• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul - Anti-gay, anti-women, abortion is murder.

joko104 said:
Ron Paul voted for The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001 = the basis of military action in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul supporters will often try to deny the truth about Paul. When presented, they will then shift or ignore. Ron Paul's later explanation is that he didn't think the President would do what he did in Afghanistan and that he had been tricked to voting for it. He said that in the last debate also.

THIS is what Ron Paul voted for, exactly:

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.



Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."


Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul voted to give W Bush total and unrestricted power to use any and all military action against any country on earth and any and all military power anyway the President wanted against ANY country, ANY organization and ANY person.

NOW he claims he was always against the war and some of his supporters accept that as accurate. They rage, furiously deny it ever happened and demand proof - even when Paul himself acknowledged in the recent debates.
Click to expand...

Yes he did vote for this. And I'm glad he did. This does not warrant anything further than using military action against the attackers of the US in the 9/11 attacks. How is this contradictory to anything Ron Paul has said? When did he ever say that those who attacked us in 9/11 should go free? That the US shouldn't fight back against those people?
 
joko104 said:
Ron Paul voted for The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001 = the basis of military action in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul supporters will often try to deny the truth about Paul. When presented, they will then shift or ignore. Ron Paul's later explanation is that he didn't think the President would do what he did in Afghanistan and that he had been tricked to voting for it. He said that in the last debate also.

THIS is what Ron Paul voted for, exactly:

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.



Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."


Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul voted to give W Bush total and unrestricted power to use any and all military action against any country on earth and any and all military power anyway the President wanted against ANY country, ANY organization and ANY person.

NOW he claims he was always against the war and some of his supporters accept that as accurate. They rage, furiously deny it ever happened and demand proof - even when Paul himself acknowledged in the recent debates.
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean that we should rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq or anything else. These wars are senseless. We've gone far beyond what this bill said we would do. That's what he's against. He never once said we shouldn't be doing exactly what this bill outlined. If that's your accusation, the burden of proof is on you.
 
fredmertz said:
This doesn't mean that we should rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq or anything else. These wars are senseless. We've gone far beyond what this bill said we would do. That's what he's against. He never once said we shouldn't be doing exactly what this bill outlined. If that's your accusation, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. In his own Bill he specifically declared the government should hunt down Osama Bin Laden "DEAD or ALIVE" and in this Bill that HE VOTED FOR, he specifically voted to use any and all military force anywhere in the world. However, to the exact contradiction he condemned the taking/killing of Bin Laden claiming it was illegal to do so in Pakistan - AN ACTION IN EXACTLY OPPOSITE WHAT RON PAUL VOTED FOR - and he has NOW condemned drone strikes in Pakistan to kill Al Quaeda - WHICH HE ALSO VOTED FOR TO BE ALLOWED. He both personally proposes in his own bill and then voted for in another any military action in any country in the world.

Nice how you shift that REALLY the issue is that it WENT TO FAR, rather than the universal claim of Paul supporters that he always opposed all of it. It also certainly contradicts the denials of his Bill and his vote on the actual military action bill that passed.

My point? Ron Paul supporters claim he is a strict constitutionalist (his Bill and his proposals on abortion are exactly opposite his own prior statements) and that he is an ethical purist on foreign interventions for the platitudes he cites now are EXACTLY opposite his ACTUAL vote on foreign intrusions, just like his platitudes against earmarks are 100% opposite his actual actions on Bills of which he is in the top 10% for inserting earmarks into legislation.

What I have proven? I have proven that Ron Paul just another career politician (decades) who says one thing while doing exactly the opposite. In that regards he is no different from any of the others. On flipflopping? Not even Romney can match Paul.
 
Last edited:
Chaddelamancha said:
This coming from the person that choose to ignore jasonxe's post (#14) in it's entirety.
Click to expand...

That's false. He has opted to ignore my responses however.
 
American said:
Ron Paul certainly isn't perfect, but he's steadily libertarian.
Click to expand...

He should be running then as a libertarian on the libertarian ticket rather than as a spoiler for Obama.
 
joko104 said:
Yes he did. In his own Bill he specifically declared the government should hunt down Osama Bin Laden "DEAD or ALIVE" and in this Bill that HE VOTED FOR, he specifically voted to use any and all military force anywhere in the world. However, to the exact contradiction he condemned the taking/killing of Bin Laden claiming it was illegal to do so in Pakistan - AN ACTION IN EXACTLY OPPOSITE WHAT RON PAUL VOTED FOR - and he has NOW condemned drone strikes in Pakistan to kill Al Quaeda - WHICH HE ALSO VOTED FOR TO BE ALLOWED. He both personally proposes in his own bill and then voted for in another any military action in any country in the world.
Click to expand...

The bill never passed. That means that there was no legal authorization in the eyes of Paul. It's not the killing of Bin Laden that bothers Paul, but the means done used for it.

joko104 said:
Nice how you shift that REALLY the issue is that it WENT TO FAR, rather than the universal claim of Paul supporters that he always opposed all of it. It also certainly contradicts the denials of his Bill and his vote on the actual military action bill that passed.
Click to expand...

When did Paul claim that he was always against any type of military action in Afghanistan?

joko104 said:
My point? Ron Paul supporters claim he is a strict constitutionalist (his Bill and his proposals on abortion are exactly opposite his own prior statements) and that he is an ethical purist on foreign interventions for the platitudes he cites now are EXACTLY opposite his ACTUAL vote on foreign intrusions, just like his platitudes against earmarks are 100% opposite his actual actions on Bills of which he is in the top 10% for inserting earmarks into legislation.

What I have proven? I have proven that Ron Paul just another career politician (decades) who says one thing while doing exactly the opposite. In that regards he is no different from any of the others. On flipflopping? Not even Romney can match Paul.
Click to expand...

I won't say that Ron Paul is perfect, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
There's no debate with someone who just denies absolute reality. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001.
Notice the word "enacted."
YES, IT DID PASS.

Of Paul's bill that didn't, IN HIS WORDS he called literally in proposed legislation - louder than just a speech then - specifically for Bin Laden to be hunted down anywhere in the world except in the territory of the USA DEAD OR ALIVE."

Are you arguing now that Pakistan isn't on earth? OR that Pakistan is a US territory? Or that Ron Paul didn't condemn the attack? Which one?

Are you arguing that the drone attacks in Pakistan haven't killed Al Queda - that PAUL declared should be hunted down anywhere in the world?

Mostly, your shifting now from arguing the actions Bush/Obama took - which I'm not arguing that either way. I'm pointing out the EXTREME hypocrisy of Ron Paul and absolute flipflopping.

I'm also pointing out the nature of many Ron Paul supporters. It is a cult follower mentality for many. Why don't you just say "Ron Paul changed his mind" and be done with it? The reason is that you can not except any sin or flaw by Ron Paul has ever been possible because he is perfection. More specifically, he is YOU, and you then define and redefine him as exactly whatever you want him to be.

Ron Paul lacks the mentality to think in relative terms - only the most extreme absolutes around absolute platitudes.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Yes he did. In his own Bill he specifically declared the government should hunt down Osama Bin Laden "DEAD or ALIVE" and in this Bill that HE VOTED FOR, he specifically voted to use any and all military force anywhere in the world. However, to the exact contradiction he condemned the taking/killing of Bin Laden claiming it was illegal to do so in Pakistan - AN ACTION IN EXACTLY OPPOSITE WHAT RON PAUL VOTED FOR - and he has NOW condemned drone strikes in Pakistan to kill Al Quaeda - WHICH HE ALSO VOTED FOR TO BE ALLOWED. He both personally proposes in his own bill and then voted for in another any military action in any country in the world.

Nice how you shift that REALLY the issue is that it WENT TO FAR, rather than the universal claim of Paul supporters that he always opposed all of it. It also certainly contradicts the denials of his Bill and his vote on the actual military action bill that passed.

My point? Ron Paul supporters claim he is a strict constitutionalist (his Bill and his proposals on abortion are exactly opposite his own prior statements) and that he is an ethical purist on foreign interventions for the platitudes he cites now are EXACTLY opposite his ACTUAL vote on foreign intrusions, just like his platitudes against earmarks are 100% opposite his actual actions on Bills of which he is in the top 10% for inserting earmarks into legislation.

What I have proven? I have proven that Ron Paul just another career politician (decades) who says one thing while doing exactly the opposite. In that regards he is no different from any of the others. On flipflopping? Not even Romney can match Paul.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to an article with quotes from an interview explaining his position: Why Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Osama Bin Laden Killing - ABC News

He's not saying that it was illegal or unconstitutional to kill Osama. Just that he would have done it differently. I'm not trying to skew the facts here... but the fact is he did want Osama dead. Voted that we should take military action to do just that and then disagreed with the exact military action. I think that's a fair statement and I don't think there's anything contradictory about it. I agree that we should have killed Osama (and I don't mind how we did it either, I disagree with Paul there), but if we sent a nuke to Pakistan to do it, I would've been upset. Everyone has their line and Paul's point is that we could have done it in a better way. Not that it was unconsitutional.

To clarify: he does claim that our actions go against the Pakistan laws, which it does. And so we are provoking perhaps unnecessarily. He never said that killing Osama was against US law. Just that we disrespected a country unnecessarily. I disagree: I think it was necessary because Pakistan was harboring him (IMO). Paul believes that without conclusive proof of this, we should have asked before barging through the back door.
 
Last edited:
fredmertz said:
Here's a link to an article with quotes from an interview explaining his position: Why Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Osama Bin Laden Killing - ABC News

He's not saying that it was illegal or unconstitutional to kill Osama. Just that he would have done it differently. I'm not trying to skew the facts here... but the fact is he did want Osama dead. Voted that we should take military action to do just that and then disagreed with the exact military action. I think that's a fair statement and I don't think there's anything contradictory about it. I agree that we should have killed Osama (and I don't mind how we did it either, I disagree with Paul there), but if we sent a nuke to Pakistan to do it, I would've been upset. Everyone has their line and Paul's point is that we could have done it in a better way. Not that it was unconsitutional.

To clarify: he does claim that our actions go against the Pakistan laws, which it does. And so we are provoking perhaps unnecessarily. He never said that killing Osama was against US law. Just that we disrespected a country unnecessarily. I disagree: I think it was necessary because Pakistan was harboring him (IMO). Paul believes that without conclusive proof of this, we should have asked before barging through the back door.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response and it is directly responsive. Instead it was just Dr. No being Dr. Negative, but it is a distinction from him fully objecting.

My view is still a 3rd view. I am highly skeptical that it was Bin Laden at all and, if it was, they should have taken him alive which, by accounts given whoever that man was could have been. Since Seal Team 6 was blown up in a large helicopter very shortly afterwards - with those the most unexplored deaths I've seen - we'll never really know, will we?

Not to sound to much conspiracy, I think it is possible they killed some old guy, threw his body in the ocean to make certain no independent DNA testing was done, and then got rid of the witnesses, Seal Team 6. Then again, how can I know.
 
joko104 said:
There's no debate with someone who just denies absolute reality. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001.
Notice the word "enacted."
YES, IT DID PASS.
Click to expand...

Paul's bill did not. According to Paul, killing Bin Laden was fine, as long as certain procedure was followed. That procedure was not followed. Like Fred, I disagree that with Paul on where to draw the exact line, but there is nothing inconsistent about it. You may want a rapist punished, but that doesn't allow an angry man to kill the suspected rapist with no due process.

Really, this is all getting really old.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Paul's bill did not. According to Paul, killing Bin Laden was fine, as long as certain procedure was followed. That procedure was not followed. Like Fred, I disagree that with Paul on where to draw the exact line, but there is nothing inconsistent about it. You may want a rapist punished, but that doesn't allow an angry man to kill the suspected rapist with no due process.

Really, this is all getting really old.
Click to expand...

Yes, Paul is willing to use writ of reprisal which is a constitutionally granted power of the Congress. I agree with it, the government was given legitimate means through which it can do these things; and it should use those means only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom