Republicans love the losing position.  It’s in their nature.

Ron Paul i think you’ve proved yourself to be a losing issue.

RON PAUL ZERO WINS!!!!!!!!! 

By focusing on social issues, the only segment of the population that the GOPBaggers will have not offended by summer will be very old, white hillbillies in Wisconsin and Florida.  

L A N D S L I D E.

Thanks for the write up!

Among many other positions – depending on which day it is – They define hypocrisy.

Please place me at #1 on the list of those that wish 0bama’s mother was not “punished with a baby”.

-0bama – WORST. And EVERYBODY knows it-

Doesn’t have to win. He already HAS the lion’s share of delegates. :)

So, for who are you voting? Obama or Obama-lite?

hey y’all, thar’s alots of ussins outchair. If you think it’s going to be about the economy by the time November rolls around, you do not understand Obama nor the complicit media.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the narrative is already changing. To have a republican busisnessman for a candidate will mean nothing. This election will be a do or die referendum on the moral direction of this country. Moral decay will cause a great nation to fall. Talk about a L A N D S L I D E. Checked out what your children are being taught in grade school these days? If you have, and you approve, you are in moral decay yourself.

This is all that the Republican Party has left in its “think tank”.

Right wing politicians and pundits want to take on Obama about the economy, except that they have no substantive policy positions, and the overall economy is improving significantly.

They want to be critical of his perceived weakness on attacking terrorism, but then bin Laden met his demise.

So they have chosen Door #3 and have returned to their favorite turf, hurling hyperbolic rhetoric, racially-insensitive epithets, and fact-devoid, inflammatory accusations about Obama conspiring to create a dictatorship, the evils of birth control, and a mythical “war on Christianity” … and the American people are responding, ”WTF are you talking about???”

I guess you are not aware, it is the delegates that matter not popular vote.  The delegates that media project are based on popular vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x28_I9oIVg 

 Like in the 2010 mid-term elections ( The countries last major national election)? 

I may not agree with Ron Paul on many things but I agree with him on this. People will not vote for someone who wants to roll back the clock to a vision of a 1950′s American utopia that never really existed outside of television. All the hardline stances on social issues are doing is making the party look backward and, lets face it, look like the party of big government that believes their role is not to help the population, but to to force the will of extreme hard right Christians on everyone.

Obviously, not very well-informed about what’s going on and yet manage to post comments like the above. 

I see Candy Crowly is dutifully parroting her Media Matters talking point about Rick Santorum.  Santorum is not running on social issues per se but every reporter who interviews him brings up the issues of gay marriage, abortion and contraception because they want to portray him as some bible thumping evangelist who speaks to God.
They did the same thing to Michele Bachmann.

Santorum did not bring up the issue of contraception.   Obama did with his decree that Catholic institutions have to pay for contraception against their wishes.
I have seen several interviews where Santorum tries to discuss other more important problems and the host simply pushes the conversation back to social issues.

It’s a set up.

I think he is right.  The voters concerned with a lot of the social issues are part of the 30% or so that will vote for Obama even if he turns into a fire hydrant.

Where the Republicans have to concentrate on is the economy as that is where the 20% of people who decide elections find to be the hot button.
 
These 20% of voters do not think what Santorum is bringing up as social issues are an issue to tie their vote on.

You’re clueless on the process of acquiring delegates.  

Lion’s share of delegates? I like Paul, but the only candidates that he leads in delegates are the ones not running.

Or to force the will of extreme hard left Christians on everyone. Or Atheism, Secularism, Fascism, Socialism, Marxism or anyone else who may or may not be associated with either hard right or hard left agendas.

The problem of our government is that they wear this mask of competing parties or competing social arguments or competing foreign policy opinions, or competing welfare stances. But there is no difference. There is no difference between Harry Reid and John Boener. When the doors close and the deals are made, every bureaucrat & legislator becomes a blank slate – a non-person void of principle & ethical standards. They are there to get what they can to sell to their constituencies a “success”, give the other side the maximum measures in their bag of tricks to sell for themselves as well, and what may or may not even be considered in the entire deal is whether the bill is actually any good for the People.

The Republicans are just as big government as the Democrats are.  
 

You should be ashamed to mention the 2010 mid-term elections with the current congress approval rating.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

“The overall economy is improving significantly.”

By whose standards?

Do you honestly believe that?

The article was not about President Obama, didn’t you read it? Oh and by the way….who is everybody? You and a few of your friends? Obviously you need to bee ruled.

Even the monkeys eating bananas in the Houston zoo know that it comes down to the delegates. Look closely at this issue – not what CNN & FOX are reporting. Ron is stockpiling what really matters. 

I’d agree and raise your bet. It’s the Democrats too.

There are very few in government who are not liars, killers, and thieves.

Ron Paul & a handful of others are the exception.

And this is the reason why republicans will lose the election, the majority of Americans are tired of this constant hate from the right.

Birth certificates
College records
Muslim African
Kenyan Muslim
Marxist Socialist
blah blah blah…

stay classy republicans.

Ron Paul Gives Santorum The Bum’s RushIn 2006, Rick got tossed like a bumA premonition of things yet to come’Cause once voters vett himThey”ll surely regret him…No more hot, frothy, surging Santorum!__________________________Charles Ulysses Feney

I don’t agree with Santorum but on a few issues. I like that he’s talking about manufacturing, low taxes, and removing regulations. And on those issues, I give him credit, he is right. But on everything else that he is saying he is dead wrong. In the debates he did say that he would have not have voted for NDAA and I was like “Ok, that was unexpected.” But I have never heard him say that he’d overturn the indefinite detention of American citizens.

You know Gingrich – that fat fascist bastard, won’t overturn a damn thing. He’d double the deficit in 6 months, we’d have $18 per a gallon of gas. It’d be a disaster.

The problem Americans have with the GOP is none of them have a plan to cut anything. Nothing. Not one nickle. Rick, Mitt, and Newt are missing the pivotal single issue and that is government spending.

We must cut spending. This is unsustainable. Only Ron takes this issue by the horns and wants to reel it in. That’s why his campaign is so freakin pumped up. It’s the answer in a sea of endless problems and obvious questions.   

If you are basing your morality on what the government thinks your moral compass should be or what the schools teach or what anyone else says, then you have already lost perspective.

I sincerely agree with Dr. Ron Paul.  We need to move back to the critical discussions on job creation, reducing wasteful spending, examining our role in policing the rest of the world and focusing on the social issues that count – mainly health care , MediCare and reforming Social Security.  And that is for starters!

 Look at all the Paul supporters (Stoners) they have to cry and whine
about delegates, because they can’t even win a single popular vote even
in a volatile primary.  Little anti-Semitic Paul won’t even win his home
state. Reminds me of Al Gore. Go back to the Democrat party you hacks,
where you belong. 

RON PAUL = EPIC FAIL

Who’s the bigger fool? The ones setting him up or the one who falls for that  set up every single time. 

FROTH LIKE SOCIAL ISSUES. RON PAUL MAKE FROTH ANGRY!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue..  Each time that the Republicans allow the religious right to move the message from a smaller and more fiscally responsible government to social issues the party suffers.  Sure there are social issues that should be fought against that the democratic party will advance to shore up their base, but these issues should remain to the sidelines of republican politics because at this moment in time they are not the most important issues facing conservatives in this election… It is destructive to the party to let the religious right control the messages of the republican primaries…  Just look at what has happened to the polling in the last few months…  President Obama who many felt would not be capable of winning a second term is now putting distance between himself and the republican candidates…  Why?  Because the Republicans have gotten off message to what is important to independents, and moderate democrats…  The size and scope of government, deficit spending,  can we continue to spend as if it doesn’t matter, and the overwhelming size of the national debt as a whole…  

Instead the republicans allow themselves to be drawn into dumba$$ discussions over gay marriage, each other’s religions… get sucked into the president’s perfect trap over contraception.. etc. The party is off message IMO.Great Job Evangelicals, I am sure that the liberals cannot be more delighted in your ability to drag your party through the mud time and time again.  

Paul is estimated at 2nd in delegates with around 50.  But… yeah.. he is a distant second to Romney who has around 100.

Mickey Mouse has a better approval rating with the American People then Obama. The President would loose to a cartoon character if the election were held today. So you’re not convincing anyone of anything that means anything.

The issues coming from the Right against Obama – if you had your ears perked up are:

The military empire
The legalization of indefinite detention & torture of American citizens
Presidential authority to assassinate American citizens
Repeal of the 4th Amendment
Repeal of the 5th Amendment
Repeal of the 6th Amendment
Fast & Furious – an attempt to undermine the 2nd amendment
SOPA, PIPA, & ACTA – attempts to undermine the 1st Amendment
The illegal drug war
Repeal of the 10th Amendment
Overspending – doubling of our national deficit in less then 4 years
The evisceration of our Constitution
Delegating sovereign American authority for force to the United Nations
UnConstitutional Appointments
Abuse of Executive powers
A failed bailout/stimulus economics passed off as a failure in Capitalism
Over-regulation
The auction & centralized control of the Congressional purse
Central Banking & central economic planning
Paper Money
The corruption and moral decay of the military elite
Taxes & the IRS
Veterans Assistance – financial, employment, mental, & physical

Wake up dude. You’re not even scratching the surface.

You obviously know little about Ron Paul and what he stands for…  The republicans and especially the Tea Party make claims to what Paul has been fighting for for years…  It is the republican establishment that sends the false message and always have…  They have done as much if not more to expand government than have the democrats until this last go around with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama….  

Republican Establishment = EPIC FAIL

Then you guys should get Mickey Mouse into the race. What’s taking you so long?

Sadly…I agree.

Your president is going to lose in a landslide.

He’s your president also. Prove me wrong ;-)

LOL – you just got annihilated by 10 Ron Paul supporters and all you can do is sling empty insults and uninformed stupidity.

That pretty much sums up the status quo.

 Well Ron Paul would be in good company if and when he never wins a popular vote.

Notable mentions: George W Bush, Benjamin Harrison and Rutherford B Hayes. All stellar presidents indeed.

? Why is that Ron Paul, always has to run against the will of the county?

 ”Or to force the will of extreme hard left Christians on everyone.”

LMAO WHAT?!!!

That is NOT my president. He may be the President of the United States as an honorary title but he’s not acted like a president. That’s why I don’t support him. Read the list of items against Obama to show that supporting a Democrat for the sake of supporting a Democrat – is wrong.

 TO CLARIFY MY OPPOSITION TO PAUL:

1. Foreign policy, we have a constitutional right to fight with and for our allies. ( Israel )

2. I have lived next to meth addicts and never want to again. Paul wants to legalize everything. With no regards to the consequences.

3. Yeah audit the Fed, i don’t object. But the national bank has proven to be an asset time and time again for the country, when ran correctly.

“will of the country”…What exactly does that mean? And phrase that in the form of the Constitution because last time I checked 98% of Americans had a favorable opinion of our founding document.

“The problem Americans have with the GOP is none of them have a plan
to cut anything. Nothing. Not one nickle. Rick, Mitt, and Newt are
missing the pivotal single issue and that is government spending.”

That simply is a statement you cannot support.
Every single candidate except Obama has a spending reduction plan and all you have to do is visit their website to see it.
They talk about their plans every single debate.

Have you never also heard of The Ryan plan as well….?
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

Cutting spending is all they talk about.

 Ha Ha, I guess i just took on the Ron Paul base. You said 10 right? That’s about all the support their is for him. 10 confused voters.

 You should probably explain what “lion’s share” means to you.

He is running for the will of the country, against the will of the establishment and Military Industrial Complex controlled media.  Why is Ron Paul treated like the 13th Floor.  The media will allow nut-jobs like Santorum but will be hush-hush in mentioning Ron Paul.  A recent example. Ron Paul was most favorable in this poll 42% Fav.  36 Unfav and this is what we get on Media.  Why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11rLxqgPc9w 

Obama’s a Christian. He’s enacted and forced on the American People:

Indefinite detention
Assassination of American citizens
Health Care Mandate
More robust Patriot Act
NDAA
Libya War
Uganda military action
Expansion of the military bases i.e. Australia
More deficit spending then all other presidents in our history combined

You don’t think the reason gas is almost $4 a gallon is from the trillions and trillions of dollars in the money supply?

ObamaZombies need to go somewhere and start their own country. See if you bastards would be eating in 3 months.

 Please inform me, Because i thought you needed the majority of delegates to win the nomination. But Paul has neither the majority of delegates or the popular vote.

Good ole Mitt does though.

* face palm * 

Yeah – the Constitution is soooo confusing. Words…we don’t need those things anymore.

 I guess Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Maine, Colorado, *Missouri, Minnesota and Maine aren’t very “well-informed” either. OR ARE THEY?  

Not even 98% of our Supreme Court has a “favorable opinion” of our constitution. But good try though. 

 we dont care what u put in your palm, socky

 Whats that stoner support?

1) Where does it say that in the Constitution? Site Article and Section
2) He wants to allow the states to decide what’s illegal and get the power away from the federal government as is Constitutionally mandated by the 10th amendment. Sorry that you lived with meth heads, that does suck. I feel your pain. I don’t think you’ll be choosing those kinds of people for roommates again. You’re lucky the DEA didn’t kick in the door and arrest you and your drug roomys. But with Ron you don’t have that fear. You can just move. Just as you can if you were living with an alcoholic.
3) It has never run effectively. If the goal is to build a road, safe and straight – and it turns into a roller coaster, you change it. Not to mention a central bank is nowhere authorized by the Constitution. We should return to state banks offering competing currencies that way if the Connecticut dollar drops in value because their government makes stupid decisions, we can roll into Texas dollars or the dollar that has the best purchasing power.

 If only we had a constitutional lawyer to be president. Oh wait we do, How is that working out?

 You don’t have to support him… he’s still your president ;-)

And we  need to overturn about 98% of the Supreme Courts decisions. They too make stupid from time to time.

 ”Military industrial Complex controlled media”. ?WTF?

Stop citing youtube videos as sources.

“RoadtoSurfdom I just took an all out, all day long verbal Ass Whippin’ – You’re right and I am wrong and I cannot deny your accurate claim so all I can do is act like a 5 year old and put my hand out as you beat the hell out of my ass.”

~MrPorkChop

1.We do not have a constitutional right to fight for our allies.  The constitution says no such thing.   We have a constitutional right to defend ourselves thru a declaration of war by the congress clearly defining the objective of the war and finishing the war, if and only if it is identified that there is a threat to our national security.

2.  There are consequences if you force someone else to do it.  You can kill yourself by hanging or by consuming drugs.  Choice is yours.  Do you want the government to put a camera in your house so you cannot hang thyself?

3. It is not a national bank.  It is a private bank that has taken away all our gold and given us toilet paper in return.  They print more toilet paper at will when it is time to help their owners the private banks giving higher taxes and inflation to the American people.

You are misguided.  You need to do more research.

1. Article 1 section 8, Article 1 section 9, and Article 2 section 2.

2. The interstate commerce clause, i.e. will legal drugs in lets say NY be able to pass through Texas where it is illegal to possess or ship?

3.So Hamilton never ran the treasury correctly?

Where is the word “defense” in Article 1 section 8?

You have failed to express enough logic in you’re other questions to be answered.

I would honestly ask you, just how is that war on drugs going, and who is winning…  I would think that we could do better by legalizing it and regulating it, take the crime out of it and give our inner cities a fighting chance…  I am not so sure that Ron Paul has ever actually advocated for the legalization of drugs so much as he one considers the war on drugs to be a failure and has cost our country untold billions of dollars over the years, this years budge is $15.5 billion but this does not account for the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating offenders…  the drugs are still available to any who want them and there is a larger circle of crime that surrounds drug use as people commit crimes to feed their habits…  I know I have had my business robbed at gunpoint and I will tell you that it sucks having a young addict smacking you around with a gun all the while you are asking yourself if you will make it home tonight.  

Yes, we have the right to fight a war, especially if the congress declares war…  Paul’s stance on foreign policy goes back to principles of the founders and Jefferson as they did not believe foreign adventurism in our best interest, this was pretty much the overriding sentiment held by the citizens of this country until Wilson’s adventure into WWI, still at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor 3 out of 4 people did not want the US to enter the war, FDR pretty much made that happen when he stopped trade with Japan cutting them off from their badly needed supply of oil…  And what have we had since WII. In the middle East we have been dealing with the mess we ourselves created, I support our alliance with Israel, but one would have to be blind to not recognize that much of the ill will generated towards the US has been caused by our constant intervention into the affairs of other countries, we as a people would never tolerate such intervention into our own affairs…  Paul’s stance is a strong military, but one whose purpose is the defense of this country, not imposing into the affairs of other countries or to molding by force or bribe the world to our liking.  He states that our military should be so strong that no country would attempt to attack us, and that our example of commerce and liberty be so strong that others would fight for their freedoms and once gained would emulate us.  

Please point to me where the Fed has actually manged the economy well, they were around during the first depression and have had their hand in every recession and inflationary period since and contributed greatly to our current situation.  Remember the Fed was created by private bankers and is owned by private member banks…  the Fed Chairman comes from those private banks and is elected by the board which is comprised by bankers, even though the president must give his approval.  The Fed can do what it wants, we have seen recently that in a very short period of time that they created $7.7 trillion and loaned it out to European banks along with banks here in the states, it made another loan in excess of 300 billion dollars to Citibank… with no one knowing about it until after the fact…  they print money as they please, they meet every 6 weeks or so with hedge fund managers to help them to determine policy….  The Fed takes care of the banks first, they see that as their mission, the people second, in the mind of the federal reserve what is good for the financial industry is good for the country….  they are unsure of what impacts their policies will really have on the long term economy, but they gamble with our lives anyway…  It can be shown that time and time again the Fed has only pushed a near term problem aside to have it come back as a much larger problem later…  they deflate the dollar stealing from all of our bank accounts…..  No, I think that Paul is not so far off on the Fed, our money should be more sound than it is and the Fed has much to much power as they are not accountable  to anyone.  Not the president, and not to congress…  Trillions of dollars printed and doled out over night without asking permission of any government official…  that effects you and me…  I for one don’t like it.  

It is 10 knowledgeable for 1 confused of you.

My God are that kind of an idiot. He is the our President like or not. His actions affect your life and my life

“Good ole Mitt?” What’s so good about that progressive S.O.B.?

Come on man.  There are tons of videos all over the internet with Santorum pushing the social con positions.  H’s try to rev up the base, it’s a tried and true formula.

Did you even watch?  It is Chris Matthews.  Then go look up the poll and read the numbers yourself.  I provide proof not of some nut job speaking but reliable information.  It is there for the ones who are willing to do independent thinking and not let the Media control their brains.

Reminds me of an interesting link.
http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/aa-Dees-media-brainwashing.jpg 

Why dig at Connecticut? It’s one of the economically stronger states in the union, and like Texas carries the financial weight of the weaker states. A state like Arkansas or Oregon is much more likely to have  the kind of trade imbalance that results in diminishing currency value.

The new phrase should be “IT’S THE MEDIA STUPID” Santorium does not ask the questions about social issue IT’S THE MEDIA STUPID’

Ron Paul is right, but Ron Paul has supported DOMA. Has he flip flopped?

The Libertarian Party has been around longer than the rise the Ron Paul Cult. Paul is more John Bircher than libertarian. Paul is an isolationist. Paul makes some sense; but overall, he fits in quite well with the likes of Santorum. Paul is just trying to take votes from Santorum.

Ron Paul’s twisted perspective of Austrian Economics (as spun by School of Mises) thinks the problem started with Lincoln. His type of economics would destroy the USA. We would break into smaller nation states like what happened druing the fall of Russia. His fellow Texan Rick Perry has suggested that Texas should leave the Union.

Ron Paul hates the USA today. He would be happy to see it fall apart. He hates amendments to the Constitution that expanded voting. Afterall, The Founding Fathers only wanted men who owned property to vote.

When Teatards talk Constitution, they mean the original document. They hate the “social amendments.”

The Tea Party flag has snakes on it. Satan disguised himself as a snake to trick Eve. Don’t believe Ron Paul!

ColdDeadHands: It explicitly says the word defense in the first line. Seriously, have you even read it?

It’s really incredible how correct Ron Paul is on every issue.

Yes troybowen – I don’t support him. Like it or not. He’s not my president. Never in my life did I vote, support, encourage, donate, or endorse that bought and paid for empty suit. He’s got no spine. No resolve. No courage. No platform. His only skill is his ability to speak but the problem he has is not how he says things but what he says. He is an embarrassment to the position of the Presidency and is the worst thing that could have happened to our country. 

to J Bianca JacksonI just tossed out a state – nothing in particular.

It’s a little more then that.

And Gary Johnson, who will be the Libertarian candidate. He has an even more agressive timetable to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, by all means vote for him. I will. But, if as seems likely, he is not, check out GaryJohnson2012.com.

Oh Lord – here comes the Ron Paul Hate groups. Go find your hood Jardina

Then stop voting for the lesser of two evils. Vote Libertarian. Yes, the deck is stacked by the two ruling parties, but it is still one man, one vote. Time for a change.

We’ll file your comment under “Wishful Thinking.”

The GOP isn’t running on the platform of Alex Jones. Some of the bills you named were introduced by the Republicans. NDAA overwhelmingly passed both houses so both parties were for it. Obama actually resisted it and it was watered down considerably but it was crammed into a huge spending bill, making it tough to veto.  

The bailout, “abuse” of executive powers, “unconstitutional appointments”, “paper money,” etc, etc, were all started or at the very least perpetuated by the GOP. The assassination of American citizens who work with terrorist groups was okayed by Bush. 

More money and assistance have gone to the vets under Obama than under Bush. Taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Reagan. Both of those are facts you can check on your own. 

“Corruption and moral decay of the military elite”? Where are you getting that from? These guys have been thrown more money and more responsibility in the last ten years than in the previous twenty. 

Much of the rest of what you’re writing is so far off base I don’t know how to explain it to you. Open a book that’s not written by a partisan hack or a conspiracy theorist. You are obviously spending way too much time reading crazy and unsubstantiated sh*t from blogs. The people who write that crap just want to piss you off so you’ll vote GOP.  

It’s only future cuts to proposed automatic increases. There are no true cuts. You’re reading numbers from the CBO baseline budgeting.

I’ve seen every candidates plan. And Obama’s. None of the candidates have proposed a budget with hard numbers and Obama’s plan *increases* spending by more the $500 billion.

Every single poll that’s out right now says the opposite. He’s beating every other candidate on average. You, my friend, are very brainwashed if you think things are looking good for the GOP this year. 

I like Johnson. And he’d get my vote if Ron is not there.

Typical leftist Media Matters talking points. You fail to realize that Obama expanded many of the wasteful, intrusive programs and policies started by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Also, I can’t think of any Paul supporter who would embrace Santorum as the Republican nominee. Rick Santorum is the polar opposite of a libertarian.

Who is Alex Jones?

to Mencius

Every single poll?

Wow. Thats awesome.

I knew he wasn’t a Constitutional lawyer when they voted the SOB in there.

Why are you working to get him re-elected?

Stoner? I don’t understand.

The NDAA does not allow for indefinite detention of American Citizens.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

- At Section 1022(b)(1). Nice try though.
Obama extended not expanded the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
We already have a base in Australia, and will have a grand total of ZERO new bases in Australia.

Bush Spending $5.07 Billion in Eight Years.
Obama Spending in THREE years, $5 Trillion.

You have a serious issue with facts.

He’s Ron Paul’s radio DJ identity. 

RoadtoSurfdom, yeah every poll. There isn’t a single one that says he’ll lose by a “landslide”. If he is behind in any of them, it is by a few points at most. But on the balance, he’s way ahead. 

Here’s an “awesome” breakdown: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html 

As you can see, Obama is ahead in every one except for one poll against a generic candidate, in which case he is close behind. Opposite of a landslide, no? 

From_My_Cold_Dead_Hands

1. Article 1 section 8, Article 1 section 9, and Article 2 section 2.

2. The interstate commerce clause, i.e. will legal drugs in lets say NY be able to pass through Texas where it is illegal to possess or ship?

3.So Hamilton never ran the treasury correctly?

===============

1) So explain how these articles & sections apply to your right to ally with Israel. Show me where that wordage applies and the logic.

2) So if Texas makes Meth illegal, and I think that they probably would, it would be illegal to transport that drug from say Arkansas through Texas to New Mexico. What would happen would be a much higher level of communication and coordination between governors rather then all the conversation going to Washington D.C.

3) Hamilton wanted a central bank but was over ruled and shot down by the other members. They started the nation off of a sovereign bank with a monetary policy that was not debt based like it is today, and yes – Hamilton was the treasurer and he was very competent.

“In the middle East we have been dealing with the mess we ourselves created”

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS

Also in regards to drugs, even if you legalized them all like alcohol. People would continue to abuse them to the point of infringing on the rights of others.

 Banking:
Since its inception in 1913 the Federal Reserve System has been subjected to a variety of financial and performance audits by Congress, the executive branch, and private accounting firms, although responsibility for this task has shifted from time to time. From 1913 to 1921 the Board of Governors, then known as the Federal Reserve Board which sets monetary policy and regulates the activities of the Federal Reserve Banks, was audited annually by the U.S. Treasury Department.  In 1921 Congress created the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and assigned it to audit the Board until 1933.  In the Banking Act of 1933, Congress voted specifically to remove the Board from the GAO’s jurisdiction.  From 1933 to 1952 audit teams from the twelve Federal Reserve Banks performed the annual examination of the BOG’s books.  From 1952 to 1978, the Board, under authorization from Congress, decided to employ nationally recognize accounting firms to conduct the audits of itself to insure independent oversight.  This provided an external evaluation of the adequacy and effectiveness of the examination procedures.1

In 1978 Congress passed the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (31 USCA §714).  It placed the Federal Reserve System back under the auditing authority of the GAO.  The Act significantly increased the access of the GAO to the Federal Reserve Banks, the Board, and the Federal Open Market Committee (the FOMC). Since then, the GAO has conducted over 100 financial audits and performance audits of the three Federal Reserve bodies.

They’re gonna lose. The unemployment rate is still 8% however Obama will win anyway.

I agree with you but think you’ve misquoted the spending numbers. From a 2011 NYT story:

$5.07 trillion under Bush for 8 years. 
$1.44 trillion under Obama for 8 years under 2011 projections. 

About the NDAA stuff, you’ll never convince the Paulbots that Obama personally didn’t start a police state. The language of the NDAA itself isn’t proof enough, nor is Obama’s signing statement. And the completely ignore that the GOP overwhelmingly voted for the language.

“He’s Ron Paul’s radio DJ identity.”

If it’s that truther guy in Austin then you’re assumption is incorrect.

If you’re even slightly serious, you really need to turn off the right-wing radio and open a book, preferably one not written by a partisan hack. 

You’ve got sand in your ears man. Your head’s been plunged down in there for too long.

I’m not talking about Bush. Quit pointing fingers. I’m talking about what Obama has done. If something is bad for the People that another President has done it’s Obama’s job to stop it – not to continue it.

Your post is entirely absurd. It’s not even worth wasting my time on its so incredibly naive and uninformed.

 Bullcrap. There is no constitutional right to fight for Israel or any other country. Take your neocon butt and get out of the country. But first, you have to get out of your momma’s basement, where you sit and wish others go and fight wars, while you are still in your diapers…chickenhawk s***.

You’re not “wasting” your time because you have nothing to say and can’t refute anything I’ve brought up. You’re relying on misinformation and demagoguery, which is why you have trouble responding to actual facts. All you can do is repeat crap you’ve heard from Ron Paul supporters and blogs. 

I’m not the one pointing fingers. I’m just telling you where to point yours since you seem so sure Obama has done even half of the things you think he has. 

 Settle down Occutard, Congress is not constrained by your anti-Semitic views, on who to declare war with or against.

Please inform me where in the constitution it says we can’t declare war because X ?

Nobody has said that Obama started the police state, but he certainly has not minded expanding it one bit.

So regarding the Patriot Act – and I’ll get to the NDAA in a second, if it’s not expanded then why is the TSA now stopping cars at random on I-81 in Tennessee, looking to expand to California, Ohio, and Nebraska? Is that not an expansion? From Airports to American highways? Dudes pulling you over and searching your shit at random?

Are you freaking blind?

Section 1021 of the NDAA, which includes language which permits the
government to detain anyone who “substantially supported al Qaeda, the
Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against
the United States.”  The language can be used against U.S. citizens. Government always over reaches. Always.

The main difference between the new and old versions of the NDAA is
the insertion of one paragraph between the “Implementation Procedures”
and “Effective Date,” which is found in the new version. That paragraph
reads:

(d) AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and
national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or
any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered
person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military
custody.

There is not enough in there to ensure that the rights of U.S. citizens validated by the Constitution are secure.

The ACLU even said: 

Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite
detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does.
There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention
requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American
citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely
detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So,
the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to
indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its
power unless ordered to do so.
But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor:
“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American
citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the
homeland.”

Pretty straight forward Todd.

As far as having a base in Australia, we’ve never had a permanent base there until Obama. And why have it there to begin with? For China? They’re our money lender. It’s stupid.

Lastly, here is the budget deficits since 2000:

Projected:
03/01/2013 17,000,000,000,000.00

Today:
02/19/2012 15,372,845,000,000.00
07/22/2009 11,634,723,000,000.00

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Bush was responsible until 2009. So you’re right. I stand corrected. It was not a doubling in debt. He only grew it by 65%

FROTH HATE CONSTITUTION FROTH GO BY CATHOLIC DOGMA

FROTH AGREES

PROVE OBAMA IS OBAMA’S MAMA’S BABY

No Mencius, every stupid uninformed comment that you made will require me to write a book to refute it. And I’m not doing it.

You’re a lost cause.

Go vote for Obama – yeah! Cheer Leader.

You are pointing fingers – blaming Bush for the *continuation* of the policies that Obama campaigned against.

Just take your uninformed ignorant mind put it in a box on a shelf somewhere and quit polluting the world with your big government propaganda.

You’re a paid Obama truth squadder – go back to your cave.

Wow! Really… We did not create the mess in the Middle East? Well it seems to me that after World War II the allies decided that they controlled the world, one of the things that they agreed to was that the Soviet Union would suddenly control Eastern Europe, as I recall that also created a mess too. Another thing we did was create an Israeli state. We felt that as victors we were gods and were going to fix the ills of the world. Where did we find the right and authority to do so? Now lets look at just a few other things that we have done over there… Shaw of Iran… Mubarak in Egypt… Saddam Hussein…. How many billions did we send them as they murdered their people and governed against the will of the majorities? We continue to support dictatorships that are responsible for human rights abuses every day and who at the same time work against us… but hey we need their oil, and since we won’t exploit our own energy it is convenient to look the other way as the Saudi’s do as they will in their country and sometimes in ours as well… one day we will probably pay a price for that but no worries right now we need their oil. How can you keep a straight face and say that we have not created our own problems…

As far as the Fed goes it was born of the idea that to fund a standing army and to be able to enter into war that we needed a central bank to have a lending source for the deficit spending which necessary to accomplish those goals. They also like the idea of funding public works as those who created the Federal Reserve were also interested in financing the growth of the Federal government. Fed policies have now supposedly evolved into the Keynesian theory of controlling levels and prices during times of inflation and contractions in the economy… it really has not worked so well as critics often point to the fed policy for either creating a bigger problem in the economy or for prolonging recoveries… one thing is for certain is that the Fed has caused great inflation in our economy… less than 12 years ago gold was selling for less than $280 an ounce today? Somewhere around $1750 it is hardly surprising that we have seen record deficits during that time and record expansion in the assets of the Fed… Fed’s assets grow when it prints money out of thin air and then uses it to purchase assets in the open market…

At any rate those laws you quote are pretty much a joke, the fed is an independent arm and only lets the government see so much… a peek if you will, you may find this clip interesting…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ&feature=g-like&context=G255ea71ALTwiakAAEAA

You can find a lot more about the fed on line and just how much the government does not know about or how little control they have on the fed.

As to your last question why Paul can’t get any traction? Most republicans know very little about their party, they would be surprised to learn that their party is hardly different than are the democrats, the biggest difference is that they are quite dishonest in the messages that they use to attract their republican voters… both the modern parties are progressive in their nature, they both support big government and new programs while exploding their budgets and deficit spending… Look at president Bush, he worked with congress to create the environment that created the housing crisis, he and congress both celebrated their success right up to the point that it went to crap, at which point it became a stick for dems to beat the republicans over the head with… Bush is responsible for the largest expansion in entitlement spending since probably the 60′s or possibly even the acts of FDR in his Medicare part D program, he offered no way to pay for it which will only serve to bankrupt social security that much sooner…. No the republicans talk about smaller government and lower taxes but they hardly mean a word of it… Look at the patriot act and the National defense authorization act… understand the liberties that both the democrats and republicans strip you of…..

Ben Franklin – They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The reason that Paul gets no traction is that the republicans know little of what has become of their party.

He’d loose to a generic candidate like I dont know…Yosemite Sam.

Romney can beat Obama and so can Ron Paul.

Ron Paul grabs the Independents, and the Democrats who are pissed off at Obama being a lying murdering thief.

Pal, you’re blaming Obama for policies entirely implemented under Bush. Obama cannot undo the Bush bailout or the Patriot Act (Congress must handle that). The czars were under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama. NDAA doesn’t do what you think it does. 

You’re distorting the rest as well. I’m perfectly fine with criticizing Obama. I  do so myself. I just like to criticize people based on reality rather than fantasy. 

I know you can’t handle facts so keep trying to play it off like you have a point. That’s how blind ideologues always handle reality. 

I am just as critical of Bush Mencius. And I blame him for a ton of crap that he did – all the stuff that you mentioned. That’s on him and no one else.

But to say that Obama can’t undo what Bush did is just dishonest. Obama is commander in chief – bring the troops home. That’s what he campaigned on. We’re still in Iraq. We’re still in Afghanistan. We’re still all over the world with over 100 military bases. It’s psychotic.

As far as the bailouts – they dont work. Bush tried them. Fail. Obama went bigger- bigger fail. We need to quit this bullshit bailout economics. It’s a total catastrophe.

Obama can veto the Patriot act when it comes to his desk. Right? that is a power afforded to the President under the Constitution is it not? He extended it – with more provisions and more teeth.

All the czars need to go. This is not Communist USSR.  It has to stop. Cut these fuckers loose.

NDAA does not overtly allow for the detaining of American citizens. But it does have language in there that allows for a loose interpretation of what a “terrorist or associated forces” is. It *could* be someone who may have been at a mosque who might be suspected of a terrorist. And anyone who he talks to is a possible terrorist too. It’s anybody.

 ”Another thing we did was create an Israeli state. We felt that as
victors we were gods and were going to fix the ills of the world.”

God created the Israeli state, read your bible.

While calculating the batcrap/monkey excrement posts made on Mediaite today the RoadtoSurfdom posts surface as, “I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER WINK”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God may have created Israel, but it is Harry S Truman who set into motion the events that would create the Jewish State, read your history..

“Britain and the United States, in a joint effort to examine the dilemma, established the “Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.” In April 1946, the committee submitted recommendations that Palestine not be dominated by either Arabs or Jews. It concluded that attempts to establish nationhood or independence would result in civil strife; that a trusteeship agreement aimed at bringing Jews and Arabs together should be established by the United Nations; that full Jewish immigration be allowed into Palestine; and that two autonomous states be established with a strong central government to control Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the Negev, the southernmost section of Palestine.

British, Arab, and Jewish reactions to the recommendations were not favorable. Jewish terrorism in Palestine antagonized the British, and by February 1947 Arab-Jewish communications had collapsed. Britain, anxious to rid itself of the problem, set the United Nations in motion, formally requesting on April 2, 1947, that the U.N. General Assembly set up the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). This committee recommended that the British mandate over Palestine be ended and that the territory be partitioned into two states. Jewish reaction was mixed — some wanted control of all of Palestine; others realized that partition spelled hope for their dream of a homeland. The Arabs were not at all agreeable to the UNSCOP plan. In October the Arab League Council directed the governments of its member states to move troops to the Palestine border. Meanwhile, President Truman instructed the State Department to support the U.N. plan, and, reluctantly, it did so. On November 29, 1947, the partition plan was passed in the U.N. General Assembly.”

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/index.php

 yes

Ok.

How is it better – or by what metric are you claiming that the economy has improved?

 YOUR President, Barack Hussein Obama will win re-election.

Have a drink.

at WiddleBabyDanielson

ok.

we’ll see.

First, Obama never extended the entire Patriot Act. Yes, he seems fine with keeping it but the only parts that were up for extension were a handful of powers (a point that’s legitimate to criticize him for). But 95 percent of the Act, at least, is locked in unless Congress chooses to overturn it. You can’t blame him for a law that was made before he was in Congress or the White House. 

Secondly, Obama had nothing to do with the bailout. It was law before he came into office. It’s true his administration was responsible for doling out some of the money under the law (they have no choice if it’s law) but, unlike Bush, the Obama White House set up conditions for the banks to follow. What you’re confusing is the stimulus bill, which was something like 40 percent tax cuts. You can criticize him for the stimulus bill (many economists don’t since our unemployment numbers started improving the same month the stimulus spending kicked in) but not the bailout. 

Third, the term czars has nothing to do with the USSR (which was the government in Russia to overthrow czars, not put them into power). Reagan started calling them czars and no one cared. Every president has since had czar officials (who are not cabinet officials) since but no one has cared until Obama came into office. Why now?

You’re pretending that a president who inherits a war can simply shut it down on the first day without dire consequences. Obviously, war is complicated, and pulling out immediately creates a vacuum of power that not only hurts our allies but also our troops and everything they’ve done. I agree we should not have been in Iraq and I agree Afghanistan has gone on way too long. I think we spend way too much on our military (Obama is actually about to try to drastically scale down our nuclear arsenal according to reports) but I think he was in a position where his hand was forced into letting the wars wind down. That said, we’re out of Iraq and bringing more troops home from Afghanistan. We don’t have troops in Yemen or Libya or Pakistan, despite what Paul fans say. You can criticize him for the strikes in Yemen or our role with NATO in Libya, but I think expecting him to have wound down both wars in 2009 isn’t realistic. 

About NDAA, again I disagree on your interpretation. I agree that the idea is bad. I think you’re missing the fact that Congress pushed it on the White House. Obama specifically asked for the language to be removed and then said in a signing statement that he didn’t consider the language binding. A waiver added at the last minute basically said the language was not binding. The original language was meant to clarify powers passed under Bush. As far as the DOJ has been concerned for the last decade, we’ve already had every power in the NDAA. The president has no power to overturn written law. He’s at least said that his administration will legally fight the interpretation that it can detain American citizens. 

 So lets clear the air hear.

1. Do you support the state of Israel and believe the US has a sovereign right to support our allies?
2. Or do you believe the state of Israel does not have the right to exist, and side with the surrounding Arab countries? And blame Israel for the problems in the middle east, I blame Islam personally.

Your gonna have to get off this idea that the middle east was peaceful and prosperous, before WW2 though. 

“Vote Libertatian.”

I’m sure at least 5% of the country will do just that.  They always do.

Ever wonder why that is?

And every libertarian is, of course, an expert on the Constitution, just like crazy ol’ Ron.  Just ask them.

There ain’t no hillbillies in Wisconsin.  Maybe some in the Florida Panhandle.

The hillbillies you’re talking about are the ones in Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia and West Virginia.  The ones who are on Medicare and Social Security but hate the gumint interferin’ with ‘em.  And they’re good God-fearing Christians, every one of ‘em.

They don’t know all that money they get comes from California, New York and Massachusetts.

at Pug

“And every libertarian is, of course, an expert on the Constitution, just like crazy ol’ Ron.  Just ask them.”

I’m not a Libertarian. And yeah, compared to you on the Constitution, I’m an expert. But I claim to know only the basics. Enough to shut this trash online down thats for sure

Right, because crazy ol’ Ron is gonna roll.

Ron’s got to be close to 80.  We can all hope this is his last time around the track. 

America, love it or leave it.

He’s a good friend of Ron Paul’s.  I bet Ron’s been on his radio show.

C’mon, admit it.

Take a hike Pug.

Even if Ron we’re to die today, there are thousands ready to pick up the torch and carry the cause forward.

This is just the beginning. And if he passes away the message would only grow exponentially.

 It really doesn’t matter. You have all backed LOSERS. Obama will kick any of these failures to the curb. If we need to take it from your cold dead hands, I’m OK with that too! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

I am aware of the Palestinian immigration into Israel after the state was created. As Israel prospered Palestinians came from all corners to the new state of Israel to improve their prospects for a better life..

I am not saying that Israel does not have a right to exist, my point is that had we not had our history of adventurism then we would not be facing many of the problems that we face today… Israel does exist, and they are our ally… I also hope that they kick the crap out of any country who would attack them… I probably would support our country aligning with Israel if war comes…. but this will be because of a history that we have had a hand in creating…. I would tell you that more important than my support will be the support of the young men and women that we ask to give their lives in the defense of Israel… but I think that the war will be much larger than that, that it will again be a world war and that it will be also fought in this hemisphere as many Latin countries are more aligned with Iran than they are with us, and for years now Iran has had military bases and cooperation agreements in Venezuela and now Ecuador.

Back to the point of your discussion, you do not see the wisdom of Ron Pauls stance on defense… he asks the simple question, why do we defend Europe when with their economies they are quite capable of defending themselves? Why is it that we spend more on their defense than they do? Why do we defend S. Korea, and Japan, why as we are approaching bankruptcy are we spending such vast sums of money to project our power all over the world… The fall of all great republics came because of they could not bear the costs of their military adventurism, study history it has been well recorded…. With our 5000 nuclear warheads, with the worlds largest Air Force, and Navy, with the most sophisticated weapon systems, how is it that we feel threatened? We spend blood and treasury all over the world and for what ends? Even if the peace of other countries were disrupted do you think that when events settled down that they would not trade with us? Especially if we were a peaceful and neutral nation? We have been brainwashed into the cold world thinking that overcame this nation after WWII and it has not and does not serve our people well. If we were the nation that Jefferson envisioned we would have no enemies…

“peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

I think that Jefferson was right, and so does Paul.

Consider how things might be different if we did not constantly intervene in world affairs… would we have these countries who wish us harm… I think not, but that does not mean that we should not have the resources available to deal with the threat when it comes. But it is silly for us to have military bases all over the world. Our defense budget is larger than are those of all others combined.. it is pure insanity.

Really?
Stimulus package of $800 BILLION.
FY2012 Budget of $3.7 Trillion.
FY2013 Budget of $3.8 Trillion.
Want to keep questioning my numbers now?

 You are a sick, prejudiced, racist individual.  Ignorant, too.  I realize this will do no good, but you really should examine your attitudes toward people.

  “If we were the nation that Jefferson envisioned we would have no enemies…”

Thomas Jefferson, was probably the worst foreign policy president we ever had ( excluding carter) He single handily destroyed our military and then picked a fight with Great Britain ( War of 1812 ). He also presided over the largest federal government and debt to date during his presidency. Louisianan purchase, Do you think Paul would have agreed to that?

“my point is that had we not had our history of adventurism then we would
not be facing many of the problems that we face today… Israel does
exist,”

Adventurism Germany declared war on us before we entered the European theater.

So again this is where Paul gets labeled a lunatic, By your logic if Israel did not exist we would have no problems today in the middle east. Then how do you explain the problems of Islam world wide in particular with Russia, China and India? 

Finally when i hear Ron Paul talk policy i can’t help but think that he would simply govern out of fear of any other nation.

As to NDAA, you are quoting the ACLU, and I am quoting the ACTUAL LAW AS PASSED BY CONGRESS. Which contains a portion the SPECIFICALLY excludes US Citizens from indefinite detention. So it is pretty straight forward that you are an idiot. As to Section 1021 explain this language genius:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

From Section 1021(e)
FYI: Current law requires that a US Citizen be charged with a crime with in 3 business days you must appear in front of a judge. But you keep proving how stupid you are.

How is Bush responsible for a deficit that took place after he left office (January 20, 2009)? Deficits are spending over revenue, including interest on the debt, not total spending. You are comparing Apples and Oranges.

TSA participated in a training exercise with the state of Tennessee. Using their Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, authorized by 6 U.S.C. § 1112. Parts of the USA PATRIOT Act in Title 6 of the US Code, ZERO. Once again you are comparing Apples and Oranges. The TSA VIPR teams was assisting LOCAL and STATE officials (i.e. training them) to identify security threats. They were not making the actual stops.

Per 6 U.S.C. § 1112: Authorization of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams

a) In general
The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (referred to in this section as VIPR) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretary
(1) may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and advanced screening technology;
(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;
(3) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and
(4) shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline operators.
(b) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

Last I checked the TSA OLE (which VIPR falls under) were FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS having jurisdiction anywhere within the United States of America, which Tennessee, California, Ohio, and Nebraska happen to be a part of. You vehicle is subject to search anytime it leaves your driveway with out the need to get a warrant, because of its mobility.

Come on lets try some more lies from the Liberal left. I love destroying them.

Then give us some examples of him expanding it please.

 Santorum is the one who wants to be asked those questions. He wants to hide his fiscal liberalism behind his social conservatism.

 More people are working again. Retail sales have improved. The DOW is way up. Pretty much every part of the country is better off than it was three years ago.
Where is your proof that the economy has not improved, and if you are correct, does that not prove that the Tea Party was an abject failure?

 That is your wish, but it is not reality.
Check all the polls.
Learn what OTHER PEOPLE are thinking.

Seems like you need to got to SCOTUS with your interpretations…

It is ABOUT TIME! A Republican stating the bleeding OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!

Just wondering????? Who is your president? Or, are you sitting this one out??

Because the other 95% are mindless sheep?

The problem with Ron Paul is he’s much smarter than most of the electorate in the Republican Party. Conservatives are so stupid they think Rick Santorum is a good leader. Santorum will lose by 20 points to Obama because he focuses on social issues and doesn’t have a clue about anything else. He wants to bomb Iran, which would cause more death and destruction in Israel and America than any other time in history.

Ron Paul predicted 9/11, the housing crises, and the coming collapse of the dollar. Rick Santorum only talks about how much he hates gays and black people. So, naturally, Rick Santorum is ahead in the polls in the GOP. Republicans are stupid. Ron Paul should dumb down his message a bit so the morons get the picture.

Count the people not working, off unemployment, & under employed working less then 20 hours a week – and we’ve got a ton of people who are in bad shape. It’s around 20%. Not 8.5%

Retail sales are up because of Christmas – look how many people skipped their mortgage in December & January…record numbers.

The Dow is not indicative of a healthy economy. Investors bet on the gain or a loss regarding derivatives. But just look at one aspect – easy credit and changes from short term bond rates from the Fed to long term rates – there is a huge upswing in broker activity to move those bonds. It looks good on paper, and the dow reflects those trades. But is it good for the economy? No. It creates a massive bond bubble due to artificially low interest rates.

Which part of the country is better then 3 years ago? Or two years ago? Or last year?

The debt has grown. War & our foreign policy has ravaged the middle east causing a jump in oil speculation.The average price of gas in 2009 was $1.92. It’s over $3.50 now and going higher – thank you neo cons and for your attempt to control the supply of the worlds oil. And thank you Obama for failing to stand up to them like you said you would.

Citizens are in debt on an average of 8k each. No one saves money any more because interest rates are way low. Almost every city is in debt and some larger cities to the tunes of billions. Counties are in debt on the average of 40 million each. There were only 5 states in the entire US who had a balanced budget in 2011. And then nationally we’re trillions in debt – a trillion owed to Japan, China, & Saudi Arabia each. We’re facing a sovereign debt crisis and you jump all over Obama propaganda that there will be nothing but rainbows and butterflies.

Go ahead and believe it bro. I’m not even going to try to get you to see otherwise. But it’s a joke. So is this President, his cabinet, this Congress, the senate, and the financial establishment keeping the perpetual problems alive and well.

We need to cut spending. Period. This is not Capitalism. It has not been since the early 1970′s. This is corporatism, socialism, and a soft form of mercantile fascism – all blended into an unholy mix of bailout economics. It didn’t work the last 17 times – what makes them think that it will work this time?

Garbage. We have a trash heap for government.

Bulldoze DC and plant corn.  

It does seem to me that we did just fine in the war of 1812, but in destroying our military as you so claim he reversed a trend in this country of Federalism, standing armies and navies, and the high taxes needed to pay for them.

Your claims about his increasing the national debt are mistaken, even with the Louisiana purchase Jefferson was able to reduce the national debt during his presidency.

“Jefferson also was determined to pay off the national debt.
He opposed public borrowing on a number of grounds. First of
all, by enabling the government to increase its expenditures
without calling on the people for increased taxes, it minimized public opposition to increased spending. Second, public borrowing shifted the burden of payment to posterity. Jefferson believed that imposing financial burden on future generations in order to pay for the profligacy of the present generation was a profoundly unrepublican and immoral act. Third, public borrowing created a class of bondholders who had a vested interest in funding and increasing the debt and opposing its discharge. Last, a public debt created a justification for keeping up taxes to pay the interest.

Jefferson and Gallatin proposed creating an annual sinking fund of $7.3 million to be used for the dual purpose of paying interest on the debt and reducing the principal by retiring maturing bonds and buying still outstanding bonds in the market. If this plan were adhered to by Jefferson and his successors, and if no new debt were created, the national debt would be retired in sixteen years. Congress passed this measure in April 1802. Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803 for $15 million threatened his debt reduction program. However, federal revenue was so great that he and Gallatin had little difficulty paying for the purchase, all the while maintaining their debt reduction plan. Gallatin proposed to pay for the purchase by selling $11.25 million in new 6-percent federal stock, which 6 percent was added to the long-term federal debt; by borrowing $1.75 million in a temporary loan, to be paid from future Treasury surpluses; and by appropriating $2 million in cash from the current Treasury surplus. In the immediate aftermath of the purchase of Louisiana, the administration decided to increase the sinking fund to $8 million a year. In eight years, Jefferson and Gallatin managed to redeem $37.2 million of the principal of the federal debt and bring the total amount outstanding down from $83 million in 1800 to $57 million at the end of 1808.

“REASSESSING THE PRESIDENCY”
JOHN V. DENSON, ED,

As far as Hitler declaring war before we had even arrived in theater? Consider the actions of FDR leading up to the war which are outlined below..

November 1940. Safely reelected, Roosevelt knows he can only get war if the other side starts it, or rather appears to start it. He begins secretly goading German warships in the North Atlantic but Germany does not take the bait. To keep America out of the war, German U-boats are under strict orders not to fire on American ships no matter what the provocation.

Spring 1941. A letter from Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes to FDR says, To embargo oil to Japan… (might lead to) a situation as would make it not only possible but easy to get into the war in an effective way. Ickes is lobbying to go through the “back door,” war with Japan as a step towards war with Germany. Roosevelt, however, still hopes to go directly into war with Germany.

June 1941. Japan seizes the rest of Indochina. Roosevelt cuts off all trade, including oil. Roosevelt knows he is pushing Japan into a corner but does not tell America. Rear Admiral Richmond Turner had warned him that, …shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to an invasion of the Netherlands East Indies…. Furthermore, it seems certain that, if Japan should then take military measures against the British and Dutch, she would also include military actions against the Philippines, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific War…. Trade with Japan should not be embargoed at this time.

Many in the military establishment, while advocating prudent buildup, are pursuing policies that will avoid war. Roosevelt goes ahead with the embargo because he wants war.

August 1941. 76% of Americans are against war with Japan. They feel it absurd for American soldiers to die in a fight between two European imperial powers

August 9 1941. Roosevelt meets Churchill at Placentia Bay Newfoundland

September 4 1941. The U.S. destroyer Greer is fired on by a German U-boat. Roosevelt uses the incident to issue a shoot-on-sight order of any German ships in his self-declared neutral zone. In his fireside chat that day, FDR says the Greer had been on an innocent mail run to Iceland and that this is, …piracy, legally and morally… In spite of what Hitler’s propaganda bureau has invented… I tell you the blunt fact that the German submarine fired first upon this American destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design to sink her. What Roosevelt does not explain in his fireside chat is that before the U-boat fired, the Greer, with the help of a British patrol plane, had been stalking and depth-charging it for 3 hours. It had finally returned fire in self-defense, despite Hitler’s orders to avoid all incidents with American ships. The truth about the Greer was unearthed in an investigation by an obviously skeptical U.S. Senate. The darker truth is that the President of the United States out-lied the Nazi king of lies without a trace of conscience over an issue that could involve the lives of millions of Americans.

After communicating with FDR, Churchill tells his war cabinet, The President had said that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. Everything was to be done to force an incident.

September 14 1941. In a telegraph to the South African government, Churchill says that the, American public have accepted the ‘shoot on sight’ declaration without knowing the vast area to which it is to be applied, and in my opinion they will support president in fuller and further application of this principle, out of which at any moment war may come.

October 8 1941. Hitler orders Grand Admiral Raeder to continue to avoid any incident that might bring America into the war. Still, American boats are shot at. It’s not always easy to distinguish American destroyers from British when both are shooting at you.

October 17 1941. The U.S.S. Kearny is torpedoed near Greenland by a U-boat, killing 11 Americans. Roosevelt does not tell the nation that the Kearny had been dropping depth charges on the sub but the public by this time is aware of Roosevelt’s gambits. It does not respond to his plea for war.

October 18 1941. An Ickes diary entry. For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan… And, of course, if we go to war against Japan, it will inevitably lead us to war against Germany.

October 31 1941. The U.S.S. Reuben James is sunk by a U-boat, killing 115 U.S. sailors out of a crew of 160. Roosevelt wants war but America remains unimpressed and overwhelmingly opposed to war. Despite FDR’s attempts to obfuscate, it is clear that the attacks were provoked. A good many Americans blame Roosevelt more than Hitler for the deaths of the American sailors.

Fall 1941. FDR speechwriter Robert Sherwood recalls Roosevelt’s sense of hopelessness after none of his provocations or pleas work. He had no more tricks left. The hat from which he had pulled so many rabbits was empty. Roosevelt finally realizes Hitler is not going to bite and in frustration switches to the back door strategy through Japan advocated by Secretary of Interior Ickes.

Fall 1941. The oil embargo and other measures against Japan convince Japanese hard-liners that war is inevitable, and they begin preparing. The British and Americans have cracked the Japanese military’s message code. Roosevelt knows Tokyo is preparing to fight and by late November he knows Tokyo is about to attack. He does not notify the military.

December 4 1941. The front page headline of the Chicago Tribune trumpets: “FDR’s War Plans!” It is followed by an article based on a verbatim copy of Rainbow Five, FDR’s top-secret plan to create a 10-million man army and send 5 million to Europe in 1943. The writer, Chesly Manly, the Tribune’s correspondent in D.C., also has a verbatim copy of FDR’s letter ordering the preparation of the plan. The Washington Times-Herald also front-pages the story.

December 5 1941. Republican congressman George Tinkham of Massachusetts says the country has been betrayed by Roosevelt. He receives unanimous consent to have the Manly story on Rainbow Five put into the Congressional Record. Some cabinet members write privately that they are puzzled that FDR does not seem very upset by the leak, or particularly interested in finding the leaker, or in prosecuting the two newspapers. This is, after all, a vital state secret, not to mention proof positive that Roosevelt has long been lying to the American people about his war aims.

December 6 1941. Grand Admiral Raeder tells Hitler that Rainbow Five makes it clear that America is already allied with England and Russia. Therefore, there is no longer any need to keep restricting U-boat attacks. Hitler does not agree.

December 8 1941. Former President Hoover comments in a letter that if you stick needles into a rattlesnake enough times it will finally strike. The America First Committee disbands with dignity soon after saying that the war is wrong but they will fight for America.

December 11 1941. In another rousing speech before the Reichstag, Hitler expounds on the reasons for war with America, citing American newspapers, which the previous week had revealed, …a plan prepared by President Roosevelt… according to which his intention was to attack Germany in 1943 with all the resources of the United States. Thus our patience has come to a breaking point. Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop adds, A great power does not allow itself to be declared war upon. It declares war on others. Though Germany declared war and FDR had the fight he wanted, his plan had not worked perfectly. Pearl Harbor was a disaster that left him shocked and pale, according to Secretary of Navy Knox, who met him soon after. Roosevelt had intended a small-scale defensive war in the Pacific while he concentrated on Germany. Now he was faced with two major wars to be fought simultaneously by a military that did not yet have the capability to fight even one.

There are many examples in the threads right above. Obamacare. Extending the Patriot Act. NDAA. He only started posturing about SOPA when the uproar became obvious, but SOPA will be back. He certainly isn’t scaling back Homeland Security. There are plans right now to allow Homeland Security more capabilities to fly surveillance drones over the United States. That’s right, look up and wave, because Big Bro may soon be watching. Infringing upon matters of religious conscience, like mandating that Catholic entities provide free contraceptive care. You did notice that Obama’s expansion of the debt was “T”rillions with a “T”, not “B”illions. Oh sure, you or I might not care about any particular one of these, but the trend is definitely toward more debt, bigger goverment, more police powers, reduced liberty. I suspect you argue to the contrary not out of conviction, but blind partisanship.

 You have been living under a rock for the past year and a half or so.

 
Jefferson did almost balance the budget yes, but he also greatly increased the size of government. The war of 1812 could had almost caused us our independence again, but Brittan did not want it.  And also Jefferson did not grow the economy, with his tariffs and embargoes. 

No room to reply to your latest comment about WW2 and FDR, But i totally agree Roosevelt wanted us in that fight, and i find it deceitfully delighting the games he played with the world, The problem with WW2 was that we pretended that Russia was not our enemy, but tried to use them to defeat the Germans while we screwed around in Africa for the start of the war. then Stalin demanded the US and UK start attacking from the west. But many people believe Churchill was planning on Russia being so weakened by germany that they could possibly defeat them to after ww2. Or at least slow there advance through Europe but then came the bomb, and i believe if u think about it, without the atombomb we could very well have been in another ground war with the soviets right after world war two.

But now we let china build it self and will probably have to contend with them in the future.

Ron want real existential issues to be part of nomination proces.Romney is “The chosen one”,
and Rick and Newt are there to push out voters from Ron.They are distraction.Real battle is
between Romney and Ron but actualy is between Wall street and midlle class.What Romney and Obama
will battle when Goldman  Sachs is behind them?-NOTHING!Lets go to Newt and his Vegas bankster
who is spending FED money to keep Newt in the game.And how about “political charlatans-christians”
who cant vote for Ron Paul because it smells like GOLDEN RULE.
I just wait to see a day when protestants vote for Pope ,and together Catholics and Jews vote for Mormon.

 Haha! What a slap down. Did not see that one coming . . .

But you’re right. The Republicans have been on about abortion and now birth control since the day they took the Congress, not jobs. Just trying to legislate their morality and obstruct anything the President wants to do. They wouldn’t even let the President extend the payroll tax cut without concessions. Republicans were against tax cuts! Because the President was for them!

In what way is the economy better?

It’s a fair question.

You just don’t want to grant a response because you know I’ll completely destroy your answer.

And I will.

The economy is in much worst shape then ever before and the more we borrow the worse it becomes.

 I did answer your question. It doesn’t always link up on this site, and sometimes there is no more room for answers.
Anyway, you make the statement that everything is worse in every way, but you will not find one single fact that proves things are worse now than they were three years or even two years ago.
Not one single FACT!

Well, you and I can agree to disagree about Jefferson, we obviously read our history from different books. World War II, who knows if we that war would have not eventually found its way to our shores or not…

I will say that to me it no longer makes sense that we have bases all over the world, and that we interfere as we do in other countries.. We would never stand for any country to do the same for us… It would seem to me that we can no longer afford the role that we have assumed for ourselves, and I do believe that it gives nations cause to want to see harm come to this country.

I particularly like what Jefferson said about budget deficits, how they allow governments to increase spending without really burdening the people with the taxes to pay for them, or that laying off the spending of today to our prosperity is immoral.

I used to just go along with the military role that we play in the world, and be accepting as news pundits spoke of “what the US reaction would be.” but I don’t buy it so much anymore, at least I hope that in the future we can make things different, look at what we are doing in Afghanistan now… we are accomplishing nothing, I am not saying that we should have never gone in, after all we were attacked, but we never should have stayed as long as we have as now it seems that we have lost our mission, it is hard to say what we are doing there… We have drones killing in as many as 5 countries, it is estimated that for every bad guy we kill we kill as many as 15 civilians, men, women, and of course children. They to have reasons to hate us..

I am not convinced anymore that this all works to our favor..

Anyway we have had a good discussion, it was nice talking to you..

There is room to answer the question – if you need to start over at the top just send a small note that says “top” and begin a new thread so I know to look for it.

On to your response. The debt is bigger. The Chicago mercantile exchange has violated it’s fiduciary duties by allowing the travesty of the MF Global fiasco take place – look up Obama’s boy John Corzine. Interest rates are still at zero and they need to climb if we’re to get out of this mess. We’ve over-consuming by trillions of dollars. We’re looking at a much larger supply of money in the world economy that leads to a lower purchasing power and higher prices for you and me for things like chicken, electricity, and gas at the gas pump. It’s called inflation.

And we’re not getting honest numbers from Washington for the simple fact that they do not *include* day to day purchased items like chicken, steak, electricity, and gas in their inflation index reporting. The results from those items would help accurately reflect inflation but instead Washington number crunchers just take them out. Government says that we have an annual inflation of 3%. Its more like 11%.

You can find all the charts on Mises.org to support this.

Do you think that they’ve been honest with us about unemployment figures? Look at all the people who have stopped looking for work. It’s in 8.5% it’s more like 18-20% if not more. If you count those who want to work, not working, and working less then 20 hours a week – it’s over 50 million people not able to meet their financial ends.

That is a massive weight on our economy. And the more money that the government spends, the worse things get. Government spending is the least efficient way to grow your economy.  First they take the money from the People through forced taxation or by printing the money, inflation, and use it on programs that don’t produce anything. Yes, it pushes paper around the banking system but nothing is produced from it.

No good was produced, no widget created, no manufacturing on any level was generated, and no real wealth was introduced into the economy. They’ve been doing this for years and it’s finally catching up with us.

We need plants, manufacturing, and goods produced here by our People that are competitive in the marketplace if we’re to pull out of this. We were the worlds producer during the late 40′s, 50′s and 60′s. We’re not any more, China is. Why is that?

China is another big issue – they can pull the plug at any point. And when they do, the world’s resources and where they are allocated will shift over night. We borrow money from China to buy their goods. It makes no sense if you are China – why not just let their own people buy the goods and stop loaning money to America? China knows we’re not going to pay them back – we owe them over a trillion dollars.

