My biggest pet peeve is people from outside the US who act like they're smarter than the average American and think that we're a bunch of morons. We don't have one of the largest economies in the world from being a bunch of idiots.
I may be (admittedly) wrong, but if I remember correctly, just 5% of the population controls something like 55% of the wealth in this country (and much of that is held by the 1%, hence the "We are the 99%" campaign). . . they often make that wealth off the backs of the other 95%. How does that fit into the "idiot" scenario, because it could be that 19 out of 20 of us are idiots by that account?
Ron paul didn't take anything and turn it, his beliefs are based on what this country is founded on and that is the constitution. This country was founded on limited government and that is far from what it is today. Ron Paul is against the government controlling and being controlled by the large corporations. Look him up and see what he is really about, Ron Paul is an American Hero, a true patriot. Also please tell me how he seems racist and out of his mind? So does wanting to take this country back to the beliefs it was founded on make you out of your mind?
watch these 2 videos.
Ah, the Constitution statement again. Americans don't understand the legal limitations on the First Amendment (we see that whenever a professional athlete is fined for saying something), which is one of the most, if not the most, well-known Amendments. Honestly, that alone makes me question whether they understand any of the rest of it. My guess is that most would do pretty poorly on the citizenship test (which dealt with questions of that nature) that my friend took last year. I've found that, when pressed, they tend to be mostly regurgitating his talking points. Some are articulate, don't with most, once you get them off his particular points, they get lost and twisted pretty quickly.
I actually assert that he's guilty of interpreting the Constitution as much as anyone else. . . his is just a very literal interpretation, while others are more broad. If people who worked on the Constitution disgreed on the intended breadth of the Constitution right after they wrote it
(Alexander Hamilton's suggestion for the establishment of the First Bank of the U.S. was argued with the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, I believe), how does Ron Paul know what the correct interpretation is? They've been arguing these points since at least the 1780s, if not earlier (before you jump on me about 1776, check out when the Constitution was signed). I'm not a Constitutional expert, but I sure as heck know that most of the people that are yelling "Constitution!" aren't either.