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

[ShroomDr]

Does anyone have info or a link to an article about Paul's national infrastructure?

Santorm,as of 36 hours ago, had basically none. Newt only started to develop one since his surge 4 weeks ago. Perry has one, but it seems that HE saw the writing on the walls, and his campaign is telling him to say.

Santorm will not win womans votes either.

 

[itisme]

Delete

 

[Cojito]

i certainly admire some of Ron Paul's views, and his willingness to be honest about them. and if by "cause" you mean the legalization of cannabis then Ron Paul is certainly an option. but i'd never vote for anyone who wants religion to play a larger role in our society (see the quotes i've cobbled together below). religion is poison. the bible immoral, soul-sucking nonsense. and our future as a democracy depends of rational free thinkers - not religion, dogma, etc.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs." — Ron Paul

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." — Ron Paul

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." — Ron Paul

this last quote of Ron's is particularly illustrative. he's a culture warrior. and the objection to faith and religion is not that it offends our "fragile sensibilities", its that belief in iron age supernatural gods telling us how to live is so incredibly ridiculous in 2012, and a danger to us all. it infects our schools (creationism), it has stopped scientific research that could save millions (stem cell), stopped condoms from getting to AIDS riddled Africa, started numerous wars, kept gays from getting equal treatment under the law ...

i could go on. this is not a recipe for success. and Ron Paul is not the man to lead us in the 21st century.

 

[itisme]

Cojito,

Who has a better plan?

The FED (Monetary System) is corrupt and needs fixing. 16 TRILLION STOLE. Ron Paul leads the way.

The DRUG War is insane and headed toward "executions" Ron Paul leads the way

The UNDECLARED WARS...are a drain on our economy and unsustainable, Our troops want to come home and support Ron Paul more than all the other Republican candidates combined, More than twice what Obama (Commander In Cheif) gets. RON PAUL WINS AGAIN.

The Patriot Act (LOL) completely takes away personal freedoms away. RON PAUL leads the way.

The NDAA is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

A dictator enjoys unrestrained power over the people. The legislative and judicial branches voluntarily cede this power or it’s taken by force. Most of the time, it’s given up easily, out of fear in time of war and civil disturbances, and with support from the people, although the dictator will also accumulate more power with the use of force.” Those prescient words of Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) are taken from his book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. RON PAUL WINS AGAIN

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...defense-authorization-act-qslip-into-tyrannyq

If you tear down and idea and a candidate, Offer us a fix or your candidate....That is how you debate! .......Your turn.

I know all the above scare me more in 2012 than a guy believing in GOD Those are real issues, not "trumped up" (hehe) ones

i could go on. this is not a recipe for success. and Ron Paul is the man to lead us in the 21st century

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... I have to say, "at least Ron has some actual credibility in the area and I think most blacks would side with him over SANTORM.."

You were talking about Rick Santorum, not Ron Paul. Don't you think it's a bit odd that Santorum singled out 12% of the population when the same demographic makes up roughly 1 in 4 whites and 1 in 3 Hispanics, then refers to them as "the blacks" instead of African Americans? African Americans are a fraction of the equation but they're all of Santorum's focus.

The quote had nothing to do with newsletters. It was direct quote from a former racist political operative who got brain cancer, a guilty conscience, feared he was going to Hell and confessed to race baiting.

I'm not saying Rick Santorum's a racist, even though most humans are. I'm saying it's an accepted strategy in American politics - and that sucks.

 

[itisme]

Yeah I noticed he thinks only "blacks" get welfare...My bad disco. My bad. I thought you were at it again

I am not saying he is a racist either, but that video is gonna cost him some "black" and/or minority votes as well as some liberal ones.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... The NDAA is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

This is one of the best demonstrations of separation of powers in contemporary politics. Obama has already signed NDAA. But NDAA didn't create the power for one man to indefinitely detain enemy combatants. NDAA took the same power away from the secretary of Defense and gave it to the CIC. In turn, CIC says the power to indefinitely detain American citizens won't be utilized so long as he's in office.