And we’ve reached a point now where the GDP is equal to the interest payment on the debt and that’s at artificially low interest rates or teaser rates – 0% – from the Fed. What happens when the market forces the rates up, and they will? And instead of paying interest at these low rates, they go to 6 or 7%? Then what? The music stops.

So tell me again how were in better shape then before?

Ron needs to show he’s a regular, randy senior who enjoys a good shag: http://rat-mantheseries.com/episodes.html

Conservatives have cynically exploited social issues for decades, in order to get people to vote against their self interests.  Now, having driven reason completely out of their party, those chickens are coming home to roost. 

I partly agree with Ron Paul.  I don’t believe that the Republicans could beat president Obama with social issues.  They have to win by talking about the economy.  If they’re detracting from that issue, Obama can say he saved the economy and he gets re-elected like he’s FDR in ’36.

At the same time, I think this birth control debate is showing me how necessary the mandates are. If we leave healthcare to the private sector, they could deny people basic coverage and those consumers would be out of luck. Because of the mandates, the church was able to deny its employees birth control and the mandates made sure these employees got birth control coverage anyways. I think it was a good solution.

From ToddScheller: (My Response Below)

“As to NDAA, you are quoting the ACLU, and I am quoting the ACTUAL LAW AS
PASSED BY CONGRESS (You do understand the difference between a
secondary source and a primary source right?). Which contains a portion
that SPECIFICALLY excludes US Citizens from indefinite detention. So it
is pretty straight forward that you are an idiot. As to Section 1021
explain this language genius:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in
this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities
relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or
arrested in the United States.
From Section 1021(e)
FYI:
Current law requires that a US Citizen be charged with a crime with in 3
business days and you must appear in front of a judge, or be released.
But you keep proving how stupid you really are.

Deficits are spending over revenue, including interest on the debt, not total spending. You are comparing Apples and Oranges.

TSA
participated in a training exercise with the state of Tennessee. Using
their Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams, authorized by 6
U.S.C. § 1112. Parts of the USA PATRIOT Act in Title 6 of the US Code,
ZERO. Once again you are comparing Apples and Oranges. The TSA VIPR
teams was assisting LOCAL and STATE officials (i.e. training them) to
identify security threats. They were not making the actual stops.

Per 6 U.S.C. § 1112: Authorization of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response teams
a) In general The
Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration, may develop Visible Intermodal Prevention and
Response (referred to in this section as VIPR) teams to augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States. In forming a VIPR team, the Secretary(1)
may use any asset of the Department, including Federal air marshals,
surface transportation security inspectors, canine detection teams, and
advanced screening technology;(2) may determine when a VIPR team shall be deployed, as well as the duration of the deployment;(3)
shall, prior to and during the deployment, consult with local security
and law enforcement officials in the jurisdiction where the VIPR team is
or will be deployed, to develop and agree upon the appropriate
operational protocols and provide relevant information about the mission
of the VIPR team, as appropriate; and(4) shall, prior to and during
the deployment, consult with all transportation entities directly
affected by the deployment of a VIPR team, as appropriate, including
railroad carriers, air carriers, airport owners, over-the-road bus
operators and terminal owners and operators, motor carriers, public
transportation agencies, owners or operators of highways, port operators
and facility owners, vessel owners and operators and pipeline
operators.(b) Authorization of appropriations There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

Last
I checked the TSA OLE (which VIPR falls under) were FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS having jurisdiction anywhere within the United
States of America, which Tennessee, California, Ohio, and Nebraska
happen to be a part of. Your vehicle is subject to search anytime it
leaves your driveway with out the need to get a warrant, because of its
mobility.

Come on lets try some more lies from the Liberal left. I love destroying them.”

=========================

Liberal left. You’re the big government liberal. Not me.

I want limited government in every conceivable fashion – out of our asses. That ain’t liberal. It’s Constitutionally conservative. You need to redefine your understanding of what a liberal, a conservative, and what a statist is, and where you fall into the categorization of those positionally drawn lines. Because right now based on what you’ve indicated, you don’t differ a whole lot in your positions from the Democratic left.

There is some crap mixed in with facts in your post. Reposting the text from the bill doesn’t defend your case. In fact, posting that undermines your entire argument. It’s UnConstitutional, plain and simple. How does that bill defend the Constitution? Please tell me.

Your post sounds just like something written by a big government statist. You’ve cited all of these articles from the NDAA and then in a nutshell you’ve said that because this is now the law, it’s the way it is. Damned be the Constitution. *Shoulder Shrug* The Conservative position would never think like that – never. It’s evident that Todd Scheller needs to define his understanding of what a conservative is.

When people classify others as either on the left or on the right – what exactly are they using as a reference point to determine left or right? I ask that because depending on which way I am facing, a building is either on my left or on my right. So what does referencing some policy or position or person as politically “to the left or to the right” actually mean? Whats the unmovable starting point? It’s easy. It’s the Constitution – thats the foundation. Everything that you know of that is either left or right is almost always outside of the Constitution. Or unConstitutional. Or based in the use of force against the People in some capacity – as those positions which are unConstitutional are inherently based in the use of unjust government action. (i.e. taxation, inflation creation, warrantless seizures, deny an attorney, departmental growth etc etc)

A good question to ask you is what is the purpose of the Constitution? What was the reason for it’s authoring?

The truth is – there is nothing in the NDAA which is Constitutional:

*It eliminates your right to Habeas Corpus
*It undermines Article 3 Section 3 requiring treason be proven by 2 people regarding the same act
*It undermines the 4th amendment right not to be seized
*It undermines the 5th amendment right to be denied due process
*It undermines the 6th amendment right to be provided council & offered a fair trial by peers

There is nothing good about it. Quit defending it. It’s a losing effort and a foolish position to take. I am less safe, you are less safe, and the American People are less safe since this bill has come into existence. It’s a bad law. If it was so good why are there so many states in the process right now nullifying it?  Virginia, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Texas, Alaska, Arizona, Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, & soon many more. What do the governors, legislative bodies, and public servants of those states know about this bill that you do not? Are they all just idiots too?

You said “Your vehicle is subject to search anytime it
leaves your driveway with out the need to get a warrant…”

False. The 4th amendment is very clear and precise about warrantless searches. Authorities have no *right* to randomly pull you over and search your person or your property, whether its mobile/portable property or stationary. You cannot be more incorrect on this issue. Every American has a right to either deny or allow the search to be conducted. You also don’t have to answer any questions under the 5th amendment. Miranda rights reaffirms this article “you have the right to remain silent…” It’s your right, not theirs. If law enforcement tries to circumvent your Constitutional right, they are the one’s in violation – not you for denying them access. That’s the whole point of preventing government over reach and why that provision is in the Constitution in the first place. Governments & authorities abuse their power – and the founders knew it. The People grant the power to the government to legislate lawfully and justly – not the other way around. If we can give the power to government then we can certainly take it away.

You said “Deficits are spending over revenue, including interest on the debt, not total spending. You are comparing Apples and Oranges.”

I am comparing what matters. All I am saying is that if we spend more in government through welfare, warfare, and interest – it creates a situation where we have to borrow. The cure is under consumption not more debt financing. No one person or nation can recover from debt by acquiring more of it. You’re making the distinction between total spending & deficit spending. I am simply talking about deficit spending since that is the animal which has added to our national debt, caused the majority of our problems, and will be our undoing.

What do you see as the solution here? Just keep going? Debt doesn’t matter?  Or do we reverse and retrench? and if we do the latter – what does that look like and how do we do it?

top.

Wow… I’m glad all these people just saved me some time. I was getting all riled up to reply to you, but everyone else has done it here ably. You don’t get it, of course. But that’s to be expected, based on the content of your comments. You’re clearly just not smart enough. That’s meant as an observation, not a slight. 

However, I do want to quickly hit your original 3 points, for what I didn’t see others add above. 

1) On the “”constitutional right to fight with and for our allies”… what? Congress has a right to declare war, yes. And the President is commander in chief, yes. But even if you weren’t convoluting the original Constitutional mandate (you are), just because one has the means to declare or wage war does NOT mean it’s a good idea. Further, just because one questions whether war on behalf of Israel makes sense does not make them anti-Semetic (one of your later points).

2) On drug legalization and “living next to meth addicts”… so, in a nation where possessing, using, making, or selling meth is highly illegal… you lived next to meth addicts. There’s your evidence on how well what we’re doing is working. The Drug War has been unquestionably a great failure. And the more restrictive it becomes, the worse the problem gets. Will people still use and abuse if drugs are legal? Yes, of course they will. In light of that, doesn’t it make sense to explore other options? Or are you mad enough to think that more of the same will get better all on its own? 

3) About the Fed as an asset and “Hamilton running the Treasury well”… as you point out yourself, Hamilton’s Treasury and the Fed aren’t the same thing, with a separation of almost 100 years of history. Likewise, today’s Fed is a lot different from the one created in 1913. Has it had merits? Probably. But it’s clear again that the Fed as it is creates a lot of problems now too. 

I agree with Ron Paul for once it is losing position to focus on social issues and issues really should be econmy & jobs.

I am a Conservative Republican, disproving your statements with the facts.

Please not the specific sections of NDAA that do what you claim.
* Section 1024(c) disporves your contention about Habeus Corpus: “(c) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary of Defense is not required to apply the procedures required by this section in the case of a person for whom habeas corpus review is available in a Federal court.”
* Treason is not even mentioned in the law.
* For the NDAA to violate the Fourth Amendmenr, all arrests would be illegal in the United States. Is it REASONABLE to seize an individual that has violated the law? Does the Geneva Conventions allow for the holding of Prisoners of War (Protected Persons), and enemy combatants (non-protected persons?
* How does it violate the V Amendment? SCOTUS has already said that FOREIGNERS held at Gitmo do not have the protection f the V Amendment unless they are US Citizens.
* How does it violate the VI Amendment, again SCOTUS ryuled on this prior to passage of the law.

Your lack of understanding of the Fourth Amendment is amazing. The Fourth Amendments protects you from UNREASONABLE searches, not WARRANTLESS searches. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The first SOCTUS Case to make an exception for needing a warrant to search a car is Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) stating:

2. The Fourth Amendment denounces only such searches or seizures as are unreasonable, and it is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.
3. Search without a warrant of an automobile, and seizure therein of liquor subject to seizure and destruction under the Prohibition Act, do not violate the Amendment, if made upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the officer, that the vehicle contains such contraband liquor.

They only need probable cause to search a car, as it could be moved prior and the illegal items removed before they could get a warrant.

You are comparing noting that matters. Obama has presented Budgets that total over $9 TRILLION dollars, and you are still claiming that Bush spent more than he did in eight years vs. Three.

Where did I say Debt does not matter? Why must you make things up as you go along? Please keep proving how stupid you really are please, because you are not helping our cause what so ever by posting your lies. The ACLU is NOT a Conservative source.

The leftist, Jew hating, illegal drug loving Ron Paul the nutcase, ought to know all about losing positions.  What is it, his 5th prez run where he never garners over 3% of the vote.?

Everyone hates congress, but then they love “their” congress critter.

Jobs?  Obama and the dems are the job killers of the universe.

Extending a law that already exists is not an example of Obama starting anything.
NDAA is passed every year. Again not an example of him starting any thing.
You are right SOPA failed to pass.
Homeland Security has been using drones for years.
Why would he scale back National defense?
Did Obama not pull back off of the mandate for Catholics?
have I ever claimed otherwise about Obama’s spending? That is an example of a police state how?

Looks like your claims are a little weak on facts.

 Top.
We, as a country, do not buy goods from China. We as individuals buy goods made in China and other places, including the US. And, when we, as individuals, buy goods made in China, we pay for them as we receive them. If we, as individuals, borrow to buy the goods, we do so on American bank loans or credit cards.

As for owing money to China, the fact is that the US government issues Treasury Bonds that anybody can buy, and China happens to have bought more of them than any other country. We do not refuse to sell those bonds to any person or country.

It is true that our national debt continues to climb, but that is the fault of all politicians in Washington, not just Obama or the Democrats. The last time we had a balanced budget was under Clinton, a Democrat.

China cannot “pull the plug.” China has been dependent on exports to the US and elsewhere to maintain its own economy. China needs to sell to us every bit as much as we need to buy from it and other countries. Meanwhile, we are exporting very large and expensive things to China and other countries. Those are “big ticket” items that the average American does not buy at Walmart or Target. Things like airliners and heavy construction equipment. China also buys foodstuffs and other commodities from us, in part because we know how to drive a good bargain and demand “fair treatment.”

In short, for China to “pull the plug” would be the same as shutting down its own businesses, and China would go into its own Great Depression (bankruptcy). Nobody knows that better than the current government of China.

Most of us are fully aware that the real unemployment figures are much worse than the 8.something percent that is “official.” It was even worse in the past few years, when the “official” rate was at closer to 10 percent. It is bad now, but it was worse and it is getting just a little bit better.

Still, many jobs that depended on pure muscle or ability to type 60 words per minute have been replaced by automation and other technology, and will never come back. On the other hand, there is a shortage of skilled workers in some areas, such as welding, but especially in medical fields. The shift in jobs is part of normal progress everywhere.

We are part of the entire world’s economy, and when there is a crisis in Europe, it affects us. We gained when European and Asian factories were destroyed during WW II, and that led to our own phenomenal prosperity for several decades after that war, but those European and Asian factories are “back on line” now, and competition is fierce everywhere.

Did I call you stupid? Insult your intelligence? You’re not. You’re a bright guy – I can tell. College educated. Misguided but you’re not an idiot.

Reciprocate that small courtesy.

Regarding warrantless searches you said:

“They only need probable cause to search a car, as it could be moved
prior and the illegal items removed before they could get a warrant.”

This is not completely true. The National Prohibition Act or the Volstead Act was repealed in 1933. On December 5th, the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified, which finished the dismantling of the National Prohibition Act. Feel free to look it up.

You’re citing a legal case from 1925 when the Volstead Act was enforced through law. But the laws were repealed. They are no longer on the books. How can you justify today’s unlawful legislation against the 4th amendment? Why do you defend this? I don’t get it. Authorities need a warrant to search your car on a random traffic stop without probable cause. If they can see a headless body in your backseat – then yes, they can search your car and arrest you. They must establish probable cause to justify a warrantless search. It’s a protection under the 4th amendment.

“”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Pretty clear.

For example a sobriety check point is entirely unConstitutional. So are the TSA checkpoints on highways. They have established no probable cause for pulling a citizen over. They hope to find incriminating evidence once they get you pulled over. Then search. They are looking for weed, drugs, & dope. If they can see it through the windows of your car – then they can search. If you are clean of everything, and you know if you are, then they have no reason to search.

The problem with these searches is that they assume that you are guilty until they see that you are innocent. It used to be innocent until proven guilty. These unConstitutional laws reverse that legal status. That’s why so many people are disenchanted with the effect the laws have.

Moving along, as far as the specific sections of the NDAA – I have cited them.  You may have not seen in posts to others. Here they are again: Sections 1021 and 1022 in the new bill were originally sections 1031 and 1032 in the old version of the bill.

“The writ of habeas corpus is a court order a prisoner can obtain
requiring the jailer to come into court and justify his detention of the
prisoner. It is a traditional way in which those held can demand a fair
trial by jury in a civilian court. The writ of habeas corpus is a
treasured part of our traditional liberty. Belief that the British were
infringing it was one cause of the American Revolution.  (The
writ is called a “privilege” rather than a “right” because it is a
creation of the legal system rather than a natural right, like the right
to free speech.)

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, the privilege of habeas
corpus is guaranteed to all those in “allegiance” to the United States.
“Allegiance” is an old technical legal term that includes both citizens
and aliens legally in the country.

*    By successfully convincing a judge to issue a writ of habeas
corpus, citizens, foreign visitors, and legal residents may obtain a
hearing that may induce the judge to order a civilian trial. It matters
not how heinous the crimes they are accused of. For
example, a person charged with trying to blow up a building on behalf
of a foreign power can be charged with treason. But while still merely
accused, he is entitled to all the protections of due process, including
a fair, public trial before a jury of his peers.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning, habeas corpus does NOT
apply if the Congress, as an incident to its war power, “suspends” the
writ for a particular time and place. However, the Constitution says
that Congress may “suspend” the writ only “when in cases of rebellion or
invasion the public safety may require it.” Congress has not suspended
the writ, and it is doubtful that occasional acts of terrorism
constitute a sufficient “rebellion or invasion” to justify doing so.
Even if Congress could suspend the writ, a Bill of Suspension would be a
serious, much-debated measure for which Congress would have to assume
direct political accountability. Political accountability is not a big
priority with Congress right now.

*    Members of all belligerent armed forces (both sides) are subject to military, not civilian, law.

*    Thus, by the law of war, the executive (and the military
officers under him) may incarcerate for the duration of the conflict any
enemy combatants captured in the theater of war.

*    By the Constitution’s original meaning the executive has no
constitutional power (without formal congressional suspension of the
writ) to lock up citizens or lawful aliens apprehended outside the
war theater. If accused of crime, the accused has the privilege of a
jury trial in a civilian court. By the Constitution’s original meaning,
this constitutional right does not apply to enemy aliens, wherever
apprehended.

*    In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court (erroneously, in my view) held
that alien Guantanamo detainees have the right to habeas corpus to
determine if they are really enemy combatants. Still, under this case if
they are found to be enemy combatants they can go back to prison
indefinitely.

Now, with that background, let’s look at the critical language of the Act, again step by step:

§1021: (a) Congress affirms that the authority of
the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority
for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . .
. pending disposition under the law of war.

Comment: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force
(AUMF) is the resolution passed in the wake of 9/11 authorizing the
President to fight terrorism. The National Defense Authorization Act is
sometimes justified as mere clarification of the AUMF.

(b) . . A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

Comment: This provision includes people accused of certain terror-related crimes. Fine— but it does not exempt U.S. citizens or legal aliens with U.S. territory. Thus, far, it appears they can be “detain[ed] . . . pending disposition under the law of war.” But what does that mean?

c) . .  The disposition of a person under the law of war . .  may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the
hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. .
.

Comment: This clarifies that the government
may detain anyone so charged “without trial until the end of the
hostilities.” Apologists for the law point out that it permits other
dispositions “under the law of war,” including civilian trial. But the
point is that the law does not require those other dispositions. The administration can simply decide to detain you “without trial until the end of hostilities.”

(d) . . . Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Comment: This is a basis for the argument that all Congress
is really doing is clarifying the AUMF. But this is cold comfort,
because the position of the Obama administration is that the AUMF always authorized rounding up citizen-suspects and holding them without trial!

(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the
detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the
United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the
United States.

Comment: This provision is sometimes touted as protecting
citizens because it preserves existing Supreme Court decisions. The
problem is that, as yet, there are no Supreme Court decisions that
squarely provide the full measure of habeas corpus protection to
citizens or legal aliens accused within our borders. This is true
because neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has had the
audacity to round up U.S. citizens without our borders and hold them
indefinitely without trial.

Here are the principal Supreme Court decisions the law preserves:

(1) A post-Civil War case (Ex Parte Milligan) saying a
citizen non-combatant  incarcerated outside the theater of war is
entitled to habeas corpus. (This holding doesn’t help those accused of
being combatants.)

(2) The World War II-era Quirin decision that permitted
President Roosevelt to detain, try in a secret military hearing, and
execute a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. territory and accused of being a
German spy. Obviously, this decision—which is widely acknowledged to be
egregious—offers no protection against the National Defense
Authorization Act.

(3) The 2004 Hamdi case, which says that a U.S. citizen
captured bearing arms in the war theater is NOT entitled to habeas
corpus. He is entitled only to a minimal military hearing without a jury
and without many of the traditional due process protections.. (Some
apologists for the National Defense Authorization Act are claiming the Hamdi case granted a right of habeas corpus; this claim is flatly wrong.)

(4) The 2008 Boumedienne decision, which held that alien
Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas corpus and a civilian
hearing to show that they were non-combatants.

Obviously, none of these prior holdings addresses the habeas corpus
rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and
charged with being an enemy combatant. So there is no Supreme Court case
providing the necessary protection preserved by the law’s provision
that “existing law or authorities” are preserved.

§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United
States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States,
except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Comment: This section says that the
administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident
alien in indefinite military custody. But it does not prevent the
administration from doing so.

When you look at sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense
Authorization Act objectively, they become scary in their potential. If
the administration does try to use it to lock up American citizens
without habeas corpus, the Supreme Court probably will void the
incarceration and require a civilian trial. But in the normal course of
events, vindicating one’s rights could take years.”

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/06/ndaa-sections-1021-and-1022-scary-potential/

Even the Supreme Court makes unConstitutional decisions.

HAhaha

75% of the goods sold in the US come from China. You’re making this too difficult.

At what point does China realize that buying American debt and holding trillions of valueless US treasuries is a bad investment on their part? It’s coming. Logic points to that conclusion. When do they say to themselves, “The US cannot make good on the principle?”

When that happens, not if, the borrowing stops. And China is in a unique position to absorb those products on their own. Don’t you think that they want dishwashers, and TV’s, and microwaves? Don’t you think that they’d rather have those things then doing dishes by hand, or having an outdated radio to listen to the news, or cooking their meals over an open fire pit? The only reason that we can borrow from China is because they underconsume and save their money.

They will eventually cut off the money lending & the shipments of product will come to an eventual haul. They’ll just buy the products themselves. They will realize that they don’t need 300 million subsidized consumers in America. They have a billion people who all need much much more and will have the savings and the capital to purchase those things. When that happens, China’s economy is going to explode and they will have the largest booming economy in the history of the world.

You also mentioned:

“The last time we had a balanced budget was under Clinton, a Democrat.”

This is not true. The last true balanced budget that we had where the national debt was less or the same as the year before was 1957.

Clinton never balanced the budget. Al Gore claimed fame for that effort in the 2000 election against Bush. Gore had nothing to do with budgets. But it was a lie. Never in all the years of Clinton, Bush 1 & 2, or Reagan did we have a balanced budget. Never.

The latest to claim this “Balanced Budget” title is Newt Gingrich. Who is lying through his teeth when he says that he balanced the budget 4 years straight. The same thing that Gore claimed.

Liars. All of them.

Here are the year end national debt numbers from 1992 through 2000 – notice how the debt increases every year? If it’s a balanced budget the debt would remain the same or if there was a budget surplus it would show less then the year before.

Check it out:

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

SCOTUS cases involving the exception of a warrant to search a car:
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)- Prohibition officers only need probale casue to search a car for Liquor.
United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948)- a Legal search of a car does not require the search of an occupant.
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160 (1949)- Prior knowledge of the Suspect creates probable cause to search a vehicle for liquor.
Preston v. United States – 376 U.S. 364 (1964)- Delaying a search makes it unreasonable under the theory of a search incident to an arrest.
Cooper v. California – 386 U.S. 58 (1967)- Delaying search of a car seized as evidence in a forfeiture procedure does not create an unreasonable search under Preston.
Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co., Inc., 391 U.S. 216 (1968)- Officers did not prove that the search of a car was reasonable nor that they had probable cause to do the search.
Chambers v. Maroney 399 U.S. 42 (1970)- Warrantless search of a car with probable cause was REASONABLE.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)- Search of a car in a driveway with an invalid warrant incident to an arrest inside a house was invalid.
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)- Search of a vehicle without a warrant, consent, or probable cause violates the IV Amendment.
Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (1974)- Search of the exterior of a car was reasonable, including the removal of paint chips.
Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979)- Police must obtain a warrant to search a locked suitcase of a reasonably search automobile.
Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980)- Leaving stolen Chrome Lug nuts in a open glove box that are seized by police, is a reasonable search.
Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259 (1982)- “There was no violation of respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by the warrantless search. When police officers have probable cause to believe there is contraband inside an automobile that has been stopped on the road, the officers may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, even after it has been impounded and is in police custody.”
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982)- “Police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe that contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle that is as thorough as a magistrate could authorize by warrant.”
United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985)- “Respondents’ argument that the suppression of the marihuana should be affirmed on the grounds that the officers never had probable cause to conduct a vehicle search, thus rendering Ross inapplicable, is without merit. The record shows that the officers had probable cause to believe that not only the packages but also the trucks themselves contained contraband.”
California v. Carney 471 U.S. 386 (1985)- “The warrantless search of respondent’s motor home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.”
California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991)- “Police, in a search extending only to a container within an automobile, may search the container without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or evidence.”
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)- “Police officers with probable cause to search a car, as in this case, may inspect passengers’ belongings found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search. In determining whether a particular governmental action violates the Fourth Amendment, this Court inquires first whether the action was regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under common law when the Amendment was framed, see, e. g., Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927, 931.”

Are you getting the point you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to searching a car yet? You are also wrong about Sobriety Check points being Constitutional, see: Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

Here is a hint for you: No one cares about your views of SCOTUS a case, as your uninformed opinion on those cases does not change the law.

* To be subject to military law, the belligerents have to were the acknowledged uniform of a Nation, when did Al-Qaeda become a nation?

* You actually got the detention part right, so what is your issue again? You have proven they can be held for the duration.

* You then contradict your own understanding of detention of belligerents by stating they have a right to stand trial. SCOTUS disagrees with you.

* So you are claiming the Constitution of the United States gives the President no power to enforce the laws of the United States? Do You understand what being the head of the Executive Branch entails?

* So in truth SOCTUS ruled the enemy combatants can be legally detained for the Duration of Hostilities?
-Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)- Allows Enemy Combatants habeas rights.
-Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)- Pertained to a US Citizen retaining his right to Habeas Corpus rights, Hamdi has since renounced his US Citizenship. Did you miss this case in your research?
-Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004)- SCOTUS held that US courts do retain jurisdiction.

You claim that 75% of the goods sold in the US are made in China

Politicians and pundits talk often talk of the undue sway Chinese businesses have over American consumers without the hard numbers to back up claims. So Galina Hale and Bart Hobijn, two economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
have stepped in to do the mathematical heavy-lifting. What they’ve
found is that only 2.7 percent of U.S. consumers purchases have the
“Made in China” label. http://news.yahoo.com/made-china-goods-only-small-sliver-u-consumption-222755502.html

If you want to dispute the source, be sure to find another source that has credibility. Maybe someone can double that figure to almost 6%. It still falls far short of 75%. Meanwhile, read the entire article that I linked to for the real picture. Having real FACTS should change your perspective.

Also, a balanced does not (necessarily) mean being debt free. Even the largest and most profitable corporations in the world carry debt as part of their financial planning and operations.

The rest of your argument is economic fantasy, just like the 75% claim.

First, the word is unconstitutional, the C does not need to be capitalized.
Second, every SCOTUS case is supposed to be decided on the Constitution, and remains Constitutional until overturned.

First, the word is unconstitutional, the C does not need to be capitalized.
Second, every SCOTUS case is supposed to be decided on the Constitution, and remains Constitutional until overturned.

The examples given were for “expanding” big government and the police state, not starting it. As I clearly stated, this expansion has been going on for decades and both mainstream political parties are to blame. Sure, NDAA is passed every year, but the provisions of concern to Libertarians are Title X, Subtitle D, sub-sections 1021 and 1022. Homeland security and police forces have been using drones in very limited applications, but the FAA is mandated to revise their systems and procedures so that more general drone flights can commence in four years. As for National “Defense”, our current military spending is greater than that off all other nations combined and several times larger than our nearest competitor, China. Plis, we’re broke and borrowing aprox 43 cents on the dollar from China, so we can’t afford to be the world’s policeman any longer, that’s why. Sure, Obama backed off somewhat on the contraceptive mandate, but that he would attempt it in the first place is deeply troubling. Or are we only counting “succesful” attempts to expand government? Bsides, Obamacare itself is a big government mandate in itself, whixh is anathema to Libertarians and proof in and of itself of my point. Finally, his increased spending has to come from somewhere; they can’t print phony money forever, so where will the money come from. You and me, and everone else, in the form of higher taxes. If you do not see the correlation between taxation and expansion of the police state, try objecting to your taxes and not paying them. Sooner or later men with guns will come to your house. You are either obtuse or, as I said, disingenuously arguing your partisan viewpoint. QED

Yet none of your examples is an EXPANSION. They are at best clarifications.

Extending tax cuts is not issuing new tax cuts.
Extending the USA PATRIOT Act is not expanding anything, they actually would have had to added to the law new authorities.

Men with guns already come to my house, if I have done nothing wrong then what is the issue. Wait that man with a gun is me.

Go to Target. Walmart. Sears. Any retail outlet. It’s almost all from China.

You’re quoting a federal reserve economist? That is flat out laughable.

Actually the claim is not that hard to support. The largest purchase of most families would be their home. All of which are made in the US. Kind of hard to build those outside the US.
GM has 18.4% of Market share in the US, Ford 14.9% and Chrysler 11.1%. So US firms control 44.4% of vehicle sales, the second largest purchase.

Ok, I am pretty sure that debating with you is futile, but I will say this: the language in the bill is tricky and must be analyzed carefully. The tricky part is where they say things like “pursuant to current law” because basically the notion of unlimited detention foe people designated as “enemy combatants” is already codified into current law, thanks to Obama’s predecessor, Bush. I refer you to the al-Marri case for a resident alien and the Padilla case for an example of a United States citizen. Also when they say things like they are not “required to detain” does not mean that they CANNOT detain, only that the military is not required to and the person may be detained by civil authorities instead.

I’m ever so impressed by your gun. I carry one too. In any case, believe as you wish. But, if you think that the government does not have the ability to designate you an enemy combatant and hold you, if not indefinitely, then a very, very long time, you are just foolish and naive. Oh, and we forgot to mention the assassination of a United States citizen by executive order. Remember Anwar al-Alwaki? Since that was a first given to us by your patron saint of Liberty, Obama, can we count that as an “expansion” of the police state too?

And nobody said anything about Obama’s “extending tax cuts”, now you are just rambling on with nonsense. In any case, I feel you’ve been trounced pretty soundly, so good lucj puzzling it all out.

Sorry for the typos; you try typing on this frigging iPad with big sausage fingers. And it wouldn’t let me edit.

I hate to have to tell you this, but the holding of US Citizens indefinitely is illegal under CURRENT LAW!

I generally on pick on peoples typos after they go after mine. I understand we are all human.

I thought I was done, but I just can’t help myself… So, if the NDAA doe not grant the powers to indefinitely detain United States citizens, why did Obama feel the need to REASSURE US THAT HE WILL NOT?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

Could it be many people, including the ACLU, has issues with reading the law as written?

Holy crap, I was under the impression this was an Obama-phile. And he claims to be a “conservative republican”? Neo-conservative, perhaps. In any case, you’re wasting your time trying to convince this one. Just more proof that there is very little difference between statist progressives and statist neo-cons.

Well said. Better than I put it.

From a practical standpoint, however, cops can just make up “probble cause”. They get away with it all the time.

Birth control is dirt cheap. Buy your own.

Really, because I argue from an area of fact, regardless of where it leads me I have to be a supporter of Obama?

So he lies about a law and should be let off free? Neither side should advocate from that. Until we can agree on the truth there is no reason to even debate.

But you keep making your false claims all you want.

Hey, you posted that twice. I guess typos happen. I just thought it ironic in this case.

That was an error of Disqus not mine that they posted one minute apart.

Please read my response about your own typos.

I don’t buy birth control, I’m a guy, but I’ll be sure to use that line the next to I introduce myself to a potential love interest.

