Thread: Ron Paul Toughest on Terror

There is such a thing as federal supremacy under certain circumstances-

Very few - thinks of a interstate nature - that states can't work together to do, protecting this country, and making trade deals, I can't think of much.

Maybe if they were meddling in every aspect of our lives on a daily basis, they would have time to actually protect this country, and make trade deals beneficial to the country and it's people.

Americans are perfectly capable of making our own laws, really we are.

Think about the character of the people you have in WAshington making the laws some think we really, really need. I mean who up there do you trust to have the character to actually make laws based on what is best for America and it's people?

I will confess I am absolutely stunned that there is anyone who would oppose state's rights, other than politicians or selfserving, so called leaders, and rabble rousers, and I don't think anyone on here are any of those. I do realize during the heyday of the power grab through civil rights, we heard it constantly. I would have thought by now, everyone would have seen what havoc the government brought not only to the black community, but the entire nation and our rights with their rhetoric against state's rights.

This is an eye opener.

Civil rights are not negotiable.

The juridical or executive misinterpretation of some of those laws, e.g. upholding inverse discrimination and preferential hiring practices based upon race, attacking race-neutral voter I.D. laws under the rubric of civil rights, forcing municipalities to hire unqualified applicants to civil service jobs, etc., does not make them invalid.

The Bill of Rights and the due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution forbid discrimination based upon race. That is not up for debate.

I'm not going to apologize for thinking that stripping people of their civil rights-whether it be an unborn child snuffed out in the womb, or an American citizen who is looking for redress-is not a "states' rights" issue. You can try to portray it as such, but most people disagree vehemently with your framing of this issue in the context of states' rights.

States do not have any right to countenance discrimination against any of their citizens, regardless of their color or sex, and I think that protection should be extended to the unborn.

The Bill of Rights and the due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution forbid discrimination based upon race. That is not up for debate.



What does that have to do with states' rights?


I will just say under the guise of 'civil rights' this government invalidated and violated the civil rights of a lot of people of all color.

The almost destroyed a one proud, dignified group of people. The black community is just now beginning to work it's way out of the benevolent benefits as given by this government.

Civil rights as defined and instituted by the federal government is not civil and it is certainly not right.

We are here on a site to discuss and try to find ways to fight the illegal immigration invasion and all the destructive elements.

One thing worth considering. Almost, of not all, the positive things that have been done to stem this, stop this, curb this, has come from the state and local level.

The federal government, despite the people's begging and demanding for years, has continued to enoourage it, protect it, even to the point the President calling us bigots.

They are protecting the civil rights of the illegals and trouncing all over ours in the process.

What do you think our situation would be today, if this were in the hands of the state governments rather than the federal government?

More states would have already done something, more citizens would have demanded more - but for the idea that it is a federal issue and states have no rights to protect their citizens.

[quote="GREGAGREATAMERICAN"][quote]There’s a reason why our nation’s finest, America’s military men and women, both active and veteran, have given more donations to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul than any other candidate in either party. [b]As a veteran, he’s the only candidate who understands how to properly defend America from its enemies, “both foreign and domestic.â€

[quote="Americanpatriot"][quote="GREGAGREATAMERICAN"][quote]There’s a reason why our nation’s finest, America’s military men and women, both active and veteran, have given more donations to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul than any other candidate in either party. [b]As a veteran, he’s the only candidate who understands how to properly defend America from its enemies, “both foreign and domestic.â€

Originally Posted by Shapka

I simply don't agree with Ron Paul supporters who believe that the federal government has no business passing any statute that might infringe upon the domain of specific states.....

I don't think anybody said this. Is this another one of your call and response rhetorical and completely made up scenarios so you can answer your own biasness?

Just curious

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Ron Paul served active duty as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965,attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey, but was never sent to Vietnam.

That by no means makes this man the best defend America from its enemies nor does it have any thing that would even be remotely claming military experience on a combat level.

What is this rhetoric? "IF" this is the issue, then who should we vote for? Hunter?

So, lets say.... he shot his gun and was deployed in an environment that experienced shelling. Is that appropriate experience? Shot once, or twice? OR what? I would ask "WHY" combat would preclude one to being a good military leader? If that is the case, ALL soldiers would be leaders. But that clearly is NOT the case. I could make the opposite, and probably more compelling argument that a doctor who saves lives would have a better understanding of life, and the consequences of war.

On the contrary. I would say him BEING IN THE MILITARY, HIM BEING A DOCTOR.... is experiene enuff. So now he has to pass what is considered proper military service conditionals. Hilarous.

Also, we ALL know being Commander in Chief takes other important attributes, like being financial informed, being knowledgeable about foreign relations etc... What does Bush have? He is a goon who funnels money to all the special interest countries.

I gotta get some great humour outta this. I really think that this "WAR on TERROR" has brainwashed a boatload of Americans. I think this idea that we have to be a nanny to countries of the world has "brainwashed a boatload of americans"...

Just what the MSM wants..... and who owns the MSM?

Originally Posted by BrightNail

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

Ron Paul served active duty as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965,attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey, but was never sent to Vietnam.

That by no means makes this man the best defend America from its enemies nor does it have any thing that would even be remotely claming military experience on a combat level.

What is this rhetoric? "IF" this is the issue, then who should we vote for? Hunter?

So, lets say.... he shot his gun and was deployed in an environment that experienced shelling. Is that appropriate experience? Shot once, or twice? OR what? I would ask "WHY" combat would preclude one to being a good military leader? If that is the case, ALL soldiers would be leaders. But that clearly is NOT the case. I could make the opposite, and probably more compelling argument that a doctor who saves lives would have a better understanding of life, and the consequences of war.

On the contrary. I would say him BEING IN THE MILITARY, HIM BEING A DOCTOR.... is experiene enuff. So now he has to pass what is considered proper military service conditionals. Hilarous.

Also, we ALL know being Commander in Chief takes other important attributes, like being financial informed, being knowledgeable about foreign relations etc... What does Bush have? He is a goon who funnels money to all the special interest countries.

I gotta get some great humour outta this. I really think that this "WAR on TERROR" has brainwashed a boatload of Americans. I think this idea that we have to be a nanny to countries of the world has "brainwashed a boatload of americans"...

Just what the MSM wants..... and who owns the MSM?

Well in a small part we all do, why do you ask? Didn’t you see the right Ron Paul add again? Its all one big conspiracy theory, isn’t it; we all are out to get Ron Paul, and the war on terror well that was just made up so we all would have something to see on TV.
Right?
Give me a break

I would love to see the best of both worlds: Ron Paul & Duncan Hunter as president & vice president either way would be nice.
They are both good, honest men and would be for wonderful for US IMO.

I've had it with bush; one more year of him is all I can barely hack. If Hitlery or any demoncrat gets in we are done for.

Originally Posted by Americanpatriot

I would love to see the best of both worlds: Ron Paul & Duncan Hunter as president & vice president either way would be nice.
They are both good, honest men and would be for wonderful for US IMO.

I've had it with bush; one more year of him is all I can barely hack. If Hitlery or any demoncrat gets in we are done for.

to hear some Pauls flowers tell it we all are all ready done for...