I've gotta say... that may be the only thing that's come out of Ron Paul's mouth that I actually agree with.
Don't mean to derail the thread... but *** christ x.x republican candidates this year are just terrible. Only one I see that's half sensible is Huntsman, but I think he's too far on the liberal side of conservative to be elected.
first minute of that video explains 2 things as to why I cannot support him...
salvaging the constitution and a non imperialist FP?
he has very little understanding of the constitution and we should bring back imperialism...
Ron Paul is too much of an idealist and not enough of a realist...
I've gotta say... that may be the only thing that's come out of Ron Paul's mouth that I actually agree with.
Don't mean to derail the thread... but *** christ x.x republican candidates this year are just terrible. Only one I see that's half sensible is Huntsman, but I think he's too far on the liberal side of conservative to be elected.
first minute of that video explains 2 things as to why I cannot support him...
salvaging the constitution and a non imperialist FP?
he has very little understanding of the constitution and we should bring back imperialism...
Ron Paul is too much of an idealist and not enough of a realist...
we should certainly not bring back imperialism, and i recon that he has a better understanding of the constitution than many many other politicians.
he has little understanding of history if he thinks state rights trump federal rights, we had a civil war over this and we know who won.
they also tried limited federal government before the constitution was written, it didn't work so well, people forget this.
Also he obviously doesn't understand the constitution if he attempts to say the wars weren't authorized, while I disagree with them they were perfectly and legally authorized.
I can't watch it again to pick it apart because I'm in class but still..
he has little understanding of history if he thinks state rights trump federal rights, we had a civil war over this and we know who won.
they also tried limited federal government before the constitution was written, it didn't work so well, people forget this.
Also he obviously doesn't understand the constitution if he attempts to say the wars weren't authorized, while I disagree with them they were perfectly and legally authorized.
I can't watch it again to pick it apart because I'm in class but still..
he doesn't thing state laws trump federal laws, but there is a limit to federal power, and its pretty specific. everything that the federal government does not have an express authority in the constitution, the states and individuals have authority over.
he has little understanding of history if he thinks state rights trump federal rights, we had a civil war over this and we know who won.
they also tried limited federal government before the constitution was written, it didn't work so well, people forget this.
Also he obviously doesn't understand the constitution if he attempts to say the wars weren't authorized, while I disagree with them they were perfectly and legally authorized.
I can't watch it again to pick it apart because I'm in class but still..
he doesn't thing state laws trump federal laws, but there is a limit to federal power, and its pretty specific. everything that the federal government does not have an express authority in the constitution, the states and individuals have authority over.
I never said Ron Paul did, however he fails to understand that the concept of state's rights are foolish.
We covered the concept of the wars already in another thread, go look for it and you'll realize that they were perfectly legal.
As for the constitution: it's pretty vague and is intended to be so for a good reason.
Jet, could you please give Ron Paul's 'The Revolution' a chance, because this is all coming off as, "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts...". You would benefit from more clarity on Ron Paul's positions.
he has little understanding of history if he thinks state rights trump federal rights, we had a civil war over this and we know who won.
they also tried limited federal government before the constitution was written, it didn't work so well, people forget this.
Also he obviously doesn't understand the constitution if he attempts to say the wars weren't authorized, while I disagree with them they were perfectly and legally authorized.
I can't watch it again to pick it apart because I'm in class but still..
he doesn't thing state laws trump federal laws, but there is a limit to federal power, and its pretty specific. everything that the federal government does not have an express authority in the constitution, the states and individuals have authority over.
I never said Ron Paul did, however he fails to understand that the concept of state's rights are foolish.
We covered the concept of the wars already in another thread, go look for it and you'll realize that they were perfectly legal.
As for the constitution: it's pretty vague and is intended to be so for a good reason.
the constitution isn't vague on the issue of what the federal government can and cant do. and i never said the wars were illegal, though ron paul has. a good idea, however, i will say that they were in fact, a horrible idea. Here's an interesting little video
I hope people realize that the NDAA changed a lot between when he said that and when he signed it and it doesn't authorize what people are bitching about it authorizing...
Dunno why you're defending NDAA's passing. I mean, just read this..
Quote:
As part of the ongoing dispute over Iranian uranium enrichment, section 1245 of the NDAA imposes unilateral sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, effectively blocking Iranian oil exports to countries which do business with the United States. The new sanctions impose penalties against entities — including corporations and foreign central banks — which engage in transactions with the Iranian central bank. Sanctions on transactions unrelated to petroleum take effect 60 days after the bill is signed into law, while sanctions on transactions related to petroleum take effect a minimum of six months after the bill's signing. The bill grants the U.S. President authority to grant waivers in cases in which petroleum purchasers are unable, due to supply or cost, to significantly reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, or in which American national security is threatened by implementation of the sanctions. Following the signing into law of the NDAA, the Iranian rial fell significantly against the U.S. dollar, reaching a record low two days after the bill's enactment, a change widely attributed to the expected impact of the new sanctions on the Iranian economy. Officials within the Iranian government have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, an important passageway for Middle East oil exports, should the U.S. press forward with the new sanctions, as planned.
So, for the United States' "National Defense Authorization Act" it sure doesn't seem to help our National Defense. I mean, if a country was directly responsible for throwing the United States into economic turmoil, wouldn't you want to lash back? These sanctions LEAD to war. And when does picking fights with countries improve our National Defense?
You could say we're at war with Iran already as the cyberattacks and economic sanctions are all forms of warfare.
The drone incident only added fuel to the fire. For most Americans Iran and NDAA don't mean much but SOPA would be something that really affected the daily lives of millions of people and why it mustn't be allowed to pass.
Imagine waking up and seeing Youtube has been taken down. Now that'd really piss off citizens and cause some overdue public outrage to their representatives. When people see the effects of a law interfering with their daily lives (what do you mean I can't watch videos while at work?!) then they'll have no choice but to get out and do something about it.
Jet, could you please give Ron Paul's 'The Revolution' a chance, because this is all coming off as, "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts...". You would benefit from more clarity on Ron Paul's positions.
I don't really care as to how he came to those stances, they aren't realistic, and he's just plain wrong on the legality of the wars.
the constitution is vague, and it's interpretation changes.
of course those two wars were allowed due to circumstances that were manipulated, unfortunately disinformation isn't exactly illegal unless they can prove that they knew it was wrong information.
As for the NDAA I have no issues with it, short of that people don't understand that the level of uranium enrichment needed for weapons grade uranium is worlds above what's needed and available to Iran currently, however I can support ending a nation headed by religious nuts access to that level of destructive power.
I don't agree with the idea of isolationism or non-action in regards to "defense" however at the same I don't agree with some of the policies we've exerted over the past 60 years.
Technically you're wrong on the legality of the "wars." In order for the US to be at war a declaration of war is required. As none has been made against Iraq, Afghanistan, or any of our other chums in that region of the world, referring to it as a war in a discussion of legality is incorrect. In the legal sense I believe it is classified as a military engagement.
just to clarify congress approved both engagements in compliance with the law, in this case being the war powers act, aside from that the President holds the authority to engage in wars in defense of the US, prior to 1973 (war powers act was signed etc) a president could pretty much do as they please, legally.
You're correct congress did approve both engagements. They did not however declare war, nor are we at war simply because a president uses his authority as commander and chief to commit troops to engagement. The US is only at war in a legal sense if a formal declaration of war has been made, something that has not happened since the US declared war on several countries at the beginning of World War II.
You're correct congress did approve both engagements. They did not however declare war, nor are we at war simply because a president uses his authority as commander and chief to commit troops to engagement. The US is only at war in a legal sense if a formal declaration of war has been made, something that has not happened since the US declared war on several countries at the beginning of World War II.
The text for HJ Res 114, the relevant congressional act to the "war" with Iraq, can be found here, The word war is used a few times, but nowhere will you find your 2/3rds majority saying they were authorizing going to war with Iraq. About the closest you will get is the term "war on terror," but of course you can't actually be at war with a concept. Someday you'll realize that it's okay to be wrong on the internet; people won't think any less of you for it.
I hope people realize that the NDAA changed a lot between when he said that and when he signed it and it doesn't authorize what people are bitching about it authorizing...
Dunno why you're defending NDAA's passing. I mean, just read this..
Quote:
As part of the ongoing dispute over Iranian uranium enrichment, section 1245 of the NDAA imposes unilateral sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, effectively blocking Iranian oil exports to countries which do business with the United States. The new sanctions impose penalties against entities — including corporations and foreign central banks — which engage in transactions with the Iranian central bank. Sanctions on transactions unrelated to petroleum take effect 60 days after the bill is signed into law, while sanctions on transactions related to petroleum take effect a minimum of six months after the bill's signing. The bill grants the U.S. President authority to grant waivers in cases in which petroleum purchasers are unable, due to supply or cost, to significantly reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, or in which American national security is threatened by implementation of the sanctions. Following the signing into law of the NDAA, the Iranian rial fell significantly against the U.S. dollar, reaching a record low two days after the bill's enactment, a change widely attributed to the expected impact of the new sanctions on the Iranian economy. Officials within the Iranian government have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, an important passageway for Middle East oil exports, should the U.S. press forward with the new sanctions, as planned.
So, for the United States' "National Defense Authorization Act" it sure doesn't seem to help our National Defense. I mean, if a country was directly responsible for throwing the United States into economic turmoil, wouldn't you want to lash back? These sanctions LEAD to war. And when does picking fights with countries improve our National Defense?
I'm pretty sure the reasoning is that we have intelligence telling us that if Iran is ever able to make nukes, they are going to instantly hand them over to terrorists to use on western countries.
Maybe one day we'll live in a world where the worst thing we have to worry about is corrupt politicians and not terrorists getting nuclear bombs, but that day isn't here yet.
BTW this topic is about SOPA, dunno how it got to this.
The text for HJ Res 114, the relevant congressional act to the "war" with Iraq, can be found here, The word war is used a few times, but nowhere will you find your 2/3rds majority saying they were authorizing going to war with Iraq. About the closest you will get is the term "war on terror," but of course you can't actually be at war with a concept. Someday you'll realize that it's okay to be wrong on the internet; people won't think any less of you for it.
I never said nor insinuated that, you misunderstood my meaning and intention.
The text for HJ Res 114, the relevant congressional act to the "war" with Iraq, can be found here, The word war is used a few times, but nowhere will you find your 2/3rds majority saying they were authorizing going to war with Iraq. About the closest you will get is the term "war on terror," but of course you can't actually be at war with a concept. Someday you'll realize that it's okay to be wrong on the internet; people won't think any less of you for it.
I never said nor insinuated that, you misunderstood my meaning and intention.
considering mine is a co-sponsor and is an idiot I don't feel like putting forth the effort, we'd be better off with contacting google and pushing them to lobby against it.
Both Google and Facebook have contact forms users can access, hidden away in their help and contact pages, to share thoughts, suggestions or features.
To contact Google, click here, select ‘Other’ and fill out the form.
To contact Facebook, click here and sign-in, and fill in the form.
Feel free to copy-and-paste the following:
As a user of your service, I thank you for your continued opposition of H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT-IP). I implore you to consider one-half or full-day of restricted site access to your global services in protest of the aforementioned bills in the way that news-sharing site Reddit plans for January 18th between 8am–8pm U.S. Eastern Time.
Both Facebook and Google have everything to lose should these bills pass through Congress.
I've used several of you guys' links to blabber against sopa on my blog, so since I used them you guys have the right to know about that. (http://snippetsbyme.wordpress.com/)
Personally anyone voting for this bill simply wants their pockets full of cash or has no idea what they are voting on. Either way they are disregarding the majority of peoples rights and should be removed from office. I plan voting against them when time comes.
