Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[chizzle]

Here is a video of Ron's performance at last night's GOP debate:

http://youtu.be/BjvuHuekq64

I thought Ron did ok; not so sure how effective his question to Herman Cain was. While he made a valid point, it seemed more like he was frustrated by Herman's comments and that he used the word "ignorant" when he shouldn't have. At least at this point, I haven't heard any audio where Herman actually used the word "ignorant" (he implied it, but didn't say it outright) so that makes Paul look like he's trying to create an issue. I still support Ron, but I thought he could have handled that a little better.

 

[steveh_131]

Yea, that's what I thought. Your badges have been accumulated for being a "funny man".......... Not for any realistic comparison of the facts.

Who cares about badges?

But yes, I am very very funny and charming

And I posted statistics that strongly suggest that his 99.9% number has no basis in fact. He has contributed none that suggest otherwise.

 

[J_Wales]

fearless leader demonstrates on a regular basis that he is a clear and present danger to the republic.... and now this.

What exactly does this mfer think he is, a king?

Somebody should remind fearless leader that we had a king at one time.... it did not turn out so well for him.

The end of fearless leader's disservice to the republic cannot come too soon.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I've read quite a few of your posts, sir........ and you seem to me like a reasonable and intelligent guy.

So, why this 'cheap shot' post?

When people roll up to a heated internet discussion with 18lbs of poorly-formed opinions in a 12lb box & start talking about something being "one of their degrees"...well...the mayor sends up a signal that shines upon the clouds & I come running.

 

[GREEN607]

When people roll up to a heated internet discussion with 18lbs of poorly-formed opinions in a 12lb box & start talking about something being "one of their degrees"...well...the mayor sends up a signal that shines upon the clouds & I come running.

Ok, fair enough.

Just wondering.... because Bitter may actually have more than one degree. My late Dad had 3 college degrees. One from Purdue, Bachelor of Science- Electricity; and two from Northwestern, Bachelor of Arts-Industrial Arts Education and Master of Science- Electricity.... (he taught Electricity in secondary education and at General Motors). He was also president of the Chicago area Teachers Union for 6 years.

But he wasn't a BS'er or a liberal or a dem either one. He was quite the conservative, voted for and donated money to the likes of Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush I....... and was an avid shooter and gun collector.

Just sounded to me like you were putting BitterClinger in a proverbial 'box'..... and I doubt you really know him or her.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Just sounded to me like you were putting BitterClinger in a proverbial 'box'..... and I doubt you really know him or her.

Loud, repetitive proclamations of Sarah Palin's "greatness" combined with internet-warrior'esque claims of superfluous credentials = the special brown box (w/ corn & peanuts). That said, I do not hold people into boxes against their will & they're more than welcome to relocate themselves at any time.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

I could care less whether the toothless basement dwellers believe I have a mathematics degree. They also probably won't believe I'm an aerospace engineer with a secret security clearance working for a major defense contractor. Both are true, but I'm not going to post my resume.

As I have said before, when liberals cannot refute the facts, they attack the messenger.

Did any of you even bother to look at the link I posted? Or are you just ignoring it? Here it is again.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

Our resident historian Mr. Bummer might find it interesting that more people are killed EVERY YEAR by muslim terrorists than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

As I have said before, when liberals cannot refute the facts, they attack the messenger.

And what do you call it when you ignore the questions, refuting your facts?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And what do you call it when you ignore the questions, refuting your facts?

Not for nothing, but questions don't refute facts. Evidence does.

While BCs presentation may be a bit hyperbolic at times, I don't think it is difficult to establish to a reasonable person that for 1,300 years there has been a holy book that has called for the demise or subjugation or non-believers, and that for 1,300 years believers have attempted to implement its vision.

 

[yotewacker]

If it quacks like a duck walks like a duck, then its a duck.
If he ran with terrorist, lived with terrorist, and trained with terrorist, then he gave up his US citizenship. He is fair game.

It's time to draw a line in the sand. You cross it, your no longer on our side.

 

[Bummer]

OK, but what about all the attacks on American embassies in recent years. What about the Muslim terrorist attacks on Great Britain (our ally), and France (our ally), and Spain (our ally), etc, etc , etc ???

They don't count because you don't want them to, or because you don't care about our allies in the 'war on terror'? Or what?

And as far as the attacks on our troops not counting.... because "we're sorta at war".... then NONE OF THEM COUNT, because most of the entire 'free world' is at war with these creeps.

So let's count them. I'm just fine with it. How many have there been? 4000?

Attacks on troops are acts of war. Terrorism, back when it was a word that had meaning, was an act of violence against civilians aimed at forcing political change. Today terrorism has come to include acts by nearly anyone a government does not like.

Can you show me a Declaration of War by the US Congress against these so called terrorists? Certainly you can show me a declaration of kill, but unlike all of the early Declarations of War, this one does not use those terms. It has only been in the modern era that the Congress quit actually Declaring War. Legal Scholars say that's alright. I am confused about how that can be. The Constitution says that the Congress can "declare war" not "send people out to kill". Article Ten of the Amendments says they may not do anything not authorized. They are not authorized to simply kill people, only declare war. In fact there are specific requirements, unfulfilled in this case, for the government killing US citizens. According to the reports there was a discussion about whether it would be legal for the drone to be piloted by a CIA agent, so it would seem that some of those distinctions still matter to someone.

Now, how many foreign acts fulfill the requirement of an attack against civilians for political ends? I'd love to add them to the list.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So let's count them. I'm just fine with it. How many have there been? 4000?

Attacks on troops are acts of war. Terrorism, back when it was a word that had meaning, was an act of violence against civilians aimed at forcing political change. Today terrorism has come to include acts by nearly anyone a government does not like.

Can you show me a Declaration of War by the US Congress against these so called terrorists? Certainly you can show me a declaration of kill, but unlike all of the early Declarations of War, this one does not use those terms. It has only been in the modern era that the Congress quit actually Declaring War. Legal Scholars say that's alright. I am confused about how that can be. The Constitution says that the Congress can "declare war" not "send people out to kill". Article Ten of the Amendments says they may not do anything not authorized. They are not authorized to simply kill people, only declare war. In fact there are specific requirements, unfulfilled in this case, for the government killing US citizens. According to the reports there was a discussion about whether it would be legal for the drone to be piloted by a CIA agent, so it would seem that some of those distinctions still matter to someone.

Now, how many foreign acts fulfill the requirement of an attack against civilians for political ends? I'd love to add them to the list.

A difference without a distinction.

They are exactly the same thing. You just really don't like the verbage.

 

[Bummer]

SOME muslims just like SOME Christians?

Yes, some. It would seem you have not noticed that not all Muslims are out killing people, just as not all Christians kill people or constantly fling insults.

There is no point in continuing a discussion

Yet here we are...

with somebody who doesn't see that with few exceptions muslims are responsible for the terrorism in the world.

As I've asked in other posts, drag out the statistics. I'll be happy to add them to the 6% in the US. I'll go world wide, I just don't want to make up statistics.

THEY are the only religious group waging a holy war against all who don't share their beliefs.

Perhaps so. In fact, I'm inclined to agree, though I do not know that to be a fact. Do you have any actual statistics?

You are either incapable of or unwilling to acknowledge the truth,

I'll happily acknowledge it as soon as you show that you speak truth.

because it doesn't fit with your utopian little liberal world.

Ahh, more insults. How sadly typical. Do you fling them in Jesus' name and expect to gain Heaven Points? That's certainly not JC's style. Are you sure he approves?

I'm a libertarian (note the lower case L, it matters), not a liberal. That makes me more conservative than a mere CINO.

And - since you like quoting the Bible, Luke 22:35-37. Wrestle with that one.

No wrestling needed. Old argument. It would seem that your Biblical education is rather superficial. I'm shocked. Shocked I say. I'll see your Luke and raise you Matthew 26:52-53. Oh ye of little faith.

 

[Bummer]

A difference without a distinction.

They are exactly the same thing. You just really don't like the verbage.

You've said that words have no real meaning before. I do not agree. If it did not matter why did the writers of the Constitution use the words they did? They certainly argued over other subtleties, as you have pointed out in the past.

If there is no distinction why were the words used for so many years in prior Declarations of War?

Congress gets to "declare war". Seems to me it's time for them to grow a pair and actually Declare War. Or they can just continue to do as they please because lawyers have argued that they can over and over until most have forgotten that they may not.

 

[Bummer]

And thats all you got? This is for you and the rest of the muslim apologists.

I'll forgive the attempted insult, yet again. In spite of my accused atheist status, I'm oddly able to forgive. (Lesson anyone?)

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

Thanks for posting that. It'll take some time do actually study it, but I will. I'll be happy to add the numbers into the total count.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You've said that words have no real meaning before. I do not agree. If it did not matter why did the writers of the Constitution use the words they did? They certainly argued over other subtleties, as you have pointed out in the past.

If there is no distinction why were the words used for so many years in prior Declarations of War?

Congress gets to "declare war". Seems to me it's time for them to grow a pair and actually Declare War. Or they can just continue to do as they please because lawyers have argued that they can over and over until most have forgotten that they may not.

Do we want to play how many ways can we say declare war without using those words?

The Constitution empowers Congress to declare war. It does not enforce on Congress what a Declaration of War entails, includes, requires, nor the verbiage necessary to meet constitutional muster.

There is a difference between make war and declare war, which is the subtlety of the language I have point out before. One is to initiate or meet hostilities while the other is a formal announcement to the other party and the world of an official state of war.

It is no secret why Congress does not use the term Declaration of War. It is political. But the words they chose do not lessen the intent or fail the Constitution in any way.

 

[Bummer]

I could care less

Let's analyze that statement. If one uses actual English, which anyone with multiple degrees should be capable of, one finds that it means that you do care. How could you care less if you did not care at all?

whether the toothless basement dwellers

Yet another not all that Christ like attempted insult. What a surprise.

believe I have a mathematics degree. They also probably won't believe I'm an aerospace engineer with a secret security clearance working for a major defense contractor. Both are true,

Of course they are. And I'm the Pope, trolling the internet forums for reputation. In an Indiana gun forum. Shhhh. Don't tell the Cardinals.

but I'm not going to post my resume.

Too late.

As I have said before, when liberals cannot refute the facts, they attack the messenger.

And here you are. Attacking yet again.

Did any of you even bother to look at the link I posted? Or are you just ignoring it? Here it is again.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

I'm sure it'll come as a shock, but it takes time to actually read things.

Our resident historian Mr. Bummer might find it interesting that more people are killed EVERY YEAR by muslim terrorists than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

So you haven't studied history? I even know that there was more than one Inquisition.

That looks a lot like another made-up statistic. Might be true, might not, I do not know yet. I have not had the time to look it up. None the less, I'll count 'em up when I can. I seek the truth, not the validation of my opinions. You should give it a try.

 

[Bummer]

Do we want to play how many ways can we say declare war without using those words?

It would appear that you do.

 

[steveh_131]

Not for nothing, but questions don't refute facts. Evidence does.

While BCs presentation may be a bit hyperbolic at times, I don't think it is difficult to establish to a reasonable person that for 1,300 years there has been a holy book that has called for the demise or subjugation or non-believers, and that for 1,300 years believers have attempted to implement its vision.

I don't have to provide evidence to dispute a number that he made up. That doesn't make any sense.

If I were to start up a thread saying "BitterClinger spends 7 hours per day watching 'Nailin Palin' and abusing himself", would you consider that to be fact until he provides us with cited research showing that he does not, in fact, do that? No. You wouldn't. The burden of proof would be on me because I made the assertion.

By the way, I agree with you that Muslims have been trying to force their religious views by force and violence for a very long time. I'm just annoyed that this yahoo is making up numbers and trying to pass them off as fact.

 

[Bummer]

While BCs presentation may be a bit hyperbolic at times,

At times?

I don't think it is difficult to establish to a reasonable person that for 1,300 years there has been a holy book that has called for the demise or subjugation or non-believers, and that for 1,300 years believers have attempted to implement its vision.

I absolutely agree, though I do not consider Al Qur'an to be a "holy book".

For those who question this assessment, the Gutenberg Project has several versions available at no charge. Just search for "koran".