Posted on 09/05/2007 7:33:05 PM PDT by Jay777
To paraphrase George Orwell, So much of Paulite thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.
I really think the eventual nominee can't miss by making Huckabee their VP choice, especially if one of the Northeasterners wins it.
A true statesman is a pragmatist who is driven by great principles. Reagan is a perfect example of this, as is Lincoln.
Huckabee doesn't "smoke" anything. In fact, if you try to light during President Huckabee's administration he has said that he will proudly have the Feds throw your ass in jailn.
Incidentally, Paul won the exchange. Huckabee is like Richard "peace with honor" Nixon who needlessly prologed a war and ended up with the same agreement in 1973 that he could have gotten in 1969. In the meantime, 20 thousand more Americans died to maintain his sense of honor.
Exactly! Reagan acted like a true statesman when he pulled the marines out of Lebanon thus avoiding an endless quagmire there. BTW, before you answer please note that that you said that Reagan was a "perfect" example of a true statesman.
Ah yes, I had forgotten that in the Ron Paul world the POTUS can wait to take a military action until after it has been expressly authorized by Congress and that means he's gone to war without Congressional authorization.
I've still never had a Paulite give me a straight answer on why Paul wasn't a hypocrite for voting yes on the 2001 authorization that had many of the same features he claims make the Iraq authorization unconstitutional. He even admitted some of those flaws on the floor of the House, and then voted for it anyway.
You people are as delusional as he is.
Viewers were asked to text in their thoughts on who won the debate, Ron Paul received 34%,
Likely Republican voters don't "text in a message", American Idol watchers or Howard Dean supporters do.
Thumbs down to FNC for taking such a ridiculous poll.
You left out the part where the Congress with a Ron Paul position on the war telegraphed to our enemies that they could do whatever they wanted and we wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.
Richard Nixon (then at the height of his popularity) pretty much threw in the towel long before then when he settled for the same peace agreement in 1973 that he could have had in 1969. The agreement was so unfavorable to the U.S. that it did not even require withdrawal of North Vietnamese troops from the South.
Oh...does your silence on Reagan, who you deem a "perfect" statesman, indicate that you agree with me that he made wise decision by getting us out of the Lebanon mess?
Oh my, you must really think you're Captain Kirk and that I'm one of those supercomputers he used to blow up by presenting them with some contradiction. The problem is, I'm not a computer, so I don't ignore idiom, and I didn't contradict myself.
First, you're putting words in my mouth. If you can't figure out how, go back and read my post without the isolationist blinders on.
Second, Reagan made exactly two foreign policy mistakes: The first one was getting in between the Israelis and their targets. The second was pulling out instead of kicking butt when scumbag terrorists decided to take revenge on us for saving them from total annihilation. And to be quite frank, if the Paulites held Reagan to the same measures they hold Paul's current opponents to, they would consider Reagan to be a neo-con tyrant who was no friend of the Constitution.
Ron Reagan had an outstanding sense of military and geopolitical strategy. Ron Paul brings the strategic sense of Mussolini or Benedict Arnold to the table. "A" for effort, but you didn't even get close.
Oh....really? Which words?
I know you Paulie girls are fond of wearing your thumbs out speed-texting polls after debates, but out here in the real world it takes time to type things. I don't remeber putting you in charge of my schedule, and I'll respond to you when I feel like it and not until. Get over yourself.
Since when does "perfect example" mean that the person described was infallible? And really, even if you really did "catch" me on that, is that what you want to hang your hat on? "Ronald Reagan pulled out of a peacekeeping mission, so that means we should let Al Qaida push us around?" Puh-leeze.
Never watched American Idol or Howard Dean. Matter of fact had to pull out the phone manual to see how to text a message. Only the second time I've ever done it. And it was a vote for Ron Paul
Interesting that so many are defending Huckabee with his 'my mommy told me so' example. Sounded quite like Powell's 'pottery barn' example from a few years ago. And the anti-freedom Huckabee's example was no better than Powell's. Of course Powell had the fact that he knew this was folly. Poor Huckabee doesn't realize it yet..
The only question about Paul when it comes to strategy is "Is he channeling Mussolini or Benedict Arnold?"
There is no straight answer. Either authorizations to use military force are unconstitutional, and he voted for one anyway, or they're perfectly constitutional.
Instead of providing any evidence to back your claim that I was putting words in your mouth, you respond by putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that you said that Reagan was "infallible" only that you cited him as an example of "perfect statesmanship." Cheers. CK
Ah...so you’re hanging your hat on the idea that Reagan withdrawing from a peacekeeping mission means we should allow Al Qaida to push us around?
Ah...so you’re hanging your hat on the idea that Reagan withdrawing from a peacekeeping mission means we should allow Al Qaida to push us around?
And are you really saying that I didn’t mean Reagan was infallible but did mean he was perfect in all his decisions as a statesman? What would be the difference?
You are soooo correct. The closest I've had to a straight answer (most dive under the desk and stay hidden until the big, bad truth goes away) is one guy who said that the 2001 authorization was OK because those who attacked us were in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Of course, that argument is stupid on a number of levels.
Then there's this...
Lastly, here's the post I usually use when I'm asking the authorization vs. authorization question:
Ron Paul on Declarations of War
If Ron Paul would really be glad to fight against our enemies as long as there was a formal declaration of war, why did he vote for the September 14, 2001 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force," which...
...was not a declaration of war (at least not in the sense of "declaration of war" Ron Paul supporters use on this board).
...was not confined to any particular nation even though we were already sure that Afghanistan was harboring the home organization of the hijackers.
...gave the President authority to choose when to act, something Paul says was unconstitutional when we did it against Iraq.
...by Paul's own admittance, targeted "a group which is not a country."
And why did Paul call the September 14 resolution "[a] clear declaration of war" but claim that the Iraq authorization, which is much more specific, is not a declaration of war?
Seems like he's trying to have it both ways...one has to ask, "why?"
Source is here.
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.