For RP supporters

Would you hold your nose and vote for Huckabee or Thompson in the general election?

  • NO

    Votes: 21 32.3%

  • Maybe when confronted with the thought of HillBama in the White House

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • YES

    Votes: 28 43.1%
  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
Of course there's the argument that Paul's idea of foreign policy is so ignorant and dangerous that it would certianly result in us being attacked
Click to expand...

and we are not being attacked with our current foreign policies?...

the rest of the world seems to view our nation as nothing more than a inconvenient guard dog.
 
and we are not being attacked with our current foreign policies?...
Click to expand...

We are attacked in either scenario. The difference is that under Paul, they would come to fruition instead of being stopped as they have been for the last 7 years.
 
I see you've begun to use the "Future Device."
crystalball-vi.jpg

Could you help us out with some stock picks and the Super Bowl winner, too.
 
The difference is that under Paul, they would come to fruition instead of being stopped as they have been for the last 7 years.
Click to expand...

I could tell how concerned the Bush administration was about keeping terrorists out of the country by the way they increased our border security.:rolleyes:
 
I could tell how concerned the Bush administration was about keeping terrorists out of the country by the way they increased our border security.
Click to expand...

Since 2001 we haven't suffered an attack on american soil. Chide all you want, but in this respect, Bush's performance has been exemplary.


I see you've begun to use the "Future Device."
Click to expand...

No, its called the common sense device.

Its really funny. I see all of these puffed chests and tall claims, yet when I asked for anyone to back their candidate, all I heard was crickets.

Paul will undoubtedly do better in NH than Iowa. They have a reputation for picking pie in the sky as opposed to sound political decisions. After that, there isn't anything to look forward to. Guliani has his campaigns in the large metro states and Thompson is sitting good in the south. It was over before it even started.

Like I said, if 2nd or even 3rd place is what you're shooting for in the state with your most support, that right there says it all.
 
The difference is that under Paul, they would come to fruition
Click to expand...

that is a guess at best and as such could be applied to any candidate....

instead of being stopped as they have been for the last 7 years.
Click to expand...

stopped? we have an enormous amount of troops and equipment in and around the middle east. we are being attacked everyday. terrorism against America isn't isolated to just U.S. soil.
 
that is a guess at best and as such could be applied to any candidate....
Click to expand...

No, because no other candidate wants to decrease the power and ability of the FBI and get rid of the CIA.

stopped? we have an enormous amount of troops and equipment in and around the middle east. we are being attacked everyday. terrorism against America isn't isolated to just U.S. soil.
Click to expand...

Thats a silly argument because you and everyone else knows what was being said. There is a huge difference between soldiers taking mortar fire and a bomb going off in the neighborhood mall.
 
Al Qaeda is least of a threat to America then China, plus if we had long ago fixed immigration problems we could worry less about terrorist threats.

Let's see we have spend billions on a war that could have been solved originally by controlling who comes into our country. Just an opinion, now flame away/
 
Yes, approximately 40 of "those people" managed to outwit the combined federal intelligence apparatus and law enforcement offices, some 50,000+ strong with funding of over $30 billion per year, and kill 3000 luckless Americans.

Of course, for their malfeasance, the federal agencies saw heads roll...any day now.
 
We have not been attacked because Al Qaeda decided to concentrate on Europe (Spain, UK, ect...) for a while. That's not speculation, it's a hard fact. If they wanted to hit us, they for damn sure could have.

The Bush administration had nothing to do with it.
 
This Ron Paul obsession of yours might be affecting your quality of life. Maybe you should take a little break.
Click to expand...

Just a conservative here finally supporting a real conservative in a field of moderates and RINO's:cool:
 
Yes, approximately 40 of "those people" managed to outwit the combined federal intelligence apparatus and law enforcement offices, some 50,000+ strong with funding of over $30 billion per year, and kill 3000 luckless Americans.
Click to expand...

And just how do you then justify RP wanting to get rid of these agencies? Its easy to throw rhetoric like that around, but think first next time. Your post just managed to sum up that if RP becomes President and if he is able to get rid of the agencies he would like to, then the sky is the limit to the number of "those" (not sure why you put it in quotes, they are Al Qaeda) people who can attack us again.

Oh, but you say, that will never happen under RP, he will have immigration under control...yea, like a 25 foot fence surrounding the border and an economy based on the dollar backed by RP gold will stop determined jihadists from bombing us...

Those agencies, if anything, need to be beefed up...with proper funding, proper protocols with who knows what info, so we dont have a fuster cluck like last time, and allowed to stop the terrorists as they have in the past 7 years.

I dont care how you want to argue it, you need a good offense to prevent these type of attacks from happening again, albeit a war in Afghanistan, whatever, you cant just sit in your home and expect if you leave them alone they will go away.
 
Let me justify one: The FBI has no constitutional juristiction to spy on American soil. Not even against nutjobs like the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver or anybody else. Law Enforcement is a state or local function. We got by just fine without them until the 1920's. We'll do fine without them now.

The BATFE? What ever happened to Congress shall make no law...? Or the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? The very begining of the BOR's tells you that the agency is unconstitutional as its primary purpose is to infringe on the right of the people.

Name me a federal agency that does not exceed its authority under the constitution....
 
Yes, that's correct. Paul isn't getting rid of that portion of the CIA that is involved with the defense of America, which of course should be transfered to the Defense Intelligence Agency, just curbing those illegal and illegitimate activities of the CIA such as nation building and removing and installing governments.

If the states want to pool their crime lab dollars and have a multi-state criminal forensics investigational agency, then that's both lawful and Constitutional as long as it remains under state control. Then political arguments for and against will be at the state level, where they belong. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been turned into a federal police force, and that is NOT constitutional. All federal SWAT groups are unConstitutional; even the EPA and National Park Service has them, they must go.
 
Let me justify one: The FBI has no constitutional juristiction to spy on American soil. Not even against nutjobs like the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver or anybody else. Law Enforcement is a state or local function. We got by just fine without them until the 1920's. We'll do fine without them now.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the complete ignorance of your last sentence, do you think that America of 1920 has anything in common with America in 2008.

Furthermore, the FBI doesn't "spy". They are law enforcement subject to all the constitutional restrictions as anyone else.

Name me a federal agency that does not exceed its authority under the constitution....
Click to expand...

Easy. The FBI to name one. Since you're so determined it isn't, why don't you show me why. "Because" isn't an answer.
 
For the FBI to be Constitutional an authorization for it would have to appear in the Constitution. Since most who know the Constitution well know that there is no federal police power of any kind authorized in the Constitution, that's all that need be written here. There are no implied powers in the Constitution, John Marshal's creation of them out of whole cloth notwithstanding.
 
If the FBI doesn't spy, then how did they get all those reports that they subsequently ignored about Arab men learning to take off, but not land 767's? That my friend is intelligence gathering. A euphamism for gathering intelligence is....

Secondly- America of 1920 has a lot in common with America in 1920...

Thirdly- Show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government is permitted to engage in spying, or to have a federal police force.

The seven articles of the Constitution give precise details of what the Federal Government CAN do. The 10th Amendment gives all other powers not in the Constitution to the States or People respectively. Therefore- The FBI, not having any constitutional basis to exist, is by its very existence and activities, unconstitutional.

Read the constitution! Really- I'm not making this stuff up! The Federalist papers are another great source of information as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top