Sowing the seeds of Paul...

[Taco John]

It starts as a little harmless snowflake at the top of the mountain. But eventually, if the conditions are right, gravity takes its course, and that snowflake turns into a snowball...

This is from RedState. I got banned there for saying that Mitt Romney would never get the presidency because Americans won't vote for a Mormon in large numbers. Apparently that's bigotted. I just thought I was telling the truth. I think there are more people who are biased against Mormons than there are racists who hate black people. Personally, I'm ok with that, because I see religion as a choice, and if you can't take criticism of your religion... --ugh, I'm off on a tangent.

Anyway, I still surf Red State through a proxy, and I found this topic tonight. It reflects to me a growing sense of discontentment among Republicans.


Via RedState:

Okay, this is a serious question

I know there are a handful of vocal Paulites out there that hijack threads, and this is not intended for that. Please don't turn this into a commercial for Ron Paul. But the question is serious......would the supporters of the "establishment" GOP candidates rather see Ron Paul at the helm than Hillary Clinton?

Some thoughts on last night's debate......

Rudy, I hope you don't win the GOP nomination, you could single-handedly be disasterous for the party....and this coming from a pro-choice Republican!

Mitt, your "lawyers" answer was ridiculous. If you want to LEAD, you don't talk about discussing things with the lawyers, even if that's what you must do. Appear presidential and talk about LEADERSHIP.

Fred, Not bad, but I'm not sold on you yet. You remind me of McCain with more name recognition. I'd like to see you in another debate.

Ron Paul, I hear what you're saying, brotha.....but while I agree with your stance on the war, you really don't offer any vision as to how a Ron Paul presidency would work short of you'll cut this department and that department. Spell it out

Tom, John, Mike, Sam.....I don't follow you guys much, and that's probably a bad thing......

T.


http://www.redstate.com/blogs/il_tony/2007/oct/10/okay_this_is_a_serious_question

[Taco John]

They ushered it pretty quickly to the archives. They do not tolerate Ron Paul supporters over there.

[CRONUS]

TJ you really are verging on recxjake levels now.

[Taco John]

TJ you really are verging on recxjake levels now.


So? At least I don't start threads about myself. Even recxjake hasn't reached Logical/Doom/Whatever you call yourself levels yet.

[SBK]

TJ you really are verging on recxjake levels now.

He's got a long way to go to reach Dr. Douchebag levels though....

[Taco John]

And I'll just state for the record, I don't have a problem with recxjake starting threads in support of his candidate in a political forum. I've never understood what the problem was.

[CRONUS]

So? At least I don't start threads about myself. Even recxjake hasn't reached Logical/Doom/Whatever you call yourself levels yet.


Not sure what you are talking about, but OK.

Never mind I know what you are talking about, I just misunderstood your point, thought you meant I was suggesting myself for political purposes.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The problem is that TJ and Recx come off as Information Ministers, not people who are even conscious of the decisions they are making.

It's almost as though their responses are pre-programmed code in support of Candidate A/B, and wholly absent from critical thinking.

[CRONUS]

The problem is that TJ and Recx come off as Information Ministers, not people who are even conscious of the decisions they are making.

It's almost as though their responses are pre-programmed code in support of Candidate A/B, and wholly absent from critical thinking.


I guess that they come across as desperate, and that to me seem unseemly. Heck I have to a small degree come to like Ron Paul, but I see the threads and my reactions is bleaaa another one.

[Taco John]

The thing that interested me the most in the link that I posted was how many red meat republicans were ready to support Hillary in the face of a Ron Paul nomination. The discussion was pretty interesting.

[patteeu]

Mitt, your "lawyers" answer was ridiculous. If you want to LEAD, you don't talk about discussing things with the lawyers, even if that's what you must do. Appear presidential and talk about LEADERSHIP.

I guess the problem with Mitt now is that he's too much of a straight shooter? :shrug:

[Taco John]

I guess the problem with Mitt now is that he's too much of a straight shooter? :shrug:

I guess it depends on which issue you're asking him about.

[BucEyedPea]

I guess the problem with Mitt now is that he's too much of a straight shooter? :shrug:
...as in showing his ignorance of the Constitution he would be sworn to uphold?

You can't be serious pat. :spock:

[patteeu]

...as in showing his ignorance of the Constitution he would be sworn to uphold?

You can't be serious pat. :spock:

When Congress declared war on al Qaeda and then again on Iraq, they did so in a relatively complicated manner. I don't blame Mitt Romney for wanting to consult legal advisers to determine whether yet another declaration would be needed for us to respond to Iran's provocations or whether the current declarations already cover it. If anyone is to blame here, it's Congress for making their declarations more complicated than they need to be. They even confused you into thinking they weren't declarations at all.

[BucEyedPea]

I love your liberal loose constructionism.
Not to mention your belief in fantasy about Iranian provocations alleged by those who claimed Iraq has WND.

[patteeu]

I love your liberal loose constructionism.
Not to mention your belief in fantasy about Iranian provocations alleged by those who claimed Iraq has WND.

As to "loose constructionism", I'm not the one making up requirements not found in the Constitution, you are. :shrug:

As to Iranian provocations, where do you get your confidence that it's a fantasy? It's not just neocons and Bush administration officials pointing the finger at Iran. It's also our Army commanders on the ground in Iraq and their mid-level officers corps. It could all be a widespread conspiracy to mislead us, but I doubt it. What's your evidence to the contrary?

[Taco John]

When Congress declared war on al Qaeda and then again on Iraq, they did so in a relatively complicated manner.

Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.

[patteeu]

Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.

Sure they did, didn't you hear your former candidate Obama taking Hillary to task over it?

[StcChief]

As to "loose constructionism", I'm not the one making up requirements not found in the Constitution, you are. :shrug:

As to Iranian provocations, where do you get your confidence that it's a fantasy? It's not just neocons and Bush administration officials pointing the finger at Iran. It's also our Army commanders on the ground in Iraq and their mid-level officers corps. It could all be a widespread conspiracy to mislead us, but I doubt it. What's your evidence to the contrary?

After the fact evidence will appear when Iran NUKES Isreal. and admits it. Will just wait with baited breathe for that to happen.

Reaction is our only approach :rolleyes:

[Adept Havelock]

After the fact evidence will appear when Iran NUKES Isreal. and admits it. Will just wait with baited breathe for that to happen.

Reaction is our only approach :rolleyes:


Israel has nuclear weapons including MRBM's (some consider the Jericho missiles to be ICBM's due to range).

Why can't they defend themselves? :hmmm:

[chagrin]

I love your liberal loose constructionism.
Not to mention your belief in fantasy about Iranian provocations alleged by those who claimed Iraq has WND.

Have you already started drinking over there in Tampa? Are you serious? A Fantasy about Iranian Provocations?

My God, you are absolutely insane.

[chagrin]

Another thing, get off the WMD argument already, you cannot tie that to your delusions of persecution by the Republican Leadership

[Taco John]

Sure they did, didn't you hear your former candidate Obama taking Hillary to task over it?


That wasn't a declaration of war.

[Nightfyre]

To quote "Wag the Dog";
"Congress hasn't declared war since WWII."

[patteeu]

To quote "Wag the Dog";
"Congress hasn't declared war since WWII."

1. "Wag the Dog" came out before Congress declared war on al Qaeda and Iraq.

2. Generally speaking, the movies aren't the best place to get your history lessons.

[BucEyedPea]

To quote "Wag the Dog";
"Congress hasn't declared war since WWII."
This is true. Sometimes Hollywood is correct.

But why is that?
It's due to our membership in the UN and the subsequent UN Participation Act which affects our rule of law under our Constitution.

What has been the results?
Well, for years it was the conservatives that complained about the above getting America embroiled in endless no win wars like NK, Vietnam and Now Iraq because they are not declared wars but UN military actions. Now, the conservatives have flipped.

Restore the Republic!!

[patteeu]

This is true. Sometimes Hollywood is correct.

But why is that?
It's due to our membership in the UN and the subsequent UN Participation Act which affects our rule of law under our Constitution.

What has been the results?
Well, for years it was the conservatives that complained about the above getting America embroiled in endless no win wars like NK, Vietnam and Now Iraq because they are not declared wars but UN military actions. Now, the conservatives have flipped.

Restore the Republic!!

How have the conservatives flipped? It wasn't the UN imploring us to act against al Qaeda and Saddam. If anything, most of the other important members of the UN (except for Britain) were working to frustrate our efforts. The UN was a tool of the US-led coalition, not the other way around.

[RedDread]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

How have the conservatives flipped? It wasn't the UN imploring us to act against al Qaeda and Saddam. If anything, most of the other important members of the UN (except for Britain) were working to frustrate our efforts. The UN was a tool of the US-led coalition, not the other way around.
We've been over this before many times pat. Please refer to my archive if you need a refresher.

Other than that, if you read paleo-conservative sources aka traditional conservative literature you'd be aware of the conservative stance on this. Time to do some research. I don't have time to bring you up to speed on the conservative ( aka classical liberal) movement's history regarding such matters.

[Taco John]

1. "Wag the Dog" came out before Congress declared war on al Qaeda and Iraq.

2. Generally speaking, the movies aren't the best place to get your history lessons.


I'm not sure where you're getting your history lessons, but you'll find more historical accuracy in watching the Flintstones than whoever is telling you that we declared war against Iraq. We didn't. You know this of course. You are just playing fast and loose with the constitution.

We did not declare war against Iraq. No matter how much you try to catapult the propaganda that we did, this war is still constitutionally illegal.

[patteeu]

We've been over this before many times pat. Please refer to my archive if you need a refresher.

Other than that, if you read paleo-conservative sources aka traditional conservative literature you'd be aware of the conservative stance on this. Time to do some research. I don't have time to bring you up to speed on the conservative ( aka classical liberal) movement's history regarding such matters.

You've never been able to make this case before so I'm not surprised you can't make it now. And paleocons are racists,* why would I want to read their literature?

----------
* BEP-speak

[BucEyedPea]

It's not that I can't. It's time intensive. I don't have the time except for some quick posts. I see you're acting like penchief now: accuse, accuse, accuse....educate me.

[patteeu]

It's not that I can't. It's time intensive. I don't have the time except for some quick posts. I see you're acting like penchief now: accuse, accuse, accuse....educate me.

You suggested that it was the UN who got us involved in "endless no win wars like NK, Vietnam and Now Iraq". I'd like to hear how it is the UN who got us into the war in Iraq as opposed to the Bush administration and it's neocon advisers. Didn't you watch as the Bush administration brought the UN along kicking and screaming? Your assertion is ridiculous. I'm a critic of the UN and I oppose any efforts on the parts of globalists to surrender US sovereignty to that organization, but you take this concept to a paranoid extreme.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Tinfoilhat.jpg

[Amnorix]

You suggested that it was the UN who got us involved in "endless no win wars like NK, Vietnam and Now Iraq". I'd like to hear how it is the UN who got us into the war in Iraq as opposed to the Bush administration and it's neocon advisers. Didn't you watch as the Bush administration brought the UN along kicking and screaming? Your assertion is ridiculous. I'm a critic of the UN and I oppose any efforts on the parts of globalists to surrender US sovereignty to that organization, but you take this concept to a paranoid extreme.


I'm not familiar with BEP's posts in this subject matter, but I will state that the US's participation in both the Korean and Vietnam wars was entirely a US matter. Korea was a UN effort, of course, in theory, but it was the US who spearheaded the effort and pushed it through the UN.

Vietnam wasn't even a UN-mandated war, if my memory serves, so how blame for US involvement could be laid at its feet is beyond me.

Say what you like about the UN, but don't blame it for stuff that the US did, or UN actions that ONLY occured BECAUSE the US was pushign so hard for it.

Note that this comment is not directed at Patteeu, but rather at anyone who would make such statements.

[BucEyedPea]

Once again, pat, you extrapolate your own meaning and alter my words to "the UN got us involved." I never said that. LMAO.Obvisously, there's no duplication so there's no communication. Only an attempt to deflect via parsing a la Bill Clinton.

BTW the biggest tin foil hats of all are those who believe SH had WMDs! And believe the same thing about Iran.

One of my neighbors is a therapist, and will give you a free 45 minutes on the couch so you can handle your tendency to project.

If you go to the Federalist Society's site, which is conservative legal source, you'll find some good info there on this.

[BucEyedPea]

That's not true Amnorix. Those "military actions" were conducted under SEATO which was under the UN, as is NATO. A lot of people don't know that. In face, some conservative sources claim that we actually were winning NK, but due to UN oversight it was lost.

My point is more that Declaring a War is based on the support of the people's reps, and has a clearcut beginning and end and is more likely to be won. This has not been the case in police actions.

If you go to the Federalist Society's site, which is conservative legal source, you'll find some good info there on this.

( I meant to put this last sent here but also did it on the other post.)

[patteeu]

Once again, you extrapolate your own meaning and alter my words to "the UN got us involved." I never said that. LMAO.Obvisously, there's no duplication so there's no communication. Only an attempt to deflect via parsing a la Bill Clinton.

BTW the biggest tin foil hats of all are those who believe SH had WMDs! And believe the same thing about Iran.

One of my neighbors is a therapist, and will give you a free 45 minutes on the couch so you can handle your tendency to project.

OK, I won't paraphrase, I'll quote you instead. Here is what you say got us involved in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq:

It's due to our membership in the UN and the subsequent UN Participation Act which affects our rule of law under our Constitution.

That assertion is unsupportable AFAICS. :shrug:

[BucEyedPea]

Did you say something?

[Nightfyre]

I'm not sure where you're getting your history lessons, but you'll find more historical accuracy in watching the Flintstones than whoever is telling you that we declared war against Iraq. We didn't. You know this of course. You are just playing fast and loose with the constitution.

We did not declare war against Iraq. No matter how much you try to catapult the propaganda that we did, this war is still constitutionally illegal.
Quoting for Emphasis.