RON PAUL wins poll on the debate.

[BUGEYE]

my sig line tells exactly how I feel about the whole bunch in DC

[nomosendero]

What may save your bacon is a Repub majority in the Senate and no change in the House or the Supremes. In that case Obama is pretty well ham strung.

Nope, executive orders & a trainwreck foreign policy message (lack of message) would cause more chaos & extreme problems, not to mention his EPA & appointments & another possible Sup. Court pic.
Nope, pure trouble.

[1marty]

Paul will never appeal to the majority of the electorate other than his hard core followers who are in the minority. His silly answer about letting someone die because they didn't elect to have health insurance sets him apart as a real wacko.

[nw_hunter]

my sig line tells exactly how I feel about the whole bunch in DC

Right again! What we need is the Ron Paul Revolution.
I just went to Fox news, and "low and behold" There is a Fox Poll going on. The who won the debate poll. Paul was leading at 37% followed by Romney with 22% Perry had a whopping 8% of the vote.

Still Billy O talked about nearly every candidate running but.........Guess who? Ron Paul. He filled the air time with Perry and Romney, and did give mention to Cain. I feel he did that to calm what few Blacks Fox has as viewers. Had to be politically keerect you know!
He had that Great political mind (Chas. Krauthammer) on and he never mentioned Dr Paul either.

 Krauty did manage to slip the old ..............We need to elect the most Conservative of the candidates to run against Obama, that has a chance of winning.(The old Lesser of two evil thing) He mentioned several, but not ......Guess who? And even though their online poll has Ron Paul winning the debate at 37%. Well guess what? We have been voting that lesser thing forever and IT DON"T WORK Charles!But he knew that already didn't he?

At one time I actually fell for their BS about being fair and balanced.

[jimster]

Paul will never appeal to the majority of the electorate other than his hard core followers who are in the minority.

He won't appeal to the majority of voters the same reason Obama is currently the president...the majority of voters are obviously idiots.  Or you would not have Obama in the first place.   Correct?  Hard to argue that point.

My prediction is if Dr. Paul does win the Primary you will have Obama 'til 2016

You already are going to have Obama until 2016 at the very least, he already signed legislation that would last at least that long, regardless if a socialist republican gets in or not...you get the same deal you got now.  Maybe more of it.
You all best wake up and realize something here, you won't fix a darn thing with a socialist republican in there, only way your going to save what's left of America now is to find someone radical enough to put the brakes on and throw this mess in reverse, and be willing to put up with some revolt from some very angry socialists....you don't go that far you won't gain a thing, and most likely, things will get even worse.
I can already tell by reading these posts most people are not ready to gain any freedoms back. They won't leave their box.   I personally don't give a rip who the majority of Americans think is electable...they gave me what I have now.
 
 
 
 

[Graybeard]

Paul will never appeal to the majority of the electorate other than his hard core followers who are in the minority. His silly answer about letting someone die because they didn't elect to have health insurance sets him apart as a real wacko.

Then I guess I'm a wacko also as I do not feel it is society's responsibility to pay because someone is too cheap or too poor to afford insurance. That's a socialist/ communist view of life. I'm neither.

[Doublebass73]

Paul will never appeal to the majority of the electorate other than his hard core followers who are in the minority. His silly answer about letting someone die because they didn't elect to have health insurance sets him apart as a real wacko.

Then I guess I'm a wacko also as I do not feel it is society's responsibility to pay because someone is too cheap or too poor to afford insurance. That's a socialist/ communist view of life. I'm neither.

Another wacko here who doesn't believe in socialism either.

[1marty]

I see your point. However, how would one feel if it was YOUR son, daughter or wife who needed help to live? Would you still have the same pont of view-let them die?

[nomosendero]

Paul will never appeal to the majority of the electorate other than his hard core followers who are in the minority. His silly answer about letting someone die because they didn't elect to have health insurance sets him apart as a real wacko.

Then I guess I'm a wacko also as I do not feel it is society's responsibility to pay because someone is too cheap or too poor to afford insurance. That's a socialist/ communist view of life. I'm neither.

Another wacko here who doesn't believe in socialism either.

And another!!
Besides, the rest of what he said was not mentioned. He ALSO said that when he practiced Med. they took care of folks in local churches, etc & he helped some who could not pay or did not have insurance. Our founders & the Constitution never mentioned this free care, welfare or any of this garbage.

[jimster]

I see your point. However, how would one feel if it was YOUR son, daughter or wife who needed help to live? Would you still have the same point of view-let them die?

Been there done that.  I asked nobody for anything, did not think it was other people's problem. I dealt with it.
Your family can get help sometimes, sometimes they can't,  in the end everybody dies, government won't help this at all, although they will suck up trillions of dollars of our money telling you they can.  I would suggest you realize that life has some hard knocks in it, and you won't change that with lowering the standards of health care for everyone by interjecting government and taking everyones money.  What has government ever ran that worked out?  I don't think we need to give the government health care to and create another government empire of waste over a few emotions. Yes, it's emotional when someone gets real sick...but your government is not the answer. They have not been the answer to anything yet.  They are still working on securing your borders and protecting our wealth and can't handle that, how in the world do you think they could handle health care???   Short answer...they can't. 
 

[1marty]

I agree we don't need any help from government. Why do we need police to protect some slob who doesn't pay taxes and that goes for firemen who decline to rescue a family who didn't pay their real estate taxes. Also, people who are ill and don't have health insurance may linger for many months. They are such a burden to everyone. Perhaps for a small fee they can be convinced to have themselves put to death. I fought for this country and call me a commie but I think we are more compassionate than that crazy old man Paul who thinks he's Mr. Red white and blue.

[Doublebass73]

I see your point. However, how would one feel if it was YOUR son, daughter or wife who needed help to live? Would you still have the same pont of view-let them die?

I have a lot more faith in my church, friends and family helping me if someone in my family needed help than I do the government. Liberty is well worth the price.

[BBF]

Somewhere I heard or read you can have "Liberty or Peace".   Hmmm.......................

[Matt]

Bill O's poll looks like this.


Ron Paul all the way...

[1marty]

 Paul stated that the killing of that traitor by the drone aircraft in Yemen was unjustified since he was an American citizen and is protected by the laws of the US. Enough said.

[BBF]

So did Johnson.
 
 Putting on my American citizen hat for this post.
 
Nothing is extreme in the defense of Freedom.
 
Not my words, this was something I read many years ago. I agree.

[Matt]

Paul stated that the killing of that traitor by the drone aircraft in Yemen was unjustified since he was an American citizen and is protected by the laws of the US. Enough said.

and you disagree?

[BBF]

Matt:
That whole thing   c o u l d   have been easily taken care of  if the State Dept or whoever is in the proper Dept. removed/revoked that person's citizenhip. For that matter that could apply to any other US  citizen under the same circumstances.

[Matt]

I will never agree that the President has the power to assassinate any US citizen. We have a Constitution that clearly states that we have the right to a fair trial.  When was it that they had his and found him guilty? oh yeah they didn't.


Matt

[dukkillr]

I will never agree that the President has the power to assassinate any US citizen. We have a Constitution that clearly states that we have the right to a fair trial.  When was it that they had his and found him guilty? oh yeah they didn't.


Matt

You are right, of course.  But, as I've often said before, many on the Right don't care a bit about the Constitution except where it says that they can carry guns.  The truth is that most of them are simply too lazy to read and think for themselves...
 
Sadly, most on the left pick and choose the parts to support as well, but at least they don't pretend to support the Constitution and our rights!

[Casull]

I'm not familiar with the circumstances of the attack, but if he was with the enemy then he was a legitimate target.  There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the President from attacking a declared enemy just because a US citizen is with them.

[Heather]

I'm not familiar with the circumstances of the attack, but if he was with the enemy then he was a legitimate target.  There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the President from attacking a declared enemy just because a US citizen is with them.

http://rt.com/usa/news/house-panel-execute-terrorists-245/

[Casull]

Heather, I see a lot of conjecture and "anonymous" sources in that link, but nothing about the circumstances of the attack.  Was he alone or with the enemy?

[dukkillr]

Heather, I see a lot of conjecture and "anonymous" sources in that link, but nothing about the circumstances of the attack.  Was he alone or with the enemy?

He was the enemy.  It is further tension of the modern terrorism problem of how you handle these people judicially, with the important twist that he was an American.  Since the government doesn't formally declare war, they are not covered under the Geneva conventions.  Since they are captured or shot on battlefields they are not in our criminal court system. 
 
The problem that thinking people have with this case is not that a bad terrorist was killed, it's that an American abroad was killed by the US government with no oversight.  They simply declared him bad, and killed him.  And it's not as if he was killed in an armed shootout at a terrorist hideout, they targeted him with a drone attack.  If you aren't concerned about the potential for abuse in this you have much more trust in your government than you should. 
 
A very chilling prospect to those who care about the rights and protections granted to all Americans by the US Consitution. 

[Casull]

Dukkiller, you're going to get tired jumping to those conclusions.  I never condoned the assination of an American.  I simply asked what the circumstances were (and still hadn't gotten a decent answer).  If you can't figure that out, I don't know what else to say. 

[powderman]

Al awaki was no American, he was a muslim and an enemy.All terrorists should be fair game. He  didn't have to be with an enemy, he WAS an enemy and a traitor.  He's further proof that citizenship does NOT make him an American. No such thing as an American muslim. Traitors should be killed, he said he was proud he was a traitor to America. The world is better off without him. POWDERMAN. 

[Doublebass73]

Heather, I see a lot of conjecture and "anonymous" sources in that link, but nothing about the circumstances of the attack.  Was he alone or with the enemy?

He was the enemy.  It is further tension of the modern terrorism problem of how you handle these people judicially, with the important twist that he was an American.  Since the government doesn't formally declare war, they are not covered under the Geneva conventions.  Since they are captured or shot on battlefields they are not in our criminal court system. 
 
The problem that thinking people have with this case is not that a bad terrorist was killed, it's that an American abroad was killed by the US government with no oversight.  They simply declared him bad, and killed him.  And it's not as if he was killed in an armed shootout at a terrorist hideout, they targeted him with a drone attack.  If you aren't concerned about the potential for abuse in this you have much more trust in your government than you should. 
 
A very chilling prospect to those who care about the rights and protections granted to all Americans by the US Consitution.

Well said Duk, I'm not concerned over the death of that POS, my concern is that this is the government way overstepping it's bounds. They have given themselves the power to declare any American citizen "bad" and kill them at will. If we the people go along with this then what would prevent them from killing militia members that the Obama administration doesn't agree with?

[powderman]

They have given themselves the power to declare any American citizen "bad" and kill them at will. If we the people go along with this then what would prevent them from killing militia members that the Obama administration doesn't agree with?
 
 
Good point, I must admit that with imam obama at the helm it could very well be abused, but in this last situation, good deal. He was a self avowed traitor and deserved it. POWDERMAN. 

[nw_hunter]

Heather, I see a lot of conjecture and "anonymous" sources in that link, but nothing about the circumstances of the attack.  Was he alone or with the enemy?

He was the enemy.  It is further tension of the modern terrorism problem of how you handle these people judicially, with the important twist that he was an American.  Since the government doesn't formally declare war, they are not covered under the Geneva conventions.  Since they are captured or shot on battlefields they are not in our criminal court system. 
 
The problem that thinking people have with this case is not that a bad terrorist was killed, it's that an American abroad was killed by the US government with no oversight.  They simply declared him bad, and killed him.  And it's not as if he was killed in an armed shootout at a terrorist hideout, they targeted him with a drone attack.  If you aren't concerned about the potential for abuse in this you have much more trust in your government than you should. 
 
A very chilling prospect to those who care about the rights and protections granted to all Americans by the US Consitution.

Well said Duk, I'm not concerned over the death of that POS, my concern is that this is the government way overstepping it's bounds. They have given themselves the power to declare any American citizen "bad" and kill them at will. If we the people go along with this then what would prevent them from killing militia members that the Obama administration doesn't agree with?

It was well said.........But some cannot see the forest for the trees.When this kind of thing comes home to roost and happens in our own neighborhoods, it will be too late to do anything but cry about it. You won't be able to say anything about it, because that will put YOU on the enemy list, and the last thing you might hear on earth is the sound of that unmanned plane overhead

[Matt]

Al awaki was no American, he was a muslim and an enemy.All terrorists should be fair game. He  didn't have to be with an enemy, he WAS an enemy and a traitor.  He's further proof that citizenship does NOT make him an American. No such thing as an American muslim. Traitors should be killed, he said he was proud he was a traitor to America. The world is better off without him. POWDERMAN. 

Powderman, I love your enthusiasm but I must say that I wish you could see that WE ARE THE TERRORIST over there. Now do not get me wrong I stand behind the TROOPS 100% as they are following orders even if those are bad orders it is what they do.


Please take a few minutes and watch this video and please let it sink in that WE WERE THE TERRORIST FIRST to them and they will do as we would do here and that is keep on keeping on till those who occupy the lands are gone from it. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.... Just put yourself in their shoes for 2 min while you watch this video... If that does not help you to understand then let me know and I will keep trying to point out what I see so maybe we can both see the same picture which should be one of Respect, Honesty and Love for our fellow man ( ALL OF THEM ).

Matt