MyFox
 

lanny's Blog

by lanny from Whatever floats your

Last Post 15 days, 1 hour Ago


Caught some of the Republican debate last night.  That Ron Paul came off as such a radical.  I liked that.  The others came off with the same old answers but Paul really  rocked  their socks off.  It's great to see and hear widely different views on things.  And to think he's from right around here and I have never heard a sound bite from him before. 
11 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 11
Page 1 of 1
pinkstoys read my blog
Sep 6, 2007 | 3:00 PM

He won the poll too...but Fox won't admit it. He has placed in top five in every straw poll he has been in...

imatreat read my blog view my photos
Sep 6, 2007 | 3:52 PM

I love the fact that he wants this war to end. Some of his Liberatarian views are a bit scary to me. But he is for drastic change, which is the one thing this country needs right now. He might actually roll some heads, which most of those folks in Washington need.

PBMom read my blog view my photos
Sep 7, 2007 | 12:25 AM

Lanny--Your own Greg Groogan did a great report about him. He's from Lake Jackson. Go on YouTube. He is quite the popular man. He was on The Colbert Report. If you go to ComedyCentral.com and then go to The Colbert Report and go to the interview, you might have to go to the next pages of interviews but he was on there. He was also on Bill Mahar after he socked one to Rudy about not knowing what the 9/11 Commission Report had said in the first or second Republican debate. That is what got him noticed finally I think. He is a self-described Constitutionalist. He voted against the war in Iraq, voted against the Patriot Act. Some of his ideas are a bit scary (like getting rid of the Department of Education), but so far he is the only one saying something different out there. I think we need something different because politics as usual has become polarizing and paralyzing.

Ltlowl read my blog view my photos
Sep 24, 2007 | 7:09 AM

Ron Paul is the only logical choice for President!!! He has voted against every raise that congress wanted to give themselves. He has declined to take those raises and does not participate in the retirement fund of congress. He wants the states to be responsible for our childrens education, not the federal government. Our Constitution makes the states responsible for it's citizens, not the federal government. Go to Findlaw.com and locate the page with the Consitution and read how all the articles were changed to allow the federal government to run our lives. Ron Paul voted against going to Iraq because he knew it was not a just situation for us to be there. We are not in a war with Iraq because Bush says so. Congress has to declare a war, not the president.

The original intent of the Constitution regarding taxes did not give the government the power to tax our incomes. The sweat of our brow was not taxable. Profits from business, exports, imports, etc. were, and the feds have the power to do that. The freedom from excessive taxes was one of the founding principles of this country, but the powers that be past and present have trampled all over that part of the Constitution. The Constitution says that no other money other then gold or silver shall be the currency of this nation, yet we were robbed of that by a president that closed the banks and took all the gold & silver that our economy needed and gave it to a bunch of wealthy bankers and gave them power to print paper that is, was and always will be worthless. The money the Federal Reserve (an illegal enity

Ltlowl read my blog view my photos
Sep 24, 2007 | 7:16 AM

That last line reads, The money the Federal Reserve (an illegal enity) prints us unlawful, illegal and not worth the paper it is printed on.

lanny read my blog
Sep 24, 2007 | 7:17 AM

Ltlow,
Thanks for the additional info on Paul but I think the President can take military action in the face of an attack or if the country is on the verge of being attacked. I think the President doesn't have to wait for Congress.
Anyone know anymore on this?

Ltlowl read my blog view my photos
Sep 24, 2007 | 7:32 AM

Did Iraq attack us?

lanny read my blog
Sep 24, 2007 | 7:36 AM

That's not the question. It's wether or not Congress has to declare war. I didn't say the President made the right choice, I just said that he can authorize military action without waiting on Congress. No one seems to have disputed this successfully.

Ltlowl read my blog view my photos
Sep 24, 2007 | 8:03 AM

Over the President's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, designed to redistribute the war powers between the President and Congress. Although ambiguous in some respects, the Resolution appears to define restrictively the President's powers, to require him to report fully to Congress upon the introduction of troops into foreign areas, to specify a maximum time limitation on the engagement of hostilities absent affirmative congressional action, and to provide a means for Congress to require cessation of hostilities in advance of the time set. The Resolution states that the President's power to commit United States troops into hostilities, or into situations of imminent involvement in hostilities, is limited to instances of (1) a declaration of war, (2) a specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. In the absence of a declaration of war, a President must within 48 hours report to Congress whenever he introduces troops (1) into hostilities or situations of imminent hostilities, (2) into a foreign nation while equipped for combat, except in certain nonhostile situations, or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States troops equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation. The President is required to terminate the use of troops in the reported situation within 60 days of reporting, unless Congress (1) has declared war, (2) has extended the period, or (3) is unable to meet as a result of an attack on the United States, but the period

Ltlowl read my blog view my photos
Sep 24, 2007 | 8:05 AM

Continued

the period can be extended another 30 days by the President's certification to Congress of unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the troops. Congress may through the passage of a concurrent resolution require the President to remove the troops sooner. The Resolution further states that no legislation, whether enacted prior to or subsequent to passage of the Resolution will be taken to empower the President to use troops abroad unless the legislation specifically does so and that no treaty may so empower the President unless it is supplemented by implementing legislation specifically addressed to the issue.

Ltlowl read my blog view my photos
Sep 24, 2007 | 6:00 PM

Article I

Section 1.


All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 1 Section 8.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




lanny

I love my job at Fox, who else gets to see so much of Houston and meet so many out of this world people? What a gig!

Member Since: 10/5/2006