May 12, 2011

Ron Paul: Why Didn't We Just Ask Pakistan To Arrest Bin Ladin?
— 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.

1 I get enough of the slightly-deranged codger act every Thanksgiving. I don't need it every four years for two full years of campaigning.

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)

2
our Ralph Nader

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 07:44 AM (uFokq)

3

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)

4 So, Ace. When can we expect a review of Levi's new page turner?

Posted by: maddogg at May 12, 2011 07:44 AM (OlN4e)

5 Yeah, because Pakistan was really eager to arrest him. Paul's nuts.

Posted by: dagny at May 12, 2011 07:45 AM (23y25)

6 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.

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)

7
his drug legalization ideas are as equally simple-minded

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 07:45 AM (uFokq)

8 Ron Paul's problem isn't that he's "overly ideological". It's that he's a stark, raving lunatic.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 12, 2011 07:45 AM (ZJ/un)

9
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)

10 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.

Spot on. Hah!

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (bwcC+)

11

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)

12 Ron PAWLENTY!!!

Posted by: blaster at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (l5dj7)

13 Paul reminds me of a shrill little rodent running around squeaking his rage at a heard of elephants.

Posted by: maddogg at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (OlN4e)

14 Initially we were concerned with Rep. Paul, now, not so much.

RON PAUL REV BABY !!!!

Posted by: The Fed at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (EL+OC)

15 It's like Deja Vu all over again..

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 12, 2011 07:47 AM (f9c2L)

16
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)

17 Fuck you Ace. At least I never signed Mass-care into law.

Posted by: Ron Paul at May 12, 2011 07:49 AM (Q1lie)

18 Feel the hate; another Ron Paul thread. The paulbots will come out of the woodwork because both Gabe and Ace have turned on the kitchen lights.

Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 07:50 AM (M9Ie6)

19 You cannot reason a man out of an opinion he was never reasoned into in the first place.
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 our Ralph Nader

or Dennis Kucinich

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 12, 2011 07:50 AM (l3wWa)

21

#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)

22 I am but the tip of the Paultard spear.  We are coming.

Posted by: William R Dunce at May 12, 2011 07:51 AM (oDMwn)

23 Fuck you Ace. At least I never signed Mass-care into law.

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)

24 In your guts you know he's nuts.

Posted by: SurferDoc at May 12, 2011 07:53 AM (4e77w)

25 He also is full of questions which are in fact stupid.

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)

26 6 So, Ace. When can we expect a review of Levi's new page turner?

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)

27

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)

28

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)

29 Lord, if I only could have spoken with Osama Bin Ladin, all of this might have been avoided.

Posted by: Senator William Edgar Borah at May 12, 2011 07:56 AM (l7Ie9)

30 I am but the tip of the Paultard spear. And I'm only going to put in the tip.

Posted by: RON PAUL!!! at May 12, 2011 07:56 AM (AZGON)

31

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)

32 Paul and his followers are a bunch of incoherent loons.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 

Posted by: incoherent loons at May 12, 2011 07:58 AM (UOM48)

33

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)

34 Paul and his followers are a bunch of incoherent loons. At least you didn't say "mallards."

Posted by: Daffy Duck at May 12, 2011 07:59 AM (AZGON)

35 I would have preferred to see Rand run instead, to represent the DeMint wing of the party. But perhaps being a Senate freshman is just too soon. Ron Paul really isn't a good candidate. He exercises little care in his remarks. He seems to just wing it.

Posted by: TooCon at May 12, 2011 07:59 AM (TOWnk)

36 The CIA knew for months he was in that compound.  We could have taken him alive.   Interrogate him.  Hell, water board him.   Why the rush to kill him??   We had him.  He was unarmed. 

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)

37 32 Lord, if I only could have spoken with Osama Bin Ladin, all of this might have been avoided.

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)

38 Hell even uber NeoCon Jonah Golberg said we should not have  told the world we killed him.

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 08:01 AM (Nlp5i)

39 I find almost everything this guy does to be inexplicably bizarre.

Posted by: Big Jim Traficant at May 12, 2011 08:01 AM (+lsX1)

40 "Ugh. Why this clown gets respect in the GOP, I don't know."

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)

41

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)

42 Ron Paul seems to combine the characteristics of the old 1930's- model  T isolationists with a Jacksonian aversion to central banking; he seems to be relatively silent these days about the constitutional right to smoke weed, snort coke and shoot horse, but a lot of his supporters aren't; in fact, this seems to be the heart of their support for Paul.

