Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
Mikey wrote:You just attacked Paul for having "no real solutions"
How does he propose to take care of the social security problem? What about the issue of the war on terror? How does he propose that we solve the issues of illegal immigration? Give me some of his Constitutionally based solutions.Dinsdale wrote:Mikey wrote:You just attacked Paul for having "no real solutions"
Making him a moron.
Paul offers the only real solutions -- adhering to the Constitution, and limiting federal government.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/battery chucka' one wrote:How does he propose to take care of the social security problem? What about the issue of the war on terror? How does he propose that we solve the issues of illegal immigration? Give me some of his Constitutionally based solutions.Dinsdale wrote:Mikey wrote:You just attacked Paul for having "no real solutions"
Making him a moron.
Paul offers the only real solutions -- adhering to the Constitution, and limiting federal government.
battery chucka' one wrote: How does he propose to take care of the social security problem?
Ron Paul wrote:
Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.
Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.
What about the issue of the war on terror?
Ron Paul wrote:The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
How does he propose that we solve the issues of illegal immigration?
Ron Paul wrote:The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Give me some of his Constitutionally based solutions.
Yeah, kinda like how your boy says that people are poor because they're lazy.mvscal wrote:You have "little doubt" because you are a blithering motherfucking idiot. If you aren't doing better than you ever have in this economy it is because YOU suck. Don't try to blame your own personal inadequacies on the economy.
What was the objective?upstart wrote:The Mission Was Accomplished in three weeks the 3ID and the 1st Marine Div kicked ass all the way to Saddam's house and pissed in his sink...with
a little help from the 82d.
Never ending war.Martyred wrote:What was the objective?upstart wrote:The Mission Was Accomplished in three weeks the 3ID and the 1st Marine Div kicked ass all the way to Saddam's house and pissed in his sink...with
a little help from the 82d.
A big footprint,a thumb in the eye,verify his disarmament,inforce the UN resolutions,we need the bases....because we can.Martyred wrote:What was the objective?upstart wrote:The Mission Was Accomplished in three weeks the 3ID and the 1st Marine Div kicked ass all the way to Saddam's house and pissed in his sink...with
a little help from the 82d.
A photo op.Martyred wrote:What was the objective?upstart wrote:The Mission Was Accomplished in three weeks the 3ID and the 1st Marine Div kicked ass all the way to Saddam's house and pissed in his sink...with
a little help from the 82d.
mvscal wrote:[In the astronomically unlikely event that he was nominated and the even more unlikely event that he would be elected, do you honestly think he would be able to deliver on any of this pie in sky bullshit?
Thomas Jefferson wrote:A government that is large enough to supply everything you need is large enough to take everything you have.
John Adams wrote:The government turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself.
Samuel Adams wrote:"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of god, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
BSmack wrote:Society as become infinitely more complex since the days of Jefferson and Madison. It only stands to reason that government would have to adapt and become more complex as well.
[b][size=150]Utopia[/size][/b] wrote:B-[b][size=150]moonbat[/size][/b] wrote:Society as become infinitely more complex since the days of Jefferson and Madison. It only stands to reason that government would have to adapt and become more complex as well.
Government is a neccessary evil. And I stress "evil."
But intentionally expanding evil is fucking moronic, and those who favor that should be kept in check, for they are not the thinkers of our society.
Besides the basic functions laid out by the Constitution, there is NOTHING the fed can do more efficiently than the states... NOTHING.
And which way is it easier for an individual voice to be heard -- at the state level, or the fed?
Federal government is, by nature, very inefficient. Why anyone would want to increase the level of inefficiency is beyond me.
Fuck socialists.
Secure the borders, regulate interstate commerce(no, not stupid shit like "medical marijuana might æffect the interstate trade of marijuana," which any Justice who had the audacity to try and pull should be hanging from a gallows in the town square), and stay the fuck out of all things that aren't specifically granted to the fed... like almost everything. You know... like we do in America.
