Republican Primaries (3 Viewers)

[scuba_steve2121]

i actually have

twice


they hate gays
lots of people are indifferent to blacks but probably a lot of them hate blacks in the same way that white people from dubbo and wilcannia hate abos

I'm not from the middle of no where so what kind of hatred is it?

 

[cosmo kramer]

the kind of dislike that develops after being exposed to them too much

 

[scuba_steve2121]

the kind of dislike that develops after being exposed to them too much

right so how I dislike gooks and lebs in Sydney?

Don't wanna kill em but rather they weren't in my general area, to the point where i forget they exist. Why I love going to the country for holidays sometimes, few days of forgetting.... precious moments

 

[cosmo kramer]

prob much worse than that though

idk the country is getting really shit man

its looking more and more like the city every day

 

[cosmo kramer]

at least it doesnt cost like $700 to live in one room in a shared 3 bedroom shit house with no air con

 

[funkshen]

ronald mcpaul

 

[cosmo kramer]

three piece Fed

 

[scuba_steve2121]

three piece Fed

Do you want me to supersize your money supply?

 

[cosmo kramer]

drive thru (shooting) from the book depository

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Don't forget out new Grassy Knoll Mcwrap

 

[cosmo kramer]

 

[Lolsmith]

I hate Lyndon Johnson

Although it was interesting hearing about how torn up over Vietnam he got

 

[Blastus]

The southerners I have spoken to furiously hate blacks in a very cold and logical way due to exposure of behaviour they see as purely racial.

 

[cosmo kramer]

I hate Lyndon Johnson

me too

 

[cosmo kramer]

The southerners I have spoken to furiously hate blacks in a very cold and logical way due to exposure of behaviour they see as purely racial.

yeah lol

i think a lot of white americans dont really hate blacks though theyre just indifferent to them or implicitly afraid of them

 

[Lolsmith]

I think the Klansmen might disagree with you

 

[Lolsmith]

one of the interesting things about the Ku Klux Klan is their member and leadership titles

"grand wizard"

 

[cosmo kramer]

orungtang clan

 

[cosmo kramer]

one of the interesting things about the Ku Klux Klan is their member and leadership titles

"grand wizard"

 

[alstah]

this guy... seriously

first of all, the US president is commander-in-chief. if every war since world war II has been illegal, explain why no president has been impeached for this reason? if you can't explain that (and i know you can't) then your point is without a leg to stand on. besides your asinine citation of james madison, you seem oblivious to how the constitution and checks and balances actually work (or don't work). constitutional practice supersedes constitutional meaning. quote chief justice rehnquist, Dames & Moore v. Regan: "[A] systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of the Congress and never before questioned … may be treated as a gloss on 'Executive Power' vested in the President by §1 of Art. II. Past practice does not, by itself, create power, but long-continued practice, known to and acquiesced in by Congress, would raise a presumption that the [action] had been [taken] in pursuance of its consent." if congress wants to review this legislation and executive practice by properly defining war (good luck with that), but until then, get over it, and tell ronny p to get over it too.

What part of the constitution being the supreme law of the land don't you understand? It supersedes everything else. Statue and Common law. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 is unequivocal. To wage war, you MUST have a declaration from the congress.

Why no president has been impeached for this? Well maybe because the president is the most POWERFUL person in the world...Maybe because President's since WW2 have no respect for the constitution. Chief-justices don't have the balls to impeach them, if they did Clinton should have been impeached in '98. Kennedy also lied about his medical condition, contacts with mobsters, election money-laundering and his infamous affairs, including one with Marilyn Monroe. Just because the President gets away with it, doesn't mean they are innocent.

The argument was the president waging war unconstitutional. You cannot argue with the words in the constitution, nor can you argue with what the father of the constitution had to say about it. Just because the government has changed its perspective post WW2, due to factors such as NATO, the UN Security Council, it does not mean it is not unconstitutional.

the fact is the president does have the prerogative to introduce US forces into hostilities, and this is precisely because of the indeterminate language of the constitution (which rules out supreme court action on this issue because it is perpetually regarded as a 'political question' and promptly dismissed by the court). obama did end up giving congress due notice of his commitment of forces to the Libyan conflict in accordance with the war powers resolution. but more importantly, if NATO allies began to enforce a no-fly zone without the US, and were subsequently attacked by Libyan forces, in accordance with the NATO treaty the US would be obliged to commit forces, making it even easier for the president to do so. once again, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Congressional notice is not the same thing as congressional approval. The indeterminate language of the constitution? What are you talking about. The clause relating to war is explicit. You cannot wage war of any kind without congressional approval.


Under Article 5 of the NATO resolution, " if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked." This is the principle of collective defence. not collective attack.

Let me educate you on some history in this regard. Ever heard of the Suez War in 1956? When the British and French tried to save the Suez canal from Nasser? Eisenhower said they are on their own, because they invaded the country and were not attacked beforehand. Any country who launches a provocative and aggressive act of war against another is ludicrous to think they won't face retaliation. NATO does not cover this type of retaliatory response, as it is force used in liberation, also this is not an attack on the soil of that ally nation. Subsequently, Egypt won and defeated the British and French forces (and the Israelis, but not important in the context of this argument). Furthermore, this defeat confirmed the ending of the UK as a superpower. Don't assume any opponent in any argument has no leg to stand on, unless you read/hear their counter-argument, it only makes you look arrogant and stupid.

eisenhower was bringing TEN MILLION FUCKING TROOPS home to a boom-time economy. that is completely different to the present situation and is therefore irrelevant. not only that, but those troops were given huge vocational subsidies and guidance, and benefited from the G.I. bill... is ron paul going to expand federal government?

*10 million people, not troops.

You have deviated from the original argument and misunderstood me. Ron Paul proposes to cut the federal budget by 1 trillion USD (25% of the budget - in first year), spending will be 15.5%GDP in 3 years (lowest since 1951, b4 Eisenhower even became President). Even the American Enterprise Institute states that these dramatic short term cuts will send the economy back into a recession. BUT that's' EXACTLY what they said after WW2 and they cut the budget 60% and they cut taxes 30%. Combined with releasing 10 million people from the military, finally giving America an economic boom for the first time since the 1920s. OF COURSE this isn't the same situation as Post WW2 America, but it is alot less dissimilar than what you think. Troops (of course to a lesser extent to WW2) will return back home, the GFC weakened the economy considerably, just like the depression did (which America never fully recovered from until Eisenhower). However, what they did do which is more of less the same, is cut the budget, cut taxes and cut spending. This is what makes Ron Paul's solution to the economy mirror the principle set by Eisenhower and co in post WW2 America. Saying that the contexts are the same is a preposterous notion, but conceding that there are similarities and the principle of getting troops home, cutting spending, budget and taxes (not the exact figures as post WW2 America, obviously reflective of what the current economy requires) is what was done is post WW2 America, which consequently led to an economic boom.

the president does not have the power to "get rid of the FED", it simply is not going to happen like that. if anything, change will be incremental (the conservative way!). or, ron paul will be assassinated by the red shield, a la JFK and old abe, for daring to defy the fed. i also don't give a fuck what ron paul thinks "capitalism" is, but the question here really is not whether the US is 'really' capitalist or not (show me a true scotsman anyways).

Wow. The president has the power to defy the constitution and cannot get rid of the FED? The FED was created in 1913 and presided over the depression. There was an America before the FED (In fact, America was the world's largest economy since 1870). The constitution mentions nothing about what agencies of government the president can audit, acquire findings and consequently propose to the congress to get rid of, which I imagine what a libertarian President Ron Paul would do. Also that quote relates directly to how the FED manipulates capitalism

listen, no one here is really disagreeing with ron paul's social or even economic libertarianism. i agree with a lot of his policies. but you sound just like some cunt talking about obama in 2007, which goes to show how absurd this whole business is. you know, if campaign finance was better regulated, ron paul might win (the irony is rich). but as that isn't the case, my money is on mittens, or maybe gingko

Great. So you're just arguing for the point of arguing. Like that got anyone anywhere. Well I guess i'm arguing back, so we both are arguing for the point of arguing, which is stupid really, since we already have our minds made up and cannot change each other's viewpoints. Even more stupid is, that we agree on the same bloody thing.