Aggrad02

Wolf, My view of this is that just because the Bush administration made a gross misuse of the USA intelligence institutions, that does not invalidate them. That only invalidates his misuse of them. I believe the proper answer to your question is to retaliate against those identified by the USA's intelligence and military advisers to the President. That is their job. Even with all the mishandling, mistakes and political football playing, the USA intelligence organizations and the USA military are the best there is in the world. The inclusion of checks and balances within the system is one of the reasons for its reliability. The President should make good use of the USA's military and intelligence capacity instead of trying to override the information he receives from them. On the Ron Paul issue, I am not sure where he would stand with this. I haven't followed too closely, but I haven't seen any candidate really come out and say he/she trusts the information our specialized institutions provide and will use it above his/her own personal biases. If such a candidate stated that (and meant it), that is the candidate who would receive my vote. Michael Intelligence is almost never used by the executive branch in the manner you have described. Almost invariably, the president has already made a decision about what foreign policy to follow, generally for reasons that are far more irrational than those that motivate domestic policy decisions. The intelligence is then fixed around the already chosen policy. The intelligence is typically either fabricated, cherry picked, or ignored by the president in order to justify a decision he has already made. This is certainly the case with the Iraq War. Bush was looking for an excuse to attack Iraq long before the 9/11 attacks ever took place; 9/11 simply gave Bush the excuse to do what he wanted to do all along, not to mention an excuse to viciously attack the civil liberties of all Americans via a series of abominable pieces of legislation passed by a Congress that never even bothered to read them. Martin Martin, I am currently reading the 911 Commission report, and that is not the picture that is painted concerning intelligence. Clinton and Bush may have underestimated Bin Laden, but they were open to the intelligence. If it wasn't for Clark, we would be in much worse shape than we were in. --Dustan

Dustan, the Gulf of Tonkin incident has long been taken to mean an event staged by the American government and interpreted by that government as an act of aggression by a foreign power. It matters little whether the "act of aggression" occurs within our borders or without. Barbara Thank you for that information. I was not alive then and I should have looked it up, I thought I understood it through context but apparently did not. I just went and looked up the incident on wikipedia. I am curious if Bush's reasoning (WMD's) for invading Iraq and the incident of the doctored report about Sadam attempting to buy "yellow cake" from Africa qualify? or does it not because Bush probably really believed Sadam had the weapons? Also I would have to say, especially with the reference from the youtube video, that I do not agree with him that the current administration would do such a thing. I could see them trying to pick a fight with Iran, but not intentionally misleading the populace. I see the reasoning behind the Iraq war more as ineptitude than deceit. But I still do fully support Ron Paul. --Dustan

Attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual's like or dislike for an item. Attitudes are positive, negative or neutral views of an "attitude object": i.e. a person, behaviour or event. People can also be "ambivalent" towards a target, meaning that they simultaneously possess a positive and a negative bias towards the attitude in question. A mood is a relatively lasting emotional or affective state. Moods differ from emotions in that they are less specific, often less intense, less likely to be triggered by a particular stimulus or event, and longer lasting.[1] Moods generally have either a positive or negative Valence effect. In other words, people often speak of being in a good or bad mood. Unlike acute, emotional feelings like fear and surprise, moods generally last for hours or days. Mood also differs from temperament or personality traits which are even more general and long lasting. However, personality traits (e.g. Optimism, Neuroticism) tend to predispose certain types of moods. Mood is an internal, subjective state, but it often can be inferred from posture and other observable behaviors. From Wikipedia --Dustan

Barbara, Thank you for listening to the audio. I interpreted Rep. Paul as believing that the way that the current administration is handling the conflict with Iran will cause friction that will ignite into a war. I believe he feels the current administration is taking this approach so that the result will be war, i.e. he believes the current administration wants to go to war with Iran but wants to pick a fight first. I didn't take it to mean stagging a terrorist attack here, but more something along the lines of starting a border skirmish with Iran along the Iraq/Iran border. On the other hand we all know that Iran is sending and supporting, either indirectly or directly, insurgents in Iraq. Ron Paul seems to want to open diplomatic relations with Iran rather than provoke them, and engage them in dialog before starting hostilities. Also, he doesn't think that Iran is a direct threat to our national security. Iran however is and has stated that it is a direct threat to Israel, Rep. Paul doesn't think we help Israel too much by dictating their foreign policy as a condition of aid. He believes that if Israel was left alone they could solve most of their problems rather quickly and efficiently. -Dustan

Value whose life? It is not altruistic of me to value MY life or the life of my family members and friends. Ron Paul apparently thinks more of the life of a fetus than that of the woman carrying the fetus. He would sacrifice the latter for the former. It is that which makes him an altruistic. Please understand this: there is no defense or mitigation of an anti-abortion stand. If one is anti-abortion then one believes women are there to breed. That is their primary function. He who is anti-abortion is anti the freedom and liberty of women capable of bearing children. Such a person thinks the biological future of our species is more important than the social condition of its present. That is altruistic and collectivist all at the same time. I do not believe in sacrificing the present to the future. Paul apparently does or perhaps I have not understood him properly. Ba'al Chatzaf You are truly ridiculous. (I say this light heartedly because I am truly amazed) Please show philosophically how you arrive at your conclusions? How one life can be more valuable than another? How being pro-life, one is enslaving women? How being pro-life restricts the freedom of women? How social conditions are relevant to the issue? How valuing life is altruistic? How we are sacrificing the present to the future? Do you understand what altruism is? Another question, do you really admire Ayn's philosophy? If so what about it? Because I have seen nothing you have posted to suggest so? You clearly hold the philosophy of muscle/might. If you believe that a fetus is just a glob of tissue, then that is an entirely different subject, but the crud you just posted is logically indefensible. --Dustan

Bob, How is it altruistic to value life (in general, not in regards to abortion)? I know that you don't because you have stated it many times.

His book was written in 1989 a year after running on the Libertarian ticket and at this time he was still affliated with the Libertarian party, so he wasn't pandering to anyone. He was no longer running for or in office at the time. I just finished the first chapter and will give an update as soon as I can (I am really busy right now). As to pandering here is Dr. Paul's first experience with abortion in the medical field: Challenge to Liberty Paul, pg. 9-10, Residents in a training hospital frequently visted operating suites to observe different procedures. One morning, without knowing what was in each room., I made the rounds of the operating rooms. Shortly after entering one room, I was abruptly awakened from the daze I was in, after having been up most of the previous night. The two surgeons were in the middle of a hysterotomy, a C-section performed for pregnancy at less than term. Soon after I entered the room, the infant was extracted, weighing approximately two pounds, weakly crying, and gasping for air. Up until that moment, everything that I learned for the previous ten years was directed toward perserving life and improving the health of all of my patients. What followed was ghastly. The infant was placed in a basin on the floor in the corner of the room, and everyone pretended not to hear the weak cries and the final gasp as the baby expired. No longer would I be able to avoid thinking in a serious manner about abortion. I would need to come to grips with an issue that would involve my medical career as an obstetrician and affect this nation politically for years to come. Technology and an acceptance of a political philosophy that rejects all initiation of violence has kept me thinking and refining my beliefs regarding this manner to this day. Abortion is no a light issue and, as time goes on, the emotional intensity and bitterness of the two sides grows. Most likely it will not be resolved before the 21st century. The manner in which it is resolved will determine the future of the United States. It's not an isolated problem, accidentally dumped on us, but reflects deep-seated philosophic and moral commitments of the citizens of this country. Here is Dr. Paul's conclusion for the first introductory chapter, p17-18 Once it is realized that a baby exist with a heartbeat and brain waves, it's not quite as easy to close one's eyes and deny that a new life exist, even when it exist in utero. However, the moral dilemma is not likely to fade away soon. As more and more of us become informed, the larger the number will be who become militantly pro-life. Pro-abortion groups will become more militant as court decisions move us away from abortion on demand, abortion used as contraceptive, and third-trimester abortions. The moral crisis that exists in this country is responsible for the confrontation between the opposing factions. Abortion is a symptom of a much deeper seated problem: the relative value of all life and the contest between liberty and the monlithic state. The difficulty in the abortion debate is the value of life that some of us claim deserves protection, and others would deny. If our views on abortion were to reflect only our values on this issue, our society would suffer far less. Politically, some may claim to be single issue -- but the position one holds regarding this issue must reflect the attitude one holds of all life and liberty. Although many who endorse abortion can be pro-liberty on other issues, the philosophic consequence of this position leads to the conclusion that my obstetricial porfessor was so willing to accept -- selective infanticide, i.e. selective murder. The issue of liberty, the role of government, and the responsibility of the individual family are tightly hinged to the concept of all life. A nation or culture that encourages tossing a pre-born infant into the garbage cannot discipline the young mother who throws her newborn baby into the gutter, or the seventh grade science student who proudly displays aborted fetuses. Government exist to protect life and liberty, not to participate in arbitrarily devising relative standards for life such as acceptable disease states, IQ, gestational age, or social convience for carrying a baby to term. Respect for even less-than-perfect life is required if liberty for all is to be protected and not trampled upon by the government.

Also his position on abortion is disgusting. The inclination to go to war and the opposition to anti-abortion laws are my two touchstones. Ba'al Chatzaf Then I understand if those are you two major issues. Even though I clearly don't agree with you. Also, I am currently reading Ron Paul's book Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue" written in 1989. I will give summaries of his position and arguements for that position so that y'all can understand his argument (I not trying to convince anyone to change their stand on the issue, just let them know where Ron Paul stands on the issue and how he arrived at that position). --Dustan

Right on! He was the only Republican I ever voted for. It was the 1964 election. I don't know why it slipped my mind. Aside from the fact he is dead, where is he when we need him so badly? Goldwater would know how to handle the current war we are in. Ba'al Chatzaf I don't understand you Bob. Ron Paul is constantly praising Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. He is even good friends with and endorsed by Barry Goldwater Jr. --Dustan

The National Review blast Politico.com article (Here) Robbing Paul of the Truth Outing a misleading headline. By David Freddoso Think what you will of libertarian Texas congressman Ron Paul, but I’m crying foul over this post to the Politico’s “Crypt” blog: “Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack.” Paul simply did not say that the government is planning a fake terror attack, and to say otherwise is journalistic malpractice. My first reaction to the Politico headline — most people’s reaction, I’m sure — was that Paul should not be elected or defeated, but institutionalized. Then I read what is actually posted there, and I saw no quote from Paul about a “staged terrorist attack.” I did see a summary by Politico blogger Dan Reilly that says Paul “clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.” So I listened to the interview, trying to find what Reilly describes. And I listened to it again. And again. And I heard nothing of the sort. What I did hear was an unhinged radio host ask Paul a wide-ranging, minute-long, wacky question about terrorism, Bush the “dictator,” and neo-cons that ended with “How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?” Paul begins his answer with, ”Well, I think we’re in great danger of it — we’re in danger in many ways.” But as he continues, Paul says nothing about a staged terror attack or the Gulf of Tonkin. Rather, he goes into his usual schtick, complaining about the “great danger” involved in the loss of “civil liberties” and the evils of U.S. Iraq policy. Then he speaks to the likelihood of a real terrorist attack — not a staged attack: “I would say that we’re in much greater danger than we’ve been, even four or five years ago, whether it’s overseas or even by terrorists here at home, because I just think the policies are seriously flawed.” So he’s talking about Iraq as possibly making us more vulnerable to terrorism. Call him wrong or even crazy, but this is just standard Ron Paul. It is nothing like a black-helicopter accusation that the government is planning a phony terror attack. If you actually listen to the exchange, the closest Paul comes to saying anything like what’s in the Politico summary comes when he faults the administration’s Iran policy: “Right now there is an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that’s gone wrong in Iraq. And we’re quite concerned, many of us, that the attack will be on Iran and that will confuse things and jeopardize so many more of our troops.” Call Ron Paul nutty if you like — and certainly this media appearance gives reasons for doing so (he almost predicts an economic collapse later in the interview). But when he says he sees the Bush administration trying to justify war with Iran (which is itself worthy of a headline), that’s just not the same thing as saying that the government plans to stage a terrorist attack to boost its flagging approval ratings. It’s not even close. Paul is a barely relevant figure who has no chance in the election anyway, but you don’t need to like him to see the danger of this kind of sloppy headline-writing and summarizing. Careless reporters caused riots in the Middle East when they did a similar number on Pope Benedict XVI and his citation of Emperor Paleologus. The pope had actually given a very thoughtful and academic speech about Islamic-Christian relations, but thanks to the journalists, all hell broke loose. Other examples of this dangerous silliness abound. The media has other problems besides its liberal bias, such as the need for quick sound-bites, inaccurate summaries, and headlines that often come at the expense of getting things right.

True. But he does not have to be -glad- about it. Ba'al Chatzaf When does the mood of the president matter. Lol

. If thirty seven states pass a "right to life" amendment he will -gladly- conform. Ba'al Chatzaf If the states pass a Constitutional amendment there is no choice for the President but to conform.

A human baby will double its brain mass in six months. They tells me a newborn has half the brains necessary to have autonomous sentience. Why is this the case? It is the case because of the size of a human female vaginal opening. The skull of a newborn must be small enough to pass through. That is why human offspring are literally half baked when they are taken out of the oven. The human infant is less developed relative to its adult state than any other mammal. It is our biological nature that dictates the relative underdevelopment of new born infants. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of biological fact. We are all born half baked and witless. Nothing that undeveloped and feckless has rights other than those granted by their caretaker. How do you argue with facts? Ba'al Chatzaf Philosophically to say "We are born" implies that "we" existed before the act of birth or at least came to exist at the time of birth. And the Constitution protects the rights of all human beings (Bill of Rights and the 14th admendment).

It is -her- fetus. Not mine, not yours, not the government's and not society's. It is -hers-. The mark of a civilized person is knowing the difference between Mine, Yours and Hers. Ba'al Chatzaf So when does a person no longer become property of their parents? Are you still owned by your mother? Are you really a disgruntled lamp shade? Or are you just a Judeo-Fascist. I swear the longer you post the less difference there is between you and the Islamist you hate. You for a government police state, with the economy virtually restricted and protected by the gov. You are for wiping out an entire race/culture of people because some of them are extreme, and confiscating their property because you covet it. Your are for confiscating the property and lives of others to attain these goals. You are for parents owning their children, and disposing of them as they please. --Dustan

Michael, I hold almost the same position that you do. I am personally Pro-life, but politically ambivalent as I do not know 100% that a fetus is a person, even though I believe that it is. Legally defining when or if a fetus is considered a person is crucial. Also I don't think Ron Paul's pro-life stance is philosophically incompatible with objectivism per se. Ayn believed that the fetus is a part of the woman's body just like an appendix, therefore the woman could do as she pleased. But she also believed in the value of a human's life. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is life, and has rights like any other human. The difference is the difference in defining when a human becomes a being not in philosophy. -Dustan

Barbara, The article that your friend sent you was from politico.com and is spinning what Ron Paul actually said and meant. Here are the two articles. Original Politico.com Article Response Article by Antiwar.com Or listen to the interview and decide for yourself: Alex Jones Interviews Ron Paul -Dustan

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/g4/ click on the 2nd vid

Ron Paul on ABC talking about fundraising Ron Paul will be on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulus this Sunday morning. It will be 15 minute interview so it should be good. --Dustan

I understand where you are coming from Martin. But I am a bit of an optimist. Also I am seeing things about this campaign that I have never seen before in politics before. It seems to me that people are waking up and are ready to take their government back and the internet is having a huge impact because of the free flow of information. Yesterday a elderly lady put her house for sale in Pittsburgh and is going to use the money to promote Ron Paul for president. Her reasoning was that it was the best thing she could do for her grandchildren instead of leaving them the house. How many people on other campaigns are willing to do that? Right now I don't have a lot of extra cash, so I am giving plasma and sending it to Ron Paul, can you see anyone doing that for Guliani? Paul campaign has gone viral. Here are some stats that lead me to my conclusion: #1 searched for candidate on google and technocrati #1 on Facebook for Republican Candidates #1 on Myspace for Republican Candidates #1 on Eventful #1 on Youtube for Republican Candidates and will soon pass Barak Obama #1 on meetup.com by far of all Candidates. #3 with Cash on Hand only behind Guliani and Romney (Romney has $12million but he loaned his campaign $8,6 million, so without that he has only $3.4 only a million more than Paul) #1 on pretty much every online poll #2 in the statewide Utah Straw Poll #2 in the Cobb County GA (Atlanta) Straw Poll I have not found one person that I talked to in person that did not decided to support Dr. Paul after telling them Dr. Paul's message (which he picked up almost directly from Ayn Rand). And as far as phone polls go, Dr. Paul went from not being included, to 1%, to 2% and in most polls in now to 3%. These polls only call people who have voted in the last two Republican primaries and have a land line. It does not count all of the independents, libertarians and democrats who are going to turn out for Paul. And the most impressive thing is the meetup groups. While Guliani may have money, he doesn't have an army of volunteers that Paul does. These meetup groups actually meet and find ways to campaign for Paul. For instance the Austin Ron Paul Meetup Group (which has over 400 members) bought the entire voter list from Iowa. Has scrubbed the list and is now passing them out with a script to call Iowa voters. All of this is being done without coordination from the Ron Paul campaign headquarters. How much would this cost other candidates? Millions. This I believe is truly going to be revolution of sorts. So keep you head up and be sure to tell people about Ron Paul, more than likely they will be very receptive. --Dustan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_o...ers_of_Congress Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. So they would be legal. As far as the international community is concerned. The signatories of the Declaration of Paris (1856) bans the use of them, but the United States did not sign this treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque --Dustan

http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jeffe...y%20Pirates.htm Congress did authorize the appropriate measures of allowing the navy and the President to capture and make prizes of Tripolitan vessels. The authorization led to a war effort the lasted for four years. So the congress did issue letters of marque and reprisals against the piirates and Jefferson used this to send the navy. --Dustan

I could have sworn I heard that he had, but I haven't found anything yet and am tired of looking (which means he probably didn't). I am sorry for that erroneous part of the post. But if I do find something in my reading I will update this post. -Dustan

My very point. LBJ did not run in 1972. Why. Because he was a loser. LBJ knew that he was toast. McGovern ran. He was the biggest loser of all times. I think he carried only Massachussetts if I remember correctly. What a sad story, too. McGovern, unlike that goldbrick LBJ was a genuine warrior. He flew Liberators in WW2. Which gets me back to my point, (now pay close attention!) --- Americans Hate Losers!!!!!!! Anyone who starts a war he loses taints his political party for at least two terms. Ba'al Chatzaf. Ron Paul will not be affected by this because he is anti-war. You can try to bury the facts with you war propaganda all you want, but you will see.

Ron Paul is not going to be nominated by the Republican Party. Furthermore the Republicans are going to lose big time. Why? Because a -Republican President- got us into a war which we are losing. Americans hate losers. Look what happened to Lyndon Johnson. He would not even run in 1972 because the Viet Nam war became a disaster. We got Tricky Dicky. The Democrats lost big time 1972. Same reason. A lost war. If Georgy Porgy had gotten bin Laden in Afghanistan instead of wasting time in Iraq anyone he designated could have run for President and won handily. Ba'al Chatzaf Ron Paul is going to win the nomination, and it will be a sad day for war mongers like yourself. And he will defeat Hillary or Obama, because they are for the war as well.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...aul-tops-m.html Ron Paul now has more cash on hand than McCain, and has the third largest amount among Republicans. The tide is turning.