Petraeus forgets his oath

[teddybear1968]

Well, if Petreus did answer honestly, he might lose his job or even risk his soul or family... The war is the order of the strong people behind the Western goverments

[WELLBRAN]

incredible these people have no idea

[MrDanJens]

There's a reason everyone in the backround is laughing at on Congressman Pauls question. Because once you sift through his mumbling, the question about Iran has nothing to do with why the General was present and was not meant to contribute to the United States foreign policy debate, instead it was simply to further his own unsuccesful(Thank God) bid for the presidency.

[cobyjak]

@MrDanJens I guess YOU would have us following the U.N. Charter? If the U.N. demands us go to war, then we send our soldiers to go? Obama is out to discredit and destroy the Constitution. Ron Paul so far is the only candidate who will fight for it. It's not a 'foreign policy debate' where the powers to declare war come from!  If a president can declare war and supercede the elected represenatives of Congress, then it's nothing short of a dictatorship, regardless of which party is at the helm

[theindexmedia]

ohmygosh he is so awesome

[sandythebear]

Dr. Paul is 1000% right, the problem is that he is talking to the wrong guy, he should be talking to the guy in the oval office

[LatinoParaSiempre]

my second question would have been, what oath did you swear to? he let them off easy.

[mittenola]

You go RON PAUL!!!!!!

[LetsRapeGovernment]

everyone since jfk has been ; ) we'll see with obama, but im not hopeful. Go ron paul

[WKaliber1]

Petraeus is a traitor

[stevemcgee99]

Right, just like me, he's not a politician. And we can both answer this question.

Similar to Romney with the 'lawyers' crap in the debates.

[Kkuusshhh]

Petraeus forgets his oath? That's a stretch. Its not his fault the country is at war with Iraq and maybe he should have answered according to the oath he took as an officer in the US Army but he's a soldier, not a politician. Just because he didn't feed Ron Paul's indignation, it doesn't mean he forgot his oath or his role as a general or commander of Armed forces.

[MAVWOLF]

Your comment was thumbed down due to a Paultard with about 300 ghost accounts who trolls youtube looking for smart people to discredit so they can feel good about their miserable star trek geek sister fucking anti semitic anti american troop hating life.

[DimeLivesInUs]

He took an oath to protect the constitution.

[Kkuusshhh]

Dude, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war and it was Congress who gave Bush the legal basis to invade Iraq. How is that Petraeus' fault or any soldier's for that matter?

If anything, the US Army has been the only institution that has been holding up to its responsibilities these last eight years. The politicians all have their heads up their asses.

[DimeLivesInUs]

They didn't declare war. They said the president could use military force, but they haven't declared war since the second world war.

[Kkuusshhh]

But that's my point exactly.

Constitutionally, that couldn't be a more ambiguous position for the Armed Forces to be in but, if at the very least, Petraeus follows a direct order from the president and a dubious one from congress than he has acted well within the parameters of his oath.

[DimeLivesInUs]

He should know what he's sworn to defend though.

Defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land, higher than the President. Members of the armed services have a duty and right to disobey unlawful and/or immoral orders.

[Kkuusshhh]

David Petraeus has been in the United States Army for almost 40 years and has a doctorate in international relations. I think its fair to say that he can distinguish between dignifying the straw man tactics of an over-zealous politician and when he needs to answer questions practically.

[DimeLivesInUs]

I wasn't questioning the fact that he is a war hero, only his knowledge of the law he swore an oath to defend.

[Kkuusshhh]

I wasn't asking you whether he was a war hero or not. I was attempting to express that as an experienced soldier and academic, he's more than capable of remembering the oath of commisionment but that he answered Ron Paul's question in such a way as not to feed his righteous indignation.

[DimeLivesInUs]

Righteous indignation huh?

[Ciaresayton]

@Kkuusshhh David Patraeus has been a baby killer in the army for almost 40 years and just passed out while testifying. Die motherfucker die motherfucker die motherfucker die motherfucker

[Kkuusshhh]

@Ciaresayton

Grow up.

[danspeaks]

disturbing indeed

[rshaddock]

General Petraeus, so you remember the oath when you joined the Army as do all recuits: "I do solomnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

[unodepoalli]

Are you in the US ARMY or other US Armed Force??

