I'll personally finance a trip for you to meet up with the guy you have in your avatar, AGS. How about it? You love him so much, would you like to meet him? I'll pay the ticket for you and you can personally see the wonderful society that he's help build over there. Maybe you'll get lucky and see some stonings or women being beaten for wearing the wrong clothes. Game? I got the money if you got the time.
Sure. You want my PayPal account details. I do not agree with everything about the guy, or his country, or its laws. The reason I admire him (and it is well documented, as GT will confirm as he prolly has them in a notepad file) is because he doesn't take any BS from your terrorist hero Bush. He calls Bush out for the dangerous idiotic puppet scumbag that he is.
You do have the tendency to pick and choose things you like about a person. It's too bad that when you choose to like this guy; you also have to accept his other beliefs, too don't you? Must be difficult to reconcile his hate for Israel (oh wait you have that too), his hate for jews (wait..nevermind), his hate for america (damn...i'm tryin I really am), and his supplying weapons to kill american troops (oh wait, you like that too). Remind me what you don't like about him again?
Most of the reports on the debate, have Rudy and Fred doing ok, and Mitt stinking up the joint. I thought John McCain was pretty good until he said we should have 0% interest when asked about the recent decision by the Fed to drop rates. The worst candidate was Brownback. Btw, Rudy did not own Paul either. He keeps playing the 9/11 card, and RP was ready for him again. He even got Rudy to mention Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not Iraq. Regardless of what the folks here think, Paul's momentum is tangible and growing. At the post debate interview, Chris Matthews told Paul "A lot of people think like you. I dare not say I'm one of them." Related: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071010/cm_thenation/1241385
Nah, he pretty much owned him, guerilla. Of course, Rudy wouldn't have to mention 9/11 if ron paul wasn't always treating it as a conspiracy and claiming (in words to the affect) that no one can attack us. Personally, I don't ever want to forget 9/11. It was a wakeup call for some (me) and clearly a time for others to hibernate.
According to my references, he's never said a single bad word. Not even when the topic of stonings he's responsible for, or the genocide comments he's responsible for, or the blood of American and British forces are on his hands. Nope, not one peep. Why is that, AGS? It's about time for him to start using Bush and Cheney as a shield. When the tough questions come out, he either runs, lets someone else fight his battle, or blames his positions on Bush.
I've already told your Second In Command lorien my reasons in my last post. Read the damn posts GTech, no wonder most of us think you are a loon. You just don't read posts properly.
Rudy doesn't need an excuse to bring up 9/11. If you've watched the debates, he's a single issue candidate when he isn't attacking Hillary. It's actually become something of a joke among the pundits, who call out Rudy constantly on exploiting 9/11 for political gain. Of course I also do not want to forget it. I also don't want to forget the American Revolution. Ron Paul has it right. We faced down 40,000 Russian nukes, and we're worried about Iran getting a nuke one day, even when Khameini has issued a fatwa against nuclear proliferation and they have complied with UN weapon inspectors. As Paul says, "It's all war propaganda.". Americans live free, not in fear.
Ron Paul already knows this, and unless I didn't hear correctly what they were asked, they were asked if the president has the power to conduct military action without Congressional approval. Paul made it clear that they CANNOT without going to Congress to make a declaration of war. Giuliani didn't own Ron Paul. His assertion that "we were under imminent attack on 911" is BS because this was a terrorist act that no country took responsibility for. Besides, the U.S. intelligence agencies had plenty of warnings in the previous years that the attack would occur, but the FBI was pulled of Bin Laden's trail.
Conspiracy? Here's a post. Who is the party to which you are pledging support to? Starts with an "H," right?
You did not hear correctly. RP said Congress must authorize war. There is a difference. Might want to watch the debate before commenting. Way off here.
I remember many using the phrase 'authorize' instead of 'declare' in the past. Guess it depends on how badly you want to make something be that it isn't. Most would agree it's pretty much the same thing even if the constitution does not specifically state authorize. If congress is the one who must declare, isn't that pretty much authorizing the war in the first place? Even if not technically the same, who authorizes the funds?...
Let's refer to the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...es_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress In a sentence: Congress shall have power to declare war. It doesn't say "Congress MUST declare war." It simply states they have the power to.
It is giving power to the Congress, where does it give power to the president?.. I thought there was a reason for the seperation of powers
The President isn't in question. Ron Paul said Congress must declare war, according to the Constitution. According to the Constitution, Congress shall have power to declare war. Can we agree these are very different things. One says Congress MUST do something, the Constitution says the Congress can do something.
IMHO you're taking it and flipping it. I just listened to it, he takes the constitution above all which I like to be truthful. I see no place where it gives the president power to declare war, to start war w/o an iminent attack. Show me where it does, otherwise if anyone is wrong it's the other side, not Paul During Clinton, who I did not support one bit. The republicans attacked him every time he bombed Saddam, I was one of them for this very reason. Now it's changed, I guess the constitution means nothing to most now a days, how very sad. Can we agree that it does not give the president this power and only gives congress the power? If so, or you can't show where someone else has the power how is he wrong?.. BTW I'm about to crash, blurry eyes I'm so tired. Brain working at about 5%
We can agree that Congress has the power to declare war, according to the Constitution. We can also look at the War Powers Clause in terms of what the President has had since 1973. However, I cannot agree that Congress must declare war. The Constitution only proclaims that Congress has the power to declare war. source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119196048730753698.html?mod=googlenews_wsj What does the Constitution say? I agree with you. It seems that the Constitution means nothing to some now a days. I try to respect it, by adhering to it, and giving it proper Case when referring to it. If anyone can show, in the Constitution where it says that Congress must declare war, that we cannot go to war with a declaration of war, please post it. I've posted the direct excerpt from Article 1, Section 8. So far, it is unchallenged. Goodnight GRIM. Thanks for keeping me on my toes and forcing me to source material