Ron Paul Supporters Quizzed on the U.S. Constitution

Accuracy in Media Via YouTube ^

[mnehring]

Accuracy in Media caught up with various Ron Paul supporters politicking the early primary contests. How accurate is their knowledge of the Constitution and American history? See for yourself.

(Video at link)

[mnehring]

I'm surprised, one actually did pretty good. The rest, well, not surprising for Paultards.

[cripplecreek]

LOL

My personal favorite Paulism is the absolute anti interventionism “like our founders” which manages to miss little facts like cross border raids into Canada and Jefferson’s war in north Africa.

The fact is that our founders couldn’t pass muster imposed by Paul and his supporters.

HOWEVER. I do think the GOP should take a hard look at his fiscal policies and take a bit more care in going to war.

[monkeypants]

Do this exact same gig for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, Perry & Palin - you will get the same result.

This is just a waste of all of our time to even look at it.

The silliness is in the folks who spent the time creating this and thinking it was special or had anything to do with Paul.

A real test would be to ask each of the above politicians the same questions and see who knows the answer...

Then ask a few federal judges, ATF agents, randomly selected SWAT team officers etc. just for fun.

[svcw]

Well, they know as much as alterPaul, not surprising.

[coloradan]

Ask McCain the same questions. He’s the one after Campaign Finance Reform (gutting the First Amendment), closing the so-called “Gun Show ‘loophole’” (gutting the Second Amendment) and on and on down the list. He’s a real piece of work.

[MindBender26]

And of course there was that little insurrection that led to the development of the 1911 Colt.

[Eva]

The difference is that the Paultards claim that the reason that they support Ron Paul is because he is the only candidate that supports the literal interpretation of the constitution. The problem is that they don’t know what is in the constitution and what is not.

All the Paulbots care about is legalization of drugs and NO WAR! Ron Paul may as well be Jane Fonda.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There is a difference between honorable ideals advanced thoughtfully among our worldly neighbors with the hope of prosperity for all, and unyielding ideals used as a fancy stick to prod snake pits with the expectation of obedient adulation. The people of the United States have, out of ignorance and for some decades, bestowed authority upon those who do not know the difference.

I'll trade liberals a smaller footprint on foreign policy for a smaller footprint in federal meddling. Neither of us particularly revels in the trade, but both of us can live with it. This is one of the first times liberals are conflicted over a steadfast proponent of smaller government, more individial responsibility, and more federal accountability. Not a bad thing, unless one trusts the State more than inviduals endowed with inalienable rights.

[Eva]

Fester - There is a serious flaw in your thinking.

Sure politicians and power brokers have exploited the US foreign policy and strength of our military for their own gain, but without the US acting as the world policemen, there would be a vacuum that could only be filled by a world government, led by China.

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t appeal to me.

The real problem with the Paulers is that they don’t think beyond their own self interests. It’s all about ME, ME, ME. That’s not what E Pluribus Unum means.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Good points. A balance between individual and corporate rights and responsibilities is necessary. Over the past several decades we've seen a lack of balance; a distinct tilt toward corporatism and statism. I welcome Ron Paul as a catalyst in the other direction.