Thread: The Paul File

  1. #201
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    @Trippy

    'Police' action = bombing another country into regime change? Are we playing a semantics game?
    You may be, but I seem to recall S.RES.85 and UN1973 both said "By any means neccessary", or words to that effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    So you say Congress doesn't want to commit to another war. Given the timeline by War Powers Resolution, is the President in breach of it or not? Its a very simple question which you have side stepped at least twice.
    And I'm sidestepping it for a third time, because the status quo is irrelevant to the point I was addressing, which is the original action.

    Speaking of side-stepping, I can't help but notice that for a third time you've failed to illustrate the bait and switch. Does that mean you withdraw this assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    You are circumventing the constitution whether you want to admit it or not. The condition says only Congress declares war- an explicit stated power. By going to war under any other entity does not fulfill this condition.
    Do you have anything of your own to add? By that I mean - do you have anything original to say, or are you just going to keep regurgitating what Ron Paul has had to say.

    I've outlined my assertion, and how this reaction doesn't address it. I see no need to repeat myself. When you have something original to say, that addresses what I have actually said, that actually puts forward a competent argument (one example might be illustrating why participation in a UN police action would require a declaration of war in the first place, seeing as how this is the crucial point your argument hangs on) I'll be around.

  2. #202
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    As I said early on:

    There are two primary problems with the proposition that Ron Paul will win enough support to be taken seriously as a candidate:

    • Ron Paul
    • Ron Paul's supporters
    This is a quite a lowball.
    Thats like your opinion, based on what ? Because you feel so ?

    Wasting time is exactly what seems to be going on. I'm starting to think these aren't really Paul supporters, but provocateurs whose chosen mission is to discredit the Congressman, his campaign, and his supporters.
    Another lowball, and tastless in my opinion. Sounds pretty slick though.

    And by the way, you start to sound like a broken record.

  3. #203
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    You may be, but I seem to recall S.RES.85 and UN1973 both said "By any means neccessary", or words to that effect.
    You were differentiating police action with war, when in fact what happened was nothing short of war. And the Constitution clearly says only Congress declares war, even that resolution is considered authorization, the voting down later on would de-authorize it.

    And I'm sidestepping it for a third time, because the status quo is irrelevant to the point I was addressing, which is the original action.
    Okay the original action was justified. Now, the President has no no authorization from Congress, he is in breach of the War Powers Resolution or no? I have repeatedly stressed the word 'NOW', so to answer it back with 'original action' wasn't answering my question is it.

    Speaking of side-stepping, I can't help but notice that for a third time you've failed to illustrate the bait and switch. Does that mean you withdraw this assertion?
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...d-switched-war

    Whether they are lying or not is not for me to decide.

    Do you have anything of your own to add? By that I mean - do you have anything original to say, or are you just going to keep regurgitating what Ron Paul has had to say.
    Why should I 'add' anything of my own, when the Constitution says it for me.

    (one example might be illustrating why participation in a UN police action would require a declaration of war in the first place, seeing as how this is the crucial point your argument hangs on) I'll be around.
    Because no matter what 'action' it is, the Constitution still says that Congress declares war, which is what we are in.

    If you are saying Police action being bombing a country into regime change does not equal war, then I guess we differ on what 'war' means, and also the War Powers Resolution is more general as it regulate military action itself which is what this 'police action' is. You are saying UN Resolutions supersede the US Congress and that the President can ignore us law, War Powers Resolution, to engage in activities approved by the UN.

    It is quite clear that Congress voted down continuation of war, and then the President is in continued breach of the War Powers Resolution. I will give you that the original action was justified. But tell me, NOW, that the President does not have authorization, is he in breach of US law specifically the War Powers Resolution?

    By the way here are two parts of the War Powers Resolution you should consider when answering:


    Quote Originally Posted by Section 1541(c) of the WPA
    The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

    (1) a declaration of war,

    (2) specific statutory authorization, or

    (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...1----000-.html
    Please do keep in mind that WPA above clearly tells what the 'constitutional powers' state.

    Now to address the question of Treaties (UN?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Section 1547(a)
    Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred

    (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or

    (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

    Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...7----000-.html
    In other words whatever treaty it may be, it must agree with statutory authorization, Secondly it must 'constitute specific' authority at the time of the treaty itself. Was there a war authorization against Libya when the UN Charter was ratified? Any subsequent resolutions would require Congressional approval in the case of military intervention as it clearly states would only be "implemented by legislation specifically authorizing", would have to require 'specific statutory authorization WITHIN the meaning of this chapter". 'any means necessary' is not specific at all to begin with.

    And statutory authrorization = Congressional approval per War Powers Resolution. If initially it was justified by the Senate Resolution, that authorization was take away later on when that topic of war on Libya specifically came up on the floor. President has not come back and the time allotted by War Powers Act without authorization has run out. Do keep in mind that the above section is about 'treaties' so UN Resolutions would have to agree with it.

    So is he in violation of US Law, War Powers Act, which in fact defines the constitutionality of the powers allotted to the President, thus being in violation of War Powers Act would constitute a violation of the Constitution?
    Last edited by 786; 10-04-11 at 04:09 PM.

  4. #204
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    You were differentiating police action with war, when in fact what happened was nothing short of war. And the Constitution clearly says only Congress declares war, even that resolution is considered authorization, the voting down later on would de-authorize it.
    In your opinion (see below).

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...d-switched-war

    Whether they are lying or not is not for me to decide.
    So you're exmept from providing proof of your assertions? Everyone should just accept your word as gospel?

