|
The Congressional Record of Ron Paul (Or, Why He Is Batshit Crazy) (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It's astonishing to me how much time people like les spend demonizing RP and his positions. The guy is a "2%" candidate according to Paul bashers, yet they spend an inordinate amount of time dwelling on him. I find this is a common trend on many other forums I visit. Both lefties and "Hannity-Republicans" will literally spend HOURS and HOURs of their time digging up dirt on Dr Paul and writing lengthy rebuttles to his positions.
Honestly, why waste your time? Are you afraid he might actually win? |
that's a terrible argument. we can argue about whatever the we want. you keep posting pro paul stuff, others will continue to question the salience of your argument(s). lesbiankalashnikov is just keeping you honest, and i for one am greatly enjoying his replies :) |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
"I don't think anyone can claim absolute truth on any side."
I think that was a great answer. Such an issue shouldn't decide an election. |
No, it shouldn't. But when you have issue upon issue where he has unsubstantiated, unpractical or just plain misinformed and incorrect views it piles up. No one issue would probably decide the election, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Paul's only strong point is his rethoric which is worthy of a roman forum. But his coherence is more akin to that of a drunkard. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lesbiankalashnikov |
That's what I should have changed my name too!
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
No, it shouldn't. But when you have issue upon issue where he has unsubstantiated, unpractical or just plain misinformed and incorrect views it piles up. No one issue would probably decide the election, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Paul's only strong point is his rethoric which is worthy of a roman forum. But his coherence is more akin to that of a drunkard. |
His other strong point is that he is far better than every other GOP candidate. :tongue3 |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
His other strong point is that he is far better than every other GOP candidate. :tongue3 |
Whether or not that's actually true (I can think of three candidates I would prefer), that's still setting the bar kind of low, don't you think?
 |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Really lez? Who would u like to see president and why?
My pick is RP because despite his flaws, he aims to reduce the size and power of government more than any other candidate...and that is basically my philosophy of life...maximum liberty, minimum force (government).
Who will you be voting for in the primaries? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
"I don't think anyone can claim absolute truth on any side."
I think that was a great answer. Such an issue shouldn't decide an election. |
It's the same answer that can be given to nearly every single theory in science, let alone pretty much every single thing you see in front of you. The answer is beyond lame as it answers nothing.
Hell we can say the exact same thing about gravity or quantum physics, yet both have overwhelming evidence just as evolution does that the probabilities come terribly close to certainty. And what's more, we don't even have a mechanism of action for gravity (not sure about quantum physics - anyone know?), yet we've actually identified that for evolution.
I'd say Paul is being intellectually dishonest in his non-answer because to me a man of his intellect SHOULD know better than to say something as asinine as that, but as I've said before, there is an unfortunate difference in necessary practical knowledge between a clinical MD and a PhD researcher in biology. Then again, one would hope a simple understanding of microbiological evolution would suffice for MDs like Paul that would cover it, but who knows. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Really lez? Who would u like to see president and why?
|
This guy:
| quote: | Joseph Biden Q&A
By Charlie Savage
Boston Globe Staff / December 20, 2007
1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?
No. The President is not above the law, he is bound by valid acts of Congress. Our laws state clearly that no one can wiretap Americans without a warrant. By willfully authorizing warrantless wiretaps of Americans, the President violated the law, and he should be held accountable.
2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Let’s not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major.
A so-called “surgical” strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks. It would mean bombing Iran’s radar sites and air force, repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country, securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond.
What looks “limited” to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war.
There’s only thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war: an unplanned, unintentional war.
It is precisely because the consequences of war – intended or otherwise – can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.
They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down and allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die – and ensure broader public support.
The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. Thus, the President has no authority to use force in Iran unless Iran attacks the United States, or there is an imminent threat of such an attack. The Constitution is clear: except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.
3. Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops -- either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
No. Congress has the power to raise and support Armies, and to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces (Article I, Section 8, clauses 12-14). Pursuant to these powers, the Congress may limit and regulate the deployment of forces.
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?
I would not. The American people are best served when the branches of government work together, respecting and observing the separation of powers envisioned by our Founding Fathers. As President I will develop a relationship of trust and cooperation with the legislature. I will work hard to ensure that the laws they pass respect and take into account the powers of the Presidency, but I will not use a signing statement to attempt to override a valid act of Congress.
5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?
No. The Supreme Court resolved this issue in a case called "Hamdi" in 2004. An American citizen held as an enemy combatant has a constitutional right to due process to determine whether his detention is legal and is adequately based on fact.
6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?
No. The Executive Privilege only covers communications between the President and his advisors. Even when the privilege does apply, it is not absolute; it may be outweighed by the public’s interest in the fair administration of justice.
7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?
No. The President must comply with all valid acts of Congress. That’s why I’ve introduced the National Security with Justice Act, unequivocally banning waterboarding and other forms of torture.
8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?
Treaties are the supreme law of the land under Article VI of the Constitution. The President must faithfully execute them, just as he must faithfully execute laws approved by Congress. He has no power to disregard treaties.
9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?
I disagree categorically with Mr. Gonzales. The Constitution guarantees the right of habeas corpus unless in the case of rebellion or invasion it is suspended. My National Security with Justice Act reinforces this Constitutional right by extending by statute meaningful habeas review for all Guantanamo detainees.
10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?
The Bush Administration has consistently violated the separation of powers and many parts of its national security policy are a bad idea. Warrantless wiretapping, the extraordinary rendition program, the CIA black site program, the “enhanced interrogation” technique program are just several examples of the President overstepping the bounds of Executive Power, and all of them were bad ideas.
11. Who are your campaign's advisers for legal issues?
(From staff) Sen. Biden relies a great deal on his own experience as a Constitutional law professor and the Chairman or Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, but he discusses legal issues frequently with Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School; Walter Dellinger, acting Solicitor General for Bill Clinton; and Erwin Chermerinsky and Chris Schroeder, both of Duke Law School.
12. Do you think it is important for all would-be presidents to answer questions like these before voters decide which one to entrust with the powers of the presidency? What would you say about any rival candidate who refuses to answer such questions?
Yes, they should answer these questions. Sharing the vision of my presidency with voters is what campaigning is all about. As part of the primary process, candidates are able to explain their policy positions and beliefs regarding governance in real detail. |
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...dateQA/BidenQA/
| quote: | Council Bluffs, Iowa - Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden took the occasion of the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto to chide his Democratic rivals as too inexperienced to be president and to tout his own foreign policy credentials.
"Observe what's been going on in Pakistan and you'll see not many candidates have spoken out," Biden said. "And those few who have spoken don't make a lot of sense."
Biden made his remarks Thursday night to an audience of about 150 supporters gathered at the Elks Lodge in this small city abutting Nebraska.
Biden didn't single out any of his rivals by name in deriding their statements on Pakistan. But calling "nuclear-riddled" Pakistan an "emerging, urgent crisis," the veteran Delaware senator suggested that among the Democratic contenders he alone was best suited to deal with dangerous global affairs.
In a post-event interview with The Huffington Post, Biden at first refused to specify which candidate he was referring to when he said they weren't making sense on Pakistan. He noted that front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom issued brief statements earlier in the day lamenting Bhutto's murder, were "both good people" but didn't have his breadth of foreign policy experience.
When further pressed on the issue, Biden singled out second-tier candidate Bill Richardson as an example of a candidate putting forth simplistic responses to the Pakistani crisis. "Richardson said that [Pakistani President] Musharraf should step down and make way for a coalition government," Biden said. "But what coalition? There isn't any. What's he talking about?"
The assassination of Bhutto, Biden told HuffPost, was one more symptom of what he called a "dyslexic" U.S. foreign policy. "We've got things backwards," he said. "Our policy in Afghanistan where we haven't devoted enough resources to fight Al Qaeda has only encouraged the same extremists in Pakistan."
Biden devoted most of his two-hour appearance to lengthy presentations of various "Biden plans" to solve thorny international issues.
"You know a lot of people make jokes about me running really running for Secretary of State," he told the crowd who peppered him with questions on foreign policy issues ranging from Russia to the Middle East to Afghanistan. "I'm not. I'm running for President. But I would ask you: 'How many of you are willing to vote for a candidate not able to be Secretary of State?'"
"I know many of the world leaders for the last 30 years. Not because I'm and important guy. But because I came up with them," he said referring to his long-time leadership position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It's not hyperbole to suggest the rest of the world is waiting for an American president to be elected who can connect the dots. And I can." |
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/20...or-joseph-biden |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Well, I got my primary ballot, voted for Ron Paul expecting him not to win, but am leaning Democrat in this election. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
By the way, it's really lame being registered to vote in a state that doesn't participate in the Primary. I'd switch to DC, but, well, same problem.
:mad: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Faux News just decided to exclude Paul from their upcoming debate.
Suffice it to say, Paul ain't too happy:
| quote: | Ron Paul said the decision to exclude him from a debate on Fox News Sunday the weekend before the New Hampshire Primary is proof that the network "is scared" of him.
"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," Paul said in an interview at a diner here. "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
Paul's staff said they are beginning to plan a rally that will take place at the same time the 90-minute debate will air on television. It will be taped at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/po...fox_news_i.html |
I'm not a supporter of Paul, but I really must say for Faux to exclude him is ridiculous. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
voted for Ron Paul expecting him not to win, but am leaning Democrat in this election. |
dude, you make absolutely no sense sometimes.
politically, that is the dumbest i've heard so far this cycle.
i might have to quote you on that. |
|
|
|
|
