Ron Paul on O'Reilly Factor Tonight! (Monday 9/10)

Ron Paul 2008 ^ | 9/9/07

[traviskicks]

Sep 10 Interview on The O'Reilly Factor 8:00 PM ET FoxNews

[George W. Bush]

The Power of FRed ^tm

You might consider the following easy-to-use HTML: ™

to produce: The Power of FRed™

It's what I use for Religion Of Peace™.

You can find an good list of these shortcuts at: HTML Codes - Table of ascii characters and symbols

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Almost forgot a ping! RP vs. the BORe tonight on the Giuliani News Channel

[ejonesie22]

And IF YOU ACT NOW!

Get a copy of “Greatest Moments in Presidential Politics” vol. 834 “I am Ron Paul and I am running, AGAIN!

[papasmurf]

Does it not render well on your box?

[billbears]

“What’s going on is the same as in 1976 and 1980, the Republican peasantry is rebelling against the choices that their lords and masters have laid before them. This is not merely a threat to the Republican leadership, but to the very concept of the bifactional ruling party that rules America in a “bipartisan” spirit

Bump!! Vox Day hits another homerun with that comment.

[papasmurf]

Yeah, I got that one, too!

But it came postage due.

[papasmurf]

Uh...which one is which?

[George W. Bush]

Maybe this is a good place to mention tomorrow's major foreign policy address from Dr. Paul:

---

Confounding critics who deride his international policy approach as naïve or simplistic, the prestigious Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., has invited Ron Paul to make a keynote policy address on September 11.

Ron Paul will be speaking on “A Tradtional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy” – topic that has likely languished in most US international schools and think tanks in the modern era. Says one source close privy to the negotiations surrounding the invitation, “This school is engaged in a 20th century, interventionist, foreign policy approach. For them to invite him to make a major address like this shows how seriously his views are being taken by the educational establishment and by the political establishment in general.”

And he adds, “This election has come down to Ron Paul versus the rest of the Republican candidates. He has set the party on its ear, and anyone who thinks that he is a so-called fringe candidate at this point is not grasping reality."

---

[plain old dave]

Huzzah!

Question: Why is it that a candidate that merely wants the US to *declare* wars as the Constitution commands rather than just send troops and bomb is a ‘nut job’?

[George W. Bush]

It's just more keystrokes, including SHIFTed ones. Also, using the legit ™ will work better if quoted in italics or used in large font sizes. Anyway, I'm not criticizing, just sharing a general HTML tip. At the link I provided, there are a bunch of others that are useful.

[PurpleMan]

The real question is whether they are interchangable.

[papasmurf]

Thanks. I didn’t take it that way, I appreciate your insight.

[George W. Bush]

Question: Why is it that a candidate that merely wants the US to *declare* wars as the Constitution commands rather than just send troops and bomb is a ‘nut job’?

RP did vote to invade Afghanistan who clearly was harboring al-Qaeda and Osama though he did try to get a formal war declaration. However, his insistence that Congress declare formally was a point well-taken as it would have eliminated much of the voted-for-it-before-I-voted-against nonsense we get from the Dims. Something many folks here don't realize is that it would have actually granted far more authority to the executive branch and the DoJ in pursuing media leads, dissent among the military, etc. For Afghanistan, RP also tried to revive letters of marque and reprisal, a constitutionally authorized method to enable mercenary forces to act at our behest against Osama and primary al-Qaeda figures.

RP also tried to introduce a declaration of war on Iraq but, had he succeeded, he would have voted against it. But, regardless, RP's point that unsatisfactory wars (Korea, Vietnam) are undeclared wars, wars with limited objectives that hamstring our military by forbidding action against the real instigators. Examples would be attacks on Hanoi and North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos during Vietname or on Waziristan/Pakistan or the Saudis in the current war.

RP's detractors here at FR distort his record and positions on these issues. Contrary to their assertions, RP does also recognize that purely military action can be authorized by Congress just as did happen in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's just a very bad idea. RP also speaks to sole presidential authority without the need to consult Congress in the event of imminent threat to the nation. In the last debate, he certainly indicated that an premeditated or aggressive action like the current ones are the sort a president should consult both parties in Congress fully and seek a formal declaration of war.

The problem with undeclared wars is that later on the party in opposition can back away easier. These kinds of votes are more like Congress saying "I don't care what the president does" rather than an affirmative vote saying that the congresscritters accept the intel and military reports as justifying a sufficient threat to justify full warfare and all that goes along with it.

Many folks, both Paul supporters and Paul-haters, fail to recognize how many laws with the phrase "in time of war" would have direct bearing on the military and civilian aspect of this war. And this is tied to RP's opposition to the Patriot Act as well. If we declared these wars properly and pursued them, we wouldn't have much need for permanent measures like Patriot Act. Not that I support it anyway but the FBI and others would have far less need for a Patriot Act during this period were it not for the failure to formally declare war.

[Nephi]

Just in case the haters missed it:

When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something’s going on.

– Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2007

[Nephi]

Thanks for posting the link to the Worldnet daily article. The author offers excellent analysis, such as:

The choice is simple. If you want to live under an EU-style regime that is intent on invading and occupying other countries in the name of democracy for the forseeable future, vote for any of the so-called major candidates. It doesn't matter which one. There is no significant difference between President Bush and Sen. Clinton, or between Sen. Thompson and Sen. Obama. If, on the other hand, you wish to live in a nation where the United States government is governed by the Constitution, you had better support Ron Paul. This may be your only opportunity, for it is entirely possible that this will be the last time such a choice is presented to you.

Naw the haters on this thread would rather vote for a guy who plays a conservative on TV, but doesn't even understand freedom of speech.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Should be fun. Paul just needs to let O’Reilly rant and then ask, are you finished? At that point, he can explain himself.

[KDD]

Hi, I,m meandog and I am one of the many trolls inhabiting Free Republic.

[afraid]

Ron Paul has a nice little contingent of supporters here in Oshkosh. Must be the anti war stance.

[FORREST64]

BILL OREILLY WILL BE HANDED HIS HEAD BY RON PAUL

[FORREST64]

BILL OREILLY WILL BE HANDED HIS HEAD BY RON PAUL