Some fun facts on Ron Paul

[Atac]

Thought this was interesting so I decided I would put this here.
This guys touches on some of the questions John Stewart asked Ron Paul on his show, less political and more idealogical.

I don't absolutely agree with everything this dude is saying but it is something for your mind to chew on for a bit.

And as far as Ron Paul's potential presidential power goes, many of the mistakes made by previous presidents were carried out by "executive order" and things like that, even if they are unconstitutional and without approval of congress (War on Terrorism). I'm not implying that Paul would illegally manipulate the system, but I think the general consensus of what the President is allowed to do may work in his favor. The president is also the commander in chief of our military, as easy as it was to march into the middle east, it will be the same when marching out. Finally, if the public opinion has changed enough for Paul to even get elected, then it will be that much easier for the nation to accept and support his policies (although I do know that with the electoral college and such you technically may not need a national majority to win).

Not really looking for a huge type battle like this thread has turned into, but this was just on my mind tonight.
(Also, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd rather make an ass of myself on here than in a heated debate in person with somebody. )

[AllNightDayDream]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

[Atac]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

War must be declared by congress, which hasn't happened since WWII.

[AllNightDayDream]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

War must be declared by congress, which hasn't happened since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

"War" is a legal term.

[Mr Hyde]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

war on an abstract noun

[Atac]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

War must be declared by congress, which hasn't happened since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

"War" is a legal term.

interesting.

I think there was a thread on here one time about the US government's definition of war or something. I think that if we are not directly threatened or attacked, then any military involvement we have cannot be considered an act of war (or something like that).

[Atac]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

war on an abstract noun

This^

Also, terrorism is considered a crime not an act of war. In most criminal cases a motive is usually considered, but we automatically assume that radical Islam naturally despises America and must destroy her.

[AllNightDayDream]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

War must be declared by congress, which hasn't happened since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

"War" is a legal term.

interesting.

I think there was a thread on here one time about the US government's definition of war or something. I think that if we are not directly threatened or attacked, then any military involvement we have cannot be considered an act of war (or something like that).

That makes sense. I think if the neo-cons duped us again and pushed us against Iran it would be called a war, declared and all.

[Atac]

The "war on terror" was actually voted on by congress, completely legal.

War must be declared by congress, which hasn't happened since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

"War" is a legal term.

interesting.

I think there was a thread on here one time about the US government's definition of war or something. I think that if we are not directly threatened or attacked, then any military involvement we have cannot be considered an act of war (or something like that).

That makes sense. I think if the neo-cons duped us again and pushed us against Iran it would be called a war, declared and all.

With the way our general public opinion is right now, I wouldn't be surprised either.
People are so afraid that they seem to be ok with sacrificing anything as long as there isn't a suicide bomber on their next flight.
Pretty ridiculous if you ask me...

[Mr Hyde]

^^^^^^^^^^
all seems a massive scam though, those wars aren't against terrorists, terrorists are often home grown or from 'friendly' countries like saudi arabia, sadam hated al'qaeda, and if the wars are against terrorists then it seems really short seighted to think you can go in and have war with a country and kill all of the terrorists- its not a war against an army, new terrorists are gonna be incited if they see foreign troops invading their countries

[pkay]

also, the president can't make the changes Ron Paul is speaking about.... so it's all null and void really.

the president alone often can't deliver on campaign promises, never stopped em before

So what you're saying is Ron Paul is just like every other politician?

Glad we agree

[Atac]

^^^^^^^^^^
all seems a massive scam though, those wars aren't against terrorists, terrorists are often home grown or from 'friendly' countries like saudi arabia, sadam hated al'qaeda, and if the wars are against terrorists then it seems really short seighted to think you can go in and have war with a country and kill all of the terrorists- its not a war against an army, new terrorists are gonna be incited if they see foreign troops invading their countries

Totally agree, blowback from our occupancy in those nations is just going to give us more false incentive to be there in the first place
The perfect never ending war I suppose.

[deadly_habit]

also, the president can't make the changes Ron Paul is speaking about.... so it's all null and void really.

the president alone often can't deliver on campaign promises, never stopped em before

So what you're saying is Ron Paul is just like every other politician?

Glad we agree

except he has a solid voting record for what he stands for

[Intended Malice]

So many misconceptions and use of corrupted language to justify your thinly veiled propaganda; erroneously referred to as an 'education' in this fascist/totalitarian nation. You use wikipedia, I use the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Deceleration of Independence and the (Anti) Federalist papers.

First and foremost the US doesn't have a Constitutional provision for a standing army, period. It only outlines the creation and maintenance of a Navy. Look at Article I section 8 of the US Constitution to see what 'constitutes' war and how long it was to be financed (<2 years), even WWII was unconstitutional by definition. The US was and legally still remains an Union comprised of Sovereign militias--like Switzerland, often spoken by Jefferson as the Sister nation--via Article I Section 8, and the Bill of Rights. But because post civil-war imposed several conventions, war financed by taxation being the most prominent and the precursor to a standing army, it seems absurd to use this FACT in arguments amongst the public-school indoctrinated sheep.

The mistake that Ron could remove the troops out of the 5-8 (known) ongoing wars is a mistake born out of naivety that could never come to fruition--with the US empire occupying 702+ bases throughout the World, logistically that is impossible. He could veto financing and prolong payments which would eventually starve it, but its unlikely given that many of his financial backers and followers are in fact DOD (*sic) State minions/mercenaries. And the backlash could end with his death, if JPM has a private army an hitmen around the World and blatantly uses it without reprisal, I don't see the Warfare State being the least but reluctant.

Terrorism is a byproduct of US foreign and domestic policy, the FBI continuously creates this straw man to justify its existence domestically. The first WTC bombing was in fact conducted by the FBI. And if you believe that farce about 9/11 just know that Osama Bin Laden was Pentagon/CIA in the Soviet/Afghan War.

Lastly, there are so many coups and conflicts the US is illegally involved in via the NSA/Pentagon/CIA that have NEVER been documented, much less financially interrupted since their inception. During massive inflation and stagflation in the US in the 70's (after Nixon closed the gold window) the US was overthrowing Governments in South America Africa and Arab nations and then backing para-military pawns to become heads of State in order to create puppet states for its own hegemonic ends.

This isn't a typing battle, I'm merely stating facts that disprove your typical regurgitated lies that undermine Truth.

[tyger]

so, because the president's power is limited, especially when he happens to disagree with most other people with power, we can expect ron paul to achieve nothing as president. but you think that is fine, because electing him would make a point, or publicize opinions that are wrongly ignored, or what? (i may have missed something.)

on the contrary, the only way to make progress towards distant political ends is by small victories in the direction you are really want to go. if the aim is to transform the economy so that it benefits the 99%, then you must start by campaigning for policies which make things better (or resist attempts to make them worse), even in small ways, for ordinary people. the ends do not justify the means: the means condition the end.

now, for the things i'd aim for (which i realize are not the same as what you'd aim for), ron paul as president would be very negative, because the things he might get congress to agree to (e.g. cutting medicare/medicaid, reducing minimum wage or other employees' legal rights) would make things harder for ordinary people, especially for those who are struggling already. and that's what matters: what he'd actually do. it doesn't matter whether he's for the gold standard, or against prohibition (even though i agree with him on the latter), when he couldn't or wouldn't carry out those policies.

incidentally, the eighteenth century, newly independent USA is not some golden age which all later politics should aim to return to.

[Intended Malice]

I'm not sure who you are directing that response toward. But I'm contrary to the idea that political solutions are in any way progressive to solve an issue that was inherently created by the very nature of politics and the State. OWS is exactly indicative of what is wrong with even the 'woken' masses. Re-read what I said here and in that OWS thread if necessary, I'm the only one that has provided substance to their argument thus far without pining about the necessity of some overtly exhausted platitude.

incidentally, the eighteenth century, newly independent USA is not some golden age which all later politics should aim to return to.

I'll be the first to concede, and will even bemoan at length if given the opportunity, that the Second US Constitution (current) was flawed but it achieves many goods in the process; the Articles of Confederation (First US Constitution) was quite possibly the best form of Governance ever conceived in recorded History due to its limitations of the State itself--had it lived long enough to ratify something similar to the Coin act of 1792 in each of the States it would be hard not to call it a Golden era. But the late 18th Century US Republic was in fact a Golden Era when contrasted between European and Asian Imperial servitude that had reigned for millenia, simply because you are ignorant of that does not give you the ability to denounce it outright without a valid argument of its shortcomings; which is futile since it still legally remains the Supreme Law of the Land in the coercive Union known as the US. (Though History has proven it to be null and void mainly due to the collective ignorance of its populace.)

I'd go even further into the cause and necessity for secession, but the propaganda runs deep... so I'll limit myself to supporting what I have said thus far.

[tyger]

I'm not sure who you are directing that response toward. But I'm contrary to the idea that political solutions are in any way progressive to solve an issue that was inherently created by the very nature of politics and the State.

it was mainly directed at your previous post. i tried to state a few of my political aims, and to explain why ron paul as president would set them back. you have not explained why it would advance your political aims. the only aims you seem to have involve the complete overthrow of the entire political and legal systems. nothing wrong with ambitious long-term goals, but you need shorter-term goals, too. and if your short-term goals don't include relieving the economic problems so many people are going through, you will either get no significant support or only from who are deceived about your real programme. (i say "you", rather than "ron paul", because i'm not quite sure how close your views are to his here, though there's clearly some similarity.)

But the late 18th Century US Republic was in fact a Golden Era when contrasted between European and Asian Imperial servitude that had reigned for millenia, simply because you are ignorant of that does not give you the ability to denounce it outright without a valid argument of its shortcomings; which is futile since it still legally remains the Supreme Law of the Land in the coercive Union known as the US. (Though History has proven it to be null and void mainly due to the collective ignorance of its populace.)

you assume that everybody who disagrees with you is automatically ignorant. i do think the early USA was in important ways an advance at the time; my point was it is ridiculous to try to turn everything into a reason to go back to it, because it doesn't address lots of currrent issues. it's still worth trying to insist on the rights in the bill of rights, but that doesn't cover everything. for example, people in the USA need universal access to medical care; going back to the eighteenth century doesn't help achieve that.

your legalistic assertion that the eighteenth century constitution remains the law of the land is
(a) irrelevant to the presidential election: politics is about things that affect people, not about theoretical questions from the philosophy of law; and
(b) wrong: the USA has a rather different constitution now (i.e. largely the same text is interpreted rather differently), and even if it was arrived at by illegal means, it *is* the law now (just as the eighteeth century constitution was arrived at by an illegal insurrection against the british crown, which in no way invalidated the republic once it was established).

[Intended Malice]

I have no political aims, I have conveyed, at length, why it is irreverent who would be allowed (yes, allowed if not pre-seletected) to become President of the US as the desired results proposed by Ron Paul are not attainable by any 2 term president for a myriad of reasons--many of which I have discussed already. And even if possible, financial collapse was set in motion in late 90's, and in 2008 it was made inevitable and will happen far before anyone can making any meaningful reform to return to the Rule of Law based on US Constitution, which regardless of how you perceive it remains the basis for which this Union was built. My intention is to inform by challenging your lies and subsequently educate you, collectively, that consent is required to be governed (read the Deceleration of Independence) and if withdrawn you are, by negating the State, re-claiming your innate Sovereignty and advancing the notion that '... Governments are instituted by Men and deriving their just power by the consent of the Governed. That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [inalienable Rights] it is the Right of The People to alter or abolish the Government and to institute new Government...'

This is as short-term as it gets regarding goals, I cannot undo 12+ years of indoctrination for you; but suffice it to say by employing this skepticism toward the State you can start immediately by negating its farce should you chose to withdraw your consent and undertake the following: tax 'evasion,' undocumented commodity based commerce, opening and operating 'underground/black market' businesses, using LEGAL currency etc...

No, I do not base my 'assumption' on a contrasting viewpoint, I base it on the continuous belief that you negate Historical facts and remain ignorant of this nations Legal foundation. If you wish to participate in this Society, you must abide by its Laws and Practices to achieve your desired ends, what ever that may be, do you not? Why is that their is an ongoing, inane discussion about the implications of something that shouldn't exist in the first place (a Military, and its subsequent Military Industrial Complex)? Why not challenge the Supreme Court to issue an immediate halt to the imperial decree of this supposed former Constitutional Professor President from the University of Chicago? Its illegal as clearly stated in Article I Section VIII of the US Constitution. and if you truly believe in the system you should exercise your Rights and point your grievances to that end. They, as all in the State's employ, are duty bound and sworn to protect the US Constitution with their lives if need be before they are appointed to their respective positions of power.

I'm not even going to address the last part, because you have proven my point about being ignorant; undermining the 2nd US Constitution--that has not been altered since its (dubious) ratification at the Constitutional Convention--, The Bill of Rights of what is clearly written has massive negative implications (read the aforementioned) and we suffer the consequences to this day by violence or threat thereof by the State--you are titled a terrorist by the DHS and denied basic Human Rights for trying to exercise any of the initial 10 Rights supposedly protected by the US Government, not given as it so erroneously described by the many, let alone your Natural Rights. The US Constitution has remained intact since it was signed by its select participants--many important Founders like Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine ignored it altogether calling it a farce--, its the Bill of Rights that has been altered and Amended, serf (See Article V). And the reason it doesn't address 'lots of current issues' was intentional, it was to limit the strength of the Federal Government; that is why the Anti-Federalist 'faction' specifically included the 9th and 10th Amendment, and in all actuality the 1st, 2nd and 4th, into it before even considering ratifying it into the respective 9 of the 13 Colonies over their own previously implemented ones. (See Article VII, and understand what I meant by dubious.)

Their is no room for interpretation, only the passive acceptance and acquiescence of its indoctrinated and ignorant Populace to corrupt Language and act accordingly; it was written in Plain English Language for a reason rather than the ostentatious tone and often overbearing prose these Statesmen based their discourse upon!

Politics is the farce/theater by which the State creates the illusion that the Many are relevant in a Society dictated to them by the Few. Choosing to see it otherwise is done at your detriment, and in defiance of History.

[Kodachrome]

I can never tell if this is the same thread that has always existed or if it's an actual new thread. It's like I'm in some weird universe where I keep having to read the same shit about Ron Paul in the same thread that exists everywhere on the internet.

[AllNightDayDream]

God that was painful to read. I was dyin laughing when you described the articles of confederation as possibly the best form of governance (makes me chuckle just typing it), and then try to play like you're some godly presence on history. You just make yourself look like a condescending idiot saying things like "public school sheep". It's clear you are narrow-minded, self-important, and have been fed a lot of bullshit, but let me try and "educate" such an "ignorant sheep" like you:

Your point on armies might be the dumbest one.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

War appropriations are not allowed to cover a span of time over two years. Someone who knew what they were talking about would know that this was put in place to counter against an unnecessary prolonging of war early on, since a NEW APPROPRIATION given under later circumstances would have to be passed after two years. The key word you are missing is "term". Keeping an army was a huge responsibility that was understood to be put on the federal government even before the constitution. Even under the horrible articles of confederation this was understood. Apparently, not by such an eminent one as yourself

Onto your idiotic historical interpretations: Maybe in your endless hours of study you came across a small event called Shay's Rebellion? It was iconic of the deep problems with the articles and the horrible standards of living it perpetuated on the lower classes. Indeed, strict adherence to Gold as currency made it harder for people to pay off debts, not to mention the hoards of other currencies competing with one another that made it a huge gamble to keep any money in the bank. This economic instability tore hardest at working class people and eventually caused Shay's rebellion, which made it clear to the powers that were that a new constitution that formed some solid semblance of a federal government was desperately needed.

The simple fact you mention unhinging the dollar to gold as a possible cause of inflation in the late 70's is all I need to know that everything you learned about economics came from youtube. Pairing that with your idiotic version of history, and you saying shit like this:

you are titled a terrorist by the DHS and denied basic Human Rights for trying to exercise any of the initial 10 Rights supposedly protected by the US Government

I don't think i'm too far off to say you garnered your whole argument from youtube and have probably never finished an academic piece of literature.

As with most of the ignorance encountered on the internet and real life, the best prescription is that you actually read on the subjects you claim omnipotence on. No one takes the time to sit down and read a solid book anymore. But then again, I went to public school, so what do I know, right?