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

[rew]

Quote from Trader666:

You moron, Section 10 limits the STATES, not the federal government. Based on Section 10 alone the states could accept ratshit as tender in payment of debts if the federal gov't authorized it.

Show me where the federal government is limited to gold and silver. You can't because it's not.

Trader666's Constitution says this:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, <b>unless congress says otherwise</b>; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

But my copy of the Constitution doesn't have that "unless" clause. Congress can not tell states to do what is forbidden to them by the Constitution. Congress can not, for example, let a state grant titles of nobility, unless the Constitution is amended.

So I guess we're morons because we don't have Trader666's version of the Constitution.

 

[Trader666]

No, you're morons because you "think" that restrictions on states are also restrictions on the federal government.

And because the Supreme Court ruled on this 8-1 by upholding the Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 in Juilliard v. Greenman.

Quote from rew:

Trader666's Constitution says this:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, <b>unless congress says otherwise</b>; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

But my copy of the Constitution doesn't have that "unless" clause. Congress can not tell states to do what is forbidden to them by the Constitution. Congress can not, for example, let a state grant titles of nobility, unless the Constitution is amended.

So I guess we're morons because we don't have Trader666's version of the Constitution.

 

[DemZad]

Quote from Trader666:You're seriously delusional to equate military operations of the United States and Israel (and their collateral damage) with Islamofascist terrorism.

A dead person is a dead person.

Quote from Trader666:
Was killing bin laden terrorism? Was capturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed terrorism? Is going after those who harbored/supported attacks on us terrorism? Do we deliberately target civilian aircraft? Do we train children to be suicide bombers to go after innocents? You're an idiot.

What you seem to be asking is was killing bin laden justified. I tend to feel it was...he'd declared war against the United States and had several terrorist attacks attributed to him. His operations led to the death of US citizens. These facts were never in dispute. So, for those reasons I tend to feel comfortable with our decision to kill him.

However, here is where the disconnect seems to be occurring. Terrorism, is a word and has become so used and abused that it's definition is no longer easy to pin down. If we swoop in during the dead of night in a stealth aircraft and drop a small number of "special forces", and those special forces enter a home and murder the home's occupants, whatever the predication, can also be considered terrorism.

Quote from Trader666:
P.S. We're not harboring/supporting terrorists who crashed planes into Chinese buildings.

Aren't we? We trained and supported Osama Bin Laden during his virtuous rebellion against Soviet aggression. He was part of the original group of tribal rebels we aided with training, weapons, and intelligence support. Al Qaeda literally means "The Base". "The Base" refers to the database of Afghan freedom fighters then sponsored by our intelligence services, of which Bin Laden was a member.

We also supported Sadaam Hussein in his virtuous invasion into Iran. Then a few years ago we took his country after falsely accusing him of links to terrorism (Al Qaeda, ironically enough) and we hung him out to dry, literally.

Tell me again how we don't support these guys? Also, terrorism is a matter of perspective.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from DAS Trader:

A dead person is a dead person.



What you seem to be asking is was killing bin laden justified. I tend t feel it was...he'd declared war against the United States and had several terrorist attacks attributed to him. His operations led to the death of US citizens. These facts were never in dispute. So, for those reasons I tend to feel comfortable with our decision to kill him.

However, here is where the disconnect seems to be occurring. Terrorism, as a word has become so used and abused that it's definition is no longer easy to pin down. If we swoop in during the dead of night in a stealth aircraft and drop a small number of "special forces", and those special forces enter a home and murder the home's occupants, whatever the predication, can also be considered terrorism.



Aren't we? We trained and supported Osama Bin Laden during his virtuous rebellion against Soviet aggression. He was part of the original group of tribal rebels we aided with training, weapons, and intelligence support. Al Qaeda literally means "The Base". "The Base" refers to the database of Afghan freedom fighters being sponsored by out intelligence services, of which Bin Laden was a member.

We also supported Sadaam Hussein in his virtuous invasion into Iran. Then a few years ago we took his country after falsely accusing him of links to terrorism (Al Qaeda, ironically enough) and we hung him out to dry, literally.

Tell me again how we don't support these guys? Also, terrorism is a mater of perspective.

They won't answer, they will come with Ad hom. Watch and see.

 

[rew]

Quote from Trader666:

No, you're morons because you "think" that restrictions on states are also restrictions on the federal government.

And because the Supreme Court ruled on this 8-1 by upholding the Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 in Juilliard v. Greenman.

If the Constitution says X and 8 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say "not X" I still go by what the Constitution says.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, especially the federal government. I think that the authors of that document would have been shocked to find that after they went to the trouble of explicitly forbidding states from doing certain things that congress could then pass laws requiring them to do the forbidden things. It was never intended that all power reside with the federal government.

Remember that Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision. 7 out of 9 Supreme Court judges decided that a document that does not contain the words "abortion", "fetus", "trimester", or any synonyms for those words nonetheless mandates legal abortion, an act that a significant portion of the American population has always seen as akin to murder. Even liberal legal scholars at the time were astonished (it is one thing to favor legal abortion, and quite another to say that the Constitution mandates it).

But according to Trader666, we are not allowed to say that the Supreme Court judges got it wrong. No, like the Pope, they are infallible. Instead we must now insist that the Constitution says something about abortion when plainly it does not.

I will not be shocked to see the day when the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to bestiality. When that happens Trader666 will tell us that the Constitution has always forbidden any restrictions on the fucking of farm animals.

Now as a matter of law we have to act in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings. (Otherwise chaos results.) But just as there are bad laws that should be repealed there are bad Supreme Court rulings that should be overturned, and that sensible people will not see as legitimate.

 

[rew]

Quote from Trader666:

You're seriously delusional to equate military operations of the United States and Israel (and their collateral damage) with Islamofascist terrorism. Was killing bin laden terrorism? Was capturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed terrorism? Is going after those who harbored/supported attacks on us terrorism? Do we deliberately target civilian aircraft? Do we train children to be suicide bombers to go after innocents? You're an idiot.

P.S. We're not harboring/supporting terrorists who crashed planes into Chinese buildings.

Killing bin Laden was not terrorism. But creating an insurgency in a foreign country to bring down its leadership is terrorism.

I would certainly prefer to see a more moderate government in Iran. But if we keep poking that hornet's nest with a stick, as we are doing, we're going to get the exact opposite. The neocon war policies will create a new generation of jihadists in Iran.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from rew:

If the Constitution says X and 8 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say "not X" I still go by what the Constitution says.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, especially the federal government. I think that the authors of that document would have been shocked to find that after they went to the trouble of explicitly forbidding states from doing certain things that congress could then pass laws requiring them to do the forbidden things. It was never intended that all power reside with the federal government.

Remember that Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision. 7 out of 9 Supreme Court judges decided that a document that does not contain the words "abortion", "fetus", "trimester", or any synonyms for those words nonetheless mandates legal abortion, an act that a significant portion of the American population has always seen as akin to murder. Even liberal legal scholars at the time were astonished (it is one thing to favor legal abortion, and quite another to say that the Constitution mandates it).

But according to Trader666, we are not allowed to say that the Supreme Court judges got it wrong. No, like the Pope, they are infallible. Instead we must now insist that the Constitution says something about abortion when plainly it does not.

I will not be shocked to see the day when the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to bestiality. When that happens Trader666 will tell us that the Constitution has always forbidden any restrictions on the fucking of farm animals.

Now as a matter of law we have to act in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings. (Otherwise chaos results.) But just as there are bad laws that should be repealed there are bad Supreme Court rulings that should be overturned, and that sensible people will not see as legitimate.

For the most part I gotta go with rew on this one.

 

[Daxtrader]

Quote from DAS Trader:

A dead person is a dead person.

Amen. You can call it what you want, collateral damage etc. If you're family was collateral damage would you be willing to forgive? Most likely you'd want to retaliate in some way, then you would be labeled a terrorist.

I don't understand how people can support anyone but Ron Paul. The guy has be saying the same thing for decades. Why wouldn't you want to live more freely? Dems hate him because he believes in a free market economy. What they don't understand is corporations would donate millions to him if deregulation benefited them. That's not the case though, they prefer these regulations that keep the competition out.

His own party doesn't like him because of foreign policy. He's been warning us about blowback since the 80's.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qWxaGRZ7Nrs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Trader666]

Now you "think" you know more about the Constitution than 8 of 9 Supreme Court Justices who ruled on this.

Spare me your fantasies about bestiality; Section 10 limits the states, moron. And it's the only place in the Constitution where gold and silver are mentioned. Explain why there's NO mention of gold and silver anywhere else. If the Founders were so intent on forbidding Congress they would have done so in Section 9 as well, as they did for example with the prohibition against granting titles of nobility.

Section. 9.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

Section. 10.

No State shall... grant any Title of Nobility.

Quote from rew:

If the Constitution says X and 8 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say "not X" I still go by what the Constitution says.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of government, especially the federal government. I think that the authors of that document would have been shocked to find that after they went to the trouble of explicitly forbidding states from doing certain things that congress could then pass laws requiring them to do the forbidden things. It was never intended that all power reside with the federal government.

Remember that Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision. 7 out of 9 Supreme Court judges decided that a document that does not contain the words "abortion", "fetus", "trimester", or any synonyms for those words nonetheless mandates legal abortion, an act that a significant portion of the American population has always seen as akin to murder. Even liberal legal scholars at the time were astonished (it is one thing to favor legal abortion, and quite another to say that the Constitution mandates it).

But according to Trader666, we are not allowed to say that the Supreme Court judges got it wrong. No, like the Pope, they are infallible. Instead we must now insist that the Constitution says something about abortion when plainly it does not.

I will not be shocked to see the day when the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to bestiality. When that happens Trader666 will tell us that the Constitution has always forbidden any restrictions on the fucking of farm animals.

Now as a matter of law we have to act in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings. (Otherwise chaos results.) But just as there are bad laws that should be repealed there are bad Supreme Court rulings that should be overturned, and that sensible people will not see as legitimate.

 

[Trader666]

Your lack of a moral compass doesn't justify your phony equivalence between terrorism by Islamofascists and military operations of the United States.

The differences between the two are at least as great as the differences between the way people are treated here versus there. We're so concerned about avoiding collateral damage that we have politically correct rules of engagement that put the lives of our military at risk while the scum you defend deliberately target innocents.

Quote from DAS Trader:

A dead person is a dead person.



What you seem to be asking is was killing bin laden justified. I tend to feel it was...he'd declared war against the United States and had several terrorist attacks attributed to him. His operations led to the death of US citizens. These facts were never in dispute. So, for those reasons I tend to feel comfortable with our decision to kill him.

However, here is where the disconnect seems to be occurring. Terrorism, is a word and has become so used and abused that it's definition is no longer easy to pin down. If we swoop in during the dead of night in a stealth aircraft and drop a small number of "special forces", and those special forces enter a home and murder the home's occupants, whatever the predication, can also be considered terrorism.



Aren't we? We trained and supported Osama Bin Laden during his virtuous rebellion against Soviet aggression. He was part of the original group of tribal rebels we aided with training, weapons, and intelligence support. Al Qaeda literally means "The Base". "The Base" refers to the database of Afghan freedom fighters then sponsored by our intelligence services, of which Bin Laden was a member.

We also supported Sadaam Hussein in his virtuous invasion into Iran. Then a few years ago we took his country after falsely accusing him of links to terrorism (Al Qaeda, ironically enough) and we hung him out to dry, literally.

Tell me again how we don't support these guys? Also, terrorism is a matter of perspective.