Friday, December 16, 2011

12-16-2011 The Weekend Claw

It's beginning to look a lot like ...well, I was gonna say Christmas, but primary season seems to have taken over.

A) In the first twenty minutes of the GOP debate on Thursday, Ron Paul said that 50% of all spending cuts need to come from national defense. Consider that he said he would cut $1 TRILLION from the budget in his first year. Then consider that the entire proposed defense budget for 2012 (passed this week) is $682 billion, which means he would slash the defense budget by OVER 73%. Have I mentioned lately that he is a F***ING IDIOT? Later, he said that there is absolutely no proof that Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon and that Iran really hasn’t pledged to exterminate Israel. He will continue to say that there’s no proof on either issue until there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. As good as he is on domestic issues, his national defense and foreign policy lunacy makes him completely untenable as a serious candidate to all but his rabid, brainwashed followers.

B) The GOP debate this week was the first one that I watched in its entirety. Mittens and Newt came across much better than I expected under the circumstances, even though Newt once again said that illegals who have broken our laws for 25+ years should get a free pass. While I don’t really care for either and have major disagreements with them, they are both much more worthy of being President than anybody who has a jackass as their symbol. Rick Perry did quite well, except for his stooooopid Tim Tebow comments. Rick Santorum was solid, but he really has no weight to his campaign or message. Michelle Bachmann looked almost plastic, but her performance gets a good grade. She showed that she is not afraid to go toe-to-toe with anybody, and she did a great job of getting Ron Paul to self-immolate. Governor Huntsman made a good case for his conservatism and experience, but the fact that he willingly went to work for the Obama Administration makes him a non-starter in this race.

C) True to his roots as a history professor and realist, Newt Gingrich has hacked off Islamic terrorists and their enablers throughout the Middle East, Europe, and the Democratic Party (oh…and in the Republican “establishment”). Newt has pointed out that the so-called palestinians are in fact a made-up people. They are merely arabs who formerly lived under the Ottoman Empire. He also pointed out how the Islamic terrorists constantly bombard Israel with missiles and other terrorist attacks while demanding that Israel pursue peace by giving away their whole nation. The so-called palestinians preach nothing but hatred and the murder of Jews in their schools (paid for by US aid dollars) and say that Israel has no right to exist, but their supporters in CAIR and the Democratic Party keep preaching about how they want nothing but peaceful co-existence. Combine that with his insistence that he would make John Bolton SecState and I’m starting to like (not endorsing…just liking more than before) Newt more and more, despite his numerous flaws. Now if we could only get him to admit that any kind of amnesty for illegals is a bad idea.

D) She’s at it again. You’ve gotta give props to Red Nanny P-Lousy for her persistence, even if it is based completely on ignorance and liberal politics. “The unemployment insurance extension is not only good for individuals. It has a macroeconomic impact. As macroeconomic advisers have stated, it would make a difference of 600,000 jobs to our economy.” Yes, she is still claiming that handing out checks for people NOT working means we “save or create” 600,000 jobs. That’s only true if we’re employing government workers to hand out checks individually to each and every unemployed person out there, with those workers having to travel to each home singly, hand out a single check, then return to the office to get the next check.

E) SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case involving the Arizona immigration laws. This is a promising sign for the coming term, as she is under pressure to do the same thing on the Obamacare case since she was Solicitor General for the Administration when that bill was being shoved through Congress. In fact, the Department of Justice issued a memo, sent to Kagan, informing her that she did indeed substantially participate in a case that is directly tied to the Obamacare law. This means that not only does she need to recuse herself, but that she committed perjury in her confirmation hearings and should be impeached.

F) The Chairman of the Democratic Party of Indiana is quitting. He’s saying it is because seven years in that job is enough, but the real reason is that it has become known that the signatures required to get Barack Obama on the 2008 ballots in that state were fraudulent, and an investigation is now underway.

G) Barack Obama has transitioned from liar to completely delusional. Now he is claiming that Republicans around the country support his ideas. That’s like saying the Cuban community of southern Florida supports the ideas of Fidel Castro. Then again, everything he said in his 60 Minutes interview was complete Bravo Sierra, but See BS didn’t challenge him at all.

H) Barack Obama is threatening to veto a bill that would create over 20,000 union jobs directly, and over 500,000 jobs indirectly. Why? The only reason is because he wants American energy prices to go higher instead of getting lower. Will the unions raise a stink over this, or will they roll over and once again pledge their undying support for him? Of course, Obama says the Republicans are the ones playing politics here.

I) FINALLY! The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed fraud charges on eight former Freddie and Fannie execs. So far only two of them have been identified, so we don’t know if the two top fraudsters, Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines, are among the indicted. Since Obama and Holder are still in power it is doubtful that those two are getting charged, and if they are charged the Administration will make sure the trial gets delayed until 2013, and will pardon all involved after the election.

J) Ann Coulter has now lost all credibility. On Sean Hannity’s television show, she actually said that Mitt Romney is the most conservative of the GOP hopefuls. Right, and the Indianapolis Colts are a really good team this season.

K) Babs Boxer is an idiot. I know, I know, y’all already knew that, but take this into account. She railed this week on the Senate floor about Republicans wanting to allow coal-fired power plants to keep operating. She said this means the GOP wants to kill 8100 people. She unhesitatingly supports abortion on demand, which kills a LOT more than 8100 per year. She even mentions mercury in this screech, but doesn’t she support forcing Americans to use CFL light bulbs? They contain mercury, which poisons the air in a house if they break.

L) I don’t normally include stories like this in my columns, but I like this one. Longtime reader of The Claw, Jesse “The Mind”, sends us this primer on derivatives:

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in ...

She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.

To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.

Heidi keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in .

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.

Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit.

He sees no reason for any undue concern because he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral!

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS.

These "securities" then are bundled and traded on international securities markets.

Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as "AAA Secured Bonds" really are debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb - and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices still are climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons. But, being unemployed alcoholics -- they cannot pay back their drinking debts.

Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and Heidi's 11 employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBOND prices drop by 90%.

The collapsed bond asset value destroys the bank's liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the BOND securities.

They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds.

Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multibillion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from the government.

The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, nondrinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

Now do you understand?


"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." --James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

The Constitution of the United States

Follow me on Facebook.

166 comments:

  1. Craw,

    Good point on Heidi's bar. I once did some work for a bar here, they paid me in free beer for life. Six months later, this bar, which had been thriving in Jacksonville for over thirty years, went out of business. The moral: Never give free drinks to an alcoholic.

    How's the job search? North Freakin' Dakota's hiring like crazy. Average temp til late March: 2.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A) Ron Paul is as nutty as most of his supporters. Right -- even VERY right -- on some issues, and completely batsh*t when he's wrong.


    B) As to Santorum: at this point 4 years ago, that's exactly what everyone was saying about McCain. Look how that turned out.

    C) As to Gingrich, see my response "A)".

    J) Hate to say it, but IMO Coulter jumped the shark quite some time ago, and has become a shrill harridan.

    Michelle Malkin's still a babe-a-licious conservative commentator, though!

    And there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul is an idiot. He claimed yesterday that we've killed a million Iraqis. He needs to STFU and retire.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Craw,

    Meant to add that I LMMFAO when Obunghole said that Republicans are behind his ideas.

    He needs a piss test BAD!

    ReplyDelete
  5. (A) The only thing Ron Paul can do is split the ticket ala Perot.

    (B) Newt's stand on illegals here 25+ years eliminates him from my list of possibilities.
    Why should someone who has been breaking our laws with impunity for 25+ years get a pass over someone who has been breaking our laws for 1+ year?

    (C) He admitted his commercial with Pelosi was a dumb idea.
    Now. If you get him to admit granting amnesty to 25+ year lawbreakers you might get my attention.

    (D) Well she thought we were stupid enough to go for buying a pig in a poke ala passing the health care bill so we could, "..find out what's in it.." Never mind we should know what's in it BEFORE it is voted on.

    (E) Holder's DoJ? You gotta be kidding!

    (F) The Democratic Party reminds me of an old house whose foundation is disintegrating.

    (G) Back in the early '60's CBS was known as Continuous Bull Schidt.

    (J) I knew Ann Coulter had lost all credibility when she was pushing Gov. Christie as a conservative possible candidate. That fatso is pro amnesty and anti Second Amendment.

    (K) Bought $50.00 bucks worth of incandescents this week.

    (L) Sounds suspiciously like Fanny & Freddie, to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Newt is sounding more credible to me each time he speaks.
    Indeed Ann Coulter has lost my support. She has gone off the deep end by supporting first Chris Christie, while he may be a big mouth to unions, he supports gun control, climate change, and he appointed several Muslims to the NJ bench. Does he sound like a conservative????????????

    My biggest issue this week is the Defense Authorization Bill which basically destroys our 5th and 6th Amendments. Our Bill of Rights is almost gone now with the 4th being squashed by DHS.

    No American in this country is safe from the long arm of the police state or the military who will simply carry out orders given to them by the opine of a retired general. He says they won't like it but will obey the commands of the CIC.

    We really don't have a CIC, we have a Chavez/Stalin dictator and now we all have to fear for our lives as BHO only has to point to those who disagree with him and you are dead.

    Thx to the traitors in Congress being complicit in this with the fraud and usurper.

    Craw, come over to my blog and tell us about one of your most embarrassing moments. A little light hearted fun for the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Craw,
    You need to change your blog roll to put me where we are now on Wordpress. I don't go to TH anymore. It sucks and is a dumb place to go.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A) Ron Paul is completly delusional.

    B) I somewhat disagree with you Crawfish. I believe that Romney looked more like a RINO politician than ever. The same for Newt. Perry did alright, except for his Tebow moment (as you said).

    E) I am glad that Kagan reclused herself; but I feel that something else is going on. Perhaps the GOP has other info that they were about to release?

    F), G), & H) The Obama Administration is starting to come apart at the seams. In some cases different factions of the administration are fighting other groups within the administration. This does not bode well for the 2012 elections.

    Another good edition Crawfish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TGP,
    Heidi is obviously a combination of Bawney Fwank, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae...not a business owner in the Land of the Mullet.

    As for NorDak, lemme think about it, NO!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brian,
    A&C) yup
    B) I disagree. None of us thought McLame was even sounding conservative. He was a liberal from Day One of his campaign.

    Coulter has made herself into a cartoon in the past 18 months or so. Michelle (***sigh***) Malkin is still a BEAUTIFUL strong conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gunny,
    Paul is now taking his foreign policy talking points from Code Pink.
    As for Obama saying Pubs support his ideas...he is correct. McCain, Collins, Snowe, Graham, the RNC....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Buck,
    A) Paul's supporters are more like apostles. If you disagree with anything he says, you are completely anti-freedom. They believe that if we talk nice-nice to all of the evildoers in the world, peace will break out. Naive dolts.
    B&C) If we start seriously penalizing companies and business owners who hire illegals, most of 'em will be forced out.
    D) Persistence is a noble quality, but when it is in the face of reality.....
    E) I was stunned as well.
    F) Foundation made of gummy bears?
    G) See BS
    J) Who is that chick and what did she do to Mrs. Gunny?????
    K) Well, they've defunded the ENFORCEMENT of that ban, but the companies are still out of bidness.
    L) yup

    ReplyDelete
  13. Craw:

    "B) I disagree. None of us thought McLame was even sounding conservative. He was a liberal from Day One of his campaign."


    That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to where the candidates stand in the polling. Four years ago at this time, McCain was being written off just as Santorum and Bachmann are being written off this time. Yet he came back to become the nominee.

    That's what I'd like to see for either or both of them. Can you imagine them on the same ticket?


    Hallelujah!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Update, FYI

    I've started my Wordpress blog. I'll still be posting on Townhall, but my comment section was getting so stuffed with troll comments, and identity theft, that commenting will only be allowed on the Wordpress site.

    Here's the link:

    http://theviewfromtheisland.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  15. A week before Christmas. WHERE the hell did the year go... onto the steamer........
    A)Hard to believe Ron Paul can be so off about foreign policy in the 21st century.
    B)Didn't watch much of it. Mostly read transcripts. Easier that way.
    C)Well,at least he gets THIS one right. Newt,now about those illegals,AGW,ad nauseum.
    D)She needs to be screened. For,say,drugs,a brain,Alzheimer's,whatever. Or,I suppose it could be the botox talking.
    E)Too bad Kagan couldn't get a PERMANENT recusal from her seat.
    F)One down,countless THOUSANDS to go.
    G)Obama needs to go hand in hand with San Fran Nan to the screening as outlined in D).
    H)Let the sonofabitch veto it. MAYBE the damned unions will FINALLY get a clue that the asshat cares not ONE WHIT about THEM,either. Unlikely as that may seem.
    I)Ain't enough prison space for all the criminals in on this scam.
    J)Are you sure she's still on TV? Could have sworn I saw her lot-lizarding at the local truckstop.Talk about rode hard and put up wet. A fifty-something DOES NOT pass the thirty-something test.
    K)Indeed she is. I wonder if ANY r or idiotic media clown will EVER ask these simple words: PROVE IT,BIOTCH.
    L) Yep. Best comparo yet to that fiasco.
    Good stuff,my friend. Prayin'for you to land a job. BrianR,I'll be stopping by your new place. Be good to read your stuff again.EVERY time I tried to go to TH lately,it boots me off,can't post,I just gave up on them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pepp,
    1) The proper link to Pepperhawk Farm has been on the blogroll. I just also had the old link, which I now have deleted.
    2) The only current candidate who would lead us back to the Constitution, unfortunately, is that foreign policy nutjob Ron Paul. It is going to take 3 or 4 decades of solid conservative leadership in the House, Senate, and White House to reverse the damage caused by liberals in the past century.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ghost,
    A) How can any sane person support him?
    B) Romney and Newt both sounded like conservatives (except for Newt's amnesty thing), but since we know their histories we still expect the worst from them. As you said, they are pure POLITICIANS.
    E) I think she might be doing this so she can point to it as proof that she knows when to recuse...when she does NOT recuse on Obamacare.
    F,G,H) I think it DOES bode well for 2012, if we get a good nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brian,
    the big difference is that McLame had the support of the establishment, while Santorum and Bachmann are despised by the establishment. I think they are more like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo were last time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, yeah, by the way.
    WTH is Heidi's Bar?
    I'll bet it is on South Hemphill, somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Clyde,
    A) Worse yet is that he has legions of supporters for that crap. He's CLAIMING that he is getting huge support from the military, but all of my contacts at bases around the world say they see NO support for the idjut.
    B) I might get the transcripts for a special "Skewering Ron Paul" edition.
    C) The fact that he's my choice among the current top 3 is quite sad for America.
    D) Mental competence screening should be mandatory for all government jobs
    E) Impeachment proceedings for all three females on that Court should commence 13 months from now, for consistent violation of their oaths of office.
    F) fraud, thy name is Democrat
    G) yup
    H) The union MEMBERS are waking up, but the leadership NEEDS corrupt Democrats to make their lives easier (and richer)
    I) Just about every person ever employed by those two entities (over the level of shift manager) needs to go to the Graybar Hotel
    J) She was on "Fox & Friends Sunday" this morning. I changed the channel to Italian soccer.
    K) Proof is never required of any Democrat's mewlings.
    L) Even the union-educated can understand that one.
    I doubt I'll get any good employment news until next year. Lots of folks taking vacation time in the next 2 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brian,
    just like last time.....the two conservatives in the race are gonna get forced out early so the establishment boys can cruise on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Craw,
    I'm not happy with any of the candidates and Bachmann is a big liar. I've caught her in so many lies it's unbelievable. I've looked them all up and she's a kook. I could never put up with her or trust her. She supported the Patriot act which I don't like at all.

    I wish Rand Paul would run. He's is not the same as his father but he supports the constitution.

    There is nobody to vote for in this election but when it comes down between the fraud in chief, the Marxist I'll vote for the other guy.

    We need to take out all the senators and congress critters who have not done their job and replace them. It's going to take some time to do that. So many of them have been complicit with the Liar in Chief.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pepp,
    I haven't bothered backchecking anything from Bachmann, since I knew her chances were nil to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Brian,
    just like last time.....the two conservatives in the race are gonna get forced out early so the establishment boys can cruise on."

    I hope not. If history keeps repeating itself, it means the GOP drones are failing to learn anything from it.

    Perfectly illustrating both Santayana's dictum about what happens to those who fail to learn the lessons of history, and Einstein's definition of insanity as being the repetition of action coupled with the expectation of differing results.



    Or, in plain English, being stuck on stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Brian,
    the establishment folks don't care what we think. All they want is to be part of the power elite, to have the media like them, and to be a part of the DC social scene.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1)There is a difference between military spending and defense spending. So much of the "defense" budget is simply MILITARY spending which has nothing to do with national defense.

    1a)There is NO way to balance the budget without drastically reducing "defense" spending. That's a fact.

    2)We've been hearing that Iran is nanoseconds away from a nuke for about 10 years. It is obvious propaganda.

    2a)Israel has - what? - 300 nukes or so? It's THEIR problem; let THEM take care of it.

    3)If Iran was really so intent on our destruction, they would simply BUY a nuke on the black market and sneak it across our porous borders.

    4)WE have already declared war on Iran. Sanctions are an act of war. Every Iranian man, woman and child is suffering as a result. Gee - maybe THAT'S why they don't like us.....

    Do you maintain that Iran doesn't have a right to self-defense?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "He's CLAIMING that he is getting huge support from the military..."
    _____________________________
    In terms of monies received, it's not even close.

    This has been independently verified.

    In others words, it is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Craw,

    Merry Christmas. Here's hoping the New Year brings joy and job.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Several of the candidates have expressed a desire to prevent Iran from obtaining a "nuke".

    a)How exactly would they do this?

    b)How would they pay for it? We are, after all, flat broke.

    c)Do they have the constitutional authority to unilaterally do so?

    ReplyDelete
  30. WOO HOO!!!! It looks like one of the rabid Paulbots from Facebook tracked me down. While I normally delete troll comments, I'll let these stand as cannon fodder!

    ReplyDelete
  31. By the way, troll, we can balance the budget and have a surplus while INCREASING the defense budget if we abide by the Constitution on all of our domestic spending and ditch aid money to countries that oppose us.

    As for Paul's claim of getting more money from the military than the rest, that same "fact" shows that Obama is the #2 money raiser, and we know how much the military (except the blacks and gays) detests that idiot. Besides, most military folks wait until the general election to give up their hard-earned dollars. My sources on bases around the nation and overseas say that Paul has very little support anywhere in the military community because military people realize he is a lunatic on military matters. His call for a 73% cut in the military budget is the icing on the lunatic cake.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I should have known.....

    The Paulbot is from Kookifornia. Valencia to be exact.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Anonymous said... Do they have the constitutional authority to unilaterally do so?"

    That would be the same constitutional authority Jefferson relied on when he sent the Navy and Marines to confront the Barbary pirates in Tripoli. The same constitutional authority Monroe relied in when he formulated his Doctrine.

    America's national self-interest would be at stake.

    A better question would be: what constitutional barrier do you think exists?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Valencia?

    That's where I live!

    Who is he? I may know who he is.

    ReplyDelete
  35. AnyMouse...

    Your guy's ideas on foreign policy remind me of Neville Chaimberland returning from Germany, waving a piece of paper on which he forsook Czechoslavakia saying, "Peace in our time."

    And we all know how that turned out.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "...we can balance the budget and have a surplus while INCREASING the defense budget if we abide by the Constitution on all of our domestic spending and ditch aid money to countries that oppose us."

    --Patently false.

    "His call for a 73% cut in the military budget..."

    --I think your math is a little fuzzy. Where did you get this number? Besides, we're going to need a 50-60% cut in federal spending. Across the board. And soon. It's simple mathematics.

    "My sources on bases around the nation and overseas say that Paul has very little support..."

    --Well now it's official. Gawd. All these years I've been so wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. P.S. I'm in Nevada. Check the IP address.

    Now that I've addressed your concerns, are you going to answer MY questions?

    You do, after all, welcome opposing points of view.

    Or is it simply easier to label one a "troll" and a "Paulbot"?

    How sophisticated!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Brian,
    I guess you had visited without commenting after he did, because Valencia was the last hit noted when I saw his comments in the queue.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Troll,
    In 2009, the federal government spent 3.65 trillion dollars, with a 1.415 trillion dollar deficit. That means a reduction of 39% is necessary. Defense spending for that year was 494.3 billion. Looks like we could chop a whole lot of unConstitutional stuff before touching defense.

    So let's compare the government spending between 1968 and 2008. In 68, defense spending was 46% of the budget. In 2008 it was 21%, and has gone lower in the Obama-Reid dynasty. In 68, Medicare and Medicaid (both unConstitutional) made up 4% of federal spending. In 2008, those programs made up 20% of federal spending...only 1% behind national defense. In 68, FDR's unConstitutional Ponzi scheme known as Social Security accounted for 13% of federal spending, but by 2008 that number had risen to 21%. Yes, the SAME AMOUNT as national defense. http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/pgpf-willisms-4-09-federalspending68to08.gif

    The charts I am using for this comparison don't show the other unConstitutional entitlements, such as welfare, food stamps, housing for the lazy and the drug dealers, so let's see what I can find for those.

    On a chart that appears to be 2008 (http://www.afww.org/images/cc/SpendingPieChart.jpg), "welfare/unemployment/other mandatory spending" shows as 7.32% of the budget. Now we know that none of that is really mandatory, since not a bit of it is allowed under the Constitution. The Department of Education shows up as 1.93%, and that is 100% unConstitutional. The Department of Labor is another 0.68%, and do we really need that unConstitutional government-union conspiracy? "Other off-budget discretionary spending" is listed at 1.27%. If it is not in the budget, it doesn't get spent. The chart doesn't seem to list the Department of Energy, which is just a bunch of over-regulatory envirowackos. The only part of that department that needs to remain a federal entity is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It also does not show foreign aid, and like I have said we need to ditch aid to any nations that do not support us.

    So now that I have shown how the deficit can be completely erased without touching defense, you and your Messiah lose. Again. Thank you for playing our game. We have fine parting gifts for you on your way out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Troll,
    the 73% number is quite simple. During the debate, Paul said he would eliminate 1 trillion dollars from the budget immediately. He then went on to say that 50% of all spending cuts would come from defense. That 50% comes up to 500 billion dollars. Earlier this month, the Congress approved a 2012 defense budget cap of 682 billion. 500 divided by 682 equals 73.314%.

    So easy a caveman can do it...which explains why Paulbots can't.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Troll,
    oh, you're from Nevada? Land of Harry Reid. That explains a lot.

    I answered your questions. I'll now let my readers weigh in.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Troll,

    If you are wondering how we will keep Iran from getting nukes, its not by being nice. As for being broke, that excuse works when talking about stimuli bills, or healthcare bills, but Constitutionally, the government is REQUIRED to provide for the national defense. So, all the money we pay for defense in wages and operating costs is, in theory, paid whether we use it or not. So we use it. No Iranian nukes. No Obamian healthcare. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ah. Yeah, I'm the Valencia-ite.

    Mr. Anonymous, I note you didn't answer my question. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Brain,
    you expect rational and logical answers from a Paulbot?

    ReplyDelete
  45. "but Constitutionally, the government is REQUIRED to provide for the national defense."
    ______________________________

    I understand that.

    But it's a straw man. Iran has nothing to do with national defense.

    That's my point.

    Note what I said earlier about defense spending vs. military spending.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ok.

    Jefferson and the pirates...

    There was no constitutional authority.

    Later, congress did actually pass an act which was for all intents and purposes a declaration of war.

    You cannot have that much power reside in one man. Such a man would be, in essence, a dictator.

    Just witness Obama and the travesty in Libya.

    ReplyDelete
  47. P.S.

    It's my understanding that the president becomes commander in chief AFTER a declaration of war, not before.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mr. Crawfish,

    Ok, so you're talking about doing away with social security and medicare and medicaid?

    In that case I agree with you: technically you are correct.

    And yes, those monstrosities are unconstitutional and unsustainable.

    Still - that doesn't mean we SHOULD increase defense spending.

    Why?

    To spend a billion on an embassy in Iraq?

    How does that protect me?

    ReplyDelete
  49. 682 billion divided by 50% = 341 billion.

    That's probably what "defense" spending was when George W took office.

    We were pretty safe then.

    Sounds reasonable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'll say it again.

    1)Israel is more than capable of handling Iran.

    2)Bombing Iran will solve nothing.

    Not with the borders as porous as they are.

    That's how you know that the whole "war on terror" is bogus.

    If we were facing a genuine threat, the borders would have been sealed 9/12/2001.

    Please read that over as many times as you have to.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wow, the Troll is on a roll with his delusional drivel.

    Iran has nothing to do with national defense? Really? They have pledged to use their nukes, once they get them, on us and our allies. They have threatened the oil supply from the Persian Gulf, which is a direct threat on our national interests.

    If the man who lives two doors down from you is threatening you and your friends, and is building a catapult that can hit your house with projectiles, are you going to sit back and do nothing, publicly state that there are no threats and that no catapults are being built, and pull any ability to do anything about it back into your own garage?

    Nice try, but you failed yet again.

    Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates is quite similar to many actions over the past two centuries. There are plenty of times when limited military action is preferred to full war. In 2000-2001, we were not going to full war with Iraq. Our only objective was to eject them from the sovereign nation of Kuwait, which was and is a strategic and materialistic ally. Once we got the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, we signed a ceasefire. Unfortunately, Saddam repeatedly broke the terms of the ceasefire accords, so we were OBLIGED under LAW (since the Senate ratified the ceasefire as a treaty) to reform the Desert Storm Coalition and remove Saddam's government by force. Oh, and even though the whole WMD case was overblown as a reason to return to Iraq (see the LEGAL reason above), we did in fact find many caches of chemical weapon artillery shells.

    There are also times in which the enemy is not a real nation-state, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, the Mexican drug cartels, FARC, Shining Path, Black October, etc. Again, the Barbary Pirates were not a nation-state.

    Oh, and the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces every day that he is President. That has nothing to do with any active state of war or military actions that are underway.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Troll,
    Paul said he would cut a TRILLION, and HALF OF THAT would come from defense. That's 500 billion, not 342 billion. Your supporting a moron, and at the same time proving yourself to be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Troll,
    Israel is capable of handling Iran? Really? Israel has no way to strike Iran directly because the muslim nations between Israel and Iran would not allow a strike package to fly through their airspace. Israel also does not have the naval and amphibious forces to strike Iran. Iran can use their ally Syria as an avenue of attack. The combines arms of Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood (which is now running Egypt) can overwhelm Israel from multiple axes of attack.

    Using Ron Paul rhetoric against those who are schooled in military tactics and strategies along with logistics, international diplomacy and relations, and the Quran will always result in failure. Why do you even try?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh, and defense pending gets more and more expensive on a constant basis. We are in constant need of upgrading our forces and replacing worn out equipment. Two of the more expensive weapons systems currently in the works are the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, both of which will definitely be needed in the upcoming years.

    China is now developing a stealth strike fighter and has their first aircraft carrier doing sea trials. China is threatening India and other nations in southern Asia.

    The Russians are developing stealth strike fighters. Vlad Putin is trying to rebuild the old Soviet Empire and destabilize eastern Europe and central/western Asia.

    Iran is not only developing nuclear bombs and missiles, but is doing so in association with North Korea. The last NorK nuclear tests that many called a "failure", were possibly nothing less than a fully successful test of EMP nuke devices.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Mr Crawfish,


    Do we have a treaty or a pact with Israel?

    We do not.

    As a constitutional conservative, I'm sure you understand that the rule of law - the law of the land - stipulates that we have a treaty, one which is then ratified by the senate.

    Why do we not have such a one?

    Another question: how many troops has our "ally" Israel committed to the "war on terror"?

    You are actually willing to engage and debate, which is refreshing. But I realize this is an echo chamber and a circle jerk.

    Take care.

    Oh, and be careful when having breakfast.

    There might be an Iranian nuke in your cheerios!

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Oh, and even though the whole WMD case was overblown..."

    Ok, good. I see you're coming around.

    This doesn't bother you???

    Are you sure that the same thing isn't happening all over again?

    Governments lie.

    ALL governments.

    The patriot questions government; he does not blindly follow along.

    ReplyDelete
  57. P.S.

    We will be electing the president of the United States.

    We will NOT be voting for the prime minister of Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  58. We don't have any such treaty with any of our allies. Do we have one with Britain? Japan? Canada? Australia? Italy?

    Iranian nuke in my Cheerios? Thank you for showing your level of seriousness.

    ReplyDelete
  59. So,Anon,if ALL governments lie,how would a Ron Paul administration be any different? I haven't heard much about HOW he intends to lop this monstrosity that BOTH parties have foisted upon us. Also,what makes you think,should Rep.Paul win the election,the House and Senate would support him? I SURE as hell don't see the dhimmis helping him,NOR many in his own party.

    ReplyDelete
  60. All: Have the merriest of Christmases,Hanukkah,Kwanzaa,Feliz Navidad,or whatever it is. Catch up later.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Craw,

    You forgot to tell this idiot that you weren't even an admiral. I am impressed with your knowledge of the situation. But Anonymous doesn't understand how his neighbor living in fear affects him. If the guy you mentioned building catapaults was his neighbor, but told him he wasn't going to attack him, just other neighbors, how long does Anon think it would take for the rest of the neighborhood to be sleeping on his couch? Eating his groceries? Showering with his wife? Well, thats going a little far, but you get the idea.

    How did we get so many people who can't rationally think about cause and effect (Dept of Ed).

    ReplyDelete
  62. Tenth Generation Patriot,

    "If the guy you mentioned building catapaults was his neighbor..."
    ___________________________

    You are ASSuming the building of catapaults.

    Please check your premises.

    While you're at it, you might also want to look into the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    That's correct.

    It was a lie.

    The first Gulf War?

    Saddam Hussein was protecting his borders against Kuwaiti incursions.

    Would that we had such a president!

    The second Gulf War?

    That's correct.

    It was a lie.

    Libya?

    Ghadaffi wanted his gold back.

    His gold was in New York.

    Guess what?

    Ghadaffi never got his gold back.

    Do we see a pattern here?

    Have a Merry Christmas "patriot".

    Do me a favor and refute what I've said before calling me an idiot.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "If the guy you mentioned building catapaults was his neighbor, but told him he wasn't going to attack him, just other neighbors, how long does Anon think it would take for the rest of the neighborhood to be sleeping on his couch?"
    _____________________

    Exactly.

    Thank you.

    We don't have a "terrorism" problem.

    We have an IMMIGRATION problem.

    Viewed in this light, W was an absolute DISASTER when it came to foreign policy.

    Many here supported him.

    Worse, many still do.

    How much credibility do these folks have?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Craw,

    I think your moonbat is Mud. Similar styles, and "ASSuming" is one of his favorites.

    If we exported American values south of our border, then we'd have fewer immigrants moving north. Protecting our interests overseas has the same effect.

    And Mr. Anonymous, I'll call you an idiot if I so choose. I fought for your freedom of speech, but I fought for my own as well.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon the Delusional Troll,

    First off, as for your pissy claim that Saddam was protecting his borders with Kuwait, I WAS THERE in 90/91. I SAW FIRST HAND (that is called a primary source in history class) that the Iraqis invaded. I SAW THEIR RETREAT and body parts and looted crap blown in every direction.

    That the Iraqis looted schools, hospitals, government buildings, and shot innocent Kuwaitis who refused to turn over their cars, their watches, etc. Kuwait women were outraged as well. This is all fact.

    You can continue to spout your Ron Paul bullsh*t but there are too many of us WHO KNOW BETTER.

    Lemme guess, 9/11 was in inside job right? That is what that senile old fvckstick Ron Paul yammers.

    And his recent comments on Al-Awlaki? Disgusting.

    Tell you what asshat. Take your Paulista show over to Pakistan, travel to Tora Bora to meet al-Awlaki, and let us know how that turns out.

    BTW, your boss Paul is an open borders guy. Put that in your bong and smoke it.
    ------------------------------
    Craw,

    I can't wait till Ron Paul follows Murtha and Ted DRUNkennedy and then maybe his loons will go the fvck away.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mr. Anonymous,

    You only answered PART of my question. You wrote:

    "Jefferson and the pirates... There was no constitutional authority."

    So. Jefferson -- who was one of the primary architects of the actual Constitution -- didn't know what it meant. Is that what you're saying?

    Further, you completely ignored my question about Monroe's Doctrine. Why is that?


    The reality is that Paul's ideas on foreign policy and military affairs don't have any foundation in the actual Constitution. None whatsoever.

    As one of the other commenters here noted, he's nothing but Neville Chamberlain with a squeeky voice. His ideas would spell the doom of the country; or at the least, they would assure that we'd be attacked again.

    Does that mean the President has unfettered power to run around getting into wars willy nilly? No, of course not. Your example of Obama's actions in Libya is a very good example.

    But that's not what Paul's saying. He's saying he'd completely abandon all our foreign commitments -- most of which exist due to treaty obligations and are thus completely constitutional -- while at the same time essentially withdrawing from the world stage diplomatically. That's a prescription for disaster.

    This isn't the 19th or even early 20th Century anymore, where America is protected by the natural borders of distance and oceans. This is the era of the shrunken world in which n o place on earth is farther than a few hours from any other place.

    His ideas are as outmoded as the quill pen.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "If we exported American values south of our border, then we'd have fewer immigrants moving north. Protecting our interests overseas has the same effect."
    _________________________________________

    I see.

    You tell us they hate us for our freedoms.

    Then you say you want to give them... freedom?

    Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  68. "BTW, your boss Paul is an open borders guy. Put that in your bong and smoke it."
    ______________________________

    False.

    Please try again.

    ReplyDelete
  69. The Anti Liberal Zone,

    The Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil.

    The Iraqis did something about it.

    Good for them.

    Did atrocities occur? I'm sure they did.

    It's called war.

    It's not our job to save the world.

    It's very simple-minded to believe that that is even our motivation.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "And Mr. Anonymous, I'll call you an idiot if I so choose. I fought for your freedom of speech, but I fought for my own as well."
    ___________________________________


    No you didn't.

    You did NOT fight to protect the Bill of Rights.

    You did NOT fight for your country.

    You fought for your government.

    BIG difference.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hate to pile on at Christmas Eve,Anon,but you may want to look at this story about Libya's gold. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85c0912a-da1e-11eo-b
    If that doesn't work,google Lybian gold held in U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Mr. BrianR,

    "But that's not what Paul's saying. He's saying he'd completely abandon all our foreign commitments -- most of which exist due to treaty obligations and are thus completely constitutional -- while at the same time essentially withdrawing from the world stage diplomatically. That's a prescription for disaster."

    _______________________________


    100% wrong. Completely backwards.

    You want to prevent war with a country? Trade with them. Free enterprise. Remember when we used to believe in that?

    Sanctions, on the other hand, are VERY isolationist.

    And why do we still have troops in Korea and Europe?

    Why are we still fighting wars from half a century ago?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Mr. BrianR,

    "So. Jefferson -- who was one of the primary architects of the actual Constitution -- didn't know what it meant. Is that what you're saying?"
    __________________________

    --No. I'm saying he wasn't perfect. No POTUS ever has been. No POTUS ever will be.

    "As one of the other commenters here noted, he's nothing but Neville Chamberlain with a squeeky voice. His ideas would spell the doom of the country; or at the least, they would assure that we'd be attacked again."

    --There is NO ONE on the world stage today who is the next Hitler. No one.

    They would assure that we'd be attacked again?

    Really? By whom? Who would attack us? HOW would they attack us?

    Please substantiate your claims.

    As far as the Monroe Doctrine... truth is, I don't know that much about it.

    I'm not perfect, sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  74. To All,

    Merry Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mr. Anonymous.

    First of all, once again, you seem to want to ignore what I wrote about Monroe and his Doctrine. Why is that, I wonder? Is it because it throws all your theories into a cocked hat?



    I'll submit to you that you don't know what you're talking about. You -- and Paul -- have hare-brained ideas that aren't rooted at all in world reality.

    Let's take a look at some. You wrote: "And why do we still have troops in Korea and Europe?"

    Treaty obligations. You've heard of them? Treaties? As specifically mentioned in the Constitution?

    Or do you Paulbots just say the word "Constitution" without having actually ever read the thing?

    I really like this one: "You want to prevent war with a country? Trade with them. Free enterprise. Remember when we used to believe in that?"

    How do you propose to institute that with... say ... North Korea? They REFUSE to trade with us or anybody else. They have absolutely NOTHING to bring to the table. How would you start that dialogue? Hmmmmm...?


    Then there's this little gem: "There is NO ONE on the world stage today who is the next Hitler. No one."

    Really? You ever been to Iran? Because I have. I spent five years there. I went to high school there. My Armenian Mom was born and raised there. And I'm here to tell you that you don't have Clue One what you're talking about.

    The ayatollahs who run Iran hate us. Period. They hate us and all non-muslims. They believe in the Twelfth Imam, and world destruction that will lead to the New Caliphate. They're insanely committed to the idea of eradicating Israel -- the Little Satan -- and us -- the Great Satan. They consider it their religious duty to Allah.

    You think those whackjobs aren't the greatest danger to the world since Hitler?

    If you do, you're just as crazy as your nutjob idol, Paul, another idiot who speaks from complete and utter ignorance of the subject matter.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mr BrianR,

    I'm not interested in being insulted.

    But I will explain a few things to you before I go:

    When you've been dicking with a country for over 50 years....telling them how to run their country... interfering in their elections.... trying to steal their natural resources... and they tell you to leave them alone... and you leave them alone... that's not appeasement.

    I don't know how to make it any more clear.

    Oh, and you DO know that there are Jews living - and living very well - in Iran, right?

    Yeah, kinda' sucks, huh?

    And I trust you also know that Ahmadinajad has no control over Iran's military, right?

    You DO know that the Persians have been around for thousands of years, right?

    They're not going anywhere.

    And they're not backing down.

    This country?

    We'll be lucky to last another 20.

    Stop being so arrogant.

    Mark my words - an attack on Iran will be our death knell.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Let me explain something else.

    Who's taken away more of your freedoms - the Iranians... or congress?

    Your priorities are misplaced.

    ReplyDelete
  78. No, my priorities aren't misplaced. You don't even know my priorities, because we haven't discussed them.

    What I AM discussing is your abject ignorance of topics that are crucial to this discussion.

    You don't even know what the Monroe Doctrine is. Really?????

    That's taught in every school in this country... and you don't know what it is?

    You're either incredibly ignorant, or much more likely you don't want to discuss it because it -- like Jefferson's actions in Tripoli -- blows a hole completely through your inane thesis that we should ignore things that happen in the world if they happen outside our borders.


    Then your blather about Iran. Once again... I've LIVED there. It's my Mom's native country. I KNOW whereof I speak.

    What do you have? What's the basis of YOUR "expertise"? How long did YOU live there? Have you even ever set foot in the country? Or even in the REGION?

    I scoff at your inane quotes of the usual Paulbot slogans. Frankly, they reflect a PROFOUND ignorance.

    As to your lack of interest in being insulted: stop posting idiotic drivel and you won't get "insulted". Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, it was a realistic appraisal of the "value" of your "arguments".

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    ReplyDelete
  79. And here's a PS for you.

    "Mark my words - an attack on Iran will be our death knell."

    No. That's silly beyond belief. In a decade of war with Iraq, the best they could do was reach a draw. How many DAYS did it take us to whip Iraq? I'm not talking about our hanging around afterwards for years trying to impose a "democracy" that's impossible in a Middle Eastern Muslim nation. I'm talking about the actual war. What was it? Three DAYS?


    BUT... once that country run by religious fanatic lunatics gets nukes, THEN it becomes dangerous.

    Which, of course, is the whole point, and a clear illustration of why Paul's a complete moron on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Brian,
    when I saw him comment on Iran I knew it was only a matter of time before you'd school him. He fell right into that one.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Mr. BrianR,

    "The Monroe Doctrine is a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention.[1] The Doctrine noted that the United States would NEITHER INTERFERE with existing European colonies NOR MEDDLE in the internal concerns of European countries.

    "Its primary objective was to free the newly independent colonies of Latin America from European INTERVENTION and control that would make the New World a battleground for the Old. The doctrine put forward that the New World and the Old World were to remain DISTINCTLY SEPARATE SPHERES of influence, for they were composed of entirely SEPARATE and INDEPENDENT nations."

    ------------------------------------------------
    It seems that Iran is invoking its own Monroe Doctrine.

    Further, it seems that you've made my point for me.

    I await your rebuttal.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mr BrianR,

    If the Straits of Hormuz get shut down for any length of time, then it's game over for the US economy.

    I'm talking civil unrest and possible societal breakdown, if not the outright collapse of our government.

    And what of Russia and China?

    They're smarter than we are.

    Instead of dropping bombs, they're dropping business contracts.

    Gee - Iran doesn't seem to have a problem with THOSE TWO non-Muslim nations...

    Are Russia and China - two NUCLEAR powers - going to stand idly by?

    These are things we need to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Mr. BrianR,

    Res ipsa loquitur.
    -----------------------------
    I agree.

    You need to consider the consequences of your actions, and maybe even accept personal responsibility for them.

    ReplyDelete
  84. To All,

    Could it be that the reason Paul is in first place is because his message is resonating with the American people?

    Could it be that the American people realize that his message - and his alone - is pro-American?

    That's scary, isn't it?

    It would explain all the vitriol here.

    Because it would mean that you're on the wrong side of things.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mr. Crawfish,

    Thanks for publishing my comments.

    Debate is good.

    Debate is healthy.

    Debate is the very essence of the American ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Mr. Anonymous.

    Thanks for posting the historical description of the Monroe Doctrine, but I already knew what it is.

    But it's good that you enhanced and expanded your own education.

    It's also clear that you continue to refuse to deal with the reality of what it means, so let me make this REAL simple for you:

    How do you conform the Monroe Doctrine and Jefferson's dispatch of the Navy and Marines to Tripoli with Paul's screwball ideas that somehow the Constitution prohibits our participation in events that don't occur within our own borders?

    Monroe and Jefferson were both Founders; Paul's nothing but some guy who CLAIMS to be a constitutional authority. Yet according to Paul's ideology, both Jefferson and Monroe acted wrongfully.

    So? Don't bother trying again with extraneous and irrelevant rhetoric. That's a very simple question.

    How do you conform Paul's nutjob ideas with the actions of Jefferson and Monroe?
    _____________________________

    Now, your second comment.

    As to the Strait of Hormuz: yes, closing it would be very problematic. I agree. All the more reason to make sure we have a strong enough force in the region to prevent it, because we have a national self-interest in assuring the free flow to market of oil. What's YOUR solution? Pray for the goodwill of Iran?

    In other words, allow them to blackmail the rest of the world? Because that's EXACTLY what they'd do if they thought they could get away with it.

    Oh... yeah... that's right. You don't believe that. Based on your long years of actually living in the region, I'm sure.

    Oh, wait!... my bad!... You've never actually BEEN THERE!

    ______________________

    As to Russia and China: I'm amused by your ability to read the tea leaves and decide you're looking at coffee grounds.

    Does Iran consider either Russia or China to be a Great Satan?

    Why... no they don't!

    And will Russia and China stand by while we do the heavy lifting? Why wouldn't they? I would, if I were them. If someone else is going to do my work for me, so I can reap all the benefits while expending none of the effort, that sounds like a helluva good deal to me.

    Would either of those countries try to interfere with us if we went to war with Iran? Nope. No more than they did when we took on Iraq, or Afghanistan. China is WAY too invested in this country to do anything. Russia will just laugh while we do its work for it.

    Is that a reason for us to abandon our efforts? Sure... if we don't mind having a country dedicated to eradicating us, and willing to do absolutely anything under the sun to accomplish that goal, have the nukes to give it a try.

    Again, you -- and Paul -- have absolutely ZERO understanding of the Middle Eastern Muslim mentality and culture. Less than zero. Your ideas are rooted in wishful thinking and a projection of Western cultural mores onto an alien culture you don't know or understand.

    It's tooth fairy thinking, the kind that gets people killed in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "Could it be that the reason Paul is in first place is because his message is resonating with the American people?"

    Well, he's not in first place, to begin with.

    The reason he's doing as well as he is right now is because the Paulbots have a disproportionate effect on early polling because they're a passionate and dedicated group that's really active. I'll hand them that.

    But they're still a very small percentage of the overall electorate. Paul usually does very well at the start of the primary season, then rapidly sinks into obscurity. That's his historical pattern, and there's no reason to think this time will be any different.

    But let's just suppose he somehow gets the GOP nomination. A plane carrying all the other candidates hits a mountain, killing everyone (I can't imagine any other way it would happen).

    Then what?

    He's one of the two candidates that I believe Obama can beat by phoning in his performance, the other being Gingrich.

    Paul has absolutely no chance whatever of actually being elected POTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I often wondered how a Founding Father would do today...seeing the disgraceful treatment of Ron Paul has answered THAT question!

    As a political outsider (extreme libertarian), its amazing to see how similar the "two" mainstream political ideologies and their adherents have become.

    There really is no chance of rational debate anymore, even with the dire economic realities facing us. If you oppose liberal welfarism they accuse you of "hating the poor"; if you oppose conservative warfarism they accuse you of "hating America".

    All this spending is totally unsustainable and all this welfarism/warfarism is gonna come to an end no matter what libs and cons WANT...

    Ron Paul is too good for America...and it would probably be HORRIBLE for him to be elected and get stuck holding the bag for decades of lib-con policies. Libertarians have been proven right time and time again, but you just can't reason w/ideologues.

    ReplyDelete
  89. What an absolute crock of crap.

    You're comparing Paul to the Founders?

    And yet I pointed out how the Founders did things that Paul says are verboten. To which your response was what?

    Attempts to conveniently ignore it and change the subject. Obfuscation, irrelevancies and misdirection... just like a standard-issue liberal.

    You Paulbots are crazy, man. That's all there is to it. No wonder he's going nowhere fast.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Tell us, BrianR, who is the 'real' conservative in the race who would whip up on BHO?

    ReplyDelete
  91. In my assessment, there are only two GOP candidates who CAN'T beat Obama: your guy and Gingrich.

    Now, I don't want your leg to go all tingly thinking I dodged your question as to the words "real conservative". So I'm going to expand on that.

    IMO, of the remaining candidates, Santorum and Bachmann are the best traditional American and Originalist conservatives.

    Perry's okay on most issues.

    Romney's a Big Government guy. I don't like that, but I think he'll hew the conservative line as best he can because as a businessman he understands that one has to deliver on what one promises if one wants repeat customers, which in his case will be the people who vote for him, which would have to be the conservative base if he's to win.

    Gingrich is a complete lunatic. I've written about that on my own blog, so I won't go into all the reasons here, but since my essay he can add "arresting judges" to his list of loony ideas.

    And your guy, who's not really "conservative" at all. Isolationism isn't "conservative", nor is it anything at all envisioned by the Founders nor enshrined in the Constitution, though isolationists going back to the early 20th Century try to make the case it is. Wrongly, as I've pointed out here.

    Your guy has a very few good ideas, and a whole lot of crazy ones, just like Gingrich.

    Hunstman's not even wortth discussing. He doesn't have a snowball's chance of being nominated. He's the joke candidate of this cycle.

    There you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Yes Mr. R I am comparing Paul to the FFs.

    I think he's a good deal better than most of them were, being he's got 200+ years more of libertarian advancements to draw on.

    BTW, there was no monolithic group-thinking group of FFs...there were heated disagreements amongst them, and SERIOUS debate as to whether a standing army and navy should even EXIST.

    I've found that, like interpretations of the Constitution, views of the FFs will vary widely from person to person...hell, even LIBERALS claim a kinship w/them!

    ReplyDelete
  93. As a libertarian, I've come to see conservatism as an ideology that can be boiled down to two main planks:

    1. Unflinching support of aggressive militarism and the USGovt's quasi-Empire.
    2. A very puzzling belief that Israel should be treated as the 51st state.

    A 3rd plank which isn't quite as important as the above is an affinity for Conservative Social Engineering/Authoritarianism-Law-and-Order...things like the Drug War and Culture Wars, as well as abominations like the DHS/TSA. For people who profess a desire for decentralized govt., conservatives sure seem fine w/using federal power to impose their views on all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Perfect!

    "Yes Mr. R I am comparing Paul to the FFs...I think he's a good deal better than most of them were, being he's got 200+ years more of libertarian advancements to draw on."


    And there you have it. A perfect illustration of the conceit and vanity of the Paulbots. "Not only is Paul a real constitutionalist, he's even BETTER than the real Founding Fathers! He's FoundingFather v. 2.0!"

    You guys are absolutely amazing. I use that term synomymously with "surreal".

    You probably don't realize that what you're actually saying is, "We have our own version of constitutional interpretation that has absolutely nothing to do with actual history or law".

    I point out how nothing in the Constitution supports Paul's isolationism, and you repeatedly try to ignore it and steer the conversation in another direction, a classic strategy of leftists.

    I point out how the REAL Founders acted in particular circumstances, and you first plead ignorance, then try to divert the conversation away yet again.

    You're hilarious, dude!



    Then your second comment, which again is nothing more than the usual drivel we hear from leftists; an attempt to conflate "right-wing" with actual "conservatism". Sorry, pal, that dog don't hunt.

    I'm not a Republican; I'm an independent. I don't think much more of the GOP than I do of the Dems. But I actually believe the Constitution means what it says, NOT what some lefty/socialist tries to read into it, nor what some whackjob Paulbot tries to ignore that's actually in it.

    I believe it means what it says in plain English in its most straightforward interpretation. Use Occam's Razor as your guideline.

    Man... pretty funny!

    ReplyDelete
  95. Yet another perfect example (as if more were needed):

    "BTW, there was no monolithic group-thinking group of FFs...there were heated disagreements amongst them, and SERIOUS debate as to whether a standing army and navy should even EXIST."


    Doesn't matter, does it? Because what does the actual Constitution say?


    So you can try to beat around those bushes all you want, but the bottom line is what is in the Constitution -- in its entirety, not just the parts you like -- in plain English in black and white.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Brian R,
    FoundingFather v2.0....I am SOOOOO glad I had already swallowed my Mr. Pibb before I read that one. You're obviously having fun nuking this guy.

    I can't wait to see how they react to his own words being used against him.

    ReplyDelete
  97. LOL, Craw!

    Glad you liked it. I mean, c'mon... he's EVEN BETTER than the Founders???????


    How arrogant can one get?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Brian,
    to them he is The Messiah...kinda like Obama for Peggy the Moocher and the rest of the leeches and blacks in 2008. If you criticize them or their Messiahs they will blow gaskets.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Yep. Or like the analysis in your latest essay, it's a cult.


    It really is. In many ways reminiscent of the Scientologists.

    Except without the national suicide ramifications.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Mr. R, Mr. C, nothing you've responded with changes my view of conservatives: my listing of the 2 or 3 core Cons. Planks, imho, still applies.

    I could easily accuse you two of being Bush or Reagan cultists...supporting a particular politician and his/her ideas don't necessarily = cult-like worship.

    I like Paul because of his ideas and principles...as well as his reasoning...if he ever significantly strayed from them I'd no longer like/support him.

    RE: Constitution...Mr. R, if the language in it were as simple and cut-and-dry as you claim it is, there wouldn't be political parties, every vote would be near unanimous, and the scotus would always rule 9-0.

    As anyone else w/an OPINION, you think your particular interpretation is the correct one. And, as with any OPINION, it is wholly subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Mr. C, I can only speak for myself and not every Paul supporter, but no...I don't see RP as a "Messiah".

    And, as I said previously, intelligent debate w/ideologues who frame everything in a "Right"-"Left" box is impossible.

    Being anti-war is "Leftist".

    Being for free-markets is "Rightist".

    Applying conservative-think, Obama is more "conservative" than Ron Paul!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Speaking of "cults"...I've found that a HUGE Cult of Founder-worshippers exists...!

    Some are so daffy that they claim to know what the FF's were THINKING when they wrote the Constitution! "The Founder INTENDED this, that, or the other..."...!

    As Lysander Spooner pointed out, either everything the fedgovt. does is authorized by the Constitution, or the Constitution failed to restrain the fedgovt...which is it Mr.'s R and C?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Troll,
    We know we are probably not going to change the minds of any Paulbots. Anytime FACTS are mentioned, they plug their ears and sing "LALALALALALALA" or change the subject.

    Reagan and Bush cultists? Now THAT is funny. Brian and I did support ALMOST everything Reagan did. True, he did expand the government in deals he made to lower taxes and expand the economy. Remember that he was dealing with Tip O'Neal and a solid Democrat majority in the House for his whole time in office. O'Neal reneged on his part of the deals to cut spending. One of Reagan's biggest mistakes was to sign Teddythedrunk's (D-Chappaquiddick) amnesty bill for non-drybacks. Dead Ted promised that this would be a one-time thing and from then on border enforcement would be the priority. As we have seen, that was a complete lie from the get-go, as the whole Democrat strategy is for open borders and eternal amnesty so they can get more entitlement leeches who will always vote for the Jackass Party.

    Bush? Which one? Most of us really didn't like either. 41 gave us Justice Souter...'nuff said. 43 was good on lowering taxes for all taxpayers. He was superb on Supreme Court appointees. His decision to take on Iraq was proper, but the Administration used the wrong argument. We had an OBLIGATION under international law and a treaty approved by the Senate. Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, so we were OBLIGED to reform the Desert Storm Coalition and remove Saddam's government from power militarily. On most other issues, 43 was just another northeast liberal big-government establishment Republican. I only voted for him because of who opposed him.

    Constitution and Supreme Court. Wow, are you ever naive. The judicial branch is as much, if not more, political as the White House or Congress. Justices are appointed because of their political philosophy more than their knowledge of the Constitution. Explain how any judge/justice could say that a Nativity Scene in a city hall, prayer in public schools, or the Ten Commandments in a state courtroom are unConstitutional. The argument used is always centered on the "establishment clause", but that clause reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Is a local school board Congress? Is a city government Congress? Is a state court Congress? Nope. Are any of those entities making a FEDERAL law respecting an establishment of religion? Nope. So we see that the "establishment clause" does not apply to these cases. Instead, the 10th Amendment applies. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means the federal government has no say in the matter, and the federal courts have no jurisdiction in these matters. So how have the courts taken charge? They are political entities. Let's not even get started on the worst example of judicial activism and anti-Constitutionality in history...Roe v. Wade.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Troll,
    in many ways, Obama IS more conservative than Paul...and more sane.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Troll,
    many of us have a good feel for what was intended in the Constitution because we have taken the time over the years to read the Federalist Papers, in which the writers of the Constitution explained their intentions.

    As stated previously, the courts have become completely political, which is why so much of our government that is clearly unConstitutional has been allowed to flourish. Almost every single piece of the New Deal and the Great Society were unConstitutional, but liberal judges and justices looked the other way and approved them. Obamacare is not even close to Constitutional, but we know that there will be at least 4 SCOTUS justices who will vote in favor of it. The Constitution means nothing to liberal activist judges. It was either Kagan or Sotomayor who said that free speech can be disappeared, but the bitch still got confirmed by a Senate lead by Harry Reid. (Thanks again, Nevada!)

    ReplyDelete
  106. Mr. C

    RE: REAGAN

    Bottom line: govt. grew more under Reagan than it did under Carter. Now, I'm not gonna be like you and say you "drank the Reagan Kool-Aid", but I will point out that Reagan fans have a strong tendency to make endless excuses for his actions.

    RE: BUSH I and/or II

    Well, again, excuses abound. If you voted for either of them, take responsibility as you want Obama voters to.

    RE: SCOTUS

    When did I ever say it wasn't political?

    RE: Obama being more 'conservative' than Paul...again, I agree (since 'conservatism' is only concerned w/the 3 points I already made)...I also agree that America is a 'conservative' nation. I tell people to look around and see what conservatism looks like.

    Calling Paul "insane" is just hot-air. I could call Reagan "insane" too.

    ReplyDelete
  107. RE: CONSTITUTION

    The Constitution is an open-ended legal document that can be interpreted to mean anything a majority wants it to.

    Just as the Bible has spawned endless sects w/their own interpretations of the "true" word of God, so has the Constitution.

    Most folks think freedom (via the Const.) means having their own personal will imposed on everyone else.

    I challenge you to answer:

    Where, in the Const., are subsequent govts. bound by prior interpretations or theories as to its "true" meaning?

    Where, in the Const., are the terms used therein defined?

    Which is it: Is everything the fedgovt. does authorized by the Const., or did it fail to restrain govt?

    ReplyDelete
  108. LOL

    "I've found that a HUGE Cult of Founder-worshippers exists...! Some are so daffy that they claim to know what the FF's were THINKING when they wrote the Constitution! "The Founder INTENDED this, that, or the other..."...!"


    No. Sorry. We're not mind readers. The Founders were very prolific in their writings, for one thing, so it's very easy to know what they thought. They wrote it all down!

    Then there's the actual document itself. The Constitution. Which they expended great effort to phrase in ways that made it easy for the common man to understand, using the simplest interpretation of the language.

    Then, of course, there are their actions, which speak for themselves. As I've pointed out to you repeatedly -- and which you keep trying to ignore -- we've seen WHAT THE FOUNDERS ACTUALLY DID, guys like Jefferson and Monroe.

    But YOU, of course, in your superior wisdom, keep trying to ignore those simple things. To this very point, you've STILL never responded to the examples I cited.



    Now, let's look at this: " Constitution...Mr. R, if the language in it were as simple and cut-and-dry as you claim it is, there wouldn't be political parties, every vote would be near unanimous, and the scotus would always rule 9-0."

    Not at all. That would be more likely if parties actually hewed to the Constitution, but too many CITE the Constitution without having any actual basis for doing so. I'll give you an example: Ron Paul! What a surprise!

    Further, even two opposing parties in a debate can have different approaches to an issue that would both still be contsitutional, and that would also lead to split votes. Here's a great example for you: the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. Do you posit that such a power would automatically lead to unanimous votes to declare war all the time just because the Constitution authorizes it?

    You really don't have any understanding about how the real world works, do you?

    Oh... that's right!... my bad!... you're a Paulbot!....



    Now this: "As Lysander Spooner pointed out, either everything the fedgovt. does is authorized by the Constitution,"

    all you need to do is look around to see the absurdity of THAT statement


    "... or the Constitution failed to restrain the fedgovt...which is it Mr.'s R and C?"

    Of course that's the problem. Precisely because so many politicians refuse to adhere to its strictures. In which case I'll quote Franklin back at you. When asked what they had created at the Constitutional Convention, Franklin answered "A republic, madam... if you can keep it."

    And the very fact that we've allowed politicians to enact so many unconstitutional laws over the decades is precisely why this country's in such dire trouble.

    But your guy's no part of the answer. He's a prime example of the ongoing problem: constantly citing non-existent constitutional bases for his screwball ideas. The exact same thing the lefties do, and many in the GOP do.

    And again, his craziest and most dangerous wrongful assertion is that there's some constitutional basis for his loony isolationistic ideas. Jefferson. Monroe. They certainly knew more about the Constitution than Paul does, and their actions were crystal clear. Then there's the provision of the Constitution that defines the process for entering the country into treaties. What are treaties if not foreign obligations in trade, diplomacy and military matters?

    His advocacy of withdrawing from the world arena is exactly the kind of thing that led to WW2. Germany was sure we wouldn't enter the war, so Hitler was emboldened to try for the conquest of Europe.

    Paul's great idea? "Hey, let's try that again! But it'll turn out different this time! The Middle Eastern Muslims will love us!"

    Yeah... right...

    ReplyDelete
  109. Troll,
    did I say Reagan was perfect? Nope. He was the best President, by far, of the 20th century, but he was far from perfect. He rebuilt a hollow military that had extremely low morale into a potent and professional force. He took a horrible economy and turned it into a juggernaut. He stared down the Soviet Union, and what happened under his watch is directly responsible for the fall of the USSR and the communist governments of Europe. He professed conservative values and self-reliance. He was, above all, a LEADER.

    The Bushes...again, they were both better than the alternatives, but both were heavily flawed. Would you have rather seen us presided over by Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry? Saying that a vote for them requires the same guilty conscience as a vote for Obama is not a proper comparison. Votes for the Bushes were reluctant and driven by the alternatives, while Obama voters were excited, happy, and passionate in support of his anti-America, anti-Constitution "hopey-changey" candidacy.

    Paul's own words regarding foreign policy and the military prove him to be insane.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Troll,
    the Constitution is NOT open-ended and open to interpretation. It is written in SIMPLE ENGLISH, which is why liberals, lawyers, and Paulbots have such a hard time understanding it. All governments of the USA are required to follow the exact words therein, but once again they have used legalese to confuse simple English and an activist and politicized judiciary to negate the restraints that the Constitution places upon government.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Credit where credit is due.

    Mr. Anonymous, I don't agree with much of what you've written, but I do want to give you credit for being able to debate in a much more reasonable tone than seems normal for the standard-issue Paulist.

    Generally speaking, the ones I've run up against are arrogant and condescending -- and outright rude -- jerks. You're a refreshing breath of fresh air in that department.

    Kudos to you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Wow.

    I agree with BrianR's last statement; at least the guy's not a jerk. But he is miserably misinformed. Good job, fellas.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ 10th Gen.

    How am I "misinformed"?

    And I realize that politics can lead to jerkiness...even among Ron Paul folks. However, they by no means have a monopoly on it...I've seen incredible rudeness from conservatives and liberals alike and was the recipient of it right here on this blog.

    Maybe I was confused w/another "Anonymous" and should sign in under a diff name...

    ReplyDelete
  114. Mr. C, why do you persist in calling me a "troll"?

    RE: REAGAN

    Govt. expanded enormously under him, period. He did some very bad things (O'Connor, Bush as VP, record-breaking deficits, drug-war, Iran-Contra, amnesty) but you (apparently a firm believer in a gargantuan military) think this is offset by his "hopey-changey" attributes as a "leader". Please, sir, don't accuse others of being mindless "Paul-bots" if you're not gonna impose the same standards on yourself.

    RE: BUSH

    At what point do voters have to start taking responsibility for their actions? It appears you weren't a huge Bush fan, sure, but you voted for him because he was the "lesser of two evils". Can you PROVE to me that the alternatives would've been worse? Many Obama voters say this SAME kind of thing ("McCain would've been worse") as a dodge. How are you being different?

    RE: CONSTITUTION

    1. Where in the document are govts. required to follow any particular interpretation or theory as to what it "really" means?
    2. Where in this legal document are the terms defined?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Mr. R, you said a mouthful...I'll only address one thing.

    I think some of the rudeness of "Paulbots" ( Obamabots, Clintonbots, Bushbots, and Reaganbots are no less rude btw) can be attributed to them being young and new to libertarianism. Politics tends to be nasty in any event.

    I voted for Paul in 1988...my first potus election...so he and libertariansim (which was what existed in my household growing up) aren't new to me. Maybe I'm old enough or was just brought up that my manners are just different. The anonymity of the internet surely brings out nastiness too...I try not to be too nasty myself.

    I like different views and bouncing my views off of others...and I can say I've learned far more from those who disagree w/me than from those who agree.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Mr. R

    I'm less concerned w/the alleged "constitutionality" (since anyone can claim nearly anything is "constitutional" or not) of particular policy than whether its good or bad policy.

    Bad constitutional policy is, fundamentally, no different than unconst. bad policy.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Troll,
    Note that the record breaking deficits came because Tip O'Neal reneged on his pledge to reduce spending. Once again, Reagan was dealing with a SOLID Democrat majority in the House for all 8 years and a Dem majority in the Senate for much of the time. The only times that we have had reduced spending in the past 50 years has been when the GOP held the House under someone other than liberal John Boehner. Reagan was anything but a hopey-changey. He had executive experience. California thrived under his Governorship.
    As for our military, we are the only nation that is strong enough to keep aggression on the parts of China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia (under Putin) held at bay. Who else is going to attempt to contain Islamist forces within the Middle East? We didn't ask for the job, but we became the world's police force because we had the economy, material, and technological superiority to field forces willing to fight for freedom. We are the only nation that has consistently won wars away from our own borders and NOT made our own empire.
    Bush I and II were not conservatives in the least, but if you think that there is any possibility that we would have been better off with Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry you are quite delusional. Our economy would have crapped out long before it did and our debt as of January 2009 would have been much higher.
    As for the Constitution, SIMPLE ENGLISH DOESN'T REQUIRE A DEFINITION OF TERMS! The Founding Fathers wrote it so that it would be simple to understand and comply with. Only documents written by lawyers need to be interpreted. Since the Democratic Party is mostly made up of lawyers, they are completely incapable of understanding the Constitution. They only understand legalese and bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Troll,
    Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Clinton never had the legion of obnoxious bots like Paul has. They are completely unique. The closest would be Obama's followers, who scream RACISM every time somebody opposes Obama on the issues, and who expect the government to take care of their every need without them taking the slightest bit of self-responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Troll,
    CLAIMING something is Constitutional is one thing. Showing where the Constitution allows the federal government to carry out such policies is quite another. Again, the Constitution is written in simple English, so it is not hard to se what powers the federal government has. Thanks to the 10th Amendment, it is even more clear. If it ain't in there, the federal government can't do it!

    ReplyDelete
  120. --C

    RE: REAGAN

    You can make all the excuses you want, you can claim Reagan has no responsibility for what happened under his 2 terms, but the facts tell a different story. Reagan's hopey-changey rhetoric and tele-prompter speechifying impress me as much as Obama's.

    RE: MILITARY

    Conservatives seem to forget that the military is part of govt. Subject to the same bureaucratic urge to self-perpetuate and grow as any other part of govt., subject to the same special-interest manipulation, and subject to the same kind of waste of resources. I don't ascribe to the Court Historian view of the USGovt. that you seem to, and seriously dispute your statements about the military fighting for "freedom" and lack of empire (ask those under US military occupation on the USGovt's payroll if an empire exists or not).

    All that said, if a $Trillion foreign-policy is what conservatives want, then they should at least be willing to pay for it in the PRESENT, rather than kicking the bill down the road.

    RE: CONSTITUTION

    I'll take your latest reply as an admission that you can't show me where the terms of this LEGAL document are defined, nor can you show me where any particular 'interpretation' of it is mandated.

    RE: LESSER OF TWO EVILS

    OK, kind sir, please PROVE to me that Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry would've been worse than Bush I and Bush II...also, prove that McCain WOULDN'T'VE been worse than Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  121. RE: OBNOXIOUS PAULBOTS

    Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and you probably have a reason for it. For my money, there's no more obnoxious group than Reagan-ites who persist in making outrageous claims about how great he was. Obamatons in late 2008 and early 2009 were bad too. To each his own.

    RE: CONSTITUTION

    The Const. set up a 3 part administrative process for the fedgovt. to determine the extents of its own powers...in a nutshell, if congress, the potus, and the scotus agree a particular law is Constitutional, it is. You don't seem to understand this...

    ReplyDelete
  122. Mr. R

    As w/Mr. C, I strongly disagree w/your Court Historian's take on WWII. I won't go into detail except to say boiling history down to a "White Hats" vs. "Black Hats" is silly. Germany was no more capable of conquering the world in the 1940's than it is today.

    You're equating Paul's non-interventionism w/"isolationism" which is also silly.

    Again, you refer to him as "insane"...which is silly too. We have a govt. which is running $trillion annual deficits at this point...call me crazy, but I don't think the ONLY guy saying we need to CUT a $trillion of spending is the insane one!

    RE: FOUNDER'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CONST.

    Please, show me where the Const. binds subsequent govts. to interpret it the way prior ones did.

    If your method of determining the "true" interpretation is to look at how the early Founding generation governed, then please give me your thoughts on the Alien and Sedition Acts which effectively nullified the 1st amendment by making it a crime to criticize the govt...if Obama and a Democrat majority were to make it a crime to criticize them, would you defend their actions as being consistent w/the Founders' views?

    RE: BEN FRANKLIN

    "A republic if you can keep it."

    If a system is only as good as the people in charge of it, why even pretend a Const. can restrain them? I'm tired of people refusing to look at the SYSTEMS they support...socialists claim their system can work wonders if only the "right people" are put in charge. At this point, I put the defenders of the Const. system in the same category as socialists.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Troll,
    Reagan does indeed take responsibility for what happened in his two terms. He compromised repeatedly in order to get his economic legislation passed. If he had had a Republican House and Senate, he would not have had to make those big-government compromises. As is, he still caused our economy to go from Jimmy Carter's Malaise to completely robust.

    Military: Who are we occupying? Hmm? When we went into Iraq, we took down the government of Saddam and stayed on as a peacekeeping/security force to get the new government stable. We have never had any urge to keep that territory for ourselves, which is what an empire does. The plan was for our forces to leave when the new government was stable enough and had security and armed forces enough to protect itself and establish and keep order on their own. As for paying for our national defense in the here and now...if we get rid of all the unConstitutional entitlements, unConstitutional agencies and departments, the over-regulatory bureaucracies, and the pure bureaucratic waste, we could INCREASE national defense spending and still have a large budget surplus. We don't have to cut a penny from the military to bring about a surplus.

    Constitution: Once again. I will say this slowly, so that you might understand it. There. Is. No. Need. To. Have. A. Definition. Of. Terms. Section. For. The. Constitution. Because. It. Was. Written. In. Simple. English. Without. Legalistic. Terms. In. Order. That. The. People. Could. Understand. It. And. There. Is. No. Mandate. For. Any. Particular. Interpretation. To. Be. Followed. Because. It. Is. Not. Written. To. Be. Interpreted. But. Rather. To. Be. Followed. As. Written.

    As for Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, just look up what their campaign positions were and note that they were all waaaaaayyy to the left (big government socialism) of the Bushes. While W was a big government leftist on many fronts, at least he understood that lowering taxes on all taxpayers spurs economic growth and actually increases the amount government takes in. He also appointed two of the finest SCOTUS Justices in the past century in Roberts and Alito. Imagine the damage that SCOTUS would do to our nation if those two were exchanged for two more along the lines of Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor.

    As for McLame being better than Obama, all I need to say is: Kagan, Sotomayor, Holder, Napolitano, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Obamacare, QE1, QE2, Tax CHeat Timmy Geithner.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Troll,
    if all three branches of government agree that a law is Constitutional, it is. Really? No, it is not if the Constitution's simple language says it is not. Ever since the New Deal, we have had Welfare, Public Housing, and such. These were put on steroids by the Great Society. Are those Constitutional? What would the Founding Fathers have to say about them in relation to the Constitution? You don't have to speculate, because we have the direct quote.

    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
    -James Madison

    ReplyDelete
  125. Troll,
    you, sir, obviously have not studied World War 2 at all. Hitler had no intention of conquering North and South America. If not for our help to Britain, he would have completely taken Europe. With Hitler's assistance, Italy would have regained the parts of their empire lost to the Brits in 1940-41. Africa would have been pretty much fully under the control of Germany and Italy,as the remaining French and British colonies would have been taken over. At this point, Hitler would have turned to the Middle East and their oil. The area was already Germany-friendly dating back to World War 1. Without the need to keep troops and equipment in the West, Hitler could have used a much more massive force when he invaded the Soviet Union. With those extra forces, the probability of the Wehrmacht being stopped before taking Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucuses, and everything west of the Ural Mountains is almost nil.

    Now, without British, Dutch, and British colonial forces to oppose them, the Japanese would have had a much easier time of it in southeast Asia and the border areas of India. India was split on possibly breaking with the Brits and surrendering to Japan in 1942. Do you think they would have been much more pre-disposed to surrender without the presence of the British Army and Royal Navy? The Japanese would not have even needed to strike Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, so they would not have directly brought us into the war.

    Let's review. If the USA had been strictly neutral and isolationist, Germany and Italy would have ended up controlling all of Europe, most of Africa, a large part of the Middle East, and almost all of the civilized parts of the Soviet Union. Japan would have controlled Manchuria, the coastal areas of China, Taiwan, the Dutch East Indies, Indochina, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, New Guinea, the Solomons, the Marianas, the Carolines, Palau, Ceylon, and possibly India. This leaves the free world to consist of North and South America.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Mr. C

    RE: WWII

    This unfortunate war can be called the "Mother Of All Unintended Consequences/Blowback".

    The origins of WWII (and the Cold War, as well as the seeds for today's conflict w/the Muslims) are in the USGovt's meddling in WWI.

    Its too big a topic to really address and I don't think I could dissuade you from your Court Historian view anyways.

    USGOVT'S QUASI-EMPIRE:

    Hitler claimed to be a 'liberator', so did Stalin, so have most other conquerors. Again, you see the USGovt. as a "White Hat", instead of a govt. looking to dominate. No need for me to try and dissuade you.

    MILITARY SPENDING:

    Your attitude here perfectly illustrates the conservative love for Big Govt. You're not satisfied w/an army capable of mere defense, but want one big enough to dominate the world. Hasn't worked out too well, has it? Do you really think a candidate can win an election by demanding cuts in welfare programs while saying those cuts should go into increased military spending? And you think RON PAUL'S ideas are "insane" and "unelectable"?

    REAGAN:

    Well, I'm glad I got you to admit he has SOME responsibility for what happened under his terms. As far as the "what if" regarding him having a GOP congress instead of Dems...I think all we need to look at is GW when he had his GOP congress...I imagine Reagan would've helped increase govt. just as much under a GOP congress. Just my opinion.

    CONSTITUTION:

    Well, the theory of how it would function to 'limit' govt. didn't work out too well in practice did it? If the Founders were here, I'm sure many of them would wonder why so many people are so intent on defending a failed system...

    LIBERTARIANISM IS THE TRUTH, THE WAY, THE LIGHT:

    Liberals will never agree to cut welfare...Conservatives will never agree to cut warfare...each 'side' will cooperate to protect each other's turf...each side seems to believe we can keep borrowing massive sums indefinitely, so, no cuts will happen until economic reality forces them.

    Libertarians have been warning for decades (if not centuries) that more govt. isn't the solution...people (esp. the youth) are seeing how right we were. Ron Paul may not win, but its greatly encouraging to see the ranks of the de-centralizers increasing to oppose the centralizers (Cons and Libs).

    The truth is that Conservatives threw in the towel long ago (somewhere in the Nixon-Reagan era) as far as opposing big govt. goes--leaving a few stubborn libertarians as the sole carriers of the Torch Of Freedom. We've kept the "crazy old ideas" alive during some very dark times...and we'll continue to do so until mankind is ready to be free. Our ideas will be around LONG after Conservatism and Liberalism are thrown on the ash heap of history.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Troll,
    I find it funny how you refer to me as a court reporter, but that has nothing to do with knowledge of history and the ability to read simple English.

    The seeds of our conflict with Islam trace to WW1? No. As opposed to Ron Paul's idiotic claims that the muslims hate us because we have meddled in their affairs, the truth is that muslims hate us because we are not muslim. Their Quran commands them to hate all non-muslims. The reason they strike out at us so much is simply because we have the most capability to prevent their conquest of the entire world, which is commanded by the Quran. Unlike Paul and his minions, I have studied real world history, real Islamic history, and the Quran. Thank you for playing our game, but you are the weakest link.

    The USA does not dominate any part of the world that is not our own territory. Whenever we have intervened, we have always looked to return the land to the free people of that land. Are we dominating Iraq? Kuwait? France? Holland? Luxembourg? Western Germany? Italy? Sicily? Tunisia? Morocco? Philippines? Solomon Islands? Caroline Islands? Mariana Islands? (I know, you and the others of your kind would point out Guam, but Guam was an American Territory before WW2, and they voted to remain so.)

    Military spending. You once again show your complete naivete. We have national interests (strategic, trade, and material) around the world, not just in our own nation. We protect our interests, including freedom of the seas, around the world. That is part of national defense. Also, there is that thing called Forward Deployment or Forward Defense, which keeps potential enemies from being able to directly invade our nation. It is much preferred to fight them over there than to fight them over here.

    Welfare vs military spending. Which one is allowed under the Constitution? It sure isn't welfare!

    ReplyDelete
  128. Reagan. We can see exactly how a Republican House is capable of operating if we look back at the GOP House under Gingrich. They were able to cut back the size of government, even with a liberal President, and balance the budget. If there had been a similar House when Reagan was President, the government would definitely have shrunk. He made many proposals to shrink the government, but they were all blocked by Tip O'Neal. To get anything done, he had to compromise with O'Neal. Obama has also had to compromise, but in this case John Boehner is just bluffing for a few weeks until the media pressure gets too great. At that point he will settle for a couple of crumbs from Obama and give in on everything else. That is why Boehner and the "establishment" Republicans must be removed as well as the Democrats.

    Constitution. No, the Founders would demand that we follow the Constitution, and would file lawsuit after lawsuit to get the unConstitutional parts of government thrown out. They would point out, in court, that the Constitution overrides the principle of "stare decisis", which is the principle that many Justices have used to NOT overturn unConstitutional programs and laws in the past century.

    Conservatives and warfare. NOBODY wants warfare. Conservatives don't WANT warfare. The members of the Armed Forces do not WANT warfare. That doesn't mean we will shrink away when our national interests are threatened, or when our allies are threatened. The concept of "peace through strength" must be completely lost on Paul and his followers. You don't get peace by making yourself weak. That just invites aggression. Every area that we back off from, those who oppose us will immediately move into.

    Cutting entitlements. Conservatives don't want to keep entitlements, but they have never had the spine and eloquence to adequately defend cutting entitlements. The liberals have the media and groups like AARP, NAACP, ACLU, and the unions to spread complete lies about what conservatives want to do, and why entitlements are RIGHTS of the people. Until those lies can be adequately countered, cutting back on entitlements is political suicide. Conservatives KNOW that severe reformation of the entitlement state must occur, but the 49% of America that pays no taxes, along with the liberal elite, make up a majority that cannot be politically countered at this time. These people must be educated on how a lack of self-reliance is destroying them, especially the black family unit, and the country.

    We are in agreement that the government MUST shrink, but you and the rest of Paul's supporters refuse to acknowledge that the ONLY necessary cuts are in spending that is not Constitutional. National defense IS Constitutional.

    Conservatives didn't throw in the towel, but the "establishment" of the GOP did. They are more interested in being a PART of the power elite, being welcome in the DC social circles, and being liked by the media than they are about winning on Constitutional principles.

    Real conservatives stand with Ron Paul on his domestic policies. It is just his military and international policies that show him to be loony. Of course, there is also that book he wrote, but I won't really delve into that as I am just using other people's commentary on it right now. I have not read the incriminating evidence myself.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Back in 2008, I wrote a party platform of my own. A few of the points were definitely made tongue firmly in cheek and over-the-top to spur discussion, and I'm sure you would be able to tell where that is happening, but take a look and see how much you agree with:
    http://constitutionalcrawfish.blogtownhall.com/2008/03/10/american_tradition_party_platform_2008.thtml

    Don't reply there, as I don't monitor that site anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "Unknown" or "Anonymous"... I don't know whether you're the same guy, or what.

    Nonetheless... you wrote: "Germany was no more capable of conquering the world in the 1940's than it is today."

    It doesn't matter whether or not they COULD actually do it, only that Hitler BELIEVED they could. And he was sure we'd stay out of it, which was the reason why he gave it a shot, and we had a world war.

    That's the exact issue, in a nutshell. When you have people at the helm who are insane -- as Hitler was and the Iranian ayatollahs are -- you can't deal with them as rational people. It simply doesn't work. They don't respond -- RATIONALLY -- which is why they're insane in the first place.

    That's the fatal flaw in Paul's policy. It's fundamental and profound.

    "You're equating Paul's non-interventionism w/"isolationism" which is also silly."

    No, it's factual and accurate.



    "Please, show me where the Const. binds subsequent govts. to interpret it the way prior ones did."


    I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. But let's try this: Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

    It doesn't get any plainer than that; "... the supreme law of the land".

    Plainly written law isn't open to change, except through the process the Constitution itself describes, the amendment process.

    You want to change the Constitution? Fine. Amend it.

    Otherwise you are bound to obey it as written.

    ReplyDelete
  131. To continue.

    "RE: BEN FRANKLIN...'A republic if you can keep it.'...If a system is only as good as the people in charge of it, why even pretend a Const. can restrain them?"


    A matter you should take up with the Founders, I guess. History seems to indicate they may have been overly optimistic about our ability to limit the power people will cede to government if they want to remain free.



    "At this point, I put the defenders of the Const. system in the same category as socialists."

    One of the more bizarre assertions I've ever read. So... small government advocates are "socialists"? That statement's an oxymoron, by definition.

    But since we're looking at synonimity, I'd call Libertarianism ( big "L") as being akin to anarchy. That's particularly illustrated by your aversion to the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Mr.'s C and R, thanks for sharing your insights and perspectives and for the debate.

    It is always good to get varying views and understand where the "other guy" is coming from.

    I don't see further need to pursue the topics we've been on.

    The crux of the difference between libertarianism and conservatism (as well as liberalism), imho, is a far different reading of history as well as a very different take on human nature combined w/a fundamentally different view of govt.

    Liberals see things like the Great Depression as a failure of free-markets (i.e., not enough govt.), instead of the consequences of too much govt. This failure to recognize too much govt. as the core cause of economic disruption leads them to push for more govt. as a solution, which leads to a vicious downward cycle.

    Conservatives make this same mistake in the realm of foreign-policy.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Oh, and HNY2012!

    ReplyDelete
  134. "The crux of the difference between libertarianism and conservatism (as well as liberalism), imho, is a far different reading of history as well as a very different take on human nature combined w/a fundamentally different view of govt."


    No, it's much more basic than that. It's a difference in the understanding of the meaning of the Constitution itself. Liberals and Libertarians both think the Constitution in its entirety doesn't mean what it says in plain and simple English. They want to pick and choose the parts they like while ignoring the parts they don't like.

    True conservatives -- and by that I don't mean "right-wingers" who are subject to making the same mistake -- think the Constitution in its entirety is the rulebook for the governance of this country.

    IN ITS ENTIRETY.

    That's key.

    Now, I agree that liberals and Libertarians also base their views on completely unrealistic appraisals of human nature. That's why leftists think it's possible to have an overpowerful government that doesn't result in tyranny, and Libertarians think it's possible to have a virtually non-existent government that doesn't result in anarchy. The polar extremes of the spectrum, both equally unrealistic.

    As to history, it's simply a recitation of facts and events. The only time that becomes problematic is when we fail to learn the lessons that history clearly teaches, and that's usually due to the refusal to accept the aspect of the past that's due to simple human nature.

    Given a certain set of circumstances, certain types of people are going to act predictably. In this case, fanatics and megalomaniacs are always going to try to seize power. That's simply a given, proven true throughout the entire history of our species. Why would things be any different now?

    And that's where both liberalism and Libertarianism refuse to accept reality. Somehow, THIS time things will be different, in their view.

    Well, as Santayana wrote, "Those who refuse to understand the past are doomed to repeat it."

    And Einstein noted that, "Repeating the same actions while each time expecting a different result is the definition of insanity".

    Anyway, Happy New Year to you, too.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Well, Mr. R, you used one of my favorite quotes (Santayana)!

    Einstein's in priceless too!

    Here's another one:

    "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."--Hegel

    I find it fascinating how people can look at historical incidents and draw completely different conclusions. Of course, I would say its conservatives (not libertarians) who are in the same boat as liberals...seeing govt. as a moral agent existing to achieve good rather than (at best) a necessary evil to be viewed w/suspicion.

    To gain an understanding into the difference between conservatives/liberals and libertarians, I think its worth noting which potus's each sees as ideal.

    In the 20th century liberals regard FDR as the best. A potus who dramatically increased fedgovt. spending and sought entry into WWII. Conservatives' favorite is Reagan who also presided over a massive increase in spending and whom set the stage for later wars w/his expansion of the military (though, to his credit, he stayed out of any big conflicts). The primary difference between the two is that FDR at least paid for his big govt. while Reagan's big-govt. was put on the national credit card.

    Many libertarians will point to Harding as the best of the 20th century--the last potus to seriously cut fed. spending and was strongly against joining the League Of Nations (part of a restrained foreign-policy). He very well could be the last non-Progressive potus.

    Where cons/libs prefer a "do something" govt./potus, we libertarians prefer a "leave me alone" govt./potus.

    Even more instructive is how BOTH cons and libs rate the Great Centralizer Lincoln (who instigated a war which killed well over 1/2 million Americans) as an all-time great potus, whereas libertarians see him as probably the worst due to his destruction of States' Rights and overthrow of the Old Republic.

    AGAIN, whereas cons/libs hold up possibly THE greatest expander of fedgovt. power as an ideal...libertarians see things 180 d. differently.

    Hopefully this has been instructive in showing the HUGE difference between cons/libs VS. libertarians!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Wow, what an idiot. Reagan didn't set the stage for any wars. He just got our military built back up so when those wars occurred we were able to win them with minimal American casualties. Reagan also did not want the government expansions, but that was the price he had to pay to get anything positive from the Tip O'Neal Congress.

    Lincoln did not instigate the Civil War. The seeds of that fight came from the House and Senate. Lincoln tried to prevent it, but the events of the previous decade had made it almost unavoidable.

    As for the League of Nations and the United Nations, conservatives knew that both were doomed to fail and were attempts at a world government that would ruin the USA. While the UN does have some good functions, they are far from what the original mission was and far from the main mission now. There are some things, like standardizing how hazardous materials are marked, packed, and transported, that need some kind of international body to design and regulate, but those types of items are the only useful parts of the UN.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Mr. C, as any supporter of bigger govt., you rationalize the actions of those who expand govt.

    My points still stand.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Mr.'s C and R

    Despite your continued assertions that your personal opinions of what the Const. 'really' means are the 'truly' valid ones, there is a process set forth right in the Const. which explains how it is to be interpreted:

    1. Congress gives its positive consent to a bill.
    2. The potus gives his assent to it, signs it, and it becomes law.
    3. The scotus either upholds or rejects said law (or parts of said law).

