1 Oh gawd nooo.... In before Random?

2 Speaking of Obama and Iran, did you happen to catch the Daily Show last night?  Jon Stewart was spinning his heart out, trying to claim (with clown nose partially on) that Obama had gigantic balls for asking Iran to return our drone, you know, since we were spying on them.  So he awarded Zero the ballsiest dude of the week award or something.

3 Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Paul

4 I don't get why he's a member of any party. He is a square peg.

5 RON PAUL?!

6 Ron Paul's never really passed any legislation I've passed some silver dimes out my bung hole!

7 Ron Paul also believes the Pearl Harbor attacks were justified due to the fact that we withheld oil from them. Despite the fact that we were witholding oil from them in protest of them conquering half of the orient as well as the South Pacific. He seems to have respect for the sovereign rights of every nation except Us and Israel.

8 I would like to know what Rand really thinks of his old man's wackiest ideas.
_{........or then again maybe I don't}

9

"No legislation, no actual furtherance of conservative positions, but lots and lots of sweet sweet pork for the boys in Galveston and Corpus Christi."

Pork is such an ugly word.  I much prefer "dash" or "baksheesh".  More historical terms, and they just flow, don't they?

10 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

11 Ron Paul also believes the Pearl Harbor attacks were justified due to the fact that we withheld oil from them. Despite the fact that we were witholding oil from them in protest of them conquering half of the orient as well as the South Pacific. ----- You're not kidding.

12 @7
Are you sure you aren't confusing him with Pat Buchanan?

13 It has to be something about the Gulf Coast.  It has produced both RON! PAUL! and Sheila Jackson Lee.

14 You know what's really awesome?  This thread and the previous one will be active for the next three days as the dog whistle out to the Paul-tards slowly reaches them and they have no clue that a thread here is dead after a few hours.

15

I happen to know a former congressman who told me Ron Paul approached him to arrange some earmarks so Paul wouldn't have to get his hands dirty.

No better than Al Gore urging carbon-free living, with his three houses.

16 Why do conservatives like Ron Paul again? It only took me all of 2 minutes to completely dismiss him as an anti-jewish crank wagon back in 2008 when I first learned about him, yet I see otherwise rational conservatives go fuck all crazy pants insane supporting him.

17

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

 

 

^{You will be punished for speaking ill of the Ron Paul.} 

18 Why do conservatives like Ron Paul again?

Because he's "anti-establishment" and "libertarian."

Or because they're not "Conservatives" they're pot-smoking hippies.

Either/or.

19

Ron Paul also believes the Pearl Harbor attacks were justified due to the fact that we withheld oil from them.

Despite the fact that we were witholding oil from them in protest of them conquering half of the orient as well as the South Pacific.

To be fair, it wasn't the rape-rape of Nanking.  Because if we had sold Japan all the oil they needed, they wouldn't have had to invade the Phillipines, Midway, New Guinea...has anyone ever asked his opinion on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings? 

20

"Even that much, he thinks, is enough to justify an act of war by Iran, such that we must understand we had it coming, and should just accept it."

Well, someone has to obliterate Israel from the face of the Earth.  I'm sure that once Iran has fulfilled that purpose, Dr. Paul will discover reasons why Iran is suddenly a threat to vital US interests.  (Or maybe even then he won't.)

21 Ron Paul must be doing better in the polls. Oh wait, he is...

22

Silver Spoons

 

Rickster!

23

I, for one, welcome the oncoming assault from the Pod People.

 

24 Could you list the actual legislation advanced by Gingrich or Romney that was conservative? It seems late in the game to expect any Republican candidates to act like actual conservatives since we are so far down the Neocon/Right Liberal rabbit hole. For a supposed fringe candidate, Ron Paul seems to draw alot of ire from this site. Wonder why?

25 Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he is a dedicated Fascist. Nobody but a true, hardline White Nationalist would get Don Black to run such an aggressive campaign for him. A non-White Nationalist would not get the coveted David Duke endorsement. Ron Paul is a crypto-Nazi. A real one and fortunately not a very dangerous one, as most Streicherite Nazis these days are clownish loons.

26 To be fair to Jon Stewart, he was 100% mocking Obama for the ridiculousness of asking for the drone back.

I'll wait until 2016 to vote for a Paul for president.

27

For a supposed fringe candidate, Ron Paul seems to draw alot of ire from this site. Wonder why?

 

Don't Fence Us In!

28

Posted by: Y-not, an actual scientist for Perry

Very cool, Y-not. I love the new addition to your nic. ....Heh.

Rooting for our guy to do well tonight. I hate these dumbass debates.....don't know if I can watch.

29

Rue Paul!

30

SILVER THREADS and GOLDEN NEEDLES

31 pfttttttttttt......

32 Ve haff vays of makink you wote for der Giftmann!!

33 13 It has to be something about the Gulf Coast.  It has produced both RON! PAUL! and Sheila Jackson Lee.

Actually, it's the DFW area that's rapidly becoming Texas' new garden spot for lib psychopaths.  (Appropriate, since Dallas is a real shithole.)

34 Andrew Sullivan has gone the full Ron Paul...

35 #25 Are you kidding? Like Gingrich or not, just with the welfare reform he has actually 'accomplished' more than ROn Paul. As far as drawing ire. . perhaps because his foreign policy is straight from the loony bin?

36 Keep pounding on this ace.. my husband did a bunch of research on Paul and was shocked at what he found.  This needs to get out there!

37 So today is officially "Bait the Ronulans" day?

38 Meh, he's kind of a fruitcake, but not over earmarks.  If you're the one guy in Congress not accepting earmarks everyone benefits except your constituents, which makes no sense either.  He won't take a federal pension, won't take Medicare or Medicaid payments in his practice, is supported almost entirely by individual donations and not PAC money, and did introduce a term limit bill.  Props for those. 

39  I heard what an antisemitic crank that Ron Paul was here at AoShq, and decided to research for myself a couple of years ago. Came to find that the people calling Ron Paul an antisemitic Jooo hater and man who hates Israel were bald faced liars, certainly incapable of substantiating such claims. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, no matter how many times the deluded and spiteful Paul haters won't admit where they jumped erroneously to false conclusions. "Sometimes it just feels good to hate someone," said the Monseigneur as if that makes playing Alinsky "good". 

Understanding the enemy is the wise thing to do. To insist otherwise, or to say that by understanding the enemy one "sides" with the enemy is another erroneous claim.

40 He won't take a federal pension, won't take Medicare or Medicaid payments in his practice, is supported almost entirely by individual donations and not PAC money, and did introduce a term limit bill.  Props for those.

Heretic!
 

41 Is this pummel the wizened dwarf day?

42 Pirates, you're right, he doesn't hate Israel. He just doesn't mind if Iran gets the bomb. *wink*

43 This is a very effective attack. It goes right at Paul's supposed strength -- his seeming rock-solid principles. The reality is he's doing what all politicians do, do what's necessary to get re-elected.

44 Posted by: Ron's Silver ePub

Nice.

45 @27 To be fair to Jon Stewart, he was 100% mocking Obama for the ridiculousness of asking for the drone back.

I sorta see your point.  The idea that he was openly mocking the POTUS didn't occur to me at the time (and frankly I'm not completely sold on the idea).

46 " If you're the one guy in Congress not accepting earmarks " If he were, that'd be one thing. But the whole of the Republican caucus, excepting the good Dr., vowed to forgo earmarks. Paul claims that it's his constitutional duty to bring pork to his district, even if the money could better be spent elsewhere, which is why he was always a close second to that paragon of virtue, John Murtha, in getting earmarks for his district.

47 *wink* Posted by: chemjeff

Again, substantiate the "joke" with a factual reference by Ron Paul, stipulating that he is in favor of Iran having nuclear bombs.

According to the latest findings, the UN acknowledges that Iran has made NO ADVANCE towards nuclear power.

The latest UN sanctions against Iranian people (in order to punish the Iranian theocrats, punishing the civilians who disdain their theocracy and look favorably on the West) include seizing the central bank (how's that for being able to buy, sell or trade goods for subsistence?) on grounds that Iran launders money. Talk about hypocrites, what exactly have the Fed and IMF been doing, but worse than laundering money, selling debt to bankrupt nations.

The UN has halted international sales of Iranian crude. How is that humane to the populations in Europe, Russia and China that DEPEND on that crude oil for surviving this harsh winter, particularly hiking the price of available energy during economic crises of economic crash?

There's more to the Iranian problem than hating Iranians. In fact, hating Iranians only makes mutual agreements that much more difficult to achieve because Americans have become bellicose for WAR.

Chemjeff, when YOU'RE drafted to serve in the military and fight the combat battles you'd wish for, perhaps you'll come to realize that being circumspect is an advantage when trying to make it through life as best as one can.

