Not Helping His Case-

[returningliberty]

Ron Paul on Al-Awlaki
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...illing-american-militant-without-due-process/

I have to say, This is the last straw for me. I refuse to vote an economic disaster out of office just so this creep can weaken our national defense even more. At least Obama had the intestinal fortitude to give "a very bad guy a very bad day".

If pigs fly and this man gets the republican nomination, I'm voting for Trump.

Edited to fix link, apparently my phone is a perv.

 

[SpeedRacer]

Your link sent me to "The Worlds Tightest Dress". I think you copied the URL in the wrong window.

As for Ron Paul, I go back and forth on it. As much as we all want to see these ****ers dead, he does make some valid points.

 

[returningliberty]

LOL really? My bad I'll fix it when I get home. I sent it from my phone

 

[whitsend]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...illing-american-militant-without-due-process/

 

[Russo]

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, joined Rep. Paul in condemning the killing of al-Awlaki, saying the Obama administration had "crossed a dangerous divide and set a dangerous precedent for how the United States handle terrorism cases."

there's my future president and vice president ;-)

 

[returningliberty]

Thank you, whitsend, that wasnt the article i was linking but its better than the other one anyway, I put it in the Original post.

Russo, I believe you lol. You would feel that way.

 

[VagabondLiberty]

Honest question, what is so offensive to you about what Ron Paul said in the article to make it the last straw?

 

[returningliberty]

Honest question, what is so offensive to you about what Ron Paul said in the article to make it the last straw?

I'll start with saying I had read and "posted" a different article, with a line that this article paraphrases instead of quoting, but it really is the same message. Mr. Paul called this Drone strike an assassination of an american citizen; totally disregarding the fact that this (now dead, thank god) man Repeatedly called for Jihad against the US. At that moment he committed treason, not just conspiracy to commit murder. Along with that, he was a member and a regional commander of Al Qaeda, and an enemy combatant. He trained terrorists, preached to them, and was allegedly involved in both the christmas day bombings and the Ft. Hood shooting. A legitamate target. And Paul wouldn't have killed him.
taken along with his other foreign policy antics it's safe to say he's more dangerous, in his own way, than Obama.

he's a bit taken from a Ron paul interview about Osama Bin Laden:

The host, sounding a little shocked, sought to clarify even more, ”I think you’re being very clear…I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth, but you’re telling me a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan.”
“Not the way it took place, no,” replied Paul.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/12/r...ot-have-ordered-bin-laden-kill/#ixzz1ZVilsvUP

I'm not going to go on because most Ron Paul People I run into will make excuses for him all night, but the simple fact is the man is just another Neville Chamberlain and we can't afford that kind of cowardice in the modern world.

 

[kcinnick]

I'll start with saying I had read and "posted" a different article, with a line that this article paraphrases instead of quoting, but it really is the same message. Mr. Paul called this Drone strike an assassination of an american citizen; totally disregarding the fact that this (now dead, thank god) man Repeatedly called for Jihad against the US. At that moment he committed treason, not just conspiracy to commit murder. Along with that, he was a member and a regional commander of Al Qaeda, and an enemy combatant. He trained terrorists, preached to them, and was allegedly involved in both the christmas day bombings and the Ft. Hood shooting. A legitamate target. And Paul wouldn't have killed him.
taken along with his other foreign policy antics it's safe to say he's more dangerous, in his own way, than Obama.

he's a bit taken from a Ron paul interview about Osama Bin Laden:

The host, sounding a little shocked, sought to clarify even more, ”I think you’re being very clear…I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth, but you’re telling me a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan.”
“Not the way it took place, no,” replied Paul.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/12/r...ot-have-ordered-bin-laden-kill/#ixzz1ZVilsvUP

I'm not going to go on because most Ron Paul People I run into will make excuses for him all night, but the simple fact is the man is just another Neville Chamberlain and we can't afford that kind of cowardice in the modern world.

You can't let the government disregard the highlighted words.

 

[charliepapa]

Ron Paul makes a very good point, however, this is a WAR. IMHO, the situation regarding al-Awlaki is apples to oranges compared to Timothy McVeigh's. I don't really give Obama much of the credit anyway. He was probably playing golf or sitting around somewhere with his feet on the furniture when it went down.

 

[kz45]

Let me see if I understand this, Ron Paul is not helping his case by saying he believes in the Rule of Law, and the Constitution?
Its okay for the government to assassinate its citizens, just because they say their a terrorist?
This looks like one of those slippery slope situations

 

[Dave328]

Exactly. But methinks your analogy will be lost on many here... unless they google Chamberlain...

.

Sad but true. And unfortunately the drones will stay their course and allow Paul to "Ross Perot" the actual GOP candidate. Giving us 4 more years of the **** we're in now. But what do we un-enlightened folk know....

 

[Pacioli]

Exactly. But methinks your analogy will be lost on many here... unless they google Chamberlain... .

There are some here who are old enough to have gone to school when history was still being taught, we don't need google. For the rest, you're probably right.

 

[returningliberty]

There are some here who are old enough to have gone to school when history was still being taught, we don't need google. For the rest, you're probably right.

I learned history the hard way: actually picking up a book and reading. Most people my age cant even do that effectively. Ask a 20'something to read a book out loud to you and you'll probably be Shocked. You can't know history if you don't read well.

 

[Yrdawg]

Killing American Citizens b/c they are terrorist ??

Didn't the Federal Gvt have a hand in the strike on Bonney and Clyde ?? Who were american citizens and were gunned down without a trial ...from the history I know they were not given an oportunity to surrender, just gunned down b/c they wuz mad dawg killahs.

So maybe send the next alzawaheari to Monroe, or maybe even Big Woods we'll handle up on that little trick.

 

[VagabondLiberty]

First off, this was an assassination. Plain and simple with no questions asked, it was an assassination. Secondly, if this American Citizen was truly guilty of all of these things then bring him home, try him for treason and then execute him upon finding him guilty. You know, according to that Constitution thing we supposedly still believe in and support. Third, defining him as an enemy combatant has numerous problems. The most notable of those problems being that the United States is not at war with Yemen. If he was truly an enemy combatant, then why didn't the FBI arrest him and send him to Guantanamo Bay back in 2001 or again in 2007 when they had him in custody or in 2002 when they could have arrested him on multiple charges. Also, if he was an enemy combatant, why didn't the U.S. government push for his extradition while he was incarcerated in Yemen for 18 months.

Yes, it would have required more work to capture him alive and bring him to justice back here in the U.S. I don't disagree that he should have been made to meet his fate if he was guilty of his alleged crimes. What I have a problem with is the targeted assassination of a U.S. Citizen in a foreign country with which we are not at war.

Finally, don't believe that Ron Paul will Ross Perot this election. He easily could have done so in the last election and he didn't do so. If you are truly worried about someone Ross Peroting the election and interfering with the precious GOP annointed one, then worry about Sarah Palin and her recent comments. She is the one who knows she has no shot at the Republican nomination and the ego to go third party.

 

[gsneff]

If it wasn't for his foreign policy I could easily back him for POTUS. It's that reason I'll back a libertarian for the legislature but NEVER for the executive branch. We need someone who can make the right calls to win a war.

 

[Russo]

If it wasn't for his foreign policy I could easily back him for POTUS. It's that reason I'll back a libertarian for the legislature but NEVER for the executive branch. We need someone who can make the right calls to win a war.

what war? last war i heard we declared was in Iraq and we won that in two weeks..

 

[JBP55]

what war? last war i heard we declared was in Iraq and we won that in two weeks..

The last war we won was 66 years ago.

 

[returningliberty]

what war? last war i heard we declared was in Iraq and we won that in two weeks..

How about the third world war? You know, the war on Islamo-fascism. Or, as Ron Paul would put it, The Wars of American Occupation.
The one the government tip toes around because it offends liberals and makes Ron Paul People defend The Enemy.