Congress is amazingly spineless for a bunch of narcissistic power whores. I am amazed that this is being all but ignored.
Obama doesn't ask for approval on the Libya war; Congress declines to act
The outrage! The outrage!
** spoiler omitted **
LOL! Sometimes when presidents engage in illegal wars it makes the news.
My friend told me that he was listening to some member of Congress who's over in Libya on Alex Jones's radio show.
It sounds like what's going on over there's a bunch of b$#*~%++.
My friend told me that he was listening to some member of Congress who's over in Libya on Alex Jones's radio show.
It sounds like what's going on over there's a bunch of b+~$$**$.
I find our actions in Libya to be bizarre.
"It's not really a war."
"We're not taking sides."
Yet we're doing the heavy lifting in terms of missions and money. $750,000,000+ spent (borrowed). WTF over?
What's next Iran or Syria? *facepalm*
My friend told me that he was listening to some member of Congress who's over in Libya on Alex Jones's radio show.
It sounds like what's going on over there's a bunch of b+~$$**$.
I find our actions in Libya to be bizarre.
"It's not really a war."
"We're not taking sides."
Yet we're doing the heavy lifting in terms of missions and money. $750,000,000+ spent (borrowed). WTF over?
What's next Iran or Syria? *facepalm*
It's almost like the people getting paid to supply the war machine are making the decisions.... INCONCEIVABLE!
Agreed, Libya is an ugly situation. I'm not sure quite how we ended up in there, but I think our allies asked the same thing themselves in Iraq and maybe decided turnabout was fair play. I dunno. I'm still looking at it primarily as a NATO affair, and hope they do more and more in the area.
Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005
One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.
It's almost like the people getting paid to supply the war machine are making the decisions.... INCONCEIVABLE!My friend told me that he was listening to some member of Congress who's over in Libya on Alex Jones's radio show.
It sounds like what's going on over there's a bunch of b+~$$**$.
I find our actions in Libya to be bizarre.
"It's not really a war."
"We're not taking sides."
Yet we're doing the heavy lifting in terms of missions and money. $750,000,000+ spent (borrowed). WTF over?
What's next Iran or Syria? *facepalm*
So we probably should not give them more money and power. It's just a thought. ;)
Agreed, Libya is an ugly situation. I'm not sure quite how we ended up in there, but I think our allies asked the same thing themselves in Iraq and maybe decided turnabout was fair play. I dunno. I'm still looking at it primarily as a NATO affair, and hope they do more and more in the area.
WTF does this have to do with NATO's mission of defending us against the Comblock? How is this a defensive alliance? The world is full of dictators that need killing, but why do we have to kill them!?
Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.
I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.
Sometimes I am convinced that Paizo needs a "like" button.
What worries me about Ron Paul is not his base of support among the people--it's the kind of people who do not want him elected.
I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.
to be honest, I have no problems with Ron Paul, per se. I am not saying he should not have a career in politics, nor am I saying he should not run for president if he so wishes. I agree with him in a few areas, i am sure I will agree with him in more as i learn more about him. But i am not going to be voting for him for the office of President any time soon. The areas I don't agree with him in are simply too important to me to do so.
Agreed, Libya is an ugly situation. I'm not sure quite how we ended up in there, but I think our allies asked the same thing themselves in Iraq and maybe decided turnabout was fair play. I dunno. I'm still looking at it primarily as a NATO affair, and hope they do more and more in the area.WTF does this have to do with NATO's mission of defending us against the Comblock? How is this a defensive alliance? The world is full of dictators that need killing, but why do we have to kill them!?
I didn't mean for this to sound harsh toward you Freehold.
Let me explain a bit further. One of the historic criticisms of NATO was that it was an imperial alliance that would use military force to impose western policy. I don't think that there was much truth to this during the cold war, but it certainly appears to be the case in Libya.
Our foreign policy is incredibly inconsistent. We routinely ignore or prop up brutally oppressive, even genocidal regimes, but if they have oil and they don't have nuclear weapons and they're Muslim, we may invade some of them. If we are not at war with Islam and it's not really about oil we have certainly made it look that way.
Basically everything we are doing in Libya seems bizarre and hypocritical.
|
Would you feel better if I said. "There is no harm in placing the possibility of God where science falters."Depends if you said that in Sunday School, It'd be fine. If you said that in a Science course that's a problem. If you said that in a course on philosophy it'd be a problem because you're advocating your faith in what's supposed to be neutral ground.
Or let's put it this way, answers in a science course only benefit when they lead to more questions. Putting God in the picture does not invite rational inquiry, it closes it down.
I think that depends on what you see God as. Not all beliefs of God are acceptable in Sunday School, particularly the de-anthropomorphised version. God as the energy of the universe and consciousness combined would have very little to do with "faith", since I find "faith" is generally a religious term instead of a theological or deological one.
to be honest, I have no problems with Ron Paul, per se. I am not saying he should not have a career in politics, nor am I saying he should not run for president if he so wishes. I agree with him in a few areas, i am sure I will agree with him in more as i learn more about him. But i am not going to be voting for him for the office of President any time soon. The areas I don't agree with him in are simply too important to me to do so.I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.
I kind of figured that, but you can't blame a guy for trying.;)
On a more serious note, while it ultimately comes down to who we cast our ballots for I think the ideas are tremendously important. I've been politically active for a long time, and having serious policy discussions about monetary policy, the Fed, and pulling troops back is a big change. Republicans having serious debates about limiting the size, cost, and use of the military in a county with five major bases is a huge change. The religious right is still very important in the Republican party, but it no longer dominates the dialogue. These changes are largely driven by ideas. I firmly believe that ideas matter, and I think Ron Paul has the best ideas in either major party.
Oh, no worries! I didn't take what you said personally at all. I understand this is a charged topic for you and for many others. I myself have reservations, and I agree that our foreign policy needs serious retooling. That said, i do look at this more as a nato issue and less of a wholly American one, which may be where we butt heads. We can disagree here without hard feelings towards each other -let's instead direct them at the issue itself.
Obama's Imperial Presidency: Executive power continues to expand.
"There's a strange disconnect in the talk-radio right's view of Obama: Apparently, he's a crypto-socialist with sinister designs on our liberties, yet it's vitally important that he have the authority to wiretap Americans at will and assassinate them while they're abroad."
Not to derail the economic debate, but I thought this was a great speech.
I am truly baffled. I was always taught that the US government worked only because of the checks and balances between the 3 branches of government. Why does it seem more and more like 2 of those branches are ceding the balance to the third branch?
Edit-Thats not a rhetorical question either. I really want to know, because I dont understand. If I was a congressman, I would want the power to make war to only reside with my colleagues and me. If I was a judge, I would want the power to authorize a police search or wiretap to reside with only my colleagues and me.
Congress is amazingly spineless for a bunch of narcissistic power whores. I am amazed that this is being all but ignored.
Obama doesn't ask for approval on the Libya war; Congress declines to act
Illegal War? Congress Doesn't Care: Capitol Hill still hasn't authorized Obama's war in Libya.
"One thing is clear, you can't blame our burgeoning "imperial presidency" solely on aggressive, power-hungry presidents. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explained in his book of that name, the presidency's transformation from limited, constitutional office to Supreme Warlord of the Earth has been "as much a matter of congressional abdication as of presidential usurpation.'"
They want those powers for the NeXT President assuming either (1) the Birther movement succeeds in getting his presidency annulled or (2) a Tea Party republican takes the Oval Office in 2012.Obama's Imperial Presidency: Executive power continues to expand.
"There's a strange disconnect in the talk-radio right's view of Obama: Apparently, he's a crypto-socialist with sinister designs on our liberties, yet it's vitally important that he have the authority to wiretap Americans at will and assassinate them while they're abroad."
It doesn't strike me as a very small government notion, but this is a debate I get to have with my fellow Republicans fairly regularly.
It doesn't strike me as a very small government notion, but this is a debate I get to have with my fellow Republicans fairly regularly.They want those powers for the NeXT President assuming either (1) the Birther movement succeeds in getting his presidency annulled or (2) a Tea Party republican takes the Oval Office in 2012.Obama's Imperial Presidency: Executive power continues to expand.
"There's a strange disconnect in the talk-radio right's view of Obama: Apparently, he's a crypto-socialist with sinister designs on our liberties, yet it's vitally important that he have the authority to wiretap Americans at will and assassinate them while they're abroad."
Elucidate, please. This is something I would be interested in hearing more on.
Elucidate, please. This is something I would be interested in hearing more on.It doesn't strike me as a very small government notion, but this is a debate I get to have with my fellow Republicans fairly regularly.They want those powers for the NeXT President assuming either (1) the Birther movement succeeds in getting his presidency annulled or (2) a Tea Party republican takes the Oval Office in 2012.Obama's Imperial Presidency: Executive power continues to expand.
"There's a strange disconnect in the talk-radio right's view of Obama: Apparently, he's a crypto-socialist with sinister designs on our liberties, yet it's vitally important that he have the authority to wiretap Americans at will and assassinate them while they're abroad."
I'm frequently mystified by my fellow (supposedly small government) Republicans tendency to support greater executive power and broader law enforcement power. When they advocate for something silly like sodomy laws I try challenge them with questions like "Where does the constitution give the government that power?" and "Why would you want the government to have that kind of power, and how would they go about enforcing such a thing fairly?". Even in a county as socially conservative as mine the party is moving away from the social issues and is beginning to focus more on real threats like the national debt, but there really is a fight for the soul of the party at the grass roots level. These are arguments we have in the precinct, county and state levels. I'm frustrated that progress is slow, but I'm encouraged that there is any progress at all.
Does that help?
I'm frequently mystified by my fellow (supposedly small government) Republicans tendency to support greater executive power and broader law enforcement power. When they advocate for something silly like sodomy laws I try challenge them with questions like "Where does the constitution give the government that power?" and "Why would you want the government to have that kind of power, and how would they go about enforcing such a thing fairly?". Even in a county as socially conservative as mine the party is moving away from the social issues and is beginning to focus more on real threats like the national debt, but there really is a fight for the soul of the party at the grass roots level. These are arguments we have in the precinct, county and state levels. I'm frustrated that progress is slow, but I'm encouraged that there is any progress at all.
Does that help?
When it comes to "small government" what your "fellow Republicans" mean is small in the areas of social services such as health, education, environmental protection and corporate regulation, things that basically protect the have-nots. When it comes to redefining our lives as Miss Grundy and Corporate Execs would have it, they tend to get very large.
If your version of progress is the ascension of the Tea Party, then we do have very different definitions of progress. Altough I do agree that within a short period of time the Tea Party will BE the Republican Party. But keep in mind that the Tea Party does include Miss Grundy in that loud tent they're pitching up.
+1 to this.
Modern republican government= Big BrotherModern democratic government= Big Brother
Edit- which is why Im pulling for Ron Paul.
Sometimes I am convinced that Paizo needs a "like" button.I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.
What the hell?!? Did they give us a like button?!?
Sometimes I am convinced that Paizo needs a "like" button.I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.What the hell?!? Did they give us a like button?!?
Looks like it!
Sometimes I am convinced that Paizo needs to give me millions of dollars and a tropical private island. -waits patiently-
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like it!Sometimes I am convinced that Paizo needs a "like" button.I think you will find a lot more if you keep looking.Reconsidering the Patriot Act 2005One of the few things I agree with Ron Paul on.What the hell?!? Did they give us a like button?!?
Holy crap, I'm seeing the "like" button for the first time- I was viewing paizo on my phone before and couldn't see it. For a while, I was thinking everyone was just crazy!
Unfortunately, it seems that Ron Paul isn't doing well in the polls at least on the Republican side of the equation- 9% of the vote last I saw. I was thinking he'd have more supporters. Do you think he could overtake Mitt(who names these people?!?!) Romney?
Unfortunately, it seems that Ron Paul isn't doing well in the polls at least on the Republican side of the equation- 9% of the vote last I saw. I was thinking he'd have more supporters. Do you think he could overtake Mitt(who names these people?!?!) Romney?
Yes, and he will in numerous caucuses and polls. This far from the primary the polls are all but meaningless.
Sen. Jim DeMint Considers White House Bid
I'm all in for Ron Paul, but I think this quote reflects the feelings of a lot of constitutional small government conservatives.
'When DeMint was attacked by the Republican elites for supporting Christine O’Donnell over a rabid anti-gunner in a Delaware primary, DeMint fired back, “I’ve been in the majority with Republicans who didn’t have principles, and we embarrassed ourselves and lost credibility in front of the country. Frankly, I’m at a point where I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause than win fighting for the wrong cause.”'
I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
In broad terms I would say their outlooks are basically libertarian with Ron Paul being the more consistent hard core libertarian. I don't have an issue by issue breakdown at hand, but their positions tend to be quite similar with Rand's being somewhat more (relatively) moderate.
In broad terms I would say their outlooks are basically libertarian with Ron Paul being the more consistent hard core libertarian. I don't have an issue by issue breakdown at hand, but their positions tend to be quite similar with Rand's being somewhat more (relatively) moderate.I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
Well, if he (Ron) agrees on this, I just found one more reason why people shouldn't vote for him:
PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.
The highlighted part is especially damning (and very, very ironic) considering that they have both spoken at several Tea Party gatherings, where advocates seem to want change courtesy of the second amendment if they don't get their way...
Civil liberties (free speech for crying out loud!) from these socalled libertarians? Doesn't seem like it.In the same interview he apparently also wants to curtail the freedom of exchange students and expand government to take care of it (who else is going to monitor them?):
“I do want them going after, for example, let’s say we have a 100,000 exchange students from the Middle East — I want to know where they are, how long they’ve been here, if they’ve overstayed their welcome, whether they’re in school.”
So much for small government, eh?
In broad terms I would say their outlooks are basically libertarian with Ron Paul being the more consistent hard core libertarian. I don't have an issue by issue breakdown at hand, but their positions tend to be quite similar with Rand's being somewhat more (relatively) moderate.I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
Well, if he (Ron) agrees on this, I just found one more reason why people shouldn't vote for him:
PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.The highlighted part is especially damning (and very, very ironic) considering that they have both spoken at several Tea Party gatherings, where advocates seem to want change courtesy of the second amendment if they don't get their way...
Civil liberties (free speech for crying out loud!) from these socalled libertarians? Doesn't seem like it.
In the same interview he apparently also wants to curtail the freedom of exchange students and expand government to take care of it (who else is going to...
The first one is odious to me, and I'm confident that this would be a disagreement between them. Ron Paul is arguably the foremost defender of civil liberties in either house in the libertarian sense for twenty years. I'm sure no one even approaches his voting record for the past twenty years although I take issue with some of the legislation he has sponsored (see prof cirino's links up thread).
I think Rand Paul is referring to what an awful job we do of keeping track of everyone here on visas, but this is somewhat speculative on my part. I haven't followed him closely, but I'm pleased with his qualified opposition to the Patriot Act.
I pay attention to Ron Paul's policy positions because I caucus and campaign for him. I'm much less well informed about Rand, and I hope we don't get too side tracked in that direction.
Other conservative guy announces presidential bid!
Which one?
So, here's an article I thought you might like to read.
Cockburn, although ideologically far from you, is a pretty interesting guy to read.
No mention of Ron Paul, though. As someone who has supported many fringe causes that rarely ever get mentioned in the popular press, I can sympathize. Cockburn has discussed RP before, so I'm surprised he isn't mentioned here.
So, here's an article I thought you might like to read.
Cockburn, although ideologically far from you, is a pretty interesting guy to read.
No mention of Ron Paul, though. As someone who has supported many fringe causes that rarely ever get mentioned in the popular press, I can sympathize. Cockburn has discussed RP before, so I'm surprised he isn't mentioned here.
It always amazes me how the American people fall for the same fear mongering lies election after election after election.
In broad terms I would say their outlooks are basically libertarian with Ron Paul being the more consistent hard core libertarian. I don't have an issue by issue breakdown at hand, but their positions tend to be quite similar with Rand's being somewhat more (relatively) moderate.I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
Well, if he (Ron) agrees on this, I just found one more reason why people shouldn't vote for him:
PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.The highlighted part is especially damning (and very, very ironic) considering that they have both spoken at several Tea Party gatherings, where advocates seem to want change courtesy of the second amendment if they don't get their way...
Civil liberties (free speech for crying out loud!) from these socalled libertarians? Doesn't seem like it.
In the same interview he apparently also wants to curtail the freedom of exchange students and expand government to take care of it (who else is going to...
Out of curiosity Double G. I'd like to know what your opinion is of the Lars Hedegaar hate crime case in Denmark. http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2010/08/denmark-rethinks-hate- crime-laws/
|
|
...In broad terms I would say their outlooks are basically libertarian with Ron Paul being the more consistent hard core libertarian. I don't have an issue by issue breakdown at hand, but their positions tend to be quite similar with Rand's being somewhat more (relatively) moderate.I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
Well, if he (Ron) agrees on this, I just found one more reason why people shouldn't vote for him:
PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.The highlighted part is especially damning (and very, very ironic) considering that they have both spoken at several Tea Party gatherings, where advocates seem to want change courtesy of the second amendment if they don't get their way...
Civil liberties (free speech for crying out loud!) from these socalled libertarians? Doesn't seem like it.
In the same interview he apparently also wants to curtail the freedom of exchange students and expand government to take care of it (who
To this, I think we should be careful about what is intended by Rand's example. There is such a thing as Treasonous speech. It should be punished to the full extent allowed by the law. It should not be confused with Political speech, the freedom of which should be celebrated and is specifically protected.
As an example of the two, I'll use Westboro. If Westboro Baptists say, for example "We should kill all persons of (insert minority)." This is an example of a social/political speech, the freedom of which is protected by the Constitution. I personally don't agree with it, and I do not think I would ever knowingly hang out or befriend someone who does, but the speech is permissable. If Westboro Baptists say, as another example "John Doe is (a minority) and he'll be at 123 Main Street, Anytown, USA at 12:00 noon on March 1st, 2020 and we all need to be there with guns or clubs or whatever you have and show him a thing or two". This type of speech is not Constitutionally protected.
Treasonous speech, or the intentional use of speech to incite riots, violence, or destruction of property is not, as far as I am aware, protected. Political speech, however, is (and definitely should be).
So "promoting the violent overthrow of our government" could be either political speech or treasonous speech, depending on how specifically worded the "promotions" are, and what the general intent of the speech is.
...In broad terms I would say their outlooks are basically libertarian with Ron Paul being the more consistent hard core libertarian. I don't have an issue by issue breakdown at hand, but their positions tend to be quite similar with Rand's being somewhat more (relatively) moderate.I'm curious* and would be interested in hearing whether Ron Paul shares any, and if so, which, policy opinions with his son Rand?
Well, if he (Ron) agrees on this, I just found one more reason why people shouldn't vote for him:
PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.The highlighted part is especially damning (and very, very ironic) considering that they have both spoken at several Tea Party gatherings, where advocates seem to want change courtesy of the second amendment if they don't get their way...
Civil liberties (free speech for crying out loud!) from these socalled libertarians? Doesn't seem like it.
In the same interview he apparently also wants to curtail the freedom of exchange students and expand government to
I disagree. The laws on treason are pretty specific. About the only thing that constitutes treason is actively making war against the US or harboring or aiding those that do. Talking about making war with US does not count.
I disagree. The laws on treason are pretty specific. About the only thing that constitutes treason is actively making war against the US or harboring or aiding those that do. Talking about making war with US does not count.
Right, that is called sedition.
I disagree. The laws on treason are pretty specific. About the only thing that constitutes treason is actively making war against the US or harboring or aiding those that do. Talking about making war with US does not count.Right, that is called sedition.
True.
|
|
So all seditious speech is protected? I would be concerned if the government did not want to keep track of who is using seditious speech and where this speech is being used. Preparations for attack are just seditious until active attacks are engaged.
I would be alarmed, if under the guise of seditious speech, a number of attacks could be planned and coordinated to such an extent that a federal military or state militia forces would be incapable or less capable of defending against or responding to them.
However, if I am wrong (and I am quite willing to be) about the nature of sedition vs treason or dangerous speech, I would promote in the active defense of our communities (and namely domestic tranquility) a near hyper-awareness of seditious speech. Should it be allowed and not punished? Certainly. The freedom of speech and peacable assembly both allow individuals and groups to assemble and say anything they wish. Seditious activity should be monitored, however, but certainly not curtailed or punished, in the effort to prevent treasonous activity or any destructive disturbance from rising.
So all seditious speech is protected? I would be concerned if the government did not want to keep track of who is using seditious speech and where this speech is being used. Preparations for attack are just seditious until active attacks are engaged.
I would be alarmed, if under the guise of seditious speech, a number of attacks could be planned and coordinated to such an extent that a federal military or state militia forces would be incapable or less capable of defending against or responding to them.
However, if I am wrong (and I am quite willing to be) about the nature of sedition vs treason or dangerous speech, I would promote in the active defense of our communities (and namely domestic tranquility) a near hyper-awareness of seditious speech. Should it be allowed and not punished? Certainly. The freedom of speech and peacable assembly both allow individuals and groups to assemble and say anything they wish. Seditious activity should be monitored, however, but certainly not curtailed or punished, in the effort to prevent treasonous activity or any destructive disturbance from rising.
No, sedition is still a crime. I was just commenting that it would not be treason. I was fired up because I had just finished reading the local paper's Op-Ed section and I tire of reading things like "that wikileaks guy (Bradley Manning) should be arrested for treason" or "Sarah Palin should be arrested for treason."