muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:08 PM

see this on the “Declare War” issue, what they did is Constitutional and the President did more by going to congress for the AUMF than many presidents have done in many Wars going back to Jefferson in Barbary Wars. Or Reagan with Grenada, in which he did it on his own like Jefferson.

http://ronandthepaultards.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/declarations-of-war-and-thomas-jefferson/

that site is purposefully snarky but is about to change, I have a connection to it. that post is substantive

dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 6:40 PM

its not just that, it would be politicized to no end and make it impossible.. Alot of Conservative things aren’t politically possible as long as the Dems/Libs control the National Dialogue and Media the way they do. They brand all republicans and careless, hateful bigots on any given issue. They’d love for nothing more than a guy like Paul(or David Duke in the 90′s) to rise so they can point to them as what a “republican” is.

just look at attempt to privatize a portion of Social Security 2 years ago, the AARP was out in front leading the “Republicans are going to take your money” message to old people(who tend to vote). The president couldn’t get his Repub. congress/senate to even vote on it….this is all the real source of “Big Govt.” Conservatism. Seeing the political realities of this, and try to take these programs we have and place capitalist fundamentals in them so they don’t ruin the country. the Prescription drug entitlement is an example, the Dems want that but want the Govt. to “negotiate” the price instead of market forces, Socialist princples instead.

The thought experiment I’ve been engaged in is what would happen if someone like him were elected.

I mostly listen to him and wish that a couple of the GOP candidates would spice up their acceptance of big government with a pinch of RP’s libertarian energy. Part of Reagan’s appeal was that he believed individuals knew better than the government. The current crop of contenders could use a dose of that–maybe the “Fredralist” is the guy.

They voted for an authorization for use of force with certain stipulations. They did NOT vote to DECLARE war on Iraq. There is a GIANT difference. Declaring war means that a majority of the states agreed together to fight a war against a foreign enemy. An authorization for use of force is basically allowing the PRESIDENT to declare war. One is based in the constitution, and one is a modern invention of presidents that dont want to deal with actually selling their war to the people and the congress.

Congress approved the current conflict.

When Congress voted, they understood they were voting for the war. They don’t even attempt to deny it – they say rather they were fooled. It may not be proper, may not be constitutional, but after the War Powers Act of ’72…I think it was ’72…that’s the way it’s been.

I am going to listen.

Nothing. We did that. Congress approved the current conflict.

Wrong, Congress NEVER declared war on Iraq.

I believe that islamic/sharia creeps steadily toward domination of Western Civilization as a whole. Slowly (although actually picking up steam as we see in Europe and will soon see much more of in Australia since they’ve elected a spineless lib for a leader recently). Read Mark Steyn’s ‘America Alone’ to get some insight into the problems. And as jp wisely suggests, definitely check out everything Robert Spencer has ever written, and Jihad Watch site. You can believe there’s no threat if you want to, but it’s wise to know your enemies.

Didnt answer the question. I DO think there is a MASSIVE threat from the middle east, don’t misquote me. What I think though is that we are doing the wrong things to try and stop it. I think we are doing more to fan the flames than to make Islam at odds with the rest of the world.

I think what we’re seeing on the ground in Iraq right now could accurately be described as winning. Your defeatism reeks through those cute little quotes, and belies your liberal base nature. You’re not gop. You’re a lib who supports RP becauses he promises to surrender to our greatly weakened enemies, (and yes, that is exactly how the jihadists will play any sudden withdrawal from the ME… see ahmamadjihadi’s most recent proclamation that America has surrendered, based on that idiotic NIE report).

First of all, I am not a liberal. Cute how you try and accuse me of being one though. Second of all, AGAIN you didnt answer the question. I asked how do we WIN. What is winning? Do we install a functioning democracy that lasts for ___ years? What do YOU consider a WIN in Iraq? We WON all the battles in Vietnam, but we LOST the war because the North took over the country. We LOST the Gulf War because Saddam was never removed from power. What is WINNING in this war?

You think China isn’t involved with other countries? China exports weapons to all our enemies. Weapons with technologies that our own President Clenis gave them. It’s a spurious question. China’s not as innocent as you’re attempting to make it.

You misunderstood my question. My question was, what would the US response be if China was occupying the USA and installing a communist form of government (something we have never had)? Would we allow that to happen?

I’ve done nothing but. But you’re not going to change your mind and I’ve got much better things to do.

I beg to differ. You answered NONE of my questions, but just gave talking points AROUND them. Please answer my questions directly as I have done to ALL of yours.

I think a lot of Paul’s ideas, if implemented, would be disastrous. However, since he is usually reaching back to a very fundamental notion of how our government should operate, I find it interesting to trace through his logic and find where I might disagree on a given point.

dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 6:21 PM

The thought experiment I’ve been engaged in is what would happen if someone like him were elected. Completely forgetting WOT, o/c. But says Hill is elected we have left congress w/ socialist tendencies executive – we are full pedal to the metal. With a Rep it depends on how much they are a consensus builder and/or continue compassionate conservatism. With a libertarian, maybe grinds to a nice deadlock.

You don’t think the president of the Unites States of America could get us out of the UN? Pull us out of Iraq?

The POTUS could get us out of Iraq as quickly as logistically possible. To get out of the UN, I think he’d need Senate approval since the Senate originally ratified the agreement Truman worked out at Dumbarton Oaks.

The POTUS has latitude in deciding what to bring to the UN. Ron Paul and Dick Cheney were both opposed to asking the UN about Iraq. Colin Powell convinced Bush to go to the UN.

he speaks of many things that aren’t the least be Politically possible, he speaks on them like they are possible and is misleading his supporters. That’s one big difference, most of the candidates do some form of this but not on the scale of paul.

Yeah, a lot of the things are outside the realm of what is practical. I heard him the other day talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard and privatizing currency. None of those things will happen, regardless of who is elected. Still, the depth of his knowledge about monetary policy was impressive and I haven’t heard another GOP candidate talk as fluently about the banking system during this recent credit crisis.

I think a lot of Paul’s ideas, if implemented, would be disastrous. However, since he is usually reaching back to a very fundamental notion of how our government should operate, I find it interesting to trace through his logic and find where I might disagree on a given point.

Let me ask you a few questions.

You’re not really going to listen, but here goes:

1) What is wrong with requiring the congress to declare war as mandated in the constitution?

Nothing. We did that. Congress approved the current conflict.

2) Do you believe that we as a country face destruction from Islam, seriously?

I believe that islamic/sharia creeps steadily toward domination of Western Civilization as a whole. Slowly (although actually picking up steam as we see in Europe and will soon see much more of in Australia since they’ve elected a spineless lib for a leader recently). Read Mark Steyn’s ‘America Alone’ to get some insight into the problems. And as jp wisely suggests, definitely check out everything Robert Spencer has ever written, and Jihad Watch site. You can believe there’s no threat if you want to, but it’s wise to know your enemies.

3) Do you think that we can “win” in Iraq, what what would “winning” be?

I think what we’re seeing on the ground in Iraq right now could accurately be described as winning. Your defeatism reeks through those cute little quotes, and belies your liberal base nature. You’re not gop. You’re a lib who supports RP becauses he promises to surrender to our greatly weakened enemies, (and yes, that is exactly how the jihadists will play any sudden withdrawal from the ME… see ahmamadjihadi’s most recent proclamation that America has surrendered, based on that idiotic NIE report).

4) What would America’s response be if China was doing what we are doing in Iraq?

You think China isn’t involved with other countries? China exports weapons to all our enemies. Weapons with technologies that our own President Clenis gave them. It’s a spurious question. China’s not as innocent as you’re attempting to make it.

Please answer these logically.

I’ve done nothing but. But you’re not going to change your mind and I’ve got much better things to do.

I was wondering when the ronulans would invade HotAir. Good luck to you in the coming elections, and may the best man win.

You don’t think the president of the Unites States of America could get us out of the UN? Pull us out of Iraq?

All the way back to 1979, actually.
really over a 1000 years before that, but you later clarify that when mentioning the goal of a Global Caliphate.

Yeah. I was referring to actions against the US. But really, it goes back to the Barbary Coast at our founding. Missed that.

Let me ask you a few questions.

1) What is wrong with requiring the congress to declare war as mandated in the constitution?

2) Do you believe that we as a country face destruction from Islam, seriously?

3) Do you think that we can “win” in Iraq, what what would “winning” be?

4) What would America’s response be if China was doing what we are doing in Iraq?

Please answer these logically.

I think Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who has spoken of withdrawal for the United Nations. He has been very outspoken on areas where he sees the UN encroaching on American sovereignty.

dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM

he speaks of many things that aren’t the least be Politically possible, he speaks on them like they are possible and is misleading his supporters. That’s one big difference, most of the candidates do some form of this but not on the scale of paul.

though I would be amused, in theory, to see him as President and how his supporters would react when he couldn’t accomplish anything he talks about. It’s easy to be idealistic when you are 1 out of over 500 in congress, not so much when you are 1 of 1 as the Executive branch.

All the way back to 1979, actually.

really over a 1000 years before that, but you later clarify that when mentioning the goal of a Global Caliphate.

To beleive the leaders of Jihad, who you rightly label “irrational” and not beleive the leaders of the United States, is so upside down and beyond the pale to even register for me.

a reader here a few months ago, said he drank the Lew Rockwell kool-aid about a year ago and got off it once he started reading Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch. I guess thats all we can do, disagree and direct them to History and the Quran.

dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Thanks dedalus. Didn’t know that. Good on him for that, but I still could never support him.

if you look that rating is for 2003. Here is the latest one, and its not 100% anymore. Tancredo and Hunter were however on their key issues. he is better than most libs though.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/109th_HouseVotingRpt.pdf?docID=1221

that said, I’ve never heard of “FAIR”

Taken a good look at the UN lately? Completely and totally corrupt from top to bottom. And right now they’re focused like a laser on creating global socialism via the global warming hoax.

I think Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who has spoken of withdrawal for the United Nations. He has been very outspoken on areas where he sees the UN encroaching on American sovereignty.

They caught us with our pants down once.

History did not begin on 9/11/2001. They’ve been catching us with our pants down for decades. All the way back to 1979, actually. The threat is very real, whether you choose to accept that fact or not. Pay a visit to MEMRI for yourself and see what our enemies regularly and openly say. There’s a reason it’s accurately called The Long War.

Venezuela? Do they even have an army? If need be we could destroy these countries in a matter of minutes. Everyone acts like this is a fight we could possibly lose.

So you don’t see the alliances chavez is actively cultivating with iran and all the other countries openly hostile to the US? And sure we could destroy pretty much anybody we choose to. But waiting until they hit us and then indiscrimanently destroying is foolish foriegn policy, don’t you think?

I am ALL for taking military action if there is a justifiable threat to our country, and the congress approves war.

You said that congress didn’t approve the war earlier too, and that’s simply not the case. The action in Iraq was most definitely authorized by congress.

I am three times more likely to die of asbestos poisoning then a terrorist attack.

Yes. Exactly the point I made in another thread about the dems as well. You don’t believe any of this will ever touch you personally. And you’re willing to accept a degree of loss from terrorist predators against us. I’m not.

I am not saying to sit back and wait to be attacked, far from it. I am saying that the REASON we are being attacked is that we are so spread out and irritating these irrational people to do stupid things to justify their barbarism.

I couldn’t disagree with you more on that. Islamists use the naming of teddy bears and cartoons as justification for violence in their gangster “prophet’s” name. We’re being attacked because we’re in the way of the creation of the global caliphate. You can blame America for all the ills of the world if you want, but I don’t. America is far and away a force for good in the world. Are we perfect. Not even close. But no other country does as much for others as we do.

focusing on alternative fuels to get off of freaking OIL, these are the things that will help us be MUCH more liked in the world, and reduce the number of people WANTING to attack us, and INCREASE the probability of us STOPPING an attack on us.

I’m with you on the energy thing. We need a JFK moonshot program focused on 100% energy independence. But honestly, I could give a rat’s ass about being more friggin’ liked in this thoroughly screwed up world. I’m sick and tired of the condescending clucking tongues from the countries you would have us grovel before. Taken a good look at the UN lately? Completely and totally corrupt from top to bottom. And right now they’re focused like a laser on creating global socialism via the global warming hoax. And your guy chose to throw the ‘Iraq War’ barrel into the harbor instead of the ‘UN’ barrel.

I’m sorry muyoso. I just don’t respect the decisions and positions of your candidate. You’re entitled to support him. But I will never vote for him. Under any circumstances.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#TX

2005: Ron Paul voted against the Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 4437 to increase border controls

2005: Ron Paul voted against H.R. 418 to increase border controls

Rep. Paul voted against H.R. 418 to strengthen border control by requiring completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence. As well, H.R. 418 would broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens. H.R. 418 passed by a vote of 261-161.

Paul’s rhetoric is the same as the “establishment” in context as you say when he said they are ‘more american than americans’…….that is the same thing as saying they “Do the Jobs Americans won’t do”…the exact same actually.

Jesus, can you take ANYTHING in context? The “more american than some of us” line has to do with the “work ethic of SOME of the illegals”.

There are two options. Either you are TRYING to be dishonest about somene you dont support. OR, you are too ignorant to look past what some guy who has an agenda tells you to think.