Dave will love this one...
CLICK ME!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ

thrash;201412 wrote:
Dave --

He's done better than Guiliani so far.

Yeah, we're an ambitious lot. To the extent that the RP nomination is a war of attrition, RP will do well since he's got lots of money and very low outlay. Some other candidates will be running low on funds soon.

Basically, the longer he stretches it out, the more people will hear about him and move to his camp, and the more likely others are to drop out for funding reasons.

You may be right, but I don't think so. You can't compare Guiliani to RP yet since Guiliani didn't campaign in IA and NH. One way or the other, the next few weeks will sure be interesting.

He's done better than Guiliani so far.

Yeah, we're an ambitious lot. To the extent that the RP nomination is a war of attrition, RP will do well since he's got lots of money and very low outlay. Some other candidates will be running low on funds soon.

Basically, the longer he stretches it out, the more people will hear about him and move to his camp, and the more likely others are to drop out for funding reasons.

The education discussion got me to thinking. I have received unsubsidized loans from the government (I pay interest). Its nice because I pay a far lower interest rate then my private loans. I receive an academic scholarship (high ACT scores) too. My parents make too much for any grants, but besides insurance they only give me a meal every once and a while. I have gone to them in dire situations in order to pay rent or my car payment but I have ALWAYS paid them back. In fact my parents SPENT my college fund that i got from a well off uncle when i was young. I was happy to find that out. Luckily, since my parents dont have good credit that uncle co-signed my loan.

On Ron Paul again, I think that ending the hand-outs would do more good then harm. If someone can academically prove that they deserve to be in college then they deserve the help, but they should have to take out loans or work like everyone else. I feel for the people who come from a worse off family but when they tell me they got a huge grant BECAUSE they are worse off I loose faith in the system.

If given the chance Ill vote for Ron Paul, if not ill research the options and vote for the candidate that best fits my opinion of how things should work. This will be my first presidential election i get to vote on, I should make an informed decision.

Basically, in ND the republican caucus has a low turnout so if you're motivated and you can get friends and other RP supporters to go with you, there's a good chance of having some real voice in the whole process. Also the RNC is in Minneapolis this year, so if you are chosen as a national level delegate to say "the people of ND want Ron Paul", you'd only have to go as far as Minneapolis to say so.

More details at:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/600/?gj=sj6
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/north-dakota/

For minnesota people:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/minnesota/

harm;201286 wrote:
please, please, don't just vote "against" people - please.

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate I've ever heard of who hasn't flip-flopped to try to pull in more votes.

I think Ron Paul would make the most amount of positive change our country has seen in a long time. I want everybody else to make up their own mind - just do some research.

QFT times ∞

Unfortunately, I still think his goals are too radical for the majority to actually understand, see how they will affect the country for the better, and vote for. Once the average uninformed Joe hears about all the changes he wants to make, he'll shut him out without hesitation.

RonPaul2008.com

Issues:

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

the ND caucus is less than a month away. This is the first time in history I have a candidate to actually vote FOR - and please, please, don't just vote "against" people - please.

The more Ron Paul supporters we can get to the caucuses, the better. Any questions on the process, let me know, and I'll try to field them. February 5th is coming up fast.. and it's a great time to make your mark.

I hate politics, have kept completely away from it as often as possible, but this election is going to have a huge effect on all our futures. Personally, I want the values, ideals, and overall law of the constitution to be upheld.. government to be kept where it belongs.. my personal rights and freedoms ensured.. I want a President with a solid history of honesty and integrity.. and Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate I've ever heard of who hasn't flip-flopped to try to pull in more votes.

I think Ron Paul would make the most amount of positive change our country has seen in a long time. I want everybody else to make up their own mind - just do some research.

DaveH;200323 wrote:
This case does look bad. It's hard to understand why they held him so long instead of filing the charges right away, I suppose they were trying to get info out of him. At least he was found guilty.
i love your avatar

thrash;200314 wrote:
Look up Jose Padilla on wikipedia.

Yeah -- Padilla is a scumbag. That doesn't mean its ok to hold a US citizen in a military prison for months without ever filing charges and without letting him talk to a lawyer. But that's what we did.

This case does look bad. It's hard to understand why they held him so long instead of filing the charges right away, I suppose they were trying to get info out of him. At least he was found guilty.

Section 948b(a) it clearly states "Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Section 948c also reiterates who is subject to this act.

Funny how "alien" was missing from the cut-n-paste you listed?

948d(b) also clearly states that lawful combatants are not covered under this chapter. (the act defines lawful combatants)

So basically the cut-n-paste you pulled from somewhere was made by a dishonest, slanted pos and is not accurate at all. Read the Act, it's 38 pages long but a lot of it is just technical procedures of the actual trial which you can breeze through quickly.

Guess we can rule wikipedia out as being unbiased?

reshalghoul;200305 wrote:
Look no further than our current President George W. Bush and the current, Democratically controlled Congress for your answer.

"On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[3][4] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[5]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any resident, citizen or non-citizen, of the USA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_Corpus#Suspension_in_the_United_States_in_1990s_and_2000s

Look under the, "Suspension in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s" section.

Yeah -- Padilla is a scumbag. That doesn't mean its ok to hold a US citizen in a military prison for months without ever filing charges and without letting him talk to a lawyer. But that's what we did.

DaveH;200297 wrote:
Do you have any idea what he's talking about here? I've seen this written several times before, so I researched habeas corpus and due process so I made 100% sure I understood their meaning. When have politicians exchanged either of these ideas for "security"?

Look no further than our current President George W. Bush and the current, Democratically controlled Congress for your answer.

"On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[3][4] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[5]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any resident, citizen or non-citizen, of the USA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_Corpus#Suspension_in_the_United_States_in_1990s_and_2000s

Look under the, "Suspension in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s" section.

Tad218;200282 wrote:
and you’re alarmed when politicians demand that we surrender our constitutionally protected civil liberties, especially the bedrock principles of habeas corpus and due process, in exchange for “security.”

Do you have any idea what he's talking about here? I've seen this written several times before, so I researched habeas corpus and due process so I made 100% sure I understood their meaning. When have politicians exchanged either of these ideas for "security"?

--WWE superstar Kane has gone public with his endorsement of Ron Paul for President in 2008. The Big Red Machine explains: If you’re like me, you’re tired of unnecessary and exorbitant taxes, you’re tired of the dollar constantly losing purchasing power, and you’re alarmed when politicians demand that we surrender our constitutionally protected civil liberties, especially the bedrock principles of habeas corpus and due process, in exchange for “security.”

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/15343

Beck is kind of middle of the road on Ron Paul (at least coming into the interview).

bubba;199047 wrote:
^ +1 to everything to everything u just said. The UN is basically trying to make ever country abide by the laws they decide on, and not what that country wants. There is practiacally no point to even have "countries" if everyone is going to have the same laws and/or currency anyways. For example the UN is pressuring all the countries to ban guns...

PS reshalghoul, are u Jordan?

Why what a good guesser you are.

PS reshalghoul, are u Jordan?

^^^ Awesome CNBC interview about Ron Paul on monetary policy vs. Ben Bernanke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNH5Xy8_0NM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsZ0_OLer4&feature=related

^^^more CNBC analysis with Dr. Paul. IMO they're great.