Is Taco John gay for Ron Paul? [Archive]

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:00 PM

PunkinDrublic

10-12-2007, 04:04 PM

There's a lot to like about Ron Paul. From his muscular embrace of individual freedom and his rock-hard abhorrence of socialism to his chiseled good legal principles strictly drawn from the constitution and his tight assumptions about the power of free markets, he'd turn the heads of most red-blooded, right-thinking men. Unfortunately, if you get too close, he's got a noxious foreign policy halitosis going that invariably ruins the mood for me.

Hey I'm all for Ron Paul running as an independent and playing the spoiler role. Between him and the Christian facist Dobson refusing to commit to any of the candidates on the right I'd like to see the right as fractured as possible.

Nightfyre

10-12-2007, 04:06 PM

There's a lot to like about Ron Paul. From his muscular embrace of individual freedom and his rock-hard abhorrence of socialism to his chiseled good legal principles strictly drawn from the constitution and his tight assumptions about the power of free markets, he'd turn the heads of most red-blooded, right-thinking men. Unfortunately, if you get too close, he's got a noxious foreign policy halitosis going that invariably ruins the mood for me.
See, this is cute, because his views on foreign policy are perfectly aligned with the constitution, which you say is a positive trait right before you bash it. But hate on.... by all means... hate on.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 04:08 PM

There's a lot to like about Ron Paul. From his muscular embrace of individual freedom and his rock-hard abhorrence of socialism to his chiseled good legal principles strictly drawn from the constitution and his tight assumptions about the power of free markets, he'd turn the heads of most red-blooded, right-thinking men. Unfortunately, if you get too close, he's got a noxious foreign policy halitosis going that invariably ruins the mood for me.

I'm sure you've covered this somewhere but is this enough to keep you from voting for him if he was the Rep candidate? I'm getting the feeling, at least for me personally, that there is going to be a serious "lesser of two evils" decision come this election.

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:25 PM

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:27 PM

See, this is cute, because his views on foreign policy are perfectly aligned with the constitution, which you say is a positive trait right before you bash it. But hate on.... by all means... hate on.

The Constitution doesn't dictate what type of foreign policy we should have, contrary to what many Paul supporters seem to think. But if you simply meant that a neo-isolationist foreign policy is allowed by the Constitution, I agree.

Nightfyre

10-12-2007, 04:28 PM

The Constitution doesn't dictate what type of foreign policy we should have, contrary to what many Paul supporters seem to think. But if you simply meant that a neo-isolationist foreign policy is allowed by the Constitution, I agree.
No, what I meant was war without declaration. Oh that's right, you still believe congress declared war.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:31 PM

I'm sure you've covered this somewhere but is this enough to keep you from voting for him if he was the Rep candidate? I'm getting the feeling, at least for me personally, that there is going to be a serious "lesser of two evils" decision come this election.

What? You don't make it a point to follow my every post and take note of my positions on these things? LOL, I don't blame you.

Yes, if Ron Paul wins the nomination, I'll be voting for him.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:33 PM

No, what I meant was war without declaration. Oh that's right, you still believe congress declared war.

That's right. They certainly could have done it more clearly to keep people like you and Taco from getting it wrong, but afaic they carried out their constitutional role.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 04:35 PM

If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, Ron Paul's campaign is going to get him on the ballot in one way or the other.

You'll have the choice between the lesser of two evils, and then The Champion of the Constitution.

So you tell me who you think people will go for.

My problem with Paul is that he seems to be a bit too hardcore (I can't think of another way to put it) for a lot people to be happy voting for him. I know there are loud and passionate people saying his name but the same was true of Perot.

Nightfyre

10-12-2007, 04:36 PM

That's right.
Congress hasn't declared war since June 5th, 1942. It is a fact.

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:37 PM

The Constitution doesn't dictate what type of foreign policy we should have, contrary to what many Paul supporters seem to think. But if you simply meant that a neo-isolationist foreign policy is allowed by the Constitution, I agree.

No, but the founders were pretty clear in their advice as to what kind of foreign policy we should run, and regardless of what you personally think, their advice is still relevant today.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 04:39 PM

What? You don't make it a point to follow my every post and take note of my positions on these things? LOL, I don't blame you.

Yes, if Ron Paul wins the nomination, I'll be voting for him.

Do you read every post in this forum? I'd be afraid of suffering a "psychotic break" and ending up in a nut house. Which, now that I think about it, would be much like sitting in this forum too much anyway.

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:39 PM

That's right. They certainly could have done it more clearly to keep people like you and Taco from getting it wrong, but afaic they carried out their constitutional role.

There was no declaration of war. If there was, we'd have already won it and be home by now.

If this was a declared war, we wouldn't have needed to sneak around the constitution by going to war under the authority of a UN resolution.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:41 PM

Congress hasn't declared war since June 5th, 1942. It is a fact.

LMAO @ "It is a fact"

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:42 PM

Do you read every post in this forum? I'd be afraid of suffering a "psychotic break" and ending up in a nut house. Which, now that I think about it, would be much like sitting in this forum too much anyway.

Heck no. I was just joking around about that. :)

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:42 PM

You have to understand Nightfyre... Patteau believes that we're currently in World War XCLVI

BucEyedPea

10-12-2007, 04:43 PM

Of course the Constitution doesn't "dictate" what our foreign policy should be. It's a document of "specific and enumerated powers" though and as such operates as a restraint on federal power. It does, however, specifically state the purpose of the Constitution which is that this more perfect union is to provide for the common defense, grants authority to repel any sudden attacks to the CI militarly and that the power to declare war is congress'es alone. It doesn't specifically authorize aggression or offense. That there rules out pre-emptive war. That idea came from Hitler, not the Constitution nor the FFs. That's all I need. KISS!

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:45 PM

There was no declaration of war. If there was, we'd have already won it and be home by now.

If this was a declared war, we wouldn't have needed to sneak around the constitution by going to war under the authority of a UN resolution.

The constitutional requirement was met with the Congress' authorization to use force. The dance at the UN was just political window dressing for purposes of both international diplomacy and domestic politics. There's no such thing as sneaking around the Constitution. Either you follow it or you don't. In this case, we did.

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:46 PM

The constitutional requirement was met with the Congress' authorization to use force.

An illegal/unconstitutional power transfer does not equal a declaration of war.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 04:47 PM

Can we get back to whether Taco John is gay for Ron Paul? I tried to stick with the theme with my first post. I think it's time for Taco to come out of the closet and address this important issue. ;)

pikesome

10-12-2007, 04:48 PM

No, but the founders were pretty clear in their advice as to what kind of foreign policy we should run, and regardless of what you personally think, their advice is still relevant today.

I'm not sure the founders were that unified in their feelings toward foreign policy. Washington's Farewell Address did, however, become the basis for most of our early policy, that's probably the closest we can come to a consensus. It also must be remembered that Jefferson violated his own stated policies with the Louisiana Purchase.

BucEyedPea

10-12-2007, 04:50 PM

An illegal/unconstitutional power transfer does not equal a declaration of war.
Yup! We're gonna have to play the circle game again.

You have it right. The authorization transferred congressional authority to the President to decide when he could use force instead. So Congress, wimps and cowards that they are rewrote the Constitution. Even Bush knows this since he calls himself "The Decider."

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:50 PM

Can we get back to whether Taco John is gay for Ron Paul? I tried to stick with the theme with my first post. I think it's time for Taco to come out of the closet and address this important issue. ;)

Haha! Totally gay.

I just converted two co-workers and my boss today by showing them the "Ron Paul: A New Hope" video. Tomorrow, I'm spending two hours on a busy intersection with a Ron Paul sign.

:)

Taco John

10-12-2007, 04:52 PM

Speaking of being gay...

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-10-12-gman.jpg

BucEyedPea

10-12-2007, 04:54 PM

I'm not sure the founders were that unified in their feelings toward foreign policy. Washington's Farewell Address did, however, become the basis for most of our early policy, that's probably the closest we can come to a consensus. It also must be remembered that Jefferson violated his own stated policies with the Louisiana Purchase.

I don't know that they were that un-unified on this subject. Ar eyou certain of that? I'd read some of their quotes on the topic, and they seem pretty unified. Franklin seemed the most anti-war. The Preamble's language is clear enough to me and I posted it just days ago. ( I'll get it. I owned pat in that thread! :D )

How did Jefferson violate his own polices regarding LA purchase?
If it was his own policy, but not anything in the Constitution, I'd think he'd
have a right to change his mind.

patteeu

10-12-2007, 05:07 PM

Haha! Totally gay.

I just converted two co-workers and my boss today by showing them the "Ron Paul: A New Hope" video. Tomorrow, I'm spending two hours on a busy intersection with a Ron Paul sign.

:)

You recruit the unsuspecting just like the most aggressive gays too! Fortunately, the kids don't vote so they're probably safe. LOL

(That first part was TIC, but I once knew this gay guy whose m.o. was to befriend straight, college-aged guys with drinking, drug, or social problems in the bar district of a large university town (watch out Hydrae) and eventually try to turn them. According to his roommate, he was surprisingly successful, at least in the one-night sense, with this strategy.)

pikesome

10-12-2007, 05:16 PM

I don't know that they were that un-unified on this subject. Ar eyou certain of that? I'd read some of their quotes on the topic, and they seem pretty unified. Franklin seemed the most anti-war. The Preamble's language is clear enough to me and I posted it just days ago. ( I'll get it. I owned pat in that thread! :D )

How did Jefferson violate his own polices regarding LA purchase?
If it was his own policy, but not anything in the Constitution, I'd think he'd
have a right to change his mind.

I was referring to foreign policy in a larger sense, there were some who wanted to remain tight with France (Franklin springs to mind) while others wanted to rebuild relations with England (The Federalists). Besides the concept that the Fed Gov was to be the only party to conduct foreign policy I'm not aware of anything before the Farewell Address that could be viewed as consensus. Many different opinions on which way to go.

Jefferson was both about strict following of the Cons and small Fed Gov, that didn't really jive well with what was done since there were many questions on whether it was legal for him to enter into the treaty. It was grey area at the time and contrasted with his previous stance.

BucEyedPea

10-12-2007, 06:37 PM

CRONUS

10-12-2007, 07:03 PM

If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, Ron Paul's campaign is going to get him on the ballot in one way or the other.

You'll have the choice between the lesser of two evils, and then The Champion of the Constitution.

So you tell me who you think people will go for.In this case I will be voting Ron Paul or any other libertarian that party nominates. It will be a wasted vote but I refuse to vote for Hillary or Giulliani.

Laz

10-12-2007, 07:32 PM

isn't anyone pretty passionate once they choose a presidential candidate they like?

:shrug:

hell ... if Taco is then Patteau is having a gay gang bang with the entire GOP party.

pikesome

10-12-2007, 08:01 PM

Well they can have their opinions, discuss and have their say in such matters.
But the rest makes no sense to me at all. That's not a grey area. The President has the power to make treaties with advice and consent of the Senate provided that 2/3rds present concur with the treaties provisions. (Article II.2.2)

Foreign policy is also part of Presidential authority. France and England were constantly violating US sovereignty during the Napoleonic wars and Jefferson avoided a war in the process by buying LA.

Monroe secured Florida ( Yay!) from Spain.

It wasn't a cut and dried question at the time. There was a great deal of argument about it. So much so that there was actually a move for some of the states to secede over the issue. Cooler heads prevailed but it was an early test of how the Cons was actually going to be interpreted, at a time when it's signatories were still alive.

SNR

10-12-2007, 08:07 PM

isn't anyone pretty passionate once they choose a presidential candidate they like?

:shrug:

hell ... if Taco is then Patteau is having a gay gang bang with the entire GOP party.Patteau likes Brownback? :spock:

a1na2

10-12-2007, 08:12 PM

Is Taco John gay for Ron Paul?

Was there ever a question?

Frankie

10-12-2007, 08:40 PM

Is Taco John gay for Ron Paul?

No more than recxjake is for this guy:

http://www.mathies.com/blog/giuliani_drag.jpg

:p

a1na2

10-12-2007, 08:57 PM

No more than recxjake is for this guy:

http://www.mathies.com/blog/giuliani_drag.jpg

:p

Now we know what frankie looks like!

Fishpicker

10-12-2007, 09:01 PM

Now we know what frankie looks like!

great comeback!!! that took just under 17 minutes. GJYGDB

Taco John

10-12-2007, 09:46 PM

You recruit the unsuspecting just like the most aggressive gays too! Fortunately, the kids don't vote so they're probably safe. LOL

(That first part was TIC, but I once knew this gay guy whose m.o. was to befriend straight, college-aged guys with drinking, drug, or social problems in the bar district of a large university town (watch out Hydrae) and eventually try to turn them. According to his roommate, he was surprisingly successful, at least in the one-night sense, with this strategy.)

Remind me the next time that you have a gay story that I won't want to read about it. :shake:

Taco John

10-12-2007, 09:49 PM

In this case I will be voting Ron Paul or any other libertarian that party nominates. It will be a wasted vote but I refuse to vote for Hillary or Giulliani.

The only wasted vote that I can imagine is voting for someone you don't believe in because they are the lesser of two evils.

a1na2

10-13-2007, 06:50 AM

Yes Taco, everyone knows that you are gay. Stop trying to deflect.

patteeu

10-13-2007, 05:36 PM

isn't anyone pretty passionate once they choose a presidential candidate they like?

:shrug:

hell ... if Taco is then Patteau is having a gay gang bang with the entire GOP party.

Dick Cheney and I have withdrawn from the festivities to an undisclosed location. LMAO

Nightwish

10-13-2007, 07:57 PM

And is his John Elway inflatable doll getting jealous of his newfound man crush? Dude you're turning the DC forum into your own personal Ron Paul shrine.
Possibly. I doubt he's any more gay for Ron Paul than Recxjake is for 9/11's favorite Drag Queen.

PunkinDrublic

10-14-2007, 09:05 AM

Possibly. I doubt he's any more gay for Ron Paul than Recxjake is for 9/11's favorite Drag Queen.

I've given Recxjake a hard time on this board but I honestly think there's still hope for the guy. One day he will get a better idea of how the real world works and abandon the neocon mindset that his parents probably inundated him with his whole life.

a1na2

10-14-2007, 10:10 AM

I've given Recxjake a hard time on this board but I honestly think there's still hope for the guy. One day he will get a better idea of how the real world works and abandon the neocon mindset that his parents probably inundated him with his whole life.

So when are all the liberals going to abandon the mindset that their parents probably inundated them with their whole life?

Your comment is basically the fundamental way both parties populate their ranks. I seriously doubt that many here were raised in a home that is politically indifferent, the republicans were raised in a republican household, the democrats were raised in a democrat household and the radical left wing nut jobs were raised by wolves.

PunkinDrublic

10-14-2007, 10:30 AM

So when are all the liberals going to abandon the mindset that their parents probably inundated them with their whole life?

Your comment is basically the fundamental way both parties populate their ranks. I seriously doubt that many here were raised in a home that is politically indifferent, the republicans were raised in a republican household, the democrats were raised in a democrat household and the radical left wing nut jobs were raised by wolves.

Have you read Jakes posts? He argues like a guy who can't think for himself. His idea of a good rebuttal is to post the latest newsmax article he read. I would say the same thing about someone who cut and pasted a moveon.org e-mail they received. IMO once he develops some better critical thinking skills he will come to realize the failure of neoconservative policy and why it doesn't work.

a1na2

10-14-2007, 11:08 AM

Have you read Jakes posts? He argues like a guy who can't think for himself. His idea of a good rebuttal is to post the latest newsmax article he read. I would say the same thing about someone who cut and pasted a moveon.org e-mail they received. IMO once he develops some better critical thinking skills he will come to realize the failure of neoconservative policy and why it doesn't work.

I have read what he says. I pretty much ignore his commentary as it is not realistic even from the conservative side. But I've also read some of ht commentary from the liberals on the board and they don't fall too far from Jake.

patteeu

10-15-2007, 09:57 AM

... and the radical left wing nut jobs were raised by wolves.

LMAO

Mr. Kotter

10-15-2007, 10:28 AM

...he will come to realize the failure of neoconservative policy and why it doesn't work.

FTR, what is your critique of "neoconservative" policy....and why has it failed??? Seriously. :shrug:

I'd really be interested in a well structured and analytical response. If you've already articulated it, can you direct me there with a link?

Thanks, in advance.

Taco John

10-15-2007, 10:48 AM

I can't imagine his critique would be any different than the generally accepted critique of it: it's unamerican, it's creates more terrorists, and it requires America to pre-emptively attack defenseless nations, putting millions of innocent people in the middle of war.