Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

[Paulie]

It's called spamming and it's generally the practice of the emotionally unsettled.

Yeah, it's got nothing to do with the fact that the other candidates' supporters didn't care enough to bother. Along comes a candidate who that many people are passionate about, and all the sudden they're emotionally unsettled.

Once every 10 or more years there's actually a candidate that creates passion, but of course there's always the ones like you to shoot it down because your favorite candidate doesn't get any enthusiasm until he's the last one being shoved down your throat.

Not sure if you ever attended one of his events during the primaries, but everywhere he went he generated substantially bigger crowds than the other candidates.

Why is that? Why is it that Giuliani's supporters, or McCain's supporters, didn't care enough to leave their couch to come see their man speak? You guys only care JUST ENOUGH to cast a vote, and that's about it. You have no passion. Most of you don't even LIKE McCain, you just don't like Obama.

That's pathetic.

 

[Invayne]

I don't like McCain. I don't like anyone who agrees with Ted Kennedy.

At least that fat livered toad will be dead soon.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Yeah, it's got nothing to do with the fact that the other candidates' supporters didn't care enough to bother...

Yeah, well, anti-war protests gather more demonstrators than counter-demonstrators.

All that proves is that retarded hippies run around in their mindless collectives clinging to each other like fags in velcro suits.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, well, anti-war protests gather more demonstrators than counter-demonstrators.

All that proves is that retarded hippies run around in their mindless collectives clinging to each other like fags in velcro suits.

Well I'm against the Iraq war and I'm a Ron Paul supporter, though I would not in any way consider myself a hippie. I believe you're generalizing.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Well I'm against the Iraq war and I'm a Ron Paul supporter, though I would not in any way consider myself a hippie. I believe you're generalizing.

The fact that you could imply being anti-war automatically made you a hippy as opposed from the very obvious point I was arguing against the ad populum statement to which I was referring proves that you have all the mental acuity it takes to be a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[Paulie]

The fact that you could imply being anti-war automatically made you a hippy as opposed from the very obvious point I was arguing against the ad populum statement to which I was referring proves that you have all the mental acuity it takes to be a Ron Paul supporter.

So what pray tell, did anti-war protesters have to do with Ron Paul supporters? You want to go ahead and make that parallel for us, Hole? Because I don't remember us talking about anti-war protestors in this thread.

Where were the McCain supporters in January? Where were all the Romney supporters? They were sitting on their fucking couches watching the media do the work they didn't want to be bothered with.

Ron Paul supporters got up off their asses to support their candidate. Maybe someday you'll be lucky enough to have a candidate like that come along that you can actually be passionate about, beyond flipping back and forth between American Idol and whatever the next dick sucking fest is happening on MSM.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

It's an analogy.

Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
Date: 15th century
1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b: comparison based on such resemblance
3: correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4: correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology

Just because Paulestinians spam on-line polls no more proves the validity of their (bowel) movement than hippies congregating in anti-war rallies gives validity to their retardation.

Where were the McCain supporters in January? Where were all the Romney supporters? They were sitting on their fucking couches watching the media do the work they didn't want to be bothered with.

From the looks of it the McCain supporters were voting in REAL polls because...well...McCain won the nomination and not Dr. They're-Bugging-Our-Money.

On the contrary the gulf between passion and production seems quite tremendous. Dare I say, Obama-esque.

Ron Paul supporters got up off their asses to support their candidate. Maybe someday you'll be lucky enough to have a candidate like that come along that you can actually be passionate about, beyond flipping back and forth between American Idol and whatever the next dick sucking fest is happening on MSM.

I read that comment a lot at the various Ron Paul forums.

You people really are a Borg collective.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The fact that you could imply being anti-war automatically made you a hippy as opposed from the very obvious point I was arguing against the ad populum statement to which I was referring proves that you have all the mental acuity it takes to be a Ron Paul supporter.

I would disagree that your point was obvious. I would also say that you have to rely on insulting Ron Paul and his supporters simply because you can't come up with any logical reason to dislike us.

"Oh you guys are a borg collective!"

Ok?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

When dealing with conspiratorialists "logic" is seldom the issue.

Nevermind the fact he thinks bird flu is a precursor to martial law or that money is micro-chipped to spy on us.

Nevermind the fact he requested $400 mill in earmarks for his district for everything from mentoring programs for med students to busses to replace the ones lost in a hurricane.

We could talk all day long about how his views of executive power are not only suicidal but are decidedly NOT in accord with what the founders intended.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We could talk all day long about how his views of executive power are not only suicidal but are decidedly NOT in accord with what the founders intended.

Well please grace us with your wisdom with maybe a few examples?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

The absurd notion that the CinC is forbidden to engage the military against an enemy without a piece of paper that specifically is entitled with the literal words "Declaration of War" is constitutionally and historically unfounded.

It is no secret Dr Strange Love claims the Iraq and Afghan wars are illegal because he views the AUMF's as constitutionally insufficient.

1. Art 1, Sec 8 says congress has the power to "declare war" but declare is to make a statement and war is a state of armed hostilities. The words "declaration of war" appear no where in the Constitution, so any congressional statement affirming a state of hostilities or granting license to a president will suffice.

2. Presidents have long sent US forces into conflict without a Declaration of War...and long before Korea, if I may pre-empt the oft-cited Ronulan talking point. I offer the Whiskey Rebellion (against US citizens no less) and the Barbary Pirates (congress considered the cutting down of a flagpole on embassy grounds a sufficient declaration).

3. The founder's commentary tells us Mr Chamberlain's protege that is whacked because in Federalist 23 they state emphatically that the defense of the nation is imperiled by an infinte numer of dangers that it cannot be constitutionally shackled. Indeed, JFK would have been hamstrung by Paul's interpretations if he could not respond to the USSR's planting of missiles. If Ru Paul is to be believed he could sit idle or seek World War 3.

4. A state of war invokes the curtailment of certain liberties. In a state of outright war speaking with a citizen of the belligerent nation could very well constitute an act of treason and be punished as such. By NOT seeking outright declarations of war a president preserves civil liberties.

Enumerated for your rebuttal convenience. Please "grace us with your wisdom."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The absurd notion that the CinC is forbidden to engage the military against an enemy without a piece of paper that specifically is entitled with the literal words "Declaration of War" is constitutionally and historically unfounded.

It is no secret Dr Strange Love claims the Iraq and Afghan wars are illegal because he views the AUMF's as constitutionally insufficient.

1. Art 1, Sec 8 says congress has the power to "declare war" but declare is to make a statement and war is a state of armed hostilities. The words "declaration of war" appear no where in the Constitution, so any congressional statement affirming a state of hostilities or granting license to a president will suffice.

2. Presidents have long sent US forces into conflict without a Declaration of War...and long before Korea, if I may pre-empt the oft-cited Ronulan talking point. I offer the Whiskey Rebellion (against US citizens no less) and the Barbary Pirates (congress considered the cutting down of a flagpole on embassy grounds a sufficient declaration).

3. The founder's commentary tells us Mr Chamberlain's protege that is whacked because in Federalist 23 they state emphatically that the defense of the nation is imperiled by an infinte numer of dangers that it cannot be constitutionally shackled. Indeed, JFK would have been hamstrung by Paul's interpretations if he could not respond to the USSR's planting of missiles. If Ru Paul is to be believed he could sit idle or seek World War 3.

4. A state of war invokes the curtailment of certain liberties. In a state of outright war speaking with a citizen of the belligerent nation could very well constitute an act of treason and be punished as such. By NOT seeking outright declarations of war a president preserves civil liberties.

Enumerated for your rebuttal convenience. Please "grace us with your wisdom."

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies--all of which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." - Alexander Hamilton

As you may not know, Alexander Hamilton believed the federal government needed to have a lot of power; but even he knew that the Constitution does not give the President the right to declare war. Historically unfounded? FDR was aware that he could not act without a formal declaration of war from Congress after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. America did not fight in a war without a Declaration from Congress until, as you stated, the Korean War. The examples you gave were not wars, they were small skirmishes.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

WTF? Absurd, unfounded and unsupportable.

Give me a constitutional definitional between war and skirmish.

Your Hamilton quote relates to the raising of armies, not their deployment. You also neglected to address points 1, 3 and 4.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe the quote very clearly states that the President does not have the authority to declare war. I also fail to see how my post is unfounded and unsupportable, when I used facts. But here we go then...

1. You are correct, Article 1 Section 8 says that Congress has the authority to declare war. Those are the exact words. Your argument appears to be that "declaring war" and a "Declaration of War" do not mean the same thing. To declare war is to make a Declaration of War. It is necessary for Congress to declare war before the President can legally invade or attack a sovereign state.

3. In what ways would JFK have been "hamstrung?" He never attacked the Soviet Union in any way. The most offensive thing he did was the blockade of Cuba.

4. "By NOT seeking outright declarations of war a president preserves civil liberties." I'm afraid that this doesn't make sense to me.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

1. There are ways to deploy the US military against a national threat without a literally termed Declaration of War. For example, if the intel community detected a ship en route to the US with a bomb aboard the president could act without informing congress, period. Odds are he would to avoid misunderstanding but also likely is he would act prior to informing congress. If the ship were occupied by state actors it would be a de facto state of war. If it were occupied by non-state actors (read: terrorists) there is no conceivable way to declare war because there is no centralized authority to be recognized concerning the commencement and cessation of hostilities (our current dilemma). Nor would Dr Duh's idea of relegating to writs of marque and reprisal suffice because a lack of expediency would be a security risk.

3. I answered as briefly as I could but perhaps a longer explanantion is required.

If deployment of US forces requires a DoW than JFK could not have legally blockaded Cuba. The rapidly evolving situation prohibited prior informing and seeking approval of congress. But to allow the Soviets to move freely would have placed the US in a diplomatically and military disadvantage that could have metastisized into an existential threat. Yet, the odds of the blockade becoming a full-out war were real dangerous and would have far exceeded a mere "skirmish" (whatever that means).

4. As I said: in a full out war a US citizen speaking to a citizen of a hostile nation could constitute treason. Belonging to a particular political party could constitutionally be a crime. Publishing articles in favor of the enemy could be consider treason. By not seeking a full out DoW these strictures do not become issues; thus guarding against encroachments against civil liberties. Moreoever, in a full-on state of war it is the executive--not the legislature--that decides these issues. The communist party is outlawed in the US and US law allows for the detainment and deportation of citizens of a hostile nations but these were legislatively passed (and equally repealed), not executive dictat.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Paulsy has so much issue with are congress' consent that they shall hold the president harmless so long as he operates within defined parameters as opposed to the carte blanche of a DoW.

 

[pegwinn]

Well I am an RP supporter so I figger I can take a shot at addressing your points.

1. Agreed. I disagree with RP on this point. I have no problem with that because it is refreshing to have a candidate actually attempting to address Constitutional issues instead of simply pandering to the great unwashed.

2. Agreed. I also offer the Marines guarding the mail and the Army going after Pancho Villa. Let's not forget the opening of Japan as well as sending the Army into the Phillipines after finishing off Cuba. And of course we cannot forget westward expansion. Short version, we have often deployed the US Military without any Congressional "Declaration of War". Personally, I like a President who is hesitant to start beating the drums. It might make a hole in the bodybag factory but I can live with it. I also liked his idea of letters of Marque and Reprisal.

3. This is the one I disagree with you personally about. Citing the federalist papers is no Constitutional argument. If it doesn't literally say so in the Constitution, then that is the end of it. The fed or anti-feds was a series of debates. The formats of the day could be likened to the blogs or message boards of today. In essense, the arguments published were taken into account and either accepted, rejected, or morphed into something. The Constitution is the distillation of those and other arguements. If you get a speeding ticket, you cannot argue that Senator Binotz aregued against it before the law was enacted. It is the final cut, the literal word if you will, that matters. Not the arguments leading to it.

4. I understand where you are going there. JFK should have been charged with treason. Kerry visited and essentially endorsed the NV cause. He should not be a Senator today. But, it was not politically expedient to prosecute thanks to the public sentiment of the times.

The bottom line is that RP may have a few ideas that are out in left field but he isn't promising the sun, moon, and stars. Most folks swallow the horseshit spouted about the "administration" this or that without realizing that Presidents sign the legislation and make on the spot calls only.

The next bottom line is that of all the liars and cheats running for office, he's the only one actually proposing to make the government smaller. Besides, I want me one of them twenty dollar gold pieces.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

3. I have heard this argument before. If I may...

Yes, it was a debate, but the federalists were expounding as to why they wrote what they wrote, a document already produced. They were not seeking Gov George Clinton's (who through some bizarrely frakish teleporter accident would later split into George Bush and Bill Clinton...think about it, man!) advice on its final form.

I am unaware of anything in Fed 23 that contradicts our Constitution and as such will treat it as representative of their thoughts on the extent of executive power.

Furthermore, if we cannot rely on the FP than surely the body of all other founding commentary must equally be jeopardized. We cannot chance such things as the RKBA to the unanchored opinion of judicial fads. Rather, we have a duty to call upon the extra-constitutional writings of the founders that comport with the Constitution to act as bulwarks.

4. Sen Kerry was at least guilty of the Logan Act.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the citizens lose the rights established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights when Congress makes an official Declaration of war?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the citizens lose the rights established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights when Congress makes an official Declaration of war?

Do you think a newspaper would be allowed to print troop movements in time of war? Could the president be reasonably impeached for preventing it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why would the President be discussing troop movements with the press in the first place?