Charlatan

You might be right. If the US had gone in to Iraq with many more soldiers and replaced Saddam's iron rule with America's iron rule, there would have been less of a problem post invasion.

The way I see it, Iraq is just like the Balkans, where Tito = Saddam. Remove the iron fist that keeps the disparate factions from killing each other and you have chaos.

Had the US made the unpleasant decision to be the dictator that Iraq needed, the problems in Iraq would be less than they are today (maybe).

That said, it begs the question... Is that how the US sees itself? Is the US ready to be a colonial power, in an honest straightforward manner?

If the goal is to topple one despotic regime, is there any point if we are only replacing it with another? What example does this set for the other despots in the region other than, if you don't do as the US says, we will crush you?

You are partially correct here but it doesn't change the fact that the incredible lack of diplomacy on display by Bush and his administration in the lead up to the invasion directly resulted in traditional allies such as Germany, France and Canada, saying they would not join the coalition (it should be noted that each of them did take part in Gulf War 1).

The US could always have taken out Saddam. They proved they could do this. It was the aftermath that was always going to take a long time and be costly in any number of ways. Had the Bush Administration made their case for invasion in a better manner )and this includes supporting initiatives like Kyoto that have nothing to do directly with Iraq but everything to do with building coalitions), they might have started off from a stronger position.

I don't dispute that lives would have been lost. I simply feel that the US was never prepared for the long haul -- financially and emotionally. I am not even addressing the corruption, etc. that Dc_Dux lists above.

Not only did Bush need to build a better coalition, he needed to tell the US public the truth that any invasion was not just going to be a quick thing followed by a grateful Iraqi public showering the liberators in flowers. The truth is that it was going to necessarily be a long term commitment to successfully bring about change for the better.

Instead, they chose WMDs and fear of the Terrorism. Great for short term motivation but it has come to bite them in the ass in the long run.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Ustwo

Well if we went in as a conqueror I'm sure the same people complaining would be complaining we didn't go in as liberators, that they were ready to be free of Saddam and we used a heavy hand of oppression.

I think where I differ though is that we didn't have to be a colonial power. Germany and Japan we entered as conqueror's and left as liberators.

We did a poor job of securing Iraq, allowing to many malcontents to be let free and too many weapon caches left unguarded.


Again, Germany and Japan.


Our traditional allies were deeply involved, and while Canada was a great ally in WWII this isn't the same Canada today. Canada today is like inviting Poland, and I don't say that to be condescending, they just don't have the money, nor do I think the will. They pretty much were at their limit with Afghanistan. We really need not go into the France/Germany thing again, but 'allies' is a loose term.

I'll support your bad costly policy if you support mine eh? No, had the US supported Koyto, I don't think we would have had any more help. Honestly I don't think there is anything we could have done to make France or Germany actively help, both those countries internal Muslim issues and external money issues with Iraq would pretty much supersede anything. Plus I think you overvalue their importance for anything beyond show. We would still be footing most of the bill, we would still be doing most of the dying, it would just have a much better 'vibe'.

Dux's points are overblown and show a lack of historical reference. Refugees after a major invasion? Civil unrest? Young men with guns far from home doing bad things? Thats what the down side of war is, was, and always shall be. I think we have limited those better than most have in the past.

As for emotionally ready, well thats a double edged sword to draw here. I'm not sure what Bush could have done, in fact most of the administration as I recall said it wouldn't be easy, it was more the pundits and the 'vibe' that it would be. Its easy in hindsight to say what should have been done.

The double edge comes from those on the left who from day one were attempting to undermine the will of the American people for political gains. They were waiting with baited breath for the time that American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq were greater than the terror attacks in New York. They tell us its unwinable and we have the speaker of the house of representatives speak of a retreat while our men are still deployed. You tell me what that does to 'emotions'. We have things like the Iraqi death estimator where they claim well over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed due to the invasion (thats 1 in 27, and its quite insane), it even got published in a respected journal and later it was torn apart as very poorly set up but that too was done to demoralize the war effort.

The PR could have been done better, but would it have changed anything that mattered? Undoubtedly the Bush admin underestimated the insurgent side and while Rumsfield was right on how many men it would take to beat the army, he was wrong on how many men it would take to secure peacefully after.

Everyone was talking WMD's (see my sig) and fear of terrorism. Nothing wrong with that, and the threat still isn't over (can't wait for a nuclear armed Iran can you?).

But while we have talked about where the Bush admin screwed up, and some places very badly, there is blame to go around. We had two major allies with under the table deals, thwarting any UN action against Saddam, we have a segment of the country doing their best to undermine any military action from day one and they continue to do so. I really can't stress that enough.

If you were an insurgent in Iraq, and you heard the leader of the US house of representatives talk about a retreat in so many words, and you knew that most like a member of her party would be president soon, what would you be thinking?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dc_dux

overblown?

Since you like to make comparisons to Germany and Japan.

How many US military deaths by insurgents were there in Germany and Japan after the cessation of the war ("mission accomplished") and during the period of US occupation of those countries?

Did Germany and/or Japan experience a 10% loss of population, mostly the middle class, as a result of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing after the cessation of war ("mission accomplished") and during the period of US occupation?

But more importantly, you ignored the critical fact that success in Iraq is dependent on political reconciliation. Can you point to any progress made in the last year on the political front?

In fact, recent US policy shifts are making that less likely..like cutting deals and arming Sunni tribal leaders in western provinces to fight al queda (do you think these armed tribal leaders will be beholding to a national unity government or more likely building their own fiefdoms?) or like trying to force the Iraqi government to accept the American (Cheney) puppet, Chalabi, who has no support or credibility among Iraqis, into a greater leadership role.

Bush and Petraeus also claim great success in training Iraqi police and military. After three years of training (begun under Petraeus in mid-2004), why is it not time to turn the security of the country over to those "well trained" forces (with a very small US support role that shouldnt take 140,000+ US troops)....unless its not at the level that Bush/Petraeus claim (another lie?)

The question for me is not.."if I were an insurgent"..., but rather "if i were a member of the Iraqi government and I heard that leader of the US House of Representatives talked about redeploying the US troops to border security and targeting specific terrorist threats rather than serving as the police force for the country, and a member of her party might be president soon, my thinking would be...I guess we cant suck off the US tit much longer and we, as the Iraqi government better put our sectarian differences aside and get our shit together in a manner that begins to bring shiites, sunnis and kurds together for the good of the country.

But there is no evdience of that happening.... Iraqi leadership rift widens

What makes you think a continued US presence, at or near the current level, will lead to political progress?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Stiltzkin

.
.
Really? Can you prove these claims? Did you obtain statistics from somewhere?
.
A definition of "partner in the international community" would be very enlightening here.

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.

Charlatan

I see what you are getting at here and I generally agree with you. The way I see it is the US was seen as a liberator for about two or three weeks. Then they shifted to becoming an occupier in the eyes of Iraqis.

This is part of the mismanagement that I've mentioned earlier. I don't think the US had a plan beyond getting Saddam out of power.

As I suggested elsewhere, nobody really knew before the invasion if Iraq was going to be Germany or Yugoslavia. It turned out that Iraq was more like Yugoslavia, a nation of disparate parts that was only held together by Saddam's iron fist. These parts were more interested in settling old grudges than moving forward with a new vision for a united Iraq.

It didn't help that the US administrators immediately forbid any former Baathist members from the new Iraqi admin (created problems in the transfer of power) and messed with Shite's desire to have a majority rule because of the fear of Iranian Shite influence, etc. They took a very shaky situation and shook it.



I used Kyoto as an example but ultimately the Bush admin's "you are either with us or you are against us" declaration did more to rankle public opinion against them than anything. While it certainly played well at home, it was poorly received abroad. This is not the way to build a coalition.

The Bush Admin's diplomacy was deplorable and the US is paying the price in that the financial burden of the Iraq invasion must be almost entirely shouldered by the US. As I see it, the cost of the invasion most certainly would have been borne by the US. But the occupation, which was inevitable, could have been shared by many more.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dc_dux

My observations re, social security and the environment were based on polls. Most Americans do not want to end Social Security as it is presently structured nor do they want to shut down the EPA - both Ron Paul extreme positions.

While there havent been recent polls on Social Security, at the time Bush was proposing to "fix" Social Security by allowing workers to invest all or part of their current and future SS tax contribution in private investments instead (same as Ron Paul position), the polls at the time (2005) were clear:

Approve or disapprove of Bush plan:
- Associated Press/Ipsos poll: approve - 35%, disapprove - 60%
- CNN/Gallup poll: approve - 29%, disapprove - 62%
(many other polls have similar results on this question)

Or this, from a CBS/NY Times poll:
- On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly
-- should - 80%, should not - 16%

- Do you think allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes on their own is a good idea or a bad idea?"
-- good idea - 45%, bad idea - 50%

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:
- In general, do you think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to change the Social Security system to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market?
- good idea - 36%, bad idea - 56%

Social Security polls

I think its pretty clear that Americans dont want the Social Security system "fixed" that way.

Now as to the environment/EPA:
A recent Harris poll:

Do you think there is too much, too little, or about the right amount of government regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection?"
-- too much - 21%, too little - 53%, about right - 21%

Other polls show the low perecentage of people who believe business can be trusted to protect the environment.

Environment polls

Do you see support here for Ron Paul's declaration that we dont need the EPA and we can rely on business to self-regulate.

And finally, a "partner in the international community" doesnt mean an interventionist foreign policy (asserting our "will" on the world like Bush), but it does mean participating in international efforts in promoting peace in places like the Middle East, engaging as part of an international response in worse case scenarios like the past genocide in the Balkans and presently in Sudan, and providing foreign aid (economic assistance) in areas facing severe economic deprivation and widespread death.

While Ron Paul may not be an "isolationist", he is a "non-interventionist" and opposed to all foreign aid and US participation in international response efforts, both military and economic.

More:
This response from a "supporter" attending a recent Ron Paul gathering in NH sums up RP's problem...:
...as people look beyond the surface talking points of "end the war", "shut down the IRS" and "return to (his concept of) the constitutional role of the federal government" and begin to understand what that means.....I suspect more and more are saying "really"?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

Today, the 30th, is a Ron Paul money bomb day. So, if you care/can afford it please donate.

Btw, he is on track to have the largest amount of money donated for a GOP candidate in the critical fourth quarter. Time to take him 'seriously' I think.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

sprocket

Its such a shame that the notion is so ingrained in our society now, that only the federal government can bestow such privileges upon people. We have city and state governments too... the whole idea of reducing the role of the *federal* government, is to allow the states the ability to do more.

As a direct result, the individual will have *much* more influence over what happens in their communities and states. Where does your voice count more? When its one out of 250-300 million people, or when its 1 out of the population of your state? You want a Pel grant like program for your state? State wide government provided health care? Work with through your state government to make it happen...

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

He has a "serious" hold on fifth place now among the Repub candidates with around 5% of the likely primary voters, having finally broken away from Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

Why do you think it is that Mike Huckabee, with very little money, has surged so far ahead of Ron Paul?

Individuals should absolutely exert more influence over what happens in their communities and states.

But you fail to recognize the inequities in financial resources among the states. Do you really believe a low income student in a poor state like Mississippi has the same access to college grants and loans as a low income student in a wealthy state like Connecticut?

And how would the environment be protected under your (and Ron Paul's - " we dont need the EPA") scenario, if one state has stricter air and water quality regulations than a neighboring state, rather than uniform regulations promulgated and enforced at the federal level?

How would states regulate the securities industry better than the SEC or manage air traffic better than the FAA? Ron Paul has voted consistently to defund these regulatory agencies, among many others.

There are roles for the states and there is a role for the federal government to ensure that environmental quality of life, access to higher education, health care, etc are equalized to the extent possible for all citizens.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

Its obviously the Chuck Norris commercial, duh....

Well perhaps our educational system will improve for everyone if he could manage to get rid of the DOE, like he hopes.

Environmental issues would be handled through the courts. If a company pollutes a towns water source, they are liable for the damages. Anytime someone causes damage to another property, including environmental damage, they can be taken to court and held accountable.

Also, just FYI, Ron Paul has stated that trying to dissolve the EPA is extremely low on his agenda list, anyhow. If its that big of a concern to you, and by some miracle he is elected, you can rest easy that he will probably never be able to get around to actually attempting to do it.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

FYI.....if by some miracle beyond all miracles, Ron Paul is elected, none of his government reform agenda will actually happen, because none have support in Congress.

Ron Paul's solution of defunding nearly every federal government agency is beyond extreme.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

I realize that as well. But man, it would be great to have someone like Ron Paul in the oval office with veto power.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Ustwo

I find the hysteria around Ron Paul by socialists greatly amusing.

If he were just a kook why all the vitriol? Its not like we are doing the same to Kucinich.

So is it a fear that he could get elected, and the response is belittling him as 'unimportant'?

If he is such a long shot and has so little support, why even bother?

I have to wonder if voting for what I think would be a mistake in Iraq and the like would be worth just seeing the horror in the nanny state types.

I'm starting to think it would be.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dc_dux

Why do you even bother with many of your inane posts (particularly your oft-posted commentaries through pics)?

I guess we're both easily amused

I suspect nearly every veto would be overridden...so what would be accomplished?

I am all for reforming and downsizing the federal government. One of the few positive things to come out of Reagan's domestic agenda was the program of "new federalism" and "devolving" numerous federal categorical grant programs (mostly social programs) to block grants to the states, with less federal regulation and more state flexibility and control. Clinton's "reinventing government" and cutting numerous federal regulations also made sense.

For those who truly want to see government reform, I would suggest it will be far more likely to come about as a result of someone in the WH who would take a practical approach and expand the Reagan "new federalism/devolution" to more grant programs and the Clinton "reinventing government" with more regulatory reform rather than the Ron Paul approach of trashing the entire federal government infrastructure (through the misrepresentation to the American people that most federal programs are unconstitutional).

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

I dont know... it would be interesting to see what the republican party does if he got elected... would they fight with him or work with him?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

Do you really think Republican members of Congress in the heartland red states (Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, etc) would support his position to end federal agricultural subsidies? or Republican members of Congress in Texas and Alabama (with huge space industry facilities that employ thousands) to end funding for NASA? or any red state with large middle class populations that support the pell grant program and numerous other programs that directly benefit their constituents?

Not to mention that the Repubs would have to end their mantra that "terrorism is the number one threat to the nation and thats why we need the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping".

How about Ron Paul's position to abolish medicare.....there goes Florida.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

To be honest, the only reason Huckabee is gaining support is because the right wing talk shows are totally freaking out at the support Ron Paul is getting. They are scrambling to talk about anyone other than Ron Paul. Their constituents have all but given up on Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson as real conservatives other than their 'not-hillary' appeal.

Did you watch the youtube debates? Ron Paul got asked the most loaded questions possible and Guiliani and Romney had twice the amount of time to speak as him despite his likely outraising them in the fourth quarter. He had time similar to Hunter and Tancredo who have become non contenders.

The two problems Ron Paul faces is name recognition, and the unfair shake/defamation he recieves in the media.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I agree that Ron Paul has probably not gotten a fair shake in the media. But that is hardly the only reason for his low poll numbers and Mike Huckabee's rising poll numbers.

The greatest problem facing Ron Paul is not name recognition or treatment by the media but the fact that most Americans and even most Republicans do not share his vision of returning to a 18th century model of the federal government.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

Ron Paul is not absurd, at least when he's compared to Rudy:

What does all of the following mean? Ron Paul supporters have great lung power, some in Atlanta do not know that Ron is a republican. <h3>Either Rudy is just about done</h3> as a candidate...his successful push to get Bush to name Kerik as DHS chief should have been enough....notice that Georgian repubs don't care about Rudy's ties to criminals, his own corrupt activities, or even about his adultery....<h3>or Rudy will stay in the race....more evidence that the GOP is a party with no standards or scruples. Convicted bribe taker Bob Asher, was permitted to waltz out of his federal prison cell and back into his place as high ranking Penn. state GOP official, a place he holds to this day!</h3>


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/13733.html
November 27, 2007
Giuliani cozies up to convicted moneyman
Posted November 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

Way back in June, Time’s David Von Drehle <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/out-of-spotligh.html">asked</a> an interesting question: “How many alleged criminals can a law-and-order candidate be associated with before it starts to hurt?” The question, of course, was in reference to Rudy Giuliani, after Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges, which, of course, came on the heels of revelations about Giuliani’s connections with Bernard Kerik.

But Von Drehle posed the question far too early — the number of alleged criminals with close ties to Giuliani has gone up considerably since then. ABC News has <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/out-of-spotligh.html">the latest</a>.

A Pennsylvania man convicted in a notorious corruption case played host to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fundraiser last night, despite the Giuliani campaign’s public efforts to distance itself from the man.

Bob Asher, a major Pennsylvania Republican player as a national party committeeman, was one of four hosts for the $2,300-a-person event. Asher was convicted in 1986 on charges stemming from a bribery scheme intended to win a $300,000 state government contract. The case gained national attention when his co-defendant in the case, Pennsylvania state treasurer R. Budd Dwyer, committed suicide at a televised news conference. Asher was sentenced to serve one year in prison.

At that time, Giuliani was a federal prosecutor in New York, building a reputation by locking up criminals for similar corruption-related misdeeds.

Giuliani came and went from last night’s fundraiser without comment, ducking down in his car as ABC News cameras attempted to photograph him arriving.

Given recent events, does it not occur to Giuliani to perhaps put some distance between himself and convicted felons?

For that matter, for all the attention the Norman Hsu controversy received, Hillary Clinton didn’t even know the guy. <h3>In contrast, Giuliani and Asher carpooled to the fundraiser together.

Regular readers know what this means: it’s time to update the big board of Giuliani’s dubious associates.</h3>

* Giuliani inexplicably backed Bernie Kerik, and made him the city’s police commissioner, after he’d been briefed on Kerik’s organized crime connections.

* Alan Placa was accused by a grand jury report of sexually abusing children, as well as helping cover up the sexual abuse of children by other priests. Giuliani then put Placa, his life-long friend, on the payroll of Giuliani Partners. (Adds Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks suspected priest abuse, “I think Rudy Giuliani has to account for his friendship with a credibly accused child molester.”)

* Kenneth Caruso, a close Giuliani friend and business partner, has been accused of conspiring to steal $10 million invested through a Caribbean bank.

* Thomas Ravenel, the chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, was indicted on cocaine distribution charges.

* Arthur Ravenel, the replacement chairman of Giuliani’s presidential campaign in South Carolina, has characterized the NAACP as the “National Association for Retarded People,” and has an unusual fondness for the Confederate battle flag.

* Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), the family-values conservative caught up in a prostitution scandal, was not only Giuliani’s top Senate backer, he was also the regional chairman of Giuliani’s campaign.

* Giuliani hired Russell Harding to run NYC’s Housing Development Corp, despite the fact that Harding had no college degree or background in housing and finance. (He was, however, the son of a prominent political backer whose support Giuliani sought to reward.) Harding later pled guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges, admitting to stealing more than $400,000 from the housing agency he once headed. (He was also caught possessing a disc filled with pornographic images of children.)

* And now, we can add Bob Asher, a convicted felon involved in a bribery scheme to win a state government contract.

Two weeks ago, former Solicitor General Ted Olson praised Giuliani as a man who has shown “the wisdom and humility to surround himself with talented, dedicated and energetic people.”

Hilarious.[/quote]

host

Now Huckabee comes off as a clueless (disinterested?) asshat, so who remains, besides Ron Paul, pursuing the republican nomination, who isn't a joke?

Surely, it's not this man:
Is Romney's response to this determination, reasonable or proportional:
<h3>WTF is Romeny talking about ?</h3> Is he advocating "military action" if the US necons cannot convince Iran to restart it's nuclear weapons development so neocons in government will have an excuse to attack Iran?

rlbond86

What dream world do you live in? Ron Paul consistently gets 4-8% in polls. Ron Paul has no chance at all. It would be nice if he were nominated though, he'd be a cinch to beat in the election.

I will admit, however, that out of all the Republican candidates, he is the least insane. He's still nutso though.

samcol

The phone polls are pretty biased against him to be honest. In blind polls (where the names of the candidates aren't listed, but their issues are) he wins, in internet polls he wins, in post debate polls he wins, in straw polls he wins. Why is there such a difference in the phone polls?

Here's an example of a phone poll: http://bhday.files.wordpress.com/200...l-polling2.wav Does that sound fair to you?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

sprocket

In that poll too, the caller hit #6, for other. The system then registered it as a #7 and took him off the list, presumably so they dont have those pesky "other" voters messing up their polls. Of course it could just be stupidity or error on their part, but given the treatment Paul gets in the media, you can understand the conspiracy theories.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

The phone poll you posted (IMC polling, whoever they are) is not at all representative of most phone polls. I really dont know where you get your information.

In all the national media polls (abc/wash post, nbc/wall street journal, cnn, fox, usa today/gallup, pew/ap, etc) Ron Paul is included by name.

The reason there is such a difference between these polls and the internet polls and straw polls is simple.

The former are prepared and administered to be statistically valid to represent likely voters (which is why they are all within a few points of each other for each of the candidates) whereas internet and straw polls are pseudo polls and have no statistical validity.

The latest aggregates of the national polls from Pollster.com



Good luck on your next money bomb..perhaps Paul will creep up another point or two!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

river_ratiii

Absolutely. Ron Paul supporters are only interested in the Constitution...now, from that many issues emanate, but sure, from a simplified position, you are right!

dc_dux

Ron Paul supporters remind me of evangelical Christians. They believe that Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is the only valid interpretation just as evangelicals believe their interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one.

Fortunately for the country, the Supreme Court has invalidated much of Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution, particularly as it applies to the legitimate role of the federal government. He and his supporters just wont accept that fact.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

river_ratiii

Could you explain how your interpretation of the Bible differs from the "evangelical's", please?

LOL...the Supreme Court is as political as the Congress. Their "interpretation" is no more credible than some political hack on CNN...

samcol

Yes, the Supreme Court also said blacks weren't people, luckily some of the states came to the rescue and decided to not enforce that. The supreme court is not the final say of anything. The congress and states still have checks and balances on the supreme court.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I dont take all of the Bible literally.

Whether the Supreme Court is political or not and whether you and Ron Paul like it or not, its interpretation of the Constitution becomes the law of the land. Why is that so hard for Paul supporters to understand?

samcol.....Please lets not have the "general welfare" clause argument again. You were wrong when you said it was a "preamble" and you were wrong when you said that FDR packed the court to get his "interpretation".

Absolutely....Congress can pass a Constitutional amendment (and the States can ratify) that would significantly narrow the "general welfare" programs of the federal government. But Ron Paul cant just declare such programs unconstitutional based on his own interpretation.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

You're the one that brought up the Supreme Court issue again.

Why is it so hard to believe that the Supreme Court could be wrong? They were wrong in the Dred Scott case. Just because the currently held rulings happen to be in favor of your personal views doesn't mean the court is never wrong with no means to change outside of the courts.

I guess in 1856 you would of been a big fan of that ruling. I mean they are the supreme and god like rulers of our lives. Why couldn't you just accept that fact? It's not worth trying to treat slaves as citizens.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I never said that the Supreme Court could not be wrong. I disagree with many Supreme Court rulings, historically and in my lifetime.

BUt that doesnt change the fact the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is law, whether you or I like it or not, until such time as a future Court overturns or Congress and the States act to amend.

A citizen, even a Congressman, can not impose his own interpretation of the Constitution on the country if it is counter to the Court's.....period

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

And since thats the case, he, and the his supporters should just sit back and do nothing until the courts are benevolent enough to give us our rights back? We get it... you don't agree on his constitutional views. How do you think you can actually bring a state, or congress to the table to amend? By convincing others its the right thing to do, perhaps?

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

Sure....convince others that a smaller, less intrusive federal government is the right thing to do...and I would agree with you to some extent.

But do it honestly and not by lying or misrepresenting current laws or federal social programs (among others) by saying they are unconstitutional...because at present, they are not.

If Ron Paul wants to make these programs unconstitutional, then that should be his message.

I'll even offer some suggested remarks to Ron Paul :

"While I personally believe programs like social security and medicare are unconstitutional, as are federal regulatory agencies like the EPA, FDA, FCC, SEC...according to my understanding of he original intent of the framers, the Supreme Court has decided otherwise and we must respect that....so I therefore call for all Americans to support a constitutional amendment to bar the federal government from providing these services."

Here's a good place to start...Ron Paul's position on medicare:

Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.

The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.

Good luck on convincing seniors and the first wave of baby-boomers (soon to be seniors) that medicare is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

The same applies to so many other federal programs where millions of citizens are the beneficiaries.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

sprocket

Well, I believe Paul usually prefaces his statements about such things with "I believe"... its quite clear in my mind that its his opinion.

Yea, that would be an impossible sell... but I have never heard him advocate actually cutting off current beneficiaries of social programs that people have paid into with their tax dollars. Unfortunately, his positions are such that its easy for opponents to mischaracterize them, in that way. But I've never seen where he actually proposed to cut people off from the social programs like medicare and social security.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

dc_dux

Have I mischaracterized his position on medicare? Its right from the Republican Liberty Caucus position statement adopted in 2000 that Ron Paul endorsed.

It also calls for abolishing the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, he National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.....all on Constitutional grounds, yet all are presently Constitutional.

Or why not share the more recent (2004) Republican Liberty Caucus policy statement as the centerpiece of his campaign, along with the war issue, if he believes in it.

Republican Liberty Caucus- see "RLC Position Statement" (word doc)

...perhaps because it is so draconian, it would freak many (most?) people out if it were more widely known?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

It might be a tough sell for baby boomers, but for younger people like me who have seen how poorly these welfare programs are run it's a much easier decision. I like how people receiving money and services are called 'beneficiaries' as if the government is giving them something that they wouldn't of already had without the rediculous welfare taxes.

Make no mistake, by abolish he means 'phasing out'. He wouldn't simply steal all the money hard working people have put into these welfare programs over the years. He's been very clear on that. So, to think seniors will be ripped off by abolishing welfare programs is wrong.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

That explains why Ron Paul cant win....its a numbers game.

Registered voters 18-24 yr old - 14+ million
Registered voters 25-34 yr old - 21+ million

These age groups represent the core RP supporters.

Then you have the baby boomers and seniors:

Registered voters 45-54 yr old - 29+ million
Registered voters 55 and over - 48+ million

And these groups vote at a higher percentage.

source: Census report (pdf), Voting and Registration in the Election of 2004 (see table B)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

Thx info.

Jump all over that 'he can't win' bandwagon. God know the media sure loves it. It doesn't phase his supporters anyway, they just donate more money and get more active. Go hate on Giuliani and Romney for awhile will you?

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I dont hate Ron Paul....I just think his solutions are radical and I will continue to express my opinion, particularly when I see bogus information posted about the Constitution or the credibility of straw polls/internet polls

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

jorgelito

Thanks for the info DC. Although it is simplistic, it is an interesting table. I wonder out of the posted numbers, how many actually vote too. I would love to see a comprehensive spreadsheet complete with breakout with a ton of cool voting info like, region, race, income, gender, political leanings etc. Nice find DC. Do they have any more recent info too?

Quick question: how do you know what the age group is for Ron Paul supporters? Do you know what it is for the other candidates? I think it would be interesting to see the comparisons.