• 96 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -

I did not see any recent forum posts in correspondence to this. 
 
There is apparently an article from Ron Paul somewhere on google also talking extensively about this subject/issue.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57032.html
 
Does president Obama have such authority to attack Libya? i actually get a little confused about the laws. But if he really did violate the constitution in any form, then this is definitely a legitimate attempt to see something is being done about it. It might not be the progress we are looking for, but its nice to see ron paul and other congressmen on display to actually talk and act upon an issue like this.

#2 Posted by suikoden352 (425 posts) -

president bush had these same kinds of charges brought up against him as well if i remember right or atleast something similar. it's a tricky subject with libya. it was more the un pushing us to go with them into libya than us leading the charge but it's a topic to be discussed nonetheless. syria is a hot subject as well on what should or shouldn't be done there. plenty of bullet points for the upcoming election year and also for the world powers as well. will be interesting to see how things unfold.

#3 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

They should because he's has like a certain amount of days to report to congress after a declared war. Or what they try to pass off as kinectic military action, double speak trying to pass if off as not a war.
 
He didn't go to congress, rather bypassed them going to the u.n.

#4 Posted by FourWude (2245 posts) -
#5 Posted by MikeinSC (910 posts) -

If Obama argued "The War Powers Act" is unconstitutional (which it might well be), I'd have way more respect for his position than his current "It's constitutional but doesn't mean THIS".
 
In a nutshell, yes, he is violating the WPA rather blatantly. It being unconstitutional is a different argument that should be made.

#6 Posted by Purple_Proletarius (170 posts) -

The White House has a thirty-two page document that essential makes the argument that Libya is a non-violation because the US is in a supporting role. Whatever. I'm not sure how that explains the war in Yemen.

Also, fuck people who rely on the Constitution.

#7 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

Good.  
 
It's fucking bullshit.  
 
"Oh its not a war unless they shoot back" 
fuck obama.  
 
And Ron Paul is right by standing strong on this issue.  
This President is an embarrassment. He ran as an anti-war candidate and here he is in 5 wars now. 
 
And Ron Paul is the only gop candidate willing to say enough is enough. The rest just argue over how to go about the wars, but nothing about our foreign policy. they never want to draw the connection between our bad economy and our endless wars. The Dems are all being hush hush because they don't want to look bad so they're just going to pretend like nothing is going on... 
 
I'm voting for Ron Paul in 2012 as should all americans. he's the only intelligent, logical, honest, sincere, and incredibly consistent man that has ran for president in many many years.  
 
@deusdigit said: 


There is apparently an article from Ron Paul somewhere on google also talking extensively about this subject/issue.

here it is:    

Why I'm Suing the Obama Administration over Libya
By Rep. Ron Paul   10:30 PM 06/16/2011

ADVERTISEMENT

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

Rep. Ron Paul represents Texas’s 14th Congressional District and is a Republican candidate for president.

#8 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

Don't you fucking know? The US have the authority to kick your door in and piss on your rug, DON'T FIGHT BACK IT'S USELESS.  
 
Also, who do you think you are, questioning the US President himself? you must be a terrorist! Tell us where you live, we feel like invading fresh new soil

#9 Edited by crusader8463 (14429 posts) -

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

#10 Posted by Wrighteous86 (3823 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

Good. It's fucking bullshit. "Oh its not a war unless they shoot back" fuck obama.

I hope you thought it was bullshit when his predecessors did it too, then.

I find a lot of people bitch about everything Obama does, but had no reservations when Bush or any of the other presidents did the same things.

I hate a lot of the things Bush did, but I hate them now when Obama does them, too. I'm actually disappointed in how similar some of their policies have been.

#11 Posted by Purple_Proletarius (170 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

People vote without understanding what they're voting for. That partly why we've had so many shitty presidents. The other part is that men and women who would make good leaders are intelligent and logical enough to never run for public office.

#12 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

He became the president.

#13 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Wrighteous86 said:

@TwoOneFive said:

Good. It's fucking bullshit. "Oh its not a war unless they shoot back" fuck obama.

I hope you thought it was bullshit when his predecessors did it too, then.

I find a lot of people bitch about everything Obama does, but had no reservations when Bush or any of the other presidents did the same things.

I hate a lot of the things Bush did, but I hate them now when Obama does them, too. I'm actually disappointed in how similar some of their policies have been.

of course i did.  
 
im sick of people like you who assume anyone who hates on obama is obviously a former bush supporter. 
#14 Edited by Wrighteous86 (3823 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

America is split into two extreme and divisive political groups. One side thinks Obama is the second coming and the other side think he's the antichrist. I wish that were an exaggeration, but both claims have been made sincerely (by wackos, obviously).

@TwoOneFive said:

of course i did. im sick of people like you who assume anyone who hates on obama is obviously a former bush supporter.

That's why I said "I hope". I didn't make the assumption, I just wanted clarification. The most vocal Obama opponents these days tend to be former Bush supporters who don't notice the hypocrisy.

#15 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Wrighteous86 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

America is split into two extreme and divisive political groups. One side thinks Obama is the second coming and the other side think he's the antichrist. I wish that were an exaggeration, but both claims have been made sincerely (by wackos, obviously).

dude lighten up the tides are changing and a lot of people are realizing that the mainstream leaders in both parties are full of shit, and are all in it for the same reasons. 
#16 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Obama's campaign was largely based on bringing a swift end to American involvement in Afghanistan, fixing the economy, and repairing relations between Democrats and Republicans. But things went in completely opposite directions. The U.S. is still in Afghanistan, the economy is still trying to recover, unemployment rates are hanging at a high level, and the Democrats and Republicans are at each others' throats.

Other things that didn't help was the way in which Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed a rather major healthcare bill. Communication on what the bill was and what it did for the public was insanely poor. Also, the Democrats at the time had a larger majority in Congress and were basically able to bulldoze their way into having the bill passed with Obama's support despite protests from the Republicans and from a large number of Americans that had no idea what the hell the bill even said because once again the Democrats were more focused on getting it passed than on informing people what it meant. Regardless of how beneficial the bill actually turns out to be (it's still too early to say), Obama did a piss-poor job in communicating its effects.

#17 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Wrighteous86 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

America is split into two extreme and divisive political groups. One side thinks Obama is the second coming and the other side think he's the antichrist. I wish that were an exaggeration, but both claims have been made sincerely (by wackos, obviously).

@TwoOneFive said:

of course i did. im sick of people like you who assume anyone who hates on obama is obviously a former bush supporter.

That's why I said "I hope". I didn't make the assumption, I just wanted clarification. The most vocal Obama opponents these days tend to be former Bush supporters who don't notice the hypocrisy.

well a lot of those people have also woken up and now realize what mess bush was as well. this is why i think it is so important for people to look at Ron Paul. The first thing people should like is the fact that the mainstream consistently tries to ignore him. That too me is a clear indication that he's saying, and doing the right things and of course people in power don't like it. 
#18 Posted by VisariLoyalist (3000 posts) -

I've always felt somewhat bewildered as to how congress continues to have any power at all. When you get right down to it it's just a large group of men arguing over things. They don't have an army to enforce that will so the only thing that keeps them in power is that the people would revolt if the executive tried to stage a coup. Still seems to me the real power is in the whitehouse especially under the patriot act, which in my view was akin to the enabling acts that allowed hitler to take power.

#19 Posted by Beaudacious (934 posts) -

I enjoy the modern western perspective of always focusing the precursor or the consequences while never focusing on the issue at hand and attempting to actually resolve an issue. Also in terms of legality you probably violate multiple laws on a daily basis with your daily routine. The modern western legal system has been transformed into a system of webs where there is a law in place to either support or counter every situation, and its impossible to not be accused of some kind of legal misdoing in any situation. Honestly i give props to Obama for making a decision and just sticking to it, the same thought process led to Osama Bin Laden's capture.
 
Also you could pull a Germany where you partake in international organizations by simply joining the club and then sitting on your hands. I like how everyone shits on the U.N,and every other international orginization but when it comes time to do your part everyone screams "Its none of our business!".

#20 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (4779 posts) -
@crusader8463 said:


                    I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

                   

               

Like most americans they cant figured out that change doesn't come within 2 days and most americans saw that stuff wasn't changing in 2 days so now they hate him. 
#21 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -
@TwoOneFive said:
@Wrighteous86 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

America is split into two extreme and divisive political groups. One side thinks Obama is the second coming and the other side think he's the antichrist. I wish that were an exaggeration, but both claims have been made sincerely (by wackos, obviously).

@TwoOneFive said:

of course i did. im sick of people like you who assume anyone who hates on obama is obviously a former bush supporter.

That's why I said "I hope". I didn't make the assumption, I just wanted clarification. The most vocal Obama opponents these days tend to be former Bush supporters who don't notice the hypocrisy.

well a lot of those people have also woken up and now realize what mess bush was as well. this is why i think it is so important for people to look at Ron Paul. The first thing people should like is the fact that the mainstream consistently tries to ignore him. That too me is a clear indication that he's saying, and doing the right things and of course people in power don't like it. 
Oooh, Ron Paul's a great idea. I'd love to have an impossibly old right-wing libertarian fence sitter who believes that regulations are evil as a president. I'd love for him to nullify the Supreme Court when it comes to religious and social issues, and I would love for him to let states do whatever the hell they want despite what the 14th amendment says about that sort of thing. Actually, I wouldn't.
#22 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@WilliamRLBaker: well as long as people keep voting for these mainstream selected candidates, you'll never get more than 50% change. 
#23 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@WilliamRLBaker: well as long as people keep voting for these mainstream selected candidates, you'll never get more than 50% change.

Says the guy that thinks electing Ron Paul as president would be a good idea.

#24 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

  want an alternative? here's what we have folks:

#25 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

I'm not so sure I want the father of a nutjob like Rand Paul as president frankly.

#26 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Snipzor said:
@TwoOneFive said:
@Wrighteous86 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

America is split into two extreme and divisive political groups. One side thinks Obama is the second coming and the other side think he's the antichrist. I wish that were an exaggeration, but both claims have been made sincerely (by wackos, obviously).

@TwoOneFive said:

of course i did. im sick of people like you who assume anyone who hates on obama is obviously a former bush supporter.

That's why I said "I hope". I didn't make the assumption, I just wanted clarification. The most vocal Obama opponents these days tend to be former Bush supporters who don't notice the hypocrisy.

well a lot of those people have also woken up and now realize what mess bush was as well. this is why i think it is so important for people to look at Ron Paul. The first thing people should like is the fact that the mainstream consistently tries to ignore him. That too me is a clear indication that he's saying, and doing the right things and of course people in power don't like it. 
Oooh, Ron Paul's a great idea. I'd love to have an impossibly old right-wing libertarian fence sitter who believes that regulations are evil as a president. I'd love for him to nullify the Supreme Court when it comes to religious and social issues, and I would love for him to let states do whatever the hell they want despite what the 14th amendment says about that sort of thing. Actually, I wouldn't.
boy do you have a gross distortment of ron paul's views. wow. 
#27 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@WilliamRLBaker: well as long as people keep voting for these mainstream selected candidates, you'll never get more than 50% change.

Says the guy that thinks electing Ron Paul as president would be a good idea.

and how is that ironic in any way? ron paul is anything but mainstream, it took decades for his beliefs to begin infecting the mainstream. everything people are talking about today, like limiting the size of government and cutting spending etc. is partially the result of Ron Paul's persistence on these issues. 
#28 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -
@TwoOneFive: Yea, that's what every Ron Paul fan tells me, then I tell them "I used to support Ron Paul", to which they denied. Then I cite the We The People Act sponsoring, and then I cite his belief in Austrian economics, and his former belief in going back to the gold standard, then I point out he's a states rights proponent but not a proponent of the rights of people. And then I point out he doesn't believe in the right to privacy.
#29 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@TwoOneFive: Honestly, how would Ron Paul be any better? He's a fringe Republican with Libertarian leanings whom almost no one outside of hyper-idealizing college students take seriously as an actual candidate.

#30 Edited by Aronman789 (2671 posts) -

Politics are all shit, I say we all go back to city-sates.

#31 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@Snipzor said:

@TwoOneFive: Yea, that's what every Ron Paul fan tells me, then I tell them "I used to support Ron Paul", to which they denied. Then I cite the We The People Act sponsoring, and then I cite his belief in Austrian economics, and his former belief in going back to the gold standard, then I point out he's a states rights proponent but not a proponent of the rights of people. And then I point out he doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

Ron Paul STILL supports the gold standard. He was on, I want to say the Colbert Report or Daily Show, to talk about it. Idiotic idea overall.

#32 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive: Honestly, how would Ron Paul be any better? He's a fringe Republican with Libertarian leanings whom almost no one outside of hyper-idealizing college students take seriously as an actual candidate.

What are you watching Fox News or something? Ron Paul is being taken serious by everyone now.  
And how would he be better? 
 
For one, he's the only candidate willing to admit that our foriegn policy is a big reason why people hate us and want to attack us and we're less safe for it. he's the only who doesn't just say he wants to end these wars, but would do it. he has a very good understanding of the economy and the root of why its bad and consistently has predicted everything bad that's happened to it for decades.  
 
Obama=more wars, more spending, more patriot act, more more more of the same.  
Paul=no more wars, much much less spending, no more patriot act etc etc etc.  
 
why not people? why keep voting for people who only debate on things that they all agree upon!?!? it makes no fucking sense. 
#33 Posted by Purple_Proletarius (170 posts) -

Ron Paul is so underground.

#34 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@MariachiMacabre said:

@Snipzor said:

@TwoOneFive: Yea, that's what every Ron Paul fan tells me, then I tell them "I used to support Ron Paul", to which they denied. Then I cite the We The People Act sponsoring, and then I cite his belief in Austrian economics, and his former belief in going back to the gold standard, then I point out he's a states rights proponent but not a proponent of the rights of people. And then I point out he doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

Ron Paul STILL supports the gold standard. He was on, I want to say the Colbert Report or Daily Show, to talk about it. Idiotic idea overall.

Oh but endlessly printing money and devaluing the dollar isn't idiotic... hmm. besides, as president he can't do that anyways, as he routinely points out, but what he wants to do is try to restore some value and shrink the federal reserve and hold them accountable. 
#35 Posted by actionTACO (496 posts) -

"thares gold in that dare mountain! wind ding diddly do!!!" - pron haul  
 
he's got my vote! 

#36 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@actionTACO: thats fucking stupid and not funny at all. bad call. 
#37 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@actionTACO said:

"thares gold in that dare mountain! wind ding diddly do!!!" - pron haul he's got my vote!

I laughed.

#38 Posted by SSully (4324 posts) -

@TwoOneFive: The grass is always greener on the other side. A lot of the things you are saying to make ronny sound so great is the same bullshit people said about obama when he was running. Have fun with your false idea of a better leader, because that is all you have in Ron Paul.

#39 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive: Honestly, how would Ron Paul be any better? He's a fringe Republican with Libertarian leanings whom almost no one outside of hyper-idealizing college students take seriously as an actual candidate.

What are you watching Fox News or something? Ron Paul is being taken serious by everyone now. And how would he be better? For one, he's the only candidate willing to admit that our foriegn policy is why people hate us and want to attack us. he's the only who doesn't just say he wants to end these wars, but would do it. he has a very good understanding of the economy and the root of why its bad and consistently has predicted everything bad that's happened to it for decades. Obama=more wars, more spending, more patriot act, more more more of the same. Paul=no more wars, much much less spending, no more patriot act etc etc etc. why not people? why keep voting for people who only debate on things that they all agree upon!?!? it makes no fucking sense.

Man, what? You don't need to be a Fox News junkie to understand how inadequate Paul is as presidential material. For the record, I get my political news from a variety of sources, none of which are Fox News. I mean, seriously:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Snipzor said:

@TwoOneFive: Yea, that's what every Ron Paul fan tells me, then I tell them "I used to support Ron Paul", to which they denied. Then I cite the We The People Act sponsoring, and then I cite his belief in Austrian economics, and his former belief in going back to the gold standard, then I point out he's a states rights proponent but not a proponent of the rights of people. And then I point out he doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

Ron Paul STILL supports the gold standard. He was on, I want to say the Colbert Report or Daily Show, to talk about it. Idiotic idea overall.

Tell me, TwoOneFive, does this sound like a guy that has a solid understanding of economics? You're as much of a zealot as those Lyndon LaRouche-supporting nutjobs I had to walk by every day on my way to class when I was in college.

#40 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@SSully said:

@TwoOneFive: The grass is always greener on the other side. A lot of the things you are saying to make ronny sound so great is the same bullshit people said about obama when he was running. Have fun with your false idea of a better leader, because that is all you have in Ron Paul.

what the fuck are you talking about?! and "ronny" grow the fuck up. 
Ron Paul has a very long and absolutely perfectly consistent record. Oh you think he'll get elected and shit on his entire career up to that point?!  do some research. this guy is legit. he doesnt flip flop
#41 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Purple_Proletarius said:

Ron Paul is so underground.

Ron Paul: The Hipster's Choice

#42 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel: so you know so much about paul, explain to me his economic beliefs? you don't know what you're talking about, and i don't need your reassurance that you get news from different sources. and what the hell does "presidential material" mean? sounds like some load of horse shit to me. i guess we should vote for Mitt Romney because he looks like presidential material huh? 
 Paul supports the gold standard. but he also understands that its no longer possible, so he only wants to make sure that we have sound money. 
#43 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive: Honestly, how would Ron Paul be any better? He's a fringe Republican with Libertarian leanings whom almost no one outside of hyper-idealizing college students take seriously as an actual candidate.

What are you watching Fox News or something? Ron Paul is being taken serious by everyone now. And how would he be better? For one, he's the only candidate willing to admit that our foriegn policy is why people hate us and want to attack us. he's the only who doesn't just say he wants to end these wars, but would do it. he has a very good understanding of the economy and the root of why its bad and consistently has predicted everything bad that's happened to it for decades. Obama=more wars, more spending, more patriot act, more more more of the same. Paul=no more wars, much much less spending, no more patriot act etc etc etc. why not people? why keep voting for people who only debate on things that they all agree upon!?!? it makes no fucking sense.

Man, what? You don't need to be a Fox News junkie to understand how inadequate Paul is as presidential material. For the record, I get my political news from a variety of sources, none of which are Fox News. I mean, seriously:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Snipzor said:

@TwoOneFive: Yea, that's what every Ron Paul fan tells me, then I tell them "I used to support Ron Paul", to which they denied. Then I cite the We The People Act sponsoring, and then I cite his belief in Austrian economics, and his former belief in going back to the gold standard, then I point out he's a states rights proponent but not a proponent of the rights of people. And then I point out he doesn't believe in the right to privacy.

Ron Paul STILL supports the gold standard. He was on, I want to say the Colbert Report or Daily Show, to talk about it. Idiotic idea overall.

Tell me, TwoOneFive, does this sound like a guy that has a solid understanding of economics? You're as much of a zealot as those Lyndon LaRouche-supporting nutjobs I had to walk by every day on my way to class when I was in college.

and yes, this is a guy who has a solid understanding of economics:   
#44 Posted by Snipzor (3317 posts) -
@TwoOneFive: Who knew delivering babies made you an expert in everything those 4,000+ babies mastered in later in their lives, and they clearly did seeing as Ronnie P is older than John McCain and the constitution combined.
#45 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: so you know so much about paul, explain to me his economic beliefs? you don't know what you're talking about, and i don't need your reassurance that you get news from different sources. and what the hell does "presidential material" mean? sounds like some load of horse shit to me. i guess we should vote for Mitt Romney because he looks like presidential material huh?

You know, it takes all of five seconds to Google "Ron Paul Austrian Economics" right? Even you can do that, I'm sure.

#46 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel: i was asking you to answer the question. which you didn't. i already know where he stands.  
@Snipzor said: 

@TwoOneFive: Who knew delivering babies made you an expert in everything those 4,000+ babies mastered in later in their lives, and they clearly did seeing as Ronnie P is older than John McCain and the constitution combined.

look dude you want to be condescending have fun. you're just making yourself look naive. 
#47 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@deusdigit said:


There is apparently an article from Ron Paul somewhere on google also talking extensively about this subject/issue.

here it is:    

Why I'm Suing the Obama Administration over Libya
By Rep. Ron Paul   10:30 PM 06/16/2011

ADVERTISEMENT

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

Rep. Ron Paul represents Texas’s 14th Congressional District and is a Republican candidate for president.

#48 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: i was asking you to answer the question. which you didn't. i already know where he stands.

Yeah, on shaky ground given that his preferred economic school has little to nothing to do with mathematics or statistical analysis and is mostly based on antiquated concepts that the larger school of economic theory gave up in the 1930s. What would you like? A thesis?

Not that you'd listen to me either way.

#49 Posted by Jazzycola (658 posts) -

@TwoOneFive: I'm guessing your about 19 or 20....your going through your political phase. Imma give you a hint. Just walk away. Look you have your political opinions and that's great but politics shouldn't be taken seriously. Ron Paul has some great points but the fact of the matter is he's just a libertarian and libertarians will never get elected to the White House. Presidential elections aren't based on candidate's hardcore left or right opinion it's based on how much one person will sacrifice their opinion's to be president. Robert Redford's "The Candidate" portrays this pretty well. By the end of an election you have a choice between the moderate with the donkey or an elephant behind him. Rather then venting your opinion and trying to prove people wrong on a forum go out and support ron paul at events or volunteer for his campaign.

#50 Posted by MentalDisruption (1670 posts) -

This kind of "I'm right and there's no way I'm wrong in supporting this" stance that TwoOneFive is taking is the reason I avoid politics. Makes for a bitch of a conversation that goes nowhere.