it be cool if Ron Paul wrote up some good legislation

[Ry]

Decen you seem to be hung on the idea that the court will stop every bad idea. You're wrong.

The way it is now it is bad enough but at least the mob has to pay and bribe people to do their bidding, you leave it up to direct voting and they won't even have to do that.

You could say lets lower the smoking age to 15 and it would be perfectly constitutional and legal. You could also raise the alcohol limits for driving. You could shut down parks, require school uniforms, make speed limits 90 miles an hour, legalize cocain, create a fat tax on anything with sugar, ANYTHING. No one is held accountable. None of it is unconstitutional.

Furthermore you are also ignoring how impossible it would be to vote on everything. People are not informed. They vote on things based on nothing more than the title most of the time. I don't want the South to become Jesus land which it quickly would be more than it already is if you let those backwards hicks run the state by majority wins.

States have referendums but that's also Secondary to a normal republican form of government. You can not just have direct democracy for all laws in general. Do you know what laws are up today? No. Don't even lie. You don't know. You don't know what's up to morrow either. You just got sold of the idea of pot and gay marriage. I agree with those two things, but guess what a bunch of states have legalize medical marijuana and gay marriage without referendums too. That was coming anyway. If the Federal government ever legalized it, you'd have the red states banning gay marriage forever, if not making it illegal to have certain acts of sex and pass it off as aids prevention or some bullshit like that. The court would do nothing. We know that because many state ALREADY have such insane laws and the court does nothing.

Think about all the stupid things that activist groups want. This place would become a nanny state.

[Decentralized]

Ian,

You were right to avoid this topic altogether. For one thing no one thinks very highly of a person that makes such personal attacks to complete stranger.

The constitution protects the rights of the minority, so that is completely moot.

The goal is to remove the power from the "select few" that absolutely do not represent the we the people, and have absolutely made unconstitutional laws, and entire into unconstitutional wars, since Iraq,and Afghanistan and everyone else has not attacked the US. But we can cry about the past all day long. And how funny that you think the best way to avoid what has happened, is to keep going down the same road that took us there, but of course you expect a different result.

This is a win win. You can still vote for your puppet politicians on a string, force them to only be able to pass constitutional laws.

Media reform would be a good choice for the people to make, not the corporations/politicians you want to only trust. because according to you, you can be easily duped, and are not smart enough to have any opinion whatsoever.

Please don't let me ever catch you saying something like, 'people are starting to wake up" you don't trust yourself, or your neighbors, you only trust politicians. Now if that isn't the stupidest thing I ever heard. One hand bitches about the past, the other hand praises those that make the past the future. ie the same road expecting a different result. get a clue!


-----------------------




Ryan,


"Decen you seem to be hung on the idea that the court will stop every bad idea. You're wrong."


-Nope, never said or thought that. In order to not have a mod rule, you have to have some laws, some where the decisions are made, what is constitutional or not. This is not a perfect system. A perfect system is a people that have a perfect "civilization" that wouldn't need a government. But that is fantasy. Lets to o reality. The supreme court decides what is constitutional or not. The supreme court has consistently and historically changed it;s views as the society they live in does. I will say that over and over until you get it. I have used for you example of the past such as women's rights, and slavery. You dont want absolutely mod rule madness, so we rely on te constitution that protects the rights of minorities, and the constitution is defined by the supreme court. Whom you personally, or I, may not always agree with their decisions. but you don't want a mob rule, and neither do I. This is the way it has been don't in the US for a very very long time. We are not throwing that out. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and it IS defined by the supreme court. You said your a realist (laughable that you put that in the context of voting for free trade that empowers the FED Ron Paul, whom never had no "real" chance whatsoever, thanks goodness! So you has a realist should have voted for obama, he had a real chance of winning, and he did. lols!

Al jokes aside Mr realist. Getting rid of the supreme court being the ones to define what is constitutional or not, is not a realist ideal whatsoever. It creates the mod rule you fear. We're keeping the constitution (which the supreme court defines) whether you like it or not!

Considering 24 states already have what you fear so badly and don't know much about anyway. This is very real Mr realist, real that many are pushing for the rest of the states to have it.. And here I thought Ron Paul was for the states having more power, and the local people having a say in what goes on in their state, within the constitution which IS defined by the supreme court so as to not have the mod rule you fear so much. and rightly so. But THERE IS NO MOB RULE.



"The way it is now it is bad enough but at least the mob has to pay and bribe people to do their bidding, you leave it up to direct voting and they won't even have to do that. "


--It's bad enough, because the polls have proven that the people are not being represented, instead people like you want to continue down the same road you;ve always been on, and expect a different result. Besides no initiative could ever be voted on without being deemed has constitutional. So things like the Iraq war, the patriot act, bailouts, would never even make the first rounds!



"You could say lets lower the smoking age to 15 and it would be perfectly constitutional and legal. You could also raise the alcohol limits for driving. You could shut down parks, require school uniforms, make speed limits 90 miles an hour, legalize cocain, create a fat tax on anything with sugar, ANYTHING. No one is held accountable. None of it is unconstitutional."


--This is getting really stupid. Why has the supreme court don't all of that now, they could if they wanted to right? They didn't reach the positions they have because their a bunch of irresponsible dim wits. (although that may be questionable at times, lol j/k)


Furthermore you are also ignoring how impossible it would be to vote on everything. People are not informed. They vote on things based on nothing more than the title most of the time. I don't want the South to become Jesus land which it quickly would be more than it already is if you let those backwards hicks run the state by majority wins.


--You ignored the link completely. This is why you keep making up shit that is in no way possible whatsoever, and then you argue against your own fantasies, pathetic!
So I agree that some people (YOU) are nbot imformed, yet makes all these guesses and fantasize about things that are in no way true whatsoever. But this is what being free is. Freedom is the right to be wrong.
we have separation of church and state. So your jesus land is complete fantasy. Stop making up bullshit that is in no way true whatsoever, and then arguing against your own bullshit. You are wasting my time!



States have referendums but that's also Secondary to a normal republican form of government. You can not just have direct democracy for all laws in general. Do you know what laws are up today? No. Don't even lie. You don't know. You don't know what's up to morrow either. You just got sold of the idea of pot and gay marriage. I agree with those two things, but guess what a bunch of states have legalize medical marijuana and gay marriage without referendums too. That was coming anyway. If the Federal government ever legalized it, you'd have the red states banning gay marriage forever, if not making it illegal to have certain acts of sex and pass it off as aids prevention or some bullshit like that. The court would do nothing. We know that because many state ALREADY have such insane laws and the court does nothing.


--Right, the people of CA voted on medical marijuana, passed. Yet the FED has still came in and arrest people. That took years and years to make it to a ballot for the people to vote on. Because unlike you seem to think, there is no way possible for any sort of outrages bills to be voted on, all the time. It;s a long and slow process, and it only happens and big key issues. The politicians are still there (allegedly) voted on the day to days, etc



"Think about all the stupid things that activist groups want. This place would become a nanny state"


-I'm to busy laughing at all the stupid stuff you say, and make up. Do the homework. stop wasting my time. I'm getting very tired of holding your hand. bec like the people you keep attacking and calling dumb or w/e YOU are doing that in which you attack and call them idiots for. YOU ARE DOING IT
Such a hypocrite!
Loo into this BEFORE you talk shit and make up shit about it that is in no way true whatsoever

Because whether you like it or not the US' track record fully shows this is where we are headed.

[Ian]

Ian,

You were right to avoid this topic altogether. For one thing no one thinks very highly of a person that makes such personal attacks to complete stranger.

Claiming someone is ignorant(especially on a single issue) isn't a personal attack. Stupid and ignorant are two different things. Ignorance can be cured, stupid can't.

The constitution protects the rights of the minority, so that is completely moot.

That's not accurate. It was designed to protect individual rights from government but that period in American history is long gone. As it seems you're aware, we have three branches of government working in cohesion to undermine civil liberties, property rights, state sovereignty, and individual privacy.

