The Right Scoop
Well....I came back just to read the comments here realizing the moderator/owner of this web site does not see the humor and ignorance in their poll. What a riot. I am cracking up at the comments and just shaking my head at the spoiled, whiny cry baby who created this poll. This is some good political humor for sure and the poll reflects the political establishment to a tee.
So what you are saying is you are a huge crybaby because Ron Paul has all the support and you want to take your poll and go home? Brilliant!
Today I looked in my toilet and there was some brown stuff lying in the bottom of the bowl....it reminded me of this web page.
I love that I can't vote here...democracy at its best! I actually voted for Rick Perry on this one, just for sh*ts and giggles. You guys need to lighten up, raise the lights a bit and have a little perspective. Ron Paul fans are supporting their guy just like you're supporting yours. We may not always agree, but we don't have to exclude people from polls. Use IP tracking or only allow votes from validated accounts...I think you'll see that Ron Paul gets more votes, but only because he has more support.
Where'd you go. You seemed pretty adamant about my posts and arrogant as though your experience proves you are right. I'd love to hear a rebuttal.
Great poll, moron. Leaving Dr. Paul off the poll is obviously going to make this poll accurate. Might as well throw it on the junk heap along with the rest of your carreer.
Ok, so now you have a biased, incomplete poll that is irrelevant. Keep up the good work!
literally lol....ya don't post Ron Paul's name because he keeps winning all the polls you put on your website!?!?! If that is not blatent bias then I don't know what is. If you kept his name on the poll you would probably have new people coming to your webiste and more views on your page which means your popularity would grow...but oh ya you wouldn't want that right? Obvisously Dr. Paul is winning with or without your poll, and I think more peope are going to look into Paul now considering you don't even give them an option to vote or see his name. Good try though trying to silence the majority! Ron Paul 2012!!! want to learn more about him go to ronpaul2012 . com
Blackmun flip-flopped so much, he makes Romney look like an amateur, do a little research on Blackmun. While your at it, take a look at one of his professors at Harvard Law, Felix Frankfurter (that is the man's name, no joke), then think about what he wrote about the right to privacy and it will all make sense, especially if you have a conservative bone in your body. I'll give you a little hint, "progressive".
What Madison "opposed" was the inclusion of the Bill of Rights within the text of the Constitution proper, which is why the Bill of Rights was presented and ratified as the first ten Amendments.
You could argue that there is "no broad doctrine of privacy outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment", that is if you like arguing with yourself. It is laid out in the Fourth, what I stated is that the Fourteenth did was to reinforce the rights of due process, found in the 4th through 8th, as well as reaffirming the concept expressed in the 9th. I don't recall arguing that the 14th Amendment had anything to do with the Abortion issue, I did state how Roe v. Wade did however. Separate points there.
As to the "common man" or "dirt farmer" (the bulk of the colonists were ordinary farmers) and the concept of the document being penned so that all could grasp it. Bear in mind that the 14th was passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, so while a bit more "complex" it is only just a bit and can be understood quite easily if one does not read it with a mind predisposed to the extrapolation of absent intent. As to understanding, the original Constitution and its first Ten Amendments, I give you the following, from the youngest jurist ever appointed to the Supreme Court (by then President Madison) and the first Dane Professor of Law at Harvard University;
451. XV. In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted for common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.~ Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the US Constitution: Volume III
The real question is why isn't your candidate getting the love on the internet? There are a lot of computer literate people in this country. Why doesn't your candidate invoke passion, hope and optimism in people who thought the political system was a sham like Dr. Paul does?
"Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air". It becomes a poisonous gas. Uranium is also very heavy and will go deep in the ground and pollutes the water table. When ingested, it destroys kidneys and livers. Look it up in the Geneva Convention.
Also, the US military did a study on the clean up of DU weapons and concluded in 1991 that anyone involved in the clean up should be wearing a full biohazard suit and all clothing afterwords should be destroyed. The tanks that were brought back from Kuwait hit with friendly fire DU rounds were disposed of in radioactive dumps. That tells me they knew of the dangers.
Let me repost this:
...Rokke said. Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.
pyrophoric [ˌpaɪrəʊˈfɒrɪk]
adj
1. (Chemistry) (of a chemical) igniting spontaneously on contact with air
It should also be mentioned that depleted uranium weaponry usage is illegal under all international treaties, agreement and conventions, as well as under US military law.
Let me post a comment I made in response to the poster you quoted so you may understand my perspective.
If depleted uranium is not used in bombs, then why did the Pentagon admit to doing so? I should have said bombs and shells, yes.
By your assessment of uranium, we were actually doing Iraq a favor by giving them the needed uranium their bodies crave like magnesium or calcium? It is misinformation or disinformation to compare naturally occurring elements with uranium which is a byproduct of nuclear enrichment and you know it.
While they may not be harmful inside the shell casings, bombs and shells are made to use. And when you use them, they explode. When they explode they are extremely harmful. This is not fringe information.
What is disinformation is suggesting that the truth is dangerous because it supports our enemies. Dubya would be proud of you. The "war on terror" commences.
That is isolationism not non-interventionalism that was prominent before WWII. What Ron Paul understands is "blowback". Look it up. It is a very useful word in understanding our current foreign policy. The CIA has warned us about blowback. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are creating more enemies than we are making friends overseas, much more. Exactly how is that protection? Once you take of your red, white and blue glasses you were issued, only then can you see the world more objectively. Or you can just go on thinking that those that hate us, do so because we are so frickin' awesome! High five, yeah. "You're either with us or you're against us". Another high five!
I can't stand when people vote for candidates who are not my boy. They should be banned from posting here too. It's always good to be on the "right" side, eh?
That's ridiculous! Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a solid history of voting his conscience, not flip-flopping, not taking money from special interests and has been saying the same things for decades (most of which has been accurately predicted). His stance has not changed and he has defended the Constitution on a continuous basis. The only confusion is that projected at Dr. Paul by those wishing to disinform the public. I'll give you credit, though, many take the bait.
Ignore all you want. It doesn't make Ron Paul disappear as the establishment would like.
So by "harmless", you mean completely the opposite?
Dr. Doug Rokke, on the other hand, former director of the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium Project, is very willing to talk about the effects of DU. Rokke was involved in the "clean up" of 34 Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles hit by friendly fire during the 1991 Gulf War. Today he suffers from the ill effects of DU in his body.
"A flying rod of solid uranium 18-inches long and three-quarters of an inch in diameter," is what becomes of a DU tank round after it is fired, Rokke said. Because Uranium-238 is pyrophoric, meaning it burns on contact with air, DU rounds are burning as they fly.
When the DU penetrator hits an object it breaks up and causes secondary explosions, Rokke said. "It's way beyond a dirty bomb," Rokke said, referring to the terror weapon that uses conventional explosives to spread radioactive material.
Just because you were there does not mean you were briefed what was actually going on. The Pentagon has already admitted to using between 315 and 350 tons (not pounds) of depleted uranium in bombs and shells during the first Gulf War. In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tons of DU in Iraq thus far. I am not attacking any of the troops, such as yourself, who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. I am attacking the Pentagon for putting so little value on American and Iraqi lives. Anyone exposed to these weapons is in danger of serious health issues.
I live in southeast NC which is teaming with military personnel -both retired and currently in the service. Overwhelmingly, the people I talk to who have served, support Paul. Granted, most privates don't have extra money and/or don't care too much about politics. Many have been affected negatively by our foreign policy and are coming out to support Ron Paul. The support may come in the form of money or volunteering or voicing approval to others. There is more support for him than any other candidate from my real world experience. It's not even close.
More specifically, the polls show who the establishment would like as Obama's opponent, which is another establishment guy. Or, anyone not Ron Paul. He scares established folks on both sides of the aisle (assuming one sees an actual division at all of established Dem. or Rep.).
So let’s be clear, you won’t put Ron Paul on your poll because Ron Paul supporters are more active. All of the other candidates have just as many fan sites and targeted sites to find polls so their supporters can support their candidate. So if you are looking for to get a poll that is even remotely close to being accurate in your views, take this down, go out and ask someone on the street. Otherwise include everyone running in the polls.
By taking this poll you are asking for the community's opinion. Just because a majority of the online community weighs heavily on one side, should not be a reason to try and silence that side of the community by removing their choice.
You would be just as upset if they never included TRS on a vote for most objective writing, because anyone who likes TRS and agrees they are the most objective in their writing votes for you. Which this is all a fantasy because the poll above shows that you are objecting to being objective with your poll results.
It sounds like you don't like Ron Paul, and every time you take a poll you’re reminded that everyone does not agree with you. So because an overwhelming majority takes the time to support their candidate, you would rather hide that fact and call their support "skewing". By omitting Ron Paul from this poll you are "skewing" the results, and in fact are guilty of hypocrisy.
Maybe if we'd listen to people like former Army War College Director Dr. Alan Sabrosky, Former Italian President Francisco Cossiga, Former Army Intel Capt Eric May, to name just a few who have put their names and careers on the line to courageously state the ugly truth: Israel did 911. Thats right! That is exactly what these people have said verbatim. Along with others like Former CIA Director of the Bin Laden Unit in the CIA Michael Scheuer who said we need to question why we are fighting Israel's wars and that 911 was a cover up. Don't worry though, cowards and traitors who didn't question these issues and help cover them up will soon be seeing the day of the rope (treason is punishable by death and an easy finding of guilt is assured)...
Michael Delaney - AKA Prothink
You do understand the Supremacy Recital, do you not? It boils down to this, If it is covered by the US Constitution, then that is how it is. Just like the right to free speech, it (the US Constitution) trumps any law to the contrary, whether it be federal, state or local. What is "recent" or what has a "short history" is the use of legal precedence in attempting to "interpret" the Constitution, the document was not intended or written to need lawyers to translate it; it was written to be taken, exactly as it was written, by the "common man". By your line of reasoning, the State in which you live has the authority to take your right to free speech, along with any other it so chooses. You strike me as one of those "living document" types. What the first clause (or section, if you prefer) of the 14th Amendment does, is to reinforce the 4th through 9th Amendments, it actually restates the 9th, and reaffirms the right of "due process", for all citizens. The "driving force" behind that first section of the 14th was to confirm and set down that former slaves and their children were indeed US Citizens, entitled to all the rights expressed in the US Constitution. Nor, was it written to endow the children of illegal immigrants with the status of US Citizen, as many, that exhibit your flawed line of reasoning on the document maintain.
The decision in Roe v. Wade only "raised the bar" on how a law needed to be written, it sent a message to anyone writing a law that they had better make their laws less ambiguous. To make it clear, concise and constitutionally enforceable.
What you label "outrage", was in my eyes indeed warranted, whether or not you believe that is of no consequence. I "extracted" nothing, I "read" the document as written, assigning no "extraordinary gloss" or "recondite meaning".
Newt Gingrich proved in this debate why he would prove to be a much tougher GOP candidate against Obama than regional candidate Rick Perry, Libertarian Foreign Policy Fright Ron Paul, not-quite-up-to-the-task Rick Santorum and RINO, Father of Homosexual Marriage in America, Mitt Romney. Newt has a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of getting BIG things done for America BECAUSE of his big mouth to speak the Truth To Power, be they Saul Alinsky Radicals or Establishment Republicans like Bush Sr, who derailed Reagan's Revolution by violating his "no new taxes, read my lips" pledge. Newt will RESTORE the Reagan Revolution, bringing millions of jobs to America and CHANGING it from the road to Sodom and Gomorrah that Obama and the RINOS currently have it on, to the road BACK to exceptionalism and the Rule of Law. He worked with Presidents Reagan and Clinton to help create a climate to create over 20 million new jobs and reformed welfare and balanced America's budgets. Go Newt!
It skews the poll in favor of portraying an accurate picture of the opinions of TRS's regular readers. Unless, of course, you and all your fellow first timers who came here hoping to vote for Paul all decided to vote for one other candidate. But who are we kidding? None of you purists would sully yourselves by allowing your names to be affiliated with any of the other candidates.
I didn't see the entire debate, only the first hour or so, but I would agree that Paul answered all his questions. No dodges. That doesn't make him any more acceptable as a candidate since his foreign policies were, as usual, completely detached from reality.
No. I followed a link from the Mitt Romney site to participate in the discussion & poll regarding the South Carolina Republican Debate. If the owner of the poll had been idiotic enough to exclude any other candidate, my response would have been the same.
Ron Paul has the most supporters come to his rallies and the most supporters on the web. You can't stop an idea whose time has come. The establishment and mainstream media is afraid of Dr. Paul because he is a threat to the status quo. No one can stand up to a debate with Dr. Paul because he has the truth on his side. He doesn't flip-flop on issues and he is the only real conservative out there, fiscally and constitutionally.
Well you worked in all the talking points, well done RuPaulite. As soon as we see the "Ron Paul is the only one running that..." well, yeah..
The only WMD's in Iraq were the 300+ tons of depleted uranium bombs dropped by the US onto Iraq. In many areas, the infant mortality rate has gone up 6x, while the birth defects and cancer rates have gone off the charts. You don't hear any of this on Fox or CNN. Reports also claim depleted uranium used in Libya too.
Apparently you do not know much about munitions either. Depleted Uranium is not used in "bombs", it is used in Armor Piercing ammunition. In other words AP rounds fired by the M-1 Tank, A-10 "Warthog", and various chainguns and light auto-cannons like those used in the Bradley AFV and we certainly aren't the only nation that makes use of it, Britain, Russia and China all use it (just to name a few).
How common is uranium?
"The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the Department of Health and Human Services estimates there are an average of 4 tons of uranium in the top foot of soil in every square mile of land. A heavy metal similar to tungsten and lead, uranium occurs in soils in typical concentrations of a few parts per million (equivalent to about half a teaspoon of uranium in a typical 8-cubic yard dump truck-load of dirt)."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm
"Dr. Doug Rokke, the ex-director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project, says that there is no way to totally decontaminate an area hit with uranium, an element that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and has thus earned the title “the silent killer that will never stop killing.” Rokke today says he was told by the government to lie about the effects of uranium and that most of the crew he worked with is now dead."
Maybe you can plant some in your garden?
I have uranium in my garden, everyone does, it is a naturally occurring element, as I pointed out. DU (depleted uranium) is a different animal. So either you or whoever you are quoting, misquoted Dr. Rokke. I would surmise the quote was published by the likes of Alex Jones or George Noory, based on its content. Which would give me great pause in considering its veracity.
If depleted uranium is not used in bombs, then why did the Pentagon admit to doing so? I should have said bombs and shells, yes.
By your assessment of uranium, we were actually doing Iraq a favor by giving them the needed uranium their bodies crave like magnesium or calcium? It is misinformation or disinformation to compare naturally occurring elements with uranium which is a byproduct of nuclear enrichment and you know it.
I think I found a bug. It seems like no matter whom I choose in your poll, it just gives a point to the status quo.
What is really sad is that you would state nonsense about a site on the internet disenfranchising you as a voter. Actually, that's not sad, it's pathetic.
If those complaining about Paul not being on this poll saw the debate and the Twitter hash mark, answer and dodged, vote ratings for each of the candidates following the debate you may START to realize why Paul never makes it on the polls conducted on this site.
Paul's followers flooded those hash mark results skewing all of his results beyond belief.
Ron Paul supporters "flood" in support because he is invoking passion in people who previously thought the political system was a lost cause. There are a lot of computer savvy people in this country. The real question that should be asked is why isn't your candidate getting a flood of support? If they were, you would have no problem. Good luck.
Then perhaps you should market to people in a manner that invites more independent and free thinking people to want to STAY and read your publication! Ron Paul is the ONLY choice for president this election, but more importantly, a vote for Paul is a vote for WE THE PEOPLE to continue to fight for liberty and freedom. WE THE PEOPLE are the engine!
Yeah! Just like at "LibertyTree", where you can be banned in record time for questioning Paul's positions or record. Physician heal thyself.
Others are mentioning reductions in future spending, but Paul is the only one talking about any cuts whatsoever. There's a reason why Ron Paul gets more financial support from military citizens than all the other GOP candidates combined. Think about it for a moment. More people who served this country back Ron Paul with their hard earned money and Ron Paul wants to bring them home. They see first hand what war is about and the senselessness of creating 'blowback' for our country.
As of January 6, 2012 , according to available numbers, Paul's campaign received amounts of, $24,503, $23,335 and $17,432, from donors who listed the US Military as their "employer", for a total of $65,270. As of September 2011 there was a total of 1,468,364 active duty service members.
Let's do a little math.
First let's do the equation so that we "give" him the most possible number of supporters;
If each of them donated $1 that would come to 4.4% of military personnel supporting Ron Paul.
If they donated $10 each, that's .44%.
If they were feeling real generous and gave $100 each, that would make it .044% of military personnel support Paul.
When I was serving, the majority of us (that were single) found many other things that we would rather spend it on than politicians. Seems very little has changed.
Wasn't "W" a Texas governor? I agree that the office doesn't make you credible, even less now.
If Romney wins SC he'll take the GOP Nomination...Obama will eat him for lunch!
Newt is the only candidate that can debate and win against Obama, this is our only chance to take back the White House. I stand with Newt.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.