Is it mandatory to read the US Constitution before or after taking the oath?

[SunnyDaysRFun]

Go Ron Paul. What's with these generals that do NOT know where they get their authority to bomb??????

The constitution was written to PROTECT our rights, not give them

Ron Paul, keep up the great work!

[einsatzdeath]

Also, I don't see the point of modifying your views to fit the Constitution. I think the point of the first amendment is that you can view any damn thing you want as an American citizen. It's the government that needs to respect that. As a regular dude, you are free to express that you think the Bill of Rights should be torn to pieces of you are so inclined.

[knowyourrino]

True, but if I desire to preserve Liberty, it would be arrogant to suppose I could find a better formula that the original intent of the Constitution.

I side with the many members of the Constitutional Convention who, upon observing the marvelous document they had created, had to acknowledge the hand of God had been at work there.

If the Constitution was truly inspired, we should, with extreme caution, consider any deviation from it (even for just causes).

Perhaps this is why we differ.

[einsatzdeath]

I think where we differ is that I think you consider the Constitution as a code to abide by. To me, the Bill of Rights is something meant to protect citizens from government, to which I'm sure you probably agree also.

[knowyourrino]

The Constitution is a code to limit the Federal Government to few, clearly defined powers. It is truly our 1st protection against tyranny.

Anything the Constitution didn't clearly specify as a power of the Federal, it does not have (see 10th Amend).

I'd contend that since the Constitution requires Congress to have the war decision power, and doesn't specify a way to abdicate such power, they have no authority to abdicate.

I certainly agree about the Bill of Rights.

[einsatzdeath]

You basically believe that our entire military is failing to uphold the Constitution? If that's what you're saying then you are a total moron and are not only proof that American citizens have failed as a people but also that our constitution is still in effect by giving you the freedom to run your mouth. It is amazing. Washington fails, and people like you blame the military for it? Wow! That is awesome that you can reconfigure your brain like that. Totally baffling!

[knowyourrino]

Again, others may have said that ...

As enlisted military, they have sworn an oath to follow orders. Most of them don't realize the paradox of that when compared to their oath to uphold the Constitution.

I don't really blame the military for this conflict of orders they are subject to, but I do blame the elected officials who require it of them.

It is just a shame so few are aware of this paradox of orders when taking their oath.

[einsatzdeath]

It's not that much of a paradox. As a troop, you can refuse an illegal order, but only on your level. You can't point to the bigger picture. The oath to the Constitution basically means to defend our way of life and the laws of our land. Troops don't have a say in legislation! If so, when a judge puts the 10 Commandments on government property, you would expect US Marines to make their way over there and kick his ass. That just isn't real life, unfortunately.

[knowyourrino]

But when a law violates the Constitution, it is not a law at all.

As Cicero put it: "But the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations...What of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? These no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly"

[knowyourrino]

Or as the Constitution itself declares: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

In regards to the 10 Commandments, I guess the Founders didn't think posting them on govt property violated the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, why are they etched in stone on the walls of the Supreme Court building?

[einsatzdeath]

Dude, you don't think using the 10 Commandments in a court of law is at odds with the 1st Amendment at all? Come on! Obviously, not everyone was on the same page, but the Constitution is THE page. It seems like most of what you are saying here is in agreement with me, though I don't think you realize that.

[knowyourrino]

I'm just saying many of the Founders didn't  think so. Most of them saw no problem with religious influence in Government, so long as one denomination wasn't given favor over another.

Even stranger, the restriction in the 1st Amend. states "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion". They were only limiting Congress here, as most of the original 13 colonies had ESTABLISHED STATE RELIGIONS AT THE TIME THEY RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION! (Gratefully that has since changed!)

[rdbiii]

Every soldier swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. You would think that a general would be well versed in it. Petraeus isn't a genius he's a traitor or perhaps just an idiot who's never bothered to read or doesn't care about the document that made this country great.

[toddw14]

You knew he was gonna get them tho. But he does have a point. I mean listen to their responses when he asked that question. They were called out.

[einsatzdeath]

General Petraeus is a genius, and Mr. Paul's questions have nothing to do with his job as a soldier. Honestly, does Ron Paul know anything about the military at all?

[hoagoaway]

Ron Paul, like General Petraeus, took an oath to follow the rule of law - the US Constitution. Ron Paul took that oath seriously, and every other hack in politics and military leadership did not take their oath seriously. Making them simple fustilarians and liars.

[einsatzdeath]

Name one thing that General Petraeus did that wasn't in compliance with the US Constitution. Don't even bother trying to say that the Iraq was was illegal because it wasn't a congressionally-declared war. This nations first expeditionary war was with Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. Thomas Jefferson himself deployed US troops to fight and open-ended war without any approval of congress. The majority of our wars have been undeclared. So tell me just one instance where the General forgot his oath.

[knowyourrino]

The Barbary Pirates issue was under the authority of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal".

How does "The majority of our wars have been undeclared" justify yet another violation to the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: "Congress shall have Power to declare war". Where in Article 2 does it also give this power to the President?

It seems this very video is "just one instance where the General forgot his oath".

What part of "sustain and defend the Constitution" don't you understand?

[einsatzdeath]

Oh, so the Barbary Pirates thing was all good! You people are goofs. Do you know who gave that power to the President? Congress! Whether or not you agree with the war in Iraq, it's not unconstitutional. Slandering a man like General Petraeus takes a real ignorant jackass. He simply gets his job done extremely well. I think he threatens all of you goblins because he's winning a war you want the US to lose. Fuck all of you bitch-ass tricks.

[knowyourrino]

Such rage! Geez, calm down. Just trying to engage in a simple discussion!

The point of the Pirates vs. Iraq is to illustrate a difference in Constitutional authority.

I've explained why I believe the Iraq war to be unconstitutional.

You claim it is not. Fine.

Please explain how, in your view, the war is being conducted by authority granted by the Constitution. Educate us!

If you can't handle that, I suppose you may as well return to your ranting, cursing, and name-calling.

[einsatzdeath]

Well, congress took a vote to give President Bush power to invade Iraq, and it passed almost unanimously. So it was all legal. US history has shown that you don't need to declare a war to engage in foreign hostilities. We've been fighting continously throughout our nation's existence and have only actually declared war about five times. I'm not saying this is all right and good, but it seems pretty fucked up to slander Petraeus in the face of all of this. You're fighting the wrong battle.

[knowyourrino]

So with a simple vote, Congress can abdicate the authority our Founding Fathers specifically gave to only them?

(curious, they almost unanimously voted down a declaration of war)

As observed by William Rawle (in 1829): "In monarchies, the king generally possesses this power, and it is as often exercised for his own aggrandizement as for the good of the nation."

When the power to declare war rest with one person, war is easily entered, often for personal reasons and not the good of the nation.

[knowyourrino]

Perhaps Congress thinks the Constitution is outdated. The solution is found in Article 5 of the Constitution, called the Amendment process. Short of an amendment, they can't abdicate their Constitutional responsibility.

I am not fighting against Petraeus specifically, but everyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and then are either ignorant or hostile to it's clear meaning.

This is not a partisan issue, as both parties are guilty.

Which side of THIS battle are you on?

[einsatzdeath]

You're right, it's not a partisan issue. The thing is, the president didn't declare war on Iraq. So there's nothing in the Constitution that really has any say in the matter.

What do you mean "THIS battle"? What battle? I don't like Democrats or Republicans, and I don't think invading Iraq was a good move. I do think it's obvious that Petraeus made good and is a great man. How about Afghanistan? By your definition that was unconstitutional as well, do you think we should have never went?

[knowyourrino]

Although many others here may have ripped on Petraeus for the job he is doing, I never said such. I am simply ashamed that so many swear an oath to the Constitution, but know or care little about it.

By the CONSTITUTION'S definition, Afganistan is also unconstitutional. It may have been a valid cause, but until enough of Congress go on record supporting it, we have not met the founders carefully crafted requirements.

[einsatzdeath]

Yes, but how carefully crafted were they? Certainly Thomas Jefferson understood the Constitution when he dispatched the Navy and Marines to Tripoli to destroy the Barbary Pirates without formally attaining a declaration of war. That was our first foreign war. Would you say that Jefferson is unconstitutional? That set the precedent of the vast majority of our wars. It's one thing to oppose the Iraq war, but on constitutional grounds? You're wasting your time.

[knowyourrino]

There is no comparison between these two.

1. In the case of Barbary, they were regularly attacking us. Hamilton wrote a great piece about how a declaration of war is redundant when others are already at open war with us. ("The Examination" No 1, Dec 1801)

When was the last time prior to our invasion that Iraq attacked us?

2. I believe Congress gave Jefferson "letters of marque and reprisal" authority to pursue this non-nation enemy. Such was proposed for the war on terror but never passed.

[einsatzdeath]

No comparison? That's laughable. They went to war without a formal declaration from congress in both cases. Congress also supported both actions. On purely constitutional grounds, they're pretty damn similar cases. You are not a constitutional scholar, just a stubborn dude pushing an agenda. I think that's been proven. There was a lot of false intel suggesting Iraq was a threat to us, and that's fucked up. Doesn't make it unconstitutional. It just revealed inept decision-makers.

[knowyourrino]

How can I be more clear?

LETTERS OF MARQUE CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF A DECLARATION!

You've never once addressed this. Now you're resorting to name-calling again (the lowest form of argument).

Apparently we are both too stuck on our agendas! :)

Mine is to:

1. Learn from the Founders their original intent.

2. Modify my views to be more Constitutional (sometimes quite difficult)

3. Teach it to others.

What is your agenda that keeps you ignoring the whole "letters of marque" issue?

[einsatzdeath]

So basically you don't consider the Iraq war unjust? You just think it violates the Constitution? Very strange. Also, I looked in the Barbary Pirates ordeal and congress issued no letter of marque. It is an interesting point, but it's very murky and doesn't seem to clarify if declaration of war and letters of marque are the only legit ways for the president to authorize offensive action. Also, what name did I call you?  I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or anything...

[knowyourrino]

I never discussed whether the Iraq war is unjust, only legal. "Just" is a whole separate analysis, but no, I don't think it is just either.

Strange that your research shows no letter of marque for the Barbary issue. A history course I took a year ago used this as an example of use of letters of marque. Either way, Hamilton clearly felt such an attack needed no declaration of war, since they were already at war against us. (Third way) He would call it Constitutional with or without the letters.

[einsatzdeath]

Constitution says that you need Congress to formally declare war, but congress gave the president authority to fight in Iraq without declaring war. There's really nothing specifying this in the Constitution. It can be assumed that in it's day, you didn't fight major wars without declaration, but Tripoli proves that limited offensives were carried out even then without a Declaration. There was no letter of Marque for the Barbary expedition, and it would have been adequate dealing with piracy.

[chungo608]

HE WAS A FLIGHT SURGEON in the air force. hes also a physician,congressman,Revoluti­onary, and defender of rights to the American people

[JohnR22926]

Any general is in a tough spot. He must do what the Commander in Chief says...by LAW! He's also required not to commit any illegal or immoral (a subjective thing) acts. So...he can either follow his orders or resign. If his resignation is accepted, he can say whatever he wants as a private citizen. All the Move-On fuckwads jumped Petraus because he didn't say what THEY WANTED him to say. To hell with his creds/integrity; he must follow their script to the letter or be damned.

[USAF1947]

John, I'll respectfully disagree. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and by that Constitution we are appointed a President. However, recall General MacArthur, who disobeyed the President because he felt that he was better serving the Constitution and the President's ideas were flawed.

He was fired, but he committed no crime. He was essentially doing what his oath asked of him.

[JohnR22926]

USAF: I served on active duty as an officer for 24 yrs and am well aware of the oath...part of which reads "to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me". IMO your example of MacArthur is a bit off the mark. MacArthur far exceeded his authority and disobeyed the Commander in Chief (Truman) and was properly relieved. Petraus, on the other hand, has been criticized for following the orders of the Commander in Chief...basically tweaking his testimony to fit in with Bush's overall strategy.

[OperatorC]

He might have been following orders but he's certainly not a man worth looking up to or admiring. Most likely, he (Petraeus) agrees with the Bush administration and the War on Terror so he's likely just going with what he believes in... just like the S.S. officers were in their time.

Then again, I don't immediately, unconditionally see anybody wearing the uniform of the United States military as a hero like most other weak minded, brainwashed nationalists do.

[JohnR22926]

OperatorC: well, you're entitled to your opinion. But...IMO you don't respect him because he's taken a position you disagree with. I think he probably does agree that the current GWOT strategy is legal/moral; if he didn't he should resign.

BTW, I object to your example of the SS. It's like me comparing Obama to Stalin just because Obama wants to raise taxes.

[1freedomfighter1]

Ps, youtoob is removing these messages, or hiding them as spam, so that I can only read it when I am logged on, and no one els can, spread the word. You tube, you are now helping to bring down our rights and our ability to defend them, for what money? Also they are removing my thumbs up, log off and check your thumbs up.

[1freedomfighter1]

Ron Paul supporters, lets send the message to congress that voter fraud will not be tolerated.

Also please sign on these sites so we can be counted. Then when they give us there fake #s we will have something for proof of who we want for president.

Please send this message around. It may be the most important thing you will ever do for your country.

Lets be counted now so they can not use election fraud on us later.

votenow.2xpress com and whowouldtheworldelect (dot)com

Ron Paul 08

[mattyr2k82]

btw the neo-cons who are pro-war are ANTI-HUMAN. ron paul isnt anti-america, he is anti-neocon.

[mattyr2k82]

wow, no wonder the USA is going down the drain judging by the idiots on here.

[pajeff2]

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will become chief of U.S. Central Command, taking over after Adm. William Fallon's unexpected resignation. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said picking two generals key to the troop "surge" reflects a "successful course" in Iraq

[knowyourrino]

Yes, it is important to Globalist CFR members like Robert Gates that they select a General who is "not competent" to answer questions about the US Constitution, but carry out their orders to ignore, undermine, and destroy it.

This is why "Petraeus is on his way up".

The US Constitution is the greatest threat to their globalist agenda.

[pajeff2]

Petraeus is on his way up and paul is on is way out

[wellingtonian]

Shut the fuck up betrayus swallows cock just like you.

Check the facts dick head Ron Paul will be at the Repubuplican convention.

[pajeff2]

paul is the most anti-american person on the planet..to him everything is wrong with this country..he thinks he's right on everything. voters have spoken in the primaries and said we are wise to you and your constant tearing down of America..we are not getting rid of the institutions and social programs you want and we are not cutting and running from iraq. we are not letting druggies out of prison so they can get high, hop in a car, and run over our kids while they wait at the school bus stop

[TheEvilDetector]

Most voters havent heard of him. Your reasons are not correct, he was dealth with most unfairly by MSM. You did not think the establishment wants status quo disrupted while they are leeching the filthy lucre? They own the media, why would they shoot themselves in the foot? You are swalling it all in one gulp too.

[TheEvilDetector]

These institutions are stifling your freedom and prosperity, think of a hangmans noose slowly tightening around yoru neck, so long as it is done slow, you may think you will be fine, but there will come a point when you wont take it anymore. Time will tell, when it will happen.

[TheEvilDetector]

dealt*

[TheEvilDetector]

swallowing*

[wellingtonian]

America's going down cause fucking dick heads like you suck neo con cock when ask you to.

[pajeff2]

Great, that's what I wanted to hear..show them what paul supporters are like..LOL

[wellingtonian]

No wrong fuck head, I'm showing you what I think of warmongering little fucks like you deserve to be treated like.

When worse comes to worse little chicken hawks follow so blindly like the gullible idiots you are.

Don't worry you won't have to sign up to go fight the next war they'll come get you (you'll be drafted) and the hundreds of convicted criminals currently serving in federal prisons across America.

[onevoiceofreasons]

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Army General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has been chosen by President George W. Bush to become head of all American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

SUCK ON THAT RON PAUL !!

[TheEvilDetector]

You win, Petraeus is in charge of all American forces. This is great, US can now kill more more more.

[TheEvilDetector]

Lets drop more bombs.

[TheEvilDetector]

Lets put extra Depleted Uranium to up the health in the region. Whats good for the military is good for america.

I wonder if sarcasm is lost on you.

[onevoiceofreasons]

Now that troop withdrawals have stopped in Iraq, we can now focus on going after Iran. the terrorists will not be allowed to win just because they have government officials like paul in their pocket

[TheEvilDetector]

Quite a bold assertion you are making, sullying the name of a congressman. I doubt you will be offering factual evidence supporting your assertion that Dr Paul is "in their pocket". Looks like more evidence free mindless chatter which is on par with your comment history thus far.

[onevoiceofreasons]

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Army General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has been chosen by President George W. Bush to become head of all American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

SUCK ON THAT RON PAUL !!

[TheEvilDetector]

You are beig childish.

With american adults being treated like children by the establishment this type of response is expected.

[TheEvilDetector]

being*

[onevoiceofreasons]

I was trying to decide what Ron Paul and his minions remind me of and it just suddenly hit me. The militant anti-government types. The Randy Weavers, McVeigh's, and others

[TheEvilDetector]

How can we be militant if we are mr non-violence according to your own words, you cannot even keep your mindless chatter consistent.

[onevoiceofreasons]

It's a shame no one watches these damn hearings..if they did they could clearly see what a waste of taxpayer dollars they are and what a damn buch of idiots we have in the congress..Why the hell are we even talking about iraq..We went in, we're there now, and we will be there for a long time to come..End Of Story

[onevoiceofreasons]

mr anti-war, mr non-violence and his followers are of all things, Gun Fanatics..They want to bring all the violence back to the streets of America and get rid of law enforcement and return to the days of the wild wild west..Paul is a nut

[TheEvilDetector]

Over simplified commentary with appeals to emotion is all you are offering.

I hope that not all in america has turned off their brains.

[TheEvilDetector]

have*

[TheEvilDetector]

You are making unwarranted conclusions. No one wants wild wild west, we just want constituional government. Law enforcement is a core governmental activity, no one wants that taken out. We need law enforcement, but we need it to be constitutional. For example, we do not want FBI to write their own search warrants or to conduct sneak and peek without your knowledge, both of these things are allowed at the moment.

[onevoiceofreasons]

paul is just a dried up old congressman who is looking for 15 minutes of fame..he has absolutely no credibility..here's a guy who wants to put drug addicts back on the streets to rob , Mame, and kill law abiding citizens..he wants to do away with social programs and let people starve and die in the streets..To do away with intelligence gathering so America would be vulnerable to our enemies...is it any wonder his campaign went straight into the toilet

[TheEvilDetector]

You just copy pasted this comment, all your points were address in my reply to your earlier copy.

[onevoiceofreasons]

no one is buying pauls crap..The other day we took at shot at an Iranian boat..the US will not back down despite pauls rants..paul may be on one of our enemies payrolls

[TheEvilDetector]

This is not a cartoon onevoice. It is not about backing down, it is about following the law, both us and international. US has no business being there. US has no business starting wars with anybody. Founding fathers wanted the army to defend US, not to look for monsters to slay.

[onevoiceofreasons]

It's a shame no one watches these damn hearings..if they did they could clearly see what a waste of taxpayer dollars they are and what a damn buch of idiots we have in the congress..Why the hell are we even talking about iraq..We went in, we're there now, and we will be there for a long time to come..End Of Story

[TheEvilDetector]

The war in Iraq is helping destroy the US economy faster than it would otherwise have. It is adding a huge extra debt to the national debt, which has to be repaid by tax payers. Put in the context of the current difficulties, the war is a bad idea but not only for financial reasons. It is a bad idea for legal reasons, because it is an illegal aggressive war in the international legal sense and was started unconstitutionally in teh us legal sense.

[TheEvilDetector]

It does not decrease risk of terrorism, it increases it. It does not make americans safer, it makes them less safe and on top of that, us citizens are losing their rights under the guise of security, which is abhorrent.

[onevoiceofreasons]

paul is just a dried up old congressman who is looking for 15 minutes of fame..he has absolutely no credibility..here's a guy who wants to put drug addicts back on the streets to rob , Mame, and kill law abiding citizens..he wants to do away with social programs and let people starve and die in the streets..To do away with intelligence gathering so America would be vulnerable to our enemies...is it any wonder his campaign went straight into the toilet

[onevoiceofreasons]

The left loves to claim that Bush, and Republicans, are really Nazis in disguise. And here we have a candidate (who is not by any stretch of the imagination a Republican) who actually associates with real, honest-to-God Nazis, and what do we hear from the left? Not a peep.

They wouldn't recognize a real Nazi if he whacked them with his copy of Mein Kampf and herded them into a concentration camp. Paul apparently can recognize a Nazi, but has no compunction against cozying up to them.

[TheEvilDetector]

THere is no left or right. It is an illusion, there is just up and down. Up=More Big Brother, more controls, more restrictions, more unnecessary spending. US needs to go back to its libertarian foundation. A free country with free men and minimal federal government with all unenumerated powers reserved to the states and the people.

[onevoiceofreasons]

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Army General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has been chosen by President George W. Bush to become head of all American forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

SUCK ON THAT RON PAUL !!

[pajeff2]

paul is just a dried up old congressman who is looking for 15 minutes of fame..he has absolutely no credibility..here's a guy who wants to put drug addicts back on the streets to rob , Mame, and kill law abiding citizens..he wants to do away with social programs and let people starve and die in the streets..To do away with intelligence gathering so America would be vulnerable to our enemies...is it any wonder his campaign went straight into the toilet

[jrock6467]

haha wow, simply sounds like another individual who was hired to try and drag ron paul's name through the mud if you ask me...

[onevoiceofreasons]

Hired ?..You're a nut !

[TheEvilDetector]

pajeff2:

1. Your reference to age is ad hominem.

2. Your reference to 15 mins of fame is ad hominem.

3. Your reference to not having credibility is backed by no supporting evidence.

4. Your reference to putting drug addicts back on the street is followed by an unwarranted conclusion that they will mame and kill law abiding citizens without taking into account a new legislative culture of increased tolerance, thus you are not being intellectually honest.

[TheEvilDetector]

5. Your reference to him wanting to do away social programs sidesteps the relevant details. He wants to honour existing obligations and give younger people the choice to get out. Why? Because the system is insolvent, there just simply isn't 50 trillion + available to pay the promised benefits to all the retirees current and future. He never voted to spend any of the funds in Social Security funds, while the rest of congress hs no qualms.

[TheEvilDetector]

6. He does not want to do away intelligence gathering, he wants to make it more effective. After 911 it was clear that 40 billion + intelligence budget isnt good enough, so they add a monstrous layer of bureaucracy on top, call it homeland security, which does nothing to add to security but costs more money. We cant find osama, cannot prevail over insurgents, could nt stop 911, this new bureaucracy is the answer? Dont think so. Once again you are being intellectually dishonest.

[TheEvilDetector]

7. Finally his campaign did not do as well as many of his supporters hoped not because of the reasons you mentioned, it was to do with the MSM doing him no favours and incessantly characterising him in a negative light and overall giving him limited time on tv. In a robust democracy he should not have been jumping through all these hurdels and should have been presented fairly.

[TheEvilDetector]

8. Conclusion: You appear to be another intellectually dishonest poster, who ignores relevant detail to make misleading comments.

[StanleyBlade82]

how dumb you sound onevoicefreason.....a 100 percent of the income tax gos to paying the interest on the money borrowed from the fed reserve.The fed is a privatized bank that congress has given the authority to illegaly print U.S currency....read the constitution.You say you want to protect the security of the U.S,then this starts with defending the constitution in witch every public official is sworn by.WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION THERE IS NO AMERRICA.wake up.

[pajeff2]

Ron paul should be sent to a home for the mentally ill

[01keef]

no, You, pajeff2, should be sent to a home for the mentally ill. FOREVER!

[onevoiceofreasons]

We should stay in Iraq and go after Iran..we could easily fund this by increasing the income tax 5% across the board, cancelling these stupid rebates and imposing a simple $500 war tax on each household...Funding our security should be our #1 priority

[01keef]

Onevoice: Wow! What a good chickenhawk bureaucrat you would make! You should think about running for office.

[pajeff2]

I was trying to decide what Ron Paul and his minions remind me of and it just suddenly hit me. The militant anti-government types. The Randy Weavers, McVeigh's, and others

[01keef]

"I was trying to decide what Ron Paul and his minions remind me of and it just suddenly hit me. The militant anti-government types. The Randy Weavers, McVeigh's, and others." Wow! Where did you think that one up? While watching Fox News? Good work! Way to think for yourself!

[onevoiceofreasons]

No, I get all my news fron Reuters

[01keef]

Onevoice: What has Ron Paul EVER said or done that puts him in the 'militant' category? As for 'anti-govt.', well, you'd have to put George Waahington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson in that category too. When your govt. is in the wrong its your patriotic duty to oppose it.

[cokie58]

Ron Paul is nothing but a blame-America-first attention whore. Pontificating little shit! Stop wasting the General's time you pretensious smuck.

[onevoiceofreasons]

Ron paul is quite simply anti-american..There really is no other way to put it..Time to call a spade a spade ,his social policies are also quite obviously racist and people would be starving in the streets .and his foreign policy would get us wiped off the planet

[knowyourrino]

So insisting that we follow the US Constitution is "simply anti-american".

Wow. Interesting perspective. How do you arrive at that?

[pajeff2]

mr anti-war, mr non-violence and his followers are of all things, Gun Fanatics..They want to bring all the violence back to the streets of America and get rid of law enforcement and return to the days of the wild wild west..Paul is a nut

[pajeff2]

paul says the war is illegal..he says bush is infringing on individual rights..in short he has accused bush of often violating the constitution..yet strangely this clown opposes impeachment...apparently even he doesn't believe the shit he is shoveling

[spanishaustralian]

where do you get this info from? where does it say ron paul oposes impeaching bush. bush is the pupet of a bigger picture perhapes thats why ron says this but still show me where ron paul says the things you are claiming? i think your lying

[pajeff2]

paul has stated many times he opposes impeachment

[spanishaustralian]

prove to us where and when does he say it plz.

some stats on america. 1908 america was 9% communism. 2008 america is 46% cummunism. another 100 yrs from now if continue to allow the government to get bigger the country will be communism with a fascism element. this is going global also not just you guys. i say ron paul's a great leader and a visionary. its bankruptcy or freedom. plz choose

[pajeff2]

no one is buying pauls crap..yesterday we took at shot at an irnian boat..the US will not back down despite pauls rants..paul may be on one of our enemies payrolls

[pajeff2]

It's a shame no one watches these damn hearings..if they did they could clearly see what a waste of taxpayer dollars they are and what a damn buch of idiots we have in the congress..Why the hell are we even talking about iraq..We went in, we're there now, and we will be there for a long time to come..End Of Story

[Crumbwitty]

You know how we get a bunch of idiots in congress? From being voted in by a bunch of idiot constituents who think examining the issues are a bad idea.

[pajeff2]

in some part, another way it is because a lot of young people, many who support paul, scream and moan and bitch about everything, and then simply don't vote..College kids are the biggest culprits here

[onevoiceofreasons]

Now that troop withdrawals have stopped in Iraq, we can now focus on going after Iran. the terrorists will not be allowed to win just because they have government officials like paul in their pocket

[Crumbwitty]

Ah so you dont support the oath to the constitution either. I think your name should've been onevoiceoftreason instead.

[jwka2001]

wow so Petraeus basically said were gonna go bomb Iran,lol.

[pajeff2]

generals do not participate in decisions that are covered in the constitution..screw the constitution

[Roadiepat]

hes not the commander for Iraq.. hes the commander for the U.S.A. and his job foremost is protecting the Constitution

[tomoleary1]

thank god for ron paul

[freedomman121]

"uhh...it's not my job man." Wonderful.

[Tomei1]

General Betrayus ic incompetent as a soldier if he doesn't know or understand the oath he took to protect The Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Keep on playing dumb, the American people are watching. This man is not a general but an asslicker to the administration. SHAME!

[tito2b2]

JESSE VENTURA/RON PAUL

Jesse Ventura President!!!

Liberty NOW!!!

[LinuxUser269]

simple question

[th3n3cro]

Ron Paul you are a hero!! Keep it UP =D