If you were/are a Ron Paul supporter, how do you feel about his comments that he wouldn't have ordered the Bin Laden raid?

[PeterMP]

He didn't. He simply wanted to legalize competing currencies such as gold in an effort to remove some of the power the Fed holds.

Except it isn't ILLEGAL NOW.

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

One company got in trouble for creating an alternative currency because they were telling people to go into stores and give them the money and say things like "it is just like a (US) dollar."

And similar things.

[The Evil Genius]

I will default to the RP apologists on this --> but is it safe to say that Paul doesn't believe that the Constitution is a living document? Or is it just the parts that gave birth to the programs that he wants ended at the federal level can't have changed over 230+ years?

[SnyderShrugged]

I will default to the RP apologists on this --> but is it safe to say that Paul doesn't believe that the Constitution is a living document? Or is it just the parts that gave birth to the programs that he wants ended at the federal level can't have changed over 230+ years?

not even sure why you would ask this question, but of course he believes its a document that can change over time, Thats called the amendment process and I'm positive he would support its use as designed.

[The Evil Genius]

not even sure why you would ask this question, but of course he believes its a document that can change over time, Thats called the amendment process and I'm positive he would support its use as designed.

So he isn't a strict constitutionalist then, as he has been labeled?

Or, is your argument that the only changes to the constitution come in amendment format?

[panel]

Except it isn't ILLEGAL NOW.

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

One company got in trouble for creating an alternative currency because they were telling people to go into stores and give them the money and say thinkgs like "it is just like a (US) dollar."

The liberty dollar got in trouble for be in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 and 18 U.S.C. § 486:

"Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

That should not be the case. The guy that started the liberty dollar is now in jail. The FBI raided his company and seized all the gold and silver that was used to "back" the liberty dollar. Doesn't sound like it is that legal after all.

[The Evil Genius]

The liberty dollar got in trouble for be in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 and 18 U.S.C. § 486:

I thought...the liberty dollar was illegal because it had a suggested US dollar value printed on it (thus making it counterfeit currency).

[zoony]

4:05. More specifically, 4:30. Your next post should be nothing other than "I am wrong. Again."

bonus footage. Ron Paul says civil war wasn't necessary, and was not about slavery. 1:30 mark. Enter Ron Paul cult spin machine.

He also proposes a privatized FAA. Because Private industry will protect us. Government and regulation, bad. Big corporations, litigation, wild west, good. Say it until it makes sense.

.....

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 11:30 AM ----------

So he isn't a strict constitutionalist then, as he has been labeled?

Or, is your argument that the only changes to the constitution come in amendment format?

You're confusing this issue. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Don't question it. You're just being argumentative.

...

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 11:34 AM ----------

Obama was correct all along about the Iraq War. He was one of the few politicians who was. He had the courage to stand up to it.

Therefore, I will take everything Obama says from now on as truth. Even when he rambles like a madman, I'll simply say "he's not serious, he's just making a point." Or maybe I'll slip in the occasional "I don't agree with him on that particular issue, but overall he's right".

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 11:35 AM ----------

Bonus backup candidate for the Ron Paul cult, if something should happen to him.

I give you, Michael Burry. He shorted the bond market in prediction of a housing collapse and he suffers from Autism. Should fit like a glove.

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

[panel]

What if Donald Trump becomes the next President, and decides that Richard Branson is a threat to the US, and orders him to be killed, would he have the power to do that? In Osama's case, it is easy to tell that he is evil, and that it is good that he dead. But it also establishes precedent that the president can have foreigners killed without trail if they feel they are a threat.

Now it is true that it is unlikely that a president in the future is going to abuse this, but technically he could, and Ron Paul's point of view is that the president should not have that type of power. Paul said that he would have tried to get Pakistan to arrest Bin Laden, and then put him on trail, just like we did with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I am hoping that Bin Laden's death does turn a new page in our history, but I do think it would have been better if we had captured him and put him on trail, and show the rest of the world that we operate on the principals and values that we were founded on, even if we are smacked in the face. The raid on Osama could cause people with a different point of view in other parts of the world to see that as "America thinks it can do what ever it wants, and will not give trials to those those that they do not want to". The world is better of without Bin Laden, but capturing him and putting him on trail would have really been a great thing to show the world.

So I don't think it is that "wacky" to say that if he were president, and he had the information as to where Bin Laden was, that he would have tried to have him captured.

[zoony]

What if Donald Trump becomes the next President, and decides that Richard Branson is a threat to the US, and orders him to be killed, would he have the power to do that? In Osama's case, it is easy to tell that he is evil, and that it is good that he dead. But it also establishes precedent that the president can have foreigners killed without trail if they feel they are a threat.

While we're on the subject of absurd analogies, let me retort.

Were you of the opinion that every Iraqi soldier killed during the Gulf War should have been captured and tried instead?

[ACW]

You're confusing this issue. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Don't question it. You're just being argumentative.

So then why do you oppose the Constitution?

[Predicto]

I sure ther are plenty of Osama wannabe's are in Gitmo, but I don't hear anyone saying we should go shoot them in their pjs. in fact I hear alot about how they should get a fair trial or be set free.The DC snipers and soddam got fair trials.

I oppose the death penalty, and if we had Osama Bin Laden safe and secure in one of our prisons, I would oppose executing him.

But we didn't have him in one of our prisons. He was in a fortified compound in another country where we could not arrest him, being protected by the military and intelligence community of that country, continuing to lead a terrorist operation that has cost the lives of thousands of innocent people, and so I take a deep breath and accept the fact that we killed him because it was all we could do.

So sue me.

[SnyderShrugged]

So he isn't a strict constitutionalist then, as he has been labeled?

Or, is your argument that the only changes to the constitution come in amendment format?

Yes, the constitution was created with an amendment process to account for future change. How else would you propose it change?

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 12:55 PM ----------

I enjoy zoony freakouts when it comes to Ron Paul.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 01:01 PM ----------

4:05. More specifically, 4:30. Your next post should be nothing other than "I am wrong. Again."

bonus footage. Ron Paul says civil war wasn't necessary, and was not about slavery. 1:30 mark. Enter Ron Paul cult spin machine.

He also proposes a privatized FAA. Because Private industry will protect us. Government and regulation, bad. Big corporations, litigation, wild west, good. Say it until it makes sense.

sorry, cant see the vid at work. Can you post the transcript (again, I'd appreciate the full commentary in context rather than slices of a debate or blips from an interview if at all possible). I trust that it is a specific bill he sponsored or a specific law he has proposed? If not, I'm sure you understand that I'll default to those obviously more sound sources of fact.

yes, he has proposed privatizing many things that were never intendd to be the purvue of the feds. i agree wholeheartedly (but that certainly doesnt make him as loony as you claim, only that he has different ideas than what are present. shouldnt we appreciate ideas and options in the face of economic turmoil, debt crisis and war?

.....

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 11:30 AM ----------

You're confusing this issue. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Don't question it. You're just being argumentative.

Yes, and as a strict constitutionalist he understands that to change our fundamental principles of government, one would use the prescribed process to do so. Really perplexed why this is somehow an issue as I assumed all Americans understand that nature of the document.

...

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 11:34 AM ----------

Obama was correct all along about the Iraq War. He was one of the few politicians who was. He had the courage to stand up to it.

Therefore, I will take everything Obama says from now on as truth. Even when he rambles like a madman, I'll simply say "he's not serious, he's just making a point." Or maybe I'll slip in the occasional "I don't agree with him on that particular issue, but overall he's right".

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 11:35 AM ----------

Bonus backup candidate for the Ron Paul cult, if something should happen to him.

I give you, Michael Burry. He shorted the bond market in prediction of a housing collapse and he suffers from Autism. Should fit like a glove.

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

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 01:03 PM ----------

I oppose the death penalty, and if we had Osama Bin Laden safe and secure in one of our prisons, I would oppose executing him.

But we didn't have him in one of our prisons. He was in a fortified compound in another country where we could not arrest him, being protected by the military and intelligence community of that country, continuing to lead a terrorist operation that has cost the lives of thousands of innocent people, and so I take a deep breath and accept the fact that we killed him because it was all we could do.

So sue me.

and yet......hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, go figure

[The Evil Genius]

How else would you propose it change?

Through interpretation?

For example, let's focus on the free speech portion of that first amendment,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By a strict interpretation, even dangerous speech is protected (since it's not not protected). Is that what the founding fathers wanted? How about now, is that what we the people want?

Are we going to be ok with allowing people to yell fire at the crowded theatre or provoke violence with hate filled speeches? Aren't their limitations to other rights, spelled out in the constitution?

If so, how did those limitations come into effect? It wasn't through the amendment process, which you have argued is the only way to change the living document.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

and yet......hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, go figure

What does one have to do with the other?

The main problem I have with Libertarians is that motivations seem to be more important to them than results.

I've never been in favor of the war in Iraq, and I have had major problems with the manner in which we've conducted the war in Afghanistan. I don't see what either of those positions really have to do with the Bin Laden killing. I judge them all individually on their own merits.

Also, you would not be living in Gault's Gulch. You aren't that special.

[sly]

He also proposes a privatized FAA. Because Private industry will protect us. Government and regulation, bad. Big corporations, litigation, wild west, good. Say it until it makes sense.

Perfect example of recent FAA failure... instead of finding competent workers to ya know, stay awake during their shift, they decided to hire a second controller. If a privatized company is going bankrupt and finds an employee that can't handle their duties, do they waste more money bringing in someone else to babysit said employee or even their replacement? Say it until it make sense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/faa-ends-single-controller-overnight-shifts-after-alleged-sleeping-incident-at-nevada-airport/2011/04/13/AFxpJOYD_story.html

[zoony]

Perfect example of recent FAA failure... instead of finding competent workers to ya know, stay awake during their shift, they decided to hire a second controller. If a privatized company is going bankrupt and finds an employee that can't handle their duties, do they waste more money bringing in someone else to babysit said employee? Say it until it make sense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/faa-ends-single-controller-overnight-shifts-after-alleged-sleeping-incident-at-nevada-airport/2011/04/13/AFxpJOYD_story.html

So your position is there is little to no waste or corruption in private organization. That's beautiful man. Ron Paul 2012!

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 03:28 PM ----------

sorry, cant see the vid at work. Can you post the transcript (again, I'd appreciate the full commentary in context rather than slices of a debate or blips from an interview if at all possible). I trust that it is a specific bill he sponsored or a specific law he has proposed? If not, I'm sure you understand that I'll default to those obviously more sound sources of fact.

Oh that's ****ing hilarious.

I see. So now, the only thing that counts as far as a viewpoint and a philosophy is that which you have sponsored to be law. Genius. Just genius.

Cult.

[sly]

So your position is there is little to no waste or corruption in private organization. That's beautiful man. Ron Paul 2012!

Of course there is... and you know what happens... the company goes bankrupt! You know what happens to federal government? It gets LARGER!

[The Evil Genius]

So your position is there is little to no waste or corruption in private organization. That's beautiful man. Ron Paul 2012!

Hey, it worked for the power companies in the west in the early 2000's.

Deregulation FTW!

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 12:31 PM ----------

Of course there is... and you know what happens... the company goes bankrupt! You know what happens to federal government? It gets LARGER!

Is that why Exxon and, to a lesser degree, BP is out of business after catastropic oil spills due to waste/negligence/corruption?

[sly]

Is that why Exxon and, to a lesser degree, BP is out of business after catastropic oil spills due to waste/negligence/corruption?

Americans use a lot of oil. They provide it. If there is negligence/spills, the company has to pay for it. If you don't want to buy from BP anymore, then you don't have to.

[ACW]

Zoony, admit you hate the Constitution.

[SnyderShrugged]

What does one have to do with the other?

The main problem I have with Libertarians is that motivations seem to be more important to them than results.

I've never been in favor of the war in Iraq' date=' and I have had major problems with the manner in which we've conducted the war in Afghanistan. I don't see what either of those positions really have to do with the Bin Laden killing. I judge them all individually on their own merits.

Also, you would not be living in Gault's Gulch. You aren't that special.[/quote']

what do they have to do with each other? well, you prove my point a bit. NOTHING. Thats why a decade long trillion dollar war in Afghanistan wasnt ever needed to get Bin Laden. See, this libertarian does appreciate the results, yet understands how those results were actually attained vs all the other noise involved in that attainment

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 03:56 PM ----------

Through interpretation?

For example, let's focus on the free speech portion of that first amendment,

By a strict interpretation, even dangerous speech is protected (since it's not not protected). Is that what the founding fathers wanted? How about now, is that what we the people want?

Are we going to be ok with allowing people to yell fire at the crowded theatre or provoke violence with hate filled speeches? Aren't their limitations to other rights, spelled out in the constitution?

If so, how did those limitations come into effect? It wasn't through the amendment process, which you have argued is the only way to change the living document.

Where in the constitution does it say that the change process is driven through interpretation? The amendment process IS the only physical way to change the constitution.

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 03:59 PM ----------

So your position is there is little to no waste or corruption in private organization. That's beautiful man. Ron Paul 2012!

---------- Post added May-13th-2011 at 03:28 PM ----------

Oh that's ****ing hilarious.

I see. So now, the only thing that counts as far as a viewpoint and a philosophy is that which you have sponsored to be law. Genius. Just genius.

Cult.

You know, we could probably have a great conversation once you put your petty anger aside and actually discuss things like men.

I wish I could comment on your vid, but I am unable to see it at work. I had asked for a transcript so we could discuss rationally, yet you retort that I'm in a cult?

If its all the same with you, I'd rather speak like two adults and leave the hyperbolic nonsense at the door.

[Jumbo]

SnyderShrugged....you have one the worst cases in the forum of chronic bunched-panties whenever someone assaults/dismisses your fave political party/candidates. Such assaults are commonplace between dems/GOP'ers all the time here and are expected to be handled by the poster (within the rules) just as said assaults are expected to be within the rules.

You however often respond to such by getting personally castigating in your replies. You recently predicted you will likely be voted off the island someday. Frankly, at least three mods feel it could easily have been justified a long time ago given your user-note history and past violations. But we try to keep as many disparate voices around as possible for the overall sake of the vitality of the the forum and overall entertainment (seriously). Help us. Go commando every now and then and avoid the "bunchies."

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm not upset at all Jumbo. Not really sure why you think I am? I would like to keep the conversation about ideas and their merits or lack thereof and I certainly am not angry at anyone for disagreeing with me.

I hope that I'm not being seen as angry in this thread because there isnt any anger at all.

I probably better review my punctuation and maybe add some smileys from now on if that potential perception is there!

[Larry]

I prefer the "pack your own gun next time you fly" so we don't have to shell out tax dollars for airline security. That's a lot more fun.

I suspect that Archie Bunker had that idea first.

[Jumbo]

Rather than explain what in your replies to zoony (and a few over the last couple weeks) prompted me to post, I'll just say I appreciate your willingness to listen and your attempts to keep on eye on yourself.