Ron Paul is blowing up real good

Salon ^ | June 2, 2007 | Michael Scherer

[Allegra]

Nuff said. You are a LIAR...

ROFL! And you are the epitome of a cultist. You're funny when you get your ass handed to you. Would you like a silver platter to go with that?

Classy comeback there, by the way. LOL!!

[txrangerette]

Allegra, you’re a PATRIOT, and some of us know that and thank you forever for your service to us and our country in this war. God Bless, and sorry for the mess around here.

[The_Eaglet]

This guy wanted Rick Santorum to lose his senate seat because he was violating the constitution by voting for federal spending.

I am not a Libertarian, but I am curious about this.

Did this person oppose particular types of federal spending that Santorum supported? If so, what particular spending was the basis for the accusation that he violated the Constitution?

[The_Eaglet]

Paul wants Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued against AQ and its supporters. I think that's a darn fine idea.

That and his call for a declaration of war debunks the fraudulent "cut-and-run" accusations.

[Petronski]

Give me Ron Paul and his principals any day.

How many different schools did he go to? Are all those principals still alive?

[Allegra]

Thanks. :-)

Some of these folks actually provide comic relief. LOL

Take care,
~A.

[Puddleglum]

Paul wants Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued against AQ and its supporters. I think that's a darn fine idea.

That and his call for a declaration of war debunks the fraudulent "cut-and-run" accusations.

I think Paul is one of the last people concerned about the concept of the USA as a secure, rule-governed nation and not a multinational entity.

I also find the zeal with which people defend US global police actions odd. It probably did incite more than a little anti-US sentiment that America played Iran and Iraq against each other in a bloody stalemate for decades (though of course our support of Israel would probably have been sufficient).

War should be undertaken seriously, by the whole country (not just the troops), and by a declaration of war. Americans aren't being asked to share 1/100 of the burden they did in WW II, because support for this war would vanish into thin air. Sad but true.

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, if you had bothered to stop and ask, you'd know that my "First choice" for the GOP Pres is Duncan Hunter.

However, I'm not going to let some arbitrary poster slander an otherwise good man by misrepresenting what he said. You also denied doing this, but when linked to a recap of your posts, you're proven the liar.

Sorry if this pisses you off. But that's between you and whatever you use for a mind.

[radioman]

Please elaborate the consequences of eliminating the gold standard for our currency?

Start a thread on it and I'll be happy to debate the pros and cons of the gold standard.
.

[Dead Corpse]

So a defense contractor is a "Patriot" while a Marine who served honorably during the first Gulf War is a "cultist"...

Got it...

Yes, things are a bit of a mess around here. Apparently, lies are now truth and black is the new white...

[Lurker]

It is too late to go back to 2003 and do it differently.

Actually it's not too late. Congress can declare War anytime it wishes. That's its Constitutional responsibility enumerated in Article 3, Section 8.

What does Ron Paul propose that we do to rectify the fact that we are already engaged?

I don't know. You'd have to ask him. I know what I'd do, but you didn't ask me that.

L

[FreeReign]

Paul wants us to leave Iraq.

He wanted a Declaration of War and for us to fight it AS a war. Not this "democracy" building police action that is being drawn out needlessly. If you are going to fight, fight. Piss or get off the pot. How hard is that for you people to understand?

We have a declaration of war. How hard is it for you Dead Corpse to understand?

And getting back to what I said, Al Qaeda is Iraq and Paul wants us to leave.

[verity]

Great analysis and conclusion.

[keyd]

Ron Paul stated his position very cleary in 04, it hasn't changed: Congress Goes AWOL

Feb 9, 2004

...Congress is to blame for its craven failure to seriously debate, much less declare, war in Iraq. The Constitution squarely charges Congress with the duty to declare war, a weighty responsibility that our founders thought should rest with the body most directly responsible to the people. The president’s status as commander-in-chief grants him the power only to execute war, not to decide whether war is justified. This is not seriously debatable by anyone who honestly examines the Constitution and the Federalist papers.

Various weak and disingenuous arguments have been made claiming that watered-down congressional resolutions authorizing force are adequate, and that war has been waged in the past without express declarations. But the letter of the Constitution trumps political expediency, and past sins hardly justify ignoring the rule of law today. It is pathetic to hear supposedly strict-constructionist conservatives use Clintonian verbal gymnastics to justify their party’s unconstitutional actions.

The furor over bad intelligence is a little late, to put it mildly. A proper investigation and debate by Congress clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. The consequences cannot be undone. Hundreds of American soldiers have been killed, thousands more maimed or injured. More than one hundred billion dollars have been spent, and billions more will be needed to support our open-ended occupation of Iraq. The current after-the-fact debate is hollow and political. We now see those who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, posturing as his harshest critics.

The administration rushes to claim that the justifications for war do not matter, because Saddam was worthy of removal anyway. But we’ve heard that tired argument a million times. Is the president prepared to commit troops to remove every bad guy around the globe? Of course not. Iraq has been in this administration’s crosshairs since well before September 11th. It does matter if the administration lied or exaggerated to win public support; it does matter if our war in Iraq was just or unjust.

The president stated in a speech last week that had Saddam Hussein remained in power, the United Nations resolutions and condemnations would be “scraps of paper amounting to nothing.” In the eyes of many conservatives and libertarians, it is our own Constitution being treated as a meaningless scrap of paper.

-Ron Paul

[keyd]

"What does Ron Paul propose that we do to rectify the fact that we are already engaged?"

His proposal can be found on our congress website:
Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq

[FreeReign]

Your Link | Paul | Excerpts:...according to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq...

...Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives.

Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Paul wants us to leave. Paul does not defend the national security of the United States.

[FreeReign]

LOL!

[Hank Kerchief]

“WE” didn’t ask for it, because “WE” didn’t do it. The out of control Federal Government did it, and they brought it on us. “WE” never asked the government to police the world, to send our incomes to every backwater hell-hole in the world that wouldn’t have enough resources to build a sling-shot, much less be a threat to the US.

If you support what the US government is doing, it is YOU that is supporting every Islamist terrorist in the world. “WE” never did.

Hank

[Publius]

Fighting Under World War II Rules

[Eagle Eye]

Not that is should happen, but I’d like to see Fred and Breck Girl on the same stage for a debate just to show the difference between Real Men and Democrats.