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Why should I 'add' anything of my own, when the Constitution says it for me.
    You're asking me why you should think for yourself, rather than regurgitating what you've been told?

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Because no matter what 'action' it is, the Constitution still says that Congress declares war, which is what we are in.

    If you are saying Police action being bombing a country into regime change does not equal war, then I guess we differ on what 'war' means, and also the War Powers Resolution is more general as it regulate military action itself which is what this 'police action' is. You are saying UN Resolutions supersede the US Congress and that the President can ignore us law, War Powers Resolution, to engage in activities approved by the UN.

    It is quite clear that Congress voted down continuation of war, and then the President is in continued breach of the War Powers Resolution. I will give you that the original action was justified. But tell me, NOW, that the President does not have authorization, is he in breach of US law specifically the War Powers Resolution?

    By the way here are two parts of the War Powers Resolution you should consider when answering:


    Please do keep in mind that WPA above clearly tells what the 'constitutional powers' state.

    Now to address the question of Treaties (UN?)

    In other words whatever treaty it may be, it must agree with statutory authorization, Secondly it must 'constitute specific' authority at the time of the treaty itself. Was there a war authorization against Libya when the UN Charter was ratified? Any subsequent resolutions would require Congressional approval in the case of military intervention as it clearly states would only be "implemented by legislation specifically authorizing", would have to require 'specific statutory authorization WITHIN the meaning of this chapter". 'any means necessary' is not specific at all to begin with.

    And statutory authrorization = Congressional approval per War Powers Resolution. If initially it was justified by the Senate Resolution, that authorization was take away later on when that topic of war on Libya specifically came up on the floor. President has not come back and the time allotted by War Powers Act without authorization has run out. Do keep in mind that the above section is about 'treaties' so UN Resolutions would have to agree with it.

    So is he in violation of US Law, War Powers Act, which in fact defines the constitutionality of the powers allotted to the President, thus being in violation of War Powers Act would constitute a violation of the Constitution?
    Here's the thing though - Congress has explicitly given the POTUS specific authority to take military actions as required by UN resolutions. That's one of the reasons for the War Powers Act in the first place, because Congress felt that specific authority was being abused and used to commit the US to long to wars (Veitnam, and Korea, for example).

    How has Congress give the POTUS specific authority? Through the United Nations Participation Act, 1945 (amended in 1949).

    Section 6 of which states:
    The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter. The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements.
    (Section 2 deals with UN ambassadors, their appointment, and their renumeration, section 3 establishes the pecking order - they take their orders from the POTUS, not congress, Sec 4 tells the POTUS to report to congress at least annually, Section 5 deals with economic and political sanctions under Article 41 of the UN charter, Sections 7&8 deal with renumeration of troops on police actions, and re-imbursement of the US for costs incurred).

    Article 42 states:
    Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

    And Article 43 states:

    1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

    2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

    3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

    So now where does that leave us?
    • Article 43 states that all members of the UN Security council are to make available armed forces for the purposeof maintaining international peace and security, subject to internal constitutional requirements.
    • Article 42 states that if the security council considers that economic and political sanctions will be inadequate, then the UN security council may take such action by land, sea, or air, including blockades, as deemed neccessary for the restoration of international peace.
    • Section 6 of the UN Paticipation Act states that Congress shall approve what forces are to be made available to the UN for the police actions described in Article 42, as per the requirements of Article 43, And that the POTUS Shall not be deemed to require congressional approval to make those forces available for specific police actions.
    • It is that point, which congress felt was being abused, that led them to draft the War Powers Act which states "Tell us within 48 hours, and it it's going to last longer than 60 days, you need our authorization".
    • The US Constition designates that the POTUS shall be responsible for the maintenance of treaty obligations.

    So no, a declaration of war is not neccessary for the US to participate in a UN police action, and Congressional Authorization is only relevant if it's going to last for longer than 60 days.

    Addnedum:
    I meant to add that I'll deal with the question of the legality of the status quo later.
    Last edited by Trippy; 10-04-11 at 05:25 PM.

  5. #205
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,516

    Cool The story so far ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Eyeswideshut

    This is a quite a lowball.
    Thats like your opinion, based on what ? Because you feel so ?
    In other words, you haven't been paying attention at all in this thread? You know, while I've been trying to explain why I hold this opinion?

    Not much I can do for ye there.

    Another lowball, and tastless in my opinion. Sounds pretty slick though.
    And yet your opinion seems a bit uninformed, as you apparently have no clue what is actually going on in this thread.

    Again, not much I can do for ye there.

    But if you would like to change people's opinions, perhaps you could start writing coherent arguments and not just telling people to go watch YouTube, especially when pointing to clips of Ron Paul dodging the fundamental issues of his positions.

  6. #206
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    In your opinion (see below).


    So you're exmept from providing proof of your assertions? Everyone should just accept your word as gospel?


    You're asking me why you should think for yourself, rather than regurgitating what you've been told?


    Here's the thing though - Congress has explicitly given the POTUS specific authority to take military actions as required by UN resolutions. That's one of the reasons for the War Powers Act in the first place, because Congress felt that specific authority was being abused and used to commit the US to long to wars (Veitnam, and Korea, for example).

    How has Congress give the POTUS specific authority? Through the United Nations Participation Act, 1945 (amended in 1949).
    Here's the thing though - Congress has explicitly taken away the POTUS specific authority to take military actions as required by ANY treaty prior or after the War Powers Act

    Let me requote it for you:

    Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred

    (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before November 7, 1973), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter; or

    (2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this chapter.

    Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...7----000-.html
    Putting it together for you: "Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities....shall NOT be inferred....from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless.........is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing....armed forces into hostilities...and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization WITHIN the meaning of this chapter" (which being Congressional approval of the action as was seen in the other clause).

    So all of what you 'drew' from that 1945/1949 Act is superseded by the War Powers Resolution as ITSELF states that it supersedes others by making it quite clear 'from any treaty heretofore or hereafter'....

    And in the War Powers Act, any military offense, there is no exception noted (doesn't matter what UN calls their action), is subject to Congressional authority. That there must be a SPECIFIC authorization that is IMPLEMENTED BY LEGISLATION (only Congress has Power to Legislate- Constitution again).

    So no, a declaration of war is not neccessary for the US to participate in a UN police action, and Congressional Authorization is only relevant if it's going to last for longer than 60 days.
    Which has already been the case, its been more than 60 days, which I've repeatedly said before. So does need congressional approval now (time ran out), yet he still continues to do so. Is this not breaking the law?

    Secondly even the 60 day policy is a secondary rule as it applies once the President has taken action already.. But according the War Powers Act the action, initial, ITSELF must result from these conditions:

    The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised ONLY pursuant to

    (1) a declaration of war,

    (2) specific statutory authorization, or

    (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

    Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50...1----000-.html
    The 60 day policy would only be applicable to 3. The President taking action in defense of the country without prior approval, he would seek approval at a later time. Which makes perfect sense. In the case of Libya none of the conditions were met. So there is a breach even there, but even if you don't consider it a breach considering S.RES 85 as authorization, even though there is no specific authorization to commit military force ('any means necessary' is not specific) then the President is now breaching the 60 day rule after the continuation of war was not authorized. He can not use NATO or UN as an escape route because the War Powers Act itself has imposed its condition on 'any treaty' which it can legally do.

    You could argue the President has the power to enforce treaties. But the problem with this argument is that the War Powers Act specifically states that it overrides any treaty when it comes to the military, and giving the President only 3 ways (above) to use the force.

    Doesn't matter what the UN Charter says. As the Supreme court ruled that the Congress can unilaterally change treaties

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]
    Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[8]

    Source= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal
    The modification is present in the form of War Powers Act. It takes away any authority the President was given under any treaty, under any act, under any law to take this country's military to offense.

    Thus under the Treaty (part of US law), President has no such authority. The only Treaty that counts is that which is part of the US Law, not the UN Charter. So which Treaty did he use to enforce? No Treaty after being modified by War Powers Resolution gives him any authority of military action.

    WPA modifies all other treaties and gives the President ONLY these 3 conditions for military offense:

    1. Declaration of war (only Congress has that authority under the Constitution)
    2. Specific Statutory Authorization (only Congress can give it per WPA itself)
    3. US attacked, and President defends the country

    Conditions 1 and 3 don't apply to Libya. Only thing left is Specific Statutory Authorization, which according to me was never given, but according to you S.RES 85 was authorization, even though 'any means necessary' does not constitute anything 'specific' or the use of military offense.

    Even if it was, then the explicit voting down of the Libya attacks removed any such implicit authorization of Obama's action.

    At the present then, none of the conditions of the War Powers Act are met, and thus he doesn't even have 60 days, as that is only applicable under condition 3 for obvious reasons since 1 and 2 already give Congressional approval. But condition 3 doesn't apply to Libya.

    Even yet, you want to protect Obama, for the sake of argument he has 60 days- but that time has expired.

    The President is in clear breach of US Law AND Constitution, as WPA defines how Congress states the constitutional powers, breaking which means breaching the Constitution.

    There is no argument that can defend him. At this very moment, forget about initially, he is breaking US law.
    Last edited by 786; 10-04-11 at 08:46 PM.

  7. #207
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Here's the thing though - Congress has explicitly taken away the POTUS specific authority to take military actions as required by ANY treaty prior or after the War Powers Act

    Let me requote it for you:

    Putting it together for you: "Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities....shall NOT be inferred....from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless.........is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing....armed forces into hostilities...and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization WITHIN the meaning of this chapter" (which being Congressional approval of the action as was seen in the other clause).

    So all of what you 'drew' from that 1945/1949 Act is superseded by the War Powers Resolution as ITSELF states that it supersedes others by making it quite clear 'from any treaty heretofore or hereafter'....

    And in the War Powers Act, any military offense, there is no exception noted (doesn't matter what UN calls their action), is subject to Congressional authority. That there must be a SPECIFIC authorization that is IMPLEMENTED BY LEGISLATION (only Congress has Power to Legislate- Constitution again).
    Couple of points here, the UN Charter was ratified on July 28 1945 when the Senate voted 89-2 in agreement to the US signing onto it.

    The UN Participation act does not represent the ratification of the treaty, it represents a US law passed by the Congress to enable the POTUS to fulfill the obligations of the US under the UN Charter. I was not inferring the authority from the treaty itself, but from American law, which the legislation you're quoting is silent on. The UNPA represents legislation specifically authorizing the POTUS to take certain measures in response to requests from the UN Security Council. The UNPA does not, in and of itself, represent the ratification of the UN Charter - which was achieved by the senate vote, and the signing of the charter.

    Furthermore, if we accept your interpretation of the War Powers Act, as you've posted it here, then the War Powers Act should be deemed unconstitutional because it prevents the POTUS from fulilling his duties in meeting his treaty obligations (short of a declaration of war), as laid out in the Constitution. Are you advocating that the POTUS should take an unconstitutional action?

    Finally, there's Section 8 of the WPA to consider:

    (b) Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Which has already been the case, its been more than 60 days, which I've repeatedly said before. So does need congressional approval now (time ran out), yet he still continues to do so. Is this not breaking the law?
    And I have stated that I would address when I was ready.
    The answer is not as straight forward as it might seem, because while the House voted against a plane which reccomended, IIRC the continuation of 'front line' activities, they also voted against a bill which would have cut the funding to the operations in Libya, which would have forced the withdrawl of US forces, and in July, IIRC, a bill which enabled the US armed forces to continue to operate at the support level they were operating at that time was passed (E-WAR, AWACS, Logistics (eg Mid air refuelling), Recon (incl Drones), and so on). The argument is that even by June, the support role that the US had placed it self did not constitute hostilities QED authorization was irrelevant.

    So then my answer to your question would be that it is somewhat of a grey area, and dependant on a number of things, like, for example, the exact nature of US participation in Libya in support of NATO.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Secondly even the 60 day policy is a secondary rule as it applies once the President has taken action already.. But according the War Powers Act the action, initial, ITSELF must result from these conditions:

    The 60 day policy would only be applicable to 3. The President taking action in defense of the country without prior approval, he would seek approval at a later time. Which makes perfect sense. In the case of Libya none of the conditions were met. So there is a breach even there, but even if you don't consider it a breach considering S.RES 85 as authorization, even though there is no specific authorization to commit military force ('any means necessary' is not specific) then the President is now breaching the 60 day rule after the continuation of war was not authorized. He can not use NATO or UN as an escape route because the War Powers Act itself has imposed its condition on 'any treaty' which it can legally do.

    You could argue the President has the power to enforce treaties. But the problem with this argument is that the War Powers Act specifically states that it overrides any treaty when it comes to the military, and giving the President only 3 ways (above) to use the force.
    One of which was the requirement of specific congressional authorization, which was given in the UNPA, which the WPA is

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    The modification is present in the form of War Powers Act. It takes away any authority the President was given under any treaty, under any act, under any law to take this country's military to offense. It gives the President ONLY these 3 conditions for military offense:

    1. Declaration of war (only Congress has that authority under the Constitution)
    2. Specific Statutory Authorization (only Congress can give it per WPA itself)
    3. US attacked, and President defends the country

    Conditions 1 and 3 don't apply to Libya. Only thing left is Specific Statutory Authorization, which according to me was never given, but according to you S.RES 85 was authorization, even though 'any means necessary' does not constitute anything 'specific' or the use of military offense.
    Yes it does, it urges the UN Security Council to implement a no fly zone, which can only be done if force is exercised QED.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Even if it was, then the explicit voting down of the Libya attacks removed any such implicit authorization of Obama's action.
    The POTUS's proposal was voted down, but so was the measure to cut funding. Essentially Congress voted to end air strikes, and missile strikes, but to continue non-aggressive support such as AWACS, EWAR and Logistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    At the present then, none of the conditions of the War Powers Act are met, and thus he doesn't even have 60 days, as that is only applicable under condition 3 for obvious reasons since 1 and 2 already give Congressional approval. But condition 3 doesn't apply to Libya.
    Assuming first that he is currently undertaking actions that involve US forces in hostilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Even yet, you want to protect Obama, for the sake of argument he has 60 days- but that time has expired.
    Last resort of a feeble mind, you need to get over yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    The President is in clear breach of US Law AND Constitution, as WPA defines how Congress states the constitutional powers, breaking which means breaching the Constitution.
    The same law that places - in your own words - the ratification of a treaty in the hands of congress, rather than the POTUS where the constitution places it, thus making the law itself uncontsitutional? (something, incidentally, which every president since Nixon has said, regardless of political affiliation).

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    There is no argument that can defend him. At this very moment, forget about initially, he is breaking US law.
    And as Tiassa predicted, you've shifted tack.

    This conversation is rapidly loosing its entertainment value for me.

    Consdering whether or not the WPA is unconstitutional, incidentaly, is where we come full circle back to Joe Pistols point about the POTUS being Commander in Chief, and - short of a declaration of war, being free to deploy and use his troops as such.
    Last edited by Trippy; 10-04-11 at 09:20 PM.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by joepistole View Post
    Under Libertarian policies we would be back in the stoneage.
    You like to say this all the time. Of course there is ZERO evidence that this would have been the case, and is ample evidence of EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Take Iceland and Argentina as two examples.


    So, please specifically define "Stone Age" and what American society would look like living in the "Stone Age" if we hadn't bailed out the so-called Too-Big-Too-Fail.

    Would we still have written language Joe? How about electricity? Cars, would they still function? Would we still understand math? Yes, tell me how exactly things would have been. NOT under your perceived notions of Libertarian's Utopia, but 5 years from 2008, if we hadn't bailed out the Banks. Describe this "Stone Age" Americans would be living in.

  9. #209
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Couple of points here, the UN Charter was ratified on July 28 1945 when the Senate voted 89-2 in agreement to the US signing onto it.

    The UN Participation act does not represent the ratification of the treaty, it represents a US law passed by the Congress to enable the POTUS to fulfill the obligations of the US under the UN Charter. I was not inferring the authority from the treaty itself, but from American law, which the legislation you're quoting is silent on. The UNPA represents legislation specifically authorizing the POTUS to take certain measures in response to requests from the UN Security Council. The UNPA does not, in and of itself, represent the ratification of the UN Charter - which was achieved by the senate vote, and the signing of the charter

    Furthermore, if we accept your interpretation of the War Powers Act, as you've posted it here, then the War Powers Act should be deemed unconstitutional because it prevents the POTUS from fulilling his duties in meeting his treaty obligations (short of a declaration of war), as laid out in the Constitution. Are you advocating that the POTUS should take an unconstitutional action?
    No because, the part you didn't respond to, Supreme court has ruled that the Congress can UNILATERALLY change Treaties and that Treaties are part of US Law.

    The War Power Resolution explicitly states that 'any treaty' can not infer these powers. Thus War Power Resolution modified any such power under any treaty. Thus neither is it unconstitutional, due to the ruling of Supreme Court that the Congress can change treaties, now there is no Treaty that gives President the power to use military action.


    One of which was the requirement of specific congressional authorization, which was given in the UNPA, which the WPA is
    That authorization was taken from UNPA by the WPA as it states it. WPA requires 'specific' authorization for those actions, and that it must be implemented by legislation itself. That is for every military action UN wants to get US involved in, a legislation must be passed by Congress. This is how WPA has modified it. UNPA doesn't matter because it is abrogated by WPA. The presence of that clause is a testament to this fact, otherwise making it unnecessary.

    Yes it does, it urges the UN Security Council to implement a no fly zone, which can only be done if force is exercised QED.
    That is no specific authorizing of the use of US troops. All members of UN sent their troops to Libya? That resolution only ask that the UN should do all that is necessary, how do you know that this means that the US (not other members of UN) should use its military power? That is jumping to conclusion.

    This is not how statutory authorization is ever given. A bill directed at the UN, is not an authorization for the US. UN is a separate entity. US is a separate entity.

    It has to be a 'specific' authorization for the President (US) to do engage in something.

    The POTUS's proposal was voted down, but so was the measure to cut funding. Essentially Congress voted to end air strikes, and missile strikes, but to continue non-aggressive support such as AWACS, EWAR and Logistics.
    The WPA says that if neither a declaration of war, or authorization is given for the action itself, then the President must end it in 60 days.

    Or at any given time Congress can legislate with a concurrent resolution and end it unilaterally.

    That is Congress doesn't need to vote against the war. The deadline takes effects itself. Has Congress recognized to have given authority for the military action itself. No in fact they voted it down. The War Powers Resolution doesn't say that the President needs 'funding' it says it needs Congressional authority. The fact that Congress is willing to fund doesn't do crap in terms of looking at the law.

    Did Congress give him authority? No. End of story. Whether they keep funding the President is not subject to the War Powers Resolution. It does not change the fact he is in breach of it since he has no authority which the War Powers Resolution demands was ever given


    Assuming first that he is currently undertaking actions that involve US forces in hostilities.
    Well that is hard to say now because US in involved in providing NATO intelligence whether that includes them in hostilities I don't know.

    And you could say then that we don't know about 'currently' if the President is in breach.

    Then let me ask you was he ever in breach? The President asked for Congressional approval on the deadline date. (Which actually proves he never had it before, otherwise why is he asking )
    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-20/p..._s=PM:POLITICS
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ssional-autho/

    Then a report was sent to Congress roughly a month later:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us...pagewanted=all

    Even the House Speaker was questioning the President of his authority at this point, given the deadline was passed and it seems he didn't recognize any legislation having passed that gave him any authority to put Armed forces in hostilities.

    Libyan forces are unable to exchange fire with them meaningfully
    Taken from the nytimes above. However 'meaningful' it may be, the fact remains they are being put at risk of hostilities.

    Let me requote the WPA again:
    Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred—
    Thus even if hostilities can even be indicated (possible) by circumstances (it is a war), it is not authorized. First of all the Administration does not have the power to define 'hostilities' as 'meaningful' or not.

    Thus it can be shown that at least a month after the deadline, the troops were subject to hostilities.

    During this period, was he in breach of the War Powers Resolution?

    The same law that places - in your own words - the ratification of a treaty in the hands of congress, rather than the POTUS where the constitution places it, thus making the law itself uncontsitutional? (something, incidentally, which every president since Nixon has said, regardless of political affiliation).
    One thing you don't understand is that the Constitution means and says what the Supreme Court says it says. The power to interpret the Constitution in legality lies with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congress can unilaterally change treaties. The President only has the power to enforce Treaties, and can only create them by Senate consent. WPA was the Senate CHANGING any and all treaties as they dealt with military offense.

    What you believe the POTUS holds is meaningless if the Supreme Court rules that Congress can change treaties. Supreme Court is the only authority when it comes to the Constitution, so the act can't possibly be unconstitutional.

    So the modified Treaty does not include those military powers. Sure the President can enforce the Treaties, but those treaties no longer present him with those military powers to enforce. As for the constitutionality of WPA, unless it is challenged and stated by the Supreme Court to be such it is to this day the LAW OF THE LAND. And Obama, in the press, has said already that they don't believe WPA is unconstitutional. So keep asserting all you want, but I'd like evidence that it is unconstitutional- only way to show that is by the Supreme Court ruling. And again the President has not asserted it to be unconstitutional either. What previous Presidents believe is irrelevant, they should have challenged it in the Supreme Court for a decision. If not, then it is still the law whether you like it or not.

    This conversation is rapidly loosing its entertainment value for me.
    Its hard to defend, thus hard to win, thus not entertaining for you.

    Was he in breach of the War Powers Resolution from the time of the deadline, without any authorization (proven by the fact that he asked for it) to the time he stopped the involvement in hostility situations, which lasted after the deadline?
    Last edited by 786; 10-05-11 at 03:07 AM.

  10. #210
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Its hard to defend, thus hard to win, thus not entertaining for you.
    In truth? No. Your assertion is something of an antithesis to the truth.

    In truth, I find a good debate enjoyable, and a challenge inspiring, and have done so since early in my childhood. Those topics which I find challenging, I tend to excel at - hence my interest in the sciences, and one of the reasons I enjoy my job - because it's challenging.

    This conversation is failing to hold my interest because thus far all my interlocuter has done is regurgitate the party-line. It's dull, dreary and predictable. What makes it worse is my interlocutor is unable to conduct himself in a reasonable fashion, resorting to inane vapid commentary such as this:
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Even yet, you want to protect Obama, for the sake of argument he has 60 days- but that time has expired.
    And is seemingly incapable of following through the logical consequences of his actions, to the degree where I find myself left wondering. "Is Tiassa right? Are you just trolling? In it to try and get a rise? Or is he wrong, and do you instead represent the low-IQ demographic that recent election results suggest that 'conservative libertarianism' appeals to?"

    As to addressing the rest of what you have had tol say? On the one hand I am tempted to leave it stand unchallenged as a monument to the stupidity inherent in your position.

    On the other hand, I may yet decide to respond to it, but in truth, I simply tire of American politics and the vapid discourse that it seems to generate.

  11. #211
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    First of all you don't even know that Supreme Court decides constitutionality, and instead of actually 'reading' what I said, you reiterated your own opinion over the opinion of Supreme Court. Who's the stupid one here?

    You keep quoting 'treaties' when they hold no relevance once modified. Any evidence you have that Congress can't modify them? No, then shut the hell up about treaties..

    Do you have evidence that the President can go to war, legally, for more than 60 days without congressional approval?

    Do you have evidence that S.RES 85 was the authorization for the President (event though it was directed to UN)? Then tell me why did Obama seeks approval later on if he already had it?

    Instead of using opinion, I would like you to back it up with evidence. Show to me that Congress cannot modify Treaties when Supreme Court says it can.

    The truth is you're out of tricks. Ad hominem are a good choice at this point.

    And as for Tiassa, she's still trying to reconcile Obama's unconstitutional defense of State's right to define and recognize marriage. Leave her alone for now, it must be heartbreaking
    Last edited by 786; 10-05-11 at 03:57 AM.

  12. #212
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    In fact you can't challenge it. You responded to comments I made to my second last post.
    Yes, I could if I chose to, I choose not to. Do you understand the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    First of all you don't even know that Supreme Court decides constitutionality, and instead of actually 'reading' what I said, you reiterated your own opinion over the opinion of Supreme Court.
    Actually, I'm well aware of that, just as I'm aware that the WPA has yet to be tested in the supreme court. The only comment that I made in this regard was that every president since it was introduced has stated they believed it to be unconstitutional, and illustrated how it might be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Who's the stupid one here?
    This is a trick question right? The answer to this is bordering on tautological. Clearly it's you. Based on your performance in this thread, and in your discussion with me, and based on the fact that during the 2004 election, the median of the average IQ's of the states held by Republicans was 92, and you appear to be a republican supporter, so empericaly the answer is still you :shrugs:.

    I mean - you're not even smart enough to realize that when you're going to try and flame someone that you're better off avoiding open ended statements, especially ones that can be so trivially turned against you.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    You keep quoting 'treaties' when they hold no relevance once modified. Any evidence you have that Congress can't modify them? No, then shut the hell up about treaties..
    How about this bit:
    Nothing in this chapter—
    (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties;
    which explicitly states that nothing in the WPA is intended to alter the provisions of existing treaties?

    Do you have evidence that the President can go to war, legally, for more than 60 days without congressional approval?

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Do you have evidence that S.RES 85 was the authorization for the President (event though it was directed to UN)? Then tell me why did Obama seeks approval later on if he already had it?
    Same reason, perhaps, he produced his birth certificate in the end - appeasment.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Instead of using opinion, I would like you to back it up with evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Show to me that Congress cannot modify Treaties when Supreme Court says it can.
    No, because that is not my stance, and nothing I have stated actually even implies this - in otherwords, it's a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    The truth is you're out of tricks. Ad hominem are a good choice at this point.

    Shall I go through this thread an collect your ad-homs for you?
    Saying that I can't be bothered because I've had it with the stupid, does not in any way imply that I'm 'out of tricks', it simply suggests I'm bored with this conversation and the vapid retoric my interlocutor insists on regurgitating.

    Maybe we can do a David Letterman thing
    Top Ten reasons 786 is a hypocrit...

  13. #213
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    I'm not a Republican. Secondly nice response.

    Peace

  14. #214
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    I'm not a Republican.
    And yet here's what I actually said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    and you appear to be a republican supporter, so empericaly the answer is still you :shrugs:.
    I've emphasized the salient points for you.

    You don't need to be a card carrying member of the republican party to be a Republican supporter, or are you saying you no longer support Ron Paul?

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Secondly nice response.
    Peace
    Thanks, I think.

  15. #215
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    Ron Paul is a RINO. He is probably a Libertarian in the truest sense. He only runs Republican because of the American political system is so biased against other parties. He was the 1988 Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

    I don't dwell too much on labels. I only support policies I agree with, not labels.

    I voted for Obama in fact. I usually don't mention this because I always like to hear the other side calling me a racist and so forth.

    It is a common phenomenon that in political debate the other side is always despicable even if you know nothing of their intentions and reasons for supporting policy. To most liberals conservatives just want to protect rich people and love war. For most conservatives liberals just want to take their money away and want socialism.

    This is exactly why I have said the American political debate is a Football match. Unless, and until we strip ourselves of labels and think independently this country will be in hell soon enough.

    I'm not a libertarian. I just support Ron Paul because of his policies. To me his 'labeling' was never of any interest.

    I disagree with Ron Paul on issues that I would not support and would not hesitate to go against them if need be. But on the most important issues that face this country, I agree with his policies and can trust him as well due to his voting record being in-line with his policies.

    It is a sad truth that many people in this country vote solely based on the R or D next to their names. To them the prospect of giving the other guy a chance doesn't even cross their mind because they have been politically brainwashed of the other side, also known as the dark side. This goes both ways.

  16. #216
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    Ron Paul is a RINO. He is probably a Libertarian in the truest sense. He only runs Republican because of the American political system is so biased against other parties. He was the 1988 Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
    I'm unfamiliar with RINO, but I was aware he ran as a Libertarian candidate, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    I voted for Obama in fact. I usually don't mention this because I always like to hear the other side calling me a racist and so forth.
    Rather than blaming the other side, perhaps first you should reconsider those policies you support, or voice support for that cause others to apply that lable to you. I would advocate that for anybody, in fact, partake of some introspection before going on the attack, because the only person you wind up attacking may be yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    It is a common phenomenon that in political debate the other side is always despicable even if you know nothing of their intentions and reasons for supporting policy. To most liberals conservatives just want to protect rich people and love war. For most conservatives liberals just want to take their money away and want socialism.
    I'm a centrist. I'm a centrist by choice, I'm a centrist by design, although I tend to sit slightly left and libertarian of center. I would tend to advocate most things in moderation, except on occasion where circumstance requires extreme measures. In truth, the attitude I find most irritating when discussing politics, especially with Americans is one that Tiassa nailed on the head, once upon a time, the attitude of "If you're not with me, you're with them" in so much as because I don't lean as far to the left as some people obviously I'm a member of the right wing.

    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    This is exactly why I have said the American political debate is a Football match. Unless, and until we strip ourselves of labels and think independently this country will be in hell soon enough.
    Ditch the constitution. No, Seriously, find some other way of defining yourself, or make another ammendment to it. Ditch the bicarmeral legislature, adopt one house, and introduce some proportional representation, for example MMP. In NZ anybody can get into parliment, as long as they can win a seat, or their party can muster at least 5% of the national vote. Most of the seats are generally split between the Labour Party, and the National Party, but typically there's something like 6 other parties that earn seats, and having the support of those parties can determine whether or not a bill passes.

    Funny story though, there was this one time, when I was at band camp... Back in the good old days when we still operated under 'First Past the Post', there was one election where a 'third party' managed to get the majority of seats in the parliment, because everybody in the country got fed up with National and Labour, and decided to make their vote a 'throw away vote' by voting for a third party. Just everybody decided to vote for the same third party.

  17. #217
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    I don't see a reason to ditch the constitution, and I don't see that being practical currently anyways

  18. #218
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,950
    Quote Originally Posted by 786 View Post
    I don't see a reason to ditch the constitution, and I don't see that being practical currently anyways
    Well, I did also propose amending it instead of ditching it.

  19. #219
    Searching for Truth 786's Avatar
    Posts
    3,084
    I'm all in favor of amending it, but our current politician certainly won't for the reasons I want. And its a pretty difficult process.
    Last edited by 786; 10-05-11 at 12:58 PM.

  20. #220
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    In other words, you haven't been paying attention at all in this thread? You know, while I've been trying to explain why I hold this opinion?
    I have been paying attention but so far I have stayed in the sidelines so to speak because I dont waste my time in nonsense which you offer.
    Your thesis why Ron Paul cant gain enough support to be serious candidate fall apart when under scrutiny. Your two reasons for it was, the man himself, and hes supporters.

    First of all, he is gaining much of support right now.

    Heavily speculated as a possible Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential election, Paul appeared in the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll.
    Paul won the poll, defeating Mitt Romney, who had won it the previous three years.
    Paul also won the 2011 CPAC straw poll with 30 percent of the vote.
    Following that, he also won the paid, online Arizona Tea Party Patriots straw poll on
    February 28, 2011 with 49% of the vote.

    He participated in a debate on June 13, 2011 at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
    On June 18, 2011, Paul won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference
    straw poll with 41%, winning by a large margin on Jon Huntsman, who trailed second with 25% and Michele Bachmann with 13% (Mitt Romney came in fifth with 5%).
    On June 19 he again won the Clay County Iowa StrawPoll with 25%, while Michele Bachmann trailed second with 12%.
    Paul also participated in another debate on August 11, 2011, in Ames, Iowa, and overwhelmingly won the post-debate polls.
    He then came in second in the Ames Straw Poll with 4,671 votes,
    narrowly losing to Michele Bachmann by 152 votes or 9 tenths of 1 percent, a statistical first-place tie finish according to some in the news media.
    He received the fourth most votes for a candidate in the history of the Ames Straw Poll.
    On August 20, in the New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll Paul came again first, again overwhelmingly, with 45%, Mitt Romney trailing second with 10%.
    On August 27, in the Georgia State GOP Straw Poll Paul came in a close second place behind Georgia resident Herman Cain, who had 26% of the vote, with Paul receiving 25.7%
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau...campaign,_2012

    Pretty strong support I would say, so your thesis look pretty shaky from the start, but lets go on to the reasons.

    So according to you he cant gain enough support because he is himself, Ron Paul, that reasoning alone is pretty mindboggling, specially when scuritinizing the reasons you think it is not good to be Ron Paul.
    Your reasons; He is aligned himself with white supremacist.

    (quote from your link)

    "Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us...I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency," the [Storm Front] endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul's plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

    "Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist," the endorsement continues. "Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008."

    So you hold against Paul that someone agrees with him about taxes, closing the borders and NAFTA.

    Tiassa
    In his defense, Paul supporters argue that the newsletters, often presented as if they came from the congressman's desk, and often published by a company he owned a stake in, were written without his oversight, and therefore he didn't know what was in them. Plausible deniability. We know, then, what we can expect from Ron Paul as president. So much for personal accountability. All he ever did was blindly reap a bitter harvest. What his people do in his name is not his problem, but only his profit.
    This makes him a racist ? Dare to show some other evidence about it than this obscure incident ?

    And what comes to hes alleged racism and profiting from it I let the man himself explain.
    (I know that you have something against youtube clips but in my opinion its much more objective approach than picking biased articles which seems to be your modus operandi)

    Racism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

    Donations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI

    He makes strong cases on both accounts. Dare to challenge hes reasoning ?

    Lets see what other nonsense you offer about Ron Paul.

    Tiassa
    Being a conservative libertarian, generally, means advocating the liberty to practice homophobia, misogyny, racism, and other bigotries in living effect; the liberty to exploit workers with poor wages and unsafe working conditions; the liberty to strap on whatever lethal weapons one wishes to possess and carry.
    What a bunch of nonsensical hyperbole, thats all I have to say about that.

    Tiassa
    All of your, or Ron Paul's talk about why I should be happy and what Ron Paul is trying to do overlooks the fact that Ron Paul doesn't actually give a shit about the U.S. Constitution.
    This comment you made was about the gay marriage issue, to which I replied...

    Are you serious ? Because of this gay marriage issue & constitution, he is unfit for president ? Then tell me, is there candidate in this race who take constitution more seriously than him ? Everybody is crapping on the document, but when Paul does it in this gay marriage issue its something else. Mindboggling.
    Lets see what Obama and others have to say about constitution...

    (skip to two minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NhcI8Fv_4E

    and never got answered.

    Its really hard to take you seriously specially when you are spinning the following nonsense.

    Tiassa
    Meanwhile, let us simply state it clearly: This isn't really about libertarianism for you, is it? It's about stopping Obama, and your encouragement of racism.
    It think that reflects your fears rather than your sincere thoughts, fear that Ron Paul might actually get the republican ticket and in the final stage he exposes Obamas vague politics.

    And this spinner

    Tiassa
    Wasting time is exactly what seems to be going on. I'm starting to think these aren't really Paul supporters, but provocateurs whose chosen mission is to discredit the Congressman, his campaign, and his supporters.
    You are accusing Paul supporters for the very same thing you are doing.
    Thats really rich.
    You have way with the words, its a shame you dont use that gift wisely, you are far from being objective and reasoned.

    So, lets see the another reason in your thesis, Ron Paul supporters.

    You are painting a picture that all if not large segment of Ron Paul supporters are as following; thruthers, white supremacist and what else.

    Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers

    In this campaign, Paul is getting more donations from people who work for the military than either President Obama or any of the other Republican presidential candidates.
    That analysis comes from Paul's campaign and was confirmed recently by Politifact, the fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times.
    http://content.usatoday.com/communit...#uslPageReturn

    Support from black males
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJ9ZITd2rs

    RON PAUL: Why Blacks & People Of Color Should Vote For Him
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_F...eature=related

    Ron Paul supporters
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS3xm...eature=related

    Celebrity Ron Paul Supporters Speak Out (John Mayer, Vince Vaughn, Clint Eastwood, Joe Rogan. . .)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eK_zLD8hw4

    "Ron Paul Has The Deepest Support I've Seen In Decades!"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vh_qkIdA4A

    And thats was just a scratch, supporters coming from every segment of the society.

    Maybe its time to pull your head out of the sand and see what is really going on in the world. Or do you really think that they all are some tea party whackos, thruthers, KKK and what not.

    Tiassa
    Not much I can do for ye there.
    I dont mind, I dont think that I can turn your head around about Ron Paul,
    I think you have made up your mind long ago and so on you are hopelessly biased. Some objectivity was all that I wanted from you, all this is for the other readers who might actually be interested of Ron Paul and hes policies.

    One thing you have to admit, without Ron Paul there wouldnt be so much interest about constitution, which is demonstrated well in this thread.

    Tiassa
    And yet your opinion seems a bit uninformed, as you apparently have no clue what is actually going on in this thread.
    You are entitled to your opinion.

    Tiassa
    But if you would like to change people's opinions, perhaps you could start writing coherent arguments and not just telling people to go watch YouTube, especially when pointing to clips of Ron Paul dodging the fundamental issues of his positions.
    I´m not a political hack, I trust people enough that they can draw their own conclusions when objective information presented.
    Coherent arguments, right...

    What are those fundamental issues and how is he dodging ?
    Want to make coherent arguments about that ?
    Last edited by eyeswideshut; 10-05-11 at 02:45 PM. Reason: link added, typos

Similar Threads

  1. By wynn in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 08-05-10, 01:55 PM
    Replies: 28
  2. By Tiassa in forum Politics
    Last Post: 01-13-08, 10:34 PM
    Replies: 120
  3. By ashura in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-17-07, 11:45 AM
    Replies: 0
  4. By Fraggle Rocker in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-01-07, 05:41 AM
    Replies: 64

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •