[Encephalon]

[Birch]

whoops!

Edited January 6, 2012 by -K-

[joeblast]

Good to see off topic junk in off topic

 

Gingrich proposed throwing out the Constitution to defy judges who invalidate anti-abortion legislation.

Amazing how people can just make shit up and publish it and then tens or hundreds of thousands read it as truth. If you actually saw or read what was said, it was nothing more than the 3 branches balancing themselves. Congress cannot question a judge? They cant subpoena a judge that makes up rulings based on his own ideology as opposed to following the letter of the law like one should? Since when? Newt has a better understanding of government than everyone else on that stage combined and his assertive statements are almost always interpreted as arrogance.

 

Its amusing how people flip out about anyone who will speak their mind relatively unfiltered as in not fearing the reaction since it is true or correct.

 

Face it, there has been but one caucus, one vote - and since the next one is veritably mitt's home state, that means he's got a lock on the whole thing? The way I see it, Mitt has by far the most parallels to Obama, though he wouldnt be anywhere near as destructive to the country as Obama has been - you really have to dip into the league of FDR to really assess how far out of it Obama is, he practically makes Carter look good. The establishment and media want Romney - honestly, I'd love to see Newt get the nomination, because he would absolutely tear Obama to shreds debating - what's Obama going to do without his teleprompter - and an actual record behind him that he can be judged on? Run against congress and millionaires? He cant debate them!

 

Anyway, who just "threw out the constitution" - President Obama seems to be doing a great many things that Senator Obama would have frowned upon - recess appointments when congress is not in recess? Bah, what's procedure in a place like that?

 

 

I could have bet money we'd be seeing an article like this soon after: oh, maybe we miscounted and gave the win to Romney

http://www.kcci.com/news/30144582/detail.html#ixzz1idUftgoh

either way, it seemed to me that Romney winning by such a tiny margin and yet another candidate with more conservative cred moves up to the top is basically telling pretty plainly that the actual voters dont really want romney, although beating Obama is paramount - which is why you're not going to see any Huntsman surge.

Edited January 6, 2012 by joeblast

[zerostao]

i have made a resolution to avoid participating in political topics on TTB in 2012.

 

i aint gonna vote anyways so why pay attention to this nonsense?

sometimes i do tune in for entertainment purposes only.

and to observe the further devolvings.

 

if folks could only take personal responsibility for themselves......

and joyfully care for one another.

 

an ethical world free from the tyranny of those who would control you.

[ralis]

 

 

Amazing how people can just make shit up and publish it and then tens or hundreds of thousands read it as truth. If you actually saw or read what was said, it was nothing more than the 3 branches balancing themselves. Congress cannot question a judge? They cant subpoena a judge that makes up rulings based on his own ideology as opposed to following the letter of the law like one should? Since when? Newt has a better understanding of government than everyone else on that stage combined and his assertive statements are almost always interpreted as arrogance.

 

The judiciary as set up by the U.S. Constitution must remain independent of political bullying either by the left or right. What concerns me is if a federal judge is having to watch his or her back for fear of reprisal by police state tactics that Newt is proposing, federal judges would have no judicial independence. Newt et al, are only interested in promoting more demagoguery to sway a naive public to their wishes. This is not about the 3 branches to find balance and is only political bullying which is nothing more than intimidation.

 

Subpoenaing a judge based on ideological disagreement by a few members of either party, sets an extremely dangerous precedent for independent jurisprudence. Further, the so called "letter of the law" is nothing but declaring that all laws are absolutely clear and not up for debate. If that were the case, there would be no appeals process or even SCOTUS. If you want absolute laws, then Saudia Arabia is one case in point where the law is based on Islamic fundamentalist religion. The so called legal scholars in that system are religious fundamentalists.

 

For a democracy to function well and in this specific case, the judicial system, there must be scholarly debate. If judges begin to rule in favor of any ideology that politicians demand, then democracy is dead.

 

Anyway, who just "threw out the constitution" - President Obama seems to be doing a great many things that Senator Obama would have frowned upon - recess appointments when congress is not in recess? Bah, what's procedure in a place like that?

 

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session".

 

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution

 

For a thorough study of what judges have done to aid governments by ruling in favor of the state, the 'Nuremberg Tribunals" is an excellent place to start. What most don't realize is that the Nazi judges were tried separately for their offenses in supporting the "letter of the law" as set up by the 'Third Reich". The same could happen here!

 

Many politicians are nothing more than authoritarians in a personal quest for more power!

Edited January 6, 2012 by ralis

[Aetherous]

There is only one person worth voting for, IMO.

 

[Encephalon]

There is only one person worth voting for, IMO.

 

 

Yeah, right. Here's Ron Paul's hit piece on John Huntsman, raking him over the coals of primitive ethnocentrism because he pursued a career as diplomat, learned to speak fluent Chinese, and became US ambassador to China. I guess that makes all us Bums committed Maoists.

 

To his credit, he's the only one who talks seriously about Eisenhower's warning of the power grab by an out of control military-industrial complex, or our militarized foreign policy. But that's precisely why he's been marginalized by the State.

 

And here's the record of recess appts made by previous presidents.

Reagan - 243

Bush I - 171

Clinton - 139

Bush II - 77

Obama - 29

what a surprise

Edited January 6, 2012 by Encephalon

[Enishi]

Although I wanted Ron Paul to win the nomination, I wasn't all that surprised when he didn't. :\

 

I would vote for him, but I do admit that some of his views ARE 'loopy'. In some respects his reputation for being so consistent over the years and sticking to his guns is a double-edged sword. Even if he has changed some of his views on a private level, admitting this openly could damage his reputation.

 

What I'd like to see now is a third party candidate who incorporates the best parts of Ron Paul's ideology, such as ending the Federal Reserve, the ever-expanding Military establishment, erosion of civil liberties and the Drug War, but without trying to remove the EPA or ignore resource depletion....

Edited January 6, 2012 by Enishi

[Aetherous]

Enishi,

 

What is loopy? Funny...that's exactly how the media has been instructed to portray him. (A good question to ask, once you prove this has happened by observation, is "instructed by whom?")

 

I think his ideas aren't loopy at all...but maybe I haven't heard everything he has said...

 

You would vote for someone else that's running?

 

In my view, every single other candidate is simply a puppet (yes I said it) for the same government that's been nullifying our constitution in plain sight for many administrations.

 

 

I am not talking conspiracy theory, but simply what's in plain sight.

 

I don't like to see coincidences in politics. For instance, to address Encephalon's video, the coincidence of an ambassador to China running for president at this time in history. Or the coincidence a few years ago of both George Bush and John Kerry being members of Yale's skull and bones very select fraternity. Then the lost votes in Florida with Gore. Then, George Bush being the son of a previous president. Then, Obama having the middle name Hussein in the midst of a war on terrorism...and the whole birth certificate/possibly having been raised as a Muslim thing (no offense to them in saying this, it's just thoroughly weird and too much of a "coincidence").

 

It should be obvious when you see these types of things in the political arena, strange shit is happening behind the scenes. Don't believe me? Oh well.

 

So it's nice to see someone say...Hey Americans! Look at what your country is supposed to be about. Look at the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. And look at the current way its being run. And to keep saying that, in spite of attempted media blackout and discrediting.

 

So, oh well, this veteran is voting Ron Paul.

 

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Edited January 6, 2012 by Scotty

[Encephalon]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/06/paul-repudiates-supporters-china-jon-huntsman-ad/

 

 

UPDATE - Ron Paul has repudiated the attack ad leveled at John Huntsman. The ad was composed by a supporter of Paul.

[Desert Eagle]

To his credit, he's the only one who talks seriously about Eisenhower's warning of the power grab by an out of control military-industrial complex, or our militarized foreign policy. But that's precisely why he's been marginalized by the State.

 

 

[Enishi]

[Enishi]

woops double post

Edited January 7, 2012 by Enishi

[Enishi]

Although he appears to have a very small following at this point, Buddy Roemer is another good potential candidate:

 

http://www.buddyroemer.com/issues

[Aetherous]

[ralis]

[Aetherous]

Hm, very good point ralis!

[gendao]

The ad was composed by a supporter of Paul.

Not so fast...

 

More likely, it was a false-flag attack on Ron Paul by Huntsman's own campaign.

Have you seen this video? Turns out the Jon Huntsman smear ad, was made by Jon Huntsman's staff. They tried to make it look like it was made by Ron Paul's team, but there are numerous reasons why we can show it wasn't Paul's team!

 

This Public Foum proves how easy it is to make things anonymously online and act as if it was someone else. I have pictures. Check out the slideshow!

 

The End Run states:

 

If you thought it would be impossible for Jon Huntsman and the Establishment media to stoop any lower than they already have in their attempts to marginalize and discredit Ron Paul, you thought wrong.

Seriously, the video was uploaded by a brand-new "NHLiberty4Paul" (how creative & subtle, eh?) user who just joined on 1/4 JUST to post that ONE video. Remind anyone of all the MoPai trolls here who all do the exact same thing??

 

Wake up, people. Without critical thinking, this is why sheeple keep voting for NW0 puppets in this country...

 

 

All of these are just smokescreens from our more pressing top priorities:

- End the FRB banksta cartel and slash spending

- Pull all our military back from costly global imperialism and prevent WWIII

- Repeal 0rwellian police state laws

 

If you focus on the essentials for national survival first (without which other secondary aims can't even be accomplished), then Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate even on the table.

 

Romney is just another Obama (see epic Romneycare fail) and Santorum is just another neocon warhawk. Both complete NW0 tools and more of the same.

Edited January 8, 2012 by vortex

[Desert Eagle]

- Pull all our military back from costly global imperialism and prevent WWIII

- Repeal 0rwellian police state laws

 

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Spectrum-Dominance-Totalitarian-Democracy/dp/398132630X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325979372&sr=8-2

[joeblast]