need.

He's had 14 years of doing nothing about it in the service of this country. He had ample time to find like minded people, gather support, gather money for legal costs and get together a team of lawyers to present his case for at least one example of unconstitutional law to challenge in the courts. Guess he was too busy gathering Pork for his reelections to concern himself with bothering, or wasting his time with failed Presidential runs.

The remainder of your post is more blah blah blah blah. As I have already shown it is not as easy as getting some cash together and putting together a legal team. Fact is these thigns you call "laws" are not in fact laws. They are Policies and Programs that were brought about through Legislation and through Legislation they can also be dissolved. So how much Legislation has Ron Paul presented in an attempt to repeal these things? I will leave that for you to look into yourself, although I would not expect you to do so. Truth is clearly not something that interest you.

TP- your 15 mins of internet fame are up. You should probably move along now and find a thread that you can easily derail, cause in this thread, you are clearly out of your league.