Republican candidates for 2012
-
O-Trap
LOLbeliever;922144 wrote:Besides the fact that that wasn't really my question (lol) I can't say that I disagree with you.
My point is that by saying he was going to vote for the different candidate, he was excluding Obama as well.
-
Cleveland Buck
1. In other words, he exercised his right of free speech and everything else in this statement is unproven.jmog;922059 wrote: 1. He is an admitted terrorist who has stated his hatred for the US and has been involved in plans to attack the US. That is the definition of Treason.
2. Treason is the only crime described in our Constitution and is punishable by death.
3. Would be nearly impossible to go in and arrest him in Yemen.
4. This is no different than a murderer who is holding a hostage with a gun and a police sniper shoots the killer. That man would be a US citizen and got killed without a trial. This man was caught red handed, admitted his actions over and over again, and went to hide in a country we couldn't arrest him in. Sorry, but treason is punishable by death, and you declared war on the US, as a US citizen that is treason.
2. The Constitution also says that no one shall be convicted of treason without the testimony of 2 witnesses of the same act. This guy wasn't convicted of anything, he wasn't even charged with anything.
3. Maybe it wouldn't be impossible to work with them if we weren't bombing them for months now and if we actually respected their sovereignty.
4. This is nothing like your scenario. The only other U.S. citizen in danger where this guy was assassinated was the other one that we killed with him.
I could understand if we had enough evidence that we got an indictment from a judge. Then Yemen refuses to help us get him so we send in a team to get him who kills him while they are under attack. That obviously didn't happen though. Without even an indictment the president chose to assassinate an American citizen. And don't think for a minute we won't have an administration in the near future who uses this authority to assassinate nonviolent citizens who oppose the direction of the federal government. You don't abide by the rule of law to protect scum like Al-Awlaki, you do it to protect everyone else from government tyranny. -
Cleveland Buck
LOL. Yeah he is real different.believer;922029 wrote:Sooooo....you're voting for Obama then?
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to eliminate all of the federal bureaucracies like Dept of Education, Dept of Energy. etc. That certainly isn't Obama. Or Romney, Perry, Christie, Bachmann, or Cain.
I am going to vote for the guy who will eliminate corporate welfare which discourages competition by making it harder for smaller companies to compete with the big boys with their hands out. Again that eliminates Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, etc.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to abide by the document that governs our government. The one who wants to put an end to undeclared wars, assassinations, illegal searches and seizures, and all other infringements of our rights that the federal government has engaged in. The group of candidates we are talking about all applauded Obama's assassination of a U.S. citizen, so they fail this one too.
I am going to vote for the guy who will actually make the necessary cuts to the budget, including eliminating all of these departments that the federal government has no business being involved in, allowing young people to opt out of our welfare state, and stop subsidizing the welfare states of Europe and meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and Asia. Wake me up when any these other clowns have a plan anything like this.
I am going to vote for the guy who understands the root cause of all of our problems right now, unrestrained fiat money, and by solving this we will force the government to bring the budget under control, allow the economy to recover, and bring some measure of prosperity to the lower and middle class who have been soaked by nearly 30 years of nonstop inflation. Obama, Romney, Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't even understand what I just said let alone want to say it themselves. -
BGFalcons82
Excellent post. :thumbup:Cleveland Buck;922192 wrote:1. In other words, he exercised his right of free speech and everything else in this statement is unproven.
2. The Constitution also says that no one shall be convicted of treason without the testimony of witnesses of the same act. This guy wasn't convicted of anything, he wasn't even charged with anything.
3. Maybe it wouldn't be impossible to work with them if we weren't bombing them for months now and if we actually respected their sovereignty.
4. This is nothing like your scenario. The only other U.S. citizen in danger where this guy was assassinated was the other one that we killed with him.
I could understand if we had enough evidence that we got an indictment from a judge. Then Yemen refuses to help us get him so we send in a team to get him who kills him while they are under attack. That obviously didn't happen though. Without even an indictment the president chose to assassinate an American citizen. And don't think for a minute we won't have an administration in the near future who uses this authority to assassinate nonviolent citizens who oppose the direction of the federal government. You don't abide by the rule of law to protect scum like Al-Awlaki, you do it to protect everyone else from government tyranny. -
QuakerOatsCleveland Buck;922211 wrote:LOL. Yeah he is real different.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to eliminate all of the federal bureaucracies like Dept of Education, Dept of Energy. etc. That certainly isn't Obama. Or Romney, Perry, Christie, Bachmann, or Cain.
I am going to vote for the guy who will eliminate corporate welfare which discourages competition by making it harder for smaller companies to compete with the big boys with their hands out. Again that eliminates Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, etc.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to abide by the document that governs our government. The one who wants to put an end to undeclared wars, assassinations, illegal searches and seizures, and all other infringements of our rights that the federal government has engaged in. The group of candidates we are talking about all applauded Obama's assassination of a U.S. citizen, so they fail this one too.
I am going to vote for the guy who will actually make the necessary cuts to the budget, including eliminating all of these departments that the federal government has no business being involved in, allowing young people to opt out of our welfare state, and stop subsidizing the welfare states of Europe and meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and Asia. Wake me up when any these other clowns have a plan anything like this.
I am going to vote for the guy who understands the root cause of all of our problems right now, unrestrained fiat money, and by solving this we will force the government to bring the budget under control, allow the economy to recover, and bring some measure of prosperity to the lower and middle class who have been soaked by nearly 30 years of nonstop inflation. Obama, Romney, Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't even understand what I just said let alone want to say it themselves.
In a perfect world you would then probably vote for Newt Gingrich ......... he is head and shoulders above the rest in intelligence, history, debating skills and most importantly --- ideas. He may have some media-ingrained baggage, but he is really the guy this nation needs. -
QuakerOats
obama is going down ... hard; anyone will beat him, and well they should.Ty Webb;922051 wrote:I truly don't believe either is very likely...
Here is a question I have for my Republican friends here...
I friend of mine at work who is a Republican said something to the effect of people were pushing Christie to run because they are scared they can't win with anyone else. Anyone think that is the truth? he also said they don't have a candidate who is electable nationally. Perry can't win in the north,Romney can't win in the south,Cain most likely won't be taken seriously(much like Paul) -
fish82
Unless Bam's luck changes drastically over the next 8 months and his numbers improve, then it won't matter in the slightest who the Pubs nominate....he's toast.Ty Webb;922051 wrote:I truly don't believe either is very likely...
Here is a question I have for my Republican friends here...
I friend of mine at work who is a Republican said something to the effect of people were pushing Christie to run because they are scared they can't win with anyone else. Anyone think that is the truth? he also said they don't have a candidate who is electable nationally. Perry can't win in the north,Romney can't win in the south,Cain most likely won't be taken seriously(much like Paul) -
BGFalcons82
If a voter likes the past 4 years and wishes to reward Barry with a return engagement pining for more hope and change, then by all means, get behind him.QuakerOats;922235 wrote:obama is going down ... hard; anyone will beat him, and well they should.
If, on the other hand, a voter believes Barry had his opportunity, failed, and thinks another 4 years of socialist/marxist leadership is 4 years too many, then vote for anyone not named Obama.
Come November, 2012, it will be a referendum on Obama; just as 2008 was a referendum on Bush that Obama played to the hilt. Your turn now, Barry. Time to stand up for YOUR record. It's not going to be so easy defending ineptitude, inexperience, and a health care bill that a majority of Americans didn't want and STILL want repealed. He is President Zero and if we get 4 more years of 0, there will be rage. Count on it. -
O-Trap
Cleveland Buck;922192 wrote:1. In other words, he exercised his right of free speech and everything else in this statement is unproven.
2. The Constitution also says that no one shall be convicted of treason without the testimony of 2 witnesses of the same act. This guy wasn't convicted of anything, he wasn't even charged with anything.
3. Maybe it wouldn't be impossible to work with them if we weren't bombing them for months now and if we actually respected their sovereignty.
4. This is nothing like your scenario. The only other U.S. citizen in danger where this guy was assassinated was the other one that we killed with him.
I could understand if we had enough evidence that we got an indictment from a judge. Then Yemen refuses to help us get him so we send in a team to get him who kills him while they are under attack. That obviously didn't happen though. Without even an indictment the president chose to assassinate an American citizen. And don't think for a minute we won't have an administration in the near future who uses this authority to assassinate nonviolent citizens who oppose the direction of the federal government. You don't abide by the rule of law to protect scum like Al-Awlaki, you do it to protect everyone else from government tyranny.Cleveland Buck;922211 wrote:LOL. Yeah he is real different.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to eliminate all of the federal bureaucracies like Dept of Education, Dept of Energy. etc. That certainly isn't Obama. Or Romney, Perry, Christie, Bachmann, or Cain.
I am going to vote for the guy who will eliminate corporate welfare which discourages competition by making it harder for smaller companies to compete with the big boys with their hands out. Again that eliminates Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, etc.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to abide by the document that governs our government. The one who wants to put an end to undeclared wars, assassinations, illegal searches and seizures, and all other infringements of our rights that the federal government has engaged in. The group of candidates we are talking about all applauded Obama's assassination of a U.S. citizen, so they fail this one too.
I am going to vote for the guy who will actually make the necessary cuts to the budget, including eliminating all of these departments that the federal government has no business being involved in, allowing young people to opt out of our welfare state, and stop subsidizing the welfare states of Europe and meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and Asia. Wake me up when any these other clowns have a plan anything like this.
I am going to vote for the guy who understands the root cause of all of our problems right now, unrestrained fiat money, and by solving this we will force the government to bring the budget under control, allow the economy to recover, and bring some measure of prosperity to the lower and middle class who have been soaked by nearly 30 years of nonstop inflation. Obama, Romney, Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't even understand what I just said let alone want to say it themselves.
I would rep the begeezes out of these posts if I could. -
jhay78
There was quite a debate over this at National Review last weekend, and I found this argument pretty compelling:Cleveland Buck;922192 wrote:1. In other words, he exercised his right of free speech and everything else in this statement is unproven.
2. The Constitution also says that no one shall be convicted of treason without the testimony of 2 witnesses of the same act. This guy wasn't convicted of anything, he wasn't even charged with anything.
3. Maybe it wouldn't be impossible to work with them if we weren't bombing them for months now and if we actually respected their sovereignty.
4. This is nothing like your scenario. The only other U.S. citizen in danger where this guy was assassinated was the other one that we killed with him.
I could understand if we had enough evidence that we got an indictment from a judge. Then Yemen refuses to help us get him so we send in a team to get him who kills him while they are under attack. That obviously didn't happen though. Without even an indictment the president chose to assassinate an American citizen. And don't think for a minute we won't have an administration in the near future who uses this authority to assassinate nonviolent citizens who oppose the direction of the federal government. You don't abide by the rule of law to protect scum like Al-Awlaki, you do it to protect everyone else from government tyranny.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278843/war-power-paranoia-andrew-c-mccarthy
A little historical perspective:
The example of FDR and multiple Supreme Court decisions draw a distinction between wartime/national security issues and simple legal issues. Now, if you want to point out the hypocrisy of Obama's assertion that there is no such thing as a "war on terror", when he claims success for knocking off two of the biggest terrorists on the world stage, then that's another matter.In June 1942, the Führer dispatched teams of saboteurs to conduct a terrorist campaign on U.S. soil. One was a 22-year-old American citizen named Herbert Hans Haupt. The Nazi infiltrators were arrested by the FBI, but Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt directed that they be detained as enemy combatants, tried by military commission, and put to death — i.e., the executive branch acted as judge, jury, and executioner. Haupt duly met his demise, along with five others, in the District of Columbia’s electric chair about seven weeks after they were captured. Because the nation was at war with the Nazis, the fact that Haupt was an American citizen made no difference — he was treated just as his confederates were.
Mr. Williamson mentions neither Haupt nor the further inconvenience that a unanimous Supreme Court, in Ex Parte Quirin, declined to interfere in the commander-in-chief’s decision to have an American citizen killed. To the Supreme Court, decades before there was a Bush administration, it was immaterial even that Haupt had been apprehended inside the United States, far from any traditional battlefield, at a time when the civilian courts were open and functioning.
Looking at his pocket Constitution and apparently little else, Mr. Williamson divines a “sandy foundation” on which the president’s sparse and nebulous national-security authority stands — just commander-in-chief of the armed forces, “that is all.” On the other hand, the World War II–era Supreme Court, steeped in centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, grasped two rudimentary points that elude Mr. Williamson.
First, that same Constitution assigns exactly no national-security authority to the federal judiciary — the branch of government Mr. Williamson would put in charge of American enemy combatants. As the Court explained in the 1948 Chicago & Southern Air Lines case, “the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility” for national-security decisions. In our system, these matters are instead the province of officials “directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.” They are political in nature, not legal. Thus, in the 1950 Eisentrager case, the Court turned away enemy combatants seeking its intervention during post-war occupation. To grant them judicial review or civilian trials would, the justices said, “hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy.” “It would be difficult,” they elaborated, “to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.”
If a President started assassinating citizens at random (no matter if they're political opponents or otherwise), do we really think that Congress would not be under fire to impeach him immediately?Mr. Williamson also grossly underestimates another congressional check, impeachment. In his imagining, the Congress that impeached a popular president for obstructing an investigation into his sexual improprieties would somehow stay its hand against a president who was using war as a pretext to murder American citizens. -
jhay78
Rest of the article:
It would be hard to overstate how divorced this is from reality. Though a stickler for statutory law, Mr. Williamson seems not to notice that the War on Terror — which he belittles as “metaphorical” — is a real war in the statutory sense. Combat operations ensued only because Congress passed a sweeping authorization for the president to use military force against al-Qaeda, its operatives, and its affiliates. Legislative appropriations have reaffirmed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for nine years. Congress is free to repeal the AUMF — it would probably have to override a presidential veto to do so, but if Mr. Williamson’s assassination-list nightmare were a reality, the numbers for that would be there. Were Congress to repeal the AUMF, the president would have no authorization to kill anyone — American or otherwise — unless it were done in response to an attack or imminent threat against the United States (or, perhaps, in a covert operation against a dire foreign threat, carried out as prescribed in the relevant statute). Could a president abuse his powers? Of course. All power can be abused — including legislative and judicial power. But the basic check against that possibility is political, not legal. Mr. Williamson implausibly argues that “
olitical limits” are inadequate against the president and must be supplemented by “legal limits.” Courts, however, have no power to enforce their injunctions — for that, they must rely on the executive branch, and an executive branch that maintains a list of citizens it plans to assassinate will be unlikely to enforce injunctions against itself. By contrast, a president who really did the horrific things Mr. Williamson imagines President Obama doing would find his war authorization rescinded, his military and intelligence services defunded, and himself impeached. A president guilty of less heinous excesses might not be impeached, but he would find his popular support dramatically eroded. As Mr. Obama is finding, that has political consequences — among them electoral ones — that curtail the presidential capacity for malfeasance. This is the genius of the system.
Ironically, the sort of improvident legal limits Mr. Williamson urges are likely responsible for the assassination authorization he condemns. To understand why, consider Anwar al-Awlaki. Mr. Williamson limns him as a mere “reacher” and “author of invective.” Yet, to the intelligence community, which just might have better information, he is an al-Qaeda recruiter who, while in the U.S., encouraged 9/11 hijackers and Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan; and who, once holed up in al-Qaeda’s safe haven in Yemen, went “operational” and guided Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted Christmas Day bombing of a plane over Detroit.
That is more than enough to consider him an enemy combatant. Yet, hamstrung by federal courts and international tribunals, our overlawyered military and intelligence services are paralyzed by any perception of potential legal liability. Given that Awlaki is an American citizen, they doubtless fear taking action against him without the cover of a presidential authorization. And given the political heat President Clinton took for failing to give the CIA clear orders to assassinate bin Laden when the agency had opportunities to do so, it was plainly in President Obama’s interest to provide a clear authorization in Awlaki’s case. Otherwise, after the next 9/11, he could find himself in the Clinton hot seat, unable to explain why the military shrank from firing a cruise missile at a high-level al-Qaeda confab just because Awlaki happened to be in the room.
That’s all the assassination authorization for Awlaki is: legal cover if circumstances arise under which killing him is the best military option. And here we arrive at the central absurdity in Mr. Williamson’s argument. Though minimizing him, Mr. Williamson concedes Awlaki is a bad actor and has no objection to his being killed on the battlefield. Since Mr. Williamson doesn’t see that as problematic, he can’t fathom why our armed forces would want insurance — though it is they, not he, who would be hauled into court by Awlaki’s family. But the authorization to assassinate Awlaki does not mean the administration would have him killed if it encountered him coming off a plane in Chicago, à la José Padilla — a U.S. citizen captured, not killed, by the Bush administration. Nor does it mean our forces would kill Awlaki if they could apprehend him in a foreign country under circumstances in which detention was the more practical option, à la U.S. citizen Yaser Hamdi and al-Qaeda bigwig Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
At the Corner, Mr. Williamson expressed astonishment that, as a severe Obama critic, I would give the administration the benefit of the doubt on this one. But I am an Obama critic only where the evidence warrants it. As Mr. Williamson observed, I accused the administration of a “grave violation of law” in civil-rights enforcement — but Justice Department lawyers have testified that Obama officials have imposed racially discriminatory charging practices. As Mr. Williamson noted, I’ve argued that the Obama administration shares much of the Islamist critique of the United States and has staffed the Justice Department with terrorist sympathizers — but there is a mountain of evidence to that effect. If Mr. Williamson has evidence for what he alleges — that President Obama has a list of Americans to be assassinated and is planning to carry out those killings — I’m all ears. But there is no evidence in his essay. Where I come from, a comparable lack of evidence gets your case laughed out of court.
There is no runaway executive branch, nor an “assassin-in-chief” drawing up hit lists of citizens. Usually, one encounters such hallucinatory analyses from feverish lefties or libertarian extremists, who hear in the most commonsense security measures a death knell for the Bill of Rights. In the real world, we have the most tightly regulated chief executive in our history — searchingly overseen by Congress and micromanaged by the courts in a manner that would have shocked the World War II–era judiciary, to say nothing of the Framers. Mr. Williamson should relax. The president has been successfully shackled. -
O-Trap
Except no President would be so uncouth as to admit that a person was being assassinated at random. The person would certainly be vilified and painted to be a terrorist or some other sort of treasonous description so as to be able to put said person to death, not only with the permission of the masses, but even possibly with the blessing of the masses.jhay78;922328 wrote:If a President started assassinating citizens at random (no matter if they're political opponents or otherwise), do we really think that Congress would not be under fire to impeach him immediately?
Second, suppose the person being executed at random was Captain Douchebag. I daresay that if said person was "unlikeable" enough, Congress might not be as pressured to impeach. Moreover, making someone out to be an asshole would be even easier than making them out to be treasonous. Both can, and likely would, be done.
And the fact that it could be done should give people significant pause when it comes to allowing the Executive branch the unchecked power to be the judge, jury, and executioner as long as they make a person look guilty (regardless of actual evidence or witness which might have come to light in a hearing).
If a person is granted the right to a trial by the Constitution, it should not be so easily stolen away just because the right person decides to use a national security buzzword. -
majorspark
I read Cain's own words on the issue. It did not sound like he was against it being done in principle. Just that he felt there was nothing major to be found and it would be a waste of government resources. I have changed my mind about a host of political issues based on being convinced in principle I may have come to the wrong conclusion. Whether Cain's belief that it is now a necessary expense of government resources is based on political expediency or a well meaning change based on his principles remains to be seen. As president I doubt he is ever presented with a bill supporting an audit of the fed. Congress will not have it. If such a bill ever did get through congress, Cain will not veto it.Cleveland Buck;921488 wrote:1. He insisted for years that there was no need to audit the Federal Reserve until he changed his tune recently because it is the popular stance. If he was president obviously he wouldn't support it.
The question here is are we in a legal state of war? Obama thought we were not and the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammad could be tried under the civilian code. He soon found out that trying him under civilian law would necessitate his acquittal.Cleveland Buck;921488 wrote:2. He questioned the constitutionality of the president assassinating American citizens without due process earlier this year when they were trying to get the guy they just killed. Then after they killed him he was all for it.
Congress gave the president the authority to use military force against nations, organizations, or persons that had basically anything to do with 9/11. But not only that it authorized the president to use military force to prevent any future acts of international terrorism. Congress has done nothing to remove that authorization and continues to fund and support that directive and authority to the president. If you are going to use the term assassination don't lay this at the feet of just the president, but the whole federal government. All three branches sustain it.
Obviously the lack of testicular fortitude to formally declare war muddies the waters. We are all confused including myself. Had congress declared a formal state of war with specific directives we would not be in the fog we are in today. We have never lost a war we formally declared. But I myself am not convinced that congress authorizing a president to use military force against an entity (knowing force will happen) is not declaring war on that entity. I have yet to see a president defy congress on the issue of war powers. This turd lays at congress's feet.
I am not going to throw Herman Cain under the bus in the midst of these muddy waters.
Cain will not agree to an additional national 9% sales tax without a 9% income tax and a 9% corporate tax. Its 9-9-9 not 9-x-x. Cain would be toast if he settled for anything else. Its the basis of his campaign. He also demands congressional super majorities to increase those rates any time in the future. He will have some constitutional hurdles to overcome but there is no way Cain would advocate adding a 9% VAT to the current tax code. It would be suicide.Cleveland Buck;921488 wrote:3. His 9-9-9 plan sounds good, but in reality all it does is add a VAT tax. He will never get a 9% flat income tax or a 9% corporate tax through Congress, so in reality we will just end up with the same tax code we have now plus a 9% VAT. No thanks.
Paul will get hardly anything through congress. Congress will not like his medicine either.
I stumble on this one. I would like to see this brought up at the republican debate with the whole field having to answer to it.Cleveland Buck;921488 wrote:4. He supported bailing out the banks at the time and still does.
I addressed the other issue above. As for the Patriot Act. Another question I would like to see the field of republicans defendCleveland Buck;921488 wrote:5. Supports the Patriot Act and also the assassination of Al-Awlaki, so our constitutional rights are obviously of no consequence to him. -
majorspark
FDR was operating under a formal declaration of war. A formally declared state of war like a formally declared state of emergency suspends some the due processes of civilian law. Lets not forget this. The constitution itself gives a provision under the most severe circumstances for a suspension of due process rights. I think at the least congress should have the balls to formally declare that we are in a state of war that those due process rights are now under the presidents discretion. FDR's detention of Americans of Japanese decent would fall under this authority. Once the war had ended so did these powers.jhay78;922328 wrote:The example of FDR
I do not condone FDR's detention of Americans of Japanese decent. I believe he was wrong. But he did not do so under some politically watered down generalized authorization of congress to use force to defend the nation against current threats or any foreseen future developing threats as long as congress sustains the funds.
It would never happen at random. Suppose some right wing nut kooks blew up a couple of federal buildings. Or some radical right wing militias attacked some military bases. Though you and I may agree with their political ideology we may not agree with their method of implementing that ideology. Or on the other hand suppose some with a legitimate cause feels the political process is futile and seeks to throw off such bounds legitimately as the founders did. The founders claimed that as a right. You can see were this can lead. Look at John Brown. The federal government sacrificed him on the political alter hoping to placate the slave states. The State of Virginia executed him and a couple of years later the federal government was at war with that state and victory brought what John Brown fought for.jhay78;922328 wrote:If a President started assassinating citizens at random (no matter if they're political opponents or otherwise), do we really think that Congress would not be under fire to impeach him immediately?
We are no strangers to shit. It sticks to us as well. Not saying what I agree or disagree with it just pointing out that political disagreements have in our history at times descended into deadly violence. Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Seven rebellious states (a very small portion of the federal population) seceded from the union. One chose to fire on a small federal fort in the Charleston bay. Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee wanted no part of secession. These four did sympathize with the seven rebellious states as did others in the union. These four states were content to remain in the union and let the rest go their separate ways. But when the federal government ordered them to muster troops to use military force to seize political control of those seven states they refused and seceded as well. Many troublemakers in the press in the border state of Maryland were imprisoned without due process.
I am not arguing right and wrong here. Just pointing out our history. We are not immune to what goes on in this world. We have killed ourselves over our political and moral beliefs before in brutal fashion.. We are not immune to doing so again. -
majorspark
Cleveland Buck: You have to accept that we can't right this ship overnight. It would take massive revolutionary force to change things significantly on the federal level on that timetable. Power is entrenched in Washington. The country is divided. Neither of us are going to accept each others ideology on the national level, at least not with major compromises. That is not going to happen. If we can convince our friends on the left to join us in abandoning central power and returning to limited government, at least at the central level, maybe we can work together. They can have their big government and we can have our small limited government. If not lets not let it come to blows and cite irreconcilable differences, violation of the contract, and go our separate ways in peace.
-
believer
I concur.majorspark;922416 wrote:Cleveland Buck: You have to accept that we can't right this ship overnight. It would take massive revolutionary force to change things significantly on the federal level on that timetable. Power is entrenched in Washington. The country is divided. Neither of us are going to accept each others ideology on the national level, at least not with major compromises. That is not going to happen. If we can convince our friends on the left to join us in abandoning central power and returning to limited government, at least at the central level, maybe we can work together. They can have their big government and we can have our small limited government. If not lets not let it come to blows and cite irreconcilable differences, violation of the contract, and go our separate ways in peace.
I believe the Federal government needs downsized and let the state and local governments be where our leftist friends attempt to implement their socialist agendas (if they can) as our Nation's Founders designed. In other words if Texas - for example - wants conservative governance so be it. If California wants a socialist government, so be it. Let the states decide what type of role government should have in people's lives as the Founders envisioned.
The Federal government's role should be reduced to what the Constitution allows (IE: National defense, national currency, foreign tariffs, international treaties, etc.). The Feds definitely shouldn't be in the business of regulating education at the local level, environmental policies, etc. -
jmog
You don't need two witnesses when he admits to treason (not those words, but admits to enough to be treason).Cleveland Buck;922192 wrote:1. In other words, he exercised his right of free speech and everything else in this statement is unproven.
2. The Constitution also says that no one shall be convicted of treason without the testimony of 2 witnesses of the same act. This guy wasn't convicted of anything, he wasn't even charged with anything.
3. Maybe it wouldn't be impossible to work with them if we weren't bombing them for months now and if we actually respected their sovereignty.
4. This is nothing like your scenario. The only other U.S. citizen in danger where this guy was assassinated was the other one that we killed with him.
I could understand if we had enough evidence that we got an indictment from a judge. Then Yemen refuses to help us get him so we send in a team to get him who kills him while they are under attack. That obviously didn't happen though. Without even an indictment the president chose to assassinate an American citizen. And don't think for a minute we won't have an administration in the near future who uses this authority to assassinate nonviolent citizens who oppose the direction of the federal government. You don't abide by the rule of law to protect scum like Al-Awlaki, you do it to protect everyone else from government tyranny. -
Skyhook79
So your voting for the guy who doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear bomb, wants to legalize all drugs, return to the gold standard and close all of our bases around the World pretty much assuring we will be attacked on our soil and not being able to respond quickly and leaving Israel on their own surrounded by Nations that want to wipe their Country off the map?Cleveland Buck;922211 wrote:LOL. Yeah he is real different.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to eliminate all of the federal bureaucracies like Dept of Education, Dept of Energy. etc. That certainly isn't Obama. Or Romney, Perry, Christie, Bachmann, or Cain.
I am going to vote for the guy who will eliminate corporate welfare which discourages competition by making it harder for smaller companies to compete with the big boys with their hands out. Again that eliminates Obama, Romney, Perry, Cain, etc.
I am going to vote for the guy who wants to abide by the document that governs our government. The one who wants to put an end to undeclared wars, assassinations, illegal searches and seizures, and all other infringements of our rights that the federal government has engaged in. The group of candidates we are talking about all applauded Obama's assassination of a U.S. citizen, so they fail this one too.
I am going to vote for the guy who will actually make the necessary cuts to the budget, including eliminating all of these departments that the federal government has no business being involved in, allowing young people to opt out of our welfare state, and stop subsidizing the welfare states of Europe and meddling in the affairs of the Middle East and Asia. Wake me up when any these other clowns have a plan anything like this.
I am going to vote for the guy who understands the root cause of all of our problems right now, unrestrained fiat money, and by solving this we will force the government to bring the budget under control, allow the economy to recover, and bring some measure of prosperity to the lower and middle class who have been soaked by nearly 30 years of nonstop inflation. Obama, Romney, Cain, Perry, and Bachmann don't even understand what I just said let alone want to say it themselves. -
Cleveland Buck
You mean the guy who knows there is nothing we can do short of invading and occupying to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb, wants to let the states regulate drugs, wants to let gold and silver compete with worthless paper dollars, and let Israel have the freedom to defend themselves as they see fit instead of us telling them what they can and can't do? Yes, that guy.Skyhook79;922534 wrote:So your voting for the guy who doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear bomb, wants to legalize all drugs, return to the gold standard and close all of our bases around the World pretty much assuring we will be attacked on our soil and not being able to respond quickly and leaving Israel on their own surrounded by Nations that want to wipe their Country off the map? -
pmoney25
I am curious as to what options we have other than invasion that will prevent Iran from getting a nuke?
But lets be honest with ourselves we might as well just invade and take over the entire middle east. Maybe that will get them all to like us and then israel will be safe once and for all.
Also short of terror attacks how are we going to be attacked on our own soil by closing bases around the world? Ron Paul is not against a strong national defense, he is against the notion of spending our way to oblivion by creating this american empire. -
Cleveland Buck
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/05/justice-scalia-agrees-with-ron-paul/SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 03—6696
YASER ESAM HAMDI and ESAM FOUAD HAMDI, as next friend of YASER ESAM HAMDI, PETITIONERS v. DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
[June 28, 2004]
Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
Petitioner, a presumed American citizen, has been imprisoned without charge or hearing in the Norfolk and Charleston Naval Brigs for more than two years, on the allegation that he is an enemy combatant who bore arms against his country for the Taliban. His father claims to the contrary, that he is an inexperienced aid worker caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. This case brings into conflict the competing demands of national security and our citizens’ constitutional right to personal liberty. Although I share the Court’s evident unease as it seeks to reconcile the two, I do not agree with its resolution.
Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime…
Accordingly, I would reverse the decision below.
The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly:
“Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. …
Scalia’s next statement, quoting Blackstone, carries special significance considering recent events:
“To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom…”
-
jhay78
majorspark;922393 wrote:The question here is are we in a legal state of war? Obama thought we were not and the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammad could be tried under the civilian code. He soon found out that trying him under civilian law would necessitate his acquittal.
Congress gave the president the authority to use military force against nations, organizations, or persons that had basically anything to do with 9/11. But not only that it authorized the president to use military force to prevent any future acts of international terrorism. Congress has done nothing to remove that authorization and continues to fund and support that directive and authority to the president. If you are going to use the term assassination don't lay this at the feet of just the president, but the whole federal government. All three branches sustain it.
Obviously the lack of testicular fortitude to formally declare war muddies the waters. We are all confused including myself. Had congress declared a formal state of war with specific directives we would not be in the fog we are in today. We have never lost a war we formally declared. But I myself am not convinced that congress authorizing a president to use military force against an entity (knowing force will happen) is not declaring war on that entity. I have yet to see a president defy congress on the issue of war powers. This turd lays at congress's feet.
I agree with that. It's a whole lot easier to "declare war" (in the traditional, formal sense) when the entity in question is a geopolitical nation-state (Germany, Japan, etc.). It's a different ballgame when you wage war against a loosely-bound group of fanatics who unite under a banner of a hateful ideology and whose "military" operations involve terror acts against civiilans.majorspark;922413 wrote:FDR was operating under a formal declaration of war. A formally declared state of war like a formally declared state of emergency suspends some the due processes of civilian law. Lets not forget this. The constitution itself gives a provision under the most severe circumstances for a suspension of due process rights. I think at the least congress should have the balls to formally declare that we are in a state of war that those due process rights are now under the presidents discretion. FDR's detention of Americans of Japanese decent would fall under this authority. Once the war had ended so did these powers.
I do not condone FDR's detention of Americans of Japanese decent. I believe he was wrong. But he did not do so under some politically watered down generalized authorization of congress to use force to defend the nation against current threats or any foreseen future developing threats as long as congress sustains the funds.
It's the Authorization to Use Military Force (given by Congress) that makes Obama's "assassination" legitimate constitutionally, in my opinion. I agree with the slippery slope argument, but I feel confident in the balance of powers and checks on the executive branch that our system currently has. -
BGFalcons82
The same way the assassinator-in-chief is currently doing it...unmanned drones should take care of their nuke plant. Maybe even cause a nuclear meltdown. What would the Left say then about their omnipotent leader???pmoney25;922570 wrote:I am curious as to what options we have other than invasion that will prevent Iran from getting a nuke? -
O-Trap
Hot damn, I wish most the "republicans" in Washington thought this way.believer;922421 wrote:The Federal government's role should be reduced to what the Constitution allows (IE: National defense, national currency, foreign tariffs, international treaties, etc.). The Feds definitely shouldn't be in the business of regulating education at the local level, environmental policies, etc.
Skyhook79;922534 wrote:So your voting for the guy who doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear bomb, wants to legalize all drugs, return to the gold standard and close all of our bases around the World pretty much assuring we will be attacked on our soil and not being able to respond quickly and leaving Israel on their own surrounded by Nations that want to wipe their Country off the map?Cleveland Buck;922539 wrote:You mean the guy who knows there is nothing we can do short of invading and occupying to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb, wants to let the states regulate drugs, wants to let gold and silver compete with worthless paper dollars, and let Israel have the freedom to defend themselves as they see fit instead of us telling them what they can and can't do? Yes, that guy.
Beat me to it.
He has never said whether or not he cares if Iran has one. He said we have no right to deny a sovereign nation the ability to have nuclear technology. And we don't.
He never said he wanted to legalize all drugs. He said it should be the states that rule on the legality or illegality of them, not the Federal government.
He never said we should blindly go back to the gold standard. He said we should let gold and silver (I believe silver is the one he actually would support in competition) currency should be allowed to compete with a paper dollar that is backed by nothing except a Federal government that is so buried in OIUs that I can't imagine how it thinks it can responsibly run such a monetary system.
He never said that we should weaken our defense. He said we should bring home the international bases because those are not used to defend the homeland any more effectively. In actuality, if we were attacked, we would be BETTER equipped, because our military resources would not be overextended all over the world. Think of it like Risk. If you have 1 military unit in every country, then you are far less capable of defending any one of your locations. If, however, you have a ton of them in one country, that country becomes a bitch to attack. Given the strength of our military, putting them on the home soil that they have sworn to defend would only make it easier for them to do their jobs. The military presence in Kuwait doesn't help if our home soil is attacked, now does it?
And Israel is a big boy nation. We have done everything we could to build them up and make them fully capable of defending themselves. It is not our responsibility to act like a helicopter parent, and it's hilarious that we think we need to defend the country in the Middle East that has probably the strongest military and the greatest number of nuclear weapons. The countries surrounding Israel may not like them, but those countries can't do a damn thing about it without risking Israel wiping them off the face of the map.
There isn't one. Those trying to "keep" Iran from getting nuclear technology are basically suggesting that we invade to prevent it ... because we apparently have the right to do so ... and I guess we have all these military resources and personnel laying around doing nothing at the moment.pmoney25;922570 wrote:I am curious as to what options we have other than invasion that will prevent Iran from getting a nuke?
You know, I swear it seems like people actually believe this.pmoney25;922570 wrote: But lets be honest with ourselves we might as well just invade and take over the entire middle east. Maybe that will get them all to like us and then israel will be safe once and for all.
He's against global policing, but he has stated (exhaustively, I might add) that it is imperative to have a strong national DEFENSE. He just doesn't chalk up every single military action as defense-related.pmoney25;922570 wrote: Also short of terror attacks how are we going to be attacked on our own soil by closing bases around the world? Ron Paul is not against a strong national defense, he is against the notion of spending our way to oblivion by creating this american empire.