[Momaw Nadon]

YouTube - Ron Paul - 12-19-07- Politics-n-Eggs Breakfast - NH -Part 3, about 5 minutes in

Upon further review, the quote was taken out of context.

Sorry about jumping to conclusions without seeing the entire video first.

No foul.

BTW, I am a Duncan Hunter supporter and have never supported the Ron Paul campaign.

[George W. Bush]

Upon further review, the quote was taken out of context. BTW, I am a Duncan Hunter supporter and have never supported the Ron Paul campaign.

Thanks for being fair. There is such a thing as just being honest and standing for the facts.

Few of the Duncan folk have gone in for this dishonest trolling. And Duncan and his fence bill did save us from an election utter disaster in 2006, something the national party will never acknowledge.

And this is trolling, to put it mildly. Many, perhaps most, of these people know perfectly well that they are libeling Ron Paul. It is deliberate dishonesty and goes well beyond what they would do even to the more hated Democrats in the country.

I'm not sure exactly what justifies doing this to our own forum over a candidate they all say can never break 1% in the primaries.

[Bokababe]

"Upon further review, the quote was taken out of context. Sorry about jumping to conclusions without seeing the entire video first. No foul. BTW, I am a Duncan Hunter supporter and have never supported the Ron Paul campaign."

Thanks, Momaw. Hunter people have been the most civil & fair non-Paulers on FR. Gives me more respect for your candidate, based on the kind of people who support him.

[Mitchell]

Upon further review, the quote was taken out of context.

Sorry about jumping to conclusions without seeing the entire video first.

No foul.

Thanks, Momaw Nadon. Your post confirms what I already knew, that most people on FR are fair-minded.

Paul is just saying that we don't live in a dictatorship so it normally isn't up to the President all by himself to authorize a military retaliation; under usual circumstances, Congress needs to provide the Constitutional authorization.

Paul would agree that, of course, there have been many cases requiring U.S. retaliation. But that means retaliation authorized by Congress (and then carried out by the President as Commander-in-Chief), since that's how the United States government works under the Constitution.

There haven't yet been any unusual cases that where there was so little time to get Congressional approval that the President could reasonably have retaliated unilaterally.

[BGHater]

Thanks for the link Nadon.

Govt, I was just trying to get the video in the forum so we could listen to it. At the time, the complete video had not been posted.

[kinsman redeemer]

Ernest T. Bass's behavior was often summed up by Barney Fife: "He's a nut!"

[traviskicks]

Jim,

The Mod (and I generally appreciate the work the Mods do) who posted this to breaking news is incompetent and is demeaning your site, IMHO.

Any fool, upon watching the video, is aware that this quote has been taken totally out of context, even non Paul supporters who have viewed this have said so.

As was said quite accurately in post 331:

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.

Now, on the other hand, if the Mod is not an idiot, if he or she realized the context and still moved this thread to breaking news, then, IMO, this Mod should be axed for providing false and inflammatory information to the audience of your website. Conservatism is rooted in the truth and I'm sure you will agree that even spreading falsehoods about the most liberal socialist democrat does more evil than good. The means never justifies the ends.

I understand you and many of the mods dislike Ron Paul. Indeed, IMO, there seem to be many on here who appear fixated on 'Iraq' and little else, fearing the terrorists worse than our own government, and care little, or have little recognition of the prevailing and expanding American Socialism, the suffering perpetrated by our corrupt politicians, or the true meaning of liberty and living free. Which is all fine, we can debate it. But this unadulterated slander, plus this 'Paul can kiss my ass' or whatever crude rhetoric, plus these stupid threads smearing Paul as a racist, all in 'breaking news', just reflect negatively on this site and ironically, as an unintended side effect, also likely boosts the growing support for Ron Paul here on FR and around the country, IMHO.

I've been a contributer to this site, because I value and respect it, it is an amazing creation with many thoughtful, educated, and passionate members; a place to escape the bias of the MSM, but let's not replace the bias of the MSM with the bias of some jaded Mod. If this sort of trash continues I'll be hard pressed to cough up any more dough come donation time, if I'm even still here after this post, lol :).

Anyway, here is the full transcription of this video clip:

Question: I know that you talked about no first strike, under the constitution, I was wondering if you could talk about this and the connection to nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons proliferation and with the nonproliferations treaties... (yadda yadda she goes on)

Ron Paul: Yes, I did make the statement that we should have no first strike, matter of fact, no first strike with nuclear or conventional weapons because it doesn’t make any sense. The president has a responsibility to, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don’t think there has been a need to do that throughout our whole history, but it was especially true in the early years that if congress was way off and 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, the position I would hold. But that’s quite different than starting a war, so I would say no first strikes, it should be done with a declaration of war and not with the congress reneging on this responsibility by transferring this power to the president, which congress did, and just said, you know, “if you feel like it do it”, “if you don’t you don’t have to, but if you do we’ll pay for it”, and it was the worst of circumstances. So, although I am critical of this administration for taking us to war, I am almost more critical of the Congress for reneging on their responsibilities because Congress should have stood up to it and said, “do we declare a war or not?”. Matter of fact I made our international relations committee vote for a declaration of war, nobody voted for it, including myself, but they didn’t want that responsibility.

On nuclear power… yadda yaddda (he goes on)

[incindiary]

Thanks for your post, and I like the referee pics. ;-)