You are voting for an extremist thinker, that's your choice. Now, would Paul be an extremist thinker in 1789? Probably not, but if you check your calendar, it is no longer 1789. We have to move from where we are, and like someone said about Paul, "You go to Dr. Paul for an ingrown toenail and wind up getting your foot amputated." Paul is simply not practical, and the changes that come need to come gradually over the course of time, and will require a spirit of compromise and give and take. Paul is the polar opposite of Kucinich, who is also not electable and would create a bigger mess than we have now. We need a moderate practical person, not an extremist. We need someone who can bring different sides to the table to compromise... Paul has never show that desire or ability... However, you get your one vote which may indirectly lead to Hillary or Obama, rather than someone who at least embraces some of your conservative philosophy...and then you will blame everyone but yourself, which seems to be your ultimate goal anyway. Trust me, the dems are in your corner all the way hoping Paul gains popularity among the right wingers and runs as an independent...
the CFR republicans are just as bad as the CFR democrats. a vote for either one and i am wasting my vote. and since when did the constitution become an extremist view point? wow... shows you how far we have atrophied. and btw mr power boy... hillary or obama will not only NOT rescind the illegal power grabbing executive orders but will instead use them under the premise of doing whats best for us. to protect us.... they are all puppets except for ron or dennis.
Since when did people living life as if it were 1789 in horse and buggy, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no modern medicine, no air conditioning, etc. become extremists? If the answer isn't obvious... Fundamentalist dogmatists are usually of the same nature across the board, that's why we find so many constructionists are also regressives politically and fundamentalists in their religions. It is a rigidity of the mind that is dominate in most cases. Over 230 years, and people believe we can't think for ourselves, or interpret what the founders would think is best here and now for ourselves, not as things were back then? The world wasn't really such a good place back then for most Americans, especially minorities, women, gays, etc., as the power was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy land owners who had a sole goal of holding onto their power...which is not coincidentally the situation that Paul would envision returning to. Paul is an anachronistic thinker in a modern world.
so ZZZzzzzz wants criminals backed by the CFR to continue the status quo which has already bankrupted this country. he wants the ones that lied us into illegal wars to maintain power because ITS THE MODERN TRENDY THING TO DO!!! i have read it all now.. i can die and say i have seen it all.
If that's the way you view the significance of the constitution than I can understand you fail to see the significance of Dr. Paul's position. I think the US constitution is one of the most important steps in human civilization. Almost all major the problems that the US has ran into can be traced back to a breaking of one or more constitutional laws. Ignoring the value and meaning of the Constitution is imo just that, plain ignorance. Not only is Dr. Paul stressing the value but he also shows some very important historical decisions that were against the constitution, and hence illegal (like creation of the FED and income taxes). That is not dogmatic, that is trying to save what's left, before it is too late.
It was a step, just like the Magna Carta was a step, but real freedom and and what we would call liberty didn't come for centuries after the Magna Carta. You leave the old step every time you move forward. Only extremists take a position that there is only one way to read something, and they they alone know the "right" way to read it. Just like fundamentalists Christians, exactly the same. At least in their case they are claiming the words to be infallible because they are produced by God, our words are produced by flawed human beings, who unlike the constructionists understood that language changes, cultures change, mores change, and so too must the understanding of what binds Americans to the principle of a United States. Sure, Paul can render his opinion (though he is not at a scholastic Constitutional level or a legal expert) and people can agree with his opinion if they want...but that is not the same as any other opinion. The framers could have been much more precise in language, providing a manual in how to read the language exactly, could have written it in Latin (a language that has not evolved) if they wanted a dead document in a dead language. Legality and illegality when it comes to constitutional law is just an opinion, that's why courts render "opinions."
Article V of the US Constitution: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution... http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5 Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived... http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am16 What's your legal problem? You're a smart guy, you're supposed to be open-minded (being from the Netherlands), stop listening to ignoramuses.
ZZZzzzzzzz: It seems curious that you should get your panties in such a wad over a flawed and obviously unelectable candidate as Ron Paul. Rather than going to such great lengths to educate all of us delusional RuRaul rubes, it might be a better strategy to let us continue with our fantasies of a more responsible and responsive government. We could actually be good for your cause by siphoning off some percentage of the Republican vote which would then make a more enlightened prospect the next president. Then,say about October 30 you could scan the political landscape and decide who is the most electable candidate and throw your wholehearted support behind that person. That way there would only be about a five day risk window that you might not be on the winning side.