Ron Paul on the Second Amendment

[RECON DOC]

I have been saying for years that the Second Amendment was written and passed into law, not just so Joe Blow American Citizen could go out and shoot a deer for food, but to insure that the government could never impose tyrannical rule and suppress the people that it belongs to. If you think I'm crazy, as most people do when the subject comes up, you need to look a little closer at the Constitution of the United States and the quotes of the Founders in regards to, and their explicit intentions for, all Americans and their precious and Liberty insuring Second Amendment.

They're very successfully chipping away at it right now. OMFG TERRORIST!!!, homeland security, the patriot act (they sure dressed that one up nicely) and it goes on. Horse sh*t. It's got to stop boys and girls, and fast.

Ron Paul is a very good man. I really haven't run into people that disagree with his platform, once they listened to him. He's got the lions share of political contributions from military personnel, that says something right there. He's got my vote too. We really need to listen to him, because he's got a rock solid record and he speaks the truth and he can help us all.
He's spreading like wild fire and for good reason.

http://www.youtube.com/v/xdxTg9x3Mbg&mode=user&search=

[Ratamacue]

At the moment, I don't believe he really stands a chance in getting past the primaries. But if he does, he sure as hell has my vote. Here's to hoping that his message and name recognition continue to spread.

That said, while I think that his message on non-interventionism is a valid one in the wake of current events, I think that his policies lean a bit too much towards isolationist.

[MEGR]

I like his view on the 2nd amendment. Hell, if he wins the nomination, he'd have my vote. However, say if he does get into office, do you think he will bring radical change with a Democrat-led congress?

Just another thought. He makes a good point in relating 9/11 to the weakening of 2nd-amendment rights.

[RECON DOC]

I like his view on the 2nd amendment. Hell, if he wins the nomination, he'd have my vote. However, say if he does get into office, do you think he will bring radical change with a Democrat-led congress?

Just another thought. He makes a good point in relating 9/11 to the weakening of 2nd-amendment rights.

I honestly believe he will have the support of both parties for the most part.
If he is elected it will be by the will of the people and we are the boss, not them. If they want to be reelected they will bend to the peoples will.
We must always remember that WE THE PEOPLE own this nation, NOT the government. I personally believe he will get the support to make it to the primaries. This would be huge for us all, don't doubt it for a second.


Ron Paul - Stop dreaming!
http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8

[punchinout]

I've been considering supporting Ron Paul for some time now. I like his 2nd ammendment stance and a quick glance over some of his beliefs and ideas drew me in a lil more....but i'll go with Rat on this one, he does have some very isolationist leaning views. Personally...i think he's better than Romney, but we shall see how the primaries go.

[Abolith]

I have been leaning more and more towards this guy... I think he now has got my vote.

[RECON DOC]

Look closely. These boys had their heads screwed on tight.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

How bout that 16th amendment the federal reserve and gun control, huh?

Slavery.

You fellas really need to do some honest looking at what our nation is supposed to be, before it's gone, and there's only a husk of carbon left.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble

[GIJOEJK]

Look closely. These boys had their heads screwed on tight.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. (*) ME 1:193, Papers 1:125

How bout that 16th amendment the federal reserve and gun control, huh?

Slavery.

You fellas really need to do some honest looking at what our nation is supposed to be, before it's gone, and there's only a husk of carbon left.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm

RECON DOC. I'm with you and Ron all the way. ...But... You are barking up the wrong tree my friend. This forum, IMHO, is packed with Neocon supporters and sympathizers, just take a look at some of the threads. I don't get into these kinds of subjects anymore because I just got tired of being called the "tin foil hat guy"...

Anyway Ron has my vote.

[GIJOEJK]

At the moment, I don't believe he really stands a chance in getting past the primaries. But if he does, he sure as hell has my vote. Here's to hoping that his message and name recognition continue to spread.

That said, while I think that his message on non-interventionism is a valid one in the wake of current events, I think that his policies lean a bit too much towards isolationist.

I wouldn't worry too much about non-interventionism. If something really does happen to us, I don't think President Ron could keep us out of a fight...

[Yarrick2]

He's got my vote, and I'm working on a few disenfranchised dems that I know... making good headway as well.

[Buckeye67]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. If everyone who said "well he doesn't stand a chance", would actually vote for the guy - he'd stand a chance. I think it's particularly important for folks who support Paul to get the word out.

Also, "non-interventionism" doesn't mean sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and doing absolutely nothing ever.

As far as the 2nd Amendment - I've said this before and I'll say it again: the book "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephan Halbrook is an absolute MUST READ. Go find a copy, get it, read it, let everyone else you know read it.

[RECON DOC]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. If everyone who said "well he doesn't stand a chance", would actually vote for the guy - he'd stand a chance. I think it's particularly important for folks who support Paul to get the word out.

Also, "non-interventionism" doesn't mean sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and doing absolutely nothing ever.

As far as the 2nd Amendment - I've said this before and I'll say it again: the book "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephan Halbrook is an absolute MUST READ. Go find a copy, get it, read it, let everyone else you know read it.

You're god damned right brother. I've been saying that since 10 minutes after first hearing him.

[GIJOEJK]

I know Alex Jones is not too popular on this forum, but this article seems to nail it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/090507totalvictory.htm

[shorty]

I know Alex Jones is not too popular on this forum, but this article seems to nail it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/090507totalvictory.htm
Thats actually pretty scary. He's overshadowed most other candidates by a looooong shot and they still wanna censor him. Really makes you think about the "Unbiased" news reporting Yahoo does....

[MEGR]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. If everyone who said "well he doesn't stand a chance", would actually vote for the guy - he'd stand a chance. I think it's particularly important for folks who support Paul to get the word out.

Also, "non-interventionism" doesn't mean sticking one's head in the proverbial sand and doing absolutely nothing ever.

As far as the 2nd Amendment - I've said this before and I'll say it again: the book "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephan Halbrook is an absolute MUST READ. Go find a copy, get it, read it, let everyone else you know read it.

I don't think he'll get the nomination. If given the chance, in NC, I'll vote for guy's nomination as the GOP candidate.

As for him and congress. I'm not totally convinced that he'll get along. Aside from Iraq, he doesn't share too many views with the opposition party it seems. Especially on gun issues. I do concede. though, that there are some good dems that support the 2nd and bad GOPers that don't.

[Bohemoth]

Funny dude. His stance for Amendment II is okey, but his isolationist ideas are polemic nonsense at its best. :)

[Will938]

Funny dude. His stance for Amendment II is okey, but his isolationist ideas are polemic nonsense at its best. :)

How so?

He wants us to stay out of alliances, help our friends when we see a noble cause. Point being that we decide ourselves what to do, we owe nothing to an organization. That is about the limit of his isolationist views.

[Kitsune]

Ron Paul sure is an interesting fellow. As a German he somewhat strikes me as a representative of America as it once was. Plus, I personally like people who have a clear view of things and do not give a damn about being mavericks. "As a President I would withdraw the American troops from Iraq. All of them. Now." That sure is clear and a refreshing change from those politicians whose view on the matter is so complicated, differentiated and subtle...that one actually does not know what this view is in the first place. Or his idea for the USA to leave NATO - now it would be a shock to the present German government if that would happen. But in my opinion a healing one, it should finally teach them to take over responsibility for our own matters. So in short: Ron Paul for US-President? Fine with me.
But, as somebody else said here, it is not going to happen, of course. The man may spread like wildfire, now, yes - but from, what was it, one percent to now three percent? Let's face it, its fun to think what would happen if Mr. Paul would enter the Oval Office, but the truth is, he is and stays a maverick with only a snowball in hell's chance to even become the Republican candidate, let alone to win the election. I is the same with all politicans with such uncompromising, clear views. It's the differentiated ones with their opaque a-little-bit-of-this-and-of-that views who rule the world these days. Alas, as it is, Ron Paul will just add some color to the election - but at least he shows how Republican politicans can also be.

[RECON DOC]

Thats actually pretty scary. He's overshadowed most other candidates by a looooong shot and they still wanna censor him. Really makes you think about the "Unbiased" news reporting Yahoo does....

Of course they're censoring him because he won't play their game.
Both parties are trying to shove their hand picked candidates down our throats. Their trying to force us to vote for one of their puppets R or D (there is only an illusion of opposition between parties) so they can continue their agenda of wringing us out like a mop.


I don't think he'll get the nomination. If given the chance, in NC, I'll vote for guy's nomination as the GOP candidate.

As for him and congress. I'm not totally convinced that he'll get along. Aside from Iraq, he doesn't share too many views with the opposition party it seems. Especially on gun issues. I do concede. though, that there are some good dems that support the 2nd and bad GOPers that don't.

But what matters is that he shares the views of many Americans, and that's what makes his censoring scary. The government doesn't care what the people think anymore. They are telling us who we can vote for.
It was never supposed to work that way.


Funny dude. His stance for Amendment II is okey, but his isolationist ideas are polemic nonsense at its best. :)

Wake up pal and do some looking at your countries founding fathers intentions. They knew what they were talking about.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME: 15:436

"I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799. ME 10:124

"We have a perfect horror at everything like connecting ourselves with the politics of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1801. ME 10:285
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321


"We wish the happiness and prosperity of every nation."

[gaijinsamurai]

If Hillary gets the Democrat's nomination, He'll get my vote as a write-in.

[shocker1]

Wake up pal and do some looking at your countries founding fathers intentions. They knew what they were talking about.


I support Ron Paul too but your analogy to Jefferson only works for a non nuclear armed world. If our founding fathers had the reality of a weapon fired from thousands of miles away being able to kill millions with one shot. They would not be so isolationist. Their view stems rightly from the ways of Europe at the time and the correct assumption that the Oceans and distance will protect us. This is no longer the case.

We do however stick our nose into places it does not belong.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The founding fathers had the luxury of driving a brand new country off the showroom floor. A country that was weak, fragile, and could barely offer anything to anybody. They could afford to spout pithy aphorisms, since at the time they didn't have much choice. I'm not saying they were wrong - just that the world they inhabited was a thousand times simpler.

And Jefferson isn't exactly one to talk about non-intervention, considering he forged one of the most enduring icons of interventionist policy - the "...to the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marine Corps hymn. Really, we've been intervening all over the place since the beginning.

Now, I'm all for going back to a more isolationist mode - but that will come with consequences. First to go will be the mideast, including Israel. Anybody want to guess what oil will cost us, if we can still get it? Taiwan should go next, once China is sufficiently armed. And we can count on a steep decline in our defense industry, since we can hardly sell hundreds of billions of $ in high-tech equipment to nations we don't have agreements with.

In other words - it's easy to put on a bowtie and play Mr. 19th century isolationist when you don't actually have the responsibility to maintain the nation's fortunes. If we want to govern like it was before WWI, then we need to be prepared to live in a nation that looks like America before WWI. I'm not sure that's such a great thing.

[Laworkerbee]

Funny dude. His stance for Amendment II is okey, but his isolationist ideas are polemic nonsense at its best. :)

If being an isolationist means not sticking our nose in everyones else's business where it's not wanted than count me one as well

This man has my vote.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm a bit wary of people who are espousing overly-simplified policies. They sound great, and it's not like I disagree with them in principle...but they're just not useful once in the driver's seat. It kinda reminds me of the old movie A Face in the Crowd (a pretty good flick, for those who haven't seen it).

[Laworkerbee]

I'm a bit wary of people who are espousing overly-simplified policies. They sound great, and it's not like I disagree with them in principle...but they're just not useful once in the driver's seat. It kinda reminds me of the old movie A Face in the Crowd (a pretty good flick, for those who haven't seen it).

When your addressing the "people" it's best to follow this KISS principle no?

[duhblow7]

I'm a bit wary of people who are espousing overly-simplified policies. They sound great, and it's not like I disagree with them in principle...but they're just not useful once in the driver's seat. It kinda reminds me of the old movie A Face in the Crowd (a pretty good flick, for those who haven't seen it).

For me it's the change in everything he's proposing. He doesn't seem like a typical politician that'll be molded into what the people and money around him want. I think he'll bring about change. I'm willing to take the risk that he will fail on some issues because I'm sick of "politics as usual". At least he'll try. He seems the most sincere.

[evanfitz]

I really didn't see what the whole fuss was over Ron, then I looked him up and now he has my vote.

it would be a dramatic change from a president tangled in foreign affairs to one who is somewhat of an isolationist. He just needs more support outside of the internet.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

For me it's the change in everything he's proposing. He doesn't seem like a typical politician that'll be molded into what the people and money around him want. I think he'll bring about change. I'm willing to take the risk that he will fail on some issues because I'm sick of "politics as usual". At least he'll try. He seems the most sincere.

You really should check out that movie. It's about a folksy, Will Rogers type guy who gets a TV show and people love him because he seems so honest and down-to earth etc. (he's played by Andy Griffith of all people -this was made in 1957 - and he gives a helluva performance). He goes into politics, and talks to people in these folksy little quips that people eat up - but the reality is that he has no idea what the hell he's doing- he's just telling people what he knows they want to hear.

I don't like change for the sake of change, or people who can't really articulate what they're about more than "to make a difference". Pol Pot and Jeffrey Dahmer made a difference, it's not exactly really enough for me to go on. :|

[vryhpyammoadded]

No you’re not crazy, maybe hair trigger and possibly susceptible to the collectivist forces tin foil co-opting but, not crazy.
As for the 2nd Like you said…
James Madison, considered to be the principle author of the Constitution, stated that the 2nd amendment is actually two parts representing.

Allowing states to possess there own armed forces to defend against a possible tyrannical Federal power.
Allows the individual the right to bear arms to protect his own rights against crime and tyranny.I’ve spent a couple of decades studying the philosophies that culminated in this thinking and am 100% all for it. People “must” be armed or the whole concept of the Western Enlightenment and real Laisser-faire capitalism retrograde back into what’s basically a modern variation on divine right feudalism with a few organizations and individuals empowered to take whatever they want up to and including your life on a whim.

As for the chipping away of rights, people need to see far beyond the little stuff so many are up in arms about with Bush. He’s a logically, easily predictable, politically hamstrung reaction to what is perceived as a real war yet, still small potatoes compared to the gigantic collectivist bait and switch scam that’s really going on up on the Hill using this to there advantage. If you want to fear anything, fear the real power behind the curtain; the entire managerial elite caste (that’s both party’s) and more specifically those, who are not the average American, employing them to nibble away at the Constitution.

As for Ron Paul, sure I agree his platform is a decent one, better than most presented by all the other declared candidates but, it would take a grass roots uprising or a Machiavellian masterwork to put him in office. Even then I foresee him as being a deer caught in the headlights of the on rushing collectivist Peterbilt driven by Pelosi and Clinton.
If you guys want Ron Paul so bad I would strongly suggest you also pursue a cleaning out of all the incumbents on the Hill and make sure you vote in RonP like minded sorts in there place. Anything less and the Pelosi, Clinton, sixteen wheeler will dump his carcass into the ditch right next to the last idealist presidential roadkill Jimmy Carter. Then those two will continue to drive the truck right through the Constitution leaving the distracted, mesmerized “sky is falling” anti Bush ditto heads not knowing what hit them because the Democrat party was supposed to save them from oppression, slavery and da man.

I guess I’m saying quit harping on just Bush, that plays into there hands worse than anything. He’s not nearly the primary source of the corruption; it’s the whole dam Frankenstein monster de-facto single party, powerful interests run government the voters allowed to happen these past near forty years.

Me, I wish a “decent” candidate could appear, Ron Paul shares some resemblance but, I suspect that until the two party’s leaderships are run out tarred, feathered, whipped and beaten and a new more Constitutionally aware grass roots movement replaces them; we’ll all continue to be shoved an inch at a time into the slaughter house.
Decent: Think similar to Ron Paul but with enough clout to turn back the corrupt, collectivist (progressive) tide that’s been coming in since the seventies.

Excellent movie to bring up 2 Sheds. I also very highly recommend it.

[MEGR]

Great post by 2Sheds and vryhpyammoadded (yes I had to copy 'n paste that name).

Recon Doc.

I see your point, and it is a good one. But, he'll have an uphill battle against congress from both sides. I think that's due to his conservatism (in numerous areas) and his opposition to the Iraq war.

Question for anyone who can answer: What is Ron's view on troops deployed in other parts of the World (outside Iraq)? Will he pull them out too?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Me, I wish a “decent” candidate could appear, Ron Paul shares some resemblance but, I suspect that until the two party’s leaderships are run out tarred, feathered, whipped and beaten and a new more Constitutionally aware grass roots movement replaces them; we’ll all continue to be shoved an inch at a time into the slaughter house.
Decent: Think similar to Ron Paul but with enough clout to turn back the corrupt, collectivist (progressive) tide that’s been coming in since the seventies.


I can agree with that. It's almost like he's too good. Unrealistically good. We'd need somebody a little less out there to begin turning things around - Congress would never play along with any policies Paul came up with. Maybe he'd be a great veep - you know, in the evil mastermind Cheney mold...

[Polygon]

Also, keep in mind we can still do write-ins in this day and age.

[Will938]

Congress would never play along with any policies Paul came up with. Maybe he'd be a great veep - you know, in the evil mastermind Cheney mold...

Would you vote your representatives back into office if they shut down a bunch of stuff you wanted to see gone? They know you wouldn't, Ron Paul knows it too. He has the political judo flip of being able to submit all this legislation, and if rejected, 100% of the house and 66% of the senate will have to campaign with their constituents still pissed about that.

[duhblow7]

You really should check out that movie. It's about a folksy, Will Rogers type guy who gets a TV show and people love him because he seems so honest and down-to earth etc. (he's played by Andy Griffith of all people -this was made in 1957 - and he gives a helluva performance). He goes into politics, and talks to people in these folksy little quips that people eat up - but the reality is that he has no idea what the hell he's doing- he's just telling people what he knows they want to hear.



I'll try to watch it this weekend. I found a torrent: http://www.mininova.org/tor/731285

[Roids]

What is Ron's view on troops deployed in other parts of the World (outside Iraq)? Will he pull them out too?

He wants to pull out of South Korea. I actually agree with him on that one, I think it's time SK handle's its own defense.

[RECON DOC]

I support Ron Paul too but your analogy to Jefferson only works for a non nuclear armed world. If our founding fathers had the reality of a weapon fired from thousands of miles away being able to kill millions with one shot. They would not be so isolationist. Their view stems rightly from the ways of Europe at the time and the correct assumption that the Oceans and distance will protect us. This is no longer the case.

We do however stick our nose into places it does not belong.

We don't intervene with/invade Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, India, etc. And the fact that just about everyone can launch across the globe kind of nullifies the need for a military presence in any nation. Personally I think that the term "Isolationist" is misused here. We won't be isolated at all, we will be engaged in commerce across the globe. Not administering policy to people who can rule themselves just fine on their own.
If there is an invasion of one country by another, like Kuwait, the United Nations can get together and form a legitimate coalition to handle the aggressor. They tried it with us, but we bullied our way in in spite of them.
We're just to big for them...now.



[quote=2Sheds_Jackson;2696150]The founding fathers had the luxury of driving a brand new country off the showroom floor. A country that was weak, fragile, and could barely offer anything to anybody. They could afford to spout pithy aphorisms, since at the time they didn't have much choice. I'm not saying they were wrong - just that the world they inhabited was a thousand times simpler.

Wouldn't it be nice to get up every morning, walk outside into a sparkling clean, fresh, "Brand new Country scent"? Instead of that "Hand-me-down Country scent" of gasoline, exhaust, stale sweat, cigarettes, beer puke and farts, like we ended up with. Right?
But as simple as those times may have been, I, in my heart, believe that those Ideas and Ideals, are as valid today as they were back then. Does the future require modification of policy to keep up with the times? Yes.
But it cannot interfere with the original intention of those Ideals. Freedom and Liberty for All. Not just a hand full, or just our guys. Everyone.
We have about a half a million troops around the world, that my great great grand children's grand children will be paying for. China's becoming filthy rich off of us financing this war.


And Jefferson isn't exactly one to talk about non-intervention, considering he forged one of the most enduring icons of interventionist policy - the "...to the shores of Tripoli" line in the Marine Corps hymn. Really, we've been intervening all over the place since the beginning.I'm glad you brought that up, that's a great piece of history. Jefferson was attacking Pirates on the Barbary Coast that had been capturing American and many other nations cargo ships, and selling their crews and passengers into slavery across the Ottoman Empire. (1.25 million Europeans 1500-1800) He was tired of having the country's citizens abducted and our wealth and Navel assets plundered. So he went in and busted some heads. I think he did the right thing.

Here's the whole story, very cool. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040705-658359,00.html


Now, I'm all for going back to a more isolationist mode - but that will come with consequences. First to go will be the mideast, including Israel. Anybody want to guess what oil will cost us, if we can still get it? Taiwan should go next, once China is sufficiently armed. And we can count on a steep decline in our defense industry, since we can hardly sell hundreds of billions of $ in high-tech equipment to nations we don't have agreements with.As for the Middle east and Israel, well that whole mess has been stewing nicely there for 5000 years or so. Who knows what it will take for them to mellow out? It won't be us, that's a forgone conclusion. Not to mention it's not our responsibility.
China? We use diplomacy with them, because they can give us a real smart black eye if we try to bully them. We need to be diplomatic with everyone, not just the other bullies.

Oil? There are technologies out there that can make oil obsolete today, but it's implementation has been stonewalled for decades by the oil industry and our government. We need to get it out to the public. This whole oil farce is ridiculous. Last week it went up to $78 a barrel. Strange how my gas price just dropped $.35 a gallon this month and another $.02 since yesterday. Biggest scam on the planet.

Screw the defense industry, they're as rich as the fed, they'll do just fine. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower and Kennedy tried to warn us about is bleeding us dry. They don't care about us, they'd love to see everyone blown the hell to pieces as they laugh all the way to their banks.
Are you kidding me? They'll be busy trying to instigate the next war.


In other words - it's easy to put on a bowtie and play Mr. 19th century isolationist when you don't actually have the responsibility to maintain the nation's fortunes. If we want to govern like it was before WWI, then we need to be prepared to live in a nation that looks like America before WWI. I'm not sure that's such a great thing.He wears a Windsor knot you bastard.:-|

In no way is he being 19th century, other than in his desire to restore the Constitution.
Without the Fed and the IRS, the effect on the economy would be miraculous. You'd actually have money for a better life, your kids college, to take that nice vacation, land, whatever. To spend YOUR money that YOU earned from YOUR labors, on what YOU want. You deserve that, we all do.
We don't need war to make us feel alive, we need life and freedom to do as we please, whenever we please.

I find the idea that we will have to "live" in the manner of the 19th century to be a bit Melodramatic and unrealistic.



I'm a bit wary of people who are espousing overly-simplified policies. They sound great, and it's not like I disagree with them in principle...but they're just not useful once in the driver's seat. It kinda reminds me of the old movie A Face in the Crowd (a pretty good flick, for those who haven't seen it).

I thought you were following the debates. That describes just about every candidate in every race.

Come on now, Ron Paul is no backwoods hillbilly, snake oil sales man for fvck sake. He is very educated, clear about his platform, he has an awesome record, he knows the government inside and out, he's experienced and he's not corrupt. Not to mention he's a physician.
This guy is clean and can help heal us if he gets a chance.


No you’re not crazy, maybe hair trigger and possibly susceptible to the collectivist forces tin foil co-opting but, not crazy.
As for the 2nd Like you said…
James Madison, considered to be the principle author of the Constitution, stated that the 2nd amendment is actually two parts representing.
Allowing states to possess there own armed forces to defend against a possible tyrannical Federal power.
Allows the individual the right to bear arms to protect his own rights against crime and tyranny.I’ve spent a couple of decades studying the philosophies that culminated in this thinking and am 100% all for it. People “must” be armed or the whole concept of the Western Enlightenment and real Laisser-faire capitalism retrograde back into what’s basically a modern variation on divine right feudalism with a few organizations and individuals empowered to take whatever they want up to and including your life on a whim.

As for the chipping away of rights, people need to see far beyond the little stuff so many are up in arms about with Bush. He’s a logically, easily predictable, politically hamstrung reaction to what is perceived as a real war yet, still small potatoes compared to the gigantic collectivist bait and switch scam that’s really going on up on the Hill using this to there advantage. If you want to fear anything, fear the real power behind the curtain; the entire managerial elite caste (that’s both party’s) and more specifically those, who are not the average American, employing them to nibble away at the Constitution.

As for Ron Paul, sure I agree his platform is a decent one, better than most presented by all the other declared candidates but, it would take a grass roots uprising or a Machiavellian masterwork to put him in office. Even then I foresee him as being a deer caught in the headlights of the on rushing collectivist Peterbilt driven by Pelosi and Clinton.
If you guys want Ron Paul so bad I would strongly suggest you also pursue a cleaning out of all the incumbents on the Hill and make sure you vote in RonP like minded sorts in there place. Anything less and the Pelosi, Clinton, sixteen wheeler will dump his carcass into the ditch right next to the last idealist presidential roadkill Jimmy Carter. Then those two will continue to drive the truck right through the Constitution leaving the distracted, mesmerized “sky is falling” anti Bush ditto heads not knowing what hit them because the Democrat party was supposed to save them from oppression, slavery and da man.

I guess I’m saying quit harping on just Bush, that plays into there hands worse than anything. He’s not nearly the primary source of the corruption; it’s the whole dam Frankenstein monster de-facto single party, powerful interests run government the voters allowed to happen these past near forty years.

Me, I wish a “decent” candidate could appear, Ron Paul shares some resemblance but, I suspect that until the two party’s leaderships are run out tarred, feathered, whipped and beaten and a new more Constitutionally aware grass roots movement replaces them; we’ll all continue to be shoved an inch at a time into the slaughter house.
Decent: Think similar to Ron Paul but with enough clout to turn back the corrupt, collectivist (progressive) tide that’s been coming in since the seventies.

Excellent movie to bring up 2 Sheds. I also very highly recommend it.

I'm already a chrome dome, we don't need no stinking tinfoil hat.
But I agree with you, we're in a Huge mess, and it's our own and our fathers fault for letting them make it. There are others pulling the strings for sure. If some of them had their way, they'd tear the Constitution up bit by bit and wipe their asses with it and that's no joke. How about the Fed for starters.
I don't believe Paul will get steamrolled if he's elected. Because if he is elected it will send a message to everyone on the hill that the people of the United States are tired of their crap. They'll "toe the line" if we make them. But again it will have to be grass roots.



Recon Doc.

I see your point, and it is a good one. But, he'll have an uphill battle against congress from both sides. I think that's due to his conservatism (in numerous areas) and his opposition to the Iraq war.

Question for anyone who can answer: What is Ron's view on troops deployed in other parts of the World (outside Iraq)? Will he pull them out too?

Several big candidates are saying they're opposed to the war.

He intends to bring them all home and they should be home, it's a huge waste of money.


Also, keep in mind we can still do write-ins in this day and age.
There you go, it's up to us if we want. People seem too lazy to help themselves though. As said earlier, it will take a grass roots effort.


Would you vote your representatives back into office if they shut down a bunch of stuff you wanted to see gone? They know you wouldn't, Ron Paul knows it too. He has the political judo flip of being able to submit all this legislation, and if rejected, 100% of the house and 66% of the senate will have to campaign with their constituents still pissed about that.

I like you.


He wants to pull out of South Korea. I actually agree with him on that one, I think it's time SK handle's its own defense.

Me too, those R.O.K. troops are tough bastards, they can handle themselves.

[Durandal]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. If everyone who said "well he doesn't stand a chance", would actually vote for the guy - he'd stand a chance. I think it's particularly important for folks who support Paul to get the word out.

That's what I have been saying. Sing it loud.

[RECON DOC]

That's what I have been saying. Sing it loud.

A-god damned-men brother!

You're a solid dude Mr Durandal.

[nagant_m44]

as i said in the other paul threads, register as a republican so you can vote in the primary.

[Shellshock1918]

Ron Paul For President!! This Is It Folks! For The 100 Million People That Don't Vote...this Is Who You Have Been Waiting For!

[ElHombre]

Just a couple of quick thoughts. If everyone who said "well he doesn't stand a chance", would actually vote for the guy - he'd stand a chance. I think it's particularly important for folks who support Paul to get the word out.

The problem is that it runs into the brick wall of Republican primary reality. The R base isn't going to vote for him. Period. Paul is trying to drag his party into reality and the Rs want to stay in denial.

[snoddy]

after reading these 3 pages, it does make sense that we the people need to sit down and re-read the Constitution.. it was written hundreds of years ago but some things have changed and some things shouldnt be changed.

2nd amendment the right to bear arms either to hunt for food or defend ones self has never been infringed. BUT ---- and the farck us on this one.....
to buy a gun from a store is where all new laws apply...
types of guns have always been a problem and they legalize the ones they dont consider practical for the average American to own. we can buy/sell guns to/from friends and family and we should continue to do so.

[Shellshock1918]

2nd amendment the right to bear arms either to hunt for food or defend ones self has never been infringed.

2 things...


The RKBA(right to keep and bear arms) has been infringed since the 1930s when the NFA was made into law.

Also, the 2nd Amendment was not put in for hunters, it was put it for protection of citizens; from criminals, chaos and government.

[snoddy]

since the 30's? didnt know that...

[ElHombre]

For those interested (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070811/NEWS/70811009/1001&lead=1). It's the reults of a straw poll that took place in Iowa. First off, Guliani, McCain, and Thopson didn't place themselves on the ballot. Romney spent a ton of his own cash and got less than 1/3 of the vote (the number of voters was also very low by historical standards).

Paul came in 5th with less than 10% of the vote. Sorry folks, but those looking to have Paul restore the Rs to sanity aren't likely to see it happen.

[Durandal]

For those interested (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070811/NEWS/70811009/1001&lead=1). It's the reults of a straw poll that took place in Iowa. First off, Guliani, McCain, and Thopson didn't place themselves on the ballot. Romney spent a ton of his own cash and got less than 1/3 of the vote (the number of voters was also very low by historical standards).

Paul came in 5th with less than 10% of the vote. Sorry folks, but those looking to have Paul restore the Rs to sanity aren't likely to see it happen.

You say this as if an event where 30 thousand people voting on a non-election day, in the middle of summer, in a campaign year that is going to be far different than any campaign year in my life time, were going to change my vote.

Ron Paul in '08.

[Roids]

For those
Paul came in 5th with less than 10% of the vote. Sorry folks, but those looking to have Paul restore the Rs to sanity aren't likely to see it happen.

Don't care, I'll vote for him even if he doesn't get the nom. I rather stand for someone when I believe in then give in to some other incompetent idiot. Even if he gets few votes, I rather at least try and spark new voting habits. We don't have to take this BS from any of the parties and it's time people start doing something about it!

[MichaelF]

The restriction on select-fire weapons, as well as "short barrelled" weapons, is completely arbitrary. I'd be for overturning it.

If Thompson doesn't get off the bench, I'll vote for Paul.

[Shellshock1918]

since the 30's? didnt know that...
Yep, the first law on the books were ones that banned fully automatic weapons. That law essentially made the 2nd Amendment null and void.



Oh and a straw poll is just a straw poll. It isn't official. Ron did pretty well, for a candidate the MSM tries to drown out with this recycled establishment BS.

[NuclearHead]

This guy just makes sense. He speaks directly to people like me, and I can't do anything else but agree with him.

He definitely has my vote.

[RECON DOC]

You say this as if an event where 30 thousand people voting on a non-election day, in the middle of summer, in a campaign year that is going to be far different than any campaign year in my life time, were going to change my vote.

Ron Paul in '08.

X2. That corporate owned news paper is like a paper towel trying to stop a tsunami. Paul is the quake and we're going to be the wave.


Don't care, I'll vote for him even if he doesn't get the nom. I rather stand for someone when I believe in then give in to some other incompetent idiot. Even if he gets few votes, I rather at least try and spark new voting habits. We don't have to take this BS from any of the parties and it's time people start doing something about it!

Now that's Patriotism right there. That's integrity.woot:hug:
An American Citizen has a duty not only to vote, but to examine the candidates and determine which one he feels has the best interests of the nation as a whole. The preservation of our Constitution, Rights and Civil Liberties. We should not, IMHO, give our loyalties to our parties, but rather to our fellow Citizens.

Ron Paul owns the federal reserve.

http://www.youtube.com/v/A4kxTkhwR_Q&mode=related&search=

[Buckeye67]

Yep, the first law on the books were ones that banned fully automatic weapons. That law essentially made the 2nd Amendment null and void.

Except that full-auto weapons weren't banned. Case in point... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UtosDFNNP8)

[Will938]

Except that full-auto weapons weren't banned.

For your average citizen like me who wants one for the hell of it, any of them made after 1987 are. And any of them made before that are expensive as hell due to the choke hold on supply caused by the 1986 law. Not to mention the ridiculous laws and fee associated with them.

[shocker1]

It is very disturbing to watch what is happening to the nation. I was a member of the Republican Party up until a few months ago. Most of my friends and customers support Ron Paul and what he stands for. We have begun to shift our political donations toward his campaign and will support him in the primary. However our political system has obviously been hijacked long before most of us were born by corporate interest and bankers.

The only positive impact Bush has had on my personal life has been the atmosphere my business has had. However it being tied to the used car market could do well in rough times too.

Unless pragmatic people from all parties get behind Ron Paul he will lose. Do what you can, download literature from his site, print off a yard sign, make a bumper sticker whatever you can. Unless we as a people force his name and platform out beyond the media henchmen, our voting power will be lost. It is clear that there is a campaign of shutting out this man and it must stop. Even Fox News fails to even mention his name.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293003,00.html

[Shellshock1918]

Except that full-auto weapons weren't banned. Case in point... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UtosDFNNP8)


I'm sorry... can you walk into a wal-mart and buy a full-auto AK-47?

No, you have to go through government bureaucracy to try to get one. You might or might not be able to get one. Depends on how the ATF is feeling.

[Buckeye67]

For your average citizen like me who wants one for the hell of it, any of them made after 1987 are. And any of them made before that are expensive as hell due to the choke hold on supply caused by the 1986 law. Not to mention the ridiculous laws and fee associated with them.

There are still fully-transferrable fully automatic weapons available for purchase. Your economic means may not allow you to purchase one, however they are still available for purchase. Ergo, they are not "banned". "Banned" meaning that the sale or ownership of said full-auto weapons are utterly prohibited.

Shellshock wasn't referring to the 1986 "Firearms Owners Protection Act". He was referring to the 1934 "National Firearms Act" which restricted sales of full-auto weapons, short barrelled rifles, suppressors and other "destructive" devices. While I agree that the '86 FOPA is ill-conceived, stupid and several other expletives - it wasn't what his comment referred to, nor what my comment to him addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the situation anymore than you do - but I think if we're going to discuss this stuff (particularly with people who may know nothing about it) we need to use a little more precise (and less hyperbolic) language when doing so.


I'm sorry... can you walk into a wal-mart and buy a full-auto AK-47?

No, you have to go through government bureaucracy to try to get one. You might or might not be able to get one. Depends on how the ATF is feeling.

Wal-Mart, no. You can purchase one through a dealer though. Therefore, your assertion that full-auto weapons are "banned" (see above) is still incorrect (or hyperbole).

[Snoshi]

Paul is only one of two congressmen (the other is Dennis Kucinich) who voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution which calls on UN to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the genocide convention and UN charter.
Yeah.. Great guy..

[RECON DOC]

Ron Paul - Bay area Rally
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/v/Sct0k5IfuBI

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/v/nlDbRa4j2AA&mode=user&search=

On:
Immigration
http://www.youtube.com/v/gwZsBiZYocg

Monetary policy
http://www.youtube.com/v/gwZsBiZYocg

Civil Liberties
http://www.youtube.com/v/6se9_wCZ2z0

The IRS
http://www.youtube.com/v/PCgHRoB6xUw

Entitlements
http://www.youtube.com/v/X9JIwxhRfug

Health care
http://www.youtube.com/v/sjuEdJ0DAGc

The Internet's BFF
http://www.youtube.com/v/YRAcLPmq5M4

[Durandal]

Yeah.. Great guy..

My reply assume that your comment means you think this is an action in the "negative".

Oh no...he didn't vote for the Rothman-Kirk Resolution. A toothless "condemnation" signing that has no teeth and recognizes the U.N. as a power.

This Resolution is LITERALLY a waste of time and my tax dollars. Sort of like declaring "Coin Collection Day" and "Asian American Month" or even better slapping Japan with a call to recognize barbarous Act X, Y, or Z, from over 70 years ago. Feel good propaganda designed to collect votes and nothing more.

Legislation like this is simply part of a wide reaching problem with our government.

[Snoshi]

My reply assume that your comment means you think this is an action in the "negative".

Oh no...he didn't vote for the Rothman-Kirk Resolution. A toothless "condemnation" signing that has no teeth and recognizes the U.N. as a power.

This Resolution is LITERALLY a waste of time and my tax dollars. Sort of like declaring "Coin Collection Day" and "Asian American Month" or even better slapping Japan with a call to recognize barbarous Act X, Y, or Z, from over 70 years ago. Feel good propaganda designed to collect votes and nothing more.

Legislation like this is simply part of a wide reaching problem with our government.

So hes reason for not voting was this one?

[Durandal]

So hes reason for not voting was this one?

Before I answer, what do YOU think the purpose for such legislation is?

Edit: Because the reasoning is VERY obvious.

[Snoshi]

Before I answer, what do YOU think the purpose for such legislation is?

Edit: Because the reasoning is VERY obvious.

There is no real purpose.. But he was one of two people who voted against..

[Doublethinker]

I honestly believe he will have the support of both parties for the most part.
If he is elected it will be by the will of the people and we are the boss, not them. If they want to be reelected they will bend to the peoples will.
We must always remember that WE THE PEOPLE own this nation, NOT the government. I personally believe he will get the support to make it to the primaries. This would be huge for us all, don't doubt it for a second.


Ron Paul - Stop dreaming!
http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8

A truly admirable man. If I were American or if he were Russian, I'd be campaigning for him ,as if my life depended on it.

A true liberal, not a socialist type of liberal with that "the government will protect you from everything" attitude.

What most of the countries need right now is to reverse social policies, put in place during and after the Great Depression.

[Durandal]

You took the time to post it...to comment on it, so there should be a point.

That said...

Here are several quote that you pick from to formulate his reasoning...

From his '08 election website:


He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized 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.

I can quote more if you like, but that should get the point across.

[Snoshi]

So i read around a little and found that Ron Paul thinks(like all Iranian fan boys) that Ahmadinejad was misunderstood... But Ahmadinejad's latest quotes prove that he meant what the "real" deal...

The two Representatives who voted against the resolution were Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), both running for President who doubted the translation of Ahmadinejad’s comments.

[Snoshi]

After reading some of hes quotes and statements.. He makes me think of Chamberlain... But instead of Europe we got ME....

"Iran is peaceful and misunderstood, we should leave them alone"
"9/11 happened because we were in the ME and support Israel, lets remove our troops from ME and everything will turn out ok.."

Damn soon he might want give part of Iraq to Iran to please Ahmadenejad and to prove hes friendship.

[shocker1]

After reading some of hes quotes and statements.. He makes me think of Chamberlain... But instead of Europe we got ME....

"Iran is peaceful and misunderstood, we should leave them alone"
"9/11 happened because we were in the ME and support Israel, lets remove our troops from ME and everything will turn out ok.."
Well I am no Iranian fan boy supporter. However our aggressive, intrusive ways have damaged our ability to mediate disagreements. In retrospect one could say without the appearance of neutrality the US policies have put Israel in more danger.

If Israel is attacked our Congress will act in accordance with the Constitution. Not in accordance with the needs of of world leaders, UN Charters or allied nations. In the sense of how Iran views the UN I do not blame them. Yes Iran is dangerous and may need to be dealt with but the current hate and ignore attitude has endangered us all even more. It has also played right into the hands of the Mullahs. Making them appear to have the moral high ground to Iran's people in the dispute with the West.

I am a strict fiscal conservative and Ron Paul fits my politics.

[Snoshi]

Well I am no Iranian fan boy supporter. However our aggressive, intrusive ways have damaged our ability to mediate disagreements. In retrospect one could say without the appearance of neutrality the US policies have put Israel in more danger.

If Israel is attacked our Congress will act in accordance with the Constitution. Not in accordance with the needs of of world leaders, UN Charters or allied nations. In the sense of how Iran views the UN I do not blame them. Yes Iran is dangerous and may need to be dealt with but the current hate and ignore attitude has endangered us all even more. It has also played right into the hands of the Mullahs. Making them appear to have the moral high ground to Iran's people in the dispute with the West.

I am a strict fiscal conservative and Ron Paul fits my politics.

I agree.. But some of the Ron Paul's statements like that 9/11 was caused by USA is kinda playing into hands of Sheiks and Mullahs in the ME...
Ron Paul is adorned by Islamists because of hes laissez faire policy against them.. Its like feeding a crocodile in a hope that it wont eat you.

[Doublethinker]

After reading some of hes quotes and statements.. He makes me think of Chamberlain... But instead of Europe we got ME....

"Iran is peaceful and misunderstood, we should leave them alone"
"9/11 happened because we were in the ME and support Israel, lets remove our troops from ME and everything will turn out ok.."

Damn soon he might want give part of Iraq to Iran to please Ahmadenejad and to prove hes friendship.

Why not? Who cares if they kill each other in the Middle East?

[Snoshi]

Why not? Who cares if they kill each other in the Middle East?

Lol... Do you really think that Islamists will stop targeting USA after it leaves Iraq?

Islamists will just consider it as a victory and will continue their victorious Jihad all over the world...

[Durandal]

Ahhh...so you did have a purpose for those comments. I figured so.

I think we have a whole lot more worse problems in this world than Iran.

That said, in his own words:

Statement on H Con Res 21

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 2007


Madam Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déjà vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the US from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of US foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

[shocker1]

I agree.. But some of the Ron Paul's statements like that 9/11 was caused by USA is kinda playing into hands of Sheiks and Mullahs in the ME...
Ron Paul is adorned by Islamists because of hes laissez faire policy against them.. Its like feeding a crocodile in a hope that it wont eat you.
I can agree with that but we have plenty of other ways to deal with them. His domestic policies and asking the hard questions. Like why the hell we are in Korea, Germany, Balkans, Japan and every other country we have had military operations in. It is high time to get back to an America that our founders intended. I can also guarantee you that we will never let Israel face destruction without facing it ourselves. We are just sick of the UNelected telling us what we can do as you should be.

Israel had the chance to destroy Hezi but let the UNelected get in the way. Catch my meaning here?

[Doublethinker]

Lol... Do you really think that Islamists will stop targeting USA after it leaves Iraq?

Islamists will just consider it as a victory and will continue their victorious Jihad all over the world...

If they gobble up Iraq, they'll be too preoccupied with their internal shia/sunni strife to wage a sort of Jihad.

Actually, I don't believe that occupation of any country in the ME may somehow hamper muslim ability to organize new terrorist attacks.

[Snoshi]

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran
War against Iran by condemning their leaders speech?

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation
Pretty weak argument..... Bush never said that USA will preemptively strike Iran.. While Iranian leaders officially said that a country needs to be wiped out of the map only because it exists.


It looks like all he plays on is fear of an other Iraq

[Snoshi]

I can agree with that but we have plenty of other ways to deal with them. His domestic policies and asking the hard questions. Like why the hell we are in Korea, Germany, Japan and every other country we have had military operations in. It is high time to get back to an America that our founders intended. I can also guarantee you that we will never let Israel face destruction without facing it ourselves. We are just sick of the UNelected telling us what we can do as you should be.

Israel had the chance to destroy Hezi but let the UNelected get in the way. Catch my meaning here?

Well Ron Paul voted against a resolution which was called "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes. "

Then he made these stupid remarks about ME like this one

Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon.
Yeah,lets forget about Syrian assasinations and massacares in Lebanon.

The U.S./Israeli plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on Iran militarily has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has been made stronger than ever with the military failure to rout Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Before the U.S./Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was supported by 20% of the population, now it's revered by 80%.
Yeah looks like Israel is responsible for the war... And i love how he states the numbers...

[Hellfish]

Well I am no Iranian fan boy supporter. However our aggressive, intrusive ways have damaged our ability to mediate disagreements. In retrospect one could say without the appearance of neutrality the US policies have put Israel in more danger.

If Israel is attacked our Congress will act in accordance with the Constitution. Not in accordance with the needs of of world leaders, UN Charters or allied nations. In the sense of how Iran views the UN I do not blame them. Yes Iran is dangerous and may need to be dealt with but the current hate and ignore attitude has endangered us all even more. It has also played right into the hands of the Mullahs. Making them appear to have the moral high ground to Iran's people in the dispute with the West.

I am a strict fiscal conservative and Ron Paul fits my politics.

I support you, and Ron Paul, 100%.

Just listening to Ron Paul, you get the sense that he's one of the few people in Washington that doesn't have his head up his ass. He's probably the most intelligent speaker I've heard in a long time. No double-talk, no dancing around his opinions. I really appreciate a true straight shooter.

As to the isolationist... I haven't heard anything to indicate that "isolationist" is a good word to describe him. Yes, he wants to avoid our pro-active foreign policy, but I don't see him suggesting we withdraw from world affairs entirely, or that we would sink into anything like we did in the inter-war years. I don't see him sitting idly by if the next Germany overruns the next Poland.

I think maybe the time is right for America, as a people, to step back a bit. We try so hard to be everywhere, and more often than not it doesn't do us a whole lot of good. Trade and engagement are by far more useful tools for stability than threats of force are. Look at China - we opened up to them and they are no longer a serious threat (if only because war would screw up their development). Imagine if we did that to Iran and Cuba? The mullahs and ayatollahs wouldn't have their demons working to keep them in power, Castro and his brother would be sent packing as soon as a Delta, American or United airplane landed at Jose Marti International. America has vast wealth, and money is just as persuasive and just as powerful as bombs. We need to use that.

Imagine if Ron Paul really did abolish the IRS? Think of how much more money we'd have in our pockets. That's so much more money flowing freely between the American people and the world. That's a good thing. That reduces the chances of war.

[shocker1]

Hint from Dr. Paul to Israel is it was your fight in Lebanon. They hate you more than Syrians and America has no business telling you either way how to defend yourself. So in retrospect Israel's leaders should have taken their heads out of their rear and destroyed an enemy you go to war with.

[Snoshi]

I support you, and Ron Paul, 100%.

Just listening to Ron Paul, you get the sense that he's one of the few people in Washington that doesn't have his head up his ass. He's probably the most intelligent speaker I've heard in a long time. No double-talk, no dancing around his opinions. I really appreciate a true straight shooter.

As to the isolationist... I haven't heard anything to indicate that "isolationist" is a good word to describe him. Yes, he wants to avoid our pro-active foreign policy, but I don't see him suggesting we withdraw from world affairs entirely, or that we would sink into anything like we did in the inter-war years. I don't see him sitting idly by if the next Germany overruns the next Poland.

I think maybe the time is right for America, as a people, to step back a bit. We try so hard to be everywhere, and more often than not it doesn't do us a whole lot of good. Trade and engagement are by far more useful tools for stability than threats of force are. Look at China - we opened up to them and they are no longer a serious threat (if only because war would screw up their development). Imagine if we did that to Iran and Cuba? The mullahs and ayatollahs wouldn't have their demons working to keep them in power, Castro and his brother would be sent packing as soon as a Delta, American or United airplane landed at Jose Marti International. America has vast wealth, and money is just as persuasive and just as powerful as bombs. We need to use that.

Imagine if Ron Paul really did abolish the IRS? Think of how much more money we'd have in our pockets. That's so much more money flowing freely between the American people and the world. That's a good thing. That reduces the chances of war.
Instead of facing the threat of Islamists and Iran he proposes to leave them alone and let the threat grow and wait for an other 9/11.
Leaving ME will not make USA safer anymore, the disastrous campaign in Iraq already gave the terrorists a taste of blood and leaving Iran will just make it stronger... Iraq will transform it a a new Gaza where radical group will hold the power with its bosses sitting in Iran.. Not only that the radical Iraq will serve as a base for the terrorists to attack ME, but it will serve a base for the attacks on USA. Sooner or later USA will have to intervene once again.

[shocker1]

Imagine if Ron Paul really did abolish the IRS? Think of how much more money we'd have in our pockets. That's so much more money flowing freely between the American people and the world. That's a good thing. That reduces the chances of war.
If I had all my SSI and income tax money back over said period and invested it myself. WOW!!! It is a shame we give our hard earned money to SSI at no interest. Then if we die before retirement Uncle Sam collects the winnings and sends your family a $250 Burial check.

I support consumption taxes on goods including fuel. A consumption tax (sales tax) makes people save more money and hits big spenders and luxury items. Business taxes also need to be simplified to make it easy and cost effective to file your business taxes.

[Snoshi]

Hint from Dr. Paul to Israel is it was your fight in Lebanon. They hate you more than Syrians and America has no business telling you either way how to defend yourself. So in retrospect Israel's leaders should have taken their heads out of their rear and destroyed an enemy you go to war with.

Yeah... And this statnce make him alot of pro-Israeli friends.:roll:
The government of Israel is destroying the nation of Lebanon and killing its people, and the U.S. government is aiding and abetting this destruction.

Israel is not an ally of the United States and we have no treaty obligation to it.

The Israelis have nuclear weapons but have not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

Our tax dollars are being used to support Israeli aggression, against both the Lebanese and the Palestinians in Gaza.

Our U.S. representative, Ron Paul, was one of only eight with the courage to vote against House Resolution 921, which endorses the present Israeli aggression in Lebanon and gives tacit approval to attacks upon Syria and Iran.

Paul deserves our thanks; I wrote him and encourage The Daily News readers to do the same.

Do you oppose the pro-Israel, interventionist foreign policy of our government? If so, write our elected officials and let them know.

Bruce Niebuhr Galveston

[Hellfish]

Instead of facing the threat of Islamists and Iran he proposes to leave them alone and let the threat grow and wait for an other 9/11.
Leaving ME will not make USA safer anymore, the disastrous campaign in Iraq already gave the terrorists a taste of blood and leaving Iran will just make it stronger... Iraq will transform it a a new Gaza where radical group will hold the power with its bosses sitting in Iran.. Not only that the radical Iraq will serve as a base for the terrorists to attack ME, but it will serve a base for the attacks on USA. Sooner or later USA will have to intervene once again.

The Islamists aren't going to bother us. They might wipe Israel off the map, but as an American I couldn't really give a ****. I have nothing against Israel, but I also don't see why we need to favor them at the cost of alienating a billion Muslims. That's my opinion. The ME was a lot more stable before we sided with Israel.

If we stop meddling in the Middle East and open up to Syria and Iran (instead of leaving them to their own devices, isolated from much of the world) and engage and trade with them, their stomach for war and trouble will disappear. All those angry young Arab men might actually get a job and aspire to wealth instead of aspiring to suicide bombing.

[shocker1]

Thats right, we should not even comment on the subject. Israel should have went balls to the wall. America would have appeared neutral and Israel would be better off today. My mother is Jewish mind you of course making me a mutt, she is my mother though.


Then again why does some rant by Bruce Niebuhr Galveston matter to me?

[Snoshi]

The Islamists aren't going to bother us. They might wipe Israel off the map, but as an American I couldn't really give a ****. That's my opinion. The ME was a lot more stable before we sided with Israel.

If we stop meddling in the Middle East and open up to Syria and Iran (instead of leaving them to their own devices, isolated from much of the world) and engage and trade with them, their stomach for war and trouble will disappear. All those angry young Arab men might actually get a job and aspire to wealth instead of aspiring to suicide bombing.

ME was more stable before USA sided with Israel?
Hmm... War in 1948,1967 happened when USA gave no support for Israel... What do you mean ME was more stable?
And i love your stance where you say that you dont care if Israel gets wiped out.. Thats it the exactly the same attitude that Chamberlain had when he sacrificed Chezhoslovakia to Hitler.. But it surly dint help him. Israel is the only democratic nation in the ME and a supporter of USA.

[shocker1]

The Islamists aren't going to bother us. They might wipe Israel off the map, but as an American I couldn't really give a ****.
Here is where we part ways, if Israel is in danger of destruction. She will have our support in spite of your feelings. To hell with the Islamists.

[Hellfish]

ME was more stable before USA sided with Israel?
Hmm... War in 1948,1967 happened when USA gave no support for Israel... What do you mean ME was more stable?
And i love your stance where you say that you dont care if Israel gets wiped out.. Thats it the exactly the same attitude that Chamberlain had when he sacrificed Chezhoslovakia to Hitler.. But it surly dint help him. Israel is the only democratic nation in the ME and a supporter of USA.

I don't personally care if Israel is here tomorrow or not. I'm tired of anything having to do with the place. I also couldn't care less if Israel wipes the rest of the Middle East off the map.

But that's my opinion, and not the subject of this thread.

[Snoshi]

I don't personally care if Israel is here tomorrow or not. I'm tired of anything having to do with the place. I also couldn't care less if Israel wipes the rest of the Middle East off the map.

But that's my opinion, and not the subject of this thread.

You will see the difference alright... After the Israel its USA's turn.

[shocker1]

I don't personally care if Israel is here tomorrow or not. I'm tired of anything having to do with the place. I also couldn't care less if Israel wipes the rest of the Middle East off the map.

But that's my opinion, and not the subject of this thread.
You mean you are neutral. I can agree with that just not your description. I do not want anybody doin any map wipin anymore.

[Hellfish]

You will see the difference alright... After the Israel its USA's turn.

I bet if we stop our exclusive support of Israel and adopt a fair foreign policy in the rest of the Middle East we'd be fine. I'd bet 75-90% of the anger directed at us in the ME is because we support Israel.

Sorry, you guys aren't worth compromising our own security to me.

[Elemental666]

You will see the difference alright... After the Israel its USA's turn.

I wouldn't go that far. We do have to realize that we do cause a lot of hatred towards the Americans from the Muslim world. If we're gone, the hatred level will fall drastically.


Hint from Dr. Paul to Israel is it was your fight in Lebanon. They hate you more than Syrians and America has no business telling you either way how to defend yourself. So in retrospect Israel's leaders should have taken their heads out of their rear and destroyed an enemy you go to war with.

True words right there. We give too much damn opinion about what looks good to the world, and not what is best for us.

[Hellfish]

Originally Posted by shocker1 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2701237#post2701237)
Hint from Dr. Paul to Israel is it was your fight in Lebanon. They hate you more than Syrians and America has no business telling you either way how to defend yourself. So in retrospect Israel's leaders should have taken their heads out of their rear and destroyed an enemy you go to war with.


I agree with that statement. Israel's gotta do what Israel's gotta do. Just don't go dragging us into it (or vice versa).

[Snoshi]

I wouldn't go that far. We do have to realize that we do cause a lot of hatred towards the Americans from the Muslim world. If we're gone, the hatred level will fall drastically.



True words right there. We give too much damn opinion about what looks good to the world, and not what is best for us.

Look. We can argue about this all we want, but lets look at the history.

USA tried to avoid the 1stWW, but USA still joined the war after other nations dint want to leave it alone.
USA tried to avoid 2WW... But they still got attacked.
UK and other Western nations sacrificed Checkoslovakia to please Hitler, but still they ended up in war with Germany.
UK and England dint want to support Republican Spain because of the fear of Hitler and because of their non-interventionist values.. But UK got lucky that Franco dint seal the fate of British servicemen in N.Africa.

I can come up with many more examples..
My point is that major countries will always find them selves involved in almost all the conflicts in the world,trying to be non-interventionist will just make things worse.

[Roids]

Look. We can argue about this all we want, but lets look at the history.

USA tried to avoid the 1stWW, but USA still joined the war after other nations dint want to leave it alone.
USA tried to avoid 2WW... But they still got attacked.
UK and other Western nations sacrificed Checkoslovakia to please Hitler, but still they ended up in war with Germany.
UK and England dint want to support Republican Spain because of the fear of Hitler and because of their non-interventionist values.. But UK got lucky that Franco dint seal the fate of British servicemen in N.Africa.

I can come up with many more examples..
My point is that major countries will always find them selves involved in almost all the conflicts in the world,trying to be non-interventionist will just make things worse.

I believe your points are valid but I think it is better that we risk getting into those major conflicts than going into smaller scale ones which we may getting nothing out of.

At least during those major wars we all knew what we were fighting for and the price of losing was obvious. All were motivated and willing to win the war by any means possible. If we have to fight war then thats the ideology that is necessary to win it. Now we are in wars that no one supports and have a much lower chance of success because we don't have the support, resources and are having restrictions placed on our fighting forces. Even if we do succeed then we really don't know if it really helped the nation. Why would anyone want to fight wars like that?

In other words:

Why should we stick out our necks for east bumble***, fighting for the freedom which they should be earning themselves and then probably get nothing of any sustenance back?

[Roids]

And if you are worried about other unfriendly powers becoming more powerful. Then all those resources protecting someone else's ass can be used to protect ourselves. We do not(and should not) become some peacenik nation with minimal military spending. Instead of spending it on things which may go nowhere(building and protecting other nations), we will simply spend it on where it matters most, PROTECTING THE US PEOPLE!

[Laworkerbee]

I like this Jihad side of you RECON DOC woot

[RECON DOC]

Really great posts Hellfish


[quote=Snoshi;2701285]Look. We can argue about this all we want, but lets look at the history.

Yes, why don't we? But first let me say that your opinion on and desire for the protection of Israel has nothing to do with the election of the POTUS.
I have nothing against Israel, but it is neither the responsibility of myself or my fellow citizens, to shoulder the burden. A cost of protecting a country that was arbitrarily placed in the heart of their historic enemy's holy land, who's borders were drawn ,at whim, by a bunch of knob headed, don't give a damn about the people, politicians. Doesn't seem a very sound policy to me. Of course the Arabs are pissed off, wouldn't you be in the revers wise?

It is not to the benefit of a single American to do so, It is an unnecessary drain on all of us. Everyone over there needs to take some responsibility and figure out how to live together peaceably. BTW, IIRC Israel won both wars just fine by themselves, their tough bastards.




USA tried to avoid the 1stWW, but USA still joined the war after other nations dint want to leave it alone.That war was an obscene nightmare for the American people that should have been avoided entirely, but big money sucked the people in and raped them.
Do some reading.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_72_Notes.htm



USA tried to avoid 2WW... But they still got attacked.
Roosevelt did everything he could to provoke the Japanese, he wanted in big-time.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm


UK and other Western nations sacrificed Checkoslovakia to please Hitler, but still they ended up in war with Germany.
It wasn't their responsibility, plus they couldn't stand up to the Germans outside their own country.



UK and England dint want to support Republican Spain because of the fear of Hitler and because of their non-interventionist values.. But UK got lucky that Franco dint seal the fate of British servicemen in N.Africa. They couldn't afford it. As for Franko, he was trying to clean up the mess of the civil war his country had just endured and was in no mood to get into the middle of another war.


I can come up with many more examples..
My point is that major countries will always find them selves involved in almost all the conflicts in the world,trying to be non-interventionist will just make things worse.That's quite an inversion of reason you've got there.

If the big powers would for once NOT meddle in the affairs of other nations, and rather lead by an example of honest diplomacy, war would become obsolete. Wishful thinking? Well sadly it is today for sure.


Great posts shocker1

[quote=shocker1;2701242]If I had all my SSI and income tax money back over said period and invested it myself. WOW!!! It is a shame we give our hard earned money to SSI at no interest. Then if we die before retirement Uncle Sam collects the winnings and sends your family a $250 Burial check.
Think of everyones labors that have been wasted by the trillions and we get crap back for it.


I support consumption taxes on goods including fuel. A consumption tax (sales tax) makes people save more money and hits big spenders and luxury items. Business taxes also need to be simplified to make it easy and cost effective to file your business taxes.Here's a list of taxes that American citizens must pay. And 30% of your income before all of them.

http://www.goodcitizen.org/WWLA%20Book/Chapters/1-Issues/Economic%20Issues%20-%20List%20of%20Taxes%20email.htm

http://www.goodcitizen.org/WWLA%20Book/Chapters/1-Issues/1-OverwhelmingIssuesBody.htm



I like this Jihad side of you RECON DOC woot

RON PAUL AKBAR!!! woot

[MichaelF]

If we do go in for a period of semi- or total Isolationism, I want the Draft back.

[Hellfish]

If we do go in for a period of semi- or total Isolationism, I want the Draft back.

I'd like something like a national service draft, that goes beyond just the military. Face it, the military isn't for everyone, but working for the greater good is. That said... I don't know if it would be worth the expense.

[MichaelF]

I'd like something like a national service draft, that goes beyond just the military. That said... I don't know if it would be worth the expense.

If we put half of the money that has gone into OIF, into the general Army kitty, we'd have >2,000,000 personnel.

My idea is everyone goes to BCT after graduating HS (no deferments). Most of those folks get some AD time (3-4 months in the woods), then go into the general IRR pool, drilling once a year (2-3 weeks), for 5-10 years. Two intakes per year. Some go into the Army Reserve or Guard proper. Fail to keep yourself in shape and show up each year, you get called to AD.

~10% get selected to spend 3 years in the Regular Army. They get paid a little more than, say, IDF conscripts, but not as much as Volunteers.

reaching military age annually:
2,143,873 males (2005 est.)
2,036,201 females (2005 est.)

[RECON DOC]

If we do go in for a period of semi- or total Isolationism, I want the Draft back.


The draft is unconstitutional, because it assumes that an arbitrary segment of Americans are the property of the government to be thrown into war at their will. The Constitution states that every person's body and life are their own and cannot be taken from them.

Isolationism is NOT what is being proposed, people keep misnaming it.
Nonintervention is the deal here. We won't be forcing our policy down the throats of other nations. Just let them run themselves for god's sake.
We will be engaged in commerce with everyone and everyone will be much more prosperous, everybody's happy and alive. In war only the very few profit, while the people suffer the hardships and the cost of it.

[MichaelF]

The draft is unconstitutional

Congress, the Supreme Court (Arver v. United States, United States v. Holmes, etc), and all Presidents (with the possible exception of Carter) disagree. Me too.

It's been the resort of our Nation enough times to be paraConstitutional, at the least. Also, the Constitutional definition of "the Militia" (organized and unorganized) clearly implies that Citizens are at the service of the Nation, in matters of defense.

Moreover, it is our Duty to protect and support our Nation. Jury Service, Voting, paying our Taxes and Soldiering. All fold into the same obligation.

[Buckeye67]

Isolationism is NOT what is being proposed, people keep misnaming it.

Yes but "isolationism" makes such a great buzzword for people to get themselves all lathered up about. :p

[MichaelF]

Yes but "isolationism" makes such a great buzzword for people to get themselves all lathered up about. :p

That's why I used the word "semi-", as a qualification.

Even in the classical interWar period of Isolationism, we still traded and interacted diplomatically. We just wouldn't get involved.

But a bit of actual Isolationism wouldn't hurt. I don't see any benefit to us being in the UN. NATO may continue to be useful, but the UN is an albatross.

[Buckeye67]

That's why I used the word "semi-", as a qualification.

But a bit of actual Isolationism wouldn't hurt. I don't see any benefit to us being in the UN. NATO may continue to be useful, but the UN is an albatross.

I wasn't referring to you, mate. You're alright. :)

There are a bunch of folks out there though (not necessarily on this forum) who, when the subject of Ron Paul comes up, toss the term "isolationism" around like some sort of perjorative. As RD pointed out though, Paul isn't necessarily about "isolationism" (complete, or near complete withdrawal from the world stage). He's about "non-interventionism" - not sticking our noses into places where it shouldn't necessarily be stuck. There's a (not necessarily) subtle, but very distinct difference in the two concepts.

[Hellfish]

I kind of wonder if NATO does us more harm than good. I mean... who are we securing each other against? The continued existence of NATO just seems to make Russia paranoid and contributes to their backward slide toward totalitarianism. I also wonder if some of the NATO countries are abusing the system - gutting their own armies because they know that in the unlikely event of them being attacked, they're gonna have the French, Germans and Americans fighting much of the war for them.

[Shellshock1918]

Whoa whoa whoa. The are certain things which the American people will not tolerate. We do not tolerate another country torpedoing any ship in its sight. We do not tolerate nations that bomb our military bases before declaring war and we do not tolerate terrorist groups that murder thousands.
As Ron Paul will tell you, we need a strong national defense. I think if you listen to him careful he is not saying he is a pacifist but he is cautionary to bring the nation to war. And when brining the nation to war he says to do it Constitutionally.
The things I listed are things I think Paul would agree that they were threats to national security. However, Iraq was not and that's why Paul voiced opposition to the war.

[Buckeye67]

Whoa whoa whoa. The are certain things which the American people will not tolerate. We do not tolerate another country torpedoing any ship in its sight. We do not tolerate nations that bomb our military bases before declaring war and we do not tolerate terrorist groups that murder thousands.
As Ron Paul will tell you, we need a strong national defense. I think if you listen to him careful he is not saying he is a pacifist but he is cautionary to bring the nation to war. And when brining the nation to war he says to do it Constitutionally.
The things I listed are things I think Paul would agree that they were threats to national security. However, Iraq was not and that's why Paul voiced opposition to the war.

Good post. I think that nutshells it nicely.

[Hellfish]

Good post. I think that nutshells it nicely.

Agreed. Good post.

[RECON DOC]

[quote=MichaelF;2702287]Congress, the Supreme Court (Arver v. United States, United States v. Holmes, etc), and all Presidents (with the possible exception of Carter) disagree. Me too.
[quote]
It's been the resort of our Nation enough times to be paraConstitutional, at the least.There is no such word unless the neocons coined it. It's implications are obscene.



Also, the Constitutional definition of "the Militia" (organized and unorganized) clearly implies that Citizens are at the service of the Nation, in matters of defense.On a volunteer basis.
If it was so clearly implied, then the Supreme court would not have had to make a decision about it

You're talking about wartime Justices that didn't dare rock the boat or were all for war, and presidents that wanted to do as they pleased. The interpretations of these men does not IMO opinion justify the stripping of a citizen's liberty and freedom and sending him off to possible death or maiming or insanity.


Moreover, it is our Duty to protect and support our Nation. Jury Service, Voting, paying our Taxes and Soldiering. All fold into the same obligation.Above all, the protection of the Constitution is the paramount duty of every American, because it's the only thing keeping the government from taking liberty away from us. If we let our constitution go, we're done for.
As for soldiering, I did my share and reenlisted, as well as pay taxes, jury duty, etc so you're preaching to the choir.

Not to mention that my oath swore to uphold the Constitution exclusively.


That's why I used the word "semi-", as a qualification.

Even in the classical interWar period of Isolationism, we still traded and interacted diplomatically. We just wouldn't get involved.

But a bit of actual Isolationism wouldn't hurt. I don't see any benefit to us being in the UN. NATO may continue to be useful, but the UN is an albatross.

Actually you used "Or total" as a qualifier too.;-)

[RECON DOC]

Agreed. Good post.

X3

@ Buckeye67


Yes but "isolationism" makes such a great buzzword for people to get themselves all lathered up about. :-P

Hahahaha, that's because they don't know the definition, you can thank our federally controlled schools for their failure to repair.

How come we can't give presidents article 15s?

[Hellfish]

Moreover, it is our Duty to protect and support our Nation. Jury Service, Voting, paying our Taxes and Soldiering. All fold into the same obligation.

There is a difference between obligation and duty. Duty implies that we make a conscious decision to do something. We're obligated to pay taxes - if we don't, we go to jail. We're not obligated to serve (and even if there was a draft there are always exceptions - 4Fs, family exemptions, etc). Likewise with voting. Nobody forces you to vote.

Basically, you're talking about ideals and personal convictions. A lot of people in this world, right or wrong, would totally disagree with you on any or all of your points. And nowhere in the Constitution does it obligate any of us to do any of what you say.

[MichaelF]

[quote][quote=MichaelF;2702287]Congress, the Supreme Court (Arver v. United States, United States v. Holmes, etc), and all Presidents (with the possible exception of Carter) disagree. Me too.
There is no such word unless the neocons coined it. It's implications are obscene.
Nope. I coined it. Precedence is a big factor in how we interpret our laws. In fact, in the case of Constitutional Law, it's probably the biggest single factor.

On a volunteer basis.

Not so: The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (regulating/training) the Militia," as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15: "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."


If it was so clearly implied, then the Supreme court would not have had to make a decision about it

Not so. Every part (almost every line) of the Constitution and most of the early Acts have been the subject of one USSC Decision or another.

You're talking about wartime Justices that didn't dare rock the boat or were all for war, and presidents that wanted to do as they pleased.

Except that the last two Draft-oriented Decisions were made in peacetime. One during the waning years of Vietnam (and the height of the anti-Draft movement) and another during the first year of the Reagan Administration.

Above all, the protection of the Constitution is the paramount duty of every American, because it's the only thing keeping the government from taking liberty away from us. If we let our constitution go, we're done for.
As for soldiering, I did my share and reenlisted, as well as pay taxes, jury duty, etc so you're preaching to the choir.

Keyword: DUTY. As in "obligation". Ergo, Conscription is merely the Government helping you to carry out your Constitutional Duty, in an orderly manner.







12257589779744

[MichaelF]

There is a difference between obligation and duty. Duty implies that we make a conscious decision to do something. We're obligated to pay taxes - if we don't, we go to jail. We're not obligated to serve (and even if there was a draft there are always exceptions - 4Fs, family exemptions, etc). Likewise with voting. Nobody forces you to vote.

Basically, you're talking about ideals and personal convictions. A lot of people in this world, right or wrong, would totally disagree with you on any or all of your points. And nowhere in the Constitution does it obligate any of us to do any of what you say.

We have both the Duty -and- the legal Obligation to pay taxes. We have both the Duty and legal Obligation to serve our Nation in its defense, even if the legal Obligation factor can remain dormant at Congress' pleasure (as it is now).


BTW, I was not conflating the Duty/Obligation angle, but someone brought it up. Duty is a legal condition, hence the appropriate charges for Dereliction thereof. Legal Obligation is, at times, synonymous with Duty, as failing in your Duty to obey the Law will simultaneously result in violating your Legal Obligation to obey those Laws (on penalty of prosecution).

That's neither here nor there, as a vague choice of words on my part has led us away from the subject.

To summarize:

The Constitution gives Congress certain Powers, among them the power to raise and maintain Armies. That power is interpreted to mean Conscription, especially when clarified by the Militia Act of 1792.

In the US Constitution, Congress has the Power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (regulating/training) the Militia". The Militia Act (passed by the writers of the Constitution) defined the "militia" as all white males, 18-45. This was further clarified to -all- Males, 18-45 (Title 10, s311). You're in the Militia, and Congress can call you up.

[Hellfish]

Hm. You make a good argument. Lemme think about this in the morning.

[Snoshi]

I kind of wonder if NATO does us more harm than good. I mean... who are we securing each other against? The continued existence of NATO just seems to make Russia paranoid and contributes to their backward slide toward totalitarianism. I also wonder if some of the NATO countries are abusing the system - gutting their own armies because they know that in the unlikely event of them being attacked, they're gonna have the French, Germans and Americans fighting much of the war for them.

Yeah.. Lets disband NATO and other alliances and let China run the show... Lets leave Afghanistan as it is right now... The important thing is that we should not upset the angry China and Russia.. :roll:

[Hellfish]

Yeah.. Lets disband NATO and other alliances and let China run the show... Lets leave Afghanistan as it is right now... The important thing is that we should not upset the angry China and Russia.. :roll:

When has NATO ever been an issue with China? And why do we need to see China as a threat? Have they attacked us?

And I'm very willing to bet that even if we left NATO, a lot of those NATO countries would still be in Afghanistan because it is in their best interest.

[Snoshi]

When has NATO ever been an issue with China? And why do we need to see China as a threat? Have they attacked us?

And I'm very willing to bet that even if we left NATO, a lot of those NATO countries would still be in Afghanistan because it is in their best interest.

If USA leaves Afghanistan the mission will be doomed... Noone else can replace the US troops... And its not in US bests interests to try finish the war that they started? You cant just create a mess and then leave it for someone else to clean it up.

What i meant with China is that if Ron Paul gets elected you can say goodbye to Taiwan.

[RECON DOC]

[quote=RECON DOC;2702346][quote]

Quote:


Nope. I coined it. Precedence is a big factor in how we interpret our laws. In fact, in the case of Constitutional Law, it's probably the biggest single factor.

Men are flawed, especially when under pressure in times of war.
Just because a precedent was set, does not necessarily make it right. They can be overturned, have been and will be again.



Not so: The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining (regulating/training) the Militia," as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15: "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792 clarified whom the militia consists of; " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

This clearly says Militia not Army. It was intended to be used for defense of our own soil, not to conscript vast armies for foreign wars.
It was even less part-time than peace time National Guard

"The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15: To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."

Nothing about foreign wars.

Not so. Every part (almost every line) of the Constitution and most of the early Acts have been the subject of one USSC Decision or another.

So they can bypass it and go to war and have plenty of troops to throw around.



Except that the last two Draft-oriented Decisions were made in peacetime. One during the waning years of Vietnam (and the height of the anti-Draft movement) and another during the first year of the Reagan Administration.

That's because they want to protect their position for the future.

Keyword: DUTY. As in "obligation". Ergo, Conscription is merely the Government helping you to carry out your Constitutional Duty, in an orderly manner.

No thank you, I don't need to be "Helped" into a grave. I was given a free choice to serve and I served, but it must only be Voluntary.

I'm going to have to agree that we disagree.




12257589779744

......................................

[Hellfish]

When did I say we need to leave Afghanistan?

Taiwan isn't gonna be invaded. Taiwan is going to peacefully reintegrate with the PRC over the next couple of decades. It's in nobody's interest to have China and Taiwan go to war.

[ronnieraygun]

When has NATO ever been an issue with China? And why do we need to see China as a threat? Have they attacked us?



QFT, in spite of the trade imbalance and large number of treasury securities held by China.


Snoshi:
What i meant with China is that if Ron Paul gets elected you can say goodbye to Taiwan.

He won't get elected. But in our perfect world, the winning candidate adopts part of his platform. Jettisoning Taiwan will never happen, at least not for the near future.

[Snoshi]

When did I say we need to leave Afghanistan?

Taiwan isn't gonna be invaded. Taiwan is going to peacefully reintegrate with the PRC over the next couple of decades. It's in nobody's interest to have China and Taiwan go to war.

Ron Paul will proably try... As far as i can tell Ron Paul have good ideas on domestic policies... But every time he opens hes mouth about national security or foreign affairs he have no clue what he is talking about.


He won't get elected. But in our perfect world, the winning candidate adopts part of his platform. Jettisoning Taiwan will never happen, at least not for the near future.
Thanks God for that.

[Hellfish]

Ron Paul will proably try... As far as i can tell Ron Paul have good ideas on domestic policies... But every time he opens hes mouth about national security or foreign affairs he have no clue what he is talking about.

Good thing you're here to keep us all informed, then.

[RECON DOC]

When did I say we need to leave Afghanistan?

Taiwan isn't gonna be invaded. Taiwan is going to peacefully reintegrate with the PRC over the next couple of decades. It's in nobody's interest to have China and Taiwan go to war.

Of course it isn't. There's too much to loose economically for both. But who knows? China might decide things work fine just as they are. It's a nice thought anyway.

[Buckeye67]

But every time he opens hes mouth about national security or foreign affairs he have no clue what he is talking about.

Or you're utterly unwilling to consider a point of view that doesn't cater to your own specific personal interests.

[RECON DOC]

Or you're utterly unwilling to consider a point of view that doesn't cater to your own specific personal interests.

That sir, is what one would call "Hitting the nail on the head" :)

[MichaelF]

[quote=MichaelF;2702379][quote=RECON DOC;2702346]
Nothing about Foreign Wars.

All wars are now Foreign. If they aren't, we're fighting on US soil. Not what we want. Far better to do our fighting on someone elses playground.

This clearly says Militia not Army.
The Constitution gives no limit on duration of callup, nor restricts the "repelling of Invasions" to a given geography. Ergo, once called up, they can be sent anywhere, for any duration. The implication (especially once the Militia Act of 1792 was passed, and then again with the 1903 Militia Act) is that the Militia's "repelling of Invasions" role was describing any foreign threat to the Security of the US (threats being necessary precursors to any invasion).


That's because they want to protect their position for the future

The Supreme Court that is appointed for life was trying to protect their future? From what? Arthritis?


......................................


If you are not willing to accept the (repeated) judgement of the Supreme Court as to what is Constitutional or not, you are saying that you have no faith in that same Constitution, which gives that Court the authority of final arbitration of same.

Can't have it both ways: According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court gets to say what is Constitutional. Deny one, deny the other.

USSC upholds the Draft (Conscription in general, not just our present version of it). Ergo, it's as Constitutional as the 2nd Amendment.

[Snoshi]

Or you're utterly unwilling to consider a point of view that doesn't cater to your own specific personal interests.

My personal interests? I would rather say the interests of USA. No one wants to have a weak leader that will try to keep a world superpower out of the game until its too late.

[RECON DOC]

[quote=RECON DOC;2702418][quote=MichaelF;2702379]


If you are not willing to accept the (repeated) judgement of the Supreme Court as to what is Constitutional or not, you are saying that you have no faith in that same Constitution, which gives that Court the authority of final arbitration of same.

Can't have it both ways: According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court gets to say what is Constitutional. Deny one, deny the other.

USSC upholds the Draft (Conscription in general, not just our present version of it).
123457899112

Edit: The 13 Amendment.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I'm not going to argue, I'm against the draft, you're for it, fine.
I'm with my boy Ron on this.
http://www.youtube.com/v/l37vLUXc6bY

http://www.youtube.com/v/jkezM8HaWWA&mode=related&search=

[Will938]

There are still fully-transferrable fully automatic weapons available for purchase. Your economic means may not allow you to purchase one, however they are still available for purchase. Ergo, they are not "banned". "Banned" meaning that the sale or ownership of said full-auto weapons are utterly prohibited.

Shellshock wasn't referring to the 1986 "Firearms Owners Protection Act". He was referring to the 1934 "National Firearms Act" which restricted sales of full-auto weapons, short barrelled rifles, suppressors and other "destructive" devices. While I agree that the '86 FOPA is ill-conceived, stupid and several other expletives - it wasn't what his comment referred to, nor what my comment to him addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the situation anymore than you do - but I think if we're going to discuss this stuff (particularly with people who may know nothing about it) we need to use a little more precise (and less hyperbolic) language when doing so.

The spirit of his question still stands. The ownership of any fully automatic firearm made after 1987 is utterly prohibited by an individual such as myself. Getting an FA firearm after the '34 act was much more of a hassle. Going through approval that you shouldn't need and paying fees that shouldn't be there either. Such heavy regulation is pretty ridiculous for an item which our right to have is supposedly not infringed.

[Buckeye67]

He stated that fully automatic weapons were "banned (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/banned)". There were no other qualificiations to that statement (aside from an equally erroneous statement to the effect that this alleged "banning" of full-auto weapons somehow nullified the 2nd Amendment).

Had he made his assertion similar to the way you've put it forth - that the '34 and in particular the '86 FOPA have had an effect akin to a ban (by creating a situation where full-auto weapons are priced beyond many peoples' means) - then my silly pedantic ass wouldn't have posted what I did. In fact, I would most likely have agreed with him.

I wasn't taking issue with "sprit", "intent", "effect" or anything of that sort. I was taking issue with a false (in the literal and/or legal sense) statement.

There are people who sell fully-transferrable full-auto weapons.
There are people who buy fully-transferable full-auto weapons.
There are people who currently own full-auto weapons.

Therefore the statement that fully-automatic weapons were "banned" is factually incorrect.

[RECON DOC]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ZQ3T5REZ11Q&mode=related&search=

[ronnieraygun]

Thanks, Doc. Always good to hear someone speak some semblance of logic for a change than pre-digested sound bites.

I don't have cable. After seeing the spray-on tan on the talking head, I'm glad I don't.

[ibstolidude]

As a strong state's rights supporter and true believer in small government, I appreciate Ron Paul, his True Republican root (akin to modern libertarian) and many of his ideas and positions. I think men like him play an important role in the government. He represents a level of honesty needed in the government, but man has he made some statements that are just WAY TOO much for me to consider voting for him.

we'd be safer with out the CIA - we supported the madrassas -

just a tad too much for me, I'm sorry to say.

[Polygon]

I would probably vote for him so far: he has a consistent and strong message overall covering a variety of issues. Not to mention he doesn't "dance" around a question and is pretty articulate when it comes to responses.

[RECON DOC]

As a strong state's rights supporter and true believer in small government, I appreciate Ron Paul, his True Republican root (akin to modern libertarian) and many of his ideas and positions. I think men like him play an important role in the government. He represents a level of honesty needed in the government, but man has he made some statements that are just WAY TOO much for me to consider voting for him.

we'd be safer with out the CIA - we supported the madrassas -

just a tad too much for me, I'm sorry to say.

I'm sorry to hear you say that, especially when there so many other dire issues at stake that no other candidate will touch so as not to spoil their little game on the hill. IMHO he's the only honest ethical, straight shooter in the race. He is interested in helping the nation rather than furthering his career like the majority of the others.

What do we really need the CIA for today? Obviously their warnings have been blatantly ignored by Capitol Hill for the past twenty years, the cold war is over, their KGB counterpart has been dismantled and they have become a huge bloated bureaucracy. Besides, what did we do before it was created?

As for us supporting the madrassas, I've never heard him say that and I've been watching every vid I can find of him. Can you please give me a source for his quote on the matter?


He just makes good sense.
http://www.youtube.com/v/8Hfa7vT02lA

[Polygon]

Well, before the Central Intelligence Agency, we had the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) which operated during the Second World War. I believe we still need the CIA to keep our eyes and ears opened around the world and keep us informed of the intentions of other nations.

However, I do agree with Dr. Paul that we need to play less of a role as a world policeman and follow more closely what the founder's of this nation meant as far as, "not becoming entangled."

[RECON DOC]

Well, before the Central Intelligence Agency, we had the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) which operated during the Second World War. I believe we still need the CIA to keep our eyes and ears opened around the world and keep us informed of the intentions of other nations.

However, I do agree with Dr. Paul that we need to play less of a role as a world policeman and follow more closely what the founder's of this nation meant as far as, "not becoming entangled."

We do need a federal intelligence agency of some kind, I realize that. But IMO, we don't need a giant army of cloak and dagger guys, pulling silly assed stunts in other countries. They should gather their intelligence, not interfere with other governments.

[shocker1]

IMO Dr. Paul will temper the out of control Federal Government. Everyone likes to blame all this on Bush but it is the career Senators that run the show. Along with those that can spend the $1500 or whatever to eat dinner. While the smelly Rasta man pan handles down from the Smithsonian.

[RECON DOC]

I will, and I will get to your questions/comments at a later time; please pardon my tardiness.

Likewise, he has also made comments that we supported UBL and radicalized the Islamists (vice Afghans) to go after the Soviets.

We did. Don't forget, "Iran/Contra" , buddy buddy with sadam, installing the Sha of Iran, and the list goes on. This has been out in the open for years.

Looking forward to seeing those quotes.

[RECON DOC]

IMO Dr. Paul will temper the out of control Federal Government. Everyone likes to blame all this on Bush but it is the career Senators that run the show. Along with those that can spend the $1500 or whatever to eat dinner. While the smelly Rasta man pan handles down from the Smithsonian.

I agree 100%. All of these pork barrel boys need to be shaken up, but good.

[angry cow]

Very simply the job of the central intelligence agency should be to gather, analyze, and distribute intelligence. If I had it my way:

CIA
The CIA wouldn't even be responsible for collecting intelligence. It would simply analyze and redistribute information gathered by military intelligence, the state department's intelligence agency, and the national security agency.

INR (friendly or neutral country intelligence)
If we have diplomatic relations with a country, the State department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) runs operatives and gathers intelligence. The CIA will select priority intelligence objectives and State will bring the info to the CIA for analysis and redistribution.

DIA (hostile country intelligence)
If we do not have diplomatic relations with a country Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) runs intelligence operations there. The individual services would gather intelligence within their respective AORs and turn it all over to DIA, who would then redistribute to other services and the CIA as necessary. Again, with the CIA setting objectives because they have the best picture of whats going on and are the direct link between the National Security Adviser and the intelligence community.

NSA (trans-national signals intelligence)
The NSA would be responsible for gathering all trans-national intelligence data. In other words, monitoring global communication means such as telephone and internet services. I would also place all non-military reconnaissance assets under the NSA. Make them the global signals intelligence king.*

*Trans-national- International wiretapping and internet monitoring, international calls involving one or more parties in the US would be handed over to DHS so they can seek warrants if deemed necessary.

DHS (domestic)
Department of Homeland Security gathers domestic intelligence up from the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and distributes to other domestic agencies and the CIA.

Para-military operations?
No "Para-" about it, make all foreign military operations the responsibility of the military and its set of rules and regulations. If we can't order the military to conduct an operation because it violates the UCMJ, then we shouldn't conduct it at all. The only part of the government able to conduct military operations on foreign soil should be the military, with oversight by DOD and Congress.

[ibstolidude]

Let's try again -

We did. Don't forget, "Iran/Contra" , buddy buddy with sadam, installing the Sha of Iran, and the list goes on. This has been out in the open for years.

Looking forward to seeing those quotes.
Supporting of the Shaw of Iran is not the same as supporting UBL regardless of the consequences or blowback and not because of differences in policy, rather the facts are we did not support UBL. My problem isn't in Ron Paul's assertion we have made our own bed. I have a problem with Ron Paul making statements such as "we supported UBL" and that he is a former "partner in crime," or the like. While the blowback of poor US policies is real and should be recognized, and the US HAS supported many a regime that we should not have - that does not make fiction fact. I am no less critical of other politicians who make such statements - they are wonderful little quips meant to express their point more so than be correct; however words matter. I too have watched Ron P speak both in video and live, as I hoped to finally find a candidate I would wholly support-and yet find my preference in Monty Brewster's candidate. Oddly, in the same speech in which he calls UBL our "partner in crime" refering to our support of him, he says we should listen to what UBL says (which I agree with.) However, UBL, in his own words, has denied ever rcving US support or aid - so, I guess we only listen to the words that fit "our" message of the day. I don't think he is a quack - he just isn't for me.

I know it really isn't fair to just post my blabber with out links, but it simply isnt practical right now. I will offer some links as time will soon permit.
Thanks - sorry for the delay.

[RECON DOC]

Let's try again -

Supporting of the Shaw of Iran is not the same as supporting UBL regardless of the consequences or blowback and not because of differences in policy, rather the facts are we did not support UBL. My problem isn't in Ron Paul's assertion we have made our own bed. I have a problem with Ron Paul making statements such as "we supported UBL" and that he is a former "partner in crime," or the like. While the blowback of poor US policies is real and should be recognized, and the US HAS supported many a regime that we should not have - that does not make fiction fact. I am no less critical of other politicians who make such statements - they are wonderful little quips meant to express their point more so than be correct; however words matter. I too have watched Ron P speak both in video and live, as I hoped to finally find a candidate I would wholly support-and yet find my preference in Monty Brewster's candidate. Oddly, in the same speech in which he calls UBL our "partner in crime" refering to our support of him, he says we should listen to what UBL says (which I agree with.) However, UBL, in his own words, has denied ever rcving US support or aid - so, I guess we only listen to the words that fit "our" message of the day. I don't think he is a quack - he just isn't for me.

I know it really isn't fair to just post my blabber with out links, but it simply isnt practical right now. I will offer some links as time will soon permit.
Thanks - sorry for the delay.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the CIA recruited OBL to fight the Soviets.
This is OLD news, it's just not widely publicized. You have to dig a little if you want the facts. The CIA trained this man.
Here are the first three of many links. There is a ton of reference material on this available.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

The Shah was installed after a coup in 1953, supported by the US and orchestrated by the CIA. No wonder their pissed at us. It is why thy took the hostages. They keep telling us why their pissed, but no one seems to listen.
Our foreign policy needs some work.

[Hellfish]

Even beyond the Middle East, we can find examples of where we backed the wrong people. The coup against Allende in Chile (which, IMHO, is one of the more tragic failures of American foreign policy), Chavez in Venezuela (an attempted coup sponsored by the US), Diem in RVN (a total bastard), countless banana republics in Central America and the Caribbean (Aristide, anybody? Batista?).

What really, really irks me is that we spend all this time, money, and effort promoting democracy around the world and then as soon as somebody democratically elects someone we don't like, we throw a fit and do everything in our power to make that election and democratic process irrelevant. It happened in Chile, Venezuela and just recently with the Palestinians. They VOTED Hamas into power. Allende was ELECTED (and replaced by Pinochet!). Chavez was elected (and now he's got an enemy to rally his supporters around, and may very well become president for life because of US!)

What was it that LBJ said? "They might be a bastard, but at least they're our bastard."

That, to me, is the epitome of a terrible foreign policy, and goes against everything the US stands for.

[ibstolidude]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but the CIA recruited OBL to fight the Soviets.
This is OLD news, it's just not widely publicized. You have to dig a little if you want the facts. The CIA trained this man.
Here are the first three of many links. There is a ton of reference material on this available.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

If you actually believe this revision of history then I'm not sure our discussion can go anywhere.

The US avoided the arabs - this is OLD news from those that were involved, including those who are FAR from supportive of the US then and now; even those in the ISI/SSG (including Zia). Third-tier sources and circumstancial evidence based on causality and partial quotes taken out of context by Michel Chossudovsky does not equal history.

Besides which, Bin laden was not even a two-bit player during the bulk of that time to boot - he didn't really draw any real interest (to include that of the ISI) until the tail end and the beginning of the Afghan civil war - although we certianly supported some Afghans deserving of death who have come back to haunt us - that doesn't make the "we gave aid to UBL" true. Even US "observers" in country and Pakistan avoided them - at the risk of their lives.

Why would we have supported a man whos focus was on the Office (Maktab al'Khidmat) and Arabs seeking "jihad credit" or on the House of Allies (Bait al'Ansar in '84) when we could support actual fighters who were killing soviets and engaging the Soviets effectively with organized campaigns. Even UBL's "famous" training camps really didn't come online until '86 (late '86 was battle of Jaji which would eventually bring UBL some fighting fame). The fact is UBL was largely a nobody in terms of the war and our objectives (regardless of their debatable value), his prominence really didn't come about until the civil war - especially after his return to A-stan in '96.

Did you actually read the "sources you quoted?"
I'll even include the part supporting you supposition:

Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005,

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[37]

However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, rejected Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:

that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[38]

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[39]

Other sources also dispute the notion that the CIA had any contact with non-Afghan mujahideen[40]

[ibstolidude]

What really, really irks me is that we spend all this time, money, and effort promoting democracy around the world and then as soon as somebody democratically elects someone we don't like, we throw a fit and do everything in our power to make that election and democratic process irrelevant. It happened in Chile, Venezuela and just recently with the Palestinians. They VOTED Hamas into power. Allende was ELECTED (and replaced by Pinochet!). Chavez was elected (and now he's got an enemy to rally his supporters around, and may very well become president for life because of US!)

Well Chavez was elected the first time, I'd say the verdict is still out after the events of '04.

But you point out one of the primary problems with the concept of democracy by force (be it the gun or sanctions) - you can create the opportunity to vote, but that alone does not equate democratic institutions or ideals developing or taking root in society.

Jack Snyder wrote an interesting book "From Voting to Violence" (if I recall correct) that discusses and offers case-studies supporting that democratization is a national struggle - therefore outside pressures usually create national conflict and often violence.

[Hellfish]

Well Chavez was elected the first time, I'd say the verdict is still out after the events of '04.

Right. But one could argue that the coup attempt caused a sea change in the way Chavez approached the democratic process.

I'm not defending the man, per se, but I still have an issue with the way that we tried to interfere with the politics of another country.


But you point out one of the primary problems with the concept of democracy by force (be it the gun or sanctions) - you can create the opportunity to vote, but that alone does not equate democratic institutions or ideals developing or taking root in society.

You make a very good point. But when does it become America's responsibility to step in and say "Your democratic process is flawed, and we intend to put a stop to it?" Venezuelan democracy, Russian democracy, Chinese democracy and Tongan democracy are not the same American democracy. If the Russians vote Putin into office, and Putin then decides to start dismantling some of Russia's already fragile and new democratic institutions - and gets reelected in the process - who are we to tell an entire country that they're wrong?

The fundamental problem with democracy is that a people must want to be a democracy. Democracy entails a level of personal responsibility that some people are uncomfortable with. If they democratically decide to shift the burden of responsibility to the government, so be it. Who are we to say that they're wrong? The best we can do is say "We'd like it to be otherwise, but we respect your wishes and hope to continue cordial relations with you."



Jack Snyder wrote an interesting book "From Voting to Violence" (if I recall correct) that discusses and offers case-studies supporting that democratization is a national struggle - therefore outside pressures usually create national conflict and often violence.

Sounds interesting. I'll look it up.

[Laworkerbee]

RECON those links are a bit revisionist to say the least.

The United States (which the Saudi's matched us dollar for dollar) did fund the Jihadi's but the money and arms were given in large part to Pakistan to disseminate arms and cash to the groups of their choosing since they were on the ground and knew and some what controlled the players.

This of course created problems such as Ahmad Shah Masood receiving only a trickle of supplies and cash even though he was doing the majority of the fighting simply because it wasn't in Pakistan's interest to see him come to power.

[RECON DOC]

[quote=ibstolidude;2708249]If you actually believe this revision of history then I'm not sure our discussion can go anywhere.
If that's how you feel, then I can accept that. It's most likely that neither you nor I, can personally produce empirical evidence for either case, so no harm no foul. I'm just enjoying the discussion.

IMHO however, the "official story" (or non-story) just doesn't seem to add up. And so called first tier sources would never print the story even if they know it's true, for fear of rocking the boat and pissing off a lot of Americans. It's very bad for business.


The US avoided the arabs - this is OLD news from those that were involved, including those who are FAR from supportive of the US then and now; even those in the ISI/SSG (including Zia). Third-tier sources and circumstantial evidence based on causality and partial quotes taken out of context by Michel Chossudovsky does not equal history.Please, if you can find the time, post the material from which Chossudovsky took his partial quotes, so that I can read it in context. I'm interested.


Besides which, Bin laden was not even a two-bit player during the bulk of that time to boot - he didn't really draw any real interest (to include that of the ISI) until the tail end and the beginning of the Afghan civil war - although we certianly supported some Afghans deserving of death who have come back to haunt us - that doesn't make the "we gave aid to UBL" true. Even US "observers" in country and Pakistan avoided them - at the risk of their lives.I never suggested, nor did Paul, that we gave "Aid" to Osama Bin Asshole in respect to what he has become today.
Rather, that the CIA controlled him back in the 80s without knowing what he would do in the future. It was done for the needs of the time, to harass the Soviets like they did to us in Vietnam. Tit for tat, by whatever means necessary.
They had no idea this guy was going to go bonkers and incite suicide bombings around the world. Just some really, really bad luck, and understandably nobody wants to be connected to it in any way.




Why would we have supported a man whos focus was on the Office (Maktab al'Khidmat) and Arabs seeking "jihad credit" or on the House of Allies (Bait al'Ansar in '84) when we could support actual fighters who were killing soviets and engaging the Soviets effectively with organized campaigns. Even UBL's "famous" training camps really didn't come online until '86 (late '86 was battle of Jaji which would eventually bring UBL some fighting fame). The fact is UBL was largely a nobody in terms of the war and our objectives (regardless of their debatable value), his prominence really didn't come about until the civil war - especially after his return to A-stan in '96. From what I've read, Maktab al'Khidmat or MAK, was a proxy army assisted and semi-controlled in Pakistan by the CIA to fight the Soviets and later a segment of it broke away and formed al Qaeda. I realize it's much more involved than that, but these MAK characters were very bad folks. But as long as they could get them to kill/harass Soviets, they didn't care. They had a job to do and orders from Washington to get it done. So they did it however they could, with whomever they could find.


Did you actually read the "sources you quoted?"
I'll even include the part supporting you supposition: I certainly did read them, but.....


[quote]Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005,

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[37]Why would the former leader of the house of commons say something like this about an ally without solid evidence and risk his credibility if it weren't true. It's just not in his interest to do so.


However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, rejected Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:

that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden—is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[38]

Bergen quotes Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's Afghan operation between 1983 and 1987:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan.[39]

Other sources also dispute the notion that the CIA had any contact with non-Afghan mujahideen[40]Forgive me, but I have a hard time believing mainstream journalists these days.
The CIA is very good at covering its tracks, it's one of their specialties. Plausible Denial and all that, they can be very convincing liars, it's their job. Plus they divulge their operations details only to Washington, and not the main stream media. I'm by no means saying their all bad, but I do believe there are some rogue elements running a muck.

However IMO, a veteran Congressman, with an awful lot of inside sources, knows a hell of a lot more about what's going on behind the scenes than you or I. The straight skinny from the BS. It just so happens that his statements jive with what I've read on the subject to date.

And if it is a lie, how would it serve him to say something so out of line with the "official story", if there was a risk of it coming back on him? It just doesn't make sense. Judging from all that I've seen of Paul, he's a straight shooting, no BS guy, with balls the size of grapefruits.
No one has seriously taken him up on it. Why is that? Just a bunch of BS prattle from mouth breathers like Guliani and Sean Hennity twisting his words and saying "How dare you say the American people brought this on themselves!?" Well the people didn't, policy did.

Whether or not this particular issue is ever substantiated either way,thebottom line is, that we are and have been doing it all over the place for a long time and it's pissing on everybody else's parade. We need to reevaluate our foreign policy if we want this crap (attacks on Americans) to stop. Bombing people Willy nilly and interfering with their sovereignty will only strengthen their resolve to fight us by whatever means they can until we get out. How did the British feel during the bombings of WWII? It made them say FU all the louder.

Heads on a platter? I don't want that.
The lesson here is simply stop meddling because it makes people want to kill us.



Off topic: Are you currently serving?


Lworkerbee

RECON those links are a bit revisionist to say the least.

The United States (which the Saudi's matched us dollar for dollar) did fund the Jihadi's but the money and arms were given in large part to Pakistan to disseminate arms and cash to the groups of their choosing since they were on the ground and knew and some what controlled the players.

This of course created problems such as Ahmad Shah Masood receiving only a trickle of supplies and cash even though he was doing the majority of the fighting simply because it wasn't in Pakistan's interest to see him come to power.

Either way, it was a huge, grossly expensive mess that we had no need to be in the middle of and it stirred up crap down the line to the big-time. If we hadn't been screwing around, we most likely would not have to be there today.

[RECON DOC]

The fundamental problem with democracy is that a people must want to be a democracy. Democracy entails a level of personal responsibility that some people are uncomfortable with. If they democratically decide to shift the burden of responsibility to the government, so be it. Who are we to say that they're wrong? The best we can do is say "We'd like it to be otherwise, but we respect your wishes and hope to continue cordial relations with you."


That seems to be what is slowly happening here in the US.:|

[Hellfish]

That seems to be what is slowly happening here in the US.:|

And it's nobody's fault but our own. :|

[RECON DOC]

And it's nobody's fault but our own. :|

You're damned right. It's too bad too, we had a good thing going for awhile.:|

[ibstolidude]

However IMO, a veteran Congressman, with an awful lot of inside sources, knows a hell of a lot more about what's going on behind the scenes than you or I.
Really? Then how about Dana Rohrabacher? Would he then be any less credible? Atleast he had boots on the ground with Muj against the Soviets... his comments, certainly don't reflect an environment of "support" between the US and UBL - despite his rebuke against several administrations and US agencies for their support of the like of the HIG.

Bergen = mainstream!!?? I guess it must be his staunch support for the US, US mid-east policies, US soviet/afghan war policies, and NeoCon agenda.... hey, perhaps you would prefer Robert Fisk's interview and opinion - he too is the bastion of Fox News reporting? - sarcasm. How many interviews did Cook have with UBL and his ilk? To what did he ever attribute his comment when confronted on it?

What about the likes of Bill Peikney, Milt Bearden, or authors such as Sageman - even from R Paul's own reading list to Rudy G. - M. Schueur - ?

[RECON DOC]

Really? Then how about Dana Rohrabacher? Would he then be any less credible? Atleast he had boots on the ground with Muj against the Soviets... his comments, certainly don't reflect an environment of "support" between the US and UBL - despite his rebuke against several administrations and US agencies for their support of the like of the HIG.

Bergen = mainstream!!?? I guess it must be his staunch support for the US, US mid-east policies, US soviet/afghan war policies, and NeoCon agenda.... hey, perhaps you would prefer Robert Fisk's interview and opinion - he too is the bastion of Fox News reporting?? - where is the sarcasm button??? How many interviews did Cook have with UBL and his ilk?

What about the likes of Bill Peikney, Milt Bearden, or ex-CIA authors such as Sageman - even from R Paul's own reading list to Rudy G. - M. Schueur - ?

Well post some sources and I will look at them.

This is the first random site I clicked on
Dana Rohrabacher.


Rohrabacher railed against anyone who questioned the right of the Bush administration to do whatever it wanted - legal or illegal - to prevent terrorist acts, and said that [European countries] not supporting the Bush policies were consigning their countrymen to terrorists. In particular, he said that any Americans who questioned the extraordinary rendition were un-American.http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042307S.shtml

Seems he's not very popular these days. Sounds like a Bush loyalist to me.

[NuclearHead]

My personal interests? I would rather say the interests of USA. No one wants to have a weak leader that will try to keep a world superpower out of the game until its too late.


We've been into the game for decades and what have we gained? Care to explain that?

[RECON DOC]

Ron Paul - Don't Tread on Me.

http://www.youtube.com/v/FG_HuFtP8w8&mode=related&search=

[RECON DOC]

Freedom is Popular

http://www.youtube.com/v/zsLcQiHKhic&mode=user&search=

[nullterm]

I like this guy. Vote for him, cause I can't.

[RECON DOC]

I like this guy. Vote for him, cause I can't.

Hahaha, I'd vote twice if I could.:)

[RECON DOC]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_6jUecI8sPBE/RsXc0B_QHpI/AAAAAAAAAAk/zZuVg_Vd3Ro/S600/ronpauldaily.png


Cliff Notes to the Ron Paul campaign day by day basis

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Ron Paul wins NH straw poll (http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-nh-straw-poll.html)

Dr. Paul received 208 votes (73%) for a landslide victory against Mitt Romney today at the Strafford[sic] County, New Hampshire straw poll. Romney received 26 votes. Mike Huckabee came in third with 20 votes.

Tancredo (8 votes), McCain (7 votes), Cox (5 votes), Hunter (5 votes), Thompson (5 votes), Giuliani (3 votes) and Brownback (1 vote) finished the field.

This is the 2nd landslide of the day, Ron Paul won the Alabama straw poll earlier today.



Cliff Notes to the Ron Paul campaign day by day basis


http://bp3.blogger.com/_6jUecI8sPBE/RsXc0B_QHpI/AAAAAAAAAAk/zZuVg_Vd3Ro/S600/ronpauldaily.png




Saturday, August 18, 2007

Ron Paul wins Alabama Straw Poll (http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-alabama-straw-poll.html)

This straw poll required you to be an Alabama resident, and also required you to pay $35 to participate.

Ron Paul came in first with 216 votes, and Mitt Romney came in second with a pathetic showing of 14 votes. I would venture a guess that the Romney camp didn't pay to bus in senior citizens from all over the state for this poll.





------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a great blog with a lot of info about his progress, T-shirts, bumper stickers etc. Check it out.

http://www.myspace.com/RonPaul2008

http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-nh-straw-poll.html

[maloryII]

The only thing about this thread that makes me feel good?

This ****ing hack doesn't stand a ****ing chance. Yeah, print your bumper stickers. "Get the word out!"

"It's my vote that counts!"

No, sorry. No chance.

If you're a neo-con, at least throw your vote at your party.

Good day!

[maloryII]

Freedom is popular! The 9/11 pilots should've had pistols!

Oh wow! SO PROFOUND!

American isn't that easily beguiled.

[maloryII]

Let's not forget another gem:

"NEVER TAX THE INTERNET! NEVER REGULATE THE INTERNET!"

Excuse me while I clap with my ass-cheeks.

[maloryII]

Oh, it's not done!

"It's not like we endorse good habits or bad habits... we endorse FREEDOM!"

That's it. He sold me.

He endorses Freedom? He's got my vote.

[RECON DOC]

Freedom is popular! The 9/11 pilots should've had pistols!

Oh wow! SO PROFOUND!

American isn't that easily beguiled.

That is by far the most ignorant and retarded post in this thread.
Is "beguiled" a word your grammy used to use a lot?

You know, if you keep quiet,go back and read the thread, look and listen to the videos and quit talking out of your ass, you might just learn something here boy.

[maloryII]

That is by far the most ignorant and retarded post in this thread.
Is "beguiled" a word your grammy used to use a lot?

No, it's a word that clearly transcends your comprehension.




You know, if you keep quiet,go back and read the thread, look and listen to the videos and quit talking out of your ass. you might just learn something here boy.

Here is what I think about your opinion:

BALLS

Here is what will happen if you vote for "Ron Paul":

BALLS


Cheers p-) See you in '08

[RECON DOC]

No, it's a word that clearly transcends your comprehension.




Here is what I think about your opinion:

BALLS

Here is what will happen if you vote for "Ron Paul":

BALLS


Cheers p-) See you in '08

Good luck to you too.

[ronnieraygun]

1. To deceive by guile; delude.
2. To take away from by or as if by guile; cheat: a disease that has beguiled me of strength.
3. To distract the attention of; divert: "to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming" Abraham Lincoln.
4. To pass (time) pleasantly.
5. To amuse or charm; delight.

1, 2 and 3 sound like some other Republican who won. The American electorate IS that easily beguiled. There's good reason this man gets attention for his ideas. Who's your man, then, Malory?

[RECON DOC]

[quote=ronnieraygun;2713725] Ronnie, He's a troll, let him go buddy.

[shocker1]

The only thing about this thread that makes me feel good?

This ****ing hack doesn't stand a ****ing chance. Yeah, print your bumper stickers. "Get the word out!"

"It's my vote that counts!"

No, sorry. No chance.

If you're a neo-con, at least throw your vote at your party.

Good day!


Freedom is popular! The 9/11 pilots should've had pistols!

Oh wow! SO PROFOUND!

American isn't that easily beguiled.


Let's not forget another gem:

"NEVER TAX THE INTERNET! NEVER REGULATE THE INTERNET!"

Excuse me while I clap with my ass-cheeks.


Oh, it's not done!

"It's not like we endorse good habits or bad habits... we endorse FREEDOM!"

That's it. He sold me.

He endorses Freedom? He's got my vote.


No, it's a word that clearly transcends your comprehension.




Here is what I think about your opinion:

BALLS

Here is what will happen if you vote for "Ron Paul":

BALLS


Cheers p-) See you in '08

Well I would say your posting has dumbed down the thread even more. You provided no logical aspect for your indignation. Rather you resorted to one liner cracks with no substance. If voting for Ron Paul keeps hacks you support out of office then yeah he has my vote.

[shorty]

Ron Paul - Don't Tread on Me. I really do like his stance on things. It honestly looks like he doesn't have his head in his ass when concerned with Foreign Policies.

[RECON DOC]

Well I would say your posting has dumbed down the thread even more. You provided no logical aspect for your indignation. Rather you resorted to one liner cracks with no substance. If voting for Ron Paul keeps hacks you support out of office then yeah he has my vote.

Nicep-)

Did you see he had a landslide in the New Hampshire and Alabama Straw Polls today?:)


http://www.myspace.com/RonPaul2008

http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/200...traw-poll.html (http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/ron-paul-wins-nh-straw-poll.html)

[RECON DOC]

I really do like his stance on things. It honestly looks like he doesn't have his head in his ass when concerned with Foreign Policies.

And it appears so on every other issue as well.
He's the only guy that takes them on honestly and directly. No BS, no double-speak whatsoever, no skirting difficult issues.
He is a gem. IMHO the most valuable ally the people have.

[shorty]

And it appears so on every other issue as well.
He's the only guy that takes them on honestly and directly. No BS, no double-speak whatsoever, no skirting difficult issues.
He is a gem. IMHO the most valuable ally the people have. Exactly, All this double talking BS has got to go. I mean I may only be 19, but I can honestly say this is the man I would want to run the country. He kinda reminds me of my History teacher. He is a blunt, no-nonsense kinda guy, that doesn't blow sunshine up your ass to keep you happy.

[shocker1]

Nicep-)

Did you see he had a landslide in the New Hampshire and Alabama Straw Polls today?:)
Yes that is some good news. This election is interesting in the fact that for nearly two years now the politicos haven nearly decided our choices for us. If not for the internet it would be narrowed down even further. It is going to be an uphill climb for any anti-Globalist to garner any fat cat support. The way he was sneared by the stuck up participants of the last debate was a good indicator of establishment mentality and how the two parties will give you the same result in the end. Ice cream is ice cream no matter what flavor.

Like my grand father once said. "They sent me to that damn Korea to fight communists. While Soviet Communists at the UN told me how to fight. All I got was a Purple Heart and a lot of lost pals" He would support Ron Paul I believe and he was an ardent Democrat.

[RECON DOC]

Yes that is some good news. This election is interesting in the fact that for nearly two years now the politicos haven nearly decided our choices for us. If not for the internet it would be narrowed down even further. It is going to be an uphill climb for any anti-Globalist to garner any fat cat support. The way he was sneared by the stuck up participants of the last debate was a good indicator of establishment mentality and how the two parties will give you the same result in the end. Ice cream is ice cream no matter what flavor.

Like my grand father once said. "They sent me to that damn Korea to fight communists. While Soviet Communists at the UN told me how to fight. All I got was a Purple Heart and a lot of lost pals" He would support Ron Paul I believe and he was an ardent Democrat.

My respect to your father shocker.
Can you imagine if everybody that supported him sent just $5? He'd have more money than any of them. I'm just saying. p-)

[RECON DOC]

Some of the oposition.

Rudy Giuliani on Immigration: To End, or Not To End?


http://www.youtube.com/v/boTZVP0ZywQ&mode=user&search=

[shocker1]

My respect to your father shocker.
Can you imagine if everybody that supported him sent just $5? He'd have more money than any of them. I'm just saying. p-)

Thanks man, my grand paw though not my paw. My dad isn't that old. He was my mothers dad a grumpy old Jewish man but that is natural. He was drafted into that war with two children and a wife. He was very vocal about what happened to him over there. Some guys do not talk about such things but he did. Needless to say he did not agree with it. However if you must go to war, act like you're at war.

Ron Paul has my political donations. I am active with the Chamber of Commerce here and most business owners i know support him. I think it is the duty of a business owner to support his/her candidate.

[RECON DOC]

Thanks man, my grand paw though not my paw. My dad isn't that old. He was my mothers dad a grumpy old Jewish man but that is natural. He was drafted into that war with two children and a wife. He was very vocal about what happened to him over there. Some guys do not talk about such things but he did. Needless to say he did not agree with it. However if you must go to war, act like you're at war.

Ron Paul has my political donations.I am active with the Chamber of Commerce here and most business owners i know support him. I think it is the duty of a business owner to support his/her candidate.

He had every right to be pissed off,that is a blatant violation of the 13th Amendment.

The 13 Amendment. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Congress is not doing it's job to protect the Constitution.

Last time I defined those five words, being drafted into an army against your will was involuntary servitude.
They somehow manage to disregard the Constitution at will.



"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." --

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
True
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Sound familiar?

WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Iraq.


We have the most powerful armed forces in the world and it's all volunteer.
We certainly don't need to go into Iran, but if we do (and they're chomping at the bit to do so) you can count on a draft.

[Hilbert]

I'm starting to like this guy more and more, Ron Paul I mean. He's definately got my vote.

[Telmar]

Thanks for all the videos Recon Doc.

From where I am, I did not even know he existed. He is not to be found on the main stream media...

His views on American Foreign Policy seem extremely documented. And revolutionary for a right wing person. And he certainly seems that he would put his words into action. The world would be a different place without always having the USA to count on for defending security in all situations. It would push us Europeans to start counting more on ourselves for defence. No to mention that the anti-American crowd would not know what to say...

Yet, it is difficult to imagine the policy in the long run. Terrorists need their enemies for their own existence and have up to now succeeded in keeping the USA engaged and thus scapegoat, It feeds their internal networks and very probably their own conflicts of influence. Even if the USA pulled out, some terrorists would still try to hit the USA and maybe succeed. And I doubt that the people of America would let it go. So I guess IMHO that it would be back to square one with the expensive wars, troops and such...

[RECON DOC]

Thanks for all the videos Recon Doc.

From where I am, I did not even know he existed. He is not to be found on the main stream media...

His views on American Foreign Policy seem extremely documented. And revolutionary for a right wing person. And he certainly seems that he would put his words into action. The world would be a different place without always having the USA to count on for defending security in all situations. It would push us Europeans to start counting more on ourselves for defence. No to mention that the anti-American crowd would not know what to say...

Yet, it is difficult to imagine the policy in the long run. Terrorists need their enemies for their own existence and have up to now succeeded in keeping the USA engaged and thus scapegoat, It feeds their internal networks and very probably their own conflicts of influence. Even if the USA pulled out, some terrorists would still try to hit the USA and maybe succeed. And I doubt that the people of America would let it go. So I guess IMHO that it would be back to square one with the expensive wars, troops and such...

But if we disengage from them altogether, they'll loose their excuse. They'll most likely turn on each other. They already do that now.

If we get our noses out of their business, everyone will be better off.

[Snoshi]

But if we disengage from them altogether, they'll loose their excuse. They'll most likely turn on each other. They already do that now.

If we get our noses out of their business, everyone will be better off.

Feeding the crocodile so it wont eat you wont work forever...

[RECON DOC]

Feeding the crocodile so it wont eat you wont work forever...

Troll ****.

[Snoshi]

Troll ****.

Because you dont agree?

It has been proven throughout the history that leaving some countries alone because you dont want any "trouble" will just make them come for you when the time comes.

[RECON DOC]

Because you dont agree?

It has been proven throughout the history that leaving some countries alone because you dont want any "trouble" will just make them come for you when the time comes.

No, because you haven't made a single valid point in a thread that has nothing to do with you, and your sense of reasoning is grossly inverted and self serving.

And of course because you are a ignorant trolling ****.

[Snoshi]

No, because you haven't made a single valid point in a thread that has nothing to do with you, and your sense of reasoning is grossly inverted and self serving.

And of course because you are a ignorant trolling ****.

And what about your points?
"If we leave them alone then they will forget about this" is outdated and already proven wrong.

Can you try to counter any of my points?

Like i said, If USA stops messing with Al-Qaida and other groups it will let them grow and like all normal people they need an enemy. And who is a better enemy then USA?

Ohh and i love this mature remarks about my intelligence...

[Kippari]

And what about your points?
"If we leave them alone then they will forget about this" is outdated and already proven wrong.

Can you try to counter any of my points?

Like i said, If USA stops messing with Al-Qaida and other groups it will let them grow and like all normal people they need an enemy. And who is a better enemy then USA?

Ohh and i love this mature remarks about my intelligence...

I agree, the western world has rolled the dice too many times with supporting the radical muslims for their own purposes. It's hard to stop them now and I don't think they will just die by time anymore, although I think that if we stop poking the beehive so much, there will be less reasons for people to join these terrorists.

[shocker1]

HEHE is the local RNC needing some funds for signs? To bad I give my money directly to Ron Paul. The RNC can kiss my ass until they support Ron Paul.
http://images.chattanoogan.com/photo_images/photo_10250_large.jpg

The candidate said he was borrowing one of his father's old campaign signsWell if that is not a symptom of establishment I do not know what is.:cantbeli:

Trying to keep your thread alive pal while you are away.

[timetraveller]

I honestly believe he will have the support of both parties for the most part.
If he is elected it will be by the will of the people and we are the boss, not them. If they want to be reelected they will bend to the peoples will.
We must always remember that WE THE PEOPLE own this nation, NOT the government. I personally believe he will get the support to make it to the primaries. This would be huge for us all, don't doubt it for a second.


Ron Paul - Stop dreaming!
http://www.youtube.com/v/IWfIhFhelm8


After watchin that ..

Ponders a few thoughts ..

[grimupnorth]

Nice thread doc, never heard of this guy before.
he sounds too good to be true?
my biggest fear is, if he ever looks like winning, how long will it be
before we see some photos of him, having it large
with a couple of leather clad midgets, while snorting cocaine.
and if that don't work it will be an ice bullet with his name on.p-)

snoshi has a point, whatever the usa decides it does have an effect on the rest of us. but he's a big lad and can stick up for himself.

look forward to you coming of medication and resuming this thread:)

[California Joe]

He really is the real deal, and so far he hasn't been caught trying to suck **** in an airport bathroom so he's still OK.

[Laworkerbee]

He really is the real deal, and so far he hasn't been caught trying to suck **** in an airport bathroom so he's still OK.

This is I never hear his name mentioned on TV.....ever!

[AmericanKaliber]

i would follow Ron Paul any day. He is the type of guy who fights for the people... He's not bulls****r

[shocker1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U7mC7OF8dI

[shocker1]

Ron Paul Raises More Than Entire Texas GOP?

Sunday, September 02, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

News Analysis

Sources close to the Ron Paul (R-Tex) presidential campaign point out gleefully that in a single night Ron Paul took in more money -$102,000 - than the entire GOP apparatus did with its convoluted “first ever” straw poll - $97,500.

The recent Texas straw poll reportedly charged $75 a head for voting rights and while GOP officials had expected 2,000 to vote, only 1300 reportedly did. Meanwhile, Ron Paul, who finished third in the highly restrictive straw poll, had his most successful fund raiser ever in Texas. The congressman raised $102,000 at a fund raiser hosted by the Highland Park Huffines family.

“More and more, the tail is wagging the dog in this presidential campaign,” one source pointed out. “The Texas straw poll was structured so that you could only vote if you had been a former GOP delegate. Even rank and file GOP-ers couldn’t vote. The only reason for such a restrictive system is to ensure that Ron Paul didn’t win. Those eligible to vote are the most hawkish, most pro-military and big-government oriented ‘conservatives’ in Texas. They have as little understanding of Jeffersonian, small government republicanism as big government democrats.”

And this source concluded, “Ron Paul still did well, finishing in third place in a straw poll that was rigorously structured to make sure he would not win. But maybe the real vote can be seen by his fund-raising success. He out-raised the entire Texas GOP in a single night. He’s one of the hottest politicians in the country going into the upcoming debates on Fox.”

16.17% Ron Paul (217 votes)
41.1% Duncan Hunter (534 votes)
20.5% Fred Thompson (266 votes)
6.4% Mike Huckabee (83 votes)
6% Rudy Giuliani (78 votes)
4.7% Mitt Romney (61 votes)
.46% Sam Brownback (6 votes)
.62% John McCain (8 votes)
.46% Tom Tancredo (6 votes)
2.2% Ray McKinney (28 votes)
.23% Hugh Cort (3 votes)
.77% John Cox (10 votes)

=====

The Ron Paul campaign commented as follows on the Texas straw poll:

FORT WORTH, TEXAS – Congressman Ron Paul placed third in today's Texas GOP Straw Poll with 16 percent of the vote. The solid outcome marked the conclusion of a highly successful weekend during which the campaign had a rally with over 1,000 attendees, raised well over $100,000. Today’s results continue a trend around the nation of top or middle tier finishes for the Paul campaign.

The presence of Dr. Paul supporters dominated the straw poll site, and campaign leaders were pleased with the results in light of the difficult voting restrictions. Only recent party delegates were allowed to cast ballots, meaning that most of the thousands who turned out for Dr. Paul could cheer and celebrate but not vote. In addition, the straw poll was held several hours away from the Paul’s stronghold of south Texas.

"This was a great weekend for our campaign, and Texans turned out in droves to support Dr. Paul," said campaign manager Lew Moore. "The pro-war party insiders voting in this straw poll may not support him, but the majority of attendees clearly did."

Dr. Paul is the only candidate who voted against the Iraq war and favors early withdrawal, a position supported by over 70 percent of the American people. Many experts believe that Republicans cannot win the presidency in 2008 if they nominate a pro-war candidate. Texans appeared to support this position by opening their wallets as the Paul campaign pulled in more money over the weekend from grassroots supporters than the Texas GOP raised from the entire straw poll.

=====

Reaction from free-market oriented Lewrockwell.com post:

The Texas Republican Party set up its straw poll to hurt Ron Paul. That's why the voters were restricted to past delegates and alternates from Texas Republican conventions, that is neocons and party hacks for the most part. Also, the poll was placed in Ft. Worth, five hours away from Houston and the Gulf Coast, to discriminate against delegates from Ron Paul Land. Ron was supposed to get zero. Instead, he got [nearly 17%].

The Republican Party of Texas has been controlled by the Bushes since 1980. That means the Ron Paul campaign and all its volunteers and donors can be very proud. This is yet another step upwards in the growth of a movement that is already shaking the world of all the bad guys. Note: Hunter did so well because he alone, of all the warmongering candidates, bothered to show up. BTW, Fred the Late was supposed to win--that was Gov. Perry's plan--but he was elsewhere, delaying.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48297

[Shellshock1918]

Because you dont agree?

It has been proven throughout the history that leaving some countries alone because you dont want any "trouble" will just make them come for you when the time comes.

Oh I guess thats why everyone is pissed at Switzerland, so pissed that they have not been attacked in 800 years.

[Trogdor]

Ron Paul is not a good choice for the POTUS. With a policy on Iraq like "Just get out." he is not fit to serve as CinC. For a guy that plays the smooth talk of smaller government and less spending, why on earth did he ask for $400 million in earmarks? Damn, give me $400 million and I'll show everyone on this forum a damn good time!

It's pretty sad for Libertarians that they can't cut it as a third party so they have a representative among the Conservative ranks to try and gain momentum.

I also wouldn't weigh too much on straw polls either.

[gaijinsamurai]

Strongly disagree. Any politician who can't recognize that the invasion/occupation of Iraq was a doomed plan from the start, and that any further loss of American life is a complete waste, is not fit to be President.

[Trogdor]

Strongly disagree. Any politician who can't recognize that the invasion/occupation of Iraq was a doomed plan from the start, and that any further loss of American life is a complete waste, is not fit to be President.

You can share those same views and not have a defeatist policy that involves getting out without thinking about how.

[gaijinsamurai]

I don't think any reputable politician, Ron Paul included, is advocating for a full-scale dash to the Kuwaiti border.
No doubt, a withdrawal needs to be planned and orderly.

[shocker1]

Strongly disagree. Any politician who can't recognize that the invasion/occupation of Iraq was a doomed plan from the start, and that any further loss of American life is a complete waste, is not fit to be President.
X2 I supported the primary reasons for the war. Like Saddam, cease fire violations and WMD's. However all we have done is cause ourselves problems by going beyond that with this nation building. I have no use for the American Security Policy of the 21st century.

All I have seen with this War is an increase in terrorism, violence and terrorist threats. By those we have been in bed with during the 80's. They think/hope we do not read things other than media spam meat. I read some of their writings and panel reports from the past 20 years not all of course. It would be best for people to actually look into what has been going on policy wise for the past 30 really.

Higher gas prices are NOT a reason to continue this war. If Iraqis can not get it together by now then let the chips fall. In the end they will sort it out the same with us there or not. We can not impose our wants upon the Iraqi government anymore. It only serves the enemy at this point.

[Durandal]

For a guy that plays the smooth talk of smaller government and less spending, why on earth did he ask for $400 million in earmarks? Damn, give me $400 million and I'll show everyone on this forum a damn good time!

rofl

I'd be pretty pissed if my representative did not bring back my tax dollars (a little leaner than when I sent them out every April 15th).

Ron does a beautiful job of it too.

Because after he puts a whole bunch of earmarks he votes against the damn bill.

The best part is, he wins because he is HONEST about his voting and he is honest in demanding his people's tax money back.

But you can use silly words like "defeatist" all you want. Most of us with at least half a brain simply do not care what you think.

[shocker1]

The Elephant that Wasn't in the Room In Durham tonight the other candidates were given the opportunity to unload on Fred Thompson, who revealed the worst kept secret in America when he announced during the Tonight Show taping in the minutes leading up to the debate that he is indeed running for president.

Mike Huckabee went first. "I was scheduled to be on Jay Leno tonight" he said "but I gave up my slot for somebody else because I'd rather be in New Hampshire with these fine people." Awww. Rudy Giuliani, a former prosecutor, thinks Thompson is "a really, really good man" and that "he's done a pretty good job of playing my part on Law & Order" but that he "prefers the real thing", obviously referring to himself. Mostly pretty gentle

Ron Paul is happy to see him in the race since "he will help dilute the vote for my benefit because he will be pro-war and I'm the anti-war candidate." Paul, the only candidate on the stage who opposes the war said that the Republican Party was headed for further electoral defeat if they continued on the present course. Duncan Hunter quickly responded "even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor."http://www.update08.foxnews.com/
During the debate a phone poll on FOX showed 55% saying Ron Paul won the debate. I have searched for this poll with no success. You are hard pressed to find much mainstream news about this man. The establishment is obviously hoping we ignore him.

This is an example of the ignorance of so called Republicans.

"The clear winners were Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee, in that order. Ron Paul is a very poor excuse for a Republican and should run with the other idiots on the Democrat side." — Mr. & Mrs. Payton (Florence, OR)News flash to the Paytons. Giuliani is a Democrat in all but name. Ron Paul actually represents the Pure Conservative Republican. So who is the idiot now?
Notice the photo at the page below, no Ron Paul just the pre-programmed selection. In defiance of the folks watching the debate FOX has already picked the advertised winners for your viewing.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295846,00.html

[Hellfish]

That's what seriously bugs me about the media - I know Ron Paul is doing well in the debates, and yet I never hear any mention of him at all - even the candidates with less support than he gets are getting more airtime. Mike Huckabee? C'mon....

[California Joe]

Huckabee fits in well on the Colbert Report, a retarded fake newsman interviewing a retarded candidate.

[shocker1]

But not all the candidates shared McCain's insistence on the rightness of the war, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul led the criticism.
"I'm the anti-war candidate representing the Republican traditional position," he said before getting into one of the night's liveliest sparring matches — a back-and-forth with Huckabee over whether it's time for the United States to leave Iraq.
"Going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It's the policy that is wrong," Paul said.
"The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it will be a cakewalk or it will be a slam dunk, and that it will be paid for by oil. Why believe them?" he asked.
In response, Huckabee said that it was agreed before the war started that if the U.S. breaks Iraq, it must buy it.
"Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion the historians can have, but we're there. We bought it because we broke it. We've got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve," Huckabee said.
Paul then responded: "The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people."
Huckabee retorted that the United States is one nation. "We can't be divided. We have to be one nation, under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country: the United States of America, not the divided states of America," he said.
"No, when we make a mistake — when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people, through their representatives, to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake," Paul replied.
"And that's what we do on the floor of the Senate," Huckabee said.
So in other words Mr Huckabee thinks we broke Iraq now we own it and we should shut up and unite behind the President. If you do not you dishonor our country and soldiers. The dishonor is the responsibility of President Bush and an inept Congress that allows the executive to rob their powers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295899,00.html

[ibstolidude]

Huckabee fits in well on the Colbert Report, a retarded fake newsman interviewing a retarded candidate.
:)
You have now been awarded POD - Post of the Day.

Well played, sir.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Huckabee fits in well on the Colbert Report, a retarded fake newsman interviewing a retarded candidate.

Back off man. Colbert is God!

[MichaelF]

Huckabee fits in well on the Colbert Report, a retarded fake newsman interviewing a retarded candidate.

I do not heart Huckabees...

[shocker1]

Underdog Paul Inspires Political Passion

By GRANT SLATER – 6 days ago
NEW YORK (AP) — Passengers on a plane leaving New York could see three words in 4-foot block letters painted on an East Village rooftop terrace as they ascended: GOOGLE RON PAUL. The entreaty to search the Internet for news of the Republican congressman from rural Texas is one of the more visible signs of enthusiasm from a do-it-yourself base of Web fans. Their support doesn't show up in public opinion polls, but it's unmatched among presidential candidates in its passion.
On their own, the fans have developed a Ron Paul Revolution logo, marketing the idea through YouTube. Message boards and Web sites debate his virtues.
The Web fans for Paul's anti-establishment campaign run away with online polls and blanket Web sites with caps-locked, exclamation-point endorsements of the contrarian Republican, even though he measures no more than 2 percent in most national opinion polls.
The supporters have an entrepreneurial drive and get their political news from Internet sources outside the mainstream media, especially blogs and news aggregators that rely on popular vote to determine news value.
That same spirit inspires them to canvass parade routes in 100-degree heat, argue campaign strategy in two-hour meetings or paint the roof of a Manhattan apartment building.
"To get your arms around everything and understand what is going on is really impossible to do," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said of supporters roaming the Web.
Paul's message is gospel among his base, which Benton described as mostly old-school conservatives.
Supporters can recite his talking points at length.
"They forge their own intellectual world to find the obscure, unusual sources of information that lead them to obscure, unusual candidates like Ron Paul," said Brian Doherty, a columnist for the libertarian magazine Reason.
Avery Knapp is typical of the Paul Web supporter. A 28-year-old radiology resident, Knapp describes himself as a lifelong conservative who voted for President Bush in 2000 before growing disillusioned with the Iraq war and federal spending.
Bush "did nothing but increase the size of government. The Republican Party needs to move back to its core principles," Knapp said. Many Paul supporters share Knapp's disdain for what he called a "neo-conservative clique" and hope Paul can spark a Goldwater-style insurgency.
At 46, Kevin Leslie has never bothered with politics. After watching an interview with Paul during his 1988 campaign as candidate for the Libertarian Party, Leslie told himself, "If this guy ever runs for president again, I'll back him."
Paul did, and Leslie was good to his word, starting a prominent Paul blog in February and traveling to the recent straw poll in Ames, Iowa.
Paul has attracted a contingent of previously apolitical and even left-leaning Americans like Leslie who support his call to pull all troops out of Iraq immediately and who like his reputation for opposing any legislation not linked to principles already expressed in the Constitution.
"I've already been surprised by how much traction his campaign has gotten," Doherty said. "He's a clever politician because these netroots types can call him a 'true conservative,' a 'constitutionalist' or whatever they call themselves, and he's sensitive to that."
Whatever their political background, the supporters all consider themselves part of a spray-paint and duct-tape "Ron Paul Revolution." Four banners with that unofficial logo hang from the fire escapes of the Manhattan building.
"They couldn't reel us in if they wanted to. Most everything has become an unofficial-official part of the campaign," said Dave Gallagher, whose cadre of Paul supporters came up with the Ron Paul Revolution logo.
Gallagher claims to have started the first group for Paul supporters on Meetup.com, a Web site geared toward the kind of networking that helped presidential candidate Howard Dean's supporters organize in 2004.
In the six months since, more than 30,000 people have joined Meetup groups in more than 700 places across the country. Paul's Meetup presence surpassed Dean's in just two months, said Andres Glusman, vice president of Meetup.com.
"Because people have the power to self-organize here, it's obvious that he's hitting a chord that is resonating with people in a way the media is not acknowledging," Glusman said.
This weekend, Paul will be the major Republican candidate to attend a Texas GOP straw poll in Fort Worth. Straw polls typically are won by the candidate who does the best job turning out dedicated supporters. All the top tier candidates in the race — and a few lower-rung candidates as well — are bypassing the event.
When Paul supporters get together, they often find themselves thrown into the intricacies of running an insurgent campaign, attorney Steven Heath said after a Meetup session in Dallas.
"These guys in Meetup, hardly any of them have any political experience," Heath said. "These people are newbies. They're about to get plugged in, and they'll be plugged in with Paul's ideas."

On the Net:

Ron Paul's campaign: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.ronpaul2008.com/&usg=AFQjCNE2LCPz5vGJrh_NGTiUyeX9aLfhkw)
Meetup.com: http://www.meetup.com (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.meetup.com&usg=AFQjCNHgKdXOnf3pzAyWEG1yppFSP0G1JQ)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iM47kc-2TqnQGFAX1Hz_0xGWE-ig

[RECON DOC]

He is The real deal! Ron Paul in 2008. wootwoot:hug::hug:
Truth, integrity and honesty personified.

Ron Paul at the GOP Debate in New Hampshire

http://www.youtube.com/v/herUw6FX4MI&mode=related&search=

Interview with Ron Paul (abc 13) pt 1 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/v/_w_QZ0Xk1Xo&mode=related&search=

Interview with Ron Paul (abc 13) pt 2 of 2

http://www.youtube.com/v/YMMAnp-xrRY&mode=related&search=

[nagant_m44]

here is ron paul with hannity after this latest debate
http://www.youtube.com/v/yRQrDbtekyo

[Hellfish]

^ Hahahaha, 33% said Ron Paul won the debate, more than anybody else got.

[ronnied]

Could someone help clarify his position on the CIA for me? Listening to the debates, they made it sound like he would totally get rid of the intelligence community. That worried me a bit, and I figured that they didn't allow him enough time to clarify his position. Was he talking about a massive reform of the intelligence community, with some downsizing (which I would be in favor of). Or does he really want to get rid of the FBI, CIA, and homeland security?

[Hellfish]

Could someone help clarify his position on the CIA for me? Listening to the debates, they made it sound like he would totally get rid of the intelligence community. That worried me a bit, and I figured that they didn't allow him enough time to clarify his position. Was he talking about a massive reform of the intelligence community, with some downsizing (which I would be in favor of). Or does he really want to get rid of the FBI, CIA, and homeland security?


I was wondering that too, and have been poking around for more info. Stay tuned.


During the September 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_5), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) Republican debate, the CIA was included in a similar list cited by moderator Chris Wallace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace). Paul did not refute the allegation that he would eliminate it if given the opportunity.[119] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#_note-78)

[evanfitz]

According to
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48507&fb=1

CNN is trying to get a debate between Huckabee and Ron Paul


After the recent FoxTV-managed GOP debate fireworks in New Hampshire, CNN is actively seeking to set up an "immediate" further debate between Ron Paul (R-Tex) and former governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (AR). Huckabee has already accepted, certain presidential campaign observers say. And these sources add that the Ron Paul’s campaign is close to accepting as well, if the head-to-head discussion is not treated as a “sound bite” and lasts longer than a few minutes. It is not clear who would moderate such an exchange.

Ron Paul and Huckabee had a sharp exchange of words over the Iraq war during the recent GOP debate, with Ron Paul insisting, as he has throughout his campaign, that the war was a failed policy and that the troops ought to be withdrawn. Huckabee retorted that for the “honor” of the United States, the war must continue. Huckabee’s campaign manager Chip Saltsman said of the exchange: "Governor Huckabee clearly had a break-out moment during his exchange with Congressman Ron Paul during [the] debate - which illuminated his leadership qualities, experience, dedication to principle, and vision for a unified America.”



But I can't find anything about it on CNN

[Ratamacue]

I was wondering that too, and have been poking around for more info. Stay tuned.See, that to me is a bit extreme. Reforms are no doubt needed in the intelligence community, but dissolving the CIA entirely seems like a mis-step unless there are existing structures that can take its place.

[D-gin]

Stupid question but why exactly does he want to get rid of the DOE?

[Hellfish]

Stupid question but why exactly does he want to get rid of the DOE?

He thinks that education should be a state and local responsibility, not federal. I'm inclined to agree.

[D-gin]

He thinks that education should be a state and local responsibility, not federal. I'm inclined to agree.
I do agree with that but what I was referring to was the Dept. Of Energy, Sorry.

[Hellfish]

I do agree with that but what I was referring to was the Dept. Of Energy, Sorry.

Ohhh... then I don't know. :)

[Lt. James Anderson]

Ron Paul is a good man.

He's got my vote.

[ronnied]

See, that to me is a bit extreme. Reforms are no doubt needed in the intelligence community, but dissolving the CIA entirely seems like a mis-step unless there are existing structures that can take its place.


I agree, and thats why I was a bit startled by that. I hope that he was talking about reform, and not completely getting rid of the intelligence community. I know he speaks of an isolationist foreign policy, but to take away the entire intelligence community is way too extreme for me. Hopefully someone can find something more clear about his position.

[josh21x]

here is ron paul with hannity after this latest debate
http://www.youtube.com/v/yRQrDbtekyo

Can I just say You Americans have some really stupid journalist!!!!!!!!
Journalism takes a back seat, when journalist himself has an agenda to push
I do understand Hannity and Colmes are Democrat and Republican.

[Durandal]

I know he speaks of an isolationist foreign policy...

Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

[ronnied]

Ron Paul is not an isolationist.


You're right, the term I meant to use was non-interventionist foreign policy.

[Roids]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/vAg_c3OWWzw


Some decent criticism about Iran and our history with them(Israel plays a big part in that issue, didn't really get mentioned though) but........we could have beat Al-Qaeda without re-building Afghanistan?

I would have to highly disagree on that one.

[Durandal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/vAg_c3OWWzw


Some decent criticism about Iran and our history with them(Israel plays a big part in that issue, didn't really get mentioned though) but........we could have beat Al-Qaeda without re-building Afghanistan?

I would have to highly disagree on that one.

I think Paul's point is pretty valid. You go, kick ass, take names, and then leave. That is not what we did though.

There is no proof that dumping billions into the country is going to fix problems. We never never eliminated AQ, we never eliminated Paki strong holds and we never eliminated Saudi money and volunteers.

Yet we throw money at the problem as if it were going to somehow build itself after we failed to shut the door on the war in Afghanistan.

You either fight or you you suck it up.

America cannot and should not remake the world in her image.

Which is what we are trying to do.

The war we should be fighting the people of this nation are not willing to fight, which leaves us with no real military alternatives other than swift and fatal retribution for actions against our people.

You get a nuke in the country, detonate it, we erase the nation the material came from and helped fund the deal.

I mean, think about it, we are selling arms to and buying oil from our enemies. We are bank rolling bad people, very bad people, who think women are chattel and the word of THEIR god is law...just because they do not like AQ, and MIGHT fight them.

Come on...

[Roids]

I think Paul's point is pretty valid. You go, kick ass, take names, and then leave. That is not what we did though.

There is no proof that dumping billions into the country is going to fix problems. We never never eliminated AQ, we never eliminated Paki strong holds and we never eliminated Saudi money and volunteers.

Yet we throw money at the problem as if it were going to somehow build itself after we failed to shut the door on the war in Afghanistan.

You either fight or you you suck it up.

America cannot and should not remake the world in her image.

Which is what we are trying to do.

The war we should be fighting the people of this nation are not willing to fight, which leaves us with no real military alternatives other than swift and fatal retribution for actions against our people.

You get a nuke in the country, detonate it, we erase the nation the material came from and helped fund the deal.

I mean, think about it, we are selling arms to and buying oil from our enemies. We are bank rolling bad people, very bad people, who think women are chattel and the word of THEIR god is law...just because they do not like AQ, and MIGHT fight them.

Come on...

The "taking names and kicking ass" approach is what I advocate, not oppose. Yes, I believe a absolute war plan could work, like we did in WWII may work, it did for zealous nations like Japan and Germany. If you want to win like that, you have to kill many many people, which Ron Paul has no stomach for. Ron Paul is against any form of aggressive action. I highly doubt Paul would have starting kicking down doors and taking on both Pakistan and setting the Saudi's straight. In fact, I've never heard Ron Paul advocate such a policy like that. He would have done exactly what we've done, either that or invade no one at all. Without invading anyone else, AQ would sit in Pakistan like they are now and probably would have re-built even quicker because we didn't want to "nation build".

And even if he did, wouldn't that contradict his "Leave them alone and they'll leave us alone" theory? Destroying nations completely tends to bring much resentment. That would probably bring even more people against us, which we must be prepared to counter with even more military force. We would have to essentially rid ourselves of petty morals and place the interests of US number one always. I do not see that happening with Christian morals still playing a big part in US culture.

You can't have it both ways with "Want to stay out of nation's affairs so they don't resent us" and then say "We're going to obliterate you so hard that you submit to us". Those two concepts work completely against each other.

What Ron Paul advocates is fighting wars only in self-defense, that would be consistent with his ideology and one that I would even support also. That would involve completely getting out of direct relations with the middle-east. That means we could cannot support any form of government there and absolutely no troops, as you already know. Genocide, destruction of Israel, all that jazz would mean nothing. This would in theory eliminate any sort of resentment toward us because we have nothing to do with them and letting us have peace within our border. Although, it states that we can still trade with the region, but I think it would devolve into no trade at all since I don't think supplying goods(and maybe even weapons depending on your definition of trade) to Israel would go well Aqwell Al-Baqbar from Syria, causing resentment toward us yet again. Though I have no crystal ball about effect of trading relations so who knows.

That theory does not take into account ambitious nations, like that of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany which would attack regardless of the other nation's status with them, let's not ignore history. Another criticism is of course that allowing idea of pre-emption to stop a nation from having the power to pursue such ambition and may be the best route.

Along with that, we would have to agree to invade no country(even if in self defense) because we could be attacking people who do not sympathize with the aggressors. An example could be if the Iranian government attacked us, if we invaded Iran then the public opinion would go against us even if they do not agree with the government. Then we'd have to kill a whole lot of people(again) which probably everyone would bitch about.

The benefits of such a policy that we will always know we will be fighting for ourselves and could concentrate all our resources on ourselves, which is ideal to have, unlike what we have now. We'd also have to accept that civilians would be killed and with the prospect of nuclear weapons, maybe lot. Although then too we could test the will of all the American people, not just the military. If you are not willing to die for freedom then you don't deserve it. So maybe that wouldn't be an entirely bad thing from a societal perspective.

One big clusterf*ck I say, who the hell knows what works.

[Durandal]

Ummm, OK...

Ron Paul advocates the use of measured violence smartly.

His claim is that we are not, in fact, using measured levels of violence smartly.

I have yet to hear that suggests to me that he does not proscribe the use of the military, he just sees the current use of it as wasted...and costly.

[valtrex]

That's what seriously bugs me about the media - I know Ron Paul is doing well in the debates, and yet I never hear any mention of him at all - even the candidates with less support than he gets are getting more airtime. Mike Huckabee? C'mon....
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim".
Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd (http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/lebon/Crowds.pdf)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAg_c3OWWzw
May I ask who the guy that asks the questions is? is he a well known & prominent journalist in the States? I’m disgusted with the way the interview is handled. He seems he has an agenda to push.

PS: Although I'm not an American & have never heard the name Ron Paul before, he impressed me favourably

[Hellfish]

"
May I ask who the guy that asks the questions is? is he a well known & prominent journalist in the States? I’m disgusted with the way the interview is handled. He seems he has an agenda to push.

PS: Although I'm not an American & have never heard the name Ron Paul before, he impressed me favourably

Hahahaha... that's Bill O'Reilly. He's not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. He's what we call a "commentator" - which is far more prevalent in American media that honest to goodness journalists. Commentators, whether they be for CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, whatever, push agendas and pass themselves off as "newsmen." Bill O'Reilly is one of the more notorious offenders and, despite that - or because of it - one of the most popular.

[Laworkerbee]

That's what seriously bugs me about the media - I know Ron Paul is doing well in the debates, and yet I never hear any mention of him at all - even the candidates with less support than he gets are getting more airtime. Mike Huckabee? C'mon....

X2 so true, I mention Ron Pauls name and people in Los Angeles think I'm talking about that old drag queen :-(

[D-gin]

X2 so true, I mention Ron Pauls name and people in Los Angeles think I'm talking about that old drag queen :-(
That goes for me as well, I was just talking to my friend about Ron Paul and she asked me who is that? I told her to go spend an hour or so on youtube and find out.

[RECON DOC]

X2 so true, I mention Ron Pauls name and people in Los Angeles think I'm talking about that old drag queen :-(

Hahahaha, my buddy breaks my balls and calls him that too, but that's just his nature, he actually likes him all kidding aside.

[shocker1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w

[Gurdil]

Ron paul and the military
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nwZGRrqhfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFi0h2ZBoH0

http://www.militaryforpaul.com/