TexasCHLforum.com

Civilized conduct is only possible when all parties are willing to act civilly. Terrorists do not act with civility, nor do governments that support, harbor, or train terrorists. Bin Laden lived in Pakistan for 5 to 6 years and no one believes their government's claim that they didn't know he was there. Even the Pakistani people don't buy it.

Pakistan ignored international law by harboring the world's most wanted terrorist and in my view that waived any legitimate claim to sovereignty over their borders, at least as to the U.S. effort to eliminate Bin Laden. We're not talking about a drug dealer, white collar crime, or even a murderer. Bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist on the planet and he was a mass murderer. Many thousands of terrorists looked to him for inspiration erroneously believing he was invincible. Now they know better; we can get anyone anywhere, it's only a matter of time.

I wish we would adopt the Israeli approach; kill one of us and we'll kill 100 of you. We would prefer to coexist and live in peace, but remember, we can also live in peace with you gone.

I know, very unlawyer-like of me.

Chas.

flb_78 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have no idea and I don't have time to research it. Are you saying this had something to do with Rep. Paul's vote?

Chas.
How can you criticize Rep. Paul on his vote when even you admit to not knowing what the bill is entirely about?

BTW, I have no idea why he voted against it.

I do know why he voted against it, that's why. I know what contacts were made and responses given.

Your motive is clear; you throw something out that has nothing to do with his vote and you belatedly admit that you know nothing about his motivation. You did that only after I asked if you were claiming that the IRS provisions were the basis of his vote.

He has a history of casting votes against gun owners and as one Member pointed out, he didn't/wouldn't sign a pro-incorporation amicus brief in McDonald. He is my Representative and in all his years in Washington, he has accomplished absolutely nothing, other than building a large campaign war chest by claiming he's running for President.

I see you are in Kentucky; don't let your love of Rand Paul seep into a discussion about Ron Paul. You better pray this acorn fell far from the tree.

Chas.

randomguy wrote:You should re-read your history-books if you're having trouble understanding Jefferson's role in executive & the First Barbary War.

randomguy wrote:However, I do take insult when people misinterpret history, mis-read the Constitution, and straw-man Dr. Paul for circumstances that could be no more disparate in current times.

randomguy wrote:. . . if you think killing a freakishly tall mastermind recluse made us safer, you're more dangerous than his replacement.

Don't post again until you read the forum rules, and then only if you can follow them.

Chas.

I have no idea and I don't have time to research it. Are you saying this had something to do with Rep. Paul's vote?

Chas.

flb_78 wrote:I'll bump this real quick and maybe someone can answer my original question.

flb_78 wrote:Mr. Cotton, could you explain to me what this paragraph means.

SEC. 3. ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL RESTITUTION.
(a) In General- Subsection (a) of section 6201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(4) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall assess and collect the amount of restitution under an order pursuant to section 3556 of title 18, United States Code, for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax.
‘(B) TIME OF ASSESSMENT- An assessment of an amount of restitution under an order described in subparagraph (A) shall not be made before all appeals of such order are concluded and the right to make all such appeals has expired.
‘(C) RESTRICTION ON CHALLENGE OF ASSESSMENT- The amount of such restitution may not be challenged by the person against whom assessed on the basis of the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability in any proceeding authorized under this title (including in any suit or proceeding in court permitted under section 7422).’.
(b) Exception From Certain Restrictions on Assessment and Collection-
(1) NO PETITION TO TAX COURT, NO RESTRICTION ON FURTHER DEFICIENCY LETTERS, ETC- Subsection (b) of section 6213 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(5) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION- If the taxpayer is notified that an assessment has been or will be made pursuant to section 6201(a)(4)--
‘(A) such notice shall not be considered as a notice of deficiency for the purposes of subsection (a) (prohibiting assessment and collection until notice of the deficiency has been mailed), section 6212(c)(1) (restricting further deficiency letters), or section 6512(a) (prohibiting credits or refunds after petition to the Tax Court), and
‘(B) subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the amount of such assessment.’.
(2) TIME LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION- Subsection (c) of section 6501 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(11) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION- In the case of any amount described in section 6201(a)(4), such amount may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such amount may be begun without assessment, at any time.’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to restitution ordered after the date of the enactment of this Act..

Bullwhip wrote:
buck000 wrote:http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... -laden-hit

IMHO, when Dr. Paul makes some statement that the media finds wildly whacky, there's generally a Constitutional basis for his position.
Yeah, that darn Constitution is so darn pesky, it gets in teh way of a lot of stuff the goverment wants to do to people.

Rule of law, or not? I guess it's just a national/international version of "he needed killin", AKA murder with popular support.

I'm seeing a lot of vague and general comments about Ron Paul and the Constitution; how about some specifics? Show us where Paul's votes are upholding his version of the Constitution. How does the constitution demand that firearms manufacturers be treated differently from every other manufacturer? How did killing Bin Laden violate the constitution. Please don't give general statements; point us to the specific constitutional provisions.

Chas.

buck000 wrote:http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... -laden-hit

IMHO, when Dr. Paul makes some statement that the media finds wildly whacky, there's generally a Constitutional basis for his position.

Ron Paul 2012.

What's the constitutional basis for not supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states? What's the constitutional basis for treating firearms manufacturers different from all other U.S. manufacturers in terms of payment of federal excise taxes?

It's not just the media that thinks his statements are wild and wacky.

Chas.

Bullwhip wrote:
gigag04 wrote: He doesn't ever do anything.
Too bad we can't say the same about the rest of congress.

He's funny, odd. Not a good speaker. Sure would be nice if he wasn't the only one in DC who believed in his oath to the Constitution.

His version of the Constitution; for example, his belief that firearms manufacturers should have to pay federal excise taxes to the government every two weeks instead of quarterly like every other manufacturer in the country.

Chas.

I'm curious, why do you two folks like Ron Paul? What has he accomplished in all the years he's been in Washington?

Do you agree with his position on the Bin Laden raid?

Chas.

Oldgringo wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's so embarrassing that this nut job is my Congressman! Too bad he's unbeatable in this District. He's going to collect a ton of money claiming to run for President, then he'll sit back and accomplish absolutely nothing as he always does. If he is really stupid enough to believe the Pakistani government would have turned him over to the U.S., then he's too gullible to even be a Congressman, much less President.

Chas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... aden-raid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These 'nut jobs' don't elect themselves. They're elected and then re-elected by the majority vote of the 'nut jobs' in their various districts...all across the country. Speaking of Pauls, does the acorn fall far from the tree...just askin'?

This guy keeps getting reelected because people don't take the time to see what he really stands for and how little he's done. He creates a few sound bites that sound appealing (even to me), but that doesn't reveal the real Ron Paul. The last time he "ran" for President, he collected so much money on the Internet from people outside of Texas that he'll never need to raise another nickle for all of his future campaigns.

Chas.

Oldgringo wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's so embarrassing that this nut job is my Congressman! Too bad he's unbeatable in this District. He's going to collect a ton of money claiming to run for President, then he'll sit back and accomplish absolutely nothing as he always does. If he is really stupid enough to believe the Pakistani government would have turned him over to the U.S., then he's too gullible to even be a Congressman, much less President.

Chas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... aden-raid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
These 'nut jobs' don't elect themselves. They're elected and then re-elected by the majority vote of the 'nut jobs' in their various districts...all across the country. Speaking of Pauls, does the acorn fall far from the tree...just askin'?

I sure hope so!! Perhaps there was a strong wind when the acorn fell.

Chas.

It's so embarrassing that this nut job is my Congressman! Too bad he's unbeatable in this District. He's going to collect a ton of money claiming to run for President, then he'll sit back and accomplish absolutely nothing as he always does. If he is really stupid enough to believe the Pakistani government would have turned him over to the U.S., then he's too gullible to even be a Congressman, much less President.

Chas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... aden-raid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 11 matches

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: One attempt provide details on Paul's position

Re: One attempt provide details on Paul's position

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Re: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound