And this is why some people can't be turned to Ron Paul

[Sematary]

I was having a discussion on twitter with a neocon (I think it's a neocon since he says he is pro interventionism). Anyway, he had said that Ron Paul was an "extremist" and I asked him how following the constitution had become an extreme position and this was the answer I received:

when it became impractical. When people were dying in the streets because the "evil welfare state" was yet to arrive.

So now I have no idea if this guy is a neocon or a warmongering liberal but apparently the Constitution represents an extremist position and changing the constitution through amendments is simply too slow a process. I'm still waiting for an answer on how following THE law of the land is the wrong thing to do - aside from a stupid comment about it being too difficult to amend. /Crickets chirping

[Philhelm]

Definitely not a Neocon; they at least play lip service to the Constitution. Also, nobody has starved in the U.S. since Jamestown . . . and the Donner Party expedition. But food stamps wouldn't have helped there.

If anything, the Constitution is even more relevant in today's society with today's technology (search and seizures, for instance).

[donnay]

Most of the ignorance is not knowing the history of the country--or history in general. Knowing the Constitution and knowing what rights Vs. privileges are, is where many of these people get hamstrung, but if you lay it all out for them, you plant the seeds in their head and hopefully they will grow!

[LibertyEagle]

Sounds like a warmongering leftist to me.

[BuddyRey]

I used to think progressives and neocons were completely different, but they're not. Any perceivable difference between them is only a matter of degree, not of fundamental philosophical principles.

Tell me who you think this guy supports. (warning: graphic and very violent language)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaL4xODsQ5Y


If you guessed "Obama", step right up...you win a Kewpie doll!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jHkcnViAIU

[Voluntary Man]

I was having a discussion on twitter with a neocon (I think it's a neocon since he says he is pro interventionism). Anyway, he had said that Ron Paul was an "extremist" and I asked him how following the constitution had become an extreme position and this was the answer I received:

when it became impractical. When people were dying in the streets because the "evil welfare state" was yet to arrive.

So now I have no idea if this guy is a neocon or a warmongering liberal but apparently the Constitution represents an extremist position and changing the constitution through amendments is simply too slow a process. I'm still waiting for an answer on how following THE law of the land is the wrong thing to do - aside from a stupid comment about it being too difficult to amend. /Crickets chirping

Unshackling the federal government, by ignoring the Constitution, is EXTREMELY stupid.

[sailingaway]

I was having a discussion on twitter with a neocon (I think it's a neocon since he says he is pro interventionism). Anyway, he had said that Ron Paul was an "extremist" and I asked him how following the constitution had become an extreme position and this was the answer I received:

when it became impractical. When people were dying in the streets because the "evil welfare state" was yet to arrive.

So now I have no idea if this guy is a neocon or a warmongering liberal but apparently the Constitution represents an extremist position and changing the constitution through amendments is simply too slow a process. I'm still waiting for an answer on how following THE law of the land is the wrong thing to do - aside from a stupid comment about it being too difficult to amend. /Crickets chirping

ask for pictures of the people dying in the street for lack of a welfare state. I must have missed it. I've seen people on the streets DESPITE a huge welfare state, however.

[FrankRep]

Not a Neocon.

Progressive Warmonger.

[noneedtoaggress]

Also, nobody has starved in the U.S. since Jamestown . . . and the Donner Party expedition. But food stamps wouldn't have helped there.

eh?

[specsaregood]

Sounds like a warmongering leftist to me.

Sounds like an anarchist to me; I mean he is actively supporting ignoring the law.

[specsaregood]

ask for pictures of the people dying in the street for lack of a welfare state. I must have missed it. I've seen people on the streets DESPITE a huge welfare state, however.

Well I'm pretty sure people were starving back during the great depression.....of course while that was happening our govt was actively destroying/plowing under crops to prop up prices on food....

[narrowphoenix]

Sounds like an idiot to me, tell him to read a book about free markets and sound money!

[AGRP]

Maybe he's just stupid.

[Conza88]

I was having a discussion on twitter with a neocon (I think it's a neocon since he says he is pro interventionism). Anyway, he had said that Ron Paul was an "extremist" and I asked him how following the constitution had become an extreme position and this was the answer I received:

when it became impractical. When people were dying in the streets because the "evil welfare state" was yet to arrive.