48 "According to the latest findings, the UN acknowledges that Iran has made NO ADVANCE towards nuclear power." You are WRONG, Ronulan-breath.

49 Iran can't possibly be making advances toward nuclear power.  Scientific studies of common Iranian cranial structure proves their average IQ is not high enough to deal with the technology.

50 Why does Ace keep writing about Ron Paul 2012! Everyone here hates him. Many here have said they will abstain or vote for Obamie rather than Paul. Seems odd.

51 Ron Paul questions: Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?

Maybe this is one good answer.

Honest question, if your neighbor swore he was going to kill you and your family would you take him at his word?

52 Ace, you are so scared and desperate it is pathetic.  Stop worrying about Paul...he can't win, right?

53 Since we're on another Ron Paul is a nut thread. Ok, so I knew through second-hand sources that the Alex Jones guy was a kooky conspiracy theorist. But since I already heard that and was therefore automatically suspicious of him, I'd never read anything from his site or watched his documentaries. Out of curiousity, I spent the last three hours watching the "documentary" Ace posted and reading stuff on his site and...well, holy crap that guy is insane. I mean, absolutely batshit crazy pants. And then I got to Facebook and see some of my own well-meaning friends and relatives posting links to InfoWars and am completely appalled. Who the fuck takes this guy seriously and WHY for God's sake? He thinks the elite are killing us by spreading cancer- which he claims is actually a virus- through vaccines. What? This dude is a freak. No thanks, buddy. I don't want the kind of crazy you're selling. And, for the record, any pol or commentator that associates with Alex Jonesnis officially DEAD TO ME.

54 Who the fuck takes this guy seriously and WHY for God's sake?

Ron Paul does that's who....

55 Yep about Paul.. what he does is this little game where he adds a bunch of earmarks for himself into a bill, then argues against it and how horrible this waste of money is, etc... and votes against it.. when he knows it'll pass without his vote anyway.  Thats politics at its most cynical.  Disgrace

He's been doing this his whole career, and can say that he does indeed vote against earmarks.  I hope the word gets out about this, and all his other antics.

He's not a conservative in any way.  He's not socially conservative, he's not a supporter of the military and his views resemble a 40 yr old lesbians at an anti war rally when it comes to defense issues..  He likes to pretend he's fiscally conservative, but thats only a game.  His gold standard crap is delusional as there isn't enough gold in the solar system to cover us at this point.  Silver dimes.. WTF? nuff said about that.  He's a crazy old man who's probably showing early signs of dementia.. his hands shake more than ever now, and some things he says would make Obama say 'wtf? is he nuts?'

In a world where people thought clearly and told the truth, Ron Paul would be considered close to Dennis Kucinich politically.  How he's running as a Republican is beyond me.  Its a clear indication of the intelligence of voters.  sad

see ya, gotta go exchange these 10 silver dimes for 10 gallons of gas.  later (huh?)

56

Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he is a dedicated Fascist.

Nobody but a true, hardline White Nationalist would get Don Black to run such an aggressive campaign for him. A non-White Nationalist would not get the coveted David Duke endorsement. Ron Paul is a crypto-Nazi. A real one and fortunately not a very dangerous one, as most Streicherite Nazis these days are clownish loons.

You're a god damn ignoramus. You don't know what fascist means.

57  I dislike earmarks because most of the time the $$ amount that a member can get for his district depends on his seniority and the type of committees he is on. 
 That is why none of the horrible old timers ever get voted out.  I do prefer earmarks, which are for specific projects and transparent  over some gigantic omnibus spending bill,  never knowing exactly how much and to whom the $$ goes.

58

Yep about Paul.. what he does is this little game where he adds a bunch of earmarks for himself into a bill, then argues against it and how horrible this waste of money is, etc... and votes against it.. when he knows it'll pass without his vote anyway.  Thats politics at its most cynical.  Disgrace

If you really can't see any sense at all to his stance on that, it's because you're blind. Or you're demagoging it and you don't care.

He is against pork, he votes against pork, including his own pork, but he still appropriates it because if pork is going to pass over his objection anyway, his tax-paying constituents deserve to get a share.

59 17 Why do conservatives like Ron Paul again? It only took me all of 2 minutes to completely dismiss him as an anti-jewish crank wagon back in 2008 when I first By the standards of this joint a Bibi Netenyahu/Jud Süß ticket would be considered anti-jewish, so whatever.

60 If Ron Paul somehow was nominated, I'd actually vote for Obama.

God help me.

61

If Ron Paul somehow was nominated, I'd actually vote for Obama.

Didn't I tell you? Didn't I tell you?

Hates America, thinks we should support Obama.  Look at these mobies.

More of those crazy 'win by losing' fanatics I suspect.

You know what? And I know War Against the Undead States agrees with me, you have absolutely no business bitching about who the republican nominee is unless you agree to vote for whoever it is.

I've had it with these 'TRUE CONSERVATIVES' who bitch about everyone and then vote for the democrat.

62 "Jud Süß"

Fan of the Veit Harlan film?

63 The wierd thing is, it doesn't matter how carefully you lay this out to a libertarian, they'll still support Paul and think he's fine in this. Its not enough to say "well I agree with a lot of his ideas," they have to go off the deep end and back him when he's plainly wrong.

And he's hypocritical and two faced about this as any entrenched, money grubbing corruptocrat in Washington. He's even more so because he continually yells about how government is unconstitutional and spending is out of control. Then he goes and requests unconstitutional spending in bills.

64 If you're the one guy in Congress not accepting earmarks everyone benefits except your constituents, which makes no sense either.

See, this is the kind of argument that's silly. Its better to be a sleazebag that betrays his core argument and demonstrates no integrity than be the one guy who doesn't have his hand in the cookie jar? What the hell kind of argument is that?

65

And he's hypocritical and two faced about this as any entrenched, money grubbing corruptocrat in Washington.

If the other ones did the exact same thing Paul did, Paul wouldn't get his pork, and there'd be no pork.

Period.

If they all did what Paul did, there'd be no pork. There'd have been no TARP. There'd have been no Stimulus. There'd have been no Obamacare. No online gambing ban. No medicare part D.

You can bash Paul all day long, and people who are alright with Paul will still be alright. I've already told you all why.

You don't have an alternative.

Mitt Romney? The guy who crusaded in favor of a woman's sacred right of infanticide?

My first choice is still Rick Perry.

But you're right in that this is a total waste of time, an idiot argument baiting, and utterly irrelevant if all Ace and some commentators want to do is sling trash and personal attacks at Paul ad hominem, rather than take the opportunity to find points of agreement and address how other GOP candidates might be supportive of their concerns and positions.

Maybe you should stop finding it so 'wierd' that there are people who disagree with you and stop reacting like a frightened moron who wants to smash it before you know what it is.

You Republicans got the problems facing this country all sewn up, you sure as shit don't need any help from libertarians do you? You've got these statist commies right where you want them, have you?

66 Last!

67

If you really can't see any sense at all to his stance on that, it's because you're blind. Or you're demagoging it and you don't care.

He is against pork, he votes against pork, including his own pork, but he still appropriates it because if pork is going to pass over his objection anyway, his tax-paying constituents deserve to get a share.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 15, 2011 07:46 PM (TLNYf)

While I understand the tactics involved, they make clear that no matter what he says, Dr. Paul is on some level A-OK with feeding at the trough.  That would be totally fine, except for the fact that he is consistently touted as a politician who operates purely on principle and governing philosophy.  Note that his adherents usually make these types of statements about his purity, and not the man himself.  He's at least self-aware enough to realize his own hypocrisy, and not compound it.  His followers...the cognitive dissonance has to register at some point, right?

68 Obama is a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure.

69

That would be totally fine, except for the fact that he is consistently touted as a politician who operates purely on principle and governing philosophy. 

Every politician who's touted is touted that way.

What is your point?

I reiterate - 99 seats of Ron Pauls on the Floor, 99 seats of Ron Pauls:

NO pork. NO TARP. NO Stimulus. NO Obamacare. NO online gambing ban. NO medicare part D. NO NCLB. NO Department of Education. NO more dire and costly occupations of foreign shitholes for 4 years.

The man is Dr. No.

You people are still confused when we don't ditch him when you tell us this, because you're deaf idiots. Since when is no legislation bad legislation? 30 years of doing NOTHING is a thousandfold better than the 2nd best record in Congress.

Perry is the guy who just trial-ballooned making them all part time.

So... scream racism.

That should work. Right? The race card always works on grassroots conservative and libertarian tea party types?

70 Seriously, those mf'rs will not respond to questions about how much gold it would take to cover our economy. He is what creeps in sometimes when people pull the lever for a straight R ticket. Old link on Paul. http://minx.cc/?post=324763

71

That's the offense of it.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues. I also do agree with him on alot. 

What the hell kind of dufus is going to attack Ron Paul on account of he hasn't passed any spiffy legislation and gotten stuff done like all the other Republicans?!?

Can you say 'tone-deaf'? This is just 5 minutes hate. Nothing more and nothing less. 

Do you think if Hillary was going to try to primary Obama she'd attack him for being pro-choice?

Morons.

72 71 Seriously, those mf'rs will not respond to questions about how much gold it would take to cover our economy. He is what creeps in sometimes when people pull the lever for a straight R ticket.

Old link on Paul.
http://minx.cc/?post=324763

Fucking ipad never edits right.
http://tinyurl.com/2u55gv

73 47. If he were, that'd be one thing. But the whole of the Republican caucus, excepting the good Dr., vowed to forgo earmarks. Paul claims that it's his constitutional duty to bring pork to his district, even if the money could better be spent elsewhere, which is why he was always a close second to that paragon of virtue, John Murtha, in getting earmarks for his district.

well, I don't believe that the Republicans completely forwented.  (<---Hope that's a real word.) 

Paul is enthusiastic about earmarks, and others claim they are bad and will stop it this year, for sure, we swear.  I don't know, weighing those two things, which is worse.

74 Every politician who's touted is touted that way.

Every politician is not touted that way, and Paul's entire career is about constitutional purity and avoiding the spending trough he's neck-deep in here. There's no defending this activity, but libertarians keep trying. It does not help your cause.

75

There's no defending this activity, but libertarians keep trying. It does not help your cause.

Whatever. You're just arguing.

What's the goal here? Beyond cathartic hate?

You libertarians are wrong! Well shit, oh. I didn't know. Totally convinced me dude!

Paul claims that it's his constitutional duty to bring pork to his district, even if the money could better be spent elsewhere,

I find this more principled than most politicians. Besides, he has the bonus effect of calling bullshit on the idea that government is for charity. If Paul wants to close a welfare office so that his taxpayers get a bridge to nowhere, I say good for him.

 Paul is enthusiastic about earmarks, and others claim they are bad and will stop it this year, for sure, we swear.  I don't know, weighing those two things, which is worse.

Well, see, you're sane about it. Paul is neither an angel nor the devil. In light of the alternatives, his opponents all buy him a lot of forgiveness. None of them are spectacular and neither is he.

76 John boehner has not taken one earmark in all his years in the house. Ron Paul can't even live up to the non-pork standards of Boehner? He's a joke and a hypocrite.

77 I donÂ’t usually add my comments, but I will in this case. Nice work. I look forward to reading more.

78 What's the goal here? Beyond cathartic hate?

Um, intellectual consistency and logic. I get that you're in an untenable situation and defensive, but really, be reasonable about it. You don't have to hate Ron Paul to admit he's a hypocrite here.

79 RP is a greedy self serving fraud just like Algore.

80

He is against pork, he votes against pork, including his own pork, but he still appropriates it because if pork is going to pass over his objection anyway, his tax-paying constituents deserve to get a share.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 15, 2011 07:46 PM (TLNYf)

No.  He's a hypocrite.  He doesn't say, "I hate the system, but I don't want to screw my constituents." Instead, he pretends that he's being super principled and the only one who opposes spending.

The other thing is the sheer magnitude of the earmarks.  It's not just a few, he has more earmarks than almost anybody.

The only people more douchebaggy than Ron Paul are his supporters.

81

Every politician who's touted is touted that way.

What is your point?

Ron Paul isn't just supposed to be any politician, remember?

82 What the hell kind of dufus is going to attack Ron Paul on account of he hasn't passed any spiffy legislation and gotten stuff done like all the other Republicans?!?

Because he doesn't even want half a loaf.  He wants to make everything worse so that he can bitch about it.

83 82 What's the goal here? Beyond cathartic hate?

To tell people who don't know what a douchebag he is. 

So that they don't buy all of the crap Paultards shovel about him.

84

You don't have to hate Ron Paul to admit he's a hypocrite here.

I suppose you don't have to hate Ron Paul to think he's something special in that, but it can't hurt.

We've been consistently told to eat worse shit sandwiches.

That is why it does not matter what negatives he has. Unless someone can compete on positives, on the issues that drive Paul supporters, there isn't an alternative. All the talk of Paul's negatives matter for shit outside that context.

Yeah yeah yeah, Ron Paul is bad.

They're all bad. If a slimeball is going to fuck you no matter what, might as well pick your poison.

And you'll never get anywhere arguing with Paul supporters, of which I am only perhaps a half-breed, until you give up that ghost you're stuck on and start listening to what they do care about.

Hell, that's 3/4 of his support, a motley crew of rejects who flock to him because for 30 years and counting he is, for better or worse, the only damn person who will listen to them.

I say this, but (hah, ironic!) no one listens. It will be: 'But but but... he's an antisemite! Iran!'

I'm not an antisemite, I do not agree with his stance on Iran, I know about all that, that's long built in. I don't agree with his gold buggery, entirely at least. Built in. Blah blah blah tell me what I know, go on the rag like Ace does every month.

Either he's preaching to the choir and it's pure catharsis, or he's out to convert some souls, but if so, then he's trying to use the choir sermon on the heathens. Either way, it is sure to result in pointless bickering between people who don't have to be enemies.

85

Take the good and leave the bad...

Or

Take the bad and leave the good.

You're call.

But much like nitwits trying to 'read Ann Coulter out of the movement' or something, the only people that ever worked with were dead people. You can turn your backs and plug your ears but Pat Buchannan was still standing there pecking at the buffet table. You cannot wish those you do not like away; not even Meghan McCain. Evidenced by the fact she's still here, and Charles Johnson and Andy Sullivan are still the only true conservatives.

Originally, congress was suppose to be full of eclectic nutjobs who could agree on almost nothing, which is what the Federal government should be doing.

Ron Paul is Ron Paul regardless of which you do.

But while Olympia Fucking Snowe may cave on any goddamn thing, Paul is nothing if not predictable, and a Obamacare supporter he is not. A foreign policy genius, also, he is not. Chairmen of the Intelligence Comitee, I don't think so. But he is great where he is great. Congressmen like Paul, regardless of their foreign policy, protect our rights.

Iran - Olympia Snowe. Gold buggery - Trent Lott. We can do that all day. Trutherism - McCain/Feingold.

So take the good and leave the bad. Or not.

86

Ron Paul isn't just supposed to be any politician, remember?

I reiterate: Every politician who's touted is touted that way.

No politician is just supposed to be any politician.

We are talking about 'to their supporters' now, right? Apples to apples? Obama was just supposed to be any politician? Reagan? Bush? Santorum? Bachmann? Dukakis? Kerry?

OK that last one yes, and McCain too, and look how that worked.

Look at it how ridiculous things are. Who's supporters are rabid fiends who deny reality and troll the internet all night for any shred of dissent? All of them, depending on who's the target of the 2 minutes tonight. Paulbots. Those horrible mean Perry people, the Palinistas, the Cainaics.

Today, it's Ron Paul is fucking nutjob on Iran!!!

Yes he is. Yes he is. Michelle Bachmann is a fucking nutjob on tardisil.

Herman Cain was a fucking nutjob on tax policy.

So? All in all better than Obama.

Instead, he pretends that he's being super principled and the only one who opposes spending.

Are you one of those people who hates Rush Limbaugh because he's so egotistic? Just wondering.

OMG he's self-promoting and self-aggrandizing, in a politician how unbelievable.

87 I was very happy to search out this web-site.I needed to thanks to your time for this excellent read!! I definitely enjoying each little little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you weblog post.

88

"Ron Paul's never really passed any legislation, and hardly ever joins any."

Ron Paul passed legislation undoing the Roosevelt era ban on private ownership of gold (a simply flabbergasting law in the land of the free), which will save millions of Americans from having their savings wiped out when the trillions of dollars created by the Bush appointee Bernanke finally manifest themselves in massive inflation. I'd say that was a a pretty important legislation, as good as any law passed in America in the 20th century.

At the end of the day, I don't agree with Ron Paul's foreign and I certainly don't agree with his foreign policy attitude, but equally I have to admit that Bush strategy of invasion and nation building has been a total disaster for American power and has done literally nothing to retard the growth of Islamic radicalism. Ideally, I'd like a consciously anti-Islamist foreing policy, failing that I'd like a cautious Huntsman type policy, but what I'm going to get with Romney, Gingrich or Perry is more ludicrously expensive Wilsonian idealism and that, frankly, is just not good enough to persuade me that Ron Paul's foreign policy idiocy (and yes, it is idiocy) is a veto on his candidacy.

I'm pretty sure if you sat down and read Hayek's works other than the Road to Serfdom, specifically on the Austrian business cycle theory you'd agree with me. At the end of the day what's the worst that can happen with a Ron Paul Presidency: Iran gets nukes and becomes a major regional power in the ineffable dump that is the Middle East and that's not even likely if America doesn't stop (which is what Romney and Newt would do, probably not Bachmann) Israel and Saudi Arabia taking care of things.

I actually really like this website and Hotair, read them 3 or 4 times a week, but the Ron Paul hate is just so weak. There is a chance here for another President Jackson, a total reversal of the 100 years of the Teddy Roosevelt progressive movement. After a Ron Paul presidency it will be decades before the Left can even think about getting back to the situation we have now. So, no, foreign policy crankery just does not matter enough to make me give that up.

On earmarks, McCain was great on earmarks, and spounded great trying to prove you could solve the deficit by tackling 1% of the budget, but you can't. Republicans have generally smartened up on earmarks in the last 4 years and what good has it done? Compared to gettting rid of the Department of Education?

89

And one more short thing, we hear a lot that Islam is a big threat, that is has been since it was founded by a pederast warlord, that every generation needs a battle of Vienna to retard this violent, expansionist force etc.

And, basically, I agree with you.

But that is not Republican policy. Republican policy is "oooh all those oppressed Arabs are just like us really and if we could just rid of those deranged psychopath dicatators that, by some bizarre stroke of fate, rule over all their countries they'd all become market democracies in no time flat and that would be just great."

So, if the mainstream GOP was adovcating a foreign policy based on your analysis of Islam we could say, arguably, that Ron Paul's negatives on foreign policy were enough to outweigh his positives on domestic issue (I mean come on, the Fed - gone!), but what we have is two brands of delusional trash based upon the bizarre utopian liberal assumptions about the rest of mankind. But with one brand of trash you take away the fiscal basis for an every growing federal government more or less for good and with the other you get a lot of red meat and then, bam, four years later the government is bigger, the deficit is bigger, the budget is bigger and President Newt comes back to ask for your vote again because the Democrats are a bit worse.

Nope, not worth it.

 

90

I was just talking with some lady last night at the train stop who was looking for my sig to get Newt on the Va. ballot as apparently this is a req in Va. for '12.  I told her how I'm a solid identity-politics conservative but that I'm now leaning toward Ron Paul. 

I'm tired of status quo republicans like Newt and Romney. I'm tired of spending $ millions for supposed 'nation building' that purportedly will advance our long-term interests in the region that we're engaged with war in.  That paradigm does not work anymore in the instant information aware world.  Any puppet leaders we prop up are either marginalized, eventual traitors to the U.S., or they're assasinated.   Unfortunately for the U.S., the war victory, then puppet regime game really only worked when the natives could be mind-controlled , and even then for only a decade at most.  The gig is up.  Either we need to start recouping for our military expeditions, or stop them entirely.  Neither mainstream party seems capable of doing this.

Millions of $'s and American lives lost for what?  Where's the Iraq oil to make up for our war chest $'s?  What did we spend all that money and blood for?  To me it looks more and more to provide leverage for Isreal's ongoing problems.

91 If I were in Congress, I would put earmarks in bills.  If the government is planning on spending the money any way, I would make sure that some of that money is coming back to the taxpayers in my district....  rather than just giving the government a multitrillion dollar line of credit.  Because you know the money is going to get spent, anyway. 

Time and time again, you make it painfully clear that you hate Ron Paul because he believes, as many do, that war is the surest way to expand the budget.  And the facts are in his favor. But I can respect that you feel that the benefits in security outweigh the costs to the taxpayer....  and that's a reasonable bit of speculation.

But knocking him on earmarks, as if he is some kind of Boss Tweed character is pretty feeble.  The guy is the most consistent vote against government spending you can find. 

92

There is a big difference between "had it coming," i.e. sympathizing with Iran, versus acknowledging simple cause and effect.  And re Paul's legislative acheivements I think Ace is being rather disingenuous.  Just do a search, Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored many thousands of bills.  Many passed or enacted.  Most do die though and go nowhere, which is typical of most bills anyway.  What constitutes an "acheivement" though I have no idea.  In the past 20 years how has conservatism gained or progressed at all?  Bush II took us much further into debt than Clinton did.  Bush I took us further into debt in 4 years than Clinton did in 8.  Obama has been worse than them all, by far.  Bush II gave us Patriot Act, etc.  Current GOP-controlled House has continued that doctrine.  And groups like Heritage Foundation set the stage for Obamacare and individual mandate.  Romney & McCain were both running on this type of platform in 2008.

If conservatism has progressed in the past two decades I'd sure like to have someone point out how.  I see nothing but a slow continual erosion of conservatism, i.e. the preservation of our founding values of individual liberty and limited govt, at the hands of both Dems and Republicans.  Am I wrong?

93

So why do mainstream republicans like Newt unflinchingly support Isreal?  Can anyone tell me how it's in our national interest to support Isreal?

Is it so the R's can siphon off a vote or two from the 'boca raton' set who unflinchingly support democrats no matter what?

Is it so that more Jews can move to Isreal (and get them out of our country?) I suspect that's what the silent intention of Europe & the U.S. was when Isreal was 'created' following WWII.

Is it so that more Jews can move there for the 'Rapture' and be wiped out as fortold in the Christian Bible? That's what the Jews themselves think

Is it so that we are dragged into an apocolyptic war as described in the Bible and finally get to use those cool nukes we've been developing?

Is it so that we're spied on and our Naval ships destroyed by a supposed 'ally'  throughout the course of this 'friendship'

Is it that we we're warned by the super secret squirrel smart Isrealis about what would happen on 9/11?  Oh wait nevermind, that didn't happen.  Better to drag us into their problems with Arabs and Muslims, like Churchill did to the U.S. in WWII.

"Can anyone tell me what the hell Isreal does for this country again?"

Isreal:  "We provide you with intelligence on Jihadis so that our enemies become your enemies! "

94 What federal money does Ron Paul get for Corpus Christi?  I've lived here all my life and have never once heard of being awarded any funds due to him.  Up until 2010 our congressman was a democrat for 20+ years (Solomon Ortiz).  Galveston and Corpus are not even geographically close to each other.  It can't be the Port, because all the buildings there are named after Ortiz.  It sure as shit isn't the Army Depot or the Naval Air Base.

95 Yeah yeah yeah, Ron Paul is bad.

*Tweeet* logical fallacy: false dichotomy. Ten yards, first down.

The problem isn't that Paul is bad - he's no more than any other politician. The problem is that he's hypocritical on this and I can't work out why libertarians so mindlessly defend him on it like if they let one criticism through it all falls apart.

So why do mainstream republicans like Newt unflinchingly support Isreal? Can anyone tell me how it's in our national interest to support Isreal?

Yep, its in our national interest to have a strong ally in the middle east, a foothold if we need to move in, a counterbalance to the middle eastern lunacy, and a pocket of relative sanity in the region. This is not in dispute by anyone credible and sane.

That said, we have no constitutional authority to send money to Israel or any other nation.

96 What federal money does Ron Paul get for Corpus Christi?

Ace specifically mentioned one. The crabbing industry is another. Try to keep up.

97

Ahem....  if he requests earmarks, and then votes against them because his constiuents deserve to have some money returning to them...

...  Then aren't they actually voting for, and electing, a person who does one thing and says another?   And isn't that EXACTLY the kind of politician that Ronulans are against?

 

98 You guys are so stupid its PATHETIC.

If Congress doesnt earmark the spending then it is left to the EXECUTIVE Branch to determine how the money should be spent. I suppose you would rather have Obama determining what projects that American taxpayer money should be spent on.?

What a bunch of morons. LMFAO!

99 But James.....  The point is that Ace of Spades is against Ron Paul and will not allow any positive representation of the man. 

The blog HAS done favorable bits on Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Giuliani, Cain, and Bush.  These are all politicians who deserve to be viewed with nuance, as overwhelmingly good with some bad bits thrown in here or there. 

Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a special case.  My guess is that Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he is the only candidate who isn't cozy with one of the big lobbies that is always wrangling for taxpayer funded payoffs.  Most Republicans (and many Dems), for instance, support the government land grabs if it is for one of their major donors (see Keystone pipeline).  Democrats, on the other hand, might take pains to reward the unions.  But somehow, it's beyond the pale for Ron Paul to insist that federal money be kicked back to fishermen in his district....  who paid the money out to begin with.  He still votes against it, because he'd rather it not be spent at all....  but if it is going to be spent...  he wants it to go to the human beings in his district (as opposed to Big Oil or Big Labor).  That's not the way it is supposed to work.  The Washington wisdom is that the public should finance big government to assist powerful institutions.  Ron Paul just doesn't believe that.  And that's a problem.