SOD received the power from Congress to indefinitely detain enemy combatants during the Bush administration. SCOTUS ruled in 2004 that American citizens may be indefinitely detained. All that was left was finalizing what happens should the next enemy combatant be an American citizen.

Do you want to close GITMO and return to civilian trials for suspected terrorists?

 

[itisme]

Does anyone have info or a link to an article about Paul's national infrastructure?

Ron Paul Budget
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf
Does that help? DrShroom I don't see infrastructure alone anywhere, yet

"Do you want to close GITMO and return to civilian trials for suspected terrorists?" Damn you just need suspicions....Careful DISCOBICUIT

Define terrorists. Who can be one and who can't? I'd say it's subjective at best! So yeah, if we have to protect Americans then we probably need to find a better way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=pyv
IMAGINE! Now who is the TERRORIST! You see where Ron Paul is coming from.......

 

[GP73LPC]

Do you want to close GITMO and return to civilian trials for suspected terrorists?

yes

and especially if the accused terrorist is an American...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... Define terrorists.

Terrorist is largely rhetorical today. We call terrorists enemy combatants now. The difference is that terrorist no longer applies in the legal process. Pre 9/11 terrorists received basically the same rights American citizens do when it comes to criminal charge, arrest, trial by jury and sentence.

Today, enemy combatants face military tribunals. This process doesn't grant the rights of civilian trials.

Who can be one and who can't? I'd say it's subjective at best! So yeah, if we have to protect Americans then we probably need to find a better way.

When it comes to the judicial process, civilian trials have successfully prosecuted both international and domestic terrorists. Civilian trails wouldn't pose the potential problem of denying Miranda rights.

That said, half the nation wants military tribunals for international terrorists because they've been led to believe we can't prosecute folks like KSM in places like NYC.

Bottom line, we have two options. Extend Miranda rights to suspected international terrorists or risk sending American citizen enemy combatants through military tribunals. We don't get this option here or that one there. It's one or the other. Obama lost the argument to prosecute KSM in New York. That was his opportunity to close GITMO and close the chapter on military tribunals for suspected non-sanctioned terrorists. That's why we have the finalization of the Patriot Act in NDAA. The fear-factor of the WOT has turned full circle to bite us in the ass.

 

[itisme]

Today, enemy combatants face military tribunals. This process doesn't grant the rights of civilian trials.

Exactly....and any American can be deemed an enemy combatant (Terrorist) and executed via the "Patriot Act" "NDAA" seems similar.

Ron Paul, "You never have to give up one ounce of your freedoms to be more secure, it won't work!"

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron Paul says alot more than that. Ron Paul is for closing Gitmo and like, offshore facilities. This means we'd have to return to extending Miranda rights to suspected international terrorists and prosecuting them in American civilian courts.

It's easy to blame the president when he's standing next to the domino that falls over. But we knew this domino would be knocked over 8 years ago when we changed the rules.

 

[GP73LPC]

the WOT is total bullshit, just like the WOD...

Both are un-winnable and just used by the govt for profit and power...

 

[Cojito]

Cojito,

If you tear down and idea and a candidate, Offer us a fix or your candidate....That is how you debate! .......Your turn.

um no, you put forth a candidate, the man you believe will solve our problems. i offered, what i like to think was a cogent rebuttal. i told you why Ron Paul is unacceptable to me (and i hope anyone who values reason and science). you can try and refute what i said, or not. i don't really care.

you see, i haven't made up my mind, you have. but should i ever open a thread where i endorse a presidential candidate, you are more than welcome to tear them (or my logic) down. until then the burden of proof is on you.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron Paul: Gitmo Should Be Closed

Friday, 22 May 2009 03:02 PM
By Rick Pedraza

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, tells Fox News that the Guantanamo Bay prison facility that houses terrorist detainees in Cuba should be closed because of the questionable way prisoners were captured.

"It should be closed because we don't need it,” Paul, a former presidential candidate, told The Glenn Beck Show’s substitute host Andrew Napolitano.

“It was unnecessary, the way these prisoners were captured was very questionable, Paul said. “They haven't had really due process. So, the real thugs that need to be tried, they ought to be tried."

On Thursday, the Senate voted to block the millions of dollars needed to close the prison, while the House voted down a similar measure last week, saying President Barack Obama hasn't presented a solid plan for what to do with the prisoners.

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.

“They've deleted the funding mainly because the Republicans have really won the argument,” Paul said. “If you don't support the continuation of these military tribunals and you don't support Guantanamo, maybe you support sending these people into your district and they'll be your neighbors,” he explained.

“The Democrats were convinced that [the Republicans] won the PR fight, and so therefore, [the Democrats] all became squeamish.

And even the president backed down. That's why there's no funding for closing Guantanamo, and I guess it will be open for an indefinite future.”

Paul said the key to closing the facility is first to show why the detainees are there, and then prove that they've done something wrong in some legitimate recognized court of law.

“I think that's the key to it. And so far, they don't have an answer, because they're not allowing them to be tried in a legitimate court of law.”

Paul said a good example of what to do with alleged terrorists was set with the individuals involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

“I mean, we even went into Pakistan, arrested them, brought them over here, tried them in our court system, and they're not our neighbors,” Paul pointed out. “They are in a federal prison and nobody feels threatened by them. So, I'm not so sure why they are so determined not to pursue the law.”

Paul argued that the debate on what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been politicized enough. He conceded that politicians are going to win the argument and the rule of law will not prevail.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ron-paul-guantanamo/2009/05/22/id/330393

Where Dr Paul says the president backed down is actually separation-of-powers in action. Congress approved military commissions and SCOTUS ruled in favor of indefinite detention for American citizen enemy combatants - during the Bush administration.

Obama campaigned to close GITMO and the giant stain that goes with it. Yet the president can't unilaterally overrule congressional act. Congress said no.

 

[itisme]

um no, you put forth a candidate, the man you believe will solve our problems. i offered, what i like to think was a cogent rebuttal. i told you why Ron Paul is unacceptable to me (and i hope anyone who values reason and science). you can try and refute what i said, or not. i don't really care. you see, i haven't made up my mind, you have. but should i ever open a thread where i endorse a presidential candidate, you are more than welcome to tear them (or my logic) down. until then the burden of proof is on you.

First off the title clearly states, "Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
It's right there in the title. Your thoughts on who we should pick I didn't put forth a candidate the guy that started the thread did and he asked you to post "Yours" and "Why" That is what I did. Your turn.
So I ask politely who you got? It seems odd to be really polite that the two people in here that rip Ron Paul in every capacity don't have a candidate or a fix. Why is that? I know what I think.....It sure is convenient that you can take shots and refuse to post your own target.
Secondly... Burden of Proof? This is an open discussion on issues. Not a trial. (lol) I am merely participating in the thread and talking about the issues....If you would like to talk issues then many of us are ready for that.....If not then I will continue fighting the DOGMA
One of the most striking aspects online forum posters without a candidate have developed is a distinct rhetoric of repression in the blame games and in depiction of concerted political and religious violence as self-interested criminal activity to delegitimized Ron Paul, organizers, supporters, their motives, and their claims. You Point to traditions of rural banditry. Your covertly overt repressive rhetoric hinders our nation security in this way, the rhetoric of repression draws on an establishment of central social control.

REAL ISSUES LISTED BELOW:

Cojito,

Who has a better plan?

The FED (Monetary System) is corrupt and needs fixing. 16 TRILLION STOLE. Ron Paul leads the way.

The DRUG War is insane and headed toward "executions" Ron Paul leads the way

The UNDECLARED WARS...are a drain on our economy and unsustainable, Our troops want to come home and support Ron Paul more than all the other Republican candidates combined, More than twice what Obama (Commander In Cheif) gets. RON PAUL WINS AGAIN.

The Patriot Act (LOL) completely takes away personal freedoms away. RON PAUL leads the way.

The NDAA is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

RON PAUL LEADS THE WAY!

DISCOBISCUIT: If they are getting military tribunals then they are being imprisoned 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 GITMO. Where am I wrong? OBAMA LIED ON NUMEROUS LEVELS....See Attorney General and attacks on dispensaries, growers, etc...

 

[draztik]

Cojito just wanted to let us know he wants America to become a technocracy where the state is god and a group of technocrats and scientist decide your rights and freedoms on every level. He wants to a see a future where according to the states latest study your freedom is a threat to the state. How Ironic.

 

[itisme]

Cojito just wanted to let us know he wants America to become a technocracy where the state is god and a group of technocrats and scientist decide your rights and freedoms on every level. He wants to a see a future where according to the states latest study your freedom is a threat to the state. How Ironic.

Damn

Technocracy advocates contend that price system based forms of government and economy are structurally incapable of effective action, and promoted a more rational and productive type of society headed by technical experts.[3]
The coming of the Great Depression created an opening for some of these radical ideas of social engineering.[4][5] By late 1932, various groups across the United States were calling themselves "technocrats" and proposing reforms.[6]
By the mid-1930s, interest in the technocracy movement was declining. Most historians have attributed the demise of the technocracy movement to the rise of Roosevelt's New Deal,[5] a more democratic method of accomplishing the planning and economic reconstruction that the technocrats had called for. The authoritarian, elitist, and even fascist overtones of the technocracy movement undermined its popular appeal as a political movement.[7][8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[resinryder]

The problem with science is, it's always right until it's proven wrong. No system is perfect and will never be. In the long run, I'd rather live the way I want, believe what I want, do what I want. instead of being told what I am to do.
Presidents pick up votes from the religious groups so they have to throw that aspect in. The problem with the religious right is that they believe whatever their chosen candidate tells them. Vote for me, I believe in God, I"ll take away your mortgage interest tax deduction and your health care because God told me these programs need to go away so my contributors can make mega dollars off the backs of the "middle class".
The other side says vote for me. I'll take more tax dollars from the rich so that I can support you and your babies in the fashion we've made you accustomed to. We'll get the FED to print more dollars to put into programs that won't put anyone to work, and I'll cave into the wants and needs of the Environmentalist and permanently destroy any chances of jobs that would be created through big oil, gas, or any other company that doesn't want to pay carbon taxes to operate. By the way, I believe in God too. Vote for me.
Personally, the whole staged dog and pony show that we call Presidential elections really make me want to puke. Speaking of puke, I'd really like to puke in Santorum's face. What a dick!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

First off the title clearly states, "Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
It's right there in the title. Your thoughts on who we should pick I didn't put forth a candidate the guy that started the thread did and he asked you to post "Yours" and "Why" That is what I did. Your turn.

Ron Paul expresses ends yet he doesn't express means. You can't really count on a coach yelling "score" when he doesn't draw anything past Xs and 0s on the white board.

So I ask politely who you got? It seems odd to be really polite that the two people in here that rip Ron Paul in every capacity don't have a candidate or a fix. Why is that? I know what I think.....It sure is convenient that you can take shots and refuse to post your own target.

You can rebuke what others argue. Nobody's gonna pretend your A team and their B team are apples to apples or that your wishes are universal.

Secondly... Burden of Proof? This is an open discussion on issues. Not a trial. (lol) I am merely participating in the thread and talking about the issues....If you would like to talk issues then many of us are ready for that.....If not then I will continue fighting the DOGMA

Try commanding mutual exchange instead of demanding parameters.

One of the most striking aspects online forum posters without a candidate have developed is a distinct rhetoric of repression in the blame games and in depiction of concerted political and religious violence as self-interested criminal activity to delegitimized Ron Paul, organizers, supporters, their motives, and their claims. You Point to traditions of rural banditry. Your covertly overt repressive rhetoric hinders our nation security in this way, the rhetoric of repression draws on an establishment of central social control.

cut the crap

REAL ISSUES LISTED BELOW:

RON PAUL LEADS THE WAY!

DISCOBISCUIT: 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?

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