The people powering the Paul phenomenon - Politics - MSNBC.com
One of the quotes from this article caught my eye:
The people powering the Paul phenomenon - Politics - MSNBC.com:
This is how I've felt for a while. Pre-emptive war is so much like Hitler invading Poland.
The people powering the Paul phenomenon - Politics - MSNBC.com:
"“Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives — especially Christian conservatives — mostly subscribed to Augustine’s just war theory, regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today many of my Christian friends have foolishly followed Bush’s pre-emptive war theory which before now was practiced mostly by pagan emperors.”"
This is how I've felt for a while. Pre-emptive war is so much like Hitler invading Poland.
posted by Tolli at 12:21 AM
2 Comments:
Tolli, Admittedly I am not up to speed on Ron Paul or any other candidate right now. But I ran across this list of bills he has written and/or supported. It is compiled by someone obviously against him. But I just thought that you might be interested: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
Although some appear controversial, if you dig deeper (as salon did) you will see that many of these bills he introduced as a procedural protest to other bills that were being introduced. Here is the salon link:
Salon Article
There are pretty good comments on this also at the Mother Jones website:
MoJo Blog
This MoJo comment struck my eye:
"H.J.RES.80: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags."
He also proposed to congress a declaration of war on Iraq. In both cases he was vehemently opposed to the actual issue at hand but was making a point to the rest of Congress about the proper procedural way to do things.
When he proposed H.J.Res 80, Congress was debating a bill, not an amendment, to do the same thing. Dr. Paul's position was that the bill was fundamentally unconstitutional; if they wanted to change that, they'd have to amend the constitution first.
Be absolutely positive he would have voted against this amendment. He has many times voted against his own bills, which he only proposes out of a respect for the proper procedure and rule of law.
Post a Comment
<< Home