May 12, 2011
— Ace "It absolutely was not necessary" to kill him, he avers.
He also is full of questions which are in fact stupid.
“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Everyone but Ron Paul seems to know the answer to that.
Sometimes you'll catch me knocking people who are, in my mind, "overly ideological." This is the sort of endpoint of that, the thing that makes me suspicious of people who are too confident of ideology. Ron Paul has a very advanced case of this, but it's this tendency that makes me suspicious.
Ron Paul is offered a choice here between known reality and actual facts on one hand, and his rigid, dogmatic ideology of "Letters of Marque" and "cooperation with governments" on the other. It's an easy call for him. The ideology is so precious and lovely that it is far preferable to ugly reality and grubby facts.
His ideology is that the U.S. never needs to resort to force to accomplish its foreign policy goals. Because he knows that to be true -- absolutely true, in all cases, with no exceptions -- then it must also follow that wherever we have used force, there must have been alternate options.
Must be. Because, remember, it is never true that we must use force. Ergo, any use of force was a bit of cowboy imperialism. There must have been better, more peaceful options on the table.
Ron Paul draws particular venom from people like me because what he says is exactly what the leftists say. They do the same thing. The exact same thing. When there's a controversial use of force -- and the use of force is almost always controversial, as it should be -- they begin the discussion from the point of view that any and all uses of American might are illegitimate, and that there are -- always, no exceptions -- peaceful options that could have achieved the same results.
And they cannot be backed off this assertion by argument, because it's an irrational article of faith. You cannot reason a man out of an opinion he was never reasoned into in the first place.
On one hand, I have to admit, grudgingly, that from the vantage point of 2011, Ron Paul's urging of restraint and modesty in foreign policy doesn't look so bad to me now as it once did.
But of course these are all easy questions for him. It's not like he's wise, or cunning, or deeply analytic in making his pronouncements. He just makes the same pronouncements irrespective of facts, because the facts can always be changed to comport with this ideology.
His ideology is libertarianism not just at home with our own citizens, but with regard to hostile, even enemy, foreign governments and actors as well.
It's one thing to urge we grant our own citizens full and complete freedom, without coercion, to do as they will, and that all their decisions should be purely voluntary and based only on a knowing selection of that decision.
That's one thing. That's a very ideological position but it is an attractive one.
But no, that's not the end of it. He also believes Pakistan should have the full rights and freedoms of an American citizen, that Pakistan, too, must always agree to things done to it in a knowing and rational decision in which they are always free to select some other choice.
That's why he must ultimately claim that Pakistan would have just agreed to turn over bin Ladin. He needs to believe that in order to treat Pakistan as a human being and American citizen with full and total freedom from coercion. He must posit, as the leftists do, that states we know have evil intent are of course actually willing to behave nicely, if only we respected their freedom to do what they will.
If we respect their right to choose evil, then of course they will choose good.
This is almost not even an ideology. It comes a little closer to a "psychological delusion."
Ron Paul doesn't sound brave, or wise, or noble, or smart to me.
Ron Paul, frankly, sounds like a drunken idiot at a bar, possibly with a history of prior mental instabilities, spouting off perfect stupidity with perfect confidence.
He can't be president. It would be a nightmare. It would be government by lunatic. He'd be briefed on actual facts and then simply say "Those aren't the facts. Report to me new facts consistent with my rigid ideology."
Ugh. Why this clown gets respect in the GOP, I don't know.
If it's the gold standard thing, less disreputable voices are calling for that. Steve Forbes not only endorses it, but predicts we'll be on it in 5 years.
But enough from Ron Paul. I get enough of the slightly-deranged codger act every Thanksgiving. I don't need Crazy Pop-Pop on my TV every three days.
Posted by: Ace at
07:40 AM
| Comments (285)
Post contains 883 words, total size 5 kb.
Right on. He sounds exactly like a liberal. His ideology tells him what to do, and his job is to simply cut and paste it on every single circumstance with absolutely no concern about the specific situation.
Facts are secondary to ideology.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 07:44 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: maddogg at May 12, 2011 07:44 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: dagny at May 12, 2011 07:45 AM (23y25)
For the life of me, I don't understand his legion of fans.
His son, at least, seems sane.
Posted by: Jane D'oh, Moats n Gators franchise owner at May 12, 2011 07:45 AM (UOM48)
For the life of me, I don't understand his legion of fans.
Pot-related brain damage. Probably deprived of oxygen for too long.
Plus, the Jew-hatred.
Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (ZJ/un)
Spot on. Hah!
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (bwcC+)
All I ever needed to know aqbout Ron Paul! is the quality of people who seem to love him.
Yikes. It's like the crowd at Wal-Mart at 3am. Does that make me an elitist?
Posted by: fugazi at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (4bvZp)
Posted by: maddogg at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (OlN4e)
But enough from Ron Paul. I get enough of the slightly-deranged codger act every Thanksgiving.
OMG, is my uncle Wally attending your Thanksgiving dinners too?
Posted by: A Rogue Wave Named Bruce at May 12, 2011 07:48 AM (9RGYy)
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 07:49 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 07:50 AM (M9Ie6)
The distinct advantage of force versus pacifism it that it has a way of exerting its own brand of reason where argument has failed.
Posted by: The Pricker! at May 12, 2011 07:50 AM (NFSfj)
#20
Fuck you Paul. You have never signed anything into law as part of your ridiculous 'I'm more pure than every other candidate game' that allows you to posture as the most 'consistent' conservative.
It is all smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 07:51 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: William R Dunce at May 12, 2011 07:51 AM (oDMwn)
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 11:49 AM (Q1lie)
BTW. My speaking fees just doubled as I have announced my candidacy for president so that comment is going to cost you 30 grand.
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 07:53 AM (Q1lie)
fify
Seriously, he should have to pee in a cup.
And, apparently, someone should also be checking his arms for track marks.
Posted by: Y-not at May 12, 2011 07:54 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: maddogg at May 12, 2011 11:44 AM (OlN4e)
lol
Posted by: Jane D'oh, Moats n Gators franchise owner at May 12, 2011 07:54 AM (UOM48)
there is no viable Republican candidate
we have the worst fucken President in history, a committed socialist who is destroying the economy, and he will probably get re-elected because there's nobody worth a fuck to run against him
Posted by: Jones at May 12, 2011 07:54 AM (cUNcx)
Fuck you Paul. You have never signed anything into law as part of your ridiculous 'I'm more pure than every other candidate game' that allows you to posture as the most 'consistent' conservative.
It is all smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 11:51 AM (VoSja)
Oh. Wanna play do you Paper?
MINIONS! Scissors!
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 07:55 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Senator William Edgar Borah at May 12, 2011 07:56 AM (l7Ie9)
Posted by: RON PAUL!!! at May 12, 2011 07:56 AM (AZGON)
dogmatic ideology of "Letters of Marque" and "cooperation with governments" on the other
Ace,
You can't do those things at the same time.
Paul and his followers are a bunch of incoherent loons.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 12, 2011 07:56 AM (B+qrE)
People don't appreciate exactly why Ron Paul was making 'truther' statements while Bush was in office or why he never has a good thing to say about Republicans.
This is his 'brand'. He could never do anything practical in office. He has spent decades focusing on issues that are meant to show a difference between him and Republicans, not hurt Dems or liberals.
Every issue that he comes up with is meant to lecture Republicans about why drug legalization matters and killing terrorists does not matter. Teenagers love him because Paul acts like a teenager. Rebellious and contrary for no other reason but to be difficult and 'prove a point'.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 07:58 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: Daffy Duck at May 12, 2011 07:59 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: TooCon at May 12, 2011 07:59 AM (TOWnk)
You've always been a punk ACE. And you always will be one.
Hell even uber NeoCon Jonah Golberg said we should told the world we killed him.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 07:59 AM (Nlp5i)
Yes, that would've worked. After all, you share so much, especially teh hatred of teh Jooooos.
Posted by: Y-not at May 12, 2011 08:00 AM (pW2o8)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 08:01 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: Big Jim Traficant at May 12, 2011 08:01 AM (+lsX1)
I'm not sure I believe he really does. The only people I know who support Herr Dr. Paul are lefties who think the Democrats are too right wing.
Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 08:02 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 12:01 PM (Nlp5i)
It's always the evil Joooooos with you people, isn't it?
Posted by: Cthulhu 2012 at May 12, 2011 08:02 AM (c45xH)
Posted by: Minnie Rodent at May 12, 2011 08:02 AM (S3rrR)
Posted by: Noam "Fuck America" Chomsky at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (RN5DH)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (+61wI)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 08:04 AM (mEyVv)
Posted by: Tonawanda at May 12, 2011 08:04 AM (bN5ZU)
For the life of me, I don't understand his legion of fans.
His son, at least, seems sane.
What's to understand? He has a broad range of support: drug enthusiasts, the anti-war left, conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, Birchers... the list goes on.
Hell, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a fringe group that Paul doesn't appeal to.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 12, 2011 08:05 AM (SY2Kh)
#46
Ron Paul also has clearly changed his views (and the amount of time he talks about certain issues) in the last decade as he has realized the characteristics of the rudderless band of losers who follow him.
Drug legalization, prostitution, marriage, are all relative new positions for Paul. He is a shameless opportunist as well as a dangerous ideolgue.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 08:05 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 12:04 PM (mEyVv)
Yeah when your favored candidate not only comes with his own ideology but also specialized jargon for attacking others, you might be in a cult.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 12, 2011 08:06 AM (CrQRp)
Yea. but he'll still win every internet poll! His reign of King Internet Poll winner shall stand for years!!!!!!!
Most people on teh internets love him the most!
Ron Paul! 2008 Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul, 2016! Ron Paul 2020! Ron Paul 2024! Ron Paul's corpse 2028! Ron Paul's really smelly corpse 2032! (Teh Jooos probably had him killed BTW)
Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 12, 2011 08:06 AM (re6ik)
What is he? Not very bright. His fixation on consistency backs him into corners like the one Ace just described. Sure, it would be nice if we could all stick to the strict principles of small government, non-interference in foreign affairs, blah, blah, blah. But the world doesn't work that way, and Paul is too fucking stupid to be able to modify his simple tenets to accommodate anything more complex than a marble.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" might be trite, but in this case it is true.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 12, 2011 08:06 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: the moderate middle at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (AZGON)
If you read my writings carefully you will realize we have no jurisdiction in Pakistan and are therefore totally reliant on the Pakistani government with regards to anyone residing in their country. Do you not believe in national sovereignty now?*
*You are now up to $60,000. Contact my agent/campaign manager for a volume discount deal.
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (P+zzG)
Posted by: Democrat Party HQ at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (c45xH)
Ugh. Why this clown gets respect in the GOP, I don't know.
Simple. Because so many RINOs and establishment GOP figures have sold us out domestically.
Once again:
--Where Ron Paul Rules: Domestic Issues, Spending, Borders
--Whre Ron Paul Sucks the Big Suck: Foreign Policy, Defense
This rests the case for, and against, Ron Paul.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 08:08 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 08:08 AM (Nlp5i)
Yeah when your favored candidate not only comes with his own ideology but also specialized jargon for attacking others, you might be in a cult.
Leave Ralph out of this!
Posted by: Re-Run at May 12, 2011 08:08 AM (tCQji)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 12, 2011 12:06 PM (LH6ir)
Blow me.
No, I'm serious.
Posted by: Hobgoblin at May 12, 2011 08:09 AM (lAkUp)
I'm tired of this whole war on drugs that really is nothing more than the excuse to militarize police and bypass the posse comitatus laws. The branch dividians eere "rumored" to have a crank lab remember, thats when things got interesting..
I'm tired of seeing gold teeth motherfuckers, and their white BMWs, and their homo way of holding guns sideways ALL paid for by the profits of illegal drug trade.
I'm tired of seeing users put in jail, while our country don't secure the border to prevent the shit from coming in, and the drug lords get to kill off whole towns along our borders, and get to sit in mansions with gold plated AK47s.
The profits need to be killed....dead. This is nothing more than prohibition on steroids.
Posted by: Berserker at May 12, 2011 08:09 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 08:09 AM (oDMwn)
Well then. Let's write into "international law" if that is possible, that if a country accepts more than $1000 dollars from us annually, we get to come in and get terrorists. Problem solved.
The fuckers who take our money need to shut the hell up or pay it back and not take any more.
Posted by: dagny at May 12, 2011 08:10 AM (23y25)
He said according to "international law," we had no right to go in at all, whether to kill OR capture, and that our only option was to meekly ask Pakistan if they would arrest the man they've been secretly sheltering.
And I defy anyone to square that with the "Letters of Marque" trope the Paulbots keep trotting out.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 12, 2011 08:11 AM (B+qrE)
When you can't make it as a proctologist looking up someone's butt, you can always become a Congresscritter and stick it up someone's butt.
Posted by: Fish the Physician at May 12, 2011 08:11 AM (ndqJC)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Dave at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (NFxlU)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 12:08 PM (Nlp5i)
Next time you run into a SEAL somewhere explain to them how they fucked up braveheart.
Posted by: robtr at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (MtwBb)
Anyone who really things drug legalization is that important with our fiscal crisis, national security concerns, and everything else is either a stoner or completely unserious.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: Democrat Party HQ
Can you guys please update the memos in a timely manner. We're still pushing Huntsman. If you've changed to Ron please give us a heads up.
