Hit piece about Dr. Paul on TH blog

[LibertyEagle]

Impeach Ron Paul - Only One Reason
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:06 PM
I direct this to any and all Ron Paul supporters.

If you are indeed a fan of Ron Paul; if Ron Paul is indeed the man of Constitutional principle he professes to be; there is only one reason for you to not support him and call for his impeachment:

His failure to end the 'illegal' Iraq War.

Ron Paul wants the war to end? He has done nothing legislatively to do so.

Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home? He has done nothing legislatively to defund the war effort which would do just that.

If it weren't so blatantly obvious that Ron Paul supporters (generally) are just Bush haters as opposed to Paul supporters, then this would be a demand against the very man you wish elected to the Presidency.

Ron Paul is only one man you say? He is only one Congressman?

These are specious arguments (which I have heard before) about a man who you Paul supporters say is the only man, the ONE man, who can save our Republic.

So which is it? Are you going to continue to call for impeachment against a President who is not going to be impeached? You give many reasons and and state many justifications for your stance against Bush.

I offer only ONE reason for it to happen to Congressman Paul.

Exit Question: How are we supposed to believe Ron Paul will save our Republic, bring back "true Constitutional government", abolish the IRS, FBI and CIA, secure our borders and continue to 'defend' the US from external enemies -

Yet he has done nothing, not one thing, within his Constitutional power as a Congressman of the United States in six years legislatively to even try to stop the war he hates?

I've seen 30 reasons posted for President Bush to be impeached. I offer only one for Mr. Paul.

If you Paulbots were the people you purport to be, that would be all the reason you need to call for the same for your guy.


http://robertsteely.townhall.com/g/50f020fa-f4fe-48e5-841f-94d785e06fed&comments=true#comments

The comments thus far...



Chris writes: Wednesday, September, 19, 2007 10:41 PM
Great point
Very insightful Robert... Of course now you'll proceed to be bashed and called all sorts of names by the Paulbots for daring to call into question their fearless leaders dedication to his purported values. But alas, such is life. Don't forget to put on your asbestos suit.


Email It | Print It | Flag as Offensive
Catmman writes: Wednesday, September, 19, 2007 10:52 PM
No worries...
Thanks Chris.

I've been in the trenches with the Paulbots for awhile now. One has left, to be replaced by another.

Maybe I'll start calling them Ronbies (instead of Zombies)- One goes away, only to be replaced by another.

I'll just keep countering their biases as I've been.
Email It | Print It | Flag as Offensive
Chris writes: Wednesday, September, 19, 2007 11:46 PM
Heh
Well, one got banned earlier tonight for spamming the blogatorium... So I'm sure another will pop up soon enough.

[trispear]

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war. He has done it with his power as a congressman.

Other than that, I don't think this article is even worth responding to - it's so much juvenile crap.


Maybe I'll start calling them Ronbies (instead of Zombies)Go right ahead, "Ron"/"Ronald" would be an excellent name to make fun of, especially good to alienate the conservative base with.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, he could have sponsored legislation to end it. I for one, wish he would do that.

[LibertyOfOne]

Someone said in the comments that he did. I don't know if that is true or not.

[Matt]

Well, he could have sponsored legislation to end it. I for one, wish he would do that.
He did, he introduced legislation to sunset the original war authorization. That Townhall guy is an idiot, someone with an account should set him straight.

[LibertyOfOne]

Let's say for a second that Ron Paul didn't draft legislation. It still wouldn't matter considering that the article is a strawman that gets knocked down. Not a real argument anyways. They are just grasping at straws.

[njandrewg]

gotta love how every loser with an internet connection is suddenly a journalist just because they have a blog

[billv]

gotta love how every loser with an internet connection is suddenly a journalist just because they have a blog

They might as well be journalists. They get their facts about as straight as they do in the MSM.

[Green Mountain Boy]

H.R.2605 : To establish a sunset for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 6/7/2007) Cosponsors (22)
Committees: House Foreign Affairs
Latest Major Action: 6/7/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

[nullvalu]

The blog author obviously hadn't read HR 2605... http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2605

[nullvalu]

My comment:


H.R. 2605 - HE HAS TRIED LEGISLATIVELY!
Please read Ron Paul's bill, H.R. 2605 "Sunset of Public Law 107-243 Act of 2007"

I'll even provide a link for you, since you were too lazy to do any researh of your own before publishing this horrendously inaccurate post.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2605

And, in the case you're too lazy to follow that link, here's the text of the bill:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sunset of Public Law 107-243 Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. SUNSET OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:


`SEC. 5. SUNSET.

`This joint resolution shall cease to be effective beginning 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Sunset of Public Law 107-243 Act of 2007.'.


SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in the amendment made by section 2 of this Act shall be construed to prevent or prohibit Congress in the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act from--

(1) reauthorizing Public Law 107-243, with or without amendment, as appropriate; and

(2) passing a new authorization for the use of military force against Iraq or a declaration of war against Iraq, as appropriate.

And, if you're even too lazy to read the text above, I'll provide a synopsis by Ron Paul himself given in a speech on the House floor...

"Congress' job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with HR 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq."

You can read the rest of the speech here: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11285

[Severius]

There's no need to respond this idiotic post at all. He didn't check his facts, and uses the worst logic to come to his conclusion that RP says one thing and does another. RP voted AGAINST the military force authorization from the beginning (stop saying he voted against "the war", there was no war to vote against. We are not at war, we are in the middle of a post-police-action occupation.) He put it to Congress to declare war, and they refused (if anyone could find that it would be awesome). After they refused, after they passed the authorization to use military force, he put forth legislation to sunset the authorization. He did everything within his power. If these people are too stupid to do their research, fuck them. It doesn't matter, if this is the best they can do (this guy admits it's the only reason he could come up with) then they are more frightened than I thought. He thinks we should be against Ron Paul because he hasn't tried to force the war to end? We should instead vote for one of the other candidates who want to keep Habeas Corpus abolished, to use torture, to spy on American citizens without over-sight or warrants? These people are fascists. Apparently everyone has forgotten how Hitler took Germany down the road to destruction. We must be careful, or the world will see US as the next big threat.

[runderwo]

I would like this blog author to explain how he would bring 100,000 plus troops home overnight if an instant sunset bill were passed. It would mean that the next day that all 100K+ troops are suddenly illegal occupants of Iraq.

Ron Paul very clearly explains the bill here
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11285