PDA

View Full Version : No true Scotsman fallacy




realtonygoodwin
08-13-2011, 09:50 PM
Please remember, someone that is 70% identical to Ron Paul is better than someone who is 25% identical.

A lot of people around here are opposed dramatically to folks like Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Gary Johnson, Glenn Beck, and even Rand Paul.
Now obviously, we must draw distinction between Ron Paul and any competitors. But to completely dismiss people based on a couple of different stated positions is detrimental to the cause of liberty, and the cause of getting Ron elected President.
I see MUCH more love on here for someone like Dennis Kucinich than some of these others.

trey4sports
08-13-2011, 09:51 PM
well there ya go then.

Dennis Kucinich > Michele Bachmann

fisharmor
08-13-2011, 10:53 PM
I am opposed to all state employees continuing in their employment, including RON.
He is the demon with the least tormenting scourge. He's the one whole kernel of corn in the port-o-john tank.
I'm not opposed to the others personally. It's just that they all want to point guns at my head and tell me to do things I find at best a complete waste of time and at worst morally reprehensible.
Ron is the only one who doesn't seem to want to do that.

So yeah, maybe I'm a little dramatic in my opposition.

heavenlyboy34
08-13-2011, 10:57 PM
The lesser of two (or more) evils is still evil. ;) OP, you're also misusing the term "NTS fallacy". An example of this fallacy would be, "No true constitutionalist would vote for Michelle Bachman". You're just making the "lesser of two evils" argument in the OP.

wannaberocker
08-13-2011, 10:57 PM
In this world you have to be a realist. If the choice is between Bachmann and Obama for 4 more years? Id pick bachmann because atleast on economic issues she is close to where i stand. Though i guess you can never be 100 % about politicians, they often get into office and change course.

Cutlerzzz
08-13-2011, 10:59 PM
Bachmann and Obama have an identical foreign policy, the same anti-constitution policies that condone torture and everything else, and very similar economic policies. Sadly, she is the closest to Ron in the primary (other than Johnson), and yet she is near identical to Obama.

Needless to say, Ron is the only option.

realtonygoodwin
08-13-2011, 11:01 PM
Except she voted against Libya, against TARP, and (this time) against raising the debt ceiling.

Unelected
08-13-2011, 11:01 PM
That's a misinterpretation of the "no true scotsman" fallacy. 70% equivalency isn't better when they want to bomb countries and kill innocent people.

Some of us have principles.

ClayTrainor
08-13-2011, 11:03 PM
What good reason is there to speak kindly of, let alone support someone who supports the murder of innocent people in foreign countries, and advocate throwing people into cages for victimless crimes, even if there's some sort of agreement on other issues. That's nuts.

FrankRep
08-13-2011, 11:05 PM
well there ya go then.

Dennis Kucinich > Michele Bachmann

Hell no.

ClayTrainor
08-13-2011, 11:08 PM
well there ya go then.

Dennis Kucinich > Michele Bachmann

eh, they both suck...

Kucinich is a total socialist, but at least he agrees that the mass slaughter of innocent people is a bad thing. That's always nice.

virgil47
08-13-2011, 11:10 PM
The lesser of two (or more) evils is still evil. ;) OP, you're also misusing the term "NTS fallacy". An example of this fallacy would be, "No true constitutionalist would vote for Michelle Bachman". You're just making the "lesser of two evils" argument in the OP.

No. He is asking the question are you willing to accept some of the pie or is it all of the pie or none of it! Will you get sated, go hungry or accept some nourishment. Your choice.

wannaberocker
08-13-2011, 11:11 PM
Bachmann and Obama have an identical foreign policy, the same anti-constitution policies that condone torture and everything else, and very similar economic policies. Sadly, she is the closest to Ron in the primary (other than Johnson), and yet she is near identical to Obama.

Needless to say, Ron is the only option.

Not to sound wierd. But where in the constitution is there anything about torture? as far as i know i thought the constitution didnt really specify what Torture is or what is allowed or not allowed. Could you clerify that?

ClayTrainor
08-13-2011, 11:13 PM
Not to sound wierd. But where in the constitution is there anything about torture? as far as i know i thought the constitution didnt really specify what Torture is or what is allowed or not allowed. Could you clerify that?

As a human being, why should it matter whether or not a 200+ old piece of paper says anything about torture? There are much stronger reasons to oppose it.

trey4sports
08-13-2011, 11:17 PM
Hell no.

At least with Dennis you'll get military cuts. Good luck getting the populace to cut entitlements in a Bachmann presidency...


eh, they both suck...

Kucinich is a total socialist, but at least he agrees that the mass slaughter of innocent people is a bad thing. That's always nice.


Yeah, they do. I don't think either is really better, but i believe the voting populace would accept military cuts long before entitlements.

wannaberocker
08-13-2011, 11:25 PM
As a human being, why should it matter whether or not a 200+ old piece of paper says anything about torture? There are much stronger reasons to oppose it.

I had an uncle who messed up and got locked up. When he got out he said being locked in a cage like an animal was the worst form of torture. Now as much as i felt for my uncle, i ask myself the question. Is being locked up really torture? of course i cant answer that question because iv never been locked up. But what that tells me is that everyones understanding of what constitutes as torture is very different. So maybe i should ask you what is torture according to you? But i wont distract the topic, with a side topic.

Cutlerzzz
08-13-2011, 11:38 PM
Except she voted against Libya, against TARP, and (this time) against raising the debt ceiling.

All of that was for political show. She has voted for plans to raise the debt ceiling before, and supports endless war in the rest of the Middle East. She even wanted to bail out the auto makers, but just did not like the specific proposal. She's a hardcore statist with nothing in common with Paul.

Cutlerzzz
08-13-2011, 11:38 PM
Not to sound wierd. But where in the constitution is there anything about torture? as far as i know i thought the constitution didnt really specify what Torture is or what is allowed or not allowed. Could you clerify that?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Cutlerzzz
08-13-2011, 11:40 PM
At least with Dennis you'll get military cuts. Good luck getting the populace to cut entitlements in a Bachmann presidency...




Yeah, they do. I don't think either is really better, but i believe the voting populace would accept military cuts long before entitlements.

Kucinich was also against the bailouts. He's about the same as Bachmann on spending, when you factor in foreign policy.

AuH20
08-13-2011, 11:44 PM
Bachmann and Obama have an identical foreign policy, the same anti-constitution policies that condone torture and everything else, and very similar economic policies. Sadly, she is the closest to Ron in the primary (other than Johnson), and yet she is near identical to Obama.

Needless to say, Ron is the only option.

Obama? Individual mandate Obama? Stimulus up our ass Obama? Goldman Sachs Monkey Obama? Crap and Trade Obama? Give me crazy eyes michelle every day of the week including sunday against the Bama:

Here is what Bachmann voted for:

- Bachmann opposed both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill for America’s financial sector. TWICE!!!!!!

She voted against the first proposed $700 billion bailout of financial institutions, which failed to pass 205–228. She also advocated breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and barring executives from excessive compensation or golden parachutes. However, she also advocated a plan that would suspend mark-to-market accounting rules and supported suspending the capital gains tax.[81]

- On March 26, 2009, following comments by China proposing adoption of a global reserve currency, Bachmann introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to bar the dollar from being replaced by a foreign currency. Current law prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the U.S., but Bachmann expressed concerns relating to the President's power to make and interpret treaties.[93]

- Bachmann has characterized the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "ObamaCare", and has continually called for its repeal.[133] She recalled to reporters that she called for debate to repeal the act "the morning after Obamacare passed".[133] Joining with Rep. Steve King she introduced "the Bachmann-King repeal of health care bill" stating that it "is our intent in our heart to make sure that Obamacare is completely repealed."[133] In light of a Democratic held Senate and Presidency that oppose repeal, Bachmann called on the Republican held House of Representatives to not provide any funds for the implementation of the act "But until we can see that [repeal] happen, we want to fully defund this bill so that, like, it would be akin to a helium balloon that gets no helium inside so that it can’t take off the ground, and that’s what we’re planning to do. I’m very, very grateful for nothing else; having a majority in the House of Representatives so that we have the ability of the power of the purse to not fund Obamacare, and this is exactly the right way to go."[133]

- In the Minnesota Senate, Bachmann opposed minimum wage increases.[143] In an interview in late June 2011, Bachmann did not back away from her earlier proposal to eliminate the federal minimum wage, a change she said would "virtually wipe out unemployment."[144]

- Bachmann has charged that global warming is a hoax[78] and has been a vocal skeptic of global warming.[79] She has asserted that since carbon dioxide is "a natural byproduct of nature", it is a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires carbon dioxide and it is part of the planet's life cycle, it cannot be harmful. In a statement she made on the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Bachmann stated she was against the cap and trade climate legislation, stating: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth."[80]

But sadly all this was done for show I suspect (sarc). She sure works her tail off trying to fool us. lol This place is freaking crazy town when I'm reading Kucinich > Bachmann. Goddamn crazy town but then again Cynthia McKinney gets threads of praise.

amy31416
08-13-2011, 11:45 PM
Hell no.

Of course not. It's far more moral to kill innocent foreign people than to stupidly throw entitlement money at people here at home.

wannaberocker
08-13-2011, 11:47 PM
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What about Non US Citizens?

AuH20
08-13-2011, 11:51 PM
Of course not. It's far more moral to kill innocent foreign people than to stupidly throw entitlement money at people here at home.

It's equally despicable to enslave someone to such a degree that they end up destroying themselves in the process. It's on the same level as dropping ordinance on one's home albeit much slower. But it still creates the same results. Human carnage.

Cutlerzzz
08-13-2011, 11:52 PM
The majority of the Republicans in congress voted with Bachmann on those issues; by no means was she standing out. Most Republicans even voted against TARP. What you posted is the equivilent of bringing up the Democratic Party's occasional anti-war vote during the Bush years. She is a warmonger that supports spending trillions of dollars in the Middle East, hundreds of billions on foreign aid, she has no problem with the Fed(and probably doesn't understand it either, but aren't you the guy on here who supports central banking anyways?), she has supported multiple stimulus bills, wanted to bailout the auto makers, supports raising the debt ceiling, and hates the Constitution. She worked for the IRS as a tax prosecutor, where she went after people that made less than $10,000 dollars a year.

Stop defending warmongering establishment politicians. You're embarrasing yourself. You sound like the Ron Paul supports from 2008 that posted Obama's "anti war" record. She is currently calling for a ban on all pornography. She has nothing in common with Ron.

Cutlerzzz
08-13-2011, 11:53 PM
What about Non US Citizens?

Can we kidnap tourist without a warrant and torture them? Was that what the Founders envisioned?

amy31416
08-13-2011, 11:56 PM
It's equally despicable to enslave someone to such a degree that they end up destroying themselves in the process. It's on the same level as dropping ordinance on one's home albeit much slower. But it still creates the same results. Human carnage.

I almost agree. Except that one way gets you or other innocent people immediately blown apart and strewn across a field, the other way takes away your livelihood and you might have a fighting chance to get out if you're smart enough. After all, some people do make it out of the welfare system intact, just read up on Walter Williams. If he had a bomb dropped on him, it's pretty unlikely that he'd be talking about non-interventionism.

So no, it's not quite equal.

ClayTrainor
08-13-2011, 11:57 PM
I had an uncle who messed up and got locked up. When he got out he said being locked in a cage like an animal was the worst form of torture. Now as much as i felt for my uncle, i ask myself the question. Is being locked up really torture? of course i cant answer that question because iv never been locked up. But what that tells me is that everyones understanding of what constitutes as torture is very different. So maybe i should ask you what is torture according to you? But i wont distract the topic, with a side topic.

Torture is generally accepted as a person/people inflicting severe pain onto another, usually to motivate them towards some kind of action. Under this definition, I don't think simply being locked into a cage would qualify.

I don't like getting into semantics too much about what words mean, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable for someone who was locked in a cage like an animal, with other people locked in cages like animals, to feel like he the experience was torture, especially if he was beat up or had to put up with acts of violence during his imprisonment. I think I can understand why he would feel like "torture" is the correct word to describe the experience.

AuH20
08-13-2011, 11:58 PM
The majority of the Republicans in congress voted with Bachmann on those issues; by no means was she standing out in anyway. What you posted is the equivilent of bringing up the Democratic Party's occasional anti-war vote during the Bush years. She is a warmonger that supports spending trillions of dollars in the Middle East, hundreds of billions on foreign aid, she has no problem with the Fed(and probably doesn't understand it either, but aren't you the guy on here who supports central banking anyways?), she has supported multiple stimulus bills, wanted to bailout the auto makers, supports raising the debt ceiling, and hates the Constitution. She worked for the IRS as a tax prosecutor, where she went after people that made less than $10,000 dollars a year.

Stop defending warmongering establishment politicians. You're embarrasing yourself. You sound like the Ron Paul supports from 2008 that posted Obama's "anti war" record.


Keep making up lies. It fits conveniently in this fantasy world you're trying to perpetuate. No one here is saying Bachmann is a great candidate nor a savior for this country but your mischaracterization of her positions is blatantly false. She's voted to audit the the Fed, voted against TARP TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, voted against both debt ceiling deals and has taken numerous stances which run in direct contrast to that of mainstream republicans who'd rather feign ignorance.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:00 AM
Can we kidnap tourist without a warrant and torture them? Was that what the Founders envisioned?

No talking about enemy combatants captured while fighting on the battle field or like the pirate we captured from somalia. The last i heard the pirates lawyer wanted the case against him thrown out because he says he wasnt read his miranda right. So do non US citizens still get the rights granted to US citizens alone?

Feeding the Abscess
08-14-2011, 12:02 AM
No talking about enemy combatants captured caught while fighting on the battle field or like the pirate we captured from somalia. The last i heard the pirates lawyer wanted the case against him thrown out because he says he wasnt read his miranda right. So do non US citizens still get the rights granted to US citizens alone?

The Constitution covers persons, not just citizens. If a person is under the jurisdiction of the United States, the protections stated in the Constitution apply.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:08 AM
Keep making up lies. It fits conveniently in this fantasy world you're trying to perpetuate. No one here is saying Bachmann is a great politician nor a savior for this country but your mischaracterization of her positions is blatantly false. She's voted to audit the the Fed, voted against TARP TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, voted against both debt ceiling deals and has taken numerous stances which run in direct contrast to that of mainstream republicans who'd rather feign ignorance.

Everything I said is factual. Try using objective thoughts as opposed to emotions for a change and actually do some research.


She wanted to bail out the auto manufacturers, but did not like the bill. She actually offered her own bailout proposal. Most Republicans voted against the bailouts anyways.

http://bachmann.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=107489

Auditing the Fed? Again, almost every last Republican voted in favor of that. She is not calling for its abolishment and rarely talks about it.

She voted in favor of the Paul Ryan plan that would raise the debt ceiling for 30 years. She voted for virtually all of the spending that has resulted in this debt and deficit.

You're the only one feigning ignorance, and it's pathetic. Just go ahead and keep defending endless wars, deficits, stimulus packages, prohibition, torture, and everything else she brings, all while she proposes that all pornography is banned(because prohibition works so well). You ignored everything else that was said.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:10 AM
The Constitution covers persons, not just citizens. If a person is under the jurisdiction of the United States, the protections stated in the Constitution apply.

This.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:10 AM
The Constitution covers persons, not just citizens. If a person is under the jurisdiction of the United States, the protections stated in the Constitution apply.

You mean to tell me that a pirate who is committing a crime in africa, gets captured by Americans and all of a sudden he has the rights of an American Citizen?

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:11 AM
You mean to tell me that a pirate who is committing a crime in africa, gets captured by Americans and all of a sudden he has the rights of an American Citizen?

Who says he's a pirate? Prove it.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:13 AM
You mean to tell me that a pirate who is committing a crime in africa, gets captured by Americans and all of a sudden he has the rights of an American Citizen?

If we're going to be civilized, yes.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:14 AM
If we're going to be civilized, yes.

We should make him walk the plank without trial, like in the good old days.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:16 AM
We should make him walk the plank without trial, like in the good old days.

Lead by example, yo. :p

AuH20
08-14-2011, 12:16 AM
Everything I said is factual. Try using objective thoughts as opposed to emotions for a change and actually do some research.


She wanted to bail out the auto manufacturers, but did not like the bill. She actually offered her own bailout proposal. Most Republicans voted against the bailouts anyways.\



Key excerpt taken from that link you provided:

Bachmann is supporting an alternative to help the American automakers stabilize their industry while they execute long-term restructuring and reorganization. That alternative would set hard benchmarks for reducing their debt and renegotiating money-pit deals with Big Labor and would set up the financial assistance as interim insurance instead of a taxpayer-financed bailout. Unlike the proposal Congressional leadership has brought before Congress, which essentially nationalizes the auto industry, this alternative would maintain an outlet for private investment in the American automakers.

How is that a bailout?



She voted for virtually all of the spending that has resulted in this debt and deficit.

Club For Growth disputes this assertion on your part and backs it up with voting details:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=922


With very few exceptions, Congresswoman Bachmann has supported pro-growth policies throughout her career. She especially deserves praise for her consistent defense of school choice. After reviewing her record, we are confident that Congresswoman Bachmann would be a pro-growth President.

Next?

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:17 AM
Who says he's a pirate? Prove it.

are you serious? They captured this guy from his boat while the the US officials claim he was taking part in activities that pirate might take part in. Now that is what i read in the news stories relating to this case. Now if your gonna tell me that you dont trust the media. Then im sorry , i cant prove this guy is a pirate because i was not there.
but pirate or not what does that even matter. The guy was captured by the americans for being a pirate that is what the case against him is. My question is how can a guy committing some act in africa get captured and get the rights of an american citizen or resident.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:20 AM
are you serious? They captured this guy from his boat while the the US officials claim he was taking part in activities that pirate might take part in. Now that is what i read in the news stories relating to this case. Now if your gonna tell me that you dont trust the media. Then im sorry , i cant prove this guy is a pirate because i was not there.
but pirate or not what does that even matter. The guy was captured by the americans for being a pirate that is what the case against him is. My question is how can a guy committing some act in africa get captured and get the rights of an american citizen or resident.

How? America was founded on natural rights. Natural rights apply to every human being, not just Americans. And we, as Americans who should be schooled in such things, ought to know such a simple principle.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:24 AM
If we're going to be civilized, yes.

so the rights then apply to the world? So basically whenever someone is captured during war or whatever. THey have to be read miranda rights and all that good stuff. You mean to tell me if they captured bin laden and braught him here and didnt read him his rights, the case should be thrown out and bin laden released because we are very civilized.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:26 AM
Key excerpt taken from that link you provided:

Bachmann is supporting an alternative to help the American automakers stabilize their industry while they execute long-term restructuring and reorganization. That alternative would set hard benchmarks for reducing their debt and renegotiating money-pit deals with Big Labor and would set up the financial assistance as interim insurance instead of a taxpayer-financed bailout. Unlike the proposal Congressional leadership has brought before Congress, which essentially nationalizes the auto industry, this alternative would maintain an outlet for private investment in the American automakers.

How is that a bailout?



Your own quote tells you.




Club For Growth disputes this assertion on your part.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=922



Club for growth also gives Paul a medicore rating. The organization is a joke.

For once, actually adress the issues. You have ran away from every claim I have made thus far, other than the bailouts where I have been proven correct.

Does Bachmann support the trillion dollar foreign policy? Yes.

Has she been calling for the abolishment of the entitlement programs? No.

Has she supported multiple stimulus bills? Yes.

Has she called the abolishment of entire Federal Departments? No.

She has supported the huge amount of spending.


