PDA

View Full Version : Elections Jon Stewart Annihilates The Corporate Media For Ignoring Ron Paul's 2012 Campaign


|Zach|
08-15-2011, 11:39 PM
"How did Ron Paul become the 13th floor of a hotel?"

<embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:394630' width='512' height='288' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed>

"John Huntsman? If all of John Huntsman's supporters met at the same Ames, Iowa Quiznos the Fire Marshall would say...that is fine. No problem."

"Huntsman was the only Morman running in the straw poll and he came 2nd amongst Mormans."

ClevelandBronco
08-15-2011, 11:41 PM
Damn, Z. Please try to post funny comedians only.

SNR
08-15-2011, 11:50 PM
I really would like to see Ron Paul win the Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina caucus.

Yes, I'm pulling for him in the election, but the fireworks in the media would be fucking hilarious. Admittedly, that reason is the biggest one for wanting him to win one of those.

Taco John
08-16-2011, 12:10 AM
I thought that was pretty funny. I've given up on the media giving Paul the attention he deserves. I've been through this once before already, and my confidence in the process and the media is pretty well shot. A video like this is comforting, but sad at the same time.

I don't have any illusions that Ron Paul is going to win the whole thing. I just know that myself and people as obstinate as I am will be voting for Paul regardless, and that it's doubtful the Republican candidate will be able to win without us - at least they weren't able to last time. I suppose we'll see about this time.

orange
08-16-2011, 12:16 AM
There's clearly something going on, like I said the other night when Taco John showed that Politico page. I mean, it's become blatant, now.

I'm real hesitant to use the word, but...
... Paul is being Alinskyized.




[edit] make that

"We the people" are real "hesitant" to use the "word", but...
... "Paul" is being Alinskyized. :thumb:

Pitt Gorilla
08-16-2011, 12:22 AM
Didn't the Rs in Michigan (or something like that) not allow him in the debate in 08? I mean, there is ignoring a guy and then there is deliberately trying to keep him silent.

SNR
08-16-2011, 12:28 AM
I and many others were saying the marginalizing was happening in 07-08 (which is was) but were told that it was only because Ron Paul was putting up shitty poll numbers.

He's in double digits in a candidate field of 8+ (about where any presidential candidate would love to be) and this stuff is happening.

Can I PLLEEEEEASE say "I told you so"?

Doesn't matter. I'm going to do it anyway.

I told you so.

Chocolate Hog
08-16-2011, 12:32 AM
Didn't the Rs in Michigan (or something like that) not allow him in the debate in 08? I mean, there is ignoring a guy and then there is deliberately trying to keep him silent.

It was New Hampshire where he was polling ahead of Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani yet both of them got to be in the debate. In Nevada abunch of Ron Paul delegates came to the state convention to vote for him so the Nevada GOP had to change the rules.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 07:22 AM
There's clearly something going on, like I said the other night when Taco John showed that Politico page. I mean, it's become blatant, now.

I'm real hesitant to use the word, but...
... Paul is being Alinskyized.




[edit] make that

"We the people" are real "hesitant" to use the "word", but...
... "Paul" is being Alinskyized. :thumb:
How is that an Alinsky tactic? I don't see it.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 07:22 AM
It was New Hampshire where he was polling ahead of Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani yet both of them got to be in the debate. In Nevada abunch of Ron Paul delegates came to the state convention to vote for him so the Nevada GOP had to change the rules.

Something similar happened in LA too. The Republican party is corrupt. I'd un-register tommorrow and become an Independent but then I can't nominate here.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 07:25 AM
Plus Bush placed third in the Iowa Straw poll and still won the election. I am now reading Bachmann won by only 152 votes with voters bussed in. Some votes also went missing but I don't want to go there.

Dave Lane
08-16-2011, 07:40 AM
I and many others were saying the marginalizing was happening in 07-08 (which is was) but were told that it was only because Ron Paul was putting up shitty poll numbers.

He's in double digits in a candidate field of 8+ (about where any presidential candidate would love to be) and this stuff is happening.

Can I PLLEEEEEASE say "I told you so"?

Doesn't matter. I'm going to do it anyway.

I told you so.

You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 07:50 AM
You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.

What crazy stance? Fiscal responsibility? Abiding by the Constitution? Stop dropping freedom bombs on brown people?

Wow, what a lunatic...

alnorth
08-16-2011, 07:52 AM
You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.

So, I take it you want to invade Iran too, then?

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 07:53 AM
You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.

Wow, no substance—AGAIN! Classic projection too.

stevieray
08-16-2011, 08:15 AM
If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table.


ya, you're intimidated.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 08:58 AM
What crazy stance? Fiscal responsibility? Abiding by the Constitution? Stop dropping freedom bombs on brown people?

Wow, what a lunatic...

Now Dave is no lunatic, just ask him.

I can relate to many of Pauls stances, but I can't push a button for him. For all of you Paulites out there, he does come off as wacko to many Americans when he speaks. Many just feel he is too kooky.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 09:02 AM
Now Dave is no lunatic, just ask him.

I can relate to many of Pauls stances, but I can't push a button for him. For all of you Paulites out there, he does come off as wacko to many Americans when he speaks. Many just feel he is too kooky.

Many is an unspecified number. Many think he makes a lot of sense and that current policies and politics are kooky even before Obama.

Instead, the New Right relies on FOX, a Murdoch network—a man who has socialist roots—who once worshipped a bust of Lenin....and this was not a passing youthful fad either. They think they're getting "conservative" news. Now that's kooky in my book.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 09:04 AM
Now Dave is no lunatic, just ask him.

I can relate to many of Pauls stances, but I can't push a button for him. For all of you Paulites out there, he does come off as wacko to many Americans when he speaks. Many just feel he is too kooky.

People write him off as crazy because he takes viewpoints not shared by the majority of politicians and members of the mass media. Since he is by and large the only one in Washington expressing those opinions, he gets ignored and written off as a loon.

Meanwhile, we continue to enact the same policies that have bankrupted the country, created an unsustainable economic model, and dragged ourselves into quagmire after quagmire in shitty 3rd world countries.

So who is the real lunatic? The ones doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Or the one offering a different solution to the problem? (using the same principles that allowed him to very acurately predict the previously mentioned failures)

Cannibal
08-16-2011, 09:07 AM
Pauls best attribute that makes him appealing to both sides of the aisle is his willingness to end our unsustainable imperialism.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 09:07 AM
The real lunatics are the ones listening to this man's network and thinking it represents Conservative thinking:

Rupert Murdoch's Socialist Roots (http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7143123/lathams-law.thtml')

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 09:08 AM
Pauls best attribute that makes him appealing to both sides of the aisle is his willingness to end our unsustainable imperialism.

I happen to agree. This is why, many on the right think he's whacko though. Imagine that ignoring the lessons of history.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 09:09 AM
I happen to agree. This is why, many on the right think he's whacko though. Imagine that ignoring the lessons of history.
Well, to be fair, ignoring history is pretty much the generally accepted norm...

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 09:13 AM
Well, to be fair, ignoring history is pretty much the generally accepted norm...

Unfortunately this is true.

ROYC75
08-16-2011, 09:49 AM
I truly believe Ron is a smart man, full of Libertarian values and ways. Something this country could use a lot of right now. IMHO, a hard line stance of pure libertarian ways at one time will set off a chain reaction around the world with many of our close allies making them wonder if we are even on their side.

When the world needs to get rid of nuclear bombs, missiles, etc. he comes off as , who cares if they have one, everybody else around them has one. Who care what they do, let our allies fend for themselves.

To you Paulites, How far would Ron Paul take us back in the world of stability with our allies? Can we let the world huddle around against us in the grand scheme of nuclear bombs? Do we set back and let countries take over smaller countries because they want to get bigger,putting themselves on a larger scale with other countries.

I can handle Pauls financial views of our country,I think about all of it is spot on. I just fear his FP in the world could get us into a big mess, ( not to say we are not anyway).

I do need to follow and read up on him more. He would do better if he could tone down how he comes across in his rebuttal. He doesn't give a lot of people a good feel about being presidential.

Cave Johnson
08-16-2011, 09:52 AM
People write him off as crazy because he takes viewpoints not shared by the majority of politicians and members of the mass media. Since he is by and large the only one in Washington expressing those opinions, he gets ignored and written off as a loon.

Meanwhile, we continue to enact the same policies that have bankrupted the country, created an unsustainable economic model, and dragged ourselves into quagmire after quagmire in shitty 3rd world countries.

So who is the real lunatic? The ones doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Or the one offering a different solution to the problem? (using the same principles that allowed him to very acurately predict the previously mentioned failures)

More than his view being "fringe", the real issue is that he looks as presidential as Dennis Kucinich.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:03 AM
More than his view being "fringe", the real issue is that he looks as presidential as Dennis Kucinich.

Yeah, but that's a marketing argument. Unfortunately, that's what people buy—image.
No wonder America is where she is today. Sad.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:04 AM
What crazy stance? Fiscal responsibility? Abiding by the Constitution? Stop dropping freedom bombs on brown people?

Wow, what a lunatic...

My biggest issue with Paul is his foreign policy. He has a tendency to ignore reality in favor of what his philosophy is.

ChiTown
08-16-2011, 10:05 AM
My biggest issue with Paul is his foreign policy. He has a tendency to ignore reality in favor of what his philosophy is.

THIS, and it's a MAJOR issue with me.

Dave Lane
08-16-2011, 10:06 AM
Pauls best attribute that makes him appealing to both sides of the aisle is his willingness to end our unsustainable imperialism.

This is the part I agree with him on. His economic plans are madness.

He's not a Libertarian he's an anarchist.

SNR
08-16-2011, 10:07 AM
You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.We've talked about this before. That's fine that you are of that opinion about Paul.

But did you watch the Daily Show clip? That's not objective media. And it's not just FOX. CNN and all those assholes are deliberately ignoring him in this race. And it's not because he has low polling. He's right there in the middle and needs to be taken seriously when it comes to winning some delegates.

Demonize him or praise him, but at least acknowledge that he's running a good campaign at the moment, and that he registered a huge win this weekend.

"CNN knows politics." Uhh... no, not really actually if you're going to be a stupid bitch about weird Libertarian guy who's messing up your election coverage

SNR
08-16-2011, 10:08 AM
This is the part I agree with him on. His economic plans are madness.

He's not a Libertarian he's an anarchist.Dude, I'm friends with anarchists. Paul is no anarchist.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:12 AM
I truly believe Ron is a smart man, full of Libertarian values and ways. Something this country could use a lot of right now. IMHO, a hard line stance of pure libertarian ways at one time will set off a chain reaction around the world with many of our close allies making them wonder if we are even on their side.
Do you think he'd get everything he wants?

When the world needs to get rid of nuclear bombs, missiles, etc. he comes off as , who cares if they have one, everybody else around them has one. Who care what they do, let our allies fend for themselves.
Well, factually it's true, these things get used for defense. The Bush doctrine leads to more nations wanting them. But let's face it, there's no evidence this is the case either. This is being brought to us by the same folks who gave us Iraq and Libya. Don't you see that? The so called "threat" of Iran is really another case of regime change with nukes being the message to motivate the rabble. The rabble, with their knee-jerk responses, are not the thinking people.

Hysteria has been the worse thing to happen since 9/11 because it can be used to control the masses.

To you Paulites, How far would Ron Paul take us back in the world of stability with our allies?
The world has never been stable. Our allies....all of them? I think you may mean Israel here?

Can we let the world huddle around against us in the grand scheme of nuclear bombs?
You actually think the worlds would "huddle against us"? Is the whole world our enemy now? No, I think sovereign nations that can protect themselves against super powers tend to balance the power game out.

Do we set back and let countries take over smaller countries because they want to get bigger,putting themselves on a larger scale with other countries.

Well I think this is an overeaction and it smacks of America needing to be the police of the world.

I can handle Pauls financial views of our country,I think about all of it is spot on. I just fear his FP in the world could get us into a big mess, ( not to say we are not anyway).
I like his FP most and I don't think he can get everything he wants. Should there be a real TRUE threat to America there is no doubt in my mind he would not hesitate to defend it. He still believes in a strong military. Besides we mobilized successfully for two WW's before we had an empire of bases.

I do need to follow and read up on him more. He would do better if he could tone down how he comes across in his rebuttal. He doesn't give a lot of people a good feel about being presidential.
Tone down? Was his rhetoric violent or something?

I just want to not be a country that is the aggressor in starting wars....I think that needs to be toned down.

Cave Johnson
08-16-2011, 10:14 AM
Yeah, but that's a marketing argument. Unfortunately, that's what people buy—image.
No wonder America is where she is today. Sad.

Neither would be taken seriously as a leader, which is a) pretty much the most important job skill for a president and b) where Obama is falling short.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:14 AM
My biggest issue with Paul is his foreign policy. He has a tendency to ignore reality in favor of what his philosophy is.

My biggest issue with Donger is his foreign policy. He has a tendency to ignore reality in favor of what his philosophy is. He's an imperialist that likes to run the world much like the British Empire of the past.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:14 AM
Well, factually it's true, these things get used for defense.

Actually, no, that is incorrect. They've only been used twice in history and neither was defensive. Both were used offensively.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:15 AM
Neither would be taken seriously as a leader, which is a) pretty much the most important job skill for a president and b) where Obama is falling short.

I think results would matter. If he got results they wouldn't care how he appeared or looked. But he'd have to get over that to get elected.

Cannibal
08-16-2011, 10:17 AM
This is the part I agree with him on. His economic plans are madness.

He's not a Libertarian he's an anarchist.

When despite having a majority of Congress and the Executive branch, the Dems continue cave in on pretty much every major economic issue that comes up, it doesn't seem to matter much economically speaking in my opinion.

We could least get the wars and foreign bases ended with Ron Paul

Cave Johnson
08-16-2011, 10:17 AM
Dude, I'm friends with anarchists. Paul is no anarchist.

Not a lot of anarchist OB/GYNs, I suspect.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:17 AM
Here's a great example of what I mention above. Great being weird and bizarre:

Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:18 AM
Actually, no, that is incorrect. They've only been used twice in history and neither was defensive. Both were used offensively.

I know that but if I said that it would make the right go ballistic. I'm glad you have the honesty to admit it. Then again, it's why you see this in Iran because we do project such things. However, in a nuclear age, anyone who uses them offensively knows they'd be destroyed. So it's different. Besides, Ron Paul is not for nuclear proliferation either.

SNR
08-16-2011, 10:19 AM
All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.You read lots of history, yeah? You disagree with this statement?

Cannibal
08-16-2011, 10:20 AM
Here's a great example of what I mention above. Great being weird and bizarre:

Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

Our day as the Hegemon is coming to an end.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Here's a great example of what I mention above. Great being weird and bizarre:

Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.


Well, see now, here's the thing, SK had been making moves showing they would like to unite. So I'd need to hear more about this situation. I think it's long past due we've been there but I am not on any bandwagon to pull out. I would like the madness regarding the MidEast to end though. That's what I really want. No one else is recommending that. If you would tone down your own guys I'd consider some of the other candidates.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:21 AM
You read lots of history, yeah? You disagree with this statement?

No, I don't.

Brock
08-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Here's a great example of what I mention above. Great being weird and bizarre:

Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

It doesn't sound weird or bizarre to me.

SuperChief
08-16-2011, 10:22 AM
This is the part I agree with him on. His economic plans are madness.

He's not a Libertarian he's an anarchist.

JFC. Just because he's against what Ameriica "stands" for today, doesn't mean he's against America. America today is far from the ideals upon which it was founded. Give me a break, dude. Isolationism isn't anarchy. Economic conservatism and responsibility isn't anarchy. Abiding strictly by the Constitution isn't anarchy.

SNR
08-16-2011, 10:22 AM
No, I don't.How would you propose we avoid collapse? Can that be done entirely through entitlements? Surely some defense cuts are necessary, yeah?

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:23 AM
It doesn't sound weird or bizarre to me.

Other than the fact that we have a defense treaty with South Korea, no, it's not weird or bizarre at all. One that Paul is either unaware of or is choosing to ignore.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:24 AM
How would you propose we avoid collapse? Can that be done entirely through entitlements? Surely some defense cuts are necessary, yeah?

I would cut 20% spending across the board per year. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is untouchable.

SNR
08-16-2011, 10:25 AM
JFC. Just because he's against what Ameriica "stands" for today, doesn't mean he's against America. America today is far from the ideals upon which it was founded. Give me a break, dude. Isolationism isn't anarchy. Economic conservatism and responsibility isn't anarchy. Abiding strictly by the Constitution isn't anarchy.I was listening to Ed Schultz yesterday. He was going back and forth with a caller making fun of Ron Paul. It was mostly about his economic message. Anyway, at the end they both agreed that Ron Paul hates America. The caller asked, "If he hates this country so much then why does he want to control it?" Ed Schultz gave an "I don't know. Good question" and then it went to commercial.

I thought it was pretty funny, actually. It's like watching two pigs roll around in slop together.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:25 AM
Not a lot of anarchist OB/GYNs, I suspect.

Paul is NOT an anarchist. Anyone making that claim is ignorant of what anarchy is and what libertarianism is. The left libertarians are anarchists because they're communitarians—the opposite of Paul. Paul simply believes in Federalism which is limited govt. Many libertarians don't think he's even libertarian enough because he doesn't support using the incorporation doctrine against states to make them more libertarian. Paul is fairly libertarian though. Libertarians are generally mini-anarchists meaning even less govt than what Paul recommends.

The thing is there is soooo much to cut back on, that it would take far more than one term to fix them. I think Paul would put our footing back onto the right direction. That's all one man can do. He has to have Congresses approval to do many of the things he wants. He won't even through those dependent on govt on the street either.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:27 AM
I was listening to Ed Schultz yesterday. He was going back and forth with a caller making fun of Ron Paul. It was mostly about his economic message. Anyway, at the end they both agreed that Ron Paul hates America. The caller asked, "If he hates this country so much then why does he want to control it?" Ed Schultz gave an "I don't know. Good question" and then it went to commercial.

I thought it was pretty funny, actually. It's like watching two pigs roll around in slop together.

LMAO Not only that he doesn't even want to "CONTROL" America. He wants to give it back to the people— not the banksters who have made the political classes and their cronies fat.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:28 AM
I would cut 20% spending across the board per year. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is untouchable.

Paul say fiscal sanity could begin to be restored with just 1% true cuts for seven years.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:29 AM
Paul say fiscal sanity could even be restored with just 1% true cuts for seven years.

That's because he's nuts.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:30 AM
Our day as the Hegemon is coming to an end.

Whether or not Paul is elected even. But it's true. We went hog wild when the Bushies got in. I am counting Bush Senior too.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:30 AM
That's because he's nuts.

You haven't even heard how he breaks it down. That's what's nuts.
Perhaps you don't know what was meant by a true "cut."

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:32 AM
You haven't even heard how he breaks it down. That's what's nuts.
Perhaps you don't know what was meant by a true "cut."

A dollar is a dollar, even for Ron Paul, BEP.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:36 AM
A dollar is a dollar, even for Ron Paul, BEP.

You haven't got a clue what I was referring to. The cuts the politicians talk about are not real cuts. They're cuts in the rate of spending. That's not what I was talking about.

And no a dollar is dollar is a dollar is not true either. It keeps losing value. It's not even a dollar anymore. Look up what it originally meant. There's also NZ and Australian dollars.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:38 AM
You haven't got a clue what I was referring to. The cuts the politicians talk about are not real cuts. They're cuts in the rate of spending. That's not what I was talking about.

And no a dollar is dollar is a dollar is not true either. It keeps losing value. It's not even a dollar anymore. Look up what it originally meant. There's also NZ and Australian dollars.

Can someone translate this into non-crazy?

Jaric
08-16-2011, 10:38 AM
Here's a great example of what I mention above. Great being weird and bizarre:

Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

What's so weird about that?

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:39 AM
What's so weird about that?

To his thinking that makes you a nut.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:40 AM
What's so weird about that?

The fact that we have a mutual defense treaty with ROK.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 10:43 AM
The fact that we have a mutual defense treaty with ROK.

Well hopefully congress will declare a war so we can uphold our end of the treaty. Which is what Ron Paul said. Becuase that's what the constitution says we're supposed to do (have congress declare war)

Why should we unless the Congress declared war?

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:45 AM
Well hopefully congress will declare a war so we can uphold our end of the treaty. Which is what Ron Paul said. Becuase that's what the constitution says we're supposed to do (have congress declare war)

I posted that as an example of Paul's tendency to ignore reality in favor of his philosophy.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:46 AM
Can someone translate this into non-crazy?

The Demise of the Dollar Begins (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/chinese-currency-yuan.html)

Jaric
08-16-2011, 10:46 AM
I posted that as an example of Paul's tendency to ignore reality in favor of his philosophy.

You mean following our constitution?

Listen you can still drop all the freedom bombs you want to, congress just has to declare war before you do it.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:48 AM
I posted that as an example of Paul's tendency to ignore reality in favor of his philosophy.
Your reality is based on falsehoods and lack of evidence. Have you been inside Iran's nuclear facilities? Nope. Have you read Reagan's autobiography and seen how he criticized the Israelis for taking out Iraq's reactor? Apparently not. By your thinkin', Reagan was also a nut.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:48 AM
Listen you can still drop all the freedom bombs you want to, congress just has to declare war before you do it.

That's too complicated for him. Keep it simple.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:51 AM
You mean following our constitution?

Listen you can still drop all the freedom bombs you want to, congress just has to declare war before you do it.

Again, reality. Sure, it can be argued that we shouldn't have gone into Korea without a declaration of war. But, we did. That's reality. It is also reality that, by treaty, we MUST defend ROK in the vent of a NK attack. Like I wrote, Paul either chooses to ignore that fact or isn't aware of it.

Sorry, but that's just weird and bizarre to me, especially considering that he wants to be POTUS.

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:53 AM
Your reality is based on falsehoods and lack of evidence. Have you been inside Iran's nuclear facilities? Nope. Have you read Reagan's autobiography and seen how he criticized the Israelis for taking out Iraq's reactor? Apparently not. By your thinkin', Reagan was also a nut.

Privately, Reagan praised Israel for taking out that reactor.

As for Iran, no, I haven't been inside their facilities. IAEA has, however.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Privately, Reagan praised Israel for taking out that reactor.
Privately he scolded them but he did not want to embarrass them publically. And don't think a few of them didn't stab him in the back for it either because they did.

As for Iran, no, I haven't been inside their facilities. IAEA has, however.

IAEA as we last discussed has not said there is evidence of them making a nuke for weapons.

L.A. Chieffan
08-16-2011, 10:55 AM
ron paul should just start screaming about bulldogs and lipsticks and gays and stuff and then he'll get noticed

Donger
08-16-2011, 10:56 AM
IAEA as we last discussed has not said there is evidence of them making a nuke for weapons.

By treaty, they have to prove that their intentions are peaceful. They haven't. Oh, and IAEA HAS expressed concern that Iran is progressing toward a physics package.

L.A. Chieffan
08-16-2011, 10:56 AM
he was seduced by that gay dude bruno, he has first hand experience

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:03 AM
By treaty, they have to prove that their intentions are peaceful. They haven't. Oh, and IAEA HAS expressed concern that Iran is progressing toward a physics package.
As if that can be proven. They don't need a nuke to do what they want to Israel. It wouldn't be lobed at us but to them if that was the intent. Terrorism works better for them.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:06 AM
Again, reality. Sure, it can be argued that we shouldn't have gone into Korea without a declaration of war. But, we did. That's reality. It is also reality that, by treaty, we MUST defend ROK in the vent of a NK attack. Like I wrote, Paul either chooses to ignore that fact or isn't aware of it.

Sorry, but that's just weird and bizarre to me, especially considering that he wants to be POTUS.

As President he swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says that when you want to drop freedom bombs on another country, congress has to declare war before you do it.

THAT is reality.

And Donger, all that needs happen is Congress to do it's job the way the constitution says it's supposed to, and we can uphold our treaty. I'm not sure how adhering to the supreme law of the land is considered weird and wacky.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:06 AM
As if that can be proven. They don't need a nuke to do what they want to Israel. It wouldn't be lobed at us but to them if that was the intent. Terrorism works better for them.

Sure:

In unusually blunt language, an International Atomic Energy Agency report for the first time suggested Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability, throwing independent weight behind similar Western suspicions.

The IAEA seemed to be cautiously going public with concerns arising from a classified agency analysis leaked in part last year which concluded that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.

The information available to the agency is extensive ... broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," the report said.

"Altogether this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:08 AM
Sure:

In unusually blunt language, an International Atomic Energy Agency report for the first time suggested Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability, throwing independent weight behind similar Western suspicions.

The IAEA seemed to be cautiously going public with concerns arising from a classified agency analysis leaked in part last year which concluded that Iran has already honed explosives expertise relevant to a workable nuclear weapon.

The information available to the agency is extensive ... broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved," the report said.

"Altogether this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
I showed you material in the last debate on this, and many others, where this is misleading and why. I don't have time to do a dragged out repeat and that's not what this thread is about anyway—even though you have a obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with the subject. You're a nut, bat-shit crazy salivating for another war.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:09 AM
As President he swears an oath to uphold the Consitution. The Constitution says that when you want to drop freedom bombs on another country, congress has to declare war before you do it.

THAT is reality.

And Donger, all that needs happen is Congress to do it's job the way the constittion says it's supposed to, and we can uphold our treaty. I'm not sure how adhering to the supreme law of the land is considered weird and wacky.

No, the reality is that we signed that treaty even though congress never declared war. We can argue all day about whether that was or was not the right thing to do, but it doesn't change the FACT that that treaty exists.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:10 AM
No, the reality is that we signed that treaty even though congress never declared war. We can argue all day about whether that was or was not the right thing to do, but it doesn't change the FACT that that treaty exists.

We can get out of a treaty if it violates our Constitution though. Yeah, yeah supreme law of the land—we've done it already. It can't violate that document nevertheless. I put up quotes by the Framers about this point earlier. Search for it.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:11 AM
I showed you material in the last debate on this, and many others, where this is misleading and why. I don't have time to do a dragged out repeat and that's not what this thread is about anyway—even though you have a obsessive-compulsive preoccupation with the subject. You're a nut, bat-shit crazy salivating for another war.

I don't remember what "material" you provided, but it was probably from anti-war.com or some other kook site.

Look, there is only ONE reason to play around with these types of explosives: a fission weapon. If you want to ignore that, fine.

And, you might note that YOU brought up Iran in this thread, sweetie. Who has OCD on this subject again?

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:12 AM
We can get out of a treaty if it violates our Constitution though. Yeah, yeah supreme law of the land—we've done it already. It can't violate that document nevertheless. I put up quotes by the Framers about this point earlier. Search for it.

Sure, and we can terminate the treaty with one year notice. So can ROK.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:13 AM
I don't remember what "material" you provided, but it was probably from anti-war.com or some other kook site.

Look, there is only ONE reason to play around with these types of explosives: a fission weapon. If you want to ignore that, fine.

And, you might note that YOU brought up Iran in this thread, sweetie. Who has OCD on this subject again?

I brought it up as it relates to Paul's view on it which was being discussed. You wanted to obsess about it and go for more—again.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:14 AM
No, the reality is that we signed that treaty even though congress never declared war. We can argue all day about whether that was or was not the right thing to do, but it doesn't change the FACT that that treaty exists.
You aren't listening to me. Let's break down the hypothetical chain of events

NK attacks SK.

Congress looks at treaty we signed and says we're supposed to protect SK if they get attacked.

Congress declares war on NK.

Ron Paul as president executes the war.

Both documents (Treaty and Constitution) have been upheld.

Why is that so wacky to you? That's how the law of the land says things are supposed to go. Why is that so complicated?

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:17 AM
Here's a great blog post by a military man on Paul and it's as if he could be talking to Donger too. Call him a nut Donger.

To a good Brent Budowsky (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/176995-ron-paul-shines-in-iowa-major-media-cheats-him) column, on the media blackout of Ron Paul:

@Brian Barton - I am a Sergeant in the U.S. Army. I support Ron Paul and I support his foreign policy. I am sure you would not dare call me a Paultard to my face.

No, you would give me the same parroted line I hear 100 times a day, "Thank you for your service". When I hear some flabby couch potato like you say that to me it makes me sick. Yes, I serve our country, but our wars do not.

I do my best to keep my men alive while we carry out this sick policy of sticking our noses in other peoples business. When was the last time you had a friend die in your arms or look for the leg that was just blown off of the man next to you? When was the last time you walked past dead children that were killed by U.S. weapons? I'm glad you can sleep at night, because many times I cannot. I have children myself you self righteous SOB. If someone killed my children you can bet I would do everything in my power to seek revenge.

You dare call me rabid and blind? I know what I am talking about. Why don't you grab a gun and head to Iran if you want to fight them so much. Ron Paul is right. They are no threat to us. We need to mind our own business. They hate us not because we are rich and free, they hate us because we are in their countries.

It is people like you that are the biggest threat to this country, not Iran.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:19 AM
You aren't listening to me. Let's break down the hypothetical chain of events

NK attacks SK.

Congress looks at treaty we signed and says we're supposed to protect SK if they get attacked.

Congress declares war on NK.

Ron Paul as president executes the war.

Both documents (Treaty and Constitution) have been upheld.

Why is that so wacky to you? That's how the law of the land says things are supposed to go. Why is that so complicated?

You're talking to someone who thinks war helps economies. Meanwhile, he calls people nuts who disagree with him.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:19 AM
You aren't listening to me. Let's break down the hypothetical chain of events

NK attacks SK.

Congress looks at treaty we signed and says we're supposed to protect SK if they get attacked.

Congress declares war on NK.

Ron Paul as president executes the war.

Both documents (Treaty and Constitution) have been upheld.

Why is that so wacky to you? That's how the law of the land says things are supposed to go. Why is that so complicated?

Let's go back to Paul's quote:

"Why should we unless the Congress declared war?"

Because we are treaty-bound to defend ROK. Declaration of war or not. See?

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:21 AM
Because we are treaty-bound to defend ROK. Declaration of war or not. See?

Nope

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:21 AM
Nope

Of course you don't. Neither does Ron Paul.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Of course you don't. Neither does Ron Paul.

Nope. You're a nut.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:22 AM
Here's a great blog post by a military man on Paul and it's as if he could be talking to Donger too. Call him a nut Donger.

To a good Brent Budowsky (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/176995-ron-paul-shines-in-iowa-major-media-cheats-him) column, on the media blackout of Ron Paul:

I thought you didn't want me obsessing over Iran, BEP?

LMAO

Is Iran a major threat to us right now? No, I wouldn't classify them as a major threat. A nuclear-armed Iran? Yes.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:23 AM
Nope. You're a nut.

Do you ever work, like on a real job?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:24 AM
Is Iran a major threat to us right now? No, I wouldn't classify them as a major threat. A nuclear-armed Iran? Yes.

How would you feel about invading Pakistan?

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:25 AM
How would you feel about invading Pakistan?

Why would we invade Pakistan?

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:28 AM
Let's go back to Paul's quote:

"Why should we unless the Congress declared war?"

Because we are treaty-bound to defend ROK. Declaration of war or not. See?

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

And we are bound by the Constitution to have Congress declare such a war.

Contitution > Treaty.

Of course as I've said half a dozen times, if congress does it's job we don't have this problem.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:29 AM
Why would we invade Pakistan?

Because they're on the verge of falling into the hands of terrorists.

vailpass
08-16-2011, 11:30 AM
Unelectable=please don't run and split any votes

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:30 AM
Why would we invade Pakistan?

We have with drones. Also Somalia.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:31 AM
Unelectable=please don't run and split any votes

I'd love to see that happen! :D

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:31 AM
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

And we are bound by the Constitution to have Congress declare such a war.

Contitution > Treaty.

Of course as I've said half a dozen times, if congress does it's job we don't have this problem.

Again, we can argue whether or not a declaration of war WAS required for our actions during Korea (or whether or not a declaration of war WOULD be required for us to fulfill our treaty obligations) until we are blue in the face. That doesn't CHANGE the REALITY that this treaty exists and a declaration of war is not required for us to live up to our obligations to defend ROK.

You are basically proving my point about Paul.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:32 AM
Because they're on the verge of falling into the hands of terrorists.

Okay.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 11:33 AM
I thought you didn't want me obsessing over Iran, BEP?

LMAO

Is Iran a major threat to us right now? No, I wouldn't classify them as a major threat. A nuclear-armed Iran? Yes.

So! That's not just about Iran. Didn't you read it?

That post is not not about the details of if they have a nuke or not and IAEA—which is what I was referring to. That's what a soldier thinks of what we're doing in the ME in general which includes Iran. It's about Paul being right on his FP stand by someone who is there. So it's about Paul...note the thread title.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:37 AM
So! That's not just about Iran. Didn't you read it?

That post is not not about the details of if they have a nuke or not and IAEA—which is what I was referring to. That's what a soldier thinks of what we're doing in the ME in general which includes Iran. It's about Paul being right on his FP stand by someone who is there. So it's about Paul...note the thread title.

It was mostly about Iran. I didn't see any other country mentioned.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:37 AM
Again, we can argue whether or not a declaration of war WAS required for our actions during Korea (or whether or not a declaration of war WOULD be required for us to fulfill our treaty obligations) until we are blue in the face. That doesn't CHANGE the REALITY that this treaty exists and a declaration of war is not required for us to live up to our obligations to defend ROK.

You are basically proving my point about Paul.

What? The only one talking about the old Koran war is you.

We're talking about the new hypothetical Koran war. And yes, in order to uphold the consititution which is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND Congress must declare war.

Why are you so willing to break the law of the Constitution? And weren't you giving Frankie shit about not taking the Oath of Allegiance as seriously as you did?

In case you've forgotten, I'll repost it for you.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.[1]

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:39 AM
Okay.

So, okay with invading Pakistan?

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:42 AM
What? The only one talking about the old Koran war is you.

We're talking about the new hypothetical Koran war. And yes, in order to uphold the consititution which is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND Congress must declare war.

Why are you so willing to break the law of the Constitution? And weren't you giving Frankie shit about not taking the Oath of Allegiance as seriously as you did?

In case you've forgotten, I'll repost it for you.

The Korean War was the reason we have that treaty, so yes, I believe that it is relevant. We also didn't declare war for that war. I presume that Paul would have preferred that a declaration had been had.

And, yes, I'd prefer we would vote to declare war in the event of a hypothetical war with NK per our treaty. My point is that one is not required by that treaty and we would defend them per that treaty. I understand that you and Ron Paul don't like that, but it's just the reality.

Again, reality versus philosophy.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:42 AM
So, okay with invading Pakistan?

No, I'd rather avoid that, if possible.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:44 AM
The Korean War was the reason we have that treaty, so yes, I believe that it is relevant. We also didn't declare war for that war. I presume that Paul would have preferred that a declaration had been had.

And, yes, I'd prefer we would vote to declare war in the event of a hypothetical war with NK per our treaty. My point is that one is not required by that treaty and we would defend them per that treaty. I understand that you and Ron Paul don't like that, but it's just the reality.

Again, reality versus philosophy.

Bullshit. Pure and total bullshit.

The constitution, the supreme law of this land, a document YOU SWORE AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND says that when we go to war, we must have Congress declare it first. I know you and the rest of the warmongers don't like that, but it's just the reality.

Again, reality vs bullshit.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:45 AM
No, I'd rather avoid that, if possible.

Do you think we should dry up our military aid to them?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:47 AM
Bullshit. Pure and total bullshit.

The constitution, the supreme law of this land, a document YOU SWORE AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND says that when we go to war, we must have Congress declare it first. I know you and the rest of the warmongers don't like that, but it's just the reality.

Again, reality vs bullshit.

The reality is just that it says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:48 AM
Bullshit. Pure and total bullshit.

The constitution, the supreme law of this land, a document YOU SWORE AN OATH TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND says that when we go to war, we must have Congress declare it first. I know you and the rest of the warmongers don't like that, but it's just the reality.

Again, reality vs bullshit.

Interesting take. So, in your mind, every citizen who served in:

1) Korea
2) Vietnam
3) Gulf War
4) Iraq
5) Afghanistan

are also Constitution-violators, such as myself?

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:48 AM
The reality is just that it says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

Yes. Which means the President does not. So if we want to have a war, Congress is the one who needs to declare it.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:48 AM
Do you think we should dry up our military aid to them?

If things get worse, yes, certainly an option.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:49 AM
The reality is just that it says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

Correct. It also states that POTUS is CINC of our armed forces.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:51 AM
Yes. Which means the President does not. So if we want to have a war, Congress is the one who needs to declare it.

No one disagrees. But the Constitution doesn't say that war is the only method of which the military can be used. Now let's talk about military resolutions. Where does it talk about that in the Constitution?

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:51 AM
Interesting take. So, in your mind, every citizen who served in:

1) Korea
2) Vietnam
3) Gulf War
4) Iraq
5) Afghanistan

are also Constitution-violators, such as myself?

No Donger.

My point is that if YOU want to give Frankie all kinds of shit for not taking the Oath of Allegience seriously, then you might also want to take it seriously lest you become a hypocrite.

Because right now, that's precisely what you're being, Strawman argument aside.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:52 AM
If things get worse, yes, certainly an option.

I think we need to do it yesterday. Pakistan is going to be a bigger source of concern than Iran.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:52 AM
No one disagrees. But the Constitution doesn't say that war is the only method of which the military can be used. Now let's talk about military resolutions. Where does it talk about that in the Constitution?

Jenson, if North Korea starting bombing us, would you consider that an act of war?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:53 AM
Jenson, if North Korea starting bombing us, would you consider that an act of war?

Yes. I would hope Congress would declare war. If they refused, I would be glad to see the President use the military as he saw fit.

Donger
08-16-2011, 11:53 AM
No Donger.

My point is that if YOU want to give Frankie all kinds of shit for not taking the Oath of Allegience seriously, then you might also want to take it seriously lest you become a hypocrite.

Because right now, that's precisely what you're being, Strawman argument aside.

No, I'm really not. All I can do is vote and serve my country if/when called. If that happened, I would do so. Frankie would not. So, your argument is pretty silly.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:54 AM
Yes.
Ok then, so by that logic if we were to bomb North Korea, that would also be an act of war correct?

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:55 AM
No, I'm really not. All I can do is vote and serve my country if/when called. If that happened, I would do so. Frankie would not. So, your argument is pretty silly.

I think we're done here.

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 11:55 AM
Ok then, so by that logic if we were to bomb North Korea, that would also be an act of war correct?

Maybe not legally, but in the general use of the term, yes.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 11:56 AM
Maybe not legally, but in the general use of the term, yes.

Ok, so if we assume that bombing a country is an act of war, and our Constitution says that Congress has to be the one to declare war, then logically if we want to bomb someone we would have to do what first?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:00 PM
Ok, so if we assume that bombing a country is an act of war, and our Constitution says that Congress has to be the one to declare war, then logically if we want to bomb someone we would have to do what first?

If we assume that bombing a country must be an act of war, and that our Constitution says that (only) Congress has to be the one to declare war, and that the only way to initiate an act of war is to declare war, then if we want to bomb a country, Congress must declare war.

But there are some assumptions there that I don't think are necessary.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 12:12 PM
No, I'm really not. All I can do is vote and serve my country if/when called. If that happened, I would do so. Frankie would not. So, your argument is pretty silly.

So why don't you volunteer and sign up since we don't call people currently?
Ya' know the same way the right tells the left to donate their own money to the deficit.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:17 PM
If we assume that bombing a country must be an act of war, and that our Constitution says that (only) Congress has to be the one to declare war, and that the only way to initiate an act of war is to declare war, then if we want to bomb a country, Congress must declare war.

But there are some assumptions there that I don't think are necessary.

Let us address them individually then.

If we assume that bombing a country must be an act of war,I cannot personally think of an instance where another country would drop bombs on America or Americans and we would not consider that an act of war. I am however, more than willing to hear you should you have an example of such (either real or hypothetical) in which a soverign nation bombed us and would not consider that an act of war.

and that our Constitution says that (only) Congress has to be the one to declare warDoes the Consitution give that power to any of the other two branches?

and that the only way to initiate an act of war is to declare warWhat would be the point of specifically giving Congress the power to declare war, if it was not intended that they do so before engaging in war?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:30 PM
I cannot personally think of an instance where another country would drop bombs on America or Americans and we would not consider that an act of war. I am however, more than willing to hear you should you have an example of such (either real or hypothetical) in which a soverign nation bombed us and would not consider that an act of war.

It definitely matters whether you are the giver or the receiver.

Does the Consitution give that power to any of the other two branches?

No.

What would be the point of specifically giving Congress the power to declare war, if it was not intended that they do so before engaging in war?

That's a good question. Maybe they didn't conceive of a time when the military was used for any other thing other than a formal war with another country.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:32 PM
It definitely matters whether you are the giver or the receiver.How so? I can't see how it would unless you're willing to apply a double standard where it's war when someone bombs us, but when we bomb them it's....something else.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood where you're going here. Would you mind expanding on this?

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:34 PM
That's a good question. Maybe they didn't conceive of a time when the military was used for any other thing other than a formal war with another country.

Perhaps that was not an error of ommission, and simply what the intent was?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:36 PM
How so? I can't see how it would unless you're willing to apply a double standard where it's war when someone bombs us, but when we bomb them it's....something else.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood where you're going here. Would you mind expanding on this?

Here's my line of thinking: when someone bombs us, that automatically is an act of war, no matter what the attacker considers it. When we bomb someone though, I'm comfortable with it being one of several methods: one could be a war act, if indeed the Congress declared war, or it could be a military resolution, or a treaty enforcement. It just depends on what method is used.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:38 PM
Here's my line of thinking: when someone bombs us, that automatically is an act of war, no matter what the attacker considers it. When we bomb someone though, I'm comfortable with it being one of several methods: one could be a war act, if indeed the Congress declared war, or it could be a military resolution, or a treaty enforcement. It just depends on what method is used.

Do you consider that a double standard or are you simply ok with having a double standard?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:39 PM
Perhaps that was not an error of ommission, and simply what the intent was?

Maybe. Is there any evidence in the Federalist Papers or the convention notes?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:40 PM
Do you consider that a double standard or are you simply ok with having a double standard?

I don't consider that a double standard at all. Being an aggressor and being a defender are two very different things.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:41 PM
Maybe. Is there any evidence in the Federalist Papers or the convention notes?

Off the top of my head, I do not know. And as my lunch break is quickly approaching it's end, it will be unlikely I will be able to search for such information anytime soon. If I find time later tonight, I will see what I can find.

Jaric
08-16-2011, 12:47 PM
I don't consider that a double standard at all. Being an aggressor and being a defender are two very different things.

While true, I'm not sure that resolves the issue. However, let's explore that.

Assuming one is not willing to apply a double standard, would you be completely comfortable with the country we are bombing treating that bombing as an act of war regardless of what we decide to ultimately call the action?

And actually, let's go a step further and take the United States completely out of the equation. As a completely nuetral observer would you consider country A bombing country B an act of war or would you need more information?

Jenson71
08-16-2011, 12:53 PM
While true, I'm not sure that resolves the issue. However, let's explore that.

Assuming one is not willing to apply a double standard, would you be completely comfortable with the country we are bombing treating that bombing as an act of war regardless of what we decide to ultimately call the action?

Yes, that is their prerogative.

And actually, let's go a step further and take the United States completely out of the equation. As a completely nuetral observer would you consider country A bombing country B an act of war or would you need more information?

I would need more information. War in its general term - yes. But in the legal sense determined by its constitution - I would need more information.

go bowe
08-16-2011, 01:47 PM
more information?

you communist community organizing liberal terrorist-supporting sumbitch!

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 02:35 PM
While true, I'm not sure that resolves the issue. However, let's explore that.

Assuming one is not willing to apply a double standard, would you be completely comfortable with the country we are bombing treating that bombing as an act of war regardless of what we decide to ultimately call the action?

And actually, let's go a step further and take the United States completely out of the equation. As a completely nuetral observer would you consider country A bombing country B an act of war or would you need more information?

It's now considered an act of love.

Donger
08-16-2011, 02:54 PM
So why don't you volunteer and sign up since we don't call people currently?
Ya' know the same way the right tells the left to donate their own money to the deficit.

I tried to go to NOCS when I graduated college.

The_Doctor10
08-16-2011, 06:23 PM
Barry has been a tremendous disappointment. Ron Paul would probably have the stones to do what was done, regardless of the bitches on either side of the aisle. I'm sure he feels like 'fuck it, I'll be dead in 10 years anyway, what are they gonna do to me?'

Go for it Mr Paul; you are a man who stands by your convictions, and you appear to be fearless. Give em Hell.

CoMoChief
08-16-2011, 07:30 PM
You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.

Care to elaborate? How is he crazy? Just because doesn't meet the status quo of govt officials who love war, printing more money, backdoor favors, and corruption?

He's never been a flip flopper, except maybe on the death penalty (so what...). His voting record proves that, which isn't something you can say about nearly 95% of the politicians in Washington.

This country needs a step in the right direction....Obama sure as fuck isn't going to lead us in that direction, Perry is a closet liberal Bilderberg Wall St puppet just like Obama (he worked for Al Gore as his campaign head in the late 80s) and Romney is your typical status-quo republican, tax cuts on wealthy, militarism, expansion of govt power.....Bachmann is the one who's fucking nuts out of her mind.

Don't let the media and others make you believe that Paul isn't electable...in fact he's the perfect man for the job and he would humiliate Obama in the presidential race. Big govt and the globalist establishment DO NOT LIKE Ron Paul and his supporters....why do you think he's getting black balled by the media?

BucEyedPea
08-16-2011, 08:08 PM
I tried to go to NOCS when I graduated college.

I hear that from too many chicken hawks.

J Diddy
08-16-2011, 09:43 PM
Care to elaborate? How is he crazy? Just because doesn't meet the status quo of govt officials who love war, printing more money, backdoor favors, and corruption?

He's never been a flip flopper, except maybe on the death penalty (so what...). His voting record proves that, which isn't something you can say about nearly 95% of the politicians in Washington.

This country needs a step in the right direction....Obama sure as **** isn't going to lead us in that direction, Perry is a closet liberal Bilderberg Wall St puppet just like Obama (he worked for Al Gore as his campaign head in the late 80s) and Romney is your typical status-quo republican, tax cuts on wealthy, militarism, expansion of govt power.....Bachmann is the one who's ****ing nuts out of her mind.

Don't let the media and others make you believe that Paul isn't electable...in fact he's the perfect man for the job and he would humiliate Obama in the presidential race. Big govt and the globalist establishment DO NOT LIKE Ron Paul and his supporters....why do you think he's getting black balled by the media?

Newsflash: If you think anybody is going to or even capable of making substantial change for the better immediately you are silly.

Donger
08-16-2011, 09:47 PM
I hear that from too many chicken hawks.

Meh. It was 1993 and they were only taking women and minorities. I'm neither.

I was "offered" to enlist and "guaranteed" to go mustang.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 10:45 PM
Newsflash: If you think anybody is going to or even capable of making substantial change for the better immediately you are silly.

Correct it should take 3 or 4 decades to see any improvement.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 10:46 PM
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/MATRIXRONPAUL.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
08-16-2011, 10:53 PM
Ron Paul: Corporations Are NOT People

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s-xFexgH76g&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s-xFexgH76g&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Taco John
08-16-2011, 11:17 PM
You know he has a couple points I agree with him on, but he's nutjob fringe extreme to the max. He can't be taken seriously with his crazy US destroying stance he takes. If he could tone down the rhetoric he could be taken seriously as an adult at the dinner table. Till then he's the crazy uncle no one wants to acknowledge.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oULpsuoEY7c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jaric
08-17-2011, 09:13 AM
It's now considered an act of love.

America's new foreign policy: We will fuck you until you love us.

ROYC75
08-17-2011, 09:35 AM
Correct it should take 3 or 4 decades to see any improvement.

This is so true, but in reality, it is a problem. There are not enough politicians that can stay together long enough to ride out an economic recovery over that long of a time frame. Neither party will stay with a plan that will allow it to happen, they want it all one way.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 09:55 AM
Pauls best attribute that makes him appealing to both sides of the aisle is his willingness to end our unsustainable imperialism.

This is the part I agree with him on.

Liberals love RINOs.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 10:13 AM
How so? I can't see how it would unless you're willing to apply a double standard where it's war when someone bombs us, but when we bomb them it's....something else.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood where you're going here. Would you mind expanding on this?

There is no justification for acts of war against the US. There are plenty of justifications for acts of war committed by the US against our enemies. Call it a double standard if you can't figure out what side you're on.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 10:15 AM
There is no justification for acts of war against the US. There are plenty of justifications for acts of war committed by the US against our enemies. Call it a double standard if you can't figure out what side you're on.

Pat, if you're trying to imply that I'm not on America's side this is going to get very ugly very quickly.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Pat, if you're trying to imply that I'm not on America's side this is going to get very ugly very quickly.

Having a double standard comes with the territory of picking a side. That doesn't mean that you justify bad behavior on the part of your side, but it does mean that you condemn all agression toward your side on the part of the other side, regardless of their motivation.

I'll leave it for you to decide whose side you're on. There's entirely too much "blame America" in the Ron Paul camp.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 10:44 AM
Having a double standard comes with the territory of picking a side. That doesn't mean that you justify bad behavior on the part of your side, but it does mean that you condemn all agression toward your side on the part of the other side, regardless of their motivation.

I'll leave it for you to decide whose side you're on. There's entirely too much "blame America" in the Ron Paul camp.And that is where we disagree. "Picking a side" as you put it does not require one to become a hypocrite. Not if it's a side worth picking, and I still like to think America is a side worth picking. We've got some work to do and you can be damn sure I'll point it out when I see it. Because I still love this country despite her faults.

But if we don't honestly acknowledge when we're wrong, we will never learn and will end up repeating the same wrongs over and over again.

CoMoChief
08-17-2011, 10:59 AM
There is no justification for acts of war against the US. There are plenty of justifications for acts of war committed by the US against our enemies. Call it a double standard if you can't figure out what side you're on.

How about minding our own fucking business ..unless someone goes on the offensive against the US ...which someone would be stupid to unless they want their shit kicked in. Paul is 100% correct...we've never had a war on US soil because it would be horrible tactics for one to do so...some of these mid eastern countries don't even have a fucking navy that would be able to perform such task effectively.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 11:03 AM
How about minding our own ****ing business ..unless someone goes on the offensive against the US ...which someone would be stupid to unless they want their shit kicked in. Paul is 100% correct...we've never had a war on US soil because it would be horrible tactics for one to do so...some of these mid eastern countries don't even have a ****ing navy that would be able to perform such task effectively.Yeah, all of this.

We spend more on defense than all the civilized countries in the world combined, yet we're afraid of a bunch of cavemen up in the mountains of some shitty 3rd world country.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 11:14 AM
And that is where we disagree. "Picking a side" as you put it does not require one to become a hypocrite. Not if it's a side worth picking, and I still like to think America is a side worth picking. We've got some work to do and you can be damn sure I'll point it out when I see it. Because I still love this country despite her faults.

But if we don't honestly acknowledge when we're wrong, we will never learn and will end up repeating the same wrongs over and over again.

Having differences with your country is fine. Wanting to change direction is fine. Blaming your country while justifying it's enemies is not. If you listen to some Paultards, the US has been committing evil in the middle east since at least as far back as the coup against Mosaddegh in Iran and everything middle easterners do to us or against our interests is justified by calling it blowback or saying something like "well we did X first".

9/11 and the Iranian nuke are merely blowback. US military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal wars or dropping freedom bombs on brown people. It's every bit as much a double standard as what you're pointing out.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 11:17 AM
How about minding our own ****ing business ..unless someone goes on the offensive against the US ...which someone would be stupid to unless they want their shit kicked in. Paul is 100% correct...we've never had a war on US soil because it would be horrible tactics for one to do so...some of these mid eastern countries don't even have a ****ing navy that would be able to perform such task effectively.

Dear Mr. RINO,

We have had wars on US soil (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9/11). Sorry to disappoint.

Sincerely,

Someone has a clue about history.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 11:21 AM
Having differences with your country is fine. Wanting to change direction is fine. Blaming your country while justifying it's enemies is not. If you listen to some Paultards, the US has been committing evil in the middle east since at least as far back as the coup against Mosaddegh in Iran and everything middle easterners do to us or against our interests is justified by calling it blowback or saying something like "well we did X first".

9/11 and the Iranian nuke are merely blowback. US military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal wars or dropping freedom bombs on brown people. It's every bit as much a double standard as what you're pointing out.

Pointing out that actions have consequences is not treason Pat. It's reality.

That doesn't justify violence against America. It serves as a "where did things go wrong" map for policy makers who can if they choose, stop repeating past mistakes by understanding how our Foreign policy causes other contries to react to us.

And let me give you a hint. Most countries don't like being bombed. They don't like being invaded. And they don't like when world superpowers prop up dicators in their country to serve their own purposes.

I know that's a bit more to digest than "They hate us for our freedoms!!!" but I have confidence you'll be able to muddle through it.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 11:24 AM
Dear Mr. RINO,

We have had wars on US soil (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9/11). Sorry to disappoint.

Sincerely,

Someone has a clue about history.The Civil War pat? Really?

9/11? Really?

The closest you have here is Pearl Harbor and after that attack Japan pulled back and we fought the rest of the war on their soil.

Face it, we are in no danger of invasion. And certainly not by a bunch of cavemen living in the mountain weilding cold war soviet retread weapons and booby traps.

evenfall
08-17-2011, 11:35 AM
Man, I am sure there are intelligent Paul followers out there, so why is it the ones who swarm internet forums are always impervious to anything but the sound of their own voice?

vailpass
08-17-2011, 11:46 AM
Ron Paul is utterly unelectible. His Nader-ish appearance every 4 years would be amusing if there weren't a danger of him splitting just enough of the vote to allow the blight in our white house a second term.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2011, 11:46 AM
Man, I am sure there are intelligent Paul followers out there, so why is it the ones who swarm internet forums are always impervious to anything but the sound of their own voice?

Actually, Paul supporters are considered more informed and knowledgeable than others.
As for swarming internet forums....there's more NeoCons and Establishment Right Wingers here. Time for you to quit whining.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2011, 11:47 AM
Ron Paul is utterly unelectible. His Nader-ish appearance every 4 years would be amusing if there weren't a danger of him splitting just enough of the vote to allow the blight in our white house a second term.

Fine with me so long as more Rs pick up seats. It's the lesser of the two evils.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2011, 11:49 AM
Pat, if you're trying to imply that I'm not on America's side this is going to get very ugly very quickly.

Is he resorting to his anti-American claims, implied or direct, if you don't agree with him? Seems so. So much anger.

ROYC75
08-17-2011, 12:27 PM
The Civil War pat? Really?

9/11? Really?

The closest you have here is Pearl Harbor and after that attack Japan pulled back and we fought the rest of the war on their soil.

Face it, we are in no danger of invasion. And certainly not by a bunch of cavemen living in the mountain weilding cold war soviet retread weapons and booby traps.

No, but we do have the war on drugs, war on taxes, war on poverty, war on the borders ( southern ) ....... OK, my humor was weak, just trying to lighten the load here..

But think about this, Why? Why do we not have any other country crazy enough to attack us. It's because they fear us. Our technology has surpassed all the others and as long as we have that, they will never attack us here.

SNR
08-17-2011, 12:30 PM
Man, I am sure there are intelligent Paul followers out there, so why is it the ones who swarm internet forums are always impervious to anything but the sound of their own voice?Isn't it that time of year for you to go to your delightful little state fair? Why don't you go and have fun with your friends? The adults are trying to talk.

SNR
08-17-2011, 12:33 PM
Ron Paul is utterly unelectible. His Nader-ish appearance every 4 years would be amusing if there weren't a danger of him splitting just enough of the vote to allow the blight in our white house a second term.Jesus fucking Christ :facepalm:

He's polling better than McCain did at this time in 2007, but nobody said "McCain is unelectable."

Actually, maybe you have a point. McCain WAS unelectable.

Carry on.

ROYC75
08-17-2011, 12:36 PM
Care to elaborate? How is he crazy? Just because doesn't meet the status quo of govt officials who love war, printing more money, backdoor favors, and corruption?

He's never been a flip flopper, except maybe on the death penalty (so what...). His voting record proves that, which isn't something you can say about nearly 95% of the politicians in Washington.

This country needs a step in the right direction....Obama sure as **** isn't going to lead us in that direction, Perry is a closet liberal Bilderberg Wall St puppet just like Obama (he worked for Al Gore as his campaign head in the late 80s) and Romney is your typical status-quo republican, tax cuts on wealthy, militarism, expansion of govt power.....Bachmann is the one who's ****ing nuts out of her mind.

Don't let the media and others make you believe that Paul isn't electable...in fact he's the perfect man for the job and he would humiliate Obama in the presidential race. Big govt and the globalist establishment DO NOT LIKE Ron Paul and his supporters....why do you think he's getting black balled by the media?

Ya know, I have said this before, if he would tone it down, not come off as being kooky when he gets excited or bent out of shape, He would then come off as being / looking presidential and would get the people and the media behind him.

But just as the old saying goes, "old dogs are hard to train" !

SNR
08-17-2011, 12:41 PM
Ya know, I have said this before, if he would tone it down, not come off as being kooky when he gets excited or bent out of shape, He would then come off as being / looking presidential and would get the people and the media behind him.

But just as the old saying goes, "old dogs are hard to train" !Yeah. He really should have calmed down amidst all the full retard in the room. He would totally get more votes that way.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r3BbIPbLSRw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

evenfall
08-17-2011, 12:44 PM
Isn't it that time of year for you to go to your delightful little state fair? Why don't you go and have fun with your friends? The adults are trying to talk.

Not quite. Thanks for the reminder though, we'll send all the Nodak women back as soon as we can find a livestock trailer.

ROYC75
08-17-2011, 12:55 PM
Yeah. He really should have calmed down amidst all the full retard in the room. He would totally get more votes that way.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r3BbIPbLSRw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Seriously, why should I try to change the view of one person ( you or any other Paulite), it's Ron Paul who has the change the views of millions of Americans. I'm just telling you and all the Paulites that the man comes off as kooky to many Americans and if he wants to be a major player in this race, he has to change the way Americans view him.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 12:55 PM
But think about this, Why? Why do we not have any other country crazy enough to attack us. It's because they fear us. Our technology has surpassed all the others and as long as we have that, they will never attack us here.
Two reasons.

The first is that our military is flat out superior to any other country's.

The second is that from a tactical standpoint, conquering the USA is a nigh impossible. The terrain, an armed populace, and the overall size of the country makes it a suicide mission for even the most well armed country to undertake.

We are far more suceptable to an economic attack than a military one.

Bin Laden understood that, which is why the plan has always been to draw the US into quagmires in the middle east until we go broke. Sadly, the neo-conservative factions seem only too willing to oblige him. Every one of our "enemies" understand they aren't going to be able to go toe to toe with us. That's just not going to happen. So they have to find other ways to take us down.

SNR
08-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Seriously, why should I try to change the view of one person ( you or any other Paulite), it's Ron Paul who has the change the views of millions of Americans. I'm just telling you and all the Paulites that the man comes off as kooky to many Americans and if he wants to be a major player in this race, he has to change the way Americans view him.Maybe Paul should have more beers with voters

SNR
08-17-2011, 01:06 PM
Not quite. Thanks for the reminder though, we'll send all the Nodak women back as soon as we can find a livestock trailer.Yeah well Minnesota women talk like retards and look like poop! And so do you!

go bowe
08-17-2011, 01:13 PM
Yeah well Minnesota women talk like retards and look like poop! And so do you!

hey, don't you be saying bad things about michelle!!!

patteeu
08-17-2011, 01:33 PM
Pointing out that actions have consequences is not treason Pat. It's reality.

That doesn't justify violence against America. It serves as a "where did things go wrong" map for policy makers who can if they choose, stop repeating past mistakes by understanding how our Foreign policy causes other contries to react to us.

And let me give you a hint. Most countries don't like being bombed. They don't like being invaded. And they don't like when world superpowers prop up dicators in their country to serve their own purposes.

I know that's a bit more to digest than "They hate us for our freedoms!!!" but I have confidence you'll be able to muddle through it.

Like I said before, there's an acceptable way to criticize your own country for what you believe are misguided policies. Unfortunately, too many of you prefer the "America is evil, our enemies are just reacting the way any reasonable country would react, we deserve it" approach.

Now I'll give you a hint. Sometimes, people who hate us (for whatever reason) deserve to have bombs dropped on them, regardless of the color of their skin.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 01:37 PM
The Civil War pat? Really?

Did that war not take place on American soil?

9/11? Really?

The closest you have here is Pearl Harbor and after that attack Japan pulled back and we fought the rest of the war on their soil.

Face it, we are in no danger of invasion. And certainly not by a bunch of cavemen living in the mountain weilding cold war soviet retread weapons and booby traps.

9/11 is just as close as Pearl Harbor. Both were acts of war that occurred on our soil. An even better example though is the War of 1812. They burned our WH and Capital Building down, for goodness sake.

When someone says something stupid, it's not a defense to just change the subject.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 01:38 PM
Pat, who here has said that America is evil and that she deserved to be attacked?

Please provide a link to the offending post as well.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 01:43 PM
Two reasons.

The first is that our military is flat out superior to any other country's.

The second is that from a tactical standpoint, conquering the USA is a nigh impossible. The terrain, an armed populace, and the overall size of the country makes it a suicide mission for even the most well armed country to undertake.

We are far more suceptable to an economic attack than a military one.

Bin Laden understood that, which is why the plan has always been to draw the US into quagmires in the middle east until we go broke. Sadly, the neo-conservative factions seem only too willing to oblige him. Every one of our "enemies" understand they aren't going to be able to go toe to toe with us. That's just not going to happen. So they have to find other ways to take us down.

Translation: Our enemies are smart and reasonable. Our politicians (except for Ron Paul) are fools who have been played.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 01:44 PM
[QUOTE=patteeu;7831569]Did that war not take place on American soil?Well considering we're talking about foreign invasion, the civil war doesn't exactly count.

9/11 is just as close as Pearl Harbor. Both were acts of war that occurred on our soil. An even better example though is the War of 1812. They burned our WH and Capital Building down, for goodness sake.Remind me, what soverign country was responsible for 9/11 again? Before you can call something an act of war Pat, you need to be able to determine which country is actually responsible for it.

And again regarding Pearl Harbor, we were fighting that war for a matter of hours on our soil before it immediately shifted back to Japanese soil, never to return again.

I'll give you the War of 1812, but if you have to go back almost 200 years to find a real example of a war fought with a foreign country on our soil, that pretty much makes the point that we are under no serious threat of invasion.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 01:48 PM
Translation: Our enemies are smart and reasonable. Our politicians (except for Ron Paul) are fools who have been played.

Well lets see, the goal was to drag the US into unwinable conflicts in the middle east (check) with the intention of draining our resources (check) to the point where we are in economic collapse (check)

And yes our politicans are fools.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 01:54 PM
Well considering we're talking about foreign invasion, the civil war doesn't exactly count.

Remind me, what soverign country was responsible for 9/11 again? Before you can call something an act of war Pat, you need to be able to determine which country is actually responsible for it.

And again regarding Pearl Harbor, we were fighting that war for a matter of hours on our soil before it immediately shifted back to Japanese soil, never to return again.

I'll give you the War of 1812, but if you have to go back almost 200 years to find a real example of a war fought with a foreign country on our soil, that pretty much makes the point that we are under no serous threat of invasion.

The issue is whether or not we've had a war on our soil. CoMoChief says no (he's wrong) and I say yes (I'm right).

...we've never had a war on US soil because it would be horrible tactics for one to do so...some of these mid eastern countries don't even have a ****ing navy that would be able to perform such task effectively.

This doesn't have anything to do with sovereign states or recent history. His statement was clear and it was also clearly wrong. This is an example of the cartoonish view of foreign policy and history that allows Ron Paul followers to eat up his RINO positions on these subjects. Just like liberal democrats, Paul followers think of the defense department as a mostly unnecessary branch of government that would be a great piggy bank to break open to use for other programs (in the case of liberals) or reducing the deficit (in the case of the Paul cult).

Mr. Flopnuts
08-17-2011, 01:55 PM
Right now, Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 01:57 PM
Well lets see, the goal was to drag the US into unwinable conflicts in the middle east (check) with the intention of draining our resources (check) to the point where we are in economic collapse (check)

And yes our politicans are fools.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 02:02 PM
The issue is whether or not we've had a war on our soil. CoMoChief says no (he's wrong) and I say yes (I'm right).



This doesn't have anything to do with sovereign states or recent history. His statement was clear and it was also clearly wrong. This is an example of the cartoonish view of foreign policy and history that allows Ron Paul followers to eat up his RINO positions on these subjects. Just like liberal democrats, Paul followers think of the defense department as a mostly unnecessary branch of government that would be a great piggy bank to break open to use for other programs (in the case of liberals) or reducing the deficit (in the case of the Paul cult).

Christ Pat, it's blatently obvious what he's talking about if you read his post. We're under no threat of invasion. Bravo, 200 years ago the Brittish got uppity. That has zero, repeat zero, relevence to our situation in the middle east which is clearly what CoMoChief is talking about.

But if you need to make a semantics argument to declare yourself the winner, go nuts.

And please find me one post where Ron Paul followers or Ron Paul himself claimed the Department of Defense was unneccesary. You'll find plenty of posts and statements about how SOME of the spending on the department of defense is unneccasary. But that isn't the same thing as saying we need no military. If that's your argument, it's a strawman, and a pretty bad one at that.

go bowe
08-17-2011, 02:05 PM
hey, i never met a strawwoman that i didn't like...

Jaric
08-17-2011, 02:06 PM
hey, i never met a strawwoman that i didn't like...

Quiet you!

:shake:

vailpass
08-17-2011, 02:07 PM
hey, i never met a strawwoman that i didn't like...

You'd probably take what you wanted then bale on her.

vailpass
08-17-2011, 02:08 PM
Christ Pat, it's blatently obvious what he's talking about if you read his post. We're under no threat of invasion. Bravo, 200 years ago the Brittish got uppity. That has zero, repeat zero, relevence to our situation in the middle east which is clearly what CoMoChief is talking about.

But if you need to make a semantics argument to declare yourself the winner, go nuts.

And please find me one post where Ron Paul followers or Ron Paul himself claimed the Department of Defense was unneccesary. You'll find plenty of posts and statements about how SOME of the spending on the department of defense is unneccasary. But that isn't the same thing as saying we need no military. If that's your argument, it's a strawman, and a pretty bad one at that.

You do realize that by calling someone 'uppity' you completely demean them and call into question their very humanity, their right to exist? You also possibly infer they are an NBA player.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 02:10 PM
You do realize that by calling someone 'uppity' you completely demean them and call into question their very humanity, their right to exist? You also possibly infer they are an NBA player.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

You caught me vail. I'm totally racist against Englishmen. Ever since Braveheart I just can't stand those fuckers.

(no, Jaric kids, he has no problem with the English.)

go bowe
08-17-2011, 02:10 PM
You'd probably take what you wanted then bale on her.

LMAO LMAO LMAO

patteeu
08-17-2011, 02:11 PM
Christ Pat, it's blatently obvious what he's talking about if you read his post. We're under no threat of invasion. Bravo, 200 years ago the Brittish got uppity. That has zero, repeat zero, relevence to our situation in the middle east which is clearly what CoMoChief is talking about.

But if you need to make a semantics argument to declare yourself the winner, go nuts.

And please find me one post where Ron Paul followers or Ron Paul himself claimed the Department of Defense was unneccesary. You'll find plenty of posts and statements about how SOME of the spending on the department of defense is unneccasary. But that isn't the same thing as saying we need no military. If that's your argument, it's a strawman, and a pretty bad one at that.

Speaking of strawmen, I didn't say anything about Ron Paul followers wanting to get rid of the entire defense department or military. You're admission in the bolded part of your post is enough to show that you essentially agree with what I actually said.

We need a strong military, including a strong ability to project power, to defend our global interests and to maintain the effectiveness of our diplomacy, not because we expect to be invaded.

Jaric
08-17-2011, 02:20 PM
Speaking of strawmen, I didn't say anything about Ron Paul followers wanting to get rid of the entire defense department or military. You're admission in the bolded part of your post is enough to show that you essentially agree with what I actually said.

We need a strong military, including a strong ability to project power, to defend our global interests and to maintain the effectiveness of our diplomacy, not because we expect to be invaded.

:spock:

Pat, we spend more money on defense than the entire civilized world combined.

And I'm sorry, but the NeoConservative ideas on how the department of defense is to be used has proven to be both unpopular and unsustainable. Not to mention it hasn't actually made anything any better. In fact it's made things far worse. The middle east is just as fucked up now as it was when Bush started playing Risk the home game after 9/11.

I know you're going to continue to stick your head in the sand but protecting these "global interests" has contributed to the bankruptcy of this country. It's time to scale back because the current plan is not sustainable.

It's entirely possible to be fiscally responsible and still have a strong military.

CoMoChief
08-17-2011, 02:22 PM
Newsflash: If you think anybody is going to or even capable of making substantial change for the better immediately you are silly.

I never said anyone can change things immediately....I said taking a step in the right direction. You have to start somewhere. Obama and the other status quo-sell out puppets sure as fuck won't do ANYTHING to change this country. That I can guarantee you. And if you think otherwise then I just feel sorry for you. Ron Paul believes in the following....

Getting out of these pointless expensive wars, not being the world police.

Abolishing the Fed, or at least auditing the Fed.

Lower taxes, and less govt spending, going back to gold standard.

Making our market/economy free and strong enough to compete with other nations so that jobs will come back to the mainland as opposed of companies being strangled by govt restrictions, which in many cases force them to move abroad so they can seek bigger profits (less expenditures).

That my friend IS a step in the right direction, and you can't name one person in this running that is "truly" for the above. He gets love from both sides and I truly believe that he will be able to act on his beliefs, or the people in Congress will eventually show their true colors to their constituents.

CoMoChief
08-17-2011, 02:29 PM
Dear Mr. RINO,

We have had wars on US soil (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Pearl Harbor, 9/11). Sorry to disappoint.

Sincerely,

Someone has a clue about history.

haha, you act as if we didn't know before-hand about 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, but I'm not even going to go there with you. Both were used as catalysts to get us into conflicts we had no business in being in. If you can't see that then you're blind.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 03:13 PM
:spock:

Pat, we spend more money on defense than the entire civilized world combined.

And I'm sorry, but the NeoConservative ideas on how the department of defense is to be used has proven to be both unpopular and unsustainable. Not to mention it hasn't actually made anything any better. In fact it's made things far worse. The middle east is just as ****ed up now as it was when Bush started playing Risk the home game after 9/11.

I know you're going to continue to stick your head in the sand but protecting these "global interests" has contributed to the bankruptcy of this country. It's time to scale back because the current plan is not sustainable.

It's entirely possible to be fiscally responsible and still have a strong military.

Al Qaeda is in disarray, Bin Laden and Saddam are dead, Assad's regime is under duress, and Iraq's fledgling government is a beachhead in the region for ideals of western liberalism and freedom. Yeah, you're right, everything is the same as it ever was.

Our current levels of defense are definitely sustainable. I don't know how many times I have to say this for people around here to start understanding it, but ongoing defense spending has been virtually flat as a share of GDP since the 1960s. Our deficit problems come from the domestic side of the budget, most notably the entitlements (driven by uncontrolled healthcare costs, expanded benefits, and demographic realities). War spending has created some temporary problems as well, but temporary spending of that sort is very affordable as long as the systemic problems of the entitlements are dealt with.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 03:15 PM
haha, you act as if we didn't know before-hand about 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, but I'm not even going to go there with you. Both were used as catalysts to get us into conflicts we had no business in being in. If you can't see that then you're blind.