 So where is your source for the 75% claim?
The joke is on you.

 That is the source of your 75% statistic? Laughable, indeed!

Millions care about the 4th amendment. Every example you gave to justify warantless search *is* a violation of the 4th amendment. A precedent is set by cases that have made wrong decisions which future courts use to justify even more bad decisions. And they continue to make them. They’re all unConstitutional. And they’re wrong.

Why do you keep citing the Supreme Court? Who gives a rats ass if the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the Constitution? They screwed up. The decision needs be reversed. Period. What’s your question?

You said: “So you are claiming the Constitution of the United States gives the
President no power to enforce the laws of the United States? Do You
understand what being the head of the Executive Branch entails?”

Yes, that is what I am saying. The President does not have the Constitutional authority to write law. Period. Thats what Congress and the Senate are for. He can submit a bill to the house or the senate to be passed – as was the case with the NDAA bill, but the representatives have to pass it first. It’s called the checks and balances of a representative republic. You’re talking about Authoritarianism. The President is not a King. He’s our servant not our dictator. The real question is – Do you
understand what being the head of the Executive Branch entails? The executive orders have been abused for a very long time and it is important that every American understand the proper Constitutional reason for the Executive Order statute.

You said: “when did Al-Qaeda become a nation?” It didn’t obviously. And that’s a fair question. But what I’d like to know how do we declare war on a tactic? Terrorists are not states, they are an ideological group of unconnected people across multi-national boundaries. We never declared war on that, there was no bill in Congress to declare that action.

The war on terror is simply an opportunity to embrace perpetual war.

Lastly on the 4th amendment topic – the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the TSA, and the idiotic decisions that you’ve quoted above have all but undermined the 4th amendment.

Ok Todd – when does the 4th amendment then apply? Give me a scenario where you’re in a car or in a line at the airport, or simply sitting innocently in your house where you can claim it’s protection.
You can’t – it’s been repealed. Thats my point. And all these stupidly decided cases that you keep bringing up only justify the further erosion of the bill of rights.

You’ve never answered why you defend this garbage. Why?

What possible motivation would a big government statist like yourself have in defending this crap? A true Conservative would not. Are you really a Conservative Republican or are you really just a fascist wearing the Republican red?

What are the issues that define your conservatism?  Name something, anything that qualifies you as a conservative. You don’t believe in the Constitution so you can’t claim that. You like the Supreme Court’s decisions but they make mistakes regarding the Constitution. And that alone does not make you a Conservative. Obama like the Supreme Court decisions too. So tell us.

At least then we’ll have something to clearly agree or disagree on.

The 15 Rules to a healthy American Economy:

1) You cannot spend your way out of a recession
2) You cannot regulate the economy into oblivion and expect it to function
3) You cannot tax people and businesses to the point of near slavery and expect them to keep producing
4) You cannot create an abundance of money out of thin air without making all that paper worthless
5) The government cannot make up for rising unemployment by just hiring all the out of work people to be bureaucrats or send them unemployment checks forever
6) You cannot live beyond your means indefinitely
7) The economy must actually produce something others are willing to buy
8) Every government bureaucrat should keep the following motto in mind when attempting to influence the economy: “First, do no harm!”
9) Central bank-supported fractional reserve banking is an economically distorting, ethically questionable activity. In particular, no government should ever do anything to save any bank from the full consequences of a bank run, no matter what the short-term consequences.
10) Gold is God’s money.
11) Businesses don’t hire workers just because of demand for products or services, they hire because it makes them money. Sorry to have to state the obvious.
12) Government spending without taxing is still redistribution
13) Taking one man’s money and giving it to another is not a job.
14) Paul Krugman and Bernake have been wrong about everything, as well as the other best and brightest Keynesian’s who have been fixing our economy for over a decade.
15) Republicans in the minority (esp out of the White House) act like Republicans, in the majority they act like Democrats .

Apparently you have not read the Constitution. Try reading Article III, you know the one that gives the Supreme Court judicial power, you know the part that was ratified prior to the AMENDMENTS?

Why should we care what someone that consistently misspells unconstitutional?

Yet consistently since 1925, several times SCOTUS has upheld the exception for motor vehicles. Why? Because you have a decreased expectation of privacy in a car than you do when in your house. Give me one example of where SCOTUS has said the IV Amendment does apply to you in your home? Good luck finding one. Where has SCOTUS said that you have the same expectation of privacy standing in line at an airport? You will also note that the IV Amendment does not say that police have to have a warrant to perform a search, only that they must perform all searches must be reasonable. SOCTUS, the highest Court in the land has ruled that a probable cause search of a car or mobile home is REASONABLE without a warrant.

Where does NDAA 2012 address the IV Amendment? It does not apply to those captured outside the United States, nor to those held outside the United States.

Where have I ever stated that I do not believe in the Constitution? I defend the law, because it is the law. What is so hard to understand about that?

You want my issues that define me as a Conservative, go read my 5540+ posts.

You’re a guy, so you don’t buy birth control? How sexist of you! How is the herpes doing?

RoadtoSurfdom,
I agree with most of your points, until you try to use the Hippocratic Oath to define economic concerns.

You’re not arguing from fact, you are blatantly ignoring anything that refutes you, instead focusing on only those snippets of language that you believe support you. “this section breaks no ground and is unnecessary.”. Right! Because they already have the ability to designate someone an “enemy combatant”. But, you’ve already had this explained to you already.

Oh, and I confused you with a liberal progressive because your arguments here make you appear that way. But, as I said, the main difference between progressives and neo-conservatives is the constituencies they pander to and the big government priorities they want to blow my cash on.

1.     
1. Says who?

2.     
2. Hasn’t happened yet, but basically true.

3.     3. Isn’t happening.

4.     
4. True, but isn’t happening.

5.     
5. Same as 4.

6.     
6. You cannot live indefinitely, but countries do.
Meanwhile, we need more taxes to pay off old debts.

7.      7. That is what is happening.

8.     
8. Agree!

9.     
9. Straight from Ron Paul.

10.  10. Say WHAT?!

11.  11. The obvious? The opposite is the obvious.
Businesses ONLY make money by selling more goods and services, which makes it
possible to hire people.

12. 
12. OK.

13. 
13. Collecting money is a job. Sometimes
collectors take back what was bought and not paid for. That can be dangerous
work.

14.  14. Keynesian economics have worked very well.

15. 
15. Agree.
 

What exactly have you presented other than your own assertions that refutes me? NOTHING?

ENEMY COMBATANTS are not even protected by International Law, the law of war, or the Geneva Conventions. So you keep proving how stupid you seriously are.

The XI Amendment actually forbids them from bringing any suit in federal court.

Apparently you do not understand this point. Because you want to debate from an area of falsehood.

3.5 years for Padilla without charges probably felt like “indefinitely” to Padilla.

Don’t weep for al-Alwaki. Weep for the constitution.

My arguments for the law as it exists makes me a liberal progressive? Seriously? You are not very smart, because the NDAA does not allow for the indefinite detention of US Citizens. You feel free to argue this falsehood.

His argument is based in past unConstitutional Supreme Court decisions. The very group of people who should be giving blood to defend the Constitution are the ones he’s listing decisions from who at every turn are looking to defile our founding document. If you read his posts, it just goes nowhere. Out of expiration I asked him to invent a situation where he could claim the Constitutional protections of the 4th amendment but he’s yet to respond. And he can’t – the amendment has been repealed.

Whatever he is, it is definitely not my definition of conservative. But, neo-cons have basically completely corrupted the meaning of the word.

Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002.
On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal.
Indicted November 22, 2005.
You do understand that 3.5 years is a finite period of time?

How was Al-Alwaki protected by the Constitution? He was killed in Yemen, not the US, and had effectively renounced his citizenship under US law. So how did the Constitution of the Untied States apply in Yemen to a Yemeni citizen again?

Yeah – but it’s too much for him to read. They demand “FACTS” and when you take the time and effort to provide them with certainties, they automatically become too lazy to read the damn thing. But it’s a process. They believe in the system as it currently is. You and I believe that the current system is a complete perversion of our original polity.

Please explain to us how the entity given the power by the Constitution to determine whether a law is constitutional can issue a decision that is unconstitutional?

When was the IV Amendment repealed? I missed where that was even purposed. Funny how SCOTUS h=upheld the IV Amendment in cases like Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).

Why do you misread the Amendment to require a warrant to do a search? It does not, it restricts only UNREASONABLE searches.

Where have you provided facts supported by evidence? I have read a lot of uninformed assertions and few facts.

http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/china07.pdf

From 2007, this says total percentage of manufactured goods is 40%. I could easily believe that more than 75% of the cheap crap that Walmart sells is from China, because that’s what they specialize in: cheap crap.

https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

Puts the trade imbalance for 2010 as 364.billion in imports from China compared to our exports to China of 91.9 billion.

How are those sources? I’ll bet deflated dollars to doughnuts that number in the article you cited included services. Of course the Chinese don’t mow my lawn. I have illegal immigrant Mexicans to do that for me. But just try to find a spatula that isn’t made in China. It’s difficult, I know because I tried.

For the record, I actually mow my own lawn.

With a Chinese lawnmower.

Am I supposed to respond with a mom joke or something?

You see? This is why I cannot take you seriously, when you argue that detaining a US citizen for 3.5 years without charges, denying him habeus corpus is not “indefinite”. 99 years would also be a finite number.

Ok, give my regards to your mom.

 You should not bet on an article that you did not read. Try reading the article.
As for your source on trade, I see that China exports to us more than it imports from us, and even if the difference is 40%, that does not measure the actual purchase of goods by Americans. Even with that extreme difference, it still does not come near 75%.

A spatula? Value less than $3. How much of that is critical the the entire US economy, and how many do you need?

The article I linked to does say that China exports a lot of non-durable goods, like socks and shirts to us, and some major appliances like refrigerators and washing machines, but when did you buy a car from China? Gasoline produced in China? Beef and bread and milk?

Have you purchased an airliner or a caterpillar earth mover? China has bought a lot of those things for us.

Now you finally get the point. Is Padilla still being held indefinitely? No, he will have to spend the next 17 years and four months in prison (minus the 54 days per year of good time that he can earn per year).

Once again you like to dismiss the fact that Padilla, and American Citizen is not and was not held indefinitely.

Those convicted of crimes in the United States are often given sentences that would last Hundreds of years. Which is a finite term as well.

How about I give them to your mom instead?

How about I give them to your mom instead?

From ToddScheller

Todd: “Apparently you have not read the Constitution. Try reading
Article III, you know the one that gives the Supreme Court judicial
power, you know the part that was ratified prior to the AMENDMENTS?”

Me: Ok – I have never read it. I only have 5 Constitutions sitting right here in front of me. But no – none of them have been read before. Thanks for clarifying that for me Todd.

Todd: “Why should we care what someone that consistently misspells unconstitutional has to say about SCOTUS cases?”

Me: Why should I care about the unConstitutional decision of a Supreme Court ruling regardless of how “unConstitutional” is spelled or misspelled? If the decision is wrong it’s wrong.

Todd: “Yet
consistently since 1925, several times SCOTUS has upheld the exception
for motor vehicles. Why? Because you have a decreased expectation of
privacy in a car than you do when in your house. Give me one example of
where SCOTUS has said the IV Amendment does apply to you in your home? Good luck finding one.”

Me: Is your car not property? Nowhere in the Constitution is this position enumerated. Your just making this up to defend the TSA highway checkpoints and the police state. There is an article in Forbes talking about the Supreme Court eroding the 4th amendment listed here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/05/17/supreme-court-erodes-4th-amendment-protections-eases-ability-for-police-to-enter-your-home-without-warrant/

Todd: “Where has SCOTUS said that you have the same
expectation of privacy standing in line at an airport?”

Me: Where does the Constitution grant the authority for unlawful search in airports?

Todd: “You will also
note that the IV Amendment does not say that police have to have a
warrant to perform a search, only that they must perform all searches
must be reasonable. SCOTUS, the highest Court in the land, has ruled
repeatedly under different Chief Justices, that a probable cause search
of a car or mobile home is REASONABLE without a warrant. This in no way
undermines the language of the IV Amendment.”

Me: I don’t disagree with that. I’ve said this probably 5 times now. With probable cause. Thats the key. It must be established first before the search. A random car being pulled over at a checkpoint is NOT probable cause. I am having a hard time being creative enough to express the distinction for you on this issue. Without probable cause they cannot issue a warrant and they cannot search warrantless. Got it?

Todd: “Where does NDAA 2012
address the IV Amendment? It does not apply to those captured outside
the United States, nor to those held outside the United States.”

Me: It does not “address” the 4th amendment. It undermines it. I’ve given you *exact* citations. Are you even reading my posts?

Todd: “Where
have I ever stated that I do not believe in the Constitution? I defend
the law, because it is the law. What is so hard to understand about
that?”

Me: This is the first mention that you made about the Constitution. You keep referring to the idiots at the Supreme Court for some reason. If you defend the law why don’t you defend the 4th & 5th amendments rather then justify the assault on them? It’s hard to believe that you’re looking at this issue logically. Would you defend an unjust law?

Todd: “If Al-Qaeda is not a Nation they can have no army, thus no
protection under the laws of war or the Geneva Conventions. No President
has written that International Law, nor has a President written law
that allows him to detain members of Al-Qaeda, Congress did that you
moron. Allowing its members to file a suit in a federal court actually
violates the XI Amendment, yet I do not see you making that argument.”

Me: I never said the President wrote a law to repeal the Geneva Conventions or International Law. Joe Biden wrote the Patriot Act in 1995 and Congress whipped it out after the 9/11 attacks and quickly passed it. Yeah. It’s a bad law.

11th Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

And you’re right about them being able to sue our government. That should not be allowed. But their status as “enemy combatants” unprotected by the Geneva Convention & international law should change right along with it. They should receive the protections not because I want terrorists to have legal protections, but because I want the ones who are mistaken as terrorists to have legal protections. When you fail to defend the devil under the law you become the devil. That’s my fear.

Todd: “Obama
likes Supreme Court decisions? Seriously, that is going to be your
claim? After he called out the Supreme Court on their correct decision
in UC v. FEC in his State of the Union? You have serious Cognitive
issues.”

Me: That’s only one.

Todd: “You want my issues that define me as a Conservative, go read my 5540+ posts”

Me: Just name 5 things. Damn. If it takes 5000 posts to define your conservatism – and you can’t define it in 5 or 6 phrases then it’s clear to everyone that you’re not a conservative. I’ll tell you mine.

1) The Constitution
2) Personal Freedom
3) Individual Responsibility
4) Free Markets
5) Limited Government
6) Removal of the Federal Register
.

Where in the Constitution are you named as someone that gets to determine that something is unconstitutional?

Yes, it is enumerated moron, right in the IV Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”…See it clearly states that searches cannot be unreasonable…”and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” No where in that does it enumerate that a WARRANT has to be issued prior to a search taking place.

Must a police officer get a warrant to search your yard? Not if it does not have a privacy fence and he is seeing things in plain sight. That is a reasonable search. It is also reasonable for a police officer to stop you to ask you questions and pat you down to ensure you do not have any weapons, for his safety.

1) No issue with that, it would help if you actually understood what that document said though.
2) As defined by? Sounds more libertarian rather than Conservative.
3) Again as defined by what?
4) Do not disagree with that. Thus why I take issue with a Mandate to buy medical care.
5) I have no issue with this either, but limited by what?
6) You do realize this one negates three of the prior five. Or did you mean Federal Reserve?

Just get off your duff and read, I have named way more than five things in the 5540+ posts. I will not do your work for you.

The only point you have is the one on top of your noggin.

Which is still more valid points than you have put forth.

Nope, he’s not a conservative- just a wimpy suck-up to whatever authoritarianism of law and order is currently residing on the books.

Whatever the law says; Scheller does. It’s his likes’ mindsets that allowed the SS, STASI and KGB type of operations to bloom into vicious totalitarianism.

You’re a Statist with an authoritarian/totalitarian, mindlessly mean, streak, Scheller.

You do not think — you salute!

mc.murphy is someone that still denies using the Anarcho-Communist flag for an avatar.

mc.murphy advocates for no law at all. Where has that proven to work well?

You have exactly ZERO proof for this ignorant assertion.

GET THE PICTURE MORON, THE UNITED STATES WILL NEVER BE COMMUNIST. EVEN THOUGH YOU DENY THAT POLAND EVER WAS>

Ok Todd. I’m done with you.

Ouch, you got me!  It did say that 40% of all IMPORTED goods were Chinese, not 40% of manufactured goods sold.

Ok, so forgive me if I cobble together sources and data from different years.  I am too lazy to dig thru govt websites, so Google will have to suffice. This is sort of like a game of horseshoes; close enough will have to do.

According to this source, the NYTimes in 2009:

“By late last year, 37 percent of all manufactured goods sold in America were imported. That was more than double the percentage in 1991, according to Commerce Department data, and nearly four times the level in 1978.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/business/21buy.html?pagewanted=all

If we assume that 40% of all imported goods are Chinese, as the CPSC source stated (and ignore the 243% growth rate they mentioned), wouldn’t it follow then that about 15% of all manufactured goods sold are Chinese?

And this article from MSNBC IN 2010 says:

“Last year, some 60 percent of the value of goods sold in the U.S. was imported. That’s up from 14 percent in 1980 and 8 percent in 1960, based on the government’s gross domestic product data. ”

Ok, ok, it doesn’t say “manufactured”, but that is the impression. So, if it’s 60% now, then does that mean that it is really 24% of goods sold are Chinese?

I actually found a cached google excerpt from the Congressional Budget Office where it stated that, in 2007, Chinese imports accounted for 17% of all manufactured goods sold in the US.  But, the original document has been removed. So I can’t cite that one.

So, it’s not 75%, but I still bet it’s not 2.7%, or whatever it was that your Yahoo article stated.  At any rate, the trade imbalance is real, so they are selling us quite a few more cheap, crappy spatulas than we are selling them caterpillar tractors.  I think you said someone had to come up with 6% to win the argument, right?

So, I win.

And, I still bet you that more than 75% of the crap Walmart sells is Chinese, but you’re going to have to go down there and count them.  I’m all worn out.

How is you and your Anarcho-Communist leanings not Statist?

The Anarcho part for sure. But you’d be closer labeling me a Mutualist than Communist. Since, however, you do not yourself realize that you are not even a Conservative, but merely an authoritarian salaried slave “yes-man”, you should best pipe down before completely expelling your brains into your adult diaper.

So glad you think you know my political leaning s more than I do.

“mc.murphy advocates for no law at all.” followed by me being a (lawless?) communist?

your brain is suffering from indigestion as it’s travelling down you alimentary canal.

It’s becoming clear that he’s becoming more and more like a douche.

How is being a legalist not supporting the Constitution again? You just destroyed your own assertions.

Where again have I supported either of those candidates again? You fail to define me with each ignorant comment you make. As Gingrich nor Santorum are even close to each other. I will not deny that there is a lack of true conservatives still running for the GOP nomination now though.

Yet it was clear long ago that you have always been one.

Apparently I’m not the only one. Besides, it doesn’t take sifting through anywhere close to the 5500 ctrl+enter pieces of hog wash to figure out your dead weight brain.

more likely an incontinent enema.

I know all it takes is to read one of your post to prove that you will swallow anything written by Chomsky or Trotsky.

No, by you being an Anarchist. You being a Communist just proves that you support failed philosophies.

I admit to have played with both, but whatever gives you the absurd idea that I am a Trotskyite? Kropotkin is more my cup o’tea.

In the current environs, however, I’m quite taken by 50% of Ron Paul’s libertarianism, which is 50% more than either Obama, or the crooks on the Republican side of the aisle…

I know, your brain cannot compute such a proposition.

Huh?

Brain farts again?

The Patriot Act that passed was written by Viet Dinh in 2001, not Joe Biden in 1995 moron.
The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 never passed and became law. It also does not track with the USA PATRIOT Act with its provisions.

You have reading comprehensions issues?

Anarchist advocate for States being unneeded, States make laws. No State, no law.

Communism is a failed philosophy. What is hard to understand about that?

You wouldn’t know a conservative if he ran you over, and several have this evening. Just who do you support, Scheller?

Your support of other Trotskyist maybe? So with your claiming that you follow Kropotkin are you finally willing to admit that you are an Anarcho-Communist?

You’ve constantly referred to Supreme Court rulings that are antithetical to the Constitution – yet you follow them over everything else and believe that they are all just and proper.  That’s why it’s easy to deduce your lack of adherence to the Constitution. You’d rather embrace a neat new shiny law that just came out – like a dog chasing a squirrel then believe in the rights afforded by Natural Law.

No only that – you’ve not answered one direct question I’ve asked you. If you don’t have an answer you ignore it, and slap down some Supreme Court cut n’ paste garbage to hammer away at your point – that is not even Constitutionally based to begin with.

What’s the major difference between Gingrich & Santorum then? Because they look reeeeaaal close – with only minor vacillations.

And the only true Conservative up there is Ron Paul. All the others are a bunch of weak sucks.

When you show me a true conservative running for President, I might tell you.

How were they antithetical to the Constitution? All of them supported reasonable searches. Or overturned convictions for searches that were unreasonable. The test of a search is its reasonableness, not whether there was a warrant to do the search. SCOTUS has declared search with a warrant to be unreasonable and in contravention of the Constitution.

What question have you asked that I have not answered? You want a list of my conservative views, stop being lazy and go find them.

Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN you moron.

I prefer to use the term Anarcho-Syndicalist. The reason for that is that communism the way it has been distorted in the minds like yourself (equated with Stalinist Statism) is so far removed from my ideal as to make it essentially useless for the purposes of general self identification. Below that, the amount of nuance, agreement and disagreement abounds.

Yet Kropotkin was a ANARCHO-COMMUNIST, and ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST are the same thing under a different name. A rose is still a rose regardless of what you call it.

Pffft! I wouldn’t tell us either if I were you.

Is that the only argument that nonintellectuals like yourself can come up with?

There is no true conservative running currently for President. That is not my fault.

“Anarchist advocate for States being unneeded, States make laws.”

Men make laws, usually self serving corrupt ones.

“Communism is a failed philosophy.”

Where it has been practiced, it was repressed, so effectively it’s failure has less to do with the philosophy, and more with repression. (the USSR was Statism adorned with a bare minimum of communist trappings, and a lot of propaganda)

On these issues, libertarianism offers what few understand: the freedom of association into any kind of community if so desired, or a lone wolf existence limited by a few very basic, but powerful laws of conduct.

I, by merely being an anti war, non interventionist am far more the conservative than yourself. Same goes for anti-corporatism. To say nothing of sanctioned and lawful, or unprosecuted “lawlessness.”

By no means, were it as you claim the sort of wordsmything political PR firms and consultants (Frank Luntz?) engage in would not be a mint maker for them.

LOL.

Like I said I’m done with you.

“Reasonable” is not probable cause.  You suck.

 Questions you’ve dodged:

*Would you follow an unjust law? Or can you even distinguish between justice and law? You suck.

*List a conservative view point – or do you have any?  You suck.

*And 40 other ones directed only to you from previous posts that you didn’t answer. You suck.

Libertarians are the ultimate conservative but conservatives are anything but libertarian. You suck.

You: How is a search at an airport unlawful?

Me: You mean when they shove their hands down your pants? You suck.

You: Were you not searched at airports prior to 9/11?

Me: Nope. You suck.

You: Were not your bags scanned prior to 9/11?

Me: Yes. They were never opened and we weren’t felt up, shoved though a radioactive porn scanner.  You suck.

You: Is it not reasonable for the Government to stop bombs from getting on a plane at an airport?

Me: It hasn’t yet in 10 years. It didn’t stop the shoe bomber – the passengers did. It didn’t stop the underwear bomber – the passengers did. So no, the TSA has been an epic failure across the board. They piss people off, they slow people from reaching their flight, and they entirely violate the 4th amendment.

You really really do suck.

Men representing the State make laws, but you keep denying it, maybe one day it will be true.

Where have I ever said I was pro-war? I have proved the lie that Iraq and Afghanistan were legal, that does not necessarily mean that I support all war. Non-Interventionism is a Libertarian view, not a Conservative view. You fail to understand what Corporatism is, so how can you say that you are conservative on it? Corporatism is the grouping of people into their sector of the economy, not the control of the government by Corporations.

Oooo.

“Few Facts…”

A total freaking life sucking dolt.

Wow, Todd, you really are a slippery character. I would have sworn from you were an Obama supporter trolling us, so I took your challenge of digging through your DISQUS posts to ferret out what your real principles are.

I must say, I hope the sacrifice of wading through so many of your posts calling people moroms, idiots, and lying sacks of trash is appreciated. You are a bit of a chameleon. You claim to be a marine with a master’s degree, you like to quote bible verse, you are a drug warrior, you defend Glenn Beck, you like to defend Mormonism, type SOCIALIST in caps. You could be a Romney supporter. You could be holding out for some unholy fusion of Santorum and Gingrich. You are definitely no Libertarian, but you might think of yourself as one of those “Glenn Beck Libertarians” since you like to quote the Mises institute.

Frankly, I am not sure what any of your “conservative” positions are. You just really seem to like arguing and calling people stupid.

Ok, I’ll go with Gingrich in Reformed Christian mode.

Yet SCOTUS has continually declared that searches performed with probable cause are reasonable. So you fail to understand the Reasonableness test.

Question I did Answer:
*Would you follow an unjust law? Or can you even distinguish between justice and law? No, following an unjust law would be illegal. See the Nuremberg Trials. looks like you gagged on that one.
List a conservative view point – or do you have any? Just get off your duff and read, I have named way more than five things in the 5540+ posts. I will not do your work for you. The fact that you did not like my answer left you gagging on your question again.

You: How is a search at an airport unlawful?

Me: You mean when they shove their hands down your pants? You suck.

You: Were you not searched at airports prior to 9/11?

Me: Nope. You suck. Once again you are lying. The FAA instituted airport searches in 1972. Gagging again on your sucker?

You: Were not your bags scanned prior to 9/11?

Me: Yes. They were never opened and we weren’t felt up, shoved though a radioactive porn scanner. You suck. Once again you lie, your bags had to be opened before begin checked starting in 1972, what caused all of this? D.B. Cooper. This is a porn scanner? You need to find better porn.

You: Is it not reasonable for the Government to stop bombs from getting on a plane at an airport?

Me: It hasn’t yet in 10 years. It didn’t stop the shoe bomber – the passengers did. It didn’t stop the underwear bomber – the passengers did. So no, the TSA has been an epic failure across the board. They piss people off, they slow people from reaching their flight, and they entirely violate the 4th amendment. Neither of which boarded a plane in the US, but that flew into the US, you idiot. Yet in one week they did stop 24 loaded guns, and four unloaded guns from getting on plane as well as two grenades (handheld bombs)and a Grenade launcher the week of 2/17/2012. How about the explosively viable cannonball, more grenades, 14 loaded guns, and 5 unloaded guns they kept from getting on a plane the week of 2/3/2012? How about the concealed razor blades, knives, 18 loaded guns, and 2 unloaded guns the week of 1/27/2012?
How much hunting can you do while on a plane again?

I am getting really tired of listening to you gag from having to take those lies so deep.

If you are done with me then why do you keep replying to me you liar?

Where have I defended Glenn Beck again? I am pretty sure I have disproved lies about him.

And all the rest of your assertions in this ignorant post are just as unfounded.
I am a Marine and I do hold a Masters Degree, all of it true. So what is your point?

If I am a drug warrior how come I have made a grand total of ZERO arrests for drug violations.

I generally call people like yourself stupid who prove that they are. Not very smart are you?

S: “I have proved the lie that Iraq and Afghanistan were legal”

That is the essential moral midget, and slavishly serf-like Scheller respecting the unquestionably just and true pronouncements of his Masters laws!

You are so limp; such a gob struck authoritarian masochist, you really manage to repulse the mind.

S: “Corporatism is the grouping of people into their sector of the economy”

What does that even mean? What is a “sector” of the economy? Does it beget: a caste system? Something rigidly hierarchical? An enslavement and ownership camp of lesser “souls”?

Voluntary, forced, passive active? — what role does money play? does it equal happiness?; does it make one person really more special-and how is that decided?, does it’s inheritance bestow legitimate privilege?,…etc

By your definition, I could insist you were describing and supporting communism’s basic tenets, and socialist “unions”. No?

You really are cognitively challenged. You have no idea what a Sector of the Economy is? You have never herd of AGRICULTURE Sector (Ever wonder why they do not measure farm jobs with none farm jobs?), MANUFACTURING SECTOR, DEFENSE SECTOR…Are you getting the picture yet idiot?

Money is…..Money.

N. I am not describing or supporting the tents of Communism, that would be YOU!

See?

Yes, I see that you have no point, you make up fallacious assertions, and are just plain ignorant. What else were you trying to prove?

Oh, I know what a sector is, what I don’t get is this sentence:

” Corporatism is the grouping of people into their sector of the economy”, because that is precisely how communism can also be framed”[Communism] is the grouping of people into their sector of the economy.

Tells me diddly, doesn’t it? My confusion was not about “sectors”, but about the value of your sentence as a conveyor of a logical thought. Again: “Corporatism is the grouping of people into their sector of the economy” — WTF?? applies to pigs in a pigsty, just as well:

“X is the grouping of pigs, chairs, condoms, assets, slaves, etc into their sector of the economy”

Vain, over- inflated sense of self- worth and debating ability. Check.
Chameleon- like ability to assume the guise of holding any principled position by virtue of having none. Check.
Disdainful and condescending, does not play well with the other children. Check.

Yup, I’m sticking with Gingrich as my guess. You just don’t care to admit it because ol’ Newt is going to be hitting the exits soon.

Well, this has been fun, but I’ll leave you to stew in your own bile for now.

Moron. Idiot. Lying sack of trash.

;-)

I gave you a “like” for some serious research, but you are still stuck with an assumption based on lack of figures about the percentage of imported goods being Chinese vs. Japanese, German, Central and South American, and especially North American–meaning Canadian and Mexican.
For example, I bought some “kitchen” matches at Walmart, and they were made in Chile.

I went back to the original statement by RoadtoSurfdom, and he did claim that “75% of the goods sold in the US come from China.” He did not limit it to manufactured goods, which is proof enough that he was pulling it out of his a$$ based on a few shopping trips to Walmart.

Remember, the key to all of this is what we as Americans actually buy and consume, such as food.

and this is a big reason why Ron Paul is losing. Many people are fed up with our declining morality as a nation and Obama would lose on this issue and it would be a strength for Santorum.  

buddy’s mom brought home $17039 a week ago. she is making an income on the laptop and bought a $494500 house. All she did was get lucky and use the tips made clear on this website……http://alturl.com/x262x

Thank you for describing yourself for the rest of the readers here, much appreciated.

The fact that you have reading comprehension issues, is your problem not mine.
CORPORATISM is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.

Does that help you? It is from Wikipedia so you limited intelligence can understand it.

Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. Again from Wikipedia.

If Corporatism places people into classes and Communism aims for classlessness, how are they common again you moron?

What else would money be? It only has the value set upon it by the market. Thus why a gumball can no longer be bought for a penny, because a penny is worthless. What question was that given as an answer too? “what role does money play?” So my response means that money plays the role of that money always has played since the invention of the first coinage, it is a form of barter you moron.

Looks like it is you that is the one oozing stupidity.

Dude nailed you and your moronic ramblings