So now I have no idea if this guy is a neocon or a warmongering liberal but apparently the Constitution represents an extremist position and changing the constitution through amendments is simply too slow a process. I'm still waiting for an answer on how following THE law of the land is the wrong thing to do - aside from a stupid comment about it being too difficult to amend. /Crickets chirping



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrLASy8oqSg

Send him this.

[sailingaway]

Not a Neocon.

Progressive Warmonger.

Neocons are Trotskyites. How is that not being a progressive warmonger?

A neocon is not the same thing as a national security conservative. A neocon IS a progressive.

[Athan]

Not a Neocon.

Progressive Warmonger.
Uh.. that is a neocon.
Democrat + trotsky = neocon
Warmonger + leftist = neocon

[AGRP]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuefjIYKkjE&feature=channel_video_title

[KingNothing]

when it became impractical. When people were dying in the streets because the "evil welfare state" was yet to arrive.


Oh, right back in the year... ummm.... uhh.... 19... no... 17... wait... 189-something... uh. Did that ever happen?

Some people developed views that are distressingly anathema to reality.

[vechorik]

Sounds like an idiot to me, tell him to read a book about free markets and sound money!

.........and history, like why the Constitution was written in the first place (to form a union and to guarantee the states that there would be limited government, so the states wouldn't fall under tyranny (again)

The left has done a good job convincing people that the Constitution is an old document that doesn't pertain to modern life.
When Dr. Paul speaks of the Constitution, it falls on deaf ears with those people.
No one-liner will ever convince them of the value of the Constitution. It's a long educational process.

[NidStyles]

Also, nobody has starved in the U.S. since Jamestown . . . and the Donner Party expedition.

Uhh, what?
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=463

It's estimated that 7 Million people disappeared during the Great Depression. Now my Grandfather who was in his 20's during this Era says that rumors of cannibalism were going around, but I doubt that all 7 Million of those people were eaten. Especially when actual documentation states that there were people starving to death.

[otherone]

I used to think progressives and neocons were completely different, but they're not. Any perceivable difference between them is only a matter of degree, not of fundamental philosophical principles.



The only difference is HOW they want to spend MY money.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jHkcnViAIU

You can hear Chris Matthews in the background and this man is apparently what happens when someone believes every word Matthew's says...

Very scary stuff.

[Simple]

Turn him on to some Tom Woods and see if his worldview starts to change. This might be a good start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSUYRtucUAg

[GrahamUK]

ask for pictures of the people dying in the street for lack of a welfare state. I must have missed it. I've seen people on the streets DESPITE a huge welfare state, however.

I live in the United Kingdom, we have a MASSIVE craddle to grave welfare state and yet we still have large numbers of homeless people. Your guys point is moot..

[ryanmkeisling]

Neocons are Trotskyites. How is that not being a progressive warmonger?

A neocon is not the same thing as a national security conservative. A neocon IS a progressive.

This. Neocons have no respect for the constitution or the rule of law. The Bush administration is a prime example, they were pure neoconservatives trampling the constitution. Here is Ron Pauls description of neoconservatives:

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means – that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

[Deborah K]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrLASy8oqSg

Send him this.

I've not seen this clip before. This is beautiful. Yet another example of this man's consistent principles.

[GrahamUK]

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

Most of the major players in the Bush administration were students of his. Strauss indoctrinated Rumsfeld,Paul Wolfowitz and Cheney into the neoconservative philosophy when they were in college..

[Sematary]

Uhh, what?
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=463

It's estimated that 7 Million people disappeared during the Great Depression. Now my Grandfather who was in his 20's during this Era says that rumors of cannibalism were going around, but I doubt that all 7 Million of those people were eaten. Especially when actual documentation states that there were people starving to death.

So really, shouldn't the STATES have filled the void - not the federal government?

[Anti Federalist]

when it became impractical. When people were dying in the streets because the "evil welfare state" was yet to arrive.



What's impractical is building an unsustainable welfare/warfare state that will leave millions dead in the street when it collapses.