Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[itisme]

You need a "means" to and "end" Ron just gets you there faster by defending personal freedoms that the Constitution provides and all the other stuff I listed systematically takes it away.

you don't know the precursors.

[I]precursors a : one that precedes and indicates the approach of another.[/I] Below is a short example of a precursor that I see.
You see the reason we have the USA is because we broke from the oppression of the Catholic Church and a class system. Kinda like the structure they are trying to create in America today. The CONSTITUTION is to prevent those shackles from being placed upon us again.

Some people try to twist it up with semantics. see above

RELIGION can be used for bad.- Google - SANTORUM
He equates gay sex to bestiality, against birth control, condoms, he may be a racist

santorum (san-TOR-um) n.
1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You don't even know the issues. You know campaign slogans. You judge current events yet you don't know the precursors.

 

[ShroomDr]

Santorm couldnt win reelection in PA, he will never win a national election.

Santorm's rise only hastens Romneys inevitable victory, which is good for Paul.

Paul can only win if he runs against Romney.

 

[resinryder]

"santorum (san-TOR-um) n.
1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex"

You know that has got to burn him up. Damn it I got Santorum on my leg!!

 

[SpasticGramps]

Santorum doesn't have a chance outside of Iowa. Newt doesn't have a chance in the long run IMO. Perry is the outside shot if he takes SC.

I don't think Romney can win the base or show strong in the south. Everyone sees him as the status quo puppet he is (Red Team's Obama).

I like Paul's chances more and more. He has the best ground game outside of Romney. Independents like him.

The mantra from the status quo media and so forth is that he is unelectable and not a serious candidate. I think the establishment underestimates the paradigm shift taking place in the electorate and how sick and tired of the Red Team vs Blue Team dog and pony show the people are.

Aside from the MJ issue Paul is the only one throwing around numbers for the deficit that have any kind of mathematical significance for keeping us solvent in the long run. The other candidates merely perpetuate the irrelevant dog and pony show.

As far as his "wacky" policy towards Iran. People forget Israel's Mossad is split on this issue. The frothing at the mouth war mongers of course want to blow everything up, but a large faction of the Mossad and Israeli army embrace Paul's rational stance. Of course these days "rational" is "wacky."

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Is it true that Dr. Paul considers that campaign finance "reform" is unconstitutional? In other words, corporations have the right to spend unlimited money lobbying for special interests and contributing to political campaigns?

 

[resinryder]

Is it true that Dr. Paul considers that campaign finance "reform" is unconstitutional? In other words, corporations have the right to spend unlimited money lobbying for special interests and contributing to political campaigns?

Like they haven't found a way around that with super PAC's and the like? No matter what laws they pass or repeal, big money will find a way/puppet/pansy to do their bidding. Congress might as well put a for sale sign around their neck the first day in office.

 

[ShroomDr]

I too would like to know Pauls stance on special interest groups.

Jon Stewart just hit it right on the head. "Rick Santorm is the guy Mitt Romney is pretending to be"

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Montana's Supreme Court is readying their challenge to Citizen's United in favor of Montana law in place since 1902. Montana passed law stating that no corporations are legally entitled to contribute to political campaigns. According to the state, the law was passed when the state was barely capable of rendering judgement on rich copper miners.

SCOTUS' ruling that overrules Montana's state law has reaching powers because Citizen's United includes an opinion that says money does not corrupt the process. Newt Gingrich is riding that rusty razor right now and it's cutting to the bone. He still defends the right to take unlimited money yet "his" ethics should apply.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Like they haven't found a way around that with super PAC's and the like? No matter what laws they pass or repeal, big money will find a way/puppet/pansy to do their bidding. Congress might as well put a for sale sign around their neck the first day in office.

I'm afraid you're right. Montana ignored Citizens United in favor of their own law that eliminated private money in state politics in 1902. The review is only being readied for SCOTUS because corporations began to legally challenge Montana's continued application.

I read an article about the argument the state is preparing for SCOTUS. In 1902, Montana law had been stripped to the point they were barely capable of regulating "robber barons". Montana will argue that SCOTUS has no legal authority to deregulate their corporate laws.

Citizen's United struck down similar laws in 27 states. I'm cool with states rights but the top 0.1% can buy states outright w/o laws to keep em in check.

 

[draztik]

You have to consider his view on corporations.
Ron Paul on Corporations.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-17/ron-paul-corporations-are-not-people

 

[dagnabit]

Terrorist is largely rhetorical today. We call terrorists enemy combatants now. The difference is that terrorist no longer applies in the legal process.

ummm
we have a legal definition...

DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331
Prev | Next
§ 2331. Definitions
How Current is This?
As used in this chapter—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(2) the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3) the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

yay obusha

 

[itisme]

I too would like to know Pauls stance on special interest groups.

Jon Stewart just hit it right on the head. "Rick Santorm is the guy Mitt Romney is pretending to be"

I know he isn't for Unions.

Ron Paul Q & A Special Interests are in control of the Presidency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFUGdLbwy7s 1:23 seconds

Great stuff DAGNABIT or should I say SCARY FUCKING SHIT. It sure looks like that applies to anything and anybody they chose!
as I listen to the news and they can put GPS on our cars without a warrant .............. Holyshit!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Why "Campaign Finance Reform" is Unconstitutional

Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives
February 13, 2002


So-Called "Campaign Finance Reform" is Unconstitutional

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent revelations regarding Enron's political influence have once again brought campaign finance to the forefront of the congressional agenda. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform are among those who receive the largest donations from special interests seeking state favors. In fact, some legislators who where involved in the government-created savings and loan scandal of the late eighties and early nineties today pose as born again advocates of "good government" via campaign finance reform!
Mr. Speaker, this so-called "reform" legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use their power to silence their critics.

The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America's leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis: "At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-finance reform laws."

The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.

This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy with another infringement on the people's constitutional liberties. The real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our economy and lives.

It is the power of the welfare-regulatory state which creates a tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by "investing" in politicians. Since the problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, more laws won't help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.

Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government- legally or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know who's buying influence from whom.

There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank, or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires.

Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are "forced" to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense- since that's the way the system works.

Equalizing competition and balancing power- such as between labor and business- is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.

Many reformers recognize this, and either like the system or believe that it's futile to bring about changes. They argue that curtailing influence is the only option left, even if it involves compromising freedom of political speech by regulating political money.

It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If members of Congress resisted the temptation to support unconstitutional legislation to benefit special interests, this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.

The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process- which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer's argument is "Stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups."

Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for them to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.

This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed.

Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending- a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.

Mr. Speaker, the freedoms of the American people should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.

The case against this bill was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: ACampaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly.

Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America's original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people."

I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the excellent article by Mr. Titus into the record:


Full analysis here
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=60

Frank Luntz is already marketing a substitute term for "free market" because focus groups don't like excessive deregulation. They're hashing "corporate market" and several other examples.

Funny thing, "corporate market" or whatever - still means the same thing. Frank's just looking for a new way to sell the same thing that pads the top.

 

[itisme]

Discoquote

Returning to business as usual isn't lack of a solid plan. Opponents of closing GITMO are elevating the threat of incarcerated terrorists to win the argument. They're basically pretending to forget we handled this kind of procedure far more successfully than we've handled tribunals for the last 8 years.

If they are getting military tribunals then they are being watched by the military. Right?
If elected Ron Paul would be "Commander in Chief" as President. Commander in Chief controls the military.
Congress never declared war.
"President" "Dr." "Commander in Chief" Ron Paul orders his troops home, therefore closing GIMO Where am I wrong?

DISCOBISCUIT:

Interesting you reference dogma. Dogma is pretending to have a clue.

Skip skip skip to my lou, I spout bullshit, while I avoid answering YOU!

RON PAUL: How I would bring the troops home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsuoz...eature=related

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

ummm
we have a legal definition...





yay obusha

I should have been more clear. Over 300 "terrorists" have been successfully prosecuted in civilian courts since 9/11. JD classifies terrorists as supporting role-type activity such as money laundering or immigration violations. These folks get Miranda rights and there's no "constitutional" ramifications.

Where the problem lies is with those classified as enemy combatants. These folks don't get Miranda rights. We've prosecuted 3 and SCOTUS released as many as 700 a few years ago.

Check to see if your terrorist definition is superseded by enemy combatant whatever. All the folks who accused JD of fluffing prosecution figures argued that "300" represented non-enemy combatants or "terrorists" as opposed to the "worst of the worst" i.e. enemy combatants at GITMO.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Discoquote

If they are getting military tribunals then they are being watched by the military. Right?

Do you have vision impairment?

If elected Ron Paul would be "Commander in Chief" as President. Commander in Chief controls the military.
Congress never declared war.
"President" "Dr." "Commander in Chief" Ron Paul orders his troops home, therefore closing GIMO Where am I wrong?

What would you do with the prisoners? You're not only stump happy you're arguing something else.

 

[itisme]

What would you do with the prisoners? You're not only stump happy you're arguing something else.

I'd make sure no American ever went with out a trial!
Less power for status quo equates to more power to me!

Everything you have touted was entitlements and can be taken away though the Patriot Act, NDAA, Drug laws, and so on!
Like I said, the Constitution is what protects US(A) and all the other things listed and so much more are merely a systematic attempt to take those Constitutional Freedoms Away.

Look I voted Obama. Your attempt to label me Paulbot and dismiss me is merely to ignore the open minded.
Campaign money is dirtier than drug money except when it comes to our US TROOPS. I am for a kinder Gov't. That cost money though. If we end the Wars then we can save SS, MEDICARE/CAID, and extend others as we try to help the poor.

Ron Paul would end income tax, capital gains tax, lower corp. tax rate from 35% to 15% which is equal to the lowest out there, end the drug war, bring home the troops who pay money they die for to Dr. Paul. The troops dying for our freedoms gave Dr. Paul more $$$ than all the other R candidates combined & over twice what they gave Obama...You the one talking about DIRTY CAMPAIGN $$$, The troops $$$ is clean! Dr. Paul is far and away the most consistent and that makes him seem the most trustworthy to me. His votes back him up. His portfolio backs him up. His ability to stay on the issues backs him up. From what I can see he would do much more good that I can see than any other candidate.

So I don't ask you for an arguments sake, but for a candidate, reason, and why because if there is a better solution I want to hear it.....Who you got? Why?

The best example I ever heard of how the Gov't circumvents the Constitution & Bill of Rights:
They can't take our guns away. We to smart for that one
So they gov't mandate insurance. To protect you from yourself, like the drug war! Oopps. We fell for it.
Gov't Insurance Mandate: Every citizen must have a $1,000,000.00 insurance policy to buy bullets.
Well damn.....WTF....How much that be?
$500 every 2 weeks and take if or .............VOTE RON PAUL 2012

 

[monkey5]

~~ "What would you do with the prisoners?" ~~ Let them swim home! monkey5

 

[ShroomDr]

"enemy combatant" is a made up word used to circumnavigate the Geneva convention rules on treatment of "soldiers".

The 'justification' for not trying these "criminals" in court is the manner in which the evidence was collected, and its disclosure may close doorways still open and unknown into the terrorist network.

Al Qaeda was removed from Afghanistan ~Nov 2001. These current 'taliban' are actually 'Pashtun Nationalist' who fight for whichever warlord is paying most; we will never conquer their hearts and minds.

Add to this that war is won by conquering infrastructure, Afghanistan has ZERO. The worst neighborhood in Detroit would be paradise anywhere other than Kandahar or Kabul.

Afghanistan is not a country as much as it a sinkhole that no one else conquered. Afghanistan did not set its boarders, they were imposed on them by its neighbors.

Even the Soviets realized Afghanistan is only a money pit for defense contractors.