T1B

mvscal wrote:Yeah he sounds great until he starts talking up his suicidal foreign policy and then you realise you're dealing with a grade A tard who isn't even remotely prepared to lead a global power.

Is Bush's "Scorched Earth" philosophy what you consider a shining example of good foreign policy....

mvscal wrote:If you think that is "scorched earth", you're a fucking idiot. Seriously.

But, yes, confronting our enemies and kicking their asses is good policy. It is one of the few ideas he has gotten right though the execution could have been better.

really.....

where do we stand on finding the guy that was behind the attack on our country....

Felix wrote:I don't know as much about Paul as I'd like, but his position on immigration reform mirrors mine....

So do his chances of getting a single convention delegate.

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote:I don't know as much about Paul as I'd like, but his position on immigration reform mirrors mine....

So do his chances of getting a single convention delegate.

Paul will most certainly stay around long enough to pick up a dozen or so like minded loons as delegates.

BSmack wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote:I don't know as much about Paul as I'd like, but his position on immigration reform mirrors mine....

So do his chances of getting a single convention delegate.

Paul will most certainly stay around long enough to pick up a dozen or so like minded loons as delegates.

With his pro-surrender policies? Not a chance.


Maybe if he was running as a Dem.

Dio,

GOP support for the war has eroded as well. Not as much as with Dems and blanks, but it has eroded. Plus, not all states require party enrolment to vote in their primaries.

Tell me you knew?

I'm by no means suggesting that Paul will even reach triple digits in delegates. 10-20 sounds about right for him, all of course coming from non winner take all states. He has the resources at his disposal to campaign long enough for those delegates long after the rest of the bottom tier candidates will have been forced out. And as long as the money keeps pouring in from zealots like Dinsdale, he's going to keep his name out there.

BSmack wrote:GOP support for the war has eroded as well.

It's not a "war." It's a "police action." Which has gone on about 4 years longer than is legal/constitutional.


One Congressman tried to at least follow the laws of this country, laid out by the Founding Fathers, and drafted a war declaration against Iraq.



Of course, no one else in Congress wanted to sign their name to an Iraq War, so they allowed the Constitution to once again be trashed in the interest of their own political gains.


The ONE Congressman who was willing to take heat and at least make the action (which he opposed from the onset, and voted against the illegal resolution) went by the name of Dr. Ron Paul.


One.


One.


There was one member of Congress willing to bring heat upon himself in order to do what was legal and moral, for better or worse.


One.



Ask yourself if people who put their own political career better interests ahead of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land are the type of characters you want making decisions for you and spending your money and our childrens' lives, or would you prefer someone with the conviction to let his voice be heard despite which direction the winds of political showboating are blowing?


BTw -- you people need to leave your caves every once in a while. Ron Paul recently had the largest fundraising day any presidential candidate has ever had. And frankly, I know and routinely interact with a lot of people. And every single person I know supports Dr Paul, and many are changing their party registration to vote for him in the primary.


This isn't some fringe group, you uninformed tards. Dr Paul is the ONLY candidate I've seen any campaign signs for (and supporters are out along the freeways and other high-visibility spots several times a week, every week, and have been for months). It's the only bumpers stickers I've seen so far.


And the Movement just keeps getting bigger every day. Maybe there is hope for this country.

mvscal wrote:I shouldn't have to point out the fact that this war isn't about one man.

Correct.


It's about two men.


Prescott Bush and Erle Halliburton.

Hmmm.... I wonder who set all of those oil wells on fire in Desert Storm?


Hmmm....


The people who depended on them for income...

Or the people who made millions and millions and millions of dollars putting the fires out?


Hmmm.... tough call.


Nah... takes a "paranoid wingnut" to even think that a company that sold Saddam and Qaddafi equipment to get their nuclear programs off the ground would EVER do anything like that.



Hate to be the one to break this to you, mv -- but other people aren't "paranoid wingnuts." You're a "naive ostrich."



When you let private businesses/citizens who have been flat-out busted for traitorism start dictating your foreign policy, you're in deep fucking doodoo. And when you let the heirs of said traitors(not accusing Erle of traitorism... just the entire rest of his family) continue dictating foreign policy for their own profit, lives and future be damned, and even let the known traitor's children AND grandchildren continue with said policy... you're fucking crazy.


Wakey wakey America.


The United States is over here... no, over here, in the Western Hemisphere... not over there. Some powermongers' mothers did a piss-poor job of teaching their kids to not take things that don't belong to them. And for this horrendous parenting, we rewarded Barbara Bush by putting her face on the $1 Bill... par for the course, I suppose, since we reward the children of traitors with the presidency.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Any idiot who buys into the intellectually idiocy of creationism .......

genius

Paul is your man, Felix.
Don't be surprised.

Many folks in the same boat as you.
All they hear is noise from the media, telling them the guy must be nuts.
Then they take a look at his positions and his stellar voting record.

They come to their senses.


RACK the revolution!

mvscal wrote:There is no way in hell the GOP is going to nominate an anti-war candidate. I seriously doubt the Dems will either.

No, but there's just enough anti-war sentiment out there to get Paul 10-20 delegates if he hangs in there. I'm not talking nomination. I talking about less than 1% of the delegates.

poptart wrote:All they hear is noise from the media, telling them the guy must be nuts.

For a guy who has "no chance," people sure want to attack the guy with reckless abandon, particularly the republican establishment.


Wonder why that is?


Only one reasonable explaination -- they're worried. And why would they be worried? Only one reasonable explaination -- because they don't see him as having "no chance."


The Revolution is gaining support by the day, and rightly so. And it's increasing with a geometric progression. And that geometric progression has plenty of time to hit the meat-of-the-curve.


It's time for the good, moral people to take a stand. Way too many people have settled. Supporting the mainstream candidates is exactly that -- settling. It's what good sheeple do... they follow the asshole in front of them. You've been herded for too long, folks. Just because YOU'RE willing to watch the USA become a second-class country, it doesn't mean that everyone is. Those with any balls will stand up for what's right. And the current establishment is so far from being right, it's sad. And all anyone has to do to reverse the trend of the War on The Middle Class is cast a ballot.


Let your voice be heard, people. You've got two choices -- the Revolution now, or a violent revolution down the road... it's inevitable. You can only opress people for so long, and a "representative government" can only ignore the Will of the People for so long before the syatem breaks... so, how's that immigration reform thing going? The overwhelming... let me repeat... OVERWHELMING majority of people want to see our sovereignty protected by enforcing the borders. So... where's the problem? Why aren't your representatives doing your bidding, when the overwhelming majority of their constituents want something done? If they're not doing your bidding, whose bidding are they doing? Pretty strong sign that the train has left the tracks, don't you think?


Will Dr. Paul fix all of our problems? Of course not. Does that mean we should give up on trying to improve things?


For myself, I think actually following the Constitution would be an excellent start. Those Articles and 1-10 aren't some pipe-dreams to be tossed aside when certain people find them inconvenient -- they're non-negotiable. They truly are what defines "our way of life"... and always have.


Keeping those principles sacred would be a GREAT start. And all it takes is filling out your ballot correctly. Why is that such a difficult concept?


But don't take my word for it -- do what Dr. Paul recommends -- think for yourself. Do a little research. A good starting point would be to look into the increase in size of government since 1993, when the "moderate" and the "small government" guy have run the White House. What you'll learn might shock you. At the current rate of government growth(which it shows no signs of slowing, and seems to be ramping up, if anything... Bush busted in another lie :shocker: ), you'll be giving up around 3/4 of your earnings to the government within 20 years. How, exactly, does this come across as a good idea to you people?


Again -- do your own research. The rate of government growth is alarming. And there's only one candidate in the running that actually wants to decrease the size of government -- every other one out there wants to increase it further... again, do your own research, their track records are there for the viewing.


Do you really want to create a world where your children will be handing over MOST of their money to the government? Is that really what you want? Because that's EXACTLY where things are heading. If you look at the current rate of federal government growth, it's really not that hard to envision a scenario where you no longer recieve your paycheck -- the government will take it, and give you back what's left over after their cut.


To think -- tens of thousands of brave men died in Korea and Vietnam to save other countries from having that happen... now, we're sullying their names by embracing that policy right here at home.


Fucking shameful, and anyone who doesn't do everything in their power to stop it should be ashamed of themselves.


Good luck raising those little communists you call "children." Maybe you should start working now on the answer to the question they'll ask you in the nursing home -- "Why did you let this happen, Grandpa?"


Every journey begins with a step. I guess it's up to everyone to decide for themselves when that forst step needs to be taken, after they do some actual research. In my opinion, NOW would be an excellent time to take that step.


But it's a free country, do what you think is best. Then again, if you vote for people who don't believe in American Sovereignty and the BoR, it ain't much of a "free country."

Dinsdale wrote:

poptart wrote:All they hear is noise from the media, telling them the guy must be nuts.

For a guy who has "no chance," people sure want to attack the guy with reckless abandon, particularly the republican establishment.


Wonder why that is?

They are not only skeered that Paul is fragmenting the party, but they are skeered about what that means 2 .... 4, or 8 years down the road for the party.

I don't buy into the poll numbers we keep seeing for Paul.
The fact that he's taking in BIG campaign donations, and doing so at the grass roots level, tells me that he's got much more support than the 'polls' are showing us.
He's got another 'donation day' coming up on December 16th.
More large cayesh will be coming his way.
He's a playah, and the party will just have to deal with him.

But he's old, 72 yrs old, I believe.
Is there a heir apparent?
A Paul clone?

This 'revolution' is just beginning, IMO.
The people have gotten a sniff of the concept of TRUE freedom, and from this point on, no douchebag candidate is EVAR going to fly with the people who have gotten a whiff of the good stuff.

Felix wrote:I don't know as much about Paul as I'd like, but his position on immigration reform mirrors mine....

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5.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.

6. 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.

I'd vote for him based simply on this position.....

For someone who claims to be a Constitutionalist, Paul apparently doesn't know, or at least understand, the Constitution anywhere near as well as he thinks he does.

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV wrote:Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Or is Paul one of those "originalists" who think the Amendments don't count?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:For someone who claims to be a Constitutionalist, Paul apparently doesn't know, or at least understand, the Constitution anywhere near as well as he thinks he does.

For someone who claims to be a lawyer, you apparently don't know, or at least understand, the Constitution as well as you think you do.


I didn't go to law school or anything, but I got a passing grade in Government class back in school, which apparently puts me in a position to help you out...


Uhm...


1-10 are carved in stone.

11 and up are workable.


Better yet... sometimes when dealing with really freaking ignorant people, such as lawyers for instance, examples are often useful...

The Constitution of the United States of America wrote:Amendment XXI
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Light coming on yet?


The XIVth was intended to grant citizenship to any freed slave that was born on US Soil. But there's those pesky unintended consequences -- it was never intended to be an end-around for our immigration laws. It's not for the purpose of Mexican Nationals attempting to set up sovereignty in this country with the intent to gain citizenship to effect a continental-economy for Mexico's benefit. And since millions and millions of people found a loophole in our laws, coupled with a traitorous "look the other way" policy which is intended to profit a select few, while creating an economic drain on Johnny Q, it's time to adress those unintended consequences.


Glad I could help. Damn, dude -- how can you pass a bar exam when you couldn't pass a high school government class?

poptart wrote:
RACK the revolution!

You're starting to sound like...

Dinsdale wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:For someone who claims to be a Constitutionalist, Paul apparently doesn't know, or at least understand, the Constitution anywhere near as well as he thinks he does.

For someone who claims to be a lawyer, you apparently don't know, or at least understand, the Constitution as well as you think you do.

Oh, I'm well familiar with the amendment process, but do you have any idea what's involved? A 2/3 vote by each house of Congress, plus ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. That's a pretty tough road to hoe. And remind me again exactly how the President is involved in the amendment process, other than maybe by suggesting the proposal of one and being a cheerleader for it?

I didn't go to law school or anything, but I got a passing grade in Government class back in school, which apparently puts me in a position to help you out...


Uhm...


1-10 are carved in stone.

11 and up are workable.

Bullshit.

They're all subject to amendment, if you want to go down that road. As is the body of the Constitution, for that matter. Twelfth, Thirteenth, Seventeenth and Twentieth Amendments out front told you so.

In fact, there are only three limitations on the Amendment process, two of which are no longer applicable:

• An Amendment barring importation of slaves was prohibited from passage prior to 1808.
• An Amendment relative to taxation was prohibited from passage prior to 1808, unless imposed consistently with any census taken before that time.
• No state can be deprived of either or both of its Senate seats without its consent.

Article V

But even if I were to take your assertion at face value, certainly you know that the Fourteenth has a greater tie-in to the BoR than does any of the other amendments added since the BoR, don't you? And I would think that a "big BoR guy" such as yourself (or Ron Paul, for that matter) would be extremely leery of making even the slightest of inroads on the protections afforded by the Fourteenth. Guess you learn something new every day.

Dinsdale wrote:Hmmm.... I wonder who set all of those oil wells on fire in Desert Storm?


Hmmm....


The people who depended on them for income...

Or the people who made millions and millions and millions of dollars putting the fires out?


Hmmm.... tough call.

Wow....This is priceless.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Alan Keyes (52%) Information link
3. Duncan Hunter (51%) Information link
4. Fred Thompson (51%) Information link
5. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (48%) Information link
6. Chuck Hagel (not running) (47%) Information link
7. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (47%) Information link
8. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (47%) Information link
9. John McCain (46%) Information link
10. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (46%) Information link
11. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (45%) Information link
12. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (45%) Information link
13. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (45%) Information link
14. Joseph Biden (44%) Information link
15. Rudolph Giuliani (44%) Information link
16. Christopher Dodd (43%) Information link
17. Mike Gravel (43%) Information link
18. Hillary Clinton (43%) Information link
19. Mitt Romney (43%) Information link
20. Ron Paul (42%) Information link
21. John Edwards (38%) Information link
22. Dennis Kucinich (38%) Information link
23. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (38%) Information link
24. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (38%) Information link
25. Mike Huckabee (36%) Information link
26. Al Gore (not announced) (35%) Information link
27. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (35%) Information link
28. Bill Richardson (33%) Information link
29. Barack Obama (32%) Information link
30. Elaine Brown (20%) Information link