Ron Paul 30 second Ad Winner

[THEBIRD]

This was a great ad and shows why conservatives around the country are no longer going to vote for the lesser of two evils. We've had enough.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjTAH8Y_L8&e


:claps::claps::claps::claps:

[jayson]

A good ad indeed. There were some really great ads submitted, but I think this one captured Ron's message the most.

Oh, and don't forget the blimp.

www.ronpaulblimp.com

[Jack_Savage]

Does Ron Pauls campaign pay you on a per post basis? Man there isn't enough money to buy my vote.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Does Ron Pauls campaign pay you on a per post basis?
He must. And their handlers from the Paul campaign tell them what to say here.

[Eagle1]

I think every Paul supporter is active on the net. They also like to hand out papers during tailgates.
I like the passion, but I for one support the troops. No Paul supporter can claim that.

[PrezLeefun]

And thats what pisses me off most about him. He doesnt support our troops. It makes me nuts. And makes me want to kick him in the nuts.

[Proud American]

I think every Paul supporter is active on the net. They also like to hand out papers during tailgates.
I like the passion, but I for one support the troops. No Paul supporter can claim that.

Why do you think that Ron Paul has received more donations from military servicemen than any other Republican?

http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1286&Itemid=97

Certainly active duty military 'support the troops'

[Madbomber]

I think every Paul supporter is active on the net. They also like to hand out papers during tailgates.
I like the passion, but I for one support the troops. No Paul supporter can claim that.


There is no single better way to support the troops than to get them out of the line of fire.
No warmonger can claim that eh?

[Kathy30]

There is no single better way to support the troops than to get them out of the line of fire.
No warmonger can claim that eh?

If getting the troops out of the line of fire means putting everyone else IN the line of fire, no I don't support that. Ron Paul does.

[UnkHiram]

There is no single better way to support the troops than to get them out of the line of fire.
No warmonger can claim that eh?

There is no single better way to support the troops than LETTING THEM DO THEIR JOB. Instead of being a hinderance to that job. Are you suggesting that all of us that support the troops battling terrorism are "Warmongers"? Or are you just throwing out idiotic statements to disrupt the site?

[Madbomber]

There is no single better way to support the troops than LETTING THEM DO THEIR JOB. Instead of being a hinderance to that job. Are you suggesting that all of us that support the troops battling terrorism are "Warmongers"? Or are you just throwing out idiotic statements to disrupt the site?


Thier Job is to protect the american people. They can do that better by plugging up the holes in the borders and you know it.

[UnkHiram]

Thier Job is to protect the american people. They can do that better by plugging up the holes in the borders and you know it.

They are protecting the American people, in case you haven't noticed there have been NO terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. It is also ILLEGAL for American Troops to "Plug up the holes in the border", as has been pointed out frequently on this board.

Also You didn't answer my DIRECT QUESTION! So I will ask again

Are you suggesting that all of us that support the troops battling terrorism are "Warmongers"? Or are you just throwing out idiotic statements to disrupt the site?

[Madbomber]

They are protecting the American people, in case you haven't noticed there have been NO terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. It is also ILLEGAL for American Troops to "Plug up the holes in the border", as has been pointed out frequently on this board.

Also You didn't answer my DIRECT QUESTION! So I will ask again

Are you suggesting that all of us that support the troops battling terrorism are "Warmongers"? Or are you just throwing out idiotic statements to disrupt the site?


Yes Im telling you you're a warmonger. I thought that was obvious.

O and since youre a lawyer mind linking the law that says we cant use the troops on our own borders?

[Elgalad]

Why do you think that Ron Paul has received more donations from military servicemen than any other Republican?

http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1286&Itemid=97

Certainly active duty military 'support the troops'

The blogger in your 'link' fails to mention that he appropriated his data from an article in the Houston Chronicle that has since been discredited and removed from their website due to.. flawed data.

But when have Paulheads ever let truth get in the way of a good soundbite? :rotflmbo:

Anyways, let's take a closer look into the Facts behind that 'study'..

Since the original source of data for the study in your .. Blogger Link :rolleyes: is no longer available, let's use a more recent article. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_leads_military_donations_race/)

Between January and September of 2007, Ron Paul received $63,440 in donations from 'current military employees' (make a note of that phrase) and several retired military personnel. During the same time period, Barack Obama received $53,968. Third on the list was Sen. John McCain who received $48,208.

So it appears the 'Military' donated mostly to Ron Paul, doesn't it? :question:

Just a few problems with that though.. :shame:


A) First of all.. $63,000 represents a drop in the bucket; less than 1% of Ron Paul's reported campaign contributions to date. "Ah!", you say, "but service members don't get paid that much so this is still relevant.." :smirky:

B) But that brings us to the second problem. The phrase "current military employees' does NOT mean active duty military. It refers to Civilian employees employed on military bases as tech reps, cooks, security, etc. Had the study been referring to Active Duty Military, it would have described them as Personnel, Not Employees. So why should that matter, you ask?

C) Because it is a direct violation of DoD Directive 1344.10 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf) for any active duty military personnel to support, solicit votes for, endorse, or contribute funds to any specific candidate or employee of the Federal Government. (both describe Congressman Ron Paul).

D) So what we have left is a dilemma. Either a number of 'active duty military personnel' are violating military orders by openly endorsing and contributing funds to a political candidate.. Or more likely (and there is absolutely no way to prove that I am wrong, here) the pollsters and/or the pollees are misrepresenting their status as service members. In neither case does this even remotely suggest that Ron Paul is winning over the military to his cause.


Incidentally, I'm still interested in hearing the rationale you Paulheads have as to why you believe military personnel would support a candidate who voted directly (and recently) to cut off their funding (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm) during an open conflict.

Sell us that one, if you can. :rotflmbo:


-Elgalad

[UnkHiram]

Yes Im telling you you're a warmonger. I thought that was obvious.

O and since youre a lawyer mind linking the law that says we cant use the troops on our own borders?

So I am a warmonger for wanting the Troops to Defend the United States? It's amazing. But in another thread you object to someone calling you a traitor ---- yet you apparently dont want the Military to Defend the United States. Is this a Contradiction? Hypocracy? Or just idiocy?

BTW, Just for the record I am not a lawyer. Since you seem to have a problem with Job descriptions allow me to give you a clue. The JOB of the Military is to STAND IN THE LINE OF FIRE and defend our nation. It is also their job to KILL people that threaten our nation. It is the Job of the BORDER PATROL to POLICE our borders.

Posse Comitatus Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) (18 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code) § 1385 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html)) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction). The Act prohibited members of the federal uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard [during wartime], and State National Guard forces [when called into federal service]) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintained "law and order" on non-federal property (States, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) states. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard) under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) or Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act) substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

To read the rest of this article go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[Elgalad]

Yes Im telling you you're a warmonger. I thought that was obvious.

O and since youre a lawyer mind linking the law that says we cant use the troops on our own borders?

Posse (http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm) Comitatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

Edit: Unk beat me to it. :)


-E

[Suzie]

Why do you think that Ron Paul has received more donations from military servicemen than any other Republican?

http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1286&Itemid=97

Certainly active duty military 'support the troops'

That's BS I want to see him prove that. I have got to know most of an entire division that hates his guts for trying to pull the rug out from under them while they were doing a job he sent them to do.

[Suzie]

The blogger in your 'link' fails to mention that he appropriated his data from an article in the Houston Chronicle that has since been discredited and removed from their website due to.. flawed data.

But when have Paulheads ever let truth get in the way of a good soundbite? :rotflmbo:

Anyways, let's take a closer look into the Facts behind that 'study'..

Since the original source of data for the study in your .. Blogger Link :rolleyes: is no longer available, let's use a more recent article. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/10/ron_paul_leads_military_donations_race/)

Between January and September of 2007, Ron Paul received $63,440 in donations from 'current military employees' (make a note of that phrase) and several retired military personnel. During the same time period, Barack Obama received $53,968. Third on the list was Sen. John McCain who received $48,208.

So it appears the 'Military' donated mostly to Ron Paul, doesn't it? :question:

Just a few problems with that though.. :shame:


A) First of all.. $63,000 represents a drop in the bucket; less than 1% of Ron Paul's reported campaign contributions to date. "Ah!", you say, "but service members don't get paid that much so this is still relevant.." :smirky:

B) But that brings us to the second problem. The phrase "current military employees' does NOT mean active duty military. It refers to Civilian employees employed on military bases as tech reps, cooks, security, etc. Had the study been referring to Active Duty Military, it would have described them as Personnel, Not Employees. So why should that matter, you ask?

C) Because it is a direct violation of DoD Directive 1344.10 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf) for any active duty military personnel to support, solicit votes for, endorse, or contribute funds to any specific candidate or employee of the Federal Government. (both describe Congressman Ron Paul).

D) So what we have left is a dilemma. Either a number of 'active duty military personnel' are violating military orders by openly endorsing and contributing funds to a political candidate.. Or more likely (and there is absolutely no way to prove that I am wrong, here) the pollsters and/or the pollees are misrepresenting their status as service members. In neither case does this even remotely suggest that Ron Paul is winning over the military to his cause.


Incidentally, I'm still interested in hearing the rationale you Paulheads have as to why you believe military personnel would support a candidate who voted directly (and recently) to cut off their funding (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr021407.htm) during an open conflict.

Sell us that one, if you can. :rotflmbo:


-Elgalad

I am glad they are exposing this, thanks for posting that.

C) Because it is a direct violation of DoD Directive 1344.10 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134410p.pdf) for any active duty military personnel to support, solicit votes for, endorse, or contribute funds to any specific candidate or employee of the Federal Government. (both describe Congressman Ron Paul).

This is true for the Guard and Reserve as well.

[Madbomber]

So I am a warmonger for wanting the Troops to Defend the United States? It's amazing. But in another thread you object to someone calling you a traitor ---- yet you apparently dont want the Military to Defend the United States. Is this a Contradiction? Hypocracy? Or just idiocy?

Its called tit for tat. You people like to toss out traitor and now youre getting back warmonger and are squeeling. Tough shit. Want to be civil, I can do that. Want to toss out traitor every other post, then EXPECT to be called warmongers OR worse from now on, becuase I have had enough of the name calling and the mods obviously dont give a shit.

BTW, Just for the record I am not a lawyer. Since you seem to have a problem with Job descriptions allow me to give you a clue. The JOB of the Military is to STAND IN THE LINE OF FIRE and defend our nation. It is also their job to KILL people that threaten our nation. It is the Job of the BORDER PATROL to POLICE our borders.

Spare me. The Job of the military is to protect the vital interes of the united states. To uphold and protect the constitution. If they can protect us just as well by keeping people out of our country then we are better off having them here keeping them out of our country and thier job is done. You seem to have a problem having our troops "police" our borders. What do you think they are doing in Iraq... They are policing the place. Its not a war (in Iraq) anymore its an occupation and an unnessaccery one at that.

Posse Comitatus Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) (18 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code) § 1385 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html)) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction). The Act prohibited members of the federal uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard [during wartime], and State National Guard forces [when called into federal service]) from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintained "law and order" on non-federal property (States, their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) states. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard) under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) or Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act) substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

To read the rest of this article go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

So, all we need is to have congress to tell them to do it then? sounds good to me. Also, maintaining law and order probably doesnt include repelling foreign invaders which is basically what they would be doing.

MB

[TeenageRepublican]

There is no single better way to support the troops than to get them out of the line of fire.
No warmonger can claim that eh?

Yes, we're all evil warmongers. :rolleyes:
The best way to support our troops is to stop debating about the war until it's over. Not "this war is evil" crap. We could've gotten this over sooner, but all the lefties have let the terrorists know that they support them instead of the troops.

[Suzie]

There is no single better way to support the troops than to get them out of the line of fire.
No warmonger can claim that eh?

HE SENT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! Then puts them in greater danger by trying to take away what they need to do the job. You think that's HELPING???

[UnkHiram]

Its called tit for tat. You people like to toss out traitor and now youre getting back warmonger and are squeeling. Tough shit. Want to be civil, I can do that. Want to toss out traitor every other post, then EXPECT to be called warmongers OR worse from now on, becuase I have had enough of the name calling and the mods obviously dont give a shit.

I invite you to find one single post where I called you or any other delusional Ron Paul Fanatic a Traitor. I would also invite you to find any example of me being less than "Civil" to anyone that was "Civil" to me. BTW I am a mod and I have had just about enough of your name calling.



Spare me. The Job of the military is to protect the vital interes of the united states. To uphold and protect the constitution. If they can protect us just as well by keeping people out of our country then we are better off having them here keeping them out of our country and thier job is done. You seem to have a problem having our troops "police" our borders. What do you think they are doing in Iraq... They are policing the place. Its not a war (in Iraq) anymore its an occupation and an unnessaccery one at that.

Excuse me but tell me again how it makes sense to fight Terrorism in America instead of Iraq? Explain to me how it is better for American Civilians to be dying? I dont have a "Problem" with the Troops "Policing" our border --- IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

[Madbomber]

HE SENT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! Then puts them in greater danger by trying to take away what they need to do the job. You think that's HELPING???


He didnt send them there. He was given false information. He corrected the error as soon as he realized that it was a fraud. He also didnt vote to go to Iraq Specifically. The Vote you guys love to quote says *Nations* which technically means that we could be invading England next if Bush got a hair up his ass to do so.

[TeenageRepublican]

The Vote you guys love to quote says *Nations* which technically means that we could be invading England next if Bush got a hair up his ass to do so.

From what I read, it was Nations related to the terrorist organizations. It would be incredibly stupid to invade our own allies that aren't related to terroist organizations.

[Suzie]

He didnt send them there. He was given false information. He corrected the error as soon as he realized that it was a fraud. He also didnt vote to go to Iraq Specifically. The Vote you guys love to quote says *Nations* which technically means that we could be invading England next if Bush got a hair up his ass to do so.

So he is too stupid to know that GLOBAL war on terrorism means all across the globe??? And this is who you want as your president. If England was giving safe haven to terrorists like Iraq was doing instead of fighting against them they would be a target.

If you knew even half of what you think you do about the Iraq war you would spit on Ron Paul when he walked in a room. I don't know nearly what my husband knows and quite frankly he doesn't talk about it much, but he is ashamed of the people supporting this nut after what he did for this country. What a betrayal.

[Madbomber]

I invite you to find one single post where I called you or any other delusional Ron Paul Fanatic a Traitor. I would also invite you to find any example of me being less than "Civil" to anyone that was "Civil" to me. BTW I am a mod and I have had just about enough of your name calling.

You may not have, Im not going to spend my night digging. But that doesnt mean you are any less a part of the problem. You see what is written yet nothing is said. Over and over nothing is said, now they are getting as good as they have been giving and something is said. Very Hypocritical if you ask me.

Excuse me but tell me again how it makes sense to fight Terrorism in America instead of Iraq? Explain to me how it is better for American Civilians to be dying? I dont have a "Problem" with the Troops "Policing" our border --- IT'S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

Look at the part of your law that you convieniantly left out.

The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States, the President determines hinders the execution of laws that deprive people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation.

Its not as "against the law" are you wish it was. As far as how is it better to have them here than to go over there to kill them. Well, repelling them at the border means they wouldnt get into the US, as opposed to the wide open border we have now. Also, without us agitating people by occupting thier countries they will have less incentive to want us dead in the first place.

I do understand where you are coming from though, dant want them here would rather kill them there. I used to be of the same mindset myself. I also came to the conclusion later that all of this internation intervension we are doing is bankrupting us. IF things keep going at the rate that they have been going we would be bringing back the troops anyway becuase our ability to support them would be gone as our economy is getting hammered. The person that coined the phrase "It's the economy stupid" was one of the most far seeing individuals to walk the face of the earth becuase it is the economy. As much as Washington wants to hide the problems we have been walking a razors edge for years economically all the while the baby boomers are getting older. Well, they are going to start retiring in the next president's term. WE have an unfunded liablity of around 7 trillion just for social security. a 9+ trillion debt total. there is no way we can support these wars. We would be better served by telling these people screw with us and we are just going to nuke you from now on (AND MEAN IT) then leave them alone.

[Madbomber]

From what I read, it was Nations related to the terrorist organizations. It would be incredibly stupid to invade our own allies that aren't related to terroist organizations.

The point was to show how the bill you guys like to quote is flawed.

[Madbomber]

So he is too stupid to know that GLOBAL war on terrorism means all across the globe??? And this is who you want as your president. If England was giving safe haven to terrorists like Iraq was doing instead of fighting against them they would be a target.

If you knew even half of what you think you do about the Iraq war you would spit on Ron Paul when he walked in a room. I don't know nearly what my husband knows and quite frankly he doesn't talk about it much, but he is ashamed of the people supporting this nut after what he did for this country. What a betrayal.


He probably doesnt talk about it much becuase the memories are too painful for him to have to relive. But you dont mind sending more people to have to live through the same things. The war in Iraq is won, there is no reason to continue having people there. To insist that there is is only going to force more people to live through the hell your husband has gone through.

[UnkHiram]

You may not have, Im not going to spend my night digging. But that doesnt mean you are any less a part of the problem. You see what is written yet nothing is said. Over and over nothing is said, now they are getting as good as they have been giving and something is said. Very Hypocritical if you ask me.


Bovine Droppings, apparently you feel justified to call anyone that disagrees with you names because some "Bully" was mean to you.:shame:



Look at the part of your law that you convieniantly left out.

[b]


Its not as "against the law" are you wish it was. As far as how is it better to have them here than to go over there to kill them. Well, repelling them at the border means they wouldnt get into the US, as opposed to the wide open border we have now. Also, without us agitating people by occupting thier countries they will have less incentive to want us dead in the first place.

I do understand where you are coming from though, dant want them here would rather kill them there. I used to be of the same mindset myself.


I can only assume that you had some sevre head trauma.:question:


I also came to the conclusion later that all of this internation intervension we are doing is bankrupting us. IF things keep going at the rate that they have been going we would be bringing back the troops anyway becuase our ability to support them would be gone as our economy is getting hammered. The person that coined the phrase "It's the economy stupid" was one of the most far seeing individuals to walk the face of the earth becuase it is the economy. As much as Washington wants to hide the problems we have been walking a razors edge for years economically all the while the baby boomers are getting older. Well, they are going to start retiring in the next president's term. WE have an unfunded liablity of around 7 trillion just for social security. a 9+ trillion debt total. there is no way we can support these wars. We would be better served by telling these people screw with us and we are just going to nuke you from now on (AND MEAN IT) then leave them alone.

And you accuse me of being a warmonger.:roar:

[TeenageRepublican]

The point was to show how the bill you guys like to quote is flawed.

So going after terrorists that killed thousands of innocent people is wrong?

[Suzie]

He probably doesnt talk about it much becuase the memories are too painful for him to have to relive. But you dont mind sending more people to have to live through the same things. The war in Iraq is won, there is no reason to continue having people there. To insist that there is is only going to force more people to live through the hell your husband has gone through.

You don't know my husband, he doesn't talk about himself period. It's just part of his persona. But he doesn't talk about THIS very much because he worked at a level above top secret, if he called home people listened to our phone calls, I couldn't put his rank on packages I sent him. And they went to an address of a unit that doesn't exist. You think you know more than he does, dream on kid.

[Madbomber]

You don't know my husband, he doesn't talk about himself period. It's just part of his persona. But he doesn't talk about THIS very much because he worked at a level above top secret, if he called home people listened to our phone calls, I couldn't put his rank on packages I sent him. And they went to an address of a unit that doesn't exist. You think you know more than he does, dream on kid.


Alright. I thought you ment he was a combat soldier. None the less, To want our people over there getting shot at after we have won already is not looking out for the troops. Dont think youre the only one that has family over there.

[TeenageRepublican]

You don't know my husband, he doesn't talk about himself period. It's just part of his persona. But he doesn't talk about THIS very much because he worked at a level above top secret, if he called home people listened to our phone calls, I couldn't put his rank on packages I sent him. And they went to an address of a unit that doesn't exist. You think you know more than he does, dream on kid.

Wow. I didn't know that about your husband. Was he a CIA agent or something (if you don't mind me asking)?

[Suzie]

He is a combat soldier.

[Suzie]

Wow. I didn't know that about your husband. Was he a CIA agent or something (if you don't mind me asking)?

If I told you I would have to kill you. :D

I will PM you.

[TeenageRepublican]

Okay. :-)

[Madbomber]

So going after terrorists that killed thousands of innocent people is wrong?


There were better ways to handle the problem. like: Reward $50,000,000 and citizenship for you and your family in exchange for Osama Bin Ladens head. Just bring us the head its all we really want anyway. Someone would have gotten greedy sooner or later and it would have been cheeper too.

Something to think about. If you think they are the only ones that have killed innocents now you are woefully mistaken. We have had a lot of "colateral damage" in Iraq. That sort of thing is inevitable in a war.

[UnkHiram]

Alright. I thought you ment he was a combat soldier.

Once again he doesn't know what he is talking about. :rolleyes: Kinda sad in a way poor poor little mad bomber picked on by internet bullies just because he doesn't have a clue. :ooo: Perhaps we shoud all go out of our way to make him feel "Special":bottleplus:

[Madbomber]

Bovine Droppings, apparently you feel justified to call anyone that disagrees with you names because some "Bully" was mean to you.:shame:

Hey youre the mod. Put an end to it on all sides and Ill be more than happy, but that wont happen will it.



I can only assume that you had some sevre head trauma.:question:



And you accuse me of being a warmonger.:roar:


Nice rebuttle.

[Madbomber]

Once again he doesn't know what he is talking about. :rolleyes: Kinda sad in a way poor poor little mad bomber picked on by internet bullies just because he doesn't have a clue. :ooo: Perhaps we shoud all go out of our way to make him feel "Special":bottleplus:

Just when I thought you might be mature.

[UnkHiram]

Just when I thought you might be mature.

Oh did I hurt your widdie biddie feelings?:ma:

[Madbomber]

LOL you are Pretty Pathetic but it did make me laugh so I guess thats good right?

[THEBIRD]

I'm all for putting our troops in the line of fire and so is Ron Paul. I served in the infantry and its because I wanted to be in the line of fire.

But lets spend millions and put them in the line of fire on our border instead of spending billions to keep them in the line of fire on the other side of the globe to win a war in a place where there hasn't been peace in a thousand years. Its just stupid.

I support Ron Paul because he supports the troops in doing the job they are consitutionally mandated to do...not what "Open Border George" wants them to do while bankrupting the country.

Instead, our troops are in over 170 countries and growing...when does it stop?

Can't wait to donate more money to the campaign on Dec. 16th.

Yes, I am a conservative infantry veteran who supports Ron Paul....not some liberal anti-war nutjob.

[THEBIRD]

antoher really good one......LOVE IT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z0DrKjbTvg&feature=related

[Madbomber]

I'm all for putting our troops in the line of fire and so is Ron Paul. I served in the infantry and its because I wanted to be in the line of fire.

Yep

But lets spend millions and put them in the line of fire on our border instead of spending billions to keep them in the line of fire on the other side of the globe to win a war in a place where there hasn't been peace in a thousand years. Its just stupid.

Pretty much

I support Ron Paul because he supports the troops in doing the job they are consitutionally mandated to do...not what "Open Border George" wants them to do while bankrupting the country.

Trust me, being logical isnt going to get you very far here.

Instead, our troops are in over 170 countries and growing...when does it stop?

It stops when we bust out. When we defualt on the debt is where it ends.

Can't wait to donate more money to the campaign on Dec. 16th.

Me too. Its going to be a very interesting day.

Yes, I am a conservative infantry veteran who supports Ron Paul....not some liberal anti-war nutjob.

Sorry but you only qualify as conservative on this board if youre willing to wade waist deep in blown up and charred human gore in Iraq.


MB

[Madbomber]

antoher really good one......LOVE IT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z0DrKjbTvg&feature=related


That is a good one.

[THEBIRD]

Made by the same group as the one above.....so good they ought to be on TV.....OH BTW....he is about to break another half million on the website. Fred isn't raising near this kind of money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tcUIBsaeGk&feature=related

[Madbomber]

You know I think they are going to be over 12 mil before we even get to the 16th.

[Elgalad]

Hmm, would those be more 'military' personnel who support Ron Paul?

They are GAP models, actually. They're friends of mine from modeling here in New York City who also love Ron Paul, and stopped by my studio to do this commercial.

Guess not.

But at least we now know who the Zoolander set is going to vote for. :rotflmbo:


-Elgalad

[Jack_Savage]

You know I think they are going to be over 12 mil before we even get to the 16th.

Thats chump-change for a Presidential run.

[Naturalized-Texan]

B) But that brings us to the second problem. The phrase "current military employees' does NOT mean active duty military. It refers to Civilian employees employed on military bases as tech reps, cooks, security, etc. Had the study been referring to Active Duty Military, it would have described them as Personnel, Not Employees.
"Current military employees" would also refer to civilian bureaucrats in DoD, many of whom are likely to be lefty holdovers from the Clinton years.

[Naturalized-Texan]

HE SENT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! Then puts them in greater danger by trying to take away what they need to do the job. You think that's HELPING???
Moreover, those troops that Ron Paul sent into the War on Terror volunteered to fight in this war.

[Naturalized-Texan]

But lets spend millions and put them in the line of fire on our border .
We can't because it is illegal to do so.

[jayson]

Moreover, those troops that Ron Paul sent into the War on Terror volunteered to fight in this war.

So, because they volunteered, that gives the president the right to waste their lives?

I think the greatest respect we could ever pay to those who selflessly choose to defend us is to only require their services when we absolutely must. What's more disrespectful... wanting them home safe and sound defending our sovereignty, or sending them off on deadly wild goose chases halfway around the world? They volunteered to defend this country, its Constitution and its people. I think we should not be so careless with their sacrifices.

[garlicguy]

I am glad they are exposing this, thanks for posting that.

Suzie, Elgalad's link was indeed an excellent one. I'm not aiming what follows at you nor him, but merely expressing my concern based on the progression of this discussion thread. To wit:

Fortunately for our side, such fascism has not yet been imposed upon our Uniformed Services.

What the directive linked to actually says on page 2 is:

4.1. General
4.1.1. A member on active duty MAY:
...
4.1.1.2. Make monetary contributions to a political organization.
Who in the world would want to fight for a nation whose uniformed services were not allowed to freely express their thoughts?

That people here accept such nonsense as the notion that our troops are prevented from supporting candidates merely because it agrees with their already stated position in an argument shows a couple of things:

That behavior here is consistently,
1) Conservative? Hardly.
2) Thinking? Yikes.
3) Willing to believe even worse than actual scenarios about how this country is running and take them is stride? The whole "My country right or wrong", mentality. May God deliver us.

No wonder the elected elite and entertainers think they can pull anything on the American people and get away with it. They can, and have and will continue just as long as everybody keeps to the party line. :sad:

It's like Rush said, "If you don't know what to think, he (and they) will keep tellin' ya'.

Maybe, just maybe it is time to quit hating Ron Paul and his supporters merely because the message they represent is "different" from what we've been told to think. :rolleyes:

[Suzie]

A political organization isn't the same as a political candidate. There are military associations with lobbyists for military needs. I worked for one. If Ron Paul were not already a Congressman it might be possible, but he is ... so it's not. Read further down.

[garlicguy]

A political organization isn't the same as a political candidate. There are military associations with lobbyists for military needs. I worked for one. If Ron Paul were not already a Congressman it might be possible, but he is ... so it's not. Read further down.

I've read the entire directive. I can find no prohibition against members of the Armed Forces contributing to a political campaign.

They cannot, as in civilian situations, coerce others to do so and cannot hold most elective positions themselves.

The intent of the directive claims to be that of encouraging members of our services to participate actively in the political process without abusing the power of their positions.

Did I miss what you intended me to read?

[Suzie]

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).
4.1.2.4. Make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an employee of the Federal Government.


They can attend political rallies not in uniform as a spectator, they cannot participate in a campaign.
Ron Paul is an elected Federal Employee, he is a congressman paid by the Federal Government, they can not make contributions to him.

[Aaron]

They can attend political rallies not in uniform as a spectator, they cannot participate in a campaign.
Ron Paul is an elected Federal Employee, he is a congressman paid by the Federal Government, they can not make contributions to him.

I'm not following. From those quotes, it does not say they cannot contribute to political campaigns of politicians. I think you are getting something mixed up.

I'm not saying I disagree or agree with you, it is just you haven't really provided proof of what you are saying.

[Suzie]

He is a paid federal civil service employee, just as it says they cannot donate to him or any other Federal Employee...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm
Congress: Benefits
You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.
Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, the were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.
Members of Congress receive retirement (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.opm.gov/retire/) and health benefits (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.opm.gov/insure/) under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.nalc.org/depart/retire/fers.html) (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.opm.gov/retire/html/retirement/csrs.html) (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

[Suzie]

Just to be clear though, this is a DOD directive. There could be a few who violate this. If they are Ron Paul supporters I would almost bet on it. But they aren't supposed to, and I can't see a huge amount of people wanting to create problems for themselves doing something they aren't supposed to. Especially knowing most military members hate his guts he can't have that many willing to risk pissing off their chain.


Heck if they really are Ron Paul supporters they will probably donate then want their money back claiming they didn't know what he was voting for/against and want to reverse their support now. And plead ignorance claiming to be mislead as to what he really was about and if they knew then what they know now they never would have donated. :rolleyes:

[garlicguy]

He is a paid federal civil service employee, just as it says they cannot donate to him or any other Federal Employee...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

You know Suzie, I really was gonna leave this alone, but then you had to go into ad hominem attacks against Ron Paul's supporters which is entirely uncalled for in a civilized debate. Are you a fan of of Sen. John McCrazed?

Anyhow...

Your definition of Congressmen as being employees just does not measure up to the intention of the law. They are elected, not hired. Serve for a term, they are not terminated. And their compensation is fixed by law. Your assumption in your above post would be like saying that, because someone receives a Social Security check, they are employed by the Federal Government. Complete nonsense. Give it up.

Members of the Armed Forces are encouraged to support the candidates of their choice, incumbent or not. They are not to support other federal employees including other members of the Armed Forces in such candidacies and this is for obvious good reasons.

gg :biggrin:

[Suzie]

Social Security is your own money, you pay in to that with your salary. Congress is paid a salary by the tax payers for a job, not some kind of program he is enrolled in, he is most certainly a Federal Employee.

It doesn't matter if you are elected or appointed or just hired if you receive a paycheck for a federal job you are a federal employee and you receive a federal employee pension when you leave office. As does Ron Paul. So does John McCain for that matter.

And it's not a law. It's a DOD directive.

[Eagle1]

There is no single better way to support the troops than to get them out of the line of fire.
No warmonger can claim that eh?

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Stuart_Mill/)
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

[Madbomber]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Stuart_Mill/)
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)


There are many things worth fighting and dieing for. What we are involved in in Iraq now though is a war won that has evolved into an occupation. An occupation that has our troops and our economy streatched too thin. Let them take care of themselves.

It will do us no good to have our troops elsewhere if we implode economically. Our national debt has doubled in the last 8 years. We had one politician in China mention that they should start buying Euros over dollars and our stockmarket went into a tailspin loosing 300 points that day. that was just a mere mention of the possibility of a change in policy, you can only imagine what will happen when they start actually taking Euros.

If you just have got to have the wars, at the very least, you should be a proponent of massively reducing our internal expenditures. We cannot afford our policy of being the global policeman. What we need is to focus on ourselves and our own national defence. Get our own house in order before we continue to try to take on the burden of the rest of the world.

I doubt seriously that that will happen though becuase most Americans are in serious denial about our economy and Debt. So yes we will more than likely continue to stay in areas that we are neither wanted or needed right up to the point that we default and HAVE to bring the troops home.

[The_Elucidator]

There are many things worth fighting and dieing for.

Yeah, like the right to use a dictionary or spellcheck!!

I believe the word you are looking for is "dying."

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul and his Paul-heads clearly don't think that America is worth fighting for.

[THEBIRD]

Obviously this administration doesn't either in regards to our open borders that are leaking like a screen door on a submarine.

Bring the troops home and put them with machine guns on the borders and we'll be a lot safer than we are now.

Quit trying to expand the walls of the castle.

[omegatrump]

They are protecting the American people, in case you haven't noticed there have been NO terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. It is also ILLEGAL for American Troops to "Plug up the holes in the border", as has been pointed out frequently on this board.

Also You didn't answer my DIRECT QUESTION! So I will ask again

Are you suggesting that all of us that support the troops battling terrorism are "Warmongers"? Or are you just throwing out idiotic statements to disrupt the site?


Plug up the holes in the Border? come on now Unk. You know you don't have an argument there. John Sutton keeps a big hole open there where he is. What about this Fox news report? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312901,00.html

[The_Elucidator]

Quit trying to expand the walls of the castle.

Here we go with the "Imperialism" BS again.. :rolleyes: You do realize that is right out of the "Code Pink" handbook, right?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Bring the troops home and put them with machine guns on the borders and we'll be a lot safer than we are now.
Once again, we can't put troops on the border because it is ILLEGAL and probably unconstitutional..

Quit trying to expand the walls of the castle.
Quit lying that we are empire-building.

The “Empire” Strikes Back (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODQyYzk0ZjBkYzk4ZTAzODZiZGNmNWMyZTdhMDU4MzU=)

The United States is getting tagged as an “empire” from all quarters. Indeed, it’s been a century since the notion of an American empire got such wide circulation, and back then Washington truly had designs on such expansion. (Google “Spanish-American War” if you’re interested.)

The empire charge has long been a staple of the political extremes. It’s even bubbled up in the presidential race. Lefty Rep. Dennis Kucinich insists that we must abandon “the ambitions of empire.” Hyper-libertarian Rep. Ron Paul says we could afford health care if we weren’t running a “world empire.”

.................

When they speak of the American empire, critics fall back on cartoonish notions, invoking Hollywoodized versions of ancient Rome or mothballed Marxist caricatures of the British Raj. But unlike the Romans, or even the British, our garrisons can be ejected without firing a shot. We left the Philippines when asked. We may split from South Korea in the next few years under similar circumstances. Poland wants our military bases; Germany is grumpy about losing them. When Turkey, a U.S. ally and member of NATO, refused to let us invade Iraq from its territory, the U.S. government said “fine.” We didn’t invade Iraq for oil (all we needed to do to buy it was lift the embargo), and we’ve made it clear that we’ll leave Iraq if the Iraqis ask. (Emphasis added)

[Madbomber]

Yeah, like the right to use a dictionary or spellcheck!!

I believe the word you are looking for is "dying."


If the best you've got is attacking my spelling Ill consider it a win.

[garlicguy]

:rolleyes: You do realize that is right out of the "Code Pink" handbook, right?

No. Actually I did not. Don't know what it is, never seen one and haven't read a line of whatever it contains.

I know conventional wisdom claims you can't judge a book by its cover, but its very title has no appeal to me. Makes me think that it tells you how to be a Commie or at least a wwwwaaaaaaayyyyyyyy lefty swingin' sumpin' 'r' other.