Ron Paul did *NOT* say we are to blame for 9/11. He said our interventionist policy is what angered Bin Laden into attacking us.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda didn't strike for no reason, as the mainstream media would like us to believe. We have intervened in Israel at the expense of Palestine for many years. We have bombed Iraq off and on for over 15 years. Interventionism will always anger those whose life we intrude in.

I'm a old-line Jeffersonian Conservative. Today they're mislabeled as "libertarian," which wrongly includes people like me with the likes of Howard Stern.

Here's why RON PAUL should be president. HE UNDERSTANDS THE CONSTITUTION AND FEDERALISM.

Article I Section VIII explicitly enumerates the legislative powers of the federal government. The anti-federalists, like Patrick Henry, feared that the words "General Welfare" in the introductory clause, and the words "Necessary and Proper," in the concluding clause of Article I Section VIII, would be construed to grant Congress plenary legislative power. Combine this with the "Supremacy clause," and you have a national legislature, not a federal legislature.

Anti-federalists did not want the constitution ratified unless more restrictive clauses were added to limit the power of the federal government, i.e., to ensure a proper interpretation of the document. This is why a "Bill of Rights" was added.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights states, "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Thus, the bill of rights protects the rights of individuals not by granting free speech rights or the right to bear arms; but rather, by making clear that Congress can only pass laws pursuant to its listed (enumerated) powers. This is why the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..."

In addition, notice how the first 8 amendments are expressed in general terms, along with the restrictions in Article I Section IX. These are superfluous restrictions on federal power. Only Article I Section X grants power to the fed against the state governments (along with the illegally "ratified" 14th amendment).

This is why Roe v. Wade is complete nonsense. The 9th Amendment makes it clear that just because some "rights" are listed in the bill of rights and in Article I Section IX, that the list does not mean that other rights are not also protected (i.e., congress cannot abridge these unenumerated rights since they were not "delegated" the power to legislate in those other areas). Thus, issues like abortion are left strictly to the state governments. The constitution is not a national document. It's more like a partnership agreement which created a limited agent. The agent only has authority over the powers delegated to it. Everything else is withheld from the agent (the fed). Hence, 99% of issues (i.e., almost all domestic issues) are reserved to the states... as explictly expressed by the 10th Amendment.

This is why FEDERAL gun laws are unconstitutional. Nowhere does congress possess that power, but just to make sure congress got no crazy ideas, the 2nd amendment was added. Thus, congress cannot pass laws which restrict the right to bear arms since congress was never delegated that power... but, States can abridge the right to bear arms, subject to their own constitutions (though I don't think they should).

RON PAUL UNDERSTANDS THIS. Ron Paul also understands that the absurd "Incorporation Doctrine" (which the Supreme Court created out of thin air 60+ years after the 14th amendment was "ratified" at the point of a bayonnet) is complete nonsense. This is why I would vote for him. He understands why 99% of federal laws are unconstitutional... and that's why he votes against everything not authorized by the constitution.

If you want to increase the scope of the federal government's power, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. The living breathing constitution, which is taught in schools today, destroys the federal system, increases the scope of the federal government, and limits your rights as an individual. Naturally, if Congress can pass any law it wants, subject only to a limited substantive right expressed in an amendment, then fewer of your rights are protected. The 9th amendment is completely illogical under our present system.

Read Thomas Jefferson's (and the State of Kentucky's) Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, protesting the Alien & Sedition Acts as unconstitutional... if you want to learn what the constitution means, and just how far off the rails the union is today.

Do you think Rudy McRomney knows any of this stuff? It would be very entertaining to watch the framers of the federal system (the so-called "founding fathers") sit down with modern political and media figures. I have no doubt that if the framers had a crystal ball and could've seen what would become of the United States, the constitution never would have made it out of the Philadelphia convention.

Maybe we should return to the Article of Confederation? Is Self-Government such a bad thing?

RON PAUL would be a good first step. If we could once again embrace the pre-"Civil War" system of government, but without slavery, I believe we'd all be better off... and everyone would be much more free.

VOTE FOR RON PAUL, unless you're happy with the status quo-- i.e., the welfare and warfare state.

"Remember the Constitution? It was once taught in the public schools that it, along with the Bill of Rights, contained the founding principles of our once great nation. I happen to disagree with AIPAC-PNAC-UN-FED-IMF (the short list) and GeeDub when he declared it "...just a f'ing piece of paper...".

As a strict constitutionalist, Ron Paul is far too big a threat to the status quo to get elected. A strong US Constitution and Bill of Rights simply is not part of the global statists' game plan.

Those of us who see Dr. Paul as our last best hope are faced with a tragic catch-22. If he does not become our next president, this nation is surely doomed. If he does become our next president, he is."

----------

Agreed. Ron Paul is the best hope this nation's got of looking into a future free from increasing government tyranny and rights-relinquishing globalism.

Anyone who thinks that interventionalist foreign policy is a good thing need only look to the Roman Empire for cues. At the end of their dominance, they were overrun my groups of people they had stepped on over the years. The United States will be no different if we don't get our act together and say "NO" to the elite money changers and central bankers who foam at the mouth to see us mired in one debt-producing war after another.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to go to youtube, do a search for Ron Paul, and get with the program.

To the author of this article, you need to get your head out of whatever hole it's in and get with the program! Your readers want Ron Paul, not these other hacks you're paid to push on us. If you can't do that, you should just quit your job lest you become a hack yourself.

Not that I'm for censorship in any capacity, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

"Remember the Constitution? It was once taught in the public schools that it, along with the Bill of Rights, contained the founding principles of our once great nation. I happen to disagree with AIPAC-PNAC-UN-FED-IMF (the short list) and GeeDub when he declared it "...just a f'ing piece of paper...".

As a strict constitutionalist, Ron Paul is far too big a threat to the status quo to get elected. A strong US Constitution and Bill of Rights simply is not part of the global statists' game plan.

Those of us who see Dr. Paul as our last best hope are faced with a tragic catch-22. If he does not become our next president, this nation is surely doomed. If he does become our next president, he is."

----------

Agreed. Ron Paul is the best hope this nation's got of looking into a future free from increasing government tyranny and rights-relinquishing globalism.

Anyone who thinks that interventionalist foreign policy is a good thing need only look to the Roman Empire for cues. At the end of their dominance, they were overrun my groups of people they had stepped on over the years. The United States will be no different if we don't get our act together and say "NO" to the elite money changers and central bankers who foam at the mouth to see us mired in one debt-producing war after another.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to go to youtube, do a search for Ron Paul, and get with the program.

To the author of this article, you need to get your head out of whatever hole it's in and get with the program! Your readers want Ron Paul, not these other hacks you're paid to push on us. If you can't do that, you should just quit your job lest you become a hack yourself.

Not that I'm for censorship in any capacity, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

"Remember the Constitution? It was once taught in the public schools that it, along with the Bill of Rights, contained the founding principles of our once great nation. I happen to disagree with AIPAC-PNAC-UN-FED-IMF (the short list) and GeeDub when he declared it "...just a f'ing piece of paper...".

As a strict constitutionalist, Ron Paul is far too big a threat to the status quo to get elected. A strong US Constitution and Bill of Rights simply is not part of the global statists' game plan.

Those of us who see Dr. Paul as our last best hope are faced with a tragic catch-22. If he does not become our next president, this nation is surely doomed. If he does become our next president, he is."

----------

Agreed. Ron Paul is the best hope this nation's got of looking into a future free from increasing government tyranny and rights-relinquishing globalism.

Anyone who thinks that interventionalist foreign policy is a good thing need only look to the Roman Empire for cues. At the end of their dominance, they were overrun my groups of people they had stepped on over the years. The United States will be no different if we don't get our act together and say "NO" to the elite money changers and central bankers who foam at the mouth to see us mired in one debt-producing war after another.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to go to youtube, do a search for Ron Paul, and get with the program.

To the author of this article, you need to get your head out of whatever hole it's in and get with the program! Your readers want Ron Paul, not these other hacks you're paid to push on us. If you can't do that, you should just quit your job lest you become a hack yourself.

Not that I'm for censorship in any capacity, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

Although I'm a Democrat, I find it disturbing how the media has repeatedly endeavored to disqualify GOP Congressman/Presidential candidate Ron Paul from further consideration. According to MSNBC live polling after the first debate, a sample of 70K-90K respondents declared Paul the winner in a landslide. Although Fox News launched an all-out assault on Paul in their post-debate coverage, 25% of respondents in Fox's live polling said Paul won, second only to Romney's 29%. Granted these are not the most reliable polls, but voters, as opposed to journalists and pundits, should be determining the outcome of the respective primaries. I was disappointed to see that Chris's analysis basically echoed mainstream media sentiments. A few blogs have covered the story, e.g., our-republic.blogspot.com/2007/05/paul-victor-apparent-of-second-straight.html, but this is hardly sufficient.

Ron Paul on wolf blitzer today 5/16 (day after debate)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPI-ogwlXE

Ron Paul on wolf blitzer today (day after debate)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPI-ogwlXE

James...it might behoove you to read a history book, or two; maybe even a quick perusal of the History channel would do you good. Policy is not based on simplistic catchphrases.

Most Americans and all the republican candidates fully understand what the "war on teror" is all about. It is very simple... Arab Muslims are extremely irritated that americans are so free. It really bothers them.
For some reason Ron Paul thinks there might be a tad more to it than that. What an un-american nut! Hasn't got a chance!

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?----------------------------------------
Ron Paul is correct!

Chris, Last night's debate was among individual's running for the highest office in the land. 9/11 was a terrible event that indicates we are out of equilibrium with a group or groups in the world. In the land of free speech we should be able to look at 9/11 from every angle to enhance our ability to understand it, learn from it and craft responses that increase understanding and safety in the world for ourselves and others. To move from a factual debate to an emotional close-out of dialogue is not an approach that creates confidence in Guiliani; the world has always needed the cool heads of logic, diplomacy and complex negoiation to reach lasting settlement.

Giuliani's approach is working.

I'm scared!

Not so much that the terrorists are coming to get me, but that he could conceivably be elected.

Roo and Bsimon: Thank you for your responses. Of course, you make valid arguments and the debate about our response to 9/11 will continue for generations to come.

Bless you, Gloria! Pefectly stated.

Why do people assume that Ron Paul hurt his chances last night? For a "second tier" candidate, getting noticed is the biggest hurdle, and he cleared that.

25% of Republicans want to withdraw US troops from Iraq, and Ron Paul is the only candidate in a field of ten who is against the war. If Ron Paul gets 25% support, he instantly becomes a front-runner, with Giuliani and McCain.

As for the other top issues, Ron Paul's pro-life, pro-smaller-government, pro-Constitution, pro-2nd-Amendment, anti-illegal-immigration credentials and voting record are second to none.

I will never vote for Giuliani after the debate. If you look at his record, he is an honorable man and a patriot who has served my district for years. He introduced legislation after 9/11 to go back to something that had never been used from the original Constitution to declare war on an individual, not a foreign country, and to basically send bounty hunters for Osama. That's more than Rudy G ever did. He also supported the war in Afghanistan. He never supported the war in Iraq because it wasn't properly declared and because it diverted our attention from the real terrorists in Pakistan.

Rudy had it wrong and you do, too. Dr. Paul "insinuated" no such thing. Stop rewarding a liar (Rudy G).

People should be saying that Rudy G is out of the race, not Ron Paul. He was factually correct with what he said, and the CIA agrees. How would Rudy G be president if he disagrees with the CIA's intelligence and government investigations like the 9/11 Commission (which also agreed with Paul)?

The CIA's former bin Laden and al Qaeda specialist, Michael Scheuer, told CNN, "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."

FH asks
"Is the premise that our enemy fights us for their reasons and not for anything we have done a valid argument? If not, why not?"

Is it a 'valid' argument? Not of 'valid' is supposed to mean 'accurate'.

But the point, to expand on my 2:23 post, is to combat the ideology of the bin Laden types. He's helpless without recruits, so a promising tactic for us is to combat his/their recruiting efforts. Perhaps by promoting (not publicly) moderate islamic leaders. Perhaps by pressuring the saudis to quit funding fundamental madrasses. The Iraq invasion has had the opposite effect. The fundies are pointing to it as justification for fatwas against infidels, for a jihad against the zionists and their backers (us). Going into Iraq has exacerbated the terrorism problem.

FH writes
"They hate us because we are their "foil"...that entity that they hope to use to further their own ideology. Again, my argument is that we are a pawn in their bid to spread their Islamo-fascist ideology, and that they can invent a thousand reasons to hate us if necessary. .. The only substantive thing you have said seems to involve "understanding" their motivations."

The purpose of 'understanding' their motivations is in order to combat their methodology. If you look back at how this thing started, ObL convinced 19 people to hijack 4 airplanes to use as weapons against the US. These 20 people have drawn our military into a conflict on the other side of the world involving the ongoing deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops. This conflict has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars - all in response to 19 guys armed with boxcutters anyone can buy for $3.99 at any hardware store. Do you really think we're going about this in the best possible way? Do you think our approach is making it harder or easier for the next bin Laden to recruit 19 more volunteers to attack us? bin Laden is a radical freak that managed to brainwash some poeple - maybe even a couple hundred - but is now the inspiration for thousands across the Middle East. Sure, as an individual he's not accomplishing much (as far as we know) these days. But look at the results he's achieved. Again, is our method thus far really the best we can do?

FH--"Is the premise that our enemy fights us for their reasons and not for anything we have done a valid argument? If not, why not?"

It is a valid argument, but it is also incorrect. The most recent 50 years has had an enormous impact on the development of the current generation of radicals (and right now will have a similar impact on those to come.) While certain policy differences would not prevent the deranged and the highly suggestible from being born, they could certainly curb or divert their development and, importantly, reduce the wider support they enjoy.

FH--"This business about being unwilling to think about consequences is a straw-man and you know it. I have said before that it is always a good idea to try and put your enemy in perspective, which is especially important when there is the vast cultural difference that we have separating Islam and the west."

Perfectly fine! Just make sure your argument conforms to this premise.

FH--"Why are my examples incorrect and why is my point irrelevant? Don't just be a dart-thrower...explain yourself."

Take your pre-WWII France, for example. Had they really understood the societal state and development trends in Germany at the end of WWI, the Paris Accord would not have been the gloating humiliation it was. And from there, for the next twenty years they failed to discourage the trend. At the very end, they completely misunderstood Hitler's purposes. WWII was the result of the complete lack of understanding.

Perhaps you read 'understanding' strictly as 'compassionate'?

"how would those of you, misunderstanding my original post, like it if I decided to plant flowers on your property, followed by parking my car in your driveway, and ultimately building my new house in your backyard? I say with certainty that you, my neighbor, would seek retaliation."

Put up a fence. If necessary upgrading it to a double fence topped with razor-wire and mines in between. Not hunt you down in your home.

still a bunch of old privileged rich white guys who don't hav"e a clue about people who are not like them....big tent indeed."

and 3 or 4 of them don't believe in evolution. can't wait to hear the tired old platitudes for addressing challenges they have no inkling of understanding for nor comfort with people who aren't like them either.

still a bunch of old privileged rich white guys who don't have a clue about people who are not like them....big tent indeed.

Razorback - I suggest you read back through my entire comments before you start spouting about my "deeply held ideological notions"...you, as with most ideologues, only read what you want to read. I believe I have noted my fiscal conservative credentials and my economic beliefs..

My point plain and simple: my tax burden, as an upper middle class citizen, has not gone down while the tax burden for people in the highest echelon has gone down. It is debatable whether increased investment vs. increased consumption leads to greater economic expansion (read: tax revenue). The problem with lowering taxes at the highest echelon while doing little/nothing at the middle echelons is that you are only addressing one of these economic drivers (ie: investing). Further, the real effect is probably meaningless since these people would have invested anyway. To put it yet another way, these people already have incentive to invest and the effect of this sort of tax decrease on the economy is probably next-to-nil.

If you believe that consumption is a significant driver, then Bush's tax cuts went to the wrong people since, as a group, the middle classes consume more then the upper-upper-upper class. Further, even in terms of the investment driver, the middle classes are also, as a group, quite likely to be investors in the securities that are at issue.

If you really want to expand revenue along with an expanding economy, it would be better yet to lower income taxes down to nil and raise consumption taxes. While it may seem counterintuitive to suggest raising consumption taxes will actually increase consumption, consider for a moment that the middle class (ie: the as-a-group-big-spenders) will have much more money available to spend since their income taxes are non-existent. Further, they will be much more likely to invest since all investing could be done in what we would now refer to as a "pre-tax" manner. As an ancillary benefit of such a consumption tax, everyone would be fully cognizant of their tax burden. Currently, you actually pay more in taxes every time you buy something since there are so many levels of taxation.

As I said to Alex, I would go back and read a bit of Buffet and other noted geniuses on the subject. I would also be careful about flushing away the needs of your own echelon (ie: those below the highest echelon) in some misguided belief that you will someday attain that level. You may, but then my guess is you probably won't really care all that much about taxes.

Roo: What is your argument? Do you have one. You and Bsimon continue to post about the tangential arguments I have made without debating the heart of the matter. Is the premise that our enemy fights us for their reasons and not for anything we have done a valid argument? If not, why not?

This business about being unwilling to think about consequences is a straw-man and you know it. I have said before that it is always a good idea to try and put your enemy in perspective, which is especially important when there is the vast cultural difference that we have separating Islam and the west.

Why are my examples incorrect and why is my point irrelevant? Don't just be a dart-thrower...explain yourself.

FH--"You don't seem to have an argument anymore. The only substantive thing you have said seems to involve "understanding" their motivations. History is replete with nations who were crushed while trying to understand their enemy. American Indians, Aztecs, French in WWII...I could go on, but you get the point."

No, do go on. I always like to see completely irrelevant 'examples' used to prove an incorrect point.

If you fail to see the benefits of understanding the consequences of your actions and making assessments based on that knowledge, I will simply put you in the 'unreasonable' column.

Ok...one more word on the subject..I have these friends..they've had a realllly hard life of persecution...I'm going to stick them in someones backyard to live...would there be any objection?

Ron Paul spoke the truth and Julie-Annie had no response so he blurted out some baseless interruption. Which part of Paul's statement was untrue? Paul challenged Julie-Annie to a debate on the 9/11 issue... and I can guarantee you Julie-Annie will "cut and run" when it comes to the truth. What a poser. Does anyone here remember what true Republicans stand for? I noticed Fox doesn't have any web-based polls about the debate. They know Paul will legitimatey kick anyone's ass in open polling. Sure, their controlled phone-list polling will yield the results they want, but it's not accurate.

Ron Paul spoke the truth and Julie-Annie had no response so he blurted out some baseless interruption. Which part of Paul's statement was untrue? Paul challenged Julie-Annie to a debate on the 9/11 issue... and I can guarantee you Julie-Annie will "cut and run" when it comes to the truth. What a poser. Does anyone here remember what true Republicans stand for? I noticed Fox doesn't have any web-based polls about the debate. They know Paul will legitimatey kick anyone's ass in open polling. Sure, their controlled phone-list polling will yield the results they want, but it's not accurate.

Please. What part of 'discussion' involves telling someone else what they think? If you want to believe "they hate us because of our freedoms" feel free. Such a belief is faith-based delusion. I prefer facts.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 12:00 PM"

Nice straw-man. I never talked about our freedoms, in fact, I don't believe they hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we are their "foil"...that entity that they hope to use to further their own ideology. Again, my argument is that we are a pawn in their bid to spread their Islamo-fascist ideology, and that they can invent a thousand reasons to hate us if necessary.

You don't seem to have an argument anymore. The only substantive thing you have said seems to involve "understanding" their motivations. History is replete with nations who were crushed while trying to understand their enemy. American Indians, Aztecs, French in WWII...I could go on, but you get the point.

Razorback--"Roo, you stand corrected. After Guiliani spanked Ron, he offered more explanation. But he did say what I said he said."

"We've been there" is the crucial part but do not let that get in the way of tearing down a strawman.

So, do you comprehend the reasons why the attacks are not about "hating our freedom?"

Give up CIVIL Liberties for temporary freedom and you shall have neither. Thomas Jefferson...he kind of knew a thing or two!

I noticed a lot of you seem to know an awful lot about terrorism but it just sounds like the same stuff I see on FOX and CNN mainly propoganda! Why don't some of you do some real research on the subject and you'll find that most of it is sponsored by the US/CIA.

I know you can put whatever label you want on me and brush it off...but guess what mainstream media contains very little factual information. There is this thing called books, newspapers, and google machine use them!

Please keep the USID card to yourself as I do not wish to have it in the name of security.

I just want to make note, that Rudy Giuliani said NOTHING of substance to Ron Paul. Listen to it again, he says NOTHING. All he says is that it is absurd, that he lived through it. Ron Paul has said he would be DELIGHTED to debate Giuliani on foreign policy. Giuliani, who felt so strongly, and who wished for more time to respond to Dr. Paul, now has been offered a debate. Let's do it buddy.

'The unelectable Ron Paul is getting more attention than the so-called legitimate GOP candidates.'

yeah loudon, ain't it grand?

and whoever said taxes had gone down for the middle class -- no way. mine go up every year.

Alex's point that "Lowering taxes can have the effect of INCREASING revenue, that's the point." can be PROVEN because what is cut is the RATE of taxation, not necessarily the amount of taxation.

Taxing a larger pie at a lower rate INCREASES revenue. That is a mathmatical fact. The debate should focus on whether tax cuts increase the pie, and I think they do, because tax cutting increases the incentive to invest.

Sorry for the miltiple posts. The site was having issues

I can't move to Canada. With their newly elected right wing guy. How about Austrailia? Nope. Just hijacked by the right wing. France? OOPS. The eu has a strong right wing party now.

I think I'll have to stay here and make sure facsim doesn't take over the world. I'm fight facism at it's source, thank you very much. That question was retorical

I can't move to Canada. With their newly elected right wing guy. How about Austrailia? Nope. Just hijacked by the right wing. France? OOPS. The eu has a strong right wing party now.

I think I'll have to stay here and make sure facsim doesn't take over the world. I'm fight facism at it's source, thank you very much. That question was retorical

Lance says: "Taxes for the middle class, upper middle class, and even the lower upper class, have hardly budged."

This is a lie. It might be consistent with Lance's deeply held ideological notions, but its a lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/dean_wrong_on_bush_tax_cut.html

I can't move to Canada. With their newly elected right wing guy. How about Austrailia? Nope. Just hijacked by the right wing. France? OOPS. The eu has a strong right wing party now.

I think I'll have to stay here and make sure facsim doesn't take over the world. I'm fight facism at it's source, thank you very much. That question was retorical

"The only way to solve this issue is to get everyone out of the country who is not a citizen. MAke anyone who is not a citizen go back to their country and start the process, like everyone else. Not just mexican but muslim and asian, ANYBODY WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN."

Including the legal immigrants who are on the path to citizenship? You say immigrants need to go through "the process", but it seems you're punishing those currently going through the process by lumping them in with illegals. It seems you haven't thought this through.

Congrats on getting through a full post without mentioning Fox News or any conservative pundits.

Alex- I certainly understand the premise: lower taxes, increase revenues. I probably understand it better then most as I am a small business owner and an economist. My issue is with lowering taxes for the highest echelons of society while increasing spending. Taxes for the middle class, upper middle class, and even the lower upper class, have hardly budged. I would suggest that you read a bit of Buffet and come back to me.

Incidentally, if I could have my way, I would go for something of a consumption tax anyway - and do away with all income, etc taxes. Income doesn't really matter - what really matters is how one benefits from their income. I would also do away with government sponsored SS, and move towards private accounts, but we all know the chances of that happening! That way I could put away as much as I want without having to be kept to a $4K/year IRA max (disgusting that I can't put away more on my own pretax without playing the entity game!).

I know I'm not scared of goat herders half the world away,Alex. No disrepect to anyone from those countries, but they are living at least 50 years behind us. Are they going to row boats over here?

The only way to solve this issue is to get everyone out of the country who is not a citizen. MAke anyone who is not a citizen go back to their country and start the process, like everyone else. Not just mexican but muslim and asian, ANYBODY WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN.

This solves both the domestic and outside influence arguement. We will be safer as a results. We will know who is in the country, and who needs social problems.

I know the conservatives say without slave labor the market would crumble. I think it would save us. Young people would be the starts at companies again. They could move up. People with experiance would be able to fill hgher roles because companies would need to fill those jobs. It would results in more training for jobs rather than bringing in whoever has a degree form whatever country. Get back to the priciple of MADE IN AMERICA, that the republicans have destroyed with their job force policies

Don't fret everyone, as soon as the new Iraq Oil Law is passed everything will change. The major US and British oil companies will get want they want and then we can pull out.

FH writes
"And I thought you actually wanted to discuss this. I guess when you knew you lost the "ideas" part of the discussion you needed to resort to righteous indignation."

Please. What part of 'discussion' involves telling someone else what they think? If you want to believe "they hate us because of our freedoms" feel free. Such a belief is faith-based delusion. I prefer facts.

So let's see, according to you then LIBERTY = attempting to pass constitutional amendments that curtail the rights of others, and limiting the choices of the individual. Funny, LIBERTY is supposed to be increasing choice and freedom - and your "moral party" has done neither. LIBERTY is the one thing that the Republican party has become much less about.

I take issue with your definition of moderate - this could be the root of our debate: moderates can be extremely conservative in some ways while extremely liberal in others. What wingnuts (on both sides) can't comprehend is that many people can easily distinguish between fiscal responsibility and personal freedom. So perhaps my definition of moderate is different then yours: my definition is more mathematical and average oriented - while you don't understand that these two areas (fiscal/social) are two completely different things.

It's funny that you note Barry Goldwater. While he has been branded a conservative, his idea of conservatism is very different then that espoused by the current Party. For instance, he was fine with gay rights and abortion (hot button issues with no real substance that are central to the current Party) or at least he felt that government had no right to interfere. By my "averaging" definition, he would be considered a moderate in that he was strongly fiscal conservative, pro-small government, etc..but he also understood the limits of the government and was quite liberal in his social views. Limiting the rights of private citizens/entities is not small government - it is big government.

So when I say that the Republican party should try to choose someone more moderate, I mean it: my politics would not allow me to vote for several of the candidates since they seem to be far too socially conservative for my tastes, and to be honest, social conservatives go against the very grain of what the US and its constitution was supposed to be about: the idea that personal/private liberties are paramount. That is what Barry Goldwater believed - as do I.

dufus1133 -I'm sure Canada would be happy to have you.

Lance: Lowering taxes can have the effect of INCREASING revenue, that's the point. It's about searching for equilibrium.

And Ron Paul is a joke. Yes, foreign policy is subject to the laws of cause and effect. No, they are not the sole cause of terror. Extremists are fighting a jihad against infidels in an attempt to create a worldwide caliphate. That's more of a cultural battle than a policy one.

Man...it's crazy how much "spinning" exists in this country. You know there is something called being a good American and not necessarily a good democrat or republican. What show where you watching anyway. It's obvious that this whole thing was a setup. I watched the whole thing and there was not one candidate that had anything to say. Why do we continue to tie IRAQ to 9/11? Have we all forgotten that we went after the boogie man (Sadam) for his WMD? Where is the accountability for that? What was is it that Ron Paul said anyways that pissed so many of you off? Oh 3000 people died on 9/11? Well guess what "WE INVADED A SOVERIGN NATION BASED ON A LIE AND OVER 50,000 PROBABLY 500,000 innocent mothers, fathers, children have died ! " Oh I forget they are not Americans so we don't care about them.

WAKE UP PEOPLE WE GAVE SADAM THE GAS AND WEAPONS TO GO AFTER IRAN. LOOKS TO ME LIKE HE HAD TO RULE WITH AN IRON FIST GIVE THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY TODAY!

WE GAVE THE WEAPONS OSAMA NEEDED TO GO AFTER RUSSIA SENSE AT THE TIME COMMUNISM WAS NOT IN OUR INTEREST, ALTHOUGH WE ACT THAT WAY HERE GIVE THE STATE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

LASTLY WHAT POLLS WHERE YOU WATCHING...GOOGLE IT CHECK OUT ABC'S POLLS, NBC'S, MSNBC. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY MANY PEOPLE THAT WANT CHANGE AND AGREE WITH RON PAUL'S VIEWS POINTS.

I know we should just ignore the american people, the polls, stay the course, and win? Exactly what??? NOT SURE!

Oh yeah and we are much safer now right? Remember does 50,000 - 500,000 I'm sure there families are extremely happy with us...right?

3. Only watch FOx shows.

That is

I simply say this in defense of non-intervention: how would those of you, misunderstanding my original post, like it if I decided to plant flowers on your property, followed by parking my car in your driveway, and ultimately building my new house in your backyard? I say with certainty that you, my neighbor, would seek retaliation.

The new conservative.

1.Pre-imtive strike against preceive enemies.

2. Abortion is bad. Gay's are evil

3. Once watch Fox shows.

4. Socialist are the devil.

5. Slave labor is the american way

That is the new republican. I'm sure there are more issues that efect the world and country than these. Dittoheads these days. If rush/hannity/o'reilly tell you what to care about, you do. The right will tell you WHAT TO VOTE ON. They will tell you what is REALLY important.

What happened to the individual. What happened to each person judging for themsleves what is an important issue. Dittoheads are slaves.

LOL This is great. The unelectable Ron Paul is getting more attention than the so-called legitimate GOP candidates.

Scottliberty, better go check the transcript. Ron Paul said that because we'd been bombing Iraq throughout the 90s, the terrorists decided to hit us on 9/11. Then he started into his CIA-blowback theory before he was shouted down.

Again, wrong audience to blame America for 9/11.

Ron Paul is THE MAN!! he was the only true conservative up on that dais last night. the only true pro-life, small government Republican/Libertarian. the only man who will tell it like it really is and truly take a stand, and what good is a man who won't take a stand?

Blarg, one reason I posted so much last night and this morning is because I wanted to personally participate in the "spin" about the debate.

If you look at my first post in THIS discussion, and then check out CC's NEXT post "GOP debate: Winners and Losers" you should note that CC and I both reached very similar conclusions about the debate.

So either veteran politico CC and I independently reached very similar conclusions about the debate, or CC's view was in part influenced by my post.

I agree with you on one front Dan in Yucaipa. The war on terror and illeagl immigration are linked. Mccain said last night, " Half the illlegals come across my (AZ) border." Ok. Factor in Regan as the last president to offer amnesty. That is a scary thought.

Compound that with Rudy. The mayor WHO FAILED on 9/11 to stop anything. On top of all this you have a republican president. So the republicans are failing in every aspect of gevernence, both domestic and over seas.

What has the right done RIGHT? How come there was nnothing done from the first amnesty to now. It's been twenty years. I know clinton was in there for eight. What did reagan and the Bushes do to protect this country. They had chances. To me the right is working with the enemy against this country any chance they get. That used to be called treason. I just low wages and high stocks trump security?

Where can I move to?

' I'm assuming that you do not view the ideology of Al Qeada and the Taliban as fundamentalist?'

of course they are. why are you wingers so unable to understand simple english? either you have cognitive difficulties, or you are deliberately misunderstanding and twisting comments.

iwas directing my comments to the guy who shakes in his cowboy boots and the rest of the nuts on here who think we should take on one fifth of the world's population.

Ron Paul supports Direct Tax not IRS & not Income Tax

Remember the Constitution? It was once taught in the public schools that it, along with the Bill of Rights, contained the founding principles of our once great nation. I happen to disagree with AIPAC-PNAC-UN-FED-IMF (the short list) and GeeDub when he declared it "...just a f'ing piece of paper...".

As a strict constitutionalist, Ron Paul is far too big a threat to the status quo to get elected. A strong US Constitution and Bill of Rights simply is not part of the global statists' game plan.

Those of us who see Dr. Paul as our last best hope are faced with a tragic catch-22. If he does not become our next president, this nation is surely doomed. If he does become our next president, he is.

For starters, I think Ron Paul overstated the role that US foreign policy played as a motivating factor.
The goal of the terrorist organization that slaughtered innocent US civilians was to obtain more power in their region and throughout the world. Unsurprisingly, it worked. Given such a display of capability, they gained unrefuted top-dog status among violent fundamentalist groups. They likely underestimated the US response.
Foreign policy is mostly why they chose to target the US instead of somebody else. In addition to being the country that they could prove something by attacking, the US is unpopular due to its stance on Israel and its general opposition to nations pursuing Islamic, or any manner of religious, Law.
Regarding Ron Paul being a liberal, far from it. He's actually a Libertarian. You can't get elected on that ticket, though, so a Republican he is. Yes, Libertarians can sometimes sound like anarchists.

Ron Paul, agains senior citizens?

"Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.
Paul scores 30% by the ARA on senior issues
The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm

'My point is that Al Qeada is about furthering an Islamist ideology through hatred..'

"you have never read the koran, nor do you have any clue about Islam. It is no more 'evil' than Christianity or Judaism -- unless it's twisted into extreme fundamentalism, as it is with a small proportion of Muslims today."

Posted by: | May 16, 2007 11:13 AM

Frankly, you have no idea what my level of exposure to the Koran is, nor is it germane to the discussion at hand. From what you just wrote, though, I'm assuming that you do not view the ideology of Al Qeada and the Taliban as fundamentalist? My comment was directed solely at Islam as seen through Al Qeada and I did not mention my view of Islam as a whole.

Koch is right -Rudy is a dictator -- a brutal, monstrously egotistical, self-centred, power-hungry control freak.

Wow, the party of 'small government' has sure changed.

• Here's another of Romney's old liberal positions, courtesy of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network: In 1994, Romney opposed officially-sanctioned prayer in schools.

• John McCain put out a statement on the death of Jerry Falwell, saying that "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country." Not only is this a big change from seven years ago, when McCain called Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance," but The Hill reports that McCain was first out the gate with a statement commemorating Falwell.

• Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch -- a Democrat who has made a habit in recent years of endorsing Republicans ranging from Mike Bloomberg to President Bush -- says he will campaign around the country to oppose Rudy Giuliani if Rudy is nominated. "If I had to sum it up in a few minutes I would say he's a control freak -- and the control is over your life," said Koch. Koch's 1999 anti-Rudy book, Giuliani: Nasty Man, will also be reissued this month.

mike says "What is Thompson doing, anyway, waiting to be drafted? At some point, you have to grab your you-know-whats and say, "I'm in!"

Thompson's losing ground with each debate, imo. His less-than-serious work ethic and sense of urgency is starting to get on my nerves.

Thanks to Gilmore for opening up the back-and-forth exchanges last night, which were by far the best part. Now we see that Romney's slick polished image, so at ease in the first debate, will now wither under direct scrutiny and attack, and rightly so.

Best line of the night: Tancredo's "road to Damascus, not the road to Des Moines."

While we continue to worship at the alter of Ron Paul today, Ron Paul on taxes:

"In the May 3, 2007 GOP Debate, Ron Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the IRS and the abolition of the income tax."

Razorback.. Maybe, you too.... Should perhaps review history.. Did you ever think pre 1992, that perhaps US policy did other things in the middle east?
We installed the Shaw of Iran, whom, performed more human right abuses than Saddam? That would piss me off, a leader that gets rich, while doing nothing to better the country, exp. installing a better inferstructor!
By the way ina quote the "..." mean their was more to the quote.. Why isn't Ron Paul getting a full quote like Rudy? Give the american people a full transscript.. let them read what Ron Paul and the other canidets said..

Ron Paul on health care:

"The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone - doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies - to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

everything gets razor shakin in his cowboy boots. fear and anger are the only things that motivate wingers.

I was all for Ron Paul when he helped the Repubs retain control of Congress back in 1996. The Dems thought they were going to win that the open seat that Paul took.

And by the way, I would vote for Paul against Hillary, Edwards or Obama. If Richardson was the D, I would have to think about it.

None, repeat NONE, of the 13 involved had anything new to say EXCEPT Ron Paul. 10 + the 3 asking questions = 13. By listening closely and reading what was actually said, there are quite a few mistakes made. Not accurate may be a better explaination.

Has anyone studied and really understand the biggest problems facing the US. It is Radical Islam and the Illegal invasion they will both distroy our Future. Ask the pundent and politicians do they know how much Amnesty for 12 million Illegals will cost the American tax payers the total is 2.5 to 3 trillion added to the budget. By-By Americas quality of life. Did Duncan Hunters statement of 156,000 OTMs caught at the border this year bother anyone. Remember they claim the catch ratio is 5 to 1. Ya right.
The enemy is here (wake up).

"As a fiscal-conservative/social-liberal Republican (yes, there are a few of us around again finally!)"

Lance, I find it interesting that you say you are a fiscal conservative, but then go on and proclaim that the Republican party should put forth moderates that are "electable".

I had to laugh. Traditional conservatism is all about LIBERTY, Lance. I don't exactly think that it is advisable for Americans to sellout their principles just to get someone "elected". If we do that, what have we truly gained?

"Extremism in the defense of LIBERTY, is no vice!" -- Barry Goldwater

Here's Barry Goldwater, Jr. speaking of his support for Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4

Lance, you set off the lie detector when you said "The only point they have been successful with is in lowering taxes - but only if your are in the tippy-top income bracket." That is false.

I am a lifelong Democrat, but if I have a chance I would vote for Ron Paul over Hillary or Obama. He doesn't stand a chance because Americans really aren't ready for change that would require any kind of sacrifice.

"As a fiscal-conservative/social-liberal Republican (yes, there are a few of us around again finally!)"

Lance, I find it interesting that you say you are a fiscal conservative, but then go on and proclaim that the Republican party should put forth moderates that are "electable".

I had to laugh. Traditional conservatism is all about LIBERTY, Lance. I don't exactly think that it is advisable for Americans to sellout their principles just to get someone "elected". If we do that, what have we truly gained?

"Extremism in the defense of LIBERTY, is no vice!" -- Barry Goldwater

Here's Barry Goldwater, Jr. speaking of his support for Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPoFXl97wv4

To many posts to this early in the morning :). Ron Paul must have got Razor shakin in his cowboy boots

'My point is that Al Qeada is about furthering an Islamist ideology through hatred..'

you have never read the koran, nor do you have any clue about Islam. It is no more 'evil' than christianity or judaism -- unless it's twisted into extreme fundamentalism, as it is with a small proportion of muslims today. i have met many -- i have many neighbors who are muslims -doctors, lawyers, engineers -- and they are no more 'evil' than anyone else. nor do i fear them or hate them. they are american citizens and have the same rights as I do.

the probloem is with fundamentalim, whatever the religion. it seeks to force us all back to the middle ages. until YOU get over your simmering rage and hatred toward anyone you designate an 'enemy' you and your party will continue to appeal only to the quarter or so of this country who is as nuts as you are.

Ron Paul did not essentially state we invited the attacks, he was suggesting we do what any good police agency does when investigating a crime, look for motive, look for reasons why the crime occurred. Rep Paul was not content to take the Bush line that they hate us because we are free.

That is not absurd, Mr Guiliani, it is good detective work.

Oh, And we HAVE been stomping around sometimes blindly, in other nations and meddling with other nations.

What do you expect in response to tens of thousands of people dying with American bullets in them? Regardless of the nationality of who pulled the trigger.

Peace,

Scott

Winners: The Democrats and Tim Kalemkarian

Losers: These ten clowns

Patrick - What scares me is that you still believe that our party needs to be some sort of "moral" party and that your definition of what is moral and what is not moral is the only acceptable yard stick for our candidates.

Incidentally, the Republican party originally had nothing to do with morals per-se...it was supposed to be about small government, lower taxes, and deregulation (individual and corporate). I think you can agree that the Republican party is screwed up 2 of those right off the bat: the so-called "moral" party has successfully spent like mad over the last few years, and it tries to pass laws - and Amendments for God's sake -that curtail personal freedoms. The only point they have been successful with is in lowering taxes - but only if your are in the tippy-top income bracket. Which is kinda funny since while they are lowering revenue (read taxes), they are increasing costs (pork etc). Since the Republican party is supposed to be the more business-oriented party, this approach is completely unacceptable.

So in all honesty, as far as I am concerned, with its tighter controls on personal freedoms, and its ability to throw our children deeper and deeper into debt, your so-called "moral" Republican party looks pretty amoral to me! Please give me back my more Libertarian-esc Republican party ASAP!

Or better yet, let's split both parties into a three or four major parties: two for the wingnuts (ie: one on each side), and one or two for in the middle. The Libertarians would be a possibility for the middle, but their hard and fast principles would be difficult to swallow for some.

FH, kindly don't tell me what I do and don't want. You haven't the faintest clue.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 11:02 AM

And I thought you actually wanted to discuss this. I guess when you knew you lost the "ideas" part of the discussion you needed to resort to righteous indignation.

So which of todays posters will state that they will vote for Ron Paul for president in November 2008 if he is the Republican nominee?

It is interesting that Ron Paul didn't "blame america" yet the mainstream media just repeats the assertation. It is also interesting that the people watching the debate thought Ron Paul made enough sense to vote him the winner in the debate; yet the mainstream media ignores this.

I'm not suggesting that 9-11 was justified, and I don't think that Ron Paul was either.

I think that Ron Paul is advocating that we look at what their motives really are, and move past this rhetoric of being attacked because of our freedoms.

FH writes
"You don't want to fight him bsimon, you want to change your actions to make him not hate you any more."

FH, kindly don't tell me what I do and don't want. You haven't the faintest clue.

RON PAUL WON THE DEBATE!
Ron Paul was factually correct, he NEVER said that there was JUSTIFICATION for the attacks of September 11..
What he merely said is what was stated by OBL(Bin Laden) from his fatwa in 1996(When he declared Jihad to the West, USA).
Further more, INVITED ATTACKS of sept. 11, was spun first by Giuliani. Then introduced by the moderator.
Ron Paul did nothing more than say what former CIA officers stated to the 911 commission.
I think Ron Paul is more like Ragen and Goldwater than the others put together!
Giuliani needs to step up and have a debate on Foreign Policy.. First, Giuliani will need to study some history..

"Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal registration on gun ownership, has never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government. Furthermore, he voted against the Patriot Act and was one of only a handful of congressmen that voted against the Iraq War.

Furthermore, it was Ron Paul who introduced the Sanctity of Human Life bill in Congress, which, had it passed, would have granted federal protection to every unborn child and would have nullified Roe v Wade. In addition, Ron Paul is one of the biggest opponents to Bush's push to integrate the United States into a trilateral North American Community. Ron Paul also supports ending the Income Tax and dismantling the Internal Revenue Service. In short, Ron Paul is big-government's worst nightmare" (ConserverativeVoice)

These are called sources.. If I could find a transcript of last nights debate I'd happily quote the whole back and forth between the two(Paul & Giuliani).. Just to show you what the mainstream media will have you believe Ron Paul said.. INSTED of one quote phrases from Ron Paul
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200705/COM20070507a.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24949.html

Ron Paul was factually correct, he NEVER said that there was JUSTIFICATION for the attacks of September 11..
What he merely said is what was stated by OBL(Bin Laden) from his fatwa in 1996(When he declared Jihad to the West, USA).
Further more, INVITED ATTACKS of sept. 11, was spun first by Giuliani. Then introduced by the moderator.
Ron Paul did nothing more than say what former CIA officers stated to the 911 commission.
I think Ron Paul is more like Ragen and Goldwater than the others put together!
Giuliani needs to step up and have a debate on Foreign Policy.. First, Giuliani will need to study some history..

"Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, has never voted for a federal registration on gun ownership, has never voted to raise congressional pay, has never taken a government-paid junket, and has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government. Furthermore, he voted against the Patriot Act and was one of only a handful of congressmen that voted against the Iraq War.

Furthermore, it was Ron Paul who introduced the Sanctity of Human Life bill in Congress, which, had it passed, would have granted federal protection to every unborn child and would have nullified Roe v Wade. In addition, Ron Paul is one of the biggest opponents to Bush's push to integrate the United States into a trilateral North American Community. Ron Paul also supports ending the Income Tax and dismantling the Internal Revenue Service. In short, Ron Paul is big-government's worst nightmare" (ConserverativeVoice)

These are called sources.. If I could find a transcript of last nights debate I'd happily quote the whole back and forth between the two(Paul & Giuliani).. Just to show you what the mainstream media will have you believe Ron Paul said.. INSTED of one quote phrases from Ron Paul
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200705/COM20070507a.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24949.html

"It all started when Paul was asked how September 11 changed American foreign policy. "Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?" Paul answered. "They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for ten years..."

Questioner Wendell Goler, of Fox News, asked, "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?"

Roo, you stand corrected. After Guiliani spanked Ron, he offered more explanation. But he did say what I said he said.

It's interesting to see the Repub candidates "circle the wagon train" and commence shooting into it.

But then it's obvious that there is no concern for the 'greater good' (As has been obvious with the arrogance of the current occupant). Reflective of trends

I can't imagine anyone wanting to work for Gonzalez in McNulty's position after yesterday's political knifing.

Since we're mixing metaphors with impunity. Eating their young as it were.

Makes me feel young and enthiusiastic reminiscing about the Nixon White House. At least it was a tad more honorable than this one.

razorback asks
"You also convenienty ignored the 1993 world trade center bombing. What did we do to deserve that one?"

I don't think we deserved that one. Do you?

That attack was performed for the same reasons the 2001 attacks (and intervening attacks on the Cole & US embassys) were perpetrated.

Bsimon, I have watched and read what Ron Paul has written for over 20 years. He is the only true conservative in the pack. You said you questioned whether Ron Paul supporters agree with him abolishing 3 federal government departments. I resoundingly say YES and don't stop there either!

The decision you have to make is whether you believe we should actually follow the Constitution or merely give it lip service like we are currently doing. Our Founders never intended the federal government to be doing even a fraction of what they are currently involved with. They were very explicit in naming their authority. The majority of the powers were left to the states and to the People. Remember??? They wanted government to be closer to us, so we had more control over it. They knew the tendency of governments to become tyrannical, so they attempted to "bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution". We have sadly forgotten this.

Do you want an all powerful federal government to oversee your life or do Americans still value their independence and individual liberty? I ask this, because if you still want the latter, we are heading in the wrong direction!! ....Illegal wiretaps of American citizens, habeas corpus stripped from Americans, National ID cards complete with biometrics and a National ID card (legislation passed and will be effective in '08), our borders being left WIDE OPEN while we use our military to enforce UN sanctions and be the policeman of the world, our public servants voting for NON-FREE trade agreement after another that have resulted in huge trade imbalances and our manufacturing base being shipped overseas, our U.S. debt going through the roof, our once strong dollar falling through the floor, etc. We have let our federal government badly stray from the Constitution. It's your decision people. Vote for an ever increasing tyrannical government or, for liberty. I certainly hope it is for the latter. I encourage you to go find out more about Dr. Paul. He has been standing for US for a number of years; now it is time for us to stand for HIM.

You misunderstand. It is not about giving him credibility, or justification. It is about understanding your enemy so you can most effectively fight him.

Posted by: bsimon | May 16, 2007 10:45 AM

You don't want to fight him bsimon, you want to change your actions to make him not hate you any more. My point is that Al Qeada is about furthering an Islamist ideology through hatred...they will find a reason to hate us...until you understand this, you will never understand them.

Reading all these comments is like reading a really poorly written version of the matrix. Come on guys...the Presidency isn't about what's popular nor is it what any one of us think. The MTV generation will never unite under one particular person. No matter what the party is. Our country is rotting from within. No President can fix that or work with it. A President in this modern world will never be "popular". So vote your heart and let the 50/50 fall where it will. In the mean time...might be a good idea to actually read the constitution.

I don't believe America can survive 4 more years of Republicans in the White House. It will take at least a generation to undue the damage created by Bush.

Razorback--"Ron Paul said that 9/11 happened because we had been bombing Iraq for 10 years. Do you really think that is right?"

Actually, no he did not.

The U.S. has been meddling in Middle-East business since 1948 or earlier (overthrowing the legal Iranian regime and installing the Shah, for example, and having the gall to be shocked when the Iranians did not like it.)

You are free to think that what the U.S. does and has done in the Middle-East is the right thing to do but you should strive to understand that

Spouting--or worse, believing--the rhetoric about 'hating our freedoms' is ludicrously naive and will invite further trouble.

And just because some dimwit automatically makes the connection, no, killing civilians is not an appropriate retaliation for any such slights, real or perceived. But that is why it is happening.

Unfortunately, I didn't actually catch the debate, so this comment is more directed towards what I have read about the debate...

As a fiscal-conservative/social-liberal Republican (yes, there are a few of us around again finally!), I am happy to see a little less right-Wingnut pandering. Hopefully, that continues. I have been less impressed by the dems so far since they seem to be doing the most Wingnut pandering to their own side recently. Since I often vote split-ticket, it would be interesting to see a few more candidates - on both sides - that share my views. I look forward to the primaries, but as a later-state we probably won't get to make any major decisions.

Hopefully, the Republicans have taken their beating last Nov. to heart and realize that they need to start to bring in candidates that more center-leaning. Instead of electing a candidate that 100% identifies with a "wingnut agenda," they should be concentrating on a candidate that is electable. A candidate that identifies with your views 50-60% of the time is better then someone that is only 10% (or less). As was seen last Nov., people are absolutely sick of the nuts, and the more moderate electorate hold all the cards. Now hopefully we don't swing too far the other way (the left-wingnuts are just as bad as the right)!

Razorback asks
"Yeah right Tom, once we surrendered in Munich, we were safe from Hitler?"

Hitler never attacked the US homeland.

bsimon:

What makes the most sense to me is "We attack you because you are infidels" which they say is defined in the Koran, which they also say instructs them to kill infidels. The Koran doesn't have much to say about US foreign policy from 2001-2007.

You also convenienty ignored the 1993 world trade center bombing. What did we do to deserve that one?

I am a conservative Republican from Oklahoma and I support Ron Paul because he is honest. Giulani is a joke. We are supposed to be the moral party and our top candidate is a pro-choice adulterer.

I believe this to be the truth behind 9-11 as well:
If the Bushies and neocons weren't so single minded in their support of Israel, so intent on micro-managing events in the mid-east, including Iraq, and in keeping BASES on the ground in Saudi Arabia, and other "tactical areas,purportedly "sacred" to the inhabitants, after the end of the Cold War, we would not have had an attack on our soil, in our time

I am a conservative Republican from Oklahoma and I support Ron Paul because he is honest. Giulani is a joke. We are supposed to be the moral party and our top candidate is a pro-choice adulterer.

I believe this to be the truth behind 9-11 as well:
If the Bushies and neocons weren't so single minded in their support of Israel, so intent on micro-managing events in the mid-east, including Iraq, and in keeping BASES on the ground in Saudi Arabia, and other "tactical areas,purportedly "sacred" to the inhabitants, after the end of the Cold War, we would not have had an attack on our soil, in our time

e sherman writes (more sarcasm)
"So . . . America bad, Everyone else, good."

You, too, misunderstand. It is not about admitting that we are 'bad' or someone else is 'good'. It is about understanding that actions have consequences. Achieving such understanding doesn't necessarily mean that we would change actions either - it just means understanding the potential consequences of the choices we make.

I wondered why this news story loaded into a big long page in my browser. Then I started reading some initially salient comments regarding the nascent presidential election. It soon devolved into a junior high shouting match. NOW I remember why I don't scroll down...

Tom In Rochester says:

"The reason we were attacked was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Once we get out of there, we are safe."

Yeah right Tom, once we surrendered in Munich, we were safe from Hitler?

Blarg says:

"Really, Razorback? You don't blog all day? On the debate threads, you made posts at midnight, then more posts before 9 a.m. That implies that you stayed up late posting, went to sleep, woke up, and started posting again almost immediately."

So I don't need much sleep. You got a problem with that? Check back to last thursday and friday (and saturday and sunday). Very few posts from me during that time. I was working on a project that is now being reviewed by others. I blog in between. What is the big deal about that?

So many of us agree with Ron Paul! It's not just those who want to get out of Iraq! All of the Republicans talk about their plan to "cut spending"...Well I remember Bush talking about cutting spending. And we know what we've gotten with him. Ron Paul has shown with his voting record, and his concrete plans on the gold standard how to get us back on track. Ron Paul has never wavered concerning abortion. Ron Paul is the only candidate with any conviction. I would most certainly vote for Ron Paul over any other candidate. And I will. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards sicken me! And though McCain and Romney are better options than three I just mentioned, they are more of the same! McCain wants to kill are men and women in Iraq, and says that if we leave Iraq it will path the way to this country, that is utter madness. Romney doesn't believe anything except what his campaign advisor tells him to believe! Vote for Ron Paul, vote for freedom! And no this message was not paid for by Ron Paul.

There were only two things wrong with the debate, the style and the content. Ru Paul for president!

FH asks
"It's amazing to me that there are so many people on this blog that wish to give OBL so much credibility. As if he had a valid reason for killing 3,000 innocents on 9/11. What is wrong with you people?"

You misunderstand. It is not about giving him credibility, or justification. It is about understanding your enemy so you can most effectively fight him.

I wish Ron Paul had gotten it truly right.... The reason we were attacked was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Once we get out of there, we are safe. Otherwise, he got it right.

I wish Ron Paul has gotten it truly right.... The reason we were attacked was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Once we get out of there, we are safe. Otherwise, he got it right.

I wis Ron Paul has gotten it truly right.... The reason we were attacked was our presence in Saudi Arabia. Once we get out of there, we are safe. Otherwise, he got it right.

razorback writes, sarcastically,
"bin Ladin said it, so it must be true."

You have just demonstrated your limited cognitive abilities. The post wasn't arguing for following bin laden's leadership, it was taking the attacker's words for why he attacked. You apparently buy into some imaginary notion that "they hate us because of our freedoms" rather than going to the source, who says: "we attack you because you defile our holy lands with your military forces." Which explanation makes more sense? Though it makes no sense for me to even ask...

So . . . America bad, Everyone else, good. Another thing. Why do all the Dems want President Bush to stand up in front of the world and say, "I made mistakes. I'm a moron. I am an idiot." Does this help our country? Does it help YOU? Maybe, just maybe, it helps you win an election, so it's less important than the world's view of the leader of the free world. Sick.

It's amazing to me that there are so many people on this blog that wish to give OBL so much credibility. As if he had a valid reason for killing 3,000 innocents on 9/11. What is wrong with you people?

Do you not understand that OBL attacked us because he wanted to further his own ideology. It was never about us, it was about the message he wanted to send to the Arab world. You claim that we are causing more terrorists to be made by our actions, but you don't seem to understand that 9/11 was the biggest PR blitz of our time. Al Qaeda certainly hates us for a reason, but it is their reason, and not ours.

It's interesting to read many of the above comments regarding the double-R exchange; I write, without emotion, when I state the the non-interventionist policy espoused by Paul is truly the old school Conservative viewpoint.
I also abhor the sentiment expressed that such a stance in someway places him on the left of the issues. Regardless of feelings towards Rep. Paul, history proves that his views are the closest to classic conservatism; however, in this current age, the definition of the word has been forgotten, replaced with some vague notion of clouded Reagan policies, and neo-con emperical aspirations. History proves that the breaking point for Osama Bin Laden came with the establishment of US presence in the Gulf War. That is not an arguable issue, but mere fact. It's a perversion of American greatness to react on emotion, and not fact, regarding the role that our history in the Middle East has played in the current circumstances. I wish that the definition of "conservatism" had not been lost, but it has, leading me to fear that there is no viable chance of success in restoring the intended values of our nation.

bsimon:

A very simple question for you. If the election were held today, who would you vote for, the Republican candidate, Ron Paul, or the Democratic Candidate, Hillary Clinton?

Everybody's talking this morning about former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he described the high speed race to get to get to the bedside of the stricken John Ashcroft before the arrival of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. The Department of Justice, in the person of then-acting AG Comey, was refusing to sign off on the White House's warrantless wiretapping program. And Gonzales and Andy Card wanted to see if they could get to the semi-conscious Ashcroft to overrule him.

The Founding Fathers of this country would not have a chance of being elected President in 2008. As Ron Paul has shown.

What about Timothy McViegh's fatwah? About Waco, Janet Reno, Ruby Ridge. When are you lefties going to start quoting from McViegh's fatwah of self justification? And the Unibomber? What about his fatwah? Is that an inspiration too? Is quoting that the key to righteouness?

"Here is some psycobabble for you: I don't blog all day, I work for a living"

Really, Razorback? You don't blog all day? On the debate threads, you made posts at midnight, then more posts before 9 a.m. That implies that you stayed up late posting, went to sleep, woke up, and started posting again almost immediately. And today, you've made at least 17 posts in this thread alone. How can you argue that you spend your time working instead of posting here?

I'm here a lot. I admit it. Drindl is here plenty, and shouldn't be attacking others for posting too much. But it's ridiculous of you to claim that you don't blog all day. You're by far the most prolific named poster here.

Razorback writes
"Its even more comical to see all the posters who pretend to support Ron Paul when they don't agree with Ron that we should abolish 3 whole departments of government."

I don't necessarily agree with him on abolishing 3 depts of gov't, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for him. I think our country could use a good Libertarian in the Presidency. Congress is way out of control with spending and intruding into our lives; a Libertarian would be able to shut most of their nonsense down.

turnoffthetv, bin Ladin said it, so it must be true. Bin Ladin says women should cover their heads in public and not drive. Do you agree with him on that too?

some things the US has done...

-recruited saddam and installed him in iraq and propped him up until he nationalized the oil companies.

-trained [at the school of the americas] and supported osama bin ladin to fight against the communists

-overthrew the elected head of Iran, and installed the US puppet Shah Riza Pahlevi

-over the elected head of Chile and installed Pinochet, the mass murderer

-supported and trained death squads in el savador [under john negreponte in the 70's]

just a few....try reading a history book some time.

From Bin Laden's Fatwa:

"The youths hold you responsible for all of the killings and evictions of the Muslims and the violation of the sanctities, carried out by your Zionist brothers in Lebanon; you openly supplied them with arms and finan