Declaration of war against Ron Paul

april15bendovr

[april15Bendovr]

Ron Paul refuses to declare war against Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.

We have made it clear here at Free Republic that there is irrefutable documentation showing Saddam's WMD program and links to Al Qaeda under this section on the website

PreWarDocs

Ron Paul continues to appease our enemy.

I am officially posting a declaration of war against Ron RuPaul here at Free Republic on behalf of patriotic Americans who support our troops mission in Iraq.

[ejonesie22]

That is perhaps the most beautiful thing I have read in some time. Poetic fails as a description...

It sums up my feeling towards Paulettes better than I ever could...

[tacticalogic]

He asked for a declaration of war, knowing full well that it made absolutely no sense in a war on terror, and that it would let him off the hook on the issue. It's much like his handling of earmarks.

We went to war against the government and military of a foreign country.

[SJackson]

Check my correction in 219. And he has most certainly NOT allied himself, no more than conservatives have "allied" themselves with the likes of david duke.

We'll leave the truthers and left wing antiwar nuts aside.

Both Ronald Reagan and Bush I rejected the support of David Duke. The Republican Party rejected Pat Buchanan's idea that they adopt some of Duke's ideas.

Ron Paul garners a significant amount of support from white supremecist/neonazi websites. Can you point me to his rejection of this support?

Ron Paul is advertised as a columnist by Willis Carto's (a notorious white supremecist) American Free Press. Can you point me to anything demonstrating Ron Paul's objection to this use of his name in a print publication?

Ron Paul's articles have appeared in the Citizens Informer, published by the Council of Conservative Citizens. Does he condemn this racist group?

He's appeared on Political Cesspool radio, loosely associated bith the CCC.

Does he condemn the white supremecists who are his fellow guests?

There's not comparison between Ron Paul and the Republican Party in this regard, unfortunately he's running as a Republican, thus taints the whole. One can argue that Republican cultivate these groups by pointing at Ron Paul.

[tacticalogic]

You don’t believe it ever happened?

[tacticalogic]

You don’t believe it ever happened?

[tacticalogic]

You don’t believe it ever happened?

[CJ Wolf]

I guess this is why we went to the UN. BTW I agree that we don’t need the UN permission to wage war.

“March 17, 2003
Competing resolutions concerning military action in Iraq are presented to the UN Security Council
One proposed resolution, submitted by the U.S., England and Spain accuses Iraq of failing to comply with resolution 1441 requiring complete disarmament. The three nations argue that the international community now must take military action to back up resolution 1441’s threat of “serious consequences”; for non-compliance. France, Germany, and Russia submit a rival proposal to intensify weapons inspections rather than military action. In the end, neither resolution gains enough votes to pass.”

BTW the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait, not throw out Saddam.

[Thoreau]

I’m truly sorry you feel that way, but I was only pointing out that guilty by association is not a valid arguement. If it is, then we are all guilty. I don’t find that asinine myself.

[Jim Robinson]

I don’t believe Ron Paul ever wanted to go to war as you asserted.

[WalterSkinner]

Sorry, but that makes him a domestic enemy and totally unsuitable for high office

..amen

[trisham]

The point is that the war on terror is not against countries. The global war on terror is not confined within the borders of one country. Paul lives in the past with regard to national security.

[tacticalogic]

So if we believe he never wanted to go to war, so we can deny he ever asked for a declaration.

[End Times Crusader]

It seems to me that all the venom on this forum is coming from the Ron Paul haters.

An enemy of the republic such as Ru is well deserving of such venom.

Pat B had a lot of baggage in 96, but if he had got the Republican nomination that year, I think he would have defeated Clinton. Ron Paul has none of the baggage compared to Pat B. Now the “Powers” in the Republican party want to nominate another Dole, read Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or McCain. They will get the same result, another Democratic victory.

LOL! That's why I love these Paul threads - the unintentional humor. If Pat had been the nominee, he wouldn't have won a single state. Ron Paul can't even get 5% in the polls and you sit there and criticize candidates who poll in the double digits. Get a clue.

The powers that be are always telling us that we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but they continue to dump on Ron Paul because of his stance on the war and foreign intervention. In all other areas, Ron Paul is talking about the basics of the Republican party, lower taxes, less government, more freedoms, etc. Of course when the Republicans had power, congress from 94 and congress and the presidency from 2000 to 2006, they didn’t do a d*mn thing to lower spending or make a smaller government.

Ron Paul's traitorous views on foreign policy trump any domestic policies he advocates (which aren't all that consistent anyway).

[tacticalogic]

You people are fast wearing out what little welcome you had left.

Is that a throwaway account, or did you really post that three days after you registered?

[trisham]

Ron Paul would forsake the most important role of government, protecting its citizens.

[Jim Robinson]

It’s not guilt by association. He himself proudly declares to the FOX viewing audience that he is THE anti-war candidate. He works with and supports the anti-war 9/11 Truther wackos. He actually believes and preaches that crap. He HAS aligned himself with the enemies of Anerica. Hillary, Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, Murtha, CodePinkO, ANSWER, the World Workers party, et al, all march arm in arm against America.

[End Times Crusader]

Not my call. Just an observation, but by all means keep it up until the situation is remedied.

[ishabibble]

Cute!

[tacticalogic]

The point is that the war on terror is not against countries. The global war on terror is not confined within the borders of one country. Paul lives in the past with regard to national security.

This one was a war against a country. If we have to go into Iran, that will be, too.

[ejonesie22]

We will go to war with whomever we must to protect this land from MODERN threats.

I think that is good policy. Dead Americans give less than a tinkers damn about Constitutional arguments...