I’m not defending Paul. I haven’t on this thread. I’ve kept the discussion on the bill itself. But I guess you’d rather keep the derail going instead of facing up to the fact that you have just supported a congressman (Lantos) and his bill that will handcuff the president when it comes to dealing with Iran.
Way to cut off the nose to spite the face. :thumbsup:
Let me know when you’re ready to keep defending Lantos’ bill. I won’t be dragged into a meaningless debate about how Ron Paul voted on this bill.
There is no bill, this is a House Resolution. It is not intended to nor will it even become law, since it is not going to the Senate. Should your interpretation be correct, something I find very dubious, it would not matter, since a resolution of the House has no power whatsoever over the President’s actions.
(long time no see)
As I have stated before it is not the man, not Lantos, we are in support of, but the bill, as written. It was a good measure even if Paul had written it, and I would still back it. It was at least something.
I really cannot see you leap in logic, mainly because it doesn’t connect in reality. The bill says nothing about the use of force outside its own parameters. It is a simple statement that the bill itself does not authorize any military actions, only diplomatic and economic ones. This makes it hard to misconstrue as a authorization of force as written. There is no future prohibitive language, it does not say the President cannot act, but the bill does not tell him to act with force with it’s passage. It in no way limits his options.
As far as "debating" Ron Paul and his stance, his no vote goes to the heart of the matter as it pertains to the general opposition to his candidacy. It further puts him astray of the general consensus in this party and movement.
As far as your support or non support on this thread, well, I'll give you an attaboy and a nice try, but you have to be kidding, you defend him just with your presence.
Actually, I see it is a bill, since it is to prohibit certain expenditures. However, as others have stated, saying force is not authorized is not equivalent to saying that force is prohibited.