Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 04, 2007

For the first time since 1979, the leading GOP candidate has less than 40 percent support in national polls in the November heading into an election year.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Look at who's (or what's) running for the GOP. Half of them can't even count on their own family's support.

LOL which family NG? The one from the first or second mariage or the illigitamate one.

Ahh well at least we know RP is a kook,

Now is the time.

Quayle in '08.


Now is the time.

Quayle in '08.

Posted by LeeAtwater at 2007-11-04 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag:


The only Republican less intelligent that Il Arbusto?

This will end well.

RP moneybomb time!

Go Ron go!!!

LEEATWATER

You got your FF "Quayle"

Looks like he was W's 'warmup act'.

Free cheers, "Go Ron go!!!"

Yeah ... just too bad he looks like some schoolyard ratfink, eh?

... and lies about the war in Iraq, like some leftist/democratic subversive sheit ...

I look at the state of the world today, and I want to cry. I see honest, hardworking people giving up their lives to make others wealthy. I see our rights and freedoms being taken away; but that is a lie, we in America have given away our freedom. We have told our government that we live in a state of FEAR. We have let our fear control us, and empowered those who would have us fear.
Today, This November 5th, 2007 I see an opportunity for hope. I am contributing $100, all I can afford to give, to Ron Paul today along with thousands of others in hope of creating such a fund raising sensation that it will put him on the map. If we as a country can rally together, we can put this deed in the mainstream media by its sheer size, and mass.
Ron Paul supports Individual liberties and Rights for everyone. There were two types among our founding fathers; those who would use the government to empower and enrich themselves, and those who believed in freedom, happiness, and prosperity for all.
Ron Paul is like those fathers of the second breed, those who believed in people, who believed in liberty; those who did not which to use power to gain for themselves. If the citizens of the United States can stand together against the wealthy elites that have used power to their own gain in America for the last 200 years, then we as a people may call ourselves free.

The ONLY reasons I see that People hate Ron Paul is the fact that Number 1 He believes TOTALLY in the US Constitution and number 2 He believes in the common citizen. The only reason the Republicans hate Him is the fact that He isn't flambouyant nor Arrogant. To me the Republican Party of today is about Me Myself and not about the rest of the people.

Larry Mohr

Most of the Republican primaries are winner-take-all. Could Ron Paul win in New Hampshire, and perhaps many other subsequent primaries & caucuses, in a five or six-way race againt Ghouliani, That 'Law & Order' Guy, Willard Romney, John McCain, and Mike Huckabee? Why not? Are you trying to tell me that Ron Paul can't get 20% of the GOP electorate to support what is essentially the same program as that championed by Barry Goldwater? The polls are crap; watch what happens in The Granite State.

Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November!

Larry wonders, "The ONLY reasons I see that People hate Ron Paul is the fact that Number 1 He believes TOTALLY in the US Constitution and number 2 He believes in the common citizen."

Those are reasons to hate Ron Paul? Are you really this dense, Larry?

People dislike Ron Paul because he looks like the typical ratfink nerd, and you know it!

On top of that, once he got elected HE STARTED TO LIE THROUGH HIS CROOKED TEETH!

It is NOT against the Constitution to have active military operations without a declaration of war ... but the little pissant curries favor with the cowardly branch of libertarians and declares that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have a war without a formal declaration ...

Also, that the idiot (and the idiot group of libertarians who agree with him) wants complete isolationism from the rest of the world ... and not provide assistance to foreign nations!!!

What a jerk!

"The only reason the Republicans hate Him is the fact that He isn't flambouyant nor Arrogant."

The Republicans don't like him because he is a stupid idiot! He sounds exactly like a Leftist/Democratic anti-patriot for wanting to withdraw in defeat from Iraq!!!

Scum sucking subversive Libertarian asswipe ...

Hes not an isolationist and hes addressed this many times. Too bad youre too stupid to pay attention. He believes in trade and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. He wants to get out of the UN, NATO, and all those unfair managed trade agreements that end up shipping US jobs overseas. I guess youre also too stupid to pay attention to the devaluation of the dollar which is now right around or below the canadian dollar. Gold is at over 800 an ounce when just 4 years ago it was 250 an ounce. So that glistening 14000 stock market in terms of real value is at about 6000 in buying power from 4 years ago. I know this all escapes you and this is why you hate Ron Paul. Because he brings up real issues not gay marriage and the like. But one day you need to wake up and smell the coffee brother. Too bad by the time you do it will be too late.

Tad

What were you saying about your being a Libertarian again?

"Complete isolation" is a wild exaggeration. Paul and the libertarians call for a policy of non-military intervention and free trade.

Seriously, by what reasoning is it not unconstitutional to go to war without a formal declaration?

Bull spreads some, "Hes not an isolationist and hes addressed this many times."

Paul on Israel:

"I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.
"

You can call a pig's ear a silk purse, but you can't deny it is a pig's ear, in reality. "Isolationist" or "non-intervention" means the same thing to anyone other than a Libertarian ... another example of the putrid effort to hide and run away from reality conducted by those who find themselves elected ... and want to remain elected. Lies, in other words.

"Too bad youre too stupid to pay attention."

Too bad you run like a scared rabbit from the fact that Paul (and your fellow Libertarians who do) are no different than the subversive sheits of the Leftist/Democratics who wish to leave Iraq in defeat for the USA!!! Scum sucking traitors who do!

"He believes in trade and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Exactly!!! Wow, I guess you were projecting with the 'stupid' comment, eh?

"He wants to get out of the UN, NATO, and all those unfair managed trade agreements that end up shipping US jobs overseas."

A "surge" towards isolationism ... just too rich!

Paul LIES about military operations needing a formal declaration of war!

Paul LIES about his urge towards isolationism!

Paul LIES about taxes, and since he should be claiming that they ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

... but he shuts his mouth about that truth ... to stay elected!!!

Scummy little rat fink liar ...

Ray typically makes me the subject, "What were you saying about your being a Libertarian again?"

I said that my political philosophy was as a Jeffersonian liberal and my politics conservative. You're the one labeling themself as a "libertarian", Ray.

However, many of the philosophical attitudes expressed by Libertarians are Jeffersonian. I actually liked Paul, before he became elected and started to lie through his teeth; specially about formal declarations of war being required by the constitution AND his effort to LOSE A WAR FOR THE USA BY RETREATING FROM IT!!!

What a toad traitor he turned out to be!!!

"'Complete isolation' is a wild exaggeration. Paul and the libertarians call for a policy of non-military intervention and free trade."

A rose by any other name ... are you really this much into excuses, Ray? Paul wants to end ALLIANCES and the promotion of our constitutional freedoms to other nations!!! Live with it, all you euphemistically challenged zealots!

"Seriously, by what reasoning is it not unconstitutional to go to war without a formal declaration?"

Seriously, Ray, it is because the Framers of the Constitution went to war without a formal declaration of war!!! If they felt it was appropriate, then it WAS SO A VALID effort by government to conduct such military action without a formal declaration ....

... or can't you quite grasp that fact ...???

Ray typically makes me the subject

Don't flatter yourself. The subject is your outrageous rages.

I could have sworn you've called your political philosophy libertarian. It was too outrageous for me to forget. But it's not worth arguing about.

I asked you a legal question. And you say the Framers did it, so it's okay. What war are you referring to?

Toady can't help himself.

The Revolutionary War was an insurrection.

It was started before the Continental Congress was formed, and the Declaration of Independence authored and signed.

He's probably been drink Miller Light again.

That stuff will warp anyone's brain.

Ray responds with me as the subject, "Don't flatter yourself. The subject is your outrageous rages."

As I mentioned: you make me the subject in whatever way you try and do so! And ... I do think you are pretty stupid, Ray, to say NO and then demonstrate the opposite!

"I could have sworn you've called your political philosophy libertarian. It was too outrageous for me to forget. But it's not worth arguing about."

Me, again, Ray?

"I asked you a legal question. And you say the Framers did it, so it's okay. What war are you referring to?"

