It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: Why I'm Suing the Obama Administration Over Libya

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


Wow, you are way out of line sir. I don't assume you are talking to me as I wouldn't call for war but be careful who you call "sorry assed scum." I along with many many other ATS'ers also served, even those I disagree with should never be attacked in this manner whether or not they did serve themselves. It is all about civil discourse sir.
edit on 17-6-2011 by LexiconRiot because: error


Sir, I would not disagree with you, I may have went over the line. However, there are those on this site, who have never served, signed their name to anything and want to bash the hell out of our current Commander in Chief. Civil discourse on this site for the most part has turned in to a partisan joke. Keyboard warriors on this site are completely out of control. For the men and women that have served, as I have, I salute you. For the rest of you Neanderthals, that have no idea, do not call for war, people are going to die, this is a fact of life. To the responder, you and I may disagree on many things, however, given a common background we can sit down over a drink and discuss it, without any talking point coming up. The evening may end with us both holding the same opinions we started with, but somehow, the opinion of the other will pop into our conscious at some point.




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


Oh I fully agree. One thing I learned about my brothers while in the Army is that even during a disagreement and they act like they are not listening you will hear your words come out of their mouth in the future as you will end up repeating theirs. Respect is a huge deal and it often leads to some semblance of mutual understanding. While I often think poorly of Obama, I do not doubt he preforms his job much better than I ever could. It is just the "cool" thing to hate the CiC or POTUS which ever you like best.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
If you don't understand that this country is in serious trouble and you don't understand that the ONLY candidate with radical ideas that can save us all (black, white, hispanic, asian, straight, gay, purple) is Ron Paul, then you need to read more history.

For the poster that said his economic policies would be a disaster.... what situation do you think our economy is in now? What policies do you think got us to this point?

Dismiss everything else Ron Paul stands for, he is the ONLY candidate that wants to end the cancerous Federal Reserve, one of the most evil entities on the planet, unless of course you like silent theft via inflation.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


Oh I fully agree. One thing I learned about my brothers while in the Army is that even during a disagreement and they act like they are not listening you will hear your words come out of their mouth in the future as you will end up repeating theirs. Respect is a huge deal and it often leads to some semblance of mutual understanding. While I often think poorly of Obama, I do not doubt he preforms his job much better than I ever could. It is just the "cool" thing to hate the CiC or POTUS which ever you like best.


I am ex AF so right there we are going to disagree. Respect is very important, and that is why I felt the need to respond to your criticism, as a vet, you were right. You and I may totally disagree on issues, however the fact that we signed our name on that line, gives us both a right to our opinions. We may not like each other, we may not agree with each other, but we will RESEPCT each other. Thank you for pointing out my lack of respect, it will not happen again.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Surely you have learned by now that the President only has so much power, why do you believe so hardcore that Dr. Paul can overcome this system of checks and balances? He won't remove the lobbyist, he is not going to take big money out of the campaigns. How do you feel like he can accomplish everything he wants to without violating our constitution? I am not anti Ron Paul, just not sure how everyone believes he can accomplish everything he wants to without a fight.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finalized

For the poster that said his economic policies would be a disaster.... what situation do you think our economy is in now? What policies do you think got us to this point?

 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Well, if you think things are bad now, then just wait for Paul's flat tax to be put into place, then you'll see some fireworks!

His economic policies would just make things worse, not better and I fail to see how that isn't true. It kinda makes me sad that so many of his supporters seem to conveniently overlook his economic policies.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



Hypocrite is not the word I would use to describe Ron Pauls actions, opportunist is, him and his 9 buddies. Tell me one good reason why they are going to the judicial branch when the legislative branch has the full power to do what he is claiming to try to be doing with the judicial? What kind of sense does that make? Why are they acting like private citizens when they are in fact law makers? Why aren't they on the House floor demanding the purse strings be cut? Because the words SUING THE POTUS has a much better affect on the minds of the people than going about it the right way.


So tell me what is the opportunity here for Ron Paul and the others that you would call them opportunists?

I'll give you several good reason why they should do this. First the congress will not do their duty and uphold their oaths to the constitution and cut off the money and repeal the EO sending troops into Libya illegally so where else is he to go? He has been preaching on the house floor for over two decades and fighting against every illegal war we have entered. It is clear that a majority of congress are in collusion with the executive and who ever thier corporate benefactors are and will not do thier job. They have been acting outside thier scope for over a hundred years.

Also while i do not hold out much hope the court will do anything significant it will at least raise awareness among the people of what is going on.

And they are private citizens first and acting on behalf of the rest of the privates citizens. What else can they do when thier colleagues will not act within their scope and uphold the constitution? It is about time someone took some action. Opining on the house floor has accomplished nothing with all the corporate shills in congress who profit from perpetual war. The alternative is to do nothing and let the status quo of lawlessness in the congress and presidency continue without a peep.




edit on 18-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 



You would do well to actually research his positions instead of repeating false leftist talking points. Ron Paul does not advocate a flat tax.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
LexiconRiot since no one in here apparently has the balls to answer your question I will. As im curious as to what you have to say. I could care less about the issue I just like to hear what peoples perspectives on political issues are.

Definition of WAR

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Naptown317
LexiconRiot since no one in here apparently has the balls to answer your question I will. As im curious as to what you have to say. I could care less about the issue I just like to hear what peoples perspectives on political issues are.

Definition of WAR

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


www.merriam-webster.com...


Thank you! It seems I am getting black balled by the usual suspects around here for disagreeing.

My whole point was If War is defined by declared war and attacks against another faction. Then Ron Paul would be hypocritical to attack Obama on this issue. We are in a supporting role in the conflict which the international community has deemed a "No-Fly Zone" and not a war.

However! If war is decided to be any Military action that violates another nations rights to sovereignty then we have a new issue. This definition would make Paul and his cohorts hypocrites for their taking issue with Libya and only Libya as we are currently taking military actions in Yemen and Pakistan with the drone strikes. Being an opportunist to gain headlines makes you look the fool if you are not keeping constant with your beliefs and convictions.

Either way half stepping for notoriety as I believe these 10 are doing would make them hypocrites and not worthy of their appointed positions. If I must be governed I wish it to be of men with convictions and substance. (pipe dream) This passing the buck to the DoJ by congress is pretty deplorable to begin with. Paired with inconsistency and I am outraged by it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LexiconRiot
 


Your not making any sense. Ron Paul is not a hypocrite he has been condemning all these illegal actions since he has been in congress, however he has been doing it alone until now. Had he filed law suites when he was the lone voice then he would have been easier to ignore and dismiss. Now that has has 9 other congressmen it cannot be ignored as easily. Going after Obama for acting outside his scope of authority is the right thing to do since congress will not do it and are largely in collusion with him on his unlawful actions. Obama has thumbed his nose at congress and said he doesn't need congress to wage war indefinitely by his actions completely ignoring the war powers act. UN resolutions do not trump the constitution and are not authority for us to go to war without a congressional declaration. What else would you have them do?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Paul is an idiot and he shows it with that statement. He is such a strict constitutionalist that he doesn't realize that as Commander and Chief the President has the power to send troops to war if the need is immediate and there isn't time to go to Congress for approval.

This is why they passed the war powers act because Presidents were overstepping their bounds and Congress called them on it. Now you may certainly debate whether Libya was an immediate threat but the problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't believe the President has this power.

If he was President and China invaded the east coast he would have to convene Congress, have a debate, then a vote on whether to go to war with China or not.

He is stupid.


What? No. Mr. Paul is WELL aware that the president has SIXTY days of military action without congressional approval. It passed that weeks ago... this is exactly WHY Mr. Paul is doing what he's doing.

In SIXTY days, you can't talk to congress over it? 2 entire months, and congress doesn't get the chance to approve or deny it? 2 sets of four weeks......

Dude.... not for nothing, but you just let your ire get the best of you.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by LexiconRiot
 


Your not making any sense. Ron Paul is not a hypocrite he has been condemning all these illegal actions since he has been in congress, however he has been doing it alone until now. Had he filed law suites when he was the lone voice then he would have been easier to ignore and dismiss. Now that has has 9 other congressmen it cannot be ignored as easily. Going after Obama for acting outside his scope of authority is the right thing to do since congress will not do it and are largely in collusion with him on his unlawful actions. Obama has thumbed his nose at congress and said he doesn't need congress to wage war indefinitely by his actions completely ignoring the war powers act. UN resolutions do not trump the constitution and are not authority for us to go to war without a congressional declaration. What else would you have them do?


Not only that, but congress approved Bush. So that pretty much makes it not the same thing...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Paul is an idiot and he shows it with that statement. He is such a strict constitutionalist that he doesn't realize that as Commander and Chief the President has the power to send troops to war if the need is immediate and there isn't time to go to Congress for approval.

This is why they passed the war powers act because Presidents were overstepping their bounds and Congress called them on it. Now you may certainly debate whether Libya was an immediate threat but the problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't believe the President has this power.

If he was President and China invaded the east coast he would have to convene Congress, have a debate, then a vote on whether to go to war with China or not.

He is stupid.



Your post is directed at the man, not his message. Is every message by a man you hate wrong, no matter the content? Dr. Paul is only speaking of Obomba's use of power that he does not legally wield. If Dr. Paul said, "The sky is blue.", would that be wrong to you because he said it?

Your comment about him being "such a strict Constitutionalist" is very telling. You obviously fail to realize that the only way to legally be a Congressman, or President, is to be a strict Constitutionalist, since that is the absolute and supreme law that governs them.



/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   


It is not even funny anymore.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I served, signed my name on that line, I have lost friends, and fellow patriots along the way, you sorry assed scum that call your selves patriots now, make me wanna puke. Piss off.


I didn't serve because I was a leftist, tree-hugging hippie. But I couldn't have served if I wanted to because of medical issues and would have been turned away, just like millions of others. Are they not patriots because they didn't get to join the club? Serving in the military doesn't give one an automatic pass to patriotism. Would you call Nidal Malik Hasan a patriot?

/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
I am not anti Ron Paul, just not sure how everyone believes he can accomplish everything he wants to without a fight.


He won't, but at least he'll try, unlike that doppelgänger we have in the White House right now. Didn't he promise Hope and Change? I do believe that was his platform. Well, he sure changed things, all right! Instead of only bombing 2 countries, we're bombing 4...or is it 5 now? All the dead civilians become a blur.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Naptown317
LexiconRiot since no one in here apparently has the balls to answer your question I will. As im curious as to what you have to say. I could care less about the issue I just like to hear what peoples perspectives on political issues are.

Definition of WAR

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare
c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end


www.merriam-webster.com...


The term "war" means whatever the current Head Dictator In Charge needs it to mean in order to continue the bombing of human beings standing on his oil.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LexiconRiot
 


The actual definition of WAR:


A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.


US is in a state of armed conflict against Libya, US is attacking Libya through its trained and financed pawns (the rebels), attacking Libya with its drones, and attacking Libya through NATO (US is responsible for 70% of NATO costs).

Also just to reduce some confusion there are different categories of wars, civil war and proxy war. US is involved in two types of wars.

1. WAR, because US is using its drones to attack Libya.
2. Proxy war, because the rebels were trained and armed by CIA for over two decades to fight the Libyan regime and topple it. US ground troops are called advisor and CIA is also operating in the Libyan war.

So no matter how you look at this, it is war, even though it started as a proxy war. Since CIA proxy was loosing, US with other Imperialists came to save their assets.

At least we all agree this is not about saving civilian lives anymore lol.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by confreak
 


LOL.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join