Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[Technosoul]

Hmm, misspelled some words in above post, tired, so deal with it.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Why should we have extensive amounts of federal property within the states? Most of that property is for the things we do that cause people in other countries to want to hurt us. Read military. If our military was set to its proper purpose as intended at the founding of this country, defending Americans IN AMERICA, we wouldn't need most of that federal propery.

It may come as a shock to you, but the federal government has economic, political, educational, and military properties throughout the nation. All of them are potential targets. Spies may be after information unavailable in another nation. Who knows? My point is still valid---it's a federal jurisdiction, not state.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Foriegn embassies are the responsibility of the host country to protect. If the host country isn't willing or able to protect our diplomatic missions, why are we there?

Huh? I'm talking about foreign missions on American soil, which include consular property in the various states. Again, a federal jurisdiction.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Why are we bringing in "political refugees"? I don't see a justification for that in the Constitution.

The federal government controls all border questions, including visa status. Where does the constitution single out "political refugee" as improper?

Quote by: Keith Hamburger And, if they are allowed into the country, they should be protected in the same manner as any other resident of this country, with the same risks and the same opportunities. If there is a credible threat to their safety, it should be handled just like any threat to anyone else's safety, locally and preferably privately.

But they aren't like "anyone else" in terms of security. The threat comes from overseas and across our international borders. That's a federal jurisdiction. State and local agencies will contribute, but the feds have a legal interest in the security of political refugees.

Quote by: Keith Hamburger As to the fifty state police forces, who cares if they came in illegally, if they're conducting espionage and threatening facilities, they are nothing more than common criminals and should be handled as such. If they're just looking around, why should we have anything to hide if we're not planning on interfering with what they're doing in their own countries?

Who cares if a foreign agent violates federal border statutes? The federal government. The constitution is very clear about federal responsibilities on immigration and border issues.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 And what proposed policy would that be exactly? No one here seems to know what it is Paul intends to do in place of the organizations he is wanting to cut. In the last debate not even Paul himself seemed to know.

Why do you presume that something must be done in place of these unconstitutional agencies?

As for the necessity of an intelligence community, use some common sense for a change.

It doesn't matter how much sense something makes if it is unconstitutional!

If other competing nations have intelligence services which is typically a catch-all for concepts like spying, and espionage, (something you still don't seem to get) and we suddenly take away our ability to counter other nations, what do you think can happen?

Where's the competition if we're following the kind of foreign policy advocated by many of the founding fathers, i.e. not butting into the internal affairs of other nations? Why do we need to have spies in other countries? I don't doubt the need for dealing with threats within our borders but I draw the line there.

If two people are holding guns at each other, you don't throw yours away while the other person is still pointing there's at you.

That depends. If my throwing down my gun is going to help resolve the standoff then I may indeed do that. However, the scenario is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. We're not talking about refusing to defend ourselves from invasion.

For someone who likes throwing around ad hominems you would think you would have some intelligent backing to your arguments beyond "Nuh uh, nuh uh, the world is safe without us, lalalala, I'm not listening!"

You really don't get it, do you? I don't give a rat's behind whether the rest of the world is safe - they can all go slaughter each other for all I care. It's not America's responsibility to ensure the safety of other nations and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if we hadn't been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations throughout the 20th and, now, 21st centuries. You might want to read the quote from John Quincy Adams in my signature line.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chancellor Why do you presume that something must be done in place of these unconstitutional agencies?

Basic understanding of the nation?

It doesn't matter how much sense something makes if it is unconstitutional!

Just because Ron Paul decrees something as unconstitutional, does not make it such.

Where's the competition if we're following the kind of foreign policy advocated by many of the founding fathers, i.e. not butting into the internal affairs of other nations?

The word "economy" foreign to you or something?

Why do we need to have spies in other countries?

To prevent those threats from becoming threats in this country or anticipate them before we are merely acting as reactionaries.

That depends. If my throwing down my gun is going to help resolve the standoff then I may indeed do that. However, the scenario is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. We're not talking about refusing to defend ourselves from invasion.

There are more ways to harm this country than through invasion and your complete utter lack of understanding about this shows your ignorance of reality.

You really don't get it, do you? I don't give a rat's behind whether the rest of the world is safe - they can all go slaughter each other for all I care. It's not America's responsibility to ensure the safety of other nations and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if we hadn't been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations throughout the 20th and, now, 21st centuries. You might want to read the quote from John Quincy Adams in my signature line.

Skip basic English? I was referring to threats from other countries. I was not referring to internal safety but your continual idiotic point that the US is apparently the only country in the world that is a threat to other nations.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Chancellor You really don't get it, do you? I don't give a rat's behind whether the rest of the world is safe - they can all go slaughter each other for all I care. It's not America's responsibility to ensure the safety of other nations and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if we hadn't been interfering in the internal affairs of other nations throughout the 20th and, now, 21st centuries. You might want to read the quote from John Quincy Adams in my signature line.

An interesting quote by J.Q. Adams you have there Chancellor. Apparently you aren't familiar with one of Adams's greatest diplomatic achievements--the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. As Monroe's Secretary of State, Adams drafted a foreign policy statement for the president which essentially warned European powers from further colonizating Latin America, and any attempts to do so would be seen by the United States "as dangerous to our peace and safety." Adams laid the groundwork for US interventions in Latin American politics to protect "national security."

THE MONROE DOCTRINE (1823)

When J.Q. became president, he favored military action in places as far away as the Mediterranean Sea. Following Thomas Jefferson's example, J.Q. declared his intentions to attack Mediterranean pirates from the infamous north African Barbary Coast.

The constant maintenance of a small squadron in the Mediterranean is a necessary substitute for the humiliating alternative of paying tribute for the security of our commerce in that sea, and for a precarious peace, at the mercy of every caprice of four Barbary States, by whom it was liable to be violated.

An additional motive for keeping a respectable force stationed there at this time is found in the maritime war raging between the Greeks and the Turks, and in which the neutral navigation of this Union is always in danger of outrage and depredation. A few instances have occurred of such depredations upon our merchant vessels by privateers or pirates wearing the Grecian flag, but without real authority from the Greek or any other Government. The heroic struggles of the Greeks themselves, in which our warmest sympathies as free men and Christians have been engaged, have continued to be maintained with vicissitudes of success adverse and favorable.

State of the Union Address: John Quincy Adams (December 6, 1825) — Infoplease.com

You see, even J.Q. Adams saw the need for military protection of American assets overseas. He didn't want a treaty to "pay tribute" for protection, but he certainly wasn't shy about using American tax payer funds to escort US merchant vessels. As trade increased in the 19th century, so did our military might and "tribute" payments in places like China beyond the reach of Uncle Sam's gunboats. Eventually we had to attack China too. All part of US economic progress, and condoned during earliest days of our nation by constitutional signors and authors, including your hero, J. Q. Adams.

[Clarence]

I do care about other people around the world. Until we can help ourselves, we are in no position to help anyone we should butt out. We can do that without withdrawing all of our troops from all over the world at once. Some of you argue like my wife. If I tell her that she doesn't attempt to feed our children properly, it translates as though I've called her the worst mom in the world.

'help' or international aid should be redifined. Or at least the actions should match the supposed intentions and the intentions should be minimalized.


Decider, clean slate. I'm requesting a summary of your opinions of Ron Paul and his campaign and policies. whatever you think. At your leasure please. Wouldn't ask it if I didn't value your opinion.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Deadeye, Ron Paul is the Democrats worst nightmare, in more ways than one. The current neocons that control the republican party may not nominate him, but, they aren't republicans, just the victors standing over what was once a party of individual rights and conservative values, which is now a corporatist, fascist wanna-be party. To even pass a notion that a democrip would nominate Paul is to admit you have no connection to reality whatsoever. (thanks for getting that out in the open so quickly, and plainly though.)

Your charactorization of the modern Republican Party and it's members as "neocons" is incorrect. Nor are we "fascists wanna-be's"

I am a hard corps Republican and I am none of the things that you mentioned. I'm a small government, 2nd Ammendment supporter and individual rights kind of guy. I don't like socialized anything, and I think the government spends too much money and taxes us to death.

As for Ron Paul, I saw his picture and I do recall him in one of the debates. He doesn't have the support of the rank and file Repub though and he'll be forgotten pretty soon.

I see Rudy as the Front Runner in the Repub Party. I also see him as a much better president than any of the Demo crowd. Hillary hasn't had innovative thought in years, Obama is too young and inexperienced, and Edwards is pushing social divide when we need someone to help us get together. Kucinich (sp?) is a traitor in my eyes. I rather like .....ahhh can't think of his name, the governor of Arizona... I understand he's putting in for VP now and he'd be a pretty good selection......sh*t, still can't bring to mind his name....Richardson??

The debates will be interesting. I think they will show Hillary as vapid between the ears. She wants to be president too badly. That's suspicious to me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Deadeye Your charactorization of the modern Republican Party and it's members as "neocons" is incorrect. Nor are we "fascists wanna-be's"

Lots of people within that party are indeed fascist, and authoritarian these days.

Quote by: Deadeye I am a hard corps Republican and I am none of the things that you mentioned. I'm a small government, 2nd Ammendment supporter and individual rights kind of guy. I don't like socialized anything, and I think the government spends too much money and taxes us to death.

How quaint, you managed to read the document, and find one little section you agree with. :rolleyes:

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Lots of people within that party are indeed fascist, and authoritarian these days. How quaint, you managed to read the document, and find one little section you agree with. :rolleyes:

ah, yes another snotty remark. Typical of you. Hey, I've got an idea, lets try to actually debate...you know exchange ideas....It's like communication....I know it's hard for you, but I challenge you to debate without the enuendo. Work on it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Deadeye Your charactorization of the modern Republican Party and it's members as "neocons" is incorrect. Nor are we "fascists wanna-be's" I am a hard corps Republican and I am none of the things that you mentioned. I'm a small government, 2nd Ammendment supporter and individual rights kind of guy. I don't like socialized anything, and I think the government spends too much money and taxes us to death. As for Ron Paul, I saw his picture and I do recall him in one of the debates. He doesn't have the support of the rank and file Repub though and he'll be forgotten pretty soon. I see Rudy as the Front Runner in the Repub Party. I also see him as a much better president than any of the Demo crowd. Hillary hasn't had innovative thought in years, Obama is too young and inexperienced, and Edwards is pushing social divide when we need someone to help us get together. Kucinich (sp?) is a traitor in my eyes. I rather like .....ahhh can't think of his name, the governor of Arizona... I understand he's putting in for VP now and he'd be a pretty good selection......sh*t, still can't bring to mind his name....Richardson?? The debates will be interesting. I think they will show Hillary as vapid between the ears. She wants to be president too badly. That's suspicious to me.

What?, Rudy has invovative thoughts and we should not pick Hillary because she is suspected of acturally wanting to be President? Are you sure you are up are up for a 'real' debate?

If elections are not fixed the majority of people will not vote for another Bush-nik canidate and so Rudy will not win in the final countdown. I hate to say this but Ron Paul is the only hope Republicans have right now. At least he is different then the standard Republican hard courpses they are trying to revive.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Technosoul What?, Rudy has invovative thoughts and we should not pick Hillary because she is suspected of acturally wanting to be President? Are you sure you are up are up for a 'real' debate? If elections are not fixed the majority of people will not vote for another Bush-nik canidate and so Rudy will not win in the final countdown. I hate to say this but Ron Paul is the only hope Republicans have right now. At least he is different then the standard Republican hard courpses they are trying to revive.

The hate America haters, who I believe post here, represent about 30% of the electorite. I also think that the MoveOn folks who are the leaders of the haters are repugnant to most Americans of both parties. Many Democrats and all of the presidential candidates are afraid of the MoveOn crowd and are cowtowing (I'm sure that's spelled wrong.) to them. MoveOn is afterall a big source of money.

I think that the real message of the Democrat Party which is hate all who disagrees with them, just might come to light during the campaign. This will be their Achille's heal. Americans generally want people to get along and compromise. MoveOn and the other Liberal haters are just the opposit of what Americans want and that just might throw the election our (Repub) way.

Furthermore Democrats love to tax and then tax some more. Their socialized medical care program will take huge tax increases to fund. When the American electoriate figure out how much the Demos will tax them will cause them to again, come my way....

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Deadeye When the American electoriate figure out how much the Demos will tax them will cause them to again, come my way....

Not admitting to being an "America hater", but I'll answer because I know who you're talking about.


Ha, never!


One statist authoritarian is as bad as the next.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Deadeye The hate America haters, who I believe post here, represent about 30% of the electorite. I also think that the MoveOn folks who are the leaders of the haters are repugnant to most Americans of both parties. Many Democrats and all of the presidential candidates are afraid of the MoveOn crowd and are cowtowing (I'm sure that's spelled wrong.) to them. MoveOn is afterall a big source of money. I think that the real message of the Democrat Party which is hate all who disagrees with them, just might come to light during the campaign. This will be their Achille's heal. Americans generally want people to get along and compromise. MoveOn and the other Liberal haters are just the opposit of what Americans want and that just might throw the election our (Repub) way. You are taking a lot for granted. That 30% claim, who would believe it? Never did hear of the MoveOn crowd. Are they moving to Canada? If you are going to use a new buzz word that you hear about from some radio program or whatever you should elaborate on what the heck a moveon person is? Is it the "lets forget about Bush and move on with the rest of the Republicans" idea? Or the "lets move on with Hillary"? Furthermore Democrats love to tax and then tax some more. Their socialized medical care program will take huge tax increases to fund. When the American electoriate figure out how much the Demos will tax them will cause them to again, come my way....

This is the same line the Republicans use every election, that democrats will tax them to death and that they are secretly members of the American Socialist Party, and the same line we had to listen too about 'Bush bashing" in the last election.

What you are advocating is the middle of the road people, the moderates who can work out a solution they are both comfortable with.
Meaning, in many cases, the passing of a meaningless wishy washy bill.
However when you bunch the republicans and democrats up into one middleground blob then both parties are the same, such canidates have nothing to debate about because they both want to be agreeable with each other, and voters might as well stay home because you do not have two different kinds of platfroms with different agendas to vote for.

So in an election they try to point out their differences.

Do you really think a Democrat canidate will loose their cool and will start shouting at a Republican canidate in anger, or that they will scream out 'I hate you". And therefore loose the race?

All I can say is don't count your chickens til the hatch.

[Technosoul]

Now back to Ron Paul. Or to be correct, his supporters.

like the average Joe I never studied consitutional law in collage, and the last time I learned about it was way back when I was in high school.

But I know one thing, or alway thought that I did, and that was that it is better then those of other countries, I alway thought it stood for freedom and liberty, and so forth.

I always believed that this was the best country in the world, America is "the place" to be.

We all have our gripes and ups and downs, but as a nation when we became aware of a injustice, we righted it, when saw a problem, we tried to fix it, when the economy took a nose dive, we found a way to put it back on it's feet again. If some Nixon fellow violated the Consitution he got the bum's rush.

Sometimes we had to protest, sometimes we had to conform,
but always we worked to build upon the foundations to make things better once we see the need to do so. Knowing that absolute perfection is not possible, yet worth the stuggle to try our best to reach it.

The wars come and go, and we wonder why or if it was worth it, and when we are at peace we give thanks that our flag still stands high on it's mask.

But wait, now come the R.P. supporters, who claim all those attitudes were an illusion, all our Presidents did unconsitutional things, America is not as it should be, everything we created is a big failure, a big lie. And we are to blame because we voted for corupted canidates and wrong doers like little blind sheepe.

My America, my American spirit, lays shattered like a smashed piggy bank. and not even the money that was in it is consitutional.

