9/11/2001
Pearl Harbor
Hope he's dropping out of the race soon. He's Unfit for Command. It's a national security issue.
Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):
"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."
It's all in the Constitution. Study it harder.
Oh, golly, it’s in the Constitution you say? What’s THAT?
Maybe you can point out to me where it decrees that the U.S. cannot have weapons platforms capable of performing first-strike operations? I’m kinda dumb about that constutooshun thing.
Edit: Misread the poster name. I see what you did there. My apologies. Too used to dealing with that exact sort of response from Paul spammers.
The key and relevant word which you seem to be overlooking is "president". He has talked about this numerous times, in many interviews - his view that war should be declared by congress. Something he has said before is, "It is explicit in our Constitution that necessary wars be declared by the Congress."
So in the quote here, he was talking about the president retaliating and then directly after that he said that hasn't been necessary (meaning the president retaliating without congress)
Yes, that actually wasn't a good place to split it into another paragraph, so you're right that I should've left it without paragraphs. But I wanted to make it more readable, because it was a long quote. And I like paragraphs. :-)
Sometimes when people speak, they have something in their mind as they're speaking but they don't specify it... they assume others get what they're saying. In this case, he wasn't super clear but when you look at what he said before and after, and what he has stated many times in other interviews, it becomes more understandable that he was talking about the president retaliating against an attack without the declaration of war from congress.
Even if I take the charitable reading of your interpretation of Paul's statements, it ends up with the same uber-isolationist idiocy which makes his candidacy (not to mention his connection to reality) untenable.
The one it did. FDR asked Congress for a Declaration of War. Which they provided.
Hasn't happened since (Congress declaring war).
A non-interventionist is not the same thing as an isolationist. As a Christian, he believes in the just war theory, so he is not opposed to all war. He believes (as I do) that there should be a just reason for going to war, it should be declared legally, we should have the right intentions and if we're going to do it, we should have defined, clear objectives... not one of these vague, undefined wars that turn into a quagmire.
Also, forcing "democracy" under the barrel of a gun, propping up dictators, nation building, getting into unnecessary wars - those things have consequences, and those things do not make us "good". There's a quote about America being great. America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, we will cease to be great. Whoever said that was prophetic, because that has been happening now, imo. We've strayed and many don't even realize it. Not to mention that we're going bankrupt, because Bush's wars are costing trillions of dollars. Once we have a financial disaster, then how can we be strong as nation? Paul seems to be the only one talking about this, while the other ones are cheering on Bush's perpertual wars which we have to borrow and get further in debt for to keep going.
And as a non-globalist (unlike Bush) he doesn't believe we should go to war to enforce UN resolutions. As he has stated in interviews, we have to decide - We either stick to the constitution, or lose our sovereignty and submit to UN global government. Bush and other RINOs that many here cheer for seem to be more interested in the latter. Dr. Paul and many, MANY people in this country would like to keep our constitution, and rights and sovereignty, thankyouverymuch, which are slowly but surely being destroyed.
And that is why he is doing so well. People are waking up and realizing we have been stabbed in the back and sold out, by globalist politicians who view the constitution as just a **** piece of paper. They have other interests. Paul is looking at the bigger picture and like a lot of us, can see the direction we're heading in. And this may be our last chance to elect a strong constitutionalist, and someone who isn't sold out to global government.
If a "non-interventionist" says that there is no reason for first-strike capabilities, they are disconnected from the modern realities of terrorism and actual (not imagined) weapons of mass destruction. Ron does understand that modern situations change how the Constitution is viewed (President having ability to act quickly with the lack of quick communication or jet travel for Congress), but has no friggin clue that perhaps other changes would necessitate changes in our response to our enemies. I am not in favor of undeclared wars. I am also not in favor of waiting for a dirty bomb in Baltimore to respond to terrorist threats (now tell me about "letters of marque").
Some supporters of Ron Paul (probably many of those on FR) like him because of his stated support of the Constitution. A lot of other people like him because they hate the Jews (or hate that the US supports Israel), or because they have some theory about the military/industrial complex, or the Bildebergers/CFR/Trilateralists/Whatever the tinfoilers are calling them this week, or because they want to smoke pot on their front porch (not that he's publically proclaimed this), or because they hate the war in Iraq (and war in general).
I'm pretty sure the bulk of his support comes from the latter reasons. The Constitution is wonderful. It's not the reason for all of Ron's support. Just the majority of Ron's support on FR.
I know that what I'm going to say is controversial, and you'll probably think it's nutty, but did it ever occur to you that our government has misled or manipulated the public in regard to the extent of the "threat" from the Islamoboogeymen? To be honest, I don't wake up in the morning and fear Islamic terrorists. What I fear more is socialist/globalist traitors in our own country (domestic enemies) and the destruction of our rights, freedom and sovereignty. To me that is a bigger threat than any tin-pot middle eastern countries who are weak compared to us militarily.
I'll probably get bashed for saying that, but I don't share the hysteria over terrorism. I think that similar to how Democrats use global warming scaremongering to acheive an agenda, fearmongering comes from the other side, too. People who fear are easier to manipulate.
9/11/2001
Pearl Harbor
Hope he's dropping out of the race soon. He's Unfit for Command. It's a national security issue.
kucinich/paul ‘08
KUMBAYA & PEACE ON EARTH
AT LEAST FOR A SHORT.
...MAYBE, SAY, TILL THE JIHANDIS GET WISE WHICH SHOULD TAKE ONLY ABOUT A MINUTE ....
THEN WHAT? INCINERATION ON EARTH?
pearl harbor? barbary ww’s uno y dos...
bumper sticker wars, muh man....
BUMPER STICKERSVILLE......and
the WAR on TERROR?....well
TOO bad the jihadis are investing all that time money and lives into it....it’ll all go away....
when we’re toast...that is.
I’ve been following the Ron Paul threads here quite a bit. I’ve discovered an irrational hatred of the man and a complete refusal to actually read his positions on war, terrorism, government, taxes, etc. His statements are frequently taken out of context or mis-reported (is that a word?) I finally realized tonight that it’s useless to try to point this out to the anti Ron Paul crowd because they won’t listen or think.
I don’t recall the outrage against Bill Clinton as hateful as that against Dr. Paul and anyone who supports him. Truely an oddity on a conservative forum.
does it occur to anybody that, with a handful of walnuts u could get most of these
this war is just a republican ‘bumper-sticker outing devised by the neocons to make money’ .....birds
to follow u anywhere......
or you might could just stand behind a tree and make a noise like a hickory nut......? hahahahah
You forgot the “You bunch of Ron Paul haters are making it up again” and the soon to be famous “We’re going to vote for Hillary to teach you big Govt Republicans a lesson”
bwhahaah TOP drawer....d/w
top DRAWER........
Is that you Hillary?
Words spoken like a true left wing Democrat, greenie, etc.
If anything, the government has not explained the threat from islamofascism strongly enough. You really ought to get out more and read some books from that side of things. Yes, if anything, the threat has been lowballed.
Underestimated.
As for saying that FDR turning to congress for a declaration of war is a predicate for what a President should do in case we come under attack today, including nuclear attack, that is just dangerously ignorant. Nuclear attacks, or imminent terrorist attacks by non nuclear but massively lethal means, do not leave anyone with the luxury of time to wait and gather congress perhaps from the 4 winds and craft legislation and debate ad nauseum. Even the congress itself is likely to come under attack as is the executive leadership, should an enemy plan carefully and have the lethality at hand to bring down on us. And all happening in a span of minutes.
And you ought to read about the Cold War threat of mutally assured destruction that we lived under for many, many years, and which has not completely gone away with possible threats from Russia and China and Iran.
The Cold War threat from the USSR putting offensive missles in Cuba, just 90 miles from our shores, was very, very real. If allowed to play out, there would have been no time or opportunity whatsoever for what Paul opines. That is why all Americans except Communists and hopeless pacifists were scared and outraged by those missles. That’s why they trained school children to hit the floor and hide under their desks in those days, although we know now that this wouldn’t have protected any of us.
And now we have Chavez and some fellows of his in Latin America allying themselves with Iran, which is working feverishly on long range and nuclear cabable missles.
I feel embarrassed just bothering to answer this utterly braindead contention.
May the good Lord save America from clowns like this with big mouths and the ability to raise gazillions of bucks from other clowns like Soros and many ordinary dupes on the Internet.
And may he save us from the loose, but potentially deadly, alliance between the Ron Paul dupes and the Soros radical left zealots who have seemed to reach similar conclusions about our national security.
I Wonder what MR. DAVID CROCKETT AND MR WILLIAM TRAVIS and the other 87 HEROES OF THE ALAMO think about the representative from the LONE STAR STATE who is currently running for president?
" VOTE FOR RON PAUL "
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.