You've got it backwards, buddy.

The power to recall the troops is not specifically enumerated amongst the Commander in Chief's powers...the power to recall the troops has also not been inferred to be a presidential power at any point in history. In every conflict, congress has recalled the troops.

Ok, so, given that afaik there is no historical or official evidence of what you claim to be a presidential power, I am asking you to cite evidence that the president can recall the troops. I would posit if the president has never recalled the troops, and congress consistently has, it is not a presidential power, seems fairly straightforward to me.

So, do you have evidence to support your claims? My thought is no.



As far as why I'm addressing this...it's because there has been nothing of any substance presented as a solid reason to vote for him and that annoys me. If people were arguing he's the "least evil" candidate, potentially that would have more merit than the arguments presented thus far, but that's not what people are saying. Everything you present in your final paragraph is immaterial within the scope of the president's power...he can't end the wars, he can't change the War on Drugs, the budget is not his domain (other than approving it)...you claim these are reasons to vote for him, but these are not things the president has final say over, so to vote for him to change such things doesn't make sense. You wouldn't ask your dentist's receptionist to look in your mouth just because she oversees his daily schedule, would you?

Ultimately, my own personal opinion is that real change will have to come outside of the "normal" political process anyway, so for me, this Paul-sycophancy amounts to watching schoolchildren tout their choice for Student President, while ignoring the fact that the Principal and school administrators hold all the power.

What would Republican Jesus do?

Rick Parry IS Republican Jesus.




A vote for Parry is a vote for America

Sorry to resurect this thread but you say snozz that ron paul is full of empty rhetoric, can you show me how mr parry isnt full of the same rhetoric? It would validate your arguments.

just checking out ron paul on jay leno right as you posted, thought I would share <3

http://www.youtube.com/w...feature=player_embedded#!

Rick or Ron , it does not really matter who you gonna vote anyway. I do not think they gonna change the world to better place. Only you can do it your self.So start there and forget about politicians.

Politicians were good long time ago now they are all corrupted by big corporations. It is the same as watching the puppets show. I really do not understand anyone going to cast the vote. Why would you do it ? Have you not learned from history? Elections are not free choices you only get to choose from already chosen options. This is not democracy ladies and gentleman, this is a dictatorship.

democracy doesnt work anyway, not when 51% of the people are happy and 49% aren't

I like Ron Paul.

I like this man

This guy was just way ahead of his time, we really aren't short on ideas, its just the will to implement them or the faith that they will work.. as this thread about Ron Paul has painfully illustrated.

As I said before in previous post that the universe will remove obstacles once you show that your committed to a certain goal, I call it magic .

You should take that statement with a grain of salt, a lick of lime and a shot of tequila.

Bernie Sanders I think.

I'm really afraid of Rick Perry. This guy is the real fucking deal. I would rather have George W. again than this guy. I'm really hoping Obama wins again and goes all out, deep down inside I know he wants to.

EDIT: As far as Ron Paul he's one crazy old man... Doesn't accept evolution, is against gay marriage, abortion, a whole bunch of other important things. I do respect him for his integrity and his desire to get out of the middle east and end the drug war. I'd vote for him if he kept the crazy parts to himself

A vote for Parry is a vote for America

(Sorry Trav)

"Against" means delegate authority to author laws for each state to the people of that state right? I might be wrong about this, but isn't that what R.P.'s everlastingly upheld as lawful? So to relinquish the right to the states - the people - to author their own laws means to "be against..important things" according to 1992. To "be against" delegates from New York having a voice in the laws of the people of the state of Nevada, within their own state, for example. To respect the voice and sovereignty of the people of a state to decide their own laws, for their own, is "crazy" according to 1992. So who cares about evolution? That question was the application of a religious test to a political candidate by an ignorant public, read the Constitution. To be a congressman or president is not a scientific post, nor a religious one. Nor is it a school board.

Awesome Kick-Ass America Video A1pha!!! YEH!!!

I'm not really a proponent of Ron Paul, but to answer the above, he doesn't believe in viewing people as groups. He's not a collectivist, he's an extreme individualist. That's why he's against things like affirmative action or rights for certain groups of people. He views things in terms of individual rights.

Not that I doubt what you say - but can we cite sources of candidate's positions instead of this he said/she said I'm seeing all over this thread? It will allow us to discuss the points in finer detail.

Thank you.

Sure, which is precisely why he sounds "right" or "good" to many people, but still misses the mark as far as pragmatism (from a non-imperialist American or global perspective).

Peck on the two currents of "human rights" :




The first current, which Mr. Paul appeals to, is all well and good but when implemented/appealed to with no implementation/reference to the second current (which is precisely how Mr. Paul presents it), it serves less as a model for spreading liberty/democracy and more as a way of Westernizing the globe.