Globalism [Ron Paul]

House.Gov ^ | 16 July 2007 | Ron Paul

[BlackElk]

I don’t remember seeing “gun powder” mentioned in the constitution.

[BigTom85]

So why didn't Jefferson and Adams guys dooooo anything about it? ;-)

The founders said a lot of things about what not to do... signing alliances being one thing.

They also wrote a brilliant document called the United States Constitution. I get goose bumps when I start to read it. However, if we look at the way things are in the US today.. it's almost like the constitution has become null and void.. an example, the ATF. Another example, reintroduction of the fairness doctrine. A third, invading countries (Iraq) with out a proper declaration of war from congress (which our constitution requires).

The founders have to be rolling over in their graves.

[John Farson]

You are incorrect, sir. Paul is not an isolationist. The United States’ presence abroad is more than just its military.

It is scary how many conservatives strongly identify with the federal government. You remember the government that ruins people’s lives? Yeah, same entity.

[John Farson]

We are we. They are the Islamofascisti. We trust us. We don’t trust them.

Yessssss, they must never have the preciousss !!

If Chinese troops invaded Mexico and Canada, wouldn't you support obtaining the most powerful and deadly weapons to defend our home?

Invasion and bullying only incentivizes the spread of nuclear technology.

Arms control, like gun control, is a misguided and lost cause.

[SJackson]

The purpose of that list of questions was to raise questions about invading Iraq. And Iraq did not pose a credible threat of attack, certainly not an imminent one....I think the distinction is clear. Ron Paul voted against the invasion and regime change in Iraq because it did not pose such a threat. Subsequently, he was proven correct about the absence of al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion or Iraq's possession of WMD stockpiles and weapons to deliver them anywhere in the region.

A big DUHHHHHHHHHH

That means Ron Paul was opposed to the war in Iraq.

He was in fact right about the absence of al Qaida in Iraq.

Out effenstanding!!!

Of course no one claimed al Qaida was present in Iraq, or claimed their presence as a reason to invade, but no matter.

He was correct about the lack of WMDs. IMO Powell is correct that they would have been there in spades had we not invaded an sanctions lifted.

But no matter.

Ron opposed the war, perhaps history will prove hiim right, but that's a simple fact.

[SittinYonder]

I’m really tired of posters like you.

[SittinYonder]

And if that's how you think, you're a moron.

Just for posting that you're a moron.

[John Farson]

Ron opposed the war, perhaps history will prove hiim right, but that's a simple fact.

Opposing the war is nothing to be ashamed of.

Even William F. Buckley, Jr. reconsidered and said he would've opposed our invasion of Iraq. It is only the kool-aid drinkers who insist on denying reality.

[SJackson]

Opposing the war is nothing to be ashamed of.

No, it's not. So why not acknowledge it.

But explanations of honest opposition at the time don't need to be hedged with but this or because of that or I supported it, but, or first or before I didn't. Causes confusion with the dems

[nicmarlo]

If you had intelligence *maybe* you’re ridiculous remark would bother me. But, you already proved you lack that.

[Xenophon450]

I’ll bump to that, old bean. ;-)

[tarheelswamprat]

“Hmm. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. Maybe I’ll have another look at his candidacy. Not that I think he can win but his positions do resonate with a lot of what’s right here on FR.”

Oh he’s right on a lot of issues near and dear to me. It’s where he’s wrong that’ll get you killed.

Well said. That is the most succinct and correct description I have yet seen of the fatal flaw in Ron Paul's view of reality.

[Grunthor]

Thank you.

[John Farson]

It’s where he’s wrong that’ll get you killed.

You are more likely to die in a car accident or heart attack than a terrorist attack.

I am not afraid. Why are you?

[LibertarianInExile]

“Man, we got no Reagan, but we have a lot of neocons who tell everybody to shut up if you threaten to stray from the planatation.”

Spot on with that comment BUMP. Some of us actually support Paul even though we might disagree with some of his reasoning on the WOT because we trust him to 1) declare wars 2) actually FIGHT the wars he declares and 3) run the WH like the Constitution comes before the U.N. Charter and the global kleptocrats donating to the RNC.

[Nephi]

That’s why conservatism benefits from genuine debates that include Ron Paul.

[anglian]

"I do not believe in “moral equivalency” paleopantywaist arguments that: Gee, if we have nukes, isn’t it only fair that Muhammed el-Kaboomski have nukes too?"

Rep. Ron Paul: Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

[rmlew]

I diagree with Paul in so far as Iraq did attack us. Obviously he does not understand or refuses to understand the concept of state-sponsored terrorism.
However points 30 and 31 should be discussed.
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
The Constiuttion does not indicate the reason for declaring war or even the proper language of a declaration of war. PAul; is simply Constitutionally illiterate.

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
While I support the ideal of a nation-state allowed by the Treat of Westphalia, the simple fact is that we have overthrown hostile regimes and should when they pose a threat.
We are not talking about Protestant - Catholic wars in Germany anymore but global Jihad.

[rmlew]

Arms control, like gun control, is a misguided and lost cause.
So criminals should be given gins, then.

Get real. Iran is a Islamist terrorist regime, which has called for the destruction of the US and has been waging a proxy war against us.

[rmlew]

Anyone who cannot differentiation between a limited strike on strategic and tactical targets of a regime waging a proxy war against us and the use of WMDs to commit genocide is unfit to be in the House much less be President.
It infers a complete lack of moral reasoning or proportion.