Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
The problem comes when people try to parse Ron Paul down to the cellulat level and beyond, down to his indicidual electrons.
The problem with that is, it’s the whole person who would act as President and as a whole person, Ron Paul is as dangerous to the (whatever direction libertarians are) as Hillary is to the Left.
Hillary is a one-wold socialist who at her core hates While Male Straight Americans because she was taught to by the radical priest she encountered in high school and her gay college roommates and teachers.
Paul is just loony.
Paul was not opposed to WW2 and has said that it was necessary. And he voted for us going into Afghanistan following 9/11, and did want to find and bring to justice the terrorists who did 9/11.
If you actually read the thread (see posts 222, 331 and others) or looked at what he said in the entire context, you'll see he was talking about the president acting unilaterally, without a declaration of war from congress, not that there has never been a time to retaliate at all.
That is if you're not so far gone with PDS and blinded with hate.
LOL it’s sure looking that way isn’t it? Well, your candidate has my vote if mine doesn’t make it.
Thanks for the context. Still a nutcase, but don't let that stop you. (Thank God, Ronald Reagan NEVER caved into the oft-proposed and whacky "no first use" doctrine regarding nuclear weapons vis a vis the Warsaw Pact during the 80's).
For context, during the 80’s (when I was enlisted), the doctrine was:
Biological weapons: No use
Chemical weapons: No first use
Nuclear weapons: No pre-announced strategy (that would have been as insane as the “nuclear freeze” idiocy).
Being from Texas , I guess I should know more about Ron Paul but I don’t.
It’s not just Ron Paul stuff...there is all kinds of rubbish being posted in Breaking News lately, much of it targeting various candidates. I hope the mods can start clearing some of it out.
Does it ever bother you that so many of his quotes have to be "clarified"? I saw the Sinclair quote live and as soon as he said it, I said "weasel." He wouldn't come out and say it himself of Huckabee. But he'd quote Sinclair and put it out there. Plausible deniability. In the interests of fair balance, I also said "weasel" when viewing Huck's, McLame and Edward's Christmas votermercials.
I think his brand of politics speaks louder out here in the west. The Federal Government is not our friend here in Nevada :) I think they want the 9% of the state that they don’t already own.
He's going to make comments that go against conventional wisdom. Whether or not it helps or hurts him remain to be seen, because it looks like the Don Black stories are already dying.
Amen, CindyDawg!
I guess you are of the mind that a first strike or preemptive action against AQ would’ve had no effect on what took place in the late 90’s and 9-11....
Paul’s comments are wrong in so many ways it is sad...if you want to claim his comments on not retaliating were taken out of context, which I think is very flimsy, how could you ever agree, especially in this day and age, that the US should have a policy of “no first strike”????
that is the sort of passive/reactive strategy employed by the rats that got us into this mess....President Bush is completely correct- if you wait around for a country, leader, a terrorist group to become an imminent threat it is too late by then...
And no, I'm sorry that I don't agree with the policy of starting a war. I also don't trust many of the people, Jorge Bush included, who are behind the current push for a new war. You can trust him all you want, go ahead.
If I understand the line of thinking, the Paulian view is that the President could take no action until Congress declared war on the individual, Osama bin Laden.
So bin Laden declared war on the United States. And your response would be to withdraw from the Middle East?
That's it?
The Ronpaul failed to say what you want him to be understood to have said. In fact, he said something quite different ~ more along the lines of “.....” (what the man said).
When the Ronpaul aludes to elements of that "line of thinking" some of us get the idea he buys into the rest of it.
This isn't that difficult, really. Read the thread. Read the entire discussion and listen to what he's saying, because you seem to be misunderstanding. He explicitly says that yes, the president has the moral and legal responsibility to retaliate against an attack, and his point was that if for some reason congress cannot declare war, the president does have the responsibility to thwart an attack. But THAT (the president acting unilaterally without the declaration of war from congress) hasn't been needed, or to use his words - "I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that in our history".
So he believes that there may be times when that (the president acting without a congressional declaration of war) will be necessary but it hasn't happened yet. Once again, he is not talking about the need to retaliate in general. Also, he points out the difference between that, and starting a war.
To answer your specific question:
"So bin Laden declared war on the United States. And your response would be to withdraw from the Middle East?"
LOL. You're kidding, right? I guess a couple of you really haven't been reading the thread. Once again, he did want to go after the terrorists who did 9/11 and he did vote to go into Afghanistan after 9/11. And as was posted last night, he is not opposed to war, he believes in the just war theory. So your question (no offense) is retarded, but then, I get the feeling that sincerity is not a top quality among the Paul haters, so I'll take it that you weren't entirely serious.
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.