Ron Paul wrote:Faced with dwindling support of the Iraq War, the warhawks are redoubling their efforts. They imply we are in Iraq attacking those who attacked us, and yet this is not the case. As we know, Saddam Hussein, though not a particularly savory character, had nothing to do with 9/11. The neo-cons claim surrender should not be an option. In the same breath they claim we were attacked because of our freedoms. Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage.
upstart wrote:libertarians have no balls because they take no stand on issues.
Ron Paul, on October 15th, 2001, wrote:Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.
Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:
Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.
Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.
Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.
End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.
Someone around here put up some signs for Ron Paul in the median on North Oak trafficway a few months ago. I was all like, wtf? They've since been removed, people actually wrote letters to the KC Star decrying presidential politics 18 months before the election.Dinsdale wrote:Oh, the groundswell for Paul almost has a grassroots feel to it.
Hell, the only campaigning I've seen besides stupid PR appearances by the candidates has been for Paul, which has been going on for months and months. It's actually startling how much support Paul has here in Hippyland (although the impression people have of Oregon being some ultra-liberal state isn't that accurate, although it's starting to lean that way with all of the transplants).
Dude is straight blowing up around here. Don't count him out just yet.
Ron Paul would look good in a dress tripping over the libbys in a attempt to surrender to Islamic fascists while pissing away this countrys credibility.poptart wrote:Gee upstart, for having 'no stand' on the issues, Ron Paul sure is, for some mysterious reason, being crucified by his own party and the media.
There is no candidate running who comes remotely close to Paul when it comes to CLEARLY outlining his stands on issues.
If you want the standard B.S., tune in to any of the other empty suits.
Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists:Dinsdale wrote:upstart wrote:libertarians have no balls because they take no stand on issues.Ron Paul, on October 15th, 2001, wrote:Over the past month I have introduced several bills designed to address terrorism and make Americans feel more secure. While many counter-terrorism proposals were considered in Congress last week, my belief is that the most effective steps we can take do not infringe upon the civil liberties of American citizens. In fact, I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.
Here are some concrete steps Congress can take immediately to make our borders, our cities, and our skies more secure:
Arm Pilots: It is unthinkable to leave pilots defenseless in the cockpit after the events of September 11th. We trust pilots to operate multimillion dollar machines filled with human cargo, yet incredibly we do not trust them with firearms. While airport security certainly can be strengthened, pilots must have the choice to carry weapons as a last line of defense against future hijacking attempts.
Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists. Remember, only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights; non-citizens are in the country at the discretion of the State department. While we should generally welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. My legislation would restrict immigration, including the granting of student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
Better intelligence gathering: Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.
Harsher criminal penalties for terrorists: The federal statute of limitations for terrorist offenses should be eliminated, so that suspects can never breathe easy even 10 or 20 years from now. Jail sentences and penalties should be increased, and the death penalty should be possible for many offenses. Terrorist attempts and conspiracies should be treated as harshly as completed acts.
Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.
End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.
There's credibility left to piss away?upstart wrote:...while pissing away this countrys credibility.
Paul is full of crap.Ron Paul wrote:
No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
1. The president can wage war for a set amount of time without permission from congress. I don't know if it's for a month or 90 days. This allows for many military actions sans an actual 'declaration of war', per se.Dr_Phibes wrote:Paul is full of crap.Ron Paul wrote:
No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Congress gave the president the power to wage war on terrorism carte blanche - and by labelling a standing army a 'terrorist group', you can go to war at a whim. It's completely legal and within the framework of the constitution.
Credibility, like your PM has finally earned for CanadaMartyred wrote:There's credibility left to piss away?upstart wrote:...while pissing away this countrys credibility.
I call "bullshit".
mvscal wrote:And Congress specifically granted the President the authority to use military force against Iraq.
James Madison... you know, that dude who wrote the Constitution, wrote:The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."