Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Debate: ‘He’s misguided and extreme’

[a_person]

Quote from DAS Trader:

LOL, yes, your faith in lawyers. Very slippery of you to sidestep the question I posed concerning our Constitutional lawyer President Obama so I will ask it again; Obama is a Constitutional lawyer by trade and he has gone further than any elected official in American history in usurping his oath of office. Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?

I am not an Obama supporter by any stretch of imagination, chances are I will vote for any republican candidate opposing him (with the exception of Ron Paul of course )

Nevertheless neither of us is qualified to decide whether Obama has violated the constitution. That's exactly what I am talking about neither of us has nearly enough knowledge to make such determination. If you believe Obama broke the law - sue him or get him impeached. And if you can't or know that you will fail - STFU

And look inside yourself honestly, when was the last time you read the constitution? 3 years ago in middle school I bet. How can you possibly know whether it was or was not broken? Ron Paul told you? But I don't think even Ron Paul accuses Obama of violating the constitution. I might be wrong though, I don't follow him closely, perhaps he does.

 

[a_person]

Quote from rew:

Well, I could immigrate to Saudi Arabia if I converted to Islam. So how's that any worse than having to convert to Judaism to immigrate to Israel? And no, neither I nor Ron Paul promote the Protocols of Zion. But it is a fact that AIPAC controls our foreign policy. When AIPAC says, "Jump!" Congress says, "How high?"

I don't think any muslim can immigrate to Saudi Arabia. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. But hypothetically, if it was the case it would make immigration to Israel and Saudi Arabia easier than to any Western country. Nothing is wrong with that. What part of the fact that the religious immigration is in addition to (not instead of) all other avenues don't you understand?

And yes, AIPAC has a lot of clout (not nearly as much as you attribute to it but a lot). Guess why, it's an American lobby representing the views of the American public. The overwhelming majority of the American people share their view on the middle east, whether you like it or not. I understand that you disagree, you know what, create an anti-AIPAC lobby, fund it, finance it, convince americans to join it and donate money to it and lobby the Congress.

With your non-stop whining about the constitution you are actually attacking the organization which is promoting the views of the American public to the elected American officials. Can you get any sillier than that?

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

I am not an Obama supporter by any stretch of imagination, chances are I will vote for any republican candidate opposing him (with the exception of Ron Paul of course )

That is your misguided choice, but I support you decision to make it, no matter how stupid it may be....assuming you are a US citizen of course .

Quote from a_person:

Nevertheless neither of us is qualified to decide whether Obama has violated the constitution. That's exactly what I am talking about neither of us has nearly enough knowledge to make such determination. If you believe Obama broke the law - sue him or get him impeached. And if you can't or know that you will fail - STFU

Unfortunately it is not up to me to impeach the President. If it were, believe me, it would have already been done. The way it works is the House Judiciary committee begins impeachment proceedings. Trouble is, Obama didn't spooge all over an intern's dress so that's probably not in the cards.

However, I am confused. On one hand you say you are no supporter of Obama and to illustrate that you say will will vote for ANY republican candidate that opposes him. If not because he usurped his oath of office, then why, pray tell, is Obama so unacceptable to you? Doesn't he kiss Israel's ass enough to satisfy you?

Quote from a_person:

And look inside yourself honestly, when was the last time you read the constitution? 3 years ago in middle school I bet. How can you possibly know whether it was or was not broken? Ron Paul told you? But I don't think even Ron Paul accuses Obama of violating the constitution. I might be wrong though, I don't follow him closely, perhaps he does.

Let's see, I read it when raised my right hand and swore to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. How do I know Obama broke it? Let's explore that shall we:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/24/obama_s_unconstitutional_war

http://www.progressive.org/wx031911.html

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sjJWsbAcG_I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gRKBDG14u_U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...-biden-agree-war-on-libya-is-unconstitutional

But don't take their word for it, and don't take my word for it; why not ask Obama himself:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -Senator Barack Obama

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obamas-libya-intervention-flip-flop-what-he/

Libya posed no threat to America. One does not have to be a Constitutional lawyer to see that. We'd taken them off the state sponsor of terrorism list, had normalized relations with them, and were even in the process of selling them military hardware. Is that the sort of thing you do with a country that poses an imminent threat? No, of course not.

Any questions?

 

[a_person]

Quote from DAS Trader:

Unfortunately it is not up to me to impeach the President. If it were, believe me, it would have already been done. The way it works is the House Judiciary committee begins impeachment proceedings. Trouble is, Obama didn't spooge all over an intern's dress so that's probably not in the cards.

In other words you have no case, right, nor do the republicans who happen to be the majority in Congress.

Quote from DAS Trader:
If not because he usurped his oath of office, then why, pray tell, is Obama so unacceptable to you?

I have my reasons. He has not fixed the economy and he's been weak, naive and silly internationally, no one takes him seriously, neither friend, nor foe. He is Jimmy Carter reincarnated.

Let's see, I read it when raised my right hand and swore to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. How do I know Obama broke it? Let's explore that shall we:
...
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -Senator Barack Obama

Again, nothing is black and white, in politics, constitution or the actions of any government. If the republicans had even a semblance of a case they would have undoubtedly pursued it to its fullest, just like they did with Clinton. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, my friend, without a solid case everything you say is insinuation, wishful thinking and sour grapes. And again that's coming from someone who has no love lost for Obama, has no reason to defend him and can't wait to see him gone.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

In other words you have no case, right, nor do the republicans who happen to be the majority in Congress.

I have a great case; Obama is my star witness. His own words provide the most damning testimony. I simply lack the authority to initiate prosecution. Also, why would the majority of republicans in Congress want to impeach Obama over this? They want this power when their guy gets in.

Quote from a_person:

I have my reasons. He has not fixed the economy and he's been weak, naive and silly internationally, no one takes him seriously, neither friend, nor foe. He is Jimmy Carter reincarnated.

The economy took decades to wreck. Is it realistic to have expected Obama to turn things around in 3 years? I think not. Also, you say he is naive internationally...how so?

Quote from a_person:

Again, nothing is black and white, in politics, constitution or the actions of any government. If the republicans had even a semblance of a case they would have undoubtedly pursued it to its fullest, just like they did with Clinton. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, my friend, without a solid case everything you say is insinuation, wishful thinking and sour grapes. And again that's coming from someone who has no love lost for Obama, has no reason to defend him and can't wait to see him gone.

Wrong. Our Congress is more like professional wrestling than anything else. The direction of the country does not change in any appreciable way regardless of who is in power...that is the false left right paradigm that has destroyed our country.

I find it interesting that you say that you are no defender of his, then you go out of you way to omit his own comments on what the President can and cannot do when taking the nation to war. Good thing you are not defending him. The man said the president had no constitutional authority to take the nation to war absent a declaration from Congress or an imminent threat. That's as black and white as it gets. He is a constitutional lawyer and he said the president can't do it. Then, he turned around and did it....against the advice of his own lawyers to boot. That's about as cut and dry as it gets...my friend.

Unrelated question, do you coordinate Megaphone tutorials?

 

[rew]

Quote from a_person:

I don't think any muslim can immigrate to Saudi Arabia. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. But hypothetically, if it was the case it would make immigration to Israel and Saudi Arabia easier than to any Western country. Nothing is wrong with that. What part of the fact that the religious immigration is in addition to (not instead of) all other avenues don't you understand?

And yes, AIPAC has a lot of clout (not nearly as much as you attribute to it but a lot). Guess why, it's an American lobby representing the views of the American public. The overwhelming majority of the American people share their view on the middle east, whether you like it or not. I understand that you disagree, you know what, create an anti-AIPAC lobby, fund it, finance it, convince americans to join it and donate money to it and lobby the Congress.

With your non-stop whining about the constitution you are actually attacking the organization which is promoting the views of the American public to the elected American officials. Can you get any sillier than that?

AIPAC is a lobby for a foreign country. It represents the interests of Zionism, and is "American" only insofar as some Americans are Zionists. What is silly about opposing an organization that wants to get us into wars against countries that are no real threat to the United States? That's a rather serious matter.

 

[a_person]

Quote from DAS Trader:

I have a great case; Obama is my star witness. His own words provide the most damning testimony.

This is legal nonsense, his own words, even his admission of guilt have no weight in court. Obama's words was his opinion, his understanding of the constitution, nothing more, nothing less. You claim to be a constitutionalist. Let me remind you then that according to the Constitution people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Here is a view alternative to yours. Unlike yours it's written by a Harvard Law School professor and backed by solid legal analysis:

That practice confirms that the president, under his commander-in-chief and other executive powers, has very broad discretion to use U.S. military force in the absence of congressional authorization. Presidents have done this, in military actions large and small, over 100 times, since the beginning of the republic.

the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization. Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/03/war_power.single.html


I simply lack the authority to initiate prosecution.
Huh? You are a citizen, aren't you? For a constitutionalist you claim to be, your knowledge of the Constitution is remarkably weak.


The economy took decades to wreck. Is it realistic to have expected Obama to turn things around in 3 years? I think not.
He is not moving in the right direction IMO

Also, you say he is naive internationally...how so?
I prefer Mubarak to Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists (the Wahhabists). He lost Egypt to Islamic extremists just like Carter lost Iran to the Mullahs. Its not going to end well. Same goes for Libya, I opposed the war in Libya, not on silly constitutional nitpicking but on the obvious common sense realization that the alternative these idiot dictators would be far worse.

Unrelated question, do you coordinate Megaphone tutorials?
Why? You wanna join? I don't blame you, the pay and benefits provided by the Elders of Zion are exceptional...I am afraid you are not qualified though, you are not knowledgeable and educated enough.

 

[a_person]

Quote from rew:

AIPAC is a lobby for a foreign country. It represents the interests of Zionism, and is "American" only insofar as some Americans are Zionists. What is silly about opposing an organization that wants to get us into wars against countries that are no real threat to the United States? That's a rather serious matter.

AIPAC is a lobby of the american people representing the [overwhelming] majority view that the US and Israel should be allies. There is nothing silly about opposing any organization, including AIPAC, what's silly is the conspiracy nonsense and demonization of a perfectly legal legitimate and moral organization representing sincere views of the american public just because you are part of a fringe minority that disagrees with them.

 

[rew]

Quote from a_person:


Nevertheless neither of us is qualified to decide whether Obama has violated the constitution. That's exactly what I am talking about neither of us has nearly enough knowledge to make such determination. If you believe Obama broke the law - sue him or get him impeached. And if you can't or know that you will fail - STFU

Sheer nonsense. I have read the U.S. Constitution. It is not some mysterious document that only law professors can understand. It was written to be understandable by the average literate American of the time. So yes, having read the Constitution, as well as the arguments by the people who favored its adoption, I am qualified to say that Obama has violated it. The Constitution grants to Congress, not the President, the authority to declare war. Obama jumped into a war in Libya without asking for any authorization from Congress whatsoever. That alone is an impeachable offense.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

This is legal nonsense, his own words, even his admission of guilt have no weight in court. Obama's words was his opinion, his understanding of the constitution, nothing more, nothing less. You claim to be a constitutionalist. Let me remind you then that according to the Constitution people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You and Obama share the same penchant for flip flopping..you sure you aren't one of his supporters? You began this whole thing with suggesting that this matter was something to leave up to lawyers. I cited the words of a lawyer but since they tend to prove you wrong you pretend they have no weight. Do you get how all over the place you are or what?

Quote from a_person:Here is a view alternative to yours. Unlike yours it's backed up by solid legal analysis:

That practice confirms that the president, under his commander-in-chief and other executive powers, has very broad discretion to use U.S. military force in the absence of congressional authorization. Presidents have done this, in military actions large and small, over 100 times, since the beginning of the republic.[/B]

What part of the Constitution does this excerpt come from?

Quote from a_person:the fact that the courts have never resolved the question about the scope of the president's power to use military force abroad without congressional authorization.[/B]

I am unable to understand the meaning of this sentence fragment.

Quote from a_person:Almost all litigation seeking to resolve whether a war was properly launched has been dismissed as a "political question" or because the plaintiff lacked standing. As a result, the constitutional issue has been worked out almost exclusively by practice between the political branches and not by the courts.

[/B]

You're explaining how it has been done, not that it has been done Constitutionally.

Quote from a_person:
Huh? You are a citizen, aren't you? For a constitutionalist you claim to be, your knowledge of the Constitution is remarkably weak.[/B]

Oh, then enlighten me...what is the mechanism that allows an individual un elected citizen to begin impeachment proceedings.

Quote from a_person:
He is not moving in the right direction IMO[/B]

I see, you opinion....excuse me while I stifle my laughter.

Quote from a_person:I prefer Mubarak to Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists (the Wahhabists). He lost Egypt to Islamic extremists just like Carter lost Iran to the Mullahs. Its not going to end well. Same goes for Libya, I opposed the war in Libya, not on silly constitutional nitpicking but on the obvious common sense realization that the alternative these idiot dictators would be far worse.

Carter didn't lose Iran to the Mullahs; we overthrew their government in 1953 and they took about 26 years to get it back...how was that Carter's fault? Also, you prefer dictators? Well, I guess that tells me all I need to know about you. Also, the Constitution is not silly, it is the supreme law of the land...only someone who is un american would think it silly...is that you?

Quote from a_person:Why? You wanna join? I don't blame you, the pay and benefits provided by the Elders of Zion are exceptional...I am afraid you are not qualified though, you are not knowledgeable and educated enough.

I take that as the best compliment of the day.