[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Fortress America is a myth. Always has been, always will be.
Who is talking about fortress America? I am talking about bringing the troops home from a stupid, pointless war. .
[/quote]
Ron Paul wants to bring ALL the troops home from every base around the world!
Do you agree with this stance?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ron Paul wants to bring ALL the troops home from every base around the world!
Do you agree with this stance?[/quote]
Yes. We have a Navy and Air-force that can reach anywhere in a matter of hours.
We don’t need our forces based in foreign nations. It serves no purpose other than to incite hatred. Do we really need to be based in Germany and South Korea, for example. North Korea is an isolationist country that couldn’t hurt anyone. Germany and the EU in general is capable of defending its own territory. We have two huge oceans can two friendly borders that have been good to us so far. I think we have over-hyped the ME issue. There really is no nation that can outmatch the US and no nation that will try.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… North Korea is an isolationist country that couldn’t hurt anyone. … [/quote]
Riiiggghht.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… North Korea is an isolationist country that couldn’t hurt anyone. …
Riiiggghht.[/quote]
Other than their own people who has DPNK ever threatened?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
… North Korea is an isolationist country that couldn’t hurt anyone. …
Riiiggghht.
Other than their own people who has DPNK ever threatened?[/quote]
South Korea, Japan…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
South Korea, Japan…[/quote]
Really? Isn’t it their problem then? Can’t they defend themselves?
Was North Korea ever really a US issue?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
South Korea, Japan…
Really? Isn’t it their problem then? Can’t they defend themselves?
Was North Korea ever really a US issue?[/quote]
yes.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
South Korea, Japan…
Really? Isn’t it their problem then? Can’t they defend themselves?
Was North Korea ever really a US issue?
yes.[/quote]
In what way was it ever our business to stop communism?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
If the PEOPLE decide things are “BS” they change the document.[/quote]
Understand though, that the very existence of the Constitution is to protect from an overbearing majority and an unchecked democracy. I think this is what Lifty meant when he said that there can be no compromise. No, you cannot compromise on the Constitution. That is why it exists. If you could just compromise your way around it then there would really be no point in even having it.[quote]
Again, ron paul is playing his whip the Ragers into a froth. He offers a simple solution to complex problems. He thinks the Constitution can only be interpreted HIS way. He thinks anyone else is a traitor to the Spirit of '76. [/quote]
Here lies my concern with the man. He is a Jacobin. If he truly had his way the end result would be heads rolling in the streets of America of those who don’t believe in HIS freedom. I’m still voting for him, because 4 years of Paul won’t get us that far, but it will help prevent more gov’t encroachment.[quote]
He states “You don’t follow the Constitution” as if his interpretation is unchallenged.[/quote]
This is absolutely true. He speaks as if any individual can crack the Constitution and the answer is plain is day. In many cases, that is true, but not all. The ideas of general welfare and interstate commerce can be debated. All this said, yes, 80% of legislation that has been passed is unconstitutional. I can make a whole thread out of this. [quote]
When, in fact, as I am discussing, his historical knowledge and interpretation is very much in question.
See continually claiming the Founding Fathers were 100% opposed to foreign intervention (Barbary Pirates and Tom Jefferson).[/quote]
No, it is much worse than that. The Barbary pirates were attacking us so I don’t even think that should count. But, Jefferson and the republicans wanted to intervene in the French Revolution by declaring war on England. Shortly after the XYZ affair a few years later the whole damn country wanted to declare war on France. We had an army raised with Washington and Hamilton at its helm. I have class now, but I’ll get to the unconstitutionality of things soon.
mike
[quote]JeffR wrote:
bota,
First of all, “BS” is in the eye of the beholder.
You (especially you) can’t decide what is BS unless the people speak.
We vest our power in our Representatives. They speak according to our wishes.
If the PEOPLE decide things are “BS” they change the document.
[/quote]
Is that so.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage trade activities between the states and with foreign nations and Indian tribes. Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as “the Foreign Commerce Clause”, “the Interstate Commerce Clause”, and “the Indian Commerce Clause”, each of which refers to the same single sentence in the constitution that covers all three.
The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government of the United States has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life.
And, here it comes:
In Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act, stating that the act of growing wheat on one’s own land, for one’s own consumption, affected interstate commerce, and therefore under the Commerce Clause was subject to federal regulation.
This change in the Court’s decisions is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937. [2] This expansion continued largely unabated until United States v. Lopez (1995).
The case:
The Court’s decision
The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act is to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.
Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.
Wickard has often been seen as marking the end to any limits on Congress’s commerce clause powers. One commentator has written: �??In the wake of Jones & Laughlin and Wickard [v. Filburn], it has become clear that… Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity.�??[1]
This is the reason why the federal government still raids medical marijuana clinics, against he expressed will of the people and their representatives and what is even more important it is legalese bullshittery of the highest order in order to undermine the US constitution.
I do so love a goood bitch slapping…
[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
bota,
First of all, “BS” is in the eye of the beholder.
You (especially you) can’t decide what is BS unless the people speak.
We vest our power in our Representatives. They speak according to our wishes.
If the PEOPLE decide things are “BS” they change the document.
Is that so.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage trade activities between the states and with foreign nations and Indian tribes. Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as “the Foreign Commerce Clause”, “the Interstate Commerce Clause”, and “the Indian Commerce Clause”, each of which refers to the same single sentence in the constitution that covers all three.
The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government of the United States has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life.
And, here it comes:
In Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act, stating that the act of growing wheat on one’s own land, for one’s own consumption, affected interstate commerce, and therefore under the Commerce Clause was subject to federal regulation.
This change in the Court’s decisions is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937. [2] This expansion continued largely unabated until United States v. Lopez (1995).
The case:
The Court’s decision
The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act is to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.
Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.
Wickard has often been seen as marking the end to any limits on Congress’s commerce clause powers. One commentator has written: �??In the wake of Jones & Laughlin and Wickard [v. Filburn], it has become clear that… Congress has authority to regulate virtually all private economic activity.�??[1]
This is the reason why the federal government still raids medical marijuana clinics, against he expressed will of the people and their representatives and what is even more important it is legalese bullshittery of the highest order in order to undermine the US constitution.
[/quote]
bota,
Interesting. Again, if more people thought this was BS they could take action.
What action? Win elections. Have candidates put their type of politicians in office in order to reform the justice system. Or gasp amend the Constitution to make it explicit what commerce entails.
The internet?
JeffR
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I do so love a goood bitch slapping…[/quote]
Please keep your fantasies to yourself.
The images are quite disturbing.
Thanks,
JeffR
[quote]
Jimmy Carter, Micheal Dukakis and Bill Clinton were all highly respected Governors who were working from with in their party (at high levels) to gain support.[/quote]
So was Liebermann;
And Clinton was just an obscure governor from Arkansaw; he did get support from the medias, and Paul is lacking this support, because the medias are paid and bought whores for the big business running Washington;
Nonethless, the internet more than makes up for this, as demonstrated by the straw polls won by Paul and the fantastic amount of donations he received
You are entitled to your own strange ideas; his fan base has multiplied spectacularly, so much that the announced donations goal for the last quarter was doubled, and it still went above.
This trend will only grow exponentially, and the medias who absolutely hates him will be obliged to give him more airtime, bringiong even more people to him
Or maybe it’s your mind that’s warped, what da ya think?
As i said, the medias has done everything up to now to marginalise him; but an Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September could only conclude that the candidate receiving the most donations from military families is…Paul( $63,440), followed by Obama, then Mc Cain.
Incidently, Obama too is strongly opposed to war, and is closely chasing paul with $53,968 donations from military.
Guess you believe Obama numbers, HUUH ??
Your forum is actually anecdotical;
Paul is cited in every forum on every site i visit; Ron Paul threads are popping out everywhere; not my fault if you don’t look for them
Now, why resort to lies to make your point?
Does Paul’s message infuriate you so much ?
Guess LIBERTY isn’t everbody’s cup of tea, would you say?
Which ones ? The ones projecting Lieberman a winner in 2004 ?
Yeah. And then you will be able to stop posting the same arguments on the same thread for ever and ever and ever.
Best of lucks.
But you never know…
[quote]Pssst…here’s a clue junior: The Internet is inhabited by many faceless nameless drones. One of these Internet low lifes alone can (and I’m sure has) begun 20 or 30 threads on Paul.
[/quote]
There goes your cover, fuckface
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Ron Paul is not a prominent member of any group. As there is no group in good standing that would have him as a member.
[/quote]
Right…
Congressman Ron Paul is proud to be endorsed by many
groups and individuals devoted to liberty
The United Republicans of California (UROC)
American Patriot Award from Freedom America
Texas Association of Business and Commerce PAC
Texas Society of Professional Engineers PAC
Reverend Louis P. Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition
Texas Right to Life
Texas Eagle Forum
Texas Home School Coalition PAC
Texas Association of Realtors TREPAC
Texas Eagle Forum
Texas Hospital Association PAC
National Federation of Independent Business PAC
Texas Medical Association PAC
The Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America
Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC
Texas Board of Realtors
Wholesaler-Distributor PAC
Texas Hospital Association
ALIPAC (Americans for Legal Immigration PAC)
The Baytown Sun
The Brazosport Facts
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
When you come up with some proof that the media is bought and paid for by big business (I’m laughing while I type this) show me.[/quote]
It took me one minute, FUCKFACE…
New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark,
Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette,
G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody’s
Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft,
McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments
GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM,
Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble,
Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette,
Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo,
Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target,
Pepsi,
AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
Thanks for capitalizing “fuckface”. I guess the only question left between you two is who lights whose country music award on fire first.
[quote]Paul is looked at as a renegade with in the republican party. He disagrees with all major candidates on just about every issue and espouses views that are so radical that no one…and I mean no one, of any credibility wants to align themselves with this nut case.
[/quote]
Well, looks like it’s all the other major candidates who are disagreeing with traditional conservatives…or the rest of the voters, for that matter( 70% americans want the war over NOW)
And tell me, why should the candidates AGREE between themselves, or ENDORSE one another, FUCKFACE?
Key GOP Group Endorses Ron Paul
Posted on May 22, 2007 by stanky
ARLINGTON, VA The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.
The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along, said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race.
In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him the leading advocate for freedom in our nation�s capital and recognized that:
Ron Paul�s voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:
· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.
His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:
· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC�s platform.
Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate, continued Snyder. Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president.