Kucinich says he will force House vote on Cheney impeachment

He's not the first, and certainly not the last to do that.. Welcome to the wonderful world of copy/paste, cool colours and drawing attention to ones self.

There is a clear difference between preempting a war with the goal of conquering land, killing Jews, stealing art, vs.. a preemptive defense.

That you fail to see the difference is what worries me. That is why I choose number two...

How about NOT

I'm not certain I know what you are referring to.

 

I'm not surprised.
Some people in the world respect and encourage honest debate.
Anyone (well educated and above 14-25 years old) who reads the entire first page, now knows if you also respect respect and encourage honest debate.

Have a really nice night.

 

Fixed that for you.

IIRC, preemptive war is illegal under the Geneva Convention whether for offense or defense.

The problem with "pre-emptive defense" is that there are no baselines for what constitutes a threat. Is it flimsy manufactured evidence of Yellow Cake uranium, or is it a country with no navy, air force and that had been bombed more than Vietnam for nearly a decade, after sanctions that killed 1 million people.

I guess it's all subjective.

 

Yep, just depends on which way the wind is blowing. I was really impressed with their debate about a month or so ago, when virtually everyone seem to be changing their minds on immediate pull out. Savoring the opportunity to claim some of the success, I suppose.

Heh, good news for America is always bad news for some. Most don't even try to hide it anymore, they just come right out that they are pissed off about it

Good Lord, gemini! Ease up with the crayons in the posts, will ya? This is political debate, not a Hannah Montana coloring book contest!

 

This is that "dishonesty" I was talking about in another post. You noted you didn't like RP's positions being distorted. Just pointing out how I don't like it when others distort for their agenda.

Come on, you can be better than this, can't you?

 

Lol i do what you said, on occasion i do read his posts though

 

"Fixed"; in other words, re-wrote history.

Is this Kofi Annan's definition, or yours? I see a lot of people cite the GC with regard to the US protecting itself, yet I have never seen anyone actually cite and or quote where the GC specifically forbids a country from protecting itself... I've seen loons like Kofi and other's attempt to re-define the GC, but never have I seen anyone directly quote it.

Vietnam... Ah, now I know where you are coming from. You are quoting Kofi, not the GC... Have you ever thought for yourself, or do you let others do it for you? Kofi used this same argument, almost verbatim, that is before he was kicked out of the UN.

Like I always like to say, just cause you say it, does not make it so. These guys love to re-write history to suit their own opinion of reality. I guess this is why RP seems so appealing to them.... After all, old Ron would like people to believe he is raising 5 mil a day, when in fact, he's not even raised that much in the last 6 months.

Just cause you say it, does not make it so.

 

When did Ron ever attempt to get others to believe he's raising $5 million a day? Sources?

And in the last 6 months, he's raised roughly $7-8 million, not even counting November 5th.

The only thing he did is what any campaign would do, which is make sure the media knew about his record-breaking $4.2M day.

 

Looks like the quote function is broken again on DP...

Anyway, omgitsfletch, the "5 million a day" comment is from a CNN headline I saw yesterday:

http://slackerwire.com/?p=290

The "last 6 months" are claims by the RP camp... Until the federal election data is actually tallied and released, no one knows for sure if those claims are fact or fiction.. I lean more towards fiction.. Anyway, it's a great strategy, ie., make people think you are doing well when you are not. That's how Subway made its mark.

As for letting the media know... again, just cause you say so, does not make it so. He could tell the media that he is Jesus and there would be RP supporters out there on that bandwagon too...

 

• Uh, the CNN page, and the SlackerWire page both explicitly state in the headline "in one day". Every article I've seen explicitly states that he raised that amount "in one day". Maybe you got a bit confused while reading it, but it's certainly not that ambiguous, nor misleading, in my opinion. If you take issue with that headline, take it up with every news group in the country, because they are the ones continually phrasing it that way.
  
• In the 6 months prior to October 1st, 2007 (start of Q4), Ron raised exactly $7,627,908.68 in receipts. This is verifiable information, as seen here:
  Q2 data - http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C00432914.html
  Q3 data - http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914.html
  
• While you may not believe the donations he's received since then, there is no denying that numbers up until October 1st are legally verifiable as true. As to his Q4 numbers, he runs a ticker on the front page of his site that lists recent donors and has a running total of the amount he's raised this quarter. So if it were false, not only would he have to falsify the amount he's raising, he'd also have to falsify the donors' personal information. I can't recall which network did it, I think ABC, but in a news article on their site, they randomly selected a donor from the recent donors and did contact him, and he commented on why he supports Ron Paul and some other miscellaneous questions.
  
  The ticker is not new, he's been running different donation tickers for months now, and the numbers line up with official numbers when they get released at the end of every quarter. So while I will concede that sure, you won't be able to completely verify his numbers until January 14th, 2007, I sure think the burden of proof is on you to show the likelihood of wrongdoing and fake numbers when his published fund-raising has been consistently in line with official numbers from the FEC.
  
• As a side note to that, I recall a lot of people complaining that the military numbers from Q2 were not worth much because it was an early quarter, and because the fund-raising for nearly every candidate was not as large as it is now, and that it was just one quarter, and a million other reasons to tear down the idea that Ron Paul got more military donations than any other candidate (although I believe depending on the source, he was second to Obama). In any case, his placement as first or second was heavily disputed. Guess what happened when Q3 numbers came out? He beat the crap out of every other candidate, including Obama, confirming he is the military candidate of this election. I'll get a source for that ASAP.

 

Nothing confusing here.. RP claims to have made 5 mil in a day... That is what the headline read, that is what the story said, and that is what RP claims.. Of course once an audit is done, we will find out otherwise, no doubt....

I just wonder how someone that barely cracked the 3 mil mark in the last 6 months can do 5 mil in one day.. It's bunk...

 

Again, why are you claiming he barely cracked the 3 mil mark in 6 months? I just gave you FILINGS FROM THE FEC indicating he raised $7.6M in 6 months.

 

Ah, because like you and RP, I can claim anything I want to... If I say it, it must be true right?

These numbers claims are just that, claims.. There is no proof yet to back up the numbers. Until the Federal Election Committee does their audit, we have no concrete evidence of any number, mine, yours or RP's...

The number is probably closer to 3 anyway.... But again, a little fluff never hurt... That's what helps garner more support and attention...

 

The FEC may not do an audit. I'm not too familiar with the proceedings, but a quick Google tells me that they can choose to audit anyone, but quite often don't audit most people. From the 2006 election, they audited 8 candidates, and audited 24 candidates in the 2004 election. That is not a lot of people out of so many members of Congress and Senate and Presidential candidates. The only guaranteed way to get audited is to accept public funds in the presidential race, which Ron Paul would never do, as it would be against his principles.

I suppose if your claim is that RP will definitely get audited and that you believe he is falsifying his claims, than sure, you might get proven correct. But evidence is showing that the likelihood of him being audited is very slim, and I see no reason to believe a man who has made his career on being truthful no matter the political consequences would falsify legal documents to boost his chances.

You call Ron Paul supporters the truthers, and yet here you are, claiming that Ron Paul is falsifying his finance reports with absolutely no evidence for believing such a thing.

Sources
http://www.fec.gov/audits/audit_reports_pres.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/audits/audit_reports.shtml
http://www.fec.gov/audits/audit_reports_auth.shtml

 

RP will no doubt be audited... Touting unbelievable numbers in a system where the government matches funds sets off alarms... Hopefully his duckies are in a row...

 

Ron Paul has not taken government matching funds, and he will not. Using public money to finance his private political campaign would be completely counter to his beliefs. He may be audited, but he will be fine.

 

Funny, he did accept funds whilst running for Congress.. Why would this be any different?

Maybe if he spent a little more time working for us, rather than out on the campaign trail, things might be a bit better...

"Ron Paul has missed 228 votes (21.9%) during the current Congress" That's this year folks... Sad

Is this really the person you want working for you? Looks to me like he is hardly working..


It seems impeaching Cheney and what Britney Spears does is a bit more important in America at the moment...

 

Hey Mia, how about you quote the voting records of all the other active candidates, so they can see Paul's activity in comparison to everyone else? Oh wait, I seem to have the numbers right here...

Attendance Records - 110th Congress

Republicans
Paul -- 78.1%
Hunter -- 71.1%
Tancredo -- 70.4%
McCain -- 47.4%

Democrats
Kucinich -- 88.2%
Clinton -- 82.6%
Obama -- 67.0%
Dodd -- 66.7%
Biden -- 65.3%

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

Well what do you know, he has the 3rd best attendance of all the candidates on either side who are current members of Congress! And the only two people voting more often than him are Hillary, and Kucinich, both Democrats! I know you probably aren't going to vote Democrat, so maybe you should lambast the voting records of the other Republican candidates, one of which you will likely vote for, before you attack Ron Paul on the issue.

 

So you are saying he's gonna come in 3rd?

I'm not interested in any of the candidates listed above on either side of the isle... Mainly because of their voting records. No one listed above has really done anything useful this year.. Why would I want someone with a D average running my country?

How come you did not list Kucinich btw? He's got an 88.9%.. Even with his star gazing for UFO's, he still seems to vote more than anyone listed above. There is really no excuse for anything below 95% IMO...