text:
Biggest question – what took people so long on Ron Paul?
Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 01:50pm 172 Comments
It's all playing out according to plan.
Now that Newt's surge has stalled or burst, the full frontal attack is being launched on Ron Paul.
It's not that the scrutiny is not warranted, it's just interesting that it took so long.
Some of the belated nature of the criticism is excusable; as long as Paul stayed within his base, he was someone to be feared more for the threat of a third party run than on the merits. So much better to cajole him rather than confront him.
Now, however, Paul's surge in Iowa threatens the integrity of the Iowa caucus system; if he wins it's hard to make the case for continuing to give Iowa the first in the nation slot. A Paul win, with all that baggage, also would be an embarrasment for Romney, the presumptive nominee who not only can't seem to break 25% but who also can't beat Ron Paul in the heartland.
Paul's attack ads against Newt in Iowa were welcomed by Romney supporters, who were happy to have Paul take down Romney's main challenger.
What does it say that the Republican media and political establishment devoted a month towards a scorched earth policy against the former Speaker of the House who gave us balanced budgets, welfare reform, and a conservative revolution, yet was willing to tolerate Ron Paul in the service of electing Mitt Romney?
Sorry, hard truth time.
172	172 Comments 2012 Republican Primaries
2012 Republican Primaries
katiejane | December 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Seems like they know Paul would end up being outed as the "crazy uncle in the attic" by average voters – but the GOP insiders who are pushing Milktoast Mitt couldn't be sure Newt would flame out without their added help. I would vote for Newt if he were the nominee but wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if he were.
49erDweet in reply to katiejane. | December 22, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Tell it, sister!
scottinwisconsin in reply to katiejane. | December 22, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Funny how the only candidate YOU won't vote for, is the ONLY candidate who Washington or Jefferson or Franklin or Madison or Adams WOULD vote for.
I guess that says a lot about you.
punfundit in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Making it personal, Ron Paul supporter?
scottinwisconsin in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Constitution supporter.
I wish all the candidates respected and defended the Constitution. They don't.
Only Ron Paul actually does, so I support him.
And since the rest love their empire, love their undeclared wars and deficit spending, love the Fed, and love the police state, with it's detention without trial, and their groping of grandmothers at the airport, I don't support them.
Why do you?
And once again you employ the Obama logic. As if anyone who disagrees with Ron Paul somehow disagrees with the Constitution. Once again you swing your fist without considering the proximity of your neighbor's chin.
Ron Paul is not the end-all-be-all maestro of the Constitution.
And instead of repeating your ludicrous assertions that "the others" "love" their "empire" and so forth, why don't you actually go ahead and present your evidence. Otherwise you're simply trolling, like any leftist would in a conservative blog.
imfine in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Except that Ron Paul Is a big government liberal. The only difference from say newt is he is also anti-defense. He talks a good game about limited government, but when it comes to doing things like cutting entitlements, he won't do it. He claims the 75 billion we are spending on wars is bankrupting the nation, but not a word on the trillions we give away. He plans to raid the operational budget to increase the rate of ss increases by upping the cola allotments, because it's "unfair" that the free cash seniors are getting isn't increasing fast enough.
Don belive me read his plan to save america on his website. It's all here, black and white.
Dear god. Ron Paul is nuts.
katiejane in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Since neither Washington nor Jefferson nor Franklin nor Madison nor Adams are around to vote in this election it's hard to say that they'd vote for the crazy uncle in the attic. They voted according to their era – I'll vote according to mine.
Einstein's 2nd definition of Insanity:
Keep voting for big-government Republicans, and expecting freedom and prosperity.
So Keep voting "according to your era." You know, the era of big government, bankrupt economy, and disappearing liberty.
The era where 90 Senators vote for the President to be able to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial or legal council.
You're a frog in a pot of water that's slowly getting hotter. When will you jump out?
andcar in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 6:46 pm
You're right on about the general disregard for the Constitution in the government (yes, I'm including most of the GOP). That you think Ron Paul is the person to solve that problem…
This is the guy who submits hundreds of millions of dollars of earmark requests like clockwork but says earmarks are unconstitutional. He makes his lone vote against them and crows about his principles, knowing all the while that his lone vote won't block anything so he'll still get to bring home the pork. He's a standard-issue cynical politician who occupies a libertarian niche market.
Then there's the newsletter nastiness. If I recall correctly, there was another politician not too long ago who, for 20 years, attended a church with a vehemently racist pastor. When called on it, he said he was never aware of his pastor's rhetoric. Most of us on the right were reasonably skeptical that someone could be involved in something for 20 years and not see something right in front of their face. Yet that is now exactly what Paul and his supporters want us to believe regarding these newsletters that were published under his name for two decades.
Hope Change in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 23, 2011 at 9:40 pm
HI everybody! I'm not sure "earmarks" are the proper way for Congress to spend money.
I think Congress is supposed to confine its spending to matters of national necessity.
Earmarks are a money game, in which Congress takes money from local people all around the country, and then Congress chooses which local people will get money, from everyone nationally, for their little, favored, chosen, local project. This, Congress peddles influence and congresscritters gain influence using OUR MONEY. Here's a thought: let LOCAL people fund LOCAL projects with the LOCAL money they earn LOCALLY in their home LOCAL communities. That's a revolutionary idea!
I received the following document about DAVY CROCKETT in an email last spring. I learned a lot from it. I hope it's not too long. Merry Christmas, to all to whom that applies, and Happy Holidays to all to whom that applies. And namaste to all. And to all a good night. DAVY CROCKETT document starts now:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
History's immortals sometimes offer a glimpse of their greatness in events other than those that granted them immortality.
Tennessee militia colonel David Crockett, perhaps best known for his role in the 1836 defense of the Alamo, also served three terms in the United States Congress between 1827 and 1835. Nationally known during his lifetime as a political representative of the frontier, Crockett apparently came by that reputation honestly, inasmuch as he was not above listening to his constituents. The following excerpt from an 1884 biography by Edward S. Ellis, "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," reveals how his own rural electorate taught him the importance of adhering to the Constitution and the perils of ignoring its
restrictions.
Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:
"Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have
been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the
government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my
friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:
"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:
"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to
feel the same way.
"The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so;for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas
and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.
"So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the
man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: 'Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and
get better acquainted.' He replied:
"'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.'
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and –'
"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'
"This was a sockdolager [a knock down blow -ed.] …. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest …. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'
"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by
a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
"'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.'
"'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?'
"Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:
"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering
women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff,
which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither
defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by
contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'"
"I have given you," continued Crockett, "an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong.
He wound up by saying:
"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact
is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will
do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
"'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a
speech to them, Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
"'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'
"'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.'
"'My name is Bunce.'
"'Not Horatio Bunce?'
"'Yes.'
"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.'
"We shook hands and parted.
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
"'Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
"'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
"'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came upon the stand and said:
"'Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that
he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."
punfundit | December 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Amen, brother.
libertarian_neocon | December 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm
It's just amazing how many questions there were in the latest Fox News debate about money that Newt legitimately received from Freddie Mac and not one question about Ron Paul's dubious associations with truthers and anti-semites.
I've lost a lot of respect for Fox News after that.
49erDweet in reply to libertarian_neocon. | December 22, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Just because Faux News is better than all the rest doesn't mean they should be trusted. "All Media Lies". Remember that, my son, and you shall live long and prosper. Forget it again and you'll probably end up a fool.
StrangernFiction in reply to libertarian_neocon. | December 22, 2011 at 4:07 pm
And not one question about Romneycare.
Tregonsee | December 22, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Paul is like the crazy uncle you have to be nice to because he has a lot of money. In this case, voters that the GOP will need. If you trash him, and the Ronulans consider almost any slight as a personal affront, a small but key number will stay home on election day. The Dems have their own crazies who must be treated the same way.
punfundit in reply to Tregonsee. | December 22, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Ronulans? Love it!
jmitchell3 | December 22, 2011 at 2:51 pm
I guess I don't understand. I've talked to many folks everywhere from western and eastern europe, new zealand, and south africa who indicate their feelings that the US has had (rightly so) a policy of interventionist "police" throughout the world in order to cement its position and maintain its sole-superpower status. They (folks I've spoken with) feel that the US should allow other nations to be the masters of their own destinies, to an extent, and simply stay out of their business. Is it not possible that we've come far from the days of "Speak softly and carry a big stick" to "leverage our position as big-stick holder to get what we want"? While Mr. Paul fails to adequately convey the principles behind his foreign policy, I think the principles on which he's basing his conclusions (however crazy they sound) may have significant merit. While the issue of militant islamic terrorism is indeed a real threat irrespective of US "interventionism", it does not invalidate the case of other nations in citing our tendency towards throwing our weight around on the world stage. Thoughts?
punfundit in reply to jmitchell3. | December 22, 2011 at 3:10 pm
The principles have merit, the principal espousing those principles does not. Ron Paul is not the answer.
