Thursday, October 11, 2007

Ron Paul vs. Retardicans

From the CNBC Financial GOP debate, 10/9/07:

"Mr. Matthews: Thank you.

Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

Mr. Romney: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

Mr. Matthews: Did he need it?

Mr. Romney: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available."

"Mr. Matthews: ...Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

Mr. Paul: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years."

"Mr. Giuliani: ...And the point of -- I think it was Congressman Paul made before -- that we've never had an eminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.

Mr. Paul: That was no country.

(APPLAUSE)

That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.

Mr. Giuliani: And since September -- well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe -- maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it."

The GOP is too full of smiling faces with big eyes and no brains behind them. The term 'imminent attack' means it's obvious that planes are on the way, missles are about to be launched, or soldiers are about to begin marching on the USA. Neither 9/11 or Pearl Harbor were situations where the President had to deal with an imminent attack. If they were, we should impeach Bush right now for failing to bring this information to light before it happened. But he didn't know it was going to happen. Neither he or FDR knew attacks were going to happen, therefore these were not examples of an imminent attack.

I think Giuliani knows what imminent attack means, but he also knows that most of his supporters are empty-heads that don't know the difference. It insults my intelligence. I can picture the ditsy bobble-heads at Fox News blabbering about it: "That Ron Paul didn't know that we got attacked on 9-11? Or in the Pearl Harbors? He's a nutjob!" And the people who know better will just nod their bobble-heads, too, and agree, just to keep up support for their warmongering buddies.

The people who support warmongerers like Giuliani, Romney, Clinton and the like are blind followers who pick their guy for one or more of 3 reasons:
1. Their person is winning.
2. Their person makes them feel good.
3. Their person is up against someone they really hate.

Reasons 1 and 2 alone aren't reason enough to make me bet on a sports team, much less vote for someone to be my President. Number 3 has some validity, but it's really sad that people don't have the confidence in their country enough to vote for who they think is best for the job.

I'm sort-of impressed by the fact they can dress themselves, but I'm not impressed if they have jobs working for Fox News. I'm certainly not going to listen to their inanane drivel. These Retardicans must've done some under-the-table kind of deal to get where they are. I think they're just plain dumb.

Labels: ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home