    This is the 3-branch govt., checks-and-balances system enshrined in the Const. the FFs created in order to properly interpret the Const.

    The American electorate, via election of representatives, implicitly gives its consent to the interpretation which govts. (past and present) have deemed in-line w/the Const.

    If Americans believe anything currently being done by the fedgovt. is unConst., they have every right and ability to elect new representatives whom they believe to have a more accurate interpretation.

    If they believe a proper interpretation is being adhered to, they can elect status-quo representatives.

    Since Conservatives and Liberals dominate the political system and continue to elect status-quo representatives (Bush-Obama), a libertarian such as myself can only conclude that Conservatives and Liberals believe a proper construction of fedgovt. powers exists and there is no reason to change course.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Really? I'm putting the blame exactly on the perpetrators. Your points are still lost in space.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Troll,
    My personal opinions don't matter regarding the Constitution. The words in that document stand for themselves. The decisions by activist judges are not necessarily valid,especially when they are in direct conflict with the actual words of the Constitution. Too often, judges and Justices use "stare decisis" to avoid making a politically tough call. That principle says that if a judge said it, it must stand as true. At other times, the courts have tossed "stare decisis" on its ear, such as the overturning of Dred Scott and Brown vs Topeka.

    This is why we need more judges and justices like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. They rule based upon the actual words of the Constitution or federal law in cases that aren't based upon Constitutionality. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor have stated repeatedly that they oppose the Constitution when it is in conflict with their political desires.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Mr. C, once again, you're dodging my point re: interpretation of the Const. As you keep saying, the words are clear in it: if the 3 branches decide an act is Constitutional, it is. If you don't like their decisions you can petition for redress, elect new reps., or run for office.

    Since the American People (of which you are a part) keep electing status-quo reps, that must mean they agree w/the current interpretation.

    Being this is a "Conservative Nation" (as Conservative ALWAYS claim), this mean Cons as a group (of which you are a part) are content w/the current interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  142. @ Mr. R

    You keep saying Jefferson was an architect of the Const., which is odd, since he was America's minister to France (1785-1789) during the 1787 ConCon.

    Also, what about the Alien and Sedition Acts which effectively barred speech critical of the fedgovt? The Founding Generation passed these laws so--according to your logic--that must mean the proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment would allow the Obama admin to throw Tea Partiers in prison, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Mr. C, don't you mean we need more justices like Reagan's Sandra Day O'Connor?

    How PC of Reagan, eh?

    I find it funny that you claim Republican-nominated/appointed SC Justices are "strict constructionists" while the Democrat ones are political hacks...

    Quite ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  144. RE: The UN

    So, you're in favor of an Int'l Regulatory body that has the authority to impose guidelines on the USA?

    What about the Const. which grants the power to regulate trade, solely, to the USGovt?

    Or, is your position that Treaties take supremacy over the Const? If so, isn't the 2nd amendment also revocable by Treaty?

    So much for the "clear and precise language" of the Const., eh?

    Its funny that you exclaim over the UN morphing from its "original mission"...just like any proponent of big govt. acts surprised when govt. programs/agencies seek to expand and self-perpetuate...this just reinforces my position that libertarians are the ONLY people who understand how govts. ACTUALLY function in REALITY, contrary to Cons-Libs who naively believe their hair-brained ideas on paper will translate into real-world perfection!

    ReplyDelete
  145. Unknown,
    "So, you're in favor of an Int'l Regulatory body that has the authority to impose guidelines on the USA?"

    Geez, you are really impossible. For international trade there do need to be guidelines and regulations. The only way to make those happen is through an international body. That has nothing to do with our own sovereignty as long as they don't put limitations on us.

    As for treaties, yes the Constitution is quite clear when it says that a treaty that is ratified by the Senate becomes the law of the land. (Article 6 para. 2) It does state that they become "the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding."

    Unfortunately that does indeed mean that the UN Small Arms Treaty that Hillary and Barack want so badly would indeed overturn the 2nd Amendment, which is why we can never allow the Democrats and socialists to control 67 votes in the Senate.

    Oh, and once again since you can't seem to admit it, I am NOT a proponent of big government.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Unknown,
    "I find it funny that you claim Republican-nominated/appointed SC Justices are "strict constructionists" while the Democrat ones are political hacks...

    Quite ridiculous."

    Wrong answer. Once again you choose to only read what you WANT to read. I said that Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are constructionists. Did I say anything of that kind about Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, or Stevens? Nope, and they were all put on the court by GOP Presidents.

    Nice try, but you fail yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Unknown,
    "Mr. C, once again, you're dodging my point re: interpretation of the Const. As you keep saying, the words are clear in it: if the 3 branches decide an act is Constitutional, it is. If you don't like their decisions you can petition for redress, elect new reps., or run for office."

    Once again you are dodging the real point. The WORDS of the Constitution take priority over any "interpretation". The Constitution itself says so, and states that judges are bound by the Constitution. The judges have repeatedly ruled on how they WANTED a particular passage to be applied, not on how it was written. Your insistence that it is proper to "interpret" the Constitution shows that you are in fact an anti-Constitutionalist yourself.

    We have nice parting gifts on your way out, looooser.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Mr. C, I'm just trying to understand you here...

    You keep saying "the words mean what they mean"...OK...but I still can't find in my copy of the Const. where it says anything but that the Const. will be administered by congress, the potus, and scotus...that, in effect, it is up to them to determine what, exactly, the words mean. If you can show me otherwise please do!

    I guess its kind of like how Conservatives and Liberals 'interpret' the Const. to grant the Executive unlimited powers to declare war on his own authority...even though the words in it say congress has the sole power to "declare war" (not "authorize the Executive to wage war if he feels the national interests are threatened")...

    I guess libertarians have a different understanding of what the words "declare" and "war" mean...

    See how your point of "the words meaning what they say" isn't much of a point at all?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Your big-govt. tendencies are showing again!

    You're saying the ONLY way int'l trade can occur is if there is an int'l govt. regulatory agency doing it...funny that int'l trade has occurred for CENTURIES, already, w/o a World Governing body...

    I guess more govt. = Progress in your mind...

    ReplyDelete
  150. RE: CONSTITUTION

    Article 1
    Section 8

    "The Congress shall have Power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    I don't know about y'all, but this seems pretty open-ended to me...

    The words in the Const. say congress has the power to make ALL (not "some" or a "few") laws it deems "necessary and proper" in support of all the other powers "We The People" granted it.

    Now, please, Mr. C, Mr. R...can you DEFINE what "necessary and proper" means?

    Seems pretty subjective, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  151. One more for fun!

    If you're like most Conservatives I know, you're pro-draft, but...I wonder how you square that w/your "the words mean what they mean" position when there's THIS:

    13th Amendment:

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    ???

    The plain meaning of these words seems clear...no one can be forced to serve others involuntarily nor can they be slaves...the only exception being the CLEAR reference to these being forms of punishment for a person convicted of a crime.

    So, my dear Mr.'s C and R...explain to me how a draft is Constitutional?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Troll,
    The Constitution doesn't say who is to interpret the meaning because it is to stand on its own.

    Again, you don't seem to comprehend that there are plenty of times that military action does not mean full-out war. It is a nuance that the naive and ignorant Ron Paul supporters can't get over.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Troll,
    Yes there was trade over the centuries, but safety was not considered as an issue. There were not the kinds of hazardous materials to transport that there are now. There were not the environmental hazards that we have now. How are those concerns to be addressed without an international body to debate them and propose solutions? That international body does not need to be a government body. It can be a trade organization.

    That's not a big-government thing. Are you so ignorant that you cannot understand international cooperation and international trade?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Troll,
    You are correct. That phrase is quite open ended. That is where our politicians have gone crazy with their own agendas. They have taken it upon themselves to overturn the Constitution through laws that they deem necessary and proper. Now when those laws are in direct conflict with the Constitution, the actual Constitution, being the Supreme law of the land, takes precedence and those laws "deemed necessary and proper" by Congress are null and void. Note that that section does not say that the laws passed by Congress are the Supreme law of the land, while Article 6 says that the Constitution IS.

    Twisting phrases of the Constitution to fit your agenda and taking them somewhat out of context...you have the makings of a good liberal lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Wow, Troll, you blew it this time.

    First of all, I oppose the draft wholeheartedly. Our military is an all-volunteer force of highly trained professionals. We don't want folks alongside who don't want to serve and who would not take their training seriously.

    Secondly, the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) clearly says that one of Congress' responsibilities is to raise and support armies. In the days that the Constitution was written, this was ALWAYS done through conscription. On top of that, the terminology you reference is "slavery or involuntary servitude", which doesn't fit, either. Even draftees were paid and given benefits. That does not fit the definition of "servitude".

    Thank you for failing yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Hahaha!

    You don't have a leg to stand on!

    BTW, the 13th amendment was added AFTER A.1 S.8...so, that would mean it SUPERCEDES prior language...

    If they could make exceptions for imposing "slavery" and "involuntary servitude" due to criminal conviction...why didn't they include language saying that military conscription (which is UNDOUBTEDLY a form of "involuntary servitude") was exempted from the 13th A?

    RE: NECESSARY AND PROPER

    So, you CEDE me the point here?

    RE: CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

    No, it isn't EXPLICITLY stated who gets to 'interpret' it...however, it is IMPLICITLY stated that IF the representatives of "We The People" (congress, potus, and scotus) give their assent to an act of congress...for all intents and purposes it IS CONSTITUTIONAL...

    You lose...

    Take a course in logic and/or rhetoric and you'll end up looking a lot less silly than I just made you look.

    ReplyDelete
  157. You couldn't be more wrong. The 13th doesn't supercede Article 1 Section 8's military conscription phrase at all. If it did, there would not have been a draft for World War 1, World War 2, Korea, or Vietnam. Military service is not involuntary servitude. The fact that the military got pay and benefits, including leave time, throws out that argument. The additional fact that there was such a category as "objector" status kills off that argument.

    Necessary and Proper: No, I don't cede any point. Try actually reading what I wrote.

    No, you are still incorrect. The language stands as written, regardless of the political agendas of those in Congress.

    You STILL lose.

    You couldn't make me look silly on your best day, even if I was high on painkillers.

    ReplyDelete
  158. OK, so the Const. "means what it says"...except when YOU say it means something else!

    According to YOUR "interpretation" of the 13th A., military conscription is exempted...even though it doesn't SAY that and...even though it SPECIFICALLY makes exemptions for criminal punishment.

    BTW, can you point out the SPECIFIC wording that allows the fedgovt. to "conscript" people into the army?

    You've violated YOUR OWN ASSERTION about "the words meaning what they say"...but will you admit it? Of course not!

    Silly Conservatives...

    ReplyDelete
  159. Troll,
    12th paragraph of Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to raise armies. In the 1700s, the only way to raise an army was by conscription. So giving Congress the power to raise an army is giving it the power for conscription.

    Again, the 13th doesn't need to exempt military conscription because that is not involuntary servitude. Words mean what they say.

    Once again, you Paulbots are trying to INTERPRET instead of READING.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Mr. C

    Thanks for proving MY point about the Const. being an open-ended legal document open to wide interpretation!

    Its amazing how you're doing the EXACT thing you're accusing ME of doing...

    Even though NOWHERE in the Const. is the word "conscription" mentioned as a power of congress...yet you're saying it IS a power.

    Even though "conscription" (being compelled to involuntarily join the army) IS a form of "involuntary servitude"...you're saying it isn't.

    Even though the 13th A. CLEARLY makes an exception ONLY for those convicted of a crime...you see a non-existent phrase which also exempts compelled military service.

    In other words, you are INTERPRETING the Const. to mean whatever you WANT it to...

    Social security, medicare, and every other welfare program is also Const...and you can't prove otherwise!

    Bye-bye...

    ReplyDelete
  161. You are such an idiot.

    The power to raise an army includes conscription. That is the ONLY way a government can raise an army. The all-volunteer force of today isn't raised by the government. It raises itself through patriotic volunteers.

    Again, as the military personnel receive pay and benefits, they are not in SERVITUDE. Try to understand simple English for once.

    Oh, and none of those are authorized by the Constitution and you very well know it.

    I'm not going to bother with any more of your comments as you simply cannot understand the English language.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Craw,

    If you get paid, your not in servitude? I get it. So you don't need to exempt anyone from the 13th Amendment if they get paid. Simple enough.

    ReplyDelete

I welcome your comments, but beware that I do review them before allowing them to be seen. While I allow opposing points of view, I discard stoooopidity and trollish comments.