Posted on 01/11/2007 4:32:27 PM PST by dogbyte12
He can slip quietly into retirement on the lake and in the evening he and Cindy Sheehan can swap war stories.
Three Ls, oh welll.
LOL! So you surrrendered an extra letter.
Llletters of Marque and Reprisalll, and alll that.
Fruitcake. Good thing there are no l's in fruitcake...Paulll would get more credit then he deserves.
I didn't call anyone a moron. I said the contents were moronic. If intellegent people want to be taken as such, they should perhaps not make moronic statements.
Since Kucinich is running as a 'rat we might as well have Paul running at a 'pub. That way each party will have a candidate representing the Outer Limits caucus.
PT Barnum was right -- there's a sucker born every minute, and now we have a new Presidential candidate announce every morning to pick up that day's suckers.
Let's convince Sheila Jackson-Lee to run and make it a trifecta of eight balls.
I thought Paul's announcement was pretty funny but I'm not sure if it deserves moronic.
On second thought, yes, it does.
Did he say he'd oppose amending the Constitution to allow newer developments?
Thanks for this info. He is the best possibility the Republicans have yet.
Surrendering the war?
I don't see how since the Congress hasn't declared a war, despite Dr. Paul's bill to request this.
Well, send him up to Indiana. I'll gladly vote for him without holding my nose. He cares about individual liberty and limited government. Maybe he could reverse decades of big government statism.
That's even loopier then I thought.
It looks like you don't have your facts straight.
Nope. Fact is Ron Paul wants to surrender...his statement is here for you to read.
I'm sympathetic to his anti-war stand. The only outright negative I can find is his opposition to some anti-obscenity airwave regulation, and his nostalgia for the gold standard.
Paul did not mention surrender.
LOL! Surrender by any other name is still surrender. You can parse it any way you want, nothing changes.
If Ron Paul's argument is that we cannot legitimately deploy troops the way we have without a declared war, and if he (per #192) has indeed sought to have a clear and unambiguous declaration of war, how would you describe his actions if he sought to bring our troops into compliance with the Constitution?
To be sure, if that were his intention I would think a better way to describe it would be to say he'd threaten to pull the troops home unless a proper declaration of war were passed. Though depending upon the state of Congress at the time, such a declaration might not again be possible.
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.