I listen, I hear people cheering on the voice of the great doomsayer. The little old man is waving a tiny book and saying "this is the constitution, this is my platform". The cheering become louder and louder.

I walk away wondering, have I become a unconsitutional immigrant in in my own country? Have I become like the Englishmen who tried to take away Patrick Henry's liberties? Am I now the enemy of the federation because I belived in the Ameirca that I grew up in

I take my doubts and I cast them into the forbiden lake, and I watch them sink out of sight. In the silence my spirit is calm and secure once more, like the stillness of the lake's surface.

America, she is our ours, for better or for worse, and no man will break the bond we have, for only in death shall we part company. America, you may being getting old, out of shape, but we still love you no matter what they say about you.

[Chaossaber314]

Well said, Technosoul.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, as long as sheeple think they know the law, and whats right, without actually EDUCATING THEMSELVES on the facts, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Limitations of Government, the checks and balances, the limits in place to CHECK democracy, as well as theocracy, aristocracy....

Get used to suffering and NOT getting what you want, since you can't describe what you want, a legal way to get what you want, nor do you understand a thing about how to arrive WHERE you want.....

In other words.... you are getting exactly what you deserve in Bush.... A head nanny of the nanny state, who is upset at her insolent, irresponsible, greedy little children that CALL themselves citizens, but have no idea what it takes to be responsible citizens, only subjects of a nanny state. You refuse to accept responsibility for yourself, much less your actions, and you can't grasp the basics of either economics OR limited government.....

You get what you ask for, and peoples ignorance in politics and economics is bringing about exactly what you deserve, tyranny and the loss of financial freedom.

Enjoy, or, educate yourselves, and vote for someone who can actually facillitate the correct answers to the real problems..... Ron Paul '08.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Technosoul Now back to Ron Paul. Or to be correct, his supporters. But wait, now come the R.P. supporters, who claim all those attitudes were an illusion, all our Presidents did unconsitutional things, America is not as it should be, everything we created is a big failure, a big lie. And we are to blame because we voted for corupted canidates and wrong doers like little blind sheepe.

A very nice and thoughtful posting, and I concur with all of it except for the portion quoted above.

Repubs do not want to remove freedoms, rather we fight to keep them. Nor do we believe that "everything that we created is a big failure". Where do you get such ideas?

I think you are alluding to the Patroit Act, that the Left claims has taken our freedoms. O'Reilly's staff made a study to see if anyone had had their rights trampled on. They found one guy. His finger print was mistakenly matched to a partial print found on a terrorist's bomb. He was arrested and spent two weeks in jail.

Since the finger print was not a true, match the feds figured out that they had made a mistake. They guy got $2,000,000. One million for each week in the slammer.

It is hords from the left who shout Conservatives off of stages. Repubs don't do that. Your freedoms are secure, unless we lose in Iraq, then we are in jepardy.

But I enjoyed your post and it was beautfully and clearly written. Thank you. Your opinion about we Repubs is incorrect however; but that's your right.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well, as long as sheeple think they know the law, and whats right, without actually EDUCATING THEMSELVES on the facts, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Limitations of Government, the checks and balances, the limits in place to CHECK democracy, as well as theocracy, aristocracy.... Get used to suffering and NOT getting what you want, since you can't describe what you want, a legal way to get what you want, nor do you understand a thing about how to arrive WHERE you want..... In other words.... you are getting exactly what you deserve in Bush.... A head nanny of the nanny state, who is upset at her insolent, irresponsible, greedy little children that CALL themselves citizens, but have no idea what it takes to be responsible citizens, only subjects of a nanny state. You refuse to accept responsibility for yourself, much less your actions, and you can't grasp the basics of either economics OR limited government..... You get what you ask for, and peoples ignorance in politics and economics is bringing about exactly what you deserve, tyranny and the loss of financial freedom. Enjoy, or, educate yourselves, and vote for someone who can actually facillitate the correct answers to the real problems..... Ron Paul '08.

I would like for you to honestly take a hard look at what you just posted.
As in my opinon your true colors are showing, if I can use that term.

On one hand you talk about limited government at the federal level, then on the other hand you state I have a responsibilty know my rights by knowing the laws that set strict lines about where my rights are not right. Forcing me to be responsible to those laws and consitutional directives, instead of being responisable only to my own standards as I see fit.

I do not want to be held repsonisble by all your by-the-book dictators of what the laws of the forefathers and what they intended for me. I want to expand my liberties and I want people to leave me be, and I do not want people call the cops on me if they do not like what I am doing on my property - tell them all to go snoop someplace else. When I am driving in my car I do not want cops pulling me over or setting up roadblocks just to check people out, just so they can "go fishing" in the hopes of arresting someone with an open beer can on the floor in the back seat, or whatever. Don't waste my time pulling me over to ask "where are you going, where have you been, what are you doing driving around here?" If I break a traffic law, fine, give me a ticket and I will see you in court, but otherwise leave me the hell alone.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot preach limited government and also demand that I be more responsible to obey the laws of that government. As that is enforced conformity and not freedom, not liberty.

This like saying "God will save you and set you free, as long as you obey our Islamic codes of morality".

Oh say, can you not see - that?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Deadeye ah, yes another snotty remark. Typical of you. Hey, I've got an idea, lets try to actually debate...you know exchange ideas....It's like communication....I know it's hard for you, but I challenge you to debate without the enuendo. Work on it.

How can I agree to debate things with somebody with whom I cannot agree on the simple underlying reality?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Deadeye A very nice and thoughtful posting, and I concur with all of it except for the portion quoted above. Repubs do not want to remove freedoms, rather we fight to keep them. Nor do we believe that "everything that we created is a big failure". Where do you get such ideas? I think you are alluding to the Patroit Act, that the Left claims has taken our freedoms. O'Reilly's staff made a study to see if anyone had had their rights trampled on. They found one guy. His finger print was mistakenly matched to a partial print found on a terrorist's bomb. He was arrested and spent two weeks in jail. Since the finger print was not a true, match the feds figured out that they had made a mistake. They guy got $2,000,000. One million for each week in the slammer. It is hords from the left who shout Conservatives off of stages. Repubs don't do that. Your freedoms are secure, unless we lose in Iraq, then we are in jepardy. But I enjoyed your post and it was beautfully and clearly written. Thank you. Your opinion about we Repubs is incorrect however; but that's your right.

Indeed, all the protester at the last Republican convention enjoyed their freedom of speech right, as they got arrested by the N.Y. police departments undercover agents.

Where did I get that idea? From listening to Ron Paul (who is still regestered as a republican).

I post a few radical things now and then, for all I know I might be on some list as a "person of interest" by those Patriot Act people. If someday I ever wanted to take part in a protest of some lumber company or some coal company that plans to do some strip mineing, I do not want to get arrested on the grounds that I am a "domestic terrorist" who threatens the use of a national resource.

Don't bug me. Do you think I live in fear of some idiots who are car bombing people over in Iraq? I have no fears of that. Even so, I would prefer they blow up a free man with all my liberties still in tack, then to feel more secure under the patriot act. Your are asking me to pick between possible death or total liberty. I doubt if I must use a famous qoute to let you know what my choice is. And I would not change my mind even if you paid be 4 million dollars. (why should I take taxpayers money just because your patriot actors do not comprehend the words "liberty and true justice"? ).

Liberty is not a law... it is a state of being. Liberty is not a "right" that anyone else should be controlling, giving or taking away. It is my own, and I defend it from all enemys of that right that is my own right, even if the enemy of it is within our own government. That is "responsibilty" and that is why I am posting this here message. Go protect somebody else if you want to act like a big brother... and leave me be to deal with the bullies on my own behalf.

If the conservatives want to act on the stage they better give a good preformance or we will boo them off the stage. Hear ye Hear ye. "we the people" are the stage and you have nothing to stand on without us. I do not need a pile of law books to stand on.. my platform is the voice of the people.

Be still Grasshopper and listen.... what do you hear?

I hear the spirit of America, and I hear it in the voices of the common folks, and in the winds of change.