Redstate

...because we apparently have completely differing interpretations of the concept.

To me, a patriot does not support fighting an unconstitutional undeclared war in a foreign land. A patriot doesn't say things such as "Stop throwing the g-dd-mned Constitution in my face!" In fact, a patriot takes the time to read and _understand_ the Constitution instead of usurping the power of all three branches of the Federal government into one office.

democratic process, and that once the nation, thru its elected reps, incl of course, the President, make the decision to go to war, one should respect the decision, recognize how important it is that one's country win the war for the pesent goal, as well as for the purpose of deterrance in the future.

The congress passed a war resolution that is, in effect, a declaration of war. But even if you disagree with that, they certainly have funded the war. Nothing in the constitution prohibits the CINC from waging war abesent a magic words declaration.

see more re patriotism below

http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/9fc7ced6-20d6-4874-a8e8-f04b46ff99b9

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/jul/04/the_maturing_of_patri...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Granted, I have slept since then, but the last time I checked, the last time Congress (which, Constitutionally, is the ONLY body which has the right to declare war) declared war was after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The next time the United States of America is attacked by a foreign nation, I will pick up my arms (assuming they have not been confiscated by the government) and lead the charge in organizing a local militia to defend my home and my country. Until then, live and let live.

However, I must commend you for the courage of your convictions. Until today, I had _never_ met anyone who willingly wore the label Neocon.
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

Ask yourself, what "is" a declaration. It "is" actually an authorization, in this case for the president to use force to eliminate WMD and enforce UN resolutions.

You see, if it wasn't for the US's willingness to spill our blood for world stability and peace, the UN would not be able to enforce its rulings on anyone. Since the UN has the final say on things like military action, Declaring war is a quaint anachronism. Congress can only "authorize" the action, prior to a UN decision.

In this case, since UN wouldn't act, we went ahead and now we are certain there is no WMD in Iraq.

WTF does the UN have to do with the policy decisions of a sovereign United States of America???
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

And the US never fights an illegal war. Sovereignty of the US is a quaint anachronism when it comes to foriegn intervention. Sure we still control seat belts, and speed limits, and drinking age, but the UN is where all international treaties are decided. We live in a global age, and people like Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani know that Foreign policy and trade agreements are too complex for congress to have to ratify, that requires well trained Civil servants, and bureaucrats. And if someone challenges the UN, like Iraq did, we need to deal with them militarily. You won't see Sweden or Switzerland running all over the world fighting for the UN, so we have to.

Imagine if Congress had to be included every time we wanted to regulate Mexican trucks, or Fishing rights, or weapons sales. Congress would have all these special interests of their constituents to consider, how could we ever get a decent treaty written.

I'll give you a score of 2 out of 10 on the Moby. It could have been a lot more convincing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

David

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Even if it could be established that we surrendered our national sovereignty to the whims of the UN, the statements of Kofi Annan on the matter do *not* constitute the judgment of the United Nations, any more than the statements of Bill Clinton constitute the law of the United States. Do try and keep up.

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

Ron Paul supporters often wonder why I claim that the majority of Ron Paul's support comes from anti-war liberals who are frustrated that the Democrats are not anti-war enough, rather than constitutionalist Republicans. The "wars are illegal if the UN says they are" crowd is pretty conclusive proof, to me.

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

That are worried about Shrillary's negatives. Their hope is to split the libertarian vote from the conservative vote. Thus giving the wicked witch of westchester a better shot.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I though that Paul wanted us to leave the UN.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Why'd he get 97% of the GOA vote?

Hmmm. Could it be that the voting members hadn't a clue as to where he stood on other things?

I'm a GOA voter. The more I know on Ron Paul, the less I like.

To "declare war" is to literally say to another country, "we are at war with you and as of this point we will be using force to defeat you.

What our Congress did was tell the President has their permission to take our case to the UN about using force.

The latter is Unconstitional, and unlike you and our President, I accept the Constitution as more than a "g**-******-piece of paper".

And while were on the topic of the election and this president, I'm curious why we can't handle another Clinton in the White house? Spending grew more slowly, and the Republicans were some how reminded that they were elected to hold Government power in check. After G-dub was placed next to them, instantly we have a legislative branch that didn't know how to say the word "No". I'm actually missing those days. I've been a true conservative for the last 15 years, and I cannot with a good conscience vote for any of the candidates that will end up being nominated by the Republican Party.

God help us.

A "conservative" would take it upon themselves to get their facts straight before pontificating.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

english or you are a liar

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Since he is regurgitating that line about the "g*dd*mned piece of paper."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

that really doesn't work so well in modern times. Back in republican America, pre-1865, that declaration got the buy-in of the States, which allowed the federal government to call on the States for their troops in order to make war.

The whole standing US Army in 1861 was only about 15K men. The real military power of the US was wielded by the State governors who controlled the militias. The US came as a supplicant to the States for those troops and the Declaration of War was the means by which it was done. You might recall a period of unpleasantness resulting from a President calling on the States for 75K troops for the purpose of suppressing a rebellion without his having a declaration of war.

I'm being a bit obstreperous for the sake of argument on this point, but the Constitutional scheme doesn't really work all that well with a large federally controlled standing army and the kind of instantaneous threats that the President faces. Unfortunately, for many nothing but the archaic Constitutional scheme will do, and I'm afraid that I wouldn't trust today's res publica to come up with a new Constitutional scheme.

In Vino Veritas

the last time Congress... declared war was after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, and back then what we now call the Defense Department was called the War Department. Next we'll hear that not even Congress can declare war unless then rename it the War Department. I haven't seen such silly reliance on specific words since any use of the term "new world order" marked one as a member of the Triceratops Commission.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

Because Ron Paul was the only one in the room and he voted 30 times? What I want to know is, on the thirtieth occasion, did he spell his own name wrong or vote for someone more electable?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

...*****that once the nation, thru its elected reps, incl of course, the President, make the decision to go to war,*****

Technically, the decision to go to war has nothing to do with the President. It is entirely the decision of Congress. Our founding fathers felt very strongly and very specifically that the decision to launch any attack should absolutely never be left to the sole discretion of a single individual.

Really, it seems that the same people who are insisting that the world is far too complicated these days are the very same folks who are making it complicated.

It's not complicated.

"Technically, the decision to go to war has nothing to do with the President. It is entirely the decision of Congress. Our founding fathers felt very strongly and very specifically that the decision to launch any attack should absolutely never be left to the sole discretion of a single individual."

The Constitution isn't that complicated either, but one should actually read the whole thing. For instance Article I, Section 7:

“Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.”

Apparantly, the decision to go to war can have a hell of a lot to do with the President. Darn those wacky founding fathers.

Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.

"It's not complicated."

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

Congress could pass all the declarations they want, but unless the Commander in Cheif orders the military to act, its just words on paper.

The President can order the military to attack any time under Article II. Even under the War Powers Act, the President is authorized to act.

No act of Congress is required for the President to launch an attack.

If Congress disagrees with an attack or war, then they can impeach the president or cut off funds.

The constitution does not require congress to declare war before a president wages war, nor does it require special language to so declare, nor does it prohibit authorizations to wage war less than a declaration.

The fact is that Congressional actions regarding war are words on paper only, unless they cut off funds.

I do not think the world is complicated.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I personally think that a president should get a formal declaration of war just because that seems to be the spirit of the Constitution. Also, because as LBJ and now Bush have learned, it's easier to make a war the President's war instead of the People's war. The War Powers Act may permit military action by the president but it certainly doesn't need to indicate that he should take that action.

Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson, speaking on Global Warming

read as a declaration. Dems would have voted for a resolution that said "we declare war". So

That would not make it harder to "make it the presidents war".

why

Because no words on paper actually wages war. Only presidents can order the miltary to act.

Congress could pass 5 war declarations today. It would effect legal relations between us and 5 countries. It would not REQUIRE that Bush shoot one bullet.

And a study of the the Articles of Confederation's divinding of the responsibility to WAGE war and the Contitutions placing of that power in ONE man, ON PURPOSE and REJECtING constitutional language that would have PROHIBITED a president from acting even in self defense while being attacked, shows that the "declaration" clause is an antiquated action that relates to how nations dealt with things in the 19th century as per legal relations.

Moreover, the acquiesence of congress by not impeaching and not cutting off funds belies any claim that a war is "illegal".

more later

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

And dKos and DU don't count.

A patriot doesn't say things such as "Stop throwing the g-dd-mned Constitution in my face!"

You ever stop to consider how much your rhetoric mirrors the crazy left's? I would think that would concern you, but hey, maybe you are part of it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I misquoted our esteemed commander-in-chief.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

"GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a g-dd-mn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g-dd-mned piece of paper!”"

My apologies to anyone I might have offended by misquoting Herr Bush.
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Took you a whole hour to come up with this insightful insight into the world. I am amazed that you're up this early on a Sunday morning and thinking.

Congratulations, now go away.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

...I decided to go partake in the official religion of American (the NFL) on the TV for a while.
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

it's Mets baseball....

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Security for the Corprate state
Unity for the North American Union
Prosperity for the Military Industrial Complex

You go Boy... the heck with civil Liberites and the constitution WooOOOo HooOOooo!!!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

looks like they have about 7 members, judging by their website

http://www.gunowners.org/

www.win-the-war.com.

that ridiculous quote doesn't come CLOSE to passing the smell test.

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a g-dd-mned piece of paper!”"

William Jefferson Clinton was a "screamer." Hillary is a screamer. Portraying President Bush as both screaming and using the lord's name in vain while doing it is simply fiction.

I couldn't care less whether Dubya was screaming.
I couldn't care less whether he was taking the name of the Xtian god in vain.
What I _do_ care about is that he was telling his most senior advisors that the Constitution (which he swore to uphold) is just a piece of paper, not the foundation of his job.
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

So, the report might be a lie, but the report is accurate? Thank you Dan Rather.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Sounds like Doonesbury to me

It's that Nazi thing, you know? Just can't work with it. Sorry. Bye.

(P.S. Because straw polls are self-selecting.)

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

that there is more then one "N" word we don't tolerate here.

Not an unsourced lefty posting on a lefty blog. I can save you some trouble... you won't find anything because it never happened.

Maybe you depend less on Air America for your facts. I know, I know, it's the only REAL conservative radio network out there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Please do not quote Doug Thompson or Capitol Hill Blue. The guy has been caught making up quotes, sometimes from people he made up. If one day Doug Thompson tells you the Sun rose in the East, go outside and check.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

when it passed the War Powers Resolution.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

So, your argument doesn't hold water.
• "To me, a patriot does not support fighting an unconstitutional undeclared war in a foreign land."

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, legislated by Congress and enforced by the Executive, is as close as an actual congressional "Declaration of War" as we're likely to ever see, unless Congress grows a spine, repeals the War Powers Resolution and reclaims its constitutionally mandated responsibility under Article I, Sec 8.

However, that would require Congress to be held accountable for its actions.

To me: A patriot lives by a simple declarative principle.
• "We win, they lose."

That said, I probably should have just executed the HinzRule.™

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

in the Constitution for a declaration of war.
A patriot is not someone who helps the enemy in a time of war.
Ron Paul and the rest of the anti-American mob are helping the enemy in this war.

Article one, section eight:
"The Congress shall have power... to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

It's clearly their job. And they can't hand it off to someone else. Just like the President can't let the Chief Justice veto bills.

And, as far as your last comment, Ron Paul didn't want to start this war. If you're upset about the lives lost, you might focus your anger at the correct people.

"He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death." - Thomas Paine

This is critical.

The war powers act is not a declaration of war. What it does it it allows the President to go to war if he decides it is necessary.

Thus makes Bush take ownership of the war and allows Congress to skate on its responsibility.

If the Republicans insisted on Ron Paul's REAL declaration of war, then the Democrats couldn't use the war as a political football.

the last 6 and 35 years would be cured if only they had voted for a declaration of war. The laws of nature would prevent them from changing their mind when the war isn't won in 72 hours or Gallup polls don't drop, whichever is sooner. No way they would chant Bushlied without evidence is they had passed a declaration of war with the magic words.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

once again:
What is the specific working of the Congress's declaration?
They can fashion it however they wish.
This war was done by resolution authorizing force.
This war in no way is illegal.
Most wars we have fought have been fought by resolution that authorizes the war. That is as clear a declaration as needed.
And the WPA is what is needed when enemies can attack in devestating fashion with no notice.
The Ron Paul no-neck literalist dummie way of thinking would let a modern powerful enemy attack and destory before we could do anything about it.
That is not abrogation, that is responsible thinking. That is unknown to a Paulite and other extremists, I realize. But so be it.

The GOP under George Bush has lost its way and drifted away from the vision of Ronald Reagan. The Republicans in Congress have turned their backs on limited government and personal liberty. They've abandoned principles for power and it cost the GOP the last Congressional election.

The only candidate who can restore the GOP to the principles of Reagan is Ron Paul.

Unlike Guiliani he has the best chance of winning against Hilary. For starters, the American electorate will not elect as president anyone who wants stay the course in Iraq. Paul voted against the war and none of the other Democrats did.

In a matchup against Hilary, Ron Paul will stand for limited government and Hilary for big government. Given that choice, the American people will back a real Republican who offers Hope for America.

Capt'Cook

I keep trying to help you Ronians with the proper way of summoning the spirit of Dr. Nut job, guess I'll have to do it again.

It's "Blame America First" Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul ***spin*** ***spit***.

If you do that several times in a row, you get a prize.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

"Hi Ron!"

expanded the role of the federal government, who had the chance to kill the the DoEd and didn't, and who actively meddled all over the world with the help of the US military.

And you're talking about the same RonPaul™ who doesn't have a plan to do actually accomplish anything running against Hillary who actually has some plans - bad though they may be?

You're a raving lunatic. Go back in your cave, the full moon will be over soon.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Paul voted against the war and none of the other Democrats did.

I hate to break it to you, but Paul was elected as a Republican Congressman and is seeking the Republican nomination for President.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Let me know when he hits 10 million in a quarter.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

That was over $1 million in less than one week. We don't know the stats for the entire quarter yet.

The real-time donation meter was a fantastic idea: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Romney and $10 mill? Well sure, with his corporate, and other special interest "investors", that's no surprise. Ron Paul doesn't play that crap, and his donations are coming honestly, from real American people (voters). Yeah, you know, real American people. The ones you always see in huge numbers at Ron Paul functions, but never seem to be in any abundance at Rudy McRompson functions, even when they've been paid and bussed in. Hmm...I wonder why that is?

Come on now. If you're going to pretend to be a libertarian Republican you don't get to use 'corporate' like a dirty word.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Please show me where in the Constitution the concept of a "corporation" is defined.
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"Free people, remember this maxim: we may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost."
Jean Jacques Rousseau
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

you know that the Constitution protects citizens' rights to private property and the accumulation of wealth--it's why the United States has been the most successful generator of wealth of any nation in history.

You also know, I would lay a bet, that the Paulistas of the 18th century were Antifederalists to a man. It's also a historic fact that all the politicians who opposd the Constitution became strict constructionists the day after it was ratified. If they had to live with it, they could at least interpret it in the most crabbed and constricted manner possible. That's a proud and honorable tradition that lives on today--particularly in the 14th Congressional District of Texas.

"you know that the Constitution protects citizens' rights to private property and the accumulation of wealth--it's why the United States has been the most successful generator of wealth of any nation in history."

Let's see...in my lifetime, the Federal government has decided to denigrate the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution - Democrats _AND_ Republicans.

Forgive me if I fear that the original seven Articles are next.
---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

Ineed what rights are left?

I believe Bush is a "good guy" I think he *thinks* he's doing the right thing, but he is grievously in error as a president should have limited power.. since he will do anything to achieve his goal, he has, This administration has broken just about every law they could find. They have TRASHED the Bill of Rights.

1st - We arrest reporters for outing CIA operatives. National Security Letters state if you reveal you have received one you will go to jail.

2nd - You need a gun "license" to own a gun. If the pilots had been allowed to have a gun, 9/11 wouldst have happened.

3rd - ... I'm sure if they wanted to, they just would break it.

4th - TSA, National Security Letters. Sneak and peek searches by the FBI

5th - Illegal Arrests on "enemy combatants". Testimony taken from torture.

6th - Suspending Habeas Corpus, Holding prisoners indefinitely. Torture.

7th - Your right to a trial.. gone. Military tribunals.

8th - We can hold people in jail until the war on terror ends, even if they are found to be innocent of the crime.

9th & 10th - What rights do we have left? You need a license in this country to CUT HAIR.

Again I ask.. what will you warhawks give up to have your war.. will you destroy this country first?

I do not blame America.. I blame our government for acting against the constitution and without the knowledge of its people.

I also do not believe in surrender.. but I do believe when you make a mistake, you should immediately do the right thing. Thus we must stop now. We were/are wrong. I was wrong. I know that. We panicked, we overreacted. Now.. we have to do the right thing, we need to come home.

Either the war is 100% just and we must fight it and win it.. or it is not at all.. Since I do not think it is.. we must come home immediately.Iraq was not a threat to us.. Lets go home and let them form their own country now.

for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilian murders AFTER we pull out immediately, as happened in Vietnam and Cambodia?

For that matter, WAS the US at all responsible for those millions of deaths? Just curious...

Revolution is not murder, we tried that in Somalia, we tried to prop up the nearest warlord and we failed and now they don't even have a government, because the people are so scared of them they haven't created one.

Iraq will be the same way.. they get to choose what type of government they want. Be is Democracy or Totalitarian regime, its not our job to decide for them. The same would have occurred if we just assassinated Saddam.

Our fight is with Bin Laden anyhow. (actually I could give a crap.. my fight is against Daily Kos Socialists and with the Fascists at the Red State, both want to rule America their own way.. not the American way, taht is the way of personal liberty.)

would the judge please instruct xkx to answer the question asked. Was the US responsible for the mass killings after we left them defenseless, and would be be responsible for the mess (massive deaths) after we pull out of Iraq.

I did answer.

No. by reason that revolution is not murder.

Yes, because it's important to save Iraqis from... ...Iraqis.

David, no offense, you must be a terrible neighbor. Always and interrupting going around making sure the neighborhood kids don't fight with each other when they can't figure out how to get along. Making sure couples don't squabble over money troubles....

Anyway, the point is: We had a civil war too, and we turned out alright.

Thomas Jefferson once mumbled something about some kind of "Tree of Liberty" and how it needs to be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots. He doesn't specifically say that it has to be American patriots, so I think Iraqis will suffice.

I got you down for IN FAVOR of a mammoth bloodletting, more instability and perhaps genocide in an important part of the world, with a violent Iranian government filling the vacuum.'

got it.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

There are still mammoth's in Iraq?

First off, why is Iraq important? If you say oil, then pray to Christ that He can resurrect Saddam as Saddam was always willing to sell to us until we embargoed him for invading a country who hated the us to begin with (and voted against our interests in the UN second only to Cuba).

Violent Iranian government! Oooohhh.... sounds scary! Can I change my vote?

Guess what? I don't care. I really don't care because I believe that Liberty requires responsibility.

Iraqis have to step up and be responsible (how long does it freaking take!?!). If they let a few foreign fighters and zealots stop that then they reap what they sow. Not America's problem. We can trade with whoever the winner is.

I guess I'm too optimistic, as I believe that free people have the responsibility rise against their tyrants.

"Live Free or Die"

"Liberty or Death"

Please stop vying for the International Nanny State. And while you're giving our money away to stupid foreigners, can I have your tax return? At least I'm an American.

I have you down for being needlessly generous with your fellow citizens lives and money.

Got it.

or all that Liberty or Death stuff would just be a footnote in history.

Glad the cold war presidents also did not agree with you, or we would still be facing a Soviet Union and no free people in eastern europe.

Yes sometimes you are required to go to war, to spend money, and even lives. If you bunch of Ron trolls only confined yourself to why the war was wrong to begin with, then that would be one thing, but to think that we can just pull out now and everything is hunky dorry is stupid and wrong.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

And the King of France's head was dispatched from his body because of the financial ruin the war imposed on France. C'est la vie!

Nonetheless, since we're bringing up non-analogous historical references, allow me to correct you.

The American Revolution began as an indigenous revolution by British Citizens. France then came into the picture because they believed it would help them secure their Western colonies (that whole enemy of my enemy is my friend thing).

The Invasion of Iraq was an external change in government. Not an indigenous revolution.

For your analogy to be accurate France would have had to invade Boston initially and urged the Colonies to be free.

There was an indigenous revolt in Iraq following Saddam's military collapse in Gulf War I, but Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney decided it was not in America's best interest to pursue it. Missed opportunity.

If there had been an indigenous uprising within Iraq, and we decided to assist them in their uprising it would be a different story.

But since we're playing with your non-sequitur analogy, France left after Yorktown. They didn't hang around for five years to make sure that the rebellious Southern colonies could get along with the Northern colonies (You do know the Constitution was opposed by the largely southern Anti-Federalist movement and threatened succession from day one, right?).

Who did we invade during the Soviet Era? Vietnam? That worked out well... Korea? They pushed us back to the 38th... Cuba? Oh...

Maybe we can deal with countries from a trade/deterrent perspective. Kind of like Eisenhower's "New Look" policy. The Soviet Union fell for a lot of reasons. Not because we invaded them, as our invasions of Soviet satellites were largely failures (we won in Grenada! Woohoo!).

Stop pretending supporting Iraq is patriotic. It's just being generous with other people's lives and money.

And I have never said it had anything to do with patriotism.

But my analogy was not as strained as you would make it out to be. We did obtain help in our revolution. We set up or propped up states in Korea, Japan, The Philipines, Taiwan and in other places that have been very sucessfull. They did not start as democracies, but have moved toward democracy.

We opposed the Soviet Union and that was benificial to the world, but also to ourselves. We only failed in Vietnam because of exactly the kind of thinking you have.

Your way of thinking is valid, but too short sided. We have interests in the world, the primary one being the promotion of stable governments who do not attack or terrorize their neighbors.

I do not think that we have made no mistakes, or that intervention is right all the time or in every instance. But right now, the realization of a fairly stable and at least somewhat democratic state in Iraq would serve as a buffer, and an example to the rest of the Muslim world.

If you do not see that then all your knowledge of history is sort of wasted.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Louis XVI's lifestyle also contributed to his shorting at the hands of Madame Guillotine.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

When will we be able to leave? Having lived in Jordan and discussed the situation at length with dozens of refugees, I find it fascinating that we went in there believing we would EVER leave with some form of democracy in place. Any one who believes it's possible is far too naive. We went in there for oil, and it is an absolute disaster.

I understand some good things have happened to a relative handful of Iraqis, but the instability will not cease. You have ethnic people groups who are violently opposed to one another. Bush knew this when he went in, but felt the cost of millions of lives (by the time the true cost is finally counted) was worth the profits for his closest friends.

If you answer the top question with something like, "When the region is stabilized with some form of Democracy", you're kidding yourself. Any form of "democracy" will require our presence there until the end of time and the violence will not stop. As evil as Saddam was, he kept millions of people afraid of be labeled a rebel.

And let's not forget he became as strong as he was BECAUSE of US support. Another neo-con victory.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

You can call whatever you like, and I'm not pretending to be anything.

Rudy McRompson, Hillary and Edwards are receiving donations from the same PACs and other special interests. You can verify this online. They are all part of the machine that got us in the messes were in in the first place. Hell, it's now come out that GW is advising Hillary on her presidential campaign! For all we know, Rove is secretly advising her.

The Rep and Dem elites are two heads of the same monster.

In reality, Rudy McRompson would be little different than the administration we have now.

... is a dirty word only to the extent to which it partakes in and solicits government largesse (aka *your* money). Generally speaking, the virtue of any particular corporation can be judged by that standard.

Amen to that.

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

And if you're going to support big government and empire building, you shouldn't call yourself a Republican.

In fact there is a natural disconnect between corporations and libertarianism - there is a fundamental unfairness in the redistribution of risk away from the risk takers (ie, those with something to gain) inherent in the codification of limited liability. The only reason libertarian organizations tend never to be anti corporate in practice, is the reality that their think tanks (eg, CATO) are largely funded with corporate dough.

-exits

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The risk takers are the shareholders. Their entire investment is at risk. There's nothing "unfair" about it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Right but *only* their entire investment, and not a dime more. If I own 50% of a company (ie, half of their stock) why shouldn't I be liable for fully half of their debt? Their is no cap on the amount of money I stand to make. And if I'm not responsible for the debt, who is? The answer is society at large. But what does society at large have to gain if things go well for the corporation? Nada, that's what.

In any event, wasn't trying to start a debate on the social justice of limited liability; was only trying to point out that Neil's claim that the original posters use of the term 'corporate' deprecatingly somehow called his libertarian bona fides into question was a non sequitur.

-exits

but because they work. Limited liability corporation laws allowed the USA to sail ahead of Great Britain as the largest industrial nation. British laws did not catch up until after World War 2.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

One should never underestimate the value of something that works, or overestimate the value of an ideology for its own sake.

I can't even begin to imagine what the economy would look like if you had things your way. It certainly wouldn't be a good thing.

And if I'm not responsible for the debt, who is? The answer is society at large.

Wrong. The creditors lose out. That's the risk you take when you extend credit to ANYBODY whether it's a corporation or an individual.

But what does society at large have to gain if things go well for the corporation? Nada, that's what.

Wrong. Who stands to gain? Everyone. We own it. We work there. We shop there. There's plenty to gain.

In any event, wasn't trying to start a debate on the social justice of limited liability

Which is good, because your arguments are even less persuasive than anything Karl Marx ever put on paper. Of course, he would probably agree with you on this score.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

For the record I'm absolutely not advocating against limited liabilty corporations in practice, I'm just presenting the libertarian argument against which extends from individual property rights which aren't exactly a leftist pillar. Though I suppose that you're the sort who just kind of throws around terms like 'leftist' and 'marxsian' as general purpose smears.

-exits

Libertarians are always talking about "social justice" and ensuring that society "shares" in the successful ventures of corporations.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

You don't have the mojo to get away with copping an attitude here.

Blam.

Moe

PS: Actually, it was almost $1 million in one week. Online donations for the rest of the quarter were just under $117K. (I'll be happy to replace this with a screenshot, should the graphic change.)

Now, kids, I'm aware that all y'all have to ignore the completely anemic fund raising that took place prior to this week if you want to talk up this event properly, but rest assured: we know. And we're not impressed.

And by "we" I mean "Republicans."

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Nice screenshot of the first day of the Paul fundraising push. It was definitely a strong start. Seriously, are you under the impression that that was supposed to represent 3 months of fundraising?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/features/quarter3/

That a typo, or just a lie?

Please answer in your next post. Make sure that you have nice, relevant links to support your claims: frankly, we're getting tired of all the one handed postings from the Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! supporters wandering through.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Read it again. I've been watching this closely. The campaign was looking for a $500,000 -boost- (over and above what had been made to that point) by the end of the 3rd quarter. They started the meter at $0 seven days before the end of the quarter. The target was hit in three days. I watched the meter go from $435K to $645K in 24 hours. The end result (starting from zero on the 23rd I believe) was $1.2 million. And then you can add all of the fundraising from before Sept. 23rd to that total.

If you still want to believe that the number on that page represents the entire quarter, well... the 3rd quarter results should be made public later today. Expect $4-7 million. Or more.

Now, I don't expect to you to respond further - you've been gacked for not addressing whether you were making threats, which is a definite no-no around here - but if any Ronulan who has figured out how to survive here long enough to be upticked to "Ron Paul supporter" status happens to have the numbers before this supposed reset, that would be, you know, useful information for your faction to publicize.

While we're on the subject, seven million dollars a quarter is not going to impress any person who was blogging the 2004 primaries. Your target number there is at least $15M, and even then that just gets you in Howard Dean territory.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Yeah, Romney will get $10,000,000, but $9,000,000 of it will be his own money, lol.

He'll need it, his paid "super volunteers" cost a lot of money...

Ron Paul 2008!

But I have cable, roadrunner and AC, and live on I-485 on the carolina border. I'm where I want to be.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Aristotle couldn't have put it better.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

$6M in one day!!!

And I'd bet that at least $10,000 of that was not in a check to Mitt Romney from Mitt Romney.

I'm glad you didn't assert that it was, because then I'd have to throw it back to you to prove it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Romney wrote his campaign _another_ check at the end of Q3...this time for $9M.

Self-financing a campaign...worked for Perot and the Huffingtons!!!

---
Why did Ron Paul get 97% of the vote in a straw poll run by the Gun Owners of America?

KISS - When in doubt, consult the Constitution.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

that wouldn't begrudge a man the fruits of his labor.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

With respect,

Romney's fundraising relies on well-cultivated relationships with special interests. There is a big difference between the PAC and lobbyist dinner money that feeds Romney's campaign and the remarkable deep-pocket digging that is resulting in real financial success for Paul. It's questionable whether Romney could achieve $1 million in six days from grassroots online donations. Paul's pro-Constitution message ignites passion, pro and con. It's telling that the tantrum above is the best the con side seems to be able to muster.

in many, many respects

We are trying to move the party in a more libertarian direction on at least some issues, but an extremist like Paul only muddies the waters and makes people think that we cannot have balanced views in areas like national defense.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Exactly.
Paul is rotten for the toss out in the primary.

I'd say that those who constantly meddle in the affairs of other countries are the ones not putting our nation first.

That's intersting, as it seems Rudy McRompson and Huck are always working so hard to *try* to take on Ron Paul.

The way they are taking shots at him, (and copying is platform now that they've seen how successful it is) you would think that Ron Paul is the front runner, if the mainstream media weren't so busy telling us otherwise...

"Paul is not our nominee, he will not be our nominee"

You use the word "our" like you speak for the party. Fortunately, you don't.

Do you?

www.win-the-war.com.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I stand corrected! I looked up a different Coburn. Colburn, actually.

Sory!

Sen. Coburn is extremely pro-life. He was one of the only Senators during judicial confirmation to bring up abortion. He is a pro-life doctor, which is very valuable to the pro-life movement.

Here is his voting record on abortion.

And this is from Wikipedia:

Abortion

In 2000, Coburn sponsored a bill to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from developing, testing or approving the abortifacient RU-486. On July 13, the bill failed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 182 to 187.[7] On the issue, Coburn sparked controversy with his remark about feticidal gynecologists "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."[8] Coburn also objects to legal abortion in cases of rape, and he has justified his position by noting that his great-grandmother was raped by a sheriff.[9] In the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings concerning Samuel Alito, Coburn asserted that his grandmother was a product of that rape.'

I mean he has mentioned supporting the death penalty for abortionists. That's about as extreme pro-life as it gets.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana

The good senator from O.K. rocks as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to bet he would get the cold shoulder from from the "mainstream" GOP, were he to make a presidential run.

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

But if you're going to lecture Americans on American politics, please use American English.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I clearly remember the days when we used to detest that fact that having a debate with a Democrat always ended up with the Democrat resorting to calling the opponent names.

This type response is merely the influence of the Southern Democrat infiltration, I suspect.

But you'd think you'd know by now that chickenhawking, or any other advocacy of fascism, is off-limits here.

Ta.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

In fairness, I believe he was drafted the first time & then re-upped. There again, I could be just plain wrong.

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

but I'll start getting ready for the inevitable draft, and pray that the message of freedom has lighted a spark that ignites in 2012.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

absentee

The one that every Democrat swore up and down throughout 2003 and 2004 was GOING TO HAPPEN~! if President Bush was re-elected? Secret plans!

Yeah, it's the end of 2007 and STILL NO DRAFT.

Stupid canard.

But of course. We're such a homogeneous group. LMAO!

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

Don't call us, we won't call you.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Let me know when you find one of those. Right now, all we've got is a social liberal/sorta fiscally conservative nut; a social conservative (after he was a social liberal)/fiscally conservative Ken Doll; a temperamentally conservative, historically kinda lazy actor; and in Ron Paul, a nut. Who, incidentally, doesn't draw support in the double digits.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Who was a member of the Federalist Party in all but name?

(And it's "short-sighted.")

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

He was NOT a member. That is the entire point. He knew that his principles spanned party lines and to entangle yourself with them was inherently unproductive.

You can agree with the "party" all you wish. However, when you rigidly attach yourself to a party it goes against what this country was founded on. Any party, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Socialist, Federalist, Nazi, Labour, Likud et al.

My point is when we have a Constitution, it should be adhered to. Not usurped by power hungry political parties that do not have anyones interest in mind.

Imagine what the Ronulans would say if President Bush led the ARMY against some tax evaders...

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

That is the most nonsensical point I've ever heard. Maybe you should study history a little better my friend. The Whiskey rebellion was about the Rule of Law from the Constitution. This was also a few years after the Constitution took effect. In order to KEEP the rule of law, they had to enforce it.

I can't believe you guys are trashing George Washington to shore up your belief in the Republican party. Sad sad sad

if they had been around in 1787, the Ronulans would have fought like hell against the Constitution.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

...It's also been speculated that Ron Paul is more like the founding fathers than any other candidate running for president.

Mind you, I have always thought like this, regardless of Ron Paul. He is just a man that understands the Constitution as I do. It's the philosophy, not the person.

The simple fact is that political parties have become like a religion to some.

The only religion I see on display here is the Church of Dr. Ron. If we were all about the Republican party, it seems to me like we wouldn't have anything bad to say about Dr. Ron, since he is still a member of the Republican party, serving in the House as a Republican, running for a Republican nomination. If the Republicans are so bad, maybe he should leave.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's not the church of Ron Paul. It's the fundamental notion of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Replace the man with anyone with the same ideology and you'll get the same fervent support. The big difference with Ron Paul is that he has entered at a point in time where his message can be delivered effectively and it's a time where people are frustrated with the status quo of both parties.

Why is it that RedState.com is trying to denounce the Republican candidate who would fare the best in a head-to-head contest against Hillary Clinton -- this during an election cycle when Republicans are on the ropes?

I wasn't aware that the site was taking an official position, let alone advocating against Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Fred Thompson. Provide links, please.

It is well know that Redstate.com has history of questionable belteway characters founding and currently influencing it.

I simply have to hear more about this.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"let alone advocating against Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or Fred Thompson."

Pro-war equals gauranteed defeat in 2008. Period.

Putting the word 'period' at the end of your comment proves you are right.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You know, the people of whom you once wrote:

Just as understanding of epidemic disease had to come to understand contageon, understing Jewish virulence has been awaiting a good general theory of virulence. People use metaphors for suppression of epidemic disease all the time—metaphors that, were they to be taken seriously, would make them sound mideval or mad or both—metaphors like “war”, etc. But if you fight against advances in epidemiology on the basis that some people continue to harbor mideval superstitions or that others use metaphors that might invoke those superstitions, you are part of the problem.

No the simple fact is that Jews, as a group, have no more interest in destroying Europeans than a horizontally transmitted virus has in destroying its hosts. Yet there are such viruses and they do retain their virulence precisely because they are mobile—disrespecting borders—able to find a place to live no matter how much destruction they wreak upon their hosts.

This multinational, horizontally-transmitted, character of Jews goes back at least to the Persian Empire’s Royal Road, with its 111 way stations where Jews seem to have occupied critical positions rendering them immune to the fate of any country in which they resided. That is hundreds of generations ago and, as E. O. Wilson pointed out in “On Human Nature”, 50 generations is enough time to evolve unique characters.

The fact that modern technology has rendered their virulence self-destructive doesn’t mean they are going to adapt overnight and become symbiotic due to the fact that now they are running out of viable places migrate.

Get the Hell off of our website, Ronulan.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Good Lord:(

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

that is true, full-fledged anti-judaism, the real mccoy. makes me think i'm in czarist russia - or modern-day saudi arabia, egypt or iran.

www.win-the-war.com.

strategy call @ Chappaqua! Help!

Why do you people even engage on RP? Would we engage on LaRouche? Stassen?

Let's talk about how to beat Hillary.

What a waste.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

It is by right of DeVine LAW!

of 2 hours per day wathing the changing of the guards at Buckingham Palace or watching King of Queens re-runs 3 days per week.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

you would be watching those "King of Queens" re-runs regardless?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Hansen: "We've mobilized a fleet of forty starships at Wolf 359, and that's
just for starters. The Clintons are sending starships. Hell, we've even
thought of opening communications with the Ronulans!"
--"The Best Of Both Worlds Part II", Stardate 44001.4

You owe me a new keyboard, as I was drinking a Monster at the moment I read your post.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that comes out favorably in the two most important issues of this race and the only one that can beat Hillary.

* Iraq war. (It is a unjust war because it is not a defensive war.)
* Immigration. (He is strict on protecting the borders and he's no BS'er.)

With Bush advising Hillary on the rhetoric she should use so she can continue to be pro-war. Ron Pail will be more anti-war than Hillary. (Could you imagine Hillary trying to defend the war in a debate?) This denies Hillary her big weapon in the campaign.

There are rumors that Ron Paul's running mate may even be a woman, Sarah Palin (R-AK) who is far more appealing and down to earth than Hillary.

The anti-war movement is strong in the Republican circles now. It was a mistake to go to war with Iraq as they were not a threat to us. If its a mistake to start a war, its a mistake to continue it.

If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, he will win the White House 60% to 40%. (It may yet happen too, NH looks like its strongly in favor of voting Ron Paul) The other candidates split each others vote. If he does not win nomination ... then it doesn't matter who the Republicans run.. They could run the fictional "Rudy McRomson" and they will still loose to Hillary 70% to 30%.

Bank on it. This is why Newt is setting himself up to run in 2012 against her, in his mind 2008 is over.

Paul can win this race, he pulls in much more than just the core Republican voters as evident by the huge volume of cash hes raised from REAL PEOPLE. Most of Ron Paul's donations are less than $200. That's amazing.. that makes Ron Paul's $2.4 Million look like 24 Million in Hillary dollars. (supporters vs amount they donated.) And.. we have yet to see what it will look like is Q3, I can tell you that the Paul campaign is VERY HAPPY with the results..

Why are you carrying his water?

your too funny. You should do stand up. fag.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Blam.

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

mel brooks, 2000 year old man

www.win-the-war.com.

Was that necessary?

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

"Let's talk about how to beat Hillary."

Rule #1: Find a candidate that isn't pro-war.

"Of course, if you turn on the lights, they will all scatter back into the walls, but at least we can have civil and, perhaps, constructive discourse."

Yeah... must be a lot easier to just pat each other on the back, eh?

Figured you were one from the beginning.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"So sad we are to day that we count achievements by the number of bills we pass. Is it fair to say if I send 100 bad bills to your desk and you vote them all down then you are incompetent?"

I'd be more impressed if they would concentrate on repealing bad law.

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

which bad laws did Ron Paul help to be repealed?

How about go for the big one? The 16th admendment, and its kid sister the Federal Reserve Act.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Dave was asking about laws which were repealed and to which repeal Ron Paul contributed. You answered with a law that Ron said he wanted to have repealed but which remains law. Not the same thing.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

If you have something to say about my comment then speak up.. I would be delighted to engage you.

But generally I agree. I remember when my wife had surgery to remove a tumor and when the surgeon opened her up, they discovered that there was no tumor, and I thought, why didn't the surgeons just leave her on the table. Why did they stitch her back up? I mean we are a Christian nation after all.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

You just agreed with me a little bit.. that Iraq was a mistake.

We are making progress here.

A little more critical thinking here and you'll see how continuing to cut and pretend a tumor is there is also a mistake.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I too have awakened to some of my past ineptness to grasp what has really gone on in closed government offices. And especially what has gone on outside of governemnt that has pulled those in office to act on their behalf. I agree wholeheartedly that a true Christian only can engage in a just war, and its deplorable to do otherwise and true heretics have been created by this military-industrial complex. Would you allow me to disagree with you that this nation is not a Christian nation? Yes, many of our founding fathers were Christian, and our bill of rights and preambles are based upon Christian values. But, the authors of our constitution were very careful in separating church and state. Any modern movement to bring those two together (as has been done by W.) will only further endanger Americans willingness to tolerate, example, and love thy neighbor. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the massess. It was not a slight to being godly, but to governments use of religion to divide the people and direct them. I very much respect that Dr. Paul examples his Christian principles yet separates his religion from his sworn duty to uphold the constitution to keep the church and state separate.

Respectfully,

Patrick Wilber
Libertarian
former Democrat to unseat Bush
Republican now for Ron Paul
former Army Captain
small business owner

This nation is mostly Christian.. I am too but I can not believe there are those that kill in the name of Jesus.

They are not part of my religion. I think the perversion of the religion is the problem. They want to use the force of government to enforce morals.. that is CLEARLY wrong.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mahatma Gandhi

(they keep baning me, sorry)

to live so long. It was only in a Christian nation that non-violent civil disobedience could work.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I'm not saying they are bad, I'm only saying real Christians should act like it.

Who would Jesus bomb? ehh?

Tell me.. why do you think its ok to use the power of the state to force morals on others? It doesn't work. You need to voluntarily accept Christ into your heart.

to death on account of sin. He separated humanity post Babel into nations as a check on the exponential growth of sin, and I am confident he supports the US checks on the sins of evil dictators. Jesus said render to Caesar, never demanded that Roman soldiers go awol into pacifism, nor did Paul (that's the Apostle, not Ron).

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

So where are the pictures of Jesus holding a sword?

They don't exist because we don't convert by the sword.

It doesn't work anyhow.. you cant force a sinner to accept god by forcing them to church.. they will resent it.

else in the Bible.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

39 Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

Then there is the story of the Prince of Kiev having to convert his Pagan subjects in order to marry a Byzantine princess....

I cant believe this.. your sitting here telling me that god likes to kill.. my how far you will go to justify your war.. Would you just wake up?

I know these arguments, I made them at one time. It was impossible for me to listen to someone against the war. I don't even know why now.. I had to accept it myself I think.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Old Testament God was vengeful. New Testament God finally figured out it was better to not be an ass. That's about when the term "Jesus" comes into the picture... That was over 2000 years ago. How long before we figure out the same thing God did?

www.win-the-war.com.

If you wait until it is glaringly obvious to everyone that it is self-defense you lose more people - a lot more people.

Iraq - about 4,000 American dead. Sadaam Hussein had terrorist training camps and he bragged about paying money to terrorists.

Germany/Japan in 1941 - over 400,000 American dead. If we had enforced regime change in Germany by 1936 we would have suffered much lower casualties. Granted, given the isolationism of the 1930's this would have been politically impossible, but we should learn from history. Mein Kampf stated that Hitler's goal was to make like miserable for people in any number of countries - we had been warned.

Iran - their rhetoric against us is very bad - worse than what Hitler said about us before 1941. Iran siezed our embassy and was behind the Khobar Towers bombing and many other acts of terrorism. Many of our soldiers who have been killed in Iraq have been killed with Iranian weapons.

Do you think deterence would work as well against people who think they get 72 virgins when they die as well as it worked with the atheist communists?

If Iran builds an atom bomb and detonates it in New York City, how many Americans will die? Are you willing to take that risk?

The atheist communists were reluctant to go to war unless they were pretty sure they could win. Even Hitler had a plausible chance of winning WW 2, and certainly did well enough against countries smaller than America and Russia. Our current enemies appear no where near worried enough about the retaliatory attacks that America is capable of launching ie -they might well start a war they know they would lose.

It has to be this way.. if we attack any nation that *might* be a threat is is no different then putting someone in jail that *might* commit a crime.

Iran bomb will be more of a threat to Israel.. we don't fight their wars. Iran would not attack us if we didn't support Israel.

Besides.. we know now that the war could have been stopped before it ever started. Saddam offered to surrender if he was allowed to go into exile with $1b. Bush said no and caused a war that kill 4,000 troops, untold Iraqi, and cost $400b. We could have stopped it peacefully.

Iran sponsors terror and is waging war against us.

"First they came for Jews. Then they came for the gays. Then they came for the Gypsies. Then they came for me."

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

If China invaded Mexico.. you wouldnt think Americans would attack China?

We attacked first anyhow.

aka attacked, on our planes daily. He launched an attack on Bush41 in Jordan.

China ain't the USA.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"if we attack any nation that *might* be a threat is is no different then putting someone in jail that *might* commit a crime."

That is really an example of emotional non reason. In the first place, as I pointed out before, nations are not like individuals and have a completely different set of responsibilities, in the second place, it would indeed be prudent to arrest criminals who are planning crimes BEFORE they actually commit the crimes, and indeed it happens all the time.

The reason you keep getting banned is because you are not very bright.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Why would a collective of men have more rights than and individual?

That's bull, you don't even know what rights are.

ALL PEOPLE have rights. Rights do not come from government. We cant give any one a right, just as we cant take one away, its not in our power to do. This is why we get angry when China violates peoples rights, because we believe they have them too.. all people have rights and it doesn't matter what government they subscribe to. Our leaders have no more rights than we do. Likewise nations also abide by the same rights as individual men.

(I'm being baned because I called someone a troll.. err.. that's why they WANT to ban me, yet seem to be unable to.)

more sophomoric than the previous one. Yea, poor old Saddam, it's just horrible how we violated his rights and all.

go back to the dorm you got midterms coming up my little man.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

They also seem irrational. And it sure sounds like they're trying to build atom bombs.

What happens if Iran builds FOUR atom bombs - 1 for Tel Aviv, 1 for Jerusalem, that leaves one each for New York and Washington doesn't it?

We have all been conditioned to thinking about things based on facing the hostile, but not irrational, Soviet Union from about 1949 to 1989. The Russians tried various relatively low risk things to expand their power and influence. They did not launch attacks on the United States. They did not do anything really stupid because they did not want Moscow to disappear.

President Bush gave Sadaam Hussein a chance to go into exile peacefully, and Sadaam refused. If Sadaam was smart he would have already wired himself a bunch of money to a hidden swiss bank account and lived happily ever after

You have that backwards.

It was Bush that refused the offer from Saddam to go into exile. They have video of it.

in the first place, our critics on the left keep telling us we are not a christian nation but you are saying that we are, which is it? I thought we had a secular government.

second place, what works for the individual does NOT work for governments, We have the right to forgive a criminal who murders our family, but the district attorney cannot forgive, he must prosecute.

To say that the only just war is for self defense, well I guess you must agree with those old slave holders who pointed out Mr. Lincoln's belligerence during the War of Northern Aggression. right?

At any rate, the doctrine of self defense must always include striking first if danger is imminent, it would also include wiping out tin pot dictators who are harboring terrorists and paying off terrorist families, and defying no fly zones, and breaking cease fire agreements, and trying to assassinate ex presidents, but, I didn't think you were all that interested in facts anyway were you?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"At any rate, the doctrine of self defense must always include striking first if danger is imminent"

Yes, you hit it right there! I supported the war when we believed there was an imminent danger.

..but that danger didn't exist, there were no weapons. Now any other reason is NOT JUST its NOT RIGHT. We can not do it.

The war was a mistake to start.

If it was a mistake to start we need to stop it, there is no win, because there is no just goal.. we have become occupiers because our reason for invading were not just.

We can't turn that around.. our reason will never be just.. and the more we fight the more the enemy recuits against us.

I do not agree with your assertion, and that is all it is. I think that we can easily come out with a successful, stable client state and that would be infinitely preferable to a despotic murderer who was working against us with terrorists.

You can cry about it an wring your hands all you want but in the real world were the rest of us live the only thing that was perhaps immoral was the silly half ass ed way we went about trying to win the war in the first two and a half years.

go away

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

We don't BUILD stable client states, we don't DO THAT. We don't take over nations we don't like. We fight for our defence. Period.

I'm not crying, I'm not wringing my hands, I'm trying to stop you from killing people with your unjust war.

tough S---.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Originally.. I would say that.. but if the war is unjust.. and Iraq is not a threat.. then we need no defense.

>> To say that the only just war is for self defense, well I
>> guess you must agree with those old slave holders who pointed
>> out Mr. Lincoln's belligerence during the War of Northern
>> Aggression. right?

Lincoln was the first dictator of the United States. He destroyed The Constitution and we never got it back afterwords. Once they started to ignore it made it easy for them.

Listen to this speech by Andrew Napolitano (Who is no lib!)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/napolitano3.html

He explains why it is most important to defend civil rights in war time.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Then marvel at your ignorance of American History.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The only just war is a war of self-defense. Much like a person, it is only right for you to use force against another human in self-defense. Indeed nations have no more rights than the citizens they consist of.

So, the leader of a country with nuclear weapons goes on TV and says "we're declaring war against every country in the world EXCEPT THE U.S.". Then the bombing starts. Tokyo, London, Paris, Mexico City, Toronto...but America sits unattacked.

By your definition, declaring war on that country would be unjust?

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

The common law doctrine of self-defence includes (rather counter-intuitively) both pre-emption and defence of others. So, for example, if you see a person who appears to be on the point of attacking another person you have the right to act first, you do not need to wait for the aggressor to strike the first blow.

In the case of the Iraq war, if we had had reason to suppose that Saddam might be on the point of attacking someone, or carrying out some sort of brutality, we would have had the right to act pre-emptively.

Of course, this would only apply if a reasonable person would have drawn the conclusion that Saddam was a danger to other people. What's that you say? All reasonable people have known that for years? Then I guess this was a war of self-defence.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Saddam was in violation of a ceasefire.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

column day in the Observer, and I get scores of e-mail that I like to answer while I'm ON.

So far, and this is unusual, over 25 e-mails and NOT ONE negative, even from blacks

the column (I will post as a blog entry on redstate in 48 hrs, as per my contract with the newspaper)

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/300692.html

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

True.. how "Republican" is that.

It's like hes saying.. "Well if we cant have the war we might as well have socialism AND a war."

We can not discourse with emptiness...pleas elaborate, I would certainly like to know why you would do such a thing. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Patrick Wilber
Libertarian
former Democrat to unseat Bush
Republican now for Ron Paul
former Army Captain
small business owner

What's your small business? Selling Guevara T-shirts?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

But you guys didn't switch parties to *beat* a Republican.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Whats yours trolling forms making stupid comments?

It's appropriate for one who has been a member for about the length of a sitcom to demonstrate a little deference to your elders. RedState is a friendly place, but you have to earn respect here, and you don't do that by ignorantly dissing one of the senior members.

Belated congrats, Neil, on your elevation to editor.

You banned me because I called him a toll..

He is a troll and I'll respect none of that.

My "elders" hah!

[HAVING NOTHING PERSUASIVE TO SAY, I SHALL RESORT TO CHILDISH PROFANITY].

Your mommy probably has the PB&Js ready for you too. But next time you need to ask permission before you use the computer, though. So run along now, junior.

Is not the real child the one who would attempt to stick their fingers in their ears as to not hear an opposing view?

Are they not the ones who would attempt to gag an unpopular view?

Your attempt to ban me is very childish sir.

I like the Guevara T-shirts with the targets over his face.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

If Ron Paul does, would you support him?

Mind you Ron Paul has won more straw polls than ANY other candidate.

And in New Hampshire how is Paul doing there.. oh hes just dominating everything in sight.

Manchester straw poll - September 16th
Ron Paul 66%
Mitt Romney 3%

Strafford County - Auguast 18th
Ron Paul 73%
Mitt Romney 9%

I just don't know how many times I am going to have to keep correcting you, but here goes.

It's "Blame America First" Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul ***spin*** ***spit***

Please do try to get it right.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

it's BLAME THE GOVERNMENT and the CIA first for their actions they do unbeknowest to the American people.

As you can tell from this forum it should be no shock that the neo-cons you don't like, and do not support Paul. (because they think the war is just, thats the only reason, they would be all over Paul otherwise)

Why not vote for him in the primaries, you don't loose your vote by doing so.

Paul would be an improvement on most Democrats. The problem we are having here is why a Republican would vote for him.

I'll lay you 10-1 he won't get the Presidency, and 5-1 he won't get 1000 delegates at the RNC, on any ballot.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

He got 210 delegates to vote for him in the Texas straw poll.

Especially not when they're about to get banned again. The only reason I don't hit up the moderators right now is that they're probably too busy enjoying baseball and I don't want to disturb them.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Really? I cant have a voice?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Too bad for you, thats not in your power.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Why do you hate discussion?

Your ISP can.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...is thinking I'm limited to eliminating your accounts and blocking your IP address.

Oh, sparky, I'm not. Let's see what I can get done by tomorrow evening.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

They are ready to recode the site to get rid of me.. how hard they will work to silence their critics.

Remember this is all because I called one of the editors a stupid troll.

And that's not why you're gone.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

7 minutes...pretty good.

Did you invoke the power of the "Blame America First" Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul ***spin*** ***spit*** ?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

it's BLAME THE GOVERNMENT and the CIA first for their actions they do unbeknowest to the American people.

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

The Media and the GOP are SUPRESSING THE TRUTH And you sonded SO rational too!

I guess you mean military support of GOP candidates? I believe that Obama is now ahead of Ron in military donations.

"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless. When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." -James Dale Davidson

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

...but I could offer you a willingness to listen if you had something constructive to say.

Patrick Wilber
Libertarian
former Democrat to unseat Bush
Republican now for Ron Paul
former Army Captain
small business owner

your posts so far have been cogent....more than most of the RP posters here. There are a couple (such as SIConservative) who seem to be able to maintain their sanity while supporting their candidate. When I first wrote my comment, I had something in there that qualified my criticism and left some wiggle room. Somehow I managed to delete that phrase...

Interesting, when many of the Red-Staters continually use terms such as "Paulites", "Ronulans", and "Paulistinians". I'm sure most sane individuals would see many of the regulars here as immature children by the way they rely on constant name-calling.

When a moderator asks you if you're making a threat, Paulite, it's wise to obey. Let's see if the other Paulistinians have the wit to understand this.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Tom Tancredo and his Team America (First) PAC is a danger and I hope he leaves the party like his Buchananite buddies.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

So is Rudy kooky for dressing in drag?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.