Ron Paul - Insane
If true, this is classic and shows exactly how dangerous a man like Ron Paul is. The video is not up yet but the Freepers are all over this. Here ya go: 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."
If this proves to be untrue I will retract the post. I believe the poster of the quote for this reason - Not one Ron Paul supporter is claiming the post is untrue.
Here is the video. The quote is in perfect context and Ron Paul is a nut.
posted by Carl Kilo at 12:45:00 AM
Comments on "Ron Paul - Insane"
-
Anonymous said ... (2:07 AM) :
-
Carl Kilo said ... (2:25 AM) :
-
Cargosquid said ... (2:35 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:37 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (2:49 AM) :
-
Carl Kilo said ... (2:58 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (3:31 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (5:01 AM) :
-
Charlie Fugate said ... (6:32 AM) :
-
Carl Kilo said ... (8:22 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:28 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (7:32 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:11 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:12 AM) :
post a commentHe was talking about America using a first strike.
the comment was taken out of context
here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AWxWUtw4ns
That is in perfect context anon. Sure he says no first strike, but that is NOT what he was addressing in those two sentences. You cant spin it because it stands on its own.
"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."
Clear as day. The prez has this responsibility - but never in our history.
Whats next Anon? That was really not Ron Paul? A conspiracy voice over I guess.
Ron Paul is not insane. He's just a blithering idiot.
Be prepared to withstand an invasion of Ronulans with that headline.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"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."
What grade are you PAULTARDS in. Those two sentences have nothing to do with the first strike question. Any fourth grader can see they stand alone. Shall we diagram them for ya?
No cargosquid....See how easy they disappear. This is my house not theirs.
We laughed about them crying "out of context" hours ago on FR. Thats all they ever say...or conspiracy theories.
I like first strikes. They save lives. So he loses either way with me.
He wants to be commander and chief, yet he will not strike first to protect America. What a trooper.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I believe Mr. Paul is wrong on the war but I like his views otherwise. However, the terminology used by Paul supporters smacks of liberalism. "Blood thirsty, imperial?" That's 1960's liberalism wrapped in 21st century libertarianism.
easy button..paultards disappear.
Ron Paul is a certified head case. We all saw what he said about 9/11. Funded by Soros, supported by the lunatic fringe.
We need to stick to a thoughtful discussion of the issues during this Primary. Ron Paul has been calling attention to the fact that the last time we had a Declared war, it was WWII.
He is advocating that we return our government to within the limits of the Constitution; a concept that was championed by Reagan, and even Duncan Hunter (in his early days). I worked on Duncan Hunter's first campaign when I lived in San Diego.
We do not get very far as a Party if we resort to childish name calling (such as "paultards"). We can, elevate the debate to the real issues and discuss these issues, along with proposed solutions, on their merits.
So, let's start again: The question is, what should the war powers of the President actually entail? Should we, the People, abdicate control of our government and allow any President to commit troops on any whim, without a formal declaration of war by Congress?
I support the idea of quickly sending troops to pursue a retreating attacker, based only on the President's authority. However, sustained operations and first strikes against another country, must receive a Congressional declaration of war before such an act is carried out.
The Iraq invasion was done under, what now appears to have been false pretenses. Had we held a Congressional debate on the declaration of war on Iraq, we may have gone anyway, but at least we would had made an honest attempt to have Congress hear all of the facts, before we risked so much on both sides.
Many of the Republican candidates have demonstrated their love for our country. Every one of these men deserves our gratitude for previous service to America, and each deserves to be treated with kindness and respect. If you find a point on which you disagree, then state your reasons for differing with the facts that you might muster, then let the truth of your argument withstand the light of public discourse.
Keep in mind that after the Primary, we must unite behind our nominee, and work in concert with the former candidates and their supporters. So let us have our lively debate of the issues, but let us preserve a spirit of civil competition until the nominee is selected.
I am grateful that Ron Paul is in this contest and thank him for raising so many compelling issues during this campaign.
Tell it to Ron Black
STORMFRONT FOR RON PAUL