Look it up! How many military conflicts were there before the first declaration of war? I'll do a list for you:

Quasi-War -- France 1798
First Barbary War 1801
Second Barbary War 1815
Raid of slave traffic 1820

Are some that happened when the Founders were still extant; more or less. None of them were declared wars, and which allows the president the power to suspend Congress, suspend the vote, institute martial law, and conduct trials without jury ... among a host of other (((PROBLEMS))) no one wants the other party in charge of ...!!!

And Ron Paul knows all of this very well!!! The lying sack of politician sized turds!!!


Wow.. This Tadowe guy is the liar.. Your beliefs are in no way Jeffersonian.. You are as Jeffersonian as BillOReilly.. Neither one of you knows what that means.. If you did, you would know that Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war. Nowhere does it authorize the president or any other member of the executive branch to do so.

Jefferson talked repeatedly about non-interventionism. If you really believe that Jefferson would have us in Iraq in the first place, much less stay there, you are simply retarded.

Ron Paul NEVER lies..

Remember, remember the 5th of November!

Ozark demonstrates the stereotype, "The Revolutionary War was an insurrection."

Do tell?

"It was started before the Continental Congress was formed, and the Declaration of Independence authored and signed."

That is correct ... maybe you aren't too dumb, after all ...?

"He's probably been drink Miller Light again. That stuff will warp anyone's brain."

Nah, guess not! Anyone else would have been able to read what I wrote without this sort of stupid error ... no wonder Wis dumped your butt ...

"Increased depredations by privateers from Revolutionary France required the United States Navy to protect the expanding merchant shipping of the United States. The United States Congress authorized the President to acquire, arm, and man no more than twelve vessels, of up to twenty-two guns each. Under the terms of this act, several vessels were purchased and converted into ships of war.

"July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France, can be considered a semi-official beginning of the Quasi War. The act of 7 July was followed two days later with Congressional authorization to attack French vessels."


Point One: Sounds like Congress did authorize the Navy to clear the sea lanes of privateers.

It's Miller Lite.

www.wearyourbeer.com

"Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'"

Point Two: Congress responded to an Act of War with an authorization.

Stella
goodbeershow.com

Stella
30gms.com

Stella
www.subliminalworld.org

"The expulsion of American vessels from the Mediterranean during the War of 1812 by the British navy further emboldened the pirate nations. Umar ben Muhammad, the "Omar Bashaw" of the 1815 treaty, Dey of Algiers, expelled the US consul general Tobias Lear and declared war on the United States for failing to pay its required tribute. Since there were no American vessels in the region at this time, the challenge went unanswered.

"At the conclusion of the War of 1812, however, America could once again turn its sights on North Africa. On March 3, 1815, the US Congress authorized deployment of naval power against Algiers, and a force of ten ships was dispatched under the command of Commodores Stephen Decatur, Jr. and William Bainbridge, both veterans of the First Barbary War. Decatur's squadron departed for the Mediterranean on May 20, 1815. Bainbridge's command was still assembling, and did not depart until July 1, thereby missing the military and diplomatic initiatives which Decatur swiftly and decisively handled."

Point Three: War declared against the US, and again Congress authorized military action.

J says, "Your beliefs are in no way Jeffersonian.. You are as Jeffersonian as BillOReilly.. Neither one of you knows what that means.. "

What I know is that the Constitution provided that the Congress shall make a FORMAL declaration of war. It in no way restricts military action to a FORMAL declaration of war ... otherwise those same Framers of the Constitution would not have gone to war without such a FORMAL declaration of war ... but they DID!

"Jefferson talked repeatedly about non-interventionism. If you really believe that Jefferson would have us in Iraq in the first place, much less stay there, you are simply retarded."

I didn't say that I figuratively sucked Thomas' macho butt, idiot!

"Ron Paul NEVER lies.."

Where does Paul say that taxes collected with distraint are Constitutional? He doesn't, so he lies by omission. Indeed, Paul knows that the very writers of the constitution went to war without a formal declaration being issued by Congress ... so he lies about a formal declaration being needed before going to war ...!!!

What about that fact is too tough for you to understand?

"Remember, remember the 5th of November!"

How about this subversive's effort to withdraw from Iraq and allow a victory for terrorism? Defend that treason, Libertarian ...

You can't and won't. You'll just tuck your head in the sand like the ostriches of the Leftist/Democratics who want a win for party over nation in desiring to lose in Iraq to human sacrificing religious zealots!

Paul is scum, and a rank liar because he-wants-to-keep-his-
profitable-job ... just like the rest of the scummy politicians who are corrupted by the system they claim they want to reform!!!

Backed by just another pack of koolaid drinking idiots who favor polls over substance ...

Ozark proves my point for me, "Point One: Sounds like Congress did authorize the Navy to clear the sea lanes of privateers."

And the other "points" reinforcing that.

Thanks, Ozark, it isn't often I'm assisted by a Leftist/Democratic party over nation member ...

Tad

I may be wrong, but it my understanding that wars are fought between NATIONS. I'm not familiar with the details of what you call the "quasi-war" with France. Up to the Spanish-American war, I don't recall a president ever ordering an attack on another nation without a formal declaration.

But you are still avoiding the legal issue. What you are telling me is that once government violates the Constitution, that section has no legal standing anymore. Is that right?

Me, again, Ray?

Okay, I'll come out of the closet. I'm attracted to you like a fly is to shit.

In all of the above it doesn't seem that we were really fighting a nation, but pirates.

None of these action involved any large scale invasions or occupations.

Of course I love how the failings or trepidations of one person, or a group of people, are used to justify the failings or trepidations of others.


I'm also amused that Zat has now posed a challenge to Jeff for Drudge Nanny. Maybe we should vote on it.

And ... as the blind mendicant might remember, I favor Molson's Reserve as a large commercial producer. Then LaBatt's, then Moosehead's lager ... the Canadians do the hops just right.

Tad,

How about this subversive's effort to withdraw from Iraq and allow a victory for terrorism? Defend that treason, Libertarian ...

Wait I thought we won in Iraq? Lets see congress authorized the use of force for 5 specific points, we moved our military there, we achieved each of the specific points. Wow if thats not a win not sure what is. So now we have WON in Iraq and it's time for the soldiers to come home. How is that a trator I don't want to retreat I want the victorious Army to return home to enjoy the spoils of their victory.

You however seem to want the victorious army to hang around in the sand and heat for, well not sure what you want them to hang around there for?

Maybe if you told us what the gain was in staying after we won I might be willing to support it but for now it just looks like you got tired of all those soliders here and home and thought Iraq was a good place to store them.

I do prefer Labatt 50. Maybe we should invade Montreal and get something worthwhile in the bargain.

Till then it's Busch and Michelob Amber Dark.

Ozark wasn't agreeing! "In all of the above it doesn't seem that we were really fighting a nation, but pirates. None of these action involved any large scale invasions or occupations."

So what? They did so without FORMAL declaration of war!!!

I am always amazed at the density BELIEF fosters in cement-for-brains!

"Of course I love how the failings or trepidations of one person, or a group of people, are used to justify the failings or trepidations of others. I'm also amused that Zat has now posed a challenge to Jeff for Drudge Nanny. Maybe we should vote on it."

Am I nominated? Or is Danni a shoe-in?

How about this subversive's effort to withdraw from Iraq and allow a victory for terrorism? Defend that treason, Libertarian ...


You are insane.. Would Jefferson have ordered an attack on Iraq or wanted to stay there? I already raised this issue once and I would imagine that you will continue to ignore it because you know damn well Jefferson believed in non-interventionism.

A victory for terrorism? Yeah, if you believe in kindergarten level foreign policy..

Thanks, Ozark, it isn't often I'm assisted by a Leftist

Toady, for you the Left is anything that isn't to Right of Mussolini.

"In all of the above it doesn't seem that we were really fighting a nation, but pirates."

Ahemmm...and WHAT KIND of pirates???

"In the book "Victory in Tripoli," Joshua London writes about the Muslim Barbary pirates. They attacked American shipping vessels in the 18th century, often boarding ships and enslaving crewmembers. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, and John Adams, then ambassador to Britain, visited the resident ambassador from Tripoli (modern-day Libya) in London to negotiate a treaty to protect American ships from Barbary pirates. Why, asked Adams and Jefferson, is your government so hostile to the fledgling United States of America? After all, we have no quarrel with you, nor you with us.

The Tripolitan ambassador told them -- as reported to the Continental Congress -- "that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

More from the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress:

memory.loc.gov

Saw on the news last night where the EXACT same thing is happening NOW off the coast of Somalia. Funny...the news neglected to use the word "Muslim." Maybe THESE pirates are Presbyterian...ya' think? Kinda like deja vu all over again.

Tao (my name sound alike), "Wait I thought we won in Iraq?"

Wait! Are you actually one of the stupid? Why did we fight the Barbary Pirates twice, if we won before?

Hey! Maybe we won the war against Iraq's Ba'athist government, Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard, but then the terrorists started to attack us (USA)? There you go ... that must be it, then!

We've won against them, too, while Leftist/Democratic subversives want to leave Iraq to the terrorists ... and are supported by petty traitors who want a win for their gang leader and don't care if the entire nation loses to human sacrificing Islamic zealots to do so!?

Is that you, Tao? Are you one of those kind of unpatriotic jerkoffs?

"Lets see congress authorized the use of force for 5 specific points, we moved our military there, we achieved each of the specific points. Wow if thats not a win not sure what is. So now we have WON in Iraq and it's time for the soldiers to come home."

We won in Germany and now it is time to come home. We won in the Philippines and now it is time to come home. We won in Japan and now it is time to come home. We won in Bosnia and now it is time to end our payments and bring the final list of troops home. We won here and there ... and still remain ... for what?

SECURITY

Something that Leftist/Democratics want to abandon in Iraq so they can win votes here at home with a loss they can blame on Republicans.

The treasonous sheits!

They did so without FORMAL declaration of war!!! says Tad. I quote from the Section 8 of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have the power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

I think that is pretty clear that a FORMAL declaration is not required in instances of piracy. What say you Tad?

Yep...deja vu all over again...except this time the world is more PC and we wouldn't want to offend our little Muslim friends by pointing out that these guys are of the same mindset as our little Muslim friends of Jefferson's days.

news.bbc.co.uk

www.rediff.com

www.cnn.com

J goes on with the slavish devotion, "... Would Jefferson have ordered an attack on Iraq or wanted to stay there?"

Just provided the reference in that Jefferson DID attack another nation without a formal declaration of war. I think you are out of your class, son.

"I already raised this issue once and I would imagine that you will continue to ignore it because you know damn well Jefferson believed in non-interventionism."

I'm not the subject, butt kisser.

"A victory for terrorism? Yeah, if you believe in kindergarten level foreign policy.."

Who wins in Iraq if we leave before their government can enforce security?

Answer that, I-wanna-lose-in-Iraq-for-my-
party-and-ron-paul ...

Ray joins in supporting my contention, "
I think that is pretty clear that a FORMAL declaration is not required in instances of piracy. What say you Tad?
"

Thanks, Ray, and Ron Paul knows this very well ... let's review:

"The Congress shall have the power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations..."

And, that is why we've only had 5 FORMALLY declared wars, while sustaining a sheitpot full of wars due to "Offenses against the Law of Nations!

Remember ... a formal declaration puts martial law into the hands of the president! Whereas, allowing payment of military excursions can be ended by a sitting Congress, and not one that has been disbanded under martial law ...

Ron Paul knows this as well as I do ... better ... but he is just another politician (read: liar) ...

Jefferson attacked another Nation? Damn! History is being rewritten before my very eyes.

Who wins in Iraq if we leave before their government can enforce security?

In what decade?

"Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war."

WOW...MORE deja vu: "...criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war."

Whoa Tad. You left out "on the high seas." Iraq had no Navy.

We won in Germany and now it is time to come home.

I'd like someone to to justify keeping 65,000 troops in Germany. If the Krauts can't defend themselves Fuck 'em.

We won in the Philippines and now it is time to come home.

I do think we turned over Subic (aka Pubic) Bay. It's now a Free Trade Zone.

We won in Japan and now it is time to come home.

50,000 troops in Japan for what?


Just the economic issues are enough to end our occupation of our now ALLIES.

"I already raised this issue once and I would imagine that you will continue to ignore it because you know damn well Jefferson believed in non-interventionism"

Are you SURE about that?

"Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

More:

"Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . ."

My error Tad. You emphasized "offenses against the law of nations." I presume you refer to the false allegation of WMD?

Just provided the reference in that Jefferson DID attack another nation without a formal declaration of war. I think you are out of your class, son.

I think you are out of your tree pops.. That wasn't another NATION...

Who wins in Iraq if we leave before their government can enforce security?


I will ask you a similar question.. If you jam a red hot poker into your ass, who wins?

Just the economic issues are enough to end our occupation of our now ALLIES.

Two $trillion and still counting. The dollar is sinking like Enron stock. Nations are refusing to loan the Feds anymore money. Housing is collapsing. Bankruptcies are rising. Federal debt is skyrocketing out of control. Inflation is accelerating. Wages are static.

And there is Tad, uncomfortable with his military pension, not concerned about how Bush and Congress spend other people's money.

Bin Laden in one of his rants laid out exactly why 911: to draw the US into a war in the ME and bleed it into bankruptcy, just like he did to the Soviets. He was counting on the stupidity and arrogance of Bush and ilk like Tad.

I think you are out of your tree pops..


Without Toady Dowe and Beefalo Boobie to flog the threads traffic around here would drop by 30%.

Errata
And there is Tad, comfortable with his military pension, not concerned about how Bush and Congress spend other people's money.

"That wasn't another NATION..."

How about Tripoli, wasn't that considered a "state" back when?

"To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean."

Here's where you can gain more information about "..America's FIRST UNCONVENTIONAL INTERNATIONAL WAR...."

"For anyone interested in the further pursuit of information about America's first unconventional, international war in the primary sources, the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress holds manuscript collections of many of the American participants, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (see the George Washington Papers), William Short, Edward Preble, Thomas Barclay, James Madison, James Simpson, James Leander Cathcart, William Bainbridge, James Barron, John Rodgers, Ralph Izard, and Albert Gallatin."

"I will ask you a similar question.. If you jam a red hot poker into your ass, who wins?"

WOW...now THAT is PROFOUND. Obviously the result of deep thought from a scholar.

Ray says, "My error Tad. You emphasized "offenses against the law of nations." I presume you refer to the false allegation of WMD?"

We were talking about the need for a formal declaration of war before conducting military operations, Ray, and not specifically Iraq.

Besides, Ray, you'd have to take your thumb out of your ass and place it in your mouth, if you can't think of any other "offenses against the law of nations" done by Iraq/Saddam ...

I'm sure you are familiar with the taste ...

tad sounds like you have a personal vendetta against the good Dr. Why is that? He speak too much truth for your brain to take in? TADOWE: NO, NO, NO, NOT TRUTH, I NEED MORE NEO CON LIES!!

oh and heres pat buchanans article about the falling dollar

www.humanevents.com

"Something that Leftist/Democratics want to abandon in Iraq so they can win votes here at home with a loss they can blame on Republicans."


Proof positive that Republicans are absolutely crazy. They where in control of the congress for 12 years leading up to Nov 2006 and in charge of the White House since 2000. As an American I blame them for everything that has went wrong since 2000 (Please note I blame the Republican party not the U.S. Military) but of course they want to play the victim as if the Democrat's are even smart enough to come up with some plan to bring down the Republicans.

Spending is way up (Republicans fault)

Government has grown to its biggest size ever (Republicans fault)

Stuck in a stupid ass war (Republicans fault) I love argument that I don't support the troops and that I want America too lose. Nothing is further from the truth. I hate the Republican party and I want them to lose it is the only way for America too start winning again. I was dead set against this war back in 2002-2003 but now because we caused such a fu*king mess there we have no choice but too clean up this Presidents mess, which I think we will be doing for years too come.

But of course this is somehow all the Democratic Parties fault that Republicans don't know how to govern and cant live up to their word.

Bull asks, "tad sounds like you have a personal vendetta against the good Dr. Why is that? He speak too much truth for your brain to take in?"

Paul lies to satisfy his position as an elected official. I dislike, very very intensely, politicians who abandon principle to maintain their personal position of power.

Paul knows that a formal declaration of war is not necessary for the USA to conduct armed conflict, but he panders to the ilk (you all) in order to gain their attention and support.

The proof is in his REFUSAL to address the unconstitutional nature of individual income tax, but lies about the requirement for a formal declaration of war ....

That's why I dislike him ... he is just another self-serving politician!

Also, the traitorous little vermin wants to withdraw from Iraq and leave them to the mercies of Islamic terrorists ...!!!

Scum sucking subversive twit!

"the unconstitutional nature of individual income tax"

Do you have any high court cases which agree with you, or is this another one of those things only you can see?

the unconstitutional nature of individual income tax


I don't like the income tax, but I don't see how it could be classified as unconstitutional.

"the unconstitutional nature of individual income tax"



It's called the "Hey, Did You Just See That Monkey Fly Out of My Ass" interpretation of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has not declared the income tax unconstitutional since the incorporation of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1913. And it won't, not in our lifetimes. The 1894 federal case that some tax protestors cite has nothing to do with the current situation. You can say it's screwed up, unfair, etc., etc. But as of this point, the Supreme Court hasn't held the 16th Amendment to be unconstitutional. You might as well argue that the old Articles of Confederation remain in place because the assembly called into being to tinker with it was not specifically empowered to junk it by creating the Constitution. Can such an argument be made? Of course. Is it going to prevail, in a practical sense?

Doc,

I know there's some grumblings about it (the 16th Ammendment) not being properly passed and such, but the Founders allowed for the Constitution to be altered via the Amendment process, which is what happened in this case.


Again, I don't see how the income tax could be called unconstitutional.

Ok, how can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? It can't, and the Supreme Court can't rule otherwise. It would have to be repealed (Prohibition).

Yav,


Ok, how can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional?


The only possibility I can think of is to prove that the Ammendment process was somehow subverted - the ammendment was ratified by 'hook and/or crook'.

I agree, Jeff, also Yav. It's in the Constitution by way of an amendment. It would have to be declared unconsitutional---although how that would happen at this late late (it was ratified in 1913) I do not know---or repealed, as Yav points out.

I believe some income tax opponents have argued that the 16th Amendment was somehow improperly ratified so that "ratified" should be enclosed in quotes. The particulars of the alleged faux-ratification process are matters on which I would expect the poster of the original statement about "the unconstitutional nature of individual income tax" to shed some light. In this case, that would be Tadowe.


"Ron Paul Nov 5 Fund-Raiser Passes $1 Million - 9:30AM/EST
A little after 9:30AM/EST, the GOP presidential campaign Nov 5th fund-raiser for Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) passed $1 million and continued to climb rapidly."

Go Ron Go!

Income tax un-constitutional?


findarticles.com

Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country. He's raised nearly $2 million by noon on his MASS DONATION DAY today.

GO Ron Paul! 2 million and still climbing strong. Show your support, lets put him on the map today.


@doc sarvis

the supreme court twice declared the income tax unconstitutional. No State ever ratified the 16th amendment. It is unconstitutional and illegal.

No State ever ratified the 16th amendment.

The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment
on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8,
1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8,
1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19,
1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington,
January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota,
February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February
11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2,
1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April
7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment
at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New
York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware,
February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3,
1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913;
Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having
rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected
(and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
www.gpoaccess.gov

the supreme court twice declared the income tax unconstitutional.

Since its ratification in the form of the 16th Amendment? What cases were those? If you mean some pre-ratification SC decision, then we might as well argue that Plessy v. Ferguson invalidates Brown v. Board of Education.

I'm still looking things over. Why do I have to decide on a candidate right now ?
Just because the dems have preordained Hillary as their candidate doesn't mean righties have to. I want to see repubs tap dance some more before I pick who I will vote for. No need for haste. I am a conervative with many libertarian ideals. Let them have at it awhile longer.

the supreme court twice declared the income tax unconstitutional. No State ever ratified the 16th amendment. It is unconstitutional and illegal.

lol

Certainly you can name the cases.

Condi for President. She'll steal the race vote away from Hillary.

Do you really think Jessie and Al can tell the folk to vote for Hillary over Condi?

That'll leave women to rethink their vote since either would fit the bill, "the first woman".

RON PAUL is close to 3 Million in donations todawy.

People of integrity back their words with action.

Thats what counts.

Thats America in action.

RONPAUL2008.com

Take your country back from the Clinton/Bush 36 year monopoly of our Executive Branch to usher in the New World Order!!

Donate NOW!

I did and it feels great!

Jeb Bush was on tv in Florida supposedly giving an "non-biased" appraisal of each of the Republican candidates but it didn't take a Mensa member to see he favored Mitt Romney. No surprise there as rumor presidential ticket.

When all the big corporate money is flowing Romney's way -- the fix is in. Plus the Bush family is so determined to keep their political power (especially to establish Daddy Bush's New World Order agenda) the Bushes will never let control go very far without one of their own sitting in the White House -- at least not until the Bushes have drained every last cent from the U.S. Treasury and transferred it into their own personal coffers.

Condi for President. She'll steal the race vote away from Hillary

Good God -- are you people dense???

What in hell do we need another Neocon (Condi) or some phony globalist broad (Hillary) for as President. Both stink. Neocons and globalists are what have dragged our country down to the point it is now. GET RID OF THEM!

my computer dropped off part of my post -- I've inserted it in bold:

No surprise there as rumor has it that Jeb Bush will be the VP on Romney's presidential ticket.

Powell for President

has it that Jeb Bush will be the VP on Romney's presidential ticket.

The Bush name is an anathema.

"Do you really think Jessie and Al can tell the folk to vote for Hillary over Condi?"

Absolutely. All they need to do is invoke Ken Mehlman's speech to the NAACP.

www.usatoday.com

Or the fact Mehlman's apology was phony. Just ask Harold Ford.

archive.newsmax.com

I think before I read any more of Tad's rantings, that guy has to take his meds first....

Can anyone explain his posistion with a little more sense, and less arrogance?

This thread, on the total, abysmal bankruptcy of the Nixon-Reagan-Bush party, seems to have disintegrated into a discussion of the libertarian candidate. Ron Paul will not make up for the GOP's abject failure to field anyone who can conceivably follow Dubya at the helm.

(Well, okay, I know there's No one at the helm...Not even Dick ...)

Even Wall Street recognizes this, giving its biggest bucks to Hillary, whom they know will come as close to their values as anyone. herm

I think before I read any more of Tad's rantings, that guy has to take his meds first....

Can anyone explain his posistion with a little more sense, and less arrogance?

Posted by KnightHawk


Taddy only has ONE position: Leftists/Democrats are traitors (but he's not a Republican). Go figure.....

Also, the traitorous little vermin wants to withdraw from Iraq and leave them to the mercies of Islamic terrorists ...!!!

Scum sucking subversive twit!

Posted by tadowe


Who are the scum sucking subversives in Iraq letting millions of Iraqi refugees go hungry and without medical care?

Wow.. This Tadowe guy is the liar.. Your beliefs are in no way Jeffersonian.. You are as Jeffersonian as BillOReilly.. Neither one of you knows what that means...


Posted by jsprague at 2007-11-05 07:49 AM



JS

We can say this now since it's past Tadowe's bedtime.


Tadowe is Bill O'Reilly.

FF TEDBAXTER !

Tad isn't even in a good mood on "Chocolate Pudding Night". I haven't been able to figure out what he is. His rants always say the same thing. He hates Democrats/Leftists/
Subversives, but he denies being a Republican. Hard to figure out anything, but he's allowed computer time wherever he is....ahem....incarcerated.

But only in the early AM it seems.

Why do you people insitst on feeding the trolls?

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable