My question being left unanswered leaves me in great distress. (I seriously am interested in hearing what Ron Paul supporters have to answer, because I can't quite get behind the possibility of being a supporter of his.)

I believe people don't actually support this, they just don't know that he does. They hear Ron Paul espousing isolationism and talking about how he going to pull out of Iraq and suddenly he becomes a hero despite aiming to completely fuck over every person in the USA who pulls in less than 30k a year. Seriously, he is the worst possible opposite to someone I would vote for. Now, I am a Canadian so it doesn't matter, but he believes that by somehow abolishing the government he will protect the people. He accuses pretty much every government agency of being completely immobilized by bureaucracy and thinks that that warrants getting rid of them; that is like blowing up your car because your fuel intake is dirty and it is affecting mileage.

I don't think he is going to get elected, but if he does the US is screwed (and Canada along with it). That being said, I don't think the USA has actually paid its UN dues in like ten years and they don't really pay attention to the UN anyways (because the UN doesn't always do what the US wants, you see!). I don't even understand what Ron Paul's plan is to drop of the UN; he will still be party to its conventions and international law and will still be just as effectively prohibited by it (not that it is very effective at all). He won't have to send men to fight as peace keepers, I guess, even though the US generally doesn't send ground troops anymore and keeps its involvement to air/naval support, which actually acts as a huge boon to military research and the armaments industry in both those fields.

Oh well, here's hoping he doesn't get elected!

Regardless of what your opinion of Ron Paul is, you have to admit that it is amazing that a "right-wing fringe" candidate who "doesn't show up in the polls" can net 4.2 million (according to the AP) is absolutely AMAZING. Personally, I support the man and his message. We've got a constitution for a reason, they're the rules for operating the country. I am faithful that he will continue to grow in popularity enough to win the nomination. I wouldn't have donated or changed parties to support him otherwise.

To answer Dada, Have you read the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights, the Kyoto Protocol or the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court? Check out Article 29 of the UDHR, or article 81 of the Rome Statute? I've looked over the Rome Statutes and the UDHR and I don't recall seeing any of the rights which the bill of rights protects in either of them. I happen to like my inherent natural rights, and the UN doesn't seem to think that I possess them unless they say so. I beg to differ. The UN isn't so great if you actually read what they say.

If the constitution was so infallible, why does it have so many amendments?

Could it be because the constitution was written 250 years ago and THE WORLD HAS FUCKING CHANGED SINCE THEN?

Also, aren't most of those things you listed in the hide tag contained within the amendments, not the bill of rights? Perhaps they are redundantly specified.

edit: yes they are!

If the constitution was so infallible, why does it have so many amendments?

Could it be because the constitution was written 250 years ago and THE WORLD HAS FUCKING CHANGED SINCE THEN?

Also, aren't most of those things you listed in the hide tag contained within the amendments, not the bill of rights? Perhaps they are redundantly specified.

edit: yes they are!

The first Ten amendments are protections of the rights of the people, which tell the  government what they may not do, and the promise made was that if the Constitution was ratified that it would be amended to protect the hard won rights of the people. The others arose out of their own historical context. I am aware that the constitution is a flexible document, however, the rules for amending it were written in the constitution. But IMHO, the constitution is not being followed.

Also the first 10 amendments are collectively known as "The bill of rights", and were ratified during the 1st congress and treated as part of the original constitution.

also I have long advised no one pay attention to KK4 outside of complete contempt, because addressing his truly fucked up point of view adds the illusion of legitimacy to his thoughts, and while GW's administrators may think antisemitism has an equal place next to logical discourse, some of us realized (back in highschool) that all viewpoints are not legitimate or worthy of attention.

I have kept our discussions respectful, and never resorted to rhetoric or propaganda against you, yet you continue to encourage people to hate me while condemning my point of view. You're acting in an anti-American manner hostile to the free expression of ideas. I don't know about the other people in this forum, but I adhere to the philosophy that ALL viewpoints, even those we disagree with or contempt, are worthy of attention. What type of person are you to condemn me for my opinions, and then declare that I am not to be listened to? Do you even believe in any of the inherent rights which all men posses, or do you only selectively apply them to people who hold beliefs that you agree with?

PS: I'm completely fed up with your trolling, by the way (KK4). Do not post about the UN's bills being bad because you didn't read them. You actually said that the UN is "not so great" because the Kyoto Protocol does not mention human rights. It's a god damn greenhouse gas treaty. It isn't even supposed to.

If all you're gonna do is waste people's time, don't!

I can assure you that I am not trolling.

My point about the Kyoto Protocol is that it isn't anything about saving the environment but is all about control over natural resources and industry, and that most people have not read it but believe it's a good thing. In hind sight I should have included that in my original post, but got distracted by other things going on. My point is that the UN projects themselves as an organization which supports Human rights, and freedom et al. but when you read what they say in their documents they're just concerned about gaining power.