Ron Paul to Make Major Announcement Next Week

[Danzig]

That "Constitution optional" thinking is what has led to the bloated and power hungry government that we are burdened with today.

We need people who will follow the Constitution and require Congress to formally and legally declare a war if they feel that is important for us to fight one.

A "declaration of war" is not mere semantics. It is a is a FORMAL declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state or war exists between that nation and one or more other nations.

It may also be a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war.

The definition of "declaration of war" is therefore very clear..and it is only those who would ignore the Constitution that try and blur or change that definition to fit their own twisted desire for power and dominance.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A "declaration of war" is not mere semantics. It is a is a FORMAL declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state or war exists between that nation and one or more other nations.

Undeclared wars are part of a tradition in this country going back to the Founding Fathers - Jefferson was one of the first to use undeclared war in his conflict with the Barbary Pirates.

 

[als54]

He stated at the beginning of his campaign that he would not run on a third party ticket. I won't hold him to that.

It would be wonderful if he realized that the Republican party is as unsalvageable as the Democratic party is, and that both are responsible for the deplorable state that this nation is in.

I would vote for him with little or no reservation.

+++1

He is going to announce that he is endorsing McCain.

Not likely...

 

[als54]

Actually, the biggest reason why I think Paul was a flunkie...

Ya and you think the FED is ran by the government? Right? What is a shame is the this country cannot not come up with 2 candidates that is running. The fact that most people are so focused on the Presidential election they couldn't begin to tell you who their federal let alone their state representatives.

 

[STAGE 2]

I absolutely disagree. It's OK to take money with no strings attached.

Then thats a point where we will have to part ways. Honorable men don't take dirty money.

Wrong, Pal. I kept the subject directly on Paul and his strong belief in the constitution. The fact that you claim you are not "supporting anyone" smells like a refusal to take my challenge.

No you didn't. You completely glazed over his millions in earmarks. You glazed over the fact that Paul calls pork "tax credits". Thats just laughable.

As far as "supporting" anyone its already been stated in this thread that Duncan Hunter was my preferred candidate. This is for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I actually know him personally and know him to be a man of integrity.

However his campaign died a quick death and that left me the choice to vote for the best viable constitutional candidate. That happens to be McCain.

I've no doubt that in a vaccum Paul's voting record and policies are probably closest to the constitution. However we don't live in a vaccum, we live in the real world. That makes him irrelevant. Additionally, if he voted with the constitution 100% of the time and was Thomas Jefferson reincarnate, I'm not going to put someone in the whitehouse whos policies I think are going to result in a nuc going off in some major metropolitian area.

 

[STAGE 2]

We need people who will follow the Constitution and require Congress to formally and legally declare a war if they feel that is important for us to fight one.

Please show me where the term "formal declaration" appears anywhere in the constitution.

A "declaration of war" is not mere semantics. It is a is a FORMAL declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state or war exists between that nation and one or more other nations.

Again, please show me where the constitution talks about a "formal" declaration.

It may also be a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war.

And theres nothing more formal than legislation passed by congress. Again please show me where congressional legislation declaring war needs to be titled "declaration of war".

The definition of "declaration of war" is therefore very clear..and it is only those who would ignore the Constitution that try and blur or change that definition to fit their own twisted desire for power and dominance.

Thats simply a conclusory statement and a false one especially give the fact that "declaration of war" appears nowhere in the constitution.

Reading article 1 section 8 in conjunction with the necessary and proper clause expressly gives congress the power to declare war in any fashion it chooses. Therefore people like Paul who make the argument that the constitutional requires a formal titled declaration of war are proven wrong by the constitution itself.

 

[MeekAndMild]

It's obvious to me that these individuals prefer politicians who are actively working to, and extremely accomplished in, shredding our freedoms...

Would you like to back up that assertion there pilgrim?

 

[Revelation76]

Revelation76-

I absolutely disagree. It's OK to take money with no strings attached.

Stage2

Then thats a point where we will have to part ways. Honorable men don't take dirty money.

If the money is obtained in exchange for favor, then I can see your objection, and use of the word "dirty", but not if your objection is merely with someone's thoughts. This can be taken to any other extreme, and is quite illogical. Racism, as thought, is not illegal. I think that refusing the money, because of public perception, is more of a cowardly act than standing by the ideals of freedom for everyone in this country. Even those with despicable ideas. I think that racists have other thoughts besides racism. They deserve to vote, and have their money accepted by an honest politician who is looking to show no favoritism to any group.

 

[Revelation76]

Danzig

It's obvious to me that these individuals prefer politicians who are actively working to, and extremely accomplished in, shredding our freedoms...

MeekandMild

Would you like to back up that assertion there pilgrim?

I'll mention a little bit-

Ignoring the 4th Amendment- The Patriot Act is a HUGE FACTOR.... FISA.
Ignoring the 10th Amendment.
Self protection laws.
Civil forfeiture laws.
Excessive taxation connected to an overgrown federal government.
Interventionist foreign policy that has our troops in 135 countries, which does not show the U.S. in a good light.
When our military bases are on Muslim holy land, and we bomb and bomb, and completely fail to understand why others hate us, we then get attacked by terrorists on our own soil resulting in thousands of deaths. That "shreds our freedoms". Then many of us (mostly our cowardly officials) are willing to accept the Patriot Act as being merely a strong tool to use against the bad guys. Perhaps like Nelson Mandela. He was on the terrorist watch list.
Maincore- Gov't database of all they can get on YOU.
The tracking device you carry with you. (phone) BTW it could be a roving bug. Google roving bugs... Fun stuff..

Remember that whatever is legal for law enforcement (spying of any kind etc) will be done, AND people will always cheat by ignoring what is legal. Terrorists are not the only targets of the spying. People know people, and favors are granted for other agencies like the DEA or the local police..

The NSA is now LEGALLY collecting all of our electronic transmissions. The NSA was never meant to be used against us.
How much would you like to trust a secret government that has taken our privacy away? The people are the ones that have the right to privacy. The government does not have a right to privacy.

 

[STAGE 2]

If the money is obtained in exchange for favor, then I can see your objection, and use of the word "dirty", but not if your objection is merely with someone's thoughts. This can be taken to any other extreme, and is quite illogical. Racism, as thought, is not illegal. I think that refusing the money, because of public perception, is more of a cowardly act than standing by the ideals of freedom for everyone in this country. Even those with despicable ideas. I think that racists have other thoughts besides racism. They deserve to vote, and have their money accepted by an honest politician who is looking to show no favoritism to any group.

So by this logic, its perfectably acceptable to take money from the mob as long as you don't do them any favors.

 

[xd9fan]

*yawn*

 

[Danzig]

Stage 2....you are unreasonably comparing illegally obtained money and money that is simply obtained from unsavory sources. Shame on you. I know that you are brighter than that. Please show it.

 

[Recon7]

Will he say?

A) I am no longer relevant

B) A vote for me is a vote for Obama

C) Government should be smaller

 

[Citizen Carrier]

Firemax

That's registered Republican voters hearing what [establishment republicans] had to say about Ron Paul and they spread their message (not Paul's) through his [detractors in the media], and much of the GOP public followed along.

Ah, the only plausible explanation for Paul's poor showing in the primaries has to be distortion of his message by establishment Republicans parroted by his detractors in the media.

Because most Republicans believe everything Ron Paul does, right? If they had access to unfiltered Paul, they'd all be just as enthusiastic about him as you are?

Not even I go around believing that most Americans think about things and believe the things I do. That seems to be an affliction of third party types and it resembles a form of extreme religious faith.

Because I was pretty sure that when I was watching his poor performance in the debates, I was hearing his actual words coming out of his mouth. It wasn't like some Chinese kung-fu movie where Ron's mouth was moving but the words were out of synch because Karl Rove was providing a dubbed voice-over.

I would venture that it wasn't Paul's detractors on the internet who did Paul the most harm. It was his supporters. Their attitudes and behavior towards regular Republican voters was at times so arrogant and fanatical that it turned off a lot of people.

There were plenty of "establishment" Republicans in this race who were defeated just like Ron Paul was.

Why is it that all of their defeats can be explained in conventional terms:

Fred Thompson: entered race too late, ran lackluster campaign

Guiliani, Romney: Too "East Coast". To liberal for midwesterners and southerners.

Hunter, Tancredo: Representatives, which America doesn't really consider Presidential material. No pre-existing national name recognition.

Huckabee: Too much evangelical identity. Wasn't going to appeal to Northwestern states.

Then we get to Paul...

It's not: A mere Representative from Congress from rural Texas. Poor debator, anti-war (anti-victory), gives off a "blame America" vibe similar to anything you'll hear at a Code Pink rally. Supporters on the internet refer to America as an "empire" motivated by greed and territorial ambitions while other countries actions are common-sense reactions to America's mistakes and aggression. Instead of debating or conversation, quotes political scripture like a Jehovah's Witness on your front porch who just won't go away. No political ads on television. Republican primary voters are NOT libertarians.

No. Wasn't because of any of that stuff.

It was because elitist detractors in the party slandered him and the accomplices in the media (who would have HATED to see us nominate Paul to run against Obama[/sarcasm] helped them sink him.

Yep, that's the reason.

 

[publius42]

Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold. There isn't anyone forcing Paul to request the earmarks. He does that of his own free will. It is TOTALLY optional.

Obviously, no one forced me to accept FEMA welfare after hurricane Andrew destroyed my house because I did not do it.

I will accept FEMA welfare if the same situation arises again, but I don't have to. It is TOTALLY optional. What is the difference?

 

[Revelation76]

Then we get to Paul...

It's not: A mere Representative from Congress from rural Texas. Poor debator, anti-war (anti-victory), gives off a "blame America" vibe similar to anything you'll hear at a Code Pink rally.

***He's not a great debator... With Paul on the subject of war it's much more complex then a "vibe" that reminds one of some other group and their "vibe". I hope that adults can think more clearly than that. Many people don't bother investigating whya candidate votes and believes the way they do. It's especially vital in the case of Ron Paul's voting history, since his basic view of government is so much at odds with the majority. He would vote differently if he was a state official, and not federal.

Supporters on the internet refer to America as an "empire" motivated by greed and territorial ambitions.

***There's no denying our presence EVERYWHERE is a reality. What are we motivated by? Is the word "empire" really an overreaction?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

while other countries actions are common-sense reactions to America's mistakes and aggression.

***There's is a need to understand the reasoning of our enemies. We need to understand the realities of our covert operations, because other people are directly affected by our actions. Our military bases alone are a threat to sovereignty and worse when they are on "Muslim holy land." We would not accept ANY foreign military bases in OUR country. I KNOW that most Americans don't sit around thinking about our worldwide military presence. They should.

Instead of debating or conversation, quotes political scripture like a Jehovah's Witness on your front porch who just won't go away.

***I can see that as a valid complaint. The best way to understand ANYONE running for office is to bypass their supporters and study their writing and speeches to find out how they think.

 

[Al Norris]

Gee, and here I was thinking that this would be different than all the other Ron Paul threads, we've seen in the past.

I was wrong, once again.

Closed for terminal thread veer.