Posted on 12/21/2007 6:43:53 PM PST by OCCASparky
A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):
"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."
“I know...very few people wanted to believe their entire family tree would be lost in the holocaust too. Those people ignored threats to their peril too.”
The European branch of my family perished then.
However... I don’t think 2008 USA is anywhere near 1938 Germany!!!
That is where you are very wrong.
I have watched him on C-Span when he speaks on the House floor and everytime I can when he has been interviewed.
I check how he has voted and read his column every week.
I am very familiar with him.
The Germans of 1932 didn't realize how close they were to the Germany of 1938 or 1945 for that matter. Stability is not so stable sometimes. Just ask your Venezuelan friends.
Yeah, I always think that too on these types of threads. I hope there are enough decent and fair-minded people who will look beyond just a sensationalistic title, to actually get to the truth, the next time this happens.
I believe he would have asked Congress to declare war and then commanded our troops to attack them.
Jim,
I promise to send twice my usual contribution. And I will be here after this post.
Thanks for your post, and I like the referee pics. ;-)
Countdown to “Statement by the Founder of FR” post from the Boss...
It is exactly this sort of sermonizing which makes you Paulites so tiresome. The talk of "toddlers" and "statists" and etc. etc. etc. "If they only knew what we know, they'd be supporters of Ron." It's almost a Gnostic cult (I mean that in the nicest sociological way, and in no theological way whatsoever).
The more I read of Ron Paul, the more I find I disagree less with what he says and more with his fairly infantile view of the whole process. If you'd indulge me for a moment, I'd compare Ron to a homebuilder who comes upon a group of people who have been promised a home.
These people have had to live in tents without electricity and have been told (perhaps by the neoconservative military-industrial globalists) "You're living in a home." And they respond, "This isn't what it looked like in the brochure." And the nameless, faceless powers-that-be say "Shut up and like it." And so Ron Paul says to these people, "This is no home." And he's right. "A real home would be like this..." And he proceeds to tell them what they are missing and the countless accretions to their lives that they have had to endure when they were simply promised a home. And he's right (in the main).
And so he says, "Let's build the perfect house." And he describes the perfect house and what the original architects would have wanted a house to look like. And, 1) it sounds pretty darn good, and 2) it sounds not much like any other house that is currently being built. And some people get really excited. "This is what we've been waiting for. This guy gets it. He knows what houses really are."
And some people say, "Yeah, some of his ideas sound really good, but there's not really any resemblance to his house and any other houses that are being built. Can any architects actually design that house?" And the excited folks say, "Are you saying it's not the perfect house?" "No, we're just saying that it might not be the easiest thing to execute." "Oh, you toddlers."
And some other practical folks say, "Ron, do you think you can find concrete workers to help you with your house?" And there is silence except for the excited people who say, "Why do you hate perfect houses?" And the practical folks say, "Hey, it sounds like a good idea in a lot of ways, but I'm not sure it would work within the current framework we have." And the excited folks say, "But the current framework is wrong!"
By now, my allegory is surely growing tiresome to you. Even with his less-than-appealing view of the world stage and international relations (from my perspective), Ron Paul says a lot of things that a lot of people here on Free Republic agree with. We like less government. We like lower taxes. We like sound fiscal policy (when he goes on to the gold standard, my eyes do glaze over, I confess, but I'm no finance whiz). We like the government leaving us the heck alone.
But in the end, Paul is an idealist loon. He has a perfect house in his head and it's a great ideal. But HOW would he do ANYTHING in his agenda? GWB couldn't even get a really rather modest form of SS reform through a Republican Senate and House. I somehow doubt Miss Pelosi and Mr. Reid would be amenable to use "dumping the UN", "doing away with the Gold Standard," "abolishing the FBI," etc. ad nausea
Plus, he says dumb things. His silly Sinclair Lewis quote the other day was a idiocratic moment of the first order.
So,even laying aside his penchant for sounding a bit like the Daily Kos when discussing foreign policy, his domestic agenda is unworkable and unplanned. It's pie-in-the-sky idealism of the worst kind - the kind where the architect knows it won't ever happen. And he says dumb things.
Right. Pearl Harbor was simply a diplomatic misunderstanding. Ditto 9/11.
is it possible you missed that very first line?, it really compliments the third line..
I don’t think there has been a need to do that throughout our whole history, but it was especially true in the early years that if congress was way off and had to come by horse and buggy the president had the responsibility, the moral and legal responsibility to thwart an attack on the United States.
Where have we seen all this word Parsing/explanations of what he really meant before??
Now I understand Jim Jones.
Merry Christmas to W and Our Troops
“Any fool, upon watching the video, is aware that this quote has been taken totally out of context, even non Paul supporters who have viewed this have said so.”
I beg to differ. I have watched the video a few times today, attempting to locate some excuse for the man saying this. I have as yet not found one.
” Where have we seen all this word Parsing/explanations of what he really meant before?? “
but it works so well in liberal land
That's a whole sentence, not a phrase or something just snatched out of a paragraph of stuff.
Notice carefully that the "paragraph" is quite large but it has a natural break point there before we get to that sentence.
The Ronpaul further clarifies what he meant by pointing to the President having an obligation to prevent an attack.
He had the chance to say the President should prevent attacks as well as repel attacks (if Congress can't be assembled), but he didn't. He said something quite different.
The country would not be safe with a shillyshally weaselworder like the Ronpaul running it.
We don’t ridicule his positions relative to small government and the Constitution. We ridicule him because he would be an unthinkable commander in chief. While we have sons and daughters in harms way, he joins the Democrats in giving sound bites to Al-Jazeera.
We brought on the attacks? No, I am damn tired of hearing that, and I don’t want an isolationist in the White House. Never will that man lead our armed forces.
“Where have we seen all this word Parsing/explanations of what he really meant before??”
Lovely.
Lie about someone’s words - then criticize them for “parsing” when defended.
I was foolish to assume that what I read was correct. I humbly apologize to Ron Paul and his supporters. Thankfully we can still discover the truth on FR!
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.