Many people on the right are angry at the Republican party and simply will not vote for John McCain. In protest, some of them have even said they would vote for someone almost diametrically opposed to their views: Barack Obama.
Thanks to Ron Paul, however, these disaffected rightwing voters -- and leftwing voters, too -- will be more likely to not vote for Obama.
These disaffected voters on the left and right were not going to vote for McCain anyway. So this doesn't hurt McCain at all. It does hurt Obama, though, and that helps McCain.
Thanks, Ron Paul!
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 10, 2008 01:42 PM | Email ThisI wonder how long before the RP group smear you Pudge.
Don't pick on their famed one. (-:
You've heard of "shoeless Joe", I give you
Honestly, this Dem ticket is looking more and more like an SNL skit by the day. Can you imagine 4 years of gaffes that could be accumulated with these clowns in office?
Posted by: Rick D. on September 10, 2008 02:04 PMToday, Clueless Joe is telling the world how much more qualified Hillary is to be VP than he!
I have to wonder if this might be step 1 to dump Joe... the problem is I doubt Hiallry would contribute to the world knowing she's the back up date to the prom. Besides, if Barry wins she can't run in 2012. I would love to be the fly on the polling booth wall when she and slick vote on Nov 4.
Fluff and Stuff are losing it.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 10, 2008 02:26 PMTravis Pahl hates me already, for completely stupid reasons. More than half the time he accuses me of having a particular position, I actually agree with him. But I don't respond to him anymore.
As to the rest, I dunno, I get along pretty well with many of them. My analysis here isn't anti-Paul, it's just saying I think he is helping McCain, and I think that's clearly a reasonable analysis.
As to whether RP is a Republican, I won't say he's not. But he isn't a very GOOD Republican, when he is acting actively against the GOP nominee.
Where you're wrong is in your apparent belief that Dr. Paul is doing this to help the neoconservatives like McCain. If he really wanted to help McCain he'd endorse him. End of story.
Just ask any neoconservative pundit if they like Ron Paul or respect what he's doing here. They hate Dr. Paul to a man and woman because he doesn't support their murderous, warmongering ways.
Posted by: Rick Fisk on September 10, 2008 02:48 PMI have met many RP people who are considering voting for Obama just to spite McCain and the Republicans.
Obviously, Obama is FAR more against their views -- especially in regards to judges -- than Obama. Obama will appoint judges who purposefully ignore the Constitution. McCain will appoint judges who follow the text of the Constiution. This is by their own words and past voting actions. But they are willing to sacrifice all that just to hurt the Republicans, perhaps out of anger, perhaps out of a longterm vain belief that if we go far enough to the left, we'll swing back even further to the right.
And this will help convince such people to NOT vote for Obama. So it's good for McCain.
And no, I never said RP believed he was helping McCain. That implication in the title was a joke. But where YOU are wrong is your obvious belief that McCain is a neoconservative. That's completely false. Both his foreign and domestic policies are markedly different from neoconservatives. Find me one "neoconservative pundit" who thought McCain was a very good candidate for their interests, last fall. You won't find any.
Also, in addition to not knowing what "neoconservative" means, you also don't know what "murderous" means.
Hope that helps!
"be said to the moment"? What does that even mean?
You say "Real Republicans" don't endorse outside parties. Is Kirby Wilbur a "Real Republican"? How about the 3rd Congressional District state committee members who won't endorse the Republican candidate in their congressional race?
Pudge, good observation. How it all shakes out, nobody knows yet.
Posted by: Michelle on September 10, 2008 03:35 PMPudge and many of the others apparently didn't get the gist of the press conference. Most of the votes for 3rd party candidates are not going to come from likely voters who would have voted for one or the other anyway. They'll come from disaffected-historically apathetic, and first time voters who would not have voted in this election previously.
Posted by: Political Jesuit on September 10, 2008 03:36 PM"But he isn't a very GOOD Republican, when he is acting actively against the GOP nominee."
I am glad that our founders didn't care about their loyalty to the king more than their freedom...
Say NO to Republicrats!
Say NO to Establishment media outlets!
Say NO to bipartisan trashing of the Constitution!
Cast a protest vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate of your choice.
Tell everyone why you will vote against the lesser of two evils.
Tell everyone who you will vote for.
Tell everyone what you think.
Be heard: http://SayNO2008.com
"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system... This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates." - Ron Paul
Posted by: SayNO2008.com on September 10, 2008 03:49 PMOnly one VIABLE candidate has the track record to decrease pork barrel spending and that is John McCain. Only one man has pledged to put strict constructionists in the mold of John Roberts on the SCOTUS bench and that man is John McCain. A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for the very Constitutional nightmare you think we're heading to anyway, only he'll get us there much faster than would a McCain type. Think about it.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 10, 2008 04:08 PMTiffany: I never said it was a bad thing to not be a good Republican. I just pointed out that working against your party's nominee in the general election means you aren't a good member of your party. That's not a judgment against Ron Paul, it's just a pretty obvious tautological statement.
"SayNO": I think McCain is a very good candidate for President. I don't feel he is bad, or evil, at all. Feel free to disagree, but don't presume that you're somehow a better patriot than I am, or that you care more about the Constitution than I do, because that won't get you very far, especially since I doubt very much you could actually back that up in argument.
I have backed third parties for years, and I still support them today. I have not VOTED third party in years, but I support the right of people to vote that way. More power to you. But you're not better than the rest of us.
I had been a full supporter before and didn't disagree with Paul. I would like to see the party open its ranks to competition and even take pleasure in seeing a temporary set back if it would make the party stronger and it's members stop snivelling about enforcing the Constitution.
Unfortunately, what Paul is doing smacks of snivelling. But I can't stop there. It is even worse. It is aiding and abetting the Karl Marx enemy and that is something that he does in violation of his oath of office. How can he swear to uphold a document while at the same time lending aid to those who use it like toilet paper.
Believe me, I was a rabid supporter of Paul because I am a constitutionist first, a conservative second, and a Republican third. Paul has ignored the first two items and even the 3rd. He's flipped. What possible rationale is there for all this Bovine Scatology?
Posted by: The Federal Farmer on September 10, 2008 04:24 PMAnyway, my thought is that for the bulk of the American electorate, this election is not about Barack Obama vs. John McCain. It is about Barack Obama vs. not Barack Obama. Don't tell me that all this pro Sarah Palin popularity is a genuine desire among the American people to have her be VP, because intellectually, she is not even on the map. Sarah Palin is just an excuse to vote against Barack Obama. Intellectual Republicans would be revolted at the thought of America's first community college and tanning booth VP candidate just a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
By not endorsing McCain and jumping into the fray, I believe Ron Paul takes away votes from John McCain. On the political spectrum, Paul is on the opposite side of Obama. Republicans who dislike McCain casually do not switch to Obama, but either stay at home or choose Paul or Barr. Republicans who think McCain will be an ABSOLUTE DISASTER will not waste their vote for Paul and Barr and will vote for Obama.
Posted by: CNBC Sucks on September 10, 2008 04:34 PMYes, "natural born" means "natural born." Which means when you were born, you were a U.S. citizen. Which means both Obama and McCain are natural born. It has always meant this. Always.
There is simply no logical reason to claim either one is not qualified to be President. Obama was born in Hawaii. The birth certificate proves it. McCain was born to two American citizens. Both are therefore natural born.
"CNBC Sucks": Intellectual Republicans would be revolted at the thought of America's first community college and tanning booth VP candidate just a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
What would you know from intellectual?
By not endorsing McCain and jumping into the fray, I believe Ron Paul takes away votes from John McCain.
Show me one person who was going to vote for McCain until Paul said to vote third party. Go ahead.
Republicans who think McCain will be an ABSOLUTE DISASTER will not waste their vote for Paul and Barr and will vote for Obama.
Wow, you really think none of those people will heed Ron Paul's words? Riiiiight. Pull the other one.
And John McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg!
Regarding your plea for McCain, take a look at the conventions that occurred around the country and the rampant cheating and fraud that took place. Look at the lawsuits in multiple states because of state GOP party politics and their alignment with McCain and their "whatever it takes" attitude.
McCain and Obama are both bad for this country. One is the Warfare state and the latter the welfare state.
Like McCain's former campaign member Phil Gramm told Ron Paul when he was asking him to support McCain, "but he'll do us less harm." I'll leave it to you to ponder his command of the English language.
See the following link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022791.html
The point is, not that Paul endorses socialism now, thats simply the spin that the rabid haters of Paul are spewing, its that he supports principles scattered amongst the third party candidates, such as no aggressive foreign policy, no anti-privacy laws, no national debt, and no federal reserve.
Neither of the two major candidates have so much as uttered a word about the Fed or doing away with the national debt. In fact, both their programs do nothing but spend more money and increase the debt we're already in.
60% of the American people don't like either candidate. If only that portion would vote we wouldn't get either.
Posted by: Constitutionalist on September 10, 2008 04:57 PMJohn McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg!
Many Senators believe the President has the right to pick whom they wish, and as long as they are not terrible people, they should be confirmed, even if they are wrong on the Constitution. And I am not sure that's a bad position to hold. We get the government we ask for, and the people asked for Clinton.
Regarding your plea for McCain, take a look at the conventions that occurred around the country and the rampant cheating and fraud that took place. Look at the lawsuits in multiple states because of state GOP party politics and their alignment with McCain and their "whatever it takes" attitude.
Yawn. I've seen complaints about violating rules in WA, and threats of lawsuit, and nothing substantive to back up those complaints. Frankly, I believe a lot of the most virulent Ron Paul people are just lying about this supposed "rampant cheating and fraud." I don't know for sure, but the fact that the "911 Truthers" -- people who lie to the public as a hobby
-- were so prominent at the Ron Paul Alternative Convention speaks volumes.
Bull.
No, so you are telling me that when my coworker, and when people in this discussion, and when other people I know, say they are Ron Paul fans who are (or were) thinking of voting for Obama, you are saying they are lying?
Why isnt obama NOT addressing these issues?
You wanna know why I am not voting for Barack?
FISA, Faith based initiatives, contracters, afghanistan, national service, impeachment, AIPAC, Georgia, foreign aid, SAME FOREIGN POLICY, increased military industrial complex, no LIVING wage!
Come back when youve got some balls to address these issues.
Were more powerful than the shriveling two-party establishment.
YOU are in the minority now, and your denegrading excuse for political discourse is over.
Keep the fight up.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 10, 2008 05:52 PMThe fact that McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg goes against the idea that McCain will appoint strict Constitutional judges who won't legislate from the bench. His words say one thing, his actions say another.
So far as cheating and fraud are concerned, I was elected as a delegate at the district and county level in WA, and attended the state convention in Spokane. I also attended the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis and went to the St. Paul to the Republican convention.
The mics were cut for those states when the number of delegates for Ron Paul were to be announced. In some cases, they were not even recognized. This is a matter of historical fact.
So far as the state conventions are concerned, the Nevada ruling is a case in point, and the coming months and years will prove the fraud and cheating once the court cases are all settled.
You should take care in the words you chose my friend. Many of the family members and victims of that tragic day are "9-11 Truthers" as well as many of the first responders, pilots, engineers, architects, military, former intelligance, former Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush cabinet members and many more. Groups like We Are Change have actually raised money for the first responders and continue their efforts to help the first responders and their health plight.
There are some real questions about that day, and if you do not think so you are lost in the spin. It's easy to just cast it out of hand as "radicle" or "fringe", but like I said there are some actual questions for that day.
A few bad apples can ruin any bunch. Look at the republicans and democrats and the company they keep.
I think what Paul is doing is trying to show the establishment how many non-statist are out here. If he can get the non-voters to come out and make a stand, things may change. I will be writing in Ron Paul since I can't stomach anyone else. It may not mean much, but if all the people who don't vote did the same, he would win by a landslide. 55% to 32%.
I think he was trying to tell people to stop this lesser of two evils nonsense. Stop telling Washington that you are happy with the status quo. (Both candidates represent the status quo). If you vote against one of them, your vote is seen as a vote FOR the guy you voted for. And why wouldn't it?
If you want change, then change your voting behavior. But repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Posted by: libertyforone on September 10, 2008 07:11 PMIf you vote third party, your candidate will not win. Some would argue that's a wasted vote--but it speaks louder than not voting. Given the large percentage of Americans that do not vote, there is plenty of ground to be made for third parties. But until voters start sending the message that the platforms offered by those parties resonate with them, it'll remain impossible to compete with the duopoly. Hence RP's decision not to endorse a candidate, but to endorse a larger message: if you don't like the Rep and Dem candidate, don't vote for either of them.
On an unrelated note, Ron Paul is only a bad Republican as long as the party acts out of line from conservative principles.
Posted by: ChemE on September 10, 2008 07:24 PMRight, like writing in Ron Paul even though he has the same chances of winning the presidency as a cupcake has of escaping the grasp of Roseanne Barr. This is the kind of stuff where the RP people warrant the tin foil hat barbs. Change is done slowly over time, good or bad. It's trending bad so the angry Paulestinians want to hasten us towards our demise by holding their breath, stomping their feet and writing in a NON-FACTOR (read Ron Paul or any other 3rd party candidate this election)in the race or Obama to spite the Republican's. That is simply linear thinking at its worst.
While I agree with about 80 percent of your stances, you make it seem as though both candidates are an equal threat to the Constitution. Common sense dictates otherwise.
Pudge: Right you are about the Panama as it was explicitly sigled out as an exception ( I wasn't aware of that). Still, as you pointed out McCain's parents both being citizens (even though even one would have qualified him as such) does indeed give him legal status as an American citizen from birth.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 10, 2008 07:46 PM"So, think about where we could be: a balanced budget, the war in Iraq won, a conservative Supreme Court, border security increased, the Republican Party's reputation much improved, and McCain leaving office in 2012. Can you really tell me that sounds so bad?" - from your link
- All pipe dreams and promises.
"Of course, some people think there might be a conservative resurgence in opposition to a Democratic President, but don't kid yourself; it's just as likely that a GOP defeat could turn us into a squabbling minority party that is out of power for years while the Left remakes this country in the image of Belgium...
...Does that mean you should, "vote for John McCain in November and like it?" No, but it does mean, that if John McCain is the nominee, you should think very hard about holding your nose and voting for the viable candidate who would do the most good for our country."
-Nice scare tactic and propaganda.
Even dead fish go with the flow.
Choosing Republican or Democrat could also be World War 3 (or 4 depending on your point of veiw) with the policies they both have put in place.
Vote 3rd party.
The "taking away" of voters is a trick phrase, like so many others in the election process. Should I go through all of them? "Majority rules?" That's a good one; less than 50% of eligible voters vote, and divide that in half, and you get a minority of people making a decision for the 25% who don't like the winner, and the 50% who don't vote. We have "compassionate conservatives" like Bush--wow, the compassion is overflowing, and the conservatism is unbounded (what is being conserved, by the way?); and we have "anti-war" Obama--let's see, better to die in Afghanistan than Iraq. And we have "maverick" McCain--an establishment tool, big-spending Republican Statist if ever there was one. He touts saving a few million dollars here and there while a billion or a trillion are flushed down a toilet (albeit a gold-plated one). McCain the maverick has overseen so many changes in my lifetime--cheaper cable, less fraud, and better banking regulation--that I must have slept through them. I have awakened to just the opposite of reform.
