No food for fat people

[snafu]

The incumbents have a natural advantage. The more they limit campaign spending the better their chances of reelection are. More importantly, it is an infringement on political speech,. The primary purpose of the 1st was to protect political speech.

 

So to even it out you think that more money from small interest groups is the answer? An incumbent runs on his merit. I don't see that as an advantage that is wrongfully given. He either has a better chance because he was good or he has a lesser chance because he screwed up. And I really see an advantage to the country keeping an incumbent as apposed to changing policy every four years.

When the first amendment was written I think Benjamin Franklin had one of the only media outlets. I don't think they foresaw the corruption small interest groups combined with mass false media would have to play in todays politics.

[timesjoke]

Paul's views are really a combination of Robert Taft's and Barry Goldwater's views. Both once leaders of the Republican Party when it stood for limited government and America first.

 

Does that include refusing to assist our friends if their in trouble?

 

 

RP is on record for saying that America has never used our military outside our borders in a good way.

 

This includes ww1, ww2, even attacking Afganistan after 9/11 was wrong in his view.

 

 

RP blames 9/11 on America, he says we brought it on ourselves.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can blame us for 9/11 cannot be President of the united states.

[hugo]

First from Ron Paul:

 

There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 9/11. If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer and the opposite is more likely to occur.

 

The first point is to understand who assumes most of the responsibility for the security of our homes and businesses in a free society. It’s not the police. There are too few of them, and it’s not their job to stand guard outside our houses or places of business. More crime occurs in the inner city, where there are not only more police, but more restrictions on property owners’ rights to bear and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums. In safer rural areas, where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it is, there is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance on the owner’s responsibility to deal with any property violators. This understanding works rather well—at least better than in the inner cities where the understanding is totally different.

 

How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies? The airline owners accepted the rules of the inner city rather than those of rural America. They all assumed that the government was in charge of airline security—and unfortunately, by law, it was. Not only were the airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to potential hijacking. Chemical plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite assumption, and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security. Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes.

 

The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness of the FAA is another. Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the havoc of 9/11. Both the prohibition against guns in pits and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11.

 

Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky. Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the government has taken over the entire process. This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection. Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all passengers.

 

Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism—practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years—as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life. If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear little fruit.

 

Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been completely twisted. Very little attention had been directed toward protecting our national borders and providing homeland security.

 

Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed outward toward distant lands. Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We’ve kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries. This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, DC, on 9/11. These priorities must change, but I’m certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue.

 

This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight. The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention; instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homelands. This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East. With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous. It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11—as we have in Iraq—further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.

 

George Washington:

 

"My ardent desire is, and my aim has been...to comply strictly

with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the U

States free from political connections with every other Country.

To see that they may be independent of all, and under the

influence of none. In a word, I want an American character,

that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves

and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be

respected abroad and happy at home."

 

Mr. Republican, Robert Taft

 

"Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government." -

 

Paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, May 2000:

 

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

 

Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

 

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

 

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.

 

Ain't nothing conservative about neoconservatism, it is liberal Wilsonian idealism.

[hugo]

So to even it out you think that more money from small interest groups is the answer? An incumbent runs on his merit. I don't see that as an advantage that is wrongfully given. He either has a better chance because he was good or he has a lesser chance because he screwed up. And I really see an advantage to the country keeping an incumbent as apposed to changing policy every four years.

When the first amendment was written I think Benjamin Franklin had one of the only media outlets. I don't think they foresaw the corruption small interest groups combined with mass false media would have to play in todays politics.

 

The incumbant has a greater chance due to name recognition and congressional mail privileges. Incumbents already win more than 95% of the time. Ya think they are that good?

 

Bush’s Broken Promise

He once pledged to veto Shays-Meehan.

 

February 21, 2002 8:20 a.m.

 

 

s

George W. Bush a man of his word?

 

It seems a strange question to ask of the plain-speaking Texan who has just blown the whistle on the "axis of evil." But the answer, at least when it comes to campaign-finance reform, may be a disturbing one.

 

If Bush signs something close to the current version of Shays-Meehan he will be committing his first bona fide, no-doubt-about-it, can't-be-spun flip-flop and broken campaign promise.

 

Asked point-blank on ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000 whether he would veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan Bush said he would.

 

Here's part of the exchange from the show:

 

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

 

 

GOV. BUSH: I do.

 

WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

 

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would. The reason why is two — for one, I think it does respe — res — restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written, I — I - I think there's been two versions of it, but as I understand the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion. . . .

 

 

Bush goes on to express his support for a corporate soft-money ban, but Will brings him back to the question of free speech.

 

WILL: We're going to put up on our screen something Clarence Thomas has said about this. He has said, "There is no constitutionally significant difference between campaign contributions and expenditures. Both forms of speech are central to the First Amendment." Do you agree with that, and would you seek nominees who agree with that?

 

BUSH: Well, I do agree with the concept of the — of the free speech an — an — and protecting the First Amendment. I — and I also believe, if what he is saying is we should be able — we should increase the amount of a — contributions an individual can give to a campaign.

 

WILL: He's not just saying . . .

 

BUSH: . . . so long as . . .

 

WILL: . . . he's not just saying to increase, but he's saying that there's something inherently hostile to the First Amendment to limit this form of participation in politics.

 

BUSH: Yeah, I agree with that. But I do think there needs to be protections such as instant disclosure, so that everybody c — knows who can give and who's giving to whom. I'm concerned about laws that prohibit people from participating in the process, and from individuals being intricately involved in the election of candidates.

 

This is pretty unequivocal stuff. Of course, politicians can make casual statements all the time. But that wasn't the case here.

 

As it turns out, Will had given Bush a heads-up that he would be asking about campaign-finance reform and free speech before the show, so Bush knew exactly what he was saying and that Will — and conservatives generally — would like it.

 

The problem with the kind of surrender that Bush appears to be about to make on campaign finance is that it does double damage: It means signing off on lousy legislation, but it also means going back on his word.

 

This is exactly the double whammy that Bush Sr. experienced when he capitulated on taxes. It wasn't just the effect of the policy that hurt Bush, but the damage it did to his political character in the mind of the public.

 

People want nothing so much from their politicians as for them simply to say what they mean and stick by their word. Bush has a well-earned reputation for this, and an abrupt flip-flop on campaign-finance reform — an issue real people don't care about — will hardly erase it.

 

It helps that the media doesn't care. It gave ample coverage to his supposed change on carbon emissions last year, but it seems no one will bother to notice the much starker — and more cynical — reversal on campaign finance.

 

But at the same time Bush will be lionized in the media as moving closer to John McCain, he will actually be distancing himself from McCain's root appeal.

 

The key to McCain's popularity was never campaign-finance reform, but his reputation for straight talk. Bush is about to embrace the former, while diminishing his own reputation for the latter.

 

Bad call.

[timesjoke]

Ron Paule blames America for 9/11:

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg]YouTube - Ron Paul - Rudy Giuliani Blowback Debate[/ame]

[hugo]

Ron Paule blames America for 9/11:

 

 

 

Who is more secure us or Canada? Not sure why we should be fighting Europe and Britain's war when they already surrendurred.

 

Sharia law in Britain unavoidable: archbishop By Paul Majendie

Sat Feb 9, 6:46 PM ET

 

 

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, said on Thursday the introduction of some aspects of Islamic Sharia law in Britain was unavoidable.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Other religions enjoyed tolerance of their laws in Britain, he said, and he called for a "constructive accommodation" with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes.

 

Asked in a BBC interview if the adoption of Sharia law was necessary for community cohesion, Williams said: "It seems unavoidable.

 

"Certain conditions of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."

 

The issue of integrating Britain's 1.8 million Muslims has been widely debated since July 2005 when four British Islamists carried out suicide bombings on London's transport network, killing 52 people.

 

Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law based on the Koran, the words and actions of the Prophet Mohammad and his companions, and rulings of Islamic scholars. It covers issues including worship, commercial dealings, marriage and penal laws.

 

It is implemented in varying degrees in Muslim countries. Williams said he was not endorsing the harsh punishments issued in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where murderers and drug traffickers are beheaded.

 

"Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states, the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women."

 

Any use of Sharia in Britain should not take precedence over "the rights that are guaranteed to... citizens in general."

 

Muslims should have a choice in legal disputes over marriage and financial matters, Williams said.

 

"There are ways of looking at marital dispute, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."

 

A Church of England bishop sought police assistance this month after receiving death threats over an article which claimed Islamist radicals had turned some parts of the country into hostile "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.

 

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said calls had been made to his home, threatening him and his family.

 

"We have got a fragmented society at the moment," Williams said. "Many Muslims would say that that they feel bits of British society are no-go areas for them."

 

I am a bit tired of being taxed to defend the ing world. Let us worry about our own borders.

[timesjoke]

I am a bit tired of being taxed to defend the ing world. Let us worry about our own borders.

 

I agree to a certain extent, but it was our involvement in the world that stopped Hitler and made it possible to stop Runmnian attempts to take over the world.

 

 

The world would now be speaking german or russian if not for American involvement in the world issues.

 

 

Muslim problems are increasing because they use our own systems against us. They wage the war against us from many directions including the media war gaining sympathy for their cause even from people like Ron Paul.

 

Ron Paul is parroting their dogma about them only attacking because we provoked them but are these claims true or is this just what their saying to gain support?

 

 

If a man can blow up a school bus filled with children and be proud of that, what makes Ron Paul or anyone else think this same man is truthful and honest? Why trust the words of a terrorist?

[hugo]

Paul is not saying the terrorists are justified in their attacks. I have a responsibility to protect my home and family. If some thug comes through a door that I forgot to lock then my negligence is partly to blame for any harm the thug causes.

 

How Paul would protect the US; from wikipedia:

 

Borders and immigration

Paul considers it a "boondoggle" for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries' borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled;[26] he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.[42] During the Cold War, he supported Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative,[43] intended to replace the "strategic offense" doctrine of mutual assured destruction with strategic defense.

 

Paul's immigration positions sometimes differ with libertarian think tanks and the official platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party.[44] He believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal immigrants, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[45] Paul's Congressional voting record earned a lifetime grade of B and a recent grade of B+ from Americans for Better Immigration.[46]

 

Paul believes that immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[47] He has advocated a "coherent immigration policy", and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[48] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[49] Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico.

 

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.[50] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship",[51] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the immigration problem.[52]

 

 

Terrorism

 

Letters of marque and reprisal

Paul, calling the September 11, 2001, attacks an act of "air piracy", introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. Letters of marque and reprisal, authorized by article I, section 8 of the Constitution, would have targeted specific terrorist suspects, instead of invoking war against a foreign state.[16] Paul reproposed this legislation as the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007.[53] He voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.[54]

 

 

Investigation

Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field tips: "We had one FBI agent, I think sent dozens and dozens of memos to his superiors saying that there are people trying to fly airplanes but not land them, and nobody would pay any attention."[55] He also advocates investigating why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year.[55][56] He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a "charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."[57]

 

Let us worry about our own borders, restrict immigration from Muslim countries until moderate Islam defeats radical Islam and let us stop running around the world spending 100's of billions of dollars and precious American lives forcing democracy down the throats of those incapable of receiving it. If we were gonna take out Saddam we should have quickly replaced him with a tinpot dictator and gone home.

[wez]

Paul is not saying the terrorists are justified in their attacks. I have a responsibility to protect my home and family. If some thug comes through a door that I forgot to lock then my negligence is partly to blame for any harm the thug causes.

 

 

We have had a military presence in their part of the world since the 1940's. I have never seen a foriegn soldier in my life. People in our government have done things that we are not briefed on as ordinary citizens. Do we really know the whole story of our own real history? We have bad people here too.. Maybe they're just a bit better at hiding it or twisting the truth. Sometimes the surface needs to be scraped a bit and given a closer look, even if one knows they don't want to see what's underneath.

 

Nothing justifies 9/11.. But is it wrong to deeply, critically think as to what may have lead up to such a horrific event? I think not.. I just don't see us as helpless victims in the whole affair.

[hugo]

We have had a military presence in their part of the world since the 1940's. I have never seen a foriegn soldier in my life. People in our government have done things that we are not briefed on as ordinary citizens. Do we really know the whole story of our own real history? We have bad people here too.. Maybe they're just a bit better at hiding it or twisting the truth. Sometimes the surface needs to be scraped a bit and given a closer look, even if one knows they don't want to see what's underneath.

 

Nothing justifies 9/11.. But is it wrong to deeply, critically think as to what may have lead up to such a horrific event? I think not.. I just don't see us as helpless victims in the whole affair.

 

 

The fact is the primary role of the federal government is to protect us from foreign aggressors. They failed on September 11, 2001.

[wez]

The fact is the primary role of the federal government is to protect us from foreign aggressors. They failed on September 11, 2001.

 

 

Miserably...