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at May 12, 2011 08:02 AM (S3rrR)

43 Curious. I find him refreshingly understandable and sympathetic, but then again I'm as crazy as a chinchilla eating LSD.

Posted by: Noam "Fuck America" Chomsky at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (RN5DH)

44 You're an idiot, William R. Paul is saying we should not have gone in without Pakistan's permission -- in fact, we shouldn't have gone in at all. We should have ASKED THEM TO ARREST HIM. Paul is not just saying we should have arrested him. He's saying we shouldn't have done THAT, either. Because that would hurt poor widdle Pakistan's freedom.

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (nj1bB)

45 "RONULATORS!!!" [long toke] *cough!* "mount up, brah."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (+61wI)

46 Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Ron Paul

Yep, we've got the douchebags fully represented.

Posted by: HoundOfDoom at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (KhioZ)

47 Hell, he's talkin' our language!

Go Ron!

Posted by: Reason Magazine at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (bCxgV)

48

JOOOOOS!!!!

I can haz producer now?

Posted by: Keith Uberdouche at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (lAkUp)

49 Oh shit.  The NeoCon accusations are back.

Posted by: Fritz at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (GwPRU)

50 Why didn't I just ask all those girls in High School and college to just blow me?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 12, 2011 08:03 AM (i6RpT)

51 William R., do you know what "NeoCon" means?  It doesn't mean "really, really ultra con," you know.

Posted by: Kensington at May 12, 2011 08:04 AM (mEyVv)

52 It is impossible for any human being to exist without being, to some degree, corrupt. Recognition of that fact is the beginning of wisdom. Ideology is bedeviled by irrational consistency and unexamined ulterior motive. It is the point of conservatism to address things as they really are, and to do so with the greatest rational degree of integrity and honesty, always acknowledging the corruption forced upon us by existence. What results is not some ordination from God, but a practical perspective good for one and all.

Posted by: Tonawanda at May 12, 2011 08:04 AM (bN5ZU)

53

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)

54

#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)

55 55 William R., do you know what "NeoCon" means?  It doesn't mean "really, really ultra con," you know.

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)

56

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)

57 Ron Paul is not crazy.

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)

58 Well the neocon thing is a fair cop -- Goldberg is (or was) a neocon, and I am (or was) one too. But Paul isn't just anti-neocon. He is saying somethig William R. is claiming he did not say. (The temptation to change facts to fit ideological conclusions is strong.) Paul did not just say "Go in and arrest him." 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 of course he posits that Pakistan would have said 'Oh yes, of course; all I wanted was for you to ask."

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (nj1bB)

59 Yeah, Ron Paul, but did you know Obama personally killed bin Laden with a mere wave of his hand? Gosh, he did more in two years than that Bush guy did in eight, right? And Bush hates black people. Just ask that guy on the Daily Show with the acne scars and weird hair. I love the Daily Show! Best news out there. Anyway, I found out Barack crushed bin Laden's skull with just an angry glare! Brian Williams told me so. I was looking for the sports pages but all I saw was our war hero president.

Posted by: the moderate middle at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (AZGON)

60 Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 12:03 PM (nj1bB)

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)

61 Since when was he so concerned with following international law?

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (P+zzG)

62 You know, we're really afraid that Ron Paul would totally crush Obama in 2012. Please don't select him as your candidate. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

Posted by: Democrat Party HQ at May 12, 2011 08:07 AM (c45xH)

63

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)

64 ACE, Pakistan arrested the mastermind of 9/11 and handed him over to us. That aside, why the rush to pump a couple in Osama??  We had him.  We could have snatched him and kept him on ice.  This entire thing was botched. He could have been an intelligence bonanza. 

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 08:08 AM (Nlp5i)

65

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)

66 "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 12:06 PM (LH6ir)

Blow me.

 

No, I'm serious.

Posted by: Hobgoblin at May 12, 2011 08:09 AM (lAkUp)

67 I think ron paul is fucking nuts, but I think drugs should be legal.

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)

68 The hook is in his mouth...let him run out the line.  Sooner or later, he will tell us Israel knew beforehand about 9/11.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at May 12, 2011 08:09 AM (oDMwn)

69

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)

70 Hell, he's talkin' our language!

Ours too!

Posted by: High TImes Magazine at May 12, 2011 08:10 AM (3Okgs)

71

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)

72
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)

73 grandpa paul........sit down....i'll get your blanket and a nice hot milk......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (eOXTH)

74 Ace & Gabe are conspiring to drive up the hit count.  Commenterism, 11ty!!

Posted by: Dave at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (NFxlU)

75 ACE, Pakistan arrested the mastermind of 9/11 and handed him over to us. That aside, why the rush to pump a couple in Osama??  We had him.  We could have snatched him and kept him on ice.  This entire thing was botched. He could have been an intelligence bonanza. 

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)

76

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)

77 You know, we're really afraid that Ron Paul would totally crush Obama in 2012. Please don't select him as your candidate. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease!

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)

78 Ron Paul would have followed the Constitution, as Obama did not. Obama apparently thinks he is king. Ron Paul introduced this to go after OBL ten YEARS ago: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076 And to another commenter above, Ron Paul is not a truther and has said so repeatedly. If you had factual arguments against him you wouldn't need to spread such lies.

Posted by: RKJ at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (s4aY9)

79 Jew Neocons! Ron Paul means whatever he really meant to mean and not what he said! Now pass the stuffing, you Jew Neocon types!

Posted by: joncelli at May 12, 2011 08:12 AM (RD7QR)

80 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.

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)

81 @ 68: Where Ron Paul Rules: Domestic Issues, Spending, Borders

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)

82

--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)

83 paper....you are correct!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 12, 2011 08:13 AM (eOXTH)

84 Paul has some good ideas. Then again I'm sure every nut job has a good idea once and a while as well. My drug adeled brother in law has a good idea like twice a year. It doesn't mean any one of them should ever be near the presidency.

Posted by: BruceTheRobert at May 12, 2011 08:13 AM (re6ik)

85 I want to get a job at this firm "international law." It seems everyone thinks it supersedes everything else, it's really cool and humanitarian and just and stuff. Do they provide company cars? I want a good 401(k) plan too.

Posted by: George Orwell at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (AZGON)

86
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)

87 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.

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)

88 I always thought international law was a joke we played along with the make the Europeans feel like they still had some sort of power.

Posted by: Ben at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (wuv1c)

89 66 Since when was he so concerned with following international law?

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)

90 Of course, had we gotten Pakistan to arrest him, I would be pounding my pud over "torture" and habeas corpus right about now, so nevermind.

Posted by: William R Dunce at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (oDMwn)

91 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.

Posted by: blaster at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (l5dj7)

92 Why is Ron Paul getting so het up about a wee home invasion on the other side of the world? 

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at May 12, 2011 08:14 AM (S3rrR)

93 >>>A CE, Pakistan arrested the mastermind of 9/11 and handed him over to us. That aside, why the rush to pump a couple in Osama?? We had him. We could have snatched him and kept him on ice. This entire thing was botched. He could have been an intelligence bonanza. Paul is not saying that. He is not saying we should have snatched him. He is saying it is against International Law to cross Pakistan's border and so we couldn't have taken any action, except to ask them to give up the man they were protecting. Further, KSM was arrested months after 9/11 when Bush's threat to BOMB THE COUNTRY if they did not cooperate was fresh, and plausible. It is no longer a fresh threat or, with Obama in office, a plausible one. Since that time they have gone back to supporting terrorists and of course sheltering Osama.

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:15 AM (nj1bB)

94 Who is Luap Nor popular with? Stoners, Stormfronters, anti-Semites,Troofers and Prison Planet devotees.

He should be primaried this next cycle.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 12, 2011 08:15 AM (ab16o)

95 That's Dr. Paul NEOCON!!1!!!1!

Posted by: typical paulbot dipshit at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (9RFH1)

96

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)

97 BUT WHAT ABOUT THE JEW GOLD IN SWISS BANKS??? NEOCON WORLD ORDERISTS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE DRUG TRADE!!! MY GRANNY'S BASEMENT SMELLS LIKE OLD CHEESE AND I HAVEN'T SHOWERED SINCE 1983!!!

Posted by: THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON at May 12, 2011 08:16 AM (AZGON)

98

#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)

99 I think ron paul is fucking nuts, but I think drugs should be legal.

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)

100

--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)

101 Ace:
"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)

102
I'm a specialist in International Law and Yard Sale Law.  Any questions?

Posted by: Eric Holder, AG & Presidential Pom-Pom Boy at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (ndqJC)

103

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)

104 >>>Ron Paul would have followed the Constitution, as Obama did not. What? You're saying the Osama hit was UNCONSTITUTIONAL? 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 08:17 AM (nj1bB)

105 Instead we kill an unarmed man that could have been taken alive.

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)

106 Paul is a right handed version of Jimmy Carter. He is irrationally above the fray of reality, with a similar Jew hatred.

Posted by: ontherocks at May 12, 2011 08:17 AM (HBqDo)

107 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.

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)

108 Ron Paul is not a truther, and the fact that he surrounds himself with truthers and that his Paulbots always eventually resort to claims somebody knew about 9/11 beforehand is entirely a matter of circumstance.

Posted by: RKJ's crud-encrusted milking hand at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (oDMwn)

109 Libertarianism is a stiff price to pay just to get your hookers and weed.

Posted by: countrydoc at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (131HS)

110 Interesting concept, Ace: Ron Paul is a libertarian who thinks like a liberal: Reality doesn't matter, facts don't matter, ideology trumps all.  If it doesn't work it's because it wasn't done right. Funny mindthoughts those.

Posted by: Looters, Moochers and Other Parasites at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (/FqjZ)

111

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)

112

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)

113 I'm convinced that 90% of Paul's support is due to his positions on decriminalizing drug use.

Posted by: Nighthawk at May 12, 2011 08:18 AM (OtQXp)

114 Ron Paul needs to hire Levi Johnston as is campaign adviser.  That would be EPIC.

Posted by: © Sponge at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (UK9cE)

115 Posted by: RKJ at May 12, 2011 12:12 PM (s4aY9)

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)

116
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)

117 Further, KSM was arrested months after 9/11 when Bush's threat to BOMB THE COUNTRY if they did not cooperate was fresh, and plausible. It is no longer a fresh threat or, with Obama in office, a plausible one.

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)

118 the = they

Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (UOM48)

119 >>>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. That is one meaning of the term, but another one is someone who pushes an idealistic (Wilsonian) foreign policy coupled with a might-centered one (Jacksonian). Because many of the general liberal-to-conservative neocons embraced this vision, that particular stance became to be termed "neocon." I get your argument about definitions but I'm a descriptivist, a lot. Language changes. It does. So, this is one of the defintions that "neocon" now has by now.

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (nj1bB)

120
...or Dennis Kucinich

Or our Mike Gravel.

Posted by: Soothsayer at May 12, 2011 08:19 AM (uFokq)

121 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.

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)

122 blaster@96, that's not the kind of thing you should probably admit on the Internet.

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)

123 101

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)

124 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 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)

125 RON PAUL/LEVI JOHNSTON 2012!!!

Posted by: THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON at May 12, 2011 08:21 AM (AZGON)

126 "He also is full of questions which are in fact stupid."

There are no stupid questions - only stupid people.

Posted by: Mr Garrison at May 12, 2011 08:21 AM (dWzqv)

127 121 Ron Paul needs to hire Levi Johnston as is campaign adviser.  That would be EPIC.

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)

128 Posted by: Vic at May 12, 2011 12:16 PM


yeah I agree with all that.

Posted by: Berserker at May 12, 2011 08:21 AM (FMbng)

129 120 I'm convinced that 90% of Paul's support is due to his positions on decriminalizing drug use.

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)

130 One difference Ron Paul has with the Left is is that he is consistent.  For Leftists consistency goes out the window when it serves their purposes to accumulate power.  Obama has shown this time and time again. 

Posted by: Looters, Moochers and Other Parasites at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (/FqjZ)

131

RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a loser...

Posted by: Bob Reed at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (2dlWi)

132
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)

133 When my son was home on leave we were talking about the stupid gang-bangers, and I wondered why the hold their guns sideways.



Because they really don't want to hit what they are aiming for?

Posted by: momma at May 12, 2011 08:22 AM (penCf)

134 Why Didn't We Just Ask Pakistan To Arrest Bin Ladin?

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)

135 What? You're saying the Osama hit was UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

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)

136 We're gonna have to deal with this d-bag right up until the bitter end of the Primaries, aren't we? At what point do the GOP debates go from trying to attract participants like Paul to trying to trick him into going to the wrong City?

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 12, 2011 08:23 AM (xMT+4)

137 OT Obama is going to ask Congress to extend Mueller's term I guess there no other Bush senior security guys left to hire.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at May 12, 2011 08:23 AM (ab16o)

138

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)

139 ""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."


That is hysterical, and probably true.

Posted by: Berserker at May 12, 2011 08:24 AM (FMbng)

140 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.

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)

141 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 12:19 PM (LH6ir) You know what really pisses me off about the Paulians? It's that there is no way to know if that is sockpuppetry or not, because one of them JUST. MIGHT. SAY. THAT.

Posted by: joncelli at May 12, 2011 08:25 AM (RD7QR)

142 If you use the current crop of pundits/politicians as an example a neocon is a former Democrat who became a Republican because of national security issues. Charles Krauthammer is the best living example of that.

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)

143

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)

144 I reject the fable that the Pak government didn't know bin Laden was living in Abbotabad.  If Ron Paul thinks that the Pak government would have arrested him after protecting him all those years, Ron Paul is truely crazy.

Posted by: Speller at May 12, 2011 08:27 AM (J74Py)

145 Just when I thought Ron Paul's foreign policy cred could not sink any lower . . .

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)

146 Thank you for these posts on Ron Paul. It was a great decision for us to start advertising here. We have never seen so many hits on our ads!

Posted by: High Times Magazine at May 12, 2011 08:28 AM (c45xH)

147

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)

148

 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)

149 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 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)

150 Ron Paul is a naive old clown.  Texas, please stop electing him. PLEASE.

Posted by: MWR at May 12, 2011 08:31 AM (4df7R)

151

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)

152 93 I always thought international law was a joke we played along with the make the Europeans feel like they still had some sort of power.       Ben, I'm stealing that. Thanks.

Posted by: Goober at May 12, 2011 08:32 AM (Q5+Og)

153 OT, but do Ace or any of the cobloggers expect to do a post about the Guilty by Default Tribunal of oil companies being held on Capitol Hell (sic) today?

Posted by: MWR at May 12, 2011 08:33 AM (4df7R)

154 And we can balance the budget by all of us being really, really good this year and Santa will bring the United States 14 trillion dollars for Christmas .....

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)

155

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)

156 Methinks his tendency to end his argument with a question (instead of a proposal or answer) is a form of dog whistle.

Posted by: Michael Smith at May 12, 2011 08:35 AM (2Oas0)

157 Nothing gutsy about him; he's so anal retentive.

Posted by: Bambi's Bowels at May 12, 2011 08:35 AM (wOaLi)

158

#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)

159 >>>Methinks his tendency to end his argument with a question (instead of a proposal or answer) is a form of dog whistle. I was thinking that too. An awful lot of his "statements' are actually "just asking questions." Dude, aren't you a high ranking government official? Shouldn't you know some of these answers?

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 08:36 AM (nj1bB)

160 Posted by: blaster at May 12, 2011 12:14 PM (l5dj7)

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)

161 Actually, as stupid as Paul's foreign policy is in general, one of the most belittled ideas of his is one I could sign onto. I wouldn't mind letters of marque for going after terrorists. Unlike Paul, however, I wouldn't want that to be the full extent of our war against them.

Posted by: Ken at May 12, 2011 08:38 AM (q418P)

162 Ron Paul is not unlike the isolationist Republicans, pre Pearl Harbor. Not that I personally remember that, but my grandpa was one of those. Pearl made their positions moot.

Posted by: navybrat at May 12, 2011 08:39 AM (Sau97)

163

oh...and I'd hit it in a heartbeat.

Frankly, she ought to be stalked....

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 08:40 AM (ujg0T)

164

#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)

165 Paul, Newt, Trump, Rudy, and Huckleberry are all just using the race as a way of raking in cash.  They have no hope of success or even changing the debate.

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)

166 Our government didn't kill bin Laden. It was SEAL-assisted suicide.

Posted by: FireHorse at May 12, 2011 08:41 AM (Rq1/g)

167 Your a loony.

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)

168 Dittos, Ace. Thank you for encapsulating my distaste for RONPAUL!!11!!!! and his loony legion of supporters.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 12, 2011 08:44 AM (d0Tfm)

169 Obama didn't kill bin Laden, Navy Seals didn't kill bin Laden, the U.S. government didn't kill bin Laden...it was a GUN that killed bin Laden.

Posted by: Leftist Anti-Gun Ideologue at May 12, 2011 08:44 AM (J74Py)

170 Posted by: joncelli at May 12, 2011 12:25 PM (RD7QR)

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)

171

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)

172 Fuck Ron Paul sideways with a flaming Atlas Shrugged!

Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 08:51 AM (QcFbt)

173 >>147 ""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. 

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)

174 I flirted with Libertarianism after college when I transitioned from a college lefty to a decent human being. I understand the appeal to smart, geeky young dudes. It offers certainty and moral superiority. And you don't have to take much time off from your 8 hr daily World of Warcraft gold-farming grind to actually research the messy details of the real world to form your opinion on any great national issue -- you just thunder down a forceful, condescending opinion from god's own first principles of no initiation of force and market-based cooperation. Market, market, no force, market. FYNQ.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 12, 2011 08:56 AM (QcFbt)

175

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)

176 Ron Paul is not a truther.  Only hacks like ACE, the skank Malkin and Allah have tried to paint him as one. 

http://tinyurl.com/3e8xxmn

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 08:58 AM (Nlp5i)

177 Ron Paul is not a truther.  Only hacks like ACE, the skank Malkin and Allah have tried to paint him as one. 

Company you keep and all that. And FYNQ.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 09:00 AM (ujg0T)

178

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)

179

#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)

180

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)

181 There should be no Paultards this election.

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)

182 What name recognition Ron Paul had before the Republican campaign in 2008 was mainly due to his loose associations with people like Alex Jones and some of the 'newsletter' people.

Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:03 AM (VoSja)

183 Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 12:58 PM (Nlp5i)

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)

184 I understand the appeal to smart, geeky young dudes. It offers certainty and moral superiority. And you don't have to take much time off from your 8 hr daily World of Warcraft gold-farming grind to actually research the messy details of the real world to form your opinion on any great national issue -- you just thunder down a forceful, condescending opinion from god's own first principles of no initiation of force and market-based cooperation. Market, market, no force, market. FYNQ.

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)

185 Alex Jones has lots of famous people on his show.  And the government has covered up lots of stuff about 9/11.  

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)

186 Cato and Reason add a useful, productive voice to the debate. Especially Cato. But the Paultards mainly add a shrill, paranoid, never-known-the-touch-of-a-woman, asshole voice to the debate. I think the Paultards are the natural home to the creepy, aspbergery, mildly schizoid young men of America.

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)

187

#196

This is too fucking easy. Did you see what I wrote in #173?

Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:09 AM (VoSja)

188 196 Alex Jones has lots of famous people on his show.  And the government has covered up lots of stuff about 9/11. 

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)

189 In fact, a team of Israelis had setup across the river in Jersey to film the attack as it happened.   This was reported by ABC 20/20. 

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)

190 Hey, Ace, can you ban William R? He's a dolt at best, apparently excited about Jewwwwws too. I mean, I'm sure it's funny to see throwbacks to knucklewalking plains apes try to type RON PAuL ROP NAUL FER PESIDEND!!! SEFEMEMBERN ElEVENTGY VAS JEW PLOT!!!  but it gets old really fast for the same reason that watching gorillas fling feces at plexiglas gets old.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 12, 2011 09:14 AM (RN5DH)

191

#200

So Paul isn't a Truther, but you are? Another wonderful endorsement for the Paul campaign.

Posted by: Paper at May 12, 2011 09:15 AM (VoSja)

192 The dirty Jews brought down the twin towers, not us!

But it was a great victory for Islam!

Posted by: William R Muslim at May 12, 2011 09:17 AM (73tyQ)

193

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)

194 The one time I listened to Alex Jones show it was about a secret race of lizard people who run the world.

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)

195 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. http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

Posted by: Ryan Aaron at May 12, 2011 09:20 AM (zloQB)

196

#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)

197

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)

198 No one can refute this.  Lets ban Fox News too.  

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)

199 I don;t consider Ron Paul a Truther.  If anything it was John Kerry who was giving winks and nods to Truthers.

Posted by: logprof at May 12, 2011 09:23 AM (BP6Z1)

200

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)

201 As I once read elsewhere online, libertarianism is a philosophy for cats, not humans.

Posted by: logprof at May 12, 2011 09:27 AM (BP6Z1)

202 Jane D'oh, Your kid is pretty smart. What the hell is he doing in the Marines?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 12, 2011 09:31 AM (+61wI)

203 No, Ron Paul's foreign policy is old school conservatism.  Bush Obama foreign policy is Wilsonian LBJism.    Or as George Will calls it.  Radical.

You can't be for limited government and favor policing the world. 

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:32 AM (Nlp5i)

204 "Ron Paul is not a truther.  Only hacks like ACE, the skank Malkin and Allah have tried to paint him as one. 


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)

205

#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)

206 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.

Posted by: Ryan Aaron at May 12, 2011 09:35 AM (zloQB)

207 209 No one can refute this.

 

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)

208 Pavlov's Echo Chamber

Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 09:36 AM (H+LJc)

209

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)

210

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)

211 "That's the way they come out of the box."

Too rich. God Bless that kid and all of his.

Posted by: Beto at May 12, 2011 09:39 AM (H+LJc)

212 ...quietly closing the browser tab and backing away slowly...

Posted by: TooCon at May 12, 2011 09:41 AM (TOWnk)

213 Even back then, the USA was policing the hemisphere and opening the China Door.

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)

214 ACE has spent years trying to portray Ron Paul as something he isn't.  As for Malkin, she doesn't have the decency to apologize to her readers or listeners for saying something so blatantly false. 

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:42 AM (Nlp5i)

215 Curmudgeon, you're a blithering idiot. 

Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East  LEAVE

http://tinyurl.com/3hubtzq

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 09:45 AM (Nlp5i)

216 You're a truther, aren't you disturbed that Ron Paul is not?

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)

217

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)

218

#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)

219 I'm not saying we should kill all the Joos, but wouldn't the world be a better place and wouldn't the Twin Towers still be standing?  Just asking questions....

Posted by: William R! at May 12, 2011 09:50 AM (c45xH)

220 The Ron Paul platform ... arrest Osama and bomb Israel ...

Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 09:52 AM (GvYeG)

221 I am embarrassed that Ron Paul is from Texas ...

Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 09:53 AM (GvYeG)

222 truthers ... OMG ... really?

Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 09:55 AM (GvYeG)

223

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)

224 I'm no more of a truther than Carl Cameron and Brit Hume.  

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)

225 This is great, needed a laugh, and the Jew haters always supply one.

Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 10:01 AM (GvYeG)

226

#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)

227

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)

228 Oh my, this Ron Paul supporter is proving his point using Reagan's words and Fox News, the only two things I use to build my opinions. Guess I should look at this 'Truther' thing again because it must be true.

Posted by: Neo-Con Fox News Watching Dumbass at May 12, 2011 10:07 AM (VoSja)

229

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)

230 I didn't want to read the whole thread, but did anybody say 'Fuck Ron Paul!' yet?

Posted by: nickless at May 12, 2011 10:10 AM (MMC8r)

231 Since you don't watch Fox I'll just bring it to you

http://tinyurl.com/5o2pqm

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:10 AM (Nlp5i)

232 Curmudgeon, I suggest you buy Reagan's memoirs and read it. Because these are his words. 

"

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)

233

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)

234

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)

235 Siht for brains, William F. Buckley favored the legalization of drugs. Paul's position is hardly out of left field.  Gawd, I've been posting on this blog off an on since 2007 and it never ceases to amaze me how stupid most of the regulars  are.

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:17 AM (Nlp5i)

236 I'm worried about the Marines if they allow idiots like Steve in.

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:22 AM (Nlp5i)

237 I love how certain folks try to make the middle east so complex and just impossible to understand. Well, guess what, I have studied it, in depth. The issue here is islamic imperialism. Period.

Posted by: HoneyBadger at May 12, 2011 10:26 AM (GvYeG)

238

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)

239 It's funny, I thought the libertarians were supposed to be against government tyrrany. It turns out in the case of Ron Paul, he's for it if it's done by Pakistan's government.

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at May 12, 2011 10:30 AM (rVfMa)

240 Curmudgeon

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)

241

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)

242

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)

243 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. 

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)

244 Paul, I would say, is more principled, and doesn't exhibit such hypocrisy.

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)

245 This is what makes Paul so attractive to a lot of frustrated ideologues of the non-far-left stripe. All ideologues are desperately searching for an alternative to reality, and that's what Paul offers.

"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)

246 Curmudgeon

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)

247 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.

Posted by: Ronald R as told by William R at May 12, 2011 10:51 AM (73tyQ)

248

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)

249 I am totally noninterventionist and you can tell the Sandanistas I said so.

Posted by: Ronald R as told by William R at May 12, 2011 10:55 AM (73tyQ)

250 No Amish Dude, the foreign Policy of George W Bush was very old school liberal internationalism  Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ

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)

251 According to Wikipedia...

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)

252 Read some history folks.  Stop listening to Limbaugh.  He's still defending George W Bush perhaps the worst President in history.   But I think Obma will prove to be worse because he's continuing Bush's policies.

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 10:58 AM (Nlp5i)

253 There's your libertarian for you, George W was horrible and Obama might be as horrible, but only if he's like W.

Are you Shia or Sunni, William?

Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:01 AM (73tyQ)

254 It is true Frank Meyer and Russel Kirk didn't like each other.   But Kirk didn't like libertines.  Ron Paul is hardly a libertine.  He's a constitutionalists Republican.  

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 11:01 AM (Nlp5i)

255 My thoughts,
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)

256 chirp, chirp

Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:01 AM (73tyQ)

257 Amish Dude, you're a punk kid with siht for brains.

Posted by: William R at May 12, 2011 11:02 AM (Nlp5i)

258 siht

Is that a Koranic term?

Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:03 AM (73tyQ)

259 Say it with me, "Mohammed was a fraud and Allah is his scam." 5 times per day.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:06 AM (73tyQ)

260

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

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)

262 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.

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)

263 Leftists are actually and intentionally working against the US, while Paul is not.

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)

264 Does much of anybody listen to Ron Paul on foreign policy in a supportive way? Tea Partiers love him for his domestic policy.

Then support Gary Johnson.  All the libertarianism with only 10% of the crazy.

Posted by: AmishDude at May 12, 2011 11:09 AM (73tyQ)

265

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)

266

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)

267 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. Jaysus.

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 11:27 AM (nj1bB)

268 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

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)

269 So, as another commenter points out: William R says Ron Paul isn't a truther, but William R IS a truther, and for some reason really really really likes ron paul, who's NOT, repeat, NOT a truther.

Posted by: Ace at May 12, 2011 11:28 AM (nj1bB)

270

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)

271

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)

272 remember paulbots,

never go full retard.

Posted by: rumcrook at May 12, 2011 11:37 AM (60WiD)

273

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)

274 I believe Mr. Bin Laden didn't have the letters of transit in his possession.  He should have been nicer to Rick.

Posted by: mpfs, Discoverer of Stupidium at May 12, 2011 11:38 AM (iYbLN)

275 290 

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)

276

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)

277 Sure, ignore my actual argument and just repeat yourself. Very unbecomeing for someone who professes to be a math guy.

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)

278 Rand Paul 2012 - Because Sometimes The Fruit *Does* Fall Far From The Tree

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 12, 2011 11:50 AM (bxiXv)

279 What does Nicole D. Lamoureux think of Ron Paul.... well she thinks he's an anti-semite freak who is one of the biggest porkers in the house and is a mental midget on foreign policy.  Just like the rest of the normal people in the world.

Duh.

Posted by: Current TV announcer at May 12, 2011 11:54 AM (VxqUc)

280 RuPaul wants us to not kill bin laden, and to Ignore the US Constitution and law in favor of "International Law"....we could use that to display how big a leftist he is

Posted by: Noam Chomsky at May 12, 2011 12:24 PM (x7byD)

281

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)

282 Who dislikes Israel more: Rep. Ron Paul or the top ranks of Pakistan's ISI? Get him enough power top abolish the Fed, and no more.

Posted by: Thorvald at May 12, 2011 03:31 PM (Wfqa8)

283 Ron Paul's urging of restraint and modesty in foreign policy doesn't look so bad to me now as it once did.

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)

284 And so ends Paul's ability to make a serious run at the White House.  His isolationism-dressed-up-as-populism was always a concern for me.  I don't think he'll be able to dress this one up.  He'll never be able to get a critical mass of independents to agree that we shouldn't have ventilated Bin Laden's cranium.  Quite the reverse, the suddenly bloodthirsty Obama supporters have shown that the American people speak with convincing unanimity that sending OBL to his seventy-two virgins eternal torments was, in fact, a Good Thing(TM).

Posted by: JR at May 12, 2011 04:19 PM (mXwtg)

285 #235: I"m sure there can be., Give me a ring when he shows up.

Posted by: Ryan Aaron at May 13, 2011 04:16 AM (zloQB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
244kb generated in CPU 0.1306, elapsed 0.4059 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.318 seconds, 413 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.