Ron Paul supporters aren't kooks!

Jenson71
08-17-2011, 03:24 PM
haha, you act as if we didn't know before-hand about 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, but I'm not even going to go there with you. Both were used as catalysts to get us into conflicts we had no business in being in. If you can't see that then you're blind.

We didn't just know, dude. We planned them.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2011, 04:18 PM
war and military to protect "interests" = economic interests = mercantilist economics

Someone should have been born in the 19th century! That's really kooky!

patteeu
08-17-2011, 04:29 PM
There's nothing wrong with protecting economic interests. It sounds to me like we're in agreement that Ron Paul wouldn't.

petegz28
08-17-2011, 06:29 PM
There's nothing wrong with protecting economic interests. It sounds to me like we're in agreement that Ron Paul wouldn't.

Hate to break it to you, Pat, but Paul has been pretty much spot-on with his calls over the last several years. I supported going into Iraq, not so much how we fought it but nonetheless, Paul has been the bright one of the bunch and we can see the media and mainstream Repubs want nothing to do with him.

BucEyedPea
08-17-2011, 06:43 PM
Nothing wrong with it. I didn't say if it was right or wrong—THAT's a matter of opinion. Although, I think it's kooky, I just said what it was because that's what it is and is the root of imperialism.

SNR
08-17-2011, 08:38 PM
"Protecting economic interests."

That's a great word! You're quite the Newspeak poet, Pat.

That's almost as good as the bankers who invented "quantitative easing."

petegz28
08-17-2011, 09:07 PM
There's nothing wrong with protecting economic interests. It sounds to me like we're in agreement that Ron Paul wouldn't.

The problem is we go to war too often for the wrong reasons and fight them in the wrong way. Did Sadaam need to go? Yes. Did we need to go in there? Yes but only because we signed 17 UN resolutions and at some point you have to back yourself up or no one will ever take us seriously. Did we need to go into Afghanistan? Yes but again I disagree with how things went down.

Economic interests need only be defended violently if there is going to be a devistating impact on our economy. There is no reason to have our troops all over the world anymore. It costs us money and takes away from our economy at the same time.

So the question is, what economic interests do we have overseas that require our military to be involved?

petegz28
08-17-2011, 09:07 PM
"Protecting economic interests."

That's a great word! You're quite the Newspeak poet, Pat.

That's almost as good as the bankers who invented "quantitative easing."

That would be a phrase, not a word....get it straight. o:-)

Chocolate Hog
08-17-2011, 09:32 PM
This board really has jumped on the Ron Paul ship. I love it.

wazu
08-17-2011, 09:41 PM
This board really has jumped on the Ron Paul ship. I love it.

This board pretty much loved him before it was cool.

Jenson71
08-17-2011, 09:43 PM
This board really has jumped on the Ron Paul ship. I love it.

I voted for him in the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll. I was illiterate at the time.

prhom
08-17-2011, 10:05 PM
I voted for him in the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll. I was illiterate at the time.

You've clearly been reading the wrong stuff since you found literacy then! My guess is too much DC forum...

Pitt Gorilla
08-17-2011, 10:50 PM
I voted for him in the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll. I was illiterate at the time.I caucused for him last time around.

SNR
08-17-2011, 11:16 PM
I voted for him in the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll. I was illiterate at the time.Man, you really ARE a throw-back to the good ol' days of Catholicism :D

Jenson71
08-17-2011, 11:17 PM
Man, you really ARE a throw-back to the good ol' days of Catholicism :D

I wish I got this. Help me out here.

SNR
08-17-2011, 11:19 PM
I wish I got this. Help me out here.I'm referring to the stereotype that Catholics don't read the Bible.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 11:23 PM
Hate to break it to you, Pat, but Paul has been pretty much spot-on with his calls over the last several years. I supported going into Iraq, not so much how we fought it but nonetheless, Paul has been the bright one of the bunch and we can see the media and mainstream Repubs want nothing to do with him.

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

patteeu
08-17-2011, 11:31 PM
The problem is we go to war too often for the wrong reasons and fight them in the wrong way. Did Sadaam need to go? Yes. Did we need to go in there? Yes but only because we signed 17 UN resolutions and at some point you have to back yourself up or no one will ever take us seriously. Did we need to go into Afghanistan? Yes but again I disagree with how things went down.

Economic interests need only be defended violently if there is going to be a devistating impact on our economy. There is no reason to have our troops all over the world anymore. It costs us money and takes away from our economy at the same time.

I don't know what you've said here that you think I'm in disagreement with. I'm only a blood-thirsty warmonger who never met a military intervention opportunity I didn't want to exploit in the minds of some of the retarded Ron Paul supporters around here. I'm a non-interventionist, for the most part, but like you said, at some point you have to back yourself up or no one will take you seriously.

So the question is, what economic interests do we have overseas that require our military to be involved?

We're heavily dependent on oil and sea trade routes. There are plenty of other raw materials and markets that we have an interest in too, but those are two of the biggest that require us to make sure that other countries respect the possibility that our military will get involved.

It's folly to believe, as BEP does, that whoever controls the oil will gladly sell to the highest bidder. History is full of resources being restricted or traded to a favored client, even in cases where there is a potential loss of income.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 07:28 AM
I'm referring to the stereotype that Catholics don't read the Bible.

If you go to Mass a certain amount of days per year, you go through the Bible with the sermons. I think it's daily but am not sure. It would be the Douay-Rheims Bible though—not the King James with it's 50,000 errors.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-18-2011, 07:32 AM
not the King James with it's 50,000 errors.

:rolleyes:

Jaric
08-18-2011, 07:37 AM
If you go to Mass a certain amount of days per year, you go through the Bible with the sermons. I think it's daily but am not sure. It would be the Douay-Rheims Bible though—not the King James with it's 50,000 errors.

I'm curious as to what you're basing that on?

SNR
08-18-2011, 08:46 AM
I'm curious as to what you're basing that on?My Bible course in college was nearly 15 years ago, but the KJV has to do with broadened translations that don't directly line up with the Septuagint or the Leningrad Codex. For instance, that whole "A virgin shall conceive a child" thing in Isaiah Chapter 7? The KJV goes ahead and assumes it's foretelling the birth of Jesus. The translation reads that way, too. But that's not what the passage is about in context. The passage is about the Lord giving a sign to Ahaz when the Assyrians will attack Judah.

That's just one example of the Brits who couldn't resist translating the text their own way.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 08:59 AM
I'm curious as to what you're basing that on?

I don't expect any non-Catholic to agree but it's based on a traditional Roman Catholic position.
It would take too long and involved a post to deal with each point as well. Besides I don't know all of them.
I was taught this.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 09:01 AM
:rolleyes:

That's what Roman Catholics get taught. I no longer practice Catholicism but I do feel there's a reason Protestants are called Protestants—they protest the Roman Catholic Church, particularly being under the authority of a Pope relying on the idea of personal conscience more. That to me means they can make it mean what they want which is fine, I don't really care, but it does veer from the first Church.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-18-2011, 09:04 AM
That's what Roman Catholics get taught. I no longer practice Catholicism but I do feel there's a reason Protestants are called Protestants—they protest the Roman Catholic Church, particularly being under the authority of a Pope relying on the idea of personal conscience more. That to me means they can make it mean what they want which is fine, I don't really care, but it does veer from the first Church.

I'm also in the used to be a Catholic, Thank God i've seen the light. ;)

Fishpicker
08-18-2011, 09:18 AM
This board really has jumped on the Ron Paul ship. I love it.

I'll vote for Paul but, I'm still trying to figure out what happened to Gary Johnson. He really got the Paul treatment this time around.

Jaric
08-18-2011, 09:24 AM
I don't expect any non-Catholic to agree but it's based on a traditional Roman Catholic position.
It would take too long and involved a post to deal with each point as well. Besides I don't know all of them.
I was taught this.

I just thought it was a bit odd that you'd be able to quantify "errors" in translation on a book that was written almost a century after the fact and comes in large part from oral tradition.

I actually prefer the KJV (I find it more lyrical :shrug: ) but don't have a strong preference one way or the other and certainly wasn't trying to start a theological discussion about it.

Just curious.

BucEyedPea
08-18-2011, 09:30 AM
I just thought it was a bit odd that you'd be able to quantify "errors" in translation on a book that was written almost a century after the fact and comes in large part from oral tradition.
My source for that is a family friend who knows Canon Law, Catholic history and listens to Bible tapes in his car. He's pretty much an expert and a teacher and he did quantify the errors to me once. I don't remember them all but it all goes back to how it's translated and what books are valid as well as points about the Mother of Jesus.

I actually prefer the KJV (I find it more lyrical :shrug: ) but don't have a strong preference one way or the other and certainly wasn't trying to start a theological discussion about it.

Just curious.
I got it.

I don't really read anyway. My position on the religion in general is that usually anything that is first when something is formed is closer to the original version. That's pretty much what fundamentalism is in any faith even in the Muslim faith. Then as time goes on people change it. Of course that can happen inside what remains as an official church too. However, to a devout and strict traditional Catholic, the Bible continues in time and Christ gave that authority to Peter as the first Pope who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. So I'd have to agree with that. Otherwise you get too many factions and interpretations. This is why Christianity has so many sects. It is very splintered.

Another thing I disagree with is the idea of Bible-only Christianity. There was no Bible for about 350 years and it was St Jerome of the RCC that compiled the first one. So this idea, really is without any real basis imo. Especially when the factions can't even agree with what books should be included.

stevieray
08-18-2011, 09:39 AM
My Bible course in college was nearly 15 years ago, but the KJV has to do with broadened translations that don't directly line up with the Septuagint or the Leningrad Codex. For instance, that whole "A virgin shall conceive a child" thing in Isaiah Chapter 7? The KJV goes ahead and assumes it's foretelling the birth of Jesus. The translation reads that way, too. But that's not what the passage is about in context. The passage is about the Lord giving a sign to Ahaz when the Assyrians will attack Judah.

That's just one example of the Brits who couldn't resist translating the text their own way.

incorrect on many levels.

1)Isaiah is speaking to the house of David, not Ahaz in particular.
2) you left out and he shall be called Immanuel(God with us)...when is that prophecy fullfilled?
3) Ahaz was not a believer, and tried to coerce the king of Assyria.
4) When did the Assyrians attack? 14 years into his son Hezekiah's reign.

vailpass
08-18-2011, 12:41 PM
We didn't just know, dude. We planned them.

LMAO