Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Chi-townChief

“As I said, “he’s got to get away from some of the more whackjob liberaltarian stuff that the old man started buying into.” Ron may be more than a little senile with some of the crap he came up with in ‘08.”

Understandable. However, Ron Paul has always held these principles, and not only since 2008. Moreover, he’s not bashful nor submissive when challenged regarding his principles. We all witnessed this when he didn’t cower in the debates when challenged by the cross dresser nor the other rinos on the stage. He stood his ground. Whether his stand is right or wrong is a matter of perception, as in the eyes of the beholder.

Should congress be forced to honor it’s constitutional duty to declare war? The constitution offers no well, maybe, ifs, there are no exceptions. Has the constitution been ignored before in war? Yes, but that does not negate the constitutional requirement as set forth.

Ron Paul is committed to the principle of congress’s constitutional duty before sending our fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, off to make war. Some folks seek to argue with this constitutional requirement offering exceptions to the constitutional law as if it were some sort of living breathing document that should be flexible to roll with the flow. From what I have observed, Ron Paul is not one of them. Is he right? According to our constitution, he is absolutely right.


285 posted on 05/19/2010 8:01:18 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (Freedom Watch: fight for freedom with everything you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies ]


To: takenoprisoner

He certainly didn’t stand his ground on Medved and that was with friendly questioning; he was all over the map. And Paul’s theory of 9/11/01 being an “inside job” fits right in with Jeremiah Wright and Charlie Sheen.


289 posted on 05/19/2010 8:33:36 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

To: takenoprisoner
Whether his stand is right or wrong is a matter of perception, as in the eyes of the beholder.

Paul's stand was (and is) that Islamists attack us because our foreign policy agitates them. It's an historically indefensible position. Islamists have been attacking non-Islamists since they crawled out of the slime for one reason: the Satanic handbook delivered by their murderous prophet compels them to. They have a religious duty to be an existential threat to western civilization.

Thomas Jefferson figured this out in 1785. Maybe one of these days, Ron Paul will too. But I won't be holding my breath.

297 posted on 05/19/2010 9:14:46 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (Some men just want to watch the world burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson