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."
” Point is, the concern in GOP circles about Paul centers not around the primaries but around the general.”
If it were a 3 horse race - Huckabee vs Some Dem vs Ron Paul
I’d vote for Paul. That way when later Huckster is using his political capital to get fried food banned, some mouth-breathing huckbot doesn’t tell me that I knew what I was getting when I voted for him, and that I should should shut up.
This guy is truly scary!
Hmmmm...with that logic:
if the situation were reversed, I guess this would be a moot point. Sharia Law wouldn’t allow for anyone to tell a supporter of a failed candidate to shut up, since they wouldn’t have their head in the first place!
“if the situation were reversed, I guess this would be a moot point. Sharia Law wouldn’t allow for anyone to tell a supporter of a failed candidate to shut up, since they wouldn’t have their head in the first place!”
Sure, but I don’t see how sharia law is a threat we face seeing implemented here in the us.
Bump # 198
The pile-on effect is pretty nuts.
“Mr President, We’ve had major terrorist attacks in 20 cities. Osama has refused your surrender plea. NORAD is reporting incoming. What shall we do?”
Issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal!
“Iraq? Just some lines drawn on a map to create military administrative districts by generals of the British empire.”
Not so .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1906252/posts
“One of the hidden treasures of modern Iraqi political history is the development of a powerful nationalist movement during the early twentieth century, when Iraq was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Characterized by strong democratic impulses and an emphasis on cultural tolerance, the nationalist movement was given impetus by the Young Turk Revolt of 1908, which emphasized republicanism and democratic reform. The nationalist movement attracted the loyalties of a large segment of the populace and included Iraqis of all ethnic backgrounds. It made significant contributions to Iraq’s social and political development until it was repressed by the first Ba’athist regime of ‘Ali Salih al-Sa’di and its violent National Guard militia, which seized power in February 1963.
“The Iraqi nationalist movement had four characteristics. First, the movement was characterized by interethnic cooperation. Iraqi nationalists explicitly rejected sectarianism and instead argued for a unified Iraq in which ethnic background was not a political issue. Second, the movement emphasized associational behavior. This was important because a strong democracy requires that the citizenry be organized. Third, the movement demonstrated a strong desire by Iraqis to communicate beyond their own ethnic groups or geographical regions. This was reflected in the vibrant press that characterized Iraqi society after the so-called Young Turk Revolt of 1908, and also in the expansion of literary and artistic expression after World War I. Finally, the movement was characterized by significant artistic innovation that expanded the boundaries of political and cultural discourse in Iraq and challenged many aspects of tradition. Although a number of army officers and political organizations, such as the al-Muthanna Club, did not ascribe to the nationalist movement’s democratic politics, they were a distinct minority among Iraqi nationalists.”
This isn't breaking news, it's just a second-hand unsourced report that one guy misheard while watching TV, and the false report is very inflammatory.
Of course Ron Paul didn't say what you thought he said. The first clue should be that it's completely out of character with his stated belief that national defense is one of the primary purposes of the Federal government. The second clue should have been that he supported taking action in Afghanistan and against Osama Bin Laden.
What Ron Paul was saying was that, to go to war, the Constitution requires Congress to pass a declaration of war. He was asked whether it is ever acceptable for the President to take the country to war unilaterally, without getting Congressional approval first. His answer was that there might be occasional situations where there was no time to obtain the consent of Congress (one example that comes to mind is a decision to retaliate if the U.S. were ever to be the target of a massive nuclear first strike; one can think of other possibilities as well).
His statement was not that there has never been a need for the U.S. to retaliate. What he said that there has never yet been a need for the President to retaliate unilaterally, without sufficient time to get Congressional approval first.
Think what you will about Ron Paul, but be honest about his views.
I don't know what things have come to where strict interpretation of the Constitution is ridiculed on FreeRepublic. Disagree with Paul about the war and foreign policy, if you disagree. But we shouldn't be ridiculing the philosophy of small government and strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Anyway, this isn't Breaking News, and it does FR a disservice for a false hearsay report to be at the top of Breaking News for an extended period of time.
Both were well-established nations. Japan from ancient times. Germany, like Italy, was a series of small territories ruled under petty nobles and only unified in the past few hundred years.
So those really were both established nations with a cohesive culture and national identity prior to our garrisoning of them.
>>>>Did you miss the part about their cities being razed to the ground, their governments being toppled, their citizens literally starving circa 1945?
(Is it something in the water supply? A virus? WHAT could it be?)
Read the the entire thread. There are links to Youtube and others that show what is posted, is exactly what was said by Paul. Yep, Paul said it and not out of context.
“Sure, but I don’t see how sharia law is a threat we face seeing implemented here in the us.”
I know...very few people wanted to believe their entire family tree would be lost in the holocaust too. Those people ignored threats to their peril too.
Fascinating how the possibility of fried foods getting banned in this country is more likely to happen than what has already happened in history over and over and over again.
Yeah....poor misunderstood Paul...
Several minutes of speaking about 9-11 conspiracies, followed up with “but there wasn’t a conspiracy...”
fascism will come wrapped in a flag carrying a cross...Huckster’s sending subtle messages that he’s the only Christian...”but I don’t know if that’s REALLY the case here”
pics with stormfront...
oh wait...it’s all an anti-Paul conspiracy!
Did you hear what he said about Vietnam?
“they are so much better off since we pulled out”
200,000 dead people, murdered by the Communists.......
yeah I guess they are better off......
Ron Paul is a retard.
You're wrong. Watch the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbmXfteACw. The relevant quote is there, about 5 minutes in, just as you said.
Here's the part that was omitted by the poster of this thread (I transcribed this directly from Ron Paul's statement on the video):
"The President has a responsibility to retaliate against an attack. It was especially true in the early years that if Congress was way off and they had to come by horse and buggy, the President had the responsibility, the moral and legal responsibility, to thwart an attack on the United States, That is still the position I would hold."He goes on to say that, when war needs to be declared, he disapproves of "Congress reneging their responsibility by transferring their responsibility to the President."
It's all about whether Congress should be taking its Constitutional role in deciding whether the U.S. goes to war or not, or whether such decisions should be left up to the President unilaterally.
And that's all it's about.
I don't see how any conservative can disagree with this position, although you may disagree with his views on the Iraq war specifically.
Bump, Kerst! I’ve yet to hear a cogent defense of Paul’s view of the Cold War from one of his supporters.
I do realize that management at FR does not support Ron Paul. That’s their right after all. Their political view shouldn’t have any influence on mine. As a matter of fact, their mission statement so to speak is -
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We’re working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!
Admittedly, I am not an independent but I am a conservative. I also don’t consider myself a fool - that of course, is in the eyes of the beholder though. :)
My point is that none of the other Republican candidates are vilified to the point Ron Paul is, and those who support him. It’s not a matter of arguing points or his position, just a lot of name calling. I find that very odd for this board.
Bravo! If these RP trolls spent as much time promoting their own GOP candidate as they did trying to slime RP, we just might get a Republican into the White House. But I am thinking that they might rather Hillary win!
"I don't know what things have come to where strict interpretation of the Constitution is ridiculed on FreeRepublic. Disagree with Paul about the war and foreign policy, if you disagree. But we shouldn't be ridiculing the philosophy of small government and strict interpretation of the Constitution."
The slimers are always accusing the RP people of "spamming" and "whining". What's happening here is that the anti-Pauls are the ones spamming "Breaking News" and "whining" as a an anti-abortion, anti-amnesty" Republican continues to move up the polls. How sad!
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.