-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_manages_to_be_dumber_than_barrack_obama -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=3958
You've proven the old adage that it's better to be silent and thought stupid than to open your mouth and [i]prove[/i] it beyond the shadow of a doubt!
(Oh, and next time, spend more than [i]$5.00[/i] on a tie!)
That fact that even his [i]tie[/i] is a [b]maroon[/b] should tell us something!
I have debated the Ron Paul candidacy ad naseum on the issues; but I have also noted that he is a very unappealing candidate. To think about listening to his voice for 4-8 years would cause mass suicides around the world. He is a singularly unappealing candidate, no matter what others think of his ideas, and I reject many of them, he is just an irritating little man to look at and listen to for more than one minute. That is what I meant when I said he does not have the necessities to win, he cannot appeal to and lead more than a few dedicated Libertarians and extreme Right Wing Zealots.
He is right about our dealings with Vietnam today, and my objections as a veteran to the normalization of relations with them aside; he seems to ignore the millions tortured, killed and families destroyed before, during and long after that war ended. He ignores those dying in hand made boats trying to escape the killing machine of the Viet Cong. He doesn't ignore that fact really, or even what will happen after we run out of Iraq in defeat like craven cowards, [b]quite frankly my dear - he doesn't give a damn![/b]
Just as Ron Paul would have us sit at home to let the Islamic tyrants control the middle east and slaughter all those who oppose them.
Which is a totally naive frame of mind. We can't sit in "fortress America" and expect the world to solve it's own problems, because if we aren't out there being proactive those problems find their way to our borders.
Better to solve the middle east's problems in the middle east than to let the fallout from those problems hit his here at home.
Solve their problems? We're not going to solve problems that are thousands of years in the making.
The point of being there as the president has said is so they won't come here (a logical fallacy, but whatever.)
That means the point of being there is to kick some ass and keep them busy.
We're using Iraq as a battle ground instead of our own land. That's good for us but it isn't going to solve any problems.
We need to quit acting like we are doing the world a favor and realize that we are there for ourselves and that that is not a bad thing.
Since the television and internet media got involved with electoral politics, really since JFK, yes looks and voice play a really big part. On radio Nixon beat JFK by his ideas and delivery, on television JFK kicked Nixon's butt and I think JFK won!
Just think of it as a sale, the leaders are trying to sell themselves as the Presidential product for the nation; and for decades ideas are playing a smaller and smaller role as compared to image. Billy Jeff said all the right things, his actual beliefs and policy positions were quite different, but he was a good looking guy especially on television, he was very articulate and a very good actor. Bush-I had less than a year before had an approval rating in the 90 percentile, won a quick and decisive war to kick Saddam out of Kuwaiit, the economy was moving in a very positive direction, and he presided over the formalities of ending the Cold War that Reagan made possible; but he was not very articulate, he didn't have Billy Jeff's young handome image, he didn't know how to promote the fantasies the people wanted to hear and got his ass kicked.
We would all prefer that the issues and record rule, but in reality they haven't ruled for over five decades at all and they will not rule this time around in my opinon. Which means, no matter how good you think Paul's ideas are, he is toast on the question of image.
Winners: Ron Paul = 38%; Brownback = 26%; Giuliani = 14%
Who will they vote for? Romney = 26%; Giuliani = 14%; Ron Paul = 2%
Oh, on tonights debate Democrats voted too! 1. Do you think they might have liked the guy in the debate easier for any Democrat to beat? 2. They liked Paul's anti-war and anti-Bush talk.
I told ape and Jim Cotton, sorry in the end it will be style/image over substance!
Actually, it might be [i]self[/i] -abuse...in both meanings of the word!
There seems to be a few leftards out there that are trying to stir the masses and make him more popular than he really is. Kind of like the Left tried to make McCain more popular when he was running against Bush, however, all he is doing is making himself look like a moveon.org liberal. I think he is attending the wrong debates.
This reminds me of the argument put forward by socialists about socialism never having been tried the "right way," thus it's never worked.
The Constitution is pretty lose on war. It says that Congress declares them, and the President is commander-in-chief. But it lays out no process for the declaration of war, nor even what such a declaration should consist of. So, to my mind, the authorizations for war in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly constitutional. Congress authorized them, though admittedly they didn't use the word "declare," and the President has executed them.
If there's anything unconstitutional going on, it's Congress' attempts to bypass the commander-in-chief and micromanage the war with legislation.
So you're telling us that Paul pretty much isn't in favor of any war. Because what else is war but the interference in the affairs of other nations through force?
As Clauswitz put it, war is the continuation of diplomacy by any means.
By the way, Afghanistan wasn't a "declared war" by Paul's definition. Is he against that one too on constitutional basis? How about WWII, since it included meddling in the government affairs of several European nations?
Again, Ron Paul is the new Charles Lindberg.
[quote]Solve their problems? We're not going to solve problems that are thousands of years in the making. [/quote]If we can't, free, you can stick your head between your legs and kiss your freedom good-bye. Hmmm, you'd probably make a 'good' muslim.
[quote]The point of being there as the president has said is so they won't come here (a logical fallacy, but whatever.) [/quote]Seems to be working as we haven't had a successful terrorist event on our home since 9/11. You do remember seeing WTC fall with over 3000 fatalities, don't you?
[quote]That means the point of being there is to kick some ass and keep them busy. [/quote]Sounds like a plan to me. Better there than here.
[quote]We're using Iraq as a battle ground instead of our own land. That's good for us but it isn't going to solve any problems. [/quote]Huh??? So you think it would be better having the battleground here?
[quote]We need to quit acting like we are doing the world a favor and realize that we are there for ourselves and that that is not a bad thing. [/quote]You moron, we are DOING this to assure OUR safety and freedom. That you can't see this speaks volumes about your naivety.
Are there [i]ANY[/i] serious Ron Paul supporters on the 'Net? Or just comic relief???
Wow, someone's spinning.
The Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan. We ousted the Taliban and set up the existing Afghani government. We liberated Afghanistan just as we liberated Iraq.
If Ron Paul supports Afghanistan and not Iraq the least you could do is be honest and note that he's being hypocritical.
Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the sole power "to declare war." Until the Korean War, the traditional process had been a declaration of war. Just because they quit following the Constitution, doesn't mean there wasn't a process established for the first 150 years.
[quote]
You moron, we are DOING this to assure OUR safety and freedom. That you can't see this speaks volumes about your naivety.[/quote]
I said that we are doing this for ourselves and that it is not a bad thing.
How am I a moron?
It was suggested we are there to solve their problems, I stated our motives are AND SHOULD BE selfish.
How am I a moron?
Freeper, can you tell me which part of the Constitutional "process" Congress violated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq? Because all the constitution says is that Congress has the power to "Declare War."
Your argument seems to be that because they didn't use the word "declare" it's unconstitutional. Which is silly.
Paco:
[quote]There is no right for us to forcefully take over another government. Perhaps you think a country should have democracy...there is nothing wrong with that. But, to actually invade the country and force them to do it...that is completely idiotic.[/quote]
We invaded Nazi Germany and forced democracy on them. Italy and Japan too.
I guess we didn't have the "right" to do that either.
So much for Strict Construtionism and literal readings.
[quote]Freeper, can you tell me which part of the Constitutional "process" Congress violated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq?[/quote]
Does the constitution say "Congress shall authorize" or "Congress shall declare" ?
If a judge were to do the same thing, we'd be calling it Judicial Activism.
Uh, who the hell cares about bin laden? As Romney said in the second video (did you all catch it?) "has he forgotten about 9/11?"
What time is it? It's always 9/11. We must never forget, and Ron Paul has forgotten. We got those responsible for 9/11 when we invaded Iraq. I believe that was the point. Sure, Bush said "nothing" when asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11, but he said it to assuage the press. Cripes! Why doesn't anyone get that? As for the WMD's how many times does it need to be proven that his tractor trailers moved his mobile nuclear program to Syria? I believe we intervened and recaptured the weapons... Ron Paul pretends we never even knew about these weapons.
Paul misses the boat in so many ways. He seems to be asking "Well we got Saddam so why are we still there?" Dummy. We have to quell a civil war and establish a base (largest in the middle east, baby) and stay there indefinitely. We got our new values from the old LBJ style interventionist Democrats, and people lose sight of the fact that we need to stay there to control the affairs of those people and keep them from flying here (again) to kill more Americans.
Where was the declaration of war in the quasi war with France? You know, that little undeclared war that started up less than a decade after the ratification of the Constitution? As in while most all of the framers of the document were still politically active?
LOL. This is so dumb it's funny!
Sorry, man, but you usually are a bit brighter than this. There is nothing in the constitution that says an AUMF (a term which even formal "declarations of war" qualify as) need use a particular phrasing such as "we declare war on _______" [fill in all nations, groups, etc that qualify]
And, no, I don't think you're a moron, but this is as close to moronic as I've seen you come.
If a judge were to do the same thing, we'd be calling it Judicial Activism. [/quote]
So will you admit that your argument is little more than semantics? If the title of the AUMF for Iraq had been "Declaration of War with Iraq" would you feel better? And if no, tell me what other changes would be needed for the AUMF, as written, to be constitutional?
Yes. The difference being that of a Technical War vs. an Official War.
The point being wade is the Congress abdicated its Constitutional authority, essentially giving the President carte blanc. The President simple took that and ran with it.
My take in this is that Congress as much as the President should be held responsible by the opponents of the war - whether on the neo-left or the paleo-right.
The point being wade is the Congress abdicated its Constitutional authority, essentially giving the President carte blanc. The President simple took that and ran with it. [/quote]
Can you tell me how changing the title from the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq to "Declaration of War With Iraq" would have stopped Congress from "abdicating it's power" as you put it?
Well it has nothing to do with Iraq, and it wasn't this Congress that did it. Congress abdicated it's authority in 1973 with the War Powers Act by putting down on paper what the President could get away without Congressional approval.
This is a long standing problem. Congress could repeal the War Powers Act at any time and revert to a Constitutional procedure - and if there is no procedure as you say, perhaps they should amend one into the Constitution.
It's always good to have these things written down.
Wait a minute, earlier you alluded to a "constitutional procedure" for declaring war. Now seem to not know if there is one or not.
Which is it?
I'd note that while the "War Powers Act" may not be great legislation, there's nothing unconstitutional about it. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. How Congress goes about doing that is completely up to Congress.
Personally, I like the way it's currently being done. Going to war requires a vote of Congress that must pass a Presidential veto test (in the unlikely event that a commander-in-chief might not want to go to war) and ending a war requires the same.
What's so bad about that?
[b]From: [/b][i]"The nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, delegation of some authority is exercised as an implied power of Congress, and has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, as long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. The Supreme Court has ruled that [b]Congress does have latitude to delegate regulatory powers to executive agencies[/b], as long as it provides an "intelligible principle.""[/i]
[b]To:[/b] [i]The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress.[/i]
I'm no expert, but things don't add up.
The War Powers Act was passed to limit what President's in the past had been doing: Waging war without the consent of Congress. Until then Presidents, starting with Truman in Korea I believe, had been using our military in defacto wars they called "police actions" in order to skirt the requirement for Congressional approval.
You're suggesting that Congress passed the war powers act to expand executive war-making powers, when really it was to curb it.
In both AUMFs, the enemy whom Bush was allowed to target was specifically enumerated. How is that carte blanc?
How about pointing us to the specific phrase in either AUMF that gives Bush any extraordinary powers???
And of course, Rob is exactly right!
They're too busy screwing with me over [url=http://www.iowavoice.com/2007/08/05/republicans-debate-in-iowa]this post[/url].
So our invasion of Iraq fuels the hatred our enemies have for us? So what were they using for fuel all those years [i]before[/i] we invaded Iraq?
[quote]You think that by leaving Iraq, we are "surrendering."[/quote] Duh! If you walk away from a fight you haven't finished, it is exactly that! Maybe John Kerry or [i]the French[/i] could come up with a more palatable word for you to use?
[quote] It is better to admit we were wrong to invade Iraq than to continue to police the world.[/quote]Wrong on both counts! 1.) We were not wrong to enforce the sanctions imposed by the UN or the term of Saddam's surrender after Gulf War I.
2.) We are not the police of the world (see Dafur, Rwanda, etc.)
[quote]We know what happened to Hitler when he wanted to forcefully spread his message.[/quote]Reducio ad Hitlerum. In lieu of any [i]real [/i]argument?
The maroon comment was simply gratuitous in light of the [i]quality [/i]of comments from Doctor Paul's supporters here!
[b]An Urgent Realistic Readjustment of 100% of Force Levels Outside of Iraq.[/b]
Go to the Say Anything Reader Blogs, a really great human being - me - posted a video of Jackie Mason that explains what our leaving really means.
You need to study the history of Islam.
Ron Paul would be a bigger disaster than Carter. Perhaps even bigger than Harding.
American interests being attacked by Islamic military forces goes at least as far back as 1801, if not farther; with the seizure of two American Ships by the Islamic Pasha of Tripoli, and my Marine Corps elder brothers dealt with that one.
While the West in general is hated by Islam because it had always been, until the past few decades, predominately Christian; and because of the incredible economic and military might and the decadence of the United States, we have been declared the Great Satan. During the Iran Hostage Crisis under the Presidency of the Crown Prince of Appeasement Jimmy Carter, "the Ayatollah Khomeini, a stern black-robed Old Testament appearing figure, presented a phenomenon that Americans have been quite unprepared to deal with. Yes, we Americans know that we can be stupid, make mistakes, and formulate bad or even disastrous policies. But Khomeini was the first to say that we are evil, the Great Satan; he conjured with such terms as "America, the global arrogance" and taunted Washington by saying that "America cannot do one damn thing." In this last statement, he is going to be proven right if we do not prevail in Iraq.
While America has been involved in various ways in the Middle east for a very long time, it is primarily our support for our ally Israel (Jews) that is the real cause of the hatred of Muslims for this country and secondarily because of our Christian beliefs and more than any other faiths, Islam hates Judaism and Christianity.
So, radical Muslims have been attacking America directly (9/11) and indirectly through our interests abroad for many decades and now they have us in Iraq and they have decided to make their stand against the West and the Great Satan there. If we pull out now absent a decisive victory over them in Iraq, we will have surrendered both Israel and the entire Middle East to the control of the most radical, murderous Muslims and we will then have little chance to stop them anywhere in the world, as they will know we are a toothless tiger, not because we don't have the greatest military, but because we have shown we do not have the will to win. So it is not a matter of machismo, it is a matter of our survival and that of the West against a radical religion that has demonstrated its willingness to slaughter millions of innocent people to forcefully convert the world to Islam.
That is a brief history of our dealings with Islam, their hatred of this country and what is at stake in Iraq.
Attempting to negotiate or pay off Islamic terrorists will only get you killed slower. If you want to live your life as the slave of a mullah or Imam, go for it. Do not delude yourself with the idea I will quietly stand aside and let you drag my country into that socialist nightmare. Ain't going to happen.
Exactly! I believe we were right to go into Iraq, although I think things could have been run much better, but then again I didn't have to make the decisions in real time. Now, none of that matters, the only thing we must consider is this, [quote]it is absolutely imperative that we win[/quote]!
Please add this to the mix: Let us say we cut-and-run and essentially surrender the Middle East to Islamic radicals, what will happen to oil/gas prices and our ecomony?
Lastly, [b]I completely agree with this statement[/b]:
[quote]Islam respects nothing. Its entire basis is that all must submit to Shar'ia [Allah]. All must renounce any religion or ideology, publicly and repeatedly, in submission to Islam. Attempting to negotiate or pay off Islamic terrorists will only get you killed slower.[/quote]
However, when I suggested that retreat was not an option, you said: [quote]you think you are so macho with your "no surrender" attitude. Ohh, what a tough man you are. Your mentality is "let's get our guns and go kill some people!"[/quote] which does not reflect [i]my[/i] attitude, [i]my[/i] mentality or remotely anything [i]I [/i] said!
The fact that Ron Paul is for an immediate withdrawal of our troops causes me to seriously question his ability to assume the mantel of Commander-in-Chief of the preeminent military force in the free world!
[quote]I like Ron Paul ...and agree with a lot of what he says.[/quote][i]I[/i] agree with a lot of what he says. From what I understand, he's a firm supporter of our Second Amendment rights.
Let me see if I can illustrate the problem.
Some time back, I was part of a church in search of a pastor. There was one fellow that sticks in my mind...when we asked him about his theology, he started [i]naming the [b]books[/b][/i] on the shelves of his library. And they were impressive! Very orthodox! But the fact that he [i]admired[/i] those authors and [i]studied[/i] those authors did not [i]necessarily[/i] mean that he [i]emulated[/i] those authors. Or that he had the gifts and abilities needed for the job!
[quote]
if he were elected, do you think he might change his stance[/quote]Perhaps, but his current stance calls his [b]judgment[/b] into question, and I don't think there's a chance [i]that[/i] will change! I think his libertarian roots color his judgment and not always in a good way!
Yeah! Leave Saddam alone!
Paco - Saddam Hussein supporter. Ron Paul supporter. Fighting for the rights of dictators everywhere.
According to the U.S Gov campaign statistics for enlisted military in Iraq, Ron Paul has the largest donations - Next is John McCain. Why do you think this is?
Ron Paul was a top advisor to President Reagan.
As a professional economist I could talk for days on why the Gold standard is superior to fiat currency. Abraham Lincoln wrote many times that one of the most priviledged duties of the U.S Gov was to print money at no cost to the people -- You guys should study the Fed Reserve Act of 1913 and read Woodrow Wilson's public appology for helping to pass it. Maybe then you will re-think your position on Ron Paul.