Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[carpee]

Ron Paul no matter how much sense he may make has NO SHOT at getting into the White house. His message isn't the one the "powers that be" want in focus. I for one have reluctantly been dragged to the realization that what we want DOES NOT MATTER, at this point, I'm for nobody

This is the sad truth.

 

[sofargone561]

Ron Paul no matter how much sense he may make has NO SHOT at getting into the White house. His message isn't the one the "powers that be" want in focus. I for one have reluctantly been dragged to the realization that what we want DOES NOT MATTER, at this point, I'm for nobody

very true **** the elite and the bilderburg group ****in *******s

 

[ax1]

very true **** the elite and the bilderburg group ****in *******s

This is where people come in and accuse you of being a tin foiled conspiracy theorist, lol

 

[sofargone561]

This is where people come in and accuse you of being a tin foiled conspiracy theorist, lol

i am a conspiracy theorist so flame away !!! =p

 

[AE14]

No Paul is not off his rocker at all

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-34-45

 

[AE14]

I dunno, how much money have we spent and how many US servicemen's lives have we lost since Vietnam being in places where the residents of the countries didn't want us there? And what positive things did it bring to the US? He said that after 9/11 he would have gone in, done a quick surgical strike on the taliban, and got out. I'm not sure how naive that is, seems like its what we should have done, instead of the $4 trillion we've spent there.

I dont disagree that we shouldnt be in certain places, but that is irrelevant in dealing with where e are. A gradual withdrawal is the way to go, but that is not what Paul wants. He wants everyone home now.

Also a strike on the Taliban? Hmmm.....I would assume he must mean AQ

 

[OrganicShadow]

Paul has his head straight but I just cant lend my hand out entirely to his plans. I hold some reservations. Things need to move gradually - unfortunately our immediate action American culture cant grasp that concept that big things take time. I think he means a strike on Al Queda

 

[ax1]

Paul has his head straight but I just cant lend my hand out entirely to his plans. I hold some reservations. Things need to move gradually - unfortunately our immediate action American culture cant grasp that concept that big things take time. I think he means a strike on Al Queda

This is how all these wars are always prolonged and stalled, they always extend everything in 2 year increments, were almost there, were almost there, just needs more time, etc..... the truth is they will never ever leave. They built a embassy the size of the Vatican and built a Berlin Wall type and created a city within a city. There is no intention of leaving Iraq/Afganastan/Lybia ever, we will be there until the empire is broke and collapses. If we dont march right out and abandon ship, it will never happen.

This "gradual" leaving is really just a political tactic by the government and the corporations that pay them to desensitize the population into excepting things the way there are.

No Paul is not off his rocker at all

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-34-45

The fact that the President is entitled to order assassinations of Americans without trial is a scary thing, its as if we live in the Soviet Union. The man went from being the "Guest of Honor" at a Pentagon diner in 2002, to being some Al-ciada leader that Obama has the right to order an assassination of an American citizen, assuming the event even happened since there is no evidence it took place.

 

[ax1]

Paul has his head straight but I just cant lend my hand out entirely to his plans. I hold some reservations. Things need to move gradually - unfortunately our immediate action American culture cant grasp that concept that big things take time. I think he means a strike on Al Queda

Its certainly a fair statement, we are never going to agree with everything. I dont agree with all of Paul's politics. What is needed is a leader who doesnt function a dictatorship. Paul will not use (at least he leads us to believe, lol) illegal executive powers the way Obama and Bush have the past 10 years and run the presidency as a executive dictatorship.

Some people gave the idea that Paul intends to shut down the Fed from day 1 for example, but really what he would do is slowly phase it out...and it can start with an audit which congress has refused to agree that there should be oversight on how the fed is printing and spending money. As of now, the Fed has more powers than the white house.

 

[AE14]

The fact that the President is entitled to order assassinations of Americans without trial is a scary thing, its as if we live in the Soviet Union. The man went from being the "Guest of Honor" at a Pentagon diner in 2002, to being some Al-ciada leader that Obama has the right to order an assassination of an American citizen, assuming the event even happened since there is no evidence it took place.

Really? Listen, there is an old saying "politics make strange bedfellows", so the earlier relationship to me is not important now. This person was a known high ranking AQ official. I guess the OBL killing, or any high ranking killing of an AQ official is not warranted. Oh wait, I forgot, you dont think AQ had anything to do with 9-11. Sorry

Again, this shows that Paul does not in any way have a connection to the average american citizen, and will never be seriously in consideration for the White House. Which is a good thing

 

[AE14]

Its certainly a fair statement, we are never going to agree with everything. I dont agree with all of Paul's politics. What is needed is a leader who doesnt function a dictatorship. Paul will not use (at least he leads us to believe, lol) illegal executive powers the way Obama and Bush have the past 10 years and run the presidency as a executive dictatorship.

Some people gave the idea that Paul intends to shut down the Fed from day 1 for example, but really what he would do is slowly phase it out...and it can start with an audit which congress has refused to agree that there should be oversight on how the fed is printing and spending money. As of now, the Fed has more powers than the white house.

Just curious, if congress wont consent to this if Paul is President, how does he intend to get it done. Oh wait.....thats right, executive order

 

[ax1]

Just curious, if congress wont consent to this if Paul is President, how does he intend to get it done. Oh wait.....thats right, executive order

So your saying that Paul would have used an executive order to go to war with another country such as Lybia, or to order an assassination of an American citizen?

Really? Listen, there is an old saying "politics make strange bedfellows", so the earlier relationship to me is not important now. This person was a known high ranking AQ official. I guess the OBL killing, or any high ranking killing of an AQ official is not warranted. Oh wait, I forgot, you dont think AQ had anything to do with 9-11. Sorry

Again, this shows that Paul does not in any way have a connection to the average american citizen, and will never be seriously in consideration for the White House. Which is a good thing

First part...yes AQ..etc...lol but lets pretend that Bin Laden and Al-Alwaki are in fact these terrorist boogymen, in a time of war should a surgical strike be needed to protect the country by all means do it...but to order a assassination from an executive office especially of an American Citizen shows how meaningless our government views the constitution. In regards to a non-citizen such as Bin Ladens killing, they didnt have to kill him in that situation and they shouldnt have. If these people are true terrorists, and true leaders they should be held and interrogated since they would be holding key information to protect our country from future attacks... I dont believe that our government is stupid enough to murder the #1 terrorist in the world if they did not have too. He would be taken and held for interrogation, then taken to trial (which in Bin Laden's case they couldnt because he was never indited for any charges.) This was an impossible situation since the events are all made up and just used as political ploys.

In regards to your second statement, if Paul was trying to have a connection with the average "current American Citizen" I would not be supporting him. He needs to keep doing what he is doing and have a connection with the constitution, and reality. The object here although more than welcome is not the presidency, but to create a movement for the future.

 

[AE14]

So your saying that Paul would have used an executive order to go to war with another country such as Lybia, or to order an assassination of an American citizen?

Here is the issue with Paul supporters in general, it would be ok to use an executive order to audit or dismantle the fed, but not in other circumstances. Face it, Paul is no different than any other mouthpiece on that stage and you know it. He is just into the tinfoil hat bullsh!t, so you guys flock to him.

part...yes AQ..etc...lol but lets pretend that Bin Laden and Al-Alwaki are in fact these terrorist boogymen, in a time of war should a surgical strike be needed to protect the country by all means do it...but to order a assassination from an executive office especially of an American Citizen shows how meaningless our government views the constitution. In regards to a non-citizen such as Bin Ladens killing, they didnt have to kill him in that situation and they shouldnt have. If these people are true terrorists, and true leaders they should be held and interrogated since they would be holding key information to protect our country from future attacks... I dont believe that our government is stupid enough to murder the #1 terrorist in the world if they did not have too. He would be taken and held for interrogation, then taken to trial (which in Bin Laden's case they couldnt because he was never indited for any charges.) This was an impossible situation since the events are all made up and just used as political ploys.

ahhhh....the typical nothing ever in the media is true routine. Got it. Listen, I dont doubt that certain things are held from the US citizens, and rightfully so. However, for once think about the psychological reasoning for all this conspiracy crap. The paranoia is a tad much no?

In regards to your second statement, if Paul was trying to have a connection with the average "current American Citizen" I would not be supporting him. He needs to keep doing what he is doing and have a connection with the constitution, and reality. The object here although more than welcome is not the presidency, but to create a movement for the future.

So you acknowledge he is not for the average citizen? Isn't that what is "supposed" to make up his electorate?

What I truly will never understand about Paul and his supporters is their claim about the constitution. They seem to want all presidents to stick to a direct interpretation of the constitution as it was written over 200+ years ago. Here is a news flash for you political scientists, the world has changed, and the rich, racists white guys that wrote it, would never have been able to predict the world we live in now, so to assume we can stay by 18th, 19th, or 20th century standards is naive, as is Ron Paul.

Finally, calling this man an "American Citizen" is a load of poop and you know it. By definition is he? Yes, but that does not allow him to evade this "assassination". I swear, the more I speak to Ron Paul supporters the more I wonder how in the world we got to this point. It is downright scary to think this man has any support at all, and truly has a cult following. Ax.....dont drink the kool aid

 

[ax1]

Here is the issue with Paul supporters in general, it would be ok to use an executive order to audit or dismantle the fed, but not in other circumstances. Face it, Paul is no different than any other mouthpiece on that stage and you know it. He is just into the tinfoil hat bullsh!t, so you guys flock to him.

No, he will not use an executive order to audit or dismantle the fed. I dont know where you came up with that.

ahhhh....the typical nothing ever in the media is true routine. Got it. Listen, I dont doubt that certain things are held from the US citizens, and rightfully so. However, for once think about the psychological reasoning for all this conspiracy crap. The paranoia is a tad much no?

You can pick whatever media you want to listen and believe in. If you think its just conspiracy crap, by all means please think that way its your choice.

So you acknowledge he is not for the average citizen? Isn't that what is "supposed" to make up his electorate?

What I truly will never understand about Paul and his supporters is their claim about the constitution. They seem to want all presidents to stick to a direct interpretation of the constitution as it was written over 200+ years ago. Here is a news flash for you political scientists, the world has changed, and the rich, racists white guys that wrote it, would never have been able to predict the world we live in now, so to assume we can stay by 18th, 19th, or 20th century standards is naive, as is Ron Paul.

Finally, calling this man an "American Citizen" is a load of poop and you know it. By definition is he? Yes, but that does not allow him to evade this "assassination". I swear, the more I speak to Ron Paul supporters the more I wonder how in the world we got to this point. It is downright scary to think this man has any support at all, and truly has a cult following. Ax.....dont drink the kool aid

I can only share my views and my own interpretation of society. I feel society has slipped, and whats important to me is not catering to a system that has corporate/government control of the education system, news media, marketing, etc...my contribution is to educate what I feel is right. Mainstream popularity is not my concern. If it means losing all the elections so be it, its not failure that Im scared. Failure is a part of life.

In regards to the constitution, your taking it to the extreme as if you think we want to live in the 1700's again. This is not the case. I feel you dont have a good grasp of what Ron Paul is getting at. For example, you thought Ron Paul's economic policy was written in the late 1700's, when in reality he practices Austrian economics. I feel as if your jumping your own idea's of what Ron Paul states/supports and moving far away from his intentions imo.

Edited 10:24...my wife is annoying in the morning, lol

 

[AE14]

No, he will not use an executive order to audit or dismantle the fed. I dont know where you came up with that.

lets look at it logically. The Judicial branch will not support it. So in order to get it done, how would you suggest president Paul do it?

You can pick whatever media you want to listen and believe in. If you think its just conspiracy crap, by all means please think that way its your choice.

Its not a matter of which I follow or believe, the concern is you believe nothing, and draw conclusions based on a whim it seems.

I can only share my views and my own interpretation of society. I feel society has slipped, and whats important to me is not catering to a system that has corporate/government control of the education system, news media, marketing, etc...my contribution is to educate what I feel is right. Mainstream popularity is not my concern. If it means losing all the elections so be it, its not failure that Im scared. Failure is a part of life.

In regards to the constitution, your taking it to the extreme as if you think we want to live in the 1700's again. This is not the case. I feel you dont have a good grasp of what Ron Paul is getting at, or am I going to convince you myself, but I disagree your interpretation. For example, you thought Ron Paul's economic policy was written in the late 1700's, when in reality he practices Austrian economics. I feel as if your jumping your own idea's of what Ron Paul states/supports and moving far away from his intentions imo.

My reference here is Paul's foreign policy. His desire to pull all troops out day 1 (which he has stated) and in essence kill foreign policy is an 18th century idea of Isolationism. It is totally unrealistic in the modern world, and a prime example of why he is not fit for that office.

In terms of his economics, just so you are aware, most mainstream economists find tremendous flaws within the austrian system. I never said I thought his economic policy was specifically written in the 18th century, I stated I felt that he personally would have been a great candidate then, as now he is a babbling, senile old man, who is in no way relevant to the 21st century world.

 

[OrganicShadow]

My reference here is Paul's foreign policy. His desire to pull all troops out day 1 (which he has stated) and in essence kill foreign policy is an 18th century idea of Isolationism. It is totally unrealistic in the modern world, and a prime example of why he is not fit for that office.

If anyone knows the real history of Afghanistan during the Cold War they would understand why this is a really stupid idea. Go watch Charlie Wilson's War and itll all make sense. You cant just pull out completely and expect them to be ok. Last time we did that the country was like a chicken with no head carrying tons of Russian and American guns/artillery we left behind and Taliban came to power. They had anti-American views people bought into and out of desperation for leadership joined their regime. They feel that we just left them for dead at a time they couldnt manage themselves from the hurt hence where we are today.

 

[EasyEJL]

Really? Listen, there is an old saying "politics make strange bedfellows", so the earlier relationship to me is not important now. This person was a known high ranking AQ official. I guess the OBL killing, or any high ranking killing of an AQ official is not warranted. Oh wait, I forgot, you dont think AQ had anything to do with 9-11. Sorry

Again, this shows that Paul does not in any way have a connection to the average american citizen, and will never be seriously in consideration for the White House. Which is a good thing

No, there is a huge difference between bin laden an enemy combatant, and a US citizen. Was the guy a douchebag sure. Did he deserve to die sure. Was he guilty of being a traitor and deserved a death sentence for it sure.

did he have a right as a US citizen to a trial even in absentia before his death sentence was ordered absolutely. The more we depart from rule of law and the constitution, the more our country falls apart.

 

[EasyEJL]

My reference here is Paul's foreign policy. His desire to pull all troops out day 1 (which he has stated) and in essence kill foreign policy is an 18th century idea of Isolationism. It is totally unrealistic in the modern world, and a prime example of why he is not fit for that office.

not having troops on foreign soil isn't isolationism. Having troops on foreign soil is more colonialism and is far more 18th century than what Paul proposes. I mean seriously, how many existing middle eastern governments have we now torn down and worked with who remains to force them to build a new government in an image we support? And somehow sending $3 billion a year to Pakistan so they can help hide terrorists is a model of great foreign policy? People like Bin Laden were supporting the idea of getting the US troops off of their sovereign soil where they weren't wanted.

If for instance a crazy group of US citizens made terrorist attacks on China, and China placed troops on US soil would you call people who fought back against those chinese troops on US soil terrorists or patriots?

 

[ax1]

lets look at it logically. The Judicial branch will not support it. So in order to get it done, how would you suggest president Paul do it?

You dont need to Judicial branch, you need 2/3rds which is the executive and the house. I dont know if your following Ron Paul's audit the fed movement "Federal Reserve Transparency Act H.R. 1207," but he was close to having the congress passing the bill as a congressman. As a president its possible for him to exert more influence on the bill, and of course the executive would sign it which we all know he will do.

Its not a matter of which I follow or believe, the concern is you believe nothing, and draw conclusions based on a whim it seems.

Yes, I agree that is how you feel about my idea's and my beliefs. Your not the first. Thats just life. At least I know your only the second (j/k )

My reference here is Paul's foreign policy. His desire to pull all troops out day 1 (which he has stated) and in essence kill foreign policy is an 18th century idea of Isolationism. It is totally unrealistic in the modern world, and a prime example of why he is not fit for that office.

In terms of his economics, just so you are aware, most mainstream economists find tremendous flaws within the austrian system. I never said I thought his economic policy was specifically written in the 18th century, I stated I felt that he personally would have been a great candidate then, as now he is a babbling, senile old man, who is in no way relevant to the 21st century world.

Its unrealistic with your interpretation. To some, our current foreign policy is already unrealistic and an immediate halt will only strengthen foreign policy and unite the world instead of being an isolationist. Being active in all these un-necessary wars and running sanctions on countries is isolationist policy, and is also isolating the American people from our government.

Political idea's aside which we know we disagree on...how are we going to pay to continue the wars? Borrow more money from the Chinese? We cannot afford it anymore, this country is in a economic crisis and we just added another war. This is another fact that is unrealistic.

Economics has always been debatable, there is no perfect system and they all have flaws. Personally I support Jacque Fresco's Resource Based Economy over any currently used economy including Ron Paul's.

 

[ax1]

If anyone knows the real history of Afghanistan during the Cold War they would understand why this is a really stupid idea. Go watch Charlie Wilson's War and itll all make sense. You cant just pull out completely and expect them to be ok. Last time we did that the country was like a chicken with no head carrying tons of Russian and American guns/artillery we left behind and Taliban came to power. They had anti-American views people bought into and out of desperation for leadership joined their regime. They feel that we just left them for dead at a time they couldnt manage themselves from the hurt hence where we are today.

Now that we are there 10+ years, who is to say Hamid Karzai is legitimately any better than the Taliban? Do you know that the Taliban imposed a ban and almost eliminated Opium production, and now Afghanistan supplies 90%+ of the opium in the world? (Im not defending the Taliban, I think both governments are messed up in their own ways)

Also how much longer do we need to be there, we have been there 10+ years, do we need to be there 100 more before things get better? Who is going to pay for this, this country is broke. Chinese will lend us more money though. Perhaps these are some of the reasons we didnt stick around in the first place. We cant change anything there.

 

[AE14]

You dont need to Judicial branch, you need 2/3rds which is the executive and the house. I dont know if your following Ron Paul's audit the fed movement "Federal Reserve Transparency Act H.R. 1207," but he was close to having the congress passing the bill as a congressman. As a president its possible for him to exert more influence on the bill, and of course the executive would sign it which we all know he will do.

by your own words, he will not have the support, thus the need for an executive order. He is no different

Its unrealistic with your interpretation. To some, our current foreign policy is already unrealistic and an immediate halt will only strengthen foreign policy and unite the world instead of being an isolationist. Being active in all these un-necessary wars and running sanctions on countries is isolationist policy, and is also isolating the American people from our government.

Political idea's aside which we know we disagree on...how are we going to pay to continue the wars? Borrow more money from the Chinese? We cannot afford it anymore, this country is in a economic crisis and we just added another war. This is another fact that is unrealistic.

Economics has always been debatable, there is no perfect system and they all have flaws. Personally I support Jacque Fresco's Resource Based Economy over any currently used economy including Ron Paul's.

First, you are correct about economics. There are experts on both sides of all arguments, which tell me they are all full of it

A massive withdrawal is not anywhere near plausible at this point. Should we have been there at the beginning? Of course not, but sadly we are there now, and a gradual withdrawal with REAL dates is the only solution.

 

[AE14]

No, there is a huge difference between bin laden an enemy combatant, and a US citizen. Was the guy a douchebag sure. Did he deserve to die sure. Was he guilty of being a traitor and deserved a death sentence for it sure.

did he have a right as a US citizen to a trial even in absentia before his death sentence was ordered absolutely. The more we depart from rule of law and the constitution, the more our country falls apart.

Easy, you cant believe the crap you just typed can you? He loses his rights when he takes up arms against the country. Please do not tell me that the rule of law (based on what? the constitution) applies to him. The document is too old to take into account what he had done, there was no precedent for our founding parents for a situation like this.

 

[ax1]

A massive withdrawal is not anywhere near plausible at this point. Should we have been there at the beginning? Of course not, but sadly we are there now, and a gradual withdrawal with REAL dates is the only solution.

You see, I can compromise to that. The problem is they are talking withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal, then Obama even said we withdrew from Iraq.

Instead of withdrawing anything, we are only building permanence with embassies, bases, prisons, etc...and going to wars with other countries.

Thats my issue...A true set timeline...Im fine and understand that. Im just sick of timelines that get extended 2 years, 4 years, 2 years, etc...in Washington a timeline is just a false sense of hope so people against the war shut up for a little while.

But yes AE14, give me a timeline for withdrawal, a real withdrawal (including withdrawing private contractors aka mercenaries) Im all for it.

 

[ax1]

Easy, you cant believe the crap you just typed can you? He loses his rights when he takes up arms against the country. Please do not tell me that the rule of law (based on what? the constitution) applies to him. The document is too old to take into account what he had done, there was no precedent for our founding parents for a situation like this.

Setting our differences on his rights aside for a moment which I agree with Easy on...dont you think its irresponsible that if they had an opportunity to capture them alive that you lose out in a bigger opportunity of interrogation and perhaps getting key information to other terrorists and future potential planned threats from happening in this country?

 

[EasyEJL]

Easy, you cant believe the crap you just typed can you? He loses his rights when he takes up arms against the country. Please do not tell me that the rule of law (based on what? the constitution) applies to him. The document is too old to take into account what he had done, there was no precedent for our founding parents for a situation like this.

there is no provision for losing your rights without due process. If he died in a large scale firefight that's one thing, an unmanned drone isnt any better or different than a long range sniper. Its not all that far different than the branch davidians. Were they nutbags sure, but the way the atf assaulted them denied them their "inalienable" rights. When we ok our government doing it in one situation what happens? They continue to expand how they use it, and are more than capable of fabricating news and intelligence reports to support state run assassination of citizens who pose problems.

 

[EasyEJL]

And the constitution did have a way to deal with it, the charge is treason. As I said, even finding him guilty of treason in absentia would have been fine, and it being public that he was found guilty and sentenced to death. But this just (nothing new for obama and progressives) just ignores the constitution.

 

[fame126]

Ron paul has my vote but do to corporate controlled media he wont win simply because he wont get mainstream media cove***e

 

[AE14]

And the constitution did have a way to deal with it, the charge is treason. As I said, even finding him guilty of treason in absentia would have been fine, and it being public that he was found guilty and sentenced to death. But this just (nothing new for obama and progressives) just ignores the constitution.

a charge of treason in abstentia? to me that is a tad foolish. again, the beauty of the constitution is that it is a living document, that can be adjusted. There is no way our founding fathers would have been able to see the issues of today, so their punishments to me are not appropriate.

 

[OrganicShadow]

a charge of treason in abstentia? to me that is a tad foolish. again, the beauty of the constitution is that it is a living document, that can be adjusted. There is no way our founding fathers would have been able to see the issues of today, so their punishments to me are not appropriate.

Agreed to some extent. The principles remain the same but the circumstances evolve.

 

[Jessep76]

there is no provision for losing your rights without due process. If he died in a large scale firefight that's one thing, an unmanned drone isnt any better or different than a long range sniper. Its not all that far different than the branch davidians. Were they nutbags sure, but the way the atf assaulted them denied them their "inalienable" rights. When we ok our government doing it in one situation what happens? They continue to expand how they use it, and are more than capable of fabricating news and intelligence reports to support state run assassination of citizens who pose problems.

While its hard to feel sorry for this guy, there is bigger point that you are nailing. For instance assume Palin were president and had this type of free reign with our military actions. Though nobody is losing sleeping with this guy's death, if we open the door on this type of action it will be hard to shut later. Plus there's worse things than death ...like out of country military prisons.

 

[Jessep76]

But this just (nothing new for obama and progressives) just ignores the constitution.

We all know W was hoping to do the same thing. There's been plenty of actions taken that ignore the constitution since 9-11, by both parties.

 

[EasyEJL]

a charge of treason in abstentia? to me that is a tad foolish. again, the beauty of the constitution is that it is a living document, that can be adjusted. There is no way our founding fathers would have been able to see the issues of today, so their punishments to me are not appropriate.

Yes, its a living document as changed by constitutional amendments, none of which apply here.

 

[EasyEJL]

We all know W was hoping to do the same thing. There's been plenty of actions taken that ignore the constitution since 9-11, by both parties.

Sure, but it just continues to get worse each year

 

[Jessep76]

Sure, but it just continues to get worse each year

Worse yes. But Bush detained americans without due process, granted now we kill without due process.

 

[ax1]

Worse yes. But Bush detained americans without due process, granted now we kill without due process.

And also Bush went to unjust wars, but went to congress. Granted now we use an executive order to go to war with any country on the planet without consulting congress.

 

[Jessep76]

And also Bush went to unjust wars, but went to congress. Granted now we use an executive order to go to war with any country on the planet without consulting congress.

Well our drone attacks aren't considered war so I hear. I feel I'm the type of person that is as up to date on the news as any average american (sometimes more / sometimes less) and some of these places we've used drone attacks in the last several months I somehow hear about like a week later. And I'm thinking when the f*** was this decided and why??? When did Africa become an enemy??

EDIT for topic discussion Chris Christie is looking good relatively speaking

 

[AE14]

We all know W was hoping to do the same thing. There's been plenty of actions taken that ignore the constitution since 9-11, by both parties.

indeed, this is not a partisan issue at all (although Easy might believe it it). Both parties are for big government and violating the constitution at some level.

 

[ax1]

Well our drone attacks aren't considered war so I hear. I feel I'm the type of person that is as up to date on the news as any average american (sometimes more / sometimes less) and some of these places we've used drone attacks in the last several months I somehow hear about like a week later. And I'm thinking when the f*** was this decided and why??? When did Africa become an enemy??

EDIT for topic discussion Chris Christie is looking good relatively speaking

I was talking about Lybia which was much more than just drone attacks, but an all out and ongoing war. What they call it is not what to go by.

 

[AE14]

EDIT for topic discussion Chris Christie is looking good relatively speaking

until people see NJ's unemployment rate

 

[EasyEJL]

indeed, this is not a partisan issue at all (although Easy might believe it it). Both parties are for big government and violating the constitution at some level.

No, I can agree with that, hence my ron paul support.

It isn't so much about this particular douchebag, as the precedent

 

[ax1]

until people see NJ's unemployment rate

Its ok...he just supported the official recent raise for all NY/NJ bridges and tunnels to $12, and will go up to $15 in a few years so the great people of Jersey Shore can look forward to getting minimum wage jobs in NYC and work the first 3 hours just to pay to cross the bridge.

 

[Jessep76]

until people see NJ's unemployment rate

Relative being the key word Shoot we'd kill for a 9 something over here. Those were the good ol days lol

 

[AE14]

And also Bush went to unjust wars, but went to congress. Granted now we use an executive order to go to war with any country on the planet without consulting congress.

The president always had the right Ito to war or 90 days I believe without the consent of congress.

 

[AE14]

Relative being the key word Shoot we'd kill for a 9 something over here. Those were the good ol days lol

It is higher in NJ than nationally. He stands no shot, he is too polarizing right now. His best chance is to wait till 2016, and hope Obama wins and tanks further.

 

[Jessep76]

It is higher in NJ than nationally. He stands no shot, he is too polarizing right now. His best chance is to wait till 2016, and hope Obama wins and tanks further.

its not 9%?

 

[ax1]

The president always had the right Ito to war or 90 days I believe without the consent of congress.

Its well past 90 days now, and it doesnt comply with the War Powers act of 1973.

Regardless, they totally dodged the laws by saying it was a "Kinetic Action" for "Humanitarian Causes" and that we will only be there for a few days and they never declared this a war. Keep in mind the CIA had been in Lybia starting the uprising well before hand funded by black budgets. I told people last year before any of the uprising's started that this was going to start happening in the middle east, but they didnt believe me.

 

[AE14]

its not 9%?

Its around 9.4 now and moving along with all the cuts to public sector jobs. THe most mind boggling was cutting police in Camden/Newark and Trenton

Its well past 90 days now, and it doesnt comply with the War Powers act of 1973.

Regardless, they totally dodged the laws by saying it was a "Kinetic Action" for "Humanitarian Causes" and that we will only be there for a few days and they never declared this a war. Keep in mind the CIA had been in Lybia starting the uprising well before hand funded by black budgets. I told people last year before any of the uprising's started that this was going to start happening in the middle east, but they didnt believe me.

I agree its past 90, however, Libya is not just an American issue. Isnt it NATO? Big difference

 

[AE14]

Yes, its a living document as changed by constitutional amendments, none of which apply here.

again....trying to apply todays issues to a document from 200+ years ago is difficult. However, the beauty is that it can be amended and should be with the world we live in.

 

[nonidentity]

You do realize most online polls are linked to IP address so that you can only vote once right? Although there are ways around this I dont think most people are gonna take the time to do that.
I am voting for Ron Paul as I feel he is the last chance we have to get this country back to constitutionality but my second choice would have to be Huntsman.

Ron Paul! Give peace a chance! He's got my vote for sure. I want to see peace, see an end to the drug war and see an America I can be proud of! plus if we play our cards right we'll be able to get our gear without being demonized and without facing a criminal record.

 

[ax1]

I agree its past 90, however, Libya is not just an American issue. Isnt it NATO? Big difference

Yes, and America being involved with NATO's wars makes it even a bigger/worse issue for me.