Very powerful.

[j_b]

Right, there is a blackout on these issues and of progressive candidates challenging Obama from the left so it's not very surprising you don't hear about it. In the absence of progressive voices being given airtime to bring these topics to the fore, we are left with Mister it-was-all-better-during-robber-baron-time to posture as the champion of anti-warmongering. Sad.

[tvashtarkatena]

Santorum

 

LOL

[tvashtarkatena]

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers..."

[rob]

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers..."

 

 

Edited January 4, 2012 by rob

[j_b]

[akhalteke]

BUMP

 

I think this article from The Atlantic sums it all up nicely.

[rob]

BUMP

 

I could never vote for a candidate who promises to abolish environmental, pharmaceutical and market regulations. It's really too bad he has to ruin his pro civil-liberty platform (which I support) with such outrageous and radical anti-regulation libertarian ideology. It makes him completely unacceptable to moderate voters like myself.

Edited January 5, 2012 by rob

[akhalteke]

It makes him sound to radical for any sane voter to take seriously. My only caveat with not endorsing with Paul is that with the checks and balances, he will not be able to achieve his radical goals. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case after seeing Obama's wanton misuse of recess appointments.

 

It is a sad state of affairs when you feel that the only possible solution to end the mired status quo is to let a batshit crazy bastard like Paul in.

 

 

[dhrmabum]

BUMP

 

I could never vote for a candidate who promises to abolish environmental, pharmaceutical and market regulations. It's really too bad he has to ruin his pro civil-liberty platform (which I support) with such outrageous and radical anti-regulation libertarian ideology. It makes him completely unacceptable to moderate voters like myself.

 

I think you forgot to mention his stance on abortion. .

[rob]

My only caveat with Paul is that with the checks and balances, he will not be able to achieve his radical goals. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case after seeing Obama's wanton misuse of recess appointments.

 

You've hit the nail on the head -- the only power he'll actually have as President is to reduce or eliminate enforcement of regulations. He won't actually have any power to do any of the "good" things, such as repeal the Patriot Act or the NDAA. So, a Paul administration would basically be all of the bad, and none of the good. Congress will gridlock as usual anytime anything effective tries to happen, and I suppose he'll be able to veto some things, but I don't want his veto at the expense of environmental, pharmaceutical and market enforcement.

 

Not to mention many of the things he will veto will probably be things I don't want veto'd -- such as health care reform, social services, increased environmental regulations, etc.

 

Edited January 5, 2012 by rob

[kevbone]

My only caveat with Paul is that with the checks and balances, he will not be able to achieve his radical goals. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case after seeing Obama's wanton misuse of recess appointments.

 

You've hit the nail on the head -- the only power he'll actually have as President is to reduce or eliminate enforcement of regulations. He won't actually have any power to do any of the "good" things, such as repeal the Patriot Act or the NDAA. So, a Paul administration would basically be all of the bad, and none of the good. Congress will gridlock as usual anytime anything effective tries to happen, and I suppose he'll be able to veto some things, but I don't want his veto at the expense of environmental, pharmaceutical and market enforcement.

 

Not to mention many of the things he will veto will probably be things I don't want veto'd -- such as health care reform, social services, increased environmental regulations, etc.

 

BS....the President has the power to move the troops to where ever he/she sees fit. He would bring them all home. Honestly his foreign policy is what really excites me about him. I dont like everything about him....but his stance on not being the worlds police I agree with. And on the federal reserve.

 

And the president can veto crazy laws put forth by the crazy congress.....like the NDAA act. So you cant say the President has no real power.

[rob]

And the president can veto crazy laws put forth by the crazy congress.....like the NDAA act. So you cant say the President has no real power.

 

I didn't say he has no power. I just said he doesn't have the power to do a lot of the things he wants -- like abolish the fed, or force an audit. And sure, he can veto new crazy laws, but he can't repeal NDAA. He can also veto lots of GOOD laws, which he probably will (such as increased market or environmental regulations.) His power to pass NEW legislation is limited also, especially if he continues to alienate moderates with radical libertarian views on regulation.

 

I like most of his foreign policy, too. I guess I'm a bit of an isolationist. But he's not worth it, for all of his other bad ideas.

 

BS....the President has the power to move the troops to where ever he/she sees fit. He would bring them all home.

 

Not exactly right, kevin. Congress has the right to declare war or not, and the War Powers Resolution requires the president to get congressional authority to deploy troops, and the constitution splits war powers between the President and Congress. For example, congress also decides how much is spent funding a war.

 

You're right, though, he could bring them back. Although, I suspect Congress could override him? I'm not sure what would happen if Congress declared war and he refused. Interesting hypothetical question. I guess he could veto the declaration of war, but they could override it. Then what?

Edited January 5, 2012 by rob

[Crux]

The NDDA, as it is the military appropriations bill, must be renewed no less frequently than every two years (Article I, Section 8, clause 12). Thus, I think the NDDA expires in the middle of the next presidential term, in 2014. If Ron Paul were president, he could then veto the next iteration of the NDDA, which would end the military spending unless that veto were overruled by a two thirds majority in both the House and the Senate. At this point, the president might impede spending activity and military adventures through his position as Commander in Chief, and by related executive authority. However, with an overwhelming majority in Congress already demonstrated to be against him, subsequent impeachment and removal from office might occur in less time than it takes a drunken Republican to sing Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran. So yes, even if Ron Paul were President and wanted to follow through on his campaign rhetoric, doing so would ultimately be up to Congress -- a position very much like the one that the current President often finds himself in, not being able to do what he wants to do, according to his advocates.

[akhalteke]

Another Paul moron

 

This idiot with idiotic tatoos epitomizes the mental idiocy with die hard Paul fans. If this was my soldier, I would crush him so hard the stupid would come out. He also lied about his deployments and is NOT on active duty.

[kevbone]

Another Paul moron

 

This idiot with idiotic tatoos epitomizes the mental idiocy with die hard Paul fans. If this was my soldier, I would crush him so hard the stupid would come out. He also lied about his deployments and is NOT on active duty.

 

A US citizen promotes the democratic way in America and you are complaining. Let us try and focus on what is important shall we.

[akhalteke]

Another Paul moron

 

This idiot with idiotic tatoos epitomizes the mental idiocy with die hard Paul fans. If this was my soldier, I would crush him so hard the stupid would come out. He also lied about his deployments and is NOT on active duty.

 

A US citizen promotes the democratic way in America and you are complaining. Let us try and focus on what is important shall we.

 

Lets, Kev. Did you know it is illegal for him to do that? Probably not. Can you think of why it would be illegal? Probably not. Think about these two questions and then get back with me Kev.

 

 

[Pete_H]

Dude, you're asking the Bone to demonstrate a simple understanding of basic civics. That's like asking a monkey, or me for that matter, to comprehend nuclear physics. Just ain't gunna happen.

[tvashtarkatena]

Comparing them to Bone is an insult to monkeys everywhere.

[kevbone]

Another Paul moron

 

This idiot with idiotic tatoos epitomizes the mental idiocy with die hard Paul fans. If this was my soldier, I would crush him so hard the stupid would come out. He also lied about his deployments and is NOT on active duty.

 

A US citizen promotes the democratic way in America and you are complaining. Let us try and focus on what is important shall we.

 

Lets, Kev. Did you know it is illegal for him to do that? Probably not. Can you think of why it would be illegal? Probably not. Think about these two questions and then get back with me Kev.

 

 

Do think that is was and is illegal for our own government to wiretap it's own people? They are taking away your civil rights and you are spouting off about a solder who promoted a presidential candidate. One of these topics is REALLY important and other is not.

[akhalteke]

Another Paul moron

 

This idiot with idiotic tatoos epitomizes the mental idiocy with die hard Paul fans. If this was my soldier, I would crush him so hard the stupid would come out. He also lied about his deployments and is NOT on active duty.

 

A US citizen promotes the democratic way in America and you are complaining. Let us try and focus on what is important shall we.

 

Lets, Kev. Did you know it is illegal for him to do that? Probably not. Can you think of why it would be illegal? Probably not. Think about these two questions and then get back with me Kev.

 

 

Do think that is was and is illegal for our own government to wiretap it's own people? They are taking away your civil rights and you are spouting off about a solder who promoted a presidential candidate. One of these topics is REALLY important and other is not.

 

1) Off topic

 

2) It was his choice and he signed away his rights to have the ability to fight for his country. His choice.

 

Kev, just because there are higher overarching issues, doesn't mean that a smaller one is invalid; just less important. You are a fucking idiot.

 

Furthermore, this guy has to be a fucking moron.

 

1) he is a rabid Paul supporter (like Kev).

 

2) He has douchey tatoos

 

3) He is a corporal (E-4) after 10 years of service. This is like being an intern for a decade.

 

4) Kev, you are an idiot.

[billcoe]

I'm with Matt on this. Probably neither of us really wants Paul yet we both might vote for him. Ivan just brought up Chinese emperors on another thread (the republican thread), and it reminded me that the absolute power of life and death over their subjects was and hall mark of Chinese emperors power.

 

This is the mantle we have seen the President pick up with the recent US military strike on Al-Awawaki, a US citizen, who's crime was supposedly to have spoken ill of our country. Thought crime, speaking his mind. Saying it out loud. That is what was "claimed" by the President in the news media. So he needed to be killed for publicly speaking his mind, no court case needed. That they also killed another American in the car, the innocent 16 year old son of the man, surprisingly seems not to trouble or bother but a few of my countrymen. I'd suppose I'd be more fine with the outright murder of the man-which is just what happened, murder by the state in violation of all our laws and traditions, had he been indicted by a court before hand. Yet even the court case that his father brought to try and save his son, the same son who had earlier claimed via the media that the Presidents media reports were overblown and not true, was thrown out.

 

I think there are few issues anywhere near to being as large as this addressed by any candidate other than Paul. The right of our leader to kill any of us based on evidence given in a backroom and published in the media as being irrevocably true.

 

Rob wants the EPA. Me too. But big fucking deal if they can deprive you of your very fucking life with out a trial. Paul is the only person discussing this.

 

I hope that the Paul campaign, with all it's baggage, can shape and frame the real debate we should be having right now with some bedrock serious and important core issues.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Paul's rise is certainly makes the campaign more interesting.

 

Romney will hand him his ass, of course - its like shooting a baby in the face with all the money he's got, but I like him nipping at that hairstyle's ankles. If anything, Paul is moderating some of Romneys positions.

[ElectricEric]

Another Paul moron

 

Heard alot about that guy at work the other day. Whole morning of what we can and can't do politically in the military.

 

[JosephH]

[A US citizen promotes the democratic way in America and you are complaining.

Let's be clear, the fact that a racist troglodyte intent on turning America's clock back to the days when robber barons openly plied their trade is the only one willing to state the obvious and even displays occasional signs of common sense is pretty depressing in and of itself.

 

We unfortunately can't elect just the parts of the man we like and the irrational baggage that frames his worldview is too broken to ever be fixed up and paved over enough to be stomached by the American people who can't possibly be that stupid...

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, Paul's supporters are complete fucking moron kooks, to be sure. Romney's picking up some of the better parts of his message, however.

 

Of course, Romney's as stalwart as an overcooked noodle. He'll do whatever the GOP tells him to...which, of course would be the typical trainwreck we're all well familiar with by now.