Posted by: MSM at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: RKJ at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (s4aY9)
Posted by: joncelli at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (RD7QR)
any particular page? Or should I just start a new chapter?
Posted by: Keepr of the International Law Book at May 12, 2011 08:13 AM (3Okgs)
Borders? Seriously? I thought he was one of those, "Hell, just let 'em all in"
guys.
That's certainly the dogmatic Libertarian position.
Posted by: Fartnoise at May 12, 2011 08:13 AM (bCxgV)
--Where Ron Paul Rules: Domestic Issues, Spending, Borders
Are we counting drugs as a domestic issue? Becasue I might want to quibble a bit over the whole "legalize heroin" thing.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 12, 2011 08:13 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 12, 2011 08:13 AM (re6ik)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (AZGON)
I think Ron Paul looks like Satan.
Not that I know what Satan looks like.
Or, maybe Satan looks like Ron Paul.
You get my drift.
Posted by: A Rogue Wave Named Bruce at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (9RGYy)
Isn't this generally the same shit that Obama does? With the only difference is that from Paul's perspective is that POTUS (whoever he is) just has to talk nice, while from Obama's perspective the nive talk only works if Obama's the one doing it?
Talk about holding your nose if it comes down to these two.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (/U/Mr)
Posted by: Ben at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (wuv1c)
And if somehow "international law" was written prohibiting the United States from say engaging in international commerce or even existing, would we be honor-bound to follow it?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: William R Dunce at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (oDMwn)
Posted by: blaster at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (l5dj7)
Posted by: Minnie Rodent at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (S3rrR)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:15 AM (nj1bB)
He should be primaried this next cycle.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 12, 2011 08:15 AM (ab16o)
Posted by: typical paulbot dipshit at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (9RFH1)
Didn't you wingnuts hear me yesterday?
Our relationship with Pakistan remains strong.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off for a round at Joint Base Andrews. Michelle just ordered the White House chef to whip up some tamales, stat.
No way I'm sticking around for that. Ever watch a horse eat a carrot? Just sayin.'
Posted by: President Wormburner McDroopyshoulders at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (lAkUp)
Posted by: THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (AZGON)
#83
True. Ron Paul doesn't even have the integrity to say he is a "Truther". Instead, he wallows in the filth of the Alex Jones Show babbling about 'unanswered questions' about 9/11.
He is a fucking political hack. Am I supposed to believe that he doesn't know Alex Jones is the King of the Truthers? Come the fuck on.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (VoSja)
I am not so much into they aught to be legal as I am the federal laws and enforcement should be eliminated and it left up to the States. The federal laws are unconstitutional.
However, if a State elects to make drugs legal, then they should at the same time make reciept of any public assistance to be conditional on being drug free.
If children are involved, and the parent can not support them because of drug/alcohol issues, then the children should be removed to foster care and the parent sterilized.
Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (M9Ie6)
--Where Ron Paul Rules: Domestic Issues, Spending, Borders
Are we counting drugs as a domestic issue? Becasue I might want to quibble a bit over the whole "legalize heroin" thing.
I'm for the total legalization of drugs, however I also think that has to come in conjunction with me not paying peoples medical bills.
If a person wants to destroy themselves using drugs, they should be free to, but I am also free not to give two shits of one dime when they are suffering and need medical help.
I'm a big fan of more freedom and personal responsibility.
That said, it isn't even really on my list of top priorities. If it happens so be it, if not oh well. We've got bigger problems.
But I will always advocate for more freedoms when given the option, not less.
Posted by: Ben at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (wuv1c)
"Well the neocon thing is a fair cop -- Goldberg is (or was) a neocon, and I am (or was) one too."
Okay, well maybe I'm the one who doesn't understand what "neocon" means. My understanding is that "neocons" are former liberals who move to the right.
When was Jonah Goldberg a liberal?
Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (mEyVv)
Borders? Seriously? I thought he was one of those, "Hell, just let 'em all in"
guys.
That's certainly the dogmatic Libertarian position.
Actually, suprisingly, no! He's quite Pat Buchananite on borders and immigration. I am surprised the clowns at "Reason" (sic) Magazine like him so much. Then again, they are faddists.
AGAIN, Ron Paul is a total asshole and fool when it comes to foreign policy. But Damn if we don't need sound money and real spending cuts. It IS "the economy, stupid..." as Bill Clinton was reminded by Dick Morris.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 12:15 PM (Nlp5i)
That's some killer shit you're smoking, dude. Grow it yourself?
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (ab16o)
Posted by: ontherocks at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (HBqDo)
Conflicted.
Posted by: blaster at May 12, 2011 12:14 PM (l5dj7)
I'm thinking the proper response to that would be HELL to the no!
Posted by: ErikW at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (lAkUp)
Posted by: RKJ's crud-encrusted milking hand at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (oDMwn)
Posted by: countrydoc at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (131HS)
Posted by: Looters, Moochers and Other Parasites at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (/FqjZ)
90 I want to get a job at this firm "international law."
Wasn't that a show in the early 90's starring Corbin Bernsen and Jill Eickenberry?
Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (re6ik)
Instead we kill an unarmed man that could have been taken alive.
So he can mouth off and the Commiecrats can make another Mumia Abu-Jamal out of him? NO, he's best killed. Any information we needed comes from his home computers and his personal associates captured.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Nighthawk at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (OtQXp)
Posted by: © Sponge at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (UK9cE)
I happen to agree with you. And let's not pretend that the Israeli's, through the American Jews aren't pulling the strings in the Obama administration and their headlong rush to kill Osama bin Ladin. I wonder why they wanted him dead? Maybe so he wouldn't tell us who really masterminded 9/11?
Posted by: Ron Paul in 2012 at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (LH6ir)
I'm tired of seeing gold teeth motherfuckers, and their white BMWs, and their homo way of holding guns sideways ALL paid for by the profits of illegal drug trade.
Heh. When my son was home on leave we were talking about the stupid gang-bangers, and I wondered why the hold their guns sideways.
He snarked, "Because that's how they come out of the box."
Love that kid.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (UOM48)
Since that time they have gone back to supporting terrorists and of course sheltering Osama.
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 12:15 PM (nj1bB)
You're wrong. It was clearly my Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 which prompted KSM's arrest. Pakistan did not start harboring OBL till after my bill was rejected and they knew we weren't a serious threat.
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (nj1bB)
Conflicted.
Posted by: blaster at May 12, 2011 12:14 PM (l5dj7)
Hire her, but tell her that you are going to give half her paycheck to the bums outside because they are hungry. You will also give 1/4 of her paycheck to the cowboy poetry festival in the next town over. Also tell her she is not allowed to wear a bra or undies (fire hazard) and that because the color green offends some people she must only wear yellow.
Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 08:20 AM (penCf)
Now "marxistgirl" (ugh) can complain to someone that you discriminated against her on the basis of her Twitter name.
Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 08:20 AM (mEyVv)
Well, in defense of your drug adeled brother in law, that may be 2 more good ideas a year than Obama has
Well Obama did o.k. killing Binny. But I stand corrected. Obama 1 Drug adeled Brother in Law 2
Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 12, 2011 08:20 AM (re6ik)
When was Jonah Goldberg a liberal?
Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 12:17 PM (mEyVv)
Well the Ronulons may spell neocon as 'neocon' but mentally they pronounce it as 'J-E-W'.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 12, 2011 08:20 AM (CrQRp)
There are no stupid questions - only stupid people.
Posted by: Mr Garrison at May 12, 2011 08:21 AM (dWzqv)
Posted by: � Sponge at May 12, 2011 12:19 PM (UK9cE)
WINNING!!1111eleventy!!111
Posted by: Ronulan horde at May 12, 2011 08:21 AM (UOM48)
Posted by: Nighthawk at May 12, 2011 12:18 PM (OtQXp)
And the other 90% is hatred of the Jooooooos. That's right, Ron Paul is so awesome he has 180% support!!1!!11!!
Please don't run him against Obama!
Posted by: Democrat Party HQ at May 12, 2011 08:21 AM (c45xH)
Posted by: Looters, Moochers and Other Parasites at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (/FqjZ)
Posted by: Bob Reed at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (2dlWi)
But the question we should be asking today is does Obama support apartheid?
Why does he have a racist segregationist coming to the White House?
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (uFokq)
Because they really don't want to hit what they are aiming for?
Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (penCf)
Umm, because it goes like this:
Hello? Usama? this is the ISI. Those wacky Americans have found out you're staying at our place in Abbottabad. One of your guys must have let it slip the names of your couriers. Anyway, the Americans have asked us to arrest you, so we were wondering if a week from Thursday would be good for you? oh, and here's one hundred thousand US dollars (small bills, non-sequential) for your walking around expenses. See you Thursday, ok?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (1hM1d)
You do realize there is a specific authorization of force particularly against HIM as a named target, right? And that's still on the books, right?
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 12:17 PM (nj1bB)
But that authorization was invalid so the hit was unconstitutional. Just like WWII.
Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 12, 2011 08:23 AM (xMT+4)
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 12, 2011 08:23 AM (ab16o)
123
"Heh. When my son was home on leave we were talking about the stupid gang-bangers, and I wondered why the hold their guns sideways.
He snarked, "Because that's how they come out of the box."
Best joke I have heard all day. Coffee meet Computer .You and your son owe me a new keyboard.
Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 12, 2011 08:23 AM (re6ik)
He snarked, "Because that's how they come out of the box."
That is hysterical, and probably true.
Posted by: Berserker at May 12, 2011 08:24 AM (FMbng)
Heh. There's a reason why the gun sights are on top of the gun.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 12, 2011 08:24 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: joncelli at May 12, 2011 08:25 AM (RD7QR)
They are generally conservative on military and foreign policy and liberal on everything else.
Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 08:26 AM (M9Ie6)
Stop taking him/his campaign so seriously, then. An overwhelming majority of the GOP agrees with you and if somehow he managed to win the first five states because of a crowded field (never going to happen anyway) he'd never win the other 45. He's hit his ceiling.
Giving him the rational benefit of the doubt (by discussing what he says and his candidacy ever so often) only undermines the argument that he's irrational. How about going back to just ignoring him, and letting his crowd of would-be non-voters linger and blow their money on illiterate blimps?
Posted by: John S at May 12, 2011 08:26 AM (wmou9)
Posted by: Speller at May 12, 2011 08:27 AM (J74Py)
I almost wonder to what extent he really believes it, as opposed to just going out of his way to be "different."
Posted by: logprof at May 12, 2011 08:28 AM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: High Times Magazine at May 12, 2011 08:28 AM (c45xH)
One difference Ron Paul has with the Left is is that he is consistent.
Uh, no.
A. Congressional earmarks.
B. As I have repeatedly pointed out, one cannot simultaneously be for Letters of Marque and respecting the sanctity of Pakistan's suddenly sacred borders.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 12, 2011 08:30 AM (B+qrE)
OT: got a resume of someone to interview, so I googled the person. Turns out she is "marxistgirl" on twitter. I am thinking, hell no now.
Conflicted.
why would you hire an open marxist. It isn't discrimination or anything. If you're in business why would you hire someone who hates business?
It'd be like a Doctor hiring a witch or alchemist.
Posted by: Ben at May 12, 2011 08:31 AM (wuv1c)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 12, 2011 12:30 PM (B+qrE)
What do you mean "suddenly"? Our borders are the 4,579th most holy site in Islam!
Posted by: Pakistan at May 12, 2011 08:31 AM (c45xH)
Posted by: MWR at May 12, 2011 08:31 AM (4df7R)
OT: got a resume of someone to interview, so I googled the person. Turns out she is "marxistgirl" on twitter. I am thinking, hell no now.
Discrimination against a job applicant on the basis of stupidity is still permitted in America.
Posted by: Cicero at May 12, 2011 08:32 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Goober at May 12, 2011 08:32 AM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: MWR at May 12, 2011 08:33 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: More Policy Statements from Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 12:30 PM (OWjjx)
Really, now? As much as I loathe Paulian foreign non-policy, he is serious about taking a meat axe to government.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 08:34 AM (ujg0T)
Osama bin Laden was an American citizen. Everybody is an American citizen! It doesn't matter where they live. People have rights.
Posted by: WaterCow at May 12, 2011 08:34 AM (Rq1/g)
Posted by: Michael Smith at May 12, 2011 08:35 AM (2Oas0)
Posted by: Bambi's Bowels at May 12, 2011 08:35 AM (wOaLi)
#163
I still think Ron Paul would spend the first two years of his administration vetoing every single bill no matter it's content just to prove to the other branches of the government how much more conservative he is.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 08:36 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:36 AM (nj1bB)
You might want to ask ace to delete that post. 1/2 the morons here have googled it. Who knows what heat she might try to give you.
oh...and I'd hit it in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 12, 2011 08:37 AM (ab16o)
Posted by: Ken at May 12, 2011 08:38 AM (q418P)
Posted by: navybrat at May 12, 2011 08:39 AM (Sau97)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 08:40 AM (ujg0T)
#165, #168
It has to be. Why does he get a pass for hanging out with the Alex Jones crowd? If he didn't want to be thought of as a 'Truther' or a conspiracy theorist, he could easily not be loosely associated with these groups and just 'ask questions'.
Many of his supporters agree with him, but at least know that it is electorally unpopular. When you start to push them though, they usually break and say something like 'Well...don't you think the 'official story' is strange?' and then comes the lecture on 'building fall times' and the 'CIA involvement in staged terror'.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 08:40 AM (VoSja)
To a lesser extent, Palin and Bolton are also using the race to raise awareness, sell books, TV eyeballs, increase speaking fees etc.; with the caveat that they actually have an outside chance of getting somewhere or at least forming the debate.
Tpaw, Daniels, Mittens and Huntsman are professional politicians they are running if they see a way to win.
Cain just wants to fix this mess.
So at this point, a historic Cain/Palin ticket is my front runner. Don't know how they will raise a Billion dollars though.
Posted by: Jean at May 12, 2011 08:40 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: FireHorse at May 12, 2011 08:41 AM (Rq1/g)
Loons are great birds. They get bigger than geese, swim hundreds of yards underwater for > 30 seconds at a time. They pair-bond & swim around with the little loonets sp? on their backs. They find fish but so far I've never had following them work like it will ocean fishing where the game fish push a prey-ball to the surface and the sea birds swarm in.
Beautiful plumage.
Posted by: More Python 11ty!!! at May 12, 2011 08:42 AM (NFxlU)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 12, 2011 08:44 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Leftist Anti-Gun Ideologue at May 12, 2011 08:44 AM (J74Py)
It is sockpuppetry. I think I hit the correct tone for the Paulians of stupid, irrational, dogmatic and batshit crazy. But it's a work in progress, so I'll keep trying.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 12, 2011 08:47 AM (LH6ir)
I have a friend who had a Ron Paul sticker on her car early in '08, then added an Obama sticker later in the year. I didn't understand it then, even when she explained it, and I still don't understand it.
You tried, Ace. I appreciate the effort, but even the crazy relative at Thanksgiving analogy doesn't quite explain it. Crazy pop-pop doesn't follow me around telling me if I only would read his book I would finally know the truth.
Posted by: Mr. Fire at May 12, 2011 08:47 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 08:51 AM (QcFbt)
It would keep the brass from scattering to the right and instead make it fall near your feet, if you were worried about forensics or a just a neatnik gangsta.
Posted by: ontherocks at May 12, 2011 08:53 AM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 08:56 AM (QcFbt)
All the bullshit about "international law" is missing the point. Dr. Congressman "Sovereign Citizen" Batshit-crazy Ron Paul DDS Esq. OBE etc, etc doesn't get it. International Law is whatever we, the US, decides it is. Period.
International "Law" is what the United States wants it to be. We define it. That's the "realpolitik" reality of the whole gaseous bull he's spinning his beanie propeller about.
In short, by defninition - the US is always in compliance with International Law, whatever we decide to do.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 12, 2011 08:56 AM (RN5DH)
http://tinyurl.com/3e8xxmn
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 08:58 AM (Nlp5i)
Company you keep and all that. And FYNQ.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 09:00 AM (ujg0T)
One word: Beslan.
OK, Three words, Tora Bora and Beslan.
We were on his ass in Tora Bora and some Packie-Muzzie tipped him off and he got away.
If Osama were captured, there would be a Beslan massacre every day of the week until he was released. You can't negotiate with hostage takers that want to die.
Posted by: Max Entropy at May 12, 2011 09:02 AM (lH6z9)
#187
That article does nothing to explain his ridiculous relationship with Alex Jones where he always seems to 'ask questions' about government involvement in terrorism and 9/11. This is the basis of his being labeled a "Truther". This other groups wouldn't know him outside of the Alex Jones show.
Can you explain that? The article you pointed to doesn't even seem to want to try.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:02 AM (VoSja)
William, please sew your cuntflaps shut and go masturbate in your basement with your bong and your copy of Mein Kampf.
You've shown your true colors - referring to a female conservative as a "skank" - a married mother - confirms you're just a garden variety scumbag.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 12, 2011 09:02 AM (RN5DH)
None.
Look, if you're a true blue libertarian, then your candidate should be...Gary Johnson.
Can any Paultard tell me why they're still with him even though Gary Johnson is also libertarian, but was also a governor of a state, a successful one at that, and has a (longshot) possibility of being nominated?
Sorry, no genuine libertarian can be for that loser Paul anymore, not with Johnson in the race.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 09:03 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:03 AM (VoSja)
Is it true that you took it up the ass from Ron Paul in the men's room of the Holiday Inn the night before the Libertarian Society meetings? And then he felched you?
It might not be true, but it's at least as close to accurate as anything you have said.
Posted by: Ron Paul is not very bright at May 12, 2011 09:04 AM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 12:56 PM (QcFbt)
Yep. An Ideology That Explains It All is very appealing. This is a great assessment of the libertarian mindset.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 09:06 AM (73tyQ)
Hours after the twin towers collapsed, the FBI and Jersey state police weren't arresting Arabs or Muslims, but Israeli intelligence operatives.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:08 AM (Nlp5i)
It's important to have a candidate you can support with great intensity before your first major psychiatric hospitalization.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 09:08 AM (QcFbt)
OK, name one person who has challenged Alex Jones on trutherism on his show and been invited back.
Your first sentence is supposed to absolve Paul's association with trutherism and then you validate trutherism in the next sentence.
BTW, the government has covered up lots of stuff about Ron Paul's bestiality.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 09:11 AM (73tyQ)
Then every network reported a white van filled with explosives had been stopped near or on the George Washington Bridge on the evening of 9/11. When it turned out they were Israelis the story went dark.
http://tinyurl.com/3kdrygm
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:13 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 12, 2011 09:14 AM (RN5DH)
Paul supporters can't help but feel morally superior to everyone. It is what their leader teaches, to mistrust everyone but him.
This makes them ripe for believing every crazy story that someone like Alex Jones or Ron Paul tries to sell them. Any evidence against the conspiracy is just further proof that Paul is the only 'real' conservative as opposed to the type of conservatives who tell a bunch of Jews they are going to blow up buildings in their own country.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:18 AM (VoSja)
That's how blatantly Jones aims his show at the clinically insane and paranoid schizophrenics of America.
It's funny, but it's also sad since Jones reinforces his listeners beliefs in crazed, shadowy conspiracy theories. Half of his audience seriously needs psych meds, and he's running shows aimed at firming up their paranoia.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 09:19 AM (QcFbt)
Posted by: Ryan Aaron at May 12, 2011 09:20 AM (zloQB)
#205
But if Paul doesn't run, who is supposed to win that coveted demographic of paranoid schizophrenics concerned about lizard leaders?!?
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:21 AM (VoSja)
OT: got a resume of someone to interview, so I googled the person. Turns out she is "marxistgirl" on twitter. I am thinking, hell no now.
Discrimination against a job applicant on the basis of stupidity is still permitted in America.
Posted by: Cicero at May 12, 2011 12:32 PM (QKKT0)
--A friend of mine (who is a rare conservative in the field) is a social worker, and occasionally on Facebook she posts her "helpful tips when job hunting," based on the kooky things she sees from applicants.
Posted by: logprof at May 12, 2011 09:22 AM (BP6Z1)
The 9/11 High-Fivers
http://tinyurl.com/43wl325
I'm no more of a 9/11 truther than Carl Cameron and Brit Hume of Fox News.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:22 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: logprof at May 12, 2011 09:23 AM (BP6Z1)
FOr consistencies sake, here are past stated positions of the Lunatic Ron Paul on immigration, heaven help us if he is anywhere near the reins of power.
100% from FAIR? Really? That's a problem for you?
Welfare state is a problem and a magnet? Yes, it is.
Again, Paulian foreign policy is crackpot, but he is spot on here.
Or are you one of the Wall Street Journal cheap labor greedheads?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 09:25 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: logprof at May 12, 2011 09:27 AM (BP6Z1)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 12, 2011 09:31 AM (+61wI)
You can't be for limited government and favor policing the world.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:32 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: William R a"
So you call a woman a skank and someone you disagree with a hack, and you think anyone reasonable will give a crap what you claim about your kook leader Ron Paul?
I've heard so many valid criticisms of Paul dismissed on the weakest slobbering grounds. It gets pretty old. The guy had an antisemitic newspaper of his very own, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Dustin at May 12, 2011 09:34 AM (Q3nWV)
#209
You do realize that their are many Arabs who live in Israel, correct? Not everyone is in Israel is Jewish. All of this, 'Why would they detail anyone from Israel?' just seems to be code for 'They would only detain someone from Israel if those Jews knew what was going to happen.'
As far as a single report from one journalist with an unnamed source who said he couldn't talk about classified information, is that really how you want to broadcast that you make your decisions?
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:34 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: Ryan Aaron at May 12, 2011 09:35 AM (zloQB)
I refute it. During any event, reporters get bad information and trumpet it as if they saw whatever themselves. It is irrelevant and I refute it and you and your existence, your claimed human ancestry, and your entire anti-American, anti-reason neo-crypto-antisemitism masked as "just askin' questions".
You. Are. An. Irrational. Dirtbag. Loon. And. You. Are. Beyond. Stupid.
Sound it out if they're too big of words, Bonzo. If you have problems, ask your trainer. Maybe you'll get a pineapple to shove up your ass to entertain yourself.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 12, 2011 09:35 AM (RN5DH)
Someone in the Republican debates has to call Paul out on this Alex Jones stuff. Every single time I talk to a Paul person about Alex Jones and being a 'Truther', they deny Paul is a 'Truther' and then after some pushing proceed to tell me all of the reasons why they are a 'Truther'.
Ron Paul knows this. Box him in a corner and he will have to decide between playing footsie with a bunch of cranks or not selling his books on the Alex Jones show.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:38 AM (VoSja)
You can't be for limited government and favor policing the world.
Unfortunately, this isn't before 1914, when we relied on the Brits to do this for us. Even back then, the USA was policing the hemisphere and opening the China Door.
So where Paulian foreign policy isn't thinly disguised World Jewry conspiracies, it is pining for a day that never really was, and can no longer be in any case.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 09:39 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: TooCon at May 12, 2011 09:41 AM (TOWnk)
The USA has been policing the hemisphere since...James Monroe and his famous doctrine.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 09:41 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:42 AM (Nlp5i)
Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East LEAVE
http://tinyurl.com/3hubtzq
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:45 AM (Nlp5i)
Because you keep asserting that he isn't. Doesn't that piss you off?
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 09:46 AM (73tyQ)
Gee Willy, this is the same Reagan who funded the mujahedin and upped the aid to Israel to counter Syria? You are a foolish dupe, Willy, when you are not a closet Nazi. Saying Lebanon was a debacle was not the same as saying avoid the region altogether.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 09:48 AM (ujg0T)
#228
Don't see why it would for them because at least Paul is the only politican principled enough to 'ask questions' and not believe the 'official story'.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:49 AM (VoSja)
Posted by: William R! at May 12, 2011 09:50 AM (c45xH)
Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 09:52 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 09:53 AM (GvYeG)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. When I was talking 0of "Lunatic' I am talking about his entire body of work. Really was posting a listing of his immigration policies to be fair.
Ok, I missed the /sarc. But that said, can't there be a candidate who is sensible on immigration and isn't a foreign policy crackpot?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 09:56 AM (ujg0T)
As he wrote in his memoirs, Reagan thought we should be neutral in the Middle East. One thing for certain, he would have never listened to these radicals.
http://tinyurl.com/29ccwx7
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:57 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 10:01 AM (GvYeG)
#236
I don't think I've even watched Fox News for more than five minutes. Do you think that Fox News has some sort of 'Neo-con' spell on us that makes us believe your argument if you say some Fox News person said something unclear and unsourced that provides support to your conspiracy?
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 10:02 AM (VoSja)
As he wrote in his memoirs, Reagan thought we should be neutral in the Middle East.
Bull. Shit.
--Israel was backed as our client state vs. the Soviet Syrians.
--Israel's invasion of Lebanon vs. Soviet Syrian puppets was tacitly approved.
--Mujahedin were stocked with arms and supplies.
--Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged vs. Iran.
Some of us were *around* back in the 1980's and fondly remember Uncle Ron.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 10:05 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Neo-Con Fox News Watching Dumbass at May 12, 2011 10:07 AM (VoSja)
Telling facts to supporters of Ron Paul is like shouting the contents of the Periodic Table in Latin to a dachshund.
All you do is confuse them. All they want is weed/to hump your leg/a ball to fetch.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 12, 2011 10:08 AM (RN5DH)
Posted by: nickless at May 12, 2011 10:10 AM (MMC8r)
"
Perhaps we didnÂ’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marinesÂ’ safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:13 AM (Nlp5i)
I'm starting to believe that William R is really a clever anti-Ron Paul person making the most ridiculous and stereotypical Ron Paul arguments to make sure no one here could support Paul.
Really, this is exactly what we hate about Paul. The fiscal conservatism just seems to be a cover that allows all the real crazy that people like about Paul (Alex Jones, drug legalization, Jews who control the US, etc.) to come out.
Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 10:13 AM (VoSja)
Ron Paul has demonstrated dozens of times that he is a fucking lunatic. That man in any elected position makes me very nervous. His son does not seem quite as demented as he, but remember that the apple does not fall that far from its tree.
Posted by: USMC Steve at May 12, 2011 10:16 AM (zZae2)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:17 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:22 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 10:26 AM (GvYeG)
I suggest you buy Reagan's memoirs and read it. Because these are his words.
I did.
Lebanon is *not* the whole middle east. Surely you can understand that.
The Lebanon mission was a noble attempt to restore the cosmopolitan Lebanon of the 1960's and before. Ike (not known for being pro-Israel, by the way) did something similar in 1958. But Lebanon no longer had a Christian majority, and muslim savagery took hold. Humpty-Dumpty could not be put back together.
Reagan's policy: fight the commies where you can and where it is politically doable. Lebanon just was not.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 10:27 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at May 12, 2011 10:30 AM (rVfMa)
You are delusional.
"Perhaps we didnÂ’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle."
Reagan is talking about the Middle East. Not just Lebanon.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:38 AM (Nlp5i)
Ron Paul draws particular venom from people like me because what he says is exactly what the leftists say.
I see your point, but you are missing something important. Leftists profess this self-righteous indignation about the use of force only when the force is being applied by the US. Paul, I would say, is more principled, and doesn't exhibit such hypocrisy.
Paul seems more genuinely ideological, whereas the Leftists are simply trying to make excuses for their anti-Americanism. Paul is overly idealistic on foriegn policy, but he is at least not anti-American the way they are. His foreign policies would endanger the US, but that is not on purpose. Paul doesn't represent the threat they do, because he does not have an entire party behind him on this.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 10:40 AM (F56VB)
You are delusional.
"Perhaps we didnÂ’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle."
Reagan is talking about the Middle East. Not just Lebanon.
You can't read. The particular passages refer to the Lebanon events. The "neutrality" refers to who would run Lebanon. Initially, Reagan backed the Gemayel regime.
Meanwhile, Uncle Ron:
--jacked up military aid to Israel to counter Soviet aid to Syria
--approved Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon to root out Iranian and Syrian backed forces.
--hoped that with US / French / Italian Marine help, the fragile Gemayel regime could establish itself outside of Greater Beirut while the Syrians were stopped by Israel (Gemayel couldn't, and Syrian backed bombers did their car bombings anyway).
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 10:47 AM (ujg0T)
Go to Amazon and order Chalmers (CIA) Johnson's book Blowback.
http://tinyurl.com/3t772mx
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:48 AM (Nlp5i)
At best, he's more principled because it's an easy answer. "Antiwar" is much easier than a more complicated policy that takes in some realities of life.
It doesn't really matter, he's functionally leftist.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 10:49 AM (73tyQ)
"Reality got you down? Unpleasant facts keep haunting you? Call 1-800-RON-PAUL!"
"Trade with all, entangling alliances and wars with none" only works if everyone else is like you. Everyone else is not like you, so it doesn't work.
It's like pacifism, it works fine until the first angry nutjob you meet, and then it's all over.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 12, 2011 10:50 AM (bxiXv)
Get it through your head. He said it in his memoirs. After he left office. After he had time to reflect.
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:50 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: Ronald R as told by William R at May 12, 2011 10:51 AM (73tyQ)
Paul's foreign policy would get us out of lots of danger. Anyone that thinks we can just go around and start bombing countries and not expect any blowback is very naive.
Anyone who thinks we can just wait and see and disarm while other nations push their proxies and outright invade is even more naive.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 10:52 AM (ujg0T)
Posted by: Ronald R as told by William R at May 12, 2011 10:55 AM (73tyQ)
Here is Russell Kirk the father of modern conservatism.
"Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs."
http://tinyurl.com/cuqn7w
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:55 AM (Nlp5i)
In a polemic essay, Kirk (quoting T. S. Eliot) called libertarians "chirping sectaries," adding that they and conservatives have nothing in common (despite his early correspondence with the libertarian Paterson). He called the libertarian movement "an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating."
Posted by: chirp, chirp at May 12, 2011 10:58 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:58 AM (Nlp5i)
Are you Shia or Sunni, William?
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:01 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 11:01 AM (Nlp5i)
With Bush at the helm during Musharrafs "low calorie" military dictatorship pre the Bhutto assassination I would say coin flip chance of Pakistan arresting Bin Laden. Now with an unresolute incoherent Obama plus the mess that is Paki "goverenance" I would give Paki's about a 90% fail chance at arresting Bin Laden. That 10% chance of success just comes from the rising possibility of Saudi operatives inside Paki government pulling it off alone. (like Spengler was discussing the other day)
Maybe if Obama and leftists practiced saying Poh-kee-stain more they would join our side?
Still you don't have to be a lefttard to step back and say, it is f'd up that we had to send American soldiers to foreign soil in a country we are "allies" with and have been borrowing money from the Chinese for years to fund with foreign "aid" just to stop one individual with 3000 American deaths on his hands. Or to say WTH are we doing/going to do in Libya? American foreign policy has become a like a radioactive genetic mutant as likely to help our enemies or harm our "friends."
Paul is not alone on this, nobody has their head around just what kind of Biblical monster is bloblike coalescing in these Islamic countries right now. Pandora is out of the box, Islamic Arabs wont be ruled over by corrupt western aid taking dictatorships anymore. If you loved the old middle east you'll really love the new middle east.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 12, 2011 11:01 AM (mLAWK)
Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 11:02 AM (Nlp5i)
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:06 AM (73tyQ)
I tried to find some independent evidence that Reagan actually said what the Paulbot says he said. So far, I haven't found it. What pops up on a search is nutjob Paul reading into the Congressional Record, the supposed quote from Reagan's autobiography. And a million references to it follow, mostly on sites like huffpo and freep.
So did Reagan actually say it? It doesn't really matter if he did, but I would at least like to know if Paul and his Paulbots are quoting him accurately or not.
Posted by: Mr. Fire at May 12, 2011 11:06 AM (TOk1P)
261 It doesn't really matter, he's functionally leftist.
Of course it matters! Leftists are actually and intentionally working against the US, while Paul is not. Paul's foreign policy will run the spectrum between being good, bad, or indifferent, as far as its impact on the US, while theirs will always be only bad.
I presume you're talking about only his foreign policy when you say this. Probably the biggest reason Paul gets a supportive ear from Republicans is that he is one of the few - even among them - who is an unapologetic supporter of capitalism.
But, really. Does much of anybody listen to Ron Paul on foreign policy in a supportive way? Tea Partiers love him for his domestic policy. The only people who pay attention to his foreign policy stance are people who want to poke fun at him for this staunch support of capitalism - so in that respect, it's the guys who fuss about his foreign policy insanity who are in lockstep with Leftists. Is anybody really worried that he might become President? Really??
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 11:07 AM (F56VB)
Maybe. Of course, even if it's accurate, Paul probably didn't quote it in full context or point out contradicting passages.
Just like a Muslim, actually.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:08 AM (73tyQ)
No, it doesn't matter. If you burn down civilization on purpose or through buffoonery, it's still burned.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:09 AM (73tyQ)
Then support Gary Johnson. All the libertarianism with only 10% of the crazy.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:09 AM (73tyQ)
264 Mr. Gorbachev, we'd rather not have that wall, but, you know, we aren't going to do anything about it because if we do, you'll think we're meanies or something.
I think you have the right idea, but isn't this kind of a poor example? When Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" he wasn't implying "...or else we'll turn your country into glass". Thinking, back it seems like it was more like a dare. More like, "Mr. Obama, release those transcripts!"
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 11:16 AM (F56VB)
281 Then support Gary Johnson. All the libertarianism with only 10% of the crazy.
Seemed like Johnson only had maybe one thing in the debate that struck me as especially screwball, but I forget what it was. Maybe that was the 10%. I liked him for the most part, but the country is probably not ready for relaxing drug laws, despite the failure of the WoD and the obvious parallels with Prohibition (and I'm one of those guys that Paul points out doesn't need the Feds to tell me not to do heroin, or any of the other stuff). More importantly, though, Johnson just comes across as too, well ... fruity to succeed in a national election.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 11:23 AM (F56VB)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 11:27 AM (nj1bB)
Yeah, well here's the thing. What if you do and you're 18 and you're hooked for life.
Then we're hooked. That is, we're on the hook for you and all the welfare state goodies.
Don't even talk to me about legalizing drugs until the taxpayers aren't on the hook for people's bad decisions. Welfare state goes first.
But if you think that Johnson is too fruity compared to Paul, you're hopeless.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:27 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 11:28 AM (nj1bB)
280 No, it doesn't matter. ...
Does so...
Sure, ignore my actual argument and just repeat yourself. Very unbecomeing for someone who professes to be a math guy. But if you really are a math guy, you're my hero for that, even if you are giving me a hard time for no reason at the moment.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 11:29 AM (F56VB)
But, really. Does much of anybody listen to Ron Paul on foreign policy in a supportive way?
Sadly, yes.
Tea Partiers love him for his domestic policy. The only people who pay attention to his foreign policy stance are people who want to poke fun at him for this staunch support of capitalism - so in that respect, it's the guys who fuss about his foreign policy insanity who are in lockstep with Leftists.
Don't insult me.....
Is anybody really worried that he might become President? Really??
I am worried that he might throw the primary process, and annoyed that we can't do better than Ron Paul in terms of staunch supporters of capitalism.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 11:36 AM (ujg0T)
286 Yeah, well here's the thing. What if you do and you're 18 and you're hooked for life.
Then we're hooked. That is, we're on the hook for you and all the welfare state goodies.
Wow. I really didn't expect you to go full nanny-state on me!
How about dumping the nanny-state goodies? How about the existence of those nanny-state goodies are being justified in just the same way you're saying? I didn't realize you were a Leftist.
Do you suppose that if you were on your own for paying for the consequences of your own drug use that maybe people would finally get the idea that it was de facto suicide? Do you suppose that parents would pay more attention to what their kids are doing?
But I don't think this thread was suppose to be about drugs, which are not the biggest issue right now.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 11:37 AM (F56VB)
Posted by: mpfs, Discoverer of Stupidium at May 12, 2011 11:38 AM (iYbLN)
I am worried that he might throw the primary process, and annoyed that we can't do better than Ron Paul in terms of staunch supporters of capitalism.
OK, I can accept that. I remember H. Ross Perot.
But I don't buy that anybody but a small cadre of Paulbots have any interest in his foreign policy.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 11:40 AM (F56VB)
You know, when the morons started with the Truther/Jew-Hater stuff, I almost said, 'hey, that's not fair, let's not assume, take his statements for what they are."
Then five minutes later he's talking about Israeli operatives being questioned after 9/11, a government cover-up, and the need to be neutral in the middle east.
THIS. I loathe to throw out smears like the Left does, but this time, the shoe really does fit.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 11:40 AM (ujg0T)
I was educated in this country.
I got a (spit) liberal arts education, even at a major university. (Parenthetically, my competition didn't, they got to actually study math.) So I know how arguments are done in the social sciences and ignoring your arguments and repeating myself is the coin of the realm.
How about dumping the nanny-state goodies?
That's my point. But if you advocate legalizing drugs, you're going to have drugs+welfare state. Dismantle the welfare state first.
But I don't think this thread was suppose to be about drugs, which are not the biggest issue right now.
They are when it comes to libertarianism. Gosh, if you want to lower spending, the boring old tea partiers are for that. If that's your main concern, why even bother with the fruitcake Paul and the (your word) "fruity" Johnson.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:43 AM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 12, 2011 11:50 AM (bxiXv)
Duh.
Posted by: Current TV announcer at May 12, 2011 11:54 AM (VxqUc)
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at May 12, 2011 12:24 PM (x7byD)
Look, to review, Ron Paul is unapologetically 1) capitalist and 2) for limited government, but has 3) insane foreign policy stances. To demonize him as a "leftist" because of #3 is intellectually dishonest, given numbers 1 and 2, and counterproductive.
If he's pulling votes away from other candidates, that would be great - if it were votes for #3. Let the foreign policy crazies divide themselves into oblivion.
But the concern here, I think, is that he could pull votes away from other candidates on #1 and #2.
My conclusion is that Ron Paul is not the problem. The problem is the other candidates, who are not the staunch and outspoken supporters of #1 and #2 that Paul is, but are more interested in pandering to religious and other special interests while the Titanic steams full speed toward the iceberg. If they were, Ron Paul would be little more than a footnote.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 12, 2011 12:41 PM (F56VB)
Posted by: Thorvald at May 12, 2011 03:31 PM (Wfqa8)
In way after the spam
Nope.
There's 3 options here, Dhimmitude (which winds up being our conversion or extinction), Theocide, or Islam changes.
We've been far too restrained forcing Islam to change. Being modest about our capabilities and the real end-state just leaves the unholy warriors dancing in the streets and the rest of Dar al-Islam cheering them on and lying to us. They need to straighten up or die vaporised. Anything not making that clear is enabling. Unlawful combatants get the Kenmore & a rope. Rioters get dispersed with 50 cal. CAIR, MSA, the Jamaats, Saudi funded mosques, etc. get the permanent FBI proctoscope. We've been way to nice doggie, not nearly enough stick.
Posted by: Dave at May 12, 2011 04:04 PM (NFxlU)
Posted by: JR at May 12, 2011 04:19 PM (mXwtg)
Posted by: Ryan Aaron at May 13, 2011 04:16 AM (zloQB)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.318 seconds, 413 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Please share. I'd like to think I'm not alone with my crazy lib in-laws.
Posted by: Jane D'oh, Moats n Gators franchise owner at May 12, 2011 07:43 AM (UOM48)