T1B

poptart wrote:Why do you hate the constitution .... ?

poptart wrote:Thoughts on Paul, or Paul on the issues .... ?

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:Thoughts on Paul, or Paul on the issues .... ?

He's too extreme a libertarian to ever be nominated.

BSmack wrote:Sorry, but I want the Feds inspecting meat packing plants and providing a safety net for older and legitimately disabled persons.

poptart wrote: I figured Dinsdale would dig Ron Paul, but maybe not.

We Just Marched In (So We Can Just March Out)





by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on April 17, 2007

All the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled.

Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003.

Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the president, and the president did not hesitate to use it.

Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic political and religious history of the region.

Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch, and gave open sanction to anything the president did. In fact the founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Today just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70% of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying - not to mention the tragic toll of death and injury suffered by American forces.

Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction- but our leaders offer only hand wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq.


As an Air Force officer serving from 1963-1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs.

Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East.

The argument for staying- to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region- logically falls on deaf ears.

If the justifications for war were wrong;

If the war is going badly;

If we can't afford the costs, both human and economic;

If civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation;

If the reasons for staying are no more credible than the reasons for going;

THEN...

Why the dilemma? The American people have spoken, and continue to speak out, against this war. So why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We just marched in, and we can just march out.

More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and march home.

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote:Sorry, but I want the Feds inspecting meat packing plants and providing a safety net for older and legitimately disabled persons.

And what part of the Constitution authorizes the fed to do this?

Those duties are completely on the states and individual communities to enact.

Just like the Founders said.

Dinsdale wrote:And the Constitution was once again completely trashed in doing so.


I'm getting just about tired of tyrants denying my Rights.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...sane and coherent...

poptart wrote:If Ron Paul were elected president America would then endure 4 of the worst years in the history of the nation.
There would be more folks pissin', bitchin', and moanin' than ever before.

It'd be some 'tough love' for America, if you will.

But it would take a hell of a lot longer than 4 yrs to straighten out the mess that America has become.
It would take continuation of policies which honor the constitution.
Good luck with that.

But this is all fantasy, because the REAL money and power holders in the U.S. would never allow Paul (or anyone like him) to set foot in the oval office.

If elected, he'd be murdered.

And then his running mate would take over.




You do realize he has the same chance of being nominated as Paul does, I hope.

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

WOW! Someone who grasps the concept that the People grant government rights, and not the other way around.

Of course he doesn't. He's far too clever for that. No, what he does is insert earmarks on bills that are certain to pass and then votes against the bill.

It's called 'having your cake and eating it too' just so long as you aren't unduly disturbed by the incidental hypocrisy. It's what makes America great.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpol ... 4.paul.pdf

Wassamatter Dinsy.

You feeling picked on?

:cry:

I'm sorry...

Dinsdale wrote:Link?


I posted a link to some stats, and a direct quote. I then gave brief commentary on those stats and quote.

Never claimed to have "profound insight," nor did I post in any manner that would suggest I did.


Mikey, you need help, dude... seriously. Your boner to "get over on Dinsdale" is making you delusional, bud. Not sure exactly what I did to deserve this much of your attention, but rest assured, it was unintentional.


Get a new hobby, dude -- the messageboard thing is obviously a little too intense for you.

mvscal wrote:I see pure, bullshit spin. If these earmarks are so laudable, then he should vote to appropriate the money, but he doesn't.

poptart wrote:

mvscal wrote:I see pure, bullshit spin. If these earmarks are so laudable, then he should vote to appropriate the money, but he doesn't.

The money is already appropriated.
Done deal.

That being so, he's just channeling it as positively as possible.

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade ........ or something like that.

People are trying way too hard to pin something on Paul to make him look less than credible.
To be expected, as his credibility laps that of ANY of the current crop of empty suits.
Not close.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:In the words of Todd Rundgren, "It's our world!"