PDA

View Full Version : As President Ron Paul would go to WAR with Iran!!!




civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 01:12 PM
... If Congress Declared WAR on Iran. ‎

We can't argue with the Tea Party war mongering types, by appealing to their sense of humanity, telling them things like 100's of thousands of innocent people have died, or that Iran is against the Israeli government, not the Jewish people. We can't speak to these people like you would the average anti-war person, you need to simply let them know, AS PRESIDENT RON PAUL WOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAN!!! He only needs a 10 sec soundbite for this, it's the truth, and he doesn't need to go into further explanation, that he'd veto it, unless congress was able to stop it with 2/3's.



"Only Congress can declare war". Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who wants us to abide by the Constitution. With a Ron Paul presidency, if Congress declared WAR on Iran, essentially Ron Paul would be the commander and chief of a war with Iran. If the Tea Party is suppose to be the supporters of the Constitution, isn't this good enough? Isn't following the constitution what they want?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HjeOKDFrv0


AS for Ron Paul saying America was attacked because we're "Over there, in the middle east attacking them". This is not blame America Rhetoric, it's from the Bush administrations, own 9/11 Commission Report!

ItsTime
09-01-2011, 01:15 PM
Exactly what I have been telling all the war hawks. How can they argue this? They cant. Not only would he go to war he would go to war correctly and do it with all the might of the army so it would be over and done with.

Oddone
09-01-2011, 01:15 PM
It's not that simple....... We have to have been attacked by Iran, which Ron Paul states quite often. So we tell them, hey if I ran attacks America Directly, sure Ron is up for war?

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 01:15 PM
Ron Paul would resign if Congress declared a war he opposed.

PastaRocket848
09-01-2011, 01:17 PM
no he wouldn't. he would uphold his duty to the constitution, fight it, without half-measures, obliterate the enemy and have our boys back home in time for lunch. he just wouldnt stick around to rebuild the bridges afterwards.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 01:21 PM
Ron Paul would resign if Congress declared a war he opposed.

I don't think the Commander In Chief is compelled to act simply because Congress has "declared" war. Furthermore, aren't "declarations" of war always initiated by the President asking for a "declaration" from the Congress, rather than the declaration being initiated in the Congress?

Oddone
09-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Yes, Congress can't just up and declare a war. Thats not how it works..

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 01:24 PM
no he wouldn't. he would uphold his duty to the constitution, fight it, without half-measures, obliterate the enemy and have our boys back home in time for lunch. he just wouldnt stick around to rebuild the bridges afterwards.

Ron Paul believes in St. Augustine's just war doctrine. Ron Paul will not violate his Christian beliefs because Congress tells him to.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 01:24 PM
no he wouldn't. he would uphold his duty to the constitution, fight it, without half-measures, obliterate the enemy and have our boys back home in time for lunch. he just wouldnt stick around to rebuild the bridges afterwards.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Commander In Chief is committed to any particular military action or strategy when the Congress "declares" war. POTUS Paul could elect to do nothing.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 01:25 PM
Yes, Congress can't just up and declare a war. Thats not how it works..

But the POTUS is Commander In Chief, and can elect to do nothing aggressive militarily, despite a declaration of war by Congress.

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 01:26 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Commander In Chief is committed to any particular military action or strategy when the Congress "declares" war. POTUS Paul could elect to do nothing.

You might be right. This would be a good question to ask Ron Paul.

Rocco
09-01-2011, 01:29 PM
A Ron Paul who, under the current circumstances, would go to war with Iran is not the man I'm voting for. Fortunately, this won't happen.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 01:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HjeOKDFrv0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lByjEDViQe8

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 01:31 PM
It's not that simple....... We have to have been attacked by Iran, which Ron Paul states quite often. So we tell them, hey if I ran attacks America Directly, sure Ron is up for war?

We're at war when Congress declares war, whether we've been attacked or not.

As POTUS, Ron Paul would be bound by his duty as C-in-C to wage that war, whether he agreed with it or not.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 01:33 PM
But the POTUS is Commander In Chief, and can elect to do nothing aggressive militarily, despite a declaration of war by Congress.

IMO, and I suspect the opinion of the vast majority of Congress, that would be an impeachable offense.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 01:34 PM
Ron Paul believes in St. Augustine's just war doctrine. Ron Paul will not violate his Christian beliefs because Congress tells him to.

And when his Christian beliefs conflict with his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief?

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 01:36 PM
We're at war when Congress declares war, whether we've been attacked or not.

As POTUS, Ron Paul would be bound by his duty as C-in-C to wage that war, whether he agreed with it or not.

You obviously don't know Ron Paul very well. He is a Christian who endorses civil disobedience when one's conscience dictates it, not a positivist or statist.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 01:38 PM
My point is Ron Paul can win by simply saying "As President, I would go to War with Iran, if Congress Declared WAR, and I'd abide by the guidelines laid out in the Constitution."

The time to educate these people is over, let's give them the soundbites they want, but no need to explain in detail why Ron Paul says these things. That's for an interviewer to disseminate, not a 30 second soundbite debate!

anaconda
09-01-2011, 01:40 PM
IMO, and I suspect the opinion of the vast majority of Congress, that would be an impeachable offense.

How so? No law broken. The Constitution says the POTUS is the Commander In Chief. Period.

CaptainAmerica
09-01-2011, 01:40 PM
Article 1 section 10 of the u.s. constitution

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Ron Paul would not go to war unless it was an imminent threat of invasion. This is ridiculous, you guys need to understand clearly what Ron Paul speaks of when he talks about his stance against pre-emptive warfare and his stance on justified war.Just because the United States Congress says we have to go to war doesn't mean they are acting within legal boundries.

tremendoustie
09-01-2011, 01:41 PM
And when his Christian beliefs conflict with his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief?

I'm sure he'd do what's morally right, as any decent person would. Obeying evil orders is evil, "constitutional" or not.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 01:42 PM
You obviously don't know Ron Paul very well. He is a Christian who endorses civil disobedience when one's conscience dictates it, not a positivist or statist.

I know him well enough to know that he takes constitutional duties very seriously.

And one of his duties, as POTUS, is Commander-in-Chief. And that means when the nation is at war, it is his duty to wage that war either until victory, or until Congress tells him to stop, through ratification of a peace treaty.

And furthermore, I know Congress well enough to know that a POTUS who refuses to wage a war that they properly declare will shortly find himdelf on the wrong end of a High Crimes and Misdemeanour charge.

Now, are you going to tell me Ron Paul would allow himself to be impeached rather than follow his clear Constitutional duty?

bluesc
09-01-2011, 01:43 PM
Congress wouldn't declare war on Iran without a good reason. If they did declare war, Ron could direct the efforts to limit civilian casualties.

Set an objective, reach that objective, pull out.

Remember, he supported the Afghan war.

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 01:44 PM
How so? No law broken. The Constitution says the POTUS is the Commander In Chief. Period.

Congress gets to decide what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means. It's pretty likely that the same Congressmen who voted for a declaration of war would vote to impeach any president who refused to wage that war. So I think that if Congress did declare a war that Ron Paul opposed, it would be the end of his presidency, either by resignation or impeachment.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 01:44 PM
How so? No law broken. The Constitution says the POTUS is the Commander In Chief. Period.

High Crimes and Misdeameanours need not be a criminal offense. What crime did Nixon commit by bombing Cambodia?

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 01:44 PM
Congress wouldn't declare war on Iran without a good reason.

Lol

MJU1983
09-01-2011, 01:46 PM
I posted this in another thread, might as well post it here:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

Page 49 states under a heading titled THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM, 2.2 BIN LADIN'S APPEAL IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/BLpic1.jpg

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Page 147 states under a heading titled AL QAEDA AIMS AT THE AMERICAN HOMELAND, 5.1 TERRORIST ENTREPRENEURS:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/BLpic2.jpg

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm

Page 361 states under a heading titled WHAT TO DO? A GLOBAL STRATEGY, 12.1 REFLECTING ON A GENERATIONAL CHALLENGE (Defining the Threat):

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y205/MJU1983/BLpic3.jpg

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch12.htm

I wonder if they'll make fun of the 9/11 Commission Report as well? LOL

anaconda
09-01-2011, 01:47 PM
I know him well enough to know that he takes constitutional duties very seriously.

And one of his duties, as POTUS, is Commander-in-Chief. And that means when the nation is at war, it is his duty to wage that war either until victory, or until Congress tells him to stop, through ratification of a peace treaty.

And furthermore, I know Congress well enough to know that a POTUS who refuses to wage a war that they properly declare will shortly find himdelf on the wrong end of a High Crimes and Misdemeanour charge.

Now, are you going to tell me Ron Paul would allow himself to be impeached rather than follow his clear Constitutional duty?

Where are you getting this from? The Commander In Chief doesn't have to do jack squat (I'm extremely confident that Ron Paul would emphatically state that the Commander In Chief has full authority and latitude to direct the troops in any way he sees fit. Including none or even a purely defensive posture). I know for a fact that Rand has stated numerous times that Obama can do what ever he wants militarily as long as Congress declares war, and that the Congress should have NOTHING to do with specific war strategies, mobilizing troops, etc. I'm quite sure Ron would agree with this, constitutionally. For example, the Commander In Chief is privy to classified national security information that the vast majority of Congress isn't. As a purely side note, aren't "declarations" of war are always asked for by the POTUS (not initiated by Congress?)?

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 01:52 PM
Where are you getting this from? Commander In Chief doesn't have to do jack squat. Plus aren't "declarations" of war are always asked for by the POTUS (not initiated by Congress?)?

First of all, please point to the Article and clause inthe US Constitution in which the POTUS is given a role in war declaration, or admit that you cannot.

Second, are you planning on going to the American people as a supporter of a candidate, and argue that as C-in-C, it is Ron Paul's option to not wage war when he sees fit? Are you f***ing kidding me?

How many times has RP said "Congress gets to declare war, not the Executive". Well, there's a corollary to that... when Congress declares war, the POTUS doesn't have the option of saying "No"... just like the POTUS doesn't have the option of saying "Yes" when Congress doesn't declare.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 01:56 PM
If we want Ron Paul to win, we need to stick with the tag line
"AS PRESIDENT RON PAUL WOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAN!!! If Congress declared war."

I know this goes against everything most of us believe and it pains us to say it, but it's true and we need to say it, rinse, and repeat the tag line. I hope Ron Paul says it during the next debate, it may be the only thing that saves his chance at the presidency.

These are likely the groups that would disseminate the information to go to war. Of course clear and present danger information may go directly to the President. Again, the president wasn't meant to be the supreme ruler, he was suppose to simply be the leader of the US government.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Senate Committee on Armed Services

House Committee on Foreign Affairs
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House Committee on Armed Services

bluesc
09-01-2011, 01:57 PM
Lol

Really? It would require a majority.

You honestly think you would see a formal declaration of war for anything less than a direct attack or prep for attack? The chances of Iran having the capability to directly attack the USA when we have no troops in the middle east are very low. If it were a terrorist attack like 9/11, well, like I said, remember Ron supported entering Afghanistan.

The entire Congress are not conspiring to send troops into Iran.

tremendoustie
09-01-2011, 02:03 PM
I know him well enough to know that he takes constitutional duties very seriously.

He takes rolling back government to constitutional limitations very seriously.


And one of his duties, as POTUS, is Commander-in-Chief. And that means when the nation is at war, it is his duty to wage that war either until victory, or until Congress tells him to stop, through ratification of a peace treaty.

His only duty is as a decent human being, to not kill innocent people.


And furthermore, I know Congress well enough to know that a POTUS who refuses to wage a war that they properly declare will shortly find himdelf on the wrong end of a High Crimes and Misdemeanour charge.

I'm confident he'd have the courage to not let their threats scare him into killing innocent people.



Now, are you going to tell me Ron Paul would allow himself to be impeached rather than follow his clear Constitutional duty?

I'm telling you he wouldn't murder innocent people just because a bunch of politicians wanted him to. I don't think your interpretation of the constitution is correct, but even if it were, he shouldn't murder innocent people because of the opinions of a bunch of politicians from 230 years ago either.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 02:03 PM
First of all, please point to the Article and clause inthe US Constitution in which the POTUS is given a role in war declaration, or admit that you cannot.


I said no such thing. The POTUS obviously has nothing to do with "declaring" war. Where in my post did you get that from? Please point it out or admit that you cannot. My point was that the POTUS has full latitude to do nothing if the Congress "declares" war. The reverse is not true (which Ron and Rand speak of continuously): The POTUS cannot direct troops to engage in warfare without a declaration by Congress.

rp08orbust
09-01-2011, 02:07 PM
Second, are you planning on going to the American people as a supporter of a candidate, and argue that as C-in-C, it is Ron Paul's option to not wage war when he sees fit? Are you f***ing kidding me?

How many times has RP said "Congress gets to declare war, not the Executive". Well, there's a corollary to that... when Congress declares war, the POTUS doesn't have the option of saying "No"... just like the POTUS doesn't have the option of saying "Yes" when Congress doesn't declare.

Resigning from office wouldn't violate Ron Paul's oath to uphold the Constitution either.

Ron Paul does not consider "following orders" an excuse for murder, which is what unjustified war amounts to.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 02:08 PM
are you planning on going to the American people as a supporter of a candidate, and argue that as C-in-C, it is Ron Paul's option to not wage war when he sees fit? Are you f***ing kidding me?


I am absolutely not kidding. Presidents frequently have beefs with Congress. And, often have a better connection with, and support from, the American People. Plus I'm not quite clear from your comment who the "supporter of a candidate" is that is "planning on going to the American People?"

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 02:09 PM
Ron Paul would go to war with any nation that imposed clear and present danger, so long as congress declared that war. Even Canada!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SDrqa-eTXU

Wren
09-01-2011, 02:11 PM
Ron Paul will not go to war just because congress declared it, he will only go to war when our national security is threatened and justifiably so. Telling tea party/republican types that he'll go to war just because congress declared it is misleading.

Matthew5
09-01-2011, 02:12 PM
Here was the thinking behind the phrase "to declare war"


[FN24] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#24) "To make war"
Mr. PINKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally represented in [FN25] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#25) Senate, so as to give no advantage to [FN25] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#25) large States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large States. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace.
Mr. BUTLER. The objections agst. the Legislature lie in [FN26] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#26) great degree agst. the Senate. He was for vesting the power in the President, who will have all the requisite qualities, and will not make war but when the Nation will support it. Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SHARMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war. "Make" [FN27] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#27) better than "declare" the latter narrowing the power too much.
Mr. GERRY never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.
Mr. ELSWORTH. there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It shd. be more easy to get out of war, than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. peace attended with intricate & secret negociations.
Mr. MASON was agst. giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred "declare" to "make."
On the motion to insert declare-in place of make, it was agreed to. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. no. [FN29] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#29) Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md.
ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN31] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#31)
Mr. PINKNEY'S motion to strike out [FN32] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#32) whole clause, [FN33] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#33) disagd. to without call of States.
Mr. BUTLER moved to give the Legislature [FN32] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#32) power of peace, as they were to have that of war.
Mr. GERRY 2ds. him. 8 Senators may possibly exercise the power if vested in that body, and 14 if all should be present; and may consequently give up part of the U. States. The Senate are more liable to be corrupted by an Enemy than the whole Legislature.
On the motion for adding "and peace" after "war" [FN34] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#34) N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN35] (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_817.asp#35)
Adjourned

anaconda
09-01-2011, 02:16 PM
How many times has RP said "Congress gets to declare war, not the Executive". Well, there's a corollary to that... when Congress declares war, the POTUS doesn't have the option of saying "No"... just like the POTUS doesn't have the option of saying "Yes" when Congress doesn't declare.

Respectfully disagree. Your "corollary" is not valid per the letter of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifies how the Commander In Chief must direct his troops. Furthermore (and another issue completely), many military strategies can involve purely defensive tactics. The POTUS would have full authority and latitude to be nonagressive militarily. Furthermore, the POTUS is privy to national security briefings that the vast majority of Congress is not, and from which military strategies may be completely dependent on.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 02:16 PM
He takes rolling back government to constitutional limitations very seriously.



His only duty is as a decent human being, to not kill innocent people.



I'm confident he'd have the courage to not let their threats scare him into killing innocent people.



I'm telling you he wouldn't murder innocent people just because a bunch of politicians wanted him to. I don't think your interpretation of the constitution is correct, but even if it were, he shouldn't murder innocent people because of the opinions of a bunch of politicians from 230 years ago either.

I see.

So, when the rubber hits the road, this is what fidelity to the written word of the Constitution comes down to.

His only duty is to be a decent human being? I can find the word "being" in the US Constitution... but I'll be damned if I can find "decent", or "human". Perhaps you can point them out to me. Because, if you'd like, I sure as hell can point the words "Commander in Chief" for you.

He's not going to give in to "their threats"? How about their "authority"? Like, for say, "The Power... To declare War"? Is he going to recognize their authority to do that? Because it's black-letter law, right there in the document Dr Paul, myself, and I had assumed everyone here recognizes as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Politicians from 230 years ago?!?!?!?!?!

Listen to yourself!!!

Brett85
09-01-2011, 02:18 PM
The Congress can't force the President to go to war, regardless of whether they have 2/3rds support or not. The President has total control over troop levels.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 02:19 PM
In Ron Paul's own words...

MR. RUSSERT: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

REP. PAUL: I don’t–why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? Could–South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last, you know, 50 years. So stop–we can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?

REP. PAUL: Well, they’re not going to. That is like saying “Iran is about to invade Mars.” I mean, they have nothing. They don’t have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, “You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war.” But presidents don’t have the authority to go to war.

Ron Paul makes a great case on why we shouldn't, but in his very 1st sentence he says, he doesn't and congress does.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 02:19 PM
The Congress can't force the President to go to war, regardless of whether they have 2/3rds support or not. The President has total control over troop levels.

^ This. (Thank you.)

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 02:24 PM
The Congress can't force the President to go to war, regardless of whether they have 2/3rds support or not. The President has total control over troop levels.

You're right... they can only impeach him.

jmdrake
09-01-2011, 02:26 PM
Edit: Never mind. Traditional Conservative already covered this and there's no need to dogpile. +rep TC.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 02:27 PM
Resigning from office wouldn't violate Ron Paul's oath to uphold the Constitution either.

Ron Paul does not consider "following orders" an excuse for murder, which is what unjustified war amounts to.

You're right... resigning from office would not violate his oath.

Of course, then what you are saying is taht when Ron Paul says he will take his marching orders from the Constitution, that is mere campaign rhetoric.

What you are telling me is that he will acutally take his marching orders from his own conscience.

Do I have that about right?

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 02:28 PM
In Ron Paul's own words...


Ron Paul makes a great case on why we shouldn't, but in his very 1st sentence he says, he doesn't and congress does.

Thank you.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 02:36 PM
We're talking theoretical here... Does anyone really believe if Ron Paul was president, and intelligence had documents of Iran's intention to Nuke America and images of Iran developing a long range missile which could strike the USA, that he wouldn't go to war with Iran?

Could this all be photoshopped and fabricated, sure... but Clear and Present Danger, is something that presidents have to deal with.

tremendoustie
09-01-2011, 02:38 PM
I see.
So, when the rubber hits the road, this is what fidelity to the written word of the Constitution comes down to.


My fidelity is to truth, liberty, and decency.



His only duty is to be a decent human being? I can find the word "being" in the US Constitution... but I'll be damned if I can find "decent", or "human". Perhaps you can point them out to me. Because, if you'd like, I sure as hell can point the words "Commander in Chief" for you.


The original constitution endorsed chattel slavery. Would you have supported it also, simply because it was written there? It was once federal law that escaped slaves must be returned to their "masters". Would you have obeyed it?

"Just following orders" is no excuse for committing evil, whether those orders come from men who are alive or dead, or from a document.



He's not going to give in to "their threats"? How about their "authority"? Like, for say, "The Power... To declare War"? Is he going to recognize their authority to do that? Because it's black-letter law, right there in the document Dr Paul, myself, and I had assumed everyone here recognizes as the Supreme Law of the Land.

He has publicly stated his support for rosa parks and martin luther king jr, who intentionally disobeyed evil laws.

The question is, what would you do simply because you were ordered to? Suppose congress passed a law to send all jews to concentration camps, and drafted you to help do it. Would you?

One should not let the opinions of politicians or majorities trump conscience.



Politicians from 230 years ago?!?!?!?!?!

Listen to yourself!!!

Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps I should have called them, "The angels who descended from heaven to covey to us their document which magically absolves us of all moral thought or responsibility for our actions, and defines right and wrong itself"

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 02:43 PM
Ron Paul will not go to war just because congress declared it, he will only go to war when our national security is threatened and justifiably so. Telling tea party/republican types that he'll go to war just because congress declared it is misleading.
It's not misleading... The media and idiot Republicans are making up hypothetical scenarios, in an attempt to disqualify Ron Paul from becoming president. So Ron Paul can say with a clear conscience, that if there was a clear and present danger, and congress declared war, he'd even support War with Iran. Unless Ron Paul says this, he won't get elected... He can say it as in a hypothetical situation, just like the media says it, but as long as he says it, and closes with a, he will uphold the constitution or something like that, then he's golden and will surge in the polls. He might even get the GOP nomination.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Exactly what I have been telling all the war hawks. How can they argue this? They cant. Not only would he go to war he would go to war correctly and do it with all the might of the army so it would be over and done with.
Instead of Republicans saying I support nearly everything Ron Paul says except foreign policy, we could inch them even closer. But unless this comes from Ron Paul, he can't win! I hate saying he can't win, but we only have several months left until the primaries, if Ron Paul had a couple more months or years to educate people, on why we shouldn't go to war, that would be great... But Reality dictates, he must get in the soundbite, that as president he would go to war with Iran if Congress declared it, and their was a clear and present danger.

I don't care how he says it, so long as he says it. This Iran thing is killing us. Anyone, who is involved in the grassroots and on the ground attending events, knows that Foreign Policy is Ron Paul's biggest problem to the status quo Republicans... All we need is the 10 sec soundbite, Ron Paul can go on and on, about the reasons why and what not, but he has to say it!

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 03:01 PM
My fidelity is to truth, liberty, and decency.

Well, I'm sure the priesthood will treat you well.

But I thought we were talking about someone running for a public office, with pre-determined responsibilities. One of which is, as C-inC, to wage the war that Congress declares.




The original constitution endorsed chattel slavery. Would you have supported it also, simply because it was written there? It was once federal law that escaped slaves must be returned to their "masters". Would you have obeyed it?

I sure as hell wouldn't run for the office ultimately responsible for carrying those laws out if I wasn't prepared to do so when I lost the argument.


"Just following orders" is no excuse for committing evil, whether those orders come from men who are alive or dead, or from a document.

War is one of the responsibilities of the State. Some would say, ultimately, the only responsibility of the State. So long as one seeks the role of "Head of State", one takes an oath to fulfill those responsibilities, to the best of one's abilities, including as C-in-C. We've designed a system for managing that responsibility; a system that, I would argue, serves us pretty well when people follow the rules they've sworn to uphold. Saying ahead of time, that as POTUS one won't fulfill their end of the bargain, in the face of Congress doing its duty as per the US Constitution, threatenes the Constitutional system I thought we all believed in.


He has publicly stated his support for rosa parks and martin luther king jr, who intentionally disobeyed evil laws.

As public citizens, with no other recourse. It would be quite another thing for Rosa parks to run as governor of Alabama, saying she deliberately isn't going to enforce laws, duly passed by the legislature, that she doesn't like.

Think about where such actions could lead this country, if people we didn't agree with were allowed to use those tactics, that we would have given them moral sanction to use.


The question is, what would you do simply because you were ordered to? Suppose congress passed a law to send all jews to concentration camps, and drafted you to help do it. Would you?

I'd challenge its constitutionality of it. I might leave the country. I might become a guerrilla. One thing I sure as hell wouldn't do would be to run for the honor... and yes, it is a tremendous honor, being POTUS... of commanding that ship of state.


Oh, I'm sorry, perhaps I should have called them, "The angels who descended from heaven to covey to us their document which magically absolves us of all moral thought or responsibility for our actions, and defines right and wrong itself"

Either you believe in that document that they gave us (and yes, I do believe was inspired by God, if negotiated by men), or you don't. And if you don't, then perhaps the priesthood is the palce for you.

But in my book, it is job requirement Number One running for POTUS.

Buchananite
09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
Best case scenario he knocks out their nuclear reactor and leaves immediately. Respecting Congress's decision while keeping the troops out of harms way and spending little money.

hellsingfan
09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
If Congress declared war on Iran, and he didn't agree with it. Ron Paul would just do nothing- because even though the nation is 'officially at war'- the troops are still under the control of the Commander in Chief :p

BamaAla
09-01-2011, 03:05 PM
This was an amusing read.

To clear up: Obama or Bush act without consent of Congress and they should be impeached or worse. Paul acts to defy a Constitutional declaration of war and ignore Congress and he should be praised. I thought we were better than the party homers.

If the Congress declared war against Canada, Paul would fight it. If he chose not to, he should be impeached and his name be mud throughout history. That's just the way it is, but it is so far fetched that it's silly.

brandon
09-01-2011, 03:06 PM
This is totally missing the point and doesn't help. We shouldn't contribute to the war propaganda just to get some guy a few extra votes.

brandon
09-01-2011, 03:09 PM
We're talking theoretical here... Does anyone really believe if Ron Paul was president, and intelligence had documents of Iran's intention to Nuke America and images of Iran developing a long range missile which could strike the USA, that he wouldn't go to war with Iran?


This is basically the same thing that happened with Iraq, and Ron was against it. Ron is against preemptive warfare. Stop trying to come up with scenarios where he would start wars. It's ridiculous.

tremendoustie
09-01-2011, 03:13 PM
Well, I'm sure the priesthood will treat you well.

But I thought we were talking about someone running for a public office, with pre-determined responsibilities. One of which is, as C-inC, to wage the war that Congress declares.

What if the majority of the people of the united states want someone as POTUS who will obey their conscience, and not kill innocent people just because congressmen want them to?



I sure as hell wouldn't run for the office ultimately responsible for carrying those laws out if I wasn't prepared to do so when I lost the argument.


What if that was the most effective way to stop the evil laws from being perpetrated?



War is one of the responsibilities of the State. Some would say, ultimately, the only responsibility of the State. So long as one seeks the role of "Head of State", one takes an oath to fulfill those responsibilities, to the best of one's abilities, including as C-in-C.


I think the responsibility of a president is to defend liberty, and certainly never to murder innocent people.



We've designed a system for managing that responsibility; a system that, I would argue, serves us pretty well when people follow the rules they've sworn to uphold.


Who designed that system? Not me. And when has it worked well? Liberty has steadly been eroding since the beginning. The crushing of the whiskey rebellion, a clear immoral abuse of liberty, happened almost immediately.




Saying ahead of time, that as POTUS one won't fulfill their end of the bargain,


What bargain? A bargain with who?



in the face of Congress doing its duty as per the US Constitution, threatenes the Constitutional system I thought we all believed in.

I don't support evil just because it's constitutional. You do?

What if, after RP obtained office, congress passed a law to re-institute chattel slavery for all blacks. Should Ron Paul enforce it?



As public citizens, with no other recourse. It would be quite another thing for Rosa parks to run as governor of Alabama, saying she deliberately isn't going to enforce laws, duly passed by the legislature, that she doesn't like.

I'd have voted for her.



Think about where such actions could lead this country, if people we didn't agree with were allowed to use those tactics, that we would have given them moral sanction to use.

I think we'd be far better off if we didn't imagine that immoral behaviors magically become moral because they're perpetrated by a majority, or a majority of politicians. We'd certainly be far better off if people did not ignore their consciences, simply in order to follow orders.

Most of the worst evils in history were committed by men blindly following orders.




I'd challenge its constitutionality of it. I might leave the country. I might become a guerrilla. One thing I sure as hell wouldn't do would be to run for the honor... and yes, it is a tremendous honor, being POTUS... of commanding that ship of state.


What if you already were POTUS?



Either you believe in that document that they gave us (and yes, I do believe was inspired by God, if negotiated by men)


It endorsed chattel slavery. You think God endorsed chattel slavery?

How about confiscatory taxation? Also moral?



or you don't. And if you don't, then perhaps the priesthood is the palce for you.

No, the place for me is a society of decent men, who can place right and wrong above blind obedience to orders. Men who don't believe murder and theft magically become ok if they're popular.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 03:15 PM
If Congress declared war on Iran, and he didn't agree with it. Ron Paul would just do nothing- because even though the nation is 'officially at war'- the troops are still under the control of the Commander in Chief :p

And Congress would say "That is an impeachable offense. Good day to you sir!"

Or perhaps: "No soup for you!"

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 03:22 PM
This is totally missing the point and doesn't help. We shouldn't contribute to the war propaganda just to get some guy a few extra votes.

This isn't missing the point. Ron Paul would go to war if Congress declared it. And if he felt there was serious clear and present danger, he'd command our military to do what's necessary.

As for the war propaganda, it's very likely that if Ron Paul did become president, that someone would challenge us militarily. The US has killed more people in the last decade through military action then any other country. Don't think for a minute, we don't have enemies because Ron Paul was elected.

Ron Paul is seen weak on military and foreign affairs by a vast majority of the Republicans, without those votes he can't win. We can't change their minds quick enough, so he needs to speak about the presidents role and congresses role, in times of military conflict.

amy31416
09-01-2011, 03:34 PM
As commander-in-chief, could he send the congressmen who voted "yea" on a hypothetical war with Iran to Iran to fight it? He'd be fulfilling his constitutional requirement, right?

Matthew5
09-01-2011, 03:36 PM
What if the majority of the people of the united states want someone as POTUS who will obey their conscience, and not kill innocent people just because congressmen want them to?
What if that was the most effective way to stop the evil laws from being perpetrated?
I think the responsibility of a president is to defend liberty, and certainly never to murder innocent people.
Who designed that system? Not me. And when has it worked ell? Liberty has steadly been eroding since the beginning. The crushing of the whiskey rebellion, a clear immoral abuse of liberty, happened almost immediately.
What bargain? A bargain with who?
I don't support evil just because it's constitutional. You do?
What if, after RP obtained office, congress passed a law to re-institute chattel slavery for all blacks. Should Ron Paul enforce it?
I'd have voted for her.
I think we'd be far better off if we didn't imagine that immoral behaviors magically become moral because they're perpetrated by a majority, or a majority of politicians. We'd certainly be far better off if people did not ignore their consciences, simply in order to follow orders.
Most of the worst evils in history were committed by men blindly following orders.
What if you already were POTUS?
It endorsed chattel slavery. You think God endorsed chattel slavery?
How about confiscatory taxation? Also moral?
No, the place for me is a society of decent men, who can place right and wrong above blind obedience to orders. Men who don't believe murder and theft magically become ok if they're popular.

So. Many. Rabbit. Trails. :p

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 03:37 PM
What if the majority of the people of the united states want someone as POTUS who will obey their conscience, and not kill innocent people just because congressmen want them to?

Then the political forces will prevent Congress from declaring war. The beauty of the way the system was set up... if you beleive in that system.




What if that was the most effective way to stop the evil laws from being perpetrated?



I think the responsibility of a president is to defend liberty, and certainly never to murder innocent people.

And I think when one seeks to wield power in the name of the people, one obeys the laws they set down. To allow otherwise is to invite tyranny in the front door.




Who designed that system? Not me. And when has it worked well? Liberty has steadly been eroding since the beginning. The crushing of the whiskey rebellion, a clear immoral abuse of liberty, happened almost immediately.

Then please, do not let me ever catch you using the US Constitution as the basis for your arguments, because that is the Supreme Law of the Land, the document from which the system you so deride, derives its authority. DR Paul claims (quite rightly) to be its champion... that means I expect him to follow its edicts.



What bargain? A bargain with who?

A bargain with the people, to wield power in our stead, and to follow the laws set down for them to so under.


I don't support evil just because it's constitutional. You do?

What if, after RP obtained office, congress passed a law to re-institute chattel slavery for all blacks. Should Ron Paul enforce it?

That law would be unconstitutional, under the Thirteenth Amendment, and it would be his duty to order his Solicitor General to argue its constitutionality in federal court.


I'd have voted for her.

And I'm sure that people who vote for people who ignore the Constitution when passing things like the Patriot Act say the same thing. Forgive me for not stooping to their level.


I think we'd be far better off if we didn't imagine that immoral behaviors magically become moral because they're perpetrated by a majority, or a majority of politicians. We'd certainly be far better off if people did not ignore their consciences, simply in order to follow orders.

Most of the worst evils in history were committed by men blindly following orders.

And the genius of our Constitution is it is designed to restrain such evil men from accumulating too much power. But that only works when people who seek to wield the authority the Constitution grants them actually follow its strictures, and not substitute their own judgement for the law.





What if you already were POTUS?

Challenge it in court. And if all else fails, resign.

But don't say, going into it, that you are going to ignore laws that you know damn well are Constitutional. All it makes you is a hypocrite.

JohnGalt23g
09-01-2011, 03:40 PM
As commander-in-chief, could he send the congressmen who voted "yea" on a hypothetical war with Iran to Iran to fight it? He'd be fulfilling his constitutional requirement, right?

That actually is an open question.

I remember Tom Carper (current Gov of DE) was in Congress when Gulf War I broke out. His NG unit was being called up, and there was an issue over it. I'm not sure how it was resolved.

tremendoustie
09-01-2011, 05:19 PM
Then the political forces will prevent Congress from declaring war. The beauty of the way the system was set up... if you beleive in that system.


Not necessarily. 95% of people were opposed to the bailouts, and they happened anyway.

This system has led to the federal government we currently have -- the most massive anti-freedom leviathan the world has ever seen.



And I think when one seeks to wield power in the name of the people, one obeys the laws they set down. To allow otherwise is to invite tyranny in the front door.


There is no such thing as a singular "the people" -- those who claim to act in the name of 300 million diverse americans are being dishonest. And, nobody alive had anything to do with those rules.

To support enforcement of whatever laws are constitutional is often to support tyranny. The 16th amendment, for example, is tyrannical.

You will never support tyranny by defending liberty. You may however, support tyranny by defending the "rule of law".



Then please, do not let me ever catch you using the US Constitution as the basis for your arguments, because that is the Supreme Law of the Land, the document from which the system you so deride, derives its authority.


I think at a bare minimum the US government should not exceed the bounderies of the constitution.



DR Paul claims (quite rightly) to be its champion... that means I expect him to follow its edicts.


He is its champion in that government has massively exceeded those boundaries, and he wishes to stuff it back in them.

That doesn't mean he would commit evil simply because it was constitutionally mandated.



A bargain with the people, to wield power in our stead, and to follow the laws set down for them to so under.


Then I want no part of this "bargain". They continually steal my property and use it for immoral purposes, including the violation of my rights and those of others.

The truth is, a "bargain" is a voluntary agreement. This is no more a "bargain" than a mugging is a bargain.



That law would be unconstitutional, under the Thirteenth Amendment, and it would be his duty to order his Solicitor General to argue its constitutionality in federal court.


And if they passed a constitutional amendment? Or if the supreme court ruled it was constitutional? Should he then start kidnapping and enslaving innocent black people?



And I'm sure that people who vote for people who ignore the Constitution when passing things like the Patriot Act say the same thing. Forgive me for not stooping to their level.


The patriot act is immoral because it violates people's God given rights, not because it violates the constitution.

If the constitution endorsed the patriot act, it would still be wrong -- just as slavery was wrong even when it was so endorsed.



And the genius of our Constitution is it is designed to restrain such evil men from accumulating too much power. But that only works when people who seek to wield the authority the Constitution grants them actually follow its strictures, and not substitute their own judgement for the law.


It hasn't done that since day 1. The federal government has always done whatever the hell it wants.



Challenge it in court. And if all else fails, resign.


Ok, at least you support resignation. That would be an honorable way out.

Personally, I would stay in office, if it would allow me to better stop the evil.

tremendoustie
09-01-2011, 05:26 PM
Look, JohnGalt, I agree with your, and Dr. Paul's arguments that we should make the federal government stay within the bounds of the constitution. I'm just saying let's not forget that the constitution, at best, recognizes God given rights -- it does not create or define them, nor does it create or define morality. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong -- neither the constitution, nor politicians, nor popular opinion, changers one into the other.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 07:20 PM
The Constitution issues no directive whatsoever to the Commander In Chief upon a Congressional declaration of war, and would therefore be in violation of no part were he/she to do nothing, if that was their best judgement.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 08:22 PM
The Constitution issues no directive whatsoever to the Commander In Chief upon a Congressional declaration of war, and would therefore be in violation of no part were he/she to do nothing, if that was their best judgement.
This sounds reasonable... You may be on to something considering I recall Paul's book "Liberty Defined" does mention Muhammad Ali, as a conscientious objector. Below I found a quote of Ron Paul speaking on the matter before congress.


( Ron Paul to Speaker of teh House), I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than he, but because of his stance in 1967.

In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality.

He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.

I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He suffered the consequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.

Would you agree, that with Afghanistan, Ron Paul has already proven, when presented with the facts as they're laid out, he will support military action. Now if he was president, and presented with rock solid evidence, of Canadian military scientist developing (A Sponsored by the Canadian Gov) bio-weapon, that had the intended use of killing Americans, would he seek congress approval for a declaration of War and even preemption, if talks failed?

I think all of us know that Ron Paul would never carelessly go to war. And the scenario I painted is rather absurd. But do you believe of the possibility, that a very smart and educated person, who's family was killed by the US military could spend their lives thinking of ways to get back at the US? 300-1 million people have been killed in the last decade by Americans, for each of the people killed they likely had friends and family, who will always hold a grudge against the United States. The stories will be passed from generation to generation, of the atrocities Americans caused their families. A humble giant that never strikes or occupies, is the only way to stop future attacks, but that possibility will always exist.

The whole reason I posted this OP is because, Ron Paul is winning on the economy debate, but losing on the foreign policies, as drum beats louder. The 10 year anniversary of 9/11 ceremonies will be of gigantic proportions for the election season. I attended a High School football game last week, and they had a banner ceremony with 10 foot banners of the world trade center, actually blowing up. Stand with Israel ceremonies are going on across the country, scheduled gatherings. Any people who were on the fence for Paul, are being reminded of 9/11 and the Iranians who might nuke Israel. It's so orchestrated, complete with prayers and renewed nationalism. Liberty can not win, under these conditions, so that's why I'm suggesting Ron Paul, might want to consider speaking in terms of their theoretical scenarios. He's not advocating for war in that sense, but it could give him an opportunity to squash, these claims he's weak on Defense and Foreign Policy. If anything he can get 30 second soundbites, of supporting a war against whomever floats the masses, in imaginary terms. He can then back up his reasons for not going to War, but be clear on the fact CONGRESS DECLARES Wars.

I just don't see us climbing out of 8% unless this happens. And if debates start restricting participants unless they have at least 15%, the medias attempt to turn this into a two-man race could succeed. Once we lose coverage, we'll be knocked down to 5-7%, support will disappear quickly, and that will be the end. I think they're trying to pull this off before November, so if we don't make a move immediately, all could be lost. I've said enough, but this is how I see it getting played out.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 08:44 PM
This sounds reasonable... You may be on to something considering I recall Paul's book "Liberty Defined" does mention Muhammad Ali, as a conscientious objector. Below I found a quote of Ron Paul speaking on the matter before congress.


I only made this point because someone in the thread said that if the Congress declared war, the the POTUS was Constitutionally bound to send troops into battle. I don't see any basis for making that claim.

Having said this, I don't think Ron Paul would ever back down from a compelling reason to use military force. He believes in a strong national defense.

I agree with you that Ron needs to speak more strongly about national defense. I started a thread on this a few months back. He should go on a media and debate rampage about how absolutely bad ass the U.S. military could be if we could kick the corporatist bureaucrats out and stop over extending and wasting our resources. And preach this military bad assedness as part of his passionate vision for the country.

My last comment is that we are already out of the "8%" bracket. I also think Ron Paul's poll numbers are the least likely to drop of any candidate.

civusamericanus
09-01-2011, 09:21 PM
I only made this point because someone in the thread said that if the Congress declared war, the the POTUS was Constitutionally bound to send troops into battle. I don't see any basis for making that claim.

Having said this, I don't think Ron Paul would ever back down from a compelling reason to use military force. He believes in a strong national defense.

I agree with you that Ron needs to speak more strongly about national defense. I started a thread on this a few months back. He should go on a media and debate rampage about how absolutely bad ass the U.S. military could be if we could kick the corporatist bureaucrats out and stop over extending and wasting our resources. And preach this military bad assedness as part of his passionate vision for the country.

My last comment is that we are already out of the "8%" bracket. I also think Ron Paul's poll numbers are the least likely to drop of any candidate.
The RCP Average poll is the one that keeps worrying me, RP is down .7% in a couple days from 8.7-8.0. hxtp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

He's better in the Iowa Caucus RCP avg. poll: htxp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

and doing well in the RCP Average NH Poll: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

But if they get their Two-man race, we're essentially out. Ron Paul has to stand out in the next couple debates, or I see the media, moving quickly to limit the field. For the establishment, it's anybody but Paul, he scares the hell out of them.

AgentOrange
09-01-2011, 09:30 PM
This is a pointless discussion, because the fact is congress is composed of pansies who are *not* going to declare war on Iran or anyone else without extremely good reason (too many of their consitutuents would be against a made-up war.) That is the whole idea behind the current practice of the president carrying out military actions, is sounds so much "nicer" than declaring war, yet the end result is the same.

Ron Paul can quite truthfully pledge to fight any war Congress declared, because Congress is not going to declare a war.

anaconda
09-01-2011, 11:40 PM
This is a pointless discussion, because the fact is congress is composed of pansies who are *not* going to declare war on Iran or anyone else without extremely good reason (too many of their consitutuents would be against a made-up war.) That is the whole idea behind the current practice of the president carrying out military actions, is sounds so much "nicer" than declaring war, yet the end result is the same.

Ron Paul can quite truthfully pledge to fight any war Congress declared, because Congress is not going to declare a war.

Any history buffs here? Has the Congress ever once declared war without the President first asking them to do so?

Matthew5
09-02-2011, 12:22 AM
Any history buffs here? Has the Congress ever once declared war without the President first asking them to do so?

Not that I recall...

LibertyEagle
09-02-2011, 12:26 AM
This is basically the same thing that happened with Iraq, and Ron was against it. Ron is against preemptive warfare. Stop trying to come up with scenarios where he would start wars. It's ridiculous.

He didn't believe the evidence.

If a country had a weapon and there was indisputable evidence that they were getting ready to fire it at us, I have no doubt he would fight back. If I didn't believe that, I would not be here.

brandon
09-02-2011, 06:29 AM
He didn't believe the evidence. And he wouldn't believe the evidence about Iran either.


If a country had a weapon and there was indisputable evidence that they were getting ready to fire it at us, I have no doubt he would fight back. If I didn't believe that, I would not be here.

This is the same thing debate moderators do. Try to come up with outlandish nonsensical situations to see if maybe in one case Ron Paul is not anti-war. It's ridiculous. He is anti-war through and through. There is no need to do this.

Sure in this case he would fight back, but as he said in one of the debates, there has never been an eminent attack on America in all of our history and there is about zero chance it would ever happen in the future.

PaulConventionWV
09-02-2011, 07:42 AM
... If Congress Declared WAR on Iran. ‎

We can't argue with the Tea Party war mongering types, by appealing to their sense of humanity, telling them things like 100's of thousands of innocent people have died, or that Iran is against the Israeli government, not the Jewish people. We can't speak to these people like you would the average anti-war person, you need to simply let them know, AS PRESIDENT RON PAUL WOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAN!!! He only needs a 10 sec soundbite for this, it's the truth, and he doesn't need to go into further explanation, that he'd veto it, unless congress was able to stop it with 2/3's.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HjeOKDFrv0

No, Ron Paul would not go to war with Iran. It's not just about Congress declaring war. It's about spending trillions in overseas military spending. It's about getting into meaningless wars for no good reason. If Ron Paul supported war with Iran, I would no longer support him. That said, I know that's not what he wants to do at all. Please, don't misrepresent his positions. It hurts more than help. This isn't about winning over warmongers. This is about the peace and prosperity revolution. Going to war with Iran would not be in our interests and he would discourage this action.

civusamericanus
09-02-2011, 07:50 AM
He didn't believe the evidence.

If a country had a weapon and there was indisputable evidence that they were getting ready to fire it at us, I have no doubt he would fight back. If I didn't believe that, I would not be here.
But he did believe the evidence, that hijackers from Saudi Arabia, were trained and carried out mission from Afghanistan. Thus why Ron Paul agreed to attack Afghanistan. Now 10 years later, I don't think he could have imagined we'd be there 10 years later.


This is a pointless discussion, because the fact is congress is composed of pansies who are *not* going to declare war on Iran or anyone else without extremely good reason (too many of their consitutuents would be against a made-up war.) That is the whole idea behind the current practice of the president carrying out military actions, is sounds so much "nicer" than declaring war, yet the end result is the same.

Ron Paul can quite truthfully pledge to fight any war Congress declared, because Congress is not going to declare a war.
It's not pointless because Ron is losing major ground on the Iran issue, and they've tried to paint him weak on defense. I don't want him to say he'll fight congress against wars declared, I want him to say if clear and present danger exist, he won't hesitate to bomb the shit out of Iran. I don't give a shit if it beats the war drum, unless Ron Paul gets elected, Iran and Syria would likely be hit with a Perry presidency.


Any history buffs here? Has the Congress ever once declared war without the President first asking them to do so?
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard. - Source hxtp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

PaulConventionWV
09-02-2011, 07:54 AM
If we want Ron Paul to win, we need to stick with the tag line
"AS PRESIDENT RON PAUL WOULD GO TO WAR WITH IRAN!!! If Congress declared war."

I know this goes against everything most of us believe and it pains us to say it, but it's true and we need to say it, rinse, and repeat the tag line. I hope Ron Paul says it during the next debate, it may be the only thing that saves his chance at the presidency.

These are likely the groups that would disseminate the information to go to war. Of course clear and present danger information may go directly to the President. Again, the president wasn't meant to be the supreme ruler, he was suppose to simply be the leader of the US government.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Senate Committee on Armed Services

House Committee on Foreign Affairs
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House Committee on Armed Services

I'm not doing it, man. I'm not going to lie to get Ron Paul elected. And guess what, that tag line is not going to help us. Stop acting like you know how to win elections. You have no idea. It's NEVER the time to stop educating. Ever. I'm not getting on board with what you say because what you say is a damned foolish statement that may or may not have any value for us in the election. You don't know, so stop acting like you know the magic words or the magic soundbytes that will get Ron Paul elected.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MAGIC TAGLINE.

jmdrake
09-02-2011, 08:02 AM
This sounds reasonable... You may be on to something considering I recall Paul's book "Liberty Defined" does mention Muhammad Ali, as a conscientious objector. Below I found a quote of Ron Paul speaking on the matter before congress.



Would you agree, that with Afghanistan, Ron Paul has already proven, when presented with the facts as they're laid out, he will support military action. Now if he was president, and presented with rock solid evidence, of Canadian military scientist developing (A Sponsored by the Canadian Gov) bio-weapon, that had the intended use of killing Americans, would he seek congress approval for a declaration of War and even preemption, if talks failed?


No. He wouldn't. What you've just laid out is the Bush doctrine of preemptive war which Ron Paul flatly rejects and should reject. With Afghanistan we were attacked and had good reason to believe that the person behind the attack was hold up in Afghanistan. Using your logic we should already be at war with North Korea. North Korea has nukes, has threatened U.S. forces as well as the U.S. mainland, and has shown its willingness to use force by its attack on South Korea. We should also be attacking China at this point. China has developed its military with the sole purpose of being able to challenge the U.S. And Chinese generals have threatened attacking the U.S. in the past. Using your logic we should have attacked the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had thousands of nukes. And as for "intent", Nikita Kruschev said "We will bury you." If the only reason we need to go to war is that someone has the capability to attack and arguably the intent, then the Bush doctrine is right and we should be at continual perpetual war.

Besides, if Ron Paul were to follow your advice, nobody would believe him because he would have given up the one thing that everybody praises him for including his enemies which is his integrity. Instead of Ron Paul changing, you need to change your campaign tactics. Spend less time arguing with voters who've shown they don't support Ron Paul and instead seek out voters who are open to him as he is. You only need a small fraction of the U.S. population to vote for your candidate to win a primary. (See: http://www.revolutimes.com/2011/08/18/ron-pauls-path-to-victory/) The key to victory is first to identify voters that agree with your position and then worry about convincing others. Start making cold calls. Knock on doors. Do anything other than wasting time arguing with folks who want to bomb Iran or pleading on a forum for Ron Paul to do what everybody knows he won't do. But hey, it's your time to waste as you see fit.

jmdrake
09-02-2011, 08:05 AM
But he did believe the evidence, that hijackers from Saudi Arabia, were trained and carried out mission from Afghanistan. Thus why Ron Paul agreed to attack Afghanistan. Now 10 years later, I don't think he could have imagined we'd be there 10 years later.

You left out and he believed the training bases were still in Afghanistan and still posed a threat. Really, if you don't understand the difference between some country that has not attacked us acquiring a dangerous weapon and responding to an attack that has already happened and still poses a threat then you don't understand the difference between Bush/Obama foreign policy and Ron Paul foreign policy.

civusamericanus
09-02-2011, 08:08 AM
I'm not doing it, man. I'm not going to lie to get Ron Paul elected. And guess what, that tag line is not going to help us. Stop acting like you know how to win elections. You have no idea. It's NEVER the time to stop educating. Ever. I'm not getting on board with what you say because what you say is a damned foolish statement that may or may not have any value for us in the election. You don't know, so stop acting like you know the magic words or the magic soundbytes that will get Ron Paul elected. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MAGIC TAGLINE.

But there is a magic tagline, to get nominated in the Republican party... and it's not a lie, It's just Ron Paul has to paint it as a hypothetical situation, like if the Space Aliens attacked, would you use deadly force scenario. If Iran developed a missile that would carry a super bacteria, which would spread throughout america, and our intelligence was rock solid, that they were getting ready to launch it at Boise Idaho, and congress declared war, would you go to War with Iran... I'd say he'd agree to War with Iran, under any of these hypothetical situations.

He doesn't lose any integrity, by saying if there was Clear and Present Danger, I'd certainly go to war with Iran. Ron Paul has to win the Republican Primary!
As for it's never time to stop educating, yes I agree. But in the debates, where he has his largest audience, it's do or die, and he'll have 30 secs to convince America why they should elect him. These son of a bitches are going to attempt to make it a Perry-Vs-Romney event... And if this is not squashed soon, Ron Paul may not be able to compete in the debates if the succeed at making this the two man race.

http://m.polls.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=AliciaMBDDAD072E-AA53-8935-8F57-BC7F52787455.jpg&width=600

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-PL383_noonan_D_20110901190556.jpg

freeforall
09-02-2011, 08:21 AM
CIVUSAMERICANUS-
Your point regarding RP using soundbites vs explanation is a good one. Perhaps you can start a new thread since this is a conversation about whether or not he would or wouldn't go to war. I'm new and haven't figured how to do that yet, or I would start one for you.

(ps. What is this +rep thing. I feel I should do that here for a very on point comment, but I'm not 100% sure what it means.)

jmdrake
09-02-2011, 08:29 AM
We're talking theoretical here... Does anyone really believe if Ron Paul was president, and intelligence had documents of Iran's intention to Nuke America and images of Iran developing a long range missile which could strike the USA, that he wouldn't go to war with Iran?

Could this all be photoshopped and fabricated, sure... but Clear and Present Danger, is something that presidents have to deal with.


This is basically the same thing that happened with Iraq, and Ron was against it. Ron is against preemptive warfare. Stop trying to come up with scenarios where he would start wars. It's ridiculous.


He didn't believe the evidence.

If a country had a weapon and there was indisputable evidence that they were getting ready to fire it at us, I have no doubt he would fight back. If I didn't believe that, I would not be here.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between an antagonistic country developing missiles that COULD attack the U.S. and the having indisputable evidence that a country was about to actually attack the U.S. Please THINK this through. Ron Paul has repeatedly used our standoff with the Soviet Union as an example. We knew they had missiles that could attack the U.S. We knew those missiles were targeted at the U.S. Did we directly attack the Soviet Union? Now if we has seen heat signatures showing the missiles were about to launch we most certainly would have. But an antagonistic country having the capability to attack is not enough to justify war. Certainly it's not enough in Ron Paul's mind. If it was then he would have been a fool to say that it doesn't matter that Iran might get a bomb because we stood down the Soviet Union. Everyone knows that the Soviet Union was hostile to the U.S. and had nuclear missiles (plural) targeted at the U.S.

I get that its difficult to sell Ron Paul to certain people. But the message being pushed in this thread is the Bush doctrine which as a movement we rejected. And we will not successfully sell Ron Paul by embracing it as some kind of "tagline" because the voters will not believe it and Ron Paul's enemies won't let him get away with it. Sure they'll let Rick Perry get away with claiming he's against the fed, but that's because he's one of them. Yes them. Folks don't want to hear "conspiracy theory" stuff, but you'd better recognize truth in this case. We can't play this game their way because they won't let us. We have to play it our way. Rand could play it their way somewhat, but he hadn't laid down Ron Paul's track record.

Do I wish Ron Paul had said some things differently? Sure. I wish when asked about Osama Bin Laden's death he had simply said "That's nice. It shouldn't have taken so long. This proves I was right when I said the hunt for him didn't justify our continued presence in Afghanistan since he wasn't in Afghanistan. Now can we bring the troops home?" Instead he took the time to criticize the raid. I agree with his criticism. I would go further and say that the disposal of the evidence (Bin Laden's body) is totally unacceptable. But politically I would not have said that. But I can't change Ron Paul. I can only adjust how I campaign for him.

Note: In later interviews Ron Paul did talk about the OBL raid in a more politically sellable way, but he did so without sacrificing his principles.

jmdrake
09-02-2011, 08:35 AM
CIVUSAMERICANUS-
Your point regarding RP using soundbites vs explanation is a good one. Perhaps you can start a new thread since this is a conversation about whether or not he would or wouldn't go to war. I'm new and haven't figured how to do that yet, or I would start one for you.

(ps. What is this +rep thing. I feel I should do that here for a very on point comment, but I'm not 100% sure what it means.)

The problem is that the "soundbite" being proposed wouldn't work because it would be juxtaposed against other "soundbites" in a very effective ad that would make Ron Paul look like a liar. Further the "soundbite" is being proposed by someone that doesn't understand Ron Paul foreign policy. Ron Paul has made it clear that he would never support attacking another country just because they had developed the capability to attack the U.S. and arguably had the intent. The Soviet Union had the capability to attack and the undisputable intent. But that's different from having intelligence that an attack is actually underway. Using the logic being proposed in this thread we should already be at war with North Korea and the Bush doctrine is sound foreign policy.

As for "+reps", click on the star to the right of "Blog this post" under a post you wish to rep. When you +rep someone it changes the icon under their name. The more "green" bars someone has, the higher their reputation.

civusamericanus
09-02-2011, 08:39 AM
There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between an antagonistic country developing missiles that COULD attack the U.S. and the having indisputable evidence that a country was about to actually attack the U.S. Please THINK this through. Ron Paul has repeatedly used our standoff with the Soviet Union as an example. We knew they had missiles that could attack the U.S. We knew those missiles were targeted at the U.S. Did we directly attack the Soviet Union? Now if we has seen heat signatures showing the missiles were about to launch we most certainly would have. But an antagonistic country having the capability to attack is not enough to justify war. Certainly it's not enough in Ron Paul's mind. If it was then he would have been a fool to say that it doesn't matter that Iran might get a bomb because we stood down the Soviet Union. Everyone knows that the Soviet Union was hostile to the U.S. and had nuclear missiles (plural) targeted at the U.S.

I get that its difficult to sell Ron Paul to certain people. But the message being pushed in this thread is the Bush doctrine which as a movement we rejected. And we will not successfully sell Ron Paul by embracing it as some kind of "tagline" because the voters will not believe it and Ron Paul's enemies won't let him get away with it. Sure they'll let Rick Perry get away with claiming he's against the fed, but that's because he's one of them. Yes them. Folks don't want to hear "conspiracy theory" stuff, but you'd better recognize truth in this case. We can't play this game their way because they won't let us. We have to play it our way. Rand could play it their way somewhat, but he hadn't laid down Ron Paul's track record.

Do I wish Ron Paul had said some things differently? Sure. I wish when asked about Osama Bin Laden's death he had simply said "That's nice. It shouldn't have taken so long. This proves I was right when I said the hunt for him didn't justify our continued presence in Afghanistan since he wasn't in Afghanistan. Now can we bring the troops home?" Instead he took the time to criticize the raid. I agree with his criticism. I would go further and say that the disposal of the evidence (Bin Laden's body) is totally unacceptable. But politically I would not have said that. But I can't change Ron Paul. I can only adjust how I campaign for him.
The Major difference between what I'm suggesting and what the Bush Doctrine suggested, is that Ron Paul would seek congressional approval before going to WAR!.. So it is an education for the public, and it's not the BUsh doctrine.

What needs to be heard by the average republican from Ron Paul is, "I would go to War with Iran or any country, so long as there was a clear and present Danger, and Congress Declared War." Honest truthful, and instead of presidents starting wars, he puts it back on Congress as the constitution intended it to be. I don't see how this goes against Ron Paul's moral fiber.


The problem is that the "soundbite" being proposed wouldn't work because it would be juxtaposed against other "soundbites" in a very effective ad that would make Ron Paul look like a liar. Further the "soundbite" is being proposed by someone that doesn't understand Ron Paul foreign policy. Ron Paul has made it clear that he would never support attacking another country just because they had developed the capability to attack the U.S. and arguably had the intent. The Soviet Union had the capability to attack and the undisputable intent. But that's different from having intelligence that an attack is actually underway. Using the logic being proposed in this thread we should already be at war with North Korea and the Bush doctrine is sound foreign policy.

As for "+reps", click on the star to the right of "Blog this post" under a post you wish to rep. When you +rep someone it changes the icon under their name. The more "green" bars someone has, the higher their reputation.
Look I hate war, and am sickened by the fact 50,000+ people are now dead in Libya, because of stupid people. But the fact of the matter is I'm not suggesting attacking someone because the built a Nuclear Missile, I never would, but what I'm suggesting is if the stars lined up in heaven and we knew Iran was going to attack in minutes with a stealth missiles capable of destroying the whole Us. Would Ron Paul, attack them? Sure, anyone would, then step it back and say, well the media is handing Ron Paul these hypothetical situations, he should go ahead and paint a hypothetical response, that basically says sure if this, this , and this are rock solid, I would Attack Iran, with a Declaration of War from congress.

Ron Paul needs to basically get ridiculous on them. Then throw the Congress needs to Declare War, not these mini-wars that have cost millions of lives, and congress hasn't declared war since 1944!

I'm a die hard supporter, and have seen so much push back lately... I'm simply trying to come up with a solution. I'm not as principled as Ron Paul and I'm trying to get better... I don't want Ron Paul to lie, I would like to see him formulate something that would appeal to the masses, and bring him to the finishing line.

jmdrake
09-02-2011, 08:52 AM
The Major difference between what I'm suggesting and what the Bush Doctrine suggested, is that Ron Paul would seek congressional approval before going to WAR!.. So it is an education for the public, and it's not the BUsh doctrine.

Newsflash. Bush went to congress and got authorization for war. Ron Paul was one of only 6 GOP congressmen to vote against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Now true, this wasn't a "formal declaration of war", but looking at the numbers do you really think that a formal declaration of war would not have passed? Further you have been repeatedly using the scenario of "Iran acquiring long range nuclear missiles" as a justification for war. Well, whether you are willing to admit it or not, that is the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine isn't about how you go to war. We've been going to war without formal declarations of war since WWII. It's about why you go to war. That's why it's also known as the "preemptive war" doctrine as opposed to the "get authorization from congress other than a formal declaration of war" doctrine. I appreciate your passion. But you have a lot to learn.

PaulConventionWV
09-02-2011, 09:37 AM
But there is a magic tagline, to get nominated in the Republican party... and it's not a lie, It's just Ron Paul has to paint it as a hypothetical situation, like if the Space Aliens attacked, would you use deadly force scenario. If Iran developed a missile that would carry a super bacteria, which would spread throughout america, and our intelligence was rock solid, that they were getting ready to launch it at Boise Idaho, and congress declared war, would you go to War with Iran... I'd say he'd agree to War with Iran, under any of these hypothetical situations.

He doesn't lose any integrity, by saying if there was Clear and Present Danger, I'd certainly go to war with Iran. Ron Paul has to win the Republican Primary!
As for it's never time to stop educating, yes I agree. But in the debates, where he has his largest audience, it's do or die, and he'll have 30 secs to convince America why they should elect him. These son of a bitches are going to attempt to make it a Perry-Vs-Romney event... And if this is not squashed soon, Ron Paul may not be able to compete in the debates if the succeed at making this the two man race.

http://m.polls.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=AliciaMBDDAD072E-AA53-8935-8F57-BC7F52787455.jpg&width=600

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-PL383_noonan_D_20110901190556.jpg

Are you that foolish? Really? THERE IS NO MAGIC TAGLINE!

PaulConventionWV
09-02-2011, 09:43 AM
The Major difference between what I'm suggesting and what the Bush Doctrine suggested, is that Ron Paul would seek congressional approval before going to WAR!.. So it is an education for the public, and it's not the BUsh doctrine.

What needs to be heard by the average republican from Ron Paul is, "I would go to War with Iran or any country, so long as there was a clear and present Danger, and Congress Declared War." Honest truthful, and instead of presidents starting wars, he puts it back on Congress as the constitution intended it to be. I don't see how this goes against Ron Paul's moral fiber.


Look I hate war, and am sickened by the fact 50,000+ people are now dead in Libya, because of stupid people. But the fact of the matter is I'm not suggesting attacking someone because the built a Nuclear Missile, I never would, but what I'm suggesting is if the stars lined up in heaven and we knew Iran was going to attack in minutes with a stealth missiles capable of destroying the whole Us. Would Ron Paul, attack them? Sure, anyone would, then step it back and say, well the media is handing Ron Paul these hypothetical situations, he should go ahead and paint a hypothetical response, that basically says sure if this, this , and this are rock solid, I would Attack Iran, with a Declaration of War from congress.

Ron Paul needs to basically get ridiculous on them. Then throw the Congress needs to Declare War, not these mini-wars that have cost millions of lives, and congress hasn't declared war since 1944!

I'm a die hard supporter, and have seen so much push back lately... I'm simply trying to come up with a solution. I'm not as principled as Ron Paul and I'm trying to get better... I don't want Ron Paul to lie, I would like to see him formulate something that would appeal to the masses, and bring him to the finishing line.

It's not just about Congressional approval! DON'T YOU GET IT? He's not suggesting he would do anything if only Congress would declare it. That's not the point. Ron Paul does NOT WANT TO GO TO WAR! So, yes, saying he would is a lie. It's not his intent. It's purposefully misleading to say stuff like that, which is the same as lying. Also, you obviously don't understand the point of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Congressional approval is NOT the only issue here. Get it straight!

civusamericanus
09-02-2011, 11:20 AM
Newsflash. Bush went to congress and got authorization for war. Ron Paul was one of only 6 GOP congressmen to vote against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Now true, this wasn't a "formal declaration of war", but looking at the numbers do you really think that a formal declaration of war would not have passed? Further you have been repeatedly using the scenario of "Iran acquiring long range nuclear missiles" as a justification for war. Well, whether you are willing to admit it or not, that is the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine isn't about how you go to war. We've been going to war without formal declarations of war since WWII. It's about why you go to war. That's why it's also known as the "preemptive war" doctrine as opposed to the "get authorization from congress other than a formal declaration of war" doctrine. I appreciate your passion. But you have a lot to learn.
You're right I do have a lot to learn. I'm probably closer to Rands convictions, wish I had the fortitude for Ron Paul's convictions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya6JfFK_lYQ


Are you that foolish? Really? THERE IS NO MAGIC TAGLINE!
You're right, there is no magic tagline... But whatever soundbites he gets in the next couple rounds of debates, are going to need to be magical, or the push for the Two-Man race will be upon us.


It's not just about Congressional approval! DON'T YOU GET IT? He's not suggesting he would do anything if only Congress would declare it. That's not the point. Ron Paul does NOT WANT TO GO TO WAR! So, yes, saying he would is a lie. It's not his intent. It's purposefully misleading to say stuff like that, which is the same as lying. Also, you obviously don't understand the point of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Congressional approval is NOT the only issue here. Get it straight!
I've just reviewed non-interventionist foreign policy again, I agree with you and Ron Paul that none of these nations are a threat. I don't like to try and paint a picture of Iran, becoming a REAL clear and present danger to the US, which it probably couldn't/wouldn't reach in our lifetimes. I'd rather, have Ron Paul simply tell the truth and educate us, on how if we stay out of the affairs of others, and mind our own business, and don't wage war unless attacked, we will have a more peaceful and prosperous nation, and lead by example instead of force.

just getting nervous... I felt Liberty take a big sock to the jaw, when Ron Paul said he wouldn't support War with Iran, if they obtained a nuke. And I fully agree with Ron Paul, that it would likely make Iran safer from the intervention of others. I should try a little harder at my future post, and do a little more research before making lubricious suggestions. But maybe if we're lucky Ron Paul will better explain his position and it will finally click with the average Republican...

freeforall
09-02-2011, 11:40 AM
My point was that speaking in soundbites in certain situations could help Ron. He is already excellent when he gives thorough explanations, but could work on drawing someone in that doesn't know much about him. I thought a discussion on putting his message on various topics (not just war) into soundbites could be useful.

As far as my $.02 regarding RP and war, I'm pretty sure he us not anti war. He states that war must be authorized and he would use a decisive strategy to win and leave.

PaulConventionWV
09-02-2011, 12:38 PM
You're right I do have a lot to learn. I'm probably closer to Rands convictions, wish I had the fortitude for Ron Paul's convictions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya6JfFK_lYQ


You're right, there is no magic tagline... But whatever soundbites he gets in the next couple rounds of debates, are going to need to be magical, or the push for the Two-Man race will be upon us.


I've just reviewed non-interventionist foreign policy again, I agree with you and Ron Paul that none of these nations are a threat. I don't like to try and paint a picture of Iran, becoming a REAL clear and present danger to the US, which it probably couldn't/wouldn't reach in our lifetimes. I'd rather, have Ron Paul simply tell the truth and educate us, on how if we stay out of the affairs of others, and mind our own business, and don't wage war unless attacked, we will have a more peaceful and prosperous nation, and lead by example instead of force.

just getting nervous... I felt Liberty take a big sock to the jaw, when Ron Paul said he wouldn't support War with Iran, if they obtained a nuke. And I fully agree with Ron Paul, that it would likely make Iran safer from the intervention of others. I should try a little harder at my future post, and do a little more research before making lubricious suggestions. But maybe if we're lucky Ron Paul will better explain his position and it will finally click with the average Republican...

Don't worry, dude. The liberty movement doesn't live or die with Ron Paul's bid for the presidency. This is so much more than that. As long as you are being accurate, tell people whatever you want. However, I don't think any of us knows what Ron Paul would or should say at the next debate or any time. That's up to him. We just need to do our part.

jmdrake
09-02-2011, 12:52 PM
You're right I do have a lot to learn. I'm probably closer to Rands convictions, wish I had the fortitude for Ron Paul's convictions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya6JfFK_lYQ


Rand said the same thing about Iran getting a nuke that Ron said in the debates.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1dBF3b_Udk

Rand said what he needed to get elected and he distanced himself from his earlier statements. Lucky for him he didn't have as extensive of a record as Ron.



You're right, there is no magic tagline... But whatever soundbites he gets in the next couple rounds of debates, are going to need to be magical, or the push for the Two-Man race will be upon us.


Here's the "magic tagline".

You hate Obamcare? Well Perry backed Hillarycare and Romney created Obamcare! Plus Perry wanted to force little girls to take an experimental sexually transmitted disease vaccine!

We need to push Perry and Romney's negatives rather than trying to saddle Ron Paul with what some mistakenly see as their positives.

civusamericanus
09-02-2011, 02:36 PM
Here's the "magic tagline".

You hate Obamcare? Well Perry backed Hillarycare and Romney created Obamcare! Plus Perry wanted to force little girls to take an experimental sexually transmitted disease vaccine!

We need to push Perry and Romney's negatives rather than trying to saddle Ron Paul with what some mistakenly see as their positives.
Every time I see or hear anything negative about Ron Paul, I respond with Perry was Gores Texas Campaign Chair, Perry supported Hillary Care, and even make the accusation, Perry might be an operative for the Democrats. The reason I think he might be a PLANT, for Gore and the Clintons, is what better way to infiltrate the Republican Party, then to plant one of their own in the Gov, when many Democrats oppose Obama and it's prime time for a Republican. Perry is so humble that he compares himself often to Reagan, when he never supported Reagan. Whereas Ron Paul supported Reagan in 1976, and has even been endorsed and praised by Reagan.

I'm out... Thanks for playing everyone it was fun to light up debate with the OP title.

I'm omw to camp with my family and and 50+ people from our church, who are probably 97% social conservatives, who think Perry's the right choice. I have my Ron Paul shirts, hats, and bumper stickers packed...

Feeding the Abscess
09-02-2011, 02:53 PM
What's amazing about that Bill Moyers interview is that Ron called the Russia/Georgia thing in advance.

The legend grows.

anaconda
09-02-2011, 03:45 PM
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.

Thank you for this. This was my suspicion. Which seems to make the point of the thread potentially moot.