 

I posted yesterday, on one of the deleted, That I think that should be the only role our federal government has. National defense, legitimate national defense.

 

Sometimes I think it's like firemen who are arsonists so they can be hero's..

 

 

Perhaps we were too busy getting to the bottom of the flax seed oil/MLB scandel to care.. Plus, Lindsy got arrested for DWI..

 

I'd also add that I'm not real keen on spending my life hell bent on vengence and passing it on for the next 16 generations.

[timesjoke]

Paul is not saying the terrorists are justified in their attacks. I have a responsibility to protect my home and family. If some thug comes through a door that I forgot to lock then my negligence is partly to blame for any harm the thug causes

 

Actually he is, in the video I posted of the debate, RP clearly states that America provoked the 9/11 attack.

 

 

In many interviews, RP has clearly stated that there has never been a use of military force outside of America that has been justified.

 

 

RP is a hands in his pockets kind of guy, I like some of his ideas, but he is too radical on things like blaming America for 9/11 to be considered a real option for President.

[hugo]

Pretty much every attack is provoked at some level. The primary goal of foreign policy is to protect our citizens from attacks. Certainly our presence in an area full of nutcases will provoke hatred among some of these nutcases. Arguing an attack was provoked does not justify the attack, or the attackers.

 

Neutrality is often the best option on the world stage. The old way of staging coups and assassinating opposition leaders was cheaper, in lives and money, than full scale invasions.

[wez]

Pretty much every attack is provoked at some level. The primary goal of foreign policy is to protect our citizens from attacks. Certainly our presence in an area full of nutcases will provoke hatred among some of these nutcases. Arguing an attack was provoked does not justify the attack, or the attackers.

 

Neutrality is often the best option on the world stage. The old way of stagiging coups and assassinating opposition leaders was cheaper, in lives and money, than full scale invasions.

 

At the very least the attackers feel they are provoked whether that's the case or not. It's worth trying to understand why.

 

Sometimes apparent victims can be the perp, some people are very adept at truth twisting.. or at least somewhere farther up the scale than helpless, innocent victim.

[timesjoke]

Pretty much every attack is provoked at some level. The primary goal of foreign policy is to protect our citizens from attacks. Certainly our presence in an area full of nutcases will provoke hatred among some of these nutcases. Arguing an attack was provoked does not justify the attack, or the attackers.

 

That is like someone claiming they can't find a job because someone else is holding them back. Sure, it is possible to make an arguement like that but where will it get you?

 

Sometimes you have to step up and take action, I am not saying everything we have done has been 100% right, but we cannot allow ourselves to be frozen into inactivity and isolation policies out of fear for what some wacko group may do to us.

 

 

Neutrality is often the best option on the world stage. The old way of staging coups and assassinating opposition leaders was cheaper, in lives and money, than full scale invasions.

 

What would Hitler had done if everyone had remained neutral?

 

How about Russia?

 

True neutrality is the most difficult possition to take because it is the most against our nature as humans. We have ideas and beliefs that drive us to get involved in things.

 

Most of the time, not getting involved is still getting involved. If we had kept our distance with Russia, that would be a kind of support, and the rest of the world wouldsee our inaction as just that. If we stood by and watched Russia take them over, that could breed anger and hostility as well. There is always a way to twist perceptions and events into something bad if someone wants to so the most important thing to do is be sure we are proud of the actions we take. That is not to say we will always act in perfect ways, but we should truly know that we acted with good intenetions, not holding back our actions from fear of terrorist groups.

 

 

 

 

At the very least the attackers feel they are provoked whether that's the case or not. It's worth trying to understand why.

 

How do we know that?

 

Do we trust the words of people who feel good about blowing up a bus filled with children? Do these kinds of actions show a tendancy tword honesty? I don't believe we can trust their word, I believe they are manipulating the media and society to try and win the media war because they know they can never win a face to face war.

 

 

Sometimes apparent victims can be the perp, some people are very adept at truth twisting.. or at least somewhere farther up the scale than helpless, innocent victim.

 

And sometimes people look for complicated things were most of the time the simplest answer is the correct answer. 2+2=4, no matter how complicated someone wants to make it seem.

 

All I can say is in my world, those willing to target innocents "exclusively" are bad people. There is something inside me that screams out against the notion of directly killing a child, but these terrorists not only kill children, but they will select them as a prefered target.

 

 

(By the way Wez, nice points)