FOX Republican Debates!

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Ron Paul is a TRUE conservative. A TRUE conservative DEMANDS that government ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION.

The "neo-cons" believe that the ends justifies the means. Notice that (with the exception of the closet Democrat McCain) everybody at the debate SUPPORTED the use of TORTURE and supported unconstitutional, undeclared wars with foreign nations.

Paul is NOT an "isolationist". Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST. He has REPEATEDLY said, and he in fact ARGUED IN CONGRESS, that IF there is a valid need to go to war with Iraq, then Congress needs to DECLARE WAR and we need to go in ALL OUT NON STOP with CLEAR GOALS and WIN, and he argued AGAINST all this political balderdash and the TREASONOUS action by Congress when they DELEGATED their Constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.

Ron Paul is resonating with a BROAD SPECTRUM of Americans who are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the same old garbage politicians on both sides of the FALSE "left-right" paradigm.

What a novel idea! Follow the Constitution!

Something these fake Republican neo-cons cannot wrap their Fabian minds around...

ron paul is a fruit cake. he problably believes the gubbermint blew up the WTC.

[bishopnl]

additionally it is an INTERPRETATION that congress HAS to delcare war. It is NOT the position of the Supreme Court, nor is it the position of the actual words in the constitution.

Do what?

Article I Sec. 8 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have power...etc. etc....

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

It's not an interpetation of the Constitution that Congress has the power to declare war. It's the facts. It is the actual words in the Constitution, which unfortunately, too few people have read and too many people feel at ease to give their own spin on it.

The Supreme Court, btw, has also made many, many erroneous rulings in the past, so appealing to them as the arbiter of what is constitutional does not exactly do much for your case. Conservative author Mark Levin has a great book out called Men in Black which details a lot of the problems with the Supreme Court. Great reading.

[bishopnl]

"Ron Paul is a fruitcake... only 2 percent of Republicans like Ron Paul..."

It seems to me that that's about as deep as its going to get when it comes to expressing why one disagrees with Ron Paul. Slap a label on him, point out that he's in the minority, and that's sufficient.

Don't get me wrong. There's a lot about Ron Paul I don't agree with, including his comments during the debate...there are, in my opinion, a lot more factors to 9/11 than American foreign policy in the Middle East.

But he is, in my opinion, a lot more conservative and a lot more principled than most of the other jokers up there. The thought that Guliani, McCain, and Romney are the front runners for the GOP is enough to make me nauseous.

Originally Posted by Ferd

ron paul is a fruit cake. he problably believes the gubbermint blew up the WTC.

No, he rightly believes that government interference in the affairs of other nations, particularly the Middle East, over the last 50 or so years resulted in Islamic extremists deciding to retaliate against the United States.