View Full Version : FOX Republican Debates!
Did you watch the FOX Republican Debates?
Ron Paul is some kinda NUT!
Who do you think won the debate.
I loved the comment Mitt Romney made about John Edwards "Raising taxes like John Edwards in a beauty salon."
Also enjoyed Rudy Guilliani's reaction to Ron Paul's statement that America "deserved" 911.
I'm all for waterboarding these radical jihadist.
McCain makes me nervous...he's been two-faced in the past.
Wish Condolesa Rice would run.
berkeley
05-15-2007, 09:27 PM
not on for another 32 minutes.. I agree.. Ron Paul is a nut! I watched his small interview on Real Time with Maher.
Dora,
You have gone and done it now. There a couple of Ron Paul fans on here who have not realized yet what a nut he is. I hope they watched the debate if his true colors came out.
Even many of his rational stands would not work. He is an "isolationist" Republican who believes if you ignore the rest of the world they will just go away and leave you alone. Wrong!
I did not watch the debate because it is WAY too early in my opinion to be thinking about the 08 election.
I do follow politics avidly though and no doubt Mitt Rommney is the most polished and Presidential looking and acting. If only he were not a Morman. That really bothers me. Also the fact that he is a recent convert to social conservatism and I have a feeling that is just so he can win the Republican nomination. He was very much pro abortion until just a couple of years ago.
He and Rudy J. would both be much better than any Dem running but it would sure be hard for me to have to vote for a social liberal.
The debates don't matter anyway because Fred Thompson is going to enter the race by sometime in July and shake everything up!!!!
berkeley
05-15-2007, 09:53 PM
why does Romney's religion bother you? Utah is a very red state!!
berkeley
05-15-2007, 10:12 PM
John McCain
Age: 70
Religion: Episcopalian
Family: wife, four sons, three daughters
Career: U.S. Senator '87- present,
distinguished Naval service, '59-81
Ron Paul
Age: 71
Religion: Protestant ??
Family: wife, five children
Career: Tx U.S. Rep. '76-'77, '79-'85, '97- present
Libertarian Presidential Nominee, '88
Rudy Giulliani
Age: 62
Religion: Catholic
Family: wife, one son, one daughter, one stepdaughter
Career: Mayor NYC, '93-'01
U.S. Attorney, '83-'91
Tom Tancredo
Age: 61
Religion: Presbyterian
Family: Wife, 2 sons
Career: Co. U.S. Rep, 99- present
Official, U.S. Dept. of Education
Mike Huckabee
Age: 51
Religion: Baptist
Family: wife, two sons, one daughter
Career: AR Gov. '96-'07
pastor, AR Babtist Ministry
Jim Gilmore
age: 57
religion: methodist
family: wife, two sons
career: VA Gov. '98-'01
Chairman, RNC '01-'02
okay.. i'm tired... can't do the rest..
why does Romney's religion bother you? Utah is a very red state!!
It probably is an irrational "bother" as he is a very intellgient man who has a proven track record of leadership.
My problem is that I believe Mormanism is a cult and I have a hard time holding anybody in high esteem who would believe Jospeh Smith's fake religon.
However Orrin Hatch proved that a Mormon can make a great national leader as he served as a United States Senator.
berkeley
05-15-2007, 10:15 PM
It probably is an irrational "bother" as he is a very intellgient man who has a proven track record of leadership.
My problem is that I believe Mormanism is a cult and I have a hard time holding anybody in high esteem who would believe Jospeh Smith's fake religon.
However Orrin Hatch proved that a Mormon can make a great national leader as he served as a United States Senator.
lol.. considering the state that elected him..
I am now watching a few minutes of the debate being rerun. Ron Paul just made outragous statements regarding 9-11 and the war but Rudy J. slapped him right back down into his place. The audience that had been quiet as I am sure instructed roared in approval and clapped when Rudy put Ron Paul in his place. I hope the Paulites on AFF catch this debate.
BoredOutOfMyMind
05-15-2007, 11:10 PM
The thing to watch was there were 10000 people across the street at a Fair Tax Rally!
It is time.
www.fairtax.org
Michael The Disciple
05-15-2007, 11:10 PM
Whats so nutty about Ron Paul? Just because he said America deserved 9-11? Personally I do grieve over such tragedy. But America deserves far more than that. Her judgement will stun and shock us when it comes in fulness.
Whats so nutty about Ron Paul? Just because he said America deserved 9-11? Personally I do grieve over such tragedy. But America deserves far more than that. Her judgement will stun and shock us when it comes in fulness.
Oh, so now in addition to Hurricane Katrina you think God sent 9-11? How about for once blaming the people who actually did it - Radical Muslims!!!!
How about considering that possibly Satan was responsible for the evil done on 9-11 and not a wrathful God. Is that just asking too much of you guys?
berkeley
05-15-2007, 11:27 PM
Oh, so now in addition to Hurricane Katrina you think God sent 9-11? How about for once blaming the people who actually did it - Radical Muslims!!!!
How about considering that possibly Satan was responsible for the evil done on 9-11 and not a wrathful God. Is that just asking too much of you guys?
YES!! Everytime something wrong happens it is *sanctimonious fake country ak-sent* the judgment of Gawwd!!!
Michael The Disciple
05-15-2007, 11:40 PM
Sorry folks,
However I just finished reading the Book of Ezekiel and the first 34 chapters was absolutely NOTHING but YHWH threatening judgement and wrath upon a people he both called and chose.
And yes when I look around at America it is clear that 9-11 is just the tip of the iceberg of judgement heading this way. But dont worry the Islamics, Communists, and all other sinful nations will be punished and broken before the Great God and Saviour Yeshua.
Michael The Disciple
05-15-2007, 11:41 PM
So based on THAT Ron Paul is nutty?
berkeley
05-15-2007, 11:43 PM
Sorry folks,
However I just finished reading the Book of Ezekiel and the first 34 chapters was absolutely NOTHING but YHWH threatening judgement and wrath upon a people he both called and chose.
And yes when I look around at America it is clear that 9-11 is just the tip of the iceberg of judgement heading this way. But dont worry the Islamics, Communists, and all other sinful nations will be punished and broken before the Great God and Saviour Yeshua.
Aimed at the Jews.. and sometimes their enemies..
show us America in prophecy!
So based on THAT Ron Paul is nutty?
Perhaps I should have said naive. It is the same old broken libetarian record. Non interventionism that is impossible in the modern world. Also minimalist government that is not realistic either. There would be chaos.
I consider the concept that if we just ignore the rest of the world they will go away and leave us alone as childish and not worth consideration. Anyone that advocates it is dimwitted in my opinion.
Truly Blessed
05-16-2007, 12:10 AM
When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!:couch
berkeley
05-16-2007, 12:11 AM
When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!:couch
lol
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 06:09 AM
Perhaps I should have said naive. It is the same old broken libetarian record. Non interventionism that is impossible in the modern world. Also minimalist government that is not realistic either. There would be chaos.
I consider the concept that if we just ignore the rest of the world they will go away and leave us alone as childish and not worth consideration. Anyone that advocates it is dimwitted in my opinion.
Main Entry: non·in·ter·ven·tion
Pronunciation: -"in-t&r-'ven(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
: the state or policy of not intervening <nonintervention in the affairs of other countries>
It is impossible to NOT intervene in the affairs of other countries?
Non intervention has been the republican stand up until Bush and, to quote Ron Paul, it has served them well.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 06:50 AM
1st Question Addressed To Ron Paul.
Congressman Paul you are one of 6 House Republicans who, back in 2002, voted against authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, Now you say we should pull our troops out. A recent poll stated that 77% of republicans disapproved of setting a timetable for withdrawal. Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?
Answer
You have to realize that the base of the Republican party shrunk last year because of the war issue so that percentage represents less people if you look at 65-70% of the American people... they want us out of there... they want the war over.
In 2002, I offered legislation to declare war, up or down, and nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was that if we want to war and if we should go to war the congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam & Korea because the wars never end and I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we went in.
Ronald Reagan, in 1983 sent marines into Lebanon and he said he would never turn tail and run. A few months later 241 Marines were killed and the Marines were taken out. Reagan addressed this situation in his memoirs and he said "I said I would never turn tail and run but I never realized the irrationality of middle eastern politics" and he changed his policy there. We need the courage of a Ronald Reagan.
ReformedDave
05-16-2007, 07:17 AM
From Jim Bovard's Blog-
Wednesday 16th May 2007
Ron Paul’s Radical Mix: Truth & Politics
7:38 am | Bovard | Bush | Attention Deficit Democracy | Comments: 0
Hats off to Ron Paul for another great performance in the Republican presidential debate in South Carolina last night.
For almost six years, politicians have acted as if it is federal crime to speak bluntly about 9/11. On the day of the attacks, George Bush proclaimed that the hijackers attacked because they hate America for its freedom. This has been treated as a revealed truth ever since. (When I saw Bush on TV that day, I was perplexed how the US government could know the motive before it knew the identity of the hijackers).
Ron Paul has never kowtowed to this dogma, and last night he deftly debunked the 9/11 catechism. From the transcript:
MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as — almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy — no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement — relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam.
So there’s a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
And my argument is that we shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don’t end.
MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
REP. PAUL: What changed?
MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.
We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
(Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the
attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?
****
Giuliani’s snort is the best answer the Republican establishment can offer for the hard facts that Paul presents.
But such snorts will not be enough to perpetuate Republican control over the American people.
Ron Paul is the type of candidate that the Founding Fathers envisioned - someone who cherishes the Constitution and understands why it leashed politicians in perpetuity
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 07:39 AM
2 Question addressed to Ron Paul.
It was a question concerning what areas of government he would cut out etc. The question was asked of another candidate and then addressed to Ron Paul.
Answer
I'd start with the departments. The Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security. The Republicans put in the Department of Homeland Security. It's a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it is unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods & the hurricanes.
So, yes, there's a lot of things that we can cut. But we can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do. If you think that we can continue to police the world and spend 100's of billions of dollars overseas and spend 100's of billions of dollars on a welfare state and entitlement system that has accumulated 60 trillion dollars worth of obligations and think that we can run the economy this way?
We spend so much money now that we have to borrow nearly 3 billion dollars a day from foreigners to take care of our consumption and we can't afford that. We can't afford it as a government and we can't afford it as a nation.
So tax reforms shoud come but spending cuts have to come by changing our attitude about what government should be doing for us.
Additional question asked...
You would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security in the midst of a war sir?
Answer
Well I think we should not go to more bureaucracy. It didn't work. We were spending $40 Billion on security prior to 9/11 and they had all the information they needed there to deal with the threat. It was inefficiency. So what do we do? We add on top of that a gigantic bureaucracy that they're still trying to put together along with a tremendous increase in funds.
So I don't think that the Republican position ought to be more bureaucracy. Why did they double the size of the Department of Education? (Bell rang... time up)
Kutless
05-16-2007, 07:51 AM
Did you watch the FOX Republican Debates?
Ron Paul is some kinda NUT!
Who do you think won the debate.
I loved the comment Mitt Romney made about John Edwards "Raising taxes like John Edwards in a beauty salon."
Also enjoyed Rudy Guilliani's reaction to Ron Paul's statement that America "deserved" 911.
I'm all for waterboarding these radical jihadist.
McCain makes me nervous...he's been two-faced in the past.
Wish Condolesa Rice would run.What has McCain been 2-faced on?
Monkeyman
05-16-2007, 07:55 AM
What has McCain been 2-faced on?
I guess because he has agreed with liberals at times, I call that being balanced? Some say 2 faced????
Steve Epley
05-16-2007, 07:58 AM
When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!:couch
Are YOU serious??????????????????????
PLEASE tell me you are joking?????????????????????????
Are YOU serious??????????????????????
PLEASE tell me you are joking?????????????????????????
He is joking. He is PCI but not crazy!:heeheehee
Steve Epley
05-16-2007, 08:09 AM
After hearing the debate there is NOT one of these guys I would waste my time going to the polls to vote for.
The top three are Democrats and most of the rest are LULUs.
Where is Fred Thompson? You Tennessee guys get busy.
After hearing the debate there is NOT one of these guys I would waste my time going to the polls to vote for.
The top three are Democrats and most of the rest are LULUs.
Where is Fred Thompson? You Tennessee guys get busy.
I will be pesonally working for his election if and when he announces. The word is that he is announcing in July but I hope he moves it up.
Since none of the other canidates have "caught fire" I think Fred could step in and wipe them out pretty quickly. He may be waiting though so he doesn't peak too soon.
Whats so nutty about Ron Paul? Just because he said America deserved 9-11? Personally I do grieve over such tragedy. But America deserves far more than that. Her judgement will stun and shock us when it comes in fulness.
He didn't say that America deserved 9/11, he said that America's foreign policy, particularly its decades of butting its nose in the Middle East, is why the terrorists hate America and why they carried out 9/11.
Dora,
You have gone and done it now. There a couple of Ron Paul fans on here who have not realized yet what a nut he is. I hope they watched the debate if his true colors came out.He did quite well in the debate.
Even many of his rational stands would not work. He is an "isolationist" Republican who believes if you ignore the rest of the world they will just go away and leave you alone. Wrong!Would not work? Why? Because you want big brother government running your life for you and want America to continue butting its nose in other nations' affairs? The FOUNDING FATHERS warned against foreign entanglements and Ron Paul holds the same position they did.
I did not watch the debate because it is WAY too early in my opinion to be thinking about the 08 election.Then you have no basis on which to say whether "his true colors came out" whatever those are supposed to be!
I do follow politics avidly though and no doubt Mitt Rommney is the most polished and Presidential looking and acting. If only he were not a Morman. That really bothers me. Also the fact that he is a recent convert to social conservatism and I have a feeling that is just so he can win the Republican nomination. He was very much pro abortion until just a couple of years ago.Romney is the most polished and, as is so typical of the stupid sheeple that call themselves Americans, they'll vote for someone like him exactly because of his polished looks and mannerisms.
He and Rudy J. would both be much better than any Dem running but it would sure be hard for me to have to vote for a social liberal.Any of the 10 candidates would be better than any of the Democrats!
The debates don't matter anyway because Fred Thompson is going to enter the race by sometime in July and shake everything up!!!!So the Republicans can only hope!
why does Romney's religion bother you? Utah is a very red state!!Yes, Mormon Utah is a very red state; but Romney was governor of Massachusetts - a very blue state where the Court imposeded gay marriage.
I am now watching a few minutes of the debate being rerun. Ron Paul just made outragous statements regarding 9-11 and the war but Rudy J. slapped him right back down into his place. The audience that had been quiet as I am sure instructed roared in approval and clapped when Rudy put Ron Paul in his place. I hope the Paulites on AFF catch this debate.Were the statements really so outrageous or are you stupidly interpreting them to mean something other than what Ron Paul said the way Rudy did? Look at American foreign policy since at least the 1950s and look closely at how we interfered in the affairs of various Middle Eastern nations. Ron Paul's assessment was accurate: our unconstitutional entanglement in the affairs of other, particularly Muslim, nations is why terrorists carried out 9/11 and are so bent on hurting us. And, no, Rudy didn't put Ron Paul in his place. Rudy merely parked his brain and reacted with his emotions. He presented a Democrat-like feigned offense at Ron Paul's remarks and, like a Democrat, demanded that Paul withdraw his statements. But Ron Paul, not given to such political correctness nonsense, stood his ground and explained his position as much as he was allowed to.
StillStanding
05-16-2007, 09:04 AM
These debates are useful only for posturing. The fun hasn't really started yet! :)
The fun starts when Fred Thompson declares he is running! The guns will really start blasting then! The other Republican candidates know he will be the frontrunner, but they can't say anything until he declares. The Democrats know he can win the election, so you can bet they have people looking into every crevace of his life trying to find something negative.
SoCaliUPC
05-16-2007, 09:04 AM
When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!:couch
No way, in a million years, would I ever vote for Hillary. She is a socialist..at best.
After watching the debates...right now, I am heavily leaning towards supporting Mitt Romney. John McCain....where I honor his service to our country, and the sacrifices that he has made...he has made me a little weary in his debates. Awkward. Rudy...where I thought he would be the person I favored....speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he talks. He has done this over and over again. I am not talking "flip-flopping" (as I think it has become a "norm" in politics) but in the same sentence he will "flip-flop" his views.
I really would like to see a Romney vs. Edwards presidential election.
Perhaps I should have said naive. It is the same old broken libetarian record. Non interventionism that is impossible in the modern world. Also minimalist government that is not realistic either. There would be chaos.IF YOU THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!
I consider the concept that if we just ignore the rest of the world they will go away and leave us alone as childish and not worth consideration. Anyone that advocates it is dimwitted in my opinion.So typical of someone who doesn't understand that Ron Paul's position is the same position many of the founding fathers held. You are a traitor to America by suggesting as you did here that the founding fathers were "dimwitted"!
George Washington said, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is—in extending our commercial relations—to have with them as little political connection as possible."
James Madison wrote, "Of all enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
John Quincy Adams said, "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
19th century politician Henry Clay explained to Hungarian patriot Louis Kossuth that if America gave aid to his cause, we would have abandoned "our ancient policy of amity and non-intervention." He explained further: "By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington. . . we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness. . . . Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen and falling republics in Europe."
Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations."
A Yale University professor in the late 1800s named William Graham Sumner opposed the expansionist leanings of the then-current Administration when he said regarding the founding fathers, "They would have no court and no pomp; nor orders, or ribbons, or decorations, or titles. They would have no public debt. There was to be no grand diplomacy, because they intended to mind their own business, and not be involved in any of the intrigues to which European statesmen were accustomed. There was to be no balance of power and no 'reason of state' to cost the life and happiness of citizens."
You Paulites can dream on. He is the choice of a whopping 2% of Republican voters in every legitimate poll.
He is going to fade a lot faster than the midget from TX did a few years ago.
BTW - I am quite familiar with the isolationist wing of the Republican party through history. I do not agree with it. It was naive then and it is naive now.
You guys would have sat and ate popcorn while Hitler rolled through all of Europe and Africa.
What are the isolationist going to do when Iran has a nuclear weapon? Do you guys think that just because you will have pulled out of the Middle East and left the oil and Israel to the whims of Middle Eastern despots that Iran and others will not explode one in America? Naive I say!
BTW - I am quite familiar with the isolationist wing of the Republican party through history. I do not agree with it. It was naive then and it is naive now.
You guys would have sat and ate popcorn while Hitler rolled through all of Europe and Africa.And so would the founding fathers! Hmmm, pretty good company to be in. You are essentially saying you don't agree with the founding fathers!
John Quincy Adams said, "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
19th century politician Henry Clay explained to Hungarian patriot Louis Kossuth that if America gave aid to his cause, we would have abandoned "our ancient policy of amity and non-intervention." He explained further: "By the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington. . . we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness. . . . Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen and falling republics in Europe."
Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations."
And so would the founding fathers! Hmmm, pretty good company to be in.
So you admit you would have let Hitler take the rest of the world? If so I think that says plenty about your view.
So you admit you would have let Hitler take the rest of the world? If so I think that says plenty about your view.I would have followed the founding fathers' advice and maintained a non-interventionist policy. However, once Hitler started across the Atlantic toward the United States I would have called on Congress to declare war.
If you don't like the founding fathers' non-interventionist policies, I strongly suggest that you work toward having the Constitution changed to allow the United States to carry out your globalist tendencies.
I would have followed the founding fathers' advice and maintained a non-interventionist policy. However, once Hitler started across the Atlantic toward the United States I would have called on Congress to declare war.
That would have been to little too late. Don't forget that at the time the USA was not considered the world's top military power as it became after the war.
If Hitler had conquored Europe and Africa and had all of those resources at his disposal he would have been almost impossible to conquor. As it was we barely defeated him.
I am so glad you posted what the isolationist view actually means in real world terms. You have shown what a nutty unworkable view it is.
That would have been to little too late. Don't forget that at the time the USA was not considered the world's top military power as it became after the war.
If Hitler had conquored Europe and Africa and had all of those resources at his disposal he would have been almost impossible to conquor. As it was we barely defeated him.
I am so glad you posted what the isolationist view actually means in real world terms. You have shown what a nutty unworkable view it is.Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations." I agree with his statement. The policy that had been America's from the days of the founding fathers (whose memories your interventionist views spit upon) is indeed straight, absolute, and peculiar to other (interventionist) nations.
Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 10:02 AM
There is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism but those lines are being blurred as to paint non-interventionists as isolationists.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 10:07 AM
Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?
Indeed... let's call it like it is.
Those who want to leave portions of the constitution need to stop saying "Y'all are crazy... we don't see it that way... I disagree with you" etc.
They need to say it like it is.
Go ahead and say "I wholeheartedly disagree with the non-interventionism of the Constitution and feel that it needs to be changed"
Then do what you have to do to change the constitution.
Until then... don't knock those who try to uphold it in the face of constant disregard for the document which is the law of the land.
Indeed... let's call it like it is.
Those who want to leave portions of the constitution need to stop saying "Y'all are crazy... we don't see it that way... I disagree with you" etc.
They need to say it like it is.
Go ahead and say "I wholeheartedly disagree with the non-interventionism of the Constitution and feel that it needs to be changed"
Then do what you have to do to change the constitution.
Until then... don't knock those who try to uphold it in the face of constant disregard for the document which is the law of the land.
You sound like the nuts that end up in jail for not paying Federal income tax because you believe it is illegal.
Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations." I agree with his statement. The policy that had been America's from the days of the founding fathers (whose memories your interventionist views spit upon) is indeed straight, absolute, and peculiar to other (interventionist) nations.
Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?
Why do you have utter contempt for reality?
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 10:12 AM
You sound like the nuts that end up in jail for not paying Federal income tax because you believe it is illegal.
If you say so.
I have no idea where you gather that conclusion from what I said... but...
???
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 10:15 AM
Why do you have utter contempt for reality?
What does the Constitution REALLY say then?
ReformedDave
05-16-2007, 10:17 AM
Why do you have utter contempt for reality?
CC1, pragmatism???? That's what's important?
CC1, pragmatism???? That's what's important?
So you think that our participation in WWI and WWII was against the constitution and illegal?
Interesting that so many disagree with you. I didn't notice the Supreme court ruling those were unconstitutional back then or since.
You guys are a fringe element living in a fantasy world. A fantasy world that would be disasterous in reality.
Why do you have utter contempt for reality?
that was funny.
Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward (the man who bought Alaska from Russia) responded to France's request for the United States to help Poland by defending, "our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations." I agree with his statement. The policy that had been America's from the days of the founding fathers (whose memories your interventionist views spit upon) is indeed straight, absolute, and peculiar to other (interventionist) nations.
Why do you have such utter contempt for the founding fathers and their view of foreign policy?
Neither Lincoln nor Seward were founding fathers. The founding fathers also lived in a vastly different time.
AND
I believe under Jefferson, the United States of America interviened in Tripoli and took on the Barbary Pirates.
AND
our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan ARE issues of Amercian National Security. they are not interventionist actions unrelated to America's own interests.
There is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism but those lines are being blurred as to paint non-interventionists as isolationists.Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and so am I. It is people who react to such notions with their emotions instead of their brains that stupidly confuse the two.
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and so am I. It is people who react to such notions with their emotions instead of their brains that stupidly confuse the two.
Ron Paul is a boarderline loon. are you one of those too?
ReformedDave
05-16-2007, 10:37 AM
So you think that our participation in WWI and WWII was against the constitution and illegal?
Interesting that so many disagree with you. I didn't notice the Supreme court ruling those were unconstitutional back then or since.
You guys are a fringe element living in a fantasy world. A fantasy world that would be disasterous in reality.
It's amazing how you lump everyone who disagrees with you and label them the "fringe element" and therefore must be wrong. Give those who disagree with you a pejoritive label and it automatically disqualifies them.
ReformedDave
05-16-2007, 10:37 AM
Ron Paul is a boarderline loon. are you one of those too?
Guess I am.........
Neither Lincoln nor Seward were founding fathers. The founding fathers also lived in a vastly different time. No but they did cite the founding fathers as the authority for their own non-interventionist policy.
AND
I believe under Jefferson, the United States of America interviened in Tripoli and took on the Barbary Pirates.
And what were the circumstances behind it? Was it not that the Barbary states (these were defacto nations) had been attacking American shipping and trying to extort money from the United States just as it had previously been doing to France and England before those nations reached an agreement with the Barbary states?
AND
our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan ARE issues of Amercian National Security. they are not interventionist actions unrelated to America's own interests.So, let's see if I understand your argument: America engages in interventionist policies since the 1950s that anger various Islamic factions throughout the Middle East. Some of these factions retaliate in various ways, not the least of which is 9/11. Therefore, the United States has a national security interest in retaliating against their retaliation?
Ron Paul is a boarderline loon. are you one of those too?Why do you think he's a borderline loon? Is it because of his belief in bringing the country back into line with the Constitution? Is it because of his non-interventionist foreign policy that used to be the commonly held view of Republicans?
Why do you have utter contempt for reality?Are you saying that reality renders the Constitution and the founding fathers' foreign policy irrelevant in today's world? If so, then why not CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION?????
So you think that our participation in WWI and WWII was against the constitution and illegal?Congress declared war, which is the only Constitutional means for the United States to go to war.
Interesting that so many disagree with you. I didn't notice the Supreme court ruling those were unconstitutional back then or since.There you go stupidly reading things into what people say!
You guys are a fringe element living in a fantasy world. A fantasy world that would be disasterous in reality.Your globalist and interventionist policies have been disastrous for the United States - 9/11 was just one result of these policies you and so many Republicans today are trying to defend.
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 11:02 AM
Yeah, I'm a looney. Ron Paul is the hope of America in this time of crisis where fascism and a near police state are being hatched. Think not? Why, then do we need a "war czar"? Why then is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (otherwise known as the president -- synonymous with "war czar") pondering the position? Our constitutional rights, which aren't necessarily God-Given, are being stripped away in the name of fear and patriotism. The founding fathers are fanning the flames of the nether regions because of the amount of spinning they are doing in their graves.
Ron Paul for President in 2008.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 11:10 AM
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and so am I. It is people who react to such notions with their emotions instead of their brains that stupidly confuse the two.
Totally agreed.
I am also a non-interventionist (in case you didn't get that from the post you replied to)
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 11:14 AM
Why do you think he's a borderline loon? Is it because of his belief in bringing the country back into line with the Constitution? Is it because of his non-interventionist foreign policy that used to be the commonly held view of Republicans?
Exactly...
People are being called loons for holding true to what has, historically, been the Republican line.
No but they did cite the founding fathers as the authority for their own non-interventionist policy.
And what were the circumstances behind it? Was it not that the Barbary states (these were defacto nations) had been attacking American shipping and trying to extort money from the United States just as it had previously been doing to France and England before those nations reached an agreement with the Barbary states?
So, let's see if I understand your argument: America engages in interventionist policies since the 1950s that anger various Islamic factions throughout the Middle East. Some of these factions retaliate in various ways, not the least of which is 9/11. Therefore, the United States has a national security interest in retaliating against their retaliation?
well, you are close enough for me. When America has a national interest, then America should act. period.
Yeah, I'm a looney. Ron Paul is the hope of America in this time of crisis where fascism and a near police state are being hatched. Think not? Why, then do we need a "war czar"? Why then is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (otherwise known as the president -- synonymous with "war czar") pondering the position? Our constitutional rights, which aren't necessarily God-Given, are being stripped away in the name of fear and patriotism. The founding fathers are fanning the flames of the nether regions because of the amount of spinning they are doing in their graves.
Ron Paul for President in 2008.
proof that ron paul is a loon. I take back the boarderline comment. he is full blown.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 11:58 AM
well, you are close enough for me. When America has a national interest, then America should act. period.
No matter what the Constitution says?
The United States Of America does not exist outside the Constitution.
How do you act outside of your creator without being in transgression against said creator?
well, you are close enough for me. When America has a national interest, then America should act. period.The founding fathers believed that America's national interest was to butt out of the affairs of other nations! You really aren't getting it: American interventionist policies were what resulted in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on America.
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 12:29 PM
The founding fathers believed that America's national interest was to butt out of the affairs of other nations! You really aren't getting it: American interventionist policies were what resulted in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on America.
Exactly...
No matter what the Constitution says?
The United States Of America does not exist outside the Constitution.
How do you act outside of your creator without being in transgression against said creator?
The Constitution didn't create this nation, God did.
The Constitution didn't create this nation, God did.
God created all of the other nations, too.
God created all of the other nations, too.
And?
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 12:32 PM
Exactly...
People are being called loons for holding true to what has, historically, been the Republican line.
Yep... if you call someone a loon long enough the truth of their stance is denied as actually being truth. Gotta love the name calling or psychiatric labels. If a crazy person says something true, then is it less true because a crazy person said it? Isn't that a genetic fallacy?
And?And, so, what's your point?
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 12:36 PM
The Constitution didn't create this nation, God did.
And the political ideals of the founding fathers are found within the constitution. It isn't a spiritual thing, this idea of politics and the constitution. Nor economics, for that matter. God is God no matter what nation, political or economical ideal.
If we wish to hold to the ideals set up by the founding fathers, then we have uphold and defend the constitution -- and everything that is within it. It has nothing to do with spirituality, it has to do with political ideals.
And, so, what's your point?
Uh, DUH, I was answering someone else's post with that post.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 12:37 PM
The Constitution didn't create this nation, God did.
Well let's just chunk it out then. (The Constitution)
Nobody's using it anyway.
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 12:37 PM
Well let's just chunk it out then. (The Constitution)
Nobody's using it anyway.
I hear Iraq needs one.... :ursofunny :ursofunny :ursofunny
Uh, DUH, I was answering someone else's post with that post.
I know you were. My question still stands.
I know you were. My question still stands.
As does my answer.
Well let's just chunk it out then. (The Constitution)
Nobody's using it anyway.Well, the Democrats and the most of the Republicans would love to chuck the Constitution.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 12:40 PM
As does my answer.
Sir... you are not answering the mans intended question.
You are dodging what he is asking you...
But...
I have to say...
I literally laughed out loud on that one. :) :ursofunny
Very funny. :thumbsup
well, you are close enough for me. When America has a national interest, then America should act. period.
No matter what the Constitution says?
The United States Of America does not exist outside the Constitution.
How do you act outside of your creator without being in transgression against said creator?
The Constitution of tthe United States of America
Article 1
Section 8
paragraph10-12
The Congress shall have the Power
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11 To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So yea, the Constitution does give the USA the right to defend American national interest.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 12:41 PM
Well, the Democrats and the most of the Republicans would love to chuck the Constitution.
Yes sir...
I believe the quote was....
If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 12:42 PM
Yes sir...
I believe the quote was....
*grin*
Frodo lost the ring... Bush has it...
Sir... you are not answering the mans intended question.
You are dodging what he is asking you...
But...
I have to say...
I literally laughed out loud on that one. :) :ursofunny
Very funny. :thumbsup
:D Glad to be of service! :D
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 12:43 PM
The Constitution of tthe United States of America
Article 1
Section 8
paragraph10-12
The Congress shall have the Power
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11 To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So yea, the Constitution does give the USA the right to defend American national interest.
First off... Ron Paul tried to get Congress to declare war... but they would not hear of obeying the constitution.
Secondly... please define the portion of the quoted material above that you feel gives the US authority to do anything other than the non-interventionist policies we have been speaking of?
The Constitution of tthe United States of America
Article 1
Section 8
paragraph10-12
The Congress shall have the Power
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11 To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So yea, the Constitution does give the USA the right to defend American national interest.No one disputes that. What we dispute is what constitutes American national interest. We dispute the Executive Branch's authority to conduct military operations in foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. We dispute that America retaliating against Islam's retaliating against America because of America's interfering in the affairs of other nations is in America's national interest (and even if it is, only Congress has the authority to declare war).
The founding fathers believed that America's national interest was to butt out of the affairs of other nations! You really aren't getting it: American interventionist policies were what resulted in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on America.
what interventions has America done in the last 50 years that were not in the interests of the United States, and were not a response to some "offence against the law of Nations" (that last bit is a quote from the constitution)
and the founding fathers held widely varying beliefs. Some of the founding fathers felt it was treason for the United States to purchase Louisiana. That is why the Lewis and Clark expidition was top secret.
The founding fathers did not walk in lockstep. What they did deem important holistically, they codified in the Constitution... which we have already established leaves room for America to interviene when we feel it necessary to do so.
what interventions has America done in the last 50 years that were not in the interests of the United States, and were not a response to some "offence against the law of Nations" (that last bit is a quote from the constitution)The latter has nothing to do with the former (and you did not provide the context of the latter quote). But to answer your question, Korea, Iran, Viet Nam, Central America, Lebanon, Grenada, Kuwait, Bosnia, Africa, and all of the other foreign military actions that were without a direct declaration of war by Congress.
and the founding fathers held widely varying beliefs. Some of the founding fathers felt it was treason for the United States to purchase Louisiana. That is why the Lewis and Clark expidition was top secret. But that has nothing to do with interfering with the affairs of other nations or with foreign entanglements.
The founding fathers did not walk in lockstep. What they did deem important holistically, they codified in the Constitution... which we have already established leaves room for America to interviene when we feel it necessary to do so.Not without a declaration of war BY CONGRESS!
No one disputes that. What we dispute is what constitutes American national interest. We dispute the Executive Branch's authority to conduct military operations in foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. We dispute that America retaliating against Islam's retaliating against America because of America's interfering in the affairs of other nations is in America's national interest (and even if it is, only Congress has the authority to declare war).
in fact Chan, D4T DID dispute the notion that the Constitution provides America the ability to intervene in foreign affairs.
further, the articles I quoted do not state imperically that the Congress must delcair war for such interventions to happen.
addtitionally, both the President and the Congress are following the letter of the constitution, in that appropreations for the conflicts currently takeing place are reviewed and renewed within the specified time frame of 2 years.
thus your claim is baseless constitutionally.
however, if you desire to make a Philosophical argument based on what you believe to be the best course, then have at it. I disagree but the constitution does afford you that right.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 01:04 PM
The Constitution grants specific powers to specific branches of the Federal government and also states that any power not granted to them in the Constitution was reserved for the states.
If the power to declare war is not granted to the executive branch by the constitution then, per that same Constitution, that power is not available to that branch.
Congress was granted the power to declare war.
No one else.
So no one else possesses that power.
The various branches of government are absolutely and without question limited to the specific powers granted it by the Constitution and no more.
in fact Chan, D4T DID dispute the notion that the Constitution provides America the ability to intervene in foreign affairs.
further, the articles I quoted do not state imperically that the Congress must delcair war for such interventions to happen.
addtitionally, both the President and the Congress are following the letter of the constitution, in that appropreations for the conflicts currently takeing place are reviewed and renewed within the specified time frame of 2 years.
thus your claim is baseless constitutionally.
however, if you desire to make a Philosophical argument based on what you believe to be the best course, then have at it. I disagree but the constitution does afford you that right.Article II Section 2.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." There is no other power given to the President with regard to his function as Commander in Chief. Unless the power is specifically given to a particular branch of the federal government, the federal government does not have the power.
As for Congress, Section 8 of Article I states the following (in addition to what you quoted):
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The Constitution grants specific powers to specific branches of the Federal government and also states that any power not granted to them in the Constitution was reserved for the states.
If the power to declare war is not granted to the executive branch by the constitution then, per that same Constitution, that power is not available to that branch.
Congress was granted the power to declare war.
No one else.
So no one else possesses that power.
The various branches of government are absolutely and without question limited to the specific powers granted it by the Constitution and no more.
the constitution grants the congress the right to make law governing American military intervention in foreign nations. That was followed to the letter in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
the constitution grants the president the autority to direct the military as the Commander in Chief. the current president is opperating in that roll to the letter of the law as outlined by the constitution.
you are factually wrong on this subject. Americas 2 current conflicts fall well within the confines of the Constitution.
Article II Section 2.
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." There is no other power given to the President with regard to his function as Commander in Chief. Unless the power is specifically given to a particular branch of the federal government, the federal government does not have the power.
As for Congress, Section 8 of Article I states the following (in addition to what you quoted):
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clearly this adds to the point that I have already made. Both the President and the Congress have acted within the confines of the constitution.
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 01:41 PM
I have won this debate.
And Bush won the election in 2000. :killinme :killinme :killinme
And Bush won the election in 2000. :killinme :killinme :killinme
and the constitution supports that claim! hee hee.
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 01:46 PM
and the constitution supports that claim! hee hee.
Good point. I think I'm on your side now -- let's throw out the Constitution, it didn't do us any good then. :D
Good point. I think I'm on your side now -- let's throw out the Constitution, it didn't do us any good then. :D
grrrrrr
the constitution grants the congress the right to make law governing American military intervention in foreign nations. That was followed to the letter in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
the constitution grants the president the autority to direct the military as the Commander in Chief. the current president is opperating in that roll to the letter of the law as outlined by the constitution.
you are factually wrong on this subject. Americas 2 current conflicts fall well within the confines of the Constitution.Where does the Constitution say Congress gets to make law regarding American military intervention in foreign nations other than a declaration of war?
FROM THE RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
Clearly this adds to the point that I have already made. Both the President and the Congress have acted within the confines of the constitution.
No, they haven't. Congress has not declared war.
RonPaul4President
05-16-2007, 02:29 PM
REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.
We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.
(Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the
attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.) And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)
From Ron Pauls Campaign:
Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?
May 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 02:35 PM
From Ron Pauls Campaign:
Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?
May 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."
I am glad the Ron Paul camp put this out.
Thanks for posting it.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 02:42 PM
Ron Paul, the ONLY one who has any chance of defeating the Clintonistas Reloaded.
Help prevent Hillaroids! Vote for Ron Paul!
berkeley
05-16-2007, 02:54 PM
Yes, Mormon Utah is a very red state; but Romney was governor of Massachusetts - a very blue state where the Court imposeded gay marriage.
right.. right...
berkeley
05-16-2007, 02:57 PM
BTW - I am quite familiar with the isolationist wing of the Republican party through history. I do not agree with it. It was naive then and it is naive now.
You guys would have sat and ate popcorn while Hitler rolled through all of Europe and Africa.
What are the isolationist going to do when Iran has a nuclear weapon? Do you guys think that just because you will have pulled out of the Middle East and left the oil and Israel to the whims of Middle Eastern despots that Iran and others will not explode one in America? Naive I say!
:popcorn2
bishopnl
05-16-2007, 02:58 PM
That would have been to little too late. Don't forget that at the time the USA was not considered the world's top military power as it became after the war.
If Hitler had conquored Europe and Africa and had all of those resources at his disposal he would have been almost impossible to conquor. As it was we barely defeated him.
We didn't exactly go to Europe and fight Hitler just as a preemptive measure. Most of our policies were favorable toward Allied forces (providing weapons, etc.), but we didn't enter the war until after America had been attacked by Japan. We then declared war on Japan, and Germany declared war on us.
Same for WWI. It was only after American ships were killed, American lives were lost on the Lusitania, and the Zimmerman telegram that we finally declared war.
And ditto for the Barbary pirates as well...American ships were attacked, Americans were taken hostage and sold as slaves, etc.
Its not that I am necessarily agreeing with Ron Paul. But so far, the parallels don't quite match up.
berkeley
05-16-2007, 02:59 PM
You sound like the nuts that end up in jail for not paying Federal income tax because you believe it is illegal.
:heeheehee
berkeley
05-16-2007, 03:10 PM
I'm a simple minded guy...
this is how I see It:
If America sits idley by :girlnails and waits for them to attack our shores, it's like throwing out a welcome sign :welcome2 . Welcoming attacks.. and what not.
:grampa but I really don't like the idea of losing personal freedoms under the guise of national security.
Is Canada:canada a better option??
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 03:10 PM
Ron Paul is a TRUE conservative. A TRUE conservative DEMANDS that government ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION.
The "neo-cons" believe that the ends justifies the means. Notice that (with the exception of the closet Democrat McCain) everybody at the debate SUPPORTED the use of TORTURE and supported unconstitutional, undeclared wars with foreign nations.
Paul is NOT an "isolationist". Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST. He has REPEATEDLY said, and he in fact ARGUED IN CONGRESS, that IF there is a valid need to go to war with Iraq, then Congress needs to DECLARE WAR and we need to go in ALL OUT NON STOP with CLEAR GOALS and WIN, and he argued AGAINST all this political balderdash and the TREASONOUS action by Congress when they DELEGATED their Constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.
Ron Paul is resonating with a BROAD SPECTRUM of Americans who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the same old garbage politicians on both sides of the FALSE "left-right" paradigm.
What a novel idea! Follow the Constitution!
Something these fake Republican neo-cons cannot wrap their Fabian minds around...
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 03:13 PM
Excellent post.
That term "isolationist" has been thrown around for years and it just isn't sticking anymore.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist.
No, they haven't. Congress has not declared war.
OK Mister ultra precise language. tell me where in your quotation of the Constitution does it say the words "declair war"
Where does the Constitution say Congress gets to make law regarding American military intervention in foreign nations other than a declaration of war?
FROM THE RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
right here Mr Mensa
The Constitution of tthe United States of America
Article 1
Section 8
paragraph10-12
The Congress shall have the Power
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 03:20 PM
right here Mr Mensa
The Constitution of tthe United States of America
Article 1
Section 8
paragraph10-12
The Congress shall have the Power
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Do you know what that clause is in reference to?
Let's see. These nutzoids attacked the WTC during Clinton's term, blew up one of our ships, and destroyed on of our embassies, along with bringing down the WTC on 9/11 and y'all still think we we wrong in attacking them back? Yeah, right.
From Ron Pauls Campaign:
Why Hasn’t Rudy Giuliani Read the 9-11 Commission Report?
May 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ARLINGTON, VA – During the "First in the South" GOP debate in South Carolina last night, one thing was made clear: Rudy Giuliani does not understand how to keep America safe.
When Congressman Ron Paul, who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security, Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd." This statement is particularly troubling coming from the former mayor who tries to cast himself as a security expert, since Dr. Paul's point comes directly from the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
"Rudy Giuliani has tip-toed around the issues of abortion, guns and marriage. The only issue he has left is security, and he doesn't even get that right," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "It is clear from his interruption that former Mayor Giuliani has not read the 9-11 Commission Report and has no clue on how to keep America safe."
I am glad the Ron Paul camp put this out.
Thanks for posting it.
in part RP is right. however, I do not believe that there is any possible way to change this were we to go back in time these 50 years. the heart of the matter is American recognition of Israel. I would never want to change that, and in all honesty if you were to change every thing else we have done where it concerns the middle east, we would still be the same target because we support Israel.
some of you might think supporting Israel is a bad idea. I do not.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 03:23 PM
Let's see. These nutzoids attacked the WTC during Clinton's term, blew up one of our ships, and destroyed on of our embassies, along with bringing down the WTC on 9/11 and y'all still think we we wrong in attacking them back? Yeah, right.
Nope... never said that.
You are reading into what people are saying.
We are saying... if you are going to go to war... you need to declare war.
When we went to Afghanistan we should have declared war.
If Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 then we should have declared war.
So...
In your opinion...
Was Iraq involved in 9/11?
Do you know what that clause is in reference to?
Yes. However, I suspect you will tell me something completely different than what it is in reference to.
additionally it is an INTERPRETATION that congress HAS to delcare war. It is NOT the position of the Supreme Court, nor is it the position of the actual words in the constitution.
Nope... never said that.
You are reading into what people are saying.
We are saying... if you are going to go to war... you need to declare war.
When we went to Afghanistan we should have declared war.
If Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 then we should have declared war.
So...
In your opinion...
Was Iraq involved in 9/11?
good grief. how many times does it have to be said that we are not in Iraq because Iraq was a sponser of 9/11 that is asinine.
Ron Paul is a TRUE conservative. A TRUE conservative DEMANDS that government ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION.
The "neo-cons" believe that the ends justifies the means. Notice that (with the exception of the closet Democrat McCain) everybody at the debate SUPPORTED the use of TORTURE and supported unconstitutional, undeclared wars with foreign nations.
Paul is NOT an "isolationist". Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST. He has REPEATEDLY said, and he in fact ARGUED IN CONGRESS, that IF there is a valid need to go to war with Iraq, then Congress needs to DECLARE WAR and we need to go in ALL OUT NON STOP with CLEAR GOALS and WIN, and he argued AGAINST all this political balderdash and the TREASONOUS action by Congress when they DELEGATED their Constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.
Ron Paul is resonating with a BROAD SPECTRUM of Americans who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the same old garbage politicians on both sides of the FALSE "left-right" paradigm.
What a novel idea! Follow the Constitution!
Something these fake Republican neo-cons cannot wrap their Fabian minds around...
ron paul is a fruit cake. he problably believes the gubbermint blew up the WTC.
Nope... never said that.
You are reading into what people are saying.
We are saying... if you are going to go to war... you need to declare war.
When we went to Afghanistan we should have declared war.
If Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 then we should have declared war.
So...
In your opinion...
Was Iraq involved in 9/11?
I will admit to not having followed everything Congress has done, but I seem to remember something about Congress voting to give the President war powers.
With regards to Iraq I doubt we will ever know the truth about what all they were planning. I have read stories that dealt with convoys of trucks leaving Iraq into Syria just prior to our invasion, that could have had the WMD on them.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 03:30 PM
I'm a simple minded guy...
this is how I see It:
If America sits idley by :girlnails and waits for them to attack our shores, it's like throwing out a welcome sign :welcome2 . Welcoming attacks.. and what not.
:grampa but I really don't like the idea of losing personal freedoms under the guise of national security.
1. Welcome sign? You mean like the southern border????
2. We were told that the evil Moslem Islamofascist terrorists hate our freedoms, and want to conduct terrorist attacks to destroy us and our freedoms.
Well, let's look at that.
Question: Can a bunch of ragheads in the desert backed by a bunch of hashish-smoking third world tin pot dictatorships really "Destroy America and take away our freedoms?"
Question: Why is it that - in order to "save America" and "protect our freedoms" - we are told we have to do away with the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and habeus corpus, we have to enshrine torture and secret military tribunals as officially sanctioned policy, we need secret CIA-run prisons scattered around the world, people snatched and "disappeared" (no habeus corpus, remember?), Pentegon "advisors" advising on what major news networks can and cannot say, a White House office of propaganda feeding FAKE NEWS to not only foreign news reporters, but DOMESTIC NEWS REPORTERS AS WELL (ministry of propaganda, anyone?)...
Why is it we have to lose our freedoms in order to "save democracy"?
We talk about how evil these Arabs are, but what's the difference between Saddam's torture chambers and our own Abu Ghraib festivities?
Just exactly WHO is an actual threat to our freedoms?
Who is destroying the economy by shipping our entire industrial-manufacturing base overseas to third world (often COMMUNIST!) countries?
Is an open-ended, "endless war" against vague and undefined "enemies of the state", worldwide network of secret prisons, use of torture to elicit "confessions of crimes against the state", and official propaganda departments feeding news and "information" to domestic and foreign news services the hallmarks of a "free republic"? Is it not rather the hallmarks of a budding Commie/Fascist type dictatorship?
Rumsfield said several TRILLION DOLLARS in Pentagon money just disappeared, and "nobody knows where it went". Yeah, just like the millions of tons of solid steel support columns in WTC 1 and 2 - poof, up in smoke, vaporised...
Now we hear that MILLIONS of barrels of oil have "disappeared" from Iraq... Folks, you don't just shoplift millions of barrels of oil and hock it down at Habib's pawn shop.
The traitors in charge are yammering about a "North American Union". We just agreed to blend in with the EU in the meantime, for crying out loud!
Quite simply, a bunch of mafioso's have got their fingers in America's pie and are pilfering and embezzling the entire nation into total bankruptcy.
Illegal aliens (who are CRIMINALS!) get to march and riot in the streets, but American's who show up carrying signs opposing the illegal invaders are AUTOMATICALLY ARRESTED ON SITE! (Just happened in Seattle, in fact...)
And Rudy "hurry up and sweep the crime scene and bury the remains of the 911 victims in the nearest landfill" Giuliani is supposed to be a "conservative Republican"??????
McCain?????
Romney????
Get REAL folks!
ONLY Ron Paul is a CONSERVATIVE. A TRUE conservative. A PRO AMERICA conservative.
Something the fake "conservative" neo-con closet fascist Hannity's of the world despise.
Thank God for Ron Paul!
what out, here come the conspiracy theories!
1. Welcome sign? You mean like the southern border????
2. We were told that the evil Moslem Islamofascist terrorists hate our freedoms, and want to conduct terrorist attacks to destroy us and our freedoms.
Well, let's look at that.
Question: Can a bunch of ragheads in the desert backed by a bunch of hashish-smoking third world tin pot dictatorships really "Destroy America and take away our freedoms?"
Question: Why is it that - in order to "save America" and "protect our freedoms" - we are told we have to do away with the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and habeus corpus, we have to enshrine torture and secret military tribunals as officially sanctioned policy, we need secret CIA-run prisons scattered around the world, people snatched and "disappeared" (no habeus corpus, remember?), Pentegon "advisors" advising on what major news networks can and cannot say, a White House office of propaganda feeding FAKE NEWS to not only foreign news reporters, but DOMESTIC NEWS REPORTERS AS WELL (ministry of propaganda, anyone?)...
Why is it we have to lose our freedoms in order to "save democracy"?
We talk about how evil these Arabs are, but what's the difference between Saddam's torture chambers and our own Abu Ghraib festivities?
Just exactly WHO is an actual threat to our freedoms?
Who is destroying the economy by shipping our entire industrial-manufacturing base overseas to third world (often COMMUNIST!) countries?
Is an open-ended, "endless war" against vague and undefined "enemies of the state", worldwide network of secret prisons, use of torture to elicit "confessions of crimes against the state", and official propaganda departments feeding news and "information" to domestic and foreign news services the hallmarks of a "free republic"? Is it not rather the hallmarks of a budding Commie/Fascist type dictatorship?
Rumsfield said several TRILLION DOLLARS in Pentagon money just disappeared, and "nobody knows where it went". Yeah, just like the millions of tons of solid steel support columns in WTC 1 and 2 - poof, up in smoke, vaporised...
Now we hear that MILLIONS of barrels of oil have "disappeared" from Iraq... Folks, you don't just shoplift millions of barrels of oil and hock it down at Habib's pawn shop.
The traitors in charge are yammering about a "North American Union". We just agreed to blend in with the EU in the meantime, for crying out loud!
Quite simply, a bunch of mafioso's have got their fingers in America's pie and are pilfering and embezzling the entire nation into total bankruptcy.
Illegal aliens (who are CRIMINALS!) get to march and riot in the streets, but American's who show up carrying signs opposing the illegal invaders are AUTOMATICALLY ARRESTED ON SITE! (Just happened in Seattle, in fact...)
And Rudy "hurry up and sweep the crime scene and bury the remains of the 911 victims in the nearest landfill" Giuliani is supposed to be a "conservative Republican"??????
McCain?????
Romney????
Get REAL folks!
ONLY Ron Paul is a CONSERVATIVE. A TRUE conservative. A PRO AMERICA conservative.
Something the fake "conservative" neo-con closet fascist Hannity's of the world despise.
Thank God for Ron Paul!
Quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think, would ya?
Quit beating around the bush and tell us what you really think, would ya?
he thinks we live in Nazi occupied Germany and Herman Garing is in charge of Hollywood and GWB is actully hitler without the stupid mustach.
Pretty soon, the gubbermint is going to take away all of our farm animals and prevent us from growing our own food, then they will put us all in slave camps and make us worship owls and become masons.
he thinks we live in Nazi occupied Germany and Herman Garing is in charge of Hollywood and GWB is actully hitler without the stupid mustach.
Pretty soon, the gubbermint is going to take away all of our farm animals and prevent us from growing our own food, then they will put us all in slave camps and make us worship owls and become masons.
You forgot the part about the helicopters.
Ferd,
The good thing is we don't have to waste very much energy discussing this with the wacko's here because their man is at a whopping 2% in the legitimate polls of registered Republican voters. Ron Paul is going to fade faster than my summer tans.
He obviously has a fervent fan base but they could all fit in a VW bug with room to spare.
Ferd,
He obviously has a fervent fan base but they could all fit in a VW bug with room to spare.
Kinda like those nekkid Pentecostals. No one really took them seriously.
berkeley
05-16-2007, 03:53 PM
1. Welcome sign? You mean like the southern border????
YES, I HATE HAVING OPEN BORDERS!!
2. We were told that the evil Moslem Islamofascist terrorists hate our freedoms, and want to conduct terrorist attacks to destroy us and our freedoms.
Well, let's look at that.
Question: Can a bunch of ragheads in the desert backed by a bunch of hashish-smoking third world tin pot dictatorships really "Destroy America and take away our freedoms?"
NOT ON THE SAME SCALE AS WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO IRAQ
Question: Why is it that - in order to "save America" and "protect our freedoms" - we are told we have to do away with the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and habeus corpus, we have to enshrine torture and secret military tribunals as officially sanctioned policy, we need secret CIA-run prisons scattered around the world, people snatched and "disappeared" (no habeus corpus, remember?), Pentegon "advisors" advising on what major news networks can and cannot say, a White House office of propaganda feeding FAKE NEWS to not only foreign news reporters, but DOMESTIC NEWS REPORTERS AS WELL (ministry of propaganda, anyone?)...
DUDE, CHILL! I SAID THAT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE ARE LOSING OUR RIGHTS..
Why is it we have to lose our freedoms in order to "save democracy"?
WE DON'T HAVE TO, THAT'S JUST IT... AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND.. MAYBE GLENN BECK WAS RIGHT.. HE SAID THAT NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN REAL NEWS.. THEY WANT REPORTS ON PARIS HILTON GOING TO JAIL... LINDSAY LOHAN GETTING DRUNK, ETC..
We talk about how evil these Arabs are, but what's the difference between Saddam's torture chambers and our own Abu Ghraib festivities?
I DON'T AGREE WITH THE USE OF TORTURE, AND I SEE VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE
Ferd,
The good thing is we don't have to waste very much energy discussing this with the wacko's here because their man is at a whopping 2% in the legitimate polls of registered Republican voters. Ron Paul is going to fade faster than my summer tans.
He obviously has a fervent fan base but they could all fit in a VW bug with room to spare.
LOL! I know.
Long live Fred Thompson.
1. Welcome sign? You mean like the southern border????
YES, I HATE HAVING OPEN BORDERS!!
2. We were told that the evil Moslem Islamofascist terrorists hate our freedoms, and want to conduct terrorist attacks to destroy us and our freedoms.
Well, let's look at that.
Question: Can a bunch of ragheads in the desert backed by a bunch of hashish-smoking third world tin pot dictatorships really "Destroy America and take away our freedoms?"
NOT ON THE SAME SCALE AS WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO IRAQ
Question: Why is it that - in order to "save America" and "protect our freedoms" - we are told we have to do away with the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and habeus corpus, we have to enshrine torture and secret military tribunals as officially sanctioned policy, we need secret CIA-run prisons scattered around the world, people snatched and "disappeared" (no habeus corpus, remember?), Pentegon "advisors" advising on what major news networks can and cannot say, a White House office of propaganda feeding FAKE NEWS to not only foreign news reporters, but DOMESTIC NEWS REPORTERS AS WELL (ministry of propaganda, anyone?)...
DUDE, CHILL! I SAID THAT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE ARE LOSING OUR RIGHTS..
Why is it we have to lose our freedoms in order to "save democracy"?
WE DON'T HAVE TO, THAT'S JUST IT... AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND.. MAYBE GLENN BECK WAS RIGHT.. HE SAID THAT NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN REAL NEWS.. THEY WANT REPORTS ON PARIS HILTON GOING TO JAIL... LINDSAY LOHAN GETTING DRUNK, ETC..
We talk about how evil these Arabs are, but what's the difference between Saddam's torture chambers and our own Abu Ghraib festivities?
I DON'T AGREE WITH THE USE OF TORTURE, AND I SEE VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE
Berk, you need to realize that you are conversing with a fellow that sleeps under his bed for fear that the governement is about to enslave the masses.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 03:58 PM
"Ron Paul is a fruitcake... only 2 percent of Republicans like Ron Paul..."
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!
Looks like Ferd's been sharing the Lortab with CC1...
bishopnl
05-16-2007, 03:59 PM
additionally it is an INTERPRETATION that congress HAS to delcare war. It is NOT the position of the Supreme Court, nor is it the position of the actual words in the constitution.
Do what?
Article I Sec. 8 of the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have power...etc. etc....
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
It's not an interpetation of the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war. It's the facts. It is the actual words in the Constitution, which unfortunately, too few people have read and too many people feel at ease to give their own spin on it.
The Supreme Court, btw, has also made many, many erroneous rulings in the past, so appealing to them as the arbiter of what is constitutional does not exactly do much for your case. Conservative author Mark Levin has a great book out called Men in Black which details a lot of the problems with the Supreme Court. Great reading.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 03:59 PM
Ferd,
The good thing is we don't have to waste very much energy discussing this with the wacko's here because their man is at a whopping 2% in the legitimate polls of registered Republican voters. Ron Paul is going to fade faster than my summer tans.
He obviously has a fervent fan base but they could all fit in a VW bug with room to spare.
Can you provide links to these "legitimate polls"?
In the debates so far Ron Paul has never came in lower than the top 3.
I would find the "legitimate polls" you speak of interesting and would love to see them.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 04:00 PM
"Ron Paul is a fruitcake... only 2 percent of Republicans like Ron Paul..."
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!
Looks like Ferd's been sharing the Lortab with CC1...
Yep...
In a field of 10 he still commands 25-33% of the polls that I have seen.
That is why I would like to see links to these polls they speak of.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 04:01 PM
Berk, you need to realize that you are conversing with a fellow that sleeps under his bed for fear that the governement is about to enslave the masses.
How juvenile.
berkeley
05-16-2007, 04:01 PM
Berk, you need to realize that you are conversing with a fellow that sleeps under his bed for fear that the governement is about to enslave the masses.
I really doubt that. I think some of the questions (the ones I didn't answer) were good!
Can you provide links to these "legitimate polls"?
In the debates so far Ron Paul has never came in lower than the top 3.
