Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

...what? What does this have to do with his point?

I'd think it's pretty obvious. Just because the supreme court rules and it is the final arbiter of the constitution the executive branch sometimes feels free to ignore their decisions which has the effect of the decision never having been reached at all. Since that is true, what does it matter if a federalist approach was taken on some of these issues? Different states already apply laws, and various court rulings differently anyway.

In any case all of this is a canard. I'd LOVE to hear who you and FoneBone think is the "ideal" candidate here that I should be supporting.

 

[Father_Brain]

I'd think it's pretty obvious. Just because the supreme court rules and it is the final arbiter of the constitution the executive branch sometimes feels free to ignore their decisions which has the effect of the decision never having been reached at all. Since that is true, what does it matter if a federalist approach was taken on some of these issues? Different states already apply laws, and various court rulings differently anyway.

This is the exception, not the rule. What may happen is hardly justification for a policy that would allow states to trample on the rights of sexual and religious minorities, with no fear of federal intervention.

Also, you still don't seem to be aware of just how radical the We the People Act is. It quite explicitly states that previous federal and Supreme Court decisions on the issues in question would no longer be binding precedent. So much for "None of those decisions would be reversed with this though" and "It's not as if this would be a step back."

In any case all of this is a canard. I'd LOVE to hear who you and FoneBone think is the "ideal" candidate here that I should be supporting.

Obviously, you have political views that I strongly disagree with, so I'm certainly not in any position to tell you who you should be supporting. The fact is, Ron Paul supports a number of policies that would be incredibly harmful to gay rights (among others), as well as the rights of religious minorities. It would help your credibility, to me at least, if you would follow the example of the Log Cabin Republicans I mentioned earlier, rather than perversely trying to justify policies that would endanger your own rights as a gay man.

 

[Gaborn]

This is the exception, not the rule. What may happen is hardly justification for a policy that would allow states to trample on the rights of sexual and religious minorities, with no fear of federal intervention.

Also, you still don't seem to be aware of just how radical the We the People Act is. It quite explicitly states that previous federal and Supreme Court decisions on the issues in question would no longer be binding precedent. So much for "None of those decisions would be reversed with this though" and "It's not as if this would be a step back."

I understand about the WTPA. I simply don't believe it's an issue because I don't believe it will or can be passed in the current congress.

Obviously, you have political views that I strongly disagree with, so I'm certainly not in any position to tell you who you should be supporting. The fact is, Ron Paul supports a number of policies that would be incredibly harmful to gay rights (among others), as well as the rights of religious minorities. It would help your credibility, to me at least, if you would follow the example of the Log Cabin Republicans I mentioned earlier, rather than perversely trying to justify policies that would endanger your own rights as a gay man.

Excuse me, but let me make my own political decisions based on my OWN policies. This is despicable because it's the same attack the Republicans used on JFK (who I was not fond of), in his case because he was Catholic he'd take his marching orders from the Vatican. I'm gay, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the gay left OR the gay right on every single issue and every single perspective of our fight for equality and equal rights.

 

[Cheebs]

Gaborn out of curiosity who would you call the top 5 presidents of the United States (not including Washington or Lincoln, those picks are too easy)?

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn out of curiosity who would you call the top 5 presidents of the United States (not including Washington or Lincoln, those picks are too easy)?

I'd say the top were Thomas Jefferson in his first term, Reagan, Nixon (first term only) Taft, and William Henry Harrison (not in office long enough to do any damage). That's not in any particular order. Thomas Jefferson in his second term expanded the federal government's size and scope too much and Nixon was too consumed by fear and paranoia, he destroyed himself for his second term.

 

[Instigator]

Why sure it does, and I use it often. To describe the selfish destructiveness of the masses voting themselves a free lunch.

But in the case of US politics, it's not even a majority who votes for 'selfish destructiveness.' Apathy ensures roughly half of all eligible US voters never bother to vote for or against anything.

 

[JayDubya]

Gaborn out of curiosity who would you call the top 5 presidents of the United States (not including Washington or Lincoln, those picks are too easy)?

I did this for another forum not too long ago. Not that you asked me, but I feel like answering.

It gets very hard past Washington and Jefferson, and even Jefferson did some pretty questionable / shady things once he got into the big seat, like the Louisiana Purchase. Washington is "too easy" because he's the only no-brainer, being absolutely fucking awesome in every quantifiable way. Lincoln is not "too easy," but I suppose he's going to have to be in the upper half on the basis of just how goddamn awful most of these jokers have been.

Anyhoo, my cursory ranking was:
Washington / Jefferson... and then in no particular order: Madison / Monroe / Eisenhower... This was really rough to make, because the first thing you want to do is scrutinize all their major political decisions as well as their basic ideologies, and then you cross reference them with efficient fiscal conservatism / limited (ab)use of federal power.

Beyond Jefferson I had to start abandoning people with principles I could almost totally agree with and start looking for people that didn't do something abominably bad and kind-of-sort-of have agreeable ideologies.

You can't just go by fiscal conservatism / limited government alone, because you have to consider historical context and also scrutinize the politician to see if they really support or they were just in governmental gridlock and couldn't get the shit done.

Harding, for example, was not particularly good at being President, apparently, insofar as most historians are concerned. Well, granted he was not very good at picking cabinet members and apointees (Teapot Dome), and he also approved of high tariffs which I think is pretty lousy. But. He was also was also responsible for one of the most fiscally responsible, low-tax, low-spending, limited and non-intrusive administrations, peaceful and diplomatic in world affairs, and made our economy strong. I'd put him in the top half, frankly.

* * *

Worst was much easier. FDR / Wilson / Truman / LBJ / Carter. The 20th Century left is unquestionably the most damnably bad lot, though there have been quite a few authoritarian warmongering interventionist jerkwads and economic know-nothings that have mangled up things in previous centuries.

John Adams is a great example. Our second President, our first Vice President, one of our major founding fathers... and look at the Alien & Sedition Acts his party and administration pushed through - people like to balk at the Patriot Act (and no doubt, Bush is in the bottom half), but this bullshit, which Thomas Jefferson fully expunged, made it a crime to write bad things about the government. Yeah. Raised taxes, spent a lot of his time on vacation, tried to appoint a bazillion judges at the last minute... yeah. You know what, let's bump Carter up to 6th worst. He could probably be bumped higher with some more scrutiny and some more historical review.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Not that I really go on about it but what amazes me about libertarians is the disconnect from the country they want and the country we are. It is as if we just had the American Revolution and literally nothing had changed in any aspect of society or learned from that time period. It strikes me as stunningly disassociated from reality but I'm sure they feel the same way about my political philosophy.

 

[Instigator]

Not that I really go on about it but what amazes me about libertarians is the disconnect from the country they want and the country we are. It is as if we just had the American Revolution and literally nothing had changed in any aspect of society or learned from that time period. It strikes me as stunningly disassociated from reality but I'm sure they feel the same way about my political philosophy.

They should just move to Singapore already.

 

[Cheebs]

Worst was much easier. FDR / Wilson / Truman / LBJ / Carter. The 20th Century left is unquestionably the most damnably bad lot, though there have been quite a few authoritarian warmongering interventionist jerkwads and economic know-nothings that have mangled up things in previous centuries.

My top 5(no washington/lincoln) would give you nightmares then. :lol

1. FDR
2. Teddy Roosevelt
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Woodrow Wilson
5. Harry Truman

A top 10 would also include Andrew Jackson & Ike

 

[FoneBone]

I thought you supported Paul.

 

[FoneBone]

Hey, remember those racist newsletter comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul?

Newsletter by Paul attacked
Associated Press
329 words
24 May 1996
San Antonio Express-News

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.
Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.
He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
Paul's Democratic opponent, Charles "Lefty" Morris, said many of Paul's views were "out there on the fringe" and that this fall voters would judge his commentaries.
Morris' campaign distributed selected writings by Paul this week.
Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.
He said he'd produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.
Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital.
Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.
He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

 

[Cheebs]

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Dude is a fucking racist! :lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Someone should ask Paul if it was the government's job to free the slaves

 

[Mandark]

Not that I really go on about it but what amazes me about libertarians is the disconnect from the country they want and the country we are. It is as if we just had the American Revolution and literally nothing had changed in any aspect of society or learned from that time period. It strikes me as stunningly disassociated from reality but I'm sure they feel the same way about my political philosophy.

It's not just that. Pretty often, there's a disconnect between what they think the founding fathers intended, and the reality of the situation back then.

The funniest example is when JDub said that Washington DC shouldn't get representation just because a bunch of people lived there, and he assumed everyone was meant to commute (and that it would be a ghost town during the night).

 

[FoneBone]

POLITICS
A SECTION
GOP House Candidate Responds to Charges
Sue Ann Pressley
435 words
26 May 1996
The Washington Post
FINAL
A17
English
(Copyright 1996)

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul (R) defended himself against charges of racism after his Democratic opponent unveiled four-year-old excerpts from Paul's political newsletter describing "95 percent" of the black males in Washington, D.C., as "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

"Ron knows our society and our nation has done some horrible things to the black community, which has pushed a majority of young black men in some areas, in Washington, D.C., for example, into criminal activities," Sullivan said.

Paul's statements were printed in his monthly newsletter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and were based on a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives in Washington, D.C., Sullivan said. Paul also wrote in 1992 that polls have shown that "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." The excerpts came to light last week when Morris's campaign distributed them to reporters.

"I've known for quite some time that Ron Paul had views that were on the fringe," Morris, 56, said Friday. "His writings speak for themselves. It will be up to the people of the 14th District to decide what to think of them."

The 14th District, which is larger than Massachusetts, includes a swath of central Texas and the Gulf Coast. The seat is now held by Rep. Greg Laughlin (R), who made a high-profile switch from the Democratic to Republican Party last year, only to be defeated by Paul in the GOP primary last month. Paul, 60, represented the district as a Republican from 1978 to 1984 and was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988.

Sullivan blamed an irresponsible media for emphasizing the negative aspects of the campaign. "Ron can go out and give speech after speech about taxes and the future of our country, and nobody pays any attention," he said, "but if Ron were to go out and say, `Lefty used to be a woman and he really has green hair,' that would be on the front page of every newspaper in this country, and that's disgusting."

If Paul neither wrote nor approved of those statements, I have absolutely no idea why he wouldn't have admitted that... instead of implying the exact opposite.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If Paul neither wrote nor approved of those statements, I have absolutely no idea why he wouldn't have admitted that... instead of implying the exact opposite.

Why were they in HIS newsletter in the first place. I won't judge him right away, and I'll wait for the facts as I did in other cases of mistaken context. But this doesn't look good

 

[JayDubya]

If you want to bring up this baseless, old, and debunked bullshit, that's your prerogative, but don't expect people to take you seriously and respond.

 

[Mandark]

If you want to bring up this baseless, old, and debunked bullshit, that's your prerogative, but don't expect people to take you seriously and respond.

Dude, you still bring up Hillary's college thesis from the 60's.

 

[FoneBone]

If you want to bring up this baseless, old, and debunked bullshit, that's your prerogative, but don't expect people to take you seriously and respond.

These articles make it clear that it is neither baseless nor debunked. But thanks for playing.

 

[JayDubya]

Dude, you still bring up Hillary's college thesis from the 60's.

Unless Hillary is guilty of plagiarism and needs to get her degree revoked, it's hardly in the same ballpark.

This is absolutely stupid and pathetic. If you disagree with Paul, great, let's argue, but now you've gone into defaming his character based on publicly disavowed statements made in his name, statements that are completely inconsistant with Paul's message on race and liberty over the course of his entire political career.

 

[reggieandTFE]

Paul was on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me...", a quite amusing NPR quiz show made in Chicago, a couple of months back and couldn't believe that neither himself or the host brought up the fact that NPR wouldn't exist in a Paul universe.

 

[Karma Kramer]

FoneBone, Phoenix, and Cheebs... you guys are trying way to hard...

Let it rest for ffs.

 

[Mandark]

JD: Saying someone "worships Saul Alinsky" based on what she wrote as a college student 38 years ago is INSANE. Period.

 

[JayDubya]

JD: Saying someone "worships Saul Alinsky" based on what she wrote as a college student 38 years ago is INSANE. Period.

If THAT were a valid argument, then one could defend the statement falsely attributed to Ron Paul by saying, "Well, that was a long time ago, he likes black folk pretty good now." Of course, I guess that works for Robert Byrd through some kind of soul-exchanging pact he must have made, but for the most part, um, no, that would not work too well, I imagine.

I obviously don't think Mrs. Clinton is as much of a radical as she obviously was, ideologically, in her (post-Goldwater girl, talk about a major switcharoo) youth, but that isn't to say I don't think she's frighteningly leftist for my tastes, and praise for Alinsky is just one more black mark against her, as if I needed another to dislike her.

 

[Learn2read]

If THAT were a valid argument, then one could defend the statement falsely attributed to Ron Paul by saying, "Well, that was a long time ago, he likes black folk pretty good now." Of course, I guess that works for Robert Byrd through some kind of soul-exchanging pact he must have made, but for the most part, um, no, that would not work too well, I imagine.

I obviously don't think Mrs. Clinton is as much of a radical as she obviously was, ideologically, in her (post-Goldwater girl, talk about a major switcharoo) youth, but that isn't to say I don't think she's frighteningly leftist for my tastes, and praise for Alinsky is just one more black mark against her, as if I needed another to dislike her.

Dude, Paul was 57 years old and had already been a Congressman for 16 years when he made those comments. :lol

 

[JayDubya]

Dude, Paul was 57 years old and had already been a Congressman for 16 years when he DID NOT MAKE those comments.

Fix'd for accuracy.

 

[FoneBone]

Fix'd for accuracy, if you believe an unverifiable statement that a conveniently unnamed staffer ghostwrote the letters, and ignore his earlier, 1996 statements, when he could have disavowed them altogether, but instead just about flat-out admits that he either wrote or approved them.

Fix'd for accuracy. "Taken out of context" is a long, long way away from an actual disavowal.

 

[JayDubya]

I hate [insert plural racial epithet here].

Oh my god, you can't say that on GAF. I'm offended that you would say such a thing. What a racist jerk.

And don't even try to claim you didn't say it, I have your quote right here. It even says "FoneBone," right there, see!

 

[FoneBone]

:lol Yes, an official publication with which The Most Holy and Blessed and Honorable Ron Paul (in all honesty, are you capable of disagreeing with anything he says or does?) was unambiguously affiliated is exactly the same situation.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS

 

[Eric P]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS

i think he did the right thing

but then i also thing that all vote online polls are a buch of bs

 

[Stoney Mason]

i think he did the right thing

but then i also thing that all vote online polls are a buch of bs

I've made this post before but the right thing imo was not to put such a poll up in the first place. The wrong thing to do is to pull the poll when it doesn't come out the way you want or expect.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul said today that he could see no possible reason to ever launch military action or initiate a war, vowing instead to battle efforts he said are undermining the individual liberties of people in America.

In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if he were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said in the interview. "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

Paul has been intensely opposed to the war in Iraq and to a potential attack against Iran during his campaign for the presidency. During this week's GOP debate in Dearborn, Mich., he once again became red-faced as he blasted the Middle East war effort.

"The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous," he said Tuesday night. "There's no way. This is just war propaganda, continued war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war not only in Iraq, but into Iran, unconstitutionally. It is a road to disaster for us as a nation."

But during the PostTalk interview, Paul said he does not believe he is too angry to be president.

"I certainly don't want to come across angry," he said, "although I do get pretty annoyed when I see blatant abuse of the rule of law and blatant ignoring of the Constitution and that is annoying because I see the republic fading away."

Paul, an outspoken libertarian with only three percent Republican support in the latest Washington Post-ABC news poll, said that he has been pleasantly surprised by his campaign's ability to raise more than $5 million in the third fundraising quarter that ended last month. But he credited a groundswell of support from people who like his limited government, anti-war message.

He said he has never made a single call to a supporter asking for money, and said he will spend the fruits of his newfound largess campaigning in New Hampshire, South Carolina and other states where voting takes place early next year.

"I didn't raise $5 million," he said. "A lot of people sent me a lot of money that added up to $5 million."

He also expanded on his answer during the debate that he would not necessarily support the GOP nominee if he does not win. He drew a sharp distinction between the Republican party and its current leadership under President Bush.

"I feel like I'm sticking up for the Republican principles," he said. "I've chastised the other candidates on the stage. You don't represent the Republican base.... The Republican party is in shambles. We lost desperately. You won't change your ways."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101101555.html?nav=hcmodule

 

[JayDubya]

That initial sentence is certainly manipulative phrasing. The key words are LAUNCH and INITIATE.

And you know what? We really fucking shouldn't. The people that LAUNCH or INITIATE military action are what one would almost always reasonably call "the bad guys."

 

[Fragamemnon]

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said in the interview. "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

Now this is a really interesting-and disturbing-quote. What would Ron Paul have done as president to the nation of Afghanistan after 9/11? Would Ron Paul hold the country repsonsible for the independent actors it sheltered and financed? Would he have "Wiped the country off the face of the earth in a few hours"?

There's only one way to do that, friends, and it's not something that should really be mentioned in serious conversation.

 

[Stoney Mason]

That initial sentence is certainly manipulative phrasing. The key words are LAUNCH and INITIATE.

And you know what? We really fucking shouldn't. The people that LAUNCH or INITIATE military action are what one would almost always reasonably call "the bad guys."

I wasn't posting it to mock him. I just thought it was interesting. I use to make fun of his isolationist stance and perhaps I still don't agree with it, but I've come a bit full circle on him in that regard. Anybody who argues for diplomacy instead of always going to the bombing or invasion route post 9/11 earns a little respect from me.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Now this is a really interesting-and disturbing-quote. What would Ron Paul have done as president to the nation of Afghanistan after 9/11? Would Ron Paul hold the country repsonsible for the independent actors it sheltered and financed? Would he have "Wiped the country off the face of the earth in a few hours"?

There's only one way to do that, friends, and it's not something that should really be mentioned in serious conversation.

What?

Afghanistan didn't attack us... some pissed off muslims did.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Now this is a really interesting-and disturbing-quote. What would Ron Paul have done as president to the nation of Afghanistan after 9/11? Would Ron Paul hold the country repsonsible for the independent actors it sheltered and financed? Would he have "Wiped the country off the face of the earth in a few hours"?

There's only one way to do that, friends, and it's not something that should really be mentioned in serious conversation.

I really don't know what he would have done. I supported the Afghanistan action but essentially nothing this administration has done since.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I really don't know what he would have done. I supported the Afghanistan action but essentially nothing this administration has done since.

He would have done exactly what Bush did... except try and nation build Afghanistan and go into Iraq.

He certainly would have never pulled troops out of Afghanistan and away from Osama.

 

[Mike Works]

Ron Paul is the new Snakes on a Plane

 

[Fragamemnon]

What?

Afghanistan didn't attack us... some pissed off muslims did.

Their government harbored and openly supported those pissed off muslims, though. It seems that Ron Paul would have either flattened the country or left it alone, both of which would have been unacceptable responses.

That's my beef with strong libertarian thought in general-it's extremely rigid and confining in terms of practical application to real world scenarios.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Ron Paul is the new Snakes on a Plane

Pretty much, though the "bad sequel to Howard Dean's candidacy" is probably more apropos.

 

[JayDubya]

Ron Paul wanted to pursue and arrest Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I know I supported our action there to remove the Taliban and still believe it was correct and just. They, unlike Iraq or Iran for crying out loud, were intimately related with Al Qaeda, aided and abetted them, then refused to even give token cooperation with efforts to arrest and shut down Al Qaeda. At the very least, they could have said they would try to cooperate and given some effort into the matter.

I'm not sure if this is one of the few things I disagree with Paul about or if he agrees on this point.

My best guess based on everything Paul has said would be that a hypothetical President Paul would have sent troops and investigators into Afghanistan. I doubt he would have attacked the Taliban unless they specifically interfered with the manhunt.

That's not quite as aggressive as I may personally like, but it's probably the right way to handle it.

I'm not quite sure where you get the "Ron Paul wants to nuke people to oblivion" idea, Frag. The assertion seems quite clear - Iran is no real threat to us. They have no nuclear weapons, we have enough to destroy all life on the planet many times over.

 

[teh_pwn]

Now this is a really interesting-and disturbing-quote. What would Ron Paul have done as president to the nation of Afghanistan after 9/11? Would Ron Paul hold the country repsonsible for the independent actors it sheltered and financed? Would he have "Wiped the country off the face of the earth in a few hours"?

There's only one way to do that, friends, and it's not something that should really be mentioned in serious conversation.

I believe what Paul is referring to is a nation clearly attacking us, such as with the imaginary weapons of mass destruction that neo-cons and the media talk about all the time, that we would retaliate and wipe them off the map. He's attacking the argument that we need to police the world regarding nukes. He's often pointed out how other countries, such as the Soviet Union, had nukes and we didn't need to go out and pre-emptively attack them like a bunch of pussies. No nation would attack us because they know we would counter without mercy. With justified wars, there doesn't need to be a draft. There would be no shortage of men. Our Navy would blockade their coast, and our advanced flight would slowly destroy their country until it is nothing.

I don't see how this is extreme at all. Paul may believe is a very lean government, but he plays by the rules. He uses the constitution. A constitutional President cannot do anything extreme. What Bush is doing, and what Clinton wants to do, is very fucking extreme.

 

[APF]

I've made this post before but the right thing imo was not to put such a poll up in the first place.

Or maybe the right thing to do is not spam and abuse honor systems? Paul's supporters are the most obnoxious folks I've seen in what's remotely-considered mainstream politics.

Edit: how do you avoid nation-building an invaded Afghanistan? Try and hand-off your housework to the UN?

 

[JayDubya]

Or maybe the right thing to do is not spam and abuse honor systems? Paul's supporters are the most obnoxious folks I've seen in what's remotely-considered mainstream politics.

How is it spamming or abusing? Paul's supporters are legitimately interested in politics, watch these debates, and then go vote. We might *gasp* try to *get out the vote* by reminding people when these debates are. *Oh horrors.*

 

[Gaborn]

Now this is a really interesting-and disturbing-quote. What would Ron Paul have done as president to the nation of Afghanistan after 9/11? Would Ron Paul hold the country repsonsible for the independent actors it sheltered and financed? Would he have "Wiped the country off the face of the earth in a few hours"?

There's only one way to do that, friends, and it's not something that should really be mentioned in serious conversation.

My guess is he would have requested that Congress formally declare war on Afghanistan for harboring a terrorist leader that attacked us. Then he would've gone in and destroyed the bastards.

 

[APF]

How is it spamming or abusing? Paul's supporters are legitimately interested in politics, watch these debates, and then go vote. We might *gasp* try to *get out the vote* by reminding people when these debates are. *Oh horrors.*

I'm not talking about people uh... telling folks about the debates. I'm talking about folks spamming message boards, user-generated news-sites, newsgroups, blog comments, email, and online polls.

 

[Fragamemnon]

My best guess based on everything Paul has said would be that a hypothetical President Paul would have sent troops and investigators into Afghanistan. I doubt he would have attacked the Taliban unless they specifically interfered with the manhunt.

That's not quite as aggressive as I may personally like, but it's probably the right way to handle it.

I read somewhere that Paul mentioned he wouldn't have gone in unless he was sure of Osama's whereabouts, but I'm not 100% certain on that. I think that kind of response would have been really inappropriate, and most everyone agreed that Afghanistan needed both regime change and nation building to remove the Taliban and find and kill/capture Osama.

I'm not quite sure where you get the "Ron Paul wants to nuke people to oblivion" idea, Frag.

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said in the interview. "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

Um, how should I interpret this? We don't have that weaponry in our arsenal to do that kind of thing, it's not its purpose and hasn't been for decades.

This entire quote screams of old-school, early Cold War thought where states fight the US , which is a woefully outmoded line of thought. It's all done through funding non-state actors, which can and have attacked us. If a terroritst organization did, say, blow up a dirty bomb in some place like Minneapolis or Seattle, and we tracked down a portion of their intelligence, logistics, and funding to a nation, would we not hold the nation accountable?