Posted on 12/29/2007 12:26:12 PM PST by StopTheNAU
Cheney was called. He got 5 DEFERMENTS!!!!
You Neocon!
It’s the use of the term “Faux News” that stuck out. That is the term all the libs use and I’ve never seen anyone else use it.
It’s teh terminology that raises red flags. That you seem not to understand that is unfortunate.
Only Congress can declare war and without a declaration of war, we can’t just go fight endlessly. The President is Commander-in-Chief, but that doesn’t just give him asolute power to send our troops anywhere for any period of time. There are checks and balances.
In peacetime.
He Served.
In base hospitals, in peacetime. For a salary higher than the one he was drawing in civilian life. All the while close to his family in safety and comfort.
As a Physician,
Correct. He was advancing his civilian career while the taxpayers picked up the tab. A great deal for Paul. A very smart move.
And you have a problem with that?
Not at all.
What I have a problem with is:
(1) Paul supporters puffing Paul's service up to be more than it is.
(2) Paul saying that he was morally opposed to the war in Vietnam while simultaneously drawing a fat and safe paycheck in the ANG during Vietnam.
Cheney was called.
Indeed he was.
He got 5 DEFERMENTS!!!!
To which he was legally entitled. Not only was he the father of a young family that depended upon him as a breadwinner, not only would military service have significantly sidetracked his civilian career, but without special militarily-relevant skills he would have been deployed overseas far from his family.
Ron Paul, as a father of a young family but with a militarily-relevant civilian career, got a pay boost and a career enhancement while getting to stay close to his family.
Two completely different situations.
You Neocon!
How surprising that an exchange with a Ron Paul supporter has left the Ron Paul supporter devoid of rational argument and reduced to schoolyard-style namecalling.
BTW: the Vice President is not a candidate in this election.
Legally, a state of war can only exist between the US as a sovereign entity and another sovereign entity. If the enemy is not a sovereign entity, but an illegitimate regime (like that of the Hussein dictatorship or the Ho Chi Minh dictatorship) or a non-governmental organization (like Al-Qaeda or the Sandinistas), there is no entity with whom to formally target with a declaration of war.
Of course, real life does not conform to theoretical models.
Hence Washington's undeclared war against the Whiskey rebellion, Jefferson's uindeclared war against the Barbary pirates, and Bush's war against Al-Qaeda.
And the US has never fought endlessly. The US fights until it destroys the external enemy or until its resolve is defeated by internal enemies.
Of course it does, as long as he sends those troops abroad. That's what being Commander-In-Chief means.
There are checks and balances.
Correct. The President's power is checked and balanced by Congress' ability to fund or defund the military and by Congress' power to impeach the President and remove him from office.
The President is Commander-in-Chief, but that doesn’t just give him asolute power to send our troops anywhere for any period of time.
Before responding as follows:
Of course it does . . .
Yeah I agree with you.
And I see your point. Air Force Doctor. Its like being the CEO of Halliburton, right? Or running Bain Capital? Or Guiliani Associates...
You have just insulted all men and women who have ever served as doctors in the Airforce. Congratulations.
What?!? I have been defending Paul’s service!!!! Against someone who wants to minimize his contribution!!!
My god! I was defending the man against someone who wanted to chalk up Dr Paul’s honorable service as a Air Force physician to self serving careerism!
Paul is on the record as stating that his time in the USAF counted toward his medical residency just as much as a civilian residency did, with the added benefit that it required half the hours and provided significantly more pay than a civilian residency.
As Paul himself has pointed out, it was a pretty sweet deal for him.
Oh really? Then how do you explain some of the wild-eyed ideas Ron Paul has been spouting off? How do you explain some pictures on one thread of Cindy Sheehan at a Ron Paul rally? Do you really think that these people will stay with Ron Paul if he won the nomination? I say NOT! They only want him to get the Repub. nomination, so that some Dem. that looks and sounds “reasonable” in comparison can win the presidency!
Is this what you want? Surely you must understand why many people on FR who once admired Ron Paul for many things are a wary, if not downright hostile to his candidacy now? Would YOU want a person in there winning the primary that has people like Cindy Sheehan and other wild-eyed leftists cuddling up to him? He certainly is not Reagan reincarnated to me!
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.