Paulies positions are based on his delusions, bad reading of history and perhaps, if he thinks he is applying the founders' intentions, he is channeling the dead. Are you?
If you rejected what you call "neo-con" ideology in 2008, I guess you are one of those responsible for the present peace creep administration whose foreign policy and paleoPaulie's are soooooo similar.
As I posted earlier, I am no more persuaded as to your service record than I would be by McGovern's. Bring it up if you like or not if you don't like. I don't really care. By being antiwar, you, like McGoo, diminish the respect that others might have for your service, as such. In any event, it is not a persuader in argument.
Aircraft carriers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, tanks, the air force, the veteran's department, fully automatic rifles, steamships, airplanes, space exploration, light bulbs, computers, typewriters, automobiles, indoor plumbing, central heating, airconditioning, modern ventilation methods, LP gas, natural gas, gasoline, penicillin, antibiotics generally, the internet, telephones (hard wired), telephones (cellular), television, satellites, and a wide variety of other modern means and products are nowhere in the constitution and they made amendment too cumbersome to be accomplished by Congressional supermajorities and 38 states to ratify while the Pentagon itself and the WTC are attacked.
We are a nation not a museum. Strictly speaking, the Articles of Confederation were not legally replaced by the constitution when 9 states ratified. The Articles required unanimity. I think that suggests that the founders were not quite so literalist as their modern day "supporters" tend to hallucinate. Rhode Island ratified about 4 years after the constitution was deemed enacted. See any insults in there or just arguments?
Back to original mode. If Ron Paul states his constitutional delusions, why should anyone care? What does he know? I would probably agree with numbers of his positions or his actual performance or (in very rare occasions) both. It does not matter. On war, military, foreign policy, and many social issues, he is a moonbat or, as some prefer, batsh*t crazy. The sooner that he and Weepy Walter Jones retire the better and we don't need his kid named Rand (no less) in public life either, much less in the US Senate.
If you don't like war, don't re-enlist. If you don't like your friends going to war, that is their business and none of yours.
I'll be back tonight after a meeting.
You are good at getting something out of someone’s words that was not there.
Did I reveal who I voted for in 2008? No. I said the country rejected neo-con ideology, which it did.
Did I say I was “anti-war”? No. I said we need to shift our foriegn policy to that of a non-interventionist (not “isolationist”).
Your remarks about the constitution are not very clear, but I think you are saying the Constitution is a relic, or posibly that it is combersome to the progressive world? Could you clear that up? Thanks :D
Oh, and I just love war! Every man who has ever fought in a war will tell you the same thing too. We all just loved it...sheesh What kind of a...ah nevermind
Have fun at your meeting.
There is a fellow I work with, was injured in 2004 in Iraq, has a cluster of “Obama / Biden” and “Vets for Obama” stickers on the back of his truck, and was insufferable during and right after the election shilling for the Messiah.
Proof that Military Service, as much as I respect it, is no guarantee of political acumen...