Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[xyzer]

Clarence..I agree with Pauls strictect constructionalist leanings. I too think we are to prone to drift away from adherence to the Constitution. But I don't agree with his libertarian leanings and I don't agree with his antiwar prattle. His fellow legislators approved, by resolution, the Iraq venture. It was done in accordance with the constitution he approves of?
The 'cut and run' at the first setback answer is nonsense. Trying to limit our military tactics and strategy from an armchair in D.C. is unrealistic IMNSHO! Trying to limit funding for those doing the bleeding is treasonous!

[Clarence]

I don't agree with his antiwar prattle. His fellow legislators approved, by resolution, the Iraq venture.

sort of. besides it was based on hyped intelligence. Plus the people were misled in such a way to believe that Iraq was an immediate threat and had connections to 9/11. The legislators were apperently representing thier constituent's misinformation. We've been over it many times around here. What Ron Paul was saying then was right and we didn't hear it. Let's not make that mistake again.

Ron Paul 2008

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer You are rationalizing? Nuclear power plants are one thing, but refining nuclear material for making nuclear bombs(nukes) is another. "Ahwannajihad" has indicated(and intelligence reports reveal) that his nation is looking for the big bang not the slow power of fissionable materials. There is a hell of a big difference...Add to that this crazy man continues to threaten Israel, his neighbor, with destruction. Don't two and two make four? Do you understand that nuclear proliferation treaties don't relate to the use of unclear materials for power generation? We didn't complain with France and other nations building nuclear power plants.We didn't even shake nuclear proliferation treaties at them either. Ah just how does one define 'nuclear ambitions'?

Ah, you are just letting the Neocons frame the debate by insisting that the only possible reason for desiring fissionable materials is for weapons production. I believe there are other uses for such materials, like breeding more reactors.

Quote by: xyzer Are you serious?... Does this mean that there were no Barbary Pirates attacking our shipping in the 1800s?No sinking of the Maine in the early 1900s? No Panay incident in the late 30s? No attack on a US Naval communication vessel by the North Koreans in the 50s? No German subs attacking our shipping in the early 40s?

OK the Barbary Pirates are decent example, but the were not attacking "US shipping", they were attacking "US shipping interets", meaning corporate ships. That was part of doing business in that part of the world at that time, and everybody knew it.


The Main, come on, that story is long dead. Try the non-revised edition some time.


The references after 1933 ( and the frequency of them ) only indicate how true my words are, because all of those incidents were inspired by the policies this nation adopted since The New Deal.

Quote by: xyzer Interfering is a very general term. I don't define foreign policy initiatives as interfering so much as defining and executing our own policy objectives. You obviously define them as interfering? This reasoning sound familiar? Lets don't go to WalMart today because it might interfere with the street cleaners on Lohman Avenue? The people at Costco may not like it?

No, I call interfering CIA overthrows, and election manipulation, land steals, and intentional disenfranchisment of etire peoples.


Try a couple of these books on for size. ( You can probably get them at your local library, I did. )

Gordon Silverstein - Imbalance of Power, Constitutional Interpretation, and the Making of American Foreign Policy.

Executive Secrets - Covert Action and the Presidency - William Daughterty

How Bush Rules - Chronicles of a Radical Regime - Sydney Blumenthal

Showdown with Nuclear Iran - Jerome Corsi

Overthrow ; America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq, by Stephen Kinzer.

Cofessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins.

P.S. Yes those are some of the same books I have referenced here before. Have you been curious enough to actually read one of them yet?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer Clarence..I agree with Pauls strictect constructionalist leanings. I too think we are to prone to drift away from adherence to the Constitution. But I don't agree with his libertarian leanings and I don't agree with his antiwar prattle.

If that is true, I would ask why your default vote was for anything other than Libertarinas, or Constitution party members, because they are the only ones that show any respect constitution?


All the other issues ( with the exception of foreign policy ) are merely fluff when it comes to undermining, or usurping the constitution.

The current Republicans concentrating power in the Executive is contrary to all constitutional authority.

Quote by: xyzer His fellow legislators approved, by resolution, the Iraq venture. It was done in accordance with the constitution he approves of?

You still buy their side of theis story?


Well, I can't explain it to you any better than the other twelve people who have attempted, but suffice to say, many, many of us disagree with that assessment.

Quote by: xyzer The 'cut and run' at the first setback answer is nonsense. Trying to limit our military tactics and strategy from an armchair in D.C. is unrealistic IMNSHO! Trying to limit funding for those doing the bleeding is treasonous!

The war is a sham, a disingenuous, decietful, twisted web of lies, and half truths that should get the whole adminstration a date with a noose, or a firing line.


I would defend any honorable actions of our military, but this isn't one of them.


Oh, and if you check our argument again, you'll see our "deployment was treasonous" claim trumps your "denying funding is treasonous claim" because our claim predates yours.


No "do overs".

[xyzer]

I read you loud and clear Milton. Trouble is, if we are talking about a strict constructionist approach to foreign initiatives, the Iraq venture was done in accordance with constitutional processes. Ok, so it hasn't proved immediately successful? Is that the fault of the system? That was the original point of contention.
Should we just give up after having sunk thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars into the thing?
Should dissenters now call for an immediate, timed, possibly percipitous, pull out? Or should a sensible termination plan be encouraged that will disengage our forces based on Iraqi cooperation and participation?
The 'surge' is an attempt to lessen the sporadic bombings, killing, and sectarian strife that goes on. I agree that it is a temporary measure designed to give the duly authorized Iraqi government a better chance to take over. There has to be a plan for the sensible turnover of defense and policing to the Iraqis themselves. What is Pauls plan for this?

[Clarence]

we're not going to find a president that has a face-saving plan for Iraq. Thanks to the current admin and many other presidential hopefuls who voted for giving the president the power to take this action.

I believe Paul's plan is to get out of there.

My idea is for us to change to a more humanitarian role not security but...like I said. Thanks to our nations blunder, we'll not find a great plan only a good man who can hopefully convince the Iraqi's and the Middle East to come together. right now.

[Autolykos]

Xyzer apparently cannot respond to this:

Quote by: Autolykos Let's see. In conscription, you are forced by the state to go and do its bidding, whatever that may be. Does that sound like slavery to you? It does to me.

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer I read you loud and clear Milton. Trouble is, if we are talking about a strict constructionist approach to foreign initiatives, the Iraq venture was done in accordance with constitutional processes. Ok, so it hasn't proved immediately successful? Is that the fault of the system? That was the original point of contention.

I still say Bush circumvented the process via pre-existing Executive Orders, and the cooperation of Congress. We "went to war" in Afghanistan, nobody contests that, but then troops start being "diverted" to Iraq. It is this diversions legality that remains the contested.

Quote by: xyzer Should we just give up after having sunk thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars into the thing? Should dissenters now call for an immediate, timed, possibly percipitous, pull out? Or should a sensible termination plan be encouraged that will disengage our forces based on Iraqi cooperation and participation?

I think the former, mainly because this administration has proven they can't be trusted with anything. ( With the possible exception of tax cuts. )


I think it's obvious our presence there is doing more harm than good.

Quote by: xyzer The 'surge' is an attempt to lessen the sporadic bombings, killing, and sectarian strife that goes on. I agree that it is a temporary measure designed to give the duly authorized Iraqi government a better chance to take over. There has to be a plan for the sensible turnover of defense and policing to the Iraqis themselves. What is Pauls plan for this?

Probably to put a swift end to the plan. If he doesn't agree with the legality of the war, how he he possibly rationalize a continuation of the same conflict?


I'm sure Dr. Paul would reduce our military footprint all around the globe, thus strengthening it here at home.


Then should the terrorists decide to continue the conflict, and attack us here, we will be ready to end the conflict the correct way, through an overwhelming display of force.

[brien]

Fear and Loathing in Iowa:

Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa June 19, 2007 Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate. Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited. We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited. The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended. Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Sheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond. Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day? We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Sheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below. It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines. Kent Snyder, Chairman Ron Paul 2008 Contact Information Edward Failor Iowans for Tax Relief 2610 Park Avenue Muscatine, Iowa 52761 Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600 Fax: 563-264-2413 E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org Steve Sheffler, President Iowa Christian Alliance 939 Office Park Road, Suite 115 West Des Moines, Iowa 50265 Phone: 515-225-1515 Fax: 515-225-1826 E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: Fear and Loathing in Iowa:

Couldn't have said it better myself brien, and I completely agree.

[O-dehlay]

If you think its bad now listen to the mp3 where a representative tries to defend the decision. Its on his site right now for download.

[Osborn F Enready]

Thanks O-dehlay.

Here is the link:

Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa, pt. 2 Jan Mickelson of WHO News Radio 1040 in Des Moines interviewed Ron Paul 2008 chairman Kent Snyder about Ron Paul being excluded from the upcoming candidates forum sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance. Ed Failor of Iowans for Tax Relief joined the interview later to explain why his group decided to keep Ron Paul out. "Congressman Ron Paul isn't welcome at the Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance candidates forum. Oversight? Nope. Kent Snyder from Ron Paul's campaign and Ed Failor from ITR exchange words. Lotsa them." -- Wednesday, June 20, 2007, WHO News Radio 1040

Direct Download of MP3 File (interview starts at 1:01:16)
http://media.libsyn.com/media/mickel...2007-06-20.mp3

[Clarence]

Nothing happens when I go to that link. Anyone know what it says?

[Osborn F Enready]

Here is some good news....

Democrat and Republican Affiliation Drops.... While Libertarian Party Numbers Surge Libertarians See Increase in Active Duty Military Numbers and Improved Election Results, Fundraising. (Washington, DC) - At a time when Libertarian Party membership continues to rise, a recent Rasmussen Report survey indicates that Republican Party affiliation continues to decline while Democratic Party affiliation is decreasing, as well. Republican numbers have been dropping since the November 2004 elections and they continue to decrease with no bottom in sight. For the last four consecutive months, the amount of self-identified Republicans continued their decline - from 31.1 percent to 30.8 percent in a telephone survey of 15,000 adults. The number of self-identified Democrats fell to 36.3 percent, its lowest number in seventeen months. Democrats have suffered losses in the last three consecutive months, resulting in a six month decrease of 4.5 percent. At the same time, Libertarian Party membership numbers have been on an upswing. For the last five months, people willing to pay at least $25 per year for Libertarian Party affiliation have increased at a rate of approximately 2.7 percent per month, which is a 14 percent increase from December's figure. Additionally, Libertarian Party fundraising is increasing at the same time the GOP dismissed their entire telephone solicitation staff. According to the Washington Times, "declining contributions and a donor backlash" against Republican policy was the cause for their dismissal. "These are certainly encouraging data, but not at all surprising," said Libertarian National Committee Chairman William Redpath. "Despite the electoral barriers thrown our way by the Democrats and Republicans, their numbers are decreasing while ours are simultaneously increasing. Americans desire fiscal responsibility, social tolerance and oppose the continued deaths of our soldiers in Iraq. Unfortunately, neither major party is willing to effectively address these important issues." Current U.S. foreign policy, as well as proposals from the new Democrat-controlled Congress, are significant reasons for the increase in Libertarian Party membership. So far this year, the LP has attracted fourteen times the expected national average of active duty service members. The LP's soldiers, sailors and airmen range in rank from junior enlisted personnel to Vice Admiral (Ret.) Michael Colley, who now serves on the Libertarian National Committee. Based on required Federal Elections Commission reporting data, seven percent of new LP members have reported their employer as a branch of the Armed Forces. "It is heartening for me to see that the men and women who serve our nation are finding a principled alternative to the Republicans and Democrats," said Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory, who first noticed this trend. While noting that Libertarian members of our military have the discipline necessary to accomplish the mission they are handed, Cory noted "the men and women of our fighting forces are intelligent, informed, and, yes, opinionated." Increased support for the Libertarian Party is beginning to translate into election results, too. While significant national media attention highlighted Republican losses in 2006, over 13,400,000 votes were cast for Libertarians in the same elections. "Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, our numbers continue to improve," said Libertarian Party Political Director Stephen Gordon. "In 2007, we've already won over a quarter of the races where we've fielded candidates. In April's Midwestern contests, we won seven out of eleven of the campaigns we ran. When third party candidates start showing these sorts of returns, it's obvious that the mood of the electorate is changing." "Democrats didn't win the elections in 2006; Republicans lost them," said Chairman Redpath. "Since then, Democratic leaders have failed to show leadership on the Iraq War, are talking about tax increases and beginning to have ethical problems of their own. Americans continue to look for a viable alternative to the two-party system - one which better represents the values most Americans find important. To those who are becoming involved with the Libertarian Party, we'd like to say 'Welcome home.'"

For Immediate Distribution
News Release
June 15, 2007

Contact: Robert Butler
hq@lpo.org
Libertarian Party of Ohio Home Page

[Captain Cardio]

I would have hoped the republican party would have been growing, which might have meant people were joining to make sure Ron Paul passed the primaries.. :(

[Osborn F Enready]

Clarence, I have no problems with the link.

Do you have a media player? I am using Windows Media Player and it plays fine, but make sure you open your media player window.

[Osborn F Enready]

Captain Cardio said: I would have hoped the republican party would have been growing, which might have meant people were joining to make sure Ron Paul passed the primaries.

Well, I think there are a lot of people who refuse to identify with the current Republican Party, but many of us out here know Ron Paul is a lifetime Libertarian Party Member, even though he sits in office now under the "Republican" moniker.

I think a lot of people are switching to "clarify" their dis-satisfaction with both major parties at the local/state campaign level, and it is actually better in my opinion, because Ross Perot actually won over 16% of the national vote, but won NO electoral college votes, and it floated due to the seeming "support" of the majority parties in official political party affiliation numbers.

[brien]

Furthermore OS, it looks Mayor Bloomburg is getting ready to toss his hat in the ring as an independent so he will certainly shine the light of "Third Party" candidates upon the corrupt practices of the two party system and how they rig the game to perpetuate it.

Every election brings us closer to cutting their strangle hold on our liberties. I place my hope in the younger generations because they see the true corruption of the Republicrats. This is where the recruitment efforts should focus.

[Clarence]

I think Mr.Paul is convinced he's a Republican by the way he talks. Certainly he could run as an Independent. But you don't need a party to be indepedent. That actually makes you less independent in a way.

[Clarence]

I can't get the link to work. What do they say is the reason for leaving Ron out of the debate?