I am not a Nader fan, but what he said when Blitzer quizzed him about voting for the "lesser of two evils" was very appropriate. Nader said that each of the major candidates is not "good enough" for the American people. That, you see, is the point. Many Americans complain about the menu at the restaurant, their choice of cars, and so forth, and DECIDE against the limited choices--they're not GOOD ENOUGH--so they go elsewhere (different restaurants, foreign cars, etc.). The problem is, the duopoly (monopoly) gives you nowhere else to go. This point should be obvious by now.
Posted by: Scott Harmon on September 10, 2008 08:26 PMThe "taking away" of voters is a trick phrase, like so many others in the election process. Should I go through all of them? "Majority rules?" That's a good one; less than 50% of eligible voters vote, and divide that in half, and you get a minority of people making a decision for the 25% who don't like the winner, and the 50% who don't vote. We have "compassionate conservatives" like Bush--wow, the compassion is overflowing, and the conservatism is unbounded (what is being conserved, by the way?); and we have "anti-war" Obama--let's see, better to die in Afghanistan than Iraq. And we have "maverick" McCain--an establishment tool, big-spending Republican Statist if ever there was one. He touts saving a few million dollars here and there while a billion or a trillion are flushed down a toilet (albeit a gold-plated one). McCain the maverick has overseen so many changes in my lifetime--cheaper cable, less fraud, and better banking regulation--that I must have slept through them. I have awakened to just the opposite of reform.
I am not a Nader fan, but what he said when Blitzer quizzed him about voting for the "lesser of two evils" was very appropriate. Nader said that each of the major candidates is not "good enough" for the American people. That, you see, is the point. Many Americans complain about the menu at the restaurant, their choice of cars, and so forth, and DECIDE against the limited choices--they're not GOOD ENOUGH--so they go elsewhere (different restaurants, foreign cars, etc.). The problem is, the duopoly (monopoly) gives you nowhere else to go. This point should be obvious by now.
Posted by: Scott Harmon on September 10, 2008 08:26 PMWatch the press conference on yt, watch?v=c1LMoWqXrE4
Read the transcript on CampaignforLiberty.com
Deprogram your mind - I really hope some of these comments I'm reading are disinfo agents and not reflective of true American voices.
Cus if not, we are in a lot more trouble than I thought. :(
Ron Paul's message of freedom can appeal to everybody. He is more consistent, patriotic, trustworthy, and socially relevant than either mainstream candidate.
You got beef? I have to wonder why.
Why would we smear Pudge for this post? He did not attack Paul or smear him or anything. He just gave his opinion on the effect of Pauls release.
It is a decent opinion and one I had not thought of. It could be right but I disagree. I think it was a pretty weak announcement that will have little effect on the race. If it does have an effect it will be to talke a little more away from McCain than Obama.
Posted by: Lysander on September 10, 2008 08:41 PMI am guessing McCain was super angry when he heard how Gramm tried to sway Paul and even more angry to hear that it was announced at a press conference. McCain can not like hearing his own surragates are using the 'he is the lesser of two evils arguement'. Ouch!
Posted by: Lysander on September 10, 2008 08:51 PM....and what does Obama promise you?
He and Biden are the largest contributors to Government pork Barrel spending while McCain in his 26 years as Senator from Arizona has been a staunch anti-pork/earmark. Even for the Paulistinians, you've got to consider that a start.
"Even dead fish go with the flow."
which is why I'm puzzled why you're still trying to reel in Ron Paul even though he and his viability as a candidate has been belly up in the stream for months now.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 10, 2008 08:52 PMThe reason people are still talking about Ron Paul despite his candidacy being dead is because he is the only politician in DC that is really speaking about important issues like whether we should have a central bank, whether we should continue an interventionist forieng policy, or actually voting for a balanced budget.
In otherwords we are still talking about him because the rest of the politicians have not caught on. Once they do we will start supporting others.
Posted by: Lysander on September 10, 2008 09:08 PM"SayNo" don't argue with Pudge about the Constitution. When you prove him wrong, he just deletes your posts. Am I right Pudge?
He and I had a long, drawn out disagreement about who holds the war powers under the Constitution. But, none of you would know that because those comments were deleted by Pudge after he fact checked me and saw that I was right.
Pudge, what did Congress do on July 9th, 1798? Yeah that's right, they passed a resolution of reprisal, one of their enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8.
Posted by: blindman on September 10, 2008 10:05 PMAre you guys sure you want a Republican in the White House to take the blame for the economic hellstorm that is about to engulf America?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOGNONBR
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/imf-mortgage-reset-chart.html
Posted by: TJ on September 10, 2008 10:16 PMThe fact that McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg goes against the idea that McCain will appoint strict Constitutional judges who won't legislate from the bench. His words say one thing, his actions say another.
You're being extremely dishonest. I already answered this, and you ignored my answer, and just repeated what you said. Honesty requires you to directly confront my rebuttal, not to pretend it doesn't exist.
So far as cheating and fraud are concerned ...
I have seen no evidence of either in WA, but I have seen MANY people claim it. And so when they say it happened elsewhere, I just ignore it.
Dex:
You should take care in the words you chose my friend.
I do. I stand by those words 100 percent. Truthers are liars. Now granted, some of the followers of the Truthers are gullible and sad. But the organizers, the ringleaders, are who I am referring to as the Truthers. They are liars.
There are some real questions about that day, and if you do not think so you are lost in the spin.
No. I am lost in the facts. There are no serious questions about what happened that day.
ChemE:
On an unrelated note, Ron Paul is only a bad Republican as long as the party acts out of line from conservative principles.
How about when Ron Paul disregards conservative principles, like when he incorrectly claims that the Constitution requires a declaration of war in order to use force? Following the text of the Constitution, and not what you WANT it to say, is a big part of conservatism.
Scott Harmon:
Well, Pudge, you've missed the point altogether.
Incorrect. YOU are the one who missed MY point.
Travis Pahl: I have no idea what you wrote to me. Oh well!
blindman:
"SayNo" don't argue with Pudge about the Constitution. When you prove him wrong, he just deletes your posts. Am I right Pudge?
No. In fact, you are lying. I've never done any such thing. First, no one has ever proven me wrong about the Constitution. Well, not since I started posting on SP. Second, I never deleted any posts other than spam, extreme profanity, or posts by Wilda, who was invading every post I made by calling everyone -- including Ron Paul -- racists, and it was the only way I could get her to stop.
He and I had a long, drawn out disagreement about who holds the war powers under the Constitution. But, none of you would know that because those comments were deleted by Pudge after he fact checked me and saw that I was right.
You are lying. I never did any such thing. Here's the discussion. Nothing was ever deleted from it.
Pudge, what did Congress do on July 9th, 1798? Yeah that's right, they passed a resolution of reprisal, one of their enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8.
So? All I care about is you showing me what doesn't exist: that declarations of war are required by the Constitution for a use of force.
I will repeat what I wrote, that you never responded to: If you disagree, fine, just show me where in the Constitution, or in other founding documents or speeches or notes, it ever states or implies that a declaration of war is required in order to use force. You won't find one. This is a myth, a fantasy, a way to grasp at straws for people who are against whatever military action we find ourselves engaged in.
Posted by: pudge on September 10, 2008 10:32 PMat least McCain would have a tiny kernel of free market economics in his philosophy. I could see the "maverick" break from party line and massively deregulate sectors that got into trouble by relying on the government to constantly bail them out, creating the crisis we're in now.
examples?
if the insurance industry wasn't bailed out with tax payer money every time a hurricane hit florida, we'd see free-market insurance rates for homes and businesses. not only would it spark a wave of innovation as people figure out how to build hurricane-proof houses, but the insurance industry would be much healthier and more responsive to their customers.
i think it is time we ended the whole corporate benefits racket set up by Nixon at the behest of the guy who started the first HMO. creating a third party payer system breaks the economics of healthcare, making it way too expensive for everybody involved.
now the auto makers want billions in low interest loans to bail them out? I say, do them and the economy a favor and let them fail. their assets will be bought up by companies that will be able to use them to profitable ends, creating more jobs, and ending the whole corporate/union manufacturing complex that is past its prime in a global economy.
Obama would do none of these. McCain probably won't either. But if either of them are backed into a corner, Obama would go 100% government but there's a chance that McCain would go radically free-market.
That said, I think the coolest thing McCain could do as President is nominate Ron Paul for fed chairman. Just to put his thumb in RP's eye. I'd get a good laugh for sure.
Posted by: blindman on September 10, 2008 10:41 PMNow repeat back what I said with something clever like "False."
Posted by: Tracy on September 10, 2008 10:59 PMAmerica is now a communist country and it didn't take Obama to get there.
Posted by: TJ on September 10, 2008 11:01 PMIt's nice to see you act like you discovered something that no one else did.
I never did any such thing. See, I say what I mean. If I thought I came up with something no one else did, I would have said, "hey, I came up with something no one else did!"
The observation was obvious, which is why I was astonished to see so many Ron Paulers disagree with it.
But hey, if it makes you feel nice and superior to just make out-of-the-blue ad hominem/straw man attacks, I won't harsh your mellow. Go on thinking how cool you are.
TJ: Psssst. Look up "communist." Hope that helps!
I was contemplating Bob Barr, but after his gaffe today (especially that effed up blog entry in myspace) I don't think I can support him and it's sad, because he had some potential. I'm at the point where I may look into Baldwin or just write in someone's name.
Posted by: Cybloo on September 10, 2008 11:24 PMYou are lying. I never did any such thing. Here's the discussion. Nothing was ever deleted from it.
OK. I take that back. I couldn't find it again and made a bad assumption. I am sorry.
Now on to the fun stuff:
just show me where in the Constitution, or in other founding documents or speeches or notes, it ever states or implies that a declaration of war is required in order to use force.
Alexander Hamilton, a "federalist" and strong supporter of a powerful federal government wrote in Federalist 69:
"[T]he President is to be commander-in- chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,--all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
The point is that Hamilton, one of the framers of the constitution, believed that the President should be commander but shouldn't be able to initiate hostilities "which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
In the constitutional convention, the delegates argued over how best to divide the war powers.
From The Records of the Federal Convention of
1787 (New Haven: rev. ed. 1937), 313:
Mr. Butler favored "vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it."
"but when the Nation will support it", meaning that the Congress, being the collective representation of "the Nation", decides that we should enter into hostilities by declaring war, or by issuing letters or marque and reprisal.
You see, they divided the war powers so that the President and the Congress must work in concert to initiate hostilities. Your argument is that the declaration of war is not a crucial piece of initiating hostilities but to the framers, it clearly was.
Let's just assume for a second that the declaration of war is not required to start fighting. In that scenario, the war powers are not divided at all and rest solely with the President. That is absolutely contrary to the statements of the framers at the constitutional convention. They fretted over who they should divide the powers between. Will it be the President and the Senate?
Mr. Pinkney thought the House was too numerous for such deliberations but that the Senate would be more capable of a proper resolution and more acquainted with foreign affairs. Additionally, with the States equally represented in the Senate, the interests of all would be safeguarded.
Or will it be between Congress as a whole and the President. That's where Hamilton stepped in with his arguments that he first published in Federalist 69, stated above.
Pudge, the framers didn't want the President to be able to act alone in initiating hostilities. The words "to declare war" in Article 1, Section 8 is what the framers did to ensure that the Congress had to consent before fighting began.
And for the record, I'm not against war at all; I have a DD-214. I just agree with the framers that the division of war powers is crucial to maintaining the peace except for in the situations where the threat is plain enough that everybody agrees.
I truly believe that our military interventionism and propping up brutal dictators made the bed that we're laying in now. I also believe that continuing to fight will not make the grudge against us go away. Being embroiled in minor wars all over the globe has also weakened our military by sapping the resolve and determination of the people who volunteer to serve.
We need to wind down in Iraq, and then get some meaningful dialog going between us and the rest of the world. And by "meaningful dialog" I don't mean the liberal "we give up, we're bending over now" kind of bullshit, I mean something like "we're now going to be equal partners in trade and friendship but if you even so much as twitch, we will fucking nuke you." And mean it.
Posted by: blindman on September 10, 2008 11:45 PMRon Paul may have lost the battle, but judging by the numbers of his supporters that are PCO's in this state and that are now getting involved in the party, he and his philosophy may eventually win the war. The Ron Paul people are already starting to take over the WA-GOP. (I know because my mom-in-law works for the state party)
Posted by: blindman on September 10, 2008 11:50 PMThe point is that Hamilton, one of the framers of the constitution, believed that the President should be commander but shouldn't be able to initiate hostilities "which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."
That is beside the point. We are talking, specifically, about the supposed requirement for an actual declaration of war.
I never said that the President can invade without Congress. That is not the question here. Bush GOT permission from Congress to invade Iraq. The question is whether Congress was required to declare war, as Ron Paul claims. I say no.
Your argument is that the declaration of war is not a crucial piece of initiating hostilities but to the framers, it clearly was.
Then show me where. It's very simple. Show me where. That is all I asked for and you utterly failed to provide it. (Not that I expected you could: it doesn't exist!)
Let's just assume for a second that the declaration of war is not required to start fighting. In that scenario, the war powers are not divided at all and rest solely with the President.
Where do you get that from? It's not in history or law or the Constitution itself.
We have other forms of approval: they're called "bills," like this one.
The words "to declare war" in Article 1, Section 8 is what the framers did to ensure that the Congress had to consent before fighting began.
No. A war declaration is a political act, not a military one. This has always been the case, and it is why and how we had an "undeclared war" with France. President Adams needed, and got, Congressional authorization to use force. No declaration of war was required, or made.
Indeed, a war declaration itself does not authorize the use of force, unless the declaration explicitly grants that authority in addition to declaring war. Authorization of the use of force is separate from declaration of war.
EXACTLY! President Adams got approval when Congress issued a "letter of reprisal". Sure, it was a bill, but it was a "letter of reprisal" which is an enumerated power of Congress.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 12:30 AMArticle 1, Section 8
Look, the division of powers is not besides the point. According to the framers the President and the Congress were to agree before fighting can begin.
According to the Constitution, what does the President have to do to start a war? They are commander-in-chief and therefore assesses the risk, and when needed, they ask Congress for permission to go and fight.
What can Congress do? The Constitution says they can only declare war, grant letters of marque (bounties), and letters of reprisal.
So, the President, as commander-in-chief sees a threat we have to address, Congress declares war or issues a letter of marque and/or reprisal and the fighting begins. 1 + 1 = 2.
Now, are the Congressional powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 the only powers of Congress? Yes. Madison stated in Federalist 41 that they wouldn't have enumerated the powers of Congress if they had intended for the "general welfare" clause to encompass the enumerated powers and leave open other powers not addresses. Also, under English Common Law, the legal framework the Congress draws it's legality from, enumerated lists are always treated as exhaustive.
We have other forms of approval: they're called "bills,"
That's where the problem in your argument is. In most cases you are correct. But in the case of initiating hostilities, it is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution that Congress can only do three things: declare war, issue letters or marque, and issue letters of reprisal. There are people like yourself who think the general welfare clause gives Congress unlimited powers except for the limitations explicitly called out in the bill of rights. Under that assumption, Congress would have the power to pass a law like the one you linked to. Unfortunately for you, the framers disagreed with you.
I would have had no legal issue with invading Iraq if Congress had passed a declaration of war or a letter of reprisal. It may seem like a fine print detail but it is an important one. Was the use of force resolution a letter of reprisal? If not, then technically it was unconstitutional.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 12:31 AMDo you have inside knowledge? I do.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 12:32 AMThis is not true. The framers clearly wanted Congress to have to consent to hostilities. If, as you suggest, the war declaration power is separate from the consent of hostilities, they would have enumerated the consent power separately. Since there is no separately enumerated consent power the war power must implicitly include it.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 12:39 AMThere's a logic inconsistency in your argument.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 12:41 AMEXACTLY! President Adams got approval when Congress issued a "letter of reprisal".
No, that never happened. There was no letter of reprisal.
Look, the division of powers is not besides the point.
Yes. It is. I am asking you to show me where a declaration of war is required, instead of a plain old bill authorizing force. This is not at all about separation of powers. This is about whether a declaration of war is required.
According to the framers the President and the Congress were to agree before fighting can begin.
Which happened with Iraq, without a declaration of war.
According to the Constitution, what does the President have to do to start a war? They are commander-in-chief and therefore assesses the risk, and when needed, they ask Congress for permission to go and fight.
Which happened with Iraq, without a declaration of war.
But in the case of initiating hostilities, it is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution that Congress can only do three things
No, it's not. You are saying that, but it's not true. A declaration of war DOES NOT authorize force. That is a political act against another country, and does not itself authorize any military act against another country.
There are people like yourself who think the general welfare clause gives Congress unlimited powers except for the limitations explicitly called out in the bill of rights
You've already lied about me tonight, please don't keep doing it.
Since there is no separately enumerated consent power the war power must implicitly include it.
Uh.
So right after you attack me for assuming implicit powers, you then claim that force is an ... implicit power. And THEN you say it is not implied by any other part of the Constitution, not the "raise and support armies" clause, not the "make rules for the regulation of the land and naval forces" clause ... just the "declaration of war" clause, EVEN THOUGH we KNOW as a matter of absolutely clear historical fact that the framers did NOT consider all hostilities to require a declaration of war.
And THEN you say:
Look, it's either the war declaration power implicitly includes the consent of hostilities or Congress doesn't have the power to consent to hostilities because that is not an enumerated power.
Which is a completely nonsensical claim: if it is not implicit, then it doesn't exist, because only enumerated powers exist. But enumerated powers aren't implicit, they are explicit.
You're completely muddleheaded on this.
However, I think it is absolutely clear that we've shown beyond reasonable doubt that you cannnot show, at all, from history or text or law, that use of force requires a declaration of war.
As an LD chair and is on the Snohomish County Executive Board who has been working on PCO elections, I suppose you could call that "inside knowledge." I just talked to my county's state committeeman and state committeewoman tonight, along with our political director.
Oh, but you have a mother-in-law who works at the party, sorry, my bad.
There is no such thing. It is not letters of marque, and letters of reprisal. It is letters of marque and reprisal. It's one thing. And they were not used in 1798, because a simple authorization from Congress was all that was necessary.
That said, if you really think that what happened in 1798 constituted a letter of marque and reprisal, even though not explicit, fine: then that is also what the authorization for use of force against Iraq was.
1. The framers wanted to split the war power so that the president and the congress had to both consent to hostilities before they could happen.
2. Congress only has the powers enumerated in A1,S8
3. There is no enumerated power that says "consent to hostilities".
My logic goes like this:
Assertion A: Congress has to consent to hostilities because of (1).
Assertion B: Congress only has three options to consent to hostilities: declare war, issue a letter of marque, issue a letter of reprisal because of (2) and (3).
Assertion B has to be true because the framers wanted Congress to consent (1) and they granted them explicit powers in an enumerated list (2) which must therefore include the consent somewhere or Congress does not have the power to consent, which would contradict (1).
The enumerated power to "raise and support armies" is a power to do exactly what it says, to "raise and support armies".
The enumerated power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" is a power to do exactly what it says, to regulate the land and naval forces. This is the legal basis for the UCMJ, the Joint Chiefs, the establishment of the branches of the military, etc.
The enumerated power "To declare war" is a power to do exactly what it says, to declare war, which means to consent to hostilities, as intended by the framers.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 01:32 AMThat was obviously changed. Here's how the change was made at the constitutional convention (from the minutes):
Jointly introducing the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make," Madison and Gerry noted the change would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."
Why would Madison and Gerry make the clarification that the wording change would leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks? It's because the act of declaring war was--to them--the same thing as initiating hostilities. It is how they planned for Congress to consent to and start a wars.
They wanted to reassure everybody that even though Congress had the sole power to initiate hostilities with a declaration of war, the Executive would still have the power for quick action in the special case of sudden attack.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 02:32 AMFalse. They are not one thing. In a legal sense, a letter of marque is an Congressional authorization of piracy (a.k.a. privateering). A "reprisal" is a completely different thing legally. The actual wording in the Constitution is "To...grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal". Since they are different things, I take this to mean "To grant Letters of Mark" and "To grant Reprisal."
And they were not used in 1798, because a simple authorization from Congress was all that was necessary.
False. Here is what the congressional record contains for July 1798:
"Resolved, That provision ought to be made, by law, authorizing the President of the United States to grant letters of marque and general reprisals against all ships and other vessels, with their cargoes, found on the high seas, sailing under the authority of the French Republic, and belonging to the said Republic, or any of the citizens thereof, or of its dependencies; to continue and be in force until the French Government shall revoke and annul the orders and decrees authorizing the capture and detention of the vessels and property of the citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of nations."Resolved, That provision ought to be made, by law, granting a bounty, in proportion to the size and number of guns, on all armed vessels which shall be taken and brought into any of the ports of the United States, belonging to the Republic of France, or to any of the citizens thereof, or of its dependencies, or to others sailing under authority, or pretence of authority, from the said Republic."
Congress delegated the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to the President and then provisioned a bounty on French ships. All hostilities in the quasi-war against France were conducted under the legal protections of letters of marque and authorized reprisals.
This is completely different than the bill authorizing force in Iraq because that bill was not framed in terms of a letters of marque and reprisals. Under the Iraq bill, private citizens could not seize Iraqi ships, we would have been prosecuted as pirates without the protection of a letter of marque. We would couldn't go hunting Iraqis either without the legal protection of authorized reprisal.
That means, because Congress declined to consent to hostilities in Iraq by granting letters of marque and reprisal, the only other option they had to exercise the power was to declare war.
Posted by: blindman on September 11, 2008 03:29 AMPudge:
Not only is McCain a neoconservative. So is Obama.
Ok you third party people, when was the last time you guys really mattered?
pudge: "No. I am lost in the facts. There are no serious questions about what happened that day."
I'm sorry, now I know YOU are one of two things, ignorant or a liar. There are NO questions about that day? It may be pointless to send a "small" list of questions because you'll just poo-poo it as nothing and not even look at the facts. You are willing to put our nation at danger because you are convinced that 19 guys with box cutters infiltrated the United States (with no help, right? Who are the moles?) and hit some of the most watched sights in the US. (Doesn't the Pentagon have anti-aircraft/missle protection?)
I am sorry my foolish friend, I now know you are a hack and not worth even considering a sound and resoned voice. People like you don't get it, you are obsolete.
Here are some "Non-Questions"...
[over 400 lines of spam deleted by pudge]
Now write your one line rebutle and go back to sleep. You might want to wipe that kool-aid off your chin before you hit the bed first. Oh wait, you will say I'm the one drinking the kool-aid. If that makes you feel better about not asking questions and buying the lie.
Even if the "offical conspiracy theory" is true, which it's scientificly and logisticly impossible for that scenario to occur, who were the moles that allowed them access into the country, access to sensitive national security info (drills, Airforce One codes, ect...), and who financed them? Besides that, why has the FBI not charged OBL with 9-11? The FBI says they have no evidence. Oh, you just "BELIEVE" that is not true, but you won't do any research and call all of us liars. Great, nice debate.
Assertion B has to be true because the framers wanted Congress to consent (1) and they granted them explicit powers in an enumerated list (2) which must therefore include the consent somewhere or Congress does not have the power to consent, which would contradict (1).
Except that you ALREADY CONCEDED that none of those is an explicit grant of the use of force, that it would be IMPLIED by a declaration of war, so that blows out of the water your entire reasoning that the power to consent to the use of force must be explicitly enumerated.
The enumerated power "To declare war" is a power to do exactly what it says, to declare war, which means to consent to hostilities
No, it does not mean that. You're wrong. A war declaration is a political act, not an authorization of the use of force.
Jointly introducing the amendment to substitute "declare" for "make," Madison and Gerry noted the change would "leav[e] to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks."
Again you are undermining your OWN ARGUMENT: please show me where the power is enumerated for the Executive to repel attacks.
False. They are not one thing.
Yes, in fact, they are. Your link to Letter of marque shows this. Maybe you should have actually READ that link? And your link to "reprisal" says nothing at all about a "letter of reprisal."
False. Here is what the congressional record contains for July 1798:
Sigh. It doesn't say what you think it says.
Congress delegated the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to the President and then provisioned a bounty on French ships. All hostilities in the quasi-war against France were conducted under the legal protections of letters of marque and authorized reprisals.
No, they were not. The resolution you referred to WAS DEFEATED, by a vote of 41-42 AGAINST. Further, that resolution says nothing at all about our own military forces, which were used in the Quasi-War, and only references PRIVATE vessels, so even if it had passed, it was not what was used to authorize force by the U.S. government.
Why did NORAD stand down?
Why has OBL not been charged?
How do asymmetrical fires cause a symmetrical collapse of Building 7 as stated by NIST a few weeks ago?
If you can bring a building of that size down with normal office fires then insurance rates will go up, building codes must be revised, the demolition industry would be obsolete (just start a few normal office fires and watch it fall), and physics would not matter.
No answer, huh?
Posted by: Dex on September 11, 2008 08:05 AMGo back to your hole freak!
More RP nuts are showing up!
gezzz
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 08:17 AM
Rick Fisk: Not only is McCain a neoconservative. So is Obama.
Thank you for proving my point that you do not know what a neoconservative is.
Immigrant: Why blame Ron Paul?
No one is blaming Ron Paul for anything.
Dex:
I deleted your over-400 lines of spam. I left YOUR words. The way the web works is that you provide your own words, and you link elsewhere to large blocks of text.
There are NO questions about that day?
Correct.
It may be pointless to send a "small" list of questions because you'll just poo-poo it as nothing and not even look at the facts.
I have looked at the facts.
(Doesn't the Pentagon have anti-aircraft/missle [sic] protection?)
Obviously not.
So that's one question answered. Let us answer one more, the first one.
1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks? (Why did NORAD stand down?)
NORAD did not stand down. That's false.
As to why they didn't intercept, it is because there were bureaucratic delays and procedural problems in getting them in place. Their processes assumed that the hijacked aircraft would be easily identifiable (but the hijackers turned off the transponders); that there would be time to go through the FAA and NORAD chains of command; that the hijacking would not be intended as a suicide mission to destroy the aircraft. The jets, according to protocol, would escort the hijacked vessel from a distance of five miles away.
Further, there were only 14 alert aircraft at the time in the U.S.: seven alert sites with two alert aircraft each. Only two of those sites were within reach, in Cape Cod, MA and Hampton, VA.
The first notification NORAD received was 9:08, after the first crash. At 9:13, the MA craft left their holding pattern, and at 9:25 arrived over Manhattan. The VA craft left for Manhattan as backup at 9:09.
Shortly after 9:00, the FAA lost contact with Flight 77, which eventually crashed into the Pentagon, and presumed it was down. By 9:20, they thought it was maybe NOT crashed. NORAD was not informed about Flight 77 missing until 9:34, and military assistance was never requested for it, because their processes didn't fit the situation. Flight 77 struck the Pentagon three minutes later.
The answers for what happened are all very clear. They show an FAA and a NORAD not ready to handle this sort of event; they show technical problems with the equipment; they show mistakes being made in communication.
Rather than follow the actual facts, you prefer to believe that there was a conspiracy, despite that we have actual proof from the facts, and NO proof at all for your theories.
I now see you added a few more questions on your own. I will briefly answer them and then get back to work for the day.
Why has OBL not been charged?
We never charged by Emperor Shōwa for the attack on Pearl Harbor, either.
How do asymmetrical fires cause a symmetrical collapse of Building 7 as stated by NIST a few weeks ago?
Quite simply: the central support structures were weakened. Once ONE of those goes, the weight of the whole thing brings the building down essentially symmetrically.
If you can bring a building of that size down with normal office fires
You can, obviously. But they need to burn uncontrolled all day long. This is not what normally happens.
Now, I will ignore you. Truthers are either stupid or incredibly dishonest, and I don't have any more time to give to either cause.
That is one of the major problems in our nation is that anyone opposed to these questions automaticly say the same brainwashed propaganda you just spouted...
"Yeah DEX and GW did it all.. hey he blew up the twin towers too."
And then you insult the people...
"Go back to your hole freak!
More RP nuts are showing up!"
I did not say "Bush did it", I (and millions of others including victim family members and first responders) are wondering WHO ARE THE MOLES IN OUR NATION? Can you PLEASE answer HOW did those 19 guys inflitrated and who financed them. The 9-11 commission report says the financers do not matter!! WTF? Are YOU crazy? I mean no disrespect but you are giving Bill Clinton a pass on this national **ck up too. Wake up and get a clue, you will not browbeat these questions out of existance. Just because you do not have the courage to admit we have an inside problem and you want to eliminate through genocide any "brown person with a turbin", does not mean you are right.
It's easier and more comforting to think it's only an outside threat, it's takes courage to see that we have a problem here as well. It's like with alcohol and drug abuse, you have to admit you have a problem before you can solve it.
Also, why was no one fired, demoted, and/or repremanded? I don't know about you but if I messed up at my job I wouldn't get a promotion!
Gezzz.
"NORAD did not stand down. That's false.
As to why they didn't intercept..."
Great, glad to know. I feel so safe. So why was no one fired? The fact is YOU are the one believing conspiracy theories. Look up Opperation Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, and Northern Vigilance.
(("Agency [US National Reconnaissance Office] planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building" - JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, August 21, 2002(08-21) 15:08 PDT WASHINGTON))
Maybe that is the Buracracy you are talking about?
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
Dex: "Why has OBL not been charged?"
pudge: "We never charged by Emperor Shōwa for the attack on Pearl Harbor, either."
But OBL is not a head of a state and is being charge for all sort of terror charges (i.e. Cole Bombing, ect...) The FBI themsleves, specifically Agent Rex Tomb, has stated that there IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE HIM. Are you calling an FBI agent a liar and Bill Clinton a force for real truth? Interesting you bring up Pearl Harbor in context with 9-11, just like PNAC asked for.
"You can, obviously. But they need to burn uncontrolled all day long. This is not what normally happens."
Obviously? Why, because it happened ONE DAY with three buildings? You are right. this is not what normally happens because physics prevent such a thing from occuring.
"But they need to burn uncontrolled all day long."
Windsor Building Madrid Spain February 12 2005
Your argument is the weak one. I can take the personal attacks to my character but that will not stop the questions. Fine, call us freaks say "Truthers are either stupid or incredibly dishonest", whatever, because you are the one with the weak argument. I also do not have the time to continue point out how much you are mislead and infintile to geo-politics so I will let you get the last word if you wish or just ignore me and others. But know this, I do not hate you, I thank you for at least a half way intelligent discussion on the subject that I will admit went off topic a bit, but for what it's worth I think your opinion matters as much as mine. Regardless of your opinion of me or anyone with the veiws I share, you have to admit that we still (despite our serious problems) live in the greatest country the world has ever know. Long live the Constitution, God Bless America.
PS about fires. I'm now a retired Fire fighter /Medic with a ENG deg . I forgotten more about buildings falling down during a fire then you have ever learn! Go get your Fire fighter II and eng training and get 25 plus years of real life under your belt. Then you can talk about fires. Until then, you know zip.
Fools like you are sick and I have zero respect for you or your followers!
Now go away.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 09:11 AMYes, in fact, it IS all disinformation and lies. Giving a lot of B.S. doesn't magically make some of it not B.S.
Should we "prove" credentials? Give me a break. You are questioning my patriotism and the partiotism of anyone who asks questions, meanwhile the real enemies of our country get away with murder while we chase the dead CIA assest OBL. Give me a break, Sir.
And I will thank you because you deserve it, accept it or not but I value anyone who has been couragous enough to dedicate themsleves to service. I will not apologize about that.
Now I will leave.
Posted by: Dex on September 11, 2008 09:23 AM(Should we "prove" credentials? Give me a break. You are questioning my patriotism)
This statement by you is nuts. Do you have FF-II training? Did I ever say anything about your 'patriotism'
NO
I questioning your IQ.
I feel sorry for you sir. )-:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
So all of these people are liars?
You are so angry at me because you are really fighting with your conscience. So with all your "experiance" has a building ever collapsed in it's own footprint at near free fall speed (fram and all) due to normal fires? Please, please give me an example so I can stop this "foolishness" then. If it is so clear cut why do you have to resort to insults.
"Fools like you are sick and I have zero respect for you or your followers!"
Hence, anything we say is not even debatable and to be ridiculed outright. Therefore you question ,not only my IQ, but also my patriotism...
"DEX... I need NO thanks from you.."
Why, because I don't believe the way you do? Because I am not a "true patriot" and buying the offical conspiracy theory? Because I question "offical" actions BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER the attacks like any REAL investigative journalist would do? Because I question "who benifits and who paid for it?"
By the way, what did Iraq do to us? Do you still believe THEY were involved with 9-11 like Cheney and others have falsly claimed? Did you know Cheney called for "staged terror attacks" on our ships in the Gulf?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
So before you start throwing insults and propaganda rhetoric maybe you should actually look into what are the real issues here.
We all love our country, that much is certain, otherwise we would not be so passionate about such a subject. We can at least agree we love America and want it to be run right.
Posted by: Dex on September 11, 2008 10:25 AMActually, I'm pretty sure that you must not know what a neoconservative is.
All of them are either "former" liberals or current liberals. The neoconservative founders were all followers of Leo Straus, a Trotskyite.
The main tenets of the neoconservative movement include perpetual war and legitimizing big government programs.
Obama and McCain both advocate continuations of our current illegitimate wars if not major expansions and increasing and legitimizing big government.
The reason that we "third party types" are legitimate is because it is we who are the majority, not you irrelevant "major party" voters.
You folks make up 1/4 of the electorate at best.
Posted by: Rick Fisk on September 11, 2008 10:40 AMLairs or dupes, yes.
By the way, what did Iraq do to us?
Violated the ceasefire agreement of 1991, a.k.a. UN Security Council Resolution 687; continually attacking our missions in the no-fly zone; attempting to kill our President; creating weapons of mass destruction and then refusing to fully and immediately cooperate with inspectors so we could know for sure if they had destroyed them; harboring known terrorists like Abu Nidal ...
The list is long.
Do you still believe THEY were involved with 9-11 like Cheney and others have falsly claimed?
You're lying. That was never claimed.
Did you know Cheney called for "staged terror attacks" on our ships in the Gulf?
That is also a lie.
Incorrect. Neither McCain nor Obama is a neoconservative.
The main tenets of the neoconservative movement include perpetual war and legitimizing big government programs.
Well, no, that's wrong. But even by that definition, as McCain is AGAINST perpetual war, and is AGAINST big government programs, he THEREFORE does not fit even that.
Obama and McCain both advocate continuations of our current illegitimate wars
We are not currently in any illegtitimate wars, and what wars we ARE in, both of them want to bring to an end.
if not major expansions and increasing and legitimizing big government.
McCain wants to shrink government.
You folks make up 1/4 of the electorate at best.
You are pulling that number out of your ass. It doesn't exist anywhere else.
I should have said, that was never claimed by Cheney. Others have done so, though not in the Bush administration.
Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2008 10:52 AMI'm not sure that I agree with whoever you quoted, but I'm curious what yours was.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on September 11, 2008 11:02 AMThere you go again showing that you are either ignorant or you are who is the liar:
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challengedhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
"I should have said, that was never claimed by Cheney. Others have done so, though not in the Bush administration."
Wrong...
As far as Cheney not wanting a False Flag to provoke a war with Iran (or the Bush administration), read the article:
"The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-Presidents office. The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington, he said."
Do you know what "casus belli" is?
'Casus belli is a Latin language expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident", "rupture" or indeed "case", while belli means "of war".'
Also in the same Sy Hersh article:
'The Pentagon consultant told me, Weve had wonderful results in the Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flagsbasic counterintelligence and counter-insurgency tactics.'
So false flags are "wonderful"? If we are in the right we do not need to deceive the people into war?
Wrong. He is on video saying that he wouldn't mind if we were in Iraq for 10,000 years.
McCain is not for shrinking government. Not even in the smallest bit. He is responsible for that abomination McCain/Feingold and has consistently been vocal in his opposition to tax cuts.
He advocates attacking both Iran and Russia.
We are not involved in even one legitimate war. Only Congress has the power to declare war and they have not done so in any conflict of the past 60 years.
Iraq was justified by lies. There were no WMD there even at the time we were talking up the attacks and we KNEW there were no WMD.
Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.
In short, the ignorant are claiming ignorance. Do you even know who Leo Strauss was? How about Norman Podhoretz?
Posted by: Rick Fisk on September 11, 2008 11:22 AMRick I have no idea what your talking about and NOR do I care.
Dex.. I thought you were leaving, I guess not. Like a moth to a flame.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 11:33 AMThere you go again showing that you are either ignorant or you are who is the liar:
Do yourself a favor and back down before it's too late.
The topic is not Iraq links to al Qaeda. That is not what you said. What you said was Iraq links to 9/11. Quote for me where Cheney said that Iraq was connected to 9/11. He said Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, yes. He NEVER said Iraq was connected to 9/11.
Most people -- obviously, not you -- are bright enough to distinguish between "al Qaeda" and "9/11."
Rick Fisk:
Wrong. He is on video saying that he wouldn't mind if we were in Iraq for 10,000 years.
You are as bad as Dex. You apparently think that when McCain said "as long as they are not in harm's way" you think that means "at war," when to most people, it means the exact opposite.
McCain is not for shrinking government.
False.
He advocates attacking both Iran and Russia.
You're a liar. He has never advocated attacking either one.
We are not involved in even one legitimate war.
You're ignorant.
Only Congress has the power to declare war and they have not done so in any conflict of the past 60 years.
Declarations of war are not necessary to use force. Nowhere is that stated in the Constitution or any of our founding documents. Authorization from Congress IS required to use force, and Congress DID give that authorization.
Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.
The former is debatable, and the latter was never asserted by the Bush administration.
In short, the ignorant are claiming ignorance. Do you even know who Leo Strauss was? How about Norman Podhoretz?
Yes, of course, and both of them had extremely different views from both McCain and Obama.
I understand why you are confused, so was I
We don't know. - Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.
We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11. -Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.
We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. -Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.
DEX: Like I said, I understand why you are confused. We are both right and wrong. The only difference is we suspect it was designed that way to divide and conquer us and you deny that outright. The domestic enemies do not wave signs and protest, they wear suits and ties and go search for "dragons to slay". This administration are not a bunch of dummies like the left prefer to believe, they are highly intelligent and can talk out of both sides of their mouths. They dont have to come out and say that Saddam IS Al-Quada, they can just imply it (i.e. Iraq + Al-Quada = 9-11), and the confusion starts. People like you defend the administration but outright denying anything that may seem disloyal, and people like me are discounted and ridiculed for asking questions and pointing our inconsistencies. Your semantic arguments are well intentioned, but extremely flawed in outcome. Here are more quotes from your Worshipful Masters
[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. -National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.
The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime. -President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities. -President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September. -US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.
Most people -- obviously, not you -- are bright enough to distinguish between "al Qaeda" and "9/11."
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link 9/6/2003
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
And when was the invasion?
I was going to leave but I am having so much fun here, I think Ill stick around for just a bit longer. At least off and on.
Enjoy your lonely vist.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 01:30 PM
He ran as a "Republican" for no reason what so ever other than to get the attention it offered him. He knew that running as a losertarian wouldn't get him any attention, but he was too cowardly to try. What does it say about a guy that pretends to be something he's not simply for attention, that he cannot stand alone on his own beliefs with courage? I'm sure his Paulbearers, his dellusional "supporters" are so proud. Whatever "good" message he might have been able to proffer is lost in his blatant duplicity. And yes, you can say I said so. I despise liars.
I understand why you are confused, so was I
I followed this all very carefully at the time, and I have a good memory. I'm not confused at all. You claimed that Cheney (or anyone in the Bush administration) asserted a link between 9/11 and Iraq. You utterly failed to back up that claim, because, of course, the claim is false.
Saying you don't know if Iraq was involved is NOT an assertion that Iraq was involved. So those quotes are to be ignored immediately.
Quotes talking about dealing with -- because of 9/11 -- threats from Middle East terrorism are also to be ignored, because those are just talking about broader issues and heightened awareness. They do not actually assert Iraq was involved in 9/11.
That leaves you with one quote about, "the base," and that is taken out of context. What Cheney made clear is that he was talking about -- as I have, many times -- the fact that Iraq is the geographical center of Middle East terrorism, and that taking out Saddam Hussein's regime -- which everyone knows was friendly to terrorists -- deals a blow to all the terrorists in the region, in Palestine, in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Afghanistan.
So once again: you're lying. You're lying about September 11 being an inside job, and you're lying about this.
Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2008 01:40 PMHere-say and no facts is all they care about.
Our government can hardly hide any secrets, but as per the nuts. We can blow up not one, but two buildings and not leave anything behind for anyone to find.
YEAHHHHHHHHHHHH-right. Gezzz what nuts!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 11, 2008 01:42 PMI think this is as far as your limited perception will allow you to go. I don't hate you like the anger I feel from you guys, I am sad that things have become so muddled that no one can see clearly anymore. That is really my only point. Sorry to play devil's advocate on you guys but you must look farther than what is laid out in front of you. You can bomb the world to peices but you can't bomb it into peace.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
See you "Inner-Party" members later.
Posted by: Dex on September 11, 2008 01:56 PMYou guys couldn't debate your way out of a cookie jar.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2008 02:03 PMI swear I hear a "black helo" right now.
LOL
I'm glad someone is using those little-used-word page-a-day calendars. Seriously though.
It'd be interesting to see how 3rd/4th party voters play out in the battle ground states that have that perfect mix of urban/rural demographics. The way the campaign is going now it may not matter as McCain is grabbing many of those up making him the all-time comeback kid.
Most Ron Paul supporters have made it personal and look to punish McCain with their vote whereas I'm more likely to just sell it to the highest bidder.
Posted by: Tracy on September 11, 2008 02:42 PM"out-of-the-blue ad hominem/straw man attacks"???
Yes. What you were doing.
I'm glad someone is using those little-used-word page-a-day calendars.
What you did again.
Most Ron Paul supporters have made it personal and look to punish McCain with their vote
Not most, I don't think, but many, yes. Which is why Ron Paul's announcement helps McCain.
whereas I'm more likely to just sell it to the highest bidder.
You're likely to commit a gross misdemeanor?
Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2008 03:38 PMUm, yeah, by throwing away their support on someone completely unelectable.
These people are the weak-minded weenies of our society. As long as there is sex, money, and power -- they will say and do anything to be part of it.
Posted by: Greg on September 11, 2008 05:50 PMHuh. You call people here "weak-minded," but your comment is nothing more than an ad hominem. That's not really putting your best foot forward, now, is it?
I have nothing to add to that, except that if you're talking about me, then you're wrong. I am not over-confident.
The reason that we "third party types" are legitimate is because it is we who are the majority, not you irrelevant "major party" voters.
Tell ya what, Rick... If the Libertarians AND the Constitution Party AND the Green Party AND the Socialist Party AND the Peace and Freedom Party AND the Socialist Workers Party combine for 1.5% or more of the national vote, I'll treat you to a dinner at Ruth's Chris.
If the Republican Party does not take at least 47% of the national vote, I'll buy you a dinner at Daniel's Broiler.
If ANY party other than the Democrats and Republicans get a single Electoral vote, I'll treat you to dinner at Anthony's Restaurant.
If I lose all three challenges, you get all three dinners.
If I win ALL THREE challenges then you can buy me a Dick's Special, fries, and chocolate shake. If I win just one challenge, you don't have to do a thing.
Sound like a deal? I'll put up $350 worth of dinners, versus your $5.
Don't worry, I'll enjoy a nice Dick's burger on your dime when I get back in the US right after the election...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 11, 2008 08:12 PMYes, I would commit a gross misdemeanor, just not that one.
Back to the main subject though. If Gramm's quote was accurate I wonder what that means that McCain would do less harm than Obama. No one can know who wasn't in the conversation but that didn't sound like a ringing endorsement. Gramm was disavowed rather quickly for a careless comment so maybe he isn't feeling so great about McCain. At least Gramm still tried to help him.
Posted by: Tracy on September 11, 2008 08:22 PMPhew!
Posted by: pudge on September 11, 2008 08:25 PMHis suggestion of voting for crank Nader, Green whoever, out-of-the-question preacher Baldwin, and Babar the Libertarian left me shaking my head.
Now for me it's about supreme court nominees and keeping the 2nd amendment strong.
So guess what, yep, McCain 08.
Palin is the spoonful of sugar that will help the medicine go down.
Posted by: dom on September 11, 2008 11:46 PMHowever, and you Republican party officials should be listening so you can know how to capitalize on this in the future, the Ron Paul supporter is more likely to respond to contrarian messages because he values his freedom over the acceptance of any group.
The question you need to be asking yourselves is "why don't the more establishment Republican candidates inspire people to go from being politically inactive to absolutely enthusiastic and committed to their candidate?" What to do about it?
Easy:
Support a principled traditional platform.
Require candidates to stick to it for GOP support.
Hold politicians feet to the fire when they abandon it.
Maintain a healthy suspicion of all government, not just the Democrats.
Emphasize freedom and privacy over Big Brother.
Abandon the "they want to kill us because we're free" b.s. line and acknowledge that the force we exert on the world on an every day basis in ways that we don't necessarily see incites hatred against us and is what makes us vulnerable to terrorism in the first place. Then, admit that if we listened to the Founders of our nation on matters of foreign policy, or anything for that matter, we would be safer. (Read: Michael Scheuer, Robert Pape, and Chalmers Johnson)
Demand that John McCain fire his foreign policy adviser who lobbied on behalf of Georgia to get her into NATO or you won't vote for him.
Acknowledge that McCain, for all his military service and valor, may have proven himself unfit to be president by pushing for Georgia to be in NATO. If he won we'd be at war with Russian right now (although Palin doesn't seem to mind the idea!!).
That would be a great start. By the way, I liked the idea of Ron Paul as Fed Chairman!
Posted by: free.alive on September 12, 2008 02:59 AM