How Paul can argue against Romneys/Santorums foreign policy
Submitted by ch4d on Fri, 01/06/2012 - 19:49There's tons of arguments but there is one that stands out. Romney protested in-favor of the vietnam war/draft (meanwhile he's exempt from being drafted) while his father was governor of michigan. Meanwhile congress is feeding the public the same war propaganda and injecting fear into society. The same thing happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc... soon Iran.
Then the fact that he changed his mind on the war afterwards would be even more evidence for his flip-flopping record. He's the type of person who will modify his opinion to gain political or financial gain.
The majority of these candidates are psychopaths. Unfortunately screwing over the entire country by clearly ignoring the constitution and disrespecting individual freedom by also supporting SOPA, NDAA, Patriot Act and the Bailouts!
I think if Ron could get a few of these points across in a sincere but serious way in tomorrows debate it would make a clear distinction who is the honest candidate who supports the constitution.
Argue for Safety, Wisdom, Strength
I think Ron Paul needs to continue to repeat the theme of his position being the wise and safe position that uses the Constitution's safeguard against unjust wars that requires the people's state representative to authorize the President to execute a war by declaring that a condition of war exists.
Then, he has set up his charge against Santorum who has supported unsafe, unjust, unauthorized use of military force, use of our sons and daughters and use of our nation's line of credit to conduct empire building wars of aggression against our neighboring countries.
Then, repeat: We wait for congressional declaration that a condition of war exists in order to assure that we do not risk our lives, our money and our safety on unjust wars.