Ron Paul CNBC Debate Highlights10-09-07
tags:
Stumble ThisHighlights of Ron Paul speaking during the CNBC GOP debates October 9, 2007.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Ron Paul,Currency,Inflation,Defence,Iran,Unions,War,Constitution,Debate Ron Paul CNBC Debate Highlights10-09-07
Comments  playlists with this video The Great 21st Century Housing Bubble by marinara
• AllKindsOfAwesome by Farhad2000
• Election08 - (R) Ron Paul by joedirt
• Election08 - Debates by joedirt
who voted for this video dr20
- Grimm
- siftbot
x40 - jake
who has this post bookmarked Constitutional_Patriot
- firedoggod
- Grimm
- finch451
Ron Paul CNBC Debate Highlights10-09-07 Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 13. lore_weaver
(199 votes) 15. Nonbrainwashed
(170 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
does anyone remember his stance on America as a christian nation
What I miss though on the sift is the other candidates. I dont actually live in the US so I have no idea who is who etc. Looking at the sift, you would think Ron Paul is the only candidate. Perhaps some good posts from Obama, Clinton, Cain, etc?
Over the last year it's been interesting to watch him speak out with more confidence and authority in these debates.
And Ron Paul was right. We weren't attacked directly by an announced country. They were terrorists. There's no official government to declare war on... get that through your head Rudi.
EXACTLY.
Clearly I'm not as versed in Paul's views as many others here, but for those of you who are, please enlighten me. Obviously my example is a pretty specific one, but I'm just looking for a general bird's eye of his ideas.
What we have been doing in all the wars since WWII is to go against the Constitution and go to war with countries without declaring war. Voting to give the President the power to go to war lets Congress off the hook if things go bad. Look at all the Democrats that voted for it making all kinds of excuses now and putting the blame on Bush for taking us there and keeping us there.
I guess what gums up the works, as usual, is that terrorists are generally stateless, so my question would be more accurately put: Does Ron Paul mean that he would never strike terrorist targets (who we know are plotting to attack us, so there is an imminent threat) ever unless we first declared war with whatever country they are geographically located in?
It happens quickly but if you watch again you will see that he agrees that the President should act without the approval of Congress in a situation of "imminent attack" or "fleeting enemys". But Rudy, Mitt, and the gang want the President to be able to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran because if they don't in 5-10 years they might have the capability to make nuclear weapons. That does not require the snap judgment of the President under the guise of "eminent attack".
We did not declare war on Afghanistan when went after the terrorists there. So no he does not think we have to declare war on a country when protecting ourselves from terrorist groups independent of the country hiding in that country.
http://www.videosift.com/playlists/eric3579/dead