Republican candidates for 2012

• Cleveland Buck

  

  isadore;985001 wrote:25% according to you

  How much money would it pay for you according to you? A genocide on the scale you desire would cost a lot more than the $1.5 trillion per year we spend meddling around the world now.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;985013 wrote:Brilliant........ get a cookie.

  thanks what kind do you have mr. rickles. fresh humor from 1964.
• isadore

  Cleveland Buck;985020 wrote:How much money would it pay for you according to you? A genocide on the scale you desire would cost a lot more than the $1.5 trillion per year we spend meddling around the world now.

  tisk, tisk, tisk what a racist attitude you have as to suggest that all Muslims or is it all brown skinned people are terrorists. I just want to kill the terrorists, and you claim that all Muslims or brown complexed people are terrorists, wow,
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;984606 wrote:The Truman show is a work of fiction as are the many other other paranoid fantasies.

  My apologies if I was unclear. I was using it as an example, and an extreme one at that, but one that is given license through the Patriot Act, and one that does not even require disclosure, as a result of that same Act.
  
  My point, really, is not that every person is being incessantly monitored by the central government (imagine the bloated expenses for such an endeavor). My point is that it is an option, and it can be done without a defensible reason. The fact that the Truman Show is such an extreme example is precisely why it shouldn't be an option.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:Now if you want to believe that someone is watching your every action that is of course your right.

  The distinction between what is done to me personally and what is permitted should be drawn here. I certainly don't believe myself to be an interesting enough person to draw attention from any federal entity. I, however, recognize that a defensible reason isn't even necessary for it to be done.
  
  Ultimately, I would hedge the bet that I'm not a person of interest, but I cannot ultimately know that, and neither can any one person.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:You can come on here an rave about how the CIA and the FBI are watching your every action and how you sit at home at night wearing a tinfoil halo so they can not read your thoughts.

  Ibid.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:Guess what that is your right and people were raving those delusional fantasies before 9/11 and they will be raving them on its 200th anniversary of the attack.

  You and I don't even disagree here. Again, my point is a complete lack of accountability to the people of the United States. The idea that we ought to just shut up and trust the central government here, as well as its branches of specialization, would seem to be the antithesis of the founders' sentiments. It was the whole reason they opposed a monarchy.
  
  In a sense, what the Patriot Act does is grant the Federal entities monarchical powers in regard to anything they deem to be defense-related. The problem with that is, it submits 100% trust in those federal entities and agencies, both in what they consider an issue of defense and what they do in light of issues of defense. Impunity has historically led to corruption and misuse, so I'm not sure why you think it will be so successful in protecting us in this case, but I'm open to hearing the defense of your position.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:And the Patriot Act has not limited that right in any way.

  Again, this is not actually knowable. I personally believe in the same way that you assert you believe, but the problem is that the Patriot Act allows for rights to be infringed, even in these ways you mention, regardless of whether or not those allowances have been exercised to this point.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:You know I still have my freedom of expression and it has not been interfered with in any way.

  That is true. However, asserting that it hasn't been doesn't mean it cannot be. That's the rub. Suppose the central government determined that those who speak against it are more likely to be domestic insurgents. It could indeed legislate regulations on free speech, or even carry out an executive order to do the same.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:I already have many more rights than the people who wrote "the founding document" ever thought I would have. They allowed the sedition act of 1798 that limited basic rights and they had no problem with allowing states to limit all basic rights.

  Indeed, as they placed virtually all responsibility of governance at the state and local levels.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote:The 14th Amendment and the Supreme gave you those protetions from the states, not the original founding document. Hell if we want to get picky "the founding document" did not even include the Bill of Rights.

  All the 14th Ammendment did was ensure that the rights that were already said to be "unalienable" were such at all levels.
  

  isadore;984606 wrote: But in reality of today your complaints about denial of rights amount to nothing. About as much as my denial of rights when a law is passed extending copyrights which keep me from ripping off Ernest Hemingway. God the suffering that caused me.

  As I said, FELT infringement and infringement are not the same. It is possible (though I find it unlikely) that rights of privacy, ones which you and I might find important, are being infringed. We likely wouldn't know about it.
• isadore

  O-Trap wrote:My apologies if I was unclear. I was using it as an example, and an extreme one at that, but one that is given license through the Patriot Act, and one that does not even require disclosure, as a result of that same Act.
  
  My point, really, is not that every person is being incessantly monitored by the central government (imagine the bloated expenses for such an endeavor). My point is that it is an option, and it can be done without a defensible reason. The fact that the Truman Show is such an extreme example is precisely why it shouldn't be an option.

  New situations require flexibility. We can see that lack of flexibility in the present impasse over the budget. The reality of the situation is that for decades we have been at war with a terrorist movement that has allies around the world. It is has killed more Americans in domestic attacks since our Constitutional government was created. It has a fifth column within our nation, citizens who would use their citizenship as a shield to attack and massacre their fellow citizens. Measures allowed under the Patriot Act have prevented many of these attacks without interfering with the daily use of our rights.
  

  O-trap wrote:Again, my point is a complete lack of accountability to the people of the United States. The idea that we ought to just shut up and trust the central government here, as well as its branches of specialization, would seem to be the antithesis of the founders' sentiments. It was the whole reason they opposed a monarchy.
  
  In a sense, what the Patriot Act does is grant the Federal entities monarchical powers in regard to anything they deem to be defense-related. The problem with that is, it submits 100% trust in those federal entities and agencies, both in what they consider an issue of defense and what they do in light of issues of defense. Impunity has historically led to corruption and misuse, so I'm not sure why you think it will be so successful in protecting us in this case, but I'm open to hearing the defense of your position.

  
  Complete lack of accountability. Oh ye of so little faith, guess what we live in a representative democracy, not an absolute monarchy. We elect our Presidents and lawmakers, people can vote them out and have the Patriot Act repealed if they find it so horrible. As it is now the Congress can investigate the personnel and application of the Act in open hearing then modify or repeal it. The President can fire the heads of departments enforcing the act. The Courts can declare parts or all of it unconstitutional. That is accountability big guy. And that is how the founders thought the system would work except of course letting women, blacks, Indians and non property owners a voice in the government.
  If people want to give terrorists a free pass to kill us right within the boundaries of our nation, just repeal the Patriot Act, it is like issuing terrorists a hunting license with no limit.
  As it is now we have all our rights, exercising them as we did before the war on terror. And folks can come on a website and complain about their monarchial government when ever they want.
  
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;985099 wrote:My point, really, is not that every person is being incessantly monitored by the central government (imagine the bloated expenses for such an endeavor). My point is that it is an option, and it can be done without a defensible reason. The fact that the Truman Show is such an extreme example is precisely why it shouldn't be an option.

  From my understanding that is incorrect. The Patriot Act makes available judicial review at all levels.
  

  Even if national security agents do not know the precise name of the target of their surveillance application, or the precise location or communications instrument that the target will be using, Patriot bars the judge from issuing the warrant in the absence of probable cause that the target — who must be described even if agents don’t yet know his name — is an agent of a foreign power. (International terrorist organizations are “foreign powers” and their operatives are “agents” under federal law.) Similarly, the judge may not authorize eavesdropping unless the agents provide probable cause to believe that “each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is being used or about to be used” by this foreign agent.

  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259966/patriot-act-and-tea-party-continued-andrew-c-mccarthy
  

  You and I don't even disagree here. Again, my point is a complete lack of accountability to the people of the United States. The idea that we ought to just shut up and trust the central government here, as well as its branches of specialization, would seem to be the antithesis of the founders' sentiments. It was the whole reason they opposed a monarchy.
  
  In a sense, what the Patriot Act does is grant the Federal entities monarchical powers in regard to anything they deem to be defense-related. The problem with that is, it submits 100% trust in those federal entities and agencies, both in what they consider an issue of defense and what they do in light of issues of defense. Impunity has historically led to corruption and misuse, so I'm not sure why you think it will be so successful in protecting us in this case, but I'm open to hearing the defense of your position.

  Disagree. Congress has a role in overseeing wiretaps, and judges at every level can be involved.
  

  That is true. However, asserting that it hasn't been doesn't mean it cannot be. That's the rub. Suppose the central government determined that those who speak against it are more likely to be domestic insurgents. It could indeed legislate regulations on free speech, or even carry out an executive order to do the same.

  All power, no matter how limited, can be abused. Unless you're advocating the complete dismantling of the federal government, then we are left to trust them with the powers they're given. I'm comfortable with the checks provided in the Patriot Act. In many many other cases it can be legitimately argued the federal government is proceeding unchecked, but not here.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;984606 wrote:Hell if we want to get picky "the founding document" did not even include the Bill of Rights.

  Your subtle implication here does not square with history. The issue of including a bill of rights came up during the convention. It was pushed mainly by the anti-federalists because they feared granting the powers enumerated in the constitution to a central government without a bill of rights protecting the rights of individuals against that federal government.
  
  Many federalists like Alexander Hamilton argued that a bill of rights was not necessary. Ratification of the constitution only empowered the federal government to act within its enumerated powers. It would not take away any one of an individual's innumerable rights. Hamilton and others feared listing some of those rights would be used to disparage the multitude of others that could not be listed.
  
  In the end the constitution was ratified with strong assurances that the issue of a bill of rights would be addressed immediately by the federal congress. And it was. Ten ammendents were added. The last two addressed the concerns of the federalists/anti-federalists.
  
  The 9th addressed the concerns that the enumeration of the first eight would not disparage any others retained by the people.
  The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
  
  The 10th addressed the concerns of those that federal power would be held to those enumerated by the constitution.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
  
  200+ years later history shows us both camps were right in their respective arguments. Had we not enumerated some rights the federal government would have trampled them. Enumerating some of them has appeared to some to give them more authority than those not enumerated. The 9th is the most forgotten amendment and the 10th the most violated.
• isadore

  My not subtle at all statement does square with history. Our Constitution, “The founding document” for our current government was ratified without including the first 10 amendments. The new government was functioning and the New Congress had convened when amendments were introduced. 12 Amendments were introduced but only 10 made it through the entire process. Two years later they become part of the Constitution.. They are not original parts of the Constitution. One of those two failed amendments would 200 years later become the 27[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment. “... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.” The Bill of Rights is an addition to the founding document as were the other 17 Amendments.
  http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html
• majorspark

  

  isadore;985590 wrote:My not subtle at all statement does square with history.

  In the context of your original post it appeared to me you implied that because the bill of rights were not included in the ratified constitution, that a majority of those that ratified the constitution were resistant to protecting individual rights. I set that record straight. Do you agree? You have been very critical in the past of the founders and the constitution. Maybe you are just stating a fact of history and not making political point? You tell me?
  

  isadore;985590 wrote:Our Constitution, “The founding document” for our current government was ratified without including the first 10 amendments. The new government was functioning and the New Congress had convened when amendments were introduced. 12 Amendments were introduced but only 10 made it through the entire process. Two years later they become part of the Constitution.. They are not original parts of the Constitution.

  I agree with all of this. I stated it in the post you reference.
  
  Have a happy thanksgiving!
• I Wear Pants

  Guys can we stop this. Isadore is most obviously a troll. Goes agains whatever is the prevailing logic. "The current wars are bad for the country since the don't help us economically, politically, or stratigically"
  
  "Well you're an unamerican terrorist sympathizer"
  
  
  "unions are a lot of the times assholes with their requirements"
  
  "well you're an unamerican corpratist"
  
  etc.
  
  LJ, why even bother to make threads get approval if you're going to allow this shit?
• isadore

  majorspark;985717 wrote:In the context of your original post it appeared to me you implied that because the bill of rights were not included in the ratified constitution, that a majority of those that ratified the constitution were resistant to protecting individual rights. I set that record straight. Do you agree? You have been very critical in the past of the founders and the constitution. Maybe you are just stating a fact of history and not making political point? You tell me?
  
  
  
  I agree with all of this. I stated it in the post you reference.
  
  Have a happy thanksgiving!

  “I already have many more rights than the people who wrote "the founding document" ever thought I would have. They allowed the sedition act of 1798 that limited basic rights and they had no problem with allowing states to limit all basic rights. The 14th Amendment and the Supreme gave you those protections from the states, not the original founding document. Hell if we want to get picky "the founding document" did not even include the Bill of Rights.”
  You are right. My last statement about the Bill of Rights was me just being historically &#8220icky.” The pressure and agreements at the Constitutional Convention lead to the introduction of the Bill of Rights at the first session of the Congress. But my greater point about Americans today have more rights is much more significant. The obvious examples are rights extended to women, blacks and others that were not really given any serious consideration by the founders. But at least as significantly was their refusal to consider the limits individual states could put on freedom of their citizens. After 80 years of witnessing that abuse we got the most significant addition to our freedoms in the entire set of amendments that would allow us in the long run to end cruel state attacks of individual rights.
  
  Happy Holiday to you sir.
• isadore

  I Wear Pants;985774 wrote:Guys can we stop this. Isadore is most obviously a troll. Goes agains whatever is the prevailing logic. "The current wars are bad for the country since the don't help us economically, politically, or stratigically"
  
  "Well you're an unamerican terrorist sympathizer"
  
  
  "unions are a lot of the times ****s with their requirements"
  
  "well you're an unamerican corpratist"
  
  etc.
  
  LJ, why even bother to make threads get approval if you're going to allow this ****?

  Not that you personally deserve an explanation, you don't but I have heard the trolling charge. I dont take positions to get a reaction, I do it because of my beliefs.
  I will always support unions. My father was a union member who lived through the abuse suffered in factories before workers had the right to organize. We made it through several layoffs and strikes. I was in the USW when I worked summers during college and afterward have been in a professional group that acts as a union for my whole career.
  Several members of my immediate family have been in the military and I will always support the military against personal attacks and want to see our country protected against any external threat.
  I was not brought up around guns, I think the world is safer with some limits placed on gun ownership.
  I think my stands on the above issues form a view found in our political culture similar to those for example of Joe Leiberman. While Leiberman may share the physical characteristics of a troll, he is not one based on his beliefs.I might be a little more strident than him.
  My social views tend toward the libertarian, supporting gay marriage, building casino,
  not having a problem with drug legalization with the caveat for draconian punishment for those selling drugs to the underaged.
  oh i do have an interest in HS football.
  I think that about covers stands I have taken while I was on JJs and on OC.
  You and others may disapprove of the content of my comments, I have been expelled, banned or excommunicated from sites before and I will in all probability have those actions taken against me in the future. Those stands are taken for reason of personal belief.
  (personal attack)
  congratulations Iwearpants for making it to thanksgiving you fucking turkey.
• LJ

  

  isadore;985912 wrote: congratulations Iwearpants for making it to thanksgiving you fucking turkey.

  I thought, wow, what a decent well thought out post, until I got to this part. That just got you banned from the thread and an infraction. Happy Thanksgiving!
• WebFire

  LJ;985923 wrote:I thought, wow, what a decent well thought out post, until I got to this part. That just got you banned from the thread and an infraction. Happy Thanksgiving!

  Weaksauce.
• pmoney25

  

  As time goes on, the more confident I get that I cannot consciously vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. Friends and Family are getting on me saying if people think like that and he runs for Third Party we are handing Obama the election. Ill be honest, even if that is true, I don't think there will be any difference whether Obama, Romney or Gingrich are president and if I vote for one of those people I will be voting against my beliefs.
  
  Dr. Paul has been right on the Fed, Right on the Debt problem, right on the housing bubble and right on the wars all before it was fashionable to talk about these things. I don't want him to be right about the eventual collapse that is in the near future.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  pmoney25;994143 wrote:As time goes on, the more confident I get that I cannot consciously vote for anyone other than Ron Paul. Friends and Family are getting on me saying if people think like that and he runs for Third Party we are handing Obama the election. Ill be honest, even if that is true, I don't think there will be any difference whether Obama, Romney or Gingrich are president and if I vote for one of those people I will be voting against my beliefs.

  They are wrong. Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul in the primaries are handing Obama the election. He is the only one that can beat Obama.
  
  Romney and Gingrich are RINOs. Gingrich scares the shit out of me. He has zero regard for the Constitution. Hell, he wrote the forward for a book calling for the end of the Constitution so that we can form one all powerful world government. I also get a kick out of the people who are dropping Cain now because of his affair, so now they support Newt who cheated on his first wife while she was on her death bed and was getting his dick sucked while he was chastising Clinton for screwing around.
  
  Cain and Perry are imbeciles. Romney and Gingrich are fascists. All of them lose the 10-15% of Republicans that are actually concerned about the budget and the debt and the erosion of our civil liberties. Tell them to get behind Paul if they want Obama out of office. Otherwise they only have themselves to blame.
• rydawg5

  believer;784717 wrote:The last time you kept shoving polls in our faces was months prior to the November 2010 mid-term elections. You know....the ones that kept convincing you that the Dems were a slam dunk to retain the House.
  
  First, as many of us have said it's way too early.
  
  Second, the final Republican candidate has yet to surface.
  
  Third, you can bet the ranch that Palin, Paul, Bachman and Gingrich will not get the nomination. Romney and Pawlenty are possibilities but I sincerely doubt they'll be the Republican candidate either.
  
  Fourth, you waste way too much time looking at polls.

  no one heed this advice!
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck;994318 wrote:They are wrong. Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul in the primaries are handing Obama the election. He is the only one that can beat Obama.
  
  Romney and Gingrich are RINOs. Gingrich scares the shit out of me. He has zero regard for the Constitution. Hell, he wrote the forward for a book calling for the end of the Constitution so that we can form one all powerful world government. I also get a kick out of the people who are dropping Cain now because of his affair, so now they support Newt who cheated on his first wife while she was on her death bed and was getting his dick sucked while he was chastising Clinton for screwing around.
  
  Cain and Perry are imbeciles. Romney and Gingrich are fascists. All of them lose the 10-15% of Republicans that are actually concerned about the budget and the debt and the erosion of our civil liberties. Tell them to get behind Paul if they want Obama out of office. Otherwise they only have themselves to blame.

  +1
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;994318 wrote:I also get a kick out of the people who are dropping Cain now because of his affair

  I initially supported Cain because of his attack against the very heart of big government federal power (the federal tax code) and his viability as candidate. The personal allegations against Cain have rendered him an unviable candidate. I expect Cain to not survive the week and move on promoting his book before it is too late.
  

  Cleveland Buck;994318 wrote:so now they support Newt who cheated on his first wife while she was on her death bed and was getting his dick sucked while he was chastising Clinton for screwing around.

  I am no big fan of Newt and my vote is not heading his way. Not all Cains supporters are fleeing to Newt like the media wants you to believe. A number of them will go to Paul. I have stated my political issues with him. Newt has his personal issues but if I were you I would not spew these distortions because you disagree with his politics. Newts daughter has set the personal matter straight. His wife was not on her death bed. She had a benign tumour removed. She is quite alive. She had previously requested the divorce for obvious reasons and it was discussed prior by Newt and his former wife to their children. The divorce was already in progress. Gingrich took his two minor minor children to visit their mother. I'll take his daughter's word over any slimy political commentator.
  
  http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111120/OPINION02/711209969
  
  As for Clinton he was chastised for perjury and obstuction of justice. Not getting something from some chick he had no chance of getting from Hillary. I'll bet Clinton boned her as well. Heck Clinton is out there singing Newts praises.
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;994318 wrote:They are wrong. Anyone who doesn't vote for Paul in the primaries are handing Obama the election. He is the only one that can beat Obama.

  You like Ron Paul. We get it. That said, the idea that he's the only one who can beat Bam is pretty damn silly.
  

  Cleveland Buck;994318 wrote:Romney and Gingrich are RINOs. Gingrich scares the **** out of me. He has zero regard for the Constitution. Hell, he wrote the forward for a book calling for the end of the Constitution so that we can form one all powerful world government. I also get a kick out of the people who are dropping Cain now because of his affair, so now they support Newt who cheated on his first wife while she was on her death bed and was getting his **** sucked while he was chastising Clinton for screwing around.

  Uh, he chastised Clinton for trying to rig the outcome of a civil court case in which he was the defendant. I know that doesn't sound as cool as "getting impeached for getting head," but sometimes the truth is painful.
  

  Cleveland Buck;994318 wrote:Cain and Perry are imbeciles. Romney and Gingrich are fascists. All of them lose the 10-15% of Republicans that are actually concerned about the budget and the debt and the erosion of our civil liberties. Tell them to get behind Paul if they want Obama out of office. Otherwise they only have themselves to blame.

  I admire your devotion and your passion, but your knowledge of national politics is sorely lacking if you think 10-15% of the Pub base will sit out if it looks like Bam is beatable. Sorry to break it to ya, but that ain't happening. The only way your scenario plays out is if Paul goes 3rd party.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  fish82;994400 wrote:I admire your devotion and your passion, but your knowledge of national politics is sorely lacking if you think 10-15% of the Pub base will sit out if it looks like Bam is beatable. Sorry to break it to ya, but that ain't happening. The only way your scenario plays out is if Paul goes 3rd party.

  Your knowledge of Paul's supporters is sorely lacking if you think they will vote for Romney or Gingrich. Most of them would rather vote for Obama than Romney or Gingrich. Hell, I would rather vote for Obama than Romney or Gingrich. Whether Paul runs third party or not they are not going to vote for those two clowns. At least Congress will try to stop what Barack wants to do. Romney wants to do the same things and Gingrich wants to go even further.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/hurt-gingrich-is-gops-latest-not-romney/?page=all#pagebreak
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;994479 wrote:Your knowledge of Paul's supporters is sorely lacking if you think they will vote for Romney or Gingrich. Most of them would rather vote for Obama than Romney or Gingrich. Hell, I would rather vote for Obama than Romney or Gingrich. Whether Paul runs third party or not they are not going to vote for those two clowns. At least Congress will try to stop what Barack wants to do. Romney wants to do the same things and Gingrich wants to go even further.

  Dude. Ron Paul has been running for POTUS since the dawn of time...I think I kinda have a grasp on the mindset of his supporters by now. Projecting your personal views onto the rest of Paul's base doesn't change reality.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  fish82;994539 wrote:Dude. Ron Paul has been running for POTUS since the dawn of time...I think I kinda have a grasp on the mindset of his supporters by now. Projecting your personal views onto the rest of Paul's base doesn't change reality.

  Sure thing. And when you are scratching your head at how such a terrible president could win reelection maybe you will see it is because you nominated someone even more tyrannical to run against him.
• fish82

  

  Cleveland Buck;994564 wrote:Sure thing. And when you are scratching your head at how such a terrible president could win reelection maybe you will see it is because you nominated someone even more tyrannical to run against him.

  Who said I'm not voting for Paul? I happen to think he's by far the most fiscally sound of the bunch. If he'd dial back on the semi-nutty foreign policy a tad, he'd probably be a slam dunk winner IMO.
  
  Anyhoo...Obama's re-election has little if anything to do with his TBD opponent. It's quite simple really...if his approval rating is 47% or higher on 11/6/12, then he's a good bet to slide across for a 2nd term. If it's below 47%, then he's out.