| Author | Message | ||
     Moxnix |
--Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said “detaining citizens without a court trial is not American” and that if the law passes “the terrorists have won”. “We’re talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk,” he said. “Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts.” | ||
| Boltrider |
Paul probably is better off as just a voice and not a President, but I do like him in the running for the nomination. I would argue we need purists in the same way we need religious conservatives to counterbalance their opposites - those folks so far out in deep left field that the ball can't reach them - folks like Obama. (Message edited by boltrider on December 20, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
I think senator Paul ought to read the legislation. It forbids denying any American his/her constitutional due process rights. | ||
| Clrobins |
its murky, and that's exactly the point. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_ the_detention_bill/singleton/ The fact is that they're still stripping liberty in the name of security just as they have been doing for the past decade in the name of fighting terrorism. | ||
| Moxnix |
At the end of the Cold War, there was a brief reprise when the Right in this country remembered its roots in noninterventionism. But this did not last long. George Bush the First rekindled the militarist spirit with the first war on Iraq, and there has been no fundamental questioning of the American empire ever since. Even today, Republicans elicit their biggest applause by whipping up audiences about foreign threats, while never mentioning that the real threat to American well-being exists in the Beltway. I'll vote Republican next year, no matter what dog t*rd candidate makes it through our primaries. Hold my nose and vote. But I don't have to like the candidate as a person, as a politician, as the leader of the Free World. Sad, really. Ron Paul just seems to have fewer warts and more world view than most in the surreal comic of politics. | ||
| Moxnix |
Hey Ron, say it ain't so! http://bcfoley.blogspot.com/2011/12/iowa-and-ron-p aul.html | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286409/buck le-your-chinstrap-c-jay-nordlinger Opinion. There is something that leftists say about people like me, who support a war on terror: We hate Muslims. I heard something similar in the Cold War: “You hate Russians.” No, we didn’t: We loved Russians enough to oppose the dictatorship ruling them. When Congressman Ron Paul is around, you don’t need leftists. Did you catch his act on The Tonight Show? He was following up on his tussle with Michele Bachmann in the most recent presidential debate. They were tussling about Iran. There in Sioux City, Paul said, “To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk.” Who talks this way? Anybody? Not that I know of. When he got to The Tonight Show, Paul said about Bachmann, “She doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ’em.” It’s true that Bachmann takes a hard line against the Iranian regime (for example). But guess what? Almost all of that regime’s political prisoners are Muslim. The girls the dictatorship stones to death, for the crime of having been gang-raped? They’re Muslim too. As far as I’m concerned, to be against the dictatorship in Iran is to be for the people of Iran. I’m against the Syrian dictatorship as well. Does that make me anti-Muslim? What about the people the dictatorship is mowing down? Are they not Muslim? Etc., etc. One of the worst things about Ron Paul is that, unlike some other libertarians, he doesn’t merely say, “Let’s have nothing to do with the world, wicked as it is. Let’s just withdraw, hunker down, tend our own garden.” No, he sneaks in little defenses of al-Qaeda, Ahmadinejad, and other beauties. He parrots their grievances and excuses. I wish some conservative Republican would upend Paul in his district. I can’t believe that many citizens of that district think as Paul does. Yet he has been in Congress for, what, 50 years? Isn’t it time to fix this incongruity? I'll still vote for anything vaguely warm blooded against the religious guy in office today, ( the one who vacations in Hawaii, a lot ) But really would prefer a girl ( or guy ) that takes seriously the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. They have to take their own honor seriously too, to be able to take an oath, and mean it. If you've got that covered, the rest is detail work. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Exactly Aes Thats Obamas down fall he has no honor or any concept of what it is or how powerful a truly honorable man is | ||
| Moxnix |
Okay, time to let the air out of Ron Paul's tires. Let Iowa be his last hurrah in politics. Seeing who supports him has me peeingn backward on whatever my libertarian genes might have felt toward his candidacy, if only as a lark. Moxnix to Ron Paul, "Go back to East Texas and write a book." | ||
| Swampy |
Funny how the news reportI heard on the radio last night about the Iowa caucus Newt is out, Romney running in the front, Santorum closes in on number 3, then.......Nothing! Who is number 2???? | ||
| Hootowl |
More importantly, who does #2 work for? | ||
| Moxnix |
An ideology, that's what Ron Paul works for. Not for you & not for me. | ||
| Fahren |
Deeply insightful article on why Ron Paul is the only figure in the race, Dem or Repub, who is bringing up the vital issues that face our country but that no one will even talk about, never mind support - and how it is driving both the left progressives and the right absolutely insane, because they don't, or won't or can't face these issues. There is not a single other candidate on the correct side of the Constitution, of limiting government, of personal rights and liberties, and of curbing the disastrous policies of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_t he_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/ | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
There are lots of people who could "bring up" vital issues that I would never vote for or support for President. Palen is one. Trump is another. Just because he is discussing issues that are relevant it doesn't mean others aren't as well. Besides a dangerously isolationist foreign policy, Ron Paul has a habit of throwing anything and everything against the wall hoping something will stick with some voters. The benefit of that tactic is that SOMETHING will resonate. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Interesting outcome in IA. | ||
| Moxnix |
Well, it gives the folks an alternative to Romney. | ||
| Cowboy |
It is funny how the day to day events can change your mind.I have been a Republican for most of my life, After watching the Repub party shred it self and the worst of the lot come to the front. I have decided that if America is determand to send it self to hell I will just help them.( it is expencesive to change familys in the white house) there fore I will not change one sorry SOB for another I will be supporting Mr. Obama in cuming election. | ||
| Reindog |
That is perhaps the "least smart" statement I have ever heard. I know you are frustrated but think. You are going to vote for a radical Socialist over a slightly right of center candidate who understands business? Really???? (Message edited by reindog on January 04, 2012) | ||
| Xdigitalx |
As long as the next potus isn't Ron Paul or Obama, we will all be ok for the next 8 years. | ||
| Blake |
Glen Beck likes Santorum. He ranked Santorum and Bachman as the two most honest conservative candidates. Jeremy, Check out "The Undefeated", a recent documentary about Palin. Very informative. She ought to be supportable based based purely on her record and her integrity. She reminds me of Reagan. As VP nominee, I think she remains very valuable. I don't like or trust Romney. I sure won't vote for Obama, but I will have a very difficult time voting for Romney. His primary motivation appears to me to be that he just really wants to be president. | ||
| Pwnzor |
he just really wants to be president  | ||
| Cowboy |
If Romney gets the nod allI can say is taake a seat on the buss to hell I will drive (I think Santorum is a good choise I can deal with Him) | ||
| Hootowl |
| ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, I will be holding my nose if I have the choice of Mitt or Barry, but I won't be voting for Barry. I will, however, vote. ( It won't make a difference, I live in NY State, but I will vote. ) I will also vote in the primary. Which in NY means I had to register months ago in the party I wish to vote in the primary. None of that freedom New Hampshire crap in New York, no sir! If Hillary was going to challenge Barry, I would have registered Dem, but that didn't look likely at the time, ( and, darn it, still doesn't ) so I registered Rep. Since most of the people I did like ( read that didn't dislike enough to punch out if Introduced ) are no longer running, ( Which anyone who paid attention the last few cycles could predict ) We'll see who's up when it's New York's turn to eat up the evening news. Santorum looks interesting, but I know little about him. Romney has a backlog of attack ads coming from Obama, the instant he looks like a sure thing. ( until then, Obama's minions will attack the most likely to be a threat, see Bachman & Cain & Newt ) Since there are already ads left over from Romney's Senate run against Kennedy, expect those to be the big theme. The Occupy movement was just setup for anti-Romney ads of people who were laid off "by Romney" some years ago. I've heard some, and they will be effective. So I'm not buying the "Romney is inevitable" crap pushed by the country club republicans, the "anything to help Obama win" press, or anyone else who really doesn't want a conservative in office. It's january. Sh&t happens. We've got lots more attacks to go. Remember. Barack Hussein Obama never shut down his campaign. It's been running the last 5+ years without stopping. They have no morals. They are not paid to be honest. They will attack, attack, attack, since they can't honestly run on Obama's merits. Again, I'll vote for anything warm blooded against Obama. It's a real pity that the people I really want to run, are too wise. ( like Condi Rice, or Bobby Jindal ) | ||
| Buellinmke |
Also remember - money wins elections. Obama's campaign already has over 1 billion dollars in the bank ready to be spent, and that number is growing daily. Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Obama can take as much money as he wants from corportations, unions, etc. Looks like Obama's going to win again. | ||
| Blake |
Joe, True on the billion in reserve, but actually, Obama's campaign contributors are limited to the same $2,000 donation limit as always, no matter who they may be. The court decision you reference allows corporations to spend as much as they like running their own politically oriented ads as they wish; that's not quite the same as a direct campaign contribution. Other limitations are also involved to try to prevent corps from becoming proxies for candidates/campaigners. | ||
| Moxnix |
Money is the mother's milk of politics. ~Willy Brown, California politician | ||
| Aesquire |
Obama's campaign contributors are limited to the same $2,000 donation limit as always... Not exactly. That would be true if there was no cheating.... but thanks to McCain-Fiengold, Obama was able to launder $400,000,000 dollars last time, much from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. Locally (2008) a fellow was witnessed at a phone booth in a small town restaurant "donating" from a stack of credit cards.... at $2000 each transaction. I won't get into the shredded records of those transactions, since this AG certainly wouldn't even think of prosecuting. Still, it's public record. Bill Clinton laundered a ton of money, much from Red China, and at least a few people were investigated, ( I recall a stack of postal money orders, still in fanfold form, with different names ) but Barack Obama's exploits in higher finance make Bill's pale. Ironic as all get out that it was his "competition" in the last election that wrote the law enabling such corruption, isn't it? | ||
| Sifo |
I remember one of BO's first promises was to make his campaign finances open to examination!  | ||
| Aesquire |
Don't forget close Gitmo, end the Iraq war in a few months, put all bills up for public review for 5 days before signing, no more lobbyists in the cabinet, and last but by no means least, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. All except the last were campaign promises, and worth absolutely nothing, not to any court, not to his re-election chances, not to any sane person. That last though..... that's a legal oath. |
