Posted on 07/23/2007 7:58:41 AM PDT by George W. Bush
Let's see, Lew Rockwell, Antiwar.com and Blue state DOT Com like him. What do these sites say about Reagan? Bush? Most conservatives? When the left likes a "Republican" candidate, it's time to vote elsewhere.
Ronald Reagan was three years into the decade-long twilight of his illness, and unable to recognize most of his colleagues from the Washington days. But Mr Ravin wanted to express his appreciation. “Mr President,” he said, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the Communist empire.”
And somewhere deep within there was a flicker of recognition. “Yes,” said the old man, “that is my job.”
Yes, that was his job.
2nd Question: If a list of next week's groceries to be purchased were printed as a Congressional Resolution and headlined: Declaration of War, would it be a constitutional declaration of war?
The above questions seek your answer to the everlasting question of form or substance? Many discern no substance in paleoPaulie and his supporters who whine about declarations of war when they are only advancing their absolute reluctance to seek military solutions.
Just asking as we wade through the ruined synapses of what pass for "paleo""brains" looking, probably in vain, for some sign of IQ points.
Don’t forget Justine(e) Lavender Raimondo and the Rockford Institute as well.
It’s just gets better and better. I’ve paid little attention until today............and I’m sitting here laughing.
Black-deer in the headlights: It’s not a declaration of war no matter how much you claim it to be. Even Bush and his administration confirm that the ‘war’ on Iraq is not a declared war.
If it’s no big deal then why did they not Declare War? Paul made it easy for them to declare war. They chose not to. There are reasons we didn’t formally declare war. Do you know what they are?
the more and more some of the freepers dislike ron paul, the more i start to pay attention to him. the reality is the other rep candidates are saying the same regergatating crap.
Maybe you can answer a few questions:
1. When did paleoPaulie's bill get committee approval?
2. When was the bill debated on the floor of the House?
3. How many House members voted for it?
4. Or was this just another example of posturing by paleoPaulie the antiwar antiAmerican showpony?
5. Other than maybe such a bill as naming a post office in his district for Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose or Noam Chomsky, has paleoPaulie ever been the original sponsor of even one piece of legislation that has ever been enacted in a career dating back to 1976?
6. If the answer to #5 is no, do you suppose that reflects the view of his Congressional colleagues that he is as crazy as Charles Manson or that even Republican Congresses disagree with him to put it mildly and that, whatever the merits of his proposals, they will go nowhere because he is despised.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Yes that’s it “complicit”. Blah, blah blah.
I think you're on to something here.
Agreed; our politicians are much too wimpy to do anything like that.
If paleoPaulie were the nominee that would sure prove that Dubya was wrong on your second paragraph. The president signing a MUCH MORE LIBERAL amnesty bill will be Mrs. Arkansas Antichrist or Osama bin Bama or the Breck Girl (or to be as delusional as the "paleos" maybe Cuckoocinich the Demonrat whose foreign policy is paleoPaulie's very own).
Does the "North American Union" stuff come from the fertile imaginations at American Opinion? Look, under your bed! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's an international banker!!!! Yawn!!!
2. When was the bill debated on the floor of the House?
3. How many House members voted for it?
4. Or was this just another example of posturing by paleoPaulie the antiwar antiAmerican showpony?
5. Other than maybe such a bill as naming a post office in his district for Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose or Noam Chomsky, has paleoPaulie ever been the original sponsor of even one piece of legislation that has ever been enacted in a career dating back to 1976?
1. don't know
2. probably never
3. several House members signed on as co-sponsors
4. I doubt it
5. don't know
Since I don't reside in Paul's District, I don't keep tabs on his House career, just am aware of some bills. The majority of House members are simply not interested in de-funding the United Nations. Was your own Congressman a co-sponsor?
You lie. No other way to put it. And you lie even after you have been shown clearly that you are lying. Ron Paul did NOT "blame America for 9/11" and it is a stupid, vicious lie to claim that anything he said in the debates does so. I am getting fed up with single digit IQ dunderheads who are so bereft of the ability to simply parse out a plain english sentence that they turn a clear documented truth (actions do have consequences, and the middle east is no exception) into some mewling "it is all our fault" attempt to "blame America." It is NOT what he said, and you people have heard tons of people, from Ron Paul supporters to the NRO (which is NOT a Paul supporter) explain to you in painstaking detail why it is not so. Yet you continue to prance around like some retard version of Archimedes,dripping wet and shrieking "EUREKA" as though you have just discovered an irrefutable axiom.
I once saw a brain damaged chimp in the zoo that behaved in the same manner, endlessly fascinated by the rubber band he stretched, captivated by the fact that it continually returned to its original shape. So it is with the "blame America first" paulietroll caterwaulers. No matter how many times or by how many people or how clearly it is explained to them they insist on howling at the moon like some deranged inbred cur and spitting out the slobber just long enough to intone "Ron Paul says 9/11 is our fault!"
I swear I don't see how they can manage to remember their passwords to log in.
I disagree with you, but I did want to say that your response was damned funny. Rofl.
I was always partial to Ringo, myself.
Well put. We can’t withdraw from the very world we have created, but must deal with it on our terms, by our will.
Do you honestly think you are being witty with that crap?
I thought I was the king of incomprehensibility with long run on sentences.
Your little cutesy-isms of “cookoocinich” only serves to make what you say not worth reading for trying to wade through all that bombast.
“I’ll be your huckleberry” ?
We are fighting a war. Two actually. Congress authorized the use of military force. Personally, I don't care if they added "Mary had a Little Lamb and Was her doctor surprised!!!" to the resolution so long as we get to fight the war. If Congress refused permission, we would have gotten ourselves a new Congress.
If the reason is not wanting to transgress the UN Charter almighty (which, as a treaty, is the law of the land via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the original US constitution which makes me want to barf but is not the question du jour. Ask Congressman "Constitution"head if you don't believe me.), that would be my response.
It is obvious also that they did not declare war because they wanted to stir up Bush Derangement Syndrome on the paleo so-called right.
Not that Ringo, Doc. The other Ringo! ;-)
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.