The goal is to remove the power from the "select few" that absolutely do not represent the we the people, and have absolutely made unconstitutional laws, and entire into unconstitutional wars, since Iraq,and Afghanistan and everyone else has not attacked the US. But we can cry about the past all day long. And how funny that you think the best way to avoid what has happened, is to keep going down the same road that took us there, but of course you expect a different result.

I think we disagree on what road got us where we are today as a country(I blame Democracy). At least we agree on the problem of unconstitutional laws and wars.

Media reform would be a good choice for the people to make, not the corporations/politicians you want to only trust. because according to you, you can be easily duped, and are not smart enough to have any opinion whatsoever.

That's incorrect. I believe the people in general can be easily duped and that they should be allowed to have opinions but that those opinions shouldn't be enough to get us into foreign wars or pass laws increasing the surveillance state and strengthening the federal government.

Please don't let me ever catch you saying something like, 'people are starting to wake up" you don't trust yourself, or your neighbors, you only trust politicians. Now if that isn't the stupidest thing I ever heard. One hand bitches about the past, the other hand praises those that make the past the future. ie the same road expecting a different result. get a clue!

Clearly you've completely misunderstood my position. Although I'm not sure exactly what we're talking about, specifically... The topic title, started by you, is: "it be cool if Ron Paul wrote up some good legislation." But it is cool, because he has written good legislation as has been demonstrated. Unless you refute the validity of the Audit the Fed bill as being a piece of good legislation(in which case you'd be ignorant) then we can move on to the second part of my response where(and perhaps I misinterpreted it) you said:

And sure, people can be duped into something. But it's a lot easier to blackmail, pressure, etc a politician then it is millions of people, you have to consider that.

I don't agree with that statement, as was outlined in my previous response.

As for everything else, all your doing is trying to convince me that you and I disagree on the problems in the US when it's painfully obvious that we do, in fact, agree. So...

[Decentralized]

Ian,



"Claiming someone is ignorant(especially on a single issue) isn't a personal attack. Stupid and ignorant are two different things. Ignorance can be cured, stupid can't. "

--I'm neither ignorant about stupid ron paul, nor am I stupid when it comes to ignorant Ron Paul (free trade empowers the FED) but as anyone can see the tittle was taken out of context, the whole context says he has written up some good legislation. like auditing the FED, which would be a just a run around anyway, and ron paul empowers the FED anyway with his promoting of austrian economics. See economist Steven Zarlenga, and economist Micheal Hudson, study what they say, so as you are not ignorant about how stupid and ignorant ron paul is on monetary issues.




"That's not accurate. It was designed to protect individual rights from government but that period in American history is long gone. As it seems you're aware, we have three branches of government working in cohesion to undermine civil liberties, property rights, state sovereignty, and individual privacy."


--What the fuck ever. The constitution also protects the rights of minorities. period, end of story.



"I think we disagree on what road got us where we are today as a country(I blame Democracy). At least we agree on the problem of unconstitutional laws and wars."

--we've never had a democracy. We've always had a republic. A republic is have the rich elite always make every decisions for you. The republic got us into this mess. NOT democracy, because we have never had democracy, ever. In first for a long time the we the people were not even allowed to vote for anyone. we have democratic elections now, somewhat. but that is NOT a democrazy. So it;s very ignorant to blame something that has never existed.




"That's incorrect. I believe the people in general can be easily duped and that they should be allowed to have opinions but that those opinions shouldn't be enough to get us into foreign wars or pass laws increasing the surveillance state and strengthening the federal government."


--The constitution says we can only defend ourselves from an attack. we the people cannot vote on any initiative ballot that has not gone in front of the supreme court first. So there is no way the we the people could ever vote us into an illegal unconstitutional war. So again sir you are very wrong in your guessing game.




"Clearly you've completely misunderstood my position. Although I'm not sure exactly what we're talking about, specifically... The topic title, started by you, is: "it be cool if Ron Paul wrote up some good legislation." But it is cool, because he has written good legislation as has been demonstrated. Unless you refute the validity of the Audit the Fed bill as being a piece of good legislation(in which case you'd be ignorant) then we can move on to the second part of my response where(and perhaps I misinterpreted it) you said:


Decentralized wrote:And sure, people can be duped into something. But it's a lot easier to blackmail, pressure, etc a politician then it is millions of people, you have to consider that.

I don't agree with that statement, as was outlined in my previous response. "


--The point I made that yo u seem to be ignorant about. Is tat you don't get to vote on whether or not to audit the FED. you rely only on the rich elite to make that decision for you, because we do NOT have a democrazy, we have a republic- which is trusting only politicians in bed with the corporations that empower the FED to make that vote for you. So good luck with your wishful thinking!
I have no doubt that we the people would vote for auditing the FED. I have no doubt the fat cat politicians wont. get it now???


"As for everything else, all your doing is trying to convince me that you and I disagree on the problems in the US when it's painfully obvious that we do, in fact, agree. So... "


-So your brilliant fall in line with RY idea is to always do nothing, and to keep on going down the same road, and expect a magical different out come. Very sad!

[Ian]

Ian,



"Claiming someone is ignorant(especially on a single issue) isn't a personal attack. Stupid and ignorant are two different things. Ignorance can be cured, stupid can't. "

--I'm neither ignorant about stupid ron paul, nor am I stupid when it comes to ignorant Ron Paul (free trade empowers the FED) but as anyone can see the tittle was taken out of context, the whole context says he has written up some good legislation. like auditing the FED, which would be a just a run around anyway, and ron paul empowers the FED anyway with his promoting of austrian economics. See economist Steven Zarlenga, and economist Micheal Hudson, study what they say, so as you are not ignorant about how stupid and ignorant ron paul is on monetary issues.

Perhaps you could save me a couple weeks(the time needed to read a 700 page book) and just tell me, basically, where it is that Mr. Zarlenga differs with the Austrian school of ecomonics. I did see a 32 page "how to explain monetary reform to your friends" on his website and I'll check it out but in the interest of saving us some time could you just real quick, like in one or two sentences, summarize the major difference? And pleasepleasepleaseIwouldLOVEtohear how Austrian economics empowers the Federal Reserve.

--What the fuck ever. The constitution also protects the rights of minorities. period, end of story.

Sure about that, big guy? I know Susete Kelo would probably argue with that considering her private property was seized by the government working on behalf of another private entity. That case made it to the supreme court, too. She still lost. What about the government's kill list? The list of American citizens the CIA/FBI/DOD are authorized to KILL if they find? Wouldn't you say the rights of those people are also unprotected?

--we've never had a democracy. We've always had a republic. A republic is have the rich elite always make every decisions for you. The republic got us into this mess. NOT democracy, because we have never had democracy, ever. In first for a long time the we the people were not even allowed to vote for anyone. we have democratic elections now, somewhat. but that is NOT a democrazy. So it;s very ignorant to blame something that has never existed.

We don't have a total democracy or direct democracy(is that what you advocate?), we have a representative democracy. Of course "representative" is a tricky word when talking politics. Also I believe you have "republic" confused with some kind of totalitarian fascism.. I don't know, it's hard for me to read gibberish. Seriously, dude. "In first for a long time the we the people were not even allowed to vote for anyone." What does that even mean? I recognize it as English but... I don't understand it.

--The constitution says we can only defend ourselves from an attack. we the people cannot vote on any initiative ballot that has not gone in front of the supreme court first. So there is no way the we the people could ever vote us into an illegal unconstitutional war. So again sir you are very wrong in your guessing game.

More gibberish. Who or what is this "the we the people" you speak of? And what does it have to do with Congress passing a Declaration of War?

The point I made that yo u seem to be ignorant about. Is tat you don't get to vote on whether or not to audit the FED. you rely only on the rich elite to make that decision for you, because we do NOT have a democrazy, we have a republic- which is trusting only politicians in bed with the corporations that empower the FED to make that vote for you. So good luck with your wishful thinking!
I have no doubt that we the people would vote for auditing the FED. I have no doubt the fat cat politicians wont. get it now???

I think I'm beginning to see what you're trying to say.. You believe if Audit the Fed was put to a popular vote throughout the US in which every citizen voted on it then the bill would become law? If that's the case then you may be right. But then what happens when the media drums up fear over anthrax or lycopene or anything really? Americans run like a herd of cows to vote themselves into another disaster.

So your brilliant fall in line with RY idea is to always do nothing, and to keep on going down the same road, and expect a magical different out come. Very sad!

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html

Seriously. It's free. Download it and never deal with fragmented sentences, grammatical errors, and misspelled words ever again!

[Raider]

--What the fuck ever. The constitution also protects the rights of minorities. period, end of story.

The Constitution only applies to the employees of the government. The Constitution is a document that lists what the employees of government can and cannot do. Those employees swear an oath, which makes them liable if they do anything Unconstitutional. The government gets it's orders from the Freemen and Women-on-the-Land.

--we've never had a democracy. We've always had a republic. A republic is have the rich elite always make every decisions for you. The republic got us into this mess. NOT democracy, because we have never had democracy, ever. In first for a long time the we the people were not even allowed to vote for anyone. we have democratic elections now, somewhat. but that is NOT a democrazy. So it;s very ignorant to blame something that has never existed.

A republic government is based on property, protecting the minority from the majority. Common Law is the Law of the Land. If you do not own it, you cannot vote on it.

[Decentralized]

Ian,

"Perhaps you could save me a couple weeks(the time needed to read a 700 page book) and just tell me, basically, where it is that Mr. Zarlenga differs with the Austrian school of ecomonics. I did see a 32 page "how to explain monetary reform to your friends" on his website and I'll check it out but in the interest of saving us some time could you just real quick, like in one or two sentences, summarize the major difference? And pleasepleasepleaseIwouldLOVEtohear how Austrian economics empowers the Federal Reserve."


--The US has a debt bassed system. Austrian economics does not imply the golden rule of trade. all trade must be equal. The US owes trillions of dollars in unbalanced trade deficits. This is allows the US to buy up the world's resources, for a debt that will never be paid. It's purely exploitative. And it takes jobs away from here. Make Trade Fair. The US is running on a one trillion dollar trade defects annually.
I've gone into this a bit here:
http://www.ancreport.com/forum/v ... 28&t=17970 (follow the links)
and again here: http://www.ancreport.com/forum/v ... 11&t=20162
I also make videos for Jan Irvin's yutube. The website is here: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/
click the podcast section, or if you prefer videos click the youtube link. There's acouple of zarlenga interviews. and the first link as the brilliant Hudson interviews on my personal youtube (unrelated to gnosticmedia)


"Sure about that, big guy? I know Susete Kelo would probably argue with that considering her private property was seized by the government working on behalf of another private entity. That case made it to the supreme court, too. She still lost. What about the government's kill list? The list of American citizens the CIA/FBI/DOD are authorized to KILL if they find? Wouldn't you say the rights of those people are also unprotected?"

--Do yo want to only cry about it, or try to actually do something about?



"We don't have a total democracy or direct democracy(is that what you advocate?), we have a representative democracy. Of course "representative" is a tricky word when talking politics. Also I believe you have "republic" confused with some kind of totalitarian fascism.. I don't know, it's hard for me to read gibberish. Seriously, dude. "In first for a long time the we the people were not even allowed to vote for anyone." What does that even mean? I recognize it as English but... I don't understand it."


--I have a bad habit of never proof reading anything. I meant "In FACT* for a long time the we the people were not even allowed to vote at all......
Representative government is broken. You're goal to fix it, is to do nothing and bend over and accept it, and how sad that you even defend it!


"More gibberish. Who or what is this "the we the people" you speak of? And what does it have to do with Congress passing a Declaration of War?"


--Saying the wars are unconstitutional because we only have the right to defend ourselves, not start wars in preemptive strikes, is not gibberish.
If we abide strictly to the constitution, the people would never be able to vote on an unconstitutional war. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???


"I think I'm beginning to see what you're trying to say.. You believe if Audit the Fed was put to a popular vote throughout the US in which every citizen voted on it then the bill would become law? If that's the case then you may be right."

--Fuck yeah they would!


"But then what happens when the media drums up fear over anthrax or lycopene or anything really? Americans run like a herd of cows to vote themselves into another disaster."

--9/11 was a big wake up for a lot of people, especially what ended up coming out about it, after teh fact. You have to start somewhere, and thank goodness the rest of america wants a voice that counts, and now 24 states already have this, the rest will have it, and one day we will have it federally. It makes no sense to have corporate elite politicians represent you, when you can represent yourself on some key issues that directly effect your life. Scilencing the people, whom government is supposed to be representing. Is the stupidest thing i the world, and you defend it!


"Seriously. It's free. Download it and never deal with fragmented sentences, grammatical errors, and misspelled words ever again!"

-shove it up your ass. I'm not here to impress you n some grammatical nonsense ego trip. debate the issues and fuck off with your anal nazi gramar shit. besides, ever see your cult leader ryan type. did you send him the same program? lols!






-----------------------------------



Raider,

Constitution/bill of rights

leave me alone with the taste of anarchy hype do nothing nonsense communism

[Decentralized]

-shove it up your ass. I'm not here to impress you n some grammatical nonsense ego trip. debate the issues and fuck off with your anal nazi gramar shit. besides, ever see your cult leader ryan type. did you send him the same program? lols!

Ry, as well as others here have dyslexia. Was that really necessary?

I have a lot of passion Tim. I also think I'm funnny

Ryan's spelling does not reflect that of dyslexia. He spells words as they sound, it;s a common mistake. One that I,a person deaf in one ear, and hard of hearing in the other ear, also have huge problems with spelling, which my excuse if I needed to defend myself againt some anal gramar nazi, would use. But I dont. ecause I'm honest- I'm to lazy(busy on many prjects taking a lil brak to have a chat) to give a shit about my typos, gramar & spelling.

but you know i love you Tim

[Decentralized]

^^^ oh damn, i can barley make that out myself lols!

[Ry]

Nope, never said or thought that

You said it like 6 times. And you are still saying it. You STILL think the supreme court will save you from every bad law passed by the mob. REALLY?! How has that been working for the congress we already have? Preemptive war, torture, aid to Israel. It's all legal. Guess who gives more aid to Israel than our government. Christian churches do. Guess what happens in states if you let those people have direct control of the government.

In order to not have a mod rule, you have to have some laws, some where the decisions are made, what is constitutional or not. This is not a perfect system. A perfect system is a people that have a perfect "civilization" that wouldn't need a government. But that is fantasy. Lets to o reality. The supreme court decides what is constitutional or not. The supreme court has consistently and historically changed it;s views as the society they live in does. I will say that over and over until you get it.

Listen dumb ass. Everyone KNOWS the supreme court rules on what is constitutional or not. And I will same the same thing back to you that I have been saying. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO BE STUPID AND UNFAIR. Thus NOTHING is preventing mob rule. You only have partial prevention, you are not going to prevent any more than what we already have right now. No one can pass a law that is ruled unconstitutional. That's how it already is NOW. And yet look at how many stupid laws we have and how many other laws that ought to unconstitutional aren't rules as such. Letting the people have a direct democracy only makes it LESS accountable because not only is there no more checks than what we have now, its worse because since the mob is not identifiable there is no one to hold accountable when a stupid law is made. And they can't be replaced. You'd have to wait for the entire culture to change to replace the majority.

My state has this bullshit. That is why people can not drink cocktails in bars. The Christian Right decided they didn't want it, and so instead of them just not doing it, now no one can do it. It comes up for a vote every year to reverse this and every year it fails because the christian right is the mob. The Supreme court can't do jack shit because it's not unconstitutional, it's just dumb.

Al jokes aside Mr realist. Getting rid of the supreme court being the ones to define what is constitutional or not, is not a realist ideal whatsoever. It creates the mod rule you fear. We're keeping the constitution (which the supreme court defines) whether you like it or not!

Who the fuck are you arguing with? yourself? I have never said to get rid of the supreme court or the constitution. How the fuck could you assume or invent that idea when you know Ron Paul is one of the only politicians I support and its because he supports the constitution. By the way the constitution states that laws are made by the three branches of government it lays out. It doesn't say or advocate direct democracy. So you're idea is unconstitutional. It's also irrational and nearly impossible. As I already explained and you ignored. Even the states with 2/3 referendums have them as secondary instruments to the elected government. You simply can't have the public voting on everything.

Mr. ignorant "Considering 24 states already have what you fear so badly and don't know much about anyway" I don't fear it. I'm well aware of it and I don't like it. The majority of referendums passed in the three states I have lived in have all been bad. I gave you examples that you didn't read/understand.

It's bad enough, because the polls have proven that the people are not being represented, instead people like you want to continue down the same road you;ve always been on, and expect a different result. Besides no initiative could ever be voted on without being deemed has constitutional. So things like the Iraq war, the patriot act, bailouts, would never even make the first rounds!

Wrong. And the majority of the population after 911 upwards of 90% loved George Bush and thought he was doing a great job. They would have given him anything he wanted. And no one of those things would have been ruled unconstitutional idiot because they were not ruled the way now. The supreme court already has the power to rule a law unconstitutional. Are you that retarded? They SHOULD have ruled the war and patriot act unconstitutional but they didn't. And they wouldn't no matter who made the law the congress or the public.

And just because I think your system that you learned about from Mike Gravel is stupid does not mean that I support how or system is now. Were it up to me, there would be no federal government at all. If you look at what Paul supports mainly all he would be doing is STOPPING the bad things government does. They don't have to do anything. If they would stay out of economics, trade, etc and do nothing but prevent fraud etc then everyone would be better off.

The problem with the government is that it is selected by the ignorant mob. Intelligent people are a minority. In a democracy all one has to do is play up to the ignorant horde and ignore intelligent people. And so it doesn't work and won't work until people are no longer ignorant. But because the pentagon controls the press and educational facilities they can assure a stupid public.

Our public is STUPID. And letting them create laws is even dumber than letting them select one of their own to do it for them. At least when a representative of the mob screws up, everyone can see who he was and how he voted and move to remove him. At least it is possible. You can't do shit when the tyrant of the majority can vote in secret and do whatever it wants. And Do not say for the 7th time the supreme court would stop all the bad laws. It won't and you also seem to not understand that there are rules that ware perfectly constitutional that are still harmful, retarded, and unjust.

So I agree that some people (YOU) are nbot imformed,

Ok you like direct democracy would like to have a vote on that? Would you like me to make a poll as to who is more informed Ry or decentralized? Because you will lose so bad that the only person that will vote for you is you. That's because this site isn't the mob. To have even found this site you have to at least read and have an interest in politics and that knocks out 80% of the general public.

This was your opening statement

Wouldn't "it be cool if Ron Paul wrote up some good legislation", like he has done, but this time we the people would vote on whether or not to pass it. 24 states do this now. This is why in California the people voted on medical marijuana and gay marriage, not the politicians.

No it wouldn't be cool because the people would shoot it down. The press branded him crazy. The mob chose Obama. The congress however has passed HR1207 out of the house with over 300 supporters. People are too easily led by the press which can reach them all at once where as a counter argument can not be made unless you also have the press. That's why the neocons going on TV and talking down the end the fed bill has no effect because it's not up to the people to vote on it. In congress the way we have it now a minority CAN visit each one of them and present the counter arguments. And that's what happened. And the bill has passed the house. The ignorant mob that is run by fear who would vote down such a bill because the TV said so, doesn't have the where-with-all or intelligence to meet with congress and present a case. Thus a small kind of filter exist cutting away the bottom third of the pool who are easily led by once speech but who don't have the means to come to DC or write a letter etc.