Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are Republicans is because that is the only way they can successfully hope to apply their libertarian philosophy. The system is rigged against all third parties. In case you forget, Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president 10 years ago and nobody knew him. That sure isn't the case now. But back to the topic, here is what he just said about the Patriot Act:
I could not care less what Ron Paul has to say about anything. His voting record speaks volumes, like when he voted to send the military to war then refused to fund them. Anyone who has to pretend to be something they are not just to get elected does not deserve the office they seek, and those who support Ron Paul are knowingly supporting a lie.
I could not care less what Ron Paul has to say about anything. His voting record speaks volumes, like when he voted to send the military to war then refused to fund them. Anyone who has to pretend to be something they are not just to get elected does not deserve the office they seek, and those who support Ron Paul are knowingly supporting a lie.
You are confused about his voting record. No one has explained to you his intentions. I will simplify it, using his rhetoric.
1. He voted against sending the military to illegally occupy the Middle East.
2. If you do not fund the illegal occupation they would be forced to come home.
Please explain to me your reasons for saying he pretends to be something. Agree or disagree with his policies, out of any politician today I have not heard of any politician who keeps their word on how they will vote and is as consistent with policies as he is.
You are confused about his voting record. No one has explained to you his intentions. I will simplify it, using his rhetoric.
1. He voted against sending the military to illegally occupy the Middle East.
2. If you do not fund the illegal occupation they would be forced to come home.
Please explain to me your reasons for saying he pretends to be something. Agree or disagree with his policies, out of any politician today I have not heard of any politician who keeps their word on how they will vote and is as consistent with policies as he is.
I am not confused at all. Ron Paul voted to authorize the use of military force in the war on terrorism on 09/18/2001, then proceeded to vote against every bill that would fund the military while they engage in a war he voted to send them into. That is pretty straight forward - Ron Paul is obviously anti-military and would like nothing more than to see as many in the US military killed as possible.
As far as being a pretender, even his own fanatic followers admit that Ron Paul is a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican in order to get elected.
Ron Paul is also a hypocrite, claiming to support "free trade" while voting against every free trade deal introduced into Congress in the last 30 years, offering no "free trade" deals of his own. This is why it is important to actually use their voting record and not what they preach. Ron Paul's voting record is clearly anti-trade of any kind.
Assuming this quote is true, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that it is, those who abuse the law are clearly not abiding by it. That does not make the law bad, only those who abuse it.
The idea behind our founding was to get way from the tyrannical arm of government. We do not want government to make illegal laws that take away our rights. Better safe than sorry is a good rule to live by. Stealing rights in order to provide a little temporary security in exchange for Liberty is the work of tyrants.
Why don't we lock muslims up in concentration camps. It worked wonders when we did the same thing to the Japanese in WW 2. Innocent until proven guilty is not the American Way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
What I have been saying, repeatedly, is that the USAPATRIOT Act does not violate any part of the US Constitution. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not read the law.
Just like prohibition wasn't against the constitution?
If you want to know what the Constitution embodies read what the Founders said about it not what some hacks THINK they meant in order to further their agenda.
The fighting in the Middle East has been going on for centuries. No one attacked us until we illegally occupied their sovereign nations. If you want to be safer, treat the cause instead of the symptom, bring our military home and protect our borders like the Constitution says.
The idea behind our founding was to get way from the tyrannical arm of government. We do not want government to make illegal laws that take away our rights. Better safe than sorry is a good rule to live by. Stealing rights in order to provide a little temporary security in exchange for Liberty is the work of tyrants.
Why don't we lock muslims up in concentration camps. It worked wonders when we did the same thing to the Japanese in WW 2. Innocent until proven guilty is not the American Way.
Which is why the Fourth Amendment exists in the first place, and the USAPATRIOT Act does nothing to violate that amendment in any way, shape, or form. If some one violates a law, you prosecute them. You do not demand that the law be repealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Just like prohibition wasn't against the constitution?
If you want to know what the Constitution embodies read what the Founders said about it not what some hacks THINK they meant in order to further their agenda.
The fighting in the Middle East has been going on for centuries. No one attacked us until we illegally occupied their sovereign nations. If you want to be safer, treat the cause instead of the symptom, bring our military home and protect our borders like the Constitution says.
There is nothing illegal about any of the wars the US has been involved with over the centuries. They may not always have been wise, or even justifiable, but they were all legal and constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare wars. In absolutely every case, Congress has authorized the use of military force against a nation before military force was employed. That also includes the Civil War. The war against terrorism was no different.
Which is why the Fourth Amendment exists in the first place, and the USAPATRIOT Act does nothing to violate that amendment in any way, shape, or form. If some one violates a law, you prosecute them. You do not demand that the law be repealed.
There is nothing illegal about any of the wars the US has been involved with over the centuries. They may not always have been wise, or even justifiable, but they were all legal and constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare wars. In absolutely every case, Congress has authorized the use of military force against a nation before military force was employed. That also includes the Civil War. The war against terrorism was no different.
Where is the Declaration of War in Iraq? Get the President to do it and call it something else so you can circumvent the Constitution is not a declaration of war. No country attacked us, we are not safer. Quit treating the symptom instead of the cause.
Our founders warned us against expanding our empire and the problems that would arise. They knew that is the primary reason behind empires failing. We need to practice what we preach. Trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
H.J.RES.114 (107th Session of Congress) - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, became Public Law 107-243 on 10/16/2002.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Get the President to do it and call it something else so you can circumvent the Constitution is not a declaration of war.
The President does not have the constitutional authority to declare war, and no President ever has, only Congress has that power. I realize that Congress enacted into law the War Powers Act of 1972, but no President has ever invoked that act because Congress does not have the authority to delegate their constitutional authority to the President. As I said, in absolutely every case Congress has authorized the use of military force against a nation before military force was employed.
P.S. Kucinich belongs in a rubber room.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone who has to pretend to be something they are not just to get elected does not deserve the office they seek, and those who support Ron Paul are knowingly supporting a lie.
