Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

House Floor ^ | 10 Sept 02 | Dr. Ron Paul

[rb22982]

Looks like Congress gave The President the power to determine who he would use force against.

So when Hillary wins the 2008 election (or some future liberal we all hate) are you going to be singing the same tune?

[rb22982]

It's not BS. It's a fact. Paul votes against a spending increase, with the tax cut, and is counted as 'liberal' by the ACU because Republicans supported it. Of course Dems vote no because they want even more money. Of course as someone else pointed out, the ACU just selectively picks votes. For example in 2001, 3 of the 24 were all on the exact same thing, just slight variations of the bill. IMO that's not a fair way to judge.

[rb22982]

Actually you got me wrong, I'm in favor of going to war with Iraq (mainly for the other stuff you listed), my question was where has the administration claimed Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks, specifically in 9/11.

[Texasforever]

Plagiarism is a crime.

[rb22982]

correction. 3/24 of the senate votes they choose were the same thign.

[rb22982]

For examples see bills 6&7 together in 2000, and #15, and #2. He opposed 6 & 2 due to increased budget spending, and 15 because it kept it even, but voted for #6, which actually cut spending and gave back far larger tax cuts. Then 2 of the votes were just for lifting the Cuban embargo because he supports Free Trade which is generally approved of by Conservatives except Buchananites. That's 5 votes right there for just 2000 and 2001.

[Texasforever]

Look, I have been around Ron Paul for years. He is basically harmless but the guy is a fraud. He can only win his pitiful seat by claiming to be republican and all the while associating himself with the likes of Harry Browne. He is a REAL Rino. He has made his reputation on making long-winded speeches castigating every one but him. He is Jim Trafficant with better hair. He has carved out his little niche of those that have spent their entire lives being pissed off about the "gubberment". He plays you guys like a fiddle. Ron Paul is NOT a conservative or anything else he is just an every day career political opportunist the same as all of those he claims to despise.

[rb22982]

Should read.....#2 in 2001.....

[PsyOp]

Where is the Barf Alert? When I read the the header I thought the name was Rue Paul - the transvestite that ran for mayor of Palm Springs. It makes me sick that we have people like this serving in our congress.

[rb22982]

Nonsense. Just because he doesn't tow the party line doesn't make him more or less a conservative. R != conservative no matter how much you want him to be.

Besides, even with an 85% lifetime rating, thats a hell of a lot closer to conservative than liberal.

[tpaine]

Jail me, motherforever.

[Isle of sanity in CA]

FYI - The quote earlier was from a letter he wrote in 1816; Details at the end of letter. I have found this quoted all over the place recently, notably used in support of an Alaskan constitutional convention and San Fernando Valley seccession from LA.

I get frustrated when I hear people talk about how x or y isn't in line with the constitution. The truth is a-z isn't in line. What has frustrated me about the libertarian argument is that it is never paired with a realistic path to actually implementing the ideals.

I think that a constitutional convention would be a very good thing to 'refresh' the constitution....

"But it will be said, it is easier to find faults than to amend them. I do not think their amendment so difficult as is pretended. Only lay down true principles, and adhere to them inflexibly. Do not be frightened into their surrender by the alarms of the timid, or the croakings of wealth against the ascendency of the people...

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose that what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it... I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times...

"Let us follow no such examples (of the European monarchs), nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."

"Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Samuel Kercheval", Monticello, July 12, 1816, in The Portable Thomas Jefferson, ed. Merill D. Peterson (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979), pp. 1397-1402.

[Texasforever]

Besides, even with an 85% lifetime rating, thats a hell of a lot closer to conservative than liberal.

His ratings are dropping like a stone. That 85% is based on his 11 years in office. He has gone from 76 to 70 in two years. If he is re-elected, and that is no lock, he will be at the same level as Kennedy by the end of his term. The man is losing it.

[rb22982]

Part of the reason his ratings are dropping is because the Republicans are increasing government as well. When its a Dem WH, of course the republicans 'oppose it.' Throw in those extra 5 votes I pointed out which gives him another 20% /2 =10% for each year. No libertarian or libertarian leaning could ever vote like a kennedy despite your idiotic claims.

[Texasforever]

Jail me, motherforever.

Hell I am not sure you aren't posting from Folsom right now.

[#3Fan]

I hadn't seen that either. I know he said something like we need a revolution every once in a while. LOL

[rmlew]

Isolationism? Is that a bad thing? Are you in favor of Globalism?
Isolationism is unrealistic. It was never US policy. (with the exception of Jefferson's disastrioust non-intercourse strategy, which crippled the economy).
An objective assement of US foreign policy in the 19th century (to say nothing of constant warring with Indian tribes) shows unilateral expansionism and an immediate assertion of Us power to protect US interests abroad. (Go pick up The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot. You can disagree with his thesis but not the existance of the campaigns) It is a False dichotomy, if not a prelude to a straw-man arguement to presume that the only choices are isolationism and Globalism.

There are other options like a rational assesment of US policy to promote US interests in a vigorous manner, whether in a unilateralist or multi-lateralist manner. We excercise our rights and obligations as a sovereign nation and ignore unConstution arraingements like the UN.
Ron
PS. I would also note that the GLobalist elite are the most vocal opponents of action against Iraq.

[dread78645]

If he is re-elected, and that is no lock, he will be at the same level as Kennedy by the end of his term. The man is losing it.

Against Corby Windham ??? You've got to be kidding ?
Ron Paul will walk all over him.

Rep. Paul never cared for the Rockefeller Republicrats; what's a couple of points on the ACU rating ...

[copycat]

So when Hillary wins the 2008 election (or some future liberal we all hate) are you going to be singing the same tune?

God Forbid.

If Congress grants Hillary the power to determine whom to use force against, I would recognize that fact also. Then I would damn Congress.