Ron Loses It Again (Supermegabarfhurl Alert)

Politics and Eggs Breakfast, Bedford, NH | 19 December 2007 | C-Span

[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."

[Popman]

In all fairness Paul's answer was about a "nuclear attack" verses a "nuclear proliferation".

He is still a moonbat

[George W. Bush]

OCCASparky: Oh. My. GOD. He has well and truly lost it.

I certainly agree that someone is losing it. Let's examine who that is, shall we?

---

"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."

He is, in fact, entirely correct.

There has been no attack during our history that the president has actually been required to respond to using solely his unilateral authority as commander-in-chief.

That is, prior to consulting Congress and obtaining authorization for war.

And Ron Paul has said this exact same thing at least once during the earlier GOP debates. I believe it was during the first or second debate. It is a truism, so obvious it's not often uttered. So there isn't any actual news content on this thread at all. Actually, Ron Paul has given these same exact speeches for the last thirty years. And he does support the principle that a president, as commander-in-chief, is fully authorized and responsible to defend the country and take it to war following an attack or to prevent imminent attack without any Congressional authorization. And he supports this C-in-C role because the Constitution so obviously can be read no other way.

Even after Pearl Harbor and the incidents at the end of the eighteenth century or the War of 1812, our presidents always consult Congress first. And it is Congress who takes this country to war, just as the Constitution dictates.

However, no such attack requiring the president to take the country to war unilaterally has ever taken place. But he does have the authority to do so with the proviso that he is responsible to Congress and can face impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate if he abuses this legitimate presidential authority. The Constitution was written by very practical men and, despite the common ignorance parroted here at FR against Ron Paul about how "the oceans no longer protect us", that was never true to begin with, especially in the early decades of our republic. Those mighty oceans did somehow fail to protect our national capitol in the District of Columbia when the British sailed up the Potomac and burned it to the ground. And the Founding Fathers who were fighting in the skirmishes leading up to and in the actual War of 1812 didn't seem to think that those oceans were giving them much protection from Europe's greedy empires who were also desperate to prevent the bad example of American independence from spreading to the rest of their colonial empires. And our bad example did in fact spread in due course and subverted the empires of Europe with its example and message of liberty. Our country is and always was subversive to empires and tyrants and dictators and totalitarian governments. It is the fundamental nature of our country.

Ron Paul is and always was one of the leading advocates for Reagan's Star Wars programs. Under many scenarios for those space weapons' use, he was supporting the concept that during nuclear war with the Soviets, a president would necessarily have to take the country to war unilaterally because half the world would be laid waste before you could call more than half a dozen congressmen. Of course, even during the Cold War, the policy under administrations of both parties was always to inform and consult at least the leadership of both parties, time permitting, that we were about to retaliate or launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike to prevent an imminent attack.

So, in short, Ron Paul has always supported the concept of a commander-in-chief, capable of unilateral and even pre-emptive action to defend the country. However, he recognizes that no president has yet faced an actual situation where he had to take the country to war without consulting Congress first, obtaining a declaration, and proceeding after the people's representatives have spoken, just as the Constitution prescribes. And his principles are entirely consistent with the great Republican presidents of military background like generals Grant and Eisenhower.

So this BREAKING NEWS is actually just another sad loopy hit-job from the usual suspects, requiring a single sentence quote taken entirely out of context. Such threads would collapse of their own utter inanity if you actually quoted Dr. Paul with even a full paragraph.

Personally, I'm starting to really enjoy these little "FreeRepublic™ Ron Paul Breaking News Exclusives©". Perhaps you should consider syndicating them to the major new media sources. Really, I encourage you to do so. I know they'd enjoy such submissions from you. You do realize, of course, that you make FReepers look as dumb as a box of rocks to lurkers and prospective recruits when you pull these lame attacks, don't you? What a lovely little advertisement to those considering joining FreeRepublic, right there at the top of our news sidebar.

The question is, are you yourselves actually so stupid as to believe this FUD that you try to spread? Or do you just think all your fellow-FReepers are actually complete ignoramuses? I suppose I prefer to think you're merely engaging in a laughably malicious libel of an honorable man rather than to think that I'm on a forum of morons.

It's pretty much has to be either one of the other. We're not talking about just one little jump-the-shark episode involving Ron Paul here, but hundreds of these same libelous Ron Paul threads over the last year so a conclusion is pretty much warranted at this point. I'll leave it to the reader to determine your motives. Do we still care about the truth? Well, I like to think so. I will note that even Democrats aren't treated to such lame and desperate propaganda attacks as Ron Paul has been receiving from various "conservative" sources, attacks that would make Goebbels blush. And in doing so, you cause FreeRepublic to look exactly like the common caricature of knuckle-dragging rubes that the libmedia has always tried to portray us to be. In fact, you actually make us look worse than the libmedia does, with the possible exception of that fool Bill O'Reilly labeling us as an actual hate site so he could be "fair and balanced" in attacking the KosKids (who actually are a hate site). And, for what purpose exactly do you make our forum look so foolish and gullible? Merely to libel some Congressman that you just don't like and who you constantly rant will never get even 1% of the GOP primary vote?

As always, non-troll FReepers with an IQ above room temperature are welcome to join our Ron Paul pinglist via the link in our friendly banner below. The names of new pinglist members are added at the list's end so the Troll faction can't assemble a hit list, though they are overheard muttering bitterly from time to time under their Dank Bridge just how unfair that is to them.

---

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

**BREAKING** We're all going to die! ping...

[George W. Bush]

READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2008 or 2009.

LOL! You guys are killing me with this stuff.

But shouldn't we save some of this material for New Year's Eve when we all have a good stock of recreational beverages?

[incindiary]

Good points. I've said it before, it appears there is a new "derangement syndrome." The over the top hatred, ugly nastiness, knee-jerk reactions and jumping to absurd conclusions... it IS an oddity and pathetic, imo. And you're right that many of them don't look into his actual positions and will believe the worst (this thread is a good example of that). But I don't know if it's entirely useless yet. I'm the kind of person that hates to see misrepresentations or lies just sit there, unresponded to. And I think there are some people who don't support Paul but are still somewhat reasonable and don't have PDS. ;-)

[the808bass]

In all fairness Paul's answer was about a "nuclear attack" verses a "nuclear proliferation".

Yes, but the Paulistinian response to Islamic terrorism (as exemplified on this thread) is that it is no real threat. Go back to eating your Wheaties, America. No danger here. That is the idea to which I responded in the post to which you are responding (I presume).

[gusopol3]

if you choose to forget the French and Indian War, Pontiac’s War ,etc., etc. Go ahead. Don’t expect others to go along with your lies.

[pie_eater]

Just because someone voices support for strict interpretation of the constitution doesn’t make him a viable candidate for leadership.
Alan Keyes has many of the same values, and he’d be a disaster too. You need to be able to lead the country and the congress, and Paul (and Keyes) could do neither.
But then again some Paul supporter will probably say that the constitutional role of the president is not to lead the country but to battle the Freemasons or some other magical group.
I wouldn’t lend either of them the keys to my car much less let them run my country.

[incindiary]

Words spoken like a true left wing Democrat, greenie, etc.

LOL!! I've been called many things, but left-wing isn't one of them. Btw, my dad has said I'm "to the right of Attila the Hun." (I don't agree, but it's just funny to me how people can have skewed perceptions.)

As far as the rest of your post, I have read and I've done research. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't a threat. Just that I think there is a bigger threat...you think I'm underestimating the threat of Islamfascism, well I think you're underestimating the threat from those who are subverting our country from within. You have a lot more faith in our government than I do, and we apparently have a different view on their honesty.

[CatholicEagle]

AndrewByler, billthedrill, you, and a mere handful of others have raised the level of discussion to something meaningful and useful to a free constitutional republic. Thanks for the views.

I have heard more more than enough questionable, equivocating and evasive comments from Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson—let alone the rest of the GOP candidates, to repulse me permanently.

I am no libertarian but I do believe in federalism. I’m no conspiracy theorist and I don’t subscribe to “moral equivalency.”

I do believe, however, in a Constitution that can defend the Nation against assertions of “new realities” and I also believe that spending oneself into bankruptcy ultimately leaves the door wide open for the barbarian hordes to spill in unrepelled.

Whether Paul wins or not, his is a candidacy providing a badly needed viewpoint that needs to shrink the oversize GOP tent and eject the phony conservatives, RINO’s and mere provocateurs, many of whom feed here.

It’s clear that the original post was nothing more than vultures waiting to spring a trap resulting in an emotional feeding frenzy.

Counterproductive, not persuasive.

[Popman]

"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."

The quote is taken out of context to a certain degree. The context being has there ever been a time we needed to nuke someone, unless I am hearing it wrong.

I happen to disagree with Paul on this subject, there has been times when we should have nuked, a small nuke dropped into Kabul would have sent a serious message to those savages.

I'm not defending his positions on Islamic terrorism, that's the one area he seems to have ventured into lala land, kooksville.

[Bastiat_Fan]

??? Ask a mod to delete that, you’re going to get hundreds of nasty responses. Do it, for the sake of your children.

[the808bass]

And you're right that many of them don't look into his actual positions and will believe the worst (this thread is a good example of that).

Paul has done his best to earn our worst impression of him.

Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11. Often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic.

I'm sure you agree with the quote. Which just solidifies my suppositions of your judgment.

[Bastiat_Fan]

Ouch. Burn. I think Im going to have to go back to painting my garage now. You have officially just made whoever you were fighting with look silly. Well done. The League of Justice would be proud sir.

[the808bass]

The context being has there ever been a time we needed to nuke someone, unless I am hearing it wrong.

No. At best, he's saying there's been no time that a President has had to order the Armed Forces to defend the country that the Congress has not been able to be notified and declare an act of war.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

This denier sounds just like a Democrat. I recall some Democrat (I don’t remember who) that said that if we’re just nice to them, they’ll be nice to us.

[Bastiat_Fan]

You have to admit, every action has a reaction. It’s just the way things are. No one (at least on this forum I hope) is saying we should ACCEPT the reaction, just that they will occur.

[Popman]

You need to be able to lead the country and the congress

Small correction.

The President doesn't lead Congress, they are a separate entity of power in the Constitution.

The President is supposed to lead his political party. Bush seems to have abandoned that concept

But then again some Paul supporter will probably say that the constitutional role of the president is not to lead the country but to battle the Freemasons or some other magical group.

You mean the evil bildaburgers, Tri- Latteral Commission, Illuminati council, Federal Reserve, Council on Foregin Affairs, These are the people who run the world. Ron Paul will save America from them. < /s >

[pie_eater]

You’re correct. The president is separate from the congress. I guess substitute “motivate” for “lead”.

[RDTF]

There are Ron Paul signs up here along some major streets here in northern VA. Ugh.

[alexander_busek]

>>I don’t know if it’s the entire video, though.<<

It isn’t complete. The alleged remarks about Presidental war powers are not covered.