Republican Primaries (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter funkshen
- Start date
Don't give up on Ron Paul yet!Back in late November 2007 McCain was at 12.5% in 4th place. Right Now Ron Paul is tied with Perry in 4th place at 8%. If you consider there's 8 people running this time, Instead of 6, Paul and Perry are statistically in the same position that McCain was Nov 2007. Do you think Perry has the organisation to hold on? No way. In the next few days Paul will top Perry.
Btw I've posted it up earlier, but if your a Ron Paul fan and you haven't watched it...you have to! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyHPihyhKLk how amazing is this guy? LOL
Anyways, on November 3rd Cain was at 26% nationally. 25 days later hes at 15%, Droppin like Perry. You honestly think Cain will hold 3rd? Give it 3 more weeks, Cain will join Perry behind Paul.
Gingrich might be lucky with the holiday distraction. But I doubt it. Hes a established adulterer and got screwed over by Clinton, doubt he'll be getting many Democrat votes if he's up against Obama and the GOP know that...Ron Paul is the only one who can draw votes from Republican, Democrats and Independents. Newts peaking right now at 23% (Not even as high as Cain got up to). 25 days where do you think Newt will be? I guesstimate 9% lol.
In early January it will be Romney Vs Paul. Guaranteed. You can't say its impossible. America do currently have a community organiser as President lol.
Also Ron Paul is the only candidate who has consistently been increasing in all the polls! Remember, slow and steady wins the race
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
you know McCain wasn't elected right
funkshen
dvds didnt exist in 1991
holy shit, can you quit wanking all over the constitution? you are making a mess everywhere.
i have quite clearly provided you with the declared opinion and thus precedent of a chief justice of the supreme court, an opinion that has not been challenged. constitutional practice supersedes constitutional meaning. this is a core principle of constitutionalism in the US and if you disagree with this, you disagree with the constitution you are spritzing all over. james madison agrees with this if that means anything to you.
you have not processed my point about the problem of indeterminate language in the constitution. you can have your own opinion on the (lack of) indeterminate language of the constitution, but unfortunately it has no currency with anyone at all, so you're on your own. in regards to war, the supreme court has consistently dismissed questions regarding the legitimate use of armed forces by the president, arising from indeterminate constitutional language, as 'political' in nature. this means that such legitimacy is determined in negotiation and deliberation between the executive and the legislature. and what has this produced? the War Powers Resolution of 1973, something you clearly cannot comprehend, that was the result of shitty and indeterminate constitutional language. the president has the authority to commit US forces to war but must consult with congress within 48 hours of doing so. he then has 30 days, and a de facto extra 30 days with which these forces can remain committed without congressional approval. after 60 days, whether approval has failed to be delivered or the action has been disapproved, forces must be withdrawn.
the problem with this act is that neither war nor consultation are well properly defined by and it therefore cannot be considered adequately binding. it is unfortunately as indeterminate as the constitution it aimed to improve upon. for instance, clinton's commitment of forces in Kosovo, 1999 was not declared to be the commitment of forces to war and thus congress was not even duly consulted in accordance with the resolution. and you will find that the obama administration was more than prepared to invoke collective defense if a UN-mandated no-fly zone was aggressively breached by libyan belligerents. the problem here is therefore not the president or the constitution but the US being party to treaties (the decision of the congress), and in particular the changing nature of the NATO treaty from a collective defense organisation to a collective security organisation (of western imperialism!!!!!!!!111).
pretty much the rest of what you said is retarded though. the eisenhower analogy is not coherent or consistent and should be recognised as the cheap political trick it is. the US is now in a completely different situation and you are seeing (making/regurgitating) patterns where none exist. i of course concede there are similarities, and more important, their irrelevance. it is entirely fallacious to use the post-WWII economy as evidence as you have noted but insist on doing anyways. indeed this is a terrible anecdote because ike presided over a gross expansion of federal government and a whole new war. indeed, you admit that the US will be propelled into another recession.
your point about the fed is retarded. ronny p might audit the fed but he can't magic it away, so i fail to see your point.
your quote is irrelevant. i don't have my mind made up, but you are a mindless thrall.
p.s. i don't know if you read End the Fed but it is a fucking terrible, swiss cheese book. stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
i have quite clearly provided you with the declared opinion and thus precedent of a chief justice of the supreme court, an opinion that has not been challenged. constitutional practice supersedes constitutional meaning. this is a core principle of constitutionalism in the US and if you disagree with this, you disagree with the constitution you are spritzing all over. james madison agrees with this if that means anything to you.
you have not processed my point about the problem of indeterminate language in the constitution. you can have your own opinion on the (lack of) indeterminate language of the constitution, but unfortunately it has no currency with anyone at all, so you're on your own. in regards to war, the supreme court has consistently dismissed questions regarding the legitimate use of armed forces by the president, arising from indeterminate constitutional language, as 'political' in nature. this means that such legitimacy is determined in negotiation and deliberation between the executive and the legislature. and what has this produced? the War Powers Resolution of 1973, something you clearly cannot comprehend, that was the result of shitty and indeterminate constitutional language. the president has the authority to commit US forces to war but must consult with congress within 48 hours of doing so. he then has 30 days, and a de facto extra 30 days with which these forces can remain committed without congressional approval. after 60 days, whether approval has failed to be delivered or the action has been disapproved, forces must be withdrawn.
the problem with this act is that neither war nor consultation are well properly defined by and it therefore cannot be considered adequately binding. it is unfortunately as indeterminate as the constitution it aimed to improve upon. for instance, clinton's commitment of forces in Kosovo, 1999 was not declared to be the commitment of forces to war and thus congress was not even duly consulted in accordance with the resolution. and you will find that the obama administration was more than prepared to invoke collective defense if a UN-mandated no-fly zone was aggressively breached by libyan belligerents. the problem here is therefore not the president or the constitution but the US being party to treaties (the decision of the congress), and in particular the changing nature of the NATO treaty from a collective defense organisation to a collective security organisation (of western imperialism!!!!!!!!111).
pretty much the rest of what you said is retarded though. the eisenhower analogy is not coherent or consistent and should be recognised as the cheap political trick it is. the US is now in a completely different situation and you are seeing (making/regurgitating) patterns where none exist. i of course concede there are similarities, and more important, their irrelevance. it is entirely fallacious to use the post-WWII economy as evidence as you have noted but insist on doing anyways. indeed this is a terrible anecdote because ike presided over a gross expansion of federal government and a whole new war. indeed, you admit that the US will be propelled into another recession.
your point about the fed is retarded. ronny p might audit the fed but he can't magic it away, so i fail to see your point.
your quote is irrelevant. i don't have my mind made up, but you are a mindless thrall.
p.s. i don't know if you read End the Fed but it is a fucking terrible, swiss cheese book. stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Last edited:
scuba_steve2121
On The Road To Serfdom
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,343
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
there is no way they are ever gonna get that fed to go away, THE VERY BEST anyone can hope for, is to go the Milton Friedman route, before he openly said end the fed.
scuba_steve2121
On The Road To Serfdom
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,343
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
3:30 min in
Bill may lose 1000 bucs over Iowa
iwantfreeessays
Member
Here labor admits their social intentions. We should never have let them take our guns.
The socialist starts speaking at 2:14
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
Liberals took our guns
scuba_steve2121
On The Road To Serfdom
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,343
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Port Author was pretty bad, I don't think they had any choice politically, regardless of which political party would have been in at the time
cosmo kramer
Banned
after auschwitz there can be no poetry
after port arthur there can be no guns
after port arthur there can be no guns
Last edited:
scuba_steve2121
On The Road To Serfdom
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,343
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Need moar guns to protect ourselves from the people with guns!
cosmo kramer
Banned
i think only criminals should be allowed to own guns
scuba_steve2121
On The Road To Serfdom
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,343
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
at least they would use em, most gun owners don't even.... GUNS HAVE FEELINGS TOO
cosmo kramer
Banned
i take my ak47 for walks every single day
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
"every day without an AK is a good day"
- The Great War Poet Ice Cube
- The Great War Poet Ice Cube
cosmo kramer
Banned
the last word was kalashnikov
thank you firearms for helping funkshen know that and win the bee
thank you firearms for helping funkshen know that and win the bee