Ron Paul moves to limit Executive power - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Ron Paul moves to limit Executive power

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Found this after posting the foregoing, from one of my favorites:

    http://jdpendry.com/

    Closing in on the 2006 elections, I heard many self-proclaimed conservatives lamenting the condition of the political party that was supposed to be representative of them and with cause. Many said they were so frustrated they weren’t even going to vote. Maybe the Republicans needed to lose. It would punish them. Teach them a lesson. That was the attitude that gave America over to the fine leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is America, not a political party, that’s being punished and at a time when Congressional leadership should be concerned with the interests and security of America rather than the destruction of an opposing political party. It is also a time when each American must responsibly exercise the right to vote.

    Again, many of the self-proclaimed are vowing that they’ll vote only if Mr. or Ms. Perfect is a ballot choice. That would be the candidate held to higher standards than many of the self-proclaimed can live up to themselves. I have some news for people who think like that. When Mr. Perfect does make his appearance, he’ll be the only candidate and there won’t be any need for ballots. In the meantime, however, we’ll have to pick the best available person to lead us or sit back and allow others to do it while we pine away our opportunity or toss away our vote.

    George H. W. Bush invited all of us to read his lips. We did. Then he went right out and raised our taxes anyway. Because of that and some other things, conservatives wanted to abandon ship. When 1992 rolled around, H. Ross Perot became the better alternative choice for those seeking perfection. Unfortunately for America, Mr. Perot’s candidacy allowed Bill Clinton to become our president with only 43 percent of the popular vote. When combined, Perot and Bush accounted for 56 percent of the popular vote. We can’t be sure that all of the 19 percent that voted Perot would have voted for Bush, but it’s safe to assume most might have. The only thing accomplished by the third party candidacy was raising the status of White House interns.

    Next was the 1996 election. Bill Clinton won that one with 49.2 percent of the vote, while Perot and Bob Dole combined for 49.1 percent. It is more interesting than that however. If you review the state by state results, you will see that in 13 states where Clinton won, the popular vote for Perot and Dole combined was more that that received by Clinton. Conceivably, Dole could have won in those states and ended up with more Electoral College votes than Clinton and enough to be elected. Again, Mr. Perot’s candidacy served only to secure the White House for Bill Clinton.

    The independent or third party rumblings our out there again. One candidate is not pro-life enough. Another is not Christian enough. Another is too moderate. One is too lackadaisical… The media makes a concerted effort to point out to conservatives why they shouldn’t like a particular candidate. Generally it is the one they most fear at the time. That is not by happenstance. It is a liberal Democrat media after all. I assure you that if a third party candidate does emerge, the media will bill him as the second coming for conservatives thereby ensuring he peels away enough of the vote to put the Clintons back in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If that is what you desire, act accordingly.

    Before you cast your protest vote or keep it home altogether, maybe you should consider another approach. There are some basic things that are most crucial to the survival of our country over the next decade. The candidates left standing for the General Election in November 2008 stand to have the most impact on those basic issues. I intend to vote for the one most likely to get us where we need to be.

    National security is at the top of my list. There are three things on it that the President must address. We must become energy independent. We must stop transferring our national wealth to Middle East despots. Beyond that, we need to become energy exporters not importers and competitors rather than consumers on the world energy market. We can make it difficult for OPEC. We must stop illegal immigration starting with secure borders and other ports of entry. Our military is too small. It may not need to be back to Cold War size, but it does need to increase to meet our post 9/11 requirements.

    Our next president will appoint new judges to the Supreme Court. A judge that will strictly interpret the Constitution and apply it to decisions as opposed to applying personal, constitutionally unsupported views is what we need. Those things that we hold dear, like abortion, will be decided by the Supreme Court Judges appointed by the President, not by the President himself.

    Then follows important domestic issues: Replacing our tax system with something sensible like the fair tax, a free market health insurance solution for health care and fixing the Social Security system so that it becomes a societal benefit rather than a societal burden.

    There are no perfect candidates, but when the time comes there will clearly be a best one.
    [Emphasis added]
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32° & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    It's sad that we have arrived at a point in time where legislation requiring the president to follow the law has to be introduced. Unfortunately, it is necessary, and Ron Paul realizes this. I like that he knows the limits of executive power as they are set forth in the constitution and I would gladly vote for him.

    Also, I have long questioned the truthfulness of intelligence gathered from torture. How can we be 100% sure that the person being tortured isn't just saying whatever he feels he needs to say to get the torture to stop? The same goes for suspects who are abused while in custody, which is why coercive interrogations were long ago ruled unconstitutional. I know if I'm having water poured on my face (waterboarding), I'm going to tell my captors whatever it is I have to tell them, even if it is not true, in order to get it to stop, and I'm willing to bet the rent that all of you would too.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084

    If the shoe fits...

    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32° & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  5. #14
    Conservatives against Ron Paul...

    February 1998 on former President Bill “Slick-Willie” Clinton’s watch…
    Usama Bin Ladin, exiled from his own country and Ayman Al Zawahiri, another criminal; arranged from their Afghanistan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish his declaration of war on America; Bin Ladin in this declaration translated and published world wide by the associated press, et. al., called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth and as the individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.

    Three months later when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin Ladin enlarged on these themes. He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans then to kill other infidels. It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier then to squander his efforts on other activities, he said. When asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied: We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets…

    This is why informed and clear thinking Americans oppose Ron Paul's bid to become president. The main reason is this: He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East.
    America is under siege from Islamo-fascist enemies. We've been attacked – the worst ever in our history. This is no time to back down or even to appear to be weak.

    It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.

    The defense of the country is a paramount issue in a presidential election. It is the most important responsibility of the executive branch of government. Yet, Paul's positions on the key defense and security issues of the day are closer to those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry than Ronald Reagan.



    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

    Mike Huckabee on the issues and policy...
    http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cf...on=Issues.Home

  6. But he wants to make happy smoke ok. We can just sit back and let Billery do their thing.
    Fred and Huck seem to be the best but are they electabale?

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East of Cleveland.... FAR East !
    Posts
    215
    + 1 for me. I was for Ron Paul, and still am for the most, but there are others out there that may be just a tad better. I do agree that we stand a better chance undivided in our voting. We seem to all want similar ideals. So, we should all try and stay in the same mindset when it comes to all this in November.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast