Republican Paul enters 2008 White House race

Yahoo! News ^ | March 12, 2008 | Reuters

[The_Eaglet]

"No, but cutting funding for them while they're still there most certainly IS."

That statement is most certainly false.

[The_Eaglet]

That's another good quotation from Dr. Paul. Thank you.

[mkjessup]

You like that? How about this one?

"Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies"
-Ron Paul, April 2006

How interesting to hear Ron Paul saying nice things about the guy who has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

Now tell me how much you appreciate that quote, as you try to spin it into something positive.

[The_Eaglet]

Coming from you, I would need to see the context.

[mkjessup]

"No, but cutting funding for them while they're still there most certainly IS."
That statement is most certainly false.

And how's that? All the anti-war cut n' run Democrats in the House AND the Senate have been pushing to cut funding for the war effort in an attempt to force our troops out of Iraq and to undermine their objectives. It is the SAME strategy used in the 'Rat Congress of '75 which resulted in a bloodbath throughout Southeast Asia after U.S. troops were forced to withdraw from our ally South Vietnam after the Communists violated the so-caleld 'Peace Accords', crossed the DMZ and invaded the South.

Ron Paul, by his own words, thinks that is exactly what we should do regarding the war in Iraq.

That makes him morally (or amorally as the case may be) equivalent to the worst of the seditionist, copperhead Democrats who are doing their damndest to bring about a defeat for the United States.

And THAT my naive little friend, is the absolute truth, whether you like it or not.

[mkjessup]

Coming from you, I would need to see the context

Awww, having doubts?

Look it up for yourself, it's in the Congressional Record, April 5, 2006. The context is more than clear. Ron Paul was spinning madly like a top trying to gin up opposition to any possible military action against Iran.

But by all means, look it up.

[mkjessup]

Here's another little Ron-nugget for you to ponder, from that same House speech:

"Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that she is working on one – only conjecture. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody – which would guarantee her own annihilation – are zero. And the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist group.
-Ron Paul, April 2006.

If Ron keeps that up, he'll be getting campaign donations from Ahmadinejad himself! LOL

[BlackElk]

Law school, reading the Constitution, understanding history as a history major concentrating on the Second War of Independence (1861-1865) the loss of which no more changed the text of the Constitution than did SCOTUS's decision on Roe vs. Wade, and common sense. Conquest is NOT a constitutional convention nor any other constitutional amendment mechanism. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. Secession was a right reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment and an unenumerated right under the 9th.

AND Ron Paul is a "constitutional" stick figure who, as a paleo, has no more backbone or manhood in foreign policy than any other "paleo"delusionist or any left equivalent like Cuckoocinich or Russell Feingold.

[The_Eaglet]

"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody – which would guarantee her own annihilation – are zero."

Do you agree?

[The_Eaglet]

What law school told you this:
"The original meaning of the Constitution would recognize that Ron Paul, living in Texas, is a citizen of the CSA and not of the USA."

?

[BlackElk]

The_Eaglet: No, Ron Paul is allying with other enemies of America and IS stabbing our troops in the back, no less than the bulk of the Demonratic Euroweenies with whom he is allied. And NO, I don't think Ramsay Clark supports our troops either since he opposes their efforts. The Saddam Hussein wing of the paleocowardly is a very tiny slice of the GOP. The sooner that Ron Paul and Weepy Walter Jones are replaced by real Republicans and realk Americans, the better. Never mind, Paul seeking the GOP presidential nod. What a sick joke!

[mkjessup]

"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody – which would guarantee her own annihilation – are zero."
Do you agree?

Absolutely NOT. Only an idiot or a fool believes that a nuclear armed Iran would NOT be a threat to the Middle East. What you (and apparently Ron Paul) conveniently overlook is that the mullahs and their current sockpuppet Ahmadinejad are utterly in the grips of an Islamic equivalent of 'end times theology' with a terrorist twist:

While Christians who believe rightly and correctly that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God and will one Day literally return to the Earth as God's Word states clearly, Christians are not going to try and precipitate violent attacks in an attempt to speed up the timetable.

Ahmadinejad and his pals are doing all that they can to provoke the return of their 'mahdi' or '12th Imam' or whatever the flavor-of-the-month happens to be. Ahmadinejad has spoken openly about how Israel should be 'wiped from the face of the Earth' (and please tell me you didn't miss that Holocaust Denial Convention that Iran threw not so long ago?), there is no question that if those maniacs acquire a nuclear weapon, they are going to be inclined to use it, and the risks are too high to throw the dice as Ron Paul would do, and trust Iran to just behave itself.

I daresay that even if Neville Chamberlain were alive today, that he would call Ron Paul an utter fool for believing such nonsense.

[The_Eaglet]

No, Ron Paul is allying with other enemies of America and IS stabbing our troops in the back, no less than the bulk of the Demonratic Euroweenies with whom he is allied.

"No, Ron Paul is allying with other enemies of America and IS stabbing our troops in the back" Where did this occur at the time you typed? As far as I can tell, Ron Paul is allied with Americans, Republicans, and Libertarians, and you have failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

[The_Eaglet]

What you (and apparently Ron Paul) conveniently overlook is that the mullahs and their current sockpuppet Ahmadinejad are utterly in the grips of an Islamic equivalent of 'end times theology' with a terrorist twist

I don't believe that, and I think you are mistaken to assert that Ron Paul believes that.

[BlackElk]

UConn Law School would disagree with me but made available the resources. Its leaders would certainly favor eliminating the eleven Confederate states rather than accept Paul's eccentricities on domestic spending. They are just as anti-American, though, just as anti-military, just as favorable to "civil liberties" as are the anti-American Civil Libertines' Union and anti-American Ron Paul.

Hey, I am just as entitled to be a "constitutional" eccentric as is paleoPaul. Do you think that joining the Union exhausts a state's ability to secede? I don't see that in the text of the Constitution. Give me your citation.

Wisconsin did not think so and passed articles of secession in 1959 being overcome with revulsion at belonging to the same Union as slave states did. New England Convention of about 1814 in Hartford thought that New England COULD secede to restore the Northeastern Anglophles' money-grubbing trade with England during the War of 1812 but decided not to try to secede.

[The_Eaglet]

Currection: I have not overlooked that, and you are mistaken to assert that Ron Paul has overlooked that.

[BlackElk]

Does paleoPaulie vote against war appropriations during a war? I rest my case.

[BlackElk]

Prove it as to you. Prove it as to paleoPaulie.

[The_Eaglet]

I don't see that in the text of the Constitution. Give me your citation.

I do not see that either, but neither do I see a basis to claim that the Constitution says that Ron Paul is a citizen of the CSA as you stated.

[BlackElk]

Ron Paul is allied with Cuckoocinich, Abercrumble, Weepy Walter Jones and they hold anti-American press conferences together. In turn they are allied with the various anti-American flora and fauna who constutute San Gayfrisco Nancy's Demonratic caucus. There are a few other pipsqueaks like Duncan who psoe as Republicans and as Americans but very few. Libertarians are beneath comment for their support of social issue anarchy as well as refusal to support their country at war.