Never posted her before.

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.

Sorry, Proof,

No problem! Just don’t get your exercise jumping to conclusions!

I like Ron Paul …and agree with a lot of what he says.

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 naming the books on the shelves of his library. And they were impressive! Very orthodox! But the fact that he admired those authors and studied those authors did not necessarily mean that he emulated those authors. Or that he had the gifts and abilities needed for the job!

if he were elected, do you think he might change his stance

Perhaps, but his current stance calls his judgment into question, and I don’t think there’s a chance that will change! I think his libertarian roots color his judgment and not always in a good way!

Freep:

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.

What in the world are you talking about? Which part of either AUMF gives Bush “carte blanc” powers?

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???

You’re suggesting that Congress passed the war powers act to expand executive war-making powers, when really it was to curb it.

And of course, Rob is exactly right!

Rob: That is incredibly unfair of you, Ape may see this thread and it might set him off on another rant. Shame on you! Don’t you care about the rest of us at all?

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, quite frankly my dear – he doesn’t give a damn!

I agree with Ron Paul. And to the person who said he is annoying, are we now picking our leaders not by their ideas , but by their looks and voice ?? !!

I think we should have not got involved in the first place, but now that we are, we can’t give them the idea that they can defeat us

There, Paco! See? That wasn’t that hard. I can respect that position. You can disagree with the reasons we had to go in, but now that we are there, we cannot be perceived as a “paper tiger” as OBL deemed us when we left Somalia. Giving Iraq back to chaos will not honor the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers nor buy us a minute of peace or security in this world.
However, when I suggested that retreat was not an option, you said:

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!”

which does not reflect my attitude, my mentality or remotely anything 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!

If you would actually look into Ron Paul a little more, you would see that he is not “anti-war”…he would only support a war if it was declared by Congress. He also supports the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin. We have no right to go into Iraq and change their government by force, as China has no right to come here and change ours. He is not an isolationist, as many of you are quick to call him. He is completely open to trade and to talk with all nations. But, he will not interfere with their governmental affairs, especially not by force.

Here is something interesting about tonights debate, I got this from ianschwartz.com:

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!

I guess he is one of those Liberal, Taliban, Sadam fans??? That is SO dumb!

If you would actually look into Ron Paul a little more, you would see that he is not “anti-war”…He is not an isolationist.

Too funny! Ron Paul is saying don’t let the door in Iraq hit the troops’ fanny on the way out, and his apologists are asking us,

Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?

Ron Paul: Just come home! Please! Quickly! By your own “logic” it’s a losing proposition.
You’ve proven the old adage that it’s better to be silent and thought stupid than to open your mouth and prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt!
(Oh, and next time, spend more than $5.00 on a tie!)

in the end it will be style/image over substance!

I might have conceded that point a few days ago. After having seen Lassie Come Home on the video above, I think Paul will lose on substance as well!

Is this Substance abuse?

It wasn’t a war against Afghanistan, it was a search for a group of people. The war in Iraq is against their government…the “war” in Afghanistan was never against their government.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, Proof. She does know I am up, because when I lived with my parents growing up, she knew I liked to stay up late…anyways, back to the subject. 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. It is what we are doing in Iraq, and it is only fueling the hatred our enemies have toward us. You think that by leaving Iraq, we are “surrendering.” It is better to admit we were wrong to invade Iraq than to continue to police the world. Many countries are doing just fine by not invading other countries. We know what happened to Hitler when he wanted to forcefully spread his message.

He also supports the hunt for Osama Bin Ladin.

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.

But it lays out no process for the declaration of war,

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.

You moron, we are DOING this to assure OUR safety and freedom. That you can’t see this speaks volumes about your naivety.

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?

Hey, Rob, you are right. I guess we did do that, I was wrong about what I said. I would also like to clarify his position…he supported the search for Osama, but he did not agree with how it was handled.

Proof, we were in the middle east years before 9/11. I’m glad to see 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!” That is the same mentality of our enemies, and you think they are the idiots?

Robin: We don’t “have to” stay there to control any civil war and definitely not to build any bases. You think by staying there we will prevent anything from happening? By staying there we will actually increase our chances. And staying there will prevent Americans from dying? How about the 3000 troops that have died already…

I am amazed! Only 2 Paulettes showed in this one. Perhaps Hillary cut their funds and they lost their internet connections. How sad. Hillary’s spoiler is already sinking. Ross Perot was oh, so much better than Paulette at this ticket splitting game.

Sorry, Proof, I thought that was where you were coming from, but I was wrong. Still, I like Ron Paul in some ways, as I have watched a lot of videos with him and agree with a lot of what he says. Should I let one issue like Iraq keep me from voting for him? How about this: if he were elected, do you think he might change his stance if the war was declared in a way he saw as constitutional, or even if advisor’s told him that it would be better to stay until we had won?

We agree more than we would agree we do.

Alright Neiman, please enlighten me on exactly what I need to know. Or, at least point me in the right direction.

I see…well, I am not exactly for or against him, I’m just trying to figure out what is so wrong with him that would make someone speak out against him so passionately.

Kevin, one more once. Tell us what Herr Doktor has done about anything. And spare us the 19 year old press release about his Congressional Quarterly commendation, we done heard that, ad nauseam.

Paco:

I would think they would at least respect us slightly more if we weren’t in Iraq. I guess not, if it would be considered a victory if we left. I think we should have not got involved in the first place, but now that we are, we can’t give them the idea that they can defeat us.

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,

it is absolutely imperative that we win

!

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, I completely agree with this statement:

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.

Wow Neiman, thanks for that mini-essay…it was more than I deserve haha. I have known about the hatred toward us because of Christianity, but I would think they would at least respect us slightly more if we weren’t in Iraq. I guess not, if it would be considered a victory if we left. I think we should have not got involved in the first place, but now that we are, we can’t give them the idea that they can defeat us.

Paco: Obviously, I cannot write an Islamic – American conflicts Primer. The Internet is a deep and rich mine of information on that subject for the computer literate.

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.

Neiman, most isolationists don’t give a damn. Lindberg and his ilk would have been perfectly happy to keep the US Army at home during WWII and let the Nazis have Europe and keep slaughtering the Jews.

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.

The war in Iraq is against their government…the “war” in Afghanistan was never against their government.

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.

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.

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?

Why is it that the Ron Paul acolytes always think the problem with people who don’t like Paul is because they haven’t “looked into him” enough.

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.