Posted on 08/31/2007 6:16:40 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
The first truth we must find is a way to swallow this - we have exactly the government we elected!
Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%. Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what does that say about us?
(snip)
In my last column titled “Ron Paul—A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the subject at hand.
Welcome to American politics circa 2007
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
You’re not just wrong, you are dangerously foolish.
So what you are saying is, since I only “own” my own property and not that of my neighbor, I can only defend my family from his brutality so long as he is on my property at the time of his attack?
What about when he is on his own property, building a bomb he plans to use at my home? Do I have to wait until he blows it up before I can “reeact” or can I simply walk over to his property and knock him on his butt?
I can’t believe you are so ill-informed and still so damn sure of yourself.
You are just plain silly! Dangerously silly!
You finally read the constitution once and now you’re a constitutional scholar...
For the record, I have debated and defeated real constitutional scholars on several occasions. You are even in the right arena luv.
I can't find "the question" on this thread, -- much less any isolationists who have run for cover.
Can you pose that question again?
I'm happy to...
There are only two forms of defense.
Ah, now I see. You decree there are only two ways we can defend ourselves:
a) Hunker down, fortify the fort and wait for the attack. b) Pursue the enemy before they can attack.
Which one do you support and why?
-- Then insist that your opponent can only choose one, - which if its "hunker", -- makes him an "isolationist". -- That's not "neo-con reasoning", but it sure ain't very rational.
Rational men [lots of libertarians are rational] understand that [constitutionally speaking], we can defend ourselves against enemies, both foreign and domestic, as we see fit, - as long as we do not deny persons in the USA their rights to life, liberty, or property, - in so doing.
So long as congress continues to provide “advice and consent”, the constitutional answer is yes. Point me to the constitutional language that says otherwise?
True, you can't.
But making a global ass of ourselves isn't the answer either.
How about we take those billions of dollars and BUILD A FENCE?
How about we take those soldiers and PATROL OUR BORDER?
It would at least slow the tide.
Sad everyone fights against the most obvious, logical and lawful and use of our resources.
-----
BTW- Do you believe the Constitution is a living document?
Ron Paul supports border security and interior enforcement. Radical Muslims would be deported, as well as other foreigners.
In addition, Paul supports a strong national defense and a missile-defense shield.
The author just blew a hole in his argument.
Let us suppose your neighbor threatens your life. Then, this neighbor proceeds to start building a bomb in his house which will take out your house. You, as a good libertarian, would do nothing about it until he explodes that bomb taking out your family, right?
I mean, he has a right to build a bomb in his house according to libertarian doctrine, right? He has a right to privacy, so you can't snoop on his progress, right?
Paul is a federalist on social policies.
There is not a liberal bone in Paul's body.
NO MamaTexas...
Where’s the “constitutional” text?
You people who claim to stand on the cosntitution always use links to something other than constitutional language to prove your point.
If the constitution provides such limitations, show us where?
You are a fraud lady! I am sick and tired of frauds like you shooting your mouth off about constitution this and constitution that, when you don’t provide any constitutional text to support your claims.
WHERE’S THE TEXT MAMATEXAS?
It’s clear that you believe the constitution is a living breathing document, amended by not just judicial rulings, but individuals opinions written over the years, so long as they support your case.
How insane you are! What a fraud...
They are conservative pal. You can scream otherwise until you're blue in the face but you cannot refute Congressional voting records.
So you are prepared for a national ID system where you are documented, right? I mean, in order to deport them, you must identify then. How about the white Radical Muslims like John Walker? How do you identify them? How are you going to tell the radical Muslims from the non-radical Muslims? Are we just going to send them all away, even if they are naturalized citizens? What about business travel? Do we prevent any Muslim from visiting the United States, even the oil industry? Deporting other foreigners? Just for what? Who decides which foreigners get to stay and which do not? How do we track them?
It's easy to spew dribble like "Radical Muslims would be deported, as well as other foreigners", but implementing this is another matter.
BFD. Paul's not a rank-and-file Republican. He's not a Republican in the political party sense. So this statement means nothing.
BTW, he doesn't owe the GOP nada, after years of the GOP establishment supporting RINOs and Dim candidates against him during his Congressional races.
Wake me up when he yuks it up with Ted Kennedy after celebrating the passage of a new massive federal education mandate or amnesty for illegals, like Bush and Lindsey Graham did respectively.
The Law of Nations is “international law”, not “constitutional law”.
I thought you were a “constitutionalist”?
Mine too. The fact is, is that Paul is forging a new coalition of voters who'll help the GOP over the long run. All I'm asking is the GOP pay attention to him and his ideas, instead of alienating him.
I don't think we should pull out immediately from Iraq, and I also wish Paul would denounce the moonbats who are trying to exploit his campaign. However, a long-term committment in Iraq should be out of the question too. Other than that, Paul is rock solid on all of my beliefs. If the Republicans would have supported Paul they'd be in the majority forever.
How many potential attacks have almost occurred here because of our open borders and refusal to call Islam what it really is.
Boy, is my face red.
(Note to self, don't try to research one thing and post on another)
LOL!
---
Anyway, regarding your post:
Certainly, we can all agree any president has that power in an emergency, -- correct?
An authority, yes, but not a carte-blanche one.
The defensive measure of repelling an invasion, yes.
The arbitrary trespass on another sovereign nation who happens to be home to a lunatic cult? No.
The country they were in should have been left to deal with them, although we could have legitimately sanctioned that country by law.
-----
But can wars or 'police actions' be fought for years on this basis?
Aside the fact the question of the constitutionality of 'police-actions', Congress controls funding on a two year basis.
IMHO, as long as they agree to the funding, there would be no limit.
ejonesie22:
The very fact that the Constitution is amendable makes it a living document.
PlainOleAmerican:
No, not beyond it's ability to be updated via the amendment process.
Sure the Constitution can be amended.. -- But its amendments cannot violate its basic principles.
"We the People" cannot give Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court, - any more powers than we ourselves possess.
We ourselves have no power to attack our neighbor on mere supposition, -- but in the case in question, we have more than enough reason to justify the attack on Iraq.
Paul is wrong, -- But he is not a traitor.
Oh, you think there is another option besides “offensive” and “defensive” strategies?
What are the other options?
I’ll make it simple, since you clearly have no personal experience with war, battle, fighting, even on a perosnal level I suspect.
Make it personal, so that you can’t miss the point.
Your family home is attacked daily by thugs in the neighborhood. Each day without response, the attcks get worse. You are certain that they will eventually kill your family if YOU don’t DO SOMETHING!
What are your options and label them offensive (pre-emptive), defensive (reactionary) or whatever other strategy you think exists...
Boy, I go outside to enjoy a fine cigar, and the Paulistas come out of the woodwork. Well, at least this time it took them awhile. They must have been busy spamming polls or something.
Same ol’, same ol’. What hilarity. At least some here, who’ve defended Ron Paul, have been honest in their beliefs and could understand the War on Terror, and even defended it. It makes me wonder about their commitment to RP, but that’s for them to deal with. The others? Who cares? Children all.
Boy, I love these threads. They really turn out the moonbats.
I wish everything worked in a vacuum, it would make everything so easy. Alas it is not so...
Paul’s argument?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.