Ron Paul’s First Action as President
Well, of course, it will be to pull out of Iraq and start talking with Iran. We talk to the Soviets, and why should we think Iran is any more of threat than they are?
I like posting Ron Paul stuff, because it causes a lot of conversation. It also brings out a lot of nutty people, and that is just a plain fact. So, I’m gonna leave my own opinion out of this one, and just see what happens in the comments. Fun stuff. Can you imagine how much fun if he were President? Whew!
Hat tip: Ian
Email This
Posted by Jay on October 29, 2007 5:28 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News, Video, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
Links
- Pirate's Cove: Ron Paul: Let’s Talk To Iran!
Comments
9 Responses to “Ron Paul’s First Action as President”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
If I’m going to be a nut I want to be a honey roasted and lightly salted cashew. We only come by so that you continue to make posts about nutty Ron Paul fans. Sites like this don’t sway new voters either way and are frequented by circle-jerkers. As long as you are jerking to a few nutty Ron Paul fans and hollering down your own echo chamber then you aren’t out promoting whichever gasbag you prefer.
BTW, Thanks for posting the video I hadn’t seen that one yet.
Lets be clear, I didn’t say ALL Ron Paul supporters were honey roasted or lightly salted. Just a lot of em.
A few of them might be spicy flavor
ron paul is this country’s only hope. someone needs to reverse the last 80 or so years of damage. why are the previous posters so opposed to DIPLOMACY and STOPPING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAR? any student of history knows that ron paul has an amazing vision.
Ronnie E,
Because anyone who calls the Iraq War unconstitutional is actually ignorant(i.e. a nut) of either or both what the U.S. Constitution states and the resolution to use military force in Iraq is. The later, which is Declaration of War, mentions the Iraq conflict is a War by stating it is subject to the War Powers Act of 1973.
Kerwin, The War Powers Act is a simple act of congress. As such it has no constitutional impact. It is subordinate and irrelevant if a strict reading of the Constitution is resumed.
Surely you understand the English language well enough to see the subtle, but important difference between an “authorization” and a “declaration”. Consider the following:
Now imagine if the Democrats had voted for language like that in 2002-03. They would have had absolutely no room to complain. None. Instead, they punted and said, “Here, George. It’s your call. Ya better get it right.” Well, he didn’t and they won’t shut up about it.
It is not a coincidence that we suck at undeclared wars.
“It is subordinate and irrelevant if a strict reading of the Constitution is resumed.” Jeff Molby
The U.S. Constitution does not specify the wording of the document Congress uses to declare War. It is possible that it was specified in English Common Law prior to our break with England but no one has claimed that.
The declaration of war against Japan is considered an official declaration of war while that against Iraq is considered an unofficial declaration of war. The reason we use the later is that we have foolishly signed treaties that make an official declaration of war untenable.
A declaration of war that doesn’t include the word “declare”? “official” and “unofficial” declarations?
The Constitution says:
and it has never been amended. Yet you have the gall to say Ron Paul’s understanding is ignorant???
Kerwin, don’t you claim to be a strict constructionist??
Then maybe we should rework our treaties or amend the Constitution instead of just deciding that the supreme law of the land can be selectively ignored.
why do so many ron paul supporters lack any capitals in their screeds? (asks a smart-ass kender using no capitals himself to make his point)