Here's why Ron Paul can't win.....

[lamazza]

We no longer have the right of habeas corpus, speedy trial, a jury of our peers, or any of the rest of it--but ALMOST EVERYONE will still get those things. Only when the government decides to call you an "enemy combatant" and strip those rights do you suffer personally.

Yes and this is also psychologically desensitizing on a grand scale. The analogy that comes to mind is the frog in the pot of water.

I may be wrong, but I believe RP said, in a state of emergency, meaning the specific imminent attack on american citizens, it would be up to the commander-in-chief whether to use torture or not because the constitution is silent on this. Implying that it wouldn't be a routine or continuing issue.

Doesn't the 'War on terror' qualify? And what constitutes an American citizen as opposed to a terrorist? Is someone that refuses to be biochipped still a citizen? How about the the 'extremist kooks' that 'rant' about the consitution?

 

[budney]

comparing the Patriot Act to the actions of Saddam Hussein is just assenine. Saddam's actions murdered innocents, the Patriot Act taps phone lines of suspected terrorists. Yep, I see a HUGE correlation.

You missed the point, then: the point was that even the very WORST oppression leaves the majority relatively unaffected. I could have cited Germany, for that matter: if you weren't Jewish, the likelihood of being interrogated by the gestapo, let alone hauled out and shot, was very remote.

The correlation is that the MCA has eliminated EVERYONE'S habeas corpus rights. Your habeas corpus right is gone. YOURS. But you personally will probably never be held indefinitely without bail; only a small number of people will. So by your standard, it's OK to give up your rights, since most people won't be affected personally.

Ask José Padilla how that worked out for him. And before you say, "Who cares? He's a terrorist!" remember that he was never convicted of anything. He was denied a trial, and tortured until he went nuts. BTW, he's an American citizen.

--Len.

 

[publius]

I'm a fairly devoted Republican and I can tell you if somehow all the real candidates were killed and all the logical voters were exterminated so that only the Ron Paul kooks were left, I'd write in Joe Lieberman.

OK, I'm not offended by being called a kook. I voted for Paul when he ran for President as a Libertarian, and I can recognize that mine is kooky behavior. Fringe views. Whatever.

I really do want to know why Lieberman would be a better choice than Ron Paul? My first guess would be the war, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is that it? Are there other issues, like maybe taxes or firearms or the size and scope of government in general, where you also think Lieberman might be better?

 

[Marshall]

2) somone who is excited about Paul's canidacy said something they found obnoxious.
I may be misguided, but both positions seem irrational and pointless if we're supposed to be rooting for a candidate based primarily upon his positions on important issues.

Seriously, I was offering constructive criticism. If people read, which they do on the internet, and the majority, or even enough, of the Ron Paul supporters come off as irritating, rude, overbearing, if you don't like Paul, you like Guliani and are a Neocon or stupid, they start equating his supporters attitude with him. I'm not suggesting that is right or wrong, I'm suggesting it's reality. You're going to have to have a ton of the people whom your coming across to as you're against, to win. Take it or leave it.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I could never vote for Paul. He does not understand the threat of radical Islam...

Fred Thompson Please!!!

 

[samtechlan]

But the current president understands the threat of radical Islam so well that he invaded and overthrew one of the most secular leaders in the Middle East.

Saddam was so secular that he even had a Christian in his cabinet as Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, a Catholic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Aziz

How do you think that went over with the Radical Islamists? Saddam was a murderer and a dictator but the opposite of a radical Islamist.

By the way who founded Saddam's Ba'ath party? Yes you guessed it another Christian, Michel Aflaq. http://lexicorient.com/e.o/aflaq_m.htm

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

But the current president understands the threat of radical Islam so well that he invaded and overthrew one of the most secular leaders in the Middle East.

Yup. Saddam was a throwback to the days of Arab Socialism ala Nasser or Colonel Gaddafi.