True Patriotism

[Rascal]

H5609 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE
May 22, 2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms.
Sutton). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from the various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment. Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of danger's undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired.Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, ``War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a ``war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism, that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which

[Page: H5611]

comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say, boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long plan for invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard.

While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America. The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

[Page: H5612]

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the ``Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.'' This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called ``other conditions.'' The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliche ``Support the Troops'' is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of ``patriot''?

[Rascal]

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.


http://rxpaul.townhall.com/g/c6fa5e70-db06-4fbe-8cc2-a351c0a5bc87&comments=true#comments

[Rascal]

IMO this needs to be read by everybody, not only those that go into the hated political forum. It's long but worth the read.

I don't agree with everything he says, but the general context of the message is IMO overwhelmingly correct. Hopefully people continue to learn about Mr Ron Paul and he can continue to run for president and perhaps win.

Yeah it will probably me moved, but keep it here for a while so that it can be read by the masses and people can reflect and comment on it.

[Dutch]

Paul doesn't live in the real world, but he is amusing.

[Smiling Assassin27]

"My country, right or wrong," is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." --G. K. Chesterton

[RocBronc]

Before you get too excited about this guy, read this quote... In reference to 9/11...

"They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

That's ludicrous... First of all, Osama Bin Laden has never said that this is the reason why they bombed us and any honest person would realize that the reason that Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda is after us is fundamentally a religious one (They feel the Koran instructs them to kill all non muslims who refuse to embrace Allah and the Islam religion). Also, to assert that we were attacked because they were angry because we bombed Iraq goes against the mantra that there were no Al Qaeda/ terrorist ties with Hussein... so why would they try to defend him?

Anyone who could say something so patently false, I question just about everything they say...

[Rascal]

Apparently you need to read the 9-11 report just like guilliani.

And I'd like to see a link for that quote, as I think he said something else.

[halfcreek]

A different perspective on Ron Paul, examining other positions of his, using his own words.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

[Garcia Bronco]

Ron Paul sounds like he's not all there.

btw...Mini-Nuke endorses Ron Paul

[socalorado]

Paul doesn't live in the real world, but he is amusing.

Ron Paul= An upright man, who shuns evil and fears god!
Do your homework on his military record, his voting history and his legislation.
Then you will understand what it means to live an honest life.
Even if you dont agree with everything he says, you will NEVER be able to say that RP is a crook or a liar.
Sometimes being honest should be all that matters when voting for someone who is going to run the country.

[socalorado]

Before you get too excited about this guy, read this quote... In reference to 9/11...

"They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

That's ludicrous... First of all, Osama Bin Laden has never said that this is the reason why they bombed us and any honest person would realize that the reason that Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda is after us is fundamentally a religious one (They feel the Koran instructs them to kill all non muslims who refuse to embrace Allah and the Islam religion). Also, to assert that we were attacked because they were angry because we bombed Iraq goes against the mantra that there were no Al Qaeda/ terrorist ties with Hussein... so why would they try to defend him?

Anyone who could say something so patently false, I question just about everything they say...


Uh oh. Hmm. i dont get it bro. So basically what you are saying is that Muslims are trying to kill us because we are not embracing islam?
So you say its a religious hatred huh?
So how come Amsterdam hast been bombed? Its alot closer and a million times more fundamentally anti-muslim, heathenistic, anti Allah,anti everything that the Koran represents, but they seem to be just fine!! No attacks in the Netherlands! Everyone is just screwing prostitutes, doing massive amounts of drugs, drawing cartoons dipicting muslims poorly or making fun of muslims in their news and media. Nothing, nada, zip from any Islam terrorist group over there.
Explain that to me.......
If this was about a religious hatred then Islam would have all of the world on fire. China , which does not believe in a GOD (blasphemy to Islam) would be under attack!

[Hogan11]

He'll be shunned by the GOP "mainstream" (a term I use very loosely here) and he'll end up running as an Indy on the Libertarian ticket...make my words.

If that happens, I'm voting for him.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He'll be shunned by the GOP "mainstream" (a term I use very loosely here) and he'll end up running as an Indy on the Libertarian ticket...make my words.

If that happens, I'm voting for him.I'd say you are probably going to be right about this. The GOP (base) wants nothing to do with him.

[TheDave]

Before you get too excited about this guy, read this quote... In reference to 9/11...

"They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

That's ludicrous... First of all, Osama Bin Laden has never said that this is the reason why they bombed us and any honest person would realize that the reason that Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda is after us is fundamentally a religious one (They feel the Koran instructs them to kill all non muslims who refuse to embrace Allah and the Islam religion). Also, to assert that we were attacked because they were angry because we bombed Iraq goes against the mantra that there were no Al Qaeda/ terrorist ties with Hussein... so why would they try to defend him?

Anyone who could say something so patently false, I question just about everything they say...

Seriously boss, you need to educate yourslf.

[Hogan11]

I'd say you are probably going to be right about this. The GOP (base) wants nothing to do with him.

Since when did they ever want anything to do with a straight shooting, sensible populist? Not in modern times anyways.

[Florida_Bronco]

Everything I've read about him says that he is big on gun owners rights, so it's very possible he gets my vote.

[TheDave]

Everything I've read about him says that he is big on gun owners rights, so it's very possible he gets my vote.

With everything going on in this country your biggest concern is "gun owner rights" ?

[Florida_Bronco]

With everything going on in this country your biggest concern is "gun owner rights" ?

Indeed.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

With everything going on in this country your biggest concern is "gun owner rights" ?Are you having a hard time understanding the Ted Nugent part of society or something? :~ohyah!:

[socalorado]

Everything I've read about him says that he is big on gun owners rights, so it's very possible he gets my vote.

Again, another huge point. Gun ownership rights lead to your basic rights as a citizen!!!
Quotes by Ron Paul
→ "Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."

→ "By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."

→ "...I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve...The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a secret palace..."

→ "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."
→ "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence."

→ "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

→ "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads."

→ "The Republic alternative should be, we need to mind our own business"

→ "A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank."

→ "All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."

→ "Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home."

→ "Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

→ "How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution."

→ "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card".

→ "I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."
→ "I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest."

→ "Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

→ "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

[Hogan11]

Again, another huge point. Gun ownership rights lead to your basic rights as a citizen!!!
Quotes by Ron Paul
→ "Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."

→ "By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing."

→ "...I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve...The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a secret palace..."

→ "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."
→ "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence."

→ "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

→ "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads."

→ "The Republic alternative should be, we need to mind our own business"

→ "A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank."

→ "All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."

→ "Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs. We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq, all at the expense of the poor and the middle class here at home."

→ "Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

→ "How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy: No nation-building; don't police the world. That's conservative, it's Republican, it's pro-American - it follows the founding fathers. And, besides, it follows the Constitution."

→ "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card".

→ "I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."
→ "I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest."

→ "Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

→ "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

Well yeah, but but does he believe in Creationism? Where's he stand on Gay Marriage and abortion?, prayer in schools? you know...all that important type stuff!! Ha!

[socalorado]

Well yeah, but but does he believe in Creationism? Where's he stand on Gay Marriage and abortion?, prayer in schools? you know...all that important type stuff!! Ha!

He actually made a great comment on Gays in the military recently!
Here is a part of the article.

“we dont get our rights because we are “gay or women or minorities”, we get our rights as indiviuals”

- Ron Paul

I am not thinking about all gay rights but more just the answer to the “gays in the Military issue” that was posed to the candidates tonight.

It is unfortunate that Ron Paul got his teeth into the answer before the rest could try to answer.

Ron Paul delivered an answer so profound and exactly to the point that it was hard not to feel choked up by his understanding of Americans.

Ron Paul said he doesn’t think about the policies as they pertain to groups, people are not groups, people are themselves individuals and what group you say they belong to doesn’t define them.

He said policy will be based on behaviors and not grouping as that is a biggoted line of thinking in itself.


"If homosexual behavior disrupts the military it should be removed and if heterosexual behavior disrupts the military it too should be removed."

Ron Paul understand human rights and is so basic, honest and refreshing that he stands out on a stage of lifetime politicians and wannabe politicians.

[Florida_Bronco]

Good post Socalorado.

[TheDave]

Are you having a hard time understanding the Ted Nugent part of society or something? :~ohyah!:

Another group i'm completely outof touch with...

[RocBronc]

Apparently you need to read the 9-11 report just like guilliani.

And I'd like to see a link for that quote, as I think he said something else.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=195576


Here's your link...

The 9-11 report was written by a bunch of former politicians or bureaucrats... Why would I trust their opinion especially when terrorists have told us over and over again why they attacked us.

[RocBronc]

Seriously boss, you need to educate yourslf.

That's a great argument...

[Willynowei]

Before you get too excited about this guy, read this quote... In reference to 9/11...

"They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

That's ludicrous... First of all, Osama Bin Laden has never said that this is the reason why they bombed us and any honest person would realize that the reason that Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda is after us is fundamentally a religious one (They feel the Koran instructs them to kill all non muslims who refuse to embrace Allah and the Islam religion). Also, to assert that we were attacked because they were angry because we bombed Iraq goes against the mantra that there were no Al Qaeda/ terrorist ties with Hussein... so why would they try to defend him?

Anyone who could say something so patently false, I question just about everything they say...

Dude, you are off point. Think about it, your argument starts off with the following... "Osama never said."

[Rascal]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=195576

Here's your link...

The 9-11 report was written by a bunch of former politicians or bureaucrats... Why would I trust their opinion especially when terrorists have told us over and over again why they attacked us.

So you are going to trust Bush/Cheney instead? That's even better.

We are a Christian nation, for the most part, and Islam respects Christianity more then non-religious beliefs (hence the reason Christian churches exist in a good number is Islamic countries). Yet they claim that the US is the "Great Satan", and Russia was "Lesser Satan" due to their involvement in Afghanistan, when we have been meddling in their country since 1970's despite the fact that other countries are obviously less religious then the US.

How is it so inconceivable, that if we hadn't been meddling in the country for years (with pathetic results), they wouldn't be bothering us at all. In fact, there extremists might not even exist to the amount that they do now. After all, we are victim of our own creation in Bin Ladin.

[RocBronc]

Uh oh. Hmm. i dont get it bro. So basically what you are saying is that Muslims are trying to kill us because we are not embracing islam?
So you say its a religious hatred huh?
So how come Amsterdam hast been bombed? Its alot closer and a million times more fundamentally anti-muslim, heathenistic, anti Allah,anti everything that the Koran represents, but they seem to be just fine!! No attacks in the Netherlands! Everyone is just screwing prostitutes, doing massive amounts of drugs, drawing cartoons dipicting muslims poorly or making fun of muslims in their news and media. Nothing, nada, zip from any Islam terrorist group over there.
Explain that to me.......
If this was about a religious hatred then Islam would have all of the world on fire. China , which does not believe in a GOD (blasphemy to Islam) would be under attack!

Wow, did you bring up a bad example of a country/city that's been immune from terrorism/muslim extremism...

Your lack of awareness of world events is truly amazing...

Ever hear of Theo Van Gogh??? He was a dutch filmmaker who after making a film called "Submission" which documented the poor treatment of women by Muslim society was murdered in broad daylight by Mohammed Bouyeri who attached a 5 page document (by a knife impaled in his chest) documenting threats against the west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

If you bothered to actually educate yourself you would know that throughout the world muslim extremism/terrorism is murdering innocent civilians of all religious/political stripe (including Communists... The soviet union had lots of difficulties with their southern republics which were mostly muslim).

[socalorado]

Dude, you are off point.

WAAAAY OFF!!! LOL!!!!

Let me get this straight again.
Osama fights a war with the Soviets in the 80s. Afghanistan. OK.
Today extremist muslims are being sent in to Iraq from Iran to KILL
US troops.
Iran, which apparently is a extremist Muslim, Allah loving, Koran loving, country, is currently PAYING the former Soviet Union (Russia) for both NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS!!!!!
But according to you, these people will stop at nothing to destroy the non muslims of the world!
Do you see where this is going dude?
All of the sudden it OK for Muslims to do buisness with non muslims who KILLED you fellow MUSLIMS 10 years ago!
I thought this was what they were told by Allah to fight against?
I thought Allah wants ALL "non believers to be suject to the sword"
This is a family affair in the middle east between BUSHCO and Husseins or whatever other rich, oil sheik is trying to up the price of oil.

[RocBronc]

So you are going to trust Bush/Cheney instead? That's even better.

We are a Christian nation, for the most part, and Islam respects Christianity more then non-religious beliefs (hence the reason Christian churches exist in a good number is Islamic countries). Yet they claim that the US is the "Great Satan", and Russia was "Lesser Satan" due to their involvement in Afghanistan, when we have been meddling in their country since 1970's despite the fact that other countries are obviously less religious then the US.

How is it so inconceivable, that if we hadn't been meddling in the country for years (with pathetic results), they wouldn't be bothering us at all. In fact, there extremists might not even exist to the amount that they do now. After all, we are victim of our own creation in Bin Ladin.

I didn't say I trusted Bush/Cheney... Don't put words in my mouth.
I trust my own opinions...

Please name for me a middle eastern country that has a thriving Christian population that is able to practice christianity openly and freely without persecution???

We were in Afganistan (barely) to help them fight off the Russians. Who had invaded their country en masse.... Why would our actions there provoke their anger?

It's not conceivable because the terrorists who have attacked us are saying "LONG LIVE a free Afganistan or Iraq or (fill in your favorite middle eastern country) as they blow them selves up in marketplaces, killing innocent civilians, they are saying "God is Great!!!" These aren't people motivated by nationalism, they're motivated by their religious beliefs...

[Rascal]

Lebanon is 40% Christianity for one.

Read my post again regarding Afghanistan.

Your last statement contradicts itself so I'm not going to waste my time with it.

[RocBronc]

WAAAAY OFF!!! LOL!!!!

Let me get this straight again.
Osama fights a war with the Soviets in the 80s. Afghanistan. OK.
Today extremist muslims are being sent in to Iraq from Iran to KILL
US troops.
Iran, which apparently is a extremist Muslim, Allah loving, Koran loving, country, is currently PAYING the former Soviet Union (Russia) for both NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS!!!!!
But according to you, these people will stop at nothing to destroy the non muslims of the world!
Do you see where this is going dude?
All of the sudden it OK for Muslims to do buisness with non muslims who KILLED you fellow MUSLIMS 10 years ago!
I thought this was what they were told by Allah to fight against?
I thought Allah wants ALL "non believers to be suject to the sword"
This is a family affair in the middle east between BUSHCO and Husseins or whatever other rich, oil sheik is trying to up the price of oil.

Again, you've put your foot in your mouth and demonstrate your lack awareness of world events...

Ever heard of Chechnya??? There is a nasty civil war going on right now between Russians and Muslim extremists...

[Willynowei]

So you are going to trust Bush/Cheney instead? That's even better.

We are a Christian nation, for the most part, and Islam respects Christianity more then non-religious beliefs (hence the reason Christian churches exist in a good number is Islamic countries). Yet they claim that the US is the "Great Satan", and Russia was "Lesser Satan" due to their involvement in Afghanistan, when we have been meddling in their country since 1970's despite the fact that other countries are obviously less religious then the US.

How is it so inconceivable, that if we hadn't been meddling in the country for years (with pathetic results), they wouldn't be bothering us at all. In fact, there extremists might not even exist to the amount that they do now. After all, we are victim of our own creation in Bin Ladin.

Thats not a good way to look at it either.

In 20/20 hindsight, we see that the Soviet Economic model was due for collapse eventually, however, their expansion into the oil rich middle east is not something the US could ignore as the only rival hegemon in the world.

To fully blame the US for 9/11 is a mistake as large as the opposite end of the spectrum, that is, to say the US is blame free for modern day hostilities from the middle east.

If the US did not halt soviet aggression in the area with paramilitary operations, you can't say the USSR would've collapsed as early as it did. You can speculate all you want but the fact remains they collapsed only 2 decades ago not to mention this is all in hindsight whilst the decisions were made during a period of time where tensions were greatest.

Any empirical student of foreign hostilities would find a very strong correlation between economic welfare/state strength and Terrorist activities. Imagine for a moment that middle eastern states had vibrant economies and equal wealth distribution. Would muslims who maintain living conditions equal or near to that of the Japanese/Europeans leave their homes for sucidal bombing attempts?

I find it hard to believe that if the US kept out of the soon to be satelite puppet states of the USSR,that they would've been much better off economically. Certainly religious contempt is the excuse, but the actual causes run deeper than US involvement during the Cold War.

The middle east is home to so many poor, failed states, that they would've been militaristic no matter what, the US drew the aim of their gun barrels due to intervention in that area but there was little choice in that matter at the time.

If there was anything we could've done at the time, is that, we could've sent aid and established an operational state of governance - something oddly, we are trying to do in Iraq at the moment.

[RocBronc]

Lebanon is 40% Christianity for one.

Read my post again regarding Afghanistan.

Your last statement contradicts itself so I'm not going to waste my time with it.

And Christians in Lebanon are being murdered left and right by Hezbollah...

Try again...

How does my last statement contradict itself???

[bowtown]

I didn't say I trusted Bush/Cheney... Don't put words in my mouth.
I trust my own opinions...

Please name for me a middle eastern country that has a thriving Christian population that is able to practice christianity openly and freely without persecution???

We were in Afganistan (barely) to help them fight off the Russians. Who had invaded their country en masse.... Why would our actions there provoke their anger?

It's not conceivable because the terrorists who have attacked us are saying "LONG LIVE a free Afganistan or Iraq or (fill in your favorite middle eastern country) as they blow them selves up in marketplaces, killing innocent civilians, they are saying "God is Great!!!" These aren't people motivated by nationalism, they're motivated by their religious beliefs...

Hey, I've never posted here before so sorry it starts like this but I couldn't let this slide.

I feel truly sorry for you if you actually are so blind as to believe that there has ever been a religious war, conflict, or killing that did not have a quest for power or a retaliation at lack there of beneath it. Religion is a wonderful scapegoat and a vehicle used to rally and control masses of people (BTW I'm not saying that's all religion is).

To just write this off as strictly religious is to just gloss over every other religious conflict since the beginning of time. It's ignorant, and it's the kind of close minded viewpoint that has put us in the situation we are in.

Again, sorry to start off my postings here on this note.

Go Broncos!

[Willynowei]

I didn't say I trusted Bush/Cheney... Don't put words in my mouth.
I trust my own opinions...

Please name for me a middle eastern country that has a thriving Christian population that is able to practice christianity openly and freely without persecution???

We were in Afganistan (barely) to help them fight off the Russians. Who had invaded their country en masse.... Why would our actions there provoke their anger?

It's not conceivable because the terrorists who have attacked us are saying "LONG LIVE a free Afganistan or Iraq or (fill in your favorite middle eastern country) as they blow them selves up in marketplaces, killing innocent civilians, they are saying "God is Great!!!" These aren't people motivated by nationalism, they're motivated by their religious beliefs...

We were in Afganistan where we trained resistance groups to practice guerrilla warfare. It was a success as the Soviets got kicked out. However we left the area without providing aid. The place ended up run by a bunch of guerillas armed with rifles and bazookas - leading to an instant failed state, and the creation of a totalitarian state.

Thats the part you need to atleast acknowledge. Is that these Muslim states are totalitarian in nature and they mobolize the people who live inside their boundaries toward their cause. If you look in the Kohran, no where will it say to kill Christians.

[RocBronc]

Hey, I've never posted here before so sorry it starts like this but I couldn't let this slide.

I feel truly sorry for you if you actually are so blind as to believe that there has ever been a religious war, conflict, or killing that did not have a quest for power or a retaliation at lack there of beneath it. Religion is a wonderful scapegoat and a vehicle used to rally and control masses of people (BTW I'm not saying that's all religion is).

To just write this off as strictly religious is to just gloss over every other religious conflict since the beginning of time. It's ignorant, and it's the kind of close minded viewpoint that has put us in the situation we are in.

Again, sorry to start off my postings here on this note.

Go Broncos!


I don't believe that it's stricly religious... I think the term Islamofascism is an appropriate one for these people. I should have been more clear. But to claim that it's nationalistic or even based on some reaction to our "policies" when they are clearly motivated by their own political and religious ambitions is incredibly naive.

[RocBronc]

We were in Afganistan where we trained resistance groups to practice guerrilla warfare. It was a success as the Soviets got kicked out. However we left the war without any aid, a bunch of guerillas armed with rifles and bazookas - that lead to an instant failed state, and the creation of really a totalitarian state.

Thats the part you need to atleast acknowledge. Is that these Muslim states are totalitarian in nature and they mobolize the people who live inside their boundaries toward their cause. If you look in the Kohran, no where will it say to kill Christians.

First of all, Afganistan before the Soviet's invaded them and we got involved was hardly a "modern nation" with a stable government.

Secondly, why do we take the majority of the blame when it was the soviet union who physically destroyed Afganistan.

Finally, so it's our fault that the people we helped to fight off the Russian's then turned their weapons/power to establish an oppressive regime when they could have just as easily have formed a democratic republic.

Also, I thought we weren't supposed to get involved in "nation building" and forcing people to accept democracy??

The Koran may not say kill Christians, but I've seen quotes from the Koran saying something about "killing infidels" or "killing unbelievers"

[bendog]

Sooooo, you don't think US for policy is based upon religion and nationalsim.

OK,

bye

[bendog]

Ps, I sort of enjoyed the Ron Paul quotes, but the hijacking really should be moved.

I mean I was sort of annoyed when my threads aimed at humor, but not politics, were moved, when Chorf troll threads pop up like cow**** on the Chisolm Trail, but this has gone into the realm of Llama and gaffney

[socalorado]

Ps, I sort of enjoyed the Ron Paul quotes, but the hijacking really should be moved.

I mean I was sort of annoyed when my threads aimed at humor, but not politics, were moved, when Chorf troll threads pop up like cow**** on the Chisolm Trail, but this has gone into the realm of Llama and gaffney

I didnt hijack, i was simply showing the masses his quotes so they could get a better understanding of him. RP.
I wont qoute anymore. This has become a lame discussion about warmongering and that somehow our country has a right to blow up Iraq.
It is really sad to see someone try and attempt to refute the obvious with these totally ludicrious examples. So far 1 guy got killed in Amsterdam and apparently theres a HUGE islamo war in a former russian replublic but it has all to do with the US policy of blowing up a country that never had any nuclear, biological weapons or terrorists (until we got there!)
Hey look, i think your right in one respect- Islamo/middle eastern people HATE the US! That for sure!
I can see Osama with his feet up, smoking a joint in Amsterdam right now!!!

[ant1999e]

Dictionary.com

pa·tri·ot –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD vAlign=top>a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>2.</TD><TD vAlign=top>a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dn vAlign=top>3.</TD><TD vAlign=top>(initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) Military. a U.S. Army antiaircraft missile with a range of 37 mi. (60 km) and a 200-lb. (90 kg) warhead, launched from a tracked vehicle with radar and computer guidance and fire control. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[ant1999e]

pa·tri·ot·ism –noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Willynowei]

First of all, Afganistan before the Soviet's invaded them and we got involved was hardly a "modern nation" with a stable government.

Secondly, why do we take the majority of the blame when it was the soviet union who physically destroyed Afganistan.

Finally, so it's our fault that the people we helped to fight off the Russian's then turned their weapons/power to establish an oppressive regime when they could have just as easily have formed a democratic republic.

Also, I thought we weren't supposed to get involved in "nation building" and forcing people to accept democracy??

The Koran may not say kill Christians, but I've seen quotes from the Koran saying something about "killing infidels" or "killing unbelievers"

Dude, you're mind set is as if we live in a world of right and wrong.

That doesn't exist man, there is no such thing as our fault or their fault. The fact is, there are consequences to actions, did you read my earlier post in response to rascal?

No one said the Middle east would've been better off without our intervention, but that doesn't change that had we not intervened, its much less likely that we are the target for these hostilities.

Regarding the Koran, an unbeliever is an atheist. Christian, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God. Non of them recognize any of the other ones as unbelievers. This has nothing to do with the Koran.

Also, I never once said we weren't supposed to get involved in rebuilding states. That is the contention of some people but not all. Do not assume so much.

Finally, saying that the middle eastern nations could've formed their own free democratic state given said conditions, underlines how little awareness you hold in this area. I'm sorry to put it that way, but that is the absolute truth. Democracies do not so easily build themselves.

[bendog]

I didnt hijack, i was simply showing the masses his quotes so they could get a better understanding of him. RP.
I wont qoute anymore. This has become a lame discussion about warmongering and that somehow our country has a right to blow up Iraq.
It is really sad to see someone try and attempt to refute the obvious with these totally ludicrious examples. So far 1 guy got killed in Amsterdam and apparently theres a HUGE islamo war in a former russian replublic but it has all to do with the US policy of blowing up a country that never had any nuclear, biological weapons or terrorists (until we got there!)
Hey look, i think your right in one respect- Islamo/middle eastern people HATE the US! That for sure!
I can see Osama with his feet up, smoking a joint in Amsterdam right now!!!

I think you misunderstand my views on US for policy, muslim neo-fundamentalism, and iraq. But no argument on that. My comment on hijacking was more to rocbronc. 9-11 and osama are tied our support of israel and our interventions in the ME to keep the spice lanes open. Osama is a psychopath though, and one thing or another would set him off.

[Taco John]

I will likely vote for Ron Paul, even if I'm writing him in.

He's just what this country needs right now.

[RocBronc]

Dude, you're mind set is as if we live in a world of right and wrong.

That doesn't exist man, there is no such thing as our fault or their fault. The fact is, there are consequences to actions, did you read my earlier post in response to rascal?

No one said the Middle east would've been better off without our intervention, but that doesn't change that had we not intervened, its much less likely that we are the target for these hostilities.

Regarding the Koran, an unbeliever is an atheist. Christian, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God. Non of them recognize any of the other ones as unbelievers. This has nothing to do with the Koran.

Also, I never once said we weren't supposed to get involved in rebuilding states. That is the contention of some people but not all. Do not assume so much.

Finally, saying that the middle eastern nations could've formed their own free democratic state given said conditions, underlines how little awareness you hold in this area. I'm sorry to put it that way, but that is the absolute truth. Democracies do not so easily build themselves.

You're right, the Nazis weren't right or wrong, neither was the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, The Crusades... Everything is just relative...

I don't want to argue Islamic theology with you... What can't be argued though is that throughout history and especially the past 50 years muslim societies have been extremely intolerant of both Christians and Jews. I'm not blaming this on the Koran but such intolerance has to come from somewhere...

So if a democracy wasn't a possibility in Afganistan than why are we to blame for the horrible situation there politically after the Russians and the U.S. left???

[Spider]

Good post Rascal ....... you know my stances , and I am strongly considering voting for him , I dont agree with him much on alot of Issues , but he isnt a liar or a crook , he doesnt pander , and he will make the tough choices , and it is up to us as Americans to do what needs to be done to fix this mess .........
I was listening to Alex Bennet Program , Ron Paul was on , Ron Paul rode a freaking Greyhound Bus around .............. I can get behind that ........
Ron Paul 2008

[Willynowei]

You're right, the Nazis weren't right or wrong, neither was the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, The Crusades... Everything is just relative...

I don't want to argue Islamic theology with you... What can't be argued though is that throughout history and especially the past 50 years muslim societies have been extremely intolerant of both Christians and Jews. I'm not blaming this on the Koran but such intolerance has to come from somewhere...

So if a democracy wasn't a possibility in Afganistan than why are we to blame for the horrible situation there politically after the Russians and the U.S. left???

First, the irony in the second paragraph of that quote is overwhelming, so much that I won't even address it, rethink what you said.

I also never said we were to blame for Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have done more.

Finally, Hitler was stopped because of his relentless quest of territory expansion, you think it was because he slaughtered Jews? You think American GIs had any freakin clue the horrors that they saw in those death camps?

I really would like to think that if the Allies knew what Hitler was doing, provided he did not look to invade France through Belgium, that they still would've taken action just to end the genocide. But looking at the reaction of UN troops today to the disgusting things going on in under developed countries where mass killing is an after thought, you really have to think why people fight.

The point is, we don't fight for whats right. Wealth, Survival, Power are all better reasons to fight, they are all more practiced.

You know what type of wars are purely about whats right? Wars that the good guys lose. Wars that the UN dabble in for a few years and then leave.

You think democracy is such a great thing? Me too, but how many of the brain washed idiots should we kill to get the concept of democracy through to their kids?

Well I don't know, the Romans did all the right things... didn't they? After all, once they slaughtered thousands of Barbarians, the children left over got to enjoy an education system, a roads system and generations later you had an expansion of civilization as it was known.

The Romans did it right... agreed?

It really doesn't matter right? If we slaughter a generation of brain dead idiots, we can atleast save their kids. Sovereignty only exists for democracies and people who respect each other anyways.

We aren't in Iraq because we are right. Whether we were right in the past to do what we did, the fact is, it has come to this, and we have to deal with it.

Certainly in the international community we were flat out wrong to invade Iraq without direct military provocation. Being right and being wrong is about perception and right now, we are perceived as wrong.

Does that mean we should pull out?

[TailgateNut]

Everything I've read about him says that he is big on gun owners rights, so it's very possible he gets my vote.


Grow up! I'm afraid you'll become the next "steve tensi" once they give you a badge! Another loose cannon, just waiting to go off!

[Florida_Bronco]

Grow up! I'm afraid you'll become the next "steve tensi" once they give you a badge! Another loose cannon, just waiting to go off!

I already own a gun, so if I'm going to go off, it will happen with or without the badge :wiggle:

Don't worry though, you shouldn't be scared of legal firearm owners like myself.

[Spider]

I already own a gun, so if I'm going to go off, it will happen with or without the badge :wiggle:

Don't worry though, you shouldn't be scared of legal firearm owners like myself.

I maybe have you mixed up with someone else , but didnt you state you would pull a gun to avoid a fight ?

[Florida_Bronco]

I maybe have you mixed up with someone else , but didnt you state you would pull a gun to avoid a fight ?

If I'm armed, yes, I would.

[TheDave]

I already own a gun, so if I'm going to go off, it will happen with or without the badge :wiggle:

Don't worry though, you shouldn't be scared of legal firearm owners like myself.

I think i just figured out why the girlfriend left...

[Florida_Bronco]

I think i just figured out why the girlfriend left...

In all seriousness, that was one of the few things we had in common. We both enjoy firearms.

[Spider]

If I'm armed, yes, I would.

Then you are a problem ........

[Florida_Bronco]

Then you are a problem ........

How do you figure that? You tell me what the logic is in getting into a fist fight with when you are armed. Or how about the logic in taking a chance of getting an ass kicking when you could use your legally concealed firearm (often only needing to put your hand on it) to end the altercation?

[DBruleU]

How do you figure that? You tell me what the logic is in getting into a fist fight with when you are armed. Or how about the logic in taking a chance of getting an ass kicking when you could use your legally concealed firearm (often only needing to put your hand on it) to end the altercation?

I own guns....I'd do the same.

[DBruleU]

Grow up! I'm afraid you'll become the next "steve tensi" once they give you a badge! Another loose cannon, just waiting to go off!

In that case, don't let Beerslug see you post...or you'll be without a job soon.

[Florida_Bronco]

I own guns....I'd do the same.

Yep. I think what some of these guys forget is that as a CCW holder, you have to be assertive and non-aggresive. You can't egg on and escalate a fight and then turn aroud and shoot the other person when it starts to get physical.

If you're armed and handling yourself accordingly, there should be no reason for anyone to physically attack you.

[Spider]

How do you figure that? You tell me what the logic is in getting into a fist fight with when you are armed. Or how about the logic in taking a chance of getting an ass kicking when you could use your legally concealed firearm (often only needing to put your hand on it) to end the altercation?

well in a fist fight only 2 get hurt , you start drawing out firearms , you bring an unstable element into it , and Despite how good you think you are , your weapon can be used against you or someone else .........

[Florida_Bronco]

well in a fist fight only 2 get hurt , you start drawing out firearms , you bring an unstable element into it , and Despite how good you think you are , your weapon can be used against you or someone else .........

True. But I'd rather take my chances using the firearm on the attacker, rather than letting them attack me and possibly take my firearm during the fight.

[Spider]

True. But I'd rather take my chances using the firearm on the attacker, rather than letting them attack me and possibly take my firearm during the fight.

and if you miss ? hit some father ? innocent bystander ? here is a little known fact , you dont have to be a bad ass , 3 rd degree blackbelt , just dont act the victim , I have walked around in Harlem at night , Bronxs at hunts point , East LA ..... Had some problems ,but nothing I couldnt take care of , but overall not much trouble , and those are some bad places ....... Most communities dont come close except for compton ca ........trick is dont act like a victim

[Florida_Bronco]

and if you miss ? hit some father ? innocent bystander ?

That's a risk you assume. Anyone who carries a gun, whether they be civilians, law enforcement or military, has to deal with the chance that may happen. You just hope and pray it doesn't.


here is a little known fact , you dont have to be a bad ass , 3 rd degree blackbelt , just dont act the victim , I have walked around in Harlem at night , Bronxs at hunts point , East LA ..... Had some problems ,but nothing I couldnt take care of , but overall not much trouble , and those are some bad places ....... Most communities dont come close except for compton ca ........trick is dont act like a victim

Agree 100% with this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

In that case, don't let Beerslug see you post...or you'll be without a job soon.Your ignorance rivals the angry drama queen but I'm not surprised given both of your backgrounds.
I own guns....I'd do the same.I have no doubt you could not face someone man to man.

[Spider]

That's a risk you assume. Anyone who carries a gun, whether they be civilians, law enforcement or military, has to deal with the chance that may happen. You just hope and pray it doesn't.
a risk you assume , not them ....... you hit some father , on lunch break , what happens to his family ? Welfare , worse yet you cripple him , he is on welfare , looses all self respect , watches his family go through hard times ......... There are alot of consequences that result on a split second decision that could effect alot of people ....... I watched my dad get shot , I watched 2 neighbors we had in Denver(we lived near Denver General hospital when this happened ) shoot each other , gun play is very serious business , majority of the time , you pull it you have to use it ....... Hurting an innocent bystander is a guilt you dont want to live with ........

[Florida_Bronco]

a risk you assume , not them ....... you hit some father , on lunch break , what happens to his family ? Welfare , worse yet you cripple him , he is on welfare , looses all self respect , watches his family go through hard times ......... There are alot of consequences that result on a split second decision that could effect alot of people ....... I watched my dad get shot , I watched 2 neighbors we had in Denver(we lived near Denver General hospital when this happened ) shoot each other , gun play is very serious business , majority of the time , you pull it you have to use it ....... Hurting an innocent bystander is a guilt you dont want to live with ........

Agreed. But again, it's just a risk you have to assume. One of the sad facts of life.

[W*GS]

Spider's fear of guns is well-noted. Don't let his personal biases get to you - that's what he hopes for.

[Spider]

I am not busting on you Florida Bronco , I just hope you understand ,what you getting into ....... I used to have guns , I hunted , when I had kids I got rid of my guns , I dont have a single regret , I am not anti Gun , I just wish more people would think before they used them ......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If I'm armed, yes, I would.
You definitely have a problem then. Shooting unarmed men isn't going to work out too well for you in the long run. Better for you not carry weapons with that mind set.

[Spider]

Agreed. But again, it's just a risk you have to assume. One of the sad facts of life.

you assume .......sad facts of life ? all because you are afraid of a punch in the face ?
you are willing to hurt an innocent person cause you are scared ? wow maybe you dont have a conscience..........

[Spider]

Spider's fear of guns is well-noted. Don't let his personal biases get to you - that's what he hopes for.

and now a word from the weatherman

[W*GS]

This from the guy who lets his minor child drive his rig. Of course he's being safe.

Riiiiiiiight.

How long before he lets his kids have a few swigs of booze? Or have a smoke or two?

[Spider]

This from the guy who lets his minor child drive his rig. Of course he's being safe.

Riiiiiiiight.

How long before he lets his kids have a few swigs of booze? Or have a smoke or two?
LOL I knew you didnt have an argument against my posting on this thread , cause once again I am right , so we will go with what you got ......
I take it you dont approve of letting my kid drive hey weatherman ........ maybe I should let my kids live a sheltered life and grow up to be an anarchist Idiot .....

[Florida_Bronco]

You definitely have a problem then. Shooting unarmed men isn't going to work out too well for you in the long run. Better for you not carry weapons with that mind set.

In the state of Florida we can easily justify shooting someone who is trying to attack us, unarmed or not.

I am not busting on you Florida Bronco , I just hope you understand ,what you getting into ....... I used to have guns , I hunted , when I had kids I got rid of my guns , I dont have a single regret , I am not anti Gun , I just wish more people would think before they used them ......

Oh I understand, and I sure hope that it never comes to that. I think anyone who has been around me can tell you I'm a friendly guy and would rather be friends with everyone than fight them.

you assume ...sad facts of life? all because you are afraid of a punch in the face ? you are willing to hurt an innocent person cause you are scared ? wow maybe you dont have a conscience...

Well one thing that needs to be mentioned here, things aren't the way the used to be. Back in you and my dad's day, if you had a confrontation with someone you generally settled it like men, got up and dusted yourself off and went on your merry way. Heck, sometimes you even became friends with the person. Two of my best friends were kids that I mixed it up with back in junior high.

But things aren't that way anymore. Nowadays you have no clue what someone has on them or is willing to do to you in a "fist fight." True Story: A friend of mine had went to see his girlfriend in a not so nice apartment complex. For some reason, one of the guys in the complex decided to start a fight with him. Well my buddy was handling this guy pretty easy, so 2 of his friends jump in. My buddy was still able to handle the 3 guys pretty easily, so the guy who originally picked the fight goes to his car and pulls out a rather large hunting knife and tries to go after my buddy.

Things like that are the reason I believe in concealed weapon permits. If things were the way they were 20-30 years ago, where you could fight with someone and be fairly certain fists would be the only things used, I'd probably feel differently.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

In the state of Florida we can easily justify shooting someone who is trying to attack us, unarmed or not.
You probably ought to plan on not leaving that state (if they condone shooting unarmed citizens) then.

Pretty pathetic really. "Well, you see Mr. DA I thought there was a 90% chance he was going to kick my ass so I ended his life on this planet".

[Spider]

But things aren't that way anymore. Nowadays you have no clue what someone has on them or is willing to do to you in a "fist fight." True Story: A friend of mine had went to see his girlfriend in a not so nice apartment complex. For some reason, one of the guys in the complex decided to start a fight with him. Well my buddy was handling this guy pretty easy, so 2 of his friends jump in. My buddy was still able to handle the 3 guys pretty easily, so the guy who originally picked the fight goes to his car and pulls out a rather large hunting knife and tries to go after my buddy.

Things like that are the reason I believe in concealed weapon permits. If things were the way they were 20-30 years ago, where you could fight with someone and be fairly certain fists would be the only things used, I'd probably feel differently.
My Dad was shot in 1976 ,.38 hollow point to the left elbow , point is we never had a clue , you just didnt know what the other guy was packing , I will tell you this , I am more worried about a guy with a knife , then a gun , better chance of someone missing with a gun , then you have that innocent bystander factor ....... I have been cut with a knife and shot at , never been shot ...Just saying Guns are an unpredictable element

[Florida_Bronco]

You probably ought to plan on not leaving that state (if they condone shooting unarmed citizens) then.

Pretty pathetic really. "Well, you see Mr. DA I thought there was a 90% chance he was going to kick my ass so I ended his life on this planet".

Actually, it seems like there are more and more states adopting the "stand your ground laws" like Florida has enacted.

[W*GS]

You probably ought to plan on not leaving that state (if they condone shooting unarmed citizens) then.

Pretty pathetic really. "Well, you see Mr. DA I thought there was a 90% chance he was going to kick my ass so I ended his life on this planet".

"Well, you see Mr. DA, I thought he was going to rape me, so I shot and killed him."

After all, BB, what's a rape? Nothing compared to killing someone, eh?

[W*GS]

LOL I knew you didnt have an argument against my posting on this thread , cause once again I am right , so we will go with what you got ......

Seeing as how you're nothing more than personal attacks... You dish 'em out, but boy howdy, you shore don't like it when the stench you deliver blows right back atcha...

I take it you dont approve of letting my kid drive hey weatherman ........ maybe I should let my kids live a sheltered life and grow up to be an anarchist Idiot .....

If you're so darned concerned about innocent bystanders, why do you let your kid drive your rig? Either a double standard, or hypocrisy. Which is it?

[Florida_Bronco]

My Dad was shot in 1976 ,.38 hollow point to the left elbow , point is we never had a clue , you just didnt know what the other guy was packing , I will tell you this , I am more worried about a guy with a knife , then a gun , better chance of someone missing with a gun , then you have that innocent bystander factor ....... I have been cut with a knife and shot at , never been shot ...Just saying Guns are an unpredictable element

I hear what you are saying, it's a very risky thing. You just have to practice with your firearm and hope that you never have to use it.

[Spider]

Seeing as how you're nothing more than personal attacks... You dish 'em out, but boy howdy, you shore don't like it when the stench you deliver blows right back atcha...
LOL what in the hell are you babbling about weather man ?



If you're so darned concerned about innocent bystanders, why do you let your kid drive your rig? Either a double standard, or hypocrisy. Which is it?

LOL no one else was on the road , it was in Wyoming , so what innocent bystanders are you talking about , or is this another fantasy you dreamed up ?

[Spider]

I hear what you are saying, it's a very risky thing. You just have to practice with your firearm and hope that you never have to use it.

unneeded risk

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Well, you see Mr. DA, I thought he was going to rape me, so I shot and killed him."
After all, BB, what's a rape? Nothing compared to killing someone, eh?I didn't know you were a woman W*GS. But I see your point if you think a rapist had you in his sights. We're actually talking about someone threatening to kick your ass for one reason or another (man to man).

[W*GS]

LOL what in the hell are you babbling about weather man ?

Not surprising you don't recognize your own "strategery".

LOL no one else was on the road , it was in Wyoming , so what innocent bystanders are you talking about , or is this another fantasy you dreamed up ?

You're admitting to several crimes here - are you sure you want to do that? Do you want the Tensi Treatment?

[W*GS]

I didn't know you were a woman W*GS. But I see your point if you think a rapist had you in his sights. We're actually talking about someone threatening to kick your ass for one reason or another (man to man).

I just hope your daughter(s) (assuming you have any), when they're out on their own, haven't taken your fears about guns too seriously. That's all.

[Spider]

Not surprising you don't recognize your own "strategery".
oh you were trying to be me ....... Not shocking , but you suck at it ......



You're admitting to several crimes here - are you sure you want to do that? Do you want the Tensi Treatment?
I see you left the fantasy of innocent bystanders , now on to this are we ? Hilarious! Go ahead weatherman turn me in .........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I just hope your daughter(s) (assuming you have any), when they're out on their own, haven't taken your fears about guns too seriously. That's all.You don't understand Ms W*GS, I don't fear weapons, only the idiots that our laws allow to have them.

[Florida_Bronco]

To be fair Spider, some of my best memories as a kid was my dad taking me to drive his truck when I was 11 years old. Driving with your dad is something you'll always remember.

[Spider]

To be fair Spider, some of my best memories as a kid was my dad taking me to drive his truck when I was 11 years old. Driving with your dad is something you'll always remember.


LOL W*GS knows this , but I hurt his feelings on another thread , so W*GS is lashing out ;D

[W*GS]

You don't understand Ms W*GS, I don't fear weapons, only the idiots that our laws allow to have them.

"Idiots" meaning everyone but well-connected lefties, e.g., Rosie O'Donnell and her ilk.

[Rascal]

You don't understand Ms W*GS, I don't fear weapons, only the idiots that our laws allow to have them.

It's more from the lack of enforcement of the laws, then the laws themselves.

I've been shot at twice and stabbed once in the abs, so I agree with Florida, you don't know who you might be going up against. No point in taking that risk when you are armed yourself.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Idiots" meaning everyone but well-connected lefties, e.g., Rosie O'Donnell and her ilk.Idiots meaning Cho, gangsters, white supremacists, etc...

[Spider]

It's more from the lack of enforcement of the laws, then the laws themselves.

I've been shot at twice and stabbed once in the abs, so I agree with Florida, you don't know who you might be going up against. No point in taking that risk when you are armed yourself.

shot at but not shot ? reenforces my point about innocent bystanders ......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's more from the lack of enforcement of the laws, then the laws themselves.
I've been shot at twice and stabbed once in the abs, so I agree with Florida, you don't know who you might be going up against. No point in taking that risk when you are armed yourself.If you're shot at I would think that would be obvious. Murdering a man because he said he was going to kick your ass is still murder in my book. Can you imagine if all the laws went to allowing anyone to shoot and kill anyone because they said they felt threatened?

[Bronco Bob]

I didn't say I trusted Bush/Cheney... Don't put words in my mouth.
I trust my own opinions...

Please name for me a middle eastern country that has a thriving Christian population that is able to practice christianity openly and freely without persecution???



Well, there was Iraq, until the US invaded and killed Saddam. Did you
know Saddam even had Christians, such as Tariq Aziz, in his government.
Now most Christians are fleeing Iraq for their lives.

[W*GS]

Idiots meaning Cho, gangsters, white supremacists, etc...

Cho was a screwup.

When you can explain how gangsters will follow gun control laws, you'll have something to say.

As for "white supremacists", do you really think rights are contingent on what someone believes? Why not toss in "Muslims" or "black supremacists" in your laundry list of "idiots"?

Give it up, BB - we know where you stand.

[W*GS]

Murdering a man because he said he was going to kick your ass is still murder in my book. Can you imagine if all the laws went to allowing anyone to shoot and kill anyone because they said they felt threatened?

If you can prove a reasonable belief in imminent severe bodily harm or death, that's sufficient justification for use of a firearm to protect oneself.

What about the potential rape (and only rape) victim? Is that sufficient justification for use of a firearm, in your view?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Well, you see Mr. DA I thought there was a 90% chance he was going to kick my ass so I ended his life on this planet".

Sort of the Bush doctrine in microcosm, isn't it? ;)

http://www.bartcop.com/liberty-bombs.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cho was a screwup. Who had no problem (the same with thousands of other "screwups" in this country) getting a firearm in this country

When you can explain how gangsters will follow gun control laws, you'll have something to say.The current gun laws do nothing to deter these people or any others from acquiring firearms in this country

As for "white supremacists", do you really think rights are contingent on what someone believes? Why not toss in "Muslims" or "black supremacists" in your laundry list of "idiots"?The original statement covered ALL idiots equally which was obvious.

Give it up, BB - we know where you stand.We? You and Ted Nugent and the boys?

[W*GS]

Who had no problem (the same with thousands of other "screwups" in this country) getting a firearm in this country

Yep, the system you and your ilk assured us would work, didn't.

What's your solution?

The current gun laws do nothing to deter these people or any others from acquiring firearms in this country

The current drug laws don't deter gangbangers, nor do the laws against murder.

What's your solution?

The original statement covered ALL idiots equally which was obvious.

What about women who live in dodgy neighborhoods? Are they "idiots" for wanting to own a firearm, as is their right?

We? You and Ted Nugent and the boys?

No, we as "we who know our Constitution and its guarantee of our RKBA". Also, those of us who don't believe in disarming victims and letting criminals run rampant. Like I said, we know which side you take - you ought to be ashamed, if you had any conscience.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yep, the system you and your ilk assured us would work, didn't.
Complete BS as usual when it comes to this topic and you. You and Ted and the boys make sure no laws can be passed to better control gun sales. Your BS of blaming anyone else for loose sales to basically anyone who wants a firearm is hypocrisy at it's finest.

The current drug laws don't deter gangbangers, nor do the laws against murder.No sh*t? Then giving them easy access to firearms should take care of that problem, eh?

What about women who live in dodgy neighborhoods? Are they "idiots" for wanting to own a firearm, as is their right?Completely off topic as is a lot of your replies when you're challenged.

No, we as "we who know our Constitution and its guarantee of our RKBA". Also, those of us who don't believe in disarming victims and letting criminals run rampant. Like I said, we know which side you take - you ought to be ashamed, if you had any conscience.Same ole Ted Nugent rhetoric BS. Everyone has to arm themselves because of people like you who don't believe in keeping firearms away from criminals in the name of the 2nd amendment. It's you & your ilk who should be ashamed of yourselves.

[W*GS]

Complete BS as usual when it comes to this topic and you. You and Ted and the boys make sure no laws can be passed to better control gun sales.

Cho met all the requirements you and your fellow RKBA haters assured us would be sufficient. Blame your own screwed-up system, not those of us who saw through your lies.

Your BS of blaming anyone else for loose sales to basically anyone who wants a firearm is hypocrisy at it's finest.

I wasn't one of those who advocated the faulty system that allowed Cho to buy his guns. You were likely in favor of it. It didn't work - that's your fault, since the system is yours.

No sh*t? Then giving them easy access to firearms should take care of that problem, eh?

Show me how we keep gangbangers from getting guns. A summary would work just fine.

Completely off topic as is a lot of your replies when you're challenged.

Not at all off-topic. You clearly don't want anyone to buy a gun; what's your answer to a woman that lives in a dodgy neighborhood when she wants one for her protection? "Lay back and enjoy it"?

Same ole Ted Nugent rhetoric BS. Everyone has to arm themselves because of people like you who don't believe in keeping firearms away from criminals in the name of the 2nd amendment. It's you your ilk who should be ashamed of yourselves.

Again, show me how you plan on forcing criminals to obey your gun control laws. You're one of the many with the blood of victims on your hands because of your utopian pro-criminal anti-rights ideology.

You do sound like Bill O'Reilly when he gets all frothy about the ACLU and the right of free speech. That's a bitter pill for a lefty to swallow...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"We stood before it and began to freeze inside from the exertion. We questioned the painting, berated it, made love to it, prayed to it: We called it mother, called it whore and slut, called it our beloved, called it Abraxas..."




A quote from my favorite novel. :thumbsup:

[W*GS]

A quote from my favorite novel.

"Green Eggs and Ham", the abridged version.

[Rascal]

By AMY LORENTZEN Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa Jun 27, 2007 (AP)

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will add party crashing to his campaign tactics this weekend.

The Texas congressman, who has struggled to top 1 percent in national polls, wasn't invited to a forum of presidential candidates Saturday in Des Moines. The gathering is sponsored by the Iowa Christian Alliance and the watchdog group Iowans for Tax Relief.

Instead of grumbling, Paul's campaign decided to hold its own party in the same hall as the forum. They're calling it a celebration of life and liberty.

Campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said it has been frustrating to be excluded, especially since Paul has consistently opposed abortion and is known nationally for his advocacy of lowering taxes.

"It's just a little head-scratching," Benton said.

Ed Failor Jr., executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, said some candidates weren't invited in order to keep the event from stretching on too long.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.