Next

Actually address the issues. You're embarrassing yourself. You haven't actually discussed points. You have ignored all of the factual claims I have made, called me a liar, and shown nothing that suggests she is even remotely like Paul. You have completely ignored that she supports stimulus, warfare, welfare, prohibition, central banking, undeclared wars, and is now calling for the ban of all pornography. She is not at all like Paul.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:26 AM
How? America was founded on natural rights. Natural rights apply to every human being, not just Americans. And we, as Americans who should be schooled in such things, ought to know such a simple principle.

miranda rights are not natural rights.

Feeding the Abscess
08-14-2011, 12:26 AM
are you serious? They captured this guy from his boat while the the US officials claim he was taking part in activities that pirate might take part in. Now that is what i read in the news stories relating to this case. Now if your gonna tell me that you dont trust the media. Then im sorry , i cant prove this guy is a pirate because i was not there.
but pirate or not what does that even matter. The guy was captured by the americans for being a pirate that is what the case against him is. My question is how can a guy committing some act in africa get captured and get the rights of an american citizen or resident.

Fixed some wording, and present a comparable scenario for you:

are you serious? They captured a United States citizen from his home while the the US officials claim he was taking part in activities that a terrorist might take part in. Now that is what i read in the news stories relating to this case. Now if your gonna tell me that you dont trust the media. Then im sorry , i cant prove this guy is a terrorist because i was not there.
but terrorist or not what does that even matter. The guy was captured by the government for being a terrorist that is what the case against him is. My question is how can a terrorist committing some act against the government get captured and get the rights of an american citizen or resident.

Also, a guy getting captured by American government (what is America doing capturing people halfway across the world, anyway?) would be subject to international law at worst (as would the American government who captured him), and if he is taken into custody of the United States, the Constitution protects him. Thankfully, that's the way our government was set up. Unfortunately, the rule of law has been trampled and perverted over time, to the point that the government will fancy itself king and act outside the rule of law.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:27 AM
are you serious? They captured this guy from his boat while the the US officials claim he was taking part in activities that pirate might take part in. Now that is what i read in the news stories relating to this case. Now if your gonna tell me that you dont trust the media. Then im sorry , i cant prove this guy is a pirate because i was not there.
but pirate or not what does that even matter. The guy was captured by the americans for being a pirate that is what the case against him is. My question is how can a guy committing some act in africa get captured and get the rights of an american citizen or resident.

He gets those rights from God, and the Constitution protects everyone in American custody.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:28 AM
miranda rights are not natural rights.

Do you know what natural rights are?

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:30 AM
Do you know what natural rights are?

if miranda rights are natural rights. THen clearly im mistaken on what natural rights are. SO please be kind enough to share with me what natural rights are.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:30 AM
so the rights then apply to the world? So basically whenever someone is captured during war or whatever. THey have to be read miranda rights and all that good stuff. You mean to tell me if they captured bin laden and braught him here and didnt read him his rights, the case should be thrown out and bin laden released because we are very civilized.

Yes.

Are we a moral example to the world or are we not? Natural rights apply to all human beings, not just Americans. It's called enlightenment--and if we were consistent in applying such a philosophy, bin Laden would have had zero interest in attacking us.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:33 AM
miranda rights are not natural rights.

Miranda rights are secondary natural rights, they are a response to those who attempt to abuse natural rights.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:37 AM
if miranda rights are natural rights. THen clearly im mistaken on what natural rights are. SO please be kind enough to share with me what natural rights are.

Basically, Natural Rights are something that every man is born with. Nobody has the right to infringe upon someone else's freedom, unless the other person has infringed upon someone else first. So you have the right to be left alone, and nobody has the right to force you to do anything you don't want to do. If someone has infringed upon someone else(theft, for example) then it is justified to stop and perpertrator as he hurt someone else. However, there needs to be proof that this person actually stole something before punishment is justified, as his freedom is being violated if he is innocent.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:38 AM
Miranda rights are secondary natural rights, they are a response to those who attempt to abuse natural rights.

secondary natural rights. I see where this is going the whole legal system is alll natural and secondary natural rights according to you.

AuH20
08-14-2011, 12:38 AM
Your own quote tells you.



Club for growth also gives Paul a medicore rating. The organization is a joke.

For once, actually adress the issues. You have ran away from every claim I have made thus far, other than the bailouts where I have been proven correct.

Does Bachmann support the trillion dollar foreign policy? Yes.

Has she been calling for the abolishment of the entitlement programs? No.

Has she supported multiple stimulus bills? Yes.

Has she called the abolishment of entire Federal Departments? No.

She has supported the huge amount of spending.



Actually address the issues. You're embarrassing yourself. You can't actually discuss points. You have ignored all of the factual claims I have made, called me a liar, and shown nothing that suggests she is even remotely like Paul. You have completely ignored that she supports stimulus, warfare, welfare, prohibition, central banking, undeclared wars, and is now calling for the ban of all pornography. She is not at all like Paul.

If we cannot have an honest dialogue, I'll just throw up my hands. Club For Growth isn't good enough? I'm sure Michelle Bachmann's twin Barack Obama would get equal praise from Club for Growth, the brainchild of one Grover Norquist.


Does Bachmann support the trillion dollar foreign policy? Yes.

True. No one is disputing this.


Has she been calling for the abolishment of the entitlement programs? No.


False.


Bachmann has called for phasing out of Social Security and Medicare:

...what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don’t have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off.[154]


Has she supported multiple stimulus bills? Yes.

False. Voted against Obama's stimulus bill as well as the 2008 Farm Bill. Only blemish was voting for Neugebauer's amendment which would have eliminated a fraction of the stimulus funds directed towards infrastructure improvements. Here are some of her traitorous votes on spending. What a horrible woman!!

Voted NO on the 2007 Farm Bill and NO on the veto override
• Voted NO on the FY08 Omnibus
• Voted NO on TARP
• Voted YES on the FY09, FY10, and FY12 Republican Study Committee (RSC) budgets . Congresswoman Bachmann also co-sponsored the RSC budget in FY11 which never came to a vote.
• Voted NO on the Stimulus
• Voted NO on Cash for Clunkers
• Voted NO three times to extend unemployment benefits
• Voted NO on Head Start reauthorization
• Voted YES on cutting funding for AMTRAK. Voted NO on AMTRAK reauthorization.
• Voted NO on S-CHIP at least four times
• Voted NO on expanding FHA lending and authority
• Voted NO on a congressional pay raise
• Voted NO on establishing an affordable housing trust fund


Has she called the abolishment of entire Federal Departments? No.

Yikes. This is getting worse and worse for you.
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/04/michele-bachmann-in-iowa-open-to-abolishing-fed-departments-of-education-energy-and-commerce/


She has supported the huge amount of spending.

Scroll up.

You know what. You should seriously do some research next time, before you make comments devoid of fact. You're not a liar, but your hate for Bachmann has clearly clouded your reasoning skills. I think the herd mentality at RPF is so insulating that people truly don't know Bachmann's voting record and they just base their opinions on hearsay.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:39 AM
secondary natural rights. I see where this is going the whole legal system is alll natural and secondary natural rights according to you.

You mean to tell me that you deny that more laws have come about because a lot of knuckleheads like yourself deny primary natural rights in the first place?

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:39 AM
Basically, Natural Rights are something that every man is born with. Nobody has the right to infringe upon someone else's freedom, unless the other person has infringed upon someone else first. So you have the right to be left alone, and nobody has the right to force you to do anything you don't want to do. If someone has infringed upon someone else(theft, for example) then it is justified to stop and perpertrator as he hurt someone else. However, there needs to be proof that this person actually stole something before punishment is justified, as his freedom is being violated if he is innocent.

again that is what i thought natural rights were. However, keeping your defination of natural rights in mind, id still conclude that miranda rights are legal rights not natural rights.

ExPatPaki
08-14-2011, 12:43 AM
Of course not. It's far more moral to kill innocent foreign people than to stupidly throw entitlement money at people here at home.

Especially if those foreign people are brown skin Muslims, the type FrankRep has genocidal hatred for.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:43 AM
again that is what i thought natural rights were. However, keeping your defination of natural rights in mind, id still conclude that miranda rights are legal rights not natural rights.

Of course Miranda rights are legal, not natural. Miranda rights are intended to restrain those who do not understand or respect natural rights.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:44 AM
You mean to tell me that you deny that more laws have come about because a lot of knuckleheads like yourself deny primary natural rights in the first place?

Im a knucklehead because i disagree with you? I personally have not violated anyones natural rights or legal rights for that matter. What i do question is the idea that US legal rights apply to the World.

amy31416
08-14-2011, 12:49 AM
Im a knucklehead because i disagree with you? I personally have not violated anyones natural rights or legal rights for that matter. What i do question is the idea that US legal rights apply to the World.

Well, you'd have to understand the underlying philosophy of primary US natural rights as partially outlined in the Constitution if you were to understand why I think they apply to all human beings, and not just Americans.

Read the Declaration of Independence.

And you still don't seem to understand that things like "Miranda Rights" came about because others violated natural rights of individuals.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 12:58 AM
If we cannot have an honest dialogue, I'll just throw up my hands. Club For Growth isn't good enough? I'm sure Michelle Bachmann's twin Barack Obama would get equal praise from Club for Growth, the brainchild of one Grover Norquist.


Why are you even supporting Paul? You think that Club for Growth, an organization that hates him, is valid proof of Bachmann's credentials.



True. No one is disputing this.



That alone is enough to show that her and Ron are far apart, and that she is awful.




False.


One vague statement is not calling for the abolishment of the programs. What is the actual policy position? The only specific position of hers I can find on Social Security and Medicare is that she voted for the Paul Ryan plan, which does not abolish either program. When has she talked about ending Medicaid, unemployment, and other entitlements? Her website does not even mention any of these programs(other than falsely stating that Social Security and Medicare make up 95% of Federal Revenue).







False. Voted against Obama's stimulus bill as well as the 2008 Farm Bill. Only blemish was voting for Neugebauer's amendment which would have eliminated a fraction of the stimulus funds directed towards infrastructure improvements. Here are some of her traitorous votes on spending. What a horrible woman!!

Voted NO on the 2007 Farm Bill and NO on the veto override
• Voted NO on the FY08 Omnibus
• Voted NO on TARP
• Voted YES on the FY09, FY10, and FY12 Republican Study Committee (RSC) budgets . Congresswoman Bachmann also co-sponsored the RSC budget in FY11 which never came to a vote.
• Voted NO on the Stimulus
• Voted NO on Cash for Clunkers
• Voted NO three times to extend unemployment benefits
• Voted NO on Head Start reauthorization
• Voted YES on cutting funding for AMTRAK. Voted NO on AMTRAK reauthorization.
• Voted NO on S-CHIP at least four times
• Voted NO on expanding FHA lending and authority
• Voted NO on a congressional pay raise
• Voted NO on establishing an affordable housing trust fund



This is not up for debate. You have been shown on mutliple occasions that she supported the 2008 stimulus bill and 192 dollars in additional stimulus funding in 2009.


Yikes. This is getting worse and worse for you.


I was wrong about this. I can concede points, it's rather easy when the facts are in front of you. I would recommond trying it in this discussion, notably the claim that she has never supported a stimulus.


You know what. You should seriously do some research next time, before you make comments devoid of fact. You're not a liar, but your hate for Bachmann has clearly clouded your reasoning skills.

I've been wrong about Bachmann calling for the abolishment of three programs that make up about 100 billion dollars in spending. You've been wrong about everything else, and still neglect to mention everything else that has come up.

Again, she has supported multiple stimulus bills, supports the trillion dollars foreign policy, has no interest in the Fed, wants to ban pornography, supports the war on drugs, supports torture, and the Patriot Act. She even voted to raise the debt ceiling for 30 years.

What does she have in common with Ron? The foreign policy, monetary policy, civil policy, and fiscal policies could not be much more different.

TexanRudeBoy
08-14-2011, 01:01 AM
Im a knucklehead because i disagree with you? I personally have not violated anyones natural rights or legal rights for that matter. What i do question is the idea that US legal rights apply to the World.

Natural rights are in no way, shape, or form "US legal rights". They are NATURAL. EVERY individual is born with these rights. If the US government doesn't say you are free then you aren't free?

AuH20
08-14-2011, 01:06 AM
Why are you even supporting Paul? You think that Club for Growth, an organization that hates him, is valid proof of Bachmann's credentials.

Did you see the votes she cast in their report card or were they altered by the dark forces working at TCFG?






Again, she has supported multiple stimulus bills, supports the trillion dollars foreign policy, has no interest in the Fed, wants to ban pornography, supports the war on drugs, supports torture, and the Patriot Act. She even voted to raise the debt ceiling for 30 years.
What does she have in common with Ron?


Listen and watch. Those are the words of a no-good establishment hack. How dare she bring up Jekyll Island?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqvouLIxYUA

Do you have to be reminded?

Bachmann opposed both versions of the Wall Street bailout bill for America’s financial sector. TWICE!!!!!!

Bachmann voted against both debt ceiling resolutions this past month.

She voted against the first proposed $700 billion bailout of financial institutions, which failed to pass 205–228. She also advocated breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and barring executives from excessive compensation or golden parachutes. However, she also advocated a plan that would suspend mark-to-market accounting rules and supported suspending the capital gains tax.[81]

- On March 26, 2009, following comments by China proposing adoption of a global reserve currency, Bachmann introduced a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to bar the dollar from being replaced by a foreign currency. Current law prohibits foreign currency from being recognized in the U.S., but Bachmann expressed concerns relating to the President's power to make and interpret treaties.[93]

- Bachmann has characterized the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "ObamaCare", and has continually called for its repeal.[133] She recalled to reporters that she called for debate to repeal the act "the morning after Obamacare passed".[133] Joining with Rep. Steve King she introduced "the Bachmann-King repeal of health care bill" stating that it "is our intent in our heart to make sure that Obamacare is completely repealed."[133] In light of a Democratic held Senate and Presidency that oppose repeal, Bachmann called on the Republican held House of Representatives to not provide any funds for the implementation of the act "But until we can see that [repeal] happen, we want to fully defund this bill so that, like, it would be akin to a helium balloon that gets no helium inside so that it can’t take off the ground, and that’s what we’re planning to do. I’m very, very grateful for nothing else; having a majority in the House of Representatives so that we have the ability of the power of the purse to not fund Obamacare, and this is exactly the right way to go."[133]

- In the Minnesota Senate, Bachmann opposed minimum wage increases.[143] In an interview in late June 2011, Bachmann did not back away from her earlier proposal to eliminate the federal minimum wage, a change she said would "virtually wipe out unemployment."[144]

- Bachmann has charged that global warming is a hoax[78] and has been a vocal skeptic of global warming.[79] She has asserted that since carbon dioxide is "a natural byproduct of nature", it is a beneficial gas required by plant life. She stated that because life requires carbon dioxide and it is part of the planet's life cycle, it cannot be harmful. In a statement she made on the House floor on Earth Day, April 22, 2009, Bachmann stated she was against the cap and trade climate legislation, stating: "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural; it is not harmful.... We're being told we have to reduce this natural substance to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth."[80]

WarNoMore
08-14-2011, 01:07 AM
Can't vote for Bachmann or anyone else who buys into the war on terror. It has led to the violation of our rights at home, added trillions in spending, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the middle east.

Anybody who supports these wars, would continue the wars, or expand them into other area's of the middle east is someone who is susceptible to being a puppet of the military industrial complex if they're elected. I'm looking for someone strong enough to fight the MIC, and Ron Paul's the only one I trust to do so.

realtonygoodwin
08-14-2011, 01:08 AM
Why are you even supporting Paul? You think that Club for Growth, an organization that hates him, is valid proof of Bachmann's credentials.


Club for Growth ranks Paul as the 4th highest Congressman, and Bachmann gets 5th. Why would you say they hate him?

AuH20
08-14-2011, 01:08 AM
Can't vote for Bachmann or anyone else who buys into the war on terror. It has led to the violation of our rights at home, added trillions in spending, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the middle east.

Anybody who supports these wars, would continue the wars, or expand them into other area's of the middle east is someone who is susceptible to being a puppet of the military industrial complex if they're elected. I'm looking for someone strong enough to fight the MIC, and Ron Paul's the only one I trust to do so.

That's a perfectly fine answer. I commend you sir. Standing by your convictions instead of exaggerating her record.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 01:18 AM
Club for Growth ranks Paul as the 4th highest Congressman, and Bachmann gets 5th. Why would you say they hate him?


General

“Ron Paul’s record contains some very laudable components,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government.”

Unfortunately, his stubborn idealism often takes Ron Paul further away from achieving the limited-government, pro-growth philosophy he advocates. This is certainly the case with school choice, free trade, tort reform, and entitlement reform, in which he votes against vital free trade agreements, competitive school choice initiatives, and tort reform proposals.

Taxes

The Club for Growth is committed to lower taxes-especially lower tax rates- across the board. Lower taxes on work, savings, and investments lead to greater levels of these activities, thus encouraging greater economic growth.

Ron Paul’s record on taxes is excellent, epitomized by his rallying cry for phasing out the IRS. Over his career, he has backed up his speeches and articles with many pro-growth votes.

Spending

The Club for Growth is committed to reducing government spending. Less spending enhances economic growth by enabling lower taxes and diminishing the economically inefficient political allocation of resources.

Ron Paul’s history contains some curious indiscretions, including a vote for $232 million for federally mandated election reform (only 1 of 21 Republicans to vote for it) and a vote against the line-item veto-even after it was modified to pass constitutional muster. Paul’s record on pork was outstanding in 2006, voting for all 19 of Jeff Flake’s anti-pork amendments in 2006, but his record took a stark turn for the worse in 2007, in which Paul received an embarrassing 29% on the Club for Growth’s RePORK Card, voting for only 12 of the 50 anti-pork amendments. Some of the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s Urban Center; $129,000 for the “perfect Christmas tree project;” $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California. This year, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks “worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state’s shrimp industry.”

Free Trade

Free trade is a vital policy for maximizing economic growth. In recent decades, America’s commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.

Ron Paul has opposed many free trade agreements during his time in Congress:

•Voted against Fast Track Authority
•Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile
•Voted against free trade with Singapore
•Voted against free trade with Australia
•Voted against CAFTA
•Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement
•Voted against the Oman trade agreement
•Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam
While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.

Entitlement Reform

America’s major middle-class entitlement programs are already insolvent. The Club for Growth supports entitlement reforms that enable personal ownership of retirement and healthcare programs, benefit from market returns, and diminish dependency on government.

Rep. Paul’s limited-government philosophy found a particularly useful victim in the country’s entitlement programs.
But the recurring theme of Paul’s career is his frequent willingness to let unattainable ideals obstruct attainable progress towards those ideals. Just as in trade, this tendency leaves Paul opposing pro-growth reforms of Social Security. He opposes allowing workers to divert some Social Security payroll taxes into private retirement accounts, arguing instead for cutting payroll taxes and leaving it up to workers to do what they will with the savings. While the ideal is admirable, it is not a sufficient reason to oppose the pro-growth, expansion of freedom that personally-owned retirement accounts represent.

The Congressman was also 1 of only 4 Republicans to join the Democrats in voting against the extension of welfare reform in 2002.

Regulation

Excessive government regulation stymies individual and business innovation necessary for strong economic expansion. The Club for Growth supports less and more sensible government regulation as a critical step toward increasing freedom and growth in the marketplace.

Nicknamed “Dr. No,” Rep. Paul has spent his career voting against a slew of big-government, regulatory bills. This impressive record contains a couple of odd votes, such as his vote for an amendment delaying oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. More curious is Paul’s support for legislation requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare drug prices with drug companies, which is likely to lead to de facto price controls. These votes aside, Paul’s record on regulation demonstrates a consistent aversion to government intervention in the private sector and an appreciation for the role limited government plays in furthering economic growth.

School Choice

The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools, voucher programs, and tax credits that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education can only lead to higher quality and lower costs.

Ron Paul’s opposition to school choice stems from his opposition to the government’s role in education, arguing that federal voucher programs are “little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education.” He consistently voted against voucher programs, including a 1998 school voucher program for D.C. public school students, and a 2003 bill for a DC voucher program.

While Paul’s sentiment is understandable, it doesn’t change the fact that his votes are a direct impediment to achieving high-quality school choice. By voting against school choice programs, Paul is aligning himself with Democrats and the National Education Association in opposing progress towards achieving a truly competitive, market-based education system.

Political Free Speech

Maximizing prosperity requires sound government policies. When the government strays from these policies, citizens must be free to exercise their constitutional rights to petition and criticize those policies and the politicians responsible for them.Ron Paul has a stellar record of protecting political free speech. There is no question about Rep. Paul’s steadfast respect for the First Amendment.

Tort Reform

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Representative Paul opposes federal tort reform for the same reason he opposes most federal solutions-he believes the federal approach “damages the Constitution by denying states the right to decide their own local medical standards and legal rules.”

While Paul’s idealism is laudable, he has not offered a viable alternative for dealing with a problem that is hurting American consumers and businesses, while diminishing our international competitiveness.

Summation

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform.

They also do their rankings on a year by year basis(I think). Doing well in one year does not mean that they rate him well the next.

realtonygoodwin
08-14-2011, 01:19 AM
Right...there is no hate there. They disagree on a couple of his issues.

AuH20
08-14-2011, 01:21 AM
Right...there is no hate there. They disagree on a couple of his issues.

Namely free trade agreements (which are misnamed lol) and school choice givebacks.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 01:21 AM
Did you see the votes she cast in their report card or were they altered by the dark forces working at TCFG?








Listen and watch. Those are the words of a no-good establishment hack. How dare she bring up Jekyll Island?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqvouLIxYUA

Do you have to be reminded?

Again, virtually all of those votes were supported by most Republicans. Voting against TARP or minimum wage does not make her special. She rarely if ever speaks of the Fed.

AuH20
08-14-2011, 01:24 AM
Again, virtually all of those votes were supported by most Republicans. Voting against TARP or minimum wage does not make her special. She rarely if ever speaks of the Fed.

Close to half of the House Republicans ended up voting for TARP.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 01:25 AM
Close to half of the House Republicans ended up voting for TARP.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

Your link tells me that she voted with the majority of Republicans.

realtonygoodwin
08-14-2011, 01:26 AM
Lots of Republicans voted for TARP - including my Congressman.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j43fefDFL2o

AuH20
08-14-2011, 01:26 AM
Your link tells me that she voted with the majority of Republicans.

'No' is indicated in italics.

Cutlerzzz
08-14-2011, 01:32 AM
The Republicans had 91 yays and 108 nays. She voted with about 60% of Republicans.

KingRobbStark
08-14-2011, 01:37 AM
In this world you have to be a realist. If the choice is between Bachmann and Obama for 4 more years? Id pick bachmann because atleast on economic issues she is close to where i stand. Though i guess you can never be 100 % about politicians, they often get into office and change course.

It's easy to throw the word *realist* without weighing history into the mix. If we had to judge people by what they say, then George Bush is the greatest president (fortunately that's not the case).

TexanRudeBoy
08-14-2011, 01:50 AM
It's easy to throw the word *realist* without weighing history into the mix. If we had to judge people by what they say, then George Bush is the greatest president (fortunately that's not the case).


And Obama is a peace candidate.

WarNoMore
08-14-2011, 02:31 AM
That's a perfectly fine answer. I commend you sir. Standing by your convictions instead of exaggerating her record.

Thank you. I don't think she's an insider like Perry, she's just misguided on a few issues. I think it's better to debate her and her voter base than to attack her. If Paul is elected I'm sure she'll be one of his few early allies in the congress when it comes to fiscal policy.

Also, the thought that she could pick Rand Paul as her Vice President(and Ron as the treasury secretary) has me reconsidering voting for her. It'd help position Rand for a run in 2020, and who knows the Paul's might rub off on her some more and she'll change her stance on the war issue. At least we'd get the anti-war movement back when the left's puppet is out of the white house lol.

So I guess she's a potential plan c(plan b is a third party run by Ron) for me, if the Paul's are a part of her cabinet.

blocks
08-14-2011, 02:40 AM
The reason why people here sometimes value Kucinich more than Beck is that they value honesty and conviction.

spudea
08-14-2011, 09:52 AM
she won't end the empire, she won't end the fed, she won't balance the budget, she won't restore liberty, she won't follow the constitution.

she is an establishment plant to co-op our ideas so if she does get elected she will turn her back on these promises just like Obama and Bush did.

There are only 2 candidates in the race, Ron Paul and Not Ron Paul. I for one will NOT be voting for the GOP if Ron Paul is unsuccessfull. This will give us the best shot in 2016. Our LAST CHANCE before all goes to hell.

PaulConventionWV
08-14-2011, 10:02 AM
Please remember, someone that is 70% identical to Ron Paul is better than someone who is 25% identical.

A lot of people around here are opposed dramatically to folks like Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Gary Johnson, Glenn Beck, and even Rand Paul.
Now obviously, we must draw distinction between Ron Paul and any competitors. But to completely dismiss people based on a couple of different stated positions is detrimental to the cause of liberty, and the cause of getting Ron elected President.
I see MUCH more love on here for someone like Dennis Kucinich than some of these others.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this post was. Why do you want us to support other people?

heavenlyboy34
08-14-2011, 10:15 AM
Well, you'd have to understand the underlying philosophy of primary US natural rights as partially outlined in the Constitution if you were to understand why I think they apply to all human beings, and not just Americans.

Read the Declaration of Independence.

And you still don't seem to understand that things like "Miranda Rights" came about because others violated natural rights of individuals.
There's not much natural law in the US constitution. The BoR is all the Natural Rights written into it (and those were not written by the authors of the original document ;) ).

Teaser Rate
08-14-2011, 11:45 AM
I agree with the OP, but I doubt many people around here will.

There are two basic worldviews on these boards; those who believe that Ron Paul is the best, yet imperfect candidate running in an imperfect field and would consider switching their vote if they saw a better candidate come along, and those who believe the entire political and financial establishment is out to get them and electing Ron Paul is the only way to stop America from being destroyed.

To the latter half, it's an insult to suggest that any other two candidates have any meaningful differences.

RM918
08-14-2011, 12:00 PM
I agree with the OP, but I doubt many people around here will.

There are two basic worldviews on these boards; those who believe that Ron Paul is the best, yet imperfect candidate running in an imperfect field and would consider switching their vote if they saw a better candidate come along, and those who believe the entire political and financial establishment is out to get them and electing Ron Paul is the only way to stop America from being destroyed.

To the latter half, it's an insult to suggest that any other two candidates have any meaningful differences.

I can safely put myself in the first camp, but I have two big issues: War and debt, the two very things that WILL destroy this country in the very immediate future if left unchecked. Any candidate I see that merely pays lip service to one or the other, that I have no proof will follow through on solving either, I see no point in supporting.

Bachmann certainly talks about the debt, but so does every other Republican. Some of her votes have aligned with those views, and some have not. She is definitely totally do-nothing on the war issue, which means she doesn't REALLY care about the debt. You can't maintain an empire and not run this country into bankruptcy.

I have no trust in her whatsoever. Until I see her stand on her principles, EVEN WHEN IT HURTS HER, and know that she'll stick to her guns on things even if they go against the neocon establishment, I can only assume she'll be just like every other politician. Just like George Bush in '00, talking about a humble foreign policy and totally flipping once he's on the throne.

Ultimately abortion, gay marriage, immigration, light forms of gun control are essentially meaningless to talk about unless you solve those two big issues.

wannaberocker
08-14-2011, 12:15 PM
It's easy to throw the word *realist* without weighing history into the mix. If we had to judge people by what they say, then George Bush is the greatest president (fortunately that's not the case).

yeah thats true. But got to do the math i agree 0 % with obama. I agree maybe 60% with bachmann. But i dont think she is another bush though i think shes got more balls.

Southron
08-14-2011, 12:15 PM
I believe people here have been burned by politicians who talked a good game. We always hear "don't make the good the enemy of the perfect". Okay. Until the "good" turns out to be bad. Then we lose another 4 to 8 years of our lives under this person.

We only have limited lifetimes to get this right.

showpan
08-14-2011, 12:21 PM
No talking about enemy combatants captured while fighting on the battle field

Many of the enemy combatants who were detained were not "captured". They were turned in by warlords for a $25,000 bounty. Also, the "Kill-Capture" program has illegally detained thousands for shorter periods of time. Do a search on Youtube on how they conduct these night time raids. Anyone could turn you in, a disgruntled neighbor, a childhood bully, a scorned lover but mostly, they are for cash bounties. Over $1 million has been paid out.


We Don't Need Guantanamo Bay (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990491721225253.html)

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-lift-lid-prison)

Guantánamo files: all 779 detainees (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/guantanamo-files-documents)

Guantanamo inmates say they were 'sold' (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8049868/ns/world_news/t/guantanamo-inmates-say-they-were-sold/)

Night operations by U.S. troops anger Afghans (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/06/ap-night-operations-by-troops-anger-afghans-062511/)

Night Raids: Disrupting or Fueling the Afghan Insurgency? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kill-capture/night-raids/)

showpan
08-14-2011, 12:52 PM
"What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty. You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord." - Rep. Michele Bachmann

she also supported NAFTA's expansion.....
and voted NO on extending unemployment benefits. (she supports sending our jobs away but will not take responsibility for putting those people out of work.)
Supported extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
Supported removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan
Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
Supported sanctions on Iran.
Voted YES on the Ryan Budget
Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare
Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power.
Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment.
Commitment to unbreakable U.S.-Israel bond. (another Zionist nut bag)

The lesser of two evils = What would you rather have, a punch in the face or a kick in the head?

trey4sports
08-14-2011, 12:58 PM
I agree with the OP, but I doubt many people around here will.

There are two basic worldviews on these boards; those who believe that Ron Paul is the best, yet imperfect candidate running in an imperfect field and would consider switching their vote if they saw a better candidate come along, and those who believe the entire political and financial establishment is out to get them and electing Ron Paul is the only way to stop America from being destroyed.

To the latter half, it's an insult to suggest that any other two candidates have any meaningful differences.



+rep

While I tend to think there is very little meaningful difference in the other candidates, i do appreciate your hard-truth post.
I think some people on this board live in somewhat of their own fantasy world and fail to see the real world.

trey4sports
08-14-2011, 12:58 PM
yeah thats true. But got to do the math i agree 0 % with obama. I agree maybe 60% with bachmann. But i dont think she is another bush though i think shes got more balls.

actually she has no balls. :p

AuH20
08-14-2011, 01:03 PM
I agree with the OP, but I doubt many people around here will.

There are two basic worldviews on these boards; those who believe that Ron Paul is the best, yet imperfect candidate running in an imperfect field and would consider switching their vote if they saw a better candidate come along, and those who believe the entire political and financial establishment is out to get them and electing Ron Paul is the only way to stop America from being destroyed.

To the latter half, it's an insult to suggest that any other two candidates have any meaningful differences.

I think from being burnt so many times, that many of the 2nd group you have described have almost become paranoid in that if the candidate is not 100% committed like a political anomaly like Ron Paul, then the candidate in question is grossly unfit to vote for, which is lunacy I might add. I already know for certain we're going to lose a good segment of our 2012 momentum in the future because Rand Paul is supposedly not a down the line libertarian.

showpan
08-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Bachmann is pro war, pro globalization, pro corporation and anti-freedom....Why would I support the very things I'm against?

realtonygoodwin
08-14-2011, 03:10 PM
"What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty. You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord." - Rep. Michele Bachmann

she also supported NAFTA's expansion.....
and voted NO on extending unemployment benefits. (she supports sending our jobs away but will not take responsibility for putting those people out of work.)
Supported extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
Supported removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
Voted YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms' warrantless surveillance.
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan
Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
Supported sanctions on Iran.
Voted YES on the Ryan Budget
Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare
Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power.
Declare preborn as persons under 14th amendment.
Commitment to unbreakable U.S.-Israel bond. (another Zionist nut bag)

The lesser of two evils = What would you rather have, a punch in the face or a kick in the head?

Well, the bolded I see as good things, so I definitely think we are seeing things from different perspectives here.

showpan
08-14-2011, 04:17 PM
Well, the bolded I see as good things, so I definitely think we are seeing things from different perspectives here.

So, 2 things stand that are minor issues compared to the others....lol

While many here would probably agree with you, I find it disgusting that Abortion should even be considered as a federal issue. Any vote for legislation whatsoever in support or against is in direct contradiction to our constitution, individual and states rights.

Unemployment benefits would not even be an issue if pro globalists did not eliminate tariffs and pay companies to leave. You would just give MILLION's of people the boot? While unemployment benefits are about as socialist as can be, ending them would have grave consequences for whomever does. They will be sorry they ever woke the sleeping giant.