I would find the "legitimate polls" you speak of interesting and would love to see them.
well here is a good start. it is slightly above 2% but Paul is behind Tom Tancredo for goodness sake!
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 04:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RonPaul2008dotcom
I really doubt that. I think some of the questions (the ones I didn't answer) were good!
mozy over to GNC. you will find out otherwise. our good friend here is a bonified conspiracy theorest.
(the above is not an opinion it is a statement of fact.)
bishopnl
05-16-2007, 04:03 PM
"Ron Paul is a fruitcake... only 2 percent of Republicans like Ron Paul..."
It seems to me that that's about as deep as its going to get when it comes to expressing why one disagrees with Ron Paul. Slap a label on him, point out that he's in the minority, and that's sufficient.
Don't get me wrong. There's a lot about Ron Paul I don't agree with, including his comments during the debate...there are, in my opinion, a lot more factors to 9/11 than American foreign policy in the Middle East.
But he is, in my opinion, a lot more conservative and a lot more principled than most of the other jokers up there. The thought that Guliani, McCain, and Romney are the front runners for the GOP is enough to make me nauseous.
berkeley
05-16-2007, 04:04 PM
mozy over to GNC. you will find out otherwise. our good friend here is a bonified conspiracy theorest.
(the above is not an opinion it is a statement of fact.)
I'm not unfamiliar with Eliseus. I don't know which is worse, to be a conspiracy theorist, or to swallow whatever the administration puts out hook, line, and sinker!!
How juvenile.
while somewhat satrical, my comments have enough truth to pass the smell test.
I don't know which is worse, to be a conspiracy theorist, or to swallow whatever the administration puts out hook, line, and sinker!!
the latter. however, neither make for sound judgement.
bishopnl
05-16-2007, 04:10 PM
Long live Fred Thompson.
Speaking of Fred Thompson, I saw his video response to Michael Moore. I'm sorry, but he looked ridiculous. If you are a serious presidential contender, why do you even need to respond to a crackhead like Moore? Potential presidential candidate sits there sucking back on a stogie trying to trade verbal witticisms with a college dropout....Heaven help America...lol...
berkeley
05-16-2007, 04:12 PM
Speaking of Fred Thompson, I saw his video response to Michael Moore. I'm sorry, but he looked ridiculous. If you are a serious presidential contender, why do you even need to respond to a crackhead like Moore? Potential presidential candidate sits there sucking back on a stogie trying to trade verbal witticisms with a college dropout....Heaven help America...lol...
"crack head" ... christian cussing.. tisk tisk..:tease
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 04:15 PM
I mean seriously, the Republicrats are trying to position either Ghouliani or Romney to go up against Darth Clinton Herself.
Giuliani is a pro choice, pro gun control wanna be mob clown.
Flip-Flop Romney is a Joel Osteen clone.
Who's left?
Only Paul.
What are his "fruit cake" ideas?
1. Either get out of Iraq or DECLARE WAR and get 'er done the right way.
2. Repeal the unconsitutional and treasonous NAFTA, GATT and related treaties, and scrap the North American Union (thus bringing our jobs back home and protecting our national sovereignty).
3. Get us out of the unconstitutional federal reserve scam and return to sound money, REAL money, with an end to endless and unlimited BORROWING to finance unconstitutional pork barrel legislation.
4. Get us out the UN.
5. Return to a non-interventionist, America-First foreign policy (you know, the one advocated by the Founding Fathers... fruitcakes all of them, I know, but still, they might have known what they were talking about....)
6. Dismantle the unconstitutional police state apparatus (Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Military Commissions Act, Total Information Awareness, Echelon Project, yada yada yada) and return 4th, 5th, 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights enforcement.
7. Return to the individual state's their powers and rights under the 10th Amendment and those Articles of Confederation that are still valid (the ones not amended by the US Constitution) such as education for example.
Sounds like a REAL GOOD "fruit cake" to me. Sure beats the "cow pies" offered up by the opposition (Hillary, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, et al).
"crack head" ... christian cussing.. tisk tisk..:tease
bishopnl was kinder to mkle muer (i misspell his name as a sign of utter contempt and disrespect), than I would be.
this is a human being for whom a few choice words, would not be out of place, and i am not convinced one would be sinning to use them.
berkeley
05-16-2007, 04:18 PM
bishopnl was kinder to mkle muer (i misspell his name as a sign of utter contempt and disrespect), than I would be.
this is a human being for whom a few choice words, would not be out of place, and i am not convinced one would be sinning to use them.
lol.. i was kidding anyway..
bless you! :icecream
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 04:18 PM
while somewhat satrical, my comments have enough truth to pass the smell test.
ROFL!!!!
I don't know what's funnier... your off the wall comments, or the idea you take them seriously.
ROFL!!!!
I don't know what's funnier... your off the wall comments, or the idea you take them seriously.
yet you find it perfectly fine to beleive the government blew up WTC buildings.
Here is the Cook Poll. Your bud Ron Paul is at 1%
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. May 11-13, 2007. N=333 registered voters nationwide who are Republicans or lean Republican. MoE ± 5.4.
.
"I am going to read a list of people who might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008, and I will read the list twice. I would like you to tell me who would be your FIRST CHOICE for the nomination. . . ." Names rotated
.
5/11-13/07 4/27-29/07
% %
Rudy Giuliani
25
28
John McCain
24
21
Mitt Romney
9
12
Fred Thompson
8
10
Newt Gingrich
7
6
Mike Huckabee
2
2
Tommy Thompson
2
2
Sam Brownback
1
1
Jim Gilmore
1
-
Chuck Hagel
1
1
Ron Paul
1
1
Duncan Hunter
-
1
Tom Tancredo
-
2
Unsure
19
13
Here is the Gallup Poll;
.
"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Republican primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . ." Names rotated. Rice was included in the list of candidates in 2006.
.
5/10-13/07 5/4-6/07 4/13-15/07 4/2-5/07 3/23-25/07
% % % % %
Rudy Giuliani
29
34
35
38
31
John McCain
23
20
22
16
22
Fred Thompson
12
13
10
10
12
Mitt Romney
8
7
9
6
3
Newt Gingrich
6
8
7
10
8
Sam Brownback
2
1
1
1
3
Tommy Thompson
1
2
1
2
2
Mike Huckabee
1
1
2
1
1
George Pataki
1
1
2
2
-
Tom Tancredo
1
1
-
2
1
Jim Gilmore
-
1
2
-
-
Chuck Hagel
-
1
-
1
-
Duncan Hunter
-
1
-
1
-
Ron Paul
-
-
2
2
1
Someone else
2
-
1
1
2
None (vol.)
5
3
2
2
3
Unsure
8
7
3
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 04:50 PM
yet you find it perfectly fine to beleive the government blew up WTC buildings.
Must be some really good Lortab, ferd. You sure it's legal?
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=414 registered voters nationwide who are Republicans or lean Republican. MoE ± 5.
.
"Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in the year 2008. . . ." Names rotated
.
5/4-6/07 4/10-12/07 3/9-11/07
% % %
Rudy Giuliani
25
27
34
John McCain
23
24
18
Fred Thompson
13
11
n/a
Mitt Romney
10
10
9
Newt Gingrich
9
8
9
Mike Huckabee
3
-
1
Sam Brownback
2
1
2
Jim Gilmore
2
-
2
Tom Tancredo
2
1
1
Duncan Hunter
1
-
-
Ron Paul
1
1
2
Tommy Thompson
1
1
1
Unsure
8
13
17
Chuck Hagel
n/a
1
2
George Pataki
n/a
2
3
.
1/19-21/07 12/5-7/06 11/17-19/06 10/27-29/06 8/30 - 9/2/06
% % % % %
Rudy Giuliani
32
29
33
29
32
John McCain
26
24
30
27
21
Newt Gingrich
9
13
9
12
12
Mitt Romney
7
6
9
7
6
Jim Gilmore
3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
George Pataki
3
2
1
5
3
Sam Brownback
2
2
2
1
1
Chuck Hagel
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mike Huckabee
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Duncan Hunter
1
1
2
n/a
n/a
Ron Paul
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tom Tancredo
1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Tommy Thompson
1
2
3
n/a
n/a
Unsure
12
23
8
11
14
Bill Frist
n/a
n/a
3
6
4
George Allen
n/a
After looking at the polls I stand corrected. It appears that my 2% figure was optimistic. It looks like it is more like 1% support for Mr. Looney Ron Paul.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 04:51 PM
Well the polls didn't translate well over to the forum but I will take your word for it.
That is why I asked for links.
But... this is good news.
1-2% would vote for Ron Paul before they heard him talk about the issues on an open forum with the other candidates.
Afterward 25-33% would vote for him.
Excellent.
This is great news.
Well the polls didn't translate well over to the forum but I will take your word for it.
That is why I asked for links.
But... this is good news.
1-2% would vote for Ron Paul before they heard him talk about the issues on an open forum with the other candidates.
Afterward 25-33% would vote for him.
Excellent.
This is great news.
LOL!!! Let's wait and see. I think you are delusional. His visibility will pick him up the black helicopter crowd vote so he may bump from 1% to 3% but he is going nowhere. Let's remember this post in a couple of months.
He knows he is going nowhere but likes the publicity and making a point. He is the black helicopter crowd's version of Jesse Jackson back when he ran for President.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 04:55 PM
MSNBC poll rating the GOP candidates has the following:
POSITIVE response:
Ron Paul - 46%
Mitt Romney - 25%
Rudy Giuliani - 24%
NEGATIVE response:
Ron Paul - 28%
Mitt Romney - 44%
Rudy Giuliani - 48%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382
Ron Paul is KICKING BUTT!!!!!
DiggingForNuts,
Here is a link to a site with the major polls;
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm
Must be some really good Lortab, ferd. You sure it's legal?
being that the discussion was on a different board, I might get banned for quoting you here but none the less.
Are you now saying that WTC 7 (or which ever one) was NOT blown up by the US government?
MSNBC poll rating the GOP candidates has the following:
POSITIVE response:
Ron Paul - 46%
Mitt Romney - 25%
Rudy Giuliani - 24%
NEGATIVE response:
Ron Paul - 28%
Mitt Romney - 44%
Rudy Giuliani - 48%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382
Ron Paul is KICKING BUTT!!!!!
He is kicking nothing. That is an unscientific poll. Anybody can vote, and vote, and vote. Ron Paul's groupies flooded the major media websites that had polls after the debate. You are not dumb so I know that you know how skewed those website polls are.
You will not be so happy when you see the results of scientific polls taken about the debate. Should be out in a day or two.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:00 PM
CC1, you obviously don't have a clue what Ron Paul's message is.
"Black helicopter crowd"?????
These types of responses are the same type of idiotic mindless drivel the neo-cons and the MSM continually put forward to try to cover up the GROUNDSWELL of support for his PRO AMERICA, PRO CONSTITUTION message.
CC1, you obviously don't have a clue what Ron Paul's message is.
"Black helicopter crowd"?????
These types of responses are the same type of idiotic mindless drivel the neo-cons and the MSM continually put forward to try to cover up the GROUNDSWELL of support for his PRO AMERICA, PRO CONSTITUTION message.
How come you aren't busy proving the govt blew up the WTC?
CC1, you obviously don't have a clue what Ron Paul's message is.
"Black helicopter crowd"?????
These types of responses are the same type of idiotic mindless drivel the neo-cons and the MSM continually put forward to try to cover up the GROUNDSWELL of support for his PRO AMERICA, PRO CONSTITUTION message.
can you get out of bed in the moring without mumbling something about "Neo-Cons"?
good grief.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:06 PM
He is kicking nothing. That is an unscientific poll. Anybody can vote, and vote, and vote. Ron Paul's groupies flooded the major media websites that had polls after the debate. You are not dumb so I know that you know how skewed those website polls are.
You will not be so happy when you see the results of scientific polls taken about the debate. Should be out in a day or two.
Uh, no you cannot just "vote and vote and vote".
By the way... where are all the "republicans" then?
Not watching the debates? Not voting?
Did YOU watch the debate on the 3rd, and the one last night?
Or is this just "contempt prior to investigation"?
Hey, if you have time, could you also tell us all who the "real conservative" is among the ten candidates?
Pro choice, pro gun control Giuliani?
Flip Flop Romney?
Maniac McCain?
Anyone?
I did not hear ANYONE present a CONSERVATIVE message besides Paul. Tancredo came close, but he's obviously not prepared for public speaking or debate.
So, tell me CC...
Who among the ten is the "real conservative, pro American candidate"?
CC1, you obviously don't have a clue what Ron Paul's message is.
"Black helicopter crowd"?????
These types of responses are the same type of idiotic mindless drivel the neo-cons and the MSM continually put forward to try to cover up the GROUNDSWELL of support for his PRO AMERICA, PRO CONSTITUTION message.
Ron Paul's message is that he is going to ignore what is going on in the world. If he wins the Presidency he vows to sit in the Whitehouse with his eyes closed and fingers in his ears so he won't be bothered with little bits of reality like Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Cause if you don't know about it and ignore it, then it will go away!!! He has the same rationale that very young children have playing hide and seek. He thinks if America closes its eyes no one will know that we are here.
Uh, no you cannot just "vote and vote and vote".
By the way... where are all the "republicans" then?
Not watching the debates? Not voting?
Did YOU watch the debate on the 3rd, and the one last night?
Or is this just "contempt prior to investigation"?
Hey, if you have time, could you also tell us all who the "real conservative" is among the ten candidates?
Pro choice, pro gun control Giuliani?
Flip Flop Romney?
Maniac McCain?
Anyone?
I did not hear ANYONE present a CONSERVATIVE message besides Paul. Tancredo came close, but he's obviously not prepared for public speaking or debate.
So, tell me CC...
Who among the ten is the "real conservative, pro American candidate"?
My disdain for Ron Paul is long held from the 16 years I lived in Austin, Texas not far from his Congressional district and had to listen to his nonsense about isolationism, etc
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:08 PM
How come you aren't busy proving the govt blew up the WTC?
How come you aren't busy burning dvds of the OReilly Factor for all your friends?
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 05:09 PM
My disdain for Ron Paul is long held from the 16 years I lived in Austin, Texas not far from his Congressional district and had to listen to his nonsense about isolationism, etc
Theres that word again...
Y'all should set up a net and draw some boundaries... then you could play volleyball while y'all toss that word around.
And... from your post above one could conclude that for 16 years you haven't listened to hardly a word Ron Paul has to say with an open mind.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 05:10 PM
How come you aren't busy burning dvds of the OReilly Factor for all your friends?
LOL....
:ursofunny
Uh, no you cannot just "vote and vote and vote".
By the way... where are all the "republicans" then?
Not watching the debates? Not voting?
Did YOU watch the debate on the 3rd, and the one last night?
Or is this just "contempt prior to investigation"?
Hey, if you have time, could you also tell us all who the "real conservative" is among the ten candidates?
Pro choice, pro gun control Giuliani?
Flip Flop Romney?
Maniac McCain?
Anyone?
I did not hear ANYONE present a CONSERVATIVE message besides Paul. Tancredo came close, but he's obviously not prepared for public speaking or debate.
So, tell me CC...
Who among the ten is the "real conservative, pro American candidate"?
Fred Thompson is as close as you are going to get in a canidate with a realistic chance of winning. Unlike some people I want at least incremental gains not supporting fringe nuts with a snowballs chance in winning.
If GWB had not been elected in 04 then partial birth abortions would still be legal right now. So while GWB has not been the magical dictator many conservative Christians dream about who will somehow outlaw abortion,etc, his court appointments have already paid off on this important moral issue.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:11 PM
Ron Paul's message is that he is going to ignore what is going on in the world. If he wins the Presidency he vows to sit in the Whitehouse with his eyes closed and fingers in his ears so he won't be bothered with little bits of reality like Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Cause if you don't know about it and ignore it, then it will go away!!! He has the same rationale that very young children have playing hide and seek. He thinks if America closes its eyes no one will know that we are here.
Okay, obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, even when you are told point blank the facts about his position on war, the Mid East, etc.
Where's the hair thread?
:laffatu
How come you aren't busy burning dvds of the OReilly Factor for all your friends?
I have told you before that I am not a Bill O'Reilly fan. My wife and daughter are though. He has some good things to say but I don't agree with everything and he is not particularly pleasant.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:12 PM
Fred Thompson is as close as you are going to get in a canidate with a realistic chance of winning. Unlike some people I want at least incremental gains not supporting fringe nuts with a snowballs chance in winning.
If GWB had not been elected in 04 then partial birth abortions would still be legal right now. So while GWB has not been the magical dictator many conservative Christians dream about who will somehow outlaw abortion,etc, his court appointments have already paid off on this important moral issue.
Wow.
So you like the robot, then?
:killinme
Wow.
So you like the robot, then?
:killinme
Sorry, you have lost me here. Who is the "robot" you are referring to?
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:16 PM
Doobya has said if the Clintonista gun ban were to come across his desk, he would sign it.
Doobya wants amnesty for the illegal invaders.
Way to go, Doobya.
Instead of having legalised partial birth abortions, we get to have legalised torture and the elimination of habeus corpus, a North American Union, trillions missing from the Pentagon coffers, endless war, more bureaucracy, and an iceberg deficit to go with a Titanic fiscal policy.
Yee haw.
Sometimes I wonder if Doobya is really Clinton in disguise....
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:20 PM
CC, do you HONESTLY believe Thompson can beat the Hillaroids?
I mean, REALLY?
The guy, from what I saw in th edebates, has no CLEAR message. Like all typical politicans, he doesn't DIRECTLY answer any questions put to him, it's all vague "save the children, help America, lower taxes" rhetoric, nothing SPECIFIC, nothing CONCRETE, nothing DEFINED.
That's how these career blood suckers, both Democrat and Republican, work. They make super vague remarks, spend the vast majority of their time talking about how great they themselves are, and then when in office they just suck up the bribe money and sell America down the drain, bit by bit.
And as for "incremental gains", that is a failed policy known as "compromise" which has done nothing but move America further and further left, so that the modern day Republicans are dominated by students of Trostky calling themselves "conservatives"!!!!
Doobya has said if the Clintonista gun ban were to come across his desk, he would sign it.
Doobya wants amnesty for the illegal invaders.
Way to go, Doobya.
Instead of having legalised partial birth abortions, we get to have legalised torture and the elimination of habeus corpus, a North American Union, trillions missing from the Pentagon coffers, endless war, more bureaucracy, and an iceberg deficit to go with a Titanic fiscal policy.
Yee haw.
Sometimes I wonder if Doobya is really Clinton in disguise....
What I consider torture and what libs do are two different things. I fully suport waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc as interrogation methods with suspected terrorists. I would even go as far as forcing them to listen to Cyndi Lauper records at loud decibals.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:22 PM
It's the Troskyites versus the Leninists, that's the "two party system" we've had for a long time here in America.
We can pick the Commie neo-liberals, or the Fascist neo-cons.
(Had to add one more "neo-con" in this thread for the principle of it.)
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:23 PM
What I consider torture and what libs do are two different things. I fully suport waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc as interrogation methods with suspected terrorists. I would even go as far as forcing them to listen to Cyndi Lauper records at loud decibals.
You are DESPICABLE!!!!!!
Even the Jesuits aren't that evil.
CC, do you HONESTLY believe Thompson can beat the Hillaroids?
I mean, REALLY?
The guy, from what I saw in th edebates, has no CLEAR message. Like all typical politicans, he doesn't DIRECTLY answer any questions put to him, it's all vague "save the children, help America, lower taxes" rhetoric, nothing SPECIFIC, nothing CONCRETE, nothing DEFINED.
That's how these career blood suckers, both Democrat and Republican, work. They make super vague remarks, spend the vast majority of their time talking about how great they themselves are, and then when in office they just suck up the bribe money and sell America down the drain, bit by bit.
And as for "incremental gains", that is a failed policy known as "compromise" which has done nothing but move America further and further left, so that the modern day Republicans are dominated by students of Trostky calling themselves "conservatives"!!!!
You have got to read more than Ron Paul junk. Fred Thompson was not in the debate. He has not even announced if he is running yet. Good Grief!!!
You must be confusing Tommy Thompson who is an ok guy but boring as all get out and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
You are DESPICABLE!!!!!!
Even the Jesuits aren't that evil.
I know. My reputation as a nice guy is probably ruined forever when people read I am willing to go that far.:heeheehee
What I consider torture and what libs do are two different things. I fully suport waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc as interrogation methods with suspected terrorists. I would even go as far as forcing them to listen to Cyndi Lauper records at loud decibals.
Now we see your true colors shining through.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:26 PM
By the way, the neo-liberals who scream and holler about "oh no, torture is bad, Bush is evil" will introduce "enhanced interrogation techniques" to a wider range of Americans if they take the White House.
That's why Ron Paul is the ONLY CANDIDATE there is. The rest of the pack, on "both sides", are a bunch of thieving, murderous, traitors.
I am sure Vince Foster got his "fair shake" from the "liberals"....
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:28 PM
You have got to read more than Ron Paul junk. Fred Thompson was not in the debate. He has not even announced if he is running yet. Good Grief!!!
You must be confusing Tommy Thompson who is an ok guy but boring as all get out and doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Ahhh HA!
I was going by the last name.
So how can you support a guy who isn;t even in the race?
By the way, would you support Buchanan if he went for it again?
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 05:32 PM
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=757
PJB: The New World Order GOP
posted by Linda
by Patrick J. Buchanan
A federal program, Ronald Reagan used to say, is the closest thing to eternal life here on earth. Even the Gipper conceded he failed to get control of the federal behemoth.
At least he tried. But what can be said for the conservative movement today, as one witnesses the Wall Street Journal battle to save the $400,000-a-year tax-free sinecure of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, imperiled because Wolfie parked his World Bank squeeze over at State at a fatter salary than Condi Rice’s?
There was a time when the Republican Party would have seized on this scandal to try to defund this 63-year-old relic. No more.
Yet, what is the purpose of keeping the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and its agencies, and NATO, all of which date to an era long gone?
The World Bank and IMF were created when the United States was the greatest creditor on earth. The bank was to lend for the reconstruction and development of Europe and Asia. The IMF was to provide loans to help members with balance of payments problems.
When Europe and Asia recovered, the need for the World Bank came to an end. By 1971, when the United States closed the gold window and let the dollar float, the need for an IMF to maintain fixed rates of exchange, in a world of floating rates, disappeared.
Yet both institutions reinvented themselves as lenders of last resort to bankrupt Third World regimes, and Republican presidents and a Republican Congress went along. Why?
Why should the United States, now the world’s largest debtor nation, go out into the capital markets and borrow billions, so the World Bank and IMF can continue to subsidize the most corrupt and least competent regimes on earth? Does this make sense?
Between them, the Japanese and Chinese have amassed $2 trillion – two thousand billion dollars – in reserves. Why not turn the IMF and World Bank playpens over to them?
Though the soft-loan window of the World Bank, the Institutional Development Fund, was created to help “the poorest of the poor,” 8,000 of the 10,000 World Bank employees live and work in the Washington area, where “World Bank neighborhood” is a realtor’s way of saying, “You can’t afford it.”
The United Nations is another case in point. American kids were once taught that it was the “last best hope of Earth.” Now, the thing is a source of comic relief. Last year, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was bested for top honors in the elocution contest when Hugo Chavez had the General Assembly in foot-stomping hilarity with his remarks about having been preceded on the podium by “El Diablo,” the Devil – George Bush – who had left the stench of sulfur from hell.
This weekend, we learned the chairmanship of the U.N. Committee on Sustainable Development will be going to Zimbabwe, “Comrade Bob” Mugabe’s African paradise. Four years ago, Gadhafi’s Libya, which was behind the air massacre of our college kids on Pan Am 103, was elected to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commission.
Ought not a self-respecting nation, as we once were, laugh at these antics, get up, pay our share of the tab, walk out and let the nutballs have the asylum? What is the matter with us?
As for NATO, it was indeed the most successful alliance in history. The United States and its partners stood guard on the Elbe until the Cold War came to an end. But what is the need for a NATO to defend Europe against the Soviet Empire and Soviet Union, when both ceased to exist more than 15 years ago?
When the Red Army went home from East Berlin, East Germany, Eastern Europe, the Baltic states and Ukraine, why did we not also come home? Forty-six years ago, Ike urged JFK to start bringing U.S. troops home, lest Europe become dependent upon us. Now, instead of ceding NATO to the Europeans and pulling out, we have moved NATO onto Russia’s front porch and driven Moscow into the arms of Beijing.
Why, when the defense of Europe is done, cannot we celebrate with champagne, close up shop and go home? Why can we never let go? Why must we retain all these relics at immense cost to American taxpayers?
In the IMF, World Bank and United Nations, we are talking about scores of thousands of the highest-paid government bureaucrats around. The money we could save by ceding NATO to Europe, bringing the troops home, letting Europe pay for its own defense and using the funds saved to rebuild our armed forces would be immense.
At least Ronald Reagan said goodbye to a corrupt UNESCO, walked out and killed the U.N. power grab of the world’s oceans and their resources by refusing even to consider the Law of the Sea Treaty.
And President Bush? He has rejoined UNESCO, started paying dues again and, says WorldNetDaily, is about to push to have Congress bring the United States under the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Fortunately, the election is only 18 months off.
Ahhh HA!
I was going by the last name.
So how can you support a guy who isn;t even in the race?
By the way, would you support Buchanan if he went for it again?
Can't stand Buchanan either. He is another isolationist. He has a few views I concur with but I have never been a fan.
I can support a guy not in the race now because it is very early in the game and Fred is about to get in I believe.
Hoovie
05-16-2007, 05:46 PM
Can't stand Buchanan either. He is another isolationist. He has a few views I concur with but I have never been a fan.
I can support a guy not in the race now because it is very early in the game and Fred is about to get in I believe.
A Buchanan fan?? Not sure if I am or not. :lol I was a state delegate when he won Missouri in the Republican Party primaries over Dole and Keys. And National in Long Beach in 2000.
Eliseus
05-16-2007, 06:13 PM
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24441.html
Fred Thompson is as close as you are going to get in a canidate with a realistic chance of winning. Unlike some people I want at least incremental gains not supporting fringe nuts with a snowballs chance in winning.
If GWB had not been elected in 04 then partial birth abortions would still be legal right now. So while GWB has not been the magical dictator many conservative Christians dream about who will somehow outlaw abortion,etc, his court appointments have already paid off on this important moral issue.
Why do some people insist on Losing on principle?
Why do some people insist on Losing on principle?
I guess it is a variation of the phenomena of some folks who are so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good.
Hoovie
05-16-2007, 08:22 PM
I guess it is a variation of the phenomena of some folks who are so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good.
So I should plan now to get on board with Giuliani??
So I should plan now to get on board with Giuliani??
Fred Thompson.
Digging4Truth
05-16-2007, 10:32 PM
So I should plan now to get on board with Giuliani??
By the way... I think the Electric Amish are hilarious.
:)
I'm waiting for the antichrist. He's has to be better than any of the inmates running for prez from both sides of the aisle.
Let's see. These nutzoids attacked the WTC during Clinton's term, blew up one of our ships, and destroyed on of our embassies, along with bringing down the WTC on 9/11 and y'all still think we we wrong in attacking them back? Yeah, right.Without Congress declaring war, it's unconstitutional. The problem here is that Congress doesn't want to be held accountable if something should happen to go wrong.
right here Mr Mensa
The Constitution of tthe United States of America
Article 1
Section 8
paragraph10-12
The Congress shall have the Power
10 To define and punish Priacies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;Yes, I'm aware of that. But look at what it says. It says that CONGRESS shall have the power to DEFINE AND PUNISH offenses against the law of nations (whatever the law of nations is). It doesn't say the Executive Branch gets to do it. But notice what follows in the next six lines:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
You really have to look at these things in context.
OK Mister ultra precise language. tell me where in your quotation of the Constitution does it say the words "declair war"
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
ron paul is a fruit cake. he problably believes the gubbermint blew up the WTC.No, he rightly believes that government interference in the affairs of other nations, particularly the Middle East, over the last 50 or so years resulted in Islamic extremists deciding to retaliate against the United States.
I will admit to not having followed everything Congress has done, but I seem to remember something about Congress voting to give the President war powers. Congress does not have the constitutional authority to give up its exclusive powers regarding war. The War Powers Act (passed decades ago) is unconstitutional. Congress has not specifically declared war since after World War II.
With regards to Iraq I doubt we will ever know the truth about what all they were planning. I have read stories that dealt with convoys of trucks leaving Iraq into Syria just prior to our invasion, that could have had the WMD on them.I don't doubt that Syria has the WMDs.
Ferd,
The good thing is we don't have to waste very much energy discussing this with the wacko's here because their man is at a whopping 2% in the legitimate polls of registered Republican voters. Ron Paul is going to fade faster than my summer tans.
He obviously has a fervent fan base but they could all fit in a VW bug with room to spare.Legitimate polls? You mean those carefully worded questions designed to generate desired responses? You mean phone calls made to a supposedly "random" group of people? NOT!
LOL!!! Let's wait and see. I think you are delusional. His visibility will pick him up the black helicopter crowd vote so he may bump from 1% to 3% but he is going nowhere. Let's remember this post in a couple of months.
He knows he is going nowhere but likes the publicity and making a point. He is the black helicopter crowd's version of Jesse Jackson back when he ran for President.What's interesting about all this is that there was a time when most Republicans openly espoused views that Ron Paul is espousing today. Does anyone remember the Contract With America? Does anyone remember when Republicans in Congress talked about eliminating the IRS and the Department of Education? Does anyone remember when Republicans in Congress and a certain very popular Republican President talked about limited federal government?
MSNBC poll rating the GOP candidates has the following:
POSITIVE response:
Ron Paul - 46%
Mitt Romney - 25%
Rudy Giuliani - 24%
NEGATIVE response:
Ron Paul - 28%
Mitt Romney - 44%
Rudy Giuliani - 48%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659382
Ron Paul is KICKING BUTT!!!!!FERD doesn't consider this a valid poll.
FERD doesn't consider this a valid poll.
why do you say that? I dont have a problem with that poll.
but that poll does not relate populairty in general. still Ron Paul doesnt have a chance
He is kicking nothing. That is an unscientific poll. Anybody can vote, and vote, and vote. Ron Paul's groupies flooded the major media websites that had polls after the debate. You are not dumb so I know that you know how skewed those website polls are.Do you have actual proof of this?
You will not be so happy when you see the results of scientific polls taken about the debate. Should be out in a day or two.So, you prefer a poll where the question is written and asked in such a way as to elicit a desired outcome? You prefer a poll where a number of people are supposedly picked at "random" (but we know they're not) as opposed to one where the pollster doesn't get to decide who gets asked? Do you think the opinion of someone who didn't watch the debates is more valid than the opinion of someone who did watch the debates?
I guess it is a variation of the phenomena of some folks who are so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good.But to be heavenly minded is of the greatest earthly good. To be earthly minded is to be an enemy of God.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to give up its exclusive powers regarding war. The War Powers Act (passed decades ago) is unconstitutional. Congress has not specifically declared war since after World War II.
I don't doubt that Syria has the WMDs.
Well, if they voted to give those kinds of powers to the President then there's not much that can be done about it now, so quit yer gripin.
Digging4Truth
05-17-2007, 03:08 PM
Well, if they voted to give those kinds of powers to the President then there's not much that can be done about it now, so quit yer gripin.
Indeed there is a lot that can be done about it.
If we only had a Country that had an ounce of understanding about the Constitution and the law of the Land.
Indeed there is a lot that can be done about it.
If we only had a Country that had an ounce of understanding about the Constitution and the law of the Land.
Have fun organizing a revolt. See you in the news.
Do you have actual proof of this?
So, you prefer a poll where the question is written and asked in such a way as to elicit a desired outcome? You prefer a poll where a number of people are supposedly picked at "random" (but we know they're not) as opposed to one where the pollster doesn't get to decide who gets asked? Do you think the opinion of someone who didn't watch the debates is more valid than the opinion of someone who did watch the debates?
Chan, I know this is difficult to comprehend but when websites have polls that you click on to vote they are very much skewed and prone to being manipulated by groups.
They are naturally biased by whatever demographic frequents that website. Then that bias can be overcome by an orchastrated campaign by a group to vote a certain way on an online poll.
In other words they are prone to publicity campaigns for a person or issue that is involved with the poll. A canidate's blogasphere can notify supporters of online polls and urge them to go vote to make their guy look good. It happens all the time. Remember back on FCF or NFCF we were asked to vote for some Pentecostal involved in an online singing contest.
You are astute, misguided but astute, so I am sure you know all of this but just don't want to acknowledge it.
Chan, I know this is difficult to comprehend but when websites have polls that you click on to vote they are very much skewed and prone to being manipulated by groups.
They are naturally biased by whatever demographic frequents that website. Then that bias can be overcome by an orchastrated campaign by a group to vote a certain way on an online poll.
In other words they are prone to publicity campaigns for a person or issue that is involved with the poll. A canidate's blogasphere can notify supporters of online polls and urge them to go vote to make their guy look good. It happens all the time. Remember back on FCF or NFCF we were asked to vote for some Pentecostal involved in an online singing contest.
You are astute, misguided but astute, so I am sure you know all of this but just don't want to acknowledge it.And other polls are naturally biased by the way the questions are written, who asks the questions, how the questions are asked, and who is selected to be asked.
Maybe you should acknowledge that these online polls are just as meaningless as the so-called "legitimate" polls.
Of course, if one of the FOX News or other media darlings had done well in the online and text messaging polls I suspect that you, like FOX News, the rest of the media, and Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't be dismissing those polls.
Indeed there is a lot that can be done about it.
If we only had a Country that had an ounce of understanding about the Constitution and the law of the Land.A little revolution once in a while can be a good thing.
And other polls are naturally biased by the way the questions are written, who asks the questions, how the questions are asked, and who is selected to be asked.
Maybe you should acknowledge that these online polls are just as meaningless as the so-called "legitimate" polls.
Of course, if one of the FOX News or other media darlings had done well in the online and text messaging polls I suspect that you, like FOX News, the rest of the media, and Rush Limbaugh, wouldn't be dismissing those polls.
You are incorrect. I give no credence to website "voluntary" polls regardless of what they are about or their results because of the reasons I outlined. They are meaningless.
You are correct that many legitimate polls have biased questionis so I also always try to dig deep and see exactly what the people being polled were asked and then I weigh how much credence I give to the poll by that and also the demographic makeup of the persons polled.
You are incorrect. I give no credence to website "voluntary" polls regardless of what they are about or their results because of the reasons I outlined. They are meaningless.
You are correct that many legitimate polls have biased questionis so I also always try to dig deep and see exactly what the people being polled were asked and then I weigh how much credence I give to the poll by that and also the demographic makeup of the persons polled.I agree with a statement attributed to Mark Twain (who attributed it to Voltaire): "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" (a poll is a kind of statistic).
What I object to here is the hypocrisy of dismissing online and text message polls when they favor someone the media doesn't like and praising them when they favor someone the media likes.
I agree with a statement attributed to Mark Twain (who attributed it to Voltaire): "There are lies, damned lies and statistics" (a poll is a kind of statistic).
What I object to here is the hypocrisy of dismissing online and text message polls when they favor someone the media doesn't like and praising them when they favor someone the media likes.
I understand. But like I said in my case I don't give credence to them even when they favor my position, canidates, etc. It is just foolish to do so.
Truly Blessed
05-19-2007, 02:15 PM
Are YOU serious??????????????????????
PLEASE tell me you are joking?????????????????????????I honestly believe that history will treat Bill Clinton very well and George Bush will be listed among the worse presidents in US history. When you compare their accomplishments Clinton clearly outshines Bush. Clinton is the most intelligent president in many years.
I have been a Republican all my life, but I can't stand Bush. I cringe every time he speaks wondering what stupid statement he'll make next. IMO he's an embarrassment to the the USA. His adminstration will be most remembered for his stupidity and for being so headstrong he would rather live a lie than to do what is in the best interest of the country and the world in general. The day Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State represents for me the beginning of the end of any hope for a successful Bush presidency.
It's too bad that Clinton will also be remembered as well for his moral failures. Apparently his attendance at those UPC campmeetings didn't impact him as they should have! :)
Brett Prince
05-19-2007, 03:21 PM
When will Christians in the US acknowledge that George Bush has been a disaster and that in spite of his shortcomings, Bill Clinton was the most effective president the US has had in recent history? You should be out there campaigning for Hillary!:couch
Uh...TB...I am supposin' that this was TIC. If not, I'm gonna have to make a trip to Canada... Oh! I see! That was what this was all about all along! You just wanted to rile some of us up so you could have some company!
Bill Clinton was NOWHERE NEAR as effective as Ronald Reagan. He was an unmitigated disaster for the US in terms of respect.
Now, as for GW...at the risk of angering CC1--I am highly disappointed in him. But, I am also highly disappointed with EVERY SINGLE candidate we have, both Republican and Democrat.
I honestly believe that history will treat Bill Clinton very well and George Bush will be listed among the worse presidents in US history. When you compare their accomplishments Clinton clearly outshines Bush. Clinton is the most intelligent president in many years.
I have been a Republican all my life, but I can't stand Bush. I cringe every time he speaks wondering what stupid statement he'll make next. IMO he's an embarrassment to the the USA. His adminstration will be most remembered for his stupidity and for being so headstrong he would rather live a lie than to do what is in the best interest of the country and the world in general. The day Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State represents for me the beginning of the end of any hope for a successful Bush presidency.
It's too bad that Clinton will also be remembered as well for his moral failures. Apparently his attendance at those UPC campmeetings didn't impact him as they should have! :)
Clinton may be the smartest man in the white house since Woodrow Wilson. (i dont really like him either.)
However, I think history will be ambivilent to WBJC (william blythe jefferson clinton). there were sone good things like welfare reform and the 1996 telecomunications act. however i believe in 50 years, his foreign policy will be considerd abject failure. He failed to socielize healthcare, he failed to anticipate the stock market bubble.
GWB will be seen in much the same light. (dont have time right now as my hamburger just walked thru the door.)
Uh...TB...I am supposin' that this was TIC. If not, I'm gonna have to make a trip to Canada... Oh! I see! That was what this was all about all along! You just wanted to rile some of us up so you could have some company!
Bill Clinton was NOWHERE NEAR as effective as Ronald Reagan. He was an unmitigated disaster for the US in terms of respect.
Now, as for GW...at the risk of angering CC1--I am highly disappointed in him. But, I am also highly disappointed with EVERY SINGLE candidate we have, both Republican and Democrat.
wait for Fred Thompson. this is going to turn around, provided he doesnt die of cancer.
I honestly believe that history will treat Bill Clinton very well and George Bush will be listed among the worse presidents in US history. When you compare their accomplishments Clinton clearly outshines Bush. Clinton is the most intelligent president in many years.
I have been a Republican all my life, but I can't stand Bush. I cringe every time he speaks wondering what stupid statement he'll make next. IMO he's an embarrassment to the the USA. His adminstration will be most remembered for his stupidity and for being so headstrong he would rather live a lie than to do what is in the best interest of the country and the world in general. The day Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State represents for me the beginning of the end of any hope for a successful Bush presidency.
It's too bad that Clinton will also be remembered as well for his moral failures. Apparently his attendance at those UPC campmeetings didn't impact him as they should have! :)
I know you are shocked that I disagree vehomoently with you! Bush may not be any good at public speaking but he is the first President with a Masters degree in Business AND had better grades in college than John Kerry.
Being inarticulate does not equal stupidity. GWB is much better one on one and in small groups that in speeches. I agree that being inarticulate is a great handicap as a President. Especially in this day and age of mass communication and a public with a very short attention span or loyalty.
The Nation had 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Clinton as great communicators who "connected" with an audience so people were used to someone skilled in that arena for 16 of the last 20 years of the Presidency before GWB came to office.
I still believe he is a good, honest, intelligent man. He has had some terrible luck in that the intelligence about WMD in Iraq was wrong and in the fact that the Iraqi people and government does not have the will to stand up on it's own it appears. If those two t hings had been different GWB would be being praised right now as a genius.
The American people (and in your case a Canadian) have way too little patience. If everythign doesn't go just smoothly and if all problems are not solved in a short period of time they lose patience and faith. That is a shame.
I think it is a disgrace that the American people lost faith in the President and elected a bunch of yellow belly pacifist Democrats to control both houses of Congress.
The other thing that irks me is that the fact that the economy has been great gets totally ingored by the critics of the President and the mainstream media.
Our unemployment rate has been the lowest just about ever, stock market high, etc. Of course there are problems in the economy as there will always be but overall we have a strong economy right now despite it being talked down by Democrats and media. The American people never hear the good stuff.
philjones
05-19-2007, 07:51 PM
CC1,
I appreciate and agree with your post.
Now, with that out of the way, are CS and LCS in Nashville this weekend? Didn't I read that you were going to pick them up at the airport?
if they are here, do you realize that CS, LCS, Steadfast and Phil Jones are all in Tennessee this weekend?
Ya'll are either very blessed or in real trouble! I am not sure which!:lol :killinme
Truly Blessed
05-19-2007, 08:08 PM
I have read the entire autobiography of Bill Clinton and as a result I have a much greater appreciation for Clinton than I once had. What he did on so many levels was quite amazing actually, with a balanced budget being the crowning achievement of his administration.
I do agree with most of what you have to say here. BTW, I am an American, not a Canadian! What you say about the negative press is true and is one reason why that even when someone like Clinton is doing a good job as far as governing is concerned, the nature of politics and the press is to focus entirely on anything negative. That is what sells news.
I don't think Bush is stupid, I just think he lacked the background knowledge and experience in world politics to make wise decisions regarding foreign policy and therefore had to lean far too heavily on others and has been misquided by them.
He also has a loyalty to those around him that has in some cases been a misplaced loyalty that hurt him. One such case was his loyalty to Rumsfield. Had he cut him loose one week earlier the Democrats wouldn't have won control of both houses of Congress.
Hoovie
05-19-2007, 08:12 PM
I just want to say i agree with everyone on this thread!
I have read the entire autobiography of Bill Clinton and as a result I have a much greater appreciation for Clinton than I once had. What he did on so many levels was quite amazing actually, with a balanced budget being the crowning achievement of his administration.
I do agree with most of what you have to say here. BTW, I am an American, not a Canadian! What you say about the negative press is true and is one reason why that even when someone like Clinton is doing a good job as far as governing is concerned, the nature of politics and the press is to focus entirely on anything negative. That is what sells news.
I don't think Bush is stupid, I just think he lacked the background knowledge and experience in world politics to make wise decisions regarding foreign policy and therefore had to lean far too heavily on others and has been misquided by them.
He also has a loyalty to those around him that has in some cases been a misplaced loyalty that hurt him. One such case was his loyalty to Rumsfield. Had he cut him loose one week earlier the Democrats wouldn't have won control of both houses of Congress.
I know that as President at the time Clinton gets the credit for a balanced budget but the reality of that is twofold. The reason the budget was balanced is;
1. America foolishly slashed defense spending with the end of the Cold War reducing the size of the military too much to actually fight any extended conventional war in the future.
2. America elected for the first time in 40+ years a Republican congress that forced Clinton to be more austure than a Dem wants to be AND passed legislation like Welfare Reform that a Dem congress would never have done. I do give Clinton credit for having no core values so he blew with the wind and with the Republicnas in control of Congress and the American people obviously behind them (and freaked out by Hillary's attempt to Nationalize health care) he supported the welfare reform bill and signed it into law.
Truly Blessed
05-19-2007, 08:22 PM
Uh...TB...I am supposin' that this was TIC. If not, I'm gonna have to make a trip to Canada... Oh! I see! That was what this was all about all along! You just wanted to rile some of us up so you could have some company!
Bill Clinton was NOWHERE NEAR as effective as Ronald Reagan. He was an unmitigated disaster for the US in terms of respect.
Now, as for GW...at the risk of angering CC1--I am highly disappointed in him. But, I am also highly disappointed with EVERY SINGLE candidate we have, both Republican and Democrat.
Brett, you must remember that Reagan was an actor who played his role well. It just so happened that he had the right convictions needed for that time at home and on the world stage.
I agree that Clinton did much to undermine the respect that much of the world once had for US leaders and has contributed to some of the difficulties Bush has encountered following him into that office.
However, I think you would agree that Bush has made his own contribution to the level of disrespect that other nations now have for the presidency and the USA as a nation.
Truly Blessed
05-19-2007, 08:24 PM
I know that as President at the time Clinton gets the credit for a balanced budget but the reality of that is twofold. The reason the budget was balanced is;
1. America foolishly slashed defense spending with the end of the Cold War reducing the size of the military too much to actually fight any extended conventional war in the future.
2. America elected for the first time in 40+ years a Republican congress that forced Clinton to be more austure than a Dem wants to be AND passed legislation like Welfare Reform that a Dem congress would never have done. I do give Clinton credit for having no core values so he blew with the wind and with the Republicnas in control of Congress and the American people obviously behind them (and freaked out by Hillary's attempt to Nationalize health care) he supported the welfare reform bill and signed it into law. Sounds to me like a successful politician! :)
Felicity
05-19-2007, 08:25 PM
Truth is Clinton did nothing that other presidents haven't done when it comes to immorality. He just got caught and exposed in the most public way. Far as I'm concerned it should never have been made public ... but .... in the times we're living in nothing is kept quiet anymore. Nothing is considered sacred. Nothing is held back --- not even for the sake of decency or out of respect for the office a person holds.
The exposure brought shame on Clinton himself, on his wife and family, on the highest office in the land and on the United States of America and had huge repercussion. It did nobody or nothing any good whatsoever. In fact, just the opposite is true.
JMO.
Truth is Clinton did nothing that other presidents haven't done when it comes to immorality. He just got caught and exposed in the most public way. Far as I'm concerned it should never have been made public ... but .... in the times we're living in nothing is kept quiet anymore. Nothing is considered sacred. Nothing is held back --- not even for the sake of decency or out of respect for the office a person holds.
The exposure brought shame on Clinton himself, on his wife and family, on the highest office in the land and on the United States of America and had huge repercussion. It did nobody or nothing any good whatsoever. In fact, just the opposite is true.
JMO.
The difference is that Bill Clinton lied under oath about it in a sexual harressment case against him.
Felicity
05-19-2007, 08:30 PM
The difference is that Bill Clinton lied under oath about it in a sexual harressment case against him. You don't think others might have done the same if they'd been in the same position? Just asking.
Felicity
05-19-2007, 08:31 PM
The difference is that Bill Clinton lied under oath about it in a sexual harressment case against him.There should have been no SH case. That's the thing.
Hoovie
05-19-2007, 08:32 PM
There should have been no SH case. That's the thing.
:sshhh
S.H.
You don't think others might have done the same if they'd been in the same position? Just asking.
I don't know but I do know that I expect any President, whether Democrat or Republican to tell the truth under oath and once it is conclusively proven they have lied they should resign.
It is a terrible indictment of the morality of the Democrat party that not one single elder statesman came forward to privately or publicy tell Clinton to resign. If he had and Al Gore had become President assuming the economy was still humming and Al Gore had not revealed what a total idiot he is then the Dems would have won the Presidency in 2000.
When Nixon screwed up the Republican party did not circle the wagons for the party's sake. They went to Nixon and told him he had to resign. All that and he was not even involved in the planning of Watgergate, only the coverup.
Felicity
05-19-2007, 08:39 PM
I don't know but I do know that I expect any President, whether Democrat or Republican to tell the truth under oath and once it is conclusively proven they have lied they should resign.
It is a terrible indictment of the morality of the Democrat party that not one single elder statesman came forward to privately or publicy tell Clinton to resign. If he had and Al Gore had become President assuming the economy was still humming and Al Gore had not revealed what a total idiot he is then the Dems would have won the Presidency in 2000.
When Nixon screwed up the Republican party did not circle the wagons for the party's sake. They went to Nixon and told him he had to resign. All that and he was not even involved in the planning of Watgergate, only the coverup.Good points CC, but the fact is ..... Nixon lied too. And who knows but what there was sexual impropriety along the way as well.
Felicity
05-19-2007, 08:41 PM
:sshhh
S.H. Oops. :heeheehee
Good points CC, but the fact is ..... Nixon lied too. And who knows but what there was sexual impropriety along the way as well.
I agree. Nixon lied and Republican elders told him he must resign or be impeached.
Dem's should have done the same.
As far as your earlier post that said the women Clinton sexually harressed should not have pressed charges against him I am amazed that you say that.
He exposed himself to one of the women and she clearly identified parts of him in detail that she could have only known if it were true.
Are you confusing the Monica Lewinsky thing? There were no charges invovled there and I can understand you saying it should have been kept secret EXCEPT that it showed a pattern of beahviour in the other sexual harressment cases he was facing. One more reason it was so wrong for him to lie. He was not just lying to "protect his family". He was lying to avoid being convicted in a sexual harressment case.
And now for GWB, at least in part.
As CC1 stated, GWB is not a good public speaker. At least not in the mold of RR and BC who were both master communicators.
However, he is the first president with an MBA. you cant be dumb and do that. GWB is no idiot as some in the media and all in the democrat party.
I think the history books will show that faced with increadable odds, GWB has done well. he inherited a pathetic economy and before he could even get his sea legs, 9/11 happened. GWB has handled the economy very well. unemployment is at an historical low. Tax revinue is at a record high and more importantly we have not had another terrorist attack on American soil. while it has not gotten much notice, according to some, there have been as many as 20 major attacks that have been thwarted without much fanfare.
Afghanistan has quietly been moderately successful. Iran however is another story. We have taken care of Saddam, his sons, and the leader of Al Queda in Iraq Zarqwi. however, there have been set backs and we are now at a point politically where it may be impossible to bring this to a postive end.
the major reasons for that are GWBs on fault. First, for what ever reason, the he refused to articulate early and often what it was going to cost and how long it would likely take. He has said it in the past, that it could be ten years, but it has not been a repeated refrain.
Second, until this last offensive, we have worked with failed vietnam policy. we entered an area infested with insurgents, killed them then we left, only to have to return later. This failed in Korea and Vietnam. It failed in Iraq too. this has devistated American resolve and led to the near collapse of American will to win. It reamains to be seen if the current leadership can turn the corner.
Lastly GWB for some reason has failed completely on the subject of immigration. I suspect his goal is to build good will to the hispanic commuinity and bring them into the republican party. What ever the reason, he has failed utterly on the subject.
I think in fifty years, GWB will be seen as an average president. certainly not as great as Ronald Reagan and the 2 Roosevelts. but no where near as bad as the likes of Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.
Felicity
05-19-2007, 08:57 PM
CC........
I was sexually harassed when I worked in an office as a young woman full of men and three other older women. I thought that that was just the "way it was". That was back at a time before the term "sexual harassment' was even coined.
I'm going to bow out of this at this point because I don't hold some of the same opinions others do in regard to some of this so it's best I just hush up. :)
I have read the entire autobiography of Bill Clinton and as a result I have a much greater appreciation for Clinton than I once had. What he did on so many levels was quite amazing actually, with a balanced budget being the crowning achievement of his administration.
I do agree with most of what you have to say here. BTW, I am an American, not a Canadian! What you say about the negative press is true and is one reason why that even when someone like Clinton is doing a good job as far as governing is concerned, the nature of politics and the press is to focus entirely on anything negative. That is what sells news.
I don't think Bush is stupid, I just think he lacked the background knowledge and experience in world politics to make wise decisions regarding foreign policy and therefore had to lean far too heavily on others and has been misquided by them.
He also has a loyalty to those around him that has in some cases been a misplaced loyalty that hurt him. One such case was his loyalty to Rumsfield. Had he cut him loose one week earlier the Democrats wouldn't have won control of both houses of Congress.
This statement bothers me. it bothers me because GWB was able to get Tony Blair to join in Iraq. Blair being a labor guy at that. It bothers me because this view is so common based on France and Germany not agreeing to join in the actions in Iraq. France in particular needed Saddam to stay in power to hid the insanity of Frances involvenment in Iraq, and they took the oppurtunity to attempt to become the new world power. Germany fell in with france. I disagree completley with this assessment.
Brett, you must remember that Reagan was an actor who played his role well. It just so happened that he had the right convictions needed for that time at home and on the world stage.
I agree that Clinton did much to undermine the respect that much of the world once had for US leaders and has contributed to some of the difficulties Bush has encountered following him into that office.
However, I think you would agree that Bush has made his own contribution to the level of disrespect that other nations now have for the presidency and the USA as a nation.
wow. how can we see things in almost the opposite terms?
Ronald Reagan was a very successful governor of California. He also was on the political scene in the 60's calling for Social Security reform that had he been listened to, social security would be a cornerstone of wealth in America. Ronald Regan was much more than an actor that played a good roll. he was a brilliant politician who erased the worst recession in a generation (since the g reat depression) and won the cold war. He did that by his own vision. he didnt 'just happen to have" the right convictions for the time.
You don't think others might have done the same if they'd been in the same position? Just asking.
reguardless. any man who is president, who commits a felony under American law, should be impeached and run out of office. period. reguardless of party.
Bottom line it's going to be Julioni (sp?) as the republican nominee. that's my firm prediction.
It's going to be likely be Obama/hilary ticket and I think so far the Democrats are going to win this race
Bottom line it's going to be Julioni (sp?) as the republican nominee. that's my firm prediction.
It's going to be likely be Obama/hilary ticket and I think so far the Democrats are going to win this race
Fred Thompson has the republcan nomination if he
1 wants it
2 doesnt make any major mistakes.
Hillary likely will win the democrat nomination.
I think Thompson can beat her but there are some rublings that bloomberg (mayor of NY) is getting ready for a third party run. he has a billion dollars to spend and likely can pick off enough republican support for hillary to win by getting 43% of the vote. scary and eerily reminicent of the Bill Clinton wins.
Bottom line it's going to be Julioni (sp?) as the republican nominee. that's my firm prediction.
It's going to be likely be Obama/hilary ticket and I think so far the Democrats are going to win this race
I think you are probably right as far as the Dem ticket goes but I do not think Rudy will get the Republlican nomination. He is too far to the left for Republican primary voters despite the fact we all like his leadership skills. Here is why he won't get the nom;
1. Pro abortion
2. Heavily promoted restrictive gun control laws while Mayor of NYC
3. Endorsed and voted for the Democrat Gubenatorial canidate in New York state over the Republican one while he was the Republican Mayor of NYC.
4. Messy personal life. Three marriages and was living with one woman while still married to another.
Truly Blessed
05-20-2007, 05:35 PM
This statement bothers me. it bothers me because GWB was able to get Tony Blair to join in Iraq. Blair being a labor guy at that. It bothers me because this view is so common based on France and Germany not agreeing to join in the actions in Iraq. France in particular needed Saddam to stay in power to hid the insanity of Frances involvenment in Iraq, and they took the oppurtunity to attempt to become the new world power. Germany fell in with france. I disagree completley with this assessment.If I recall corrrectly, GWB had only visited one other foreign country before he became president. He was not up to par on world politics, which was surprising to me considering the roles his dad had filled through the years. I truly believe that GWB was not his own man because he had to rely so heavily upon the old school cronies from his father's administration. He needed to pay more attention to men like Colin Powell.
GWB made a major blunder by not exercising patience and allowing the UN to verify whether there were WMDs in Iraq.
It is true that Bush convinced Blair to join in the Iraqi War, but Tony Blair paid a great price for doing so. He had a great vision for modernizing Great Britain and had support of the nation. Sadly he never got to realize the fulfillment of his vision because of the unpopularity that resulted from his support of Bush and the Iraqi War.
Mitt Romney is the most "presidential" of all the repub candidates, but I think Guilliani has the best chance of winning. Too bad Mitt is Morman...just can't get past that little issue.
Guilliani might be able to effect the swing voters. I just can't stomach the idea of Hillary Clinton as Prez. Good Grief! HORRORS!!!
tamor
05-20-2007, 05:44 PM
Mitt Romney is the most "presidential" of all the repub candidates, but I think Guilliani has the best chance of winning. Too bad Mitt is Morman...just can't get past that little issue.
Guilliani might be able to effect the swing voters. I just can't stomach the idea of Hillary Clinton as Prez. Good Grief! HORRORS!!!
Amen!!
If I recall corrrectly, GWB had only visited one other foreign country before he became president. He was not up to par on world politics, which was surprising to me considering the roles his dad had filled through the years. I truly believe that GWB was not his own man because he had to rely so heavily upon the old school cronies from his father's administration. He needed to pay more attention to men like Colin Powell.
GWB made a major blunder by not exercising patience and allowing the UN to verify whether there were WMDs in Iraq.
It is true that Bush convinced Blair to join in the Iraqi War, but Tony Blair paid a great price for doing so. He had a great vision for modernizing Great Britain and had support of the nation. Sadly he never got to realize the fulfillment of his vision because of the unpopularity that resulted from his support of Bush and the Iraqi War.
You, like much of the world now, seem to have amnesia as to what was going on back then. Iraq was circumventing the inspections for WMD. They were limiting where the inspectors could go and delaying them many times so that they had time to hide or move things from the sites being checked.
The other major fact that so many seem to have amnesia on now or who were never plugged into geopolitics enough to understand is that the embargo against Iraq was crumbling. Countries like France and Russia who were doing big business with Iraq before the embargo were actively campaigning to weaken or completely drop the embargo. With that gone Sadamm had zero incentive for cooperating at all.
Truly Blessed
05-20-2007, 06:20 PM
You, like much of the world now, seem to have amnesia as to what was going on back then. Iraq was circumventing the inspections for WMD. They were limiting where the inspectors could go and delaying them many times so that they had time to hide or move things from the sites being checked.
The other major fact that so many seem to have amnesia on now or who were never plugged into geopolitics enough to understand is that the embargo against Iraq was crumbling. Countries like France and Russia who were doing big business with Iraq before the embargo were actively campaigning to weaken or completely drop the embargo. With that gone Sadamm had zero incentive for cooperating at all.The bottom line is Saddam Hussein was not at that time a major threat to the USA! There was no compelling reason to disregard the UN on the matter of waiting until there was indisputeable evidence of WMDs.
StillStanding
05-20-2007, 06:55 PM
I got my current issue of TIME magazine, and they proclaimed Rudy as the winner of the last debate!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.