1 Just like last time, not until it goes to the floor vote at the convention will the Paulbots finally realize it's over for another 4 years and crawl back under their rocks.

2 MATT DAMON!

3 I was totally adopted.

4

Dr. Paul's appeal has always eluded me. And after hearing him in the debates, there's absolutely no way I could support him after he pinned the blame on terrorism on our actions.

Thanks Ace and Rush. It's about time somebody started saying the truth.

5 Who is taking Ron Paul seriously?

6 Isn't this year the year we will finally be done with him? Or is he going to keep torturing us with these runs until he's zombie Ron Paul?

7 PERRY 2012

8 Ron Paul-Squared!

9 Release the ronulans!

10 Where'd the boobs go?

11 WOOP WOOP WOOP ! PAULIAN MAGNET THREAD! WOOP WOOP WOOP!

12 On the other hand, as president I'd know how to treat a Hanukkah menorah with total respect and dignity.

13 Ace, FYI, Willard Scott had a lady from Pig Nipple, West Virginia on this morning who turned 104 today.  Feel free to use that.

14 Posted by: Pron Raul at December 09, 2011 05:18 PM (Y7JPI)

Have I mentioned lately that your link is rubbish?

15 Ron Paul is like the Monty Python skit on the Architect.  It is all very sound constitutional reasoning right up to the point where you fall off the cliff:

MR. WIGGIN: Good morning, gentlemen. Uh, this is a twelve-story block combining classical neo-Georgian features with all the advantages of modern design. Uhh, the tenants arrive in the entrance hall here, are carried along the corridor on a conveyor belt in extreme comfort and past murals depicting Mediterranean scenes, towards the rotating knives. The last twenty feet of the corridor are heavily soundproofed. The blood pours down these chutes and the mangled flesh slurps into these large contai--

CITY GENT #1: Excuse me.

MR. WIGGIN: Hmm?

CITY GENT #1: Uh, did you say 'knives'?

MR. WIGGIN: Uh, rotating knives. Yes.

CITY GENT #2: Are you, uh, proposing to slaughter our tenants?

MR. WIGGIN: Does that not fit in with your plans?

CITY GENT #1: No, it does not. Uh, we-- we wanted a... simple... block of flats.

16 Remember how McCain was too old to be president?

Ron Paul is a year older than McCain...and it's four years later, to boot.

He was born in the FIRST FDR administration, fer cryin' out loud.

He's old enough to remember when there wasn't an Israel. And he LIKED that.

17 First off - he named his son "Rand"?  Does that provide a clue to anyone as to how fu_cking dumb Ron might be?

18 HOW RON PAUL WON THE PRESIDENCY By Dr. Seuss Every person in Congress liked government a lot But Ron Paul, who lived just north of crazy, did NOT! Ron Paul hated government; it bordered on treason! Now please don't ask why, no one quite knows the reason. It could be the fact that the Prez wasn't white It could be, perhaps, that he was too darn far right But I think that the most likely reason of all. Was to shrink down the Fed to be two sizes too small Whatever the reason, the Fed or his hate He stood there in Congress, provoking debate. Speaking out from his podium, he'd screech as he'd scold All the fools who used paper, instead of pure gold For he knew Ben Bernanke at the Fed central bank Was busy now buying up bonds, the old crank! "And they keep printing money," he snarled with a sneer. "The hyperinflation! It's practically here!" Then he growled with his long fingers nervously drumming "I must find a way to keep inflation from coming!" For tomorrow he knew, all the Fed Reserve men Would print Congress money. So much! Without end! And then! Oh, they'd spend! Oh, they'd spend! Oh they'd spend! Spend! Spend! Spend! Then the pols, left and right, would line up to get pork! And more pork! And more pork! And more pork! Pork! Pork! Pork! And they'd spend it on stimulus, to put folks back to work Which was something he hated, as a true econ dork. And then they'd do something he liked least of all Every pol in the Congress, the tall and the small Would stand far apart, with cameras rolling They'd shout at each other, and both sides would start trolling They'd yell and they'd yell, but both sides would still spend! And the more Ron Paul thought of this Print-Cash-And-Spend The more Ron Paul thought, "This madness must end!" Why since the fucking New Deal, I've put up with it now I must stop Congress from spending! But how? Then he got an idea! An awful idea! Ron Paul got a wonderful, awful idea! "I know just what to do, to save this great nation!" And Ron Paul sought the Republican nomination And he chuckled, and chuckled. What a great Ron Paul trick. "I might make complete sense, but I'll look like a dick!" "All I need are supporters!" Ron Paul looked around But since spending brings votes, there were none to be found Did that stop ol' Ron Paul? No! You know what he did? Ron Paul rounded up the naive college kids He took all the ones who liked war-hating screeds And of course all the potheads who'd legalize weed And then they would write things like "VIVA RON PAUL!" And "RON PAUL 2012!" on every Facebook wall. Then Ron Paul said, "Giddyup!" And they all turned quite raucus And descended on Iowa to go win the caucus. All the burrows were frowed, Ron Paul felt all the hate As he took to the stage as one out of eight Yes, it was time for a TV debate! "This is point number one," the libertarian hissed "Obama is spending too much, and I'm pissed!" Then he tore into Obama, with vigor and gall (If Santorum could do it, then so could Ron Paul.) He got stuck only once, when he referenced Ayn Rand But he then mentioned Jesus, and received a big hand He was picking up steam, he was stealing the show! "The Department of Labor is the first thing to go!" Then he listed the programs that needed a gutting Medicare, Medicaid! Even they saw some cutting! HUD! Education! Social security! Defund the U.N.! That's conservative purity! He laid it all out, then Ron Paul, feeling bold Propsed swapping all fiat money for gold He was now in his wheelhouse. These ideas were cool! Everyone ought to study the Austrian school! He was sly as a fox and as sharp as a knife Why, Ron Paul even told them all he's pro-life! He finshed his rant to a standing ovation "And now!" grinned Ron Paul "I'll win the nomination!" And Ron Paul looked at the people and started to smile When he saw a hand raised from somewhere on the aisle He peered through the lights and he saw a young man Lt. John Jones, back from Afghanistan Someone found a mic for this heroic GI Who stood up and looked Ron Paul dead straight in the eye He questioned Ron Paul, "Congressman, why?" "Why are you cutting our military? WHY?" And you know that that question was what Ron Paul expected. He gave him an answer he'd already perfected: "As I've already said," the Congressman sighed "In a war overseas, we should not take a side." "Countries abroad have a right to debate us" "Don't bomb them, though. That will just make them hate us." You could hear a pin drop. Crickets. Silence. No clapping. This was the thing that kept Ron Paul from happening. Then all the Republicans turned back to Newt And he GOP wrote off Paul as a crazy old coot. On the next question he said we should deal with Iran And they all shook their heads at the loony old man And all Ron Paul had was his small, loyal clan And the one libertarian left on the right Was Gary Johnson, who was too irrelevant to be there that night Then he did the same thing at the other debates Speaking out against wars against terrorist states But a few weeks from voting, something no one had reckoned: Ron Paul was polling in third. Sometimes second! New Gingrich with 14. Bachmann with 7. Mitt Romney with 8. And Ron Paul 11! A snowstorm in Iowa, few people out in it Low turnout at all and old Ron Paul could win it! "Pooh-pooh on you!" he laughed at the hawks "You're finding out now isolationism rocks!" "I'll win this thing with my naive college elves" "They'll vote and feel unjustified pride in themselves" "Then the shout will go out everywhere: RON PAUL 2012!" "That's a noise," smiled Ron Paul, "That I simply must hear." So he paused, and Ron Paul put his hand to his ear. And he did hear a sound coming forth from the righties It started so slightly, then grew to turn mighty But the shout wasn't "Paul!" Why, it sounded like "Perry!" It couldn't be so. But it was Perry. VERY! He couldn't believe it! Ron Paul shook his head That damn Texas hick had come back from the dead Every voter in Iowa, the tall and the small Picked Perry, without really considering Paul He hadn't stopped militarism. It came! Somehow or other, it came just the same! And Ron Paul, standing there in the Iowa snow Stood puzzling and puzzling. "How could it be so?" "The army takes spending! The navy takes cash!" "Bombing Iran to the stone age is rash!" And he puzzled and puzzed till his puzzler was sore Then Ron Paul thought of something he hadn't before. Maybe spending, he thought, isn't so bad a curse Maybe Muslims with nukes are a little bit worse And what happened then? On Fox News they say That Ron Paul's defense budget grew three sizes that day And the minute his views made it through, heaven knows He zoomed to the top of the opinion polls And he won the White House! A new era began! And he, HE HIMSELF! Ron Paul, bombed Iran.

19 This thread is stealing traffic from my Santa Cruz City Council Girl! My beautiful, vapid, incoherent, black-haired and random City Council Girl! Boo, hoo-hoo.

20

PERRY 2012

This. This². This¹⁰.

This ad infinitum.

21 Ron Paul will surprise many Republicans with a strong showing in Iowa. I don't see a win, but I see a very strong Place in that horse race.

22 Paul's foreign policy ideals don't really matter all that much. Sure his foreign policy views are wacky but really are any of the other candidates going to do anything to stop Iran from getting the bomb. No, they're not. We are out of money and our forces are stretched too thin to wage another war. Are any of the other candidates going to make any meaningful effort combating terrorism. No since everyone is too afraid to acknowledge terrorism's relationship to Islam . None of the candidates is going to suggest that the religion of peace isn't very peaceful.

Our number one priority is domestic and on this Paul does well. We need to get serious and really cut spending and shrink government because if we don't nothing else is going to matter.

23 who is taking Ron Paul seriously? The damn polls-he's been unusually resilient this time around. SurveyUsa this time around is polling more cell phone users-I don't know if the methodology of the pollsters has changed across the board-but it seems to me-Ron Paul is getting higher percentages than last time around-and doing that more consistently. I could be wrong-but that's my impression. Speaking of SurveyUsa-they've published this recently- Red State Kansas Poll Results: Romney 9 Points Atop Obama But Â… Hold Everything Â… Obama 5 Points Atop Gingrich: Sure, itÂ’s early, and yes, a lot will change, but in an preview of the 2012 Presidential election, cell phone voters (those without a home telephone, typically undercounted in opinion polls), vote sufficiently Democrat to keep Mitt Romney to just a single-digit lead over Barack Obama, and, for the moment, cause Obama to defeat Newt Gingrich. KansasÂ’ 6 electoral votes will almost certainly stay in the Republican column (John McCain carried the state by 15 points in 200 , but in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups between the two Republican front-runners today, 11/22/11, itÂ’s: * Romney 48%. * Obama 39%. * Obama 45%. * Gingrich 40% * Among respondents who use a home phone, Romney leads Obama by 14. But among respondents who do not use a home phone (the cell-phone respondents), Obama leads Romney by 4, an 18-point difference. * Among respondents who use a home phone, Gingrich leads Obama by 3 points. But among respondents who do not use a home phone, Obama leads Gingrich by 24 points, a 27-point difference. * Romney has a Minus 9 favorability rating: 25% see him favorably, 34% see him unfavorably. * Gingrich has a Minus 22 favorability rating: 25% see him favorably, 45% see him unfavorably. ***** I think they have enough caveats in there --that they know it's an outlier...but there it is- Kansas.

24 That he stated that the Bush administration took glee in 9/11 as it gave them a pretext to attack Iraq deserves one free punch in the face by W.

25
leave ron paul's boobs alone

26 If I had a silver dime every time someone called me crazy, I'd have a paulzillion dollars.

27 Ron Paul's one shot-- drunk voters.

28 Red State Kansas Poll Results: Romney 9 Points Atop Obama But Â… Hold Everything Â… Obama 5 Points Atop Gingrich:

Even Newt would not be able to lose Kansas.

Missouri and Arkansas, yes, but not Kansas.

29 18 First off - he named his son "Rand"? Does that provide a clue to anyone as to how fu_cking dumb Ron might be?

Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for Short at December 09, 2011 05:21 PM (fOPv7)

You realize his name is actually Randal right?

He's still nuttier than squirrel shit though.

30

I don't see how you get to pacifism. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is not a guy to turn the other cheek. More likely he's just a garden variety isolationist.

And I sure get tired of defending candidates I have no intention of supporting. But accuracy is what we have over the Left, among other things.

31 Thus ace called forth and did summon the Ronulans, daring a barrage of stupidity like unto a thousand Rick Perrys, armed with belt-fed Tardasil dart launchers.

32

That he stated that the Bush administration took glee in 9/11 as it gave them a pretext to attack Iraq deserves one free punch in the face by W.

#6 leadshot in the face by Dick Cheney.

33 Oh hell, we were having such fun up til now....how long afore the Ronulans show up?

34 Well now that Rush has given us permission... Now what?

35 Kansas.

Posted by: tasker at December 09, 2011 05:24 PM (r2PLg)

Don't you mean Texas?  Or one of the other 57 states, with 2 left to go, but not including Alaska and the Asian continent of Hawaii?

36 I hope Rand does Not grow old and turn into His father.

37 There are a whole lot of Paul signs in NH.
Don't know how meaningful that is, but they're out there....

_{....so to speak}

38 Who reproduced with Ron Paul and how do I get in touch with her?

39 Ron Paul will surprise many Republicans with a strong showing in Iowa. I don't see a win, but I see a very strong Place in that horse race.

That says more about Iowan's lack of judgement than Ron Paul.

They need to get their "First!" status permanently revoked.  They shouldn't even be one of the early states given how often they get it wrong.

Huckabee?  Bachmann?  REALLY???  I know that there's a lot of marijuana being grown in those corn fields, but do they have to smoke it all right before voting?

40 Every time I meet a Ron Paul supporter I openly mock them. As we all should. Openly and viciously mock them.

41 23 Paul's foreign policy ideals don't really matter all that much. Sure his foreign policy views are wacky but really are any of the other candidates going to do anything to stop Iran from getting the bomb

Unfortunately it is not that simple.  There is no more Fortress America.  It is very possible that next year will see a lot of "moderate" Middle Eastern countries turn more Islamist (Turkey is already going down that path; Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are probably going to follow) and you have a resurgent China and a vengeful Russia on top of that to keep in check.  Lord knows what other hotspots will erupt between now and January 2013 (Taiwan, Venezuela, Bahrain).

While the getting the deficit under control and shrinking the government should be the top priority of whomever gets into office in January 2013, the domestic stuff cannot be the sole focus.  It's going to be tough getting the appropriate balance in place, but foreign policy is going to play a bigger role than anybody realizes now.

42 (Rubbing hand together)

43 This makes the 4th election I've had to put up with Paulbots on all the conservative forums I go to. Ron Paul is not a conservative. He's a libertarian. And as Ace points out, on foreign policy he's further left than many on the Far Left. 2000, 2004, 2008 and now 2012. Every 4 years they show up and start spamming sites with posts supporting 'the only man who can save America'. They then spend months trying to trick conservatives into backing him and launching attacks when people won't line up and march behind Paul. You have to support Ron Paul or you 'hate' the Constitution, etc. etc. ad naseum. This will be the 4th time in a row it will actually reach the floor vote at the RNC before it dawns on these dimwits that their guy NEVER had a chance. I've had to tell Paulbots repeatedly for 12 years now that I have a better chance of shagging Marilyn Monroe than Ron Paul does of snagging the Republican nomination. "But she's been dead since the 1960's!" one of the astutely pointed out. Uhhmmmmmmm........yeah. Exactly.

44 I was not taking Ron Paul seriously before not taking Ron Paul seriously was cool.

45 retards for perry!

46 You know we're out there

47 He's too short!

48 Who is this Paul character you speak of?

49

Back in the Bush era, Ron Paul did introduce a declaration of war against Iraq, which is the proper procedure, but nobody wanted to vote that way for whatever reason - Congress prefers to conduct war under quasi-Constitutional 'actions'.

So I would say Ron Paul is not 100% wrong on foreign policy. 

50

Fuck 'em all. None of these pukes deserves to be my President.

Gosh darn that fiendish George Washington! He set the bar too goddam high.

51 "But she's been dead since the 1960's!" one of the astutely pointed out.

So?

52 What's wrong with Ron Paul?

53 This is too bad since he is the only candidate batshit crazy enough to actually cut spending.

54 45 I was not taking Ron Paul seriously before not taking Ron Paul seriously was cool.

I was not taking Ron Paul seriously before not taking Ron Paul seriously before not taking Ron Paul seriously was cool.

55 "But she's been dead since the 1960's!" one of them astutely pointed out. So you're saying there's a chance?

56 Undead- Then can we finally say-the polls kind of suck?

57 30 18 First off - he named his son "Rand"? Does that provide a clue to anyone as to how fu_cking dumb Ron might be?

Posted by: Racist, Right-Wing Terrorist...or Tea Party Member for Short at December 09, 2011 05:21 PM (fOPv7)

You realize his name is actually Randal right?

He's still nuttier than squirrel shit though.

Posted by: buzzion at December 09, 2011 05:28 PM (GULKT)

--

Yes, I knew that, but still - same difference.  Anyone named 'randal' would have and did get their ass kicked on my grade-school playground ....just cuz

58 I never did nor will I take him seriously. And again, why no post on the GOPround outing? Guaranteed to get 1000 comments.

59

I don't see how you get to pacifism. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is not a guy to turn the other cheek. More likely he's just a garden variety isolationist.

And I sure get tired of defending candidates I have no intention of supporting. But accuracy is what we have over the Left, among other things.

He moved beyond mere isolationism and into pacifism when he started going off about how we should've left Afghanistan alone after 9/11.

60 His wife makes good fish sticks, though.

61 Paul supporters either wont vote or will vote dem, not realizing or caring the difference

62 Ron Paul's voters never vote GOP anyway. They either stay home or vote for Democrats out of spite. I bet 75% of them voted for Obama in 2008 because no one in the GOP took them seriously. They not only are willing to take their ball and go home, but they would enthusiastically vote for someone who would close the park so that no one gets to play ball.

63 and so what if Iran has the nuke, others do.

64 Here's the deal- In all of the polls that show Newt way ahead- the uncertainty factor is over 50% -in almost all of them. Does the press tell you that? Rarely.

65

Once again:

Where Ron Paul Totally Rules and Kicks Butt: Domestic Policy

Where Ron Paul Totally Sucks Ass: Foreign Policy

The case for, and against, Ron Paul.

 

66 Paul supporters either wont vote or will vote dem, not realizing or caring the difference

He's big with the anti-war Left.

67 oh my, Ace must need some extra web traffic, as the Paulite army will be storming this blog shortly.

68 Surely there are other topics to discuss? The controversial Perry video?

69 *If* the polls are your Bible- you have to take Ron Paul seriously...

70 I'd still vote RP over Obama. Easily. And twice if I can get away with it.

As to more pressing matters: More dating tips, Ace. I'm telling you, it's a cash cow. Get a hold of Mike and work out a deal.

71

Someone above said Paul is too short to be President. I would amend the Constitution as regards the qualifications for President: gotta be native born, over 35 years old, at least  6' tall and over 200 pounds, must be able to bench half your weight 12 times.

72 I myself would take Ron Paul seriously and sit his ass in whatever position would allow his fiscal leanings to do the most good and the least harm.

I have never delved too deeply in to what he says, but what I have heard him say about spending, etc I do like; we need to channel teh crazy, and make it work for us.

Why not let him audit the Fed, if nothing else???

73 The Conan vid from yesterday was pretty funny.

74 Ace, please ask Pixy to fix the HTML tags.  They suck- comments show up italicized in the comment window after using the "i" button, but after hitting post... not so much.

75 Anyone who vows to cut a skrillion dollars the first week in office deserves consideration .

76

Someone above said Paul is too short to be President. I would amend the Constitution as regards the qualifications for President: gotta be native born, over 35 years old, at least  6' tall and over 200 pounds, must be able to bench half your weight 12 times.

Get rid of that first requirement and you've got a deal.

I will be elected to lead, not to read! 

77 72

Someone above said Paul is too short to be President. I would amend the Constitution as regards the qualifications for President: gotta be native born, over 35 years old, at least  6' tall and over 200 pounds, must be able to bench half your weight 12 times.

Posted by: Jones at December 09, 2011 05:38 PM (8sCoq)

That was a line from "Get Shorty" - Chili Palmer was making the comment about the Martin Wier character (played by Danny DeVito based on Dustin Hoffman)

78 Does Dr. Paul have a 6' 2" red head wife with big boobs, a pierced nose and a pierced vajayjay? If so, I'm in!

79 over 35 years old, at least  6' tall and over 200 pounds, must be able to bench half your weight 12 times.

Go on......

80 Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running in this race. Do any of you guys actually believe that any of the other candidates are going to cut spending?

81

please ask Pixy to fix the HTML tags.  They suck- comments show up italicized in the comment window after using the "i" button, but after hitting post

 

'New Comments Thingy' is State. of. the. art. technology. 

It's the italics that can't keep up.

82 Wow, the Paulians seem to have taken an early weekend or something.

83 Legal Insurrection blog (I can't link on my IPod yet), has an interesting article about the possibility that Romney might be buying endorsements from politicians and offering future jobs. It should be read.

84

No worries RP is the crazy MF'er everyone on the street avoids as he screeches his pacifist rants.

SCoaMF

85 And #19 deserves its OWN post. Awesome.

86 Some goofs in Congress are trying to change the First Amendment to bar all for profit corporations from 1rst Amend rights.

87

Among Limbaugh, Paul, Bachmann, Palin and Gingrich we honestly don't know who's more out of touch and damaging to actual Republicans.  Best thing about it from our perspective is that we don't have to decide.  Each of them brings something special to the table.  By "special" I mean something utterly retarded or hypocritical to the point of absurdity.  Along with Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, John McCain and Michael Savage they're the greatest gifts to Democrats in recent memory. 

Stay classy, conservatives.  See you at the 2nd inauguration. 

88

Someone above said Paul is too short to be President. I would amend the Constitution as regards the qualifications for President: gotta be native born, over 35 years old, at least 6' tall and over 200 pounds, must be able to bench half your weight 12 times.

Posted by: Jones at December 09, 2011 05:38 PM (8sCoq)

Fuck you too!

89 83 Wow, the Paulians seem to have taken an early weekend or something.

*Holds finger to lips*.  Shhhh.  Please don't stir them up. 

90 On foreign policy, Paul is Obama.

And not the one that doesn't end Bush policies, either, but Candidate Obama.

91

Posted by: Carolus at December 09, 2011 05:41 PM (UM15z)

 

...and the pod has landed. 

 

92 mpfs is not gonna be happy with nickless.

93

No Steevy, Allen G???

Barack Obama is a SCoaMF!!

94 42 23 Paul's foreign policy ideals don't really matter all that much. Sure his foreign policy views are wacky but really are any of the other candidates going to do anything to stop Iran from getting the bomb

Unfortunately it is not that simple.  There is no more Fortress America.  It is very possible that next year will see a lot of "moderate" Middle Eastern countries turn more Islamist (Turkey is already going down that path; Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are probably going to follow) and you have a resurgent China and a vengeful Russia on top of that to keep in check.  Lord knows what other hotspots will erupt between now and January 2013 (Taiwan, Venezuela, Bahrain).



Very true but the US is not in a position to do anything about it. If you want to be a major world power then you need to have money and right now the nation is broke. Truthfully our situation is in some ways similar to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. They had to scale down and mostly retreat from the world stage for a long time because they simply couldn't afford to be a major player. We will also have to face the humiliating reality that until we get our financial house in order our super power days are on hiatus. Is it going to pretty with the US gone? Hell no, but right now we have little choice in the matter.

95 People are fricken stupid. Ron Paul. Jeez.

96 Taking some Oxy and Viagra down to the DR for a vacation, boys!

97 Ya #19 is really good except- nd he won the White House! A new era began! And he, HE HIMSELF! Ron Paul, bombed Iran. You still get Ron Paul in the end....

98 Legal Insurrection blog (I can't link on my IPod yet), has an interesting article about the possibility that Romney might be buying endorsements from politicians and offering future jobs. It should be read.

I've always assumed that was standard procedure every election.

99 Joffen: "People are fricken stupid. Ron Paul. Jeez."

I thought this was a given. SCOAMF? Hello?

100 I wish it was possible to kick the person who thinks it's funny to sock 'David Axelrod' right in the nuts.

101 If you're 6'2" and over 200 lbs, you should be pressing your body weight 12 times. Gotta be able to smash Putin.

102

Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running in this race. Do any of you guys actually believe that any of the other candidates are going to cut spending?

Um, yeah. Rick Perry. He's said so many times. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if President Perry did unleash RP on the Fed.

That would be popcorn worthy.

103 97 Taking some Oxy and Viagra down to the DR for a vacation, boys!

Posted by: Rush Limpcock at December 09, 2011 05:44 PM (z0HdK)

Hey look Clarence has shown up to defend his joo-hating buddy Ron Paul

104 You realize his name is actually Randal right?

I did not know that!

Figured he was named for Ayn.

105 @84
Thx for the tip.  I'll read it when my b.p. is lower.


I recall a lot of discussion about the legality of promising jobs to people when you're campaigning.  IIRC, it came up when candidates last time (in 200 were talking about ambassadorships.  I thought it was not allowed.  But it sure seems like they do that sort of thing a lot, don't they? 

106 Then can we finally say-the polls kind of suck?

Polls taken before we have a nominee are tricky things; I prefer to look at history.  The last Democrat Kansas sent to the Senate was in the 1930s, and the Democrats have only carried the state once in presidential elections in the last 75 years.

On the other hand, the one time they did -- 1964 -- was when the Republicans tried to go up against an incumbent Democrat with a nominee so alienating to mainstream voters, he only carried six states.  And while I don't think Newt is that problematic in a general election, he's not far off.  And while I don't believe he'd ever be so bad as to lose Kansas, this poll suggests to me that it could potentially be close enough there to mean that he'd lose every swing state elsewhere.

107 Taking some Oxy and Viagra down to the DR for a vacation, boys!

I prefer Blow and weed!

108
If you are looking for ideas Ace, ezra klien has a mind numbingly stupid post at wapo.

109 I wish it was possible to kick the person who thinks it's funny to sock 'David Axelrod' right in the nuts. ----------------- I don't know why it bothers you so much. I think it's pretty funny.

110

You realize his name is actually Randal right?

He's still nuttier than squirrel shit though.

Posted by: buzzion at December 09, 2011 05:28 PM (GULKT)

His real last name? Flagg

111 41- I have a cousin that is a rabid Ron Paul supporter.  It's really fun to mock him especially after a few beers.  He can't seem to keep the Paulian talking points straight.

112 We had a real estate agent years ago whose first name was Rand.  It was not short for Randal, it was Rand.  So, apparently it's not THAT uncommon.

113

Well, in news of another ridiculous suggestion for a candidate (link to Hot Air):

http://tinyurl.com/d4v2w6o

How he campaigns will be how he governs. This is a preview.

Please do not doubt me.

114

And say whatever you want about Ron Paul...

YOU LEAVE RAND THE HELL ALONE!

YOU LEAVE HIM ALONE!

115

Someone above said Paul is too short to be President. I would amend the Constitution as regards the qualifications for President: gotta be native born, over 35 years old, at least 6' tall and over 200 pounds, must be able to bench half your weight 12 times.

Posted by: Jones at December 09, 2011 05:38 PM (8sCoq)

Awww....ain't that a bitch..

116 O.T.: They finally sentenced that second guy in the Conn. Death Penalty case to death. What a disgusting case. He beat the father half to death and murdered the mother and two daughters because he wanted to rape the youngest one. The defense then tried to blame it on the fact that he was adopted and that his parents were Christian. Just all round fuckedupness.

117 81 Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running in this race. Do any of you guys actually believe that any of the other candidates are going to cut spending? Posted by: Carolus at December 09, 2011 05:41 PM (UM15z) Yes, I am sure Herr Doktor Earmarks will be exactly the picture of fiscal restraint, and all the leftist bureaucrats and politicians will mysteriously play along. Seriously, no, I don't think he will *ACCOMPLISH* more than anyone else because that depends on Congress.

118 The Paultardening... It has begun.

119 >>>How he campaigns will be how he governs. This is a preview.

Yeah, I saw that.  Simply stunning. 

We are so boned. 

120 C'mon!  I got some tea to sell to you Dildo-Heads!

and I am jerking off to American Exceptionalism right now!   Means we can fuck over any one we want!

Bolton for Sec of State!

121 My son's name is Rand.

122

Romney right now is playing not to lose. But he is fixin' to get ready to changeup.

In poker, sometimes you do this in long tournaments to avoid being put out by some lucky amateur.  It is not a skill game, just a survival game. You last as long as you can by playing only the best premium hands, then playing them aggressively. 

Then after a bit of time, when the field is culled, you change up, lossen up, expand your hand selection and use your skill to win pots full of chips. This strategy works in poker, a form of tournament play called "tight/agressive".

This strategy also works in other types of contests involving endurance and stamina.

123 hey hey Paul-a..I want to marry you

124 @118 for starters, he can do away with elements of the bureaucracy in the same way the Senate GOP is trying to do away with the CFPB (it's actually working pretty well. Well done!)

125 Ron Paul is not a conservative. He's a libertarian.

If only.

He's a Bircher crank.  He hides behind "libertarian" to justify his breaks from conservative orthodoxy through a more acceptable philosophy.

126 alrighty then, entropy.

127

He's still nuttier than squirrel shit though.

Bullshit.

Rand Paul is a conservative rockstar.

There is a reason why Jim DeMint endorsed him over minority leader Mitch McConnell's hand picked candidate.

On what is he nutty?

You got nothing I bet, just things you thought happened but didn't.

We need more like him.

128

The CDC says don't eat raw cookie dough. Kidney failure! Doom!

Dammit I almost wish for a cookie dough Captain Trips just for the simple fact the government bullshit would go away.

129

Labor Board Drops Case Against Boeing

 

a small victory, but a victory nonetheless

130 'Clarence' shows up after his last beclowning in the hope that he can troll a new thread for attention without the failstink clinging to him.

131 What do you do when you're a bored blogger on a Friday?

Cast out bait for the Paulbots to start a flame ware

Ace, you magnificent bastard!

132

alrighty then, entropy.

The reference, for those that missed it: tinyurl.com/2weh76

133 Polls taken before we have a nominee are tricky things; I prefer to look at history. Well look at the affect polls have on the electorate-unfortunately too many people want to vote for the winner.... SurveyUSA is buying the -"cell phone voters are not polled enough" hypothesis that I think first cropped up at DailyKos- hook, line and sinker. I hope that explains Ron Paul's consistency-and higher percentages this go around.... Maybe I'm just scared crapless by that prospect and Ron Paul really isn't polling better this time in the primary states... Maybe other pollsters have changed their methodoolgy along these lines

134 OT, but GOP Senator Olympia Snowe supports restricting consumer information in the name of keeping small inefficient retailers safe from online competition:

"Amazon's promotion -- paying consumers to visit small businesses and leave empty-handed -- is an attack on Main Street businesses that employ workers in our communities," Snowe, a Maine Republican, said in a statement yesterday. "Small businesses are fighting everyday to compete with giant retailers, such as Amazon, and incentivizing consumers to spy on local shops is a bridge too far."  http://tinyurl.com/83rh29e

Yeah, she's one of ours.

Government, is there nothing it can't do?

135


So, has anyone heard from Vic today?  Is everything good?

136 Ron Paul's eyebrows scare me.
They seem to have a life of their own.

137 Ooh Entropy, yes i do remember that.

138 the effect..gawd I always screw that up.

139 Was wondering about Vic, too, haven't seem him lately.

140

Labor Board Drops Case Against Boeing

a small victory, but a victory nonetheless

Not really. They only dropped the case after Boeing folded to extortionist union demands.

141 A conversation at work the other day: Me: So you like Ron Paul, huh? Paultard: Of course! Why not? Me: Well, for one, he blamed the US for 9/11. Paultard: Oh. Well...it kinda is. Me: *sigh* I then proceed to explain why it is, in fact, not our fault. Paultard: Well, politicians are all corrupt anyways.

142 I just wanted to say that I support Ron Paul for his stance on drugs.

143 The Iron Lady once shoved her strap-on so deep into my rectum the anal cyst that helped me dodge those goddamn Charlies screamed for help!

Today, I beat off to pictures of the My Lai Massacre - it soothes me when Femi-Nazi's dance on variety shows.

144 Cast out bait for the Paulbots to start a flame ware

Ace, you magnificent bastard!

Posted by: kbdabear at December 09, 2011 05:56 PM (Y+DPZ)

just need something to get the Birchers out of their caves and it's good to go

145 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

146 Maybe I'm just scared crapless by that prospect and Ron Paul really isn't polling better this time in the primary states...

Ron Paul will never get anywhere.  He'll probably do well in Iowa; he could even win Iowa.  Hell, Huckabee won Iowa.  That's a testament to how profoundly screwed up Iowa's caucus system is and why we need a better mechanism to nominate candidates.  But it ends there.  The old fucker has no chance in actual primaries and will be out by March.

147

'New Comments Thingy' is State. of. the. art. technology. 

It's the italics that can't keep up.

Posted by: garrett at December 09, 2011 05:41 PM

You prejudiced against Italics?

148

Paul is a protest vote to begin with.

Why the hell you waste time denouncing him, I cannot fathom. It matters not.

Do not like people voting for Paul? Listen to the reasons why they like him. Angry they don't want to pay attention to allegations of antisemitism, or his truther tendencies? Again, look at what they like about him. The rest is irrelevant since he will not win anyway, he is a symbolic protest vote.

Give them someone else to vote for.

Until then, keep calling them all retards for refusing to support a party that consistently does the opposite of what it claims to stand for.

149 Ron Paul will never get anywhere. He'll probably do well in Iowa; he could even win Iowa. Hell, Huckabee won Iowa. That's a testament to how profoundly screwed up Iowa's caucus system is and why we need a better mechanism to nominate candidates. But it ends there. The old fucker has no chance in actual primaries and will be out by March. Thanks. UNdead-still he's screwin' up the works.

150 I thought I was impossible to offend, but the My Lai comment in 144 is beyond the pale.

Any chance that part can get scrubbed?!

151 Why don't we all just mind our own business? 

Now quit Bogarting that blunt and pass it around.

152 Hey, Clarence, tell us how Obama graduated magna cum laude, but the GOP field of doctors and mathmaticians are hillbilly rubes.

153 Jesus, it's only Dec. 2011, and is there really anything left to be said-about any of the candidates? The show's gonna be cancelled.

154 Posted by: Entropy at December 09, 2011 06:05 PM (TLNYf) ----- These idiots probably don't vote anyway. Fuck 'em.

155 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at December 09, 2011 06:03 PM (7WJOC)

Drink!

156 ...and nothing beats a good Longbow.

157 Obama graduated Magna cum in his ass.IYKWIMAITYD

158 MissTammy: I would just make it clear that the MyLai comment was written by an Obama supporter.

159 158 NTTAWWT

160 Ron Paul's diet consists of pine needles and raw rattlesnake, but he only takes very small dainty bites.

True Fact!

161 Vic was around yesterday, but I haven't seen him today.

Anybody remember him asking to be excused today?

162 First, however, conservatives must face reality and choose one of these three options: (1) Decide between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney, (2) devise some near-magical electoral path in the 11th hour that leads to a different nominee or (3) brace for Barack ObamaÂ’s second term. A rule to remember: Manage the situation you have, not the one you want, or someone else will manage it for you (Obama hasn't grasped this concept yet either .. it's Bush's fault).

163

#149 Entropy has it. Why not CO-OPT that which is sensible about Ron Paul (and yes, slashing arrogant government IS sensible) and then chuck the moonbattery?

It's really NOT hard.

164

If Ron Paul is crazy, does that mean that mainstream Republican and Democratic thought is sane? 

The Federal Department of Education has spent over 3.3 TRILLION dollars since its creation in 1979. 

The results:  NAEP scores and real academic achievement has either declined or stayed flat.

Ron Paul is CRAZY for wanting to get rid of the Department of Education?

When the previous SCOAMF expanded federal involvement in public education to its logical conclusion (total control), most SUPPOSED Conservatives cheered!!!! 

Dumb f**k Mittens still supports No Child Left Behind.  Newt thinks it doesn't go far enough.  He wants federalized K-12 standards. 

And Ron Paul is "crazy...." 

I guess Ron Paul may be crazy, but at least he's not a proven, unapologetic Big Government progressive like our two front runners. 

165 Tam al'Thor: I was watching some documentary about a medieval battle and they said that they needed 3 million arrows.

166

Not really. They only dropped the case after Boeing folded to extortionist union demands.

 

that's not accurate

167

The Iron Lady once shoved her strap-on so deep into my rectum the anal cyst that helped me dodge those goddamn Charlies screamed for help!

Today, I beat off to pictures of the My Lai Massacre - it soothes me when Femi-Nazi's dance on variety shows.

So you are still digesting the VC cum you swallowed, never mind the Sandinista cum? How are you not dead yet?

168 just need something to get the Birchers out of their caves and it's good to go

Pot shouldn't be decriminalized for medicinal or any other reasons.

Furthermore, possession of any amount should be punishable by death.

/paulbot bait

169 You prejudiced against Italics?

I just liked that way you made that pizza.

170 Hey Rand, I hope for you that you were one of Bachmanns 2000 fosterkids!

171 MissTammy: I would just make it clear that the MyLai comment was written by an Obama supporter.

Good idea.....and for the record, my offense was not as a Conservative, I can take trolling and such.

I  just think it is deeply offensive to the memories of the people who were killed to try and make a point with such vulgarity, you know?  I think a decent human being, regardless of their political leaning, doesn't need to go there.

172

Fuck 'em.

Oh. 'K then.

You've apparently got this thing all sewn up and aren't fucking desperate for whatever help you can get before the century long Gramscian march has hollowed out everything, and there is nothing of American exceptionalism left to save.

Quite impressive. It's not like you were fighting the natural course of history, or anything.

Carry on.

If I see you in a re-education camp, I will laugh at you.

173

 I was watching some documentary about a medieval battle and they said that they needed 3 million arrows.

 

On the positive side, they can be re-used.  You do need people to fetch them off the battlefield.

174 Yuk, an Obama socket...

175 C'mon.  I have a Tea promotion working.

I haven't grifted you Dildo-Heads out of enough yet.  SEND MONEY!

176 Ron Paul is CRAZY for wanting to get rid of the Department of Education?

This is the kind of thing that makes people hate hate hate hate the Paultards.

This is a goddam straw man and you know it.

177 RON PAULTARD!

178

149 Entropy -

You, sir are a goddamn genius.  Great point.

A SMART party might try to reach out and bring some of those crazy "Paulbots" into the fold.

 

179 btw - Levin is up in Ron Paul's ass goin' all honeybadger and shit.

180 I  just think it is deeply offensive to the memories of the people who were killed to try and make a point with such vulgarity, you know?  I think a decent human being, regardless of their political leaning, doesn't need to go there.

It's just a petty loser trying to take away the pain of knowing his Obamamessiah is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

181 Ron Paul is CRAZY for wanting to get rid of the Department of Education?

This is the kind of thing that makes people hate hate hate hate the Paultards.

This is a goddam straw man and you know it.

---------------------------------------------------------

Even Perry came out for that...eventually.

182 In times of despair, I've often thought we should just hand the parties over to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and just let them fight it out with giant robots.

I admire the both of them, really, but even listening to them in Congress is just a tired old episode of MOOT COURT.

Yeah guys, you might have mattered, like about 150 years ago.

183 Dr Paul is a nut

184 'Night morons. When the Obama scum turn up, I'm out. I won't dignify these pieces of shit by even glancing over their resentment rants.

185

A SMART party might try to reach out and bring some of those crazy "Paulbots" into the fold.

 

Posted by: stickety at December 09, 2011 06:17 PM (FUDwf)

No.

They're unappeaseable.  They live to find something to bitch about.  The GOP will never be enough. 

A smart party goes after persuadable voters.

186 He's a Bircher crank.  He hides behind "libertarian" to justify his breaks from conservative orthodoxy through a more acceptable philosophy.
Posted by: AmishDude

He may be a terrible pick for the nomination but I've never heard RP say word one about communist infiltration in the US government. Is there a link to something regarding that?

187 In times of despair, I've often thought we should just hand the parties over to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and just let them fight it out with giant robots.

Posted by: KirkCameronLeftMeBehind at December 09, 2011 06:19 PM (iZ6fL)

oh shit, Metal Wolf Chaos come to life

188 When I hear Rush Limbaugh on the radio I can almost see him twirling his hair.   But he never answers my emails, voicemails, or text messages.  This is very hurtful.  However, I would be willing to try again.

I'm oppen minded and flexible and will give him the benefit of the doubt.  Still though, if he doesn't want me contacting him he should call and tell me so.  After all the time, effort and money I've invested in commenting about him on a blog.

I sure have a hard on for Rush Limbaugh.  I tried to write this post well, but it's not perfect.

189 Has the Ron Paul campaign made their pilgrimage to Mecca yet?

190

About the only thing RP has going for him is that he was a paid vagina inspector...how friggen cool is that?

 

191

This is the kind of thing that makes people hate hate hate hate the Paultards.

This is a goddam straw man and you know it.

NO, it isn't. Does "No Child Left Behind" ring a bell?

When even the valiant Uncle Ron didn't undo the wretched DOE (in fairness he had a Soviet Union to deal with at the time), the GOP must admit IT HAS A PROBLEM.

Frankly, it is tempting to swallow some foreign policy insanity (like the Commiecrats don't give us that anyway) and vote for Ron Paul, just to get some of you RINOs to pay attention!

192 If only Ron Paul were more like the rest of the compassionate conservatives!

193 NO, it isn't. Does "No Child Left Behind" ring a bell?

I realize that you're incredibly stupid, but let me explain it to you slowly and carefully so that your weak mind is capable of understanding it:

Supporting the end of the Department of Education is not why people oppose Ron Paul.

194 Ron Paul , go back to birthin' them babies

195 A SMART party might try to reach out and bring some of those crazy "Paulbots" into the fold.

You have to wait until most of them get some years on 'em.  A lot of them seem to be conservatives still young enough to think and act liberal.

I have no idea where the military support comes from, however...

196 If only Ron Paul were more like the rest of the compassionate conservatives! sane people.

FIFY.

197 Posted by: best, (z0HdK) at December 09, 2011 06:23 PM (4136b)

198

Posted by: Bosk at December 09, 2011 06:23 PM (JWJUG)

 

Paging Dr. Bosk...

199

Amy Winehouse -

How is that a strawman?  Gingrich and Romney do BOTH support NCLB.  I'm not attributing a position to them that isn't, in reality, their position.

I guess I was trying to make the point that Ron Paul's positions on many, many, many issues are far more sane than the positions taken by mainstream Republicans.

200 @197 sane people like "I'm always of at least two minds" Mitt Romney? How about serial adulterer Newt Gingrich? Faux conservative/Mormon Jon Huntsman? "I don't know how many Supreme Court Justices There Are" Rick Perry? Tardasil Bachmann? Man-on-Dog Santorum?

201 Furiously fisting themselves to pictures of Abu Ghraib, today's modern Ace reader is an anachronism, a legacy of the War On Abstract Noun Years. Pulling back the pissflaps of pretense that permanent war might be at least debatable and showering golden warmongering to and fro. It is the Dirty Sanchez foreign policy of neoconservatism to the domestic agenda's Hot Carl of "isms" that perfectly compliments and enhances the smart warblog's neocon Bernacke butthex matrix. Buttplug bolshevism buttressed warmongering. That's today's Ace of Spades reader. Fisting and ICBMs. Fisting and ICBMs. Fisting and ICBMs. We need high taxes to fight the Xtians and Xmas. Richard Simmons arguably is too butch as a potential GOP candidate for today's Ace reader, who rightly or wrongly views Ron Paul's perfectly sensible, manly, virile platform as code words for, well, an end to their fisting/ICBM matrix. I predict the 2016 AoS endorsed GOP candidate will mandate mandatory union made - no, Occupied Territory kibbutzim made - buttplugs for all and will still be preferred to Ron Paul.

202

This is the kind of thing that makes people hate hate hate hate the Paultards.

This is a goddam straw man and you know it.

Read the comment I wrote above.

It doesn't matter. That is WHY they support him. Don't care, don't want to hear it, whatever. You get what you get.

But he just told you as much, about what drives Paul support: Yes, he may be crazy - so are most of the rest of these dickbacks in DC.

The worst you might claim Paul would want to do, that sort of effect is already being produced by D.C. anyway. So what does it matter? Might as well take the crazy you're partial to.

203 Apparently, all the bay doors have opened on the Pod...

204 Prolly not as cool as you might think Bosk . If there is one thing the HQ teaches well it is fear the vag .

205

I realize that you're incredibly stupid, but let me explain it to you slowly and carefully so that your weak mind is capable of understanding it:

Fuck you, you insulting asshole.You really need your mouth/fingers bashed in. Of course Ron Paul is a foreign policy moonbat. What you aren't getting is that Ron Paul actually *means it* about deaing with the domestic behemoth that government has become.

206

Posted by: Carolus at December 09, 2011 06:28 PM (UM15z)

Yep and thats all horrible, but still saner than Ron-Prison-Planet-Paul.

207 I fully support the right of Iran to build enough nukes to send us all back to the 17th Century, because back then we didn't have a Department of Education.

208

Looking back at the comments, I guess you could consider that a strawman argument if you want to claim the reason people think Paul is "crazy" is solely because of his foreign policy positions.

I never have gotten that impression.  In ALL HONESTY, I  believe that a huge number of Republicans do think that Big Government Compassionate Conservatism is a very good thing. 

I think that when many conservatives claim Ron Paul is "crazy" they are disowning more than just his foreign policy positions....

Sorry I was unclear.  I wasn't intending to make a phony argument.

209 Apparently, all the bay doors have opened on the Pod...

Posted by: garrett at December 09, 2011 06:30 PM (plN+2)

Yeah, WTF?

210 Ron Paul theme music.

211 You'd think there was a poll to Freep...

212 Richard Simmons arguably is too butch as a potential GOP candidate

I am afraid the troll may have a point here.

213 #202  You've sold me on Ron Paul.

214

Death is death.

Even if you could prove Paul meant DEATH for the country, you still need an alternative that isn't death, or else really who gives a shit? What does it matter?

Die more slowly?

My god man, I hope I die quick. I've watched family die slow. Quicker is better. Never drag out a death throw.

You think Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are going to save America? Cuz, IMO, that would make you retarded.

215 @204 What is this "pod"? Is it something Newt Gingrich supporters are using to go colonize Mars after they install climate-fighting mirrors?

216 the Paultardening is neigh!

217 If we leave Iran alone-we won't have the Department of Education1!!! Two'fer!

218 Dr. Ron Paul / Dr. Amy Bishop 2012

219 Tell us, Ronulans-- how is Paul's foreign policy different from Candidate Obama's?

220 What you aren't getting is that Ron Paul actually *means it* about deaing with the domestic behemoth that government has become.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 09, 2011 06:30 PM (ujg0T)

No he doesn't.  The Ron Paul Experience is onanism.

It's voting no when everybody else votes yes.  You feel good with your no, no, no (h/t Winehouse) but it doesn't do anything.

It's a teenager who complains about his parents.

There are no consequences to Paultardism.  You never have to put your (non-fiat) money where your mouth is.

And...Paulism is paranoid conspiracism. Their failure isn't their own unattractiveness, incoherence, insulting behavior or flirtations with anti-Semitism, it's other forces to keeping them down.

221

217

my SJP sock fell off? dammit.

222 @220 unlike Obama, Paul won't authorize the assassination of American citizens

223 Lol you think Ron Paul will even have a vice president?

224 Fences will keep you from escaping1!111

225 Who needs a President of Vices...pishaaa!

226 Or how it's acceptable for Iran to develop and possess nuclear weapons because, you know, everyone else has them.

227 Ron Who?  Rush Who?

228

#221, OK, you said something sensible. But how about taking away the one valid point Ron Paul actually has? It's really NOT hard.

Of course the anti-Semites and the potheads will still cling to their PaulGod.

But the Richard Viguerie types---and there are millions of them, witness November 2010 and 1994--want something better.

229 On the third day-all fences will be taken down!

230 People who talk seriously about "Gramscian marches" to death camps and howl about wanting to die quickly tend to end up voting for !!RON PAUL!!

231 Paul is Dishonarable

232 I think that when many conservatives claim Ron Paul is "crazy" they are disowning more than just his foreign policy positions....

Ron Paul said that the Bush administration experienced "Glee" at 9/11 because it provided them with the opportunity to invade Iraq.

This is not a difference of opinion.  This is a paranoid freak.

Defend his remarks.  And keep in mind that he brings this up ten years later.

233

Posted by: DOCTOR Ron Fucking Paul at December 09, 2011 06:31 PM (Y7JPI)

LOL war you kill me.

234

Posted by: Carolus at December 09, 2011 06:37 PM (UM15z)

 

You've won me over.

He's got my vote...

oh, wait.  I'm dead. 

Guess I'm voting for Obama.

235 My dad is not a stark raving mad lunatic.

236

No he doesn't.  The Ron Paul Experience is onanism.

Amish - it doesn't matter. Why do you think it matters? Tell me the goal?

What matters, particularly I should think to you who'd want to dissuade them or persuade them of something else, is that they believe him.

That's why they like him.

And that's why 'blah blah Foreign Policy! blah blah Terrorist' does not matter for dick.

That too is onanism. Masturbatory S&M. Beat the gimp.

Cuz really, what does anyone figgure to accomplish just ragging on the guy apart from catharsis? It's fine. If that's what you want to do, do it. But don't pretend you're hard at work making something productive here, unlike those paulbots.

237

Am I a paranoid conspiracist if I think that the Republican party - if given full control of the government - will only continue the push for more and more and more and more governmental interference in the lives of private citizens?

Good gravy.  Which of these Republican laws reduced the size, scope, and power of the Federal Government?

1. No Child Left Behind

2. Medicare Drug Benefit

3. Patriot Act

4. Bill Frist's ban on Internet Poker

5. TARP

 

 

238 231 Thank you that was awesome

239 Hop on the Biedermeier and get your free gyno-vsit!

240 @235 I'm dead too!

241

I think that when many conservatives claim Ron Paul is "crazy" they are disowning more than just his foreign policy positions....

Yup.

242

Cuz really, what does anyone figgure to accomplish just ragging on the guy apart from catharsis? It's fine. If that's what you want to do, do it. But don't pretend you're hard at work making something productive here, unlike those paulbots.

Posted by: Entropy at December 09, 2011 06:42 PM (TLNYf)

I'm not talking to them. Not directly.

243 #221

Exactly.  After numerous terms of the proud libertarian banner, Paul has achieved nothing of note other than earmarks for buddies and a lot of self-promotion.  Now he'll retire with his speech money and his reputation as a brave small-government guy, and all he had to do was make a few symbolic votes and spout some empty rhetoric.

244 241 @235 I'm dead too!

 Anwar al-Awlaki's teenaged son at December 09, 2011 06:43 PM (UM15z)

 

Another vote for Barack!

245 Ron Paul is a crazy person. Nuff said.

246 I am just going to write-in Basil Marceaux. That dude is has the kind of crazy I can get behind.

247 Which of these Republican laws reduced the size, scope, and power of the Federal Government?

What has Paul done?

Name one concrete accomplishment.

248 CBS is pimping Ron Paul as we speak. MFM is desperate to divide Republicans and protect their boyfriend during the general election.

249 Am I a paranoid conspiracist if I think that the Republican party - if given full control of the government - will only continue the push for more and more and more and more governmental interference in the lives of private citizens? Posted by: stickety at December 09, 2011 06:42 PM (FUDwf) No, but you're a paranoid conspiracist if you think that GW did a fucking happy dance because 3000 Americans got murdered. I have yet to meet a Paulian in person who did not eventually get to 9/11 conspiracies, weed, or "Jew Bankers," usually within about 10 minutes. I am sure they exist.

250 @245 We're also dead!

251

#244

Hopefully, he'll retire knowing that he's paved the way for his son to be the next President of the United States.

I'd take Rand Paul over any of the dipshits currently running. 

 

252 251 @245 We're also dead!

Posted by: countless civilians taken down by predator drones at December 09, 2011 06:48 PM (UM15z)

 

Great!  Barack appreciates your continued support.

  Give me a headcount and I'll get some absentee ballots out right away.

253 248  He gave back the contribution from the Nazi party.

Or did he?

254 I have yet to meet a Paulian in person who did not eventually get to 9/11 conspiracies, weed, or "Jew Bankers," usually within about 10 minutes.

I am sure they exist.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 09, 2011 06:47 PM (bxiXv)

They do, I work with a couple of them.

255 MFM is desperate to divide Republicans and protect their boyfriend during the general election.

Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at December 09, 2011 06:47 PM (ijjAe)

don't need to, the GOP is doing a bang up job as it is

256

People who talk seriously about "Gramscian marches"

That part at least, certainly fits me. I need read no further.

If you cannot take it seriously, well.

Best of luck with that.

Seriously though if I see you in the camp, I'm throwing tomatos at you, you brought it on yourself and you earned it.

I won't be in the camp. I'm far too clever to get caught. I see a Hitler coming, I get the fuck out of Germany. Screw that shit.

257

They do, I work with a couple of them.

Posted by: ErikW at December 09, 2011 06:52 PM (94iOb)

Nevermind, you and you're double negatives.

258 Fiscal Conservatives: Stop Taking Republicans Seriously

259

"your"

Wow, just wow.

260 His wife makes good fish sticks, though.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at December 09, 2011 05:35 PM (MMC8r)

Heh...never gets old.

261

I'm not a Paulbot.  I don't know what the hell I am. 

I was a Libertarian in my early 20's. I became a conservative after I got married and had kids. 

I was an enthusiastic Bush supporter.  Now, I'm pretty embarrassed that I bought into his compassionate conservative horseshit. 

At this point in my life, I'm starting to hate just about everybody who thinks they have the solutions to the world's problems.  I would kill for a President Calvin Coolidge # 2.  That's why I was a huge Mitch Daniels guy...

I guess I just want a government that sticks to governing and leaves me the fuck alone. 

Competence.  Simplicity.  Limited Government.  Leave me alone. 

262

He gave back the contribution from the Nazi party.

And thank god! I wouldn't want the Nazi party to have less funds or anything.

I'm just saying - I think Michael Moore is a unconscionable dickhead.

If Michael Moore gives me a million dollars, I'm keeping it.

263 I see a Hitler coming, I get the fuck out of Germany. Screw that shit. YES! YES! Entropy-we are superior to the Jews-with our 20/20 hindsight!

264

But the Richard Viguerie types---and there are millions of them, witness November 2010 and 1994--want something better.

Ding ding ding.

265 @248 : too cowardly to answer #238, I see

266 Seriously though if I see you in the camp, I'm throwing tomatos at you, you brought it on yourself and you earned it. I won't be in the camp. I'm far too clever to get caught. I see a Hitler coming, I get the fuck out of Germany. Screw that shit. Posted by: Entropy at December 09, 2011 06:54 PM (TLNYf) Wow. I hope you got your own effing island. Or planet. Just fucking multi-level wow. I am just SOOOO glad you are not on my side, 'cause whoever's side you *are* is boned.

267 Or "are on," even. IT'S GRAMMAR FAIL DAY 2011 FOLKS!

268 Don't bother Entropy, you're dealing with mostly irrational personal prejudice.

Anti-Paulbots are becoming more or less the mirror image of the pro-Paulbots.

269

YES! YES! Entropy-we are superior to the Jews-with our 20/20 hindsight!

Attributing antisemitism to me, is simply retarded.

I'll leave to you whether or not you did that.

As far as hindsight goes - you don't need it.

No one believed Hitler.

Since you're sockpuppetting and I'm not sure who you are - do you know how this comment thread started?

Someone mocked me for talking about "Gramscian marches" seriously.

I believe them when they tell me what they want to do. It doesn't take hindsight. It just takes paying attention. To wit: I am the guy, who takes "Gramscian marches" and "Mein Kampfs" seriously, who will get the hell out Germany.

270 What's the point of playing world policeman any more? It's only brought us trouble and made strong nations that should handle their own affairs weak.

271

Seriously though if I see you in the camp, I'm throwing tomatos at you, you brought it on yourself and you earned it.

I won't be in the camp. I'm far too clever to get caught.

AVENGE ME, ENTROPY!

272 Riiiiiiiight- During the Weimar Republic while you were having to bring a wheelbarrow of money with you to buy a loaf of bread-you would have prioritized securing yourself a copy of Mein Kampf to read...

273

I am just SOOOO glad you are not on my side, 'cause whoever's side you *are* is boned.

Heh.

Honestly, that would be yours Merovign, and yes, I think you are.

I have tried, and tried, and tried. I'm nobody. I'm a shmuck. I could never be expected to accomplish anything on my own. But I tried. I begged. I screamed.

That is why I can vote for people like Ron Paul as protest votes. Because my concious is clear. Come whatever may, and I think something fucking horrible is coming, I did what I could.

That is why I am sometimes one of those 'principled' types when it pleases me.

Because short of that, we are fucked either way. And when that happens, I want to say I didn't vote for the dickheads that did it. I didn't support the plan I knew was wrong, I knew would fail, just because I couldn't change it. I didn't cause it, and goddamn it, I don't deserve it. I stuck to my ground, and I begged and I screamed for years till the very end.

And then if that day comes, I will claim my reward, and get the fuck out, and leave you all to find out what you have made, without the slightest bit of guilt and without looking back. I'll have done all I could.

The rest? Let them eat tomatos. The wages of sin is death. I tried.

274

Whether anyone knows it or not, I'm on everybodies side.

The alternative won't serve anyone.

275 Note that when Rush says something that Ace can misinterpret second-hand as somehow attacking him - Rush is baaaaaad, baaaaaad! An irresponsible up-setter of the Republican applecart.

But now he's useful for riling up the base against a different up-setter of the Republican applecart.

Hacktastic.

276 When the time comes to get the f*ck out, I'm gonna be styling out on one those new fangled dirigibles.

277 IT'S GRAMMAR FAIL DAY 2011 FOLKS!

girls every, day is, grammar fail day, connnnns

278 Considering on everything else is he easily the most conservative person in the debates (by a lot). I would go with him. He's also the only candidate with serious proposals for cutting spending in the short term.

279

Remember:

Democracy is the belief that the people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard.

Which is why personally, I never wanted us to become a democracy either. But it is what it is. You can't tell me most people, by definition, don't deserve it.

The liberal progressive side of me says No.

The conservative in me tells me we've earned it, it is just, and it's about time they came back, Terror and Slaughter in tow. 

The more Mitt Romney's, hell the more Republicans and Democrats alike I see, the more I follow politics at all, the more sure I am of it.

280 128

He's still nuttier than squirrel shit though.

Bullshit.

Rand Paul is a conservative rockstar.

There is a reason why Jim DeMint endorsed him over minority leader Mitch McConnell's hand picked candidate.

On what is he nutty?

You got nothing I bet, just things you thought happened but didn't.

We need more like him.

Posted by: Entropy at December 09, 2011 05:55 PM (TLNYf)

Well obviously Rand is not (or at least hasn't shown himself to be) nuttier than squirrel shit.  That's why I wasn't referring to Rand as such.  I was referring to the man that named him.

281 People who buy in to Ron Paul's bullshit are retarded.

282

During the Weimar Republic while you were having to bring a wheelbarrow of money with you to buy a loaf of bread

Talk about straw men...

283

"Quit taking Ron Paul seriously."

I don't.

284 People in fly over country love me. You urban RINO fuckers can suck my shriveled nut sack when I win the nomination.

285 Paul like almost all libertarians are the drizzling shits on immigration. The kosher cons on this site and that listen to Rush screech about Paul because he wont swear fealty to Israel. Thats whats its always about. What I would like to know and understand is why does the Republican party care so much about a foreign country whos US-based cousins overwhelmingly support the other party with money and a bloc vote?

286 #263

For a million bucks you could fund a lot of Michael Moore debunking site work and still have a bunch of great weekends in Vegas.

287 Paul is not a pacifist, he is an isolationist. He is against foreign entanglements, but unless you know something I don't, he has never said that we should refuse to fight if attacked.

I wouldn't call him left-wing either, since the left is definitely not isolationist. The left is all for world organizations, and even wars if they are approved by the appropriate world bodies. They just don't worry about thing like getting approval from our Congress, or whether it is in our national interest. Actually, I take that back. They do consider whether it's in our national interest and then they make sure to do the opposite.

Of course you can find some isolationists on the fringes of left, but they are not to difficult to find on the right either (see Buchanan, Paul, etc.)

288 The Federal Department of Education has spent over 3.3 TRILLION dollars since its creation in 1979. 

I find that hard to believe.  The budget for the DoE last time was $68B.  Without even looking $68B * 30 = $2B.

289 er $2T

290

For a million bucks you could fund a lot of Michael Moore debunking site work and still have a bunch of great weekends in Vegas.

Or I could just have more great weekends in Vegas.

You can't guilt trip me. I'm an unscrupled, immoral libertarian.

I feel no social responsiblity whatsoever. Nor guilt over being lucky and getting a shit-ton of money. For me, it just feels lucky.

291 Paul like almost all libertarians are the drizzling shits on immigration. The kosher cons on this site and that listen to Rush screech about Paul because he wont swear fealty to Israel. Thats whats its always about.

You are right. That IS what it is about. Because bloodthirsty muslim savages are on the march, demographically and militarily, and your strategy of "trying to be eaten by the savages last..." is an epic historical fail.

And I *so* want to support Ron Paul because of his domestic policy, only to have some fool (at best) or creep (at worst) like you come along and remind me just why I *can't*.

What I would like to know and understand is why does the Republican party care so much about a foreign country whos US-based cousins overwhelmingly support the other party with money and a bloc vote?

Because someday the US based cousins will wake the fuck up. Crown Heights was a good start.

292

The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, 'The Valentine's Day Option'.  Read it all, and quickly, before you put the pistol in your mouth.

 

It's faptastic.  It's the scenario that I am still hanging on for, keeping me from just giving up and waiting for the secret police visit at some midnight in the near future.  If we do NOT see the event described by Kristol, I think there's dam' little that will see us back into safe water, and the choice is to hold course and pull in the sails, so that when we hit the reef, it punches a hole that floods the ship slowly enough for us to get drunk before we drown, OR pack on more canvas, and just smash the keel to matchsticks, and die instantly in the heap of wet wreckage.

Ryan/Rubio 2012.  Or we're fucking sunk.

293

$68B * 30 = $2B

You should have looked.

That's not even close.

294 I'm betting it's less than $1T cummulative but, not surprisingly I guess, it's net easy to find year by year budget numbers for individual departments.

295 or not easily

either or

296 Anyway, Peace To AmishDude. I'm just saying Ron Paul is polling as high as he is because of something more. And that something is less government.

I know the country has lots of moonbats on the left and some anti-semites under rocks on the far right, but not *that* many.

297 297 Anyway, Peace To AmishDude. I'm just saying Ron Paul is polling as high as he is because of something more. And that something is less government.

I know the country has lots of moonbats on the left and some anti-semites under rocks on the far right, but not *that* many.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at December 09, 2011 08:16 PM (w7K7d)

Yes, clearly Ron Paul is the only candidate that is talking about making government smaller...

298

Yes, clearly Ron Paul is the only candidate that is talking about making government smaller...

No...

He's the guy all the guys who have been lying about making government smaller for 20 years kept calling a crazy extremist.

It is then very suprising when people see that Republicans think fiscal conservatism means cutting $3B in increased spending, they decide they want a crazy extremist?

299

$2.02T   1979-2011 cummulative

Higher than I would have thought.

300

Hey.

My first choice is Perry.

And I think Perry deserves a look from the Richard Viguerie type RP supporters and libertarians of all stripes.

And I think Perry thinks that too, and has tried to reach out to them.

You know how I probably won't try to do that?

Call them all retards and tell them to shape up and vote like I says.

301 Perry WAS my guy, but he so reminds me of the last TX governor turned President: Inarticulate Hispandering.

302 That comment is not true.  He's not a pacifist.  He is about defense, not empire. 

303 Wow.. you people are fucking CLUELESS, CLUELESS!!!! I can't tell you on how many levels you just don't fucking get it. It could be sitting on your face, rubbing it's sex on your mouth and you still wouldn't know it was there.. it's that bad just how clueless you people are when Ron Paul speaks. You need travel no further back in history than to the point in time when the patriot act was signed and our rights eroded. If you think for a second that the fuckers in office WEREN'T happy, then you are even more clueless than this post can possibly describe. 911 was a fucking gravy train for the gov't as a whole and anyone who voted for bush after the patriot was signed should hang their head in shame. I don't believe that anyone was happy about the deaths of 3000 Americans, but I do believe they weren't letting any crisis go to waste and they hopped on our countries tragedy like it was a 2 bit whore. Jesus H... open your fucking eyes people.. you keep walking in to the walls, and while it's humorous to watch, it's also annoying because you're holding up the process of electing someone who can return this country to a Republic once again.

304

The fact that he HAS deserted the Republican party on occaision I do not think will help him in GOP primaries, not especially given he bailed on Reagan.

But, I think for a lot of people, unsuprisingly it does buy him a lot of credibility where others lack it.

Because you know what? I love Reagan, but... the federal government scope and size has grown every single year, not ever 1 single real numbers cut, not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush, not Reagan, not Carter, not Ford, not Nixon, not Johnson, not Kennedy, probably not whoever was before that... Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, the republican dude who started the Smoot-Hawley trade war on the cusp of a recession, Teddy prog party Roosevelt or god knows that fascist Woodrow Wilson.

We got Calvin Coolidge (Reagan's favorite). Like... ever. Can't claim Lincoln or Grant were small government guys. 

Not one yet, not in the history of the modern conservative movement. Sucesses were all measured by slowing down the commies. We won our wins by losing less. Not one hill have we taken. It grows and grows.

Not good enough. No mas.

More of the same: clearly not going to work anymore.

305

"You are right. That IS what it is about. Because bloodthirsty muslim savages are on the march, demographically and militarily, and your strategy of "trying to be eaten by the savages last..." is an epic historical fail."

Show me the evidence for this.  Where are the hoardes of savage muslims marching on the USA?

306 Just since I'm enjoying playing with it, here a cool charting page from the Feds

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com /spending_chart_1930_2023 USb_13s1li011mcn_F0f


remove spaces

307

Perry WAS my guy, but he so reminds me of the last TX governor turned President: Inarticulate Hispandering.

I do not like Inarticulate Hispandering. Not in a box, not with fox.

But from my vantage point, the key issue here is the last dickhead TX governor was President Inarticulate Hispandering, NCLB, Medicaid Part D and a bold new long term vision of rebuilding the entire hostile 3rd world at taxpayer cost.

This dickhead governor would be President Inarticulate Hispandering, 10th ammendment restoring, regulation slashing, department dissolving, and energy development allowing.

I. Just. Want. Smaller.

I don't even care if a billion Mexicans get in anymore, so long as if they do, there isn't anymore goddamn welfare to be had. (spoiler alert: The shitty ones won't come! They'll go home on their own!)

308 The mistake many Republicans make is in believing that Rep. Paul is a Republican. Note that that only matters now that he seeks our nomination. Personally, I hope he succeeds in abolishing the Federal Reserve and a standing army. Our Navy (and its Marines) is clearly Constitutional, and what is an air force but a navy of the skies? On the other hand, he is a dangerous foreign policy crack-pot.

309 Posted by: Ugrev at December 09, 2011 08:39 PM (862vz)

You failed the Dale Carnegie course, didn't you?

310

Show me the evidence for this. Where are the hoardes of savage muslims marching on the USA?

They have to get through Israel first. Then Europe. They are already on the march as a 5th column in Europe now. Do you really want to wait until only this hemisphere is left? That strategy was folly in 1941 and the world hasn't gotten any bigger since.

Frankly, they are already working as a 5th column on the African American populations in the prisons here.

To quote / paraphrase the great Mark Steyn, “And I’m a little unnerved at the number of (Ron Paul supporters) who seem to think the rest of the world can go hang and America will endure as a lonely candle of liberty in the new Dark Ages. Think that one through: a totalitarian China, a crumbling Russia, an insane Middle East, a disease-ridden Africa, a civil-war Eurabia -- and a country that can’t even enforce its borders against two relatively benign states will be able to hold the entire planet at bay? Dream on, you so-called ‘realists.’”

311

I also don't like tardisil.

If you people weren't all tarded up, you'd know what about the Gramscians marches and whatnot and I wouldn't have to learn you.

312 Show me a time when Paul has ever responded like a pacifist in response to an attack on the USA?Paul supported authorization to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda post-9/11Paul introduced legislation to officially declare war on IraqDuring the cold war Paul supported Reagan and his Strategic Defence Initiative. As President Reagan said, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."In 1981 when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant Paul defended Israel's right to do so againt the United Nations and the Reagan administration.

How do Paul's views compare with Reagan?

http://tinyurl.com/8343flq

 

313 YouÂ’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, IÂ’ve shared your site in my social networks!

314

Paul supported authorization to go after Bin Laden

Except when he was being hidden away in Pakistan.....

Paul introduced legislation to officially declare war on Iraq

Have you shared this with every other ardent Ron Paul supporter? These words, they do not mean what you think they mean.

315

Think that one through: a totalitarian China, a crumbling Russia, an insane Middle East, a disease-ridden Africa, a civil-war Eurabia -- and a country that can’t even enforce its borders against two relatively benign states will be able to hold the entire planet at bay? Dream on, you so-called ‘realists.’”

You know, to the extent people have been saying not everyone that likes Ron Paul likes this or that about him, but still see him as a valuable symbol for what they want, I think it applies here as well.

Not all RP fans are on board with his extreme foreign policy (extreme, in the sense that it would be an epicly extreme shift from the status quo). But a lot of people do think that is the right direction.

Having about 5 moments ago a Republican Party and a Democrat Party who were both in lockstep agreement about not letting a good military go to waste when we can do something globally, disagreeing only about who's in charge, it is refreshing to have people break from it or resist it in practically any fashion.

Because come a totalitarian China, a crumbling Russia, an insane Middle East, a disease-ridden Africa, and a civil-war Eurabia, if we are to be a country that can defend it's borders, we better not have ground our military to the breaking point with multiple and constant conflicts all over the globe, used up all our billion dollar supergenius missiles, driven the machine shops out of business, shut down the mines and oil rigs for environmental reasons, and spent all the money.

316 Pacifism is evil.

317

"The mistake many Republicans make is in believing that Rep. Paul is a Republican."

That is a valid point but it also begs the question, what is a "Republican"?

The first "republican" was Lincoln, a big-gonvernment, anti-Constitution federalist that sought to homogenize the American landscape through force.  He won, and the welfare state ensued.  Post-Civil-War populism immediately rose and led to the socialism in the late 19th, early 20th century.  Massive business regulation, unions, 90% tax rates, 16th amendment and income tax, FDR, new deal, etc. 

Today being a Republican is far different than in times of old...  but what does it mean today, I mean seriously, what does it mean?  Do Republicans, for example, actually care about the Constitution?  Because if they do that sure isn't reflected in their actions.  Entities like Dept Eduction, Fed Reserve, etc., are clearly unconstitutional, yet they almost univerally support them.  Paying for things like Planned Parenthood, NPR, etc, unconstitutional.  Things like the Patriot Act and the latest S.1867 are clearly unconstitutional.  TSA, unconstitutional.  Going to war isn't unconstitutional, but it is when Congress doesn't delcare it.  War in Iraq has never been properly declared by Congress.  Dropping bombs in Libya without Congressional approval - unconstitutional. 

The list is practically endless.  But where are the Republicans?

 

318 That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

319 War in Iraq has never been properly declared by Congress. 

Just a quibble, what magic words missing from this?

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

320

"Except when he was being hidden away in Pakistan....."

Wrong.  What Paul said is that we should have worked with the Pakistanis, WHO WE HAVE TREATIES WITH, rather than simply going in there unannounced.  What Paul also said is that if after going to Pakistanis, if they didn't cooperate, he would have gone in there anyway.

Use some common sense.  What is the current aftermath of that operation?  A much less cooperative Pakistan, who we literally depend on for support/stability in Afghanistan, and constant back-forth discussion about who's on who's side.

The only thing acheived was a feather in Obama's cap, so he can take credit for "getting" bin Laden.  Bin Laden is of course dead as well, but he would be just as dead through Paul's approach. 

"Have you shared this with every other ardent Ron Paul supporter? These words, they do not mean what you think they mean."

Do tell me what they mean then.  I would actually love to hear your explanation.

321

The first "republican" was Lincoln, a big-gonvernment, anti-Constitution federalist that sought to homogenize the American landscape through force. He won, and the welfare state ensued.

Because secession would have made America *so* much better and stronger....

Post-Civil-War populism immediately rose and led to the socialism in the late 19th, early 20th century.

I guess that explains why the Euros had it too. Might the upheaveals of early industrialization have something to do with it?

Going to war isn't unconstitutional, but it is when Congress doesn't delcare it.

Congress VOTED, with oh so many of the two faced Commiecrats turned Dhimmicrats going along, to permit President Bush to use force, a.k.a., go to war in Iraq. I am beginning to understand what AmishDude meant when he said Ron Paul supporters engaged in intellectual onanism.

Can't somebody do the Hegelian dialectic, even if it is a leftist idea, and synthesis a sensible domestic policy with a sensible foreign one?

322 Jesus H... open your fucking eyes people.. you keep walking in to the walls, and while it's humorous to watch, it's also annoying because you're holding up the process of electing someone who can return this country to a Republic once again.

Yeah, that's right.  We are the only thing between Crazy Ron and the presidency.

And we're quite happy about wielding such unmitigated influence.  Hell, we're downright drunk with power.

You're welcome.

323

Wrong. What Paul said is that we should have worked with the Pakistanis, WHO WE HAVE TREATIES WITH, rather than simply going in there unannounced. What Paul also said is that if after going to Pakistanis, if they didn't cooperate, he would have gone in there anyway.

Use some common sense. What is the current aftermath of that operation? A much less cooperative Pakistan, who we literally depend on for support/stability in Afghanistan, and constant back-forth discussion about who's on who's side.

The only thing acheived was a feather in Obama's cap, so he can take credit for "getting" bin Laden. Bin Laden is of course dead as well, but he would be just as dead through Paul's approach.

No he wouldn't.  Because his little fantasy would result in Bin Laden leaving that house and not being there when the operation went down.  If the Pakistanis weren't letting us know that Bin Laden was in their major military training city, they aren't going to be anymore cooperative when we were about to go there and take him out.

324 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

325

Wrong. What Paul said is that we should have worked with the Pakistanis, WHO WE HAVE TREATIES WITH, rather than simply going in there unannounced. What Paul also said is that if after going to Pakistanis, if they didn't cooperate, he would have gone in there anyway.

Guffaw. By then, Osama would have been well hidden away elsewhere. Pakistan is a failed state.

Use some common sense. What is the current aftermath of that operation? A much less cooperative Pakistan, who we literally depend on for support/stability in Afghanistan, and constant back-forth discussion about who's on who's side.

OK, I am going to surprise you here, but frankly it is time to get out of Afghanistan. To win in Afghanistan, we must have the gumption to take out the failed state of Pakistan too, and we don't; we all know we are overextended as it is. I will grant the Afghanistan/Pakistan is Lebanon/Syria all over again. Time to get out.

Remember when the Dhimmicrat line was that Afghanistan was the "good" war and Iraq the "bad" one? The other way around, really.

The only thing acheived was a feather in Obama's cap, so he can take credit for "getting" bin Laden. Bin Laden is of course dead as well, but he would be just as dead through Paul's approach.

Gales of laughter.

Do tell me what they mean then. I would actually love to hear your explanation.

See #323.

326

Wrong. What Paul said is that we should have worked with the Pakistanis, WHO WE HAVE TREATIES WITH, rather than simply going in there unannounced. What Paul also said is that if after going to Pakistanis, if they didn't cooperate, he would have gone in there anyway.

Guffaw. By then, Osama would have been well hidden away elsewhere. Pakistan is a failed state.

Use some common sense. What is the current aftermath of that operation? A much less cooperative Pakistan, who we literally depend on for support/stability in Afghanistan, and constant back-forth discussion about who's on who's side.

OK, I am going to surprise you here, but frankly it is time to get out of Afghanistan. Back "our SOB" and let him rule over it if he can. To win in Afghanistan, we must have the gumption to take out the failed state of Pakistan too, and we don't; we all know we are overextended as it is. I will grant the Afghanistan/Pakistan is Lebanon/Syria all over again. Time to get out.

Remember when the Dhimmicrat line was that Afghanistan was the "good" war and Iraq the "bad" one? The other way around, really.

The only thing acheived was a feather in Obama's cap, so he can take credit for "getting" bin Laden. Bin Laden is of course dead as well, but he would be just as dead through Paul's approach.

Gales of laughter.

Do tell me what they mean then. I would actually love to hear your explanation.

See #323.

327 Why did that repeat?

328

Because secession would have made America *so* much better and stronger....

Wait a minute.

When the hell has it been about making America better and stronger?

It was suppose to be a place where people could be free of servitude to the blood-soaked land and it's nepot overlords.

329 Hey Ace, you never met a conservative principle you're not willing to sell out for power, right? Answer me this: what exactly does perpetual war for perpetual peace gain us? What exactly has been achieved by constantly sending Americans to bleed and die and get maimed in third world hellholes? What exactly is wrong with staying the hell out of such places, and keeping their people the hell out of here, until such time as they show themselves to be good neighbors? Ace, why are you a Democrat?

330
That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

331

Our prosperity, influence and power is the product of our freedom.

It is not a goal of it's own. Go... read the bible or something. Yeesh.. I'm not even religious.

My goal is liberty.

Persuing power and greatness for the sake of power and greatness is called nihilism.

I mean, say what you like about the tenants of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

332

toby928©,

That "authorization" you reference is not a Declaration of War, there is a difference, a big difference constitutionally. By comparison, how is it that the government kept running under Pelosi/Reid even though the House did not create a budget, which is a requirement. The fact that Congress was able to skirt around an official Declaration of War through other means doesn, make it right. There are specific procedures and provisions that go along with an official war declaration. If a war is worth fighting those rules should be worth following. Not following those rules though has set a bad precident - wars not only that aren't declared, but wars Congress hasn't authorized in any way, which has empowered POTUS to make war with whomever for whatever reason, which is actually what the war powers clause in the Constitution was meant to prevent. How is it any different than King George telling us what to do? http://tinyurl.com/yjg9pvn

333

Wait a minute.

When the hell has it been about making America better and stronger?

It was suppose to be a place where people could be free of servitude to the blood-soaked land and it's nepot overlords.

Some of us would call that the same thing. Do you really want to overlook the servitude of the Old South?

And how would balkanizing the USA have made us freer?

334 @323. Just an observation. Historically, declarations of war included the words "declare war.. " typically followed by the recipient of our ass whoopin'. I like precedence... but I can't seem to find those words in the "use of force" against Iraq. war of 1812: That war be and is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain Mexican American war: An Act providing for the Prosecution of the existing War between the United States and the Republic of Mexico spanish-American war: That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A.D. 1898 WWI: That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government WWII Declaration against japan: That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan WWII Declaration against Germany: That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany You want missing words? see history for proper examples of declarations of war. Specifically that they state with the use of the actual word "WAR" the specific and direct intent. Everything else means "sissy fight".

335

"Because secession would have made America *so* much better and stronger...."

Yes, it would have.  Session was one of the checks and balances built into the Constitution, perhaps THE most important.  Have you not read Common Sense by Thomas Paine or the Federalist Papers?  The whole points of the USA was that it was a VOLUNTARY union.  States joined voluntarily and were free to leave voluntarily if the federal govt. overstepped its bounds.

The southern states seceded ONLY because of federal intrusion.  It had ZERO to do with slavery, it was about economic control, and Lincoln wanted control over the southern economy.

If Lincoln hadn't gone to war the union would almost certainly have rejoined a few years later.  But instead he violated the Constitution in more ways I care to cite and killed over half a million Americans.  Our largest war ever.  In population terms that would be like 5 million dying today.  And then end result of his victory was the precident that State's rights don't actually exist.

"I guess that explains why the Euros had it too. Might the upheaveals of early industrialization have something to do with it?"

You're right about the source, but what you don't get is why the Constitution was unable to protect against it.  This is exactly what we're dealing with now.  The federal government has continued to increase like a snowball since that time.  It's not that back then they had these evil notions of "hey, how can we royally screw our great grandchildren."  No, they were just selfish, short-sighted, and naive.  Even FDR didn't mean for things like Social Security to be this big.  Back then there were like 40 workers for every retiree... now it's all out of balance.  But because those constitutional checks and balances have been done away read (read ignored) the problem is unfixable.

If right now today states had the realistic power to secede do you honestly not think they would?  States like TX would start leaving the union.  And insodoing the federal government would be left holding a bag and would be forced to get its act back together.  It's the same princple behind a free market, but at the government level.  State's compete.  They are sovereign.

336 That "authorization" you reference is not a Declaration of War, there is a difference, a big difference constitutionally. [ ] The fact that Congress was able to skirt around an official Declaration of War through other means doesn't, make it right. There are specific procedures and provisions that go along with an official war declaration.

What would those be?  Article 1 Sections simply says  The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water  The specific form of the declaration is not mandated there.

Are you conserved that the word "War" was not in the Authorization?  When the Congress passes a resolution that says     (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed  Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and  appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,  I'd say that's declaring war.  Congress has never determined how the CinC will pursue a war, just that he will.

If you can cite some statutory definition, I would appreciate it as I am not aware of any.

I mostly agree with you, by the way, but you weaken your argument unnecessarily with the Iraq stance.  The Iraq War was completely constitutional, imo, Libya not so much.

337

Well, I don't want to spend all night arguing hypothetical alt history.

No one can know.

But I do wonder.

For a great many former slaves, the civil war did NOT improve their condition or their station in the south.

And the constantly pissed and humiliated southerners, kind of like a man gets yelled at by the boss and goes home to kick the dog, were kicked around and robbed by corrupt urban Northern officials, they channeled a lot of their resentment toward black people with a kind of vitriol that never existed before (or was never anywhere that prominent) in America.

How you figure you can force such a change anyway, I do not know. Indentured servitude, grandfather clauses, Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Klan... many of them were freed on paper but nothing changed, or else got worse for a couple generations.

There was far less anti-african racism and racial animosity in the 18th century in this country than there was in the 19th, I think on account of the trend toward almost exclusively african slaves and the increasingly heated debate over slavery. I think probably it was better and safer for a lot of blacks in the south before the war then it was after.

But how come the North was abolitionist? Not every Southern wasn't, just like they may be red states but there are still plenty of democrats there. It won on the strength of argument. It won on it's merits. With persuasion.

Where it won with the musket, it won nothing. I think it retarded things. Delayed things, sowed resentment. And it came with a hell of a lot of horrific collateral.

From the beginning, though the abolitionists certainly supported and enacted laws to ban the practice, the way it was won was by persuasion. You can't enact the laws if you don't have popular support.

The same way the Civil Rights acts happened in the '50s. You can say the Civil Rights acts changed things... on the margins perhaps. But how did they suddenly come into being? The Civil Rights acts didn't change things so much, they happened because things were changing. You can't mandate the tide, and you cannot mandate racial attitudes with the force of law.

It prevailed because more and more people became convinced it was right.

I think that applies to all civil rights issues. I also think it applies to abortion. You can certainl dissuade a few abortions by banning it, but if a woman really wants it, she will get it anyway even if it's illegal. If you want to stop those abortions, you have to convince her. No other way about it. The greatest gains the pro-life movement will ever make will not be the laws they enact (or the clinics they blow up) but the people they convince.

And when there are enough, if they can be convinced, it will end up illegal, but the greater deterrant will be the new social norm and views about what a fetus is, not the 5-0 doing no-knock kick-the-door shoot-the-dog swat raids on pregnant women to make sure the baby is still there. And surely not a goddamn South Dakota-California war.

338 You can certainly dissuade a few abortions by banning it, but if a woman really wants it, she will get it anyway even if it's illegal. If you want to stop those abortions, you have to convince her.

I could make the same argument about strong arm robbery.

And when there are enough, if they can be convinced, it will end up illegal

It didn't become legal nation wide by popular sovereignty, you know.


I'm full of quibbles tonight I guess.

339 BTW, I have found an instance where Congress mandated tactics in a war, at least to the extent of limiting the territory where it could be waged.

The Church-Cooper amendment of 1970:  In December 1970, Congress reacted to the U.S. invasion of Cambodia by passing the landmark Cooper-Church amendment to the Foreign Military Sales Bill. The amendment, named for and sponsored by Sens. John Sherman Cooper (R-Kentucky) and Frank Church (D-Idaho), prohibited the use of any funds already appropriated for military spending on the introduction of additional U.S. troops into Cambodia.

So I will retract my never of previous, maybe.

340 And now I'm quibbling with myself.

341

"If you can cite some statutory definition, I would appreciate it as I am not aware of any."

You make a very good point here.  I'll concede on this point.  I'm not aware of any official statute.  As I understand it, it was an unofficial statute, perhaps just a precident from wars declared pre-Korea.  Will have to do some research on this one.

Here is quote from the article I linked, "Politicians and policy makers have burned no small amount of energy in the last half century parsing the fine, and sometimes nonexistent, shades of meaning that distinguish a police action from a conflict from a peacekeeping mission from a war."

That sums up the difference to me.  Perhaps this is just a matter of wording?  But the issue is that the Constitution is clear about declaring WAR, not authorizing all sorts of other military activities categorized as peace keeping, yada, yada.  Constitutionally there is no authorization for these sorts of military engagements at all, and that's based on a lot of historical records where the founders clearly defined their intent of what war means.

Perhaps this is just symantics, just a label, but the label makes a difference.  It makes our intent and goals very clear.  We are at war, not peacekeeping, not defending one dictator from another, at war, objective: kill people and break things.

Now specifically with regards to Iraq you may be right.  I find the lack of what to me is an official declaration of war very grey.  You are definitely right that Congress authorized activity though.  Saying it's totally unconstitutional is probably a stretch.  I still think it's border-line though. 

342

Entropy, I recommend a book for you.  The Real Lincoln by Di Lorenzo.  Pasted below is a copy of the foreward for the book written by Dr. Walter Williams.

DiLorenzo is right about Lincoln by Walter Williams

In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.

TodayÂ’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of how this came about in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.
 
As DiLorenzo documents – contrary to conventional wisdom, books about Lincoln, and the lessons taught in schools and colleges – the War between the States was not fought to end slavery; Even if it were, a natural question arises: Why was a costly war fought to end it? African slavery existed in many parts of the Western world, but it did not take warfare to end it. Dozens of countries, including the territorial possessions of the British, French, Portuguese, and Spanish, ended slavery peacefully during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Countries such as Venezuela and Colombia experienced conflict because slave emancipation was simply a ruse for revolutionaries who were seeking state power and were not motivated by emancipation per se.

Abraham LincolnÂ’s direct statements indicated his support for slavery; He defended slave ownersÂ’ right to own their property, saying that "when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850).

Abraham LincolnÂ’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free. " Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion.

The true costs of the War between the States were not the 620,000 battlefield-related deaths, out of a national population of 30 million (were we to control for population growth, that would be equivalent to roughly 5 million battlefield deaths today). The true costs were a change in the character of our government into one feared by the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun – one where states lost most of their sovereignty to the central government. Thomas Jefferson saw as the most important safeguard of the liberties of the people "the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies."

If the federal government makes encroachments on the constitutional rights of the people and the states, what are their options? In a word, their right to secede. Most of today’s Americans believe, as did Abraham Lincoln, that states do not have a right to secession, but that is false. DiLorenzo marshals numerous proofs that from the very founding of our nation the right of secession was seen as a natural right of the people and a last check on abuse by the central government. For example, at Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates affirmed "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression." In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801), he declared, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson was defending the rights of free speech and of secession. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." The right to secession was popularly held as well. DiLorenzo lists newspaper after newspaper editorial arguing the right of secession. Most significantly, these were Northern newspapers. In fact, the first secession movement started in the North, long before shots were fired at Fort Sumter. The New England states debated the idea of secession during the Hartford Convention of 1814–1815.

LincolnÂ’s intentions, as well as those of many Northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the senatorial debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that would "place at defiance the intentions of the republicÂ’s founders." Douglas was right, and LincolnÂ’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
 
The War between the States settled by force whether states could secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over statesÂ’ rights, so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
 
The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate title for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer.

343 Well, I also like a declaration of war, not because it allows military action (which I think the CinC can do on his own, to an extent.  And I sense you would disagree with me on this) but because it lets you do a bunch of other stuff that is normally against "International Law", like seizing enemy assets, and holding enemy nationals prisoner without trial.  Plus generally fucking with the enemy in any way that a creative mind can come up with.

344

Screw "international law," who gives a damn what they think.  If we need to go to war, go to freaking war.  I do disagree that CnC has power to make war though.  No such power is enumerated in the Constitution.  Am I wrong, can you point to where it's authorized?  There is a reasonable argument that CnC has tacit power to respond defensively to an attack.  The military and national defense are always at work... but it's a matter of where are they working.  I think it could also be reasonably argued that even an offensive action was the best defense to an iminent attack.  Where does that line cross?  The Constitution is meant to be loose, not a rigid system that inhibits our actions.  But not *that* loose.  Congress is supposed to provide oversight, along with SCOTUS. Bombing Libya has nada to do with national defense.  And this tacit power is one of those cases where if a president overstepped his authority (*cough* Libya) then he should be taken to task for it.  There should be hearings.  Where is SCOTUS?  Where is Congress?  Boehner sends a letter barking, telling Obama he needs to get permission from Congress.  Obama gives him the finger, Boehner does nothing.

345 And this tacit power is one of those cases where if a president overstepped his authority (*cough* Libya) then he should be taken to task for it.

No disagreement there.  The problem is that it's a "political question" and the proper and really only Constitutional Powers of the Congress are the power of the purse, or in reality, just the power to impeachment the President.

Like real "International Law", what makes something binding is who can muster the most divisions.  Constitutional is what 2 of the 3 branches say it is.

346

I could make the same argument about strong arm robbery.

You can, and you may as well.

You'll never persuade them all. And you'll never dissuade them all either, neither with concealed carry nor jail time and laws.

To the extent though that you end up with a lot of people trying, and probably relative to that, a lot of people succeeding, or end up with fewer of both, varies from culture to culture or subculture to subculture or even geographic block to block. But it depends on how many people in that area you've convinced it is wrong.

And with strong arm robbery it is not a difficult task, we usually say we 'teach them', not 'convince them', because the outcome is not in great doubt for most.

But some places and some people do that better than others.

347 Seriously don't you have girlfriends or wives or something? This whole thread has pretty much about playing with each others cyber peepees. Must be a boring night.

348

i'm not anywhere near Paulistan yet, but i do want our troops home, our biggest threats aren't external but internal.

 

bring them home now.

349 Its Pleasure to understand your blog.The above articles is pretty extraordinary, and I really enjoyed reading your blog and points that you expressed. I really like to appear back over a typical basis,post a lot more within the topic.Thanks for sharingÂ…keep writing!!!

350 Nice commentary. last thirty days I uncovered this internet site and desired to permit you be conscious that iÂ’ve been gratified, heading via your siteÂ’s posts. I should certainly be signing equally as much as the RSS feed and can wait around for another post.

351 "The southern states seceded ONLY because of federal intrusion.  It had ZERO to do with slavery"

Andrew, you are so full of shit it's spurting out your ears in jet streams.  The secessionists themselves said they were trying to preserve slavery.  And slavery had been a major political bone of contention in the US going all the way back to the drafting of the Constitution.  All the "compromises" - Compromise of 1820, Compromise of 1850, the Great Compromise - were based on trying to balance slave states vs. free states, but it wasn't going to end because of the expansion in the West.  The facts of history are TOTALLY against you so you just make shit up.

352  Entropy, I recommend a book for you.  The Real Lincoln by Di Lorenzo.

It's no surprise that a Paulbot reccommends that work of pseudo-scholarship.  DiLorenzo is a hack who poorly sources and just twists a bunch of facts to "prove" his points about Lincoln.  Anyone who takes him seriously is an even dumber man than he is.

353 I quit taking Rush seriously a few years ago. Paul on the other hand... has been grinding away at his gig for 30 years. Predictable, responsible, scandal free.

It's either the statist Romney or the fuckstick from Georgia. Wow. The GOP and that same old magic.

Not wanting to nuke half the world. Yea we can't have a loon like that. The agenda never deviates here.

354 Ron Paul is a loon magnet.

355

Paul Zummo, talk is cheap.  I love how guys like you get so heated an emotional though, like it's a personal thing.  This is history.  If I'm wrong, if DiLorenzo is wrong, then by all means, put up or shut up.  I'm actually pointing to source material that backs up my understanding of history.  You're yapping like a little dog.  Your words mean nothing.

DiLorenzo's book is extremelly well-sourced and all he does is go to the original source material.  It's pretty indisputible IMO.  If you have something specific to criticize I'm all ears though... as would be a LOT of people. 

And you think DiLorenzo is the only scholar that feels this way about Lincoln?  Hardly.

Would you also call Walter E. Williams a hack?  The fact that Williams, a renowned economist and constitutional/libertarian scholar, especially among conservatives here in the USA, would write the foreward for the book speaks volumes to me.  

 

356

Gary Rosen,

See book reference above. 

- Would you like me to start quoting Lincoln and all the statements he made SUPPORTING slavery?  All his statements saying he had no intention to end slavery, that this wasn't his goal?

In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

Or about about this one - "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."

- So what was Lincoln's objective?

Stephen Douglas (in a presidential debate) accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders."

- Slavery existed in many union-allied states at that time as well, why didn't Lincoln go after them?

- Slavery was already becoming extremelly unpopular in the south and states were ending it on their own.  Nowhere else in the world was a war fought over slavery.  England, France, Spain, all the colonial powers ended slavery on their own over time.  Why would such a fight be needed here then when it wasn't needed anywhere else?

- Why did south secede?  What was cause?  If it was about slavery then it would have been a federal ban or outlaw on slavery, right?

There was no such federal decree.  No federal outlaw of slavery whatsoever.  Several incidents led to the war, starting in the 1830's. Quick rundown.

1) In 1832 South Carolina called convention to nullify tarrif acts of 1828 and 1832, the "Tarrif's of Abominations."  The tarrifs protected and favored manufacturing in the North while hurting agricultural economics in the South that wanted to trade freely with Europe.  A compromise was reached that reduced the tax, which prevented the war from starting then. 

2) Northern-dominated Congress enacted laws to protected Northern shipping interests, hurting south, among numerous other such laws.  Seeing a pattern here?  North has more pull in govt, north votes to impose taxes that hurt south, help north. 

3) After Lincoln was elected the Morrill tarrifs were enacted, this was the straw that broke the camels back, the south immediately seceded after this. 

Charles Dickens published an article about the Morrill tarrif and the Civil War in his magazine at the time, here is a snip:

"Â…Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived Â… The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union Â… So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils..."

Only north-east liberals think the Civil War was about slavery.  The history is overwhelming.

 

357

Andrew, undoubtedly you are making top dollar in your career as a cherry-picker.  You completely ignore the major political events I cited to say it had quote "ZERO" unquote to do with slavery.

" Slavery was already becoming extremelly unpopular in the south and states were ending it on their own."

Which state in the confederacy "ended" slavery?  Here you are just flat-out lying.  This is the 100% bullshit that defenders of the Confederacy keep using, "oh it was on the way out anyway" when the secessionists themselves specifcally cited the preservation of slavery as a reason for their actions.

358 Googled (actually Binged, I hate Google) "Walte Williams" and "dilorenzo", got Lew Rockwell.

359 Ron Paul cannot win because the Joos control everything. Unless.... he's actually working for them too!! Think about it! Yes the old rabbit-hole! And anyone want any steak-knives? Penis pumps? Kangaroos? Wombats? Emus? Boomerang-ang-ang-ang-ang-g-g-g-g-g-g....