“Wow! What a powerful argument against the one man who dares to uphold the principles of the Founding Fathers! What you cannot debate, you insult!”
What’s to debate? His perception of history and foreign affairs is insane. Especially his assertion that a ‘declaration of war’ never happened even though Mr. Constitution never noticed that the document never specified that it had to occur in a certain way. What does he think congressional authorization for use of force, is?
He’s a clown.
His description of how Iran got to be where they are today in the last debate, was just insane. Jumping from supporting the pro-west Shah vs the Soviet supporting Mossadeq during the cold war, right to the Ayatollah’s revolution... Totally leaving our Carter. Like I said - clown.
“To understand where Ron Paul is coming from, you need to read the Constitution, Washington’s Farewell Address, and Jefferson addresses to Congress. Throw in the Federalist Papers, and you might really begin to understand.”
I have read them all. Jefferson - you mean the guy who made war on the Barbary Pirates? Jefferson wasn’t a Federalist after 1790, btw. He favored diffusion of power - he was more aligned with the philosophy of the ‘anti-Federalists.’
Pauls idea to leave Nafta and the WTO will be disasterous to the US economy - we will end up with more tariffs and Smoot Hawley revisited.
How is the war in Iraq like the war on the Barbary Pirates? I would like to hear it in your own words, not a hyperlink to Wikipedia or etc.
I suspect that he thinks it is just that. However, Bush has elected to treat that authorization as some sort of enduring authorization for his misuse of the military to socially engineer a new culture in Iraq. A declaration of War is a declaration of War, not a temporary use of force in an ad hoc situation. And the fact that the President refused to even accept funding for the troops with a cut-off, by the Congress which has the War power, changes the picture, does it not?
His description of how Iran got to be where they are today in the last debate, was just insane. Jumping from supporting the pro-west Shah vs the Soviet supporting Mossadeq during the cold war, right to the Ayatollah’s revolution... Totally leaving our Carter. Like I said - clown.
As a believer in the value of the late Shah as a major ally, I personally disagreed with the brief comment vis-a-vis Iran, in the second debate, myself. But to draw the sweeping conclusion that you do from a truncated comment, in a 30 second response, is absurd. If you cannot disagree with someone, without calling him a "clown," serious discussion with you is going to be difficult--and yet your very "handle," "Government Is The Problem," suggests that you should be joining us, as a Paul supporter.
I have read them all. Jefferson - you mean the guy who made war on the Barbary Pirates? Jefferson wasn’t a Federalist after 1790, btw. He favored diffusion of power - he was more aligned with the philosophy of the ‘anti-Federalists.’
Jefferson responded to acts of Piracy by the Barbary Pirates--and responded far more effectively than the present President to the acts of international criminality by al Quaeda. He did not over-dramatise, and by so doing give the enemy greater credibility. He did what needed to be done, sending the appropriate force for the job at hand. And he reported back to Congress, accordingly.
Dr. Paul's focus on going after bin Laden, via Letters of marque and reprisal was appropriate, and might have proven more effective--as for example, the bounty we did put on him--had it not been coupled with a calculated insult to the Islamic World, by a claimed right to experiment with other peoples cultures--an absolutely foolish approach, which actually gave the criminal element, attacking us, a measure of credibility in the circles that have since sheltered them!
Dr. Paul does not oppose destroying our actual enemies. He wants to do so in the most effective way, and that can only be determined by a full analysis of many factors that others refuse to look at.
William Flax