Well, ok. But, let’s sell it honestly to the American people. It would take another 20, maybe 50 years, or maybe never, to achieve this victory you’re looking for. It it would involve actually outlawing particular religious teachings and practices, a hell of a lot more money, and many more deaths. The will isn’t there, and it won’t be there. Pull back, secure the borders, beef up intelligence, hit and run when needed. But we’re done with nation-building. [/quote]
I disagree with all of that except for the part about not having the will. Between 41-43 the U.S. mobilised 8.2 million men. If the west was serious about al-Qaeda, Iran, Pakistan etc we could deal with these threats decisively before they become far greater threats.
Just to give an example. People say Iran will block Hormuz - that’s why the Fifth Fleet is in Bahrain. If we remove the Fifth Fleet all we do is cede to them strategic advantage and lessen our ability to maintain our shipping lanes etc. Every action has consequences.
On a side note, it has occurred to me the Paul haters are taking a page from the Man Made Global Warming nut jobs. Just declare Ron Paul a racist, then cover your ears and continue to scream “the debate is over.”
“Ron Paul is a racist! Soviet disinfo! The debate is over! Na Na Na Na Na, I can’t hear you!”
Yeah, I am felling better and better about my choice. [/quote]
You have it exactly backwards. The Ron Paul supporters - like the Warmist Absolutists - are like a cult. Wait, no - not like a cult…they are a cult. Nothing could happen - no fact uncovered, no argument substantiated - that will shake the One True Faith in Paul.
Excerpts keep coming out substantiating Paul’s 9-11 Trutherism, weird consrpiracies (at one point, Paul discussing how Governor Rick Perry is part of the “international conspiracy”), and trafficking in racist circles. But the Paulnuts hang on. Only one conclusion I can reach - they hang on because they share the same moonbat beliefs.
It’s downright creepy - no one should be as emotionally (frankly, religiously) invested in a politician the way Ron Paul supporters are. When Paul loses the nomination, is there a plan for all of his followers to get together in South America and imbibe Kool Aid?[/quote]
Are they “the Republican protest vote?”
Mr Heninger is worth reading, but there are some big holes in his narrative.
The longer people ride this horse, the higher he climbs in the polls, minorities included.
MOAR please…[/quote]
I’m enjoying it too. Plenty more coming don’t worry. Ron Paul’s gonna get all the media attention his fans have been asking for. He will continue to wither under the bright lights of scrutiny.
Are we gonna do this every four years until the Paulettes roll his coffin into the primaries which could be any day now? It wouldn’t matter if he was everything I wanted in a candidate. He is too old in any case just about and definitely to run against Obama. He’s 76 folks. He would be 80 when running for a second term. How is this even a discussion?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
When Paul loses the nomination, is there a plan for all of his followers to get together in South America and imbibe Kool Aid?[/quote]
You just don’t understand Ron Paul’s positions on UFOs!
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
War cannot be fought on a national security “thought.”
[/quote]
Right…? Agreed.
I agree. Ron Paul flagrantly misrepresents the Constitution by claiming that a Congressional declaration of war is required before the executive can wage war. Perhaps if Ron Paul was around in the 18th Century he could’ve explained to President Adams, Congress and the founding fathers that the Quasi-war and the subsequent 158 wars fought without a Congressional declaration were all unconstitutional.
…
[/quote]
And the prize for the first President to send troops to attach foreign territory–without a Congressional declaration of war–goes to…
James Madison.
Yes, Little Jemmy, Fourth President, Father of the Constitution, without consulting Congress, ordered the Governor of the Louisiana Territory to send in the army, to capture land as far east as Mobile. (October, 1810)
Perhaps Dr. Paul will impeach him posthumously for violating the Constitution.
TB,
I have mostly resisted entering this debate as I have little time at the moment to devote to it. Even so, I let myself be goaded into a half-assed retort to what I still consider a sanctimonious stance on your part. While I have no more time than before, I should at least make an attempt to finish what I started.
I will begin by addressing the claims of “racist” remarks in RP’s former newsletters. I make no claims in having read the letters in full, or for that matter even partially, but only in what could be called a cursory review. As near as I can tell the statements occurred roughly between 1985 and 1994. One of the first offending statements was “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ " This occurred in December of '89 and I have yet to be able to find the full text the quote was contained in. Not having the proper context, I can make up examples in which the statement could be much less offensive, such as “If the soft bigotry of low expectation is allowed to continue in such programs, Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’ Feel free to blast away. Without further context I am willing to give this statement a pass.
Another statement was “I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” This one I find more troubling, but again do not have the benefit of full context. My problem is that Paul states he did not write this and it appears to be completely incongruent with the person and persona that those familiar with Dr. Paul claim to know. Even the head of the Houston NAACP states his firm belief that Dr. Paul is in no way racist.
I will not “cut and paste” every quote, but Paul has accepted moral responsibility for the words, laid out the reasoning of the advice he got from advisers as to his handling of the explanations given in his previous presidential run, and apologized for not doing a better job. You have stated that this is not good enough for you. Great, don’t vote for him. I am willing to look past this series of events and examine if his actions and conduct are those of an honorable and ethically congruent individual.
As to the legislation he has authored…
Have you deemed it worthy to examine the content of his proposed legislation? If not, take a look at the following…
Having looked over the list myself, I come away more impressed with Dr. Paul than I was before. Again, I did not find 600+ pieces of legislation, but of those listed above I find no fault.
Now on to Jon Huntsman…
I gave you a wide opening with my statement and you appropriately took advantage of it. Having been a Romney supporter in the last election (and having no love for McCain) I have had a long time to observe him. I will simply say that I no longer feel he is the man to lead our country out of it present malaise. For various reasons Perry, Bachman and Newt had long ago disqualified themselves from my support. Santorum is on my radar for the future, but I do not yet think he is ready for prime time.
Unfortunately, Huntsman had not really ever made it on my radar. This is my oversight. I should not have made such a blanket statement without having a better knowledge base. I have spent the last 2+ hours gaining an overview of his qualifications. I will have to admit that at first glance there is much more substance than I was aware of or anticipated. Actually quite impressive.
Even so, two or three hours are not enough for me to form an educated opinion. I am intrigued enough to dig deeper. A couple of points that caught my attention;
He seems to have been on the Man Made Global Warming bandwagon, having signed the Western Climate Initiative in 2007. He now seems to have backed off this position a bit. Politically motivated? I need to know more.
High school drop out to join a band (the Wizards). Went back and got his GED, and then on to Penn State. Bet his father flipped a switch on this one. I have no problem here. Just find it interesting.
I am a bit suspicious that his resume looks a lot like it was “scripted” with this moment in mind. If this does not make sense I will further develop.
Though he does seem to have a good record on cutting taxes, he appears to be of the Bush/Obama school of ever increasing budgets and spending.
I will however, close with this. I am an odd mixture of higher education and Tennessee country redneck. I remember chiding BodyGuard for telling someone on this board that if they were face to face with him rather than on the internet they would never speak in the manor they chose. While part of me thought this was silly, at my core I knew exactly what he meant. When you use a sentence like “You are a perfect example of the dimwitted sycophancy of the Paul movement” to me, well lets just say I urge you to use a little more restraint. It is, after all, a small world.
Anyway, I do owe you credit for getting me to take closer look at Huntsman. I have seen enough to warrant a longer an harder look.
Yes, I appreciate that Santorum is particularly concerned with the middle and lower income folk. I like that he’s stubbornly bringing up the family, and getting/keeping manafacturing jobs here. Crucial topics for socio-economic health and economic mobility. Yes folks, family matters. But yes, one point in Huntsman’s favor is his awareness of financial/banking issues (too big to fail), and the willingess to do something about it. [/quote]
Santorum just moved up in my book. On Ron Paul:
Ron Paul says heâ??s going to eliminate five departments. Ron Paul passed one bill in 20 years. What give you the idea that he can eliminate anything?[/quote]
The American president is the elected dictator of the known universe, ruling by fiat, lording over live and death of mere mortals…
The earth quakes where he walks, the waters retreat where he says so and He who has joined the rank of the gods, beyond the shackles of laws that bind all others is not bound by even the laws of physics.
In other words, if all else fails he can declare them to be terrorists and detain them indefinitely. Or bomb the shit out of their buildings, they should get the message, he would get his way and all in all he would not only be A WAR TIME PRESIDENT, but also the most efficient reformator since Atilla the Hun.
The American president is the elected dictator of the known universe, ruling by fiat, lording over live and death of mere mortals…
The earth quakes where he walks, the waters retreat where he says so and He who has joined the rank of the gods, beyond the shackles of laws that bind all others is not bound by even the laws of physics.
[/quote]
^^
This one speaks treason against King Barry of the Mack.
…In other words, if all else fails he can declare them to be terrorists and detain them indefinitely. Or bomb the shit out of their buildings, they should get the message, he would get his way and all in all he would not only be A WAR TIME PRESIDENT, but also the most efficient reformator since Atilla the Hun.
[/quote]
Stop masturbating in PWI.[/quote]
Is masturbating in a blowjob barn considered to be bad form?
The American president is the elected dictator of the known universe, ruling by fiat, lording over live and death of mere mortals…
The earth quakes where he walks, the waters retreat where he says so and He who has joined the rank of the gods, beyond the shackles of laws that bind all others is not bound by even the laws of physics.
[/quote]
^^
This one speaks treason against King Barry of the Mack.[/quote]
Did I not portray his divine mandate accurately !?!
Did I not portray his divine mandate accurately !?!
Is my soul poisoned by heresy?
Say it is not so![/quote]
You can criticise Wilson’s, FDR’s or Obama’s executive over-reach on domestic socialism issues but when a Democrat tells you he needs to use war powers against an aggressive foreign threat you better believe them - when they’re obviously right that is; which they were. Truman, Kennedy, LBL were right also. And one of Wilson’s achievements was the Federal Reserve Act. So Democrats aren’t all bad you see.
Did I not portray his divine mandate accurately !?!
Is my soul poisoned by heresy?
Say it is not so![/quote]
You can criticise Wilson’s, FDR’s or Obama’s executive over-reach on domestic socialism issues but when a Democrat tells you he needs to use war powers against an aggressive foreign threat you better believe them - when they’re obviously right that is; which they were. Truman, Kennedy, LBL were right also. And one of Wilson’s achievements was the Federal Reserve Act. So Democrats aren’t all bad you see.[/quote]
Dondero, editor of the Libertarian Republican, told the Spokane Conservative Examiner last week that Paul was “obsessed with the newsletters.”
"He’s completely telling falsehoods about the newsletters “they were his babies,” Dondero said.
Timeline:
1996 - Ron Paul says he did write them and cites a study of a report by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia to support his claim of slippery fingered, fleet-footed pickaninnies.
2001 - Paul says he lied about writing them. His campaign staff told him to lie because it would be ‘too confusing’ otherwise.
2008 - Paul responds to a question about racism by asserting that libertarians like himself “are incapable of being a racist” because they view “everybody as an important individual” rather than identifying people in groups.
2011 - “There were many times when I did not edit the whole letter and other things got put in.” Now, Paul says that yes, he did write some of the material, but the “bad stuff” only amounted to about “eight or ten sentences.”
Kirchick said it’s “preposterous” to say that only a handful of newsletter sentences were offensive. “As anyone can see from the scans of the newsletters available on the [New Republic] website or posted elsewhere, the documents contain pages upon pages of bigoted statements and outright paranoia.” The newsletters show an “obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays.”
You are trying to say you agree with me? Well for a small time we agree.
Here is where you fail. Use the “wars” in our life times, rather than the past. The noun are not even used to describe events, instead called conflicts. War would require a declaration from Congress, something this country does not have. The conflicts are Not even constitutional and no weapons of mass destruction were even found. The reason for being there is? Let me guess, republic country building. And who gave us the authority and financial backing/compensation?
Why were we attacked and by whom? Sure as fuck wasn’t the countries we are in! And please stop using the Constitution to argue your case, you are just like the people in Washington who haven’t even read the document.
What am I supposed to take from these dates relating to Dr. Ron?
