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

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

According to the Harvard School Law Professor in some cases (possibly including the one we are discussing) it does. This is a minor point anyway, more importantly it's up to the SCOTUS to decide what is and what is not constitutional. It's not up to me, you or even Ron Paul. And people are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, aren't they?

No, they aren't. Perhaps you missed it but all the executive has to do now is label an american citizen an enemy combatant and all the messy due process stuff goes right out the window.

In fact, that's probably why Ron isn't being invited to this particular dog and pony show...because he would be the only one on stage advocating for American's civil rights...and that might wreck the narrative. He tends to do that.

Quote from a_person:


Nonsense, anyone can sue anyone else for constitutional violations. According to the article I posted the attempts have been made but all of them were thrown out.

Because our courts are partisan, corrupt.

Quote from a_person:

Why can't Ron Paul start impeachment procedures? That would at least demonstrate that he is as convinced and as principled as he claims he is. Funny I don't really disagree with you that we have one party in America. I just happen to believe that Ron Paul is not the solution, he is a naive self-aggrandizing extremist blinded by his own 'purity'. He would be a giant step backward for the entire world, not just for the US.

Already explained this to you, it is up the the House Judiciary Committee to make that call; not an individual Senator or Congressman. Also, your personal opinion, misguided as it may be, is noted. However, it requires no response save to say, it is misguided.

 

[a_person]

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Constitutionalist:

Quote from DAS Trader:

Already explained this to you, it is up the the House Judiciary Committee to make that call; not an individual Senator or Congressman. Also, your personal opinion, misguided as it may be, is noted. However, it requires no response save to say, it is misguided.

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives...any representative in the House can decide whether or not they feel like impeaching a government official for any cause of misconduct in office. If the rep. has decided that they want to impeach the official they must openly speak about their concerns to the rest of the reps. and determine whether or not to impeach by a casted vote.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25673/process.htm

How come Ron Paul has not put his money where his mouth is?

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

Once again you have no idea what you are talking about Mr. Constitutionalist:

Once again, you fail, utterly and miserably, to make any semblance of a coherent argument. Your link is "by students for students". My link is to US government info and the process is more specific than the students at your blog have stated.

Quote from a_person:

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives...any representative in the House can decide whether or not they feel like impeaching a government official for any cause of misconduct in office. If the rep. has decided that they want to impeach the official they must openly speak about their concerns to the rest of the reps. and determine whether or not to impeach by a casted vote.
http://library.thinkquest.org/25673/process.htm

How come Ron Paul has not put his money where his mouth is?

Educate yourself, Zionist shill, on the impeachment process in America:

In the House of Representatives

The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.

In the Senate

The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

Also, you guys need to learn how to treat woman...making them board from the back of the bus, blocking public streets so woman cannot enter....it's so...Saudi Arabia-like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-under-siege/2011/12/01/gIQAdB16HO_blog.html

No wonder you espouse so many un American ideals. Keep that trash in Israel...with your fellow chosen people.

 

[a_person]

Quote from DAS Trader:

The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...

LOL, exactly. But before they can decide whether or not to proceed with impeachment someone must initiate it first.


Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

So,how about putting your money where your dirty big mouth is and actually doing it? Or perhaps you wanna know why Ron Paul has not. Because he has no leg to stand on and the only thing he is good at is fooling ignorant simpletons like you with his simplistic puritanical nonsense.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

LOL, exactly. But before they can decide whether or not to proceed with impeachment someone must initiate it first.


Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

So,how about putting your money where your dirty big mouth is and actually doing it? Or perhaps you wanna know why Ron Paul has not. Because he has no leg to stand on and the only thing he is good at is fooling ignorant simpletons like you with his simplistic puritanical nonsense.

And if the House Judiciary committee signals it has no intention of ruling in favor of the start of impeachment proceedings (and it has), then what would be the point? It's not like the members of that committee are unaware of what Obama has done. It's not going anywhere and would be an exercise in futility, much like your attempt at an argument.

Also, isn't today the day when Jehova, or whatever his name is, points his finger at you from thousands of years ago and decrees...NO WORK!!!! I hope you didn't drive your car last night, you might be eternally damned.

Shouldn't you be off in a temple praying to your imaginary sky marshall or bitching about anti Semites and thinking up ways to use the Holocaust to hide your evil intentions?

 

[a_person]

Quote from DAS Trader:

And if the House Judiciary committee signals it has no intention of ruling in favor of the start of impeachment proceedings (and it has), then what would be the point?

The point would be to stand on the principle, to demonstrate the conviction, to show that you actually believe in what you are saying, to prove that you (Ron Paul...) have the guts to put your money where your mouth is, instead of just running that mouth of yours off on the internet, spewing childish, baseless accusations, slander and pure amateurish nonsense on serious complicated matters (like the Constitution) that you don't know the first thing about.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

The point would be to stand on the principle, to demonstrate the conviction, to show that you actually believe in what you are saying, to prove that you (Ron Paul...) have the guts to put your money where you mouth is, instead of just running that mouth of yours off on the internet, spewing childish, baseless accusations, slander and pure amateurish nonsense on serious complicated matters (like the Constitution) that you don't know the first thing about.

It would be a waste of taxpayer time and money if the Judiciary committee will not move on it. As I have stated time and again, it is up to them, and no one else.

Now, I know you (as an Israeli Zionist) have no problem wasting american taxpayer money, but as a taxpayer, I do. I would prefer Ron Paul focus on getting elected President...and he is.

Since you didn't answer my questions from previous posts I'll pose them again...

1. Why does Israel treat woman like second class citizens, forcing them to sit in the back of the bus and segregating them away from men...almost as if Israel is trying to emulate Saudi Arabia?

2. Didn't Jehova order you people not to work on Saturdays? Why are you working for Israel on Saturday? Did your rabbi issue you a get out of hell free card?

 

[a_person]

Quote from DAS Trader:

It would be a waste of taxpayer time and money if the Judiciary committee will not move on it. As I have stated time and again, it is up to them, and no one else.

Which is all I needed to hear. You lost on every point you posted, you lost on Israel, you lost on America, you lost on Obama, impeachment proceeding, your citizenship rights, congressman's rights and everything else.

It's time for you to go back to the drawing board and reexamine your convictions. All these excuses of why you can't back up your childish nonsense and slander prove one thing only - you are full of sour grapes...and shit. Well, I suppose it's two things.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from a_person:

Which is all I needed to hear. You lost on every point you posted, you lost on Israel, you lost on America, you lost on Obama, impeachment proceeding, your citizenship rights, congressman's rights and everything else.

It's time for you to go back to the drawing board and reexamine your convictions. All these excuses of why you can't back up your childish nonsense and slander prove one thing only - you are full of sour grapes...and shit. Well, I suppose it's two things.

Everything you state has been dis-proven so simply stating it again does nothing to change that. Also, you are in violation of the old testament...excuse me...the Torah. Jehovah told you not to work on Saturdays and here you are, shilling for Israel on the Sabbath. Shame on you.

And truthfully, the words of someone who shills for an oppressive theocracy like Israel are worth about as much as the words of some jihadi who thinks he is going to inherit 72 virgins by blowing himself up. You are no better than they are...in fact, you are worse...because history should have taught you what happens to oppressive regimes like Israel...and it will happen....you will go the way of the Nazis...because like the Nazis, you have chosen to oppress a people for no other reason except their religion. You steal their land, kidnap their citizens, bomb their neighborhoods, and think that somehow it's ok because you are "Gods chosen people". Well, I will admit an inability to empathize with that type of illogical and dangerous thought process.

You treat your woman like second class citizens and have the nerve to criticize others. Shame on Israel.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I'm not going to wade through 12 pages of name-calling, but as far as I'm concerned, this debate has no credibility.

As I've said before, there needs to be some group establishing a level playing field for the debates. Are we really going to let the media and outside groups blatantly censor our candidates?

Jews and Israel have enjoyed uncritical support from conservatives, and the Jewish community has repaid that support by voting in large number for anti-Israel pols like Obama and by contributing vast sums to democrats. They support groups that use the federal courts to try and extinguish any Christian symbol from public view, using whatever justification possible. There is no group more hostile to the Evangelicals who make up a sizeable part of the republican party than liberal Jewish groups.

Actions like barring a candidate with substantial public support because his views differ from the sponsor sets a dangerous precedent. It also is self-defeating because it gives credence to charges of undue Jewish influence used to advance Israeli intererests at the expense of our own. This strikes me as a dangerous and foolish road to go down.

I have lost a lot of respect for the candidates who appear at this debate. If this kind of crap continues, I wouldn't blame Ron Paul in the least for mounting a third party campaign. In fact, I would probably support him. Sometimes a lesson must be taught, whatever the cost.