Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do do you take: "I would not have risked American lives to end the Holocaust." out of context? He's an non-interventionist. This is very consistent with his positions on the use of the military. His supporters laud him for saying that kind of thing.I'm just helping to get the facts out. People who have a problem with genocide might wish to think twice about Ron Paul.
I believe Paul is so much for the constitution (and most of the amendments) that he would be more than willing to allow militias (see 2nd amendment) to wage war independent of the US's involvement. If our country was run like it was originally intended, we would have state militia's that sometimes cooperate during war-time. People can always volunteer their personal time, too, to support other countries that they want.
That works very well with bayonets and muskets, for sure. But it doesn't work quite as well with modern technology and war-machines.
So, Paul's other out is this: If congress declares war on another nation, it is constitutionally supportable. I believe this point has already been made. If this is the case, then we can wage war. This is exactly what happened during WWII: we declared war after being attacked and Germany responded by also declaring.
Question (to anyone): Do you think our Military Industrial Complex is too big? Do you think Paul is right that we need to greatly reduce its size and international operations?
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd need to gain like 200lbs and lose 50 iq points
lolololol
Don't forget that Americans also have lots of muscular people, too. We love our fatness and health, here. We are very diverse, physically.
But...
Originally posted by inimalist
i... i wasn't joking...you guys is fat and i have an elevated sense of my own intelligence
Touché, good sir. But I don't think it's elevated. hmm
Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe Paul is so much for the constitution (and most of the amendments) that he would be more than willing to allow militias (see 2nd amendment) to wage war independent of the US's involvement. If our country was run like it was originally intended, we would have state militia's that sometimes cooperate during war-time. People can always volunteer their personal time, too, to support other countries that they want.That works very well with bayonets and muskets, for sure. But it doesn't work quite as well with modern technology and war-machines.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
They still do that, they call them Mujahadeens now.
Wah?
Your sentence seems non-sequitur to the content in my post.
Keep in mind, I'm very bad with names and only know of a very non-US group loosely associated with that name. Is your point that a non-US militia group is actually waging war on their own governments and other nations?
Bring the context back into play, for me. Relate it back, intimately, with my point about the intention of the second amendment and current US politics.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wah?Your sentence seems non-sequitur to the content in my post.
Keep in mind, I'm very bad with names and only know of a very non-US group loosely associated with that name. Is your point that a non-US militia group is actually waging war on their own governments and other nations?
Bring the context back into play, for me. Relate it back, intimately, with my point about the intention of the second amendment and current US politics.
I'm not sure what your point is on the 2nd Amendment though tbh, are you for or against going back to the "old way"?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Private individuals waging war independent of their governments' direct involvement. I'm saying that the idea of American citizens joining foreign causes on their own time isn't much different from a Mujahadeen system, or perhaps a French Foreign Legion.
Okay, so I wasn't completely in the dark and understood your point. That makes me feel better. lol
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not sure what your point is on the 2nd Amendment though tbh, are you for or against going back to the "old way"?
I am both for and against the old way. There's obvious limits to what a legal militia can do. Government military contractors also fit the definition of what is allowed in the second amendment, imo...they just happen to be hired by and paid for by the US Government (how is that any different from what we did during the American Revolutionary War, though?).
Using an elastic clause, we could also say all government contractors fit into the same definition as the above: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, L-3, etc. They all do stuff for the government in military capacities.
So, in a way, the second amendment is fully realized with our modern system....maybe not exactly how the framers intended???
again even many blacks in chicago have turned against obama and have said they made a mistake last time and are going to vote for Paul THIS time.all you got to do to find out if this is true is do some research on youtube,type in blacks in chicago say they made a mistake on obama,will vote for ron paul in 2012.they see that Obama has betrayed them and now realise that Paul is the only one that believes in the constituion.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, so I wasn't completely in the dark and understood your point. That makes me feel better. lolI am both for and against the old way. There's obvious limits to what a legal militia can do. Government military contractors also fit the definition of what is allowed in the second amendment, imo...they just happen to be hired by and paid for by the US Government (how is that any different from what we did during the American Revolutionary War, though?).
Using an elastic clause, we could also say all government contractors fit into the same definition as the above: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, L-3, etc. They all do stuff for the government in military capacities.
So, in a way, the second amendment is fully realized with our modern system....maybe not exactly how the framers intended???
It was a different world then, which is a reason why I think the Constitution can't be followed to the letter.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
again even many blacks in chicago have turned against obama and have said they made a mistake last time and are going to vote for Paul THIS time.all you got to do to find out if this is true is do some research on youtube,type in blacks in chicago say they made a mistake on obama,will vote for ron paul in 2012.they see that Obama has betrayed them and now realise that Paul is the only one that believes in the constituion.
It seems like they won't get the chance to vote for him in the presidential election though.
Unless he runs third party.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Still too soon to tell. He's second in delegates behind Romney and from what I can tell Paul looks confident.
As far as I can tell he is third in bound delegates, behind Romney and Gingrich. The way unbound delegates are projected he's fourth even.
It's not looking good for him (also considering the polls of upcoming states)
Don't know where you're getting your sources but gingrich? Gingrich, as well as santorum, aren't even on the ballot for quite a few states which equal up to a few hundred delegates. Last debate, CNN themselves admitted Paul is second in delegates and most of the caucus states haven't awarded theirs yet. Ron Paul believes he got a good amount.
So we'll see
A Brokered convention is becoming more likely. Most Paul supporters are bound to Mitt can break off.
Yeah but they've already spoken about it. None of it is true. Shits on YouTube.
The wives of Paul and Romney are actually good friends I've heard and inevitably after Paul and Romney. They claim Paul was making deals with Romney but he dismissed it recently along with the other junk. He's got a few attack ads for Romney but Gingrich and santorum do enough attacking on romney. Save some mula