Is it a good idea to reach out to Ron Paul supporters?

[Jason Taylor]

The Ron Paul supporters are certainly their own breed. They have many qualities that would certainly make them valuable teammates. They are unapologetically conservative, fiercely loyal and patently activist.

On the other hand, their highly idealistic nature leads many to believe that they are too inflexible to accept any platform which requires even their most lofty aspirations to be put on hold.

Where exactly do they stand on the issues? Can we find success by embracing them into our new plan for the Republican party, as many have voted for on rebuildtheparty.com?

One thing's for sure: We had better figure this whole mess out quickly, figure out just exactly who is going to be on our side in this, and start laying the foundation for success. Unfortunately, it seems like a "hot potato" issue that nobody really wants to take head-on.

I'd like to invite you to explore this topic with me. I have created the group "Committee on the Campaign for Liberty", and if you're interested in seeing exactly where they stand on the issues compared with us, please join. I believe that it is important for us to make every reasonable effort to understand these folks, and to include them in what we're doing here - if possible, to build a bridge between these obvious factions of our party. I hope that you think so too.

[Thunder Pig]

Gary:

I think it is fair to say that the primary difference between us is that I believe in fighting them over there and you believe in allowing them to establish a caliphate and come for us at their leisure, on their terms. no thanks, I believe in a more proactive course of action, to force my enemies into taking unwise countermeasures and making mistakes that will limit their future growth.

Without an "interventionist" President like George W Bush, 60 million people would now be living under tyranny, and for this great hero, I would "fall on my sword", even if i disagree with him on many of his other policy decisions. This great man has freed more people than anyone since FDR and Roosevelt.

Suzanne:

You have fallen for the lefty lies about this conflict, please get your Kool Aid from Gary above.

Here are the sppecifications and previous uses of these "bottle-rockets" that Hamas is using.

They are as homemade as the Big Mac you can get at any McDonald's restaurant, and many of the newer ones are shipped from Iran and the "bottle-rockets" are assembled in "metal-working shops" that are scattered throughout Gaza, many next to schools and hospitals, and even on certain college campuses, like the R&D Facility destroyed by Israel recently.

Here are the payloads of the various "bottle-rockets" being used by Hamas to fire into civilian areas. these are unguided rockets, by the way:

Qassam 1: 1 lb and up to 3 miles
Qassam 2: 10 to 20 lbs and up to 6 miles
Qassam 3: 20 to 40 lbs and up to 7.5 miles
Grad: 40 lbs and up to 12.5 miles (Iranian, Syrian and North Korean-made)
Oghab: 154 lbs and up to 28 miles (Iranian, Syrian and North Korean-made)
Fajr-3/Ra'ad: 100 lbs up to 28 miles (Iranian, Syrian and North Korean-made)

Israel is just a little more than 30 miles across in that region, and Jerusalem about 50 miles away. The last three rockets are based on models that were used by Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.


View Larger Map Perhaps you wouldn't mind if I, and my gang, shot some of these "bottle-rockets" off at your neighborhood, where they could land on a school, gas station, church or where you worked? You are spouting some of the same nonsense as these anti-Semites.

It matters not a whit about whether there are Christrians, Zoroastrians or buddhists in the neighborhood. Israel works to limit civilian casualties (unlike your friends in Hamas...who glorify in the massacre of civilians). Israel has shown tremendous restraint in not acting sooner to kill these vermin.

I think it is very telling that you side with the UN, the Media, the Left, in condemning Israel for defending themselves.

Here are some blogs for your edification on the situation in Israel:

The Muqata
Israelly Cool
the elder of ziyon
AB News

[Suzanne]

17 Christian palestinians were blown apart in that bombing...I wonder if a bottle rocket is the same as a bomb? You know, ya'll hate the arabs so much...do you realize there are tons of christians in Lebanon and Palestine also? Good grief. sigh.

[Bill Greene]

What the crap does that mean?

[Dan Schwartz]

Gary, Suzanne and Bill:

So tell me, do you think we should reach out to Chuck Hagel supporters, too?

[Bill Greene]

Dan, may I suggest that you pay a bit closer attention to what is actually being written here? When did I ever even mention 9/11, in order to fail your asinine "smelly test"?

[Dan Schwartz]

Web,

So, you're a 9/11 Truther like Rosie O'Donnell and Gary, too?

There is indeed a political party for Gary and Rosie: The Dhimmicrats.

[Web Smith]

I'm with Gary.

[Dan Schwartz]

Gary:

ThunderPig beat me to the Kool-Aid pitcher: You've just shown your hand when you agree with the "9/11 Truther" crowd, just like Rosie O'Donnell.

In other words, if you take the GOP Smell Test®: You might be a Democrat if... You are a 9/11 "Truther"... You might be a Democrat.

Guess what, Bill: You failed the GOP Smell Test©

P.S.: It's Tora Bora (توره بوره) in the Nnagarhar province of Afghanistan, not Bora Bora (an island in the Pacific).

_____________________________________________________


Suzanne, my dear: May I suggest you pay a bit closer to the actual SCOTUS holdings, and read both the majority and dissenting opinions, especially when it comes to 5-4 splits, sucs as in Kelo v New Haven? You'll quickly see that both Judge Nino and (especially) Justice Clarence Thomas took to the woodshed the Justices in the majority who supported the "living and breathing" interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

May I suggest that you tune into Laura Ingraham's radio show (9--noon EST live), because she is a Constitutional lawyer who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

[Thunder Pig]

Gary:

Wow! Got Kool Aid? I guess you are opposed to Israel defending herself as well?

#'s 1, 2 and 3:

"We" did not let OBL slip through. Some of OBL's men were allowed through when they bribed some of the Northern Alliance to let them through the lines. There is still some debate regarding whether OBL died in December 2001. Let's see if a video is released after Obama becomes President where OBL addresses him by name.

I am glad to see that you count yourself among the "conspiracists" regarding 9/11 also.

Regarding #4: In case you haven't noticed the nature of warfare has undergone a couple of paradigm shifts since the end of the Second World War, namely the shift from 3GW to 4GW to 5GW that do not allow for a conventional enemy to exist 'to be targeted' in a declaration of war. The enemy goes from being a state to groups that cross national boundaries and tend to disperse into civilian populations when threatened, and even use them as shields and even weapons.

Here are some places for you to read up on this, House of War, which covers the 1st 4 Generations, Zen Pundit introduces 5GW, and Patic Communion puts it into graphical form and Purple Slog puts it into a Kinetics vs Domain chart.
The President has already received authority to go after these actors where and when they hide. This is mostly wet work, done with knives in the dark, and often with the help of unsavory actors around the world and here in the USA. They have kept you safe in your bed.

#5. Pre-emptive war is a necessary tool of statecraft. The best examples I can think of is the Six Day War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Tactical mistakes were made in both, but they were both successful implementations of pre-emptive strikes.

#6 Huh? What are you referencing?

#7. The Unitary Executive. I do believe that the President should control the Executive Branch...not Congress nor the Judiciary. I agree with a strong unitary Executive as explained by this Wikipedia artice:


The unitary executive theory relies on the Vesting Clause of Article II which states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Proponents of the unitary executive theory use this language along with the Take Care Clause ("The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed...") to argue that the Constitution creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President."[1]
The general principle that the president controls the entire executive branch is widely considered to be innocuous, but it also has extreme forms. John Dean explains: "In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters."[2]
In either its strong or weak form, the theory would limit the power of Congress to divest the President of control of the executive branch. The "strongly unitary" theory posits stricter limits on Congress than the "weakly unitary" theory.
Some scholars oppose even the "weakly unitary" theory, and favor creating a plural executive, as in the many state governments that separately elect an attorney general.[3] However, those scholars acknowledge that a constitutional amendment would be required to eliminate the federal unitary executive.
Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the President possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the strongly unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power not controlled by the President.[4]
The judicial branch implications are that no part of the executive branch can sue another part because "the executive cannot sue himself." If the federal courts were to adjudicate disputes between executive agencies, it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.
The theory, especially its strong form, has been associated with conservative legal thought and members of the Federalist Society. It originally came to prominence in regard to the independent counsel law (see Morrison v. Olson).

If you do not have access to JSTORS, I can copy and paste it for you when I return to my office on next Monday by email. (I believe we both have each other's address).

#8. Our 'bankruptcy' was determined the moment the Social Security Act was passed into law. No President since then has acted to reverse the course. The Big Three auto makers deserve to go bankrupt. They should void their contracts with the UAW while in bankruptcy, and start over with non-Union workers. I don't ascribe to the conspiracy theory hype of price manipulation by 'foreigners' to buy American corporations.

America is not an empire...that is insane talk from the anti-American war protesting left (and RP supporters).

I've heard the cry that we are no longer a first world power since the 1980's. I agree that it will eventually happen because all nations have a rise and a fall...not because you possess any sort of wisdom on the matter.

President George W. Bush has liberated 60 million people from tyranny and you hate him for that don't you?

[Suzanne]

When the supreme court justices start making interpretations according to the FOUNDERS INTENT...i'll start respecting them...until then...they are just one more faction of the New World Order. 2nd Amendment rights were put in the Constitution to protect us from GOVERNMENT TYRANNY...NOT to have a hand gun so you can have protection in your HOME..sigh.