Paul: Total Martial Law

[Mike]

Leading GOP candidate Ron Paul has warned in recent interviews that the amendments passed in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are not only dangerous, but authorize the establishment of total martial law inside the United States. Not only does the bill, in sections 1031 and 1032, declare the unconstitutional right to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, but it authorizes an Internet offensive and online Pentagon takeover under the pretext of cybersecurity and stopping online piracy.

 

[Lonecowboy]

Mike we all know Ron Paul is naive and the only thing he does is vote no!

Really this is nothing, this is not a real threat to the American people and our way of life. He really is just a whacko conspiracy kook that can not be taken seriously! :roll: :roll: :wink:

Just because he does not take the popular side of "issues" that the media says are issues and concentrates on real things that are being done by the left while the right hand runs the distraction.

 

[Steve]

if you ever wonder why some people view your views at conspiracy theory maybe is is because most conspiracy theorist take a condescending sarcastic attitude towards those who question your views.. while you ignore issues that are important to them and the facts.

on many issues I agree with Ron Paul.. but I feel he is dangerously wrong on foreign policy.. BTW you never did answer the question I politely asked..

is it because it clashes with you views?


if the congress declared war on Iran or any other country would Ron Paul execute a sound war strategy or vote NO and not get our troops involved in a foreign war?

and you never did respond to the rebellion clause where the facts showed your view was actually wrong on the constitution..

and you were never able to show what Ron Paul's accomplishments were..

but feel free to take a critical view of those who question not only those we don't like but will question those we respect as well ..


I often respected your view.. but I really have alot o trouble respecting a person who feels he can't defend his views and resorts to condescending comments like a hurt child..

 

[Lonecowboy]

if you ever wonder why some people view your views at conspiracy theory maybe is is because most conspiracy theorist take a condescending sarcastic attitude towards those who question your views.. while you ignore issues that are important to them and the facts.

on many issues I agree with Ron Paul.. but I feel he is dangerously wrong on foreign policy.. BTW you never did answer the question I politely asked..

is it because it clashes with you views? I never saw it that I recall, what is it?

if the congress declared war on Iran or any other country would Ron Paul execute a sound war strategy or vote NO and not get our troops involved in a foreign war? I think thay would depend on the situation- I believe Ron Paul would make the best choice for America based on the facts available, as far as I see there is no authority for congress to make a president do anything- just impeachment if they deem it necessary.

and you never did respond to the rebellion clause where the facts showed your view was actually wrong on the constitution..

??????????????????? I guess I missed this too? bring it up again please. unlike some I do not have a closed mind and am interested in learning more- it I am wrong on the Constitution I would like to see it and learn more.

and you were never able to show what Ron Paul's accomplishments were..

I thought I answered that by saying something to the effect that " He followed the Constitution , and that must be quite an accomplishment because so many don't"

but feel free to take a critical view of those who question not only those we don't like but will question those we respect as well ..


I often respected your view.. but I really have alot o trouble respecting a person who feels he can't defend his views and resorts to condescending comments like a hurt child.
A hurt child? I was mearly repeating what I read..

 

[Steve]

if the congress declared war on Iran or any other country would Ron Paul execute a sound war strategy or vote NO and not get our troops involved in a foreign war?

I think thay would depend on the situation- I believe Ron Paul would make the best choice for America based on the facts available, as far as I see there is no authority for congress to make a president do anything- just impeachment if they deem it necessary.

following the Constitution is not based on one man's view of what he feels his best choice is..

I am not sure how you could reconcile that opinion . if it is only within congress's authority to declare war. and the president's responsibility to execute that decision..

then how could it "depend on the situation"?

 

[Lonecowboy]

maybe I wasn't clear- Congress can not make a president do anything- they can impeach him though if they think it is necessary and in America's best intrest. I have seen nothing to indicate Ron Paul weak on national defense- just weak on unconstitutional offensive nation building.\\JMO

 

[Tam]

maybe I wasn't clear- Congress can not make a president do anything- they can impeach him though if they think it is necessary and in America's best intrest. I have seen nothing to indicate Ron Paul weak on national defense- just weak on unconstitutional offensive nation building.\\JMO

He is telling Iran it is OK with him that they get a nuke and telling them he will do nothing to stop them as he believes they will not use it againt the US and her Allies. LOOK AT THEIR HISTORY That country is run by a Dictator that opennly wants to wipe Israel off the map, right along with the US. The Obama administration thought they could just talk to these people and they would lay down their weapons and join hands in a big sing along too but it did not take them long to realize if you turn the other cheek they will just use the other hand to slap your face. Sorry but the US can not afford to take a chance on a guy that is weak on foreign affairs in a time where terrorists and COUNTRIES THAT FUND THEM are looking for a way to destroy the West.

BTW What do you think of his idea that he can cut the military even farther than the Obama Administration has? Remember the Pentagon officials have already said the cuts would damage the readiness of the millitary to defend itself from further attacks.

 

[Lonecowboy]

Tam- where is the money to come from? we are nearly broke!

IMO Ron Paul is the only realistic candidate- scale back to a sustainable size and maintain and defend OUR country. all the others are campaiging on life as it has been in the past- and promising more spending just to get elected. if we keep this up till we are totally broke where are we? what kind of a defense could we mount then? only the militia with our deer rifles.

what about all of our troops and weaponry overseas if we go totally broke what happens to them? it's time to pull our horns in and get our financial/ spending repaired.

 

[Tam]

Lonecowboy, I have posted a list of places where the US could start the cuts, what you haven't done is convince me that you are confident that if the Congress did declared war on Iran that Ron Paul would actually carry out the wishes of the Congress.

In your words the Congress can't force a President to do anything. All they can do is impeach him for the good of the US. So I ask, If they declared war and he refused to carry out their wishes, just how many innocent people will die while the Congress impeaches Ron Paul and gets somebody in the Oval Office that sees Iran as the threat they are and will do what needs to be done? Come on Lonecowboy convince me we are not going to see millions die because of Ron Paul's nieve viewpoint of Iran.

 

[Steve]

Lonecowboy, I have posted a list of places where the US could start the cuts, what you haven't done is convince me that you are confident that if the Congress did declared war on Iran that Ron Paul would actually carry out the wishes of the Congress.

In your words the Congress can't force a President to do anything. All they can do is impeach him for the good of the US. So I ask, If they declared war and he refused to carry out their wishes, just how many innocent people will die while the Congress impeaches Ron Paul and gets somebody in the Oval Office that sees Iran as the threat they are and will do what needs to be done? Come on Lonecowboy convince me we are not going to see millions die because of Ron Paul's nieve viewpoint of Iran.

What I was convinced of is that Paul will follow the Constitution when it suits him and if we don't like it when he doesn't,... tough, about the same as it is now.

I don't disagree with Paul on many issues but I still can't ignore his faults, like calling a war time traitor a hero :shock:

 

[Lonecowboy]

Lonecowboy, I have posted a list of places where the US could start the cuts, what you haven't done is convince me that you are confident that if the Congress did declared war on Iran that Ron Paul would actually carry out the wishes of the Congress.

In your words the Congress can't force a President to do anything. All they can do is impeach him for the good of the US. So I ask, If they declared war and he refused to carry out their wishes, just how many innocent people will die while the Congress impeaches Ron Paul and gets somebody in the Oval Office that sees Iran as the threat they are and will do what needs to be done? Come on Lonecowboy convince me we are not going to see millions die because of Ron Paul's nieve viewpoint of Iran.

What I was convinced of is that Paul will follow the Constitution when it suits him and if we don't like it when he doesn't,... tough, about the same as it is now.

I don't disagree with Paul on many issues but I still can't ignore his faults, like calling a war time traitor a hero :shock:

Steve- where doesn't Ron Paul follow our Constitution?

who is the "hero" ytou are refering to??

Tam- how many will die when we go broke fighting all of these "wars"?
you are right there are other places cuts need to be made in addition- only Ron Paul is proposing real cuts, what is it now 1 trillion dollars he wants to start with. Would you rather have a sustainable military to defend us or go broke and have none at all? that is our choices- the world is not the same place it was!

 

[Tam]

Lonecowboy let's leave the fact Ron Paul wants to cut the US military to the very bone in times when terrorists/Iran are looking for a chance to destroy the US for a moment OK. Let's discuss his views on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I realize these three do have to be reformed to save them for the future generations. BUT do you think anyone is going to vote for a guy (Ron Paul) if they know he believe in strictly following the Constitution and he also believes these three programs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL even though the Supreme Court back in 1937 ruled they were not?

The legality of Social Security and Medicare must be reversed, just like slavery was abolished in 1865, according to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

"You talk a lot about the Constitution," Fox News' Chris Wallace noted Sunday. "You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional."

"Technically they are," Paul insisted. "There is no authority. Article 1, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution — liberals are the ones that use this general welfare clause."

"Doesn't Social Security come under promoting the general welfare," Wallace asked.

"Absolutely not," Paul replied.

Once you explain how a Republican candidate that believes Iran is not a threat and Social Security and Medicare are Unconstitutional, will get elected in a General election. Maybe you would care to discuss another issue. After the Dems have been calling the TEA Party/ Republicans "RACISTS" for months would it be smart to nominate a candidate that printed these comments in his newsletter?

RACIST STATEMENTS MADE IN THE NEWSLETTERS

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,"

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"

we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

Does he really believe 13 year old Black boys should be dealt with differently than a 13 year old white boy that has lived on the streets? :?

The spot light is on Ron Paul explain these gems away so they will not be an issue the Dems will use to destroy him if he is nominated.

 

[Lonecowboy]

do you think anyone is going to vote for a guy (Ron Paul) if they know he believe in strictly following the Constitution and he also believes these three programs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

he has a large following and is currently leading Iowa despite the media blakout- so no Tam I am not the only one. Ron Paul won Montana caucus last time so no I'm not the only one in MT either. YES I do think he can win because he stands on principle!

What he says about SS. medicade/care is not a total withdrawl, people have paid into them and have planned their retirement etc. around those programs that they have paid into, Dr. Paul is the last one to say screw those people- what he says is a gradual pull out and return to our Constitution.

Because of the rhetoric used I used to have these same concerns about Ron Paul untill I heard what he had to say- then it started to make sense.

now the "racist newsletter" I get a newsletter from Ron Paul and have never seen any statements even close to what you posted attributed to him. What is your source for those statements? I have a hard time believing they came from Ron Paul.

 

[Steve]

it's not as if the parameters of the Bradley Manning case have changed significantly in the last eleven months, or at least not in any way that mitigates Manning's alleged crimes. The enlisted soldier transmitted a vast trove of classified government communications, primarily diplomatic cables but also some internal military information, and sent it to Julian Assange, for those who haven't followed it closely. Bear in mind that Ron Paul wants to become Commander in Chief, which raises all sorts of questions about how a President Paul would safeguard classified information:

Say, that Bradley Manning is a patriotic, heroic kind of guy, isn't he?

Paul's declaration that we should be celebrating a man who deliberately exposed that material because of the supposed eeevil done by the American government sounds like a man who's more interested in his own paranoid fantasies than he is in conducting the duties of the Commander in Chief.

 

[Lonecowboy]

it's not as if the parameters of the Bradley Manning case have changed significantly in the last eleven months, or at least not in any way that mitigates Manning's alleged crimes. The enlisted soldier transmitted a vast trove of classified government communications, primarily diplomatic cables but also some internal military information, and sent it to Julian Assange, for those who haven't followed it closely. Bear in mind that Ron Paul wants to become Commander in Chief, which raises all sorts of questions about how a President Paul would safeguard classified information:

Say, that Bradley Manning is a patriotic, heroic kind of guy, isn't he?

Paul's declaration that we should be celebrating a man who deliberately exposed that material because of the supposed eeevil done by the American government sounds like a man who's more interested in his own paranoid fantasies than he is in conducting the duties of the Commander in Chief.

you didn't list a source but I assume this is Ron paul's quote??

Say, that Bradley Manning is a patriotic, heroic kind of guy, isn't he?

I will say this- I do NOT believe everything the media tells me to believe so I'm not sure what to believe in this case. What really happened? will we ever know the truth? As a congressman does Ron Paul have access to imformation that we don't or does he just watch CNN ansd Fox?

I also believe various treasonous individuals have infiltrated positions within our federal government- if these "leaks" were exposing their plans is that Patriotic or treason? I believe it all has to do with the motivation of the individual- Did he mean to harm or help America?

A case in point that is close for me- someone within the federal govt. "leaked" 250 pages of documents showing the feds plan for Fort peck to Fort Benton Montana- a public outcry went up, meetings were held and the plans have failed for now- was the "leaker" a Patriot?
How about the "leaked" e-mails between "scientists" proving global warming was a fraud- was the leaker a traitor or a patriot?

I am not supporting or condemming Ron Paul on this- I am saying there are at least two ways of looking at this- which is right? without more and truly credible imformation how can we judge?

 

[Anonymous]

do you think anyone is going to vote for a guy (Ron Paul) if they know he believe in strictly following the Constitution and he also believes these three programs are UNCONSTITUTIONAL

he has a large following and is currently leading Iowa despite the media blakout- so no Tam I am not the only one. Ron Paul won Montana caucus last time so no I'm not the only one in MT either. YES I do think he can win because he stands on principle!

You wouldn't be LYING to us would you Lonecowboy... I hope you are just mistaken... :wink: :lol:

Ron Paul did not win that joke fiasco of a Montana Republican Caucus in the only year they ran it - 2007...

Mitt Romney won it with 625 votes that was 38.34% of the participants and took all 25 convention delegates...

Ron Paul was second with 24.54%...

McCain was third with 21.96%...

Huckleberry got 15.03% and Keyes got .12%

Then in the primary that was held in June 08:

John McCain got 72,551 votes or 76.18%
Ron Paul 20,452 votes or 21.48%

 

[Lonecowboy]

well right you are oldtimer - even a blind sow finds an acorn now and again. here is something interesting I found in my "research" though

oldtimer wrote:

Paul could be a major player in this state as he barely lost to Romney in the caucus's that the Repub Party Fathers even had heavily tilted in Romney's favor- and McCain was 4th or 5th..Paul won my county and many of the counties in the eastern part of the state...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28811&highlight=ron+paul+vote

 

[Anonymous]

well right you are oldtimer - even a blind sow finds an acorn now and again. here is something interesting I found in my "research" though

oldtimer wrote:

Paul could be a major player in this state as he barely lost to Romney in the caucus's that the Repub Party Fathers even had heavily tilted in Romney's favor- and McCain was 4th or 5th..Paul won my county and many of the counties in the eastern part of the state...

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28811&highlight=ron+paul+vote

Yep-- Paul carried the majority of caucus's in eastern MT and was the only Repub candidate that year that I donated to..

I think now with the deadlock being seen in D.C.- much of it because of the House TeaParty pack - no extreme right wing nominee (Paul, Newt, Perry, or Bachmann) can beat Obama... The moderates and independents are tired of the partisan bickering and infighting at their expense- and are looking for some candidates that understand saying NO is not the only answer to solving the nations problems - and that sometimes you have to give a little to get a little...And in a government like ours "compromise" is the only way to keep from total shutdown and anarchy...

My belief now is that only Romney ( like Huntsman tho) of announced candidates would probably stand a good chance of beating Obama- but Paul could have a lot to say about it ...

With the Repubs now totally split- torn apart and going every which direction- and eating their own with no trust at all between even themselves- it would not surprise me to see Paul do a 3rd party run... I remember years ago I voted for him as the Libertarian candidate because I wouldn't vote for either GHW Bush or Dukakis...

Advancing Ron Paul poised to be spoiler, kingmaker in GOP presidential race

Posted: 12/21/2011 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 12/21/2011 02:53:20 AM MST Denver Post Wire Services

As the first votes in the Republican presidential race approach, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has become a serious force with the potential to upend the nomination fight and remain a factor throughout next year's general-election campaign.

Although few think the Texan has a realistic shot at winning the GOP nod, he could be a spoiler or a kingmaker. In a muddled field, Paul could win the caucuses in Iowa, where he has been methodically building an organization and a corps of followers.

Over the past week, he has spent more than $600,000 on attack ads that are cutting into support for fellow front-runner Newt Gingrich. Perhaps most fearsome to Republican leaders is Paul's refusal to rule out a third-party presidential bid that would steal votes from the Republican nominee and make President Barack Obama's path to re-election considerably easier. Washington Post



Read more: Advancing Ron Paul poised to be spoiler, kingmaker in GOP presidential race - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_19589823?source=commented-#ixzz1hDUQSj5c

 

[Lonecowboy]

oldtimer wrote:

I think now with the deadlock being seen in D.C.- much of it because of the House TeaParty pack - no extreme right wing nominee (Paul, Newt, Perry, or Bachmann) can beat Obama... The moderates and independents are tired of the partisan bickering and infighting at their expense- and are looking for some candidates that understand saying NO is not the only answer to solving the nations problems - and that sometimes you have to give a little to get a little...And in a government like ours "compromise" is the only way to keep from total shutdown and anarchy...

oldtimer- there are no EXTREME RIGHT WING candidates in the race, Paul is center and everyone else you mentioned is left of center unless you are grading on a curve :???:
compromise is the last thing we need- compromise got us in this mess- what we need is men who will stand on principle and their oath of office.

Do you even know what anarchy means?? Returning to our legal Constitutionally limited government is NOT anarchy, or radical or extreme right wing- it is center!

 

[Larrry]

Exactly there are no conservatives in the race. True conserevatives still want one.. For someone to claim any of the Reps are a true conservative is actually exposing that person as a radical leftwinger.