confused on ron paul's foreign policy

[matts5.0]

23 years in congress kinda says something...

Stevo

that he is good at what he does? that he knows what he is talking about?

[sc281]

23 years in congress kinda says something...

Stevo

The '94 Republican Congress proved why you shouldn't do term limits until EVERYONE has term limits.

The backers of term limits LEFT OFFICE at the end of their terms, leaving no one in Congress to push for..........TERM LIMITS, which is likely why we haven't been able to have them even until today.

[-Jake-]

23 years in congress kinda says something...

Stevo

how? he gets reelected every time. again it is laughable to think he should limit himself. if that happened then the good guys would constantly be removing themselves.

[Geor!]

you're grabbing a straws. he has supported term limits that would remove him from office. i think it is laughable to think he should remove himself from office.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

[-Jake-]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

still dancing around the issue i see.

[matts5.0]

fuck it lets hate on Paul.

[-Jake-]

Another thing I find ironic about Mr. Paul is how he's utterly against term limits and preaches to the heaves about smaller government when he's spent half of his adult life in elected office. His disciples like to overlook or completely dismiss that one.

His time spent in office shows otherwise, though I guess the supposed term limits he "supports" are the ones that either apply to others or that extend for the length of his tenure in office.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

First he is against them
Then he is only for the ones that don't apply to him
Now since he can't beat them (by voting FOR term limits) join em.

make up your mind bro.

[Geor!]

First he is against them
Then he is only for the ones that don't apply to him
Now since he can't beat them (by voting FOR term limits) join em.

make up your mind bro.

I'm just rebutting your excuses. It's one of those three things.

[-Jake-]

I'm just rebutting your excuses. It's one of those three things.

i refuse your explanation

[sc281]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?

Why don't you tell us which candidate's skeletons you are overlooking to vote for in Nov?

Obama wants to regulate the Boardroom.

All other republicans want to regulate the Bedroom.

Neither of which are in the Constitution.



As to Ron Paul's foreign policy, as you are so fond of pointing out:

Paul isn't against war in and of itself. What he IS against however is going into war without a declaration of war by congress, as required by the Constitution.

He is hands off on Iran Militarily because the Constitution says not to get involved in foreign entanglements. He doesn't need to be interventionist because the head of Mossad and Ben Netanyahu have already said when Iran becomes a threat, they will deal with it. Our intervention is actually STOPPING them from taking care of the problem themselves.

He is also for Letters of Marque and reprisal, which are allowed by the Constitution, to take action against our enemies rather than putting 200,000 men into a country to get a few dozen people.

Letters of marque and reprisa

Commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder:

Names person, authorizes him to pass beyond borders with forces under his command.
Specifies nationality of targets for action.
Authorizes seizure or destruction of assets or personnel of target nationality.
Describes offense for which commission is issued as reprisal.
Restriction on time, manner, place, or amount of reprisal.
Many of these documents were taken, with permission, from the Isle of Tortuga site, which is about piracy and letters of marque. Here is a link to our local copy of their Letters of Marque page.

The U.S. Constitution provides, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

A lot of republicans claim to espouse the virtues of the Constitution, while bending it over a table when it becomes a hindrance to their goals. Ron Paul goes by the Constitution no matter who it pisses off.

I'll "throw my vote away" on that guy any day of the week.

[Geor!]

Why don't you tell us which candidate's skeletons you are overlooking to vote for in Nov?

Obama wants to regulate the Boardroom.

All other republicans want to regulate the Bedroom.

Neither of which are in the Constitution.



As to Ron Paul's foreign policy, as you are so fond of pointing out:

Paul isn't against war in and of itself. What he IS against however is going into war without a declaration of war by congress, as required by the Constitution.

He is hands off on Iran Militarily because the Constitution says not to get involved in foreign entanglements. He doesn't need to be interventionist because the head of Mossad and Ben Netanyahu have already said when Iran becomes a threat, they will deal with it. Our intervention is actually STOPPING them from taking care of the problem themselves.

He is also for Letters of Marque and reprisal, which are allowed by the Constitution, to take action against our enemies rather than putting 200,000 men into a country to get a few dozen people.

Letters of marque and reprisa

A lot of republicans claim to espouse the virtues of the Constitution, while bending it over a table when it becomes a hindrance to their goals. Ron Paul goes by the Constitution no matter who it pisses off.

I'll "throw my vote away" on that guy any day of the week.

You're going to write him in then, eh?

[-Jake-]

You're going to write him in then, eh?

or what? vote for romney? you may be willing to suck the shorter dick of the two but I'm not. lol.

[matts5.0]

or what? vote for romney? you may be willing to suck the shorter dick of the two but I'm not. lol.

hahaha great post.

[Geor!]

Hey, it's your right to vote for whomever you want. It's my right to call you a fucking idiot and say that you're just giving another vote to Obama, essentially. If Paul had a remote shot, I would happily vote for him. I don't disagree with him on a whole lot of stuff aside from him being batshit crazy when it comes to foreign policy. But, my posts did as I expected them to and brought some of his disciples out to suck their masters cock and attempt to prove that he is right about everything and can do no wrong.

[-Jake-]

let me guess you listen to glenn beck and he told you that a vote for paul would be a vote for obama. so what if Dr. Paul gets 30% and the repub nominate gets 25% of the vote? will you still claim paul stole votes from the repubs? i am so tired of that argument.