Ron Paul has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. He has taken Bush to task repeatedly for lying about his position on "nation building" and has continuously chastised him for deceiving people like you into believing that the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation is permissible under our Constitution. Ron Paul has never "claimed sincerity" on any war on terror because he, like a lot of us (growing numbers every day), knows that you can't declare war on an idea or an inanimate object. He realizes that a war on terror is just as stupid, vain, and empty as a war on drugs or a war on poverty and that it is nothing more than political rabble-rousing. He has said all this repeatedly and if you bothered to look into any of this instead of taking the easy road and simply believing what the party machine tells you, you would have known this before you made such a silly statement.
Ron Paul had the guts to vote on a measure before the whole House and chose not to take the cowardly route of voting "present" or even worse, absenting himself from the floor. Those tactics are symptomatic of the degenerate evil that pervades our government. Paul looks at votes in the House as requiring a yes or no answer. He voted his conscience in accordance with his oath of office. You don't like how he voted, like so many of the other lemmings on this forum, but you cannot characterize his vote as unprincipled.
Regarding the 'lying socialist who currently occupies the White House'; answer me this: Did you vote for him? If so, wasn't that vote a sign of support? If not, whom did you vote for?
No, I did not vote for Bush. I mostly abstained in the last election, but of the votes I cast, most were for Libertarians. The GOP has become the home for socialists and fascists of all stripes. The idiots who preached the "big tent" have won and now get to live with the fruits of their victory: irrelevance. George Bush is the worst President to hold office in my recollection of political involvement (which goes all the way back to 1972, by the way). He has managed to destroy the remnants of the Reagan Revolution, he and the stinking neocons have put the GOP on the road to destruction, his tenure in office has been marked by lies and incompetence. I don't know if our republic can recover from the damage he has done to it in six short years.
Maybe Ron Paul's candidacy will wake Republicans up and set them on the road to recovery. This really is their last chance. If they don't wake up, we are in for a long, painful ride down the dead-end road to socialism, with the Bush-Clinton oligarchy holding the reigns.
Gee, I thought Ron Paul was opposed to nonbinding resolutions in general, yet this time he votes for one.
I'm sure this comports with his principles somehow.
Of course, nobody can tell, but Ron Paul never fails to inform the unwashed what his principles are as they change day-to-day, so I'm sure we'll find out.
That's not guts, that's backstabbing. It's leaving the military hung out to dry. As I stated, If Paul has been against the WoT since the beginning (and I'd have to agree after reviewing his voting record since 2002) then he should have worked for a bill to remove all funding and outspokenly supported that; not a stupid, ill-considered, objectionable non-binding resolution.
You can believe what you want about how many are moving to your side. But another thread in FR http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788496/posts tells a somewhat different story.
You and your ilk are no better than the Copperheads of the 1860’s. You’ll do anything to undermine the war effort. Thanks for your patriotism/S.
> He has taken Bush to task repeatedly for lying about his position on "nation building"
Contrary to the popular anti-Bush talking point, Bush never said in 2000 that if the US goes to war against a foreign enemy, the US should never invade and occupy that enemy. Bush was referring to "peacekeeping" operations in Somalia and Haiti when he criticized "nation building."
I was with you until here. Iraq surrendered to us in Kuwait. They violated the terms of the surrender repeated times and in repeated ways. We had the moral authority to invade and we have the moral authority to occupy. Even if we didn't, where is what we did, prohibited in the Constitution? If you say that Congress should have declared war instead of the President, I might agree with that point.