Ron's Son is NOT for assasination.

[kylejack]

Ok, then it should easy for you to find something where Ron Paul absolutely said this assassination was uncalled for, unnecessary, unconstitutional and out of line. Something since the news of his death came out.

Yep, provided. And then you moved the goalposts.

 

[specsaregood]

You asked me to provide you with something. Having provided it, you say it's the opposite. Sure, it makes perfect sense. You're moving the goalposts.

I'm sorry you can't read exactly what you pasted. He clearly says that if a threat is imminent it is justified and constitutional.

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat.

I take it you are a just read the headlines kinda guy.

 

[Brett85]

Quit parsing words. If Rand was his father's son, he wouldn't have made it so ambiguous. He would have clearly condemned the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen. We wouldn't have any question that he condemned this attack.

Obviously, he isn't his father's son. That's why he actually has a chance of becoming President someday.

 

[AuH20]

Obviously, he isn't his father's son. That's why he actually has a chance of becoming President someday.

And Trey Grayson is still pissed that Rand isn't Ron. He said it himself in an interview. "Why didn't he talk like Ron? I could have run a barrage of gotcha ads off his clumsy comments!"

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Obviously, he is his father's son. That's why he actually has a easier chance of becoming President someday.

Fixed.

 

[kylejack]

I'm sorry you can't read exactly what you pasted. He clearly says that if a threat is imminent it is justified and constitutional.

I take it you are a just read the headlines kinda guy.

You were talking about this attack, not some other attack. This assassination has been a work in progress for over 6 months.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Obviously, he isn't his father's son. That's why he actually has a chance of becoming President someday.

Yah, you know, I hear this over and over and over again.

OK, fine. But what if this ambiguous doubletalk is what he really thinks?

I'm looking for examples to suggest that he's just using the greasy talk (aka as "lying") as a means to an end and not an indication that this is truly what he believes.

My jury is still out.

 

[Brett85]

Yah, you know, I hear this over and over and over again.

OK, fine. But what if this ambiguous doubletalk is what he really thinks?

I'm looking for examples to suggest that he's just using the greasy talk (aka as "lying") as a means to an end and not an indication that this is truly what he believes.

My jury is still out.

Look at his rhetoric before he ran for office, and compare it with how he speaks now. He sounded a lot more like Ron back then.

 

[specsaregood]

You were talking about this attack, not some other attack. This assassination has been a work in progress for over 6 months.

Let me ask you this, if this became a scandal and went under investigation do you think the Obama Administration would have any problems coming up with intel/evidence "proving" that it was an immediate imminent threat? I don't, I doubt Ron, nor Rand either. Given that, it would be political suicide to outright proclaim this as "wrong" no matter what. They have to allow the imminent threat possibility, because if it is needed they'll make it up.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

to the OP of this thread. Treason is the proper charge against someone who would be found aiding or comforting the enemy.It is put on trial before a court with due process of law. What is there about that which Rand Paul does not understand and has two minds about?..........you figure it out.

 

[tsai3904]

I'm looking for examples to suggest that he's just using the greasy talk (aka as "lying") as a means to an end and not an indication that this is truly what he believes.

How about what he did to block the Patriot Act as long as he could, writing articles with Democrats explaining his position on the Patriot Act, being the most outspoken Senator against the Libyan war, calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan (and maybe leaving less than 10,000 special forces). He hasn't been perfect but he's shown where he sides on important issues.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll define what my side is. People who don't passionately defend habeas corpus when given the opportunity aren't on my side. Ron is on my side and Rand isn't.

Fair enough. Some people aren't passionate. :o

 

[kylejack]

Let me ask you this, if this became a scandal and went under investigation do you think the Obama Administration would have any problems coming up with intel/evidence "proving" that it was an immediate imminent threat?

Sure, they might. When they first leaked that they were trying to assassinate him it was all "we think he might be" yada yada yada. Sure, administrations lie, but Occam's Razor when the assassination has been ordered since February is that there was no imminent threat.

Obama didn't like that Awlaki was praising people who committed terrorist acts. He wanted to make Awlaki a lesson. A Constitutional law scholar of any mettle would have sought an indictment and started thinking of legal ways to apprehend him.

 

[tsai3904]

to the OP of this thread. Treason is the proper charge against someone who would be found aiding or comforting the enemy.It is put on trial before a court with due process of law. What is there about that which Rand Paul does not understand and has two minds about?..........you figure it out.

Rand said those captured on the battlefield may not be expected due process in US court. To me, that implies Rand wants those captured to be tried at GITMO instead of a US court. We can argue about whether they should be tried in the US or GITMO but Rand did not say anything that shows he is against due process.

 

[specsaregood]

Sure, they might. When they first leaked that they were trying to assassinate him it was all "we think he might be" yada yada yada. Sure, administrations lie, but Occam's Razor when the assassination has been ordered since February is that there was no imminent threat.

Obama didn't like that Awlaki was praising people who committed terrorist acts. He wanted to make Awlaki a lesson.

Then we agree. The problem is proving it and the president has a whole lot more resources at hand to coverup than a congressman or senator. Let's get Ron elected, then he can investigate it when he controls the reins.

 

[Jingles]

I always look at Rand as kind of undercover. He covers our positions in a bunch typical republican rhetoric, where as Ron just comes out and says it.

 

[doctor jones]

This thread is an epic failure.

Rand Paul 2016

 

[kuckfeynes]

Hey, no boots on the ground, no foul right? The "battlefield" is wherever the bomb lands!

 

[fatjohn]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

There's also the dance of taking two steps forward and one step back between polls or just head straight to the win. Ron does the dance. Rand goes for the win.

 

[jmdrake]

The more time Ron, or Rand, spend on this issue, the less time either have to win over mainstream voters. As mainstream voters are with Bill O-Reily on this one. I don't really like Rand's answers, but, I really didn't like Ron's either. As Ron's cost us too much political capital with his blunt answers. The bottom line is everyone deserves due process, especially American citizens. The only time citizens don't deserve due process is if they are fighting against us (in a declared war) on the enemy's' battlefield, and perhaps even here at home in some extreme circumstances (civil war).

This whole incident is another example of Ron wasting valuable time on Fox News dealing with issues that won't win the election. He really needs message control.

Screw Bill O'Reilly. We don't need him, especially when we're winning over people like Michael Savage and people like Justice Scalia already agree at least in principle and people like Herman Cain want to agree but can't stand the political pressure.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ith-Ron-Paul-on-al-Awlaki-Assassin.-10-3-2011
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320651-Justice-Scalia-Agrees-with-Ron-Paul
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-Presidential-powers-regarding-Assassination
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lip-Flopped-on-the-Killing-of-Anwar-al-Awlaki

Here's the deal that most people here just don't understand. Ron cannot win by simply being uncontroversial. That's because he has too much of a record for standing up for the truth. Even people who don't agree with him respect him. If he started running his campaign the way some of you wish he would run it then he wouldn't gain any votes, but he would lose respect. By contrast Rand doesn't have the "baggage" of a reputation of being uncompromisingly constitutional. So Rand can pull the right "emotional strings" long enough for people to listen. I wish Rand would have answered the question differently. But the key moving forward is to keep hammering home the fact that people like Savage and Scalia and (sometimes) Cain agree with Ron on this and other issues where teocons think Ron is being "weak".