Chuck Skinner in reply to jmitchell3. | December 22, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Most of Ron Paul's positions ignore the fact that foreign policy isn't a zero-sum game. It's not as if we are the only foreign power attempting to influence these other countries. If we were, I might be inclined to agree with him. However, we're not, and the other influential players have motives and objectives that are diametrically opposed to Unites States interests.
The other big players (Russia, China, India) are looking to use their economic influence to drive political and social change, often to the detriment of the United States.
Very rarely does the United States actually leverage its "big stick" holding potential on a governmental level. If we did, there would be many fewer governments openly hostile to US interests. The fact that the US provides so much humanitarian aid to countries with hostile intentions without conditioning it upon change is evidence of that (DPRK is a fantastic example).
The United States encourages countries to be the masters of their own destiny until those countries actively attempt to attack a United States interest.
Ron Paul's isolationist policies had merit in a world where it took months (not hours) to land an invasion force on US Soil. They don't work so well though when there are declared States who openly threaten acts of terrorism and destruction upon the United States.
Ron Paul does have one thing right in foreign policy though: If we're going to fight a war, it should be a declared war and the goal should be to WIN. Winning means you have defeated the opponent until they can't attack you anymore (not won't, can't. The "light forces" approach we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, while I understand it from a "cultural" standpoint, has been a disaster in terms of overall effectiveness and has allowed for continued insurrection.
scottinwisconsin in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm
And YOUR foreign policy position seems to ignore the obvious fact that our empire is designed only to steal our money and our freedom. The powers that be are not interested in keeping YOU safe! They want your treasure and liberty.
Explain how installing al Qaeda in Egypt makes us safer?
How will attacking Iran, and sending oil to $250 a barrel, make YOU safer? Yet it's coming.
How does keeping 35,000 troops in Germany keep YOU safer?
Or 10,000 troops in England???
Why do you distrust everything our Federal government does domestically, and yet you imagine that their international adventures are all legit and necessary.
The same federal government that ships guns to drug lords and feels up your grandmother at the airport, is killing foreigners for the money.
Wise up.
You seem to believe that people who disagree with Ron Paul somehow agree with "imperialism" or "evil America" or "inside job" whatever it is you hold dear. That's more or less the same logic which asserts that anyone who disagrees with Barack Obama is a racist.
You don't seem to grasp the notion that your either-or situation does not meet reality, nor is it the only possible situation. The absence of one condition does not obligate the presence of the other.
You swing your fist without checking the proximity of others' chins.
Well, since no Republican can say they disagree with Ron Paul's domestic policies, you can only be against him because of his foreign policies.
And his foreign policies are those of the Founders. Mind Your Own Freakin Business.
Stop posting troops in 130 countries. Stop trying to run the world, while you go broke.
Stop using empire as an excuse to steal our money and freedom.
Despite your dismissal of the 12 term congressman, the simple fact is, he's right, you're wrong.
To the extent that you change your mind, and agree with him, you will be right. To the extent you don't, you will be wrong. It's that simple.
punfundit in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 7:12 pm
@scottinwisconsin
"To the extent that you change your mind, and agree with [Ron Paul], you will be right. To the extent you don't, you will be wrong. It's that simple."
And there goes the whole of the Ron Paul supporters' logic. Ron Paul can evidently do and think no wrong. Those who disagree are infidels. How long must they wait before they can achieve their ideal wherein, as Whittaker Chambers once proffered, "to a gas chamber – go."
Chuck Skinner in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Scottinwisconsin,
You're somewhat misrepresenting my position (I get that a lot, it seems).
First, the United States is FAR from an empire. I know the Paul-Bot types like to say it is, but it doesn't meet ANY of the standard definitions of one. No Emperor or king (a president who shares power with a Congress and a Supreme Court, not a supreme authority), no colonies (but I'll give you a few protectorates), and no absolute control.
Second, I don't WANT OR NEED the "powers that be" (as you put it) to keep me safe. I want them to present me an opportunity before God, my fellow man, and a just and neutral legal system to prove that I have unequal talent to my fellow man.
Third, attacking Iran, if necessary, to prevent them from acquiring the technology to build a nuclear weapon makes the United States safer by preventing an unstable country based fully on a Theocracy that advocates FORCED CONVERSION TO ISLAM of all non-belivers, and direct attacks on any country that is not ALSO based on Sharia law from acquiring the weapons technology necessary to destroy the United States. The problem COULD have been dealt with already, except for "appeasers" who, instead of doing what was right, would rather waive little flags on toothpicks and not forcefully defend the actions taken in Iraq (where, despite CONSTANT lies by the media to the contrary, we HAVE FOUND COUNTLESS weapons of mass destruction.
Fourth, Keeping 35,000 troops in Germany keeps the United States safer because it acts as a rapid deployment center, as well as a staging base should hostilities erupt. I understand logistics VERY well. Permanent local bases of operations allow for supply lines which are less subject to attack, more stable, more efficient and overall safer both to the local populace AND to US troops. Same thing with England. Full disclosure and incidentally, my brother-in-law is the commanding officer at the Aviano Air Force base in Northern Italy.
Fifth, I -question- everything the Federal Government does. I am a Federalist. But I do understand that it DOES CONSTITUTIONALLY have some required functions. One of them happens to be to provide for "the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". see US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. I don't imagine that everything that the government does is legitimate or necessary, but I understand that SOME things ARE.
I do disagree with MANY of Ron Paul's domestic policies. The absolute immediate abolishment of Social programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) would be disastrous. There has been a structured transition to these programs, there needs to be a structured transition OUT of them as well. Individuals have taken certain actions based on social contract. Undoing that takes time, which I've not once heard Ron Paul discuss. I like the idea of abolishing the Income tax, but it needs to be replaced with SOMETHING (I favor the FAIRTAX proposal). When Paul discusses the fact that the income tax could be abolished and there would be 55% of revenue left over, he's not accounting for the fact that he wants to abolish 35% by ending FICA taxes as well. Thus, it's NOT 55% left over. It's 20%. I do happen to like the idea of the Gold Standard (it solves a lot of tinkering that monetary policy should not do).
Partially crossing between domestic and foreign policy, we have made certain agreements (WTO, NAFTA, others) which prevent implementation of Excise taxes. Also, the implementation of said taxes encourages other countries to tax us the same way.
Ron Paul has a lot of things right, but he's also got a LOT of things wrong. Too many, in fact. While his intentions may be consistent with Washington's ideals of non-interventionism, they depend on peace as the normal condition of society and to minimize the chance of war. Well, WAR has come to our DOORSTEP. Non-interventionism is not currently an option if we wish to maintain the fundamental nature of our Republic.
When ONE nation, consisting of 5% of the world's population, spends more on arms and armies then the rest of the world COMBINED, and stations troops in 130 countries, and regularly invades and/or bombs other countries, deposes elected government, and installs puppets, it's an EMPIRE. The rest is just jibber jabber.
And your representation of Paul's domestic positions are gibberish as well. He has said Social Security is unconstitutional, and should be phased out as sooon as it can be, while keeping disruptions to a minimum. Not "immediately." Typical straw man attack.
If and when war "comes to our doorstep," Paul would fight it well. He's the Veteran in the field. But you and yours will use 9/11 for the next 50 years as an excuse to run the world.
What he wouldn't do is install tyrant in Iran, like we did in 1953, overthrowing the elected government, and start us down the road to endless conflict. The rest of the field will do that without even sweating it.
I don't know what makes me more pessimistic about the future of our Republic — they fascist leftists who long for big Brother's embrace, or the fascist conservatives, who reluctantly accept the ever-growing embrace of big Brother as a necessary evil. And always find an excuse to NOT vote for the one candidate who would stop it.
You're both wrong, and you're ruining my country!
Chuck Skinner in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 22, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Ahh, being called a fascist Conservative by a Troll. Reminds me of those good old college days.
punfundit in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm
It's amazing just how easily Ron Paul supporters can sound like Barack Obama supporters.
Milhouse in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 23, 2011 at 11:00 am
What he wouldn't do is install tyrant in Iran, like we did in 1953, overthrowing the elected government, and start us down the road to endless conflict.
If you really believe that bullshit then you are incompetent to vote.
L.N. Smithee in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 22, 2011 at 4:56 pm
When I used to hang out a lot at Free Republic, the Paul-ine Kaels would pipe up about how the United States couldn't afford to be the world's policeman. There's truth to that, but the fact remains, if America abdicates its position as sole superpower of the world, that vacuum would be filled as it always has. Raising the question, who else would you want doing the job?
andcar in reply to L.N. Smithee. | December 22, 2011 at 6:52 pm
That's a question Ron Paul will never answer. Nature abhors a vacuum.
punfundit in reply to L.N. Smithee. | December 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm
"Markets" would be the likely response.
valleyforge in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Now who sounds like Obama?
andcar in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Now who still didn't answer the question?
punfundit in reply to punfundit. | December 23, 2011 at 1:19 am
@valleyforge
It's still you and scottinwisconsin.
And I note you don't disagree with the notion that markets would fill the vacuum. Just how do you propose that would happen? Whose markets? And who will keep them free?
andcar in reply to punfundit. | December 23, 2011 at 1:57 am
Still waiting for the Ronulan answer to this question.
Milhouse in reply to L.N. Smithee. | December 23, 2011 at 11:03 am
If Ron Paul had been president in the late 1930s the USA would have stayed out of WW2. He would never have imposed the embargo on Japan, or sent pilots to fight them in China, so they would never have had the need to attack Pearl Harbor. And so the USA would have remained neutral while the world burned, and President Paul wouldn't lift a finger until there were German tanks massed on the Canadian and Mexican borders — if then.
andcar in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2011 at 12:22 pm
The Holocaust also presents a foreign policy dilemma for the Ronulans. Simple fact is that sometimes other people do things so bad that "minding your own business" ceases to be an effective moral shield. It holds up well in general, but when confronted with something truly evil, it's pretty flimsy.
If you see something like the Holocaust going on, and you have the power to stop it but you don't because you're "minding your own business…" You become morally complicit, and should hope that God doesn't exist, because if He does you will have to answer for a rather large sin of omission.
Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Yes, a Kitty Genovese foreign policy.
L.N. Smithee in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2011 at 4:50 pm
If Ron Paul had been president in the late 1930s the USA would have stayed out of WW2. He would never have imposed the embargo on Japan, or sent pilots to fight them in China, so they would never have had the need to attack Pearl Harbor. And so the USA would have remained neutral while the world burned …
Thank you very much for pointing this out, Milhouse.
The reflexive response of the antiwar libertarian is that the U.S. provoked the Pearl Harbor attack with its oil and steel embargo on Japan. Led by the Shinto demigod Hirohito, the starry-eyed dreamers of Japan were drawing up their own version of Manifest Destiny from their own shores southward to Australasia, Central America, South America, and — if Axis forces succeeded in Europe — westward to Alaska, the Canadian coastal provinces, and even the U.S. state of Washington.
Based on what I've heard from Paul, I don't know why it shouldn't be assumed he would have sold oil and steel to Japan, and let the Australians, the Filipinos, the Hawaiians, the Panamanians, and the Canadians fend for themselves. As it turned out, the U.S. resisted, Japan attacked, and a brutal, bloody war was fought. Hirohito finally surrendered, but only after a second atomic bomb.
Now, seventy years later, Japan is a thriving industrial nation at peace with the United States and the rest of the world. It learned its lesson, and Hirohito, the royal so-called son of a sun goddess, renounced his claim of divinity. It may be cruel to say so, but it's hard to dispute the fact that Nagasaki showed the religious extremists of Japan what they were in for if they didn't give up their plan of hemispheric domination.
Absent similar potential devastating responses, what will it take for the Iranian mullahs to also see the light?
49erDweet in reply to jmitchell3. | December 22, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Your question is indeed valid. IMO the vast majority of normal Americans would prefer to allow other nations to resolve their own issues IF they were allowed to do so without outside influence. Chuck Skinner is spot on. Most troubled nations become hot beds of international intrigue caused by the attempting of provocateurs to use or abuse local peoples for the gain of "others". To ignore the plight of those victims is to ignore the lesson of the good Samaritan. In spite of purists like the honorable gentleman from Texas, I can't see most Yanks turning their backs on neighbors in desperate need. The proof of this, by the way, is when the US eventually gives back to "the people" everything gained through conflict.
Chuck Skinner | December 22, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I was actually going to make a comment in a prior thread about what the Republican National Committee would do if Ron Paul won the Iowa Caucus, and that the RNC would likely take a VERY hard look at whether Iowa deserved to retain it's "first in the nation" status in the next Presidential cycle were that foolishness to come to pass. I actually typed it out, before thinking that it might be unduly inflammatory.
It's nice to know I'm not the only one thinking it.
Also, ALL of the most recent polling is still junk polling. I dislike bashing Zogby and Rasmussen, but they've been using weak sample-sizes for the purposes of Iowa polling, and it's really ticking me off that they're being so haphazard about it. Further, Zogby has been getting particularly ridiculous national results lately (Claim: 1 of 4 voters likely to support a 3rd party candidate; Claim: 16% of overall likely voters would vote for Ron Paul if he was a 3rd party candidate). That could be though because he's been using his "interactive" polling method, which biases toward younger, less dedicated voters.
Everybody is talking about "registered Republican voters" or worse "general election likely voters." The ONE poll I've seen so far that broke it down to likely caucus-goers had a sample-size of 333 "definite or likely" to attend the Iowa caucus, and that was the ISU /Gazette/KCRG Poll released yesterday.
I don't even read Zogby polls anymore other than to see a negative result.
Chuck Skinner in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 24, 2011 at 11:27 am
Update: I've FINALLY seen a decent polling size at 600 "likely" caucus-goers, done by American Research Group. It's still a light polling size, but at least it starts to get to a reasonable level for accuracy purposes.
It showed Paul at 21%, Romney at 20% and Gingrich at 19% with a +/-4% margin of error. (still too big for what I would use in advising a candidate, but at least better than 300 people at +/-5%).
So it's basically a crap-shoot at this point.
What does that say about the Iowa Caucus, if anything?
StephenMonteith | December 22, 2011 at 3:28 pm
The real hard truth is that people, particularly primary and caucus voters, have a short attention span. These candidates, every single one of them, have been around since at least early August, most of them for months before and more than a couple for years. They haven't changed (significantly), and really, neither have the voters. So why has nearly everyone been up and down in the polls? Why have they been passing around the mantle of frontrunner like it's a relay race?
Because people only pay attention when they're told to, and to what (and whom) they're told to. Tell them that Michele Bachmann's a great candidate, they'll support her; until you tell them she's a loon and Rick Perry's better. Then, tell 'em Perry's an idiot and Cain's the man; until you tell them Cain's got far too little experience and far too many "scandals". Then Newt, whom they ignored until they were told to take him seriously, began his rise; until people were told he's an egotistical hothead. None of this, the good or the bad, is actually untrue; people just haven't been paying enough attention on their own, so they only learn about it when someone else points it out to them.
Ron Paul's always been sort of a … special case. People assumed, like with Romney, that if you just badmouthed him in general, he'd never rise in the polls. The problem with that is, like Romney, he's never fallen in the polls, either. The big difference between them, besides policy, is Romney's floor of support (it's not a ceiling) is higher. Nevertheless, Paul still has his own floor. If he's indeed taking his turn as the anti-Romney, then he's starting from a much better position than any of the other candidates did.
The anti-Romneys have allowed themselves to be led around from candidate to candidate because they know they have time to make a decision. They've listened to the good about each candidate, which has allowed each to rise, and then they listened to the bad, which has allowed each to fall. Ron Paul, with his perpetual base, has higher to rise and not as far to fall. No one expected him to be the Romney alternative, though, so they never really worried about it. Now, they are.
StephenMonteith in reply to StephenMonteith. | December 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm
And by the way? This is not a threat to the "integrity of the Iowa Caucus system". If Ron Paul wins, then it will be because he earned it. Some candidates, like Bachmann and Santorum, have been campaigning there for months at a time and haven't maintained high numbers like his. Others, like Romney and Gingrich, have barely even been there and are popular for who knows what reasons. Ron Paul, on the hand, has done the work, campaigned in the state, built his organization, and just may win. That's not proof the system is broken; that's proof it works. If Romney and Gingrich lose to him, then it'll be because they ignored the system all this time. I wanted Romney to campaign there; I want him to win there. His campaign has other ideas, though, that may just carry him to the nomination and the presidency. It wouldn't be as much of an "embarrassment" to him to lose to Ron Paul as you think, given how much effort Paul has put into the state and how little Romney has. It would be more a "threat" to have someone who Hasn't spent that much time or effort in the state win the Caucuses.
holmes tuttle in reply to StephenMonteith. | December 22, 2011 at 5:30 pm
no one says he won't earn it. but if he wins, no one will bother with IA anymore. I'd suggest if Paul wins IA, in 16 or 20 it will have far less of a role.
49erDweet in reply to StephenMonteith. | December 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm
The other part of the problem is that voters tend to look at candidates like they look at Prize Boars or Preachers. [No offense intended to either]. They look for perfection.
News flash. There is no perfection. [Except, of course, in the eyes of establishment Republicans and pundits who will gladly tell you who is "perfect" in their eyes even if unable to articulate exactly why].
Instead, voters should be looking at which candidate would work best with a GOP house and senate. And then make up their own minds, themselves. Of course the other part is they have to work on local races to ensure they give their presidential candidate the proper environment to succeed. There's no magic wand. It all takes work. Or, just vote they way the pundits tell you and see how well that works out.
VinnyJ300M | December 22, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Most of Ron Paul's positions ignore the fact that foreign policy isn't a zero-sum game.
THANK YOU! I wish more people understood this concept.
scottinwisconsin in reply to VinnyJ300M. | December 22, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Most people seem to ignore the fact that if you invade people's countries, if you install puppet leaders, if you bomb them and kill them — guess what, they are gonna hate you!
They don't hate your freedom! Do they chant Death to Canada? Death to Switzerland? Nope.
Because Canada and Switzerland don't bomb them and kill them.
Zero sum? With the trillions of dollars our empire has cost us, and endless young lives, I would say getting back to zero is impossible. We've lost.
The urge to empire sunk Rome and Spain and England. Now us.
49erDweet in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 5:19 pm
And the last time Canada or Switzerland led an invasion was………………?
Please, Scott, don't take the term "Cheesehead" to a new level.
scottinwisconsin in reply to 49erDweet. | December 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm
You made my point. Canada and Switzerland are free, and NOT hated by young middle-eastern men.
Why? Because they don't invade middle-eastern countries and try to run them.
Thanks for agreeing.
You're revealing your ignorance of anything that happens outside our borders. Canada and Switzerland (and Denmark and Sweden and the Netherlands and Germany and Spain, off the top of my head) have had issues and incidents with Islamist terrorists. They're also dealing with attempts by Muslims residents to force them to incorporate sharia into their legal codes.
Paul also credulously (cynically?) quotes statements from bin Laden, et al to the effect that they are waging their war against us as a resistance movement in response to our imperialism. While I don't deny that there is certainly a strong element of that in their motivations, I point out that the statements Paul loves to quote are taken from what are basically Al Qaeda's PR releases aimed at Western audiences: propaganda pieces meant to lure Western liberals and people like Ron Paul (aka useful idiots). Their intercepted internal communications and Muslim-oriented statements are much more clear about their prime motivation- the restoration/establishment of a global caliphate.
Actually, yes they do chant Death to Canada and Death to Switzerland. But really is was Death to Sweden that Ron Paul cited. They say that too.
According to you, the imperialist American stormtroopers are murdering foreigners by the bushel. What do you propose to do about them should Ron Paul be elected Commander-in-Chief and brings them all home?
Obviously we can't have a bunch of war criminals running around the country with nothing to do and drawing taxpayer paychecks now can we?
The least we can do is take away their government paychecks and government equipment and government authority. The the ability to murder in our name.
I guess you didn't read the Police State Codification Act (National Defense Authorization Act).
They've been practicing killing foreigners. Now it's our turn.
But hey, It can't happen here? Right?
I note that you did not object to the description of "imperialist American stormtroopers."
Take away their paychecks? That's all you would do? How could that possibly be justice for the millions slain? Why not hang them all as the war criminals they so manifestly seem to be?
As you did not suggest we punish these criminals, you seem to be hedging. Watch out, your fellow Ron Paul supporters might read this and conclude that you should be excommunicated for unfaithfulness as well.
scottinwisconsin in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 8:04 pm
What part of "The LEAST we should do" don't you understand. The LEAST. Idiot.
Again with the name calling.
So taking away the baby-killers' paychecks is the "least" we should do. What do you think should *really* be done with them?
Milhouse in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
When has the USA done anything like that? The USA has fairly consistently intervened to make people more free, not less. We freed the Iraqis from tyranny; a hostile invader would have taken their oil, but we didn't.
If "we are not the world's policeman" then tell me who is. Your mind-our-own-business foreign policy is a Kitty Genovese policy. Communists/Nazis/Japanese taking over country after country? Not our problem. Millions are being enslaved and murdered? Not our problem. Iran is planning nuclear terror? Not our problem. Tell me then, whose problem is it? What are the victims to do, if they're not strong enough to resist on their own? Whom shall they call on for help, if not us?
We have a responsibility to be the world's policeman, because we're the only ones who can.
"With great power comes great responsibility."
-Uncle Ben
punfundit in reply to andcar. | December 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm
"With great evil comes great America."
-Uncle Ron
scottinwisconsin | December 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Once you accept that government is always, at all levels, an organize criminal scheme to steal your money, then you start to see the Empire in it's true light.
We aren't attacking countries in the middle east to keep you and your kids safe, dumby. How will bankrupting the country do that?
We're attacking countries around the world to enrich the elites, and redistribute wealth from us to them.
And to have an excuse to take away our guns and our freedom.
Wake up, folks. Terrorists didn't attack Oklahoma City, the government did.
And while you laugh at that, remember how silly it sounded that OUR GOVERNMENT would ship guns to drug lords, as an excuse to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. Yet they do.
There is NOTHING they won't do to take our money and our freedom. Only Ron Paul sees that. When will you?
syn in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Geez, it's as if you think the CIA created radical Islam in order to cause the attack on 9/11/2001 just so our government can take oil from the Middle East while making you poor.
That said; my good friend Oleg Atbashian- former USSR dissiden- who wrote "Shakedown Socialism" is now writing a book on geopolitical landscape from the perspective of a Ukrainian.
Like it was previously stated, America's foreign policy is not a zero-sum game in which we call all the shots. And the CIA, they're pansies in comparison to the real bad boys around the world.
PS: 20% towards National Defense is nothing compared to 56% spend on Social Security, Medicare, Welfare.
The Industrial Military Complex is powerless to the Industrial Entitlement Complex.
War isn't bankrupting America, Americans are bankrupting America.
scottinwisconsin in reply to syn. | December 22, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Not radical Islam. The CIA did create Al Qaeda, and runs it.
"Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/#ixzz1hJ7HcjAm"
But that can't be true! They wouldn't run guns to Mexican Drug Lords, either, would they?
No matter how evil and corrupt you THINK our government is, you're not even scratching the surface.
Now wait a minute. On the one hand you deride Faux News for the lies and slander against Ron Paul, while on the other hand you cite Fox News as the authoritative source of news supporting Ron Paul.
Or perhaps that's face rather than hand.
You're confused.
I never derided Fox News. Read more carefully.
And I never suggested they were some super authority.
They simply acknowledged what all the media knows — our most feared terrorist had lunch at the pentagon after 9/11. There were many other outlets I could have cited.
So how is that an argument for Ron Paul's nomination?
Let me get this straight:
You're saying that the CIA currently runs Al Qaeda?
Ok. I'm done. Time to stop arguing with the man in the tinfoil hat.
And, FYI- it wasn't the CIA running guns to Mexican drug lords. It was the ATF (BATFE), a division of the Dept. of Homeland Security, aided by the State department.
Oh, well if it's just the BATFE, part of Homeland Security, it must be no big deal.
How is it you conservatives just KNOW our government gave guns to drug lords to undermine our 2nd Amendment, but disbelieve everything else they've also done?
We had a President who committed purjury, and couldn't be removed — what won't they do?
Now wait a minute. I thought we were socialist neo-cons. Which is it?
Or that it ever ran AQ, or ever had any connection to it? That's a lie too.
Chuck Skinner in reply to Chuck Skinner. | December 24, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Actually Milhouse, there is a kernel of truth to the "Al Qaeda was started by the CIA" story, but it requires a history lesson to understand it properly, which the Ron Paul supporters usually don't know. That is why they don't get the context of why Paul is a loony-tune on foreign policy.
The history lesson the Ron Paul supporters ignore is that Afghanistan WAS INVADED BY THE USSR in order to gain control of a warm-water port and a grab toward middle-eastern oil.
Osama bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam as part of the mujaheddin in Pakistan to fight the Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1979, to which the US provided financial aid and weapons. He was appreciated because of his vast inherited fortune at that time, and the ability to move money around discretely (no loose ends).
The US Office of Intelligence and Security (OIS), the CIA bankrolled the plan, called Operation Cyclone, to a funding level of $30 million in 1979 to $630 million in 1987. The plan was to fund and use Islamic fighters favored by Pakistan that were going to be fighting the Soviets ANYWAY and ostensibly trained by the Pakistani ISI. The US government currently denies ever having funded the foreign Arab Mujaheddin, claiming it only supported the "native Afghan rebels," but the financial records are right there in black-and-white if you know where to look for them.
The problem didn't arise until the Mujaheddin actually largely WON in Afghanistan, and the MONEY was shifted away from them. Suddenly, the group of battle-hardened Islamic rebels didn't have a war to fight anymore, nor did they have the level of income support they had grown accustomed to. Al Qaeda formed out of this suddenly bereft group, many of whom blamed the United States for no longer supporting them now that the cause had been won after those fighters had given life-and-limb. A decision was made amongst the leaders who would later become the core leadership of Al Qaeda that once the Soviets fully withdrew, the jihadist cause to spread Islam should be taken up elsewhere. Ayman al-Zawahiri pushed strongly for Egypt to be the next target, given its peace treaty with Israel, but was largely overruled. After the assassination of Azzam in 1989, most of the leaders joined with bin Laden.
Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia, and when Gulf War 1 started, offered his fighters to defend Saudi Arabia to King Fahd. Instead, King Fahd brought in US troops, which was an insult to Bin Laden both personally and spiritually and bin Laden was banished from the kingdom for calling out King Fahd for having infidel foreign soldiers fighting for him. This opened the door for bin Laden to bin Laden's anti-American phase, blaming the United States first for cutting off funding to the mujaheddin, and later for the fact that he had been exiled from his homeland.
The 1992 Aden, Yemen hotel bombings were his first strike to take out soldiers on their way to Somalia, which was Al Qaeda's shift from attacking soldiers to killing civilians.
Ali Mohamed, a former special forces Sergent, left the US military and joined Al Qaeda. His close associate, El Sayyid Nosair was raided in 1990 by the FBI in New Jersey, where extensive plans were discovered regarding terrorist plots, including plans to blow up NYC skyscrapers. Ramzi Yousef was known to have attended a training camp in Afghanistan where bin Laden was known to be (he carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and rumored to have met with bin Laden regarding US attacks. Yousef's failure is largely why bin Laden later focused so heavily on the WTC towers in later planning, to show that they COULD be destroyed.
So, like I started with: There is a kernel of truth to the fact that the OIS and CIA ONCE funded the precursor to Al Qaeda.
That being said, the current conspiracy-theory tin-foil-hat types who like to use that as a "we should mind our own business" reasoning are absolutely off their rockers, because they don't understand the CONTEXT of why events occurred the way they did, and the underlying PERSONAL motivations behind choices that were made.
jakee308 in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm
There's a sign post up ahead, you're entering the
TWILIGHT ZONE.
do do di do, do do di do. do do di do, do do di do.
di di da dah
And yet you believe in elections.
Not in the sense that I will vote for the lesser of two evils. You can do that, I can't.
When someone actually stands up and says "enough," and campaigns on turning the train around, not just slowing it down, I feel obligated to honor that effort with my vote.
But If Paul is not the GOP nom, I will vote for Johnson on the Libertarian ticket.
As will most of the other Paul supporters you so proudly deride. And thus your GOP thug will lose.
I can handle the coming economic collapse. Can you?
But if the imperial stormtrooper American government is so horribly evil and tyrannical, why are there elections in the first place? Why, given your descriptions elections are mere shams and have no real bearing on the direction of this nation. What matters who you vote for?
You pursue this election as if it mattered, as if it would have a real outcome, in direct defiance of your worldview.
So you're basically threatening to hold the election hostage if you don't get your way. You'd throw the game to Obama as a way of getting back at people who agree with you a hell of a lot more often than he does because they had the temerity to cast a primary vote for someone other than your candidate of choice.
Childish is the only word that comes to mind.
I'm not holding anything hostage.
I just won't consent, with my vote, to be governed by one of your GOP big-government thugs.
If you want the election to actually matter, and to begin to unravel the police state that America has become, vote for Paul.
Because the difference between Obama and the rest of the GOP field is the difference between the USSR, and East Germany. Between Syria, and Iran.
Just one of degree. And not much of a difference at that.
andcar in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 10:22 pm
The GOP has a big government problem, sure. But to say there's no or little difference between them and the Dems is simply wrong. The guy who tends to drink too much at parties has a much more manageable problem than the guy who's figured out that Aquanet hairspray is the cheapest alcohol fix to be had.
If you had to choose either Paul Ryan or Barney Frank to rule the world, which would you choose? "None of the above" is a cop-out answer. If you try to say there's no difference, you've revealed yourself as disingenuous.
And the Ron Paul supporter inevitably goes personal and calls names.
Ron Paul deserves a better class of supporter.
Name calling? Really? That's your counter-argument? Weak.
The arguments have already been made. Pointing out your emotionalism-as-argument is perfectly valid. That you re-assert name-calling is weak.
rdm in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Any of you Paulbots; As soon as you use the term 'Empire' you signal that what follows is irrelevant and completely disconnected from reality. . .
scottinwisconsin in reply to rdm. | December 22, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Troops stationed in 130 nations, and more money spent on the military than the rest of the world combined.
And armed invasions of multiple nations, multiple times, in recent memory, installing new governments.
But it's NOT an empire. Honest. It's not. It's a hobby.
And so how is this an argument for Ron Paul's candidacy? Oh, and by the way, what makes you think any of the other candidates would continue this exact state of affairs? Is it because they are socialist fascist neo-con conservatives?
And by the way, just what *is* a "neo-con" anyway?
L.N. Smithee | December 22, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Short answer: It didn't matter until now. In the same way that at the moment, Joe Scarborough is a harmless former Republican Congressman and currently a moderately successful cable news host with his own brand of Starbucks Coffee. If, however, he ever decides that he wants to be President, people are going to be asking about how a young intern ended up dead in his district office in Florida (not makin' it up, folks).
Sherman Broder | December 22, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I just stumbled upon an article that positively proves Ron Paul is crazy as a loon:
http://propertyfreedompeace.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-is-crazy-heres-proof.html
scottinwisconsin in reply to Sherman Broder. | December 22, 2011 at 6:09 pm
It's a shame you can't read past the obviously sarcastic headline.
It is a detailed, thought full demonstration of why Ron Paul's foreign policy is correct, and all the others are dangerous empire builders.
I hope everyone clicks and reads it. They will then support Ron Paul.
Funny how people can actually listen to and read Ron Paul and still disagree with him.
Funny that.
L.N. Smithee in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 7:26 pm
One Paulbot is a more annoying evangelist than a team full of Tebows.
We are the Paulians.
Resistance is futile.
You WILL be assimilated.
The problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy is its unthinking arrogance. Ironic, ya? He seems incapable of grasping that other nations (Iran) or groups (Al Qaeda) are fully real- capable of acting by their own decisions, with their own motivations. In his view, they are capable only of reaction- everything they do is nothing but an automatic response to U.S. actions.
To the extent that he is willing to accord them the status of real people and not just some kind of people programs in a world computer, he assumes that they must think just like he does and want the same things he wants, viz. they just want to be left alone to live in peace. That they might actually have a different set of motivations (such as, oh I don't know…the attainment of paradise through martyrdom in holy war) seems to be a notion Dr. Paul is incapable of taking seriously.
The man who so loves to accuse the U.S. of arrogance is so arrogant that he doesn't even see the "other" to be really human.
punfundit in reply to andcar. | December 23, 2011 at 1:25 am
But, but, but……he's a doctor! Of *course* he cares!
andcar in reply to andcar. | December 23, 2011 at 12:43 pm
I note that the Ronulans are far more comfortable responding to attacks on their Leader's domestic proposals than on his foreign policy.
This is understandable. I believe that Dr. Paul actually has a very good case for his internal affairs ideas. His foreign policy however, is insanely dangerous. Naive, willfully ignorant, indifferent to unimaginable suffering…
In a recent interview, Dr. Paul said that Pres. Ahmadinejad of Iran has never vowed to "wipe Israel off the map." Dr. Paul assured us that the many incidences of Ahmadinejad seeming to say this can be put down to mistranslation. The interviewer then asked about Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust. Dr. Paul looked like a deer in the headlights and immediately changed the subject.
Ron Paul is so committed to his "mind your own business" foreign policy that he's willing to defend- and even sympathize with, to the point of allowing them nuclear weapons- the worst actors on the global stage.
scottinwisconsin in reply to andcar. | December 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Yes, how DARE he allow Iran to get nukes.
You know, Nukes. Like they have in Russia and China and N. Korea and Isreal and Pakastan and India and England and France. And America.
But lord knows, if one more country gets Nukes, it's all over. They will be wandering the streets of America with their nukes.
andcar in reply to andcar. | December 23, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Here's absolute proof of why Ronulan foreign policy would be disastrous, right out of the mouth of a Paulbot.
First up, there's the moral equivalency- comparing fairly responsible if not always admirable states to rogue states with leaders who regularly and explicitly advocate genocide and holy war.
Following up from that, there's the willful ignorance- deliberately choosing not to know about the glaring issues with these states and their leadership. Note that our Ronulan friend had no defense of his Leader's ignorant statements in the mentioned interview. He had no defense because there is none- Paul was simply flat-out wrong. "Mistranslation?" Are we supposed to believe the man is a Persian language scholar too? The man has zero, zip, zilch idea of how anyone outside this country thinks.
Which takes us back to the essential arrogance of Paulian foreign policy. He blithely assumes that everyone in the world has the same values and desires he does, and flippantly dismisses any and all evidence to the contrary. He simply cannot grasp the idea that they are people in their own right- free moral agents who might hold philosophies radically different from his own.
Blake | December 22, 2011 at 5:47 pm
This is not a big question, and it is not that interesting that it took so long; in fact, it is very simple. No one attacked Ron Paul because he was not yet the frontrunner, so therefore not a threat. Once polls came out showing him leading in Iowa and placing in New Hampshire, the attacks began. Very simple. That Mr. Jacobson does not understand this says volumes about his lack of political acumen. Of course, that is no surprise, since he also thinks Newt Gingrich is electable. Mr. Jacobson, I would stick to something you know at least something about, such as law; otherwise, you embarrass yourself.
andcar in reply to Blake. | December 22, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Pretty sure Prof. Jacobson understands it perfectly.
Every time someone gets close to challenging Mitten's poll numbers, the MSM and GOP establishment media go into a feeding frenzy. Jacobson is pointing this out. Sarcasm is hard, I guess.
L.N. Smithee in reply to Blake. | December 22, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Tellya what, Blake — since you seem to think you know more than Prof. Jacobson, why don't you explain for us all what makes a candidate "electable."
What, no response yet?
SmokeVanThorn in reply to Blake. | December 22, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Blake – You know what's really embarrassing? Not recognizing a rhetorical question.
That reveals volumes.
El Cid | December 22, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Seems like this in Wisconsin typer has EVERYTHING figured out, except Wisconsin.OH WAIT, he/she/it could be the head of the Get Outta' The State Scott Walker Movement.
Is this your motel?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/scott-walker-recall-kochsucker_n_1163033.html?ref=politics
scottinwisconsin in reply to El Cid. | December 22, 2011 at 6:33 pm
In a world full of corrupt, evil politicians, Scott Walker has acted about as well as one can hope. I've been a big supporter, and contributor. I expect him to survive the recall.
And guess what? He hasn't suggested that Wisconsin invade Illinois, and overthrow their corrupt regime!
Isn't that what a good neo-con would suggest?
Neo-con? Yes, tell us exactly what a "neo-con" is.
Illinois still has a republican form of government, and if the people of Illinois ever want to be liberated they can do so themselves at the next election. They have the government they do because they want it. But if Illinois were ever to be taken over by a dictatorship, it would be the President's duty to send federal troops to invade it. That's what the constitution says. Wisconsin would presumably be part of that invasion.
scottinwisconsin in reply to Milhouse. | December 23, 2011 at 1:14 pm
"Illinois still has a republican form of government."
They really don't. 5 of their last 6 governors went to prison.
And Chicago city government is a criminal organization outright, rather than covert.
But then all government is simply a cover story for the theft and transfer of wealth. Why should IL be any different?
Milhouse in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 23, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Um, how exactly does that make their form of government not republican?
Wouldn't the fact that so many governors- powerful politicians- actually went to prison reinforce the statement that Illinois still has a republican form of government? They're being punished and held accountable instead of getting away with their crimes.
Of course, the people of Illinois should seriously consider exactly why so many of the politicians they elect turn out to be corrupt.
"But then all government is simply a cover story for the theft and transfer of wealth."
Whenever someone makes an absolute statement like this, watch out. Very, very few things in this world are so straightforward and simple that they can be contained by the word "all."
You would be much more convincing if you used words that better reflected the complexity of reality: most, much, tends, almost all, with few exceptions, etc. Using "all" makes it ridiculously easy to shoot you down.
The lights are going out all over America.
The House and Senate have passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Sections 1031, 1032 and 1034 of which allow the arrest of U.S. citizens by the armed forces, without laying charges, without evidence or legal representation, with indefinite detention.
The Senate passed it 93 to 7 as S. 1867. The House passed it 283 to 136 as H.R.1540. Those who pose as our representatives have committed yet another egregious act of betrayal, and as is becoming routine, the Senate did it largely behind closed doors. Mr. Altenhofel summarizes it this way:
No due process or evidence required—just a unilateral accusation that you may be involved in or supporting terrorism. Part of the DOJ/FBI criteria for being a terrorist is having at least one of the following traits: large amounts of ammunition, more than a week's worth of food, a finger that is damaged or missing, etc.
Brian Altenhofel, altenhofel.com/blog
These are the same powers Beria's NKVD and Himmler's Gestapo employed. Both relied on anonymous tips and extrajudicial proceedings—no evidence, no trial, no accountability, the populace was merely violated and terrorized as a sort of perpetual preemptive strike. Now the entirety of America is declared to be a wartime battlefield and the enemy has been identified. Even if we were to believe DC's intentions are honorable, or that the stated bounds will respected, or that there are no secret provisions, or that state and local police won't be federalized outright—even if we believed all this, it's an open-ended enabling act without so much as a sunset clause. And there's another dimension, a truly malignant dimension, one which alarms every student of history, one which humiliates every parent and every veteran, perhaps intentionally:
This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.
US Marine Generals (Retired) Krulak and Hoar, nytimes.com
http://www.woodpilereport.com/
But hey, Ron Paul is just our crazy uncle in the attic . . . no cause for alarm.
Actually he is the crazy old uncle in the attic.
I note that it was a leftist who originated that vicious power. That the GOP went along with it deserves complaint and challenge.
I'm surprised you support any GOP candidate at all, especially one who has been behind the Beltway Curtain for decades. If they're all in it together, who's to say Ron Paul isn't as well. It could all be one giant maskirovka.
And since the evil imperialist stormtrooper America does have an all-powerful government, why should you believe that elections matter? After all, the gubmint need simply disregard what must be the shadow puppetry of plebiscite and send their goose-stepping jackboots to quell any outcry.
Why would you cite a letter to the editor from two of the evil imperial stormtroopers' Generals? They're part of the problem, according to your logic. Again your logic fails. You besmirch the American military for being baby-killers in foreign lands, but then you laud them when they publish a letter who only cursorily supports a "See! See!" position for the tinfoil hat crowd. Again with the two faces.
And even if they weren't, it isn't an argument for Ron Paul's candidacy.
jakee308 in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Ooh. Logic and turning his words back on him.
That's gonna leave a mark.
Obviously individual soldiers and politicians and policemen can be decent, honorable men.
But their organizations are always corrupt and destructive to liberty and prosperity.
The true and only purpose of government is to steal wealth, and control people to make the stealing permanent. Everything else is just for cover.
Some tyrants, like Stalin and Mao, do it thru raw force.
Others are faced with a populace that must be fooled rather than beaten. American politicians once faced such a populace. And so they have fooled "us."
Most people who support government don't understand the true purpose of government, and imagine their efforts are for the good, when they are in fact evil.
I'm sure much of the weeping in N. Korea is genuine, as the fools worship their dead saviour.
And you recognize that same foolishness in all of Obama's supporters.
Yet you fail to see it in your own support of business-as-usual GOP thugs. And so the tyranny will continue.
Again you swing your fist without checking for chins.
You make assumptions about people commenting here without knowing any of them. This is because you *believe in* Ron Paul, that he can do and think no wrong, therefore everyone else must be wrong because they disagree with him.
Meanwhile, other commenters here who have pointed out legitimate problems with Congressman Paul's legislative record are conveniently ignored by you. (Because Ron Paul can do and think no wrong.)
There is no rational foundation for discourse. You inevitably come off reading like a tinfoil hat lunatic, which no doubt is not your intention. But the perception persists nonetheless.
You're so very wrong.
It's not that Ron Paul is perfect. It's not that Ron Paul can do no wrong.
It's that the rest of the field BELIEVE in government. They worship government. They dream of perfecting government. They seem themselves as the answer to our problems.
Ron Paul dreams of dismantling government. As would any sane person.
You're a slave, born into a slave existence, hoping to elect the guy who'll whip you the least.
I'm a slave who dreams of freedom. Not a slightly nicer master.
Meanwhile you continue to conveniently ignore problems with Ron Paul's legislative record.
Yes, exactly.
THAT'S why you won't vote for the only defender of the Constitution in the field. "Problems with his legislative record." Cool. I believe you.
But Newt Romney's past is pure as the driven snow. Always on the right side of the issues, always for small government and personal liberty.
No "Problems" with the rest of them . . .
Normal behavior for Ronulans. Fairly calm, actually.
BurkeanBadger in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Even if your absurd hyperbole was complete true, Scott, I would still take my chances with this new totalitarian darkness surreptitiously enveloping America rather than entrust any significant amount of power (let alone the most powerful office in the world) to the crazy uncle in the attic.
scottinwisconsin in reply to BurkeanBadger. | December 22, 2011 at 9:17 pm
And even if YOU'RE right, and Ron Paul is just the crazy uncle in the attic, I would still vote for him, rather than another big-government thug who thinks HE has the right to tell me how I can live, what I can eat, who I can screw, what I can smoke, and also has the right to spend half my money on taking away my freedom, and killing foreigners.
And so once again we see the whole of the Ron Paul supporter's logic. Ron Paul can do and think no wrong, even if he is a crazy old man.
Everyone knows crazy old men are perfectly safe behind the wheel.
Speaking of "crazy uncle" Ron.
http://www.breitbart.tv/ron-paul-says-he-cant-handle-the-controversy-to-come-out-about-the-truth-about-911
Sheesh – people said Palin supporters were too personally vested in her – but they were pikers compared to the crazy uncle in the attic's supporters.
El Cid in reply to katiejane. | December 22, 2011 at 7:24 pm
'Tiz true katiejane
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1?loc=interstitialskip
jakee308 | December 22, 2011 at 7:36 pm
". . if he wins it's hard to make the case for continuing to give Iowa the first in the nation slot."
Or it could just demonstrate how racist, bigoted and just plain coocoo the folks in Iowa are.
punfundit in reply to jakee308. | December 22, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Not a pleasant prospect.
BurkeanBadger | December 22, 2011 at 7:45 pm
This is an awesome thread! When I saw the good professor was attacking Ron Paul (albeit with a predictable swipe at Romney) and that there were 62 comments to his post, I KNEW the Paul acolytes had struck! I love it!
Of course Ron Paul is the crazy uncle in the attic. Of course, one expects him to go off on rambling diatribes. Of course if he wins the Iowa caucus, said caucus will never be taken seriously again.
But, heck, he's damn entertaining! More so are the gaggle of starry eyed sycophants who follow everything he says as though it was pronounced from Mount Sinai. You just have to wonder if at least a few of them are literally donning tin foil hats as the write these impassioned defenses of their guru.
punfundit in reply to BurkeanBadger. | December 23, 2011 at 1:32 am
I find their lack of lack of faith disturbing.
Even the Israelites balked at believing Moses carried the word of God.
Ron Paul will not be the nominee.
But He is flawless in every way! His arguments are irrestible, His breath smells like logic and His smile makes baby Jesus recite Ayn Rand!
You socialist! How dare you mock Ron Paul supporters?
It's clear that if the people who read THIS blog are so invested in their big-government Republicans that all they can do is make fun of the one candidate who supports and defends the Constitution, then we're all good and truly f*cked.
You guys are a joke, thinking you're such smarties, making fun of they who has actually devoted 30 years of his life to fight for your freedom, when everything you support makes you less free and less prosperous — just slightly lower than Obama wants!
The Socialists famously declared in the '40s and '50s that America would never vote for anything CALLED socialism, but would eventually accept every tenent of socialism, one bit at a time. They were referring to YOU guys.
And so you kick over the sandcastle all angsty like because nobody understands you! It just isn't fair!
You're flailing. Watch those chins.
What are you, 14, punfundit? Why don't you make an actual argument?
punfundit in reply to valleyforge. | December 22, 2011 at 9:25 pm
You haven't been reading.
We don't accept socialism as a viable economic system.
We do understand that reactionary bomb throwers like Ron Paul are a danger to the process, the country and the future.
He has followers for similar reasons that Jeremiah Wright has followers; he says what they want to hear regardless of whether it is logical, viable or truthful. He says those things either because he believes them (and should be repudiated) or is manipulating a small group of zealots for his own cynical purposes (and should be abandoned).
Either way his electability is minimal regardless of how many Iowa Caucuses he wins.
It is sad that we can't seem to attract a principled, charismatic leader to run for this high office but we must not let a demagogue become the standard bearer for conservatism.
valleyforge in reply to jakee308. | December 22, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Reactionary, demagogue? You need to get a dictionary. Demagogues jump in front of a parade to exploit it for their own purposes, whereas Paul has had to recruit people to his views. And today's reactionaries are liberal welfare-staters who prefer stasis and gridlock to any kind of reform.
Paul may not be your cup of tea as a speaker or on selective policies but he's a thought leader and a reformer and the Republican party would do well to be thought of in that way.
jakee308 in reply to valleyforge. | December 22, 2011 at 11:34 pm
"Reactionary, demagogue? You need to get a dictionary."
}reactionary denotes "a movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state" and a "return to a previous condition of affairs."{
This describes a number of Paul's desires. In re:
Return to the gold standard
Retreat from world politics
Simplistic Foreign policy
White supremacy and racism
}dem·a·gogue/ˈdeməˌgäg/
1. A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
2. (in ancient Greece and Rome) A leader or orator who espoused the cause of the common people.{
Sounds like a good description of Paul's actions so far to me.
I think maybe YOU should buy the dictionary.
(And take an English comprehension course. Also a couple of psycho therapy sessions wouldn't hurt. Plus, in that new dictionary, you ought to look up projection and wishful thinking.)
punfundit in reply to jakee308. | December 23, 2011 at 1:09 am
And kook.
scottinwisconsin in reply to jakee308. | December 22, 2011 at 9:54 pm
"We don't accept socialism as viable."
But don't you dare even talk about touchingSocial Security, or Medicare or Medicaid. Or unemployment insurance.
And we need the progressive income tax to make income distribution "more fair."
And we need minimum wage laws, and rules for the hours adults can work, and what they can smoke.
And of course welfare and public schools are a must for any decent society.
Hey, accept it as viable or not, you LIVE in a fully socialist society. And are clueless about how much wealth and freedom you are giving up in the process.
andcar in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 22, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Not really. I'm not a supporter of any of those things. On economic and social policy (or libertarian lack thereof) I actually align pretty closely with Ron Paul. Of course, when it comes to foreign policy I believe the old man is completely nuts.
Opining that Paul is not the answer to creeping socialism does not make one a socialist. I don't buy the image he and his supporters so vigorously promote. It's far too personally specific for my tastes- it walks right up to the line of being a standard cult of personality, and occasionally steps across.
I pointed this out earlier but there was no Ronulan response. I can't imagine why.
"This is the guy who submits hundreds of millions of dollars of earmark requests like clockwork but says earmarks are unconstitutional. He makes his lone vote against them and crows about his principles, knowing all the while that his lone vote won't block anything so he'll still get to bring home the pork."
For someone so opposed to that creeping socialism-by-another-name, Paul sure doesn't have much problem with spreading the wealth back to the good voters of his district. If he truly believes that earmarks are unconstitutional, then why does he keep holding up his hand for his piece of the unconstitutional pie?
*GASP!*
Again, you're confused.
Ron Paul is NOT against earmarks. No one should be.
His point, correctly, is that the legislature has a Constitutional duty to appropriate money for specific purposes, not simply had billions to an Obama, who hands it out to friends.
He believes that ALL spending should be specific and earmarked, directed by the Congress, and he is right.
Why do you prefer a black check for Obumbles?
He also knows that huge sums are stolen from his constituents each year, and if the best he can do is get some of it back for them, he'll do it.
At the same time, he will vote against all spending that he knows is unConstitutional, which is most of it.
He would prefer the money not be stolen from his voters. If it is goin to be stolen, he'd like a little of it back for them. They are entitled to some rebate.
Now, stop misrepresenting his clearly correct approach.
But some of those dollars are some of my dollars. It's rather convenient to claim that Ron Paul's ear marks are perfectly sound, but nobody else's are.
Once again, Ron Paul can do and think no wrong.
valleyforge in reply to punfundit. | December 22, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Paul doesn't rail against earmarks, that's John McCain. And Scott is right that Congress' duty is to allocate funding, not leave it to unelected bureaucrats to dole it out. Better we have the chance to vote out abusers of the system. Beyond that, we are at a place where 25% of our income goes through the federal government, so unless we are willing to write that off, we have to follow the existing process to get some of it back. Paul would cut the amount getting misrouted through Washington dramatically so less money, less influence, and less corruption surrounded the process.
Is it Congress' duty to take my money and give it to you? That's what happens when Congresscritters don't rail against earmarks (and even when they do).
So let's see now, the Establishment's John McCain apparently claims earmarks are wrong but the "anti" Establishment's Ron Paul apparently doesn't.
Yes, that's logical.
So you're saying he's making the best he can out of a corrupt system? How then is he any different from any other pol, except in degree or in his rhetorical justifications?
He voted against funding a slavery exhibit at the National Archives on the grounds that such projects are not constitutionally authorized uses of tax money. Incidentally, I think he's got a reasonable case for that.
He's also put in earmarks for such things as renovating a movie theater in his district. (Presumably, he has some kind of reasoning for why it's constitutional in his district but not someone else's.) He votes against his own earmark requests of course- this allows him to maintain his claim of having never voted for an unconstitutional bill- but when he "loses" the vote, he's never been known to decline the money.
scottinwisconsin in reply to andcar. | December 22, 2011 at 10:10 pm
His voters actually have the balls to vote for limited government.
And YOU think that requires that they be screwed by the rest of us.
They should keep paying in, and not get anything back, while our corrupt pols spend their money on us.
I think he is making the best of a bad situation.
Just as I don't believe it is constitutional to require me to get a CCW permit. But rather than shoot anyone over it, I suffer my slavery as best I can.
But my refraining from mass murder is not Consent!
And Paul doing everything he can to stop the madness is NOT corrupt.
Is it constitutional to take my money and give it to you? That's what happens with earmarks.
andcar in reply to andcar. | December 23, 2011 at 2:03 am
See above: "Presumably, he has some kind of reasoning for why it's constitutional in his district but not someone else's."
valleyforge | December 22, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Wait, a Newt supporter is accusing Paul of having baggage? Someone's pretty bitter.
So Ron Paul *doesn't* have baggage?
Compared to Newt's caravan and Romney's steamer trunks he's got a carry-on.
SmokeVanThorn in reply to valleyforge. | December 23, 2011 at 12:21 am
Supporting a Kucinich-led investigation of 9-11 and suggesting that the Bush administration's reaction to the attack was one of "glee" won't fit in the overhead compartment.
L.N. Smithee in reply to valleyforge. | December 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm
America has knowingly elected an adulterer before going back to Grover Cleveland. But a guy who admits he couldn't even run a newsletter? Not so much.
Tamminator | December 22, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Paulbot take over.
Amusing.
Do they think they will win their case by badgering people into submission?
El Cid | December 22, 2011 at 11:26 pm
From Congressman Ron Paul
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf
One memorable line of many:
Despite being "told not to talk," Paul wrote that his newsletters also "laid bare" the "Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," and a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS."
punfundit in reply to El Cid. | December 23, 2011 at 12:53 am
Why doesn't Ron Paul "come out" about "the truth" about 9/11? After all, the truth is out there.
(At 0:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88x6JdfjwCY
Did you hear the nervous laughter?
El Cid in reply to punfundit. | December 23, 2011 at 7:35 am
'the cat died, I have ingrown toenails, I don't like my grandchildren, yada, yada, yada
I'd rather write in, a Snickers candy bar over RuPaul..
punfundit in reply to El Cid. | December 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Ha! The Great One!
Paul wrote that his newsletters also "laid bare" the "Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica,"
Now telling the truth is a failing? Only in Washington . . . Where else on Earth do we send $4 Billion every year, to heavily subsidize a tiny socialist nation? And the $4 Billion we sent to Egypt each year was actually to protect Israel as well. That worked out great.
Please show me where, in Article 1 Section 8, the Constitution authorizes taking my money, and giving it to Israelis. To the tune of $500 for each and every one of them?
punfundit in reply to scottinwisconsin. | December 24, 2011 at 12:44 am
How would you know what he wrote? Ron Paul doesn't even know what he wrote. He never paid attention to the newsletters with racist content which he made money off of. He said so.
But anyway, so you object when taxpayer funds are redistributed to Jews in Israel, but you don't object when they're redistributed to Ron Paul's congressional district. So on the one face you object to ear marks, while on the other you don't.
How very interesting.
Oh, and to answer your question: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sections 7-9, and Article II, Sections 1-2.
jakee308 | December 22, 2011 at 11:37 pm
OH NOOOOOOO!
There's TWO OF THEM!!111!!!!
punfundit in reply to jakee308. | December 23, 2011 at 12:47 am
Fret not. To quote Cyrano Jones, "twice nothing is still nothing."
andcar in reply to jakee308. | December 23, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Ronulans just make a comments section better.
The legions of them who haven't really thought out the implications of their Leader's policies- the Paulbots- are fun to mess with.
Every now and then you get one from the Ronulan Thinker caste. These guys are the jackpot- they can make a comments section very interesting.
Henry Hawkins | December 23, 2011 at 11:08 am
Scott is a salesman Ron Paul would do better without.
SmokeVanThorn | December 23, 2011 at 3:23 pm
I didn't know Grandpa Simpson was running for President.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl