Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul quote from the debate last night. (vanity)
NYT Transcript ^ | 9/6/07 | Vanity

Posted on 09/06/2007 2:33:46 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks

MR. WALLACE: So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying — (laughter) — I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; binladensboy; cultists; fruitloops; jimjones; mrspaulsshrimp; paulbearers; paulestinians; paulnutters; pitchforkpat; ronnutters; ronpaul; scampi; shrimpfest2007
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
Anyone else see a problem here...like an illogical pattern of thinking?
1 posted on 09/06/2007 2:33:49 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Watching Ron Paul last night reminded me of Ross Perot back in ‘92.

Crazy hysterical Texans who don’t have a prayer.


2 posted on 09/06/2007 2:36:04 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
What I see is a moonbat liberal disguised as a conservative
3 posted on 09/06/2007 2:36:04 PM PDT by clamper1797 (Thompson - Hunter 2008 ... in any order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Are you kidding me?

I stated moths ago that he has serious personality defectS.

In fact, so do mitt and rudy. But Dr. Paul’s is out of control. Did you see his neck veins bursting out last night. LOL

4 posted on 09/06/2007 2:36:18 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I was for the Constitution before I was against the constitution!


5 posted on 09/06/2007 2:36:25 PM PDT by Right_Rev (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Yes, this is a contradiction.


6 posted on 09/06/2007 2:36:44 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Perot was much more charasmatic and down-to-earth than Paul.

That’s not really saying much of course...


7 posted on 09/06/2007 2:37:46 PM PDT by Tears of a Clown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Right_Rev

ROFLMAO!


8 posted on 09/06/2007 2:38:34 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks ( BUILD THE WALL, ENFORCE THE LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Running Ron Paul for president is like running Alfred E. Neuman.


9 posted on 09/06/2007 2:39:55 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I’m really looking forward to the “Kucinich / Paul” ticket.

Should be a hoot.


10 posted on 09/06/2007 2:41:36 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

“Aggressive war”

Wonder if RuPaul ever heard of any other kind. Certifiable moonbat wingnut head-case.


11 posted on 09/06/2007 2:43:57 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (SNOW-Flake, Levinite, Steve-Adore and FREDHEAD~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_Rev
He is "for the constitution" but is against this part of the constitution:

"The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001."

So he is for HIS VERSION of the Constitution... in other words, a nutjob.

12 posted on 09/06/2007 2:45:06 PM PDT by sofaman ("When someone tells you that they're going to kill you, believe them." Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

lol!

I had thought that RuPaul was the “republican” version of Kook-cinich. But now I think he’s more like the “republican” version of How-wierd Dean.


13 posted on 09/06/2007 2:45:13 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (SNOW-Flake, Levinite, Steve-Adore and FREDHEAD~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I’m really looking forward to the “Kucinich / Paul” ticket.

It could happen. He sure isn't going to win the republican primary.

14 posted on 09/06/2007 2:45:36 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks ( BUILD THE WALL, ENFORCE THE LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan
as opposed to a defensive war....(????) I wonder how he classifies WW2...

Aggressive or Defensive...Yes or No!

15 posted on 09/06/2007 2:47:06 PM PDT by sofaman ("When someone tells you that they're going to kill you, believe them." Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration.

Here you go Congressman.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Excerpt

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
16 posted on 09/06/2007 2:48:57 PM PDT by Man50D (Fair Tax, you earn it, you keep it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I saw the wagging finger, the loss of control. Guess who that reminded me of?

And I heard him ignore the fact that Congress did authorize force against a tyrant who ignored every restraint “international law” had put on him.

We made a contract with the UN, they put restrictions on Saddam and he continued to kill, to fly where he wanted, and to trade oil for weapons while under sanctions. Libertarians used to understand that fraud is aggression.


17 posted on 09/06/2007 2:48:59 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan

I was thinking he somehow morphed into Howard Sheehan. :)


18 posted on 09/06/2007 2:51:03 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

For someone who believes in isolationism, he sure is a fan of “international law.”


19 posted on 09/06/2007 2:51:16 PM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia (You know a liberal has lost the argument when he calls you a Nazi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan
Aggressive war

Wonder if RuPaul ever heard of any other kind. Certifiable moonbat wingnut head-case.

The opposite would be defensive war...which is the only type of war permissible under international law. You can agree or disagree with Paul as to whether the invasion of Iraq was an action of self-defense by the US...obviously Paul does not believe it was...and, to me, the position that the US was under some sort of imminent threat from Saddam that justifies a US invasion is hard to make

20 posted on 09/06/2007 2:51:24 PM PDT by uxbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

ROFL


21 posted on 09/06/2007 2:52:31 PM PDT by sofaman ("When someone tells you that they're going to kill you, believe them." Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia
Mental disorder apparently. :o)
22 posted on 09/06/2007 2:54:40 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks ( BUILD THE WALL, ENFORCE THE LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: uxbridge
"Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001."

Apparently, Congress agreed with the POTUS.

23 posted on 09/06/2007 2:55:00 PM PDT by sofaman ("When someone tells you that they're going to kill you, believe them." Benjamin Netanyahu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The folks on FR supporting L Ron Paul are either stealth DU trolls or mindless drank the kool aid fools.

How the Paulestians can call themselves republicans and be Marxist anti war doesn’t wash


24 posted on 09/06/2007 2:55:27 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sofaman
Apparently, Congress agreed with the POTUS.

I think most of Congress thought the war would go well and they didn't want to find themselves on the wrong end of the vote come the next election. That's why so many have since run away with from their vote...blaming the President for the way he conducted the war...or trying to claim he ginned up the intelligence. I have respect for those who took a principled position...either for or against...I have nothing but contempt for those who play politics with decisions as serious as whether to send American troops into battle

25 posted on 09/06/2007 3:02:11 PM PDT by uxbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I’ve been puzzling over this one all day. Citing international law is the opposite of every thing Ron Paul ever preached. Ron Paul has changed.


26 posted on 09/06/2007 3:09:22 PM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
I think he was just really rattled by Chris Wallace’s question.

This was his “for the war before he was against it” moment.

27 posted on 09/06/2007 3:11:36 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks ( BUILD THE WALL, ENFORCE THE LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

This isn’t meant to pick on the elderly, I am very nearly one myself. But 72 is too old to run for the presidency. I’m sorry, it’s just TOO old. I think that’s one of Paul’s problems and some other candidates as well. We do not need a president who is sick or senile or dies in office. If that job doesn’t require strength and stamina, I don’t know what would.


28 posted on 09/06/2007 3:16:05 PM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

That’s absurd. Paul is the only true conservative running. All these other idiots are just big government liberals — the only difference is their spending revolves around their religious belief.


29 posted on 09/06/2007 4:38:43 PM PDT by stevemcqueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Crazy hysterical Texans who don’t have a prayer.

Ross Perot had a chance. He got about one out of every five votes in the end. Perot's mistake was dropping out of the election (at a time when he was leading in the polls over both Bush and Clinton) and then re-entering a couple of weeks later. The American people where ready at that time to dump the two party system, but his temporary departure cost him big.

30 posted on 09/06/2007 4:56:04 PM PDT by NapkinUser (Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I hardly consider Ron Paul to be a champion of our enemies and their aims; ememies who cannot begin to fathom a country where people of every faith can live without fear of being persecuted for their faith.


31 posted on 09/06/2007 5:02:42 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

The problem I see is that it’s false, and probably a lie.

I think he’s perpetrating a fraud on all his silly followers.


32 posted on 09/06/2007 5:05:49 PM PDT by Petronski (Cleveland Indians: Pennant -17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

33 posted on 09/06/2007 5:06:32 PM PDT by Petronski (Cleveland Indians: Pennant -17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: uxbridge
You can agree or disagree with Paul as to whether the invasion of Iraq was an action of self-defense by the US...obviously Paul does not believe it was...and, to me, the position that the US was under some sort of imminent threat from Saddam that justifies a US invasion is hard to make

Bush didn't make the argument either and American Presidents do not swear oaths to international law. Ron Paul was an embarassment to any conservative last night. International Law justifies our return to Iraq since Hussein broke the terms of surrender. "Neocons" did not authorize the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, Congress did. When Congress authorizes war that is a de facto declaration. Ron Paul should go back to the Libertarian Party where he belongs.

34 posted on 09/06/2007 5:13:33 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stevemcqueen
Are you fresh in from DU?

35 posted on 09/06/2007 5:23:56 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks ( BUILD THE WALL, ENFORCE THE LAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stevemcqueen; SoCalPol
That’s absurd. Paul is the only true conservative running. All these other idiots are just big government liberals — the only difference is their spending revolves around their religious belief.

stevemcqueen Since Sep 6, 2007


36 posted on 09/06/2007 7:12:43 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stevemcqueen

You are wanted back at DU for further instructions


37 posted on 09/06/2007 7:26:03 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

LOL! Saved.


38 posted on 09/06/2007 7:54:55 PM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (You are receiving this broadcast as a dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

“it’s illegal under international law”

surely paul mispoke:

(Bill to get US our of UN, introduced by Ron Paul)
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr1146.htm


39 posted on 09/06/2007 8:44:52 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Yea, the fraud of the UN, see post 39


40 posted on 09/06/2007 8:47:00 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
Aggressive war is a concept older then the UN. The debate is whether or not Iraq is an aggressive war. "(Bill to get US our of UN, introduced by Ron Paul)" Ron Paul knows we've been sold to the UN. That's why he has to introduce a bill to constitutionally get us out of it.
41 posted on 09/06/2007 9:10:40 PM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

No, he just slipped up and revealed his true anti-American beliefs.


42 posted on 09/06/2007 9:44:31 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Fudd Fan
“Aggressive war” Wonder if RuPaul ever heard of any other kind.

Yes, it's called defensive war - the only kind that is legitimate under just-war doctrine. Pope John Paul II opposed our Iraq invasion because it was the aggressive waging of war, not a war responding defensively to an attack or imminent attack.

43 posted on 09/06/2007 9:49:42 PM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Curiously Ru isn’t so concerned about the letter of the Constitution when it comes to earmarks for the wild shrimping industry.


44 posted on 09/06/2007 9:55:23 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freedomdefender
The best defense is a good offense. If the prior administration had been more serious about the jihadi scumbags before 9/11 we could have saved thousands of lives.

JPII also kissed the koran so his opinion of the war doesn't mean squat.
45 posted on 09/06/2007 10:01:27 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stevemcqueen

He’s a fraud and a kook. If Craig can be pressured into resigning for playing footsie in a public restroom, why can’t the same be done with this anti-American fool? He’s a complete embarrassment to the Republican party and the conservative movement movement.


46 posted on 09/06/2007 10:06:07 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
If ever a group of people deserved the leadership they get, it’s the Paulbearers.
47 posted on 09/06/2007 10:08:09 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

If that’s all that it takes to rattle him then he has no business as President of the United States. Ru would have been confined to a padded cell for the rest of his life if he had been president on 9/11.


48 posted on 09/06/2007 10:12:29 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I actually hope Ru goes third party. Most of his votes will be taken from sHillary, and the Republican party will finally be rid of the shrimp-eating surrender monkey - two liberal birds with one stone.
49 posted on 09/06/2007 10:17:54 PM PDT by End Times Crusader (Run Fred Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

How screwed up is the Republican party that y’all accuse a guy who adheres to the Constitution and is a small government advocate a Democrat?

You people are so screwed up. What happened to the Republican Party? Where are the true conservatives? I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.


50 posted on 09/06/2007 11:35:03 PM PDT by stevemcqueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson