This is an excellent video, he’s getting better and better. Who are those dumb asses booing him? Boo… freedom, booo… liberty, boo… honesty. Two cheers for slavery, security and control. Well, is this a Mussolini rally?
This was a “value-voters” thing, so much of the crowd was evangelical.
But South Florida really showed our support for Dr. Paul. We sign waved out front and then listened to the debate audio stream at a bar. Afterwards Ron Paul came down to the bar and gave a short speech and then shook every single one of his supporters’ hand and took a lot of pictures. He’s awesome.
Can someone explain to me why a formal declaration of war would make a difference with respect to the success of the war, securing our liberty, etc.? I’ve heard RP say this many times now but I can’t sort it out. Anyone?
I think in the longer version of the statement he’s explained that he thinks it’s because if they have to declare war it is much harder to get the people on board and they would have to be and then if they were in mass numbers they’d have the troop numbers necessary to complete whatever battle and the Congress would have to deal with their responsibility and would demand a swift conclusion.
I had a sick fantasy that after some boos, Ron Paul would get a little ornery and shout “Shut the f*** up you lobotomized sheeple! Now listen to me unless you want to end up in a FEMA camp with 666 tatooed on your foreheads!”
Wonder how that would have gone over. Ron Paul would have gotten the cane. Would have been funny, though.
I don’t know, Scott. After 911 Bush probably could have gotten a war declared against the Pope if he had wanted. RP may be more concerned with adhering to the letter of the Constitution than to tactical concerns.
He could not have gotten a declaration of war against Iraq in October 2002. There would have been hearings. It would have taken months if possible at all. They gave him their power and then did that thing where you kinda slap your hands together up and down like dropping a responsibility, you know what I mean?
Read Ron Paul. It is clear that his loyalty to the letter comes from the oath that he took to it as a result of his belief that it is the best way to maintain peace and protect individual liberty. His first principle. You could just as easily say that his belief in free markets is fealty to business rather than adherence to principle and belief that it’s the best way. I ain’t putting words in your mouth, they’re mine, but you see what I mean.
Back to the point. Really what the man is saying is that the types of wars we’ve waged since giving up our republican form and inheriting the world are the types of wars that can’t really be one; wars of subjugation and domination. So we might as well quit trying to be an empire, even if you like it, because it just doesn’t work. It ain’t the technicality, it’s his belief that the Congress would only declare war for defense (At least they would have to _believe_ they’d been attacked ie: mexico, the south, spain, wwi,wwii) rather than blatant “pre-emptive” war made possible by Truman’s imperial legacy.
“So we might as well quit trying to be an empire, even if you like it, because it just doesn’t work. ”
But those examples you give–Mexico, the South, Spain, WWII–those were successful extensions of empire thru warfare, no? Maybe there’s massive propaganda need to drive it, but Declarations of War can lead to expansion of Empire. I still don’t see the difference. Does Paul talk about this in his book on foreign policy?
I don’t know. I almost bought it yesterday but it was a lot and I had to put it off. And I guess I’m a bit less clear on the difference when you put it that way myself.
I do know that a President Dr. Paul would never have the government kill foreigners without an express declaration of war or letter of marque and that he would never ask Congress for one unless defending us from an _actual_ aggressive act.
This is an excellent video, he’s getting better and better. Who are those dumb asses booing him? Boo… freedom, booo… liberty, boo… honesty. Two cheers for slavery, security and control. Well, is this a Mussolini rally?
This was a “value-voters” thing, so much of the crowd was evangelical.
But South Florida really showed our support for Dr. Paul. We sign waved out front and then listened to the debate audio stream at a bar. Afterwards Ron Paul came down to the bar and gave a short speech and then shook every single one of his supporters’ hand and took a lot of pictures. He’s awesome.
Can someone explain to me why a formal declaration of war would make a difference with respect to the success of the war, securing our liberty, etc.? I’ve heard RP say this many times now but I can’t sort it out. Anyone?
I think in the longer version of the statement he’s explained that he thinks it’s because if they have to declare war it is much harder to get the people on board and they would have to be and then if they were in mass numbers they’d have the troop numbers necessary to complete whatever battle and the Congress would have to deal with their responsibility and would demand a swift conclusion.
I had a sick fantasy that after some boos, Ron Paul would get a little ornery and shout “Shut the f*** up you lobotomized sheeple! Now listen to me unless you want to end up in a FEMA camp with 666 tatooed on your foreheads!”
Wonder how that would have gone over. Ron Paul would have gotten the cane. Would have been funny, though.
Ha. I used the word sheeple.
I don’t know, Scott. After 911 Bush probably could have gotten a war declared against the Pope if he had wanted. RP may be more concerned with adhering to the letter of the Constitution than to tactical concerns.
He could not have gotten a declaration of war against Iraq in October 2002. There would have been hearings. It would have taken months if possible at all. They gave him their power and then did that thing where you kinda slap your hands together up and down like dropping a responsibility, you know what I mean?
Read Ron Paul. It is clear that his loyalty to the letter comes from the oath that he took to it as a result of his belief that it is the best way to maintain peace and protect individual liberty. His first principle. You could just as easily say that his belief in free markets is fealty to business rather than adherence to principle and belief that it’s the best way. I ain’t putting words in your mouth, they’re mine, but you see what I mean.
Back to the point. Really what the man is saying is that the types of wars we’ve waged since giving up our republican form and inheriting the world are the types of wars that can’t really be one; wars of subjugation and domination. So we might as well quit trying to be an empire, even if you like it, because it just doesn’t work. It ain’t the technicality, it’s his belief that the Congress would only declare war for defense (At least they would have to _believe_ they’d been attacked ie: mexico, the south, spain, wwi,wwii) rather than blatant “pre-emptive” war made possible by Truman’s imperial legacy.
“So we might as well quit trying to be an empire, even if you like it, because it just doesn’t work. ”
But those examples you give–Mexico, the South, Spain, WWII–those were successful extensions of empire thru warfare, no? Maybe there’s massive propaganda need to drive it, but Declarations of War can lead to expansion of Empire. I still don’t see the difference. Does Paul talk about this in his book on foreign policy?
I don’t know. I almost bought it yesterday but it was a lot and I had to put it off. And I guess I’m a bit less clear on the difference when you put it that way myself.
I do know that a President Dr. Paul would never have the government kill foreigners without an express declaration of war or letter of marque and that he would never ask Congress for one unless defending us from an _actual_ aggressive act.
There is no doubt in my mind that a Pres. Paul would only attack if under attack or if an attack is truly imminent. No doubt.
?