Today on Blogcritics
Home » Ron Paul Creates REAL Discussion of the Nation’s Issues

Ron Paul Creates REAL Discussion of the Nation’s Issues

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Thank heavens for Ron Paul. Of all the candidates running for US president in the spring of 2007, Ron Paul has clearly done more than the rest of them put together to inject serious talk about real issues. Whether you agree with his outlook on any given issue, he’s got a serious and well considered viewpoint that bears consideration.

For example, I was very glad to see him in the first debate hosted by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. At one point, he asked about national ID cards. Oh yeah, good idea, fine, prudent thinking. Then the question got to Ron Paul, who had a big ol’ “hell no” answer, invoking the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Suddenly all these other Republican candidates are backpedaling as hard as they can. That was a valuable service to the public debate from Congressman Paul. I’m real glad he was there thumping that pesky Constitution.

I was also tickled with the early part of his performance in the second debate with Brit Hume on Fox. Hume came asking the candidates simply to name three programs they would eliminate to cut the budget. Tommy Thompson bragged on his 1900 gubernatorial vetoes, but couldn’t come up with even one little specific tiny federal program that he’d publicly commit to eliminating. That was pretty much the deal with all the other candidates – except of course for Ron Paul. He had three whole cabinet departments that he’d be happy to shut down – education, energy and homeland security. Now THAT’S answering the question. And if you’d ask him, I bet he’d come up with at least a couple more whole cabinet departments we could eliminate.

Most of all though, he’s a uniquely valuable presence in the Republican debates as the only anti-war candidate in the mix. He voted against the war in 2002, and he wants to shut it down NOW. It’s highly valuable to the public debate to have a candidate on that stage willing to make a principled constitutional argument against not just the details of how the Iraq war has been conducted, but against the whole thrust of our aggressive military involvement all around the world. Ron Paul demands a basic re-examination of our whole approach to foreign policy.

This is a good thing. For a whole bunch of reasons, it surely behooves us to reconsider why we’ve got US troops stationed in over 100 countries. How much of that actually serves vital US national security interests, how much is just a waste of limited resources, and how much is it just an invitation to get caught in the middle of other people’s conflicts and needlessly make enemies?

Ron Paul presents a strong classical conservative isolationist or libertarian point of view, demanding adherence to the letter of the US Constitution as the first prerequisite. That gives him a thoughtful and consistent point of view that is highly useful in debate.

The downside is that he’s an ideologue. That’s bad after a certain point. The defense is to say that he’s principled. That’s great, but adherence to ideology has a tendency to come at the expense of dealing with reality. As Robert Anton Wilson would say, the thinker part of the brain comes up with an idea, and the prover side proceeds to bend and twist and selectively cherry pick all the facts to prove their theory. As in the actions of the Catholic church in Kevin Smith’s movie, even a really good idea blindly or stupidly followed out can become a highly destructive Dogma.

This brings us to Congressman Paul’s famous dustup with Rudy Giuliani in the Fox debate. Ron Paul insists on applying the basic libertarian non-aggression principle to foreign policy – without regard to how that plays out in the real world. The basic point is that we’ll leave you alone if you’ll leave us alone. That’s so simple and reasonable. Any half sensible person or country can see that.

But we’re not even vaguely following the properly disentangled libertarian foreign policy, so obviously the reason people are attacking us is because we’ve been meddling in their part of the world. As he explained to Brit Hume, “Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” This is an application of the basic “blowback” idea. “I believe sincerely in blowback. If we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and free. They attack us because we are over there.”

But of course, that’s turning a blind eye to the malicious and irrational nature of the enemies that we face. It’s careful editing of facts to get the result you want. Yes, sometimes our enemies claim they are attacking us because we’re in Iraq. But then they say a lot of things, don’t they? Watch closely, and you can see our enemies parroting back our own left wingers, bitching about lax US campaign finance laws and absolutely quoting Noam Chomsky.

Paul’s comments on the reasons they attacked us created something of an air ball in that debate, which Rudy Giuliani took for the easy layup. He expressed genuine and perfectly well justified resentment, and requested that the congressmen take back or modify his remarks that seemed pretty close to saying that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. He most certainly would not do that.

The other Republican candidates were all kicking their own asses that Rudy got to that loose ball before they did. But maybe Mitt Romney can get some of that next time they’re together. He’s obviously quite the brainiac, and a particularly smooth talker. Maybe he can ask Paul what he thinks would be the results of US flatly pulling up stakes in the Middle East as he wants and coming home. Would that soothe the Islamists heated hatred, or massively embolden them?

Also, is it a matter of principle that we would have no right to militarily prevent Iranian mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb? Also, would crazy mullahs with a bomb be better than violating our supposed principles? If your principles say that we don’t have a right to aggressively defend our lives from people bent on killing us, then your principles are not valid moral precepts. You may need to re-examine your premises.

But he won’t get any chance to make such an argument to Paul if the fixers have their way. By the end of the Fox debate, there was already grumbling coming back from SC locals that Paul should be excluded from future debates. Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he would be circulating a petition to have Paul excluded from future debates.

Anuzis called the comments “off the wall and out of whack.”

“I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting.

“Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful.”

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

Mr. Anuzis is wrong. Paul’s views are not just off the wall. He may be wrong, but it’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that we are exacerbating our problems by our foreign policy. Moreover, a lot of good patriotic Americans think just that.

As to detrimental, Ron Paul is the only character in the Republican primaries causing much of any actual debate at all, certainly in the critical area of foreign policy. The other candidates are largely all in agreement. Having someone with a clear and sharply different outlook on the stage is not detrimental, but absolutely essential to having any real debate at all. Basically, he’s the one guy on that stage you know is saying just exactly what he really thinks, not just figuring on how to bump the boobs with some red meat.

Then there are those who choose to deal with Paul’s challenge to our foreign policy by just making crap up by accusing him of advocating nutsy 9/11 conspiracy theories, which he most certainly does not. Nonetheless, according to Fox News John Gibson: “According to a recent Rasmussen Report poll, 35 percent of Democrats think President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement has already infected people like Rosie O’Donnell and one in three Democrats, and many other people, Americans evidently, including Congressman Ron Paul.” Ron Paul has never said anything like that George Bush was in on 9/11. Gibson’s talking out his hat.

Then you’ve got Michelle Malkin. I’m inclined to like her cause she’s a hottie, and being all crazy radical only makes her hotter. Nonetheless, in regard to her leading the charge against Ron Paul, the most charitable interpretation of her comments would be to say that she’s a lying bitch. She strains a half dozen different directions to portray Paul as believing that 9/11 was an inside job, but he simply does not. Look at the main quote from the debate that set this off about why they attacked US. “They” would clearly be referring to Islamic radicals attacking US – as opposed to the CIA or some other US government agents.

Ron Paul does not have great faith in government investigations generally, which point Malkin carefully tries to conflate with being a 9/11 conspiracist. She makes a point of highlighting this Ron Paul quote: “Too often investigations on almost any issue is usually a cover-up.” So distrusting the government’s investigations of itself marks you as a nutjob? She also highlighted this as proof of Paul’s lunacy: “It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight.” Wait now, Ron Paul thinks the opposition party might do a better job of oversight than the president’s own party? That’s just beyond the pale for public debate! Get this guy off the stage!

In short, Malkin wishes to insist that any position other than supporting the current foreign policy and complete trust in the integrity of the administration is the same thing as being a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist who thinks Bush was in on 9/11. Suspecting that administration backed investigations might go into CYA mode rather than delivering full truthfulness is absolutely not the same thing. Michelle Malkin knows better when she says it.

Meantime, they could thin out the ranks for the Republican debate. There appears to be little or no public support for most of these guys other than obviously McCain-Romney-Giuliani. What are any of the other six Republican candidates adding to the debate? Not much, and they have almost no public support. If they got lost on the way to the next forum, no one would much miss their input.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, has more than earned his place on the stage. The fact that his ideas so displease some Republican operatives is a pretty good argument for his continued presence right there.

On top of which, he certainly and unmistakably has quite a few supporters. Numerous Paul critics have complained or mocked the army of Paul supporters coming down on them. Paul has won or placed high in most polls on who won the debates, including those by the event sponsors. He doesn’t make much impact so far in some of the polls, but then again he’s not even listed as a choice in a lot of them. Apparently he’s also currently #4 in Republican fundraising.

Personally, I regret that I can’t support his candidacy. I was glad to vote for him as a Libertarian candidate in the 1980s. But we clearly could not in fact trust Ron Paul as commander in chief. For starters, we’d be crippled by a leader who has already conceded what Ayn Rand would call “the sanction of the victim.” Hey, your own president says that you brought a lot of this on yourselves. How could we then even pretend to justify defending ourselves? Then we just start withdrawing our worldwide military presence wholesale. Whatever libertarian candyland the congressman may construct in his mind, in the real world we’d be chum in the water.

So let me wrap up then with one of the most unholy statements I’ve ever made. If it came down to a November 2008 match-up of Republican Ron Paul vs Democrat Hillary Clinton, I’d have to vote for Hillary. Rand forgive me, but I’d trust her as commander in chief over the sincere, thoughtful, consistent and blindly idealogical Ron Paul. All the groovy tax cuts in the world won’t do US much good if we’re getting eaten alive by evil bastards because we’re too principled to protect ourselves. Even the dreaded Hildebeast gets that point. She knows she can’t get more taxes out of US if we’re dead.

But Ron Paul has a lot of valid points to contribute to the debate, and represents in parts the views of many people not otherwise represented in the presidential primary debates. In particular, most of the country is now against the Iraq war, and Ron Paul is the only candidate in the Republican primaries representing that view. For that reason alone, he deserves a seat at the table.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Pretty solid take on Paul. I think his contribution as a voice of truth could go beyond just the debates and put him in the VP slot. Anyone who took him on as VP would gain a hell of a lot of respect.

    As for the attempts to get him out of the debates, it’s uterly disgraceful.

    Dave

  • Timothy

    “All the groovy tax cuts in the world won’t do US much good if we’re getting eaten alive by evil bastards because we’re too principled to protect ourselves.”

    – So, I guess we should just throw away all our civil liberties so we can feel safe. I mean, since security is all that matters.

    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” – James Madison

    “Any society willing to trade a little liberty for temperary security deserve neither and will lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin

  • http://myspace.com/americanpirates Aaron

    Bless your heart. The current shallow political US media world is WACKO! The great thing with Ron is even if you don’t agree w/ everything he believes in, everyone who isn’t closed minded, is blown away by his sincerity and truthiness–he tells you exactly what he thinks like it or not. That’s why so many democrats, liberals, real conservatives, libertarians, and young people are flocking to him. For the record he has said, “I DO NOT believe that our government planned and caused 9/11″–but he has pointed out that more money was spent investigating Clinton. In other words, there should be more investigation into what the CIA/FBI did know–as you may know, there were warning signs. I’m a conservative Christian – I was against the Iraq war from the beginning (not a “just war” and we were not attacked by Iraq) so I had given up on the Republican Party…He is really the only choice in the Republican party that stands against the policies that took us into war in Iraq. So—is it really that surprising that republicans and others who are worried about our aggressive foreign policy support the only guy with the guts to take the establishment on? I really do support Ron Paul, but, understandably– for the reasons I stated, some folks feel that supporting Ron Paul sends a message to the GOP that not all of us support the failed policies of BUSH. (by the way, Buchanan, William F. Buckley, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts (from Reagan Admin), Tucker Carlson, James Webb and on and on (all staunch conservatives) have said things similar to Paul on the war being a failure and causing more hatred for the US. (even before it started in 2002) Ron Paul is not the only real conservative left.

  • http://www.ronpaul2008.com Ron Paul Supporter

    Your bait and switch tactic is pathetic!
    Ron Paul is the ONLY person to vote for!

    You talk about “Real World” like you are some expert and the rest of us are stupid. I am getting sick of reading stories like yours, that start out with great things about Dr. Paul to draw people in and then you end with your kill shot!

    You my friend will lose this one, because this time WE THE PEOPLE will prevail and if we don’t God help us because we will be chipped before the next President leaves office!

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Now Timothy, that comment #2 is just some hysterical nonsense, isn’t it? You might want to start with peeling apart some distinctions between being willing to clobber people in foreign countries (which this article will tend to imply that I favor) vs suspensions of our civil liberties.

    In fact, one of the reasons that I’m inclined to support some amount of what might be seen as foreign interventionism is that I’d rather fight them over there, which avoids tearing up our stuff, killing our civilians and needing to monkey with our civil liberties. Thus, I favored the Iraq war and opposed the Patriot Act.

    Aaron, thank you for your kind words. I appreciate your careful listening to what someone is saying, rather than just jerking the knee.

    Even where I would strongly disagree with Mr Paul, his honesty and commitment to serious principles make him worth considering.

  • brody

    Ron Paul would actually make us safer, by using his non-intervenionist foreign policy to stop inciting wars and attacks, and free up resources to use on national defense instead of national offense. He has said from the beginning that al-qaeda and bin laden are our enemies, and that we should hunt them down instead of wasting resources in iraq. Hillary would spread our resources thin, while Paul would focus on our real enemies. If Ron Paul is an idealogue, then how did you support him in 1988? He obviously still has the same views. You need to be deprogrammed from this “islamo-fascist” propoganda that Bush has been feeding you for the past 6 years. Non-interventionism does not equal isolationism does not equal non-defense of the country.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brody, I WANT to believe that Ron Paul would make us safer. But I don’t see anything from him about what he would actually do to throttle the bastards who want to kill us. And how are we going to fight Al Qaeda without going into other countries? Everything I hear from Paul is all of what we can’t do and have to stop doing. It takes a hell of a lot more than that.

    Not that I’d be happy about President Hillary. I intended picking even the Hildebeast over Paul as a statement of how weak I think he is on defense issues.

    In 1988, we hadn’t been confronted yet with the spectre of Al Qaeda. These issues really weren’t relevant. Further experience brings new data and consideration. It takes more than platitudes about non-aggression to deal with Islamists. At this point in 2007, Ron Paul’s idealogical road map doesn’t seem to be matching up with the actual territory in front of us.

  • G

    I believe you are misunderstanding part of Dr. Paul’s take on foreign policy. He most certainly does not seem like a pacifist who hopes our enemies will just leave us alone if we leave them alone. He did, after all, vote for the war in Afghanistan and, on the House floor, critize the president and congress for not pursuing Osama bin Laden more aggressively. His criticism of the war in Iraq should not be misunderstood as a criticism of going after our enemies.

    You believe he will pull all our troops home and do nothing to defend this country, from a series of 30 second answers on television? That is not what Ron Paul has stated in other media, where he has been less limited on time. To me, his message has been clear, and something to the effect of: We should go after the terrorists who attacked us, not create new ones in silly nation-building projects or unpopular foreign interventions.

    Part of a non-interventionist foreign policy is placing the defense of your nation above defense of others. Therefore, it is not even compatible with retreat from all foreign theaters, if such an action would do harm to our national security. Its not so much a policy on the physical locations of our troops as it is placing America first. To me, this is much less of a “candyland” than our current policies, which seem to act with complete disregard for the reasons a growing number in the Islamic world want to blow themselves up to kill us in the first place.

    I haven’t seen another canidate who has argued as fiercely for the destruction of this nation’s real enemies while at the same time trying not to repeat the mistakes which created them. I cannot see another canidate in the field who would be able to protect this nation like Dr. Paul, so he has my vote.

  • James

    Great article, and you had me right up until the “I would rather support Hillary” segment. I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but are you serious? If you thought Bush was a layup, Hillary would be the tip in. You would rather vote for a candidate who in no way believes in the constitution and bill of rights, capitalism, free market, self-determination and the ideals of the republic. A candidate who is clearly compromised, bought and paid for, former director of Wal-Mart, member of the council on foreign relation and the Bilderberg group. Mrs. “we’re going to take from you and give to others, for the common good” socialist lawyer. You would rather vote for her over a perfectly good and uncompromised once in a lifetime polar opposite in both philosophy and integrity the likes of whom we have not seen before since the founding times because he might be a little too idealistic. If that is your position, God help us. Great rest of the article though.

  • Dr Dreadful

    “By the end of the Fox debate, there was already grumbling coming back from SC locals that Paul should be excluded from future debates. Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he would be circulating a petition to have Paul excluded from future debates.”

    But, but, but, I don’t understand. I’m sure I read an article on Blogcritics the other day that said it was liberals who liked to stifle dissenting voices.

    Mr Bambenek, any thoughts?

  • G

    Well James, in defense of his logic, who is commander in chief doesn’t matter if the country gets blown to bits. Not that I believe al Qaeda wishes to destroy the United States, or has the capabilities to. Michael Sheuer presents his arguments with enough logic and support that I find it hard to disagree with him on that topic.

    And I also agree with him that our choice may be between war and endless war. The later I think could unfortunately happen if we do not move towards a more non-interventionalist policy and stop the radicalizing more of the world’s muslims against us.

  • Mike

    I agree with the comments made by G. Too bad there is no response from Barger. Hmm….

  • James

    Wow, Hillary sure is benefiting from the fear-mongering typically attributed to Bush. Who says the US wil be blown to bits if Paul is elected? Paul would focus and direct the full resources of the US to pursuing the REAL terrorists instead of pissing off other countries by building bases in them, both activities creating LESS terrorists. Maybe then so many of them would not want to kill us so bad, but if they did (which I’m sure plenty of them still would), our citizens are armed and dangerous too. I think that we can deal with such a threat without giving up what liberties and monies we have left, but if not, give me liberty or give me death.

  • http://voteronpaul.blogspot.com Bill

    Here’s a good bit by Ron Paul himself about the Iraq war just posted today: Fixing What’s Wrong with Iraq. In it he explains that he was against the war because it was about enforcing UN resolutions and he doubted the WMD claim. However, he lays responsibility at the feet of Congress for it because he says it gave the President the authority to decide whether to attack Iraq rather than outright declaring a war against Iraq. I believe this was so the members of Congress could partially absolve themselves of being responsible should Iraq be attacked. Ron is saying it is Congress’ duty to declare war rather than say, “if you want to, go ahead, if not, fine”. He says that both military objectives outlined in the authorization have both been met and now the authorization is null and void. So he has now introduced a bill to sunset the authorization in six months which gives Congress time to decide what to do, whether to formulate new goals, let the authorization run out, etc.

    “Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later.”

    I have found that reading Congressman Paul’s speeches are very insightful. I believe he would make the best President because he respects the authority laid out in the Constitution. He once said that we should declare war, fight it, and win it. His criticism of Afghanistan I have read in his speeches is that we didn’t send in enough troops to get the job done properly. We didn’t secure the country and prevent the various factions from warring with each other. I think he would be a strong leader, not an idealogue.

    In his Austin fundraiser speech, he says that even though many people want to draw down welfare programs immediately, it’s a dream because it can’t be done. People have been on the system for generations. It is impossible for them to be kicked off immediately. Thus, he acknowledges, practically, not idealogically, that they need to be weaned off the system.

    I was swayed by your article at first as I’ve been seriously debating his foreign policy stance but then when I look at what he says, I have been moved back towards him.

    As to foreign policy, I believe he would respect the ruling of Congress in matters of declaring war. This to me seems to be indicated in his speeches before the House. He recognizes his Constitutional duty as President. We must honor the rule of law and the law above all other law in this country is the Constitution. The Constitution was provided for our protection from enemies here and abroad. Ron Paul respects it, heck, he seems to practically treat it like a religious document. If Congress declares war, I fully believe he would execute a war to win it.

  • Jared

    Thanks for the article. One thing I would like to point out.
    “Ron Paul presents a strong classical conservative isolationist or libertarian point of view…”

    I don’t see Ron Paul as an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist, but certainly not isolationist. Ron Paul believes in open fair trade with other countries, with out traditional isolationist barriers that are designed to protect special interest groups.

  • balance

    “The basic point is that we’ll leave you alone if you’ll leave us alone.”

    that’s not what he’s saying at all.. the point is to not create enemies where there none before – not appease current enemies… the moderates in Iraq are being pushed towards being enemies because we are there – if we were not there, then they would actually be an asset to us – speaking and teaching moderation..

    it has nothing to do backing down from an enemy, it’s just acting wisely to effectively defeat that enemy once and for all.

  • balance

    it’s acting Righteously – to not give reason to terrorists.

  • Mr. Sensible

    Ron Paul speaks his mind, and doesn’t pander to the voting power. This is somehow bad? Isn’t it exactly what Americans have been SCREAMING for, for the last several decades?

    Congressman Paul’s previous district in Texas was 90% farmers, a rural district of farmland. This guy had the stones to vote DOWN government farm subsidies, because he knew they were bad for the mom and pop farmers and catered to the corporate farmers. In our twisted “real world”, this would have ushered him right out of office in a hurry. But did it? NO. He was re-elected with a 61% approval margin, because he told the farmers straight up how the subsidies were not in their best interest. I applaud this intelligent man and his no-fear approach to doing what is RIGHT. Do the RIGHT thing, and people will follow.

    I will come voting day. 1 vote for Ron Paul, sealed and in the bag.

  • James

    Ron Paul in 2008!!!

  • Flycatcher

    We’ve all heard the old saying: you catch more flies with honey.

    Ron Paul understands this in his approach to foreign policy. Do you win the hearts and minds of other countries by occupying them? By using incredibly destructive force? By proving to them that you can smash their a$$es into oblivion with your superior weapons technology if they don’t comply to the “American Way”? Let’s break it down to simple terms. In what I know from training dogs, this method of training– the “I’m the boss and will hurt you if you don’t do my bidding” approach– produces fearful, reactionary, and unpredictable animals. Every single time. Guess what builds trust and comraderie with an animal? Rewards and approval.

    Foreign policy is absolutely no different than training a companion animal. You trade with them, you keep your word, you let them live and breathe and make their own decisions, all the while offering positive incentives to behave well. That’s all animals really want, and it’s all human animals want as well. They want control of their own destiny, a place to call their sovereign home, and assurances that they can trust their neigbors.

    Ron Paul wants to keep America out of other nations’ business, let them breathe and live and make their own decisions. It is the very basis of the Constitution to “live and let live”. If folks would pull their heads out and understand that the reason terrorists come after us is NOT that we are free, but because we are physically and mentally abusive “nation owners” stomping all over territory we have no right to, then our foreign policy would change for the better overnight.

    Vote Ron Paul. Save America, Save the World.

  • Daedric

    Ron Paul used historical facts behind what he says, he does not ignore reality like you so blindly suggest. Also, he asked to re-examine our policies, and it does not mean he supports the U.S. to pull out of every place in the world. He believes in dialogue, and on Congress’ take on issues. Most of your take on Ron is just wrong, and really stupid. I’m not sure if you actually comprehended what he said, so definitely should not write about it.

  • http://www.cannabisculture.com Marc Scott Emery

    Al Berger reveals himself to be a hypocritical fool when he says he would vote for Hilary Clinton over Ron Paul.

    Ayn Rand would hit him upside the head for such collectivist fatalism.

  • James Aragon

    I am trying to find it, but in an interview on a major network Ron Paul indicated that he still supports finding Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. This is not soft or weak. Leveraged power instead of brute global force; that is Ron Paul.

  • klowe

    “Also, is it a matter of principle that we would have no right to militarily prevent Iranian mullahs from getting a nuclear bomb?”

    If we were all that concerned about Iran’s mullahs getting a nuclear bomb, then why did Halliburton sell an Iranian company key components for a nuclear reactor in 2004?

  • Carrie Duffield

    Good article, but Ron Paul was for invading the terror camps in Afghanistan and taking out Osama. He believes that was justified and authorized that use of force. Then, he said Iraq was the mistake. You seem to forget that when you claim that he would never defend the US.

  • Brian

    You article is well written and I can honestly say I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul stands for either. But to claim that Ron Paul is taking an over simplified view of the terrorism is really the pot calling the kettle black here. First of all, saying that a government has done immoral things that have in part led to the a terrorist attack is the same as justifying the terrorist attack. I may be that US have no right to be there to do something to actively try to do something to try to get our troops out is not in itself a crime, but an attack on innocent civilians is never acceptable for any reason.

    Where you really have trouble understanding the implication of foreign policy is that you think we can eliminate a group of terrorists and be done with terrorism. The problem is every terrorist you kill creates 2 more so to speak. Pulling out is the only way to stop them from growing in numbers.

    So how do we fight the ones already in existence? We fight them here with improved security. Ron Paul wants to pull our forces home, not only from Iraq but from everywhere. Even with out military budget sliced into fractions, we still we have more security in the US then ever in the history of this country.

  • Steven T. Cramer

    Personally I believe Ron Paul would be very strong on defense. Once elected he would pull our troops home from around the world and at the same time he would let the world know that we are non interventionists. He would gain the world’s leaders respect by respecting them.

    Most constitutionalist here in the USA are not only non-interventionists but also gun owners. If you think they are pacifists, try breaking into their homes? (just making a point not a real suggestion) “Never mistake meekness with weakness”, after pulling out our troops and getting out of the worlds business, If anyone attacked USA soil, I would be willing to bet that Ron Paul would be stronger in defense of us than any other candidate running for President. After we have stopped being involved in others politics and internal issues and stopped policing the world, the entire American people and most of the world would also support us. This man has fought for his principles for many years and has stood strong amongst a group of the most corrupt. Once he is President and re-establishing liberty in America, he will defend America. Would he act irrationally? No, but he would be stronger than any other President. Principled people are very easy to understand and deal with, but they will defend their principles. Read the blogs of the Ron Paul supports. Do these people sound like they are week to you? Ethical yes, but not week, these people believe in private property, liberty and independence more than most. They would fight to the death defending their nation of liberty and freedom. After all the founding fathers who wrote the document, Dr. Paul is supporting, fought in a war for the principles they believed in.

    Hillary on the other hand, who’s only goal, it seems to me is to be President. I don’t think she even knows why other than she just has worked for so long to get there. She may very well decide that she wants to be the leader of a North American Union. So in time of attack instead of defending us she may very well sell us out. Socialism really thinks government is the solution so why not solve more people’s problems? She after all thinks her ideas should be implemented on the American people so why not help Canada as well? . I guarantee Ron Paul won’t do that. He believes in supporting the smallest minority, the individual. His principled ideology is that the individual makes the best choices for them self not some collectivist elite or paternal government acting on our behalf.

  • dogmatic

    I don’t buy that admitting we were wrong to invade Iraq and changing our foreign policy will encourage our current enemies. That is a HUGE assumption and if you really think about it does not make a bit of sense. If you had an antagonist that admitted they were treating you badly, then made efforts to rectify the ill treatment, would you step up your attack on them? I feel that most people would not. They radicals of the world would actually lose steam from a non-interventionalist policy.

  • Rob Price

    “chum in the water,” ??? You fail to support this conclusory assertion with either evidence or argument. To the contrary, we would be far stronger. We could actually protect ourselves, here, rather than fail to protect ourselves, there.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Dogmatic sez If you had an antagonist that admitted they were treating you badly, then made efforts to rectify the ill treatment, would you step up your attack on them? I feel that most people would not. That seems like a very reasonable point, but I’ll have to take issue with it.

    When I suggested re-examining premises, that kind of thinking was the top thing I had in mind. A lot of libertarian or classical liberal thinking is premised on some basic ideas about human nature. Basically, everyone seeks self-interest. They want to not get killed, and to have the most they can get for themselves and their people. If you’ve been harsh with someone and then start making nice, then they’ll be better disposed toward you. That’s how I’d do it.

    But that road map doesn’t seem to apply to a lot of the modern Muslim world. By their continued actions for example, the Palestinians clearly care more about killing Jews than they do about having anything for themselves or a future for their children. People who gladly send their children off as suicide bombers are not working from the same template as US.

    In fact, the US has not been any egregious abuser of poor Muslims. We just haven’t. You could fault US some, or argue that we shouldn’t be anywhere in their part of the world at all, but that’s not the real beef. Other countries have done far worse- but they don’t rail against the Russians, and we’ve done a lot to try to help them. The hatred and violence towards US and others doesn’t seem to be much related to our supposed sins.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Rob Price sez We could actually protect ourselves, here, rather than fail to protect ourselves, there.

    That sounds nice, but it’s really just a dumb platitude that has no connection to reality. We seem to be in fact successfully protecting ourselves over there. Yes, we have soldiers getting killed – but those are trained volunteer soldiers in a foreign theater, rather than Americans in our own cities.

    Arguably, in some part Bush has been a victim of his own success. Iraq is a complicated mess, inevitably, and Bush hasn’t done a very good job with it in some aspects. But we haven’t had another major terror attack at home, perhaps in substantial part because we’ve been on offense. It surely ain’t because the Islamists have quit trying.

  • brody

    Ron Paul is the strongest candidate on national defense, would keep us the safest, and would not repeat mistakes from the past. And that’s just on the defense issue, I mean how many other candidates are seriously talking about eliminating the IRS immediately?

  • michael

    Mr. Barger, one of the most disgusting, low-grade, twisted bait and switch articles I have yet to read about Mr. Paul. He has clearly stated on many interviews that he asked the congress to actually declare war. He stated he would have continued the search for Bin Laden. I think you do poor job of insightful writing. I wonder why you took so many words to blather it. Do you get paid by the word?

  • kevin

    you obviously don’t care about ther hundreds of innocent people in the middle east who are tortured, imprisoned for months, then ditched in a completely different country and left to die–all results of BUSH’s foreign policy–i believe if the iraqi people stopped dying (from american spawn violance)they wouldn’t be as mad at us— i think iran wouldn’t be so testy if we didn’t have carriers right on their coastline—you’ve drunk too much national security kool-aid

  • Joel

    I am glad this debate is on. Had Ron Paul been running during the Cold War, I probably wouldn’t have voted for him due to his noninterventionist policy – but now it is absolutely right.

    One way or another, you will probably get your second choice, Hillary, for president. If you think that the 137,000 vote margin in Ohio in ’04 and the 537 vote margin in Florida in 2000 is still there – Get real!

    What are the reasons for the US troops being deployed around the world? Any terrorist camp around the world can be hit and assaulted from US bases alone. If the bases are there to confront China, that is pure insanity. If we were ever stupid enough to go into a conventional war against China, you had better start learning Chinese. The only deterrent against a future aggressive China is our nuclear weapons. At this point in history, in a conventional war, we could walk over Russia. But no way could this happen because they are the second largest owner of nuclear warheads. If we are not in the Middle East, the radical governments will have no target to rally their people and the people will turn against their own governments. The fanatic in Iran lost out in their last election because they are tired of not having freedom.

    If you think the Iraq war is serving our national defense – just how? Do you think it has made us highly respected in the Middle East and made them all want to be like us? Do you think it has put the fear of God in them to see the power of the US military? Maybe at first they feared the US military but now they are gaining confidence and shooting down that fearful Apache Helicopter.
    If you think that this is fighting the terrorists on their own ground rather than ours, I would say this is more like if we dropped the 101th airborne division into Berlin during WWII and tried to hold the city.

    Billions have been spent on homeland defense. Was it all the bloated “protect us agencies” that found out about the Ft Dix plot? No, it was the alertness of a private US citizen. Was it the bloated “protect us agencies” that stopped the shoe bomber? No, it was the crew and passengers. Only us as individuals have a chance to stop terrorism.

    Am I one of those “Plot upon plot upon plot” freaks? Am I one of those liberals that believe no matter what the horror in the world, “it is America’s fault”? Or maybe I am a drug using hemp voter? Or better yet, am I one of those “black helicopters are coming to get me” nuts? Probably not because I served in the National Guard 20 years and crewed helicopters for 14 years and kind of knew that black paint is called CARC paint (a radar absorbing coating).

    My first active duty callup was during Desert Storm to back fill with my company in Texas and Honduras. Three of us would never come back from that deployment as a nighttime medevac mission went terribly wrong and two of our pilots and a flight medic would be burned beyond recognition on a Honduran hillside. My next deployment was in a place called Bosnia, and while we all came back, most of us will never forget the long awaited day of departure when an air war started in a place called Kosovo and the plane to take us home couldn’t fly into the closed airspace. So since the politicians didn’t want us to be too heavily armed in this police action, we had to give all our ammo to our replacements and make a bus trip through the worst area of the country, absolutely defenseless.

    I was 14 years old, typing up my own Reagan posters in 1976, and raged as Nelson Rockefeller yanked a Reagan poster out of the hands of a Reagan delegate. I raged when establishment Republicans ridiculed the Reagan delegates for blowing their horns for Reagan for forty straight minutes at the ’76 convention. I ranted every time I heard statements that the phony baloney actor cowboy from California would never win a general election. When the impossible happened and he was elected, I watched a good portion of Reagan’s agenda go down to defeat against a Democratic Congress. I dreamed if only we could get the presidency and the congress, we could really lower the deficit, cut back on the government’s size and intrusiveness, and make sure that US troops were never sent to a war that wasn’t in direct defense of our nation, with their hands tied and given a mission they could never win. In the year 2000, by 537 votes, my dream came true. And how well I have been rewarded;

    Mark Foley preaching of neocon morality while attempting to have a homosexual affair with a page and being covered up by those in power.

    Finding out Newt Gingrich was having an affair at the same time as Clinton.

    Listening to Rush Limbaugh from the day he started his talk radio on KFBK ridiculing people of the libertarian beliefs on drugs and then finding out he was smuggling and using illegal drugs himself.

    Finding out that the great moralistic inspiring articles from the Hillsdale college were written by a man who had been sleeping with his son’s wife for 10 years.

    Watching Bush and the Republican congress give us a huge deficit with every kind of pork barreling you can imagine and growing the power of the federal government in every area.

    Disregard for the Bill of Rights.

    Young men and women fighting and dying in a war with no clear objective, being sent on multiple deployments, and then being hit with a stop loss when their enlistments were up and sent again.

    All the while I am choking out excuses against critics.

    I voted for Bush in ’04 because how could I vote for a guy that openly admitted to committing atrocities in Vietnam while he was an officer and should have had the leadership and moral courage to stop it? I supported the war because I was told of the WMD by both Clinton and Bush. God help our civil liberties if Saddam drops one of those on a US city, I thought. I served my tour after it was decided the WMDs would never be found and stood by my helicopter and saluted with tears in my eyes as the body bags (some weighting less than 30 pounds) were loaded on my helicopter. Coming home from one of these missions, I read the string of increasingly frantic emails from my wife about the SuperStallion helicopter that had gone down in the western desert. She was reading the partial list of fatalities and recognized the names of our son’s Marine buddies he had talked about in emails from Falujah. But God spared our son as him and a buddy were moved to Chock 2 at the last minute, sparing him the fate of 33 of his company comrades.

    As far as my opinion of legalizing drugs, I have always been anti- drug despite growing up in the 70s and have no use for drug dealers. I don’t use drugs, including alcohol which I consider the same. It was with this attitude that I volunteered for a mission to take out this horrible high producing meth lab hidden deep in the woods. After briefing for this full-on ground and air assault mission, we flew nap of the earth with release points and check points like any I flew in Iraq. As our flight of helicopters made precision landings around this lonely little house in the middle of nowhere to unload 16 heavily armed law enforcement officers, I could see a convoy of law enforcement vehicles approaching down the single dusty road. And down a hillside behind the house, a squad of officers rushed. I recall a horrible sinking feeling in my stomach as I realized I was part of this firepower directed at US citizens – and it only grew worse as the officers searched in vain for the meth lab that was never there. And it was with near grief that I watched the 3 year old asking her young mother, handcuffed on the ground, why she couldn’t get up. For a wild turkey shot out of season and a few other small charges. we hauled them to the county jail. Needless to say that was the last time I ever volunteered for one of those missions.

    So, when I hear about the kooky, liberal, left, fringe, anti-American Ron Paul supporters, I guess I must have miscategorized myself

  • http://ronpaul-rescue-us.org Philly Dave

    Ron Paul too principled to protect our selves? Are you nuts?

    Under Clinton 42 BinLaden should have AND COULD HAVE been captured or Killed.

    Under Clinton 42 US servicemen were put in unfriendly ports with no ammunition in their sidearms and killed by terrorists in a dinghy.

    Under Clinton 42 the official policy of Regime change in Iraq was formalized.

    Under Clinton 42 hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children were starved to death as a result of US lead sanctions.

    And you would choose a Clinton 44 because you think she would keep you safe from “evil bastards”? That is some derranged shit.

  • Adam Skinner

    I think you’re pretty much off base, man. Just because we’re pulling our troops from patrolling the borders and keeping a standing military presence in other portions of the world doesn’t mean that we’re “chum in the water”.

    What, is the boogie man going to come and get us *after* we’ve consolidated our power? If anything, we’re more at risk now because we’re spread too thin. Sun Tzu would roast us on a spit for spreading ourselves too thin; that makes us weak.

    Ron Paul is simply advocating the non-interventionist doctrine our country was *founded* on. It’s not unrealistic. The rest of the world seems to be doing okay without policing the globe. Why is it that America must needs be saddled with such a burden?

    You don’t honestly think that if we were attacked again, this “idealistic” non-interventionist would roll over? Is that what our forefathers did during the revolutionary war? If anything, we’d go in, kick ass, pull out, and say (as we should have said to the rest of the Muslim world after devastating Iraq): “Anyone else want what he got? Mess with me again. That was *your* warning.”

  • James Awood

    Great job on the news story!

    I would also like to add, that it doesn’t matter if a Republican or Democrat wins; they are both paid for by the same people, with the exception of Ron Paul. You are voting your freedoms away if you don’t vote for someone who has a proven track record defending our constitution like Ron Paul. Why else would the mainstream media be afraid of Ron Paul winning. Why? Because most of the people who own the media, like Rupert Murdock, have friends in the defense agencies who want to continue to make money from this war!

  • http://www.rant.st mike

    Paul would not necessarily be weak on defense. He has noted the Commander in Chiefs authority to act alone in the case of pressing national defense needs and would vigorously defend the nation’s interests militarily when congress declares war. One of Paul’s main points is that Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have failed in part because they were undeclared wars and never fully had the nation committed to the cause. I think you mistake his desire to only act when in our national interest as pacifist while I (and others) view it as prudent.

  • Daniel

    Ron Paul supports defending ourselves. As I understand it, he supports the President’s decision to go after Bin Laden. He just doesn’t support attacking other countries that do not threaten us. Also, he thinks that before we wage war on another country, the President should ask Congress to declare war.

  • http://hammer2006.blogspot.com Alex Hammer
  • Jonathan

    I’m impressed with the blatant ignorance of the pundits who manage to attack Paul for his comments while conveniantly ignoring that his comments were simply based on the factual content of the 9/11 report and other intelligence sources, not to mention in the words of terrorists themselves.

  • Vic

    On the whole very well balanced, but the weakest point in your article is that you don’t justify your claim that “we’d be chum in the water” if we “start withdrawing our worldwide military presence wholesale”.

    Our defenses (air and naval) are superior to anything the opposition can hurl. External bases had a function during the cold war, but they’ve outlived their purpose as far as defense is concerned.

  • Gary Johnson

    The primary aim of all war propaganda is to paint the enemy as “malicious and irrational”. He must be seen as having no regard for human life – his own or anyone else’s. After all, if the enemy has no regard for his own life, we should have no compunction about killing him, even if it means bombing cities and destroying the lives of innocents. During WWII, Americans were taught this about the Japanese. Who today thinks the average Japanese doesn’t care for his life or the lives of his family?
    Television doesn’t allow Ron Paul to go into detail regarding our government’s record, spanning sixty years, of overthrowing democratic governments, aiding and abetting military coups, fixing elections and installing and propping up dictatorships and corrupt monarchies across the Middle East, Central and South America and elsewhere – all in the name of “realism”.
    To paraphrase Chesterton: it isn’t that the nonintervention of Ron Paul has been tried and found wanting, but that it hasn’t been tried. The “Realism” of the past 60 years has given us $9 trillion in debt, a collapsing dollar, and the enmity of the world. It’s time we gave Dr. Paul’s idealism a try.

  • I_Like_Freedom

    Why don’t we just do a mass genocide as the neo-cons would have it. This seems to solve the problem. If you think it is too ideaological to think before you act then we are doomed. Paul only said that we need to relook foreign policy instead of acting blindly and continuing to follow bad policy. If we really wanted to get Osama we would be in Pakistan. However the neo-cons are not interested in fighting terrorism.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com Richard Brodie

    Suppose we stopped dissipating our treasure as we are now doing on a futile effort to impose our alien political and cultural norms onto nations that don’t want to be transformed. And suppose our productive energies could be unleashed by removing all the heavy regulatory and bureaucratic anchors that we have hung around our own necks. Then we could well afford to make our borders and ports totally impervious to the infiltration of terrorists and their weapons. And we could build and deploy a land, sea, and space based ABM system that could effectively frustrate any conceivable missle attack.

    Take a look at the Ron Paul video I recently posted on YouTube based on the anagram RON PAUL = OUR PLAN.

    And here are some longer anagrams for your enjoyment, one for each of the six major presidential contenders:

    Ron Paul is running for president of the United States of America. =
    Suasion of that principled man’s effort earning our due interest.

    Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States of America. =
    Don’t let philanderer’s menacing hussy, an irritant, in our loftiest office.

    Barack Hussein Obama is running for President of the United States of America. =
    Unseasoned man surfaced up in front? I bet that scenario is a big mistake – for HER!

    Willard Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States of America. =
    See unfit Mormon flip, turn, feint, twist story; Gad! One credential is dream hair.

    John Sidney McCain is running for president of the United States of America. =
    Reject on fence issues; Handcuff the noisy traitor and end immigration spin.

    Rudy Giuliani is running for president of the United States of America. =
    Off “hero” mayor’s inanities; rid utter gas, inducing ineptitude’s funeral.

  • What’s the frequency, Kenneth?

    Ron Paul is not applying the “non-aggression principle” when he’s saying we shouldn’t be in over 100 foreign nations, and especially Iraq–He’s applying the US Constitution. The US Military was conceived and originally chartered for national defense–not nation building.

  • Lumpy

    Oh come on. Even if Paul is as nutty as the worst people say about him he’d still be better than Hillary. Even a quasi-nazi like Tancredo would be preferable to that evil socialist witch.

  • MBD

    If Ron Paul and his policies had been in place before 9/11, it is likely there would have been no 9/11.

    If Ron Paul is not elected the next president it likely we will have another 9/11.

    The last thing we need is another demagogue.

  • mark gilbo

    Nice take numnuts… You’d take Hilary over Ron?? Are you nuts. He’s the only man willing to defend our RIGHTS in this country which Hillary and our current nut Bush, will not. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are more important than any war with a third world country.

    By the way, he’s right when he says the CIA puts their hands in everyone else’s biz in the world. They need to be slapped and reduced to info gatherers. They have caused more hatred against the US than any other entity in our gov’t while all in the name of the people.

    Wake up!

  • http://www.myspace.com/americanpirates Aaron

    even if you don’t agree w/ ron on everything – surely we can agree that he is brave and honorable to stand up against the neo-conservatives who are pro-war at any cost. If you are concerned about our aggressive foreign policy of “empire building”, “policing the world”, “pre-emptive strike” and going to war without declaring war (WWII was the last time we declared war as the constitution says we should) think about how many people needlessly die when we don’t declare war – yet we go over in North Korea, and Vietnam. If you stand against this dangerous direction you should support Ron Paul – even if you don’t vote for him (but please do–and you may need to register as a republican to do so – find out for your state) but even if you don’t, we should support the truth on the left and the right – so that we all move closer to rational foreign policy. yeah, i’m a total nerd, i know. good night.

  • http://freshcutsalads.com Jack Bauer

    Mr. Barger,

    I’m not accusing you of anything, but I wanted to point out that it seems like you only addressed the stupidest of comments defending Ron Paul’s PRO SECURITY record.

    In #30 and #31, you addressed two very lightweight arguments.

    What’s your reaction to arguments such as the arguments presented by “G” in #8.

    I am very familiar with this topic, as I have been discussing Ron Paul with my father and brothers over email for literally YEARS.

    I do understand how the 30-second soundbites from the debate could leave you wondering “well would he fight terrorists or what?!”

    But if you read any of his speeches about defense and foreign policy, he is not a fool.

    Ron Paul’s position can be summarized like this:

    1. If a nation poses a threat to us, congress should declare war, we should fight and win.

    2. No attack on innocent life should go unpunished, and if terrorists attack us, they should be hunted down and killed.

    3. However, our foreign policy over the last 50 years has made us less safe by giving radical Muslim terrorist groups ammo for their recruiting videos etc. Our interventionist policies in the Middle East have caused a huge anti-American sentiment that the terrorists have been able to leverage. If we pulled out of the region, the recruiting numbers would go down drastically.

    4. If we spent less money on foreign adventurism we could have have a much better defense here at home.

    5. Our huge defense bureaucracy failed us on 9/11 and Homeland Security made that bureaucracy even larger and less accountable.

    Etc. Ron Paul has said so many times that we should fight terrorists, and has frequently criticized congress and the Bush Admin for not taking terrorism as seriously as they pretend to.

    This is just my impression from literally years of reading Dr. Paul’s speeches on the subject; as opposed to just his 30-second talking points at the debate.

    I think if you keep watching him (and you wisely mentioned that his presence is a good thing, so hopefully he will stay in the debates) you will come to realize that he would be a very tough executive.

    Jack Bauer…

  • Gloria

    Your article was OK until the end, when you said Hillary would be better! Did you write that as a joke?

    Ron Paul is an intelligent man who understands the issues. How would he not be a good president? He is the most engaging political speaker I’ve ever seen, and yes, I’ve seen Bill Clinton. The thing about BC was he was a talented speaker, no matter what he was saying. The great thing about Ron Paul is that he amazes for his ideas and how he really thinks about the issues and why they’re being caused. He would never treat someone the way Rudolph the Red-Nosed Giuliani did in that debate, and I appreciate that in a president. We need a president who actually thinks about other people and who is willing to do what is best for America.

    Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress for Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would have allowed us to declare war on Osama, go after him with full force, find him and capture him. It would also have put a bounty on his head so that Afghanistanis would have a reason to turn him in. He supported the invasion of Afghanistan and is strong on defending America AND securing our borders, which we do not do. Osama’s minions could fly to Mexico and walk over the border if they wanted. The National Guard is taken away from the Mexican border and sent to Iraq.

    In other words, if Ron Paul had been in charge this whole time, we’d be in much better shape. I still hope you’re kidding about not supporting him.

  • Julius

    Nice try at bait and switch, but you will find that you cannot keep a good man down. I had been a faihful viewer if Fox news, but no more . Their treatment of Ron Paul ,a true American was disgraceful. Your article was not much better.

  • Jason

    Your comment is good, but I disagree with you on a few points.

    First, you cite Ron Paul’s ideology as a weakness, but his ideology is liberty, the rule of law, and adherence to the Constitution. Our country was founded on these ideas, and if you are suggesting that an unwavering defense of these ideas is flawed, then, as Rudy Giuliani would say, I would ask that you withdraw that comment and tell us that you didn’t really mean that.

    Second, you claim that Ron Paul would somehow make our country less safe, but Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense. Your argument against his foregin policy implies that our current foreign policy is capable of preventing the problems you foresee in its absence; however, we currently have nuclear proliferation, terrorism, genocide, and war. We also have examples of our “strategy” becoming our threat such as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

  • http://www.fight4truth.com Jeremiah

    The New World Order is coming to enslave America. Ron Paul is the only candidate who cares to stop it! Everyone else is bought and paid for.

  • http://anythingexceptthetruth.blogspot.com/ Iconoclast421

    Al, you are spouting so much neocon rhetoric it baffles me that you’d have anything nice at all to say about Ron Paul. You’re stuck in that mindset of “we gotta go over there and get them ‘fore they get us!” No, we gotta obey the constitution, even if that means “fighting them here”. It’s our foreign policy, it’s our problem. We should own up to it, and keep our guns oiled just in case. It’s not the fault of average Iraqis. It is cowardly to use them as human shields so you can sleep better at night.

    And you can’t make generalizations about “the muslim world”. Doing that is about as foolish as accepting Malkin as a credible news source.

    And btw most palestinians aren’t trying to kill jews, despite how much they’ve been [cesnsored] on.

    And about the “we haven’t had another major attack here” bla bla bla. Who in their right mind (or even in their wrong mind) would attack us? If 19 more SAUDIS attacked us, we’d probably bomb half of Kazakhstan next. (If not Iran…) And then we’d give the Saudi royal family more money!

  • http://christian-quest.com Davy C Rockett

    Im a Christian Conservative and will be support Ron Paul in 2008 primaries and the general.

    America has to decide what the role of the federal government is going to be. The politicians will not tackle this problem if we don’t make them as a people follow Constitutional Rule of Law.
    With a 60 trillion debt with future entiltement obligations, we have no choice but to reduce the size of government and we need to do it fast if we are to survive as a nation.

    God help us all if we don’t get serious about our government and it’s blank check spending.

    How anyone can spend trillions a year when their trillions in debt and not expect some blowback to come down the pike is not only stupid but insane.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    This article demonstrates why I’m concerned about a Ron Paul candidacy. The fact that he attracts so many complete loonies (see Jason, Jeremiah, Davy and Richard above) makes me very worried.

    What is it about Paul which makes him so appealing to conspiracy nuts, the christian/terrorist fringe and racists? Either they’re very confused or there’s something creepy and dangerous about Paul.

    If it’s a one-way thing then it’s just troubling. If he’s giving them reason to think he’s on their side then it’s much worse than that.

    Dave

  • Angela G.

    If we were attacked right now on our soil, we would not have our Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy to protect us? Bring our troops home, secure all our borders and get the government out of our private lives. I support the ideas of Ron Paul.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    I’m amazed at the seeming inability of so many of the commenters on this thread (most supporting Mr. Paul) to string a few words together into coherent sentences, much less coherent ideas.

  • MBD

    I’m amazed that there are some so ignorant that they don’t understand the reason that Ron Paul is popular is because he believes in the Constitution.

    To the neocons that is heresy and it worries them.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    “I support the ideas of Ron Paul.”

    Well, Angela, I guess that’s puts you in Davy Nalle’s “loonie” category. Welcome to the Revolution!

    The only downside I can see to Ron Paul saving our Constitution, our country, and our freedoms, is that name-calling neo-cons like Nalle will not be getting the future they would lead us to, but will instead be undeserving collateral beneficiaries.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Richard, I didn’t say that Ron Paul ONLY attracts loonies, just that it was troubling that he was attracting so many.

    As a libertarian, his beliefs should stand in direct opposition to yours and those of many of the other fanatics who are supporting him.

    The ideas Angie expresses are perfectly reasonable and Paul does share them, but what is it about his support of the Constitution and its defense of civil rights and equality for all which fits in with your philosophy of hate and exclusion, Richard?

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Jason in comment 54 sez First, you cite Ron Paul’s ideology as a weakness, but his ideology is liberty, the rule of law, and adherence to the Constitution. Our country was founded on these ideas, and if you are suggesting that an unwavering defense of these ideas is flawed, then, as Rudy Giuliani would say, I would ask that you withdraw that comment and tell us that you didn’t really mean that.

    I tend to agree with the ideologies that Ron Paul represents, but I’m saying that ANY ideology followed blindly can lead you into trouble. Your philosophy has to reconcile with facts on the ground or give way. The map is not the territory, and Ron Paul’s version of libertarian dogma is not matching up to dealing with pressing realities on the ground, ie people trying to KILL US.

    I second Brother Nalle’s comment 58. The tone of some of these Paul supporters certainly does not make me more inclined to vote for him. “Everybody else is bought and paid for.” Really? Nor am I overly impressed with the constant invocation of the word “neocon” as a boogieman word to attack any critic of Paul’s candyland foreign policy ideas.

    Some of you more reasonable folk like Jason might want to ask yourselves how comfortable you are being associated with some of the hateful and strident nut cases who’ve been whipping their wee-wees out in this comment thread. Why DOES Ron Paul draw so many crazed hatas?

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    “people trying to KILL US”

    They sure aren’t tryin’ very damn hard!

    There are millions of Saudi Arabian Wahabiist OBL types, many of whom are very well financed. If they had wanted to engage in post 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil they could easily have done so, with all our borders wide open to them.

    If you think those who perpetrated 9/11 were the last suicidal Muslims on earth who could be recruited, then you’re a fool. And you are even a bigger fool if you think that they haven’t attacked for over 5 years now because Bush has got them “pinned down” in the Middle East.

    Think about how much the twin towers cost, about 50 billion – and then realize that we have been bled to to tune of half a trillion in Iraq – and that’s justs so far!

    They know how to destroy us, and along with it our liberties (Patriot Act, Real ID, Military Commisions Act, Internet Neutrality, Hate Crimes/Speech, etc., etc.) They don’t have to “follow us home” (thank you Mssrs. McCain and Giuliani) we are doing a perfectly fine job of destroying ourselves for them.

  • MJ

    Wow, I am saddened to see those who don’t support Ron Paul on this blog have resorted to name calling him and his supporters. So because many of those that support Ron Paul don’t share your own beliefs you feel it necessary to call them loonies or christian/terrorist fringe or racists. It seems more clearly that you are the ones suffering from bigotry and probably insanity. This country was founded on individual liberties, Ron Paul is the clear choice for those of us who cherish and respect OUR Constitution.
    Those who have taken shots at Ron Paul’s foreign policy and ability to protect this country are proving themselves to be ignorant. Ron Paul was one of the first congressman to support a military campaign against Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He understood they are a true enemy as they did proudly take credit for 9-11 and other terrorist attacks against our interests. It appears that Ron Paul was doing his job properly when he voted against the Iraq War. He read the intelligence information available and actually took the position which was best for his country. Paul believes in having a strong military presence at home and really protecting our borders, so the argument of him being weak on protection is a mischaracterization at the minimum.
    I don’t think I am a “loonie” and I don’t type on these blogs more than a handful of posts per week. I only vote for Ron Paul once per poll. Ron Paul will be receiving a donation from me and of course my vote.

  • Jason

    Dave Nalle in comment 59 asserts that I am a loon.

    Dave, I made two reasonable points in my comment, and you respond with unwarranted personal attacks. Have you resorted to name-calling because you have no substantive arguments against Ron Paul? If so, you are clearly biased.

    You also ask if loonies support Ron Paul because they are confused or because of Ron Paul’s encouragement.

    First, loonies by definition are confused. I am not saying that Ron Paul supporters are loonies. I am simply pointing out your poor logic.

    Second, I believe the label you use refers to either the supporters with conspiracy theories or the passion of Ron Paul’s supporters. You do not define your term; therefore, I am creating this assumption in order to promote a discussion with you regarding your concerns without resorting to simple name-calling.

    Regarding the supporters with conspiracy theories, Ron Paul attracts these people because he defends civil liberties and the right to privacy. Ron Paul also has a healthy distrust of big government. Some of these supporters are paranoid, but their existence does not create an indictment of the principles of encouraging smaller government and promoting civil liberties and privacy.

    As far as the passionate supporters, like myself, we are not loons. We support Ron Paul because he represents a change from the norm in Washington, D.C. Ron Paul answers honestly even when it is difficult. He does not pander. He does not deviate from his ideology, as Al Barger stated in his comment, and although Mr. Barger views Ron Paul’s commitment to ideology as a weakness, I, and other passionate supporters of Ron Paul, view his commitment to the Constitution as refreshing in a culture of double-speak, pandering to special interest groups and playing to the ignorance of the general public.

  • Joel

    Wow, it is sure a wierd feeling to be getting called a racist from those in my own party. How that frusterated me when I heard Rush, Bush, and and others that I thought was conservative called racist by the left. I would scream in frustration, “I am not a racist just because I don’t believe in the welfare state.”

    I have news for you, there are racists in every party I have cringed in horror listening to some conservatives expouse pure racism and been shocked to find out why that Liberal Democrat supported abortion was to cut down the growth of the black population.

    “The map is not the territory, and Ron Paul’s version of libertarian dogma is not matching up to dealing with pressing realities on the ground, ie people trying to KILL US.”

    They ARE killing us, the best and brightest of us, four and five a day and getting more. Again how is that helping our security? Every great general knew when he had lost a battle and had the sense to withdraw and reorganize and quit killing his army on a bad tactical error. A military leader quickly loses the support of his men if they feel they are dying in a stupid ill conceived tactical battle and even more so if that leader gives orders from the safety of the rear. Also when that leader didn’t spend his time in the trenches in his youth.

  • Loren

    It’s about color for me. We really don’t care who Ron Paul is. Nobody cares who Hillary or McCain is, if we did, we would immediately press charges against them both for high treason. But in this country the voter does not care “who” the candidates are.

    But one thing is for sure, like him or not Ron Paul is the first candidate I have seen–ever–who speaks absolutely strait. That in itself is enough for me to take a closer look at this candidate. So far what I have seen and heard from him is quite positive.

    One of the things I’ve observed in his speeches is that he’s the first candidate who represents all three basic color groups-red, white AND blue.

  • Richard

    I loved this article – especially the half that contradicted the other half.

    The highlight/lowlight (it’s ALL about the contradiction) in my mind was using a third-rate Kevin Smith movie to “prove” some ideological/anti-ideological point.

    I have to concede his point though – we don’t need a politician who believes what he says and acts accordingly. Let’s see if we can find a candidate who would:

    – claim to desire a “humble” foreign policy and then invade countries who had not attacked us

    – claim to allow states to decide medical marijuana issues and then conduct DEA raids rounding up grannies in wheelchairs

    – claim to be a uniter not a divider and lead to an electorate more polarized than any in a generation

    – claim to oppose growth of federal government while overseeing record spending and deficits

    Damn, we could REALLY use a candidate like that! Why, he might be the best/worst president in history!

    This article was terrifically horrible!

    Thanks, “chum”!

  • http://www.ronpaul2008.com Ron Paul Supporter

    I am surprised you posted my comments about bait and switch, so I will give you credit for that and for responding to people, that is a first also!

    But my friend, take a good hard look at your article, I actually think your afraid of the beautiful possibilities of an America that goes out into the world with GOOD INTENTIONS, I promise you, it is possible and I hope you come around, you seem like you want to believe, but you just can’t do it yet………….you will.

    thanks for your courage in at least responding and letting us “Ron Paul Spammers” have our say”)

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Ron Paul Supporter- I’m more than happy to have your comments and criticism, and encourage more of them. Blogcritics is a pretty open forum. Generally, only the most purely egregiously libelous or personally abusive comments are ever edited – and not usually even then.

    Then again, those open comments here from some of the Paul supporters are distinctly making me less inclined to support Paul. The cheap sarcasm and mindless blathering about the New World Order and such are less than impressive.

    Again, I WANT to support Ron Paul. I’ve repeatedly been a Libertarian Party candidate, most recently for US Senate in 2004. If it wasn’t for that part about not being even vaguely credible in the area of national defense, I’d be out pimping for Paul much as I was in 1988. Even with his shortcomings though, he’s got a lot of highly valuable points to contribute to the debate.

  • Nate Borcherding


    Some of you more reasonable folk like Jason might want to ask yourselves how comfortable you are being associated with some of the hateful and strident nut cases who’ve been whipping their wee-wees out in this comment thread. Why DOES Ron Paul draw so many crazed hatas?”

    Well, that’s called guilt by association, and it is a logical fallacy. Further, I’d be perfectly happy to put the comments your article has drawn against any random forum of Clinton/Obama/Giuliani supporters (but do they really exist?) That someone like Dave, who seems to spew ad hominems and accusations of racism at anyone he disagrees with, is against Paul only makes me that much more favorable towards him. If anything, the fact that he’s the only one going to bat for you says something about your article.

    “But of course, that’s turning a blind eye to the malicious and irrational nature of the enemies that we face. It’s careful editing of facts to get the result you want. Yes, sometimes our enemies claim they are attacking us because we’re in Iraq. But then they say a lot of things, don’t they? Watch closely, and you can see our enemies parroting back our own left wingers, bitching about lax US campaign finance laws and absolutely quoting Noam Chomsky.”

    You really do seem to be making the argument that they hate us because they’re totally crazy and loathe our freedoms. Well, supposing for a second that this is why 9/11 happened, it is unfortunately the case that our government has still given them more than enough provocation to attack us, even apart from any irrational, religious hatred they may have for us.

    What matters isn’t that Osama hates us because we were in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and support Isreal. If it’s only a group of zealots that want to kill us, they can be dealt with using special forces or mercenaries. What matters is that 1 billion Muslims hate us for exactly those reasons. Osama knows this and that’s why he gave them as his reasons for attacking. So long as we continue to be in their lands, interfering in their business, Al Qaeda will never be short of supporters. As such, even if they do actually hate our freedom, by reigning in our government we have at least eliminated several direct, galling reasons for them to resent us. Of course, it also bears asking why they aren’t attacking the freest place on earth, Switzerland, if they loathe freedom so much? Why haven’t any South American countries been targeted? As far as religion goes, they should be much greater infidels, to a Muslim, than we are.

    As for the argument that what Bush is doing or what Clinton would do is somehow making us safer at home, I simply can’t buy that. In the almost 6 years since 9/11, hundreds of thousand of immigrants have crossed the border, many unknown and illegally. Bush’s open the borders, let loose the military strategy is the worst of both worlds. We destroy their homes, wreck their country, kill their relatives, and then invite them to live over here. This is making us safer how?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Richard [re: comment 71]- Those “contradictions” you mock would better be described as mixed feelings. The world is very complicated, and individual people and belief systems have different aspects, some of which are better and worse, some of which are subjective value judgments and some of which are more objective. Idiots are certain that they have The Answer which fully and truly explains everything in the world. Educated and thoughtful people tend to have mixed feelings about a lot of things.

    As to your reasoned debate tactics, smug sarcasm about Bush doesn’t qualify. My general advocacy of muscular national defense is not equivalent to blindly supporting the current president, for whom I have never voted.

    If you were paying attention, you’d notice that I spent most of my article on defending Ron Paul, and praising his contribution to public debate. I WANT to support him.

    A more thoughtful Paul supporter would be looking for ways to show the likes of me that Paul really is serious about defending the country, rather than simply being hateful with an obviously sympathetic critic such as me.

  • chux03

    So you’d vote for Hillary over Ron Paul? Now there’s scruples for you!! That tells me everything I need to know about your politics, views, etc that can be summed up in 4 words: MORE OF THE SAME. While I am genuinely excited about Ron Paul and his views, I’d quit voting before I’d vote for Hillary OR Rudy. No thanks!!

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    That someone like Dave, who seems to spew ad hominems and accusations of racism at anyone he disagrees with, is against Paul only makes me that much more favorable towards him. If anything, the fact that he’s the only one going to bat for you says something about your article.

    What gives you the idea that I’m against Paul? I’m for Paul in many ways, I just don’t think he’s a good choice as a presidential candidate if the GOP wants to win, and with Hillary in the mix I think the GOP winning is very important.

    As for my attacks and accusations of racism, they are not ad hominems. They are based directly on statements which those users have made either on this thread or on others. You may not be familiar with the past behavior of some of the participants. You may not realize that Brodie is a self-acknowledged white supremacist. You may not have read Mike Green’s insane religious rantings on amazon.com. That’s why I mention these things, so you can put their statements in context.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    Well written article/commentary. I even like Paul, & support several of his platforms. And as pointed out in the article, at least he HAS opinions & he voices them, which the others are too cautious/timid/cowardly to do. That they come off looking like a pack of the usual wimpy, say-anything-if-you’ll-just-vote-for-me political maggots is a delightful extra, as it were; it certainly exposes who has convictions & who’s just in it for the votes, as well as being entertainment for those of us cynics viewing all of them w/jaundiced eyes.

    That said, I don’t know I could support Paul, if only because of the loonies rallying around him,, such as the religious reich, neonazis, and other such maniacs. It’s a pity a basically good candidate is attracting the nutcases, because it ends up scaring off those leery of the lunatic fringe on both ends of the scarf.

    Anyway, he’s worth a look, & more than worth his weight in gold at trying the other candidates of their dross.

  • NH

    I take offense to that last comment. I work with the campaign in NH and have never seen anyone who I would consider a ‘loonie’ (sic) or from the groups you mention…and we have some pretty independent people here..

    I myself am a schoolteacher.. and work with all the GOP and conservative groups in the state.

  • Nancy

    If I’m wrong, I’m glad to hear it. I just go by what I read/hear/see.

  • mike

    Lets put it this way, there isn’t a more qualified politician running for office than Ron Paul.

    How you have derived Ron Paul as a non-aggressive person and not a military leader is mind boggling. He has said time and time again he is not against war but he is against going to war on whims.

    He is on the front lines defending your civil rights against people who are allowing the economy to be turned into an energy/military house of cards ran by a private company, the Federal Reserve.

    He is trying to point out to the American people to wake up and use their voting power to stop corruption before its too late and to help incite future americans that have an ear to hear to take back their rights.

    So to put it bluntly if you think Hilary is the best candidate then I must say this article has failed. She will do nothing to turn the country around except slow ease our troops from the front lines of Iraq ( you know the neighborhoods and market places ) to the military bases 20 miles away from the front lines so the media can burry our involvement to our eyes. They will become the bases that will be similar to the japanese and germany locations around the world.

    You know this, and I know this. Being American carries the burden that we take care of ourselves before we take care of others.

  • MBD

    It would be worthwhile to see Hillary Clinton in a one-on-one debate with Ron Paul.

    I don’t see how she could come out ahead.

  • http://blog.myspace.com/stress_free_living Mark

    Great website!

    Early this morning I created a poll on EBay Match up. Ron Paul vs Rudy Giuliani. You must be a EBay member to participate.

    Please stop by the link to show your support. Thank you for your time in reading this message. Pass this on!

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com Richard Brodie

    Nancy, you say: “I don’t know I could support Paul.”

    Yet you describe all the others as “cautious/timid/cowardly … they come off looking like a pack of the usual wimpy, say-anything-if-you’ll-just-vote-for-me political maggots.”

    Al has chosen Hillary, from among this usavory lot, to prefer over Paul. So which one would you pick?

    And just one more question. If the phone polls can be trusted, someone like Giuliani has 30 times more supporters at this point than Paul does. So how do you know that his supporters do not include 30 times as many “loonies”?

  • Nancy

    I don’t. If you’ve read any of my other comments on other threads, you’ll see I despise all of them, left & right. Talk about quandries.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I take offense to that last comment. I work with the campaign in NH and have never seen anyone who I would consider a ‘loonie’ (sic) or from the groups you mention…and we have some pretty independent people here..

    New Hampshire has a LOT of libertarians in it – normal, sane libertarians and liberty republicans – they likely outweight any loonies you might encounter. The loonies referred to in a number of the comments here are just those who’ve shown up commenting on this thread.

    It’s a peculiar reality that when you post about Paul on the internet you find people who you thought were dangerous crazies suddenly coming to your support. It can be disturbing.

    Lets put it this way, there isn’t a more qualified politician running for office than Ron Paul.

    That’s actually not true. Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate running. That doesn’t mean I support him, but he’s uniquely well qualified. Paul’s actual experience is limited to the House of Representatives, which usually isn’t a good base for the skills a president needs.

    How you have derived Ron Paul as a non-aggressive person and not a military leader is mind boggling. He has said time and time again he is not against war but he is against going to war on whims.

    Plus (just to make MCH happy) Paul did serve in the military as a doctor. As an OBGYN I kind of wonder what they had him doing…

    He is on the front lines defending your civil rights against people who are allowing the economy to be turned into an energy/military house of cards ran by a private company, the Federal Reserve.

    LOL, that train left the station in the 1930s.

    He is trying to point out to the American people to wake up and use their voting power to stop corruption before its too late and to help incite future americans that have an ear to hear to take back their rights.

    Which is what he’s best at. And why I think his campaign is more important than actually getting him elected because it gives him a platform. As far as actually doing good, I think the key thing is to make sure he doesn’t lose his house seat, because we need him in congress.

    One of the big negatives of his campaign is that the same big-money/big-government republicans who tried to defeat him last year are going to try to take advantage while he’s running for president and kick him out of congress in the primary.

    So to put it bluntly if you think Hilary is the best candidate then I must say this article has failed.

    That’s not actually what he said. He said if it was a choice between Paul and Clinton he’d vote for Hillary. I suspect he actually supports someone else altogether if given his first choice.

    She will do nothing to turn the country around

    Oh, she’d turn the country around. Right now we’re sort of cruising down a middle course and could turn for the better or worse. Paul or Giuliani would turn us towards a better course. Hillary would take us sharply in a worse direction.

    You know this, and I know this. Being American carries the burden that we take care of ourselves before we take care of others.

    And one of the big problems I have with Paul is that I think he shares this simplistic reasoning with you. I don’t think he understands that to take care of our interests it’s sometimes necessary to deal with others needs as well – for example by having an actual foreign policy.

    dave

  • Nancy

    Rudy vs Hillary – I don’t see it either. But it sure would be fun. So would the guy from Alaska & Paul vs just about anybody else.

  • Todd Vouglas

    At first I was very supportive of this article but then the correlation between Ron Paul’s limited statement and engagement with Guiliani and the potential spine-less action of Paul as president. Could America not have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan then LEFT?? Or once we had toppled the Iraqi government and captured Saddam gone home?? Why is it prudent to stay in these countries forever? Japan, Germany, Korea, Cuba etc, etc. America does not need to project imperialism thru its military! We can protect our interests by having a strong financial and industrious country with a military that can be projected throughout the world with the support of countries we share trade, friendship and common defense. Dr. Paul is not a simpleton, he believes America should come FIRST not blind greed. Go ahead vote for Hilary, a vote for the further dismantling of a once great republic!

  • MBD

    “Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate running…. he’s uniquely well qualified. “

    The foremost and unique qualification to be president is to be able to read the Constitution and adhere to it. Everything else is secondary.

    “Paul’s actual experience is limited to the House of Representatives, which usually isn’t a good base for the skills a president needs.”

    “Usually… good” … bland words with no real meaning.

    The job of president is generally OJT. What is needed is someone capable of making smart decisions that are in the interest of the American people, not for the moneyed special interests.

    “Paul did serve in the military as a doctor. As an OBGYN I kind of wonder what they had him doing…”

    As a military doctor he most likely just dispensed APC pills as anyone with military experience will attest.

    “And one of the big problems I have with Paul is… I don’t think he understands that to take care of our interests it’s sometimes necessary to deal with others needs as well – for example by having an actual foreign policy.”

    Like perpetuation of the “actual foreign policy” we have now?

    My interpretation of what Ron Paul says is that his foreign policy would be to avoid making decisions that result in blowback and terrorism… no more empire building, no more hegemony, and no more trumped-up charges to take this country into preemptive wars.

  • Lumpy

    Maybe Paul has figured out how to be the ‘magic libertarian’ where he is all things to all people. For some he’s the doctrinaire libertarian of his ’88 campaign. For others he’s the baby saving bible thumper of his texas campaigns and for others he’s some sort of pacidist republocan kucinich. Guess what. Some of you are wrong.

  • zingzing

    even though paul is a hardliner on abortion and immigration, i actually agree with a really surprising amount of his positions. it’s rather strange. and he actually seems to be fairly honest. and seems to care about the people that vote for him… and his constant defense of the constitution, even if it is a little simple-minded, is a good thing…

    i have to wonder what’s hiding in the closet, because this just don’t seem right… i mean, he’s a republican! from texas! i don’t see myself voting for him, but i wouldn’t be too terribly upset if he won the election. he seems sensible, which is a rarity these days.

  • MBD

    “his constant defense of the constitution, even if it is a little simple-minded…”

    Simple-minded?

    What is that you want?

    Do you want less defense of the Constitution?

    Where would you like that to start?

  • zingzing

    “Simple-minded? What is that you want?”

    i’m just saying he gets away with voting a certain way by defending as “protecting the constitution.” i mean, he has gone back on his word at least once by voting that the federal government can ban certain types of abortion (which he believes should be left up to the states)… but in other cases, he’s voted against things that would do no harm just because he thinks that the federal government has no constitutional mandate to do such things. sometimes that is good… sometimes, not so much. it’s a bit of a hard line to take, and i’m not sure that “the constitution does specifically state that the federal government can do this” is a bit simple-minded, that’s all. on the other side of the coin, saying that “the constitution does specifically state that the federal government can do this” could often be a wonderful thing.

    i don’t want less defense of the constitution, but i also don’t want someone this unflexible (noting that he did break his own rule at least once) as the most powerful person in the land.

  • zingzing

    i meant, “i’m not sure that ‘the constitution does specifically state that the federal government can do this’ ISN’T a bit simple-minded,” even if that is a double negative… i was typing too fast.

  • zingzing

    and it’s “inflexible,” isn’t it?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Todd Vouglas [comment 88] sez: Could America not have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan then LEFT?? Or once we had toppled the Iraqi government and captured Saddam gone home?? Why is it prudent to stay in these countries forever?

    I would be somewhat sympathetic to this view, though we’re STILL dinking with the Taliban. But smacking down bad guys we generally do pretty well. It’s the nation building part where we snag our bags. It’s the compassion of the compassionate conservatives where we’ve gotten mired down.

    Todd raises a decent counteroffer to current policy – but this is different than what Paul’s saying. He was against going into Iraq at all. Thing is, Paul is so determinedly consistent as to de facto oppose anything that look like it could pass for adequate defense. One vote to authorize force in Afghanistan is inadequate to the task of the defense of our homes. They’re still coming.

    I could sympathize with an argument against having gone into Iraq. By rights, we probably should have been smashing hell out Iranian mullahs instead. I’m open for alternate strategies – but they’re going to have to be more than sit home and wait for them to hit US. That’s pretty much what I’m hearing from Paul.

    By the way folks, I have no intention of voting for Hillary – though I suppose I opened myself up to the charge. At this point, I’d say that Giuliani hits my gag reflex less often than any other candidate. I picked Hillary as the point of comparison precisely because she’d be someone I’d especially NOT want as POTUS. When I said I preferred even the Hildebeast to President Paul, that’s meant as an expression of high discontent with Paul – not support for Hillary.

  • MBD

    “i also don’t want someone this unflexible (noting that he did break his own rule at least once) as the most powerful person in the land.”

    Who would you prefer to have?

  • zingzing

    haven’t made up my mind yet. gonna wait and see what’s out there. still a long time until the election, isn’t it?

  • MBD

    “I’m open for alternate strategies – but they’re going to have to be more than sit home and wait for them to hit US. That’s pretty much what I’m hearing from Paul.”

    Check your hearing aid.

    Paul is saying is that if we sit home and wait for them to hit the US they will have no reason to come.

    That’s pretty much what I’m hearing from Paul with my hearing aid turned on.

  • MBD

    “haven’t made up my mind yet. gonna wait and see what’s out there. still a long time until the election, isn’t it?”

    The question was who would you prefer to have — not who you expect to vote for 18 months from now.

    To simplify it, who would you vote for today?

  • zingzing

    paul’s reasoning on 9/11 is sound: they attacked us because we attacked them. it’s as simple as that. “they hate our freedom” is just fucking dumb.

    and if we weren’t over there fucking around, and hadn’t been since the end of ww2, then we wouldn’t be in this (exact) mess right now.

    but we are in this mess… and radical islam is pissed… so it’s pretty certain that we can’t leave and we can’t stay… we’re fucked either way. and it’s pretty hard to have diplomatic relations with underground terrorists. i’m not saying the world is coming to an end, but we certainly have completely fucked up world politics, haven’t we? (by “we” i mean “mankind…” but more specifically, “old white man-kind…”)

  • zingzing

    “To simplify it, who would you vote for today?”

    today… i wish al gore were running. or that that dennis k. guy had a chance of winning. but i simply don’t know enough about all the candidates to say. i know there are things about clinton i don’t like (too pushy), and things about obama i don’t like (too inexperienced), and things about edwards i don’t like (i grew up in n.c….), and things i don’t like about rudy (too self-congratulating and fake–a politician through and through), and all the other republicans (too republican)…

    i simply don’t know yet. i’m hoping to be better informed by the time of the primaries… which are coming soon this time, yeah?

  • Jason

    Responding to Al Barger, comment 65, I am comfortable with being associated with the nut cases, racists, nazis, murderers, sheep lovers, and whoever else you throw into the mix as a potential Ron Paul supporter.

    I am supporting Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. I am not supporting his supporters.

    Do you choose not to be an American because of these same people who are not only Ron Paul supporters but also citizens of our great nation?

    Are you comfortable with basing your vote for the president on the perceived entourage of the candidate in a sort of super superficial upgrade over the usual beauty and popularity contest format of american politics?

    I don’t mean to sound harsh because I understand that you are sympathetic to the cause. However, you have to admit it’s an odd obstacle to voting for the greatest presidential candidate in history. Sorry, I slipped into Ron Paul induced lunacy for a moment.

  • Jason

    Another point just occurred to me although a moment too late for my previous post.

    Pick a candidate.

    If your candidate were to receive a unanimous vote for the presidency would you be comfortable with being associated with these people?

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Why are there so few debates? The justification for wanting to eliminate contenders this early is so that more time can be given to the big name favorites. So just have more debates! Instead of half a dozen before the Primaries, have one every other week, each time focusing on a single issue.

    Why will this not happen? Because without an excuse to drop someone like Ron Paul, who has seriously challenging viewpoints, they run the risk that their annointed “first tier” candidates might be made to look stupid.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Jason, I wrote this story without having been around much Ron Paul chat on the net. My main experience before this with Paul supporters would be through my involvement in the Libertarian Party. They are a credit to Paul.

    But you can see that some of these people here are a couple of freedom fries short of a full happy meal. I wouldn’t go so far as to deduce guilt by association, but in picking a POTUS I might be inclined to at least a little suspicion by association.

    But my problems with Paul are not primarily his supporters, but the candidate’s distinct lack of credibility on issues of national defense. That’s the main #1 thing we hire a president to do. If I’m not confident that he’s willing and able to protect the country by force of arms, then he’s not only not the greatest presidential candidate ever, he’s not even qualified for the job.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Al says: “They’re still coming.”

    Indeed. I understand there are 6 million of them already here. In fact a leader of one of their “respectable” front organizations, CAIR, has said that he (Ibrahim Hooper, speaking for all Muslims, not just the terrorist fringe) wants to see the Koran replace the Constitution as the highest law in the United States of America.

    Islam needs to be identified and recognized as a religion with a political component that is inimical to the most basic ideals and values of America. And this then needs to be used as the basis for establishing a Fair Arab Immigration Reciprocity (FAIR). Namely that the number of Muslims allowed to immigrate in any given year shall be no greater than the number of non-Muslim Americans who emigrated in the previous year to countries in the Middle Eastern Muslim homeland.

  • Lumpy

    “Paul is saying is that if we sit home and wait for them to hit the US they will have no reason to come.”

    then his ignorance of Islam and the world situation is so great that it ought to disqualify him entirely as a presidential candidate.

    I say make him secretary of education, interior and homeland security and let him dismantle those three agencies once and for all.

  • MBD

    “then his ignorance of Islam and the world situation is so great that it ought to disqualify him entirely as a presidential candidate.”

    Your ignorance of blowback is what is so great.

    Ask yourself why certain countries are singled out and others are not.

  • http://www.cannabisculture.com Marc Scott Emery

    Al Barger now concedes that Rudy Giuliani makes him gag the least of all the front runners, and that he would only vote for Hillary Clinton if Ron Paul were the Republican opponent to Hillary.

    So for Al Barger its uber-fascist one-note Giuliani or Hillary Clinton before Ron Paul for President, eh?

    That’s a pretty spectacular obsession with mass military superiority you have over all other issues combined, because even you concede Paul’s position is superior to Clinton or Giuliani in every other way but ‘national defence’.

    Weird myopia you have Al.

  • MBD

    #107… “If I’m not confident that he’s willing and able to protect the country by force of arms, then he’s not only not the greatest presidential candidate ever, he’s not even qualified for the job.”

    Of course.

    The problem is that there is no basis for your speculation that he’s not willing and able to protect the country by force of arms,

    Do you have one?

  • eopardPM

    As a radical libertarian, I do understand what you are saying about the ‘loonies’ who seem to come out of the woodwork and support Ron Paul. As I read through the comments, I cheered for the logical and coherent arguments made by obviously thoughtful people – people I would be proud to stand next to as we voted in Ron Paul. But every time I came across one of those ‘loonies’, I cringed – I felt as if I should somehow respond and either (a) apologize for them, or, (b) somehow lend some credibility to their posts. I also felt a bit of fear… it will be these folks that will be the undoing of Ron Paul.
    I was wrong on all counts. They require nor desire anything like an apology from me, they are stating their views from their perspective and NOT mine, nor Ron Paul’s. Mostly they sound rather immature, and probably be treated as such – dismissed while the grown-ups get on with actual debate. I now think of two things regarding them: a vocal minority part of supporters who do not represent Ron Paul or his campaign, and, I am glad for their vote because in all their hootin’ and hollerin’, they are not killing folks, or harming them (these folks probably only leave their dark caves to grab some Cheetos at 7-11, avoiding contact with most folks along the way), and the ONE thing that actually will impact anything… is that they will throw down their precious vote check mark for the candidate I also desire. So, enough with the ‘loonies’, don’t let them distract you from the issues or the candidate.

    I do not really think Ron will win the primaries, let alone the presidency – but I do hope. I hope enough to actually participate in the campaign through donations and volunteerism. I do it because… I have to – his thoughts mimic my own, his concerns are mine, his honesty is what I would aspire to.

    Foreign Policy:
    Would being non-interventionist garner more or less hatred/violence/terrorism against the US?
    I have to say that it would take an extraordinary effort in cognitive discordance to actually believe that such a policy would garner more of any of these.

    Are people(mostly Muslims, apparently) currently hating us and threatening to damage us?
    Yup. And these folks need to be prevented from entering this country, stopped or killed before they can attack in any manner. These folks probably will not be appeased in any manner, they have fallen over the edge of reason (maybe not, but at this point they are benefiting too much by inciting violence to stop doing it), and death or some serious ‘de-fanging’ will be required to deal with them. Luckily, their numbers are still very small – but are growing daily.

    Does occupying Iraq with 140,000 military personnel achieve this goal?
    Yes and No. We are killing them, sure, but at the same time we are strengthening them and swelling their ranks. It is impossible to deploy such a large force without incurring both ‘blowback’ and a large amount of civilian collateral damage, which in turn becomes more blowback. I think the net result is negative, and so agree with Rep. Paul that we should withdraw, as speedily as possible.

    What to do against these crazies then?
    Prevent them from entering the country – number 1 priority. This is also Ron’s position. Seek out and kill any who have elevated their anger into violence – not with ‘armies’, but with highly specialized and trained teams, fight them THEIR way but with OUR technology and money. This minimizes blow back, minimizes collateral damage, but still achieves objective: protecting the country.

    I do have a question for you. What is the absolute worst that could happen in our fight against these terrorists? a nuclear weapon detonation in a city? Bombings of cafes and nightclubs like Israel? Destruction of the country? Seriously, please try and quantify the danger these folks pose. As scary as these crazies are, they are also severely limited in number and ability.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Some excellent points there.

    I suppose the crazies supporting Paul are no worse than the radical socialists who support Kucinich or the evangelical end of the world nutcases who support Brownback.

    As for foreign policy, what you’re not considering is that even if we go strictly non-interventionist, that will have no impact on how much we’re hated, because we’re hated for who we are at least as much as what we do. And when it comes to what we do, our business practices are part of it, and Paul isn’t going to shut down US international trade, is he?

    That being the case we’ll still be considered economic exploiters, but we will no longer be feared or respected along with it. Plus our business interests will be enormously more vulnerable to attack overseas and no amount of border enforcement is going to help that.

    I see a Ron Paul presidency as enormously profitable for the mercenaries. Get your KBR stock now while it’s cheap.

    Dave

  • NH

    Ah so just because the communist party USA supports Hillary, or will likely, do you think her millions of supporters will let that bother them? This is a free country and I don’t care if chickens and cows support Ron…

    Ron is not a pacifist, so get that out of your squash.

  • http://libertyoakranch the oak

    Al, I can tell you several things about Ron Paul’s phylosophy that would make us safer and stronger!!!
    1. reality in policy- over all the others, he has read the CIA reports
    2. second ammendment – he has often said that if we allowed good citizens their gun rights 9-11 would’ve never happened
    3. golden rule – if we minded our own damned business, others would have no reason to attack us.
    4. spending cuts – small government is strong government. Paul is like Reagan in believing that you talk softly and carry a big stick. If we are economically strong, no one wants to their economy.
    5. no foreign aid – we fund just about every Middle Eastern country right now. Maybe they wont be able to afford to bomb us if we keep our money to ourselves.
    6. Getting out of the UN – the US enforcing UN sanctions has gotten us into just about every war since Korea, including Iraq. If Paul was president the UN would have NO enforcement agency.

    So once again Al, Ron Paul is right.

    He was right about the terror attacks.
    He was right about Iraq.
    He is right on a strong defense.
    He’s right about the economy.
    He is the only guy in DC that has a brain because he never caves in to the corporate lobby that help get those other guys elected time after time.

    Vote Ron Paul for a strong, free America!!!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Ibrahim Hooper, speaking for all Muslims, not just the terrorist fringe

    Well yes, of course, I read in the paper where, before Mr Hooper made his remarks, they took a worldwide poll of Muslims who unanimously approved him to be their spokesman. [sarcasm off]

    Perhaps I’m being harsh. Your reputation precedes you, Mr Brodie, so I realize that the real world is not your forte.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “2. second ammendment (sic) – he has often said that if we allowed good citizens their gun rights 9-11 would’ve never happened”

    That makes no sense.

    We DO allow “good” (and bad) citizens their “gun rights,” and yet 9/11 DID happen.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    The Oak [comment 115] Thank you for listing some specific arguments to address, but I’m less than impressed.

    1. reality in policy- over all the others, he has read the CIA reports
    First off, I highly doubt that he’s read CIA reports that no one else has. More importantly, proclaiming that he favors “reality in policy” is a broad claim, not an argument. Moreover, this claim is utterly contradicted by

    3. golden rule – if we minded our own damned business, others would have no reason to attack us.
    They’re not Christians and they don’t believe in the Golden Rule – and they most certainly do not act on it. This claim right here is utterly delusional, and Paul pretty much places his whole, entire foreign policy stock on this absolutely untrue idea.

    We’re supposed to have faith that if we show weakness and withdraw militarily from not just Iraq but the whole world, the likes of Al Qaeda will figure that we’re not such bad folks after all. That’s not being realistic, but the opposite. That’s the main central candyland scenario that Paul clings to in clear defiance of reality in order to justify the whole Dr No approach to foreign policy.

    This candyland wishful insistence that if we just back up and leave them alone they’ll leave US alone is in fact the very opposite of the “strong defense” that you insist Paul supports. It takes a hell of a lot more than a general proclamation that you support a “strong defense.”

    2. second ammendment – he has often said that if we allowed good citizens their gun rights 9-11 would’ve never happened
    Frankly, this statement is just dumb. I’m 100% pro-Second Amendment. Armed citizens would be real helpful at protecting themselves from street crime, but how exactly is it that crackers with shotguns would have stopped the 9/11 hijackers? Are you proposing actually having citizens carrying guns on commercial air flights? There are lots of little things that individual armed citizens can do, but not everything. Respecting people’s rights to arm themselves is great, but it does not constitute a strong military defense. That right there is the main reason we have to have a government.

    I’m more sympathetic to the last three arguments. Cutting spending and government authority generally is a great idea, though I don’t see the direct connection to security. Indeed, being richer, freer and happier would just cause some of these folks to hate US more than they already do.

    I’m not sure at this point about 100% NO foreign aid, but I’m sympathetic to the general idea. Surely we could cut out the money given to every crappy Middle East despot – and especially the Palestinians.

    To end on a more positive note of agreement, I’m 100% behind you on point 6: US OUT OF THE UN. UN OUT OF THE US. They’re far worse than worthless. The world would be a distinctly safer place without this bunch of jerks with a facade of authority running interference for every evil bastard on the planet – and doing it largely on OUR dime.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Exactly. What were people supposed to do – whip out their Colts and shoot down the planes before they hit the buildings?

    Or did Oak mean if the passengers had been armed they could have stopped the hijackers? You know, there’s a reason besides hijacking prevention that guns aren’t allowed in aircraft cabins. Just you think about it a little more, Oak. You’ll figure it out.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    I realize that the real world is not your forte.

    And I realize that those of you who fancy yourselves as the “real world” guys are all in favor of welcoming in as many millions as possible of Mohammedans, LaRaza types, etc. whose goal is the demographic/ideological conquest of America.

    By accepting the current state of things as the manifestation an unchallengeable “real world” you display a pathetic suicidal cowardice. Sorry to have to be so dreadfully harsh on you.

  • bliffle

    On 9/10/2001 Conventional Wisdom was to cooperate with airplane hijackers, but that changed suddenly during 9/11/2001 and the passengers of Flight 93 acted accordingly.

  • Marlow

    In an otherwise tolerable view of Paul’s candidacy, Barger’s article comes unglued when, at its end he favors the power lusting Hillary over the principled Paul. And why? Brcause, under Paul we’d be “too principled to protect ourselves”.

    Paraphrasing Giuliani, I’ve heard some pretty absurd things in my time. How Barger derives no defense from non-interventionism is the question. Here we have the US, mightiest military power in human history, with a military budget equal to, what is it, nearly the combined military budgets of the rest of the world, with 100’s of military bases encircling the globe and Mr Barger frets that the US would be “eaten alive” if a Paul presidency were to cut back on this monsterously huge,bankrupting military and concomitant foreign policy.

    Barger, in his final analysis, buys the rightwing nutjob case for interventionism – that US enemies are such “evil bastards” that the US must, apparently, kill them by the thousands in their homelands lest they come to the US and return the favor. Thus does Barger utterly discount Paul, the 9-11 Commission Report and even admissions from the likes of Wolfowitz that it is US intervention in the Mid-East that prompts “terrorist” attacks against the US.

    Nor could anyone believe an out of context quote from Ayn Rand would preclude Paul from using military force to defend the US from real – as opposed to the current faked – threat of military attack against the US.

    Bargers is a case for endless war because whether he will admit it or not the US is justifiably hated around the world for its arrogant meddling, its murder of civilians by the thousands, its propping up “friendly” dictators, its arrogatign unto itself the privilege of regime change and no doubt scores of offenses of which the public is kept in the dark. Given US behavior its just dumb luck the US hasn’t been more viciously attacked than it has been by victims of US policy.

    Will there be no “terrorist” attacks if the US adopted Paul’s interventionism? There are no guarantees but it is a certainty terrorism will never end following the current policy that breeds anti-US hatred. I submit it is equally true that disentangling the US from foreign meddling will eliminate the incentive for attacks against the US.

    So, rather than a “libertarian candyland”, Paul offers the best way to get out of morass of endless war the Neocons have fashioned, and that Barger buys into.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Marlow [comment 122] sez Mr Barger frets that the US would be “eaten alive” if a Paul presidency were to cut back on this monsterously huge,bankrupting military and concomitant foreign policy.

    That’s not quite true, and it seems that a lot of Paul supporters are having trouble with reading, cause that’s not what I said. The problem seems to be that you’ve got such ideological blinders on that you can only see it as a simple this or that choice. Either you support a principled ie absolute “non-interventionist” foreign policy (about which definition we could argue) OR you support the whole enchilada of what we’re doing now.

    I would support neither. SOME of the our military activism appears to me to be absolutely necessary, because there really ARE people trying to kill us – and working to technologically leverage their way into doing it far more spectacularly.

    Waiting till they get here ain’t going to get it. Nor is counting 100% on a few tactical special ops forces to surgically deal with the problem going to get it, not with massive state sponsorship of terror in Iran, for example. And sending special ops into sovereign nations is an act of war too.

    Which isn’t to say that we should not cut back on a lot of our involvements. SOME of them probably cost more and provoke more than they help, and do tie our hands from having the resources to protect ourselves.

    I could imagine US getting a good effect with some from column A and some from column B. For example, perhaps President Giuliani will find it necessary to simply goddam destroy the Iranian regime and smash up as much of their nuclear program as we can locate. Right while we’re doing that would be a perfect time to announce that we’re, say, closing down all our bases in Western Europe and bringing those troops home – or re-deploying them to Iran where they’re actually needed.

    Or perhaps not. It’d be great if we don’t have to end up in Iran. But just categorically and inflexibly ruling that out on “principle” would seem to be a pretty clear recipe for disaster. And taking the possibility of such action off the table seems to me likely only embolden the bad guys and ultimately make US more likely to end up in a full scale war – and with nuclear armed mullahs at that.

    But at least we’ll be consistent with our all-important frickin’ “principles.”

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Dear President Ahmadinejad,

    As the newly elected President of the United States of America I wish to extend, on behalf of the American people, a hand of friendship to you and the great people of the nation of Iran. I offer you my sincere apologies for the reprehensible, belligerent policies of the outgoing American government toward the Islamic world in general, and toward your country in particular. I am bringing our troops home immediately, and henceforth the United States will cease attempting to remold Middle Eastern countries, or any other sovereign countries, in its own image.

    From this day we shall respect the right of all nations to determine their own destinies, their own forms of government, and their own institutions, asking only that such respect be reciprocated. Our government will not be providing aid of any kind, neither military nor “humanitarian”, to any other countries, for such aid always implies some obligation, and is thus a form of the type of controlling intervention that leads to resentment, corruption, tensions, and ultimately conflict.

    Nevertheless, please be assured that my administration will not attempt to interfere with trade between private businesses in both of our countries. Consonant with our preferred system of limited government and free enterprise, American business concerns, while they will not be allowed to deal with other governments, will be perfectly free to deal with the private business concerns of other nations. In particular, private Iranian nuclear energy firms will be free to do business with American suppliers of the technology and materials that might be needed to help your country develop the kind of a modern nuclear energy capability needed to to enhance the prosperity and living standards of the Iranian people.

    May a new era begin – one of peaceful mutual friendship and respect between the peoples of America and Iran.

    Sincerely,

    Ron Paul, President of the United States of America

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    When I read Mr Brodie’s comment 124 [his proposed President Paul letter to Iran], I thought he was being sarcastic. I had to look up the thread to make sure he was a Paul supporter.

    Particularly, his big finish struck me as amazingly, utterly foolish.
    Nevertheless, please be assured that my administration will not attempt to interfere with trade between private businesses in both of our countries. Consonant with our preferred system of limited government and free enterprise, American business concerns, while they will not be allowed to deal with other governments, will be perfectly free to deal with the private business concerns of other nations. In particular, private Iranian nuclear energy firms will be free to do business with American suppliers of the technology and materials that might be needed to help your country develop the kind of a modern nuclear energy capability needed to to enhance the prosperity and living standards of the Iranian people

    Yeah, at that rate it’d take a matter of weeks before “private” Iranian businesses were engaging in their right of free enterprise with American businesses to buy themselves nuclear weapons.

    Again, the right word for this scenario is “candyland.” This would be just totally, incredibly 100% irresponsible. I definitely would not vote for the candidate who wanted to send that letter. I’d like to think that Ron Paul is more responsible than what is being represented for him here by his supporters – but I suspect not.

  • MBD

    #125 forgot to add:

    APPROVED:

    President George Washington and the Founders of the Country.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Taking another bite at Marlow’s apple in comment 122, I note this paragraph which seems to be consistent with Ron Paul’s outlook – and on reflection, the #1 reason I could not possibly support him:
    Bargers is a case for endless war because whether he will admit it or not the US is justifiably hated around the world for its arrogant meddling, its murder of civilians by the thousands, its propping up “friendly” dictators, its arrogatign unto itself the privilege of regime change and no doubt scores of offenses of which the public is kept in the dark. Given US behavior its just dumb luck the US hasn’t been more viciously attacked than it has been by victims of US policy.

    No, I not only will not admit this, but do not believe it at all. Not that we haven’t screwed the pooch a time or two, but we’re the good guys in the world. I absolutely would not countenance a commander in chief who held this incorrect opinion that we’ve brought this on ourselves. It would be suicidal.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Mr Brodie #120:

    QED.

  • Brandon McBride

    The Nazis thought they where the “GOOD GUYS” in there war as well.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Will there be no “terrorist” attacks if the US adopted Paul’s interventionism? There are no guarantees but it is a certainty terrorism will never end following the current policy that breeds anti-US hatred. I submit it is equally true that disentangling the US from foreign meddling will eliminate the incentive for attacks against the US.

    I’d like to sound a note of caution that very seldom seems to be addressed in this debate. It’s often pointed out that there has been no major Islamic terror attack on US soil since 9/11. However, what’s usually forgotten is that, aside from the WTC attack in ’93, there wasn’t before 9/11 either.

    Could it be that the US is simply very difficult to attack, and that al-Qaeda either got lucky on 9/11, or planned the whole thing knowing that this was likely to be their one and only shot at it?

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Be careful MBD. The slightest appearance of siding with something I have said will run you the risk of being branded a “crazed loony” based on a guilt-by-association verdict ;)

  • MBD

    Countries with nuclear weapons

    United States…………5,000 – 10,000
    Russia…………………….6,000 – 16,000
    UK…………………………..200
    France……………………350
    Israel…………………….200
    China……………………..130
    India……………………..50
    Pakistan…………………50
    North Korea…………..1 – 10
    Iran…………………………0

    Even if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, I would be a lot more concerned about the countries that have declared war on other countries since WWII — than I would worry about Iran which has not started a war with anyone.

    We should get out of the Middle East and leave it to the countries there to resolve their problems.

    What threat does Iran pose to the United States if we leave the Middle East?

    Why is the United States being worked up into a frenzy over using military force because Iran is working on centrifuges?

    Who is behind it?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Brandon McBride sez The Nazis thought they where the “GOOD GUYS” in there war as well.

    That kind of argument positively un-impresses me. Nazis might have told themselves they were good guys, but they simply absolutely were NOT. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between America and Nazi Germany doesn’t have any business voting.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Could it be that the US is simply very difficult to attack, and that al-Qaeda either got lucky on 9/11, or planned the whole thing knowing that this was likely to be their one and only shot at it?

    With all of our ports and borders wide open to them, and considering that Saudi Wahabiist OBL types are not without the necessary funding, the US is very easy to attack. I too am very curious to know why they haven’t done so for nearly five years now. It is clearly NOT because we are some kind of an impenetrable fortress!

    Is it because we’ve made it so much more convenient for them to kill off Americans by virtue of having sent so many of our finest and bravest onto their home turf?

    Maybe they think it’s preferrable to concentrate their energies on picking off the cream of our military crop, rather than having dissipated their resources on making a hundred London Subway style suicide bombing forays that would only kill a relative handful of harmless civilians.

    Plus, the former course is much better at bleeding off our treasure. What did the twin towers cost? I’ve heard the figure $50 billion. And what have they caused us to see go up in smoke in IRAQ – ten times as much.

    Seems like they have much better strategies than we do. Perhaps it’s time to give Mr. Paul’s “candyland” approach a try. Couldn’t be any worse than the “real world” approach that has so far failed so miserably – at everything except making lots of profits for Haliburton, et. al.

  • MBD

    “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

    — Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

  • Dr Dreadful

    Is it because we’ve made it so much more convenient for them to kill off Americans by virtue of having sent so many of our finest and bravest onto their home turf?

    Possibly, but that doesn’t explain the absence of attacks in the eight years before 9/11. Or the 227 years before that.

  • MBD

    #113… “I see a Ron Paul presidency as enormously profitable for the mercenaries. Get your KBR stock now while it’s cheap.”

    And I see the George Bush presidency as enormously profitable for the lobbyists who have benefited — and continue to benefit — from their stock in the military-industrial companies.

    But that stock is no longer cheap.

  • Dr Dreadful

    just because the communist party USA supports Hillary, or will likely

    Actually, they’ll probably support their own candidate for President… albeit that person is only going to get about 0.00001% of the vote.

  • Dar

    I don’t understand the logic that being for non-intervention means being weak on defense.

    Ron Paul has been steadfastly strong on defense over the years.

    Perhaps this notion of non-intervention is hard for us to work with because of the proximity of the current events. Maybe a story far from our emotions will work.

    Suppose somebody other than Paul is elected. Suppose the government practice (often secret) of interfering with other governments and nations continues. Dollars for revolutionaries here, an assassination there, a new base someplace in the world. The usual stuff. Suppose Narnia (for example) is targeted. Suppose this creates a hardship on Narnia and gets the people (and talking animals) really mad, especially about princess Lucy getting killed and a pretender princess being set up. The pretender princess is not a good neighbor to lands near Narnia and the new US president wants to interfere. A band of renegade rats do some nasty stuff in the US of A. Conflict begins. Since Ron Paul is not elected, the president (not congress as the constitution dictates) declares war on Narnia because of those evil rats.

    Suppose Ron Paul is elected. The foreign policy does not annoy those in Narnia. Lucy is a good neighbor. Some rats get uppity and attack neighbors. Lucy punishes them. A few rats attack the US of A and Paul defends the US of A using the might of the US of A. Only a few of the rats find it important to attack the US of A and they had little in resources behind them. People and talking animals of Narnia are upset with rats because many of Narnia trade with folks in the American nation. Congress considers whether to declare war on Narnia and decides it is not needed, the event is treated through other methods, such as cooperative police work. (Paul says he will not consider attacking Narnia since there is no declaration and no direct emergency.)

    Shun intervention, embrace defense. That seems to be the better way. That looks like the Ron Paul way to me.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t understand the logic that being for non-intervention means being weak on defense.

    It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.

    A policy of non-preemption might work okay, but we can’t just pull all our troops home and pretend the world doesn’t exist anymore.

    Dave

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable

    For Dave Nalle it’s always about the money. The trail has never been more clear.

    Those global commercial interests include the outsourcing of jobs that is destroying our home industrial base and decimating the American middle class by eliminating decent paying jobs for our citizens in favor of cheap Indian/Chinese/Mexican labor.

    Somehow the “vulnerability” he talks about doesn’t seem to be translating into actual attacks anywhere, execpt perhaps where we are dropping bombs! So the disappearing middle class is to be further targeted by having to see their children sacrificed in godforsaken foreign deserts as INSURANCE to protect the bottom lines of traitorious international corporations not even primarily owned by Americans!

    And not even for the sake of the Almighty Dollar anymore, but for the sake of the Almighty Amero. I wish they WOULD start targeting those vulnerable commercial interests, to the point where the greedy materialistic bastards would conclude that selling their country down the river wasn’t worth it, in the only currency of value they understand.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    UH OH.

    Brodie’s wheels just came off again.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    “Hey, I tawt da deal was I got to be da nex President. Den dis nobody Congressman from Texas comes awong tellin me I ain’t qualified and I gotta do my homework. What da fuck’s up wit dat.”

    “Calm dow, Rudy. Doh worry, we gonna take care o’ tings.”

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    UH OH.

    Brodie’s wheels just came off again.

    Ridicule works.

  • MBD

    I think the springs just popped out of Clavos’ head.

  • MBD

    Dave Nalle…

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    So… because the days when the China was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and now has a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if they don’t provide support for China and Chinese interests beyond just the physical borders of their country… which country should China attack first?

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    MBD- China doesn’t have Islamists flying planes into their buildings. And if they did, they’d be a lot more brutal in response than we have been. The knowledge of that probably has a lot to do with why they don’t have that type of problem.

    Mr Brodie wants to lose whatever mind he’s got over Nalle’s implication that we should expect to provide some protection to Americans doing business abroad. Oh, God forbid that we be concerned about business, or our government acting like our citizens should not be considered fair targets to kill when they leave home.

    But we’ve always had citizens abroad, and they’ve always been somewhat vulnerable. What’s really changed is that we’ve become less geographically isolated. The first 150 years or so of our nationhood, those two big oceans made US very difficult to get at. That’s much less so now when you can fly a jet or a cruise missle around the world in a few hours. Plus, our success and prominence in the world from WWII forward makes US inevitably a much bigger target.

    It probably behooves US to rethink our strategic priorities and be a lot pickier about how many troops we have where in the world. We should be minimizing the entangling foreign alliances and all that jazz, but we just don’t have the option of the luxury of disengagement and isolationism any more.

  • MBD

    China doesn’t have Islamists flying planes into their buildings because they haven’t had their nose under the tents of countries in the Middle East.

    That probably has a lot to do with why they don’t have that type of problem.

    Can you say… B-L-O-W-B-A-C-K?

  • MBD

    “And if they did, they’d be a lot more brutal in response than we have been”

    And if they did, they’d be a lot more brutal in response than we have been in finding bin Laden — instead of attacking a straw man.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD and others talking through their hats about China and terrorism might want to google these two phrases:

    terrorism xinjiang province
    east turkestan islamic movement

    China remains more isolated than the US, but the reality is that their problem with radical muslims just outside and within their borders is mushrooming out of control and they’re cracking down hard.

    This article might be a good starting point, as it is recent and includes mention of the fact that al Qaeda is operating inside China.

    As for who China would attack first? My money would be on some of the former Soviet republics on their western border, since that’s where muslim radical agitators are getting into the country from.

    Dave

  • Dar

    It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.

    This is one reason why the 21st century needs non-intervention. When I trade in the smaller world, I want my associates to have good feelings about me. The same thing applies to non-business collaboration.

    Or are you concerned about nationalization? I think that is a risk to be taken on by the corporations, not by the government.

    The world is changing. The Internet makes any individual a global player. This blog is an example.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    The Chinese would do well to jettison the Xinjiang province and build a wall along their western border similar to the one we need along our southern one.

    The most important thing that endows China with security is the fact that they are monoculturist rather than multiculturalist. They are proud of being Mongoloid and more particularly of the great Chinese ethnicity within that race. They wisely refrain from inviting millions of people from alien races, nationalities, and cultures to come and insinuate themselves among them, many of whom would be dangerous subversives antipathetic to the native Chinese culture, and desirous of destroying it.

    Their inherent protection lies in the fact that such aliens could not hide, but would be instantly identifiable. Thus if they were from an especially dangerous group, they could be summarily ejected before casuing trouble.

    Unfortunately the United States, thanks to the Kennedy/Cellars Bill of 1965, has put itself in the position of being unable to avail itself of these kind of natural advantages.

  • MBD

    Dave Nalle and other neocons want to ignore our domestic threats in their zeal to justify their love of aggression, occupation and subjugation of countries in the Middle East.

    Of course, China has domestic and border problems such as those we have.

    The FBI once said the Russian mafia is the greatest threat to US national security. And let’s not forget the Mexican, Asian and other gangs that infest the cities of our country.

    We could be cracking down hard on these gangs if we weren’t spending all our resources screwing around in the Middle East.

    Your opinion on who China would attack was not being sought. It was a hypothetical question. But since you responded, you should be more concerned about our border with Mexico instead of China’s borders.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Nalle seems not to mind the prospect of China policing certain areas of the world, but he only mentions those Islamic countries adjacent to it. He did, though, say that those would be the ones they should attack “first”, leaving open the prospect of a more wide-ranging world-policeman role. I mean, if WE don’t have to limit ourselves to the western hemispere, why should THEY have to limit themselves to the eastern one. Why not Chinese bases in Venezuela and Mexico to protect THEIR overseas economic interests?

    And furthermore, why limit this kind of a role to just the two largest superpowers? Let’s invite Russia, Germany, England, India, Pakistan, and others to join in the fun! Don’t you think eventually every nation should have a military presence in all other nations?

    Might it not be better for every nation to just stay home and mind their own business – or is the “luxury” of non-entanglement just not an “option” anymore?

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Actually, Mr Brodie’s idea that China is a monoculture is, like most of his race related opinions, somewhat misguided.

    There is an interesting description of China on Wikipedia, which includes the following brief extract:-

    Demography

    Hundreds of ethnic groups have existed in China throughout its history. The largest ethnic group in China by far is the Han. This group is diverse in itself and can be divided into smaller ethnic groups that share some traits.

    Over the last three millennia, many previously distinct ethnic groups in China have been Sinicized into a Han identity, which over time dramatically expanded the size of the Han population. However, these assimilations were usually incomplete and vestiges of indigenous language and culture often are still retained in different regions of China. Because of this, many within the Han identity have maintained distinct linguistic and cultural traditions, though still identifying as Han.

    Several ethnicities have also dramatically shaped Han language and culture, e.g. the Manchurian clothing called the qipao became the new “Chinese” fashion after the 17th century, replacing earlier Han styles of clothing such as the Hanfu. The term Chinese nation (Zhonghua Minzu) is usually used to describe a notion of a Chinese nationality that transcends ethnic divisions.

    Languages

    Most languages in China belong to the Sino-Tibetan language family, spoken by 29 ethnicities. There are also several major “dialects” within the Chinese language itself. The most spoken dialects are Mandarin (spoken by over 70% of the population), Wu (Shanghainese), Yue (Cantonese), Min, Xiang, Gan, and Hakka. Non-Sinitic languages spoken widely by ethnic minorities include Zhuang (Thai), Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur (Turkic), Hmong and Korean.[10]

    Classical Chinese was the written standard used for thousands of years in China before the 20th century and allowed for written communication between speakers of various unintelligible languages and dialects in China. Vernacular Chinese or baihua is the written standard based on the Mandarin dialect first popularized in Ming dynasty novels and was adopted (with significant modifications) during the early 20th century as the national vernacular. Classical Chinese is still part of the high school curriculum and is thus intelligible to some degree to many Chinese.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Interesting quote, Christopher, but I’m still trying to get my head around MBD’s bizarre statement that I’m a Neocon. I would have thought he might have looked the term up by now so he had some idea what the hell it means.

    Dave

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Of course every current ethnicity is to some extent an amalgamation of previous ones. My point was simply that having remained homogeneously Mongoloid, there is no difficulty in spotting an Arab and checking to make sure he was there on some diplomatic or otherwise legitimate visitation basis.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    That may well be true Mr Brodie, but not all Muslims are Arabs, as I’m fairly sure you already know, so your point is still ill-founded.

    Dave, maybe it depends how you define neoconservatism.

    I put “define:neoconservatism” into Google and the first definition that came up was

    An ideological term characterizing parties or politicians who not only advocate an end to government expansion, but believe in reducing its role via downsizing, privatization, and deregulation.

    I seem to have memories of you calling for less government not more as part of your political dogma so it would seem that you may well indeed be somewhat of a neocon…

  • MBD

    One indication that Nalle is a neocon…

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    He uses the euphemism “support” but that is his way to imply the use of military force as well as other means of extortion.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    That may well be true Mr Brodie, but not all Muslims are Arabs, as I’m fairly sure you already know, so your point is still ill-founded.

    It is not solely physical appearance that would give interlopers away, although I’m sure a Chinaman could pretty readily spot a Malayasian. But if there was any doubt it would be quickly dispelled when the latter opened his mouth, except in the unlikely case where the person had been able to master the Chinese language without any accent.

    Of course this Maylasian may not be a Muslim, just as an Arab may not be. And in either case a Muslim might be reltively benign in spite of the religion’s malignant political component.

    My point is that as long as they keep themselves 99.99999% Chinese Mongoloid, by not allowing aliens to become citizens, and promptly bidding farewell to them when their visitation period expires, it will remain an easy task to monitor for potentially subversive visitors.

    The opposite multiculturalist policy of allowing alien races to flood in by the millions, would result in different groups forming whole separate cancerous communities in which such subversives could be harbored to nurture and recruit supporters for their seditious plan’s.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Mr. Rose, in terms of modern American political discourse I believe the last definition is the one most widely understood:

    ‘Neoconservatism’ is a somewhat controversial term referring to the political goals and ideology of the “new conservatives” in the United States. The “newness” refers the term’s origination as either describing converts new to American conservatism (sometimes coming from a liberal or big-government New Deal background) or to being part of a “new wave” of conservative thought and political organization.

    These people use the argument from social complexity to justify abandoning the “paleo” (traditional) conservative positions both on foreign and domestic issues, advocating such things as world-policing, nation-building, and managed global trade guided by unelected corporate and banking elites.

    On the domestic side they are not averse to enlarging the Federal government’s power, to the extent of sacrificing traditional individual rights guarantees in the pursuit of greater security.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I put “define:neoconservatism” into Google and the first definition that came up was

    An ideological term characterizing parties or politicians who not only advocate an end to government expansion, but believe in reducing its role via downsizing, privatization, and deregulation.

    I seem to have memories of you calling for less government not more as part of your political dogma so it would seem that you may well indeed be somewhat of a neocon…

    Wow, Christopher. If that’s the definition then I’m ready to sign up. However I think someone has been playing tricks on Google, because that bears no resemblance at all to any normal definition of Neoconservatism I’ve ever seen.

    And MBD proves once again that he has no idea what a Neocon is because he just stated that believing in international trade and commerce makes me a Neocon. Does anything I say make me a Neocon then? Or does MBD just call anyone a Neocon who he wants to silence?

    I bet if we ran through his beliefs and mine he’d have a lot more in common with the Neocons than I do.

    And BTW, for a more accurate explanation of neoconservatism from the horse’s mouth, see this article by Irving Kristol in the Weekly Standard.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Nalle first said…“we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    That statement proves he is a neocon.

    His defense is that he just believes “in international trade and commerce” and ignores the word SUPPORT.

    His reply changes what he said by leaving out the word SUPPORT which is obviously a euphemism for the use of military force and other forms of extortion.

    International trade and commerce can be done best by refraining from the use of military force and other forms of extortion.

    If all countries with “a worldwide network of commercial interests” used military force and other forms of extortion as the neocons want to do, most of the countries of the world would be at war with each other.

  • Michael Davis

    I for one, will vote for Ron Paul. I don’t have to demean other candidates, because they seem to have done that pretty well themselves. Thanks for your time! :)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “That statement proves he is a neocon.”

    Dave denies that, and I would say he knows better than anyone else where his political preferences are.

    But let’s say, for the moment, and for the sake of argument, that he is a “neocon.”

    Is that bad?

    Why?

  • MBD

    Is that bad?

    No.

    It’s good.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, ‘support’ does not mean invading other countries preemptively or just to redesign their societies, except maybe in your fevered brain.

    It DOES mean protecting our citizens overseas and their property, and passing laws which don’t excessively penalize our citizens or businesses for trading in or with other countries.

    I do believe in exporting democracy, but I don’t think it can be done by force. IMO our businesses are our best advertisement. When they go into a country and start a factory and double the wages people earn there and create economic opportunity, that’s an engine for change. It’s not sudden, which is probably a good thing, but eventually those countries will be improved through their contact with the US and our businesses.

    The objective may be similar to that of the Neocons – and what sensible person thinks that spreading freedom and capitalism is bad? But the methods are entirely different.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Nalle, your words give you away.

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    What you said here is the neocon agenda for our foreign policy.

    Your attempts to cover up the fact you are a neocon is just more of your self-serving rhetoric.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    MBD- Your inquisition into Nalle’s supposed identity as a “neocon” is a meaningless point. That’s just insisting on putting an arbitrary is of identity on him, a mere label. Dave “is” a “neocon.” You’re trying to insist that because you have identified him as a dreaded “neocon,” therefore he really, really believes… This is merely a game of smear the queer, and says nothing about what Nalle actually believes much less what the country needs to do to defend US.

    Am I a “neocon” as well? I’ve been called that. However, I don’t think either Nalle nor I are Jewish, which seems to be the point. The carrying on about “neocons” seems to mostly be just a slightly nicer version of vintage ZOG conspiracies. It distinctly has that undertone, for example, when Pat Buchanan talks about “neocons.”

  • MBD

    Neocons stick together.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    There’s something about commenters with three-letter monikers; they’re stalkers.

    Never post any articles, though…

  • MBD

    Methinks thou dost protest too much.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Here’s the thing MBD- I don’t mind being called a “neocon.” I don’t think that phrase has much predictive statement about my beliefs on any issue, other than to imply that I’m hawkish.

    Again though, when I hear someone calling me a neocon, it sounds like they’re accusing me of being a badass militant Jew. I would aspire to being such a thing, as I crank up another chorus of “They Ain’t Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore.”

  • MBD

    So do you subscribe to this?

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

  • MBD

    I don’t give shit whether you’re a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, a Scientologist or any other religion.

    My contempt for the neocon agenda is the negative effect it has on this country.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MBD, that comment of mine which you keep quoting is definitely not ‘neocon’ in character. Keep quoting it by all means. It’s a good way of separating the sheep from the goats. Anyone with any sense ought to support it and not fall for your ridiculous assertion that it supports preemptive war or nation building or conquering the world or any of that neocon silliness.

    How you can have contempt for something which you don’t understand at all is beyond me. It suggests a truly profound lack of reason.

    Dave

  • MBD

    The neocon agenda…

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    All those who says they are American should have contempt for your neocon agenda.

  • troll

    isn’t that a quote from John Kennedy – ?

  • MBD

    The neocon version…

    Ask not what you can do for your country, ask your country what it can do for you.

    Or in the vernacular…

    Ask not what you can do in the military of your country, ask your countrymen to do it for you.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    MBD- Since you seem to like Nalle’s quote so good and want to know whether I “subscribe” to it, let’s repeat that bad boy one more time for good measure.

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    That’s only a very broad statement of principle, but one to which any sensible person should be fairly sympathetic. We’ve dealt with such as this off and on for the entire history of our country. Jefferson had to fight Muslim pirates. Was that an evil “neocon” adventure?

    I don’t necessarily want to 100% “subscribe” to the viewpoint, cause it’s obviously open to wide abuse. We could get into a lot of trouble with the US government strong-arming people in the service of particular corporate business interests.

    But yes, we do need our government to represent for US. We can’t have jerks figuring that Americans are fair game the second they cross our borders, or we really would be isolated – unable to travel at all, much less do business.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    What I like is that MBD ignored all of my much more radical comments on foreign policy such as the idea that corporations are the spearhead of capitalist subversion of the third world.

    If you’re going to criticize me find fault with what I actually believe in – such as international corporatism. Just calling me a ‘neocon’ is horribly intellectually lazy.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Just calling me a ‘neocon’ is horribly intellectually lazy. (emphasis added)

    A hallmark of mbd’s comments.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    A small Ron Paul update.

  • MBD

    Barger, Nalle and Clavos are clearly birds of a feather.

    The fact that their rhetoric has proven to be a total failure doesn’t register in their neocon brains.

    The best they can do is try to disguise their neocon agenda.

    BTW, Clavos. I once had a parrot that could mimic better than you.

  • bliffle

    How times change! Now, the accusation “neocon!” has become damning!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “How times change! Now, the accusation “neocon!” has become damning!”

    Only in mbd’s surreal fantasy world…

  • MBD

    Only in a surreal fantasy world… would the neocons be responsible for killing 3,500 (and counting) Americans, over 25,000 (and counting) Americans crippled (many for life), wasting up to a trillion dollars, and have Clavos (the parrot) disavow the accusation that “neocon” has become damning.

    A neocon parrot… now that’s an interesting bird.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Neocon is a very specific term, and while it has become popular as a perjorative, that use is almost entirely by people like MBD who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

    dave

  • MBD

    This is what Nalle said about what a neocon is (but maybe he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about).

    “It’s because the days when the US was geographically isolated and self-sufficient are long over, and we now have a worldwide network of commercial interests, all of which are vulnerable if we don’t provide support for America and American interests beyond just the physical borders of the country.”

    It’s Nalle’s neocon recipe, for aggression, hegemony, and occupation to save the world from itself.

  • troll

    you’se guys need to get back to working out your definitions –

    anyone with eyes can see that the US government functions as hegemon for the world already – the relative size of its military alone substantiates this view

    the con vrs neocon argument centers on how to use this position to promote long term ‘peace and prosperity’ and in particular how to respond to threats

    simply put neocons reject conservative containment strategy and recommend preemptive political – economic – and military action

    as a corollary they reject a ‘hands off’ policy and accept regime change – nation building – and democratization as the responsibility of the US gov to ensure world peace

    so…who’s a neocon – ?

  • Zedd

    Al

    “But of course, that’s turning a blind eye to the malicious and irrational nature of the enemies that we face.”

    In this case it is you who is adhering to a concept simply based on ideology. Your statement and belief about this particular situation and the people behind it is emotional and not based on reason. You assume that the statement that you make is a universal truth and base the rest of your article on it. It is weak and naive. It hearkens back to the good guys vs bad guys mentality that is the one enormous shortfall of the people of this nation. What you accuse Paul of is exactly what YOU are doing. You are replaying the “communism evil” scenario because that is what WE do.

    Your premise is flawed and you ignore the reality that they may see us as you see them. You miss that fact that all of our engagement in the Middle East wasn’t to affect rubber dolls but living breathing and thinking people. All of our flaws in that region were noticed and had real affects on their lives. You missed a chance to understand your world better. Paul is right and is brave enough not to pander to the ignorance of our nation.

    What is sad is that the rest of these candidates understand the position of our attackers and will not voice it because they want to play up to the shallow conclusions of the cartoon reared American public.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    From the “Ron Paul Update” (post #183)

    But we’ll see what happens when, say, Mitt Romney actually seriously answers his isolationist rhetoric. There’s certainly good wisdom in considering how we might be making things worse rather than better with SOME of our extensive foreign military entanglements. But Paul takes that all the way to the wall on principle. His entire foreign policy consists of worldwide military withdrawal, on the frankly asinine presumption that Islamist enemies will just leave US alone if we leave them alone.

    I’d love to see Ron Paul grind Romney into the dirt! I don’t think Paul believes or teaches that our Muslim enemies will “just leave US alone.”

    He would maintain that without the bankrupting cost of a world-policing/nation-building military force, then what really ought to be called our OFFENSE Budget could be trimmed down to a true DEFENSE Budget capable of financing REAL border, coastline, and interior security.

    Also the total elimination of both military and humanitarian aid would render potential enemies much weaker, as countries would then be forced to direct their energies toward solving their own problems, rather than having us relieve them of that burden which frees up their governments to concentrate resources on military projects.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Jefferson fighting Muslim pirates was perfectly constitutional. Piracy, counterfeiting, and treason are the three, and only three, Federal crimes (Notice that failing to file an income tax return is NOT one of them – all Federal taxation is voluntary.)

    The high seas do not belong to any country, but once you enter alien continental waters understand that you do so at your own risk.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Richard Brodie sez I’d love to see Ron Paul grind Romney into the dirt! I don’t think Paul believes or teaches that our Muslim enemies will “just leave US alone.”

    I’d sure like to see that, but I’d have to actually see it. I’m not being flippant or trying to exaggerate when I say that pretty much all I’ve ever seen from Paul as foreign policy is that we should withdrawal our military from everywhere, with the assumption that our enemies will follow suit.

    I would LOVE to see Paul be more specific about Iran, for example. Is he willing to simply stand back and let the mullahs have nuclear weapons?

    Also, you may like to THINK that paying federal income taxes is voluntary – but try NOT doing it, and see see what it gets you. Insisting that income taxes are “voluntary” is a perfect example of exactly the kind of delusional thinking that discredits Ron Paul and a lot of Libertarians.

    You got your “oughts” and “is”s all confused there. Yeah, taxes ought to be voluntary, but in the corporeal world outside of your mind they are 100% compulsory.

    Likewise with Ron Paul’s ideas of foreign policy. By rights, you’d think that any country would react to a high minded, principled military withdrawal from their country or region would cause people to back off and leave US alone in return. Sometimes with some folks that works fine. Others are less interested in getting along.

    You can’t have a non-aggression pact with Nazis or kamikazes or Islamic jihadists. They’re not working out of the same playbook as others of US.

    Zedd in comment 191 seems to be merely bullheaded in insisting that I’m the ideologue here. Turning your opponents arguments back on them is a great thing – if they apply. But they don’t. Ron Paul is HIGHLY ideological (for both good and ill) on pretty much every topic. He’s very principled.

    I have some ideas that I put fair stock in, and therefore I’m somewhat ideological – as humans must be to understand and make order of their worlds. But I try very hard to consciously place experience and real world data over ideas – though certainly not 100% successfully.

    In the real world, we have a lot of enemies of varying levels of hostility for a lot of different reasons. It’s far beyond the scope of one magazine column or discussion thread to parse out how best to deal with all these different actors and motivations. It takes different input to deal with silly Frenchmen than with the wicked but rational Chinese communists than with religiously fanatic Iranian mullahs.

    Whereas, I’ve seen nothing at all evidencing any nuance or distinctions in Ron Paul’s thinking about any of these characters. From all I’ve seen so far, he’s got a one size fits all ideology. Leave them alone, and they’ll have no reason to attack us. QED.

    That’s asinine, but that’s all I’m seeing from him. If he’s got something more sophisticated, reflecting that he’s engaged in the real world, I’d like to see it.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    I would LOVE to see Paul be more specific about Iran, for example. Is he willing to simply stand back and let the mullahs have nuclear weapons?

    Why are the Iranians any less entitled than the Pakistanis, or for that matter the United States, to have nuclear energy and nuclear weapons? Iran is not OUR enemy, it is Israel’s enemy. Unfortunately the conflating of these two (Israel’s enemies = our enemies) has been the cause of most of our bloody entanglements in the world for the last 65 years.

    You can’t have a non-aggression pact with Nazis

    But it’s OK to have one with Communists, huh. Hitler wasn’t our enemy any more than Ahmadinejad is. We should have been on HIS side against Stalin instead of the other way around. Maybe then we would would not now be having to face a China ideologically conquered by a certain Jew named Karl Marx.

    From all I’ve seen so far, he’s got a one size fits all ideology.

    If you mean Libertarianism, that’s not true. He doesn’t buy into their stupid, no-borders immigration nonsense. And he has introduced legislation to do away with automatic citizenship by birth location accident. I’m sure he would institute absolute border security.

    If he’s got something more sophisticated, reflecting that he’s engaged in the real world, I’d like to see it.

    I’m sure we’ll see it, if he’s given the chance.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    We all know that Hitler wasn’t YOUR enemy, Brodie. Thankfully your kind of collaborationist menatlity didn’t dominate America at the time of WW2.

    As for the Iranians getting nukes, I don’t really have a problem with it. Based on their current behavior they’ve got a long list of other countries to use them on before they get to us.

    We can let them nuke Israel (should make Brodie happy), then we can nuke them in retaliation before they move on to nuking Saudi Arabia.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “Unfortunately the conflating of these two (Israel’s enemies = our enemies) has been the cause of most of our bloody entanglements in the world for the last 65 years.”

    Oh sure, we got into WWII, Korea and Vietnam on behalf of Israel.

    Puhleeze…

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Actually we WERE collaborationists – with Stalin.

    And when I said we should have been fighting him instead of Hitler, I meant if we had to be fighting ANYONE – which we shouldn’t have been. The Germans could have whipped Stalin’s ass just fine all by themselves if we hadn’t been getting entangled in what was just one more in a long string of European wars.

    then we can nuke them [Iran] in retaliation before they move on to nuking Saudi Arabia.

    Now why would you want to do that? As Ruvy has pointed out many times, Saudi Arabi is the head of the Wahabiist snake. If Iran would like to whack it off for us, I say let’s not stand in their way while they try to sharpen their sword.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Oh sure, we got into WWII, Korea and Vietnam on behalf of Israel.

    Obviously not Korea and Vietnam. And while Israel did not exist prior to WWII, Zionists had been laying the groundwork for the Palestinian dispossession since long before 1948. And the “genocide” of the Jews served nicely as their pretext and justification.

    BTW, if it is justifiable for us to intervene to prevent ethnic cleansing, why do we do so only when it is Jews or Muslims who are targeted, and then stand by without so much as a peep of protest, let alone extending refugee status, in the case of the CURRENTLY ONGOING genocide against Boer farmers in that wonderful crime capital of the world, South Africa?

    The Boer Genocide

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “BTW, if it is justifiable for us to intervene to prevent ethnic cleansing”

    I don’t recall saying anything either about justifiability OR ethnic cleansing.

    For the record, I don’t think we were justified in either Korea or Vietnam, but I will stipulate that I did go to Vietnam eager to kill communists.

    It didn’t take me long to realize I’d been had by Mr. Johnson.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “…while Israel did not exist prior to WWII, Zionists had been laying the groundwork for the Palestinian dispossession since long before 1948. And the “genocide” of the Jews served nicely as their pretext and justification.”

    Gee Mr. Brodie,

    How awful fuckin’ generous of you. So now we have yet another arithmetically challenged fool who can’t seem to figure out the the -6 million numeral in the Jewish population figures was due to the death ovens of Mr. Hitler. You should join Mahmoud Abbas in his scholarly dissertations. Maybe you can get some commie to cough up the money for your work, too.

    And such sisu. Éizeh Hutzpán! After asserting out that we Jews have been the cause of you poor Americans having lost your moral compass over 65 years, you have the balls to quote me on my views on the Wahhabi snake?

    Face it, Brodie. Your nation is going down the tubes. It’s lost its way, and it is lost as well. The blessing that G-d gave you all in 1815 in New Orleans was taken away 190 years later in 2005 – also at New Orleans.

    And all the neo-nazi frothing at the mouth isn’t going to save you.

  • Dw

    Does anyone, either American or Israeli realize that not one ISRAELI citizen lost their lives in the twin towers on 9-11???? Only 2-3 on the planes. Not trying to finger point or anything but it sure seems like the ISRAELIES knew a lot more than they were telling their “friends” the Americans about what was about to be their fate! I for one, am VERY suspicious. I think our relationship has become a little one-sided and someone like a Ron Paul mught be able to level the field a little. Just a thought

  • Lumpy

    Nice racism there, DW. But more than 600 jews died on 9/11 even if they weren’t israelis.

  • American

    Well hummm, as a Ron Paul supporter I guess I should say thanks……..I think? As a Texas resident I have a lot to thank Ron Paul for. He has never once voted to raise taxes and yes he does know our Constitution and he votes for our rights. I know that is a very foriegn concept for the “after 9/11 mentality” our society has today of thinking we can ever be safer by giving up our liberties.

    If we weren’t “occupying” well over 100 other countries and funding military bases at all those locations we may just be able to secure our “own” country and our “own” borders. What a novel idea to really focus on the Nations’ security IN our country. What a great idea to protect OUR borders, you know- since security is such an issue-instead of securing the borders of so many “other” countries.

    We would also stop having so many enemies to fight if we didn’t help to build them up, create them, and give them power in the first place. We gave depleted to North Korea first under Clinton, then it continued under Bush “until” he named them in his Axis of Evil trio. Same with helping to fund, train, arm etal., Sadam and Bin Laden.

    Maybe if we weren’t so focused on the issues of getting into the business of telling all these other countries how to run their countries we could actually focus on the people starving in our own country, the people watching their jobs fly out the door to all those other countries, and the issues of our own people? Maybe, who knows?

    Ron Paul did not blame “American’s” for the attacks on 9/11 but he did point out how our governments foriegn policies are directly involved in why hatred is building up against us. His statements are verified in the 9/11 Commision report and the CIA documents on what is called “blowback” whereas our governments actions against other countries do indeed have repercautions. Albiet sometimes they arr unintentional but they do have consequences.

    Does it mean our leadership is weak if they take responsibility for the aggressive actions of our foriegn policies, and start telling the truth while actually doing something to stop making those same mistakes?

    Heck, I think that is what we usualy define a real leader as having the ability to do. Not one who makes excuses, shifts the blame and continues to repeat the same mistakes over, and over agian, while dragging us into more unprovoked, needless wars. Hello, we are knowcking on Irans door next right? Did we learn a thing at all after Vietnam? Good grief.

    I guess it all depends on how sick our people get of seeing the needless death and the billions that continue to go to the war coffers instead of to the people in our own country who continue to lose their rights by the minute.

    Not hard to see how it could happen when we lost 3000 people and have since have invaded two countries and are threatening to invade a third.

    We bombed Iraq for over ten years, placed sanctions on them starving hundreds of thousands of their civillians, built military bases in the Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia, and we are in the process of building massive bases that compare to the Vatican with over 144 acres of their land for our bases-BUT we are only supposed to be there long enough for their new government to stabilize right?

    Yea, I am sure American’s would be fine if foriegn troops were in our streets and our innocents were being carpet bombed while our women were raped and our children were used as human shields. I am sure they would be ok if those foriegn troops took our citizens, locked them up without charges or proof, detained them for what appeared to be 3 years, with no trial, no Habeous corpus rights via a denied representation of a defence, and then conducted what they called “accelerated interrogation techniques” on us which really translates to mean some serious torture is going on.

    Forget those little ole Geneva Convention human rights-they are only good during a declared “war.” That’s right we haven’t declared war. Wonder why?

    Heck no, we wouldn’t be angry would we?

    Look at what we have done over 3000 tragic deaths and answer that for yourself. Not to forget 3400 needless tragic deaths of our own military.

    How much war will be enough war for this country to get it that we are being attacked because we are in thier living rooms, holding a gun in their face, and people tend to frown on that just a tad bit?

    One things for sure- as we spend billions each day, becoming more indebt to China to pay for this illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, we continue to ebb away at the future for our children and our elderly.

    As we continue to sit by as they strip each much needed Constitutional right through God awful legislation like The Homeland Security Acts and The Patriot Acts we will leave little freedoms for our grandchildren.

    It would absolutely astound me to have a President in ofice today who even “remembered” our Constitution, Much less one that knew it so well he would actually abide by it and restore our rights and contain the power of an ever encroaching government that has obviously run amuck.

    Indeed, I know who I am voting for regardless of polls, and public opinionated articles meant to try, and make me look at only the media darlings. These media darlings have voting records that already show they are not voting for the best interest of the people. So why would I vote for them when their records already reveal how they would just sell my rights out even more and how they have no intentions of ending these wars? Heck they can’t even bring themselves to impeach the criminals of this administration. Do we want more of the same in the next one?

    Ron Paul is it for me and it may come as a shock that he is gaining such online popularity to some. But it doesn’t shock those of us who do look at voting records and see if these campaign words match what they have already done. He has actual solutions and he is addressing the issues of the people, FOR the people. That’s Something we have not seen in a candidate ever in my life.

    So this lady will indeed keep the support going for Ron Paul. I do care what future we leave for our kids and I know it won’t be much until we get a leader who also thinks of their future as well.

    I thank you for your time hope you too look at the voting record to see what these candidates have already done, or haven’t done at all, and see if their promises on the road match what they have already revealed of themselves while in office already.

    Actions do speak louder then words. Ron Paul is not all talk at all. I shudder to think of who will take his place as our Congressman here if he does get the oval office. But I know good things start at the top if we ever want to see things good at the bottom. Right now it’s all rotten to the core and we need to throw that bad batch out on both sides of these sell outs in office.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I’ll just gloss over ‘American’s’ ill-informed drivel. It seems to be par for Paul supporters to deny reality and believe every loony conspiracy they hear.

    I shudder to think of who will take his place as our Congressman here if he does get the oval office.

    Eric Dondero who commented earlier in this thread is running for Paul’s seat in the GOP primary. He’s a libertarian republican like Paul, but he has a rather more sensible and less ideologically distorted viewpoint on the world.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Ruvy writes:

    “The blessing that G-d gave you all in 1815 in New Orleans was taken away 190 years later in 2005 – also at New Orleans.”

    Puhleeze, Ruvy.

    It was just a storm. A bad one, but just a storm nonetheless.

    It wasn’t even our worst in terms of deaths, though it was the most costly, according to Infoplease:

    1776
    Sept. 2–9, N.C. to Nova Scotia: called the “Hurricane of Independence,” it is believed that 4,170 in the U.S. and Canada died in the storm.

    1900
    Sept. 8, Galveston, Tex.: an estimated 6,000–8,000 died in hurricane and tidal surge. The “Galveston Hurricane” is considered the deadliest in U.S. history.

    1928
    Sept. 6–20, Lake Okeechobee, southeast Fla.: 1,836 deaths. Second-deadliest U.S. hurricane on record.

    2005
    Aug. 25–Aug. 30, Fla., Miss., and La.: “Katrina” hit southern Fla. on Aug. 25th and on Aug. 29th slammed the Gulf Coast with 127 mph winds and major storm surges, destroying hundreds of homes and businesses and causing massive flooding in Miss., Ala., and New Orleans where the levees failed. The death toll was c. 1,800, with 1,464 of those in La. “Katrina” was among the most devastating of U.S. hurricanes with damages estimated at $100 billion.

    Had New Orleans not been so vulnerable because of its location and below-sea level elevations, and if local and state authorities had reacted and prepared as they do here in Florida, Katrina wouldn’t rank as high as it does.

    Katrina was a Category 3 when she hit NO, Andrew hit Miami as a Category 5; a much stronger storm, but casualties AND damage were much lower, for the reasons I mentioned above.

  • MBD

    “ill-informed drivel”

    “loony conspiracy”

    “ideologically distorted”

    There’s nothing like providing facts.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    You’re right, MBD. Facts are great. Pity there are none in her comment.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Her comment?

    Not quite.

    “I’ll just gloss over ‘American’s’ ill-informed drivel. It seems to be par for Paul supporters to deny reality and believe every loony conspiracy they hear.

    I shudder to think of who will take his place as our Congressman here if he does get the oval office.

    Eric Dondero who commented earlier in this thread is running for Paul’s seat in the GOP primary. He’s a libertarian republican like Paul, but he has a rather more sensible and less ideologically distorted viewpoint on the world.”

  • Alec

    Al – let me belatedly congratulate you on a great post, one of the best that I have seen in the blogosphere. You make great points in deftly showing why Paul is probably not a viable candidate, but also why he is important to the presidential debate.

    GOP mainliners want to exclude Paul from future debates because they are more concerned with staying in power than in governing wisely, and Paul’s presence prevents them from nailing home their phony, simplistic message that Republicans are good, no matter how incompetent or duplicitous they become once they achieve power. And Paul’s presence is an uncomfortable reminder that the Bush Administration has decided that they must destroy the Constitution in order to save it.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    If the GOP manages to shut Paul out of future debates, I think that may just strengthen and expand his grass roots support.

    But to be fair, there are a couple of other candidates running who aren’t all that tainted with corruption, and Paul isn’t as lily-white as people would like to believe he is.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “Puhleeze, Ruvy.

    It was just a storm. A bad one, but just a storm nonetheless.”

    Uh huh… Tell that to the people who lost their homes and livelihoods, Clavos. Then toss me the loose teeth as you pick them up after the fist goes flying through your jaw…

    If it had been “just a storm” it wouldn’t have occurred when it did. Think timing, think effective destruction, etc. etc. In fact, since you threw it in for consideration, let’s take a look at that Florida storm in Sept. 1928. Can you think of any other events that occurred in Sept. 1928 that might have portended disaster? Remember, it doesn’t have to be weather related…

    Sometimes a storm is just a storm – granted. But not always…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Sorry, Ruvy.

    A storm is just a storm, the bible and your religious beliefs notwithstanding.

    What was the portent of the tornadoes that hit Greensburg, Kansas the other day? Are the residents of Greensburg somehow deserving of them? Or was god trying to tell them something?

    Nope, not buying, Ruvy.

  • troll

    Ruvy – your G-d is a malevolent mischievous SOB and when Sophia catches up with Him He’s gonna get a whooping and be sent to His room

    …or one could say – you appear to have lost your marbles

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Very nice post American woman.

    Looking at Dave Nalle, one can see where the next generaion of Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Chertoffs, etc. is going to come from.

  • Pamela

    Dave,
    Just because someone doesn’t have the same opinion of what issues concern them about our country “as you do” it does not mean they are ill-informed by any means or that those issues are not a concern to many other people. It means it’s a free country and we all just may have “various” issues we are concerned about.

    If you are referring to the same Eric Dondero – who once called Ron Paul his mentor, while riding under Paul’s wings for guidance, and the same Eric Dondero who then turned on him, wanted him kicked out, and publicly declared he would go for his seat, after Paul’s “truthful” words at the debates were not welcomed with open arms to the war mongers of the GOP debates, then you have proven my concern even more.

    If this kid would turn on a man he called his mentor over those verifiable, factual, words from Ron Paul about 9/11 were said, then Eric has shown he knowns no more about foriegn policy then Rudy the war monger did.

    Rudy may have gotten the applause during the debate from his illinformed grand standing – but since then he has slunk back into the hole he came from with Ron Paul going public and proving all his words were indeed factual, and backed up by the 9/11 commision reports, and documents of the CIA. He sent reading materials to Rudy (the 9/11 hero)who obviously has no clue about the 9/11 commision report.

    Maybe you too need to read the 9/11 commision report to see some facts for yourself.

    The only people who would see Eric Dondero as you do , ” more sensible and less ideologically distorted viewpoint on the world” then Ron Paul right now are the ones who would condone someone who would betray someone at a moments notice for their own political gain while not having a clue about the verifiable truth before them.

    We have enough traitors of the American people in office today. We do not need to add another who shows how easily they would be a traitor before they are elected.

    I beleive in seeing what “actions” people actually do and not just listening to what they “say” they will do. Eric’s actions spoke loud and clear that he is not someone Texas needs in office.

    If you want to only hear “one” view in this country. One cloned, narrow minded view, that refuses to give any room for open dabate to look at all choices, and solutions for how we got here so we can really turn these issues around, then just turn on your TV and open your mainstream magazines. They are filled with one view, and one choice.The same views and choices that got us in these messes in the first place.

    We have enough clone candidates in this race who have only one view on both sides, in both parties, who spout out only one choice, and what do you know- that one view is exactly where this administration wants them to go. What do you know…that one agenda has not changed at all since the Democrats took the Senate and the House. Again LOOK at their voting records if you can handle a shred of the truth for just how different these candidates are “not” then see how they keep voting for these things they say they are against.

    Meanwhile, we will only keep making the same mistakes again if we continue to keep doing the same thing. It’s time we got a real leader for a change.

    The traitor Eric Dondero has shown Texans he cannot be trusted for if this is what he would do to his so-called mentor then what would he do to people who trusted his meaningless words? If he can be this easily swayed, and jump to political correct conclusions, without seeing the facts presented to him, then how can Texans count on him to “not” make un-informed, rash decisions, for our state?

    The traitor Eric did himself no favors by showing how he would stab his supposed “mentor” in the back, and take opportunistic moments to benefit his own campaign agenda. While at the same time revealing to Texans he is clueless about our foriegn policies.

  • Pamela-American

    Very nice post American woman.

    Looking at Dave Nalle, one can see where the next generaion of Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Chertoffs, etc. is going to come from.

    Richard Brodie

    Richard,
    Thanks, I have been looking and it is of great concern. When we have an audience at a GOP debate willing to cheer for torture that also greatly concerns me. When we have candidates like Mit who wants to double the size of Gitmo that has been ousted for being a nightmare torture camp, and the GOP debate audience CHEERS for that- that is a great concern for the depths of the sick mentality that many in our culture has allowed themselves to be dragged down to.

    What is of most concern is how it is unbelievable that any American citizens would not see the importance of fighting for their own rights? I don’t care if they vote for Ron Paul or not. Let’s hope they at least know their own Constitution and realize just why those rights are so important.

    As so many are steered to only see the war mantras to keep that blind hate alive, while refusing to see how our governments aggressive actions in the Middle East are only “increasing” our enemies, many Like Dave allow themselves to be filled with hate enough to attack the very people who are trying to show him that “his” rights too are being stripped from him.

    While he is running out there starting all these fires of distraction to keep getting off the real issues, and onto personal attacks, his own rights continue to fly out the window. Does he even get that? Who knows….

    Personal attacks come flooding in while the issues are hoped to be drowned out yet again.

    THAT is the reason why Ron Paul continues to gain more and more support. Not because he’s some incredible dynamic speaker, but because he speaks the stark truth. He really KNOWS the issues the “people” care about, because they are issues that directly affect our rights and our future. He is actually working FOR the people and doing what all politicians are SUPPOSED to do-he is being a voice for the people. He is speaking for those voices that are being buried by the mainstream media to help these sell outs stay on this course of what amounts to betraying our own people while staying on this path of invading more coutries-pre-emptively and unprovoked.

    Since when did we become the nation of strike first ask questions later? Again, didn’t we learn a thing from Vietnam? That did wonders for us in Vietnam didn’t it? 60,000 dead and we finally got out to now trade with them and have a strong relationship. Which was better-60,000 deaths or the open trade that brings commerce to our country from Vietnam now?

    Indeed, our governments foriegn policies continue to set us up for these endless wars. As we speak we are repeating history yet again.

    We have fleets of ships and planes who are conducting “military exersizes” right off the coast of Iran. No, we haven’t hit them….yet, but it’s the same as swinging at someone and barely missing their face. They conducted these “military exersizes” just before we were to sit down for talks with Iran.

    We are “provoking” this war against a country we already helped to dismantale in the past (their people haven’t forgotten it either) when we helped their militia overthrow their leader and install a radical leader. Now that radical leader we helped them put in is not doing exactly what our government wants them to do.

    So the war mantra starts again.

    The deceitful tactics to incite war continues while messing with their monetary system in Iran and funneling money to their resistent groups in that country. Playing both sides of the fence that will only ensure we get into yet another war.

    With or borders wide open, and our military spread even thinner, just who does Dave think will be HERE to protect US after these enemies unite against us?

    Surely Dave knew that Iran was building a coalition against us with our enemies in the Middle East right? Surely Dave knew that because of our governments aggressive invasions in the Middle East, Iran is having no problems finding takers to join them so they will not be sitting there alone like Iraq was right?

    Dave do share with us all how much you yourself know about our current foriegn policies and just who you think as our next President will help OUR country?

    Only the will of the American people to stand up and say enough will end it. But we first have to be heard, and we need more then ever a real leader who is willing to ignore political correctness, and one who recognizes the impact of these foriegn policies, and the extreme importance of our liberties as a so-called “free country” to do it.

    If Dave doesn’t get it now he never will. After reading some of his post. I will not hold my breath.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Ron Paul Creates REAL Discussion of the Nation’s Issues

    Which will do absolutely no good if he’s not elected.

    Do you really think that this “discussion” is going to change what any of the other candidates is going to THINK and DO as president? Hardly.

    And does it matter if a lot of people like you believe in almost everything he stands for, but refuse to vote for him over disagreement with his foreign policy? The President doesn’t listen to the people anymore, and doesn’t even think he has to listen to Congress, but instead issues signing statements informing the Legislative branch just which parts of any newly passed bill he intends to ignore.

    The only thing that will make any difference is if a man of true conviction and principle is sitting in the White House – someone who realizes, as Ron Paul does, that a vastly greater danger than terrorists to the American people and nation, is our own Federal government.

  • http://hammer2006.blogspot.com Alex Hammer

    Ron Paul Roundup:

    Video From Ron Paul Campaign – Educating Rudy Press Conference
    Ron Paul On Real Time With Bill Maher

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Richard Brodie [comment 218] sez

    Do you really think that this “discussion” is going to change what any of the other candidates is going to THINK and DO as president? Hardly.

    And does it matter if a lot of people like you believe in almost everything he stands for, but refuse to vote for him over disagreement with his foreign policy?

    For starters, if Paul stays on the stage through the primary season, he certainly will have an impact. Democratically elected politicians generally are responsive to the will of the people, if only from a sense of survival. Think of Bill Clinton signing welfare reform.

    Of course, Paul himself is not responsive to the public will. When Bush or Pelosi don’t do what you want, they’re corrupt bastards who won’t listen to the public. When Ron Paul doesn’t give a hoot what anybody else thinks, he’s being principled.

    But if there’s substantial support for Paul, it will move the needle to some extent on a whole lot of things. He’ll move the goalpost, if only an inch or two here and there. If Paul got several million primary votes, that would significantly change the calculations for President Romney about who the Republican base is and what they expect.

    But you’re being purposely obtuse with that last part about us who “believe in almost everything he stands for.” That little detail about his foreign policy ideas being WHACK is not just a minor point. Defending the country from attack is the main important job of the federal government, and WAY the most important thing we pick the POTUS for.

    We just absolutely cannot afford to have an ideologue with little or no regard for reality as the commander in chief, no matter how much we’d like to eliminate the IRS. Paul’s non-interventionist principles have substantial merit – but they are not The Eternal and Unalterable Truth applicable to all time and space.

    Paul’s got his eyes totally focused on his ideological road map, and doesn’t seem to pay much attention to the road. If the driver’s eyes are on the map rather than the road, he’ll end up driving us into a ditch – if we’re lucky – or smash us up real bad right into a big ol’ brick wall o’ reality.

    Alex, let me help you with basic hyperlinks:
    Video From Ron Paul Campaign – Educating Rudy Press Conference

    Ron Paul On Real Time With Bill Maher

    I’ll just note that the smug condescension of an “educating Rudy press conference” is both unearned and unimpressive.

  • Pamela/American

    Al,
    I can’t speak for issues all people are concerned for. Nor do I care to speak for all Ron Paul supporters. I can say your true colors are surfacing quickly and it is not shocking to see that your spin piece on Ron Paul was indeed meant to do as other have accused you of. Starting out supportive to just go in for the slam dunk.

    Not as a supporter of Ron Paul but as an AMERICAN I will speak for myself here. I am FAR more concerned with the RIGHTS I have lost due to The Patriot Acts and The Homeland Security Acts then I am about seeing more American soldiers die in yet another unprovoked war they appear to be bent on dragging us into.

    Do you even care about the rights WE all have lost? Nixon had to step down for wire tapping ONE political party. Bush is wiretapping the ENTIRE nation. Does anyone care? Surely you are not equating security to mean it can only be obtained from enslaving us and stripping our rights? Do you feel safer now? Good grief.

    When will the corruption be enough for us to stop it? The more we turn a blind eye- the more of the same we are asking for.

    Please tell me that was a slip when you forgot to insert “Candidate” between Romney and the word President. Indeed we do not need a bigger war monger in office then the nut we already have.

    Just because you do not know how to read the laws as they are actually written about the “voluntary” income tax does not mean they are not as they are written.

    Would people go to jail if they do not pay this “voluntary” tax, yes they will if they “voluntarily” follow the paperwork as it is written. Not to confuse the paperwork with the laws that they ignore.

    Am I saying people should stop paying this illegal tax? No.

    Yes, there are plenty of people not paying this tax-also not to be confused with thinking they don’t pay any taxes because this just surrounds the issue of “income” taxes. Ironically those who are not paying the “income tax” as is their legal right are manily compiled of former IRS agents.

    Is there a problem with stopping for one moment to just “question” if there is any legitamacy about these issues? I certainly hope not. When we stop questioning and take everything for face value we have truly walked away from a thinking country to a “voluntary” group who depends upon others to think for us. No thanks.

    That has gotten us right where we are. No WMD, Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, etc, etc, etc… More of the highjackers were Arabs, Yet off to “Iraq” we marched, and now years later we are still there.

    When will we demand accountability? WHEN?

    Al are you ok with ONE person having the ability to declare we are in some “Declared Emergency” who can then enact the provisions of the Patriot Acts that allows our government to confiscate our money, land, assets or whatever liquid viable funds we may have if they so choose?

    Have you even seen the blatant misuse of Eminent Domain already being used in this country to benefit corporations against the rights of individual American land owner?

    Are you ok with facing being forced to endure experimental medication and forced experimental vaccines if they declare such an emergency without any right to refuse, all the while the drug companies are given full liability protections to not be held accountible to you, or your family at all, if those experimental drugs, or vaccines, kill you, or your loved ones, as outlined in The Homeland Security Acts and the Emergency Prepardenss Acts?

    Do you think they won’t try something unless they were for sure we were under some biological attacks? If so, Where were you when the Anthrax scares took place, the small pox scams, and the SARS fiasco? Do you think they are spending millions resurecting the HN51 virus then placing it into a vaccine for billions more for nothing?

    Are you OK with Bush’s recent Emergency directives that gives him yet more unpecedented powers to trump all THREE of our legislative braches and be his ultimate dream of the ulitimate “decider?” If he drags us into another war or decided we are under this trumped up avian flu attack they ahve been staging for several YEARS now through fear, then just what makes you so naive that we will even have the next election? Indeed, thinking ahout our rights would matter then now wouldn’t they?

    Yes, Al, as strange as it may seem to you- some of us Americans DO care about our RIGHTS to be free from forced drugging. From from illegal searches and siezures, Free from being locked up without being charged with one crime, without access to legal representation, without the rights of our family to even know where we are much less try to help us mount a defence as we are subject to being detained for YEARS with no court date in site. Surely you weren’t ignorant enough to think all those God Awful rights stripping pieces of legislations were only for the so-called Terrorist?

    Oh that’s right- according to this administration anyone who thinks carefully about the torture and the basic human rights we are denying the “detainees” in the Middle East is a “terrorist sympathizer.”

    That’s interesting in light of the fact that these detainees have NEVER even been proven to BE a terrorist yet since they are detainees “meaning not ONE charge” has been alledged against them yet.

    So how can anyone defending basic human rights against someone who hasn’t even been proven to be a terrorist- be a terrorist sympathizer?

    Keep spinning the war drums while they continue to strip your rights. National ID is next. The cameras will not just be placed on your traffic lights they will be in your home before they are satisfied. Why not? They are already on your phone lines, in your email, your medical files, your finances, why not? They want a national database. Why NOT?

    By the time you get it you will lose your first amendment right to even speak up. In your line of professions that would mean you would also be out of a job.

    So You may just want to think about how crazy you think these people who are fighting for the Constitution really are. We don’t grab our guns and run to protect another country and leave our own homes defensless. But you call that a weak foreign policy. Whatever.

    I would not want you to be in charge of protecting my home because I can see the person at the home is the one who can defend it, not the guy clear across town.

    Again, I am in Texas and as such I have seen first hand the destructions to our economy, jobs, education, and healthcare due to the massive open borders sell out policies we are under right now.

    As the taxes go up and up and we pay double the national average for health insurance, auto and home, due to the DRAIN on our hospitals,economy, and the crime rates, I have felt the immediate impact of the illegal flush into our state and our streets have felt the immediate impact of the risen crime from people coming here illegally without background checks who are murdering at will.

    Does this mean I am against Immigrants who come here “legally”? Of course not. Anyone coming here who wants to abide by our laws and contribute to our economy while paying their own way is fine. But yes, I am fed up with the invastion that has taken place while the mainstream media continues to pander to the hundreds of thousands of illegal immgrants marching in our streets,(illegals the INS says they can’t find when all they have to do is go to the marches with the strets filled with them) illegal immigrants who are waiving their home country flags and singing their country’s national anthems, while asking us to take care of them and that we ignore that little part about how they broke all our laws to get here and how they are sucking us dry from the inside out to stay here while they send their funds home to support their own countries.

    This doesn’t even TOUCH the drug wars does it AL?

    Afghanistan is now one of the worlds largest cocaine dealers again SINCE our invasion. Some war on drugs huh?

    Think the border issue is all about illegal immigrants? Think again. We are fed up here in Texas with seeing our streets filled with the drugs coming across that border and seeing one border patrol agent, after the next killed when they try to stop the drug trade. Enough already.

    Arguing many of these points is as inane as trying to get people to see illegal is still “illegal” even when we are talking about illegal immigrants.

    God forbid we have a leader who thinks about Americans for a change and yes one who even knows what our Constitutional rights still are. It appears as if many in this country have long forgotten about their rights.

  • Lumpy

    Al B. Is dead on as usual. Paul has some fine ideas, but udeas are only as good as your ability to turn them into viable policy. Doing that requires some diplomatic skill and a willingness to compromise and make deals. Paul has fanaticism instead. Even when pushing libertarianism fanaticism is a problem.

    Here’s a quiz for u guys. How many pieces of major legislation authored by Paul have passed even just the House, much less made it into law?

    The answer to that question tells u how he’ll do as president.

  • Pamela/American

    Ron Paul has effectively reached across the aisles so many times to join together to vote for the people that he will indeed be able to continue as our leader.

    As others have noted who have seen Ron Pauls’ voting record-Ron Paul’s stance of noninterventionism is not the way you have percieved it. He did indeed vote to go after Bin Laden and he did chastize the President for not doing it more aggresively. He did also voted to go to Afghanistan to target radicals there. He is more interested in protecting OUR borders then that of many other countries. He DOES place emphasis on protecting OUR country over protecting other countries.

    Something our open borders policies have not done for us. As we face the possibilities of entering yet another war with Iran just how thin Do American’s think our troops can get before our nation’s own security is compromised?

    If Ron Paul is far more for protecting the interest of Americans and the country in which we live he is worthy of consideration.

    He also has an unwaivering voting record for our rights and many issues that compile being American.

    Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002) Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

    He Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
    Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

    He Supports a Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000) Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004) Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999) Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) because he does understand the importance of respecting Posse Comitatus. Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004) Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

    He Repealed the gas tax. (May 2001) Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003) Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001) Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001) Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001) Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000) Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000) Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999) He wants to Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001)

    He Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on ‘Fast Track’ authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998) He wants No restrictions on import/export; but WANTS to maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000) Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006) Voted YES on limiting attorney’s fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005) He is for Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000) He is for Unlimited campaign contributions; ONLY with full disclosure. (Dec 2000) Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) But he does Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)

    He Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006) Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004) Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003) Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003) Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005) Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004) Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002) He is for the Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000) But he wants to End draft registration; all-volunteer forces . (Dec 2000) Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004) He si against giving instant citizenship to children born here to illegal immigrants. he is against giving social seciruty benefits or any welfare benefits to illegal immigransta nd thinks those benefits should only be given to legal citizens who ahve contributed to those programs.

    He Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001) Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000) Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004) Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004) Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004) Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002) Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001) Voted YES on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000) Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000) He wants to Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000) he also wants to Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001) He is known as the taxpayers best friend.

    He Voted NO on establishing “network neutrality” (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006) Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004) Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002) Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001) Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)

    Now if any of those issues represents someone you want representing you then fine. If they don’t then that is exactly what our voting system was designed to do. For the people to decide who best represents their interest that they as individuals are concerned about.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Pamela/American writes these long screeds for comments. They mix bromides with invective, and sound very rousing and patriotic – but they’re largely strings of non-sequiturs. They don’t make any coherent statement internally, and completely don’t respond to anything in the real world, eg other people’s questions and objections in this thread.

    For example, she writes
    Not as a supporter of Ron Paul but as an AMERICAN I will speak for myself here. I am FAR more concerned with the RIGHTS I have lost due to The Patriot Acts and The Homeland Security Acts then I am about seeing more American soldiers die in yet another unprovoked war they appear to be bent on dragging us into.

    Do you even care about the rights WE all have lost? Nixon had to step down for wire tapping ONE political party. Bush is wiretapping the ENTIRE nation. Does anyone care? Surely you are not equating security to mean it can only be obtained from enslaving us and stripping our rights? Do you feel safer now? Good grief.

    Nearly every single sentence of this either says something that doesn’t follow from what she said before, or something that is certainly not true.

    I am FAR more concerned with the RIGHTS I have lost due to The Patriot Acts and The Homeland Security Acts then I am about seeing more American soldiers die in yet another unprovoked war
    There’s simply no logical connection here. What exactly does one have to do with the other? Why can’t we have BOTH? I spent 2004 running AGAINST the Patriot Act and FOR a hawkish foreign policy. Those points seem to me to fit together. That is, I hope that beating crap out of fools in their own backyards will minimize them getting here and creating pressures that result in the need for curtailment of our domestic liberties. We won’t need to see what they’re looking at in our libraries if we kill them in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Bush is wiretapping the ENTIRE nation.
    That’s just not true. This is some hysterical nonsense, just the kind of thing to make a sympathetic person such as myself turn against your guy.

  • troll

    (I was thinking that it must be that Afghani cocaine…but [breaking into song] that ain’t nobody’s business but her own)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    Don’t sell the forge and anvil, troll :>)

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Al says: This is some hysterical nonsense, just the kind of thing to make a sympathetic person such as myself turn against your guy.

    Talk about inconsistent nonsense. First you try to portray this patriotic woman as being so full of non-sequiturs and untruths as to be unworthy of your high and mighty grammatically correct self, condescending to try understand what she is saying. Then you say that her “screeds” have so much power over you that you would allow some of her “hysterical nonsense” (as you perceive it) to sway you into changing your mind about being “sympathetic” towards “her guy”. What a spineless POS you are!

    And it should be obvious to you, as it is to me (and I’m sure is to her to), that Bush is not right now literally wiretapping every individual in the country. That is merely a hyperbolic way of stating that he has put into effect the justification for wiretapping anyone his government wants to. Furthermore, the National I.D. is just the first small step towards chipping us all with Real I.D. And as technology advances those implanted chips may well be able to pick up and transmit whatever comes out of our mouths, and not just when were on the phone – the ultimate wireless tap.

  • Pamela/American

    Al: Pamela/American writes these long screeds for comments. They mix bromides with invective, and sound very rousing and patriotic – but they’re largely strings of non-sequiturs. They don’t make any coherent statement internally, and completely don’t respond to anything in the real world, eg other people’s questions and objections in this thread.

    Pamela: Interesting I was thinking a similar thing about your hit piece on Ron Paul. Your thoughts are so far from the pulse of the American people that it astounds me.

    Believing in protecting my rights does not respond to anything in the real world? What world are you living in Al? What rights were you ok with losing? How many rights will be enough for you to think…ok that’s enough, they have gone too far? Do I have to be a clone thinker to participate in your thread? Or do you still recognize people can think for themselves and they just might find themselves disagreeing with you?

    Al: Nearly every single sentence of this either says something that doesn’t follow from what she said before, or something that is certainly not true.

    Pamela: Indeed I have many views on many various issues. It’s called independent thinking. I do not allow the mainstream media to place my focus only on what they want me to see. Indeed I do watch a lot of issues, even the ones you yourself appearently want to ingore. Just because you refuse to see it as true does not make it so. Just continues to show how writers like you are a part of the problem.

    Pamela:I am FAR more concerned with the RIGHTS I have lost due to The Patriot Acts and The Homeland Security Acts then I am about seeing more American soldiers die in yet another unprovoked war.

    Al:There’s simply no logical connection here. What exactly does one have to do with the other?

    Pamela: In case you hadn’t noticed Al-they have gone together irregardless if you liked it or not. As they increase these wars on “terror” meaning anybody they want to target next-forget proof, they are stripping more of OUR rights saying of course these illegal attacks against our constitutional rights are intended for getting the terrorists.

    How many have they caught so far Al? Several of the first alledge highjackers have been found very much alive. Bin Laden is still out there and that list is growing isn’t it?

    Did you get your rights back yet? Me niether. Do you see an end to these wars or for that matter an end to the legislation they continue to pass that strips more of our rights based upon these wars against these “terrorists”?

    Al: Why can’t we have BOTH? I spent 2004 running AGAINST the Patriot Act and FOR a hawkish foreign policy.

    Pamela: Because you are asking for the unthinkable when you confuse security with giving up our freedom. You want to go after these countries that did not strike us-based upon lies. While ignoring Saudi Arabia that has a majority of the highjackers they alledged that came from there, while we Americans DO continue to lose our rights as they enslave the people of Iraq in the process. All for what? Again, do you feel safer yet? Have they caught the bad guys?

    Al: Those points seem to me to fit together. That is, I hope that beating crap out of fools in their own backyards will minimize them getting here and creating pressures that result in the need for curtailment of our domestic liberties. We won’t need to see what they’re looking at in our libraries if we kill them in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Pamela: Indeed there’s nothing like picking a fight with the wrong guy, and beating him up at his own house, to then justify actions like destroying his whole house, and killing his family, that should have never taken place in the first place. What part of WRONG guy do you not get?

    Al: “Need for the curtailment of our domestic liberties”.

    Pamela: Make up your mind here Al. Why not just say you agree with the hogwash of letting them strip our rights based upon these lies of protection while going after the WRONG country. You want the fighting and you could care less if it’s the wrong country. These Actions will indeed create MORE enemies for us to possibly fight right here at home-the borders are open so they can walk right in now can’t they?

    These People were accused of doing something they did NOT do, for something they had nothing to do with, and then to see thousands of their innocents die because of that lie, it does tend to make enemies doesn’t it?

    Fighting along “their borders” while our borders remain wide open has done absolutely NOTHING for our security either and it never will.

    We wouldn’t need to see what anyone was looking at in our libraries if we stopped funding, training and arming these people that we later turn into our enemies for power, natural resources, and political gain.

    Bush is wiretapping the ENTIRE nation.

    Al: That’s just not true. This is some hysterical nonsense, just the kind of thing to make a sympathetic person such as myself turn against your guy.

    Pamela: Ok sue me I used poetic license to get a serious point across about wire tapping. You ok with illegal wiretapping Al? You ok with losing your rights to privacy too?

    Sympathetic person? You’ve got to be kidding. You are a lot like this government you want to so desperately give a free pass too for betraying YOU as a citizen too. You build Ron Paul up just so you can make him the mortal enemy. Just like we did with Sadam and Bin Laden. Ever thought of running for office Al? I think you’d fit right in with that back stabbing mentality.

    I do not need to do a thing to try and change the mind of someone who took great care in crafting a major hit piece on Ron Paul disguised as some charity olive branch.

    8 years of Clinton was appearently not enough for you and it appears from your own words YOU have already made up your mind that you would vote for more corruption in the White House because you think that is how the “popular” vote will go…conform, conform at all expense. While quickly forgetting what you said you fought for… against the Patriot Acts.

    Think Hillary will change any of our foriegn policies and give you back your rights? Clinton did nothing to change the foreign policies of Bush SR. Did nothing to get Bin Laden when he was handed to him on a silver platter, and definitly wanted to install The Patriot Acts right after the OKlahoma bombing. So we know where that family stands on those issue too.

    Do you know what you would stand for anymore Al…or is having only the accepted public opinion revealed in your printed words more important then your own rights and having an independent thought still in your head?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Looking at Dave Nalle, one can see where the next generaion of Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Chertoffs, etc. is going to come from.

    So in the next generation we’re replacing Neocons with Libertarians? I worked on the McBride, Clark, Hospers and Paul presidential campaigns, was state chairman of the SLS and Students for Clark, and was an actual paid employee of the LP back when it had money. I also ran for office as a Libertarian in 2002.

    That ought to give you a hint that there IS a problem with Ron Paul. Al Barger also ran for office as a Libertarian. Eric Dondero is a well known Libertarian who used to WORK for Paul. What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul? What does it suggest when those concerns are shared for someewhat different reasons by Libertarian-leaning Republicans? The people who know him best are the most reluctant to push him heavily.

    Thanks, I have been looking and it is of great concern. When we have an audience at a GOP debate willing to cheer for torture that also greatly concerns me.

    Could you cite for me which debate and which comment resulted in people cheering for torture, because I sure didn’t see it.

    What is of most concern is how it is unbelievable that any American citizens would not see the importance of fighting for their own rights?

    How about the right to an abortion, or the right not to have prayer in schools? Paul would do away with both of those.

    I don’t care if they vote for Ron Paul or not. Let’s hope they at least know their own Constitution and realize just why those rights are so important.

    I’d like to see Paul as a VP candidate. Putting him in a position where he can get his message out without being able to do any harm would be a good thing.

    As so many are steered to only see the war mantras to keep that blind hate alive, while refusing to see how our governments aggressive actions in the Middle East are only “increasing” our enemies, many Like Dave allow themselves to be filled with hate enough to attack the very people who are trying to show him that “his” rights too are being stripped from him.

    This is pure fabulism and wishful thinking. Because you’re so enraged and feel so powerless you want to think that anyone who favors rational government is some sort of oppressive warmonger, but there’s just not evidence to support it. Some of us realize that defending our nations interests and protecting the safety of citizens is one of the basic steps to protecting the Constitution and our rights.

    THAT is the reason why Ron Paul continues to gain more and more support. Not because he’s some incredible dynamic speaker, but because he speaks the stark truth.

    Would that be the ‘truth’ he repeatedly speaks about the conspiracy of ‘international bankers’ (code word for Jews)? I imagine that ‘truth’ is very appealing to you – I know it’s why Richard Brodie loves Paul.

    He really KNOWS the issues the “people” care about, because they are issues that directly affect our rights and our future. He is actually working FOR the people and doing what all politicians are SUPPOSED to do-he is being a voice for the people. He is speaking for those voices that are being buried by the mainstream media to help these sell outs stay on this course of what amounts to betraying our own people while staying on this path of invading more coutries-pre-emptively and unprovoked.

    Most of the people have no idea what Paul is talking about most of the time and could care less. You’re making the mistake of thinking that because YOU agree with him everyone else must also. In fact, most people probably think he’s a bit nuts and kind of scary.

    We have fleets of ships and planes who are conducting “military exersizes” right off the coast of Iran. No, we haven’t hit them….yet, but it’s the same as swinging at someone and barely missing their face. They conducted these “military exersizes” just before we were to sit down for talks with Iran.

    We have forces in Iraq and naval forces off the coast supporting them. Off the coast of Iraq IS off the coast of Iran. The exercises you’re talking about were training programs for the Iraqi military, which needs to be prepared to defend itself from invasion from Iran.

    How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion? This is the stated objective of Iran’s current regime. The Iraqis aren’t too excited about living next to them and want to be able to defend themselves. Why is it unreasonable for us to help them?

    We are “provoking” this war against a country we already helped to dismantale in the past (their people haven’t forgotten it either)

    I know. The anger from the Iranian educated and business classes – now mostly in exile – over our abandonment of the Shah is intense.

    With or borders wide open, and our military spread even thinner, just who does Dave think will be HERE to protect US after these enemies unite against us?

    I think our national guard should be recalled from overseas service, we should shut down our military bases in most foreign countries to provide replacements in Iraq. Ultimately we should reduce our involvement in the middle east to a rapid reaction force based primarily on board the ships of our sizeable fleet in the area.

    Surely Dave knew that Iran was building a coalition against us with our enemies in the Middle East right?

    Of course. Who didn’t know that? It’s why we invaded Iraq in the first place, to cut off Iran’s connections with their allies in Syria and Lebanon and to pressure them with armies on both of their major borders.

    Surely Dave knew that because of our governments aggressive invasions in the Middle East, Iran is having no problems finding takers to join them so they will not be sitting there alone like Iraq was right?

    Iran wasn’t having problems finding allies before we invaded Iraq. They just used Israel to motivate them.

    Dave do share with us all how much you yourself know about our current foriegn policies and just who you think as our next President will help OUR country?

    I’m pretty damned familiar with our foreign policy, ill-conceived mishmash that it is. The key thing is not to have a president who overreacts in the direction of isolationism or excessive internationalism. We need to remain engaged internationally, even if we abandon the policy of interventionism.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Pamela/American writes these long screeds for comments. They mix bromides with invective, and sound very rousing and patriotic – but they’re largely strings of non-sequiturs.

    Don’t forget the healthy dollops of fearmongering, conspiracy mania and what appears to be clumsily concealed racism.

    Dave

  • MBD

    Why do the neocons fear Ron Paul?

  • MBD

    Nallecon says: “It’s why we invaded Iraq in the first place, to cut off Iran’s connections with their allies in Syria and Lebanon and to pressure them with armies on both of their major borders.”

    I must be immune to the danger these countries present to the security of the United States.

    For decades, I lost no sleep worrying about Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon.

    It’s clear that during the same period, Nallecon was worrying and had nightmares every night.

    The scary dream was that Iraq was about to fire its artillery at Nallecon‘s home, Syria and Lebanon would then run their tanks down his street and Iran was thinking about finishing him off with a mushroom cloud.

    Now after we have pissed away much treasure and blood, have Nallecon’s nightmares have gone away, or have they gotten worse?

  • Pamela/American

    Dave: So in the next generation we’re replacing Neocons with Libertarians?

    Pamela: Hopefully we will be replacing all these people who have labeled themselves otherwise with the only true label they should have as a citizen of this country….American.

    Dave: I worked on the McBride, Clark, Hospers and Paul presidential campaigns, was state chairman of the SLS and Students for Clark, and was an actual paid employee of the LP back when it had money. I also ran for office as a Libertarian in 2002.

    That ought to give you a hint that there IS a problem with Ron Paul. Al Barger also ran for office as a Libertarian. Eric Dondero is a well known Libertarian who used to WORK for Paul. What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul? What does it suggest when those concerns are shared for someewhat different reasons by Libertarian-leaning Republicans? The people who know him best are the most reluctant to push him heavily.

    Pamela: It tells me that three libertarians are back stabbers and they are not supporting Ron Paul anymore. With one of those “Libertarians” writing a lengthy prose that gives a lead in of much support for Ron Paul only to slam him in the end. Doesn’t mean that these 3 Libertarians speak for ALL Libertarians, anymore then how two of these Libertarians so desperately want to believe that a small handful of people speak for ALL of Ron Paul’s supporters.

    Pamela: Thanks, I have been looking and it is of great concern. When we have an audience at a GOP debate willing to cheer for torture that also greatly concerns me.

    Dave:Could you cite for me which debate and which comment resulted in people cheering for torture, because I sure didn’t see it.

    Pamela: It was during the second debate. Here’s a clip from it. See for yourself. REPUBLICANS APPLAUD FOR TORTURE!

    Pamela: What is of most concern is how it is unbelievable that any American citizens would not see the importance of fighting for their own rights?

    Dave: How about the right to an abortion, or the right not to have prayer in schools? Paul would do away with both of those.

    Pamela: Ron Paul Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. When did the total abortion ban ever come to a vote? Do you believe it is humane to kill a 7 or 8 month old fetus? Give me a break. On the issue of prayer in schools give me a break there too. Not one person in this government, or in a school, can stop one child from silently praying to himself or herself. This is a non-issue. If we want to talk about religion in schools then it had better be across the board. Not just one sided like it was after 9/11 when they started shipping kid to mosques to learn about the Muslim faith, the dedicated a whole week to only the Muslim faith in teaching, while not giving one day to numerous faiths of this country. Besides that I never said I AGREED with all of Ron Paul’s issues. But I do agree with most of them. Thus the reason why we have many candidates to choose from. We find one that comes closet to matching what issues we find most important for our country and we vote for them. I realize this has increasingly become alike an laien concpet to people who are so used to seeing all candidates have the same issues and agendas, but yet again it is another reason why ron paul continues to stand out.

    I don’t care if they vote for Ron Paul or not. Let’s hope they at least know their own Constitution and realize just why those rights are so important.

    Dave: I’d like to see Paul as a VP candidate. Putting him in a position where he can get his message out without being able to do any harm would be a good thing.

    Pamela: Coming from someone who once believed in him you have not pointed out one reason why you now find he would be able to do harm. Care to elaborate on that with some facts and not “opinion.”

    As so many are steered to only see the war mantras to keep that blind hate alive, while refusing to see how our governments aggressive actions in the Middle East are only “increasing” our enemies, many Like Dave allow themselves to be filled with hate enough to attack the very people who are trying to show him that “his” rights too are being stripped from him.

    Dave: This is pure fabulism and wishful thinking. Because you’re so enraged and feel so powerless you want to think that anyone who favors rational government is some sort of oppressive warmonger, but there’s just not evidence to support it. Some of us realize that defending our nations interests and protecting the safety of citizens is one of the basic steps to protecting the Constitution and our rights.

    Pamela: Rational government? Invading countries that are no threat is rational? Stripping habeous corpus rights is constitutional? Yea, hey I second that on your last comments. But do tell WHERE have they defended our nations’ interest on our borders? Hello, while we are off running all over the country, they have left the people at HOME without protection. No one is home. Can you get that? Who is protecting the citizens from a government of tyranny. That too is a part of the Constitution.

    THAT is the reason why Ron Paul continues to gain more and more support. Not because he’s some incredible dynamic speaker, but because he speaks the stark truth.

    Dave: Would that be the ‘truth’ he repeatedly speaks about the conspiracy of ‘international bankers’ (code word for Jews)? I imagine that ‘truth’ is very appealing to you – I know it’s why Richard Brodie loves Paul.

    Pamela: Good grief. Now you are baiting. Is this all you have left? Please give me a site where Ron Paul states this. And while you’re at it let me know if you are ok with first the creation of the Federal Reserve by a Congress that did not have the power to enact it, then let me know if you are ok with these “international bankers” having the people’s money without any accountability TO the people?

    Please feel free to send me the links of the audits conducted on how the Federal reserve is spending our Money any day…. We have been waiting for…oh I don’t …. FOREVER. Why is that? Because the Federal Reserve doesn’t have to submit to an audit. They don’t have to answer to anyone! Not Congress who unconstitutionally enacted them, not the President, and definitly NOT the people. Are you really ok with that? If so, just hand over your money to me. I’ll spend it how I see fit, when you get in debt over your eyeballs from my fake checks, I don’t want to hear about it because you gave me carte blanche to do what I wanted with your money.

    Ron Paul really KNOWS the issues the “people” care about, because they are issues that directly affect our rights and our future. He is actually working FOR the people and doing what all politicians are SUPPOSED to do-he is being a voice for the people. He is speaking for those voices that are being buried by the mainstream media to help these sell outs stay on this course of what amounts to betraying our own people while staying on this path of invading more coutries-pre-emptively and unprovoked.

    Dave: Most of the people have no idea what Paul is talking about most of the time and could care less. You’re making the mistake of thinking that because YOU agree with him everyone else must also. In fact, most people probably think he’s a bit nuts and kind of scary.

    Pamela: Here’s is where you are wrong again. As I stated above I do not agree with everything he stands for or all of his issues. But he is the closest I have ever come to agreeing with a politician’s platform in my life. Secondly, you’re dead wrong about the people not getting where he is coming from. His online support is blowing all the other candidates away and fortunately for them they are not wasting their time in sites like this with sell outs who USED to be on his side. The people are self-educating and not allowing the media or this government to control their perceptions of the candidates or the issues. They ARE looking at voting records and one by one marking off the other sell outs who continue to pass these damaging pieces of legislation that are stripping our rights and funding more of these illegal wars and they are making their lists to see who is still standing after throwing the lead across so many names. Ron Paul still happens to be standing after the dust settles for many.

    We have fleets of ships and planes who are conducting “military exersizes” right off the coast of Iran. No, we haven’t hit them….yet, but it’s the same as swinging at someone and barely missing their face. They conducted these “military exersizes” just before we were to sit down for talks with Iran.

    Dave: We have forces in Iraq and naval forces off the coast supporting them. Off the coast of Iraq IS off the coast of Iran. The exercises you’re talking about were training programs for the Iraqi military, which needs to be prepared to defend itself from invasion from Iran.

    Pamela: Says you. Many reports talk about those same exercises as a show of FORCE by our military as an act to intimidate Iran. If you are feuding with the guy next to your neighbor-it doesn’t matter who is nearby-if that guy you are feuding with starts shooting his gun off in your back yard you will pay attention to it and you will see it as a threat.

    Dave: How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion? This is the stated objective of Iran’s current regime. The Iraqis aren’t too excited about living next to them and want to be able to defend themselves. Why is it unreasonable for us to help them?

    Pamela: How do you feel about letting people live their lives they way they want, have the religion they believe in, and be a part of the culture that is native to their country? Again the US Government keeps screaming about other countries giving arms to our enemies, while we give arms to their enemies. The US government screams about nuclear threats while we continue to amass our nuclear threats. The US believes in democracy and to heck with whatever other countries choose for THEIR country. The US government screams they are saving people from other oppressive governments who torture their people and yet they are torturing people in Gitmo. Have you seen one parallel here of the pot calling the kettle black YET?

    We are “provoking” this war against a country we already helped to dismantale in the past (their people haven’t forgotten it either)

    Dave: I know. The anger from the Iranian educated and business classes – now mostly in exile – over our abandonment of the Shah is intense.

    Pamela: Indeed it is and now with facing what appears to be another covert attack from us on the inside out I am sure they have far more fear of Lord only knows what they will get next since our “last” inserting of a radical leader was such a treat for them all. Good grief. History repeating itself all over again.

    With or borders wide open, and our military spread even thinner, just who does Dave think will be HERE to protect US after these enemies unite against us?

    Dave: I think our national guard should be recalled from overseas service, we should shut down our military bases in most foreign countries to provide replacements in Iraq. Ultimately we should reduce our involvement in the middle east to a rapid reaction force based primarily on board the ships of our sizeable fleet in the area.
    Pamela: Well now you are making some sense that I could actually relate too as far as bring HOME our troops to protect America for a change. But sending more troops to Iraq isn’t an answer. As it is our military is over extended and they are basically in a back door draft. I have family over there and so does my husband. They are denied to come home when their tours are over. They all need to come HOME now. WE do not need to send more to die.

    The longer they “occupy” that country the more they increase the anger toward us. The longer they stay there the more exposure they have to the depleted uranium we used in our bombs. The families of these troops are sick and tired of jumping every time the phone rings for fear that their loved one just became the next statistic for this illegal war of shame.

    I’ve already lost family to the Vietnam war of shame and my father fought in the Korean war. These wars are getting worse and they are turning our men and women into the next generation of the disabled that our government will turn on again. They come back to less benefits from this administration that applauded them when they went to fight their needless war. That is if they LIVE to get back. Otherwise, thanks to meathead Bush they are brought back in the shame of night with no public support to be offered the families because the public doesn’t even know the body of their loved one is being shipped back like a used carton. They will also abandon them again like they did the last Gulf War vets who came back with Gulf War illness.

    Guess what? Gulf War illness 2 has started and they are adamantly acting like it doesn’t exist. THAT is the kind of government we do NOT need anymore. We are sick of sacrificing OUR loved ones because we do NOT have real leadership in this country that can mind their own damned business and just take care of the people of their OWN country. We are not interested in policing the world while our country is falling apart. We are not interested in nation building while we cannot even build our own nation. I cannot make it any clearer then that.

    Surely Dave knew that Iran was building a coalition against us with our enemies in the Middle East right?

    Dave: Of course. Who didn’t know that? It’s why we invaded Iraq in the first place, to cut off Iran’s connections with their allies in Syria and Lebanon and to pressure them with armies on both of their major borders.

    Pamela: Staging the invasion of Afghanistan right at the time of building Cheney’s oil pipeline through Afghanistan was just a coincidence?

    Surely Dave knew that because of our governments aggressive invasions in the Middle East, Iran is having no problems finding takers to join them so they will not be sitting there alone like Iraq was right?

    Dave: Iran wasn’t having problems finding allies before we invaded Iraq. They just used Israel to motivate them.

    Pamela: And this is good new for our country in what way at all?

    Dave do share with us all how much you yourself know about our current foriegn policies and just who you think as our next President will help OUR country?

    Dave: I’m pretty damned familiar with our foreign policy, ill-conceived mishmash that it is. The key thing is not to have a president who overreacts in the direction of isolationism or excessive internationalism. We need to remain engaged internationally, even if we abandon the policy of interventionism.

    Pamela: I would say you are pretty damned familiar with the foreign policies that a majority of the American people are sick of, but Washington is thrilled with. Seeing how you ran for office I would expect no less. I would hardly see Ron Paul’s issues on foreign policies as an over reaction. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the perfect personification of jumping the gun, having a set agenda, then lying, stealing, cheating, and doing whatever they can to force the American people to go along. Nor would I call Paul’s issues Isolationism. Wanting to maintain us as a sovereign nation is hardly isolationism. But trumping our laws further by throwing us into the WTO who can indeed negate our laws by their international laws regardless of our Constitutional rights would indeed be yet another clear fact of our own government continuing to make our country weaker. Ron Paul is all for free trade, just not at the cost of our sovereign nation. If you truly believed in fighting FOR your country you would get that too. Bush will continue to be the one who isolates us further from the world, as he sells us out from within to the highest bidder, if his totalitarian power isn’t reigned in soon by someone with some sense in Washington.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul

    It suggests that they are jealous of his success, a success based on recognizing the reality that a hundred years from now the Libertarians would still be getting 1% of the vote and making zero difference. And well they should retain such insignificance, with their globalist entanglement, American baby killing, foreign horde welcoming ideas.

    Since Paul was liked well enough to have been reelected several times to the 14th District, the voters aren’t going to take real kindly to a pathetic little backstabbing worm like Dondero trying to ride into office by basking in the glare of media attention reflected off a true giant of a patriot. I look forward to seeing him ground into the dirt.

    ‘international bankers’ (code word for Jews)?

    While it’s true that many of them are Jews, you have no evidence that Paul is intending any “code word” usage when he talks about the Federal Reserve, and I think you know that it is dishonest to suggest the same.

    Could you cite for me which debate and which comment resulted in people cheering for torture,

    I believe it was in response to something Romney said in SC.

    Most of the people have no idea what Paul is talking about most of the time and could care less

    That’s probably true. But I would wager that most of THOSE people aren’t going to be bothering to vote.

    How about the right to an abortion, or the right not to have prayer in schools?

    He’s not running for some governorship, and he’s made it clear that as President he would uphold the 10th Amendment with regard to matters such as these, refraining from trying to interject the Federal government into areas where it has no Constitutional authorization to be.

    I’d like to see Paul as a VP candidate. Putting him in a position where he can get his message out without being able to do any harm would be a good thing.

    How could he possibly get his message out in that position unless the President was either Kucinich or Gravel?

    The exercises you’re talking about were training programs for the Iraqi military, which needs to be prepared to defend itself from invasion from Iran.

    We really don’t need to be whipping up Iran and Iraq to be fighting each other. Just leave the area and they will soon enough be fighting each other. That’s what Arabs do best, and that’s what has kept them occupied for the last millenium thus confining their irrational violence to themselves.

    How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion?

    I don’t know how Pam feels, but I feel like It is suicidal to allow ANYONE from a religion with such a malignant political component, inside the borders of any nation that regards itself as a part of Western Civilization. What do you wanna do, kill all billion of ‘em?

    The Iraqis aren’t too excited about living next to them and want to be able to defend themselves. Why is it unreasonable for us to help them?

    Because we’ve either got to be over there forever in between them, losing thousands of young American lives every year, or at some point we leave, in which case they will immediately be back at other’s throats.

    Finally, the lady asks a simple question: “just who you think as our next President will help OUR country”?

    To which your non-reply is:

    The key thing is not to have a president who overreacts in the direction of isolationism or excessive internationalism. We need to remain engaged internationally, even if we abandon the policy of interventionism.

    So allow me to re-phrase the question for her:

    WHO, among the choices being offered to us for 2008, do you think would help OUR country (not OTHER countries) the best?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “Why do the neocons fear Ron Paul?”

    Neocons or anyone else, since he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of even placing…

    Which is too bad; there’s a lot about him that would be good for the country.

  • Pamela/American

    Richard you are right. The people of Texas do not take kindly to back stabbing traiters. Why do you think we can’t stand Bush. We Did all we could to get rid of that loser who did nothing for us as a Governor and there he went and became president. good grief.

    Bush did something Dondero is appearently incapable of doing… he admitted he was a loser. He admitted being a drunk. He admitted getting busted. Of course he left out a LOT-like his war service, bank deals, and many other things. But he was admitting just enough to get people to THINK he was a man enough to admit his mistakes and the fools forgave him.

    I am almost leery to even share that because that is the politically correct “get out of jail free pass” today right? They commit inexcusible acts….then say oop’s sorry, and get elected. augh

    Anyway, Dondero is finished here because of his own actions. And you were also right in how Ron Paul is taking the Libertarian party to newer heights that these sell outs who used to support him could be enjoying too and helping along the way. But indeed their own jealousy of not being able to reach those heights on their own is making them an enemy to their own cause. Is it any wonder why this country continues to be so divided. Do they not get that divided we ALL fall?

    Dondero, was just too ignorant to see he could have ridden that wave up on those same coattails that took him in from Ron Paul’s increasing popularity too.

    But what did Dondero do? At the first sneer of public scorn from a public who didn’t “yet” get all the facts about the debate comments, he ran yellow belly and turn coated on his so-called Mentor.

    The public gets it now and Rudy is toast for showing his own ignorance of our foriegn policies so I guess that little plan didn’t work out to well for Dondero to jump in Rudy’s wagon and out of Paul’s now did it?

    Many Texas residents like myself do not want such a spineless man who obviously does not understand our own foriegn policies in office, nor one who would so easily cave, and turn on his mentor, and supposed friend, at the first sign of media propaganda. He obviously can’t take the heat and anyone in an election knows there’s a lot more where that came from and he caved during the first hit.

    We need a real man who will stand up against ignorance, who can ride the storm, and wait it out until the truth shines through. He showed his true colors and that scarlet letter will remain on that fool.

    I HOPE he is reading this too. Maybe he will get some sense in his head and be a man and admit he was wrong for betraying Ron Paul. If a loser like Bush can do at least that much then at least Dondero can right? Or can he?

  • Pamela/American

    Dave: How do you feel about theocratic dictatorships which want to conquer the world and force everyone to convert to their religion?

    Richard: I don’t know how Pam feels, but I feel like It is suicidal to allow ANYONE from a religion with such a malignant political component, inside the borders of any nation that regards itself as a part of Western Civilization. What do you wanna do, kill all billion of ‘em?

    Pamela: Well to speak for myself again on this issue and further expand. I believe more people have died in this world over thier different religious beliefs then for almost any other reason. I also do not believe in this striking first and asking questions later mentality. Until Iran actually tries to convert all our people to their religion and until they try to take over the world, I hardly see why we would whistle up a dixie’s tush and borrow trouble where there was none.

    This sounds more like OUR leader anyway. Maybe we had better worry about cleaning our own doorstep before we continue to make the same charges against these other leaders.

    Religion in politics is like an oxymoron. It usually ends up being used against the people for the benefit of that politician and not of the God they say they are worshipping anyway.

    Bush is the perfect example of how he uses God to reel in the unwitting Christians while he sacrafices people all over this world for his agendas. I don’t know what God he is worshipping but it isn’t the one I know.

    I do not believe the government should form any one religion for all the people ever. But we cannot allow our government the right to keep trying to do these same things and then turn and point a finger at someone else.

    I do not believe in sacraficing innocent American’s in an effort to try and tell another country what they should do, how they should do it, and act like we are the police of the world ourselves.

    Richard is right, we can continue to stand between them, and lose our military, or get out, and stay out of their business, like we should have done in the first place.

    Nor, as I stated before do I believe the schools should be able to talk exclusively about one religion at the exemption of all others.

    When the state gets involved in the education of any subject it is already suspect of being skewed to the views of only what the state wants the citizen to have and that doesn’t always mean its the right view FOR the people and there is a difference.

    How many times can they re-write our history before we say enough already? Besides that, history is the view of the person sharing that history isn’t it?

  • MBD

    Q. “Why do the neocons fear Ron Paul?”

    Clavos:

    A. Neocons or anyone else, since he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of even placing… Which is too bad; there’s a lot about him that would be good for the country.

    That’s a reason to fear him?

    That sounds like bullshit.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I must be immune to the danger these countries present to the security of the United States.

    For decades, I lost no sleep worrying about Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon.

    While I was living in those countries, no doubt.

    It’s clear that during the same period, Nallecon was worrying and had nightmares every night.

    No. I didn’t worry about them before 9/11 and I’m not terribly worried about them now. I don’t even care if the Iranians get nukes.

    IMO these nations are not a serious threat to the US and never had been, except in small and isolated incidents where US citizens are put at risk.

    They are, however, a serious threat to the nations immediately around them. With my background in the middle east I care about that to at least some degree.

    Dave

  • MBD

    They are, however, a serious threat to the nations immediately around them. With my background in the middle east I care about that to at least some degree.”

    Most Americans don’t have any such background and don’t give a shit about yours. Sacrificing thousands of American lives and a trillion dollars pissed away to satisfy whatever degree of interest you have is your personal problem not this nation’s problem.

    If you want to baby sit the Middle East you go do it.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “If you want to baby sit the Middle East you go do it.”

    Dave is a nice guy – he even publishes my articles here; though I suspect he keeps a barf bag close by while working on them. But I, for one, am too old for baby-sitters like Dave.

    The one nice thing about this Ron Paul fellow is that he might get you Yanks the hell out of here. If he does, that would be the best thing Israel could get. We’ve had far too much of America and its interfering ways, AND its interfering money bags – especially the Jewish ones, like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Wolfensohn, and Stan Fischer…

    YANKEE GO HOME!!!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    And while I’m at it, take George Soros and stick him up some soybean farmer’s ass – and keep him there!

  • sr

    Ruvy#242. I second that friend.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    The one nice thing about this Ron Paul fellow is that he might get you Yanks the hell out of here.

    Somehow I don’t think AIPAC would see it this way. Why this disconnect between American Jews and Israeli Jews? I wish those of you in Israel could convince your co-religionists over here that the U.S. doesn’t need to keep fighting the children of Esau on your behalf. Nobody in this country can make that case without being instantly shouted down as an evil anti-Semitic racist.

  • Pamela/American

    Ruvy in Jerusalem
    “If you want to baby sit the Middle East you go do it.”

    Dave is a nice guy – he even publishes my articles here; though I suspect he keeps a barf bag close by while working on them. But I, for one, am too old for baby-sitters like Dave.

    The one nice thing about this Ron Paul fellow is that he might get you Yanks the hell out of here. If he does, that would be the best thing Israel could get. We’ve had far too much of America and its interfering ways, AND its interfering money bags – especially the Jewish ones, like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Wolfensohn, and Stan Fischer…

    YANKEE GO HOME!!!

    Pamela: You have GOT to be kidding me? Good grief. This is VERY Interesting, well if we were to paint you with the same broad brush Dave and Al appear to want to use on All off Ron Paul’s supporters we would think Dave thought the same, and so did Al, as you.

    You may be too old for a babysitter but you’re not to old to realize someone who obviously needs a drama fixing crisis. Do you set fires like this all over? And Dave accused me of rediculous Hidden racial issues? How about this for a BILLBOARD Dave…do comment please.

    You want the “Yanks” out of Israel? Hey, works for me. Just remember the millions we give your precious Israel and the arms we provide your Israel, and the protections we gave your sorry ungrateful butt, will also GO with these “Yanks” you so clearly want out.

    Many Americans have been screaming for the US to get out of Israel too. But not on the premise we are such biggots.

    Oh, that’s right…Richard pointed out correctly that anyone who says a word against Israel is anti-semitic. If you are any barometer of the pulse of Israel then it looks like Israel can dish it out but can’t take it as they want to enact so-called “hate” LAWS to protect them after they start their own fires all over. I call that chicken shit, ” hit and run” cowards. Regardless of the other “artist” in here I will not equate all people of Israel with the same level of ignorance you proudly revealed.

    But there may be hope for your blind hatred toward people who have helped you through on the blood of their own innocents, Lucky for you many American’s are sick and tired of being dragged into wars for Israel. OK?

    Now get your radical leaders there to agree they too are SICK of so-called “Yanks” who continue to bail their butts out, and DIE for them in their provoked wars, and we will have billions more for OUR people here in the US when we stop supporting an ungrateful pathetic person like you.

  • NH

    “That ought to give you a hint that there IS a problem with Ron Paul. Al Barger also ran for office as a Libertarian. Eric Dondero is a well known Libertarian who used to WORK for Paul. What does it suggest when long-time Libertarians who are or have been closely involved with the party lack confidence in Paul? What does it suggest when those concerns are shared for someewhat different reasons by Libertarian-leaning Republicans? The people who know him best are the most reluctant to push him heavily.”

    Eric was fired and he is only one person. The support is overwhelming, even Michael Badnarik, former libertarian candidate for president, endorsed Ron at the Liberty Forum here in NH and attended my party for Ron afterward.

    By the way, we raised $17K for Ron and just now another $10K from NH!

    Yayyyyyy!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    “I wish those of you in Israel could convince your co-religionists over here that the U.S. doesn’t need to keep fighting the children of Esau on your behalf.”

    Richard Brodie,

    Just a picayune correction for you. YOU are the Children of Esau. The Arabs are the Sons of Yishmael. The Tana”kh warns of your fate as well, but the immediate enemy at hand are the Children of Yishmael. Nevertheless, I refer you to the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 60 to see the fate of Yishmael.

    The problem you refer to is two-fold. One is the deep-seated feeling among many Israelis that nothing can be done – the other is the overblown egos of the Jewish fat-cats in America who think that checkbook Judaism is their route to Redemption.

  • Pamela/American

    That’s great news NH! He also is gaining in Montana for support!

    Pamela

    Ron Paul gains with Internet, gets Montana donations

    Associated Press – May 17, 2007 2:24 PM ET

    In most Republican presidential polls, Ron Paul appears well behind the front-runners.

    But the little-known Southeast Texas congressman is a big favorite on the World Wide Web — and apparently, also in Montana.

    The Galveston-area libertarian finished second among GOP candidates in money raised in New Hampshire and Montana, in the first quarter of 2007.

    The 71-year-old obstetrician also raised the most money of the second-tier candidates in 14 other states — including Florida and Texas — taking in 640-thosuand dollars nationwide.

    Paul is hoping to use his high-profile debate appearances, voter frustration over the Iraq war and ballooning government programs, to vault him into serious contention in the GOP presidential race.

    On the Net

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    NH- Good on ya for the fundraising success!

    Miss Pamela, I’ll go you a bit better: That AP story is describing first quarter fundraising, before the Fox debate which really catapulted him into prominence. I’ll be surprised if his second quarter doesn’t turn up 10x more than his first.

    He’s not going to get the big money for his quixotic campaign like Mitt McGiuliani, but I could well imagine him conjuring up tens of millions of dollars from netroots types. And $30 million spent on Ron Paul’s radical message will likely be more impactful on actual public debate of issues than $30 million worth of ads about what a great upstanding family man Mitt Romney is.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Pamela,

    Aw, another American’s delicate ego has been wounded. Pardon me while I sniffle into my hankie. Try going to my writers’ page here at Blogcritics where 71 articles will give you a different picture of my country – and yours.

    Just to show you what great “friends” Americans have been to Israel, I briefly relate the story of your help to us in 1973 – one of many many betrayals your country forced down our throats.

    Your government bullied Golda Meir into waiting for an Arab attack on our country, promising aid in the form of arms shipments if we waited. The foolish woman did so, relying on a Jew, Henry Kissinger, to come forward with the aid.

    But Kissinger cared more for his real employer, Nelson Rockefeller, and held back the aid, while this country nearly fell to the Syrian and Egyptian attack. Only the intervention of Richard Nixon (learning of the situation from his Defense Secretary James Schlesinger), forcing Kissinger to fork over the aid he had promised, saved this country from defeat and destruction at the hands of crazed Arab soldiers massacring every Jew in sight.

    We do not need such “friends.” You can’t be relied on. Any Shi’a will tell you that.

    We need our nuclear deterrent force to destroy our enemies, and our factories to make Galil rifles and Uzi submachine guns to keep them at bay. Take your badly made m16’s and shove them up your buttholes, if you want. But first, get the hell out of the Middle East and out of our hair.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Oh, Pamela, just one more thing.

    I was born in the United States, lived many years there, was a member of the Republican and Democrat parties both during that time, and know a hell of a lot more about the US of A than you want to realize.

    I’m just very grateful I was never forced to wear an American military uniform.

  • MBD

    It’s interesting how facts can be created by Ruvy.

    “Just to show you what great “friends” Americans have been to Israel, I briefly relate the story of your help to us in 1973 – one of many many betrayals your country forced down our throats.”

    Betrayal?

    In 1973, the Saudis threatened to curtail our oil supply if Nixon sent the two billion dollars worth of tanks, fighter planes and other military aid that Israel requested because it was being paid back for its pre-emptive 1967 war with its surprise air attack on Egyptian airfields. Now the tables were turned and Israel was being hammered by the Arabs.

    That weak bastard Nixon capitulated because he didn’t want to fight AIPAC.

    The result of Nixon’s capitulation was a 10-year economic malaise with major job layoffs (the first since WWII) and interest rates of 21% .

    After seeing the weakness of US politicians and the subservient US media, AIPAC knew it could get anything it wanted, including getting the US Treasury to write it blank checks each year. It became so absurd that AIPAC demanded and got interest paid on the billions each year until Israel actually received the money. So much money was sent to Israel that Israel Bonds which previously helped fund Israel were not needed. To date, over $200 billion of US Taxpayer money has been sent to Israel and the spigot is still wide open.

    What is unknown is how much of these billions found their way back here into the coffers of the politicians who vote for whatever AIPAC wants.

    And now the dog bites the hand that feeds it.

    All I want is the hundreds of billions paid back to us with interest.

    It also would be nice to be compensated for the 10-year economic malaise.

    Ruvy, when will the check be in the mail?

  • Pamela/American

    Ruvy,
    You appear to have missed the entire point. Certain people in this thread, and in this world for that matter, seem to want to catagorize absolutely everyone and paint them all with a broad brush for the actions of a few.

    I am FED up with paying for things I did not do. GET it- oh wise one of the WORLD.

    I never said our government was not corrupt.I said we need to get the heck out of the Middle East too! The sooner the better. But yes, it does piss me off to hear a report that says we are sending MILLIONS to your country each DAY and then I get crap like this.

    Yes, let American’s keep their money for ONCE. It would be a start and I am all for pulling our troops out to protect AMERICA for a change. Preferably we get out before all these wars completely bankrupt us- if they haven’t already.

    As we speak my rights as an American to stop our own dictator are ebbing by the minute. You did see his newest directive didn’t you? How does, “WE the people” fit into that at all?

    You want to talk about suffering and betrayal? WE ALL have those skeletons of suffering in our bloodlines.

    My Great Grandmother was full blooded Cherokee indian. Let’s talk about suffering here …

    Am I jumping on that bandwagon to collect for Cherokee suffering? NO. Because the suffering didn’t happen to ME, it happened to people who are DEAD in my family. Money is NOT going to bring them back and it will not help me rise up on my OWN merits. I like to earn what I get unlike many of these people with a handout for the suffering of thier long DEAD ancestors. Nor do I blame all of America “today” for what the few nuts did to my ancestors. Get it?

    Do I want those “few” who are still out there doing the killing and causing these wars, and staring all these fires, all over again (who are repeating history) to be brought to justice? You bet. If it will make you happy you can start with OUR administration with my blessings and work your way out to the leaders of your “favored” country.

    In case you missed the memo I was sympathetic to the needless killings going on over there, THUS another reason why I do want us out. I also have family dragged into those shameful wars and yes, I DO want them out. So you are striking at the wrong people just like we took it out on Iraq erroneously, and regardless if you like it or not we are FOOTING the bill, whoile we get more and more in debt. Not like I think you care about my kids, or theirs, but I do- especially when thier future was given to a total ingrate.

    Did I betray your surrogate country personally? NO. Am I having to pay for it anyway? YES. We all are. All these Yankees are paying. Now do what you can to contain your glee.

    These nuts in power that you talk about hurt a LOT of other’s too and not just YOUR country. Get over yourself and you I’m the only victim mentality.

    Kissinger, Rockefeller….etc., Good grief.

    Do you think we want these criminals here either? How about you let them lock them up in these prisons they ALL have over there for your own rogue justice systems? Even that would be too good for them for all the destructions they have collectively done to our world.

    For a country who’s own leaders slaughter at will, sympathizers of Israel have a lot of room to talk about who- is doing what anyway. Does it make it right for any Government to kill innocents for power, natural resources, or just because they feel threatened? NO. IT all needs to stop.

    Thanks for the “reading assignment” but it will be “His-story.” Which is YOUR only view. I prefer to get many views to form my opinions. You’re ending was already revealed and it appears as if you blame all people regardless of the actions of the few.

    Good for you for being BORN here. You sadly have about the same amount of pride for your “native” country as many other citizens today. Some of us DO take pride in this country still and we do not take lightly to idiots like you who want to blame us all for the actions of a few nuts while letting your own nuts (who are IN office now) off scott free.

  • Pamela/American

    Al: Miss Pamela, I’ll go you a bit better: That AP story is describing first quarter fundraising, before the Fox debate which really catapulted him into prominence. I’ll be surprised if his second quarter doesn’t turn up 10x more than his first.

    He’s not going to get the big money for his quixotic campaign like Mitt McGiuliani, but I could well imagine him conjuring up tens of millions of dollars from netroots types. And $30 million spent on Ron Paul’s radical message will likely be more impactful on actual public debate of issues than $30 million worth of ads about what a great upstanding family man Mitt Romney is.

    Pamela: Goodness Al, You just can’t help yourself. I start reading and I go yea, yea, yea…..funding looking good for RP. A possibility of millions ,….then what the “netroot”? Online lingo for Online donations from the grassroots. This is good right? Then who hooo 30 millions dollars possible…………………

    then after that it sounds like a rocket whistling to the ground from there………………

    Ron’s “Radical” message will likely be more impactful then the family guy…

    Ok, ya know at this point I will take what I can get. But don’t get mad if I tell ya something like Hey I like your hair but your crooked teeth will never get you a date. Same kind of backhanded compliment, but again we take what we can get these days.

    Of course I hope Ron Paul wins and blows them all away. Haven’t made that a secret anyway.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Miss Pamela- Those comments were not intended to be backhanded or derogatory in any way.

    Again, Ron Paul makes a very valuable contribution to public debate, and he might garner more support than some of us might expect. But there’s no way on Rand’s green Earth that he will actually be elected president of the United States.

    He’s WAY too radical. He’s not really much of a “politician.” Rather, he’s an idealogue. He’s there to say what he thinks needs said, rather than what he thinks will garner him the most votes. That’s good – but it means he doesn’t actually get elected.

    But he can seriously inject some ideas and perspective that might move the goalposts a little bit in the right direction. Moving by cautious inches rather than wholesale on absolute commitment to principle, even the non-interventionist part of his outlook that I have trouble with can be a very good thing.

    If your concern is the ideas rather than your own ego or resume – which certainly seems to be the case with Paul – then this approach makes sense. If a candidate calling for abolition of the income tax gets 15% of the votes in the Republican primary, then President Romney is going to take that as a message about who his party base is.

    He’s not going to eliminate the income tax, but that might be the impetus for him to grasp tax reform, reduction and simplification as a base issue. The idealogical candidates can set up the issues, but the gladhanding politicians are the ones bobbing and weaving enough to actually get elected and do something.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Ruvy, I stand corrected, The Arabs are indeed primarily the children of Ishmael. However I think you are wrong when you say:

    “YOU are the Children of Esau”

    I believe it is likely that the Edomites, Esau’s descendants who fought against the Children of Israel when they were first returning out of Egyptian captivity, are now intermixed with Ishmael, and thus represent a portion of the modern Arabic stock.

    As for MY lineage, and yours for that matter, isn’t it more likely that we trace back to Japheth who may have disappeared into the north when Ham went south, with Shem in between – and/or one or more of the “lost” ten tribes who, after being carried away into captivity, may well have also migrated into Russia and Europe?

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    President Romney…’s not going to eliminate the income tax, but that might be the impetus for him to grasp tax reform, reduction and simplification as a base issue. The idealogical candidates can set up the issues, but the gladhanding politicians are the ones bobbing and weaving enough to actually get elected and do something.

    You are the visible soul of the modern American elecorate. They will all say how they despise a vote pandering, unprinciple, lesser-of-two-evils flip-flopper, but secretly (or in your case openly) believe that there is now no place in the corridors of power for the kind of “ideologues” who founded this country. You will all very well deserve to endure more of the deterioration in your standard of living and erosion of your rights which the bobbers and weavers will continue to deliver to you.

    I will not have to tell my children that I was relieved to see that a “gladhander” won the 2008 presidential election over the modern day Jefferson I voted to entrust their futures to.

  • STM

    While you two are on begettings … Believe it or not, I am a descendent of the Viking conqueror Heesgot Lots (better known as Harald the Blue Bollock) and the Saxon earl, Lord Ivor Longsword (you need to watch the punctuation there). Both were very handy with their swords and the combined family crest, which also features the family jewels dating back to Saxon England, is very interesting. We always have to explain: “No, they’re NOT chestnuts, and NO, that’s NOT a fu.king helmet”.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “But it LOOKS like a helmet,” she said.

    And then, “Will you still respect me in the morning?”

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Pamela/Richard – the crazier you get and the more you rant on and on about the evil jews, the neocons and the various other boogeymen, the more you validate the earlier point that Paul attracts nuts. You’re really not doing anything the help the cause.

    Dave

  • Pamela/American

    Pamela/Richard – the crazier you get and the more you rant on and on about the evil jews, the neocons and the various other boogeymen, the more you validate the earlier point that Paul attracts nuts. You’re really not doing anything the help the cause.

    Dave

    Pamela: Dave I don’t remember pulling on your chain.

    Evil Jews? There you go trying to put words in my mouth again. Are you thinking about Jews all the time Dave or what? You seem to be obsessed with Jews enough to think everyones thinking about them all the time too. Do you think Jews are evil Dave? All Jews? Because I don’t remember saying any such thing. Could there be evil Jews out there? Sure. There could also be evil little men named Dave. But it doesn’t mean I think all men named Dave are evil.

    As for me….well I could be married to a Jew or I could be married to a man named Dave. You don’t know me at all. So instead of trying to say my words have said these things that the little voices in your head keep telling you I said, read my words again to make sure before you accuse me again. Fair enough?

    FYI I am not the official spokesperson for Ron Paul so you can stop worrying about how I am affecting his “base” kay? Didn’t know you cared so much about him still.

    Hey it’s a free country right? As such I am free to say what I want and no political party controls how I think, feel, what I vote for, or who I vote for. You may allow it on your end, but some of us still think for ourselves.

    Can’t you just talk to one woman without needing to think I’m some entire group?

    On the racist bit…more like race baiting-You have a very “selective memory” Dave with ignoring blatant rasicm right before your eyes and yet you decide to pick, and choose, not the actual racist amongst us , but the target you decided to give that label to instead.

    Why don’t you hang that label baiting hat on another coat rack because all your little “labels” have this one absolutely full.

    I cannot speak for Richard, nor am I his other half, as you just decided to clump me with a man I do not even know. Yes, I have agreed with some things he has said but it doesn’t mean I agree with everything. No more then I have agreed with everything on Ron Paul’s platform.

    Seeing the company you keep in Dondero I think you may need to be more concerned with the company in which you admit that you are keeping instead of being so concerned with whom I am in the company of.

    Now, If you can stop the labeling long enough to back up your own accusations of Ron Paul that would be a nice diversion. I am interested in “your” side. Really I am.

    But instead of all these “leading” damaging statements about Ron Paul just blurt it ALL out. DO tell. Here’s your chance to reveal the real Ron Paul. What happened, and why are you “so” concerned about him now, seeng how you did say you campagned for him in the past, and tell me how he can harm this Presidency so much so that you find the need to slam him at every chance? I need Details here. No more leading, dead end, figure it out, allegations. Details.

    While you’re at it, since you have decided Ron Paul isn’t it for “you” I ask again who will you vote for and why?

    Don’t give me your dream candidate description like you did last time with naming no real candidate in this race.

  • Pamela/American

    Al: He’s WAY too radical. He’s not really much of a “politician.” Rather, he’s an idealogue. He’s there to say what he thinks needs said, rather than what he thinks will garner him the most votes. That’s good – but it means he doesn’t actually get elected.

    Pamela: Ok Al, It’s late and I have to get up early. So I want to cut to the chase here. I think you may be so used to giving a compliment while taking it away in the very next sentence that maybe you don’t even see it? Who Knows?

    Anyway, that doesn’t matter at this point. This statement of yours that I cut into this answer from you above sums it up for just why I think Ron Paul has a very good chance of going up, up, and up even more.

    You are exactly right. He’s not the stereotypical cardboard politician. Yet a major bonus point for him. But here is where the mainstream media, and all these other puppet candidates, and every other person out there who may be scratching their heads in confusion to his rising popularity, are losing this whole thing about him…

    You said:”He’s there to say what he thinks needs said, rather than what he thinks will garner him the most votes.”

    I say- Ron Paul says what we ALL believe needs to be said.

    I will go further to add that voters are sick of hearing the controlled answers that really are not an answer at all. These idiot candidates think we cannot see how they are not answering anything and how they are avoiding the real issues at all cost.

    We hear the popular catch words they spew like taxes, war,etc…then we see no answers. So those words do not have the power they used to after so many candidates have used them to death.

    So yes, when Ron Paul hits that stage, or goes to that interview, and we can see he knows his stuff, and he is not shying away from ANY questions, and even more he has some real answers. Then it is shocking at first to many, then a freeing feeling comes afterwards for all these people who have felt they have had no voice at all.

    I am meeting disenfranchised voters for all over the map every day. One consistent thing I keep seeing and hearing is statements like this.

    “I’m a Democrat and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but this man (Ron Paul) is who I am going to vote for”

    “I’m a Republican but I am sick of the Republican party and after Bush I vowed to never vote Republican again, But I am voting for Ron Paul.”

    “This man is the hope for our country..I am voting for Ron Paul.”

    Etc, etc, etc,….

    Why are so many from so many parties swinging their votes his way? Because he DOES finally just blurt out the real issues we have been screaming for someone, ANYONE, in office to hear.

    Ron Paul has his finger on the pulse of America right now. Will he keep it? I don’t know.But I am not quitting on him no more then I am going to quit on this country.

    Now, I will pose the same question to you. Talk is cheap wouldn’t you agree? Define “radical” when you reference Ron Paul?

    Is this about the issue of him wanting to not occupy so many other countries? is that what you are calling radical?

    Tell me, what are the real defining issues, with real examples of why you feel Ron Paul is such a bad candidate for President and then explain how you still see he is “ok” for the debates? I do really want to know details.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    actually get elected and do something.

    So Al doesn’t think Ron Paul will be able to “do” anything.

    Here’s what Paul will do. As the leader of the Executive Branch he will shrink and or dismantle whole Departments. He will get our troops, who are casualties of Arab sectarian conflict, out of harm’s way. He will encourage legislation to roll back the assaults on our Constitutional rights. He will veto almost every bill that comes to his desk, and make vetoing speeches to the American people explaining exactly how the proposed legislation would violate the Constitution. He will work towards an orderly elimination of personal income taxation, and a transition away from fiat currency and towards sound currency. By vastly reducing an ultimately unsustainable worldwide American military presence, and by eliminating foreign aid giveaways, he will use the trillions thus saved to secure the American homeland with border, coastline, and port security, missle defense, energy independence, etc.

    Future generations will revere his memory as the President who saved this Republic.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “So Al doesn’t think Ron Paul will be able to “do” anything.”

    Well, he certainly won’t be able to do anything if he doesn’t get elected, and his getting elected is a real long shot.

  • Pamela/American

    Well said Richard. Just restoring our rights covers so many issues for huge sects of people in our country that it would fill tomes to address just that part of why having Ron Paul for a President is so needed.

    Right now he is (yet again) introducing more legislation in efforts to put the rights back into our hands via his legislation called The Parental Consent Act of 2007.

    He knows that money is the key to stripping the power of the drug companies that have been given full protections from many SELL OUTS in our government that have given full carte blanche to these drug companies to experiement on us without consent, to disable us, or even kill us, all without any liability.

    This piece of legislation directly cripples Bush’s madhouse dream of forcing mental health evaluations on all the children of America without parental consent.

    Bush’s mental health screening dream is not an initiative that will help ANY of our children. It is a set up by our own governemnt designed to hand-feed the brains and and central nervous systems of millions more of our children over to the drugs companies who have over 122 newly concocted psudeo mental labels waiting to slap on these children so they can drugs millions more of our future generations and create mental disorders from the drugs that were NOT there before. No thanks.

    For those of us who have had direct impacts on our lives from the nightmare drug companies we do indeed see the extreme importance of fighting to maintain our rights to protect our own children and decide for our children any healthcare decision that will affect them when they cannot speak for themselves.

    Ron Paul agains sees a serious issue that hundreds of thousands want addressed. Unlike McCain who can’t even manage to continue his duties to the people who elected him, Ron Paul is still serving Texans and in the case of this piece of legislation he is serving the entire country, while still pursuing the position of the President.

    Indeed, he does have answers and they are solid answers we can all sink our teeth into. He most definitly isn’t saying what he thinks will get him the “most” votes he is saying what needs to be said and in return that honesty and straight forward approach based upon “actions” and not meaningless words, continues to give him the votes.

  • Pamela/American

    Clavos:Well, he certainly won’t be able to do anything if he doesn’t get elected, and his getting elected is a real long shot.

    Pamela: This would only be true if you have been blind to the power of the three legislative branches and the state level power to overturn the draconian legislation shoved in by the current President.

    Right now MANY cities across the US have individually reversed and gutted the rights stripping segments of The Patriot Acts for their repective communities.

    Bush may dream that he is the sole “decider” in his warped reality but we do still have those systems in there. Until an Emergency is declared we will continue to fight as individuals to reverse his nutcase mandates.

    Yet again this is why we need a real leader in the White House FOR the people.

    Each time you say the people will not vote for him his supporter base grows to prove you wrong. Are you getting it yet?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “Each time you say the people will not vote for him his supporter base grows to prove you wrong. Are you getting it yet?”

    Nope.

  • http://hammer2006.blogspot.com Alex Hammer

    See also:
    Ron Paul Wiki – The definitive source for all news and sites related to Ron Paul!

  • Pamela/American

    Well I wasn’t holding my breath waiting for you to get it Clavos. I am sure you will be one of millions who sat on their butts complaining about their rights thinking they will just be handed back to you on a silver platter because you merely “spoke” in opposition. Who will then no doubt be there with their hand out to collect the fruits of the labor of so many others who didn’t sit there and naively think these things would just fix themselves.

    Personal responsibility needs restored in this country above all other things if “we the people” are to gain our freedom again and strip the unfathomable power this administration has stolen for itself at our expense.

    The people are fighting for Ron Paul because he is fighting for us. When was the last time you saw the people go to bat for a “politician”?

    If Ron Paul isn’t for you….who do you think will do better, then please explain why, and what issues do you find most important for the next President to addresss?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I notice that no one has attempted to answer my earlier question about Paul’s legislative effectiveness. Let me give you a hint. The number of pieces of meaningful legislation he’s successfully authored which have made it through to become laws would be in the single digits and somewhat less than 1.

    And Pamela, you lose credibility when you start ranting about the ‘unfathomable’ rights the administration has taken away from us. Maybe you should start enumerating what those rights are, because the facts in evidence don’t support some massive rights grab.

    This is key to Paul’s image problem. The fact that people like you support him so vehemently undermines his credibility and viability as a national candidate in the same way that some of his own past writings which border on the conspiratorial lunatic fringe do the same.

    There are people like me and Clavos and Al Barger who agree with Paul on more major issues than we do with any other candidate – yet his positions are so unacceptable in a couple of key areas that we can’t bring ourselves to support him.

    All the good he might do in some areas really doesn’t matter if he does so much harm in other areas that it virtually destroys the nation.

    As for other candidates, I’m down to picking between Bill Richardson and Rudy Giuliani, the only other candidates who combine an acceptable position on taxation with acceptable positions on civil rights.

    Dave

  • Brandon

    Ask yourselves this question……Did Osama and Al qaeda Follow the Soviets back after they withdrew?

    The answer is no.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Amusing, Brandon. You ask the question, yet you get the answer wrong. Read up on the role of al Qaeda in Chechnya sometime.

    Dave

  • Pamela/American

    Dave: I notice that no one has attempted to answer my earlier question about Paul’s legislative effectiveness. Let me give you a hint. The number of pieces of meaningful legislation he’s successfully authored which have made it through to become laws would be in the single digits and somewhat less than 1.

    Pamela: You know what Dave, no one responded because Ron Paul voted for MANY pieces of legislation that did pass. Looking at all of his “personally” sponsored bills that did not get passed as a measurement of someone who can not get things done is inane as saying an inventor should stop trying to invent if many of his inventions didn’t make it tothe market. Should that inventor quit?

    Hasn’t that been the real key of these individual entrepreneur’s who have achieved real success?

    Each story is the same…they kept trying, they never quit, and finally they were a success.

    After that success many were receptive to a lot of other ideas they had for their next inventions. I see this same possibility for Ron Paul and the shift of support for his proposals is indeed changing in the voters already.

    Seeing how you want to throw in the towel so easily I can see how you did not manage to win in the election you entered. Have you tried again, or did this one defeat make you quit?

    Do you think anyone would achieve any success if they quit after the first failure?

    Further do you think Bush would have attained this much if he were a Congressman or do you see how his gaining the Presidency has allowed him the power to do the unthinkable over and over again?

    One things for sure here…Ron Paul does not need the backhanded betrayal you continue to dish out. If you continue to sell out your principles and vote for whomever you think will be accepted by this majority of other lemmings like yourself, you will be selling your own country out and no one wins in that. Things will indeed stay on this course.

    If you want real change you have to participate to make it happen. Turning you back on what you say you believe in is a sure way to fail.

  • MBD

    “Read up on the role of al Qaeda in Chechnya sometime…

    and “did Osama and Al qaeda Follow the Soviets back after they withdraw?”

    Nallecon… do some more reading before you come to your juvenile conclusions.

    Or do you believe they “hate” us because we are a democracy?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    As usual, you make no sense, MBD. You can’t even get the catch-phrase right.

    It’s not “they hate us because we are a democracy.” Hell, we’re not a democracy and some of them ARE (Iran).

    It’s “they hate us because of our freedoms.” Which is simplistic but at least somewhat closer to accurate.

    In fact, they hate us because of the values which we represent, which would be secularism, internationalism and capitalism. They hate us because we’re sitting in the middle of things and they’re on the outside, and they think those positions should be reversed.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Seeing how you want to throw in the towel so easily I can see how you did not manage to win in the election you entered. Have you tried again, or did this one defeat make you quit?

    I’ve worked on other campaigns and will likely run again myself in 2008, though probably for a different office.

    Further do you think Bush would have attained this much if he were a Congressman or do you see how his gaining the Presidency has allowed him the power to do the unthinkable over and over again?

    See, again, you’re disqualifying yourself. What is this ‘unthinkable’ that Bush has done? Or is it that because you’re incapable of thinking about it that you can’t articulate it?

    One things for sure here…Ron Paul does not need the backhanded betrayal you continue to dish out. If you continue to sell out your principles and vote for whomever you think will be accepted by this majority of other lemmings like yourself, you will be selling your own country out and no one wins in that. Things will indeed stay on this course.

    Look, I’d have to sell out my principles to vote for Ron Paul as much or more as for most of the other candidates. I believe in the separation of church and state. Paul does not. I believe in the world economy. Paul does not. I believe that people should be treated equally regardless of race. Paul does not. I believe that liberty is not a right exclusively reserved for those born in America. Paul does not.

    If you want real change you have to participate to make it happen. Turning you back on what you say you believe in is a sure way to fail.

    Absolutely. So it’s my obligation to point out how far short of the libertarian ideal Paul falls.

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Pamela- First off, I’m NOT making a compliment and taking it away. I might make a compliment and also a separate criticism – but that would not be to negate the compliment. But these comments you’re responding to do not contain any criticism of Ron Paul from me.

    I (and I can probably speak for Nalle and Clavos here as well) are NOT “turning our backs on what we believe.” It’s not a question of just picking a winner in the horse race. Even given my druthers, I’d have to (with some misgivings) support Giuliani over Paul to actually be POTUS and commander in chief.

    Giuliani’s good in some ways, questionable in others where Paul would be great – but we simply cannot afford to have a radical isolationist as POTUS and leader of the free world. It’s not just that the sheeple wouldn’t elect such a person, but that it would be really bad if they did.

    By way of philosophy of governance, I substantially disagree with Ron Paul. This is not a “sellout” or particularly a compromise of principles. I reject radical isolation as a principle. I do not believe in it as an absolute moral principle, in large part because it would not work. Also, I reject the principle because it is not in fact an immutable moral principle. Foreign policy and national defense are not exactly the same thing as domestic law enforcement for a good many reasons.

    Essentially, you’re taking a good idea that makes a good guideline or general base of presumption (non-intervention, avoiding entangling alliances), and turning it into dogma – insisting on blindly taking it to the wall – without regard to who we’re dealing with and without regard to facts on the ground.

    And if you think that our founding fathers were totally acting on pure principles, you’re just wrong about history. Leaving aside, oh, SLAVERY, look for less emotionally loaded early American history. Just for a little start, what was the constitutional justification for Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase?

  • Pamela/American

    Dave: And Pamela, you lose credibility when you start ranting about the ‘unfathomable’ rights the administration has taken away from us. Maybe you should start enumerating what those rights are, because the facts in evidence don’t support some massive rights grab.

    Pamela: Ok Dave, unless you have been on another planet I will share with you what million’s of others have indeed seen take place.

    Most important to me for very personal reasons is the very real fact that We have lost our rights to be free from forced drugging, and forced experimental vaccinations if they declare us in a state of emergency. We have lost the rights of our local legislators to stop massive deaths caused by those forced vaccinations as they have stripped the rights of those local legislators to even petition Congress to STOP the mass forced vaccinations for 30 days. A lot of people can die in 30 days Dave.

    We have lost the rights to maintain protections of our vaccine exemptions even for children like MY son who was rendered autistic from toxic vaccines in the event they declare us in such an emergency. His vaccine exemptions to protect him from being exposed to anymore vaccines becomes NULL and void if they declare such an emergency that ONE person can decide for our entire country.

    I have lost the right as my child’s Mother to stop them from forcing these vaccinations lest I wish to be thrown in prison, have the state take custody of my child, then force the new experimental vaccine on my kids anyway. I have lost the right to accept quarantine in my home in such an emergency. It’s get the vaccine or go to jail.

    My family went through THOUSANDS of dollars in our retirement, children’s college funds, and life savings because we turned back to the same crap useless mainstream medical care to try and help MY son heal from what THEIR toxic vaccines already did to his precious brain. All to no avail until we looked outside of the box to natural, noninvasive, alternative care that actually addressees the ROOT cause of the illness.

    My child is now NO longer autistic. Not because of mainstream medicine that only wanted to throw him on toxic drugs that would have further damaged his little developing brain, instead he healed in spite of that sick system they are building right now to be as large as the scam cancer society. Autism IS curable. We do not need billions thrown at this disease they are CREATING.

    We DO know the causes of autism already. We also know the answers will NEVER be found in this sick system that is creating the disabled so they can then finish them off with drugging them for life.

    My son is NO longer autistic. The same panel that eagerly gave him that LABEL and wanted to throw him into a special school with all the other children they drugged who were FAR worse off, was released from that label after they re-tested him years later thanks to alternative care, organic diet and no toxins in his environment.

    That panel of so-called experts were the same ones who told me to give up on my SON, and resign to “their conclusions” that my son would ALWAYS be this way. That same panel told me to look for placement in an INSTITUTION for my son because his autism was so progressed to THEM, was the same ignorant panel that was SHOCKED that my son was healed and they could not believe he was the same child they tested only a few years earlier.

    Indeed, If I would have been one of those parents who just blindly accepted all they were desperately trying to tell me, my son could do, would ever be able to do and things they really wanted to convince me he would never do, he would NOT be healed today. If I would have been the type of parent who QUIT on their child and stopped looking for choices, answers, and one who did not have the open mind to areas I had never ventured into before due to fear control of mainstream medicine that terrifies people away from health choices that HEAL, my son would STILL be autistic today. I am NO quitter. I will fight to the ends of the earth for my children and I will NEVER allow some medical quack to tell me to give up on my child…EVER.

    There is nothing like a severe, very PREVENTABLE injury, to our child, to make parents wake up fast and see how important it is to make SURE we keep the rights to refuse ANYTHING mainstream medicine wants to inject into our children.

    WE never sued when we “could” have. Want to know why? My son’s injury is not for SALE. I refuse to make the choice to allow them to silence my son before he is even old enough to what he wanted to do about sharing or not sharing what they did to him. I was not my story to sell.

    Families had to sign GAG orders to get a dime from these sick drug companies after they won vaccine injury cases. My son’s injury is NOT for sale. I refuse to ever allow them to SILENCE me where vaccines are concerned.

    As it is Bush the nutcase leader of our country not only stripped the rights of parents who wanted to sue in an OPEN court, while he threw them to the USELESS compensation fund that is spearheaded by a groups of “experts” working FOR the drug companies so that MAYBE 2 out of 10 cases ever saw a DIME, but he then went so far as to demand they SEAL all previous vaccine injury cases and denied the public the right to use the Freedom of information Act to see what the hell these vaccines are doing to millions of our children.

    This further crippled families out there who had already lost their homes, their life savings, and were in debt past their eyeballs just trying to keep representation, much less having to THEN duplicate proven EVIDENCE that was provided in those SEALED cases.

    Then in walks The Homeland Insecurity Acts from HELL. Not only did they do all they could to SILENCE the victims families who were trying to PROTECT their children and the public, but now they wanted to give FULL protection to these sick bastards in the drug companies to continue to maim, injure, disable, and KILL many more children without ANY liability.

    All those families who had vaccine injury cases PENDING, and their entire life savings thrown into those pending cases, watched as their cases were ALL THROWN OUT. They lost everything for NOTHING. Many of these parents are committing suicide. One woman jumped from a bridge with her autistic son because they were trying to force her to commit her son to a mental institution. She was a mainstream medical DOCTOR who saw firsthand what vaccines did to her son and she KNEW what drugging him and putting him into a nut house would do to him. But she had since gone through what many of these families also experience-divorce. Divorce at a HIG rate is happening in these families. Th fact that I have managed to keep my marriage of 22 years together through this all is a testament to sheer will, hard work, and determination. My husband is also an incredible man who does NOT back down from what he knows is right, who stands by his children, and wife. This woman’s husband just could not accept that he had a disabled son and he wanted OUT. She had no help from our government, no help from an unwitting community who continued to REFUSE to believe the ever-coveted vaccine did that to her son.

    I have a PROBLEM with that seeing first hand what these vaccines did to my own son who is by FAR not a rarity and his injuries are becoming more of the NORM in our children today and YOU should have a problem with it too since YOU are also subject to being forced to take whatever they are creating in their NEWLY Government created BARDA labs if one nut declares us all in an emergency.

    These new BARDA labs are NOT subjected to giving ANY information to the PUBLIC, to ANY information to our own government, and they do not have to give ANY information to our so-called oversight branches such as the CDC, FDA or WHO, as they have STRIPPED the right to USE The Freedom of Information Act to EVEN SEE WHAT they are creating in those labs, WHO they are testing on, What their own trials revealed in those TESTS, while our own government is stating that THIS BARDA group is indeed the one who is making the so-called SAVIOR vaccine for the Emergency preparedness plan. Hello…how many years have they been terrifying the public about the HN51 avian FLU scam??? Have you even followed that genocide set up from the beginning to where it is now? Lord help us all.

    Are you ok with being an unwitting guinea pig to be forced into an experiment with NO prior knowledge of what damages those experimental drugs or vaccines have already done?

    There is so much more to this that I don’t even have the time or inclination to spell it all out for you. Believe me I KNOW these issues as I have been DIRECTLY affected by them personally, and I do see many of these God awful pieces of legislation and these new huge levels of Government, as a direct threat to my own child whose brain cannot survive the attack of ONE more toxic vaccine.

    So when someone like Ron Paul comes out and he wants to ABOLISH the god Awful Homeland Security department and reverse the Patriot acts from hell, I am all FOR it and he definitely has my FULL attention. When he wants to stop all funding for their National Mental Health screening set up, I am ALL for it. When we wants to reverse these ungodly attacks to our Constitutional rights that have INDEED been stripped from us and have INDEED set us ALL up for much harm, then you bet your ass I am ALL for it. My child was sacrificed enough already and I will get the first gun I will have ever owned and protect my Constitutional RIGHTS to prevent ANYONE, government or NOT from EVER harming my child again. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it with whatever else you are smoking because these nuts you say you would give your vote to have NO intention of doing a FRACTION of what Ron Paul says he would do.

    Ruvy wanted to just throw out Rockefellers name like he is the only one who was harmed by that family of nuts….Who is behind the nightmare creation we call mainstream medicine today. Indeed, I do have hatred toward that nutcase family but not due to any race, or religion, because of their crimes against humanity that continues to this very day.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I can’t imagine why a Democrat would want to switch parties and vote for Ron Paul when they have Bill Richardson to vote for in their own party. He’s more in tune with their values, anti-war like Paul, and shares Paul’s libertarian views on a lot of the issues they might support. Plus he’s actually qualified to be president.

    Dave

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    While we’re on the subject of Health Freedom, how about Paul’s Freedom of Health Information act that would stop muzzling companies that make natural vitamin, mineral, and herbal supplements, so that people would be able to know what alternative PREVENTIONS, CURES, and TREATMENTS there are besides the poisonous ones designed to treat symptoms and keep us sick so we’ll have to buy more FDA approved poisons.

    And look at this hypocritical huge manhunt to track down and quarantine one lone AMERICAN citizen known to have Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, when we know damn well that MDRTB, Chagas’ and Morgellon’s diseases, and BRAIN WORMS for Lord’s sake, are communicable diseases carried by a tens of thousands of Mexicans who are allowed to swarm into the country without any health checking and with absolutley no knowledge as to who or where they are, and what restaurants they might be preparing food in.

    All of this phony panicking is just a pretext to push the entire world ever further down the path towards total one-world Orwellianization, starting with incapacitation of the American people, the one remaining threat to the agenda of those who aspire to be our unelected and unchallengeable global rulers – I refer of course to the corporate and banking elite of that “world economy” to which people like Dave Nalle bow down in worshipful obedience.

  • Pamela/American

    Richard,
    As someone who is now completely changing careers in midlife to become a Naturopathic Doctor because I have personally witnessed true healing over, and over again, in natural health choices, and I personally saw the truth behind the failures of mainstream medicines business of selling sickness for profit through my own precious son who suffered because of my ignorance and blind faith in that form of medicine back then,I fully understand the threat of the CODEX.

    This is yet another VERY serious reason to vote for Ron Paul Indeed. Yet another blackout issue they despearately want to silence from the masses as they continue to usher us first into the WTO, Then CAFTA,then NAFTA and now the seceret pacts they are signing once again behind the publics back for the North American Union…all incremental steps to ushering in the CODEX while watering down our Constitutional rights and laws to be replaced by “Global laws”.

    I have parents each week who contact me for help for thier newly vaccine injured children. Thousands of disabled children are being created each year. My own son’s continued health and recovery is solely dependent upon access to vital supplements as a major part of his healing.

    This is a direct threat to our rights to be free from a government trying to force us into their system of selling sickness and away from what many have found as the only answer to real healing.

    Unfortunately the people cannot unite as a collective group on this issue and have the power they had when we got DSHEA passed because many of those groups that have formed to fight the CODEX have been infiltrated by sell outs acting like the fighters of this cause while they really are lulling alternative healthcare providers to sleep and the providers of supplements along with them. Making them all think the CODEX measure will “enhance” supplement safety when those of us who have seriously looked into what has already happened in Europe know damned well better.

    For these reasons and many more Ron Paul is the only choice we have. But for so many who have no clue about these issues they will just not get it.

  • Pamela/American

    Richard: And look at this hypocritical huge manhunt to track down and quarantine one lone AMERICAN citizen known to have Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, when we know damn well that MDRTB, Chagas’ and Morgellon’s diseases, and BRAIN WORMS for Lord’s sake, are communicable diseases carried by a tens of thousands of Mexicans who are allowed to swarm into the country without any health checking and with absolutley no knowledge as to who or where they are, and what restaurants they might be preparing food in.

    Pamela: Multi Drug Resistant Tuberculosis is not favored to one individual as much as they may want to make it seem. They are creating these strains of TB from their “treatments” they force on anyone who tests positive for TB.

    As for other communicable diseases- only a good strong immunme system will protect us with flushes, and parasite cleanses for parasites, and other pathogens. Unless American’s stopped all travel abroad, we would not be able to stop communicable diseases. So they are not just brought in by illegals or visitors.

    The victims of Morgellon’s have yet to reveal what they have tried for treatment. Many are speculating on the causes while ignoring the time should also be focuses on treatment. I would not rule out high doses of Vitamin C in the form of ascorbate acid or colloidal silver not from nitrates for a cure.

    But I have yet to see if any of these methods have even been tried nor have I seen them follow up on any of these same patients they are parading all over the internet.

    China has all of their school aged children do parasite cleanses once a year. They are not naive enough to think only our “animals” are succeptible to parasites. Our ancestors also conducted similar cleanses and were far healthier for it. With cod liver oil for kids at first sign of illness and so on.

    Food is indeed becoming more and more of a precious commodity. Eating out today is like playing Russian Roulette with our health. With the infiltrating of unlabeled GMO foods, more, and more people, are opting to growing their own food again or joining co-ops. If we do not know what is on our food, or in it, we are asking for it in the price of our health.

    There enlies the recent serious issues of the Organics Standards board that has since been taken over by a “majority” of reps for the food giant corps who have been selling us tainted chemically filled foods for years. This is no different then these board members of the vaccine approval boards who were allowed to hold huge amounts of stocks on those vaccines they were voting on, and patents on those vaccines they were voting on, while also working for the drug companies who were putting those vaccines in there for approval, as they sat on these boards to approve these vaccines they had serious conflicts of interest in and serious invested financial interest in.

    They can only get away with this if the people allow it. So far they are getting hit from all sides on the Organics Standaards Board and demands that these chemical nuts step down from a board that is supposed to represent everything they are not knowledgeable in have been made.

    Lot’s of issues to tackle, but we have to start somewhere right? I think they are starting so many fires at once so they can just overwhelm many so much that they just throw up their hands and quit. Not going to happen in my home, but I cannot speak for everyone. One can only hope people see they are indeed in a fight for their life and if they look away we will lose.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    The real irony here is that with all that verbosity and those weird flights into arcane conspiracy paranoia, these two are doing more to hurt Mr. Paul than help him.

    Pamela, you could say everything you have to say in half as many words. And for Crissakes, would you please stop capitalizing every fifth word? It’s annoying as hell, and makes your screeds very difficult to read.

  • Pamela/American

    Al: Pamela- First off, I’m NOT making a compliment and taking it away. I might make a compliment and also a separate criticism – but that would not be to negate the compliment. But these comments you’re responding to do not contain any criticism of Ron Paul from me.

    I (and I can probably speak for Nalle and Clavos here as well) are NOT “turning our backs on what we believe.” It’s not a question of just picking a winner in the horse race. Even given my druthers, I’d have to (with some misgivings) support Giuliani over Paul to actually be POTUS and commander in chief.

    Giuliani’s good in some ways, questionable in others where Paul would be great – but we simply cannot afford to have a radical isolationist as POTUS and leader of the free world. It’s not just that the sheeple wouldn’t elect such a person, but that it would be really bad if they did.

    By way of philosophy of governance, I substantially disagree with Ron Paul. This is not a “sellout” or particularly a compromise of principles. I reject radical isolation as a principle. I do not believe in it as an absolute moral principle, in large part because it would not work. Also, I reject the principle because it is not in fact an immutable moral principle. Foreign policy and national defense are not exactly the same thing as domestic law enforcement for a good many reasons.

    Essentially, you’re taking a good idea that makes a good guideline or general base of presumption (non-intervention, avoiding entangling alliances), and turning it into dogma – insisting on blindly taking it to the wall – without regard to who we’re dealing with and without regard to facts on the ground.

    And if you think that our founding fathers were totally acting on pure principles, you’re just wrong about history. Leaving aside, oh, SLAVERY, look for less emotionally loaded early American history. Just for a little start, what was the constitutional justification for Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase?

    Pamela: Al, I don’t have it in me to even get started on what a nightmare the sell out Guiliani would be for our country. Suffice it to say that anyone who can set up over 200 firefighters and police to DIE-while these are people that they called “friends” would think nothing of betraying and entire country that they don’t even know.

    Guiliani is the perfect little player who used the same crap Bush is possibly setting us up for via hitting us with war in Iran, or unleashing his virus so the lemmings will scream for his drug buddies toxic vaccines,Before the next election-that Guiliani did to the incoming Mayor of New York when he refused to transfer power and held the position of Mayor so his place as the supposed “9/11 hero” would be set in stone and so he could help them cover up the bodies, throw them in an armed “protected” landfill and show us all what he really thought about all those “deaths” of his “friends.” His complete lack of respect for the families of 9/11 who had every right to want them to separate the remains of their loved ones, from the TRASH they were collecting, was abhorrent.

    You continue to want to throw the isolationism label on Ron Paul when his record does not reflect someone who backs down by any means. Again he did vote to go after Bin Laden of which they have YET to aggressively do, and he did vote to go to Afghanistan. Protecting the interest of OUR country and having a majority of OUR troops here is exactly what the Constitution asks that our federal government do for us. No he is not for having troops “occupying” over 100 other countries while our borders remain wide open and more importantly while our “presence” in those countries is continuing the resentment.

    How many foreign bases do we have in the US? How many foreign troops are in our streets, bombing our cities? You think being over there is making our safety increase or can you even open the door for the idea that it is keeping the wars going while creating the next ones we’ll have to fight in the background?

    Again if we stop allowing our government to have the ability to keep creating these enemies then we may just not have so many to face as we do now.

    Does Ron Paul believe as many do about serious questionable events surrounding 9/11. No, he does not. But he is at least receptive to opening another investigation of which the families at least deserve because they sure as heck are not being heard now. Coming from a family member who knows first hand the lengths this government will go to silence people they do not want talking to the people, I can completely understand their ever growing anger.

    Al: Foreign policy and national defense are not exactly the same thing as domestic law enforcement for a good many reasons.

    Pamela: Indeed they are not…now why don’t you convince our current administration of this same thing while they continue to ignore Posse Comitatus and militarize our local law enforcement while also using New Patriot Acts and HOmeland Security acts against American citizens instead of these “terrorist” they claims those rights stripping laws were for. Why don’t you tell them to get the militarizes swat teams out of local law entaglements. Many of us do know the diffreneces and each day the media is filled with blatant examples of how they are trashing our laws so we will just accept these images as the new way of American life.

    If we do not truly understand why these rights and laws are important as they are then we sure as heck cannot fight for them. Either way on the premise a small child can understand we will never prevent wars if we race to another homes and hit the owner first. Not going to happen, no way no how.

  • MBD

    Nallecon, as usual you avoid real issues and tilt at the smoke you create.

    Nallecon says, “It’s not they hate us because we are a democracy.” Hell, we’re not a democracy and some of them ARE (Iran).

    That’s nothing but pure smoke.

    (However, what Nallecon brings up should remind us that whatever form of government Iran has, it has not started a war during the lifetime of any living American.)

    Then Nallecon says, “they hate us because of our freedoms. Which is simplistic but at least somewhat closer to accurate.”

    With that smoke in the air, Nallecon says, “they hate us because of the values which we represent, which would be secularism, internationalism and capitalism.”

    Could it be that they hate us and attack us because of the values which we represent, which would be militarism, aggression and subjugation?

    If Nallecon had the true reason for their hate, they would be hating and attacking countries with the same secularism, internationalism and capitalism — countries closer to them and easier targets. Why travel to the US?

    But all this makes too much sense and is too logical for Nallecon’s brain.

    Nallecon then says, “They hate us because we’re sitting in the middle of things and they’re on the outside, and they think those positions should be reversed.”

    I will translate your euphemisn “sitting in the middle of things” to what it really means…

    US foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII has been a lot more than “sitting in the middle of things.” The US military has been in their face for decades with its militarism, aggression and subjugation, and has resulted in the same reaction we would have if their countries were over here doing it to us.

    Nallecon, one more time, it’s called: B-L-O-W B-A-C-K.

    Say it slowly, with meaning…

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    Get it?

    If not, keep saying it again and again until you get it.

    The sad part for Americans is that what our government has done for decades and continues to do in the Middle East, has resulted in the hate becoming endemic to those who live there. Nallecon’s “values crap” is spreading to the younger generation and it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The best hope for America is that someone like Ron Paul gets elected president. Since he lone has the guts to step forward and say what the other candidates know but are too yellow-livered and scared to say it, he is the only hope for the country.

    The seed of Middle East resentment against the US began decades ago and was nurtured and fed by a US foreign policy that could not succeed forever. It was only a matter of time before our policies blew back and hit the fan

    And some like Nallecon, claim they still don’t understand what happened.

    Amazing!

    All those with a functioning brain should be thankful for the Internet which helps Ron Paul get his message out there.

  • Pamela/American

    Clavos:The real irony here is that with all that verbosity and those weird flights into arcane conspiracy paranoia, these two are doing more to hurt Mr. Paul than help him.

    Pamela, you could say everything you have to say in half as many words. And for Crissakes, would you please stop capitalizing every fifth word? It’s annoying as hell, and makes your screeds very difficult to read.

    Pamela: Well it’s a good thing I’m not his spokesperson and I only speak for myself then huh? Then again, slamming him and going after his platform like you have done will really help him now won’t it?

    Tell me how everyone else is using italicized words and bold highlighted type and I will be happy to change the bold letters and italic emphasis. Seeing how messages are easily misconstrued in here, to help simpletons like yourself not become confused, lengthy responses are sometimes warranted.

    Just because you have no clue about some of these very real issue by far does not make them a conspiracy. It only continues to show how ignorance will not help change our country for the better.

  • MBD

    Clavos, the neocon parrot for Nallecon and Bargercon likes to snipe away when he thinks the neocon position is crumbling.

    If he really thought that… “The real irony here is that with all that verbosity and those weird flights into arcane conspiracy paranoia, these two are doing more to hurt Mr. Paul than help him” … was true, he would not say it. Instead he would revel in it.

    Then the neocon parrot says, “Pamela, you could say everything you have to say in half as many words.”

    Clavocon, how about telling us what was said that is unnecessary. Is that too strenuous for your neocon brain?

    Clavocon, what I find “annoying as hell, and makes your screeds very difficult to read” is that you make no sense.

    All you do is snipe.

  • John P Slevin

    Al,

    Prior to the actions of terrorists on 9/11, when was the US attacked by any middle eastern nation?

    I’m aware of the unprovoked and arguably accidental attack by Israel on the USS Liberty, but I’m asking when did any Middle Eastern nation attack this country (again, prior to the attack by terrorists on 9/11, all or most of which individuals hailed from our allies’ homelands)?

    As the Bushmen turn their squinty eyes towards Iran, consider that it is more than 300 years since that nation attacked anyone.

    The turmoil in the Middle East is not sudden, and it has developed as foreign powers have gone rampaging through the desert, as corporate interests have been married to governments, like Britain and the US, and as they’ve sought to steal the resources of those people.

    That is why we are there now. To suggest it is because of a threat of terror, to say it is because the Bushmen actually care about protecting the citizens of the US is offensive. It offends the common sense. It makes a mockery of actual Americans, people who believe in a rule of law, and who follow that law.

    Why are you comfortable in bed with the Bushmen? Have you thought of seeking help? Or, have you been watching too much 24?

    The purpose of the US invasion of Iraq, as directly stated by the current administration, is to bring democracy to the savages of the world.

    How is it self-government can be foisted upon others? Doesn’t rule by the people have to come from the people?

    Lastly, the premise of your piece is disingenuous. Paul never said nor implied what you attempt to attribute to him. A debate monitor asked him “are you saying we invited 9/11…”. And, that’s very, very different than what you say happened. But, go ahead, look at the tape of the debate. He never said what you say he at least implied, and you have bought into the muckracking by the likes of Malkin et al.

    Then, to surmise that one would be better off in a world commanded by the likes of Giuliani? Well, that’s simply stunning, coming from someone who advocates personal freedom. Check the mayor’s record. Don’t buy the hype. The former mayor of NY is a mutt.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Richard and Pamela’s last couple of posts are so purely insane (immgrants have kooties, ferchrissakes) that I actually found MBD’s marginally retarded mimicking of something he read in the sidebar of democraticunderground.com to be the only thing I can even begin to respond to here. To answer the other posts would require me to travel into realms of delusion I don’t even want to think about.

    Nallecon says, “It’s not they hate us because we are a democracy.” Hell, we’re not a democracy and some of them ARE (Iran).

    That’s nothing but pure smoke.

    Are you saying that Iran is NOT a democracy?

    Could it be that they hate us and attack us because of the values which we represent, which would be militarism, aggression and subjugation?

    Except that we don’t represent those values. The ones they dislike, as I said earlier are secularism, internationalism and capitalism. Of course there are others. They think we’re decadent and they really dislike individualism and many of the forms which our self-expression takes.

    If Nallecon had the true reason for their hate, they would be hating and attacking countries with the same secularism, internationalism and capitalism — countries closer to them and easier targets. Why travel to the US?

    LOL, they ARE, MBD. You just prove my point for me. Do you have any idea how much more frequent muslim terrorist attacks are in india than anywhere in the west?

    Nallecon then says, “They hate us because we’re sitting in the middle of things and they’re on the outside, and they think those positions should be reversed.”

    I will translate your euphemisn “sitting in the middle of things” to what it really means…

    US foreign policy in the Middle East since the end of WWII has been a lot more than “sitting in the middle of things.” The US military has been in their face for decades with its militarism, aggression and subjugation, and has resulted in the same reaction we would have if their countries were over here doing it to us.

    The US military has only been directly involved in the middle east on a few isolated occasions, most of them covert, during that period. Our money has played a bigger role.

    Nallecon, one more time, it’s called: B-L-O-W B-A-C-K.

    Repeating a popular and catchy term over and over again doesn’t actually imbue it with meaning. It’s still a pathetically obvious and simplistic attempt to label instead of analyze the situation.

    If you’re going to take the idea of ‘blowback’ seriously, we’re looking at the blowback reaction to the sack of Jerusalem in 1099. That’s as much of an influence as anything the US has done more recently.

    The sad part for Americans is that what our government has done for decades and continues to do in the Middle East,

    That would be promoting democracy, capitalism and modernization?

    Which, to be fair, may very well be what they are reacting against.

    Dave

  • Pamela/American

    Well this is rich…I have posted a response to Al twice now and it has not been added to the thread. Of course I am sure THIS one will be put in. But don’t worry I saved my last response and have it ready to post again when, and if, you are ready to stop censoring this site in efforts to cut out what you obviously do not have an answer for.

    Or maybe you are doing this to many others and because we have not seen “those post” we just don’t know what we are missing.

    Just because you find yourself very far from your original political post it does not mean the rest of us have strayed off course Al. It may just mean you need to hear what people are saying because many views in here are by far not the minority view anymore regardless of cheap censoring tactics like this.

    Hey it’s YOUR thread. If you can’t handle hearing the truth then indeed you have every right to censor someone from being able to answer, and defend themselves, from your uninformed, cheap shots. Until now I at least thought you had that much decency to not pull a stunt like this.

    Dave keep patting yourself on the back for continuing to show us yet another that we can hope never gains any seat in any election because you truly are clueless to the real issues we are all facing. If this post makes it on this thread you can now sit and ask the ultimate question Dave….did you win all those little debates you “thought” you won or did your buddy Al do some selective editing FOR you to enable you to stay in that La la land of denial you so desperately cling to?

    You know what? Forget it. I don’t need this crap. We get enough censoring from the paid off mainstream media. Congrats Al, you’ve crossed the threshold to the other side from open blogger to sell out MSM mouthpiece. Chanting the official mantras of this party of war that is being fought on the blood of the rights we all lost.

    Good Day.

  • MBD

    Nallecon wants to know more about B-L-O-W-B-A-C-K.

    Help is on the way…

    Blowback is what you get when you repeatedly infringe on the sovereign rights of others.

    For example, Middle East insurgents attack American targets because the American military launches cruise missiles from ships at sea or from B-52 bombers at high altitudes or because the American government supports their brutal and repressive regimes. I won’t elaborate on this because it would take too long.

    Members of the Defense Science Board wrote in a 1997 report to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, “Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. In addition, the military asymmetry that denies nation states the ability to engage in overt attacks against the United States drives the use of transnational actors [that is, terrorists from one country attacking in another]”

    Now, it’s time for more practice…

    Say it slowly, with meaning…

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    B-L-O-W…B-A-C-K.

    Get it?

    If not, keep saying it again and again until you get it.

    I hope this has been of help.

    Feel free to ask for more help if this hasn’t sunk into your neocon brain.

    Eventually, a lobotomy made be the best solution.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    “conspiracy paranoia” is one side of the fraudulent coin, of which the other side is “conspiracy denial.”

    The former is seeing conspiracies everywhere even if the probability is low that one exists. The latter is claiming categorically, as an article of faith, that a conspiracy does not exist even where there is a high probability that one does.

    The deniers’ motivation is to hijack the very word “conspiracy” to serve as a pejorative so that it can be used to prevent entertaining even the possibility of a conspiracy’s existence by smearing those who are intellectually honest enough to leave the option open for consideration.

    The word “conspiracy” is neutral. It just means “secretive concerted action.” Thus 9/11 was a conspiracy, but probably not in the paranoid “truther” sense. A number of Muslims secretly trained and prepared to act in concert by hijacking four airplanes and ramming some buildings with them.

    The reason I say “probably not in the truther sense”, is because the existence of a higher level government conspiracy would require assuming that a very large number of individuals could be trusted to keep quiet about their involvement. But I do not say that the probability of that is absolute zero, because of the extremely high motivation that the Bush regime would have had to manufacture such an event to use in justifying its subsequent foreign militaristic actions and its domestic Bill of Rights shredding actions – seen in the light of how serviceable their new powers to control dissent would be in the likely event of a massive revolt against an increasingly more difficult to conceal sovereignty subjugating globalist agenda.

    International corporate and banking elites are well known to MEET, if not ACT, in secret. Media personnel are invited only if they strictly agree not to report any of the substance of what they hear discussed. It is only rational that they would want to take efficient concerted action towards agreed upon goals. And who besides billionaire/trillionaires are in a better position to “influence” those in positions of political power (especially the “gladhanding”, “bobbing”, “weaving” types which Al Barger adores so much) to foster goals seen as desireable in terms of protecting and increasing the many large fortunes that are at stake.

    Here influencing could include secret cash bribes, promises of consideration for lucrative post-political career employment, assurances of campaign support, and I wouldn’t rule out threats – all the way from financial ruination to physical harm inflicted on a targeted individual and/or family members.

    Sometimes we take the liberty of speaking as though we possessed absolute certainty, even where there is a small, but not infinitessimal probability that something might NOT have happened (as in “9/11 WAS perpetrated by the Muslim highjackers”) or where there is a small, but not infinitessimal probability that something might not BE happening (as in “the international corporate and banking elite ARE conspiring to shape global culture in the direction in which it is IN FACT going”)

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Richard and Pamela’s last couple of posts are so purely insane

    That would have been the ones about the FDA. Geez Dave, being a Libertarian I would have thought you’d be right on board with us here. I mean isn’t a classic Randian mantra: “The only real protection the consumer has is competition for reputation in the free market”?

    (immgrants have kooties, ferchrissakes)

    Cooties are fictional parasites that little boys imagine infect little girls. The Mexican diseases which we allow to be brought into this country (including Leprosy, which I neglected to include in the list) are lethal.

    We use to protect American citizens from exposure to such killers, by not letting aliens immigrate who were carriers of them.

  • Dr Dreadful

    STM #258: Interesting you should mention your Viking heritage. I too am descended from Vikings on my father’s side. However, my mother’s Scottish lineage is even more interesting. She was directly descended both from William Wallace’s evil twin (catchphrase: “OPPRESSIOOOOON!!!”) and from a cross-eyed immortal Highlander with a French accent (“THERE CAN BE ONLY TWO!!!”).

    Fascinating stuff, genealogy.

  • STM

    Lol. No wonder Americans think we are all crackers. But we know the truth …

  • http://www.TerrorFreeOil.org Terror-Free Oil
  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Not that I want to change the subject from this fascinating exchange of absurd paranoid bullshit and sundry tangentia, but I’m starting to get a funny feeling about Ron Paul. I’m beginning to think he could seriously be the Howard Dean of this election cycle: the maverick, grassroots candidate with the potential to make a real name for himself and steal the frontrunner position.

    Now whether he can keep that position, as Dean could not, is another question…

  • Dr Dreadful

    Right, Michael. Since name recognition is a must for having any kind of chance to be President, it’s interesting that the popular media has started to pay some serious attention to Ron Paul.

    And while we’re on the subject of Howard Dean: considering that this country is now on its fourth successive cowboy president, it’s always mystified me as to how yelling “Yee-haw” somehow disqualified him from the position.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Michael, he would likely also resemble Dean in his propensity towards a bizarre and public meltdown at a key moment.

    Dave

  • http://ronpaulforums.com bret

    This is the most ridiculous conclusion I’ve read. I fail to see how Hillary’s policies would not simply create more hatred across the globe . . . we already are “chum in the water.” Bringing our troops home would allow us to protect .. you know .. our own country. How is that going to result in instantaneous obliteration of America? The logic simply is not there.

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    Nalle sees in Ron Paul a propensity towards a bizarre and public meltdown at a key moment

    Some might say that he was on the verge of such a “meltdown” during his final remarks on the stage in New Hampshire when, incensed at the unanimous frenzy on the part of his opponents for “melting down” Iran with tactical nukes, he swept his right arm squarely in their direction and said with uncharacteristic anger:

    tonight, we hear [from these warmongers] that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike [ferchrissakes] against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security!

    [my own interpolations of what many of us would very much like to have heard him say to these neocon idiots]

    Actually the fact that he is so well able to keep his rhetoric under control even in the face of such extreme provocations, is an indication that he in fact does NOT have any “propensity” for exhibiting Howard Dean’s type of behavior.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Mr Brodie- I’d missed the New Hampshire remarks that you quoted. I hate to think that the guy would be dumb enough to say this about Iran: tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security

    Anybody who would say this has absolutely no business being seriously considered to be POTUS. You might reasonably argue that a preemptive nuclear strike would be a bad idea, but it’s ludicrous to say that they’ve done no harm and that they’re not a threat. Start with the hostages they took under Carter, move forward to them undeniably supplying insurgents, money and bombs that are being used to kill our soldiers in Iraq today, and fast forward to these same assmunches with nuclear weapons.

    But Ron Paul doesn’t believe in using military force, and is obviously ideologically committed to not seeing even so bad a threat as a nuclear Iran. That is EXACTLY why he could never, ever, ever be president.

  • Gunn

    Mr. Barger,

    All of the expert accounts, I have read, pertaining to Iran’s Nuclear Weapons program places them 5 to 10 years before the have a warhead with enough enriched uranium to maintain a reaction.

    Furthermore, they would need a delivery system as capable as ours or the Russians. To think this small developing nation with no real navy or military to speak of is a threat to our homeland is paranoia at best. You may say argue that they would then pass a small nuclear device off to terrorists who would smuggle it into our country and target a highly populated area. Yes, that could happen, considering however that you can’t sneak a tube of toothpaste onto a plane these days that’s any larger than a “fun-size” snickers I would say that any look sneaking any sort of radioactive material is doubtful.

    Lastly, if we can all agree that “our” the United States’ foreign policy had the slightest to do with radicalizing a small sect of Muslims then our focus shouldn’t be how to contain them to the middle east. It should be how do we un-radicalize them or at least stop radicalizing more of them. I believe that is where a non-interventionist policy comes in handy. Begin a dialogue that ends in a trade policy find a way to make us indispensible partners. I don’t believe Ahmadinejad is as crazy as many pundits make him out to be, he’s a leader trying to make the best for his small nation. A super power that has proven time and again that it will attack without a declaration of war is not a good neighbor and I’m sure he recognizes this.(This doesn’t excuse his actions but in turn that does not excuse ours.)

    In an aside, being ideologically committed to not using nuclear weapons is a far cry from not being committed to using military force. I believe that Ron Paul was opposed to the use of Nuclear Weapons as a response to the percieved consensus among the other candidates which was “let’s wipe them off the map.”(that was paraphrased)

    Best

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    “Yes, that could happen, considering however that you can’t sneak a tube of toothpaste onto a plane these days that’s any larger than a “fun-size” snickers I would say that any look sneaking any sort of radioactive material is doubtful.”

    You’re ignoring the literally TONS of dope that’s brought into this country by land, sea, and air on a daily basis. You’re assuming terrorists would attempt to bring it in on a commercial flight; most of the dope smuggled does NOT come on commercial flights.

    If dope is so easy, why would a nuke be any more difficult?

  • http://wwwrichardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Al Barger shows he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. by saying: “Ron Paul doesn’t believe in using military force”

    He voted to use military force in Afghanistan. What he is against is the Offensive use of military force. He will limit it to Defensive use.

    That would include retaliating after being attacked, as well as issuing “understandings” designed to prevent attacks on our homeland. Examples would be MAD in the case of the Soviet Union, and in the current confrontation with radical jihadist Islam it might involve making it crystal clear that in the case of any nuclear attack on American soil carried out by Muslims, there would be a comlete vaporization of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, with sufficient advanced waring to allow for the evacuation of all human inhabitants of that city. No Muslim, radical or “moderate”, would ever do anything that would make them responsible for the destruction of their religion’s holiest place, just as no Russian leader would ever do anything that would result in his country being annihilated.

    Of course Mr. Paul will work diligently to minimize the possibility of portable nuclear devices being smuggled into the United States, by absolutley securing our borders.

  • Dr Dreadful

    If dope is so easy, why would a nuke be any more difficult?

    Smuggling nuclear material is one thing – there may well be an alarming quantity of illicit plutonium already in the country. There was a thing on one of the current affairs shows – Dateline a year or two back which showed how easy it would be.

    However, plutonium is not dope. It’s staggeringly expensive – it’s not like you can sidle up to Saigon Sam in the local dive bar and have him slip you an ounce of it in exchange for a fifty. It’s also pretty bloody useless unless you can fashion it into a bomb, which is an intricate enterprise requiring specific technical knowhow.

    That’s likely the only reason why there hasn’t yet been a nuclear terrorist attack, although I think it’s probably just a matter of time.

    Richard, unfortunately I don’t think your deterrent would work. Someone nutty enough to set off a nuclear bomb in the name of God would probably have faith in their twisted brain that Mecca would be under divine protection.

    Finally, on a point of order, I think it’s Dr Paul.

  • ahmedinajad

    READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

    The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.

    Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.

    Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version

    Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.

    GENESIS 16:16
    And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.

    GENESIS 21:5
    Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

    At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!

    BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.

    100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING

    THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21 BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.

    Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?

    GENESIS: 21:14 – 21
    So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.

    The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.

    This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??

    Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?

    I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces – unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant. AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.

    For background info on the future religion of mankind see this

    (MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE) HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 – 122

    101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

    102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!”

    103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

    104. We called out to him “O Abraham!

    105. “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

    106. For this was obviously a trial-

    107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

    108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

    109. “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”

    110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

    111. For he was one of our believing Servants.

    112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac – a prophet,- one of the Righteous.

    113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.

    114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,

    115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;

    116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);

    117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;

    118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.

    119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:

    120. “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!”

    121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

    122. For they were two of our believing Servants.

    ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE????? Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.

    HADITH Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583: Narrated Ibn Abbas:

    The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?” He said, “Yes.” She said, “Then He will not neglect us,” and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka’ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
    ‘O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.’ (14.37) Ishmael’s mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
    When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times.”
    The Prophet said, “This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, ‘O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?” And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.”
    The Prophet added, “May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael’s mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.” The Prophet further added, “Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.’ The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada’. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, ‘This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.’ They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water).” The Prophet added, “Ishmael’s mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, ‘Do you allow us to stay with you?” She replied, ‘Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.’ They agreed to that.” The Prophet further said, “Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.

  • http://www.impeachspace.com/profile/amikegreen2 Mike Green

    This article begins with promise then falls off the cliff of reality. Ron Paul is indeed an excellent candidate for president. The fact that he is willing to scale down the federal government by eliminating the 9/11-spawned Office of Homeland Security is but one of numerous good reasons to vote him into office.

    But let’s look at the rationale of the writer who lambastes Paul for his assertion that the U.S. is being attacked because we are the aggressors.

    While the author agrees with Paul in principle, he then shifts to agree with those who have made immoral and illegal decisions to launch aggressive attacks against other nations … which ultimately the writer admits becomes the catalyst for “blowback” or some form of retaliatory measures.

    The writer ignores also the call for Paul to no longer be admitted into the debates. Such a call is certainly undemocratic. And if the U.S. is the model for democracy, cencorship of candidates who say things that are unpopular isn’t really a very good model of democracy, is it?

    The writer fails to adequately address the point Paul makes, which is the most relevant of all. Despite the champing at the bit by other candidates to get a piece of Paul during the debate where he demonstrated he is the only honest candidate running for president, it stands to reason that what Paul said went over the heads of most everyone who heard it, the author of this article included.

    Paul made reference to a long-term (over 10 years) system of military and covert operations that yielded death and destruction in Iraq for no other purpose than to soften it up for another full-scale invasion similar to the one in 1991. Paul suggests that the U.S. has no business doing such things.

    The writer apparently disagrees.

    He considers the mullahs of Iran crazed. That statement alone shows this writer doesn’t know his history. The U.S. overthrew the Iranian government (democratically elected) in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator in order to control the oil from Iran for 26 years.

    After losing Iran in 1979 to a revolution by its not-so-crazy people, the U.S. befriended Saddam Hussein (a known crazed loony) in Iraq. Within months, Iraq had invaded Iran and maintained an 8-year war in which the U.S. was a principle partner.

    These actions are not preventive or defensive in any way, shape or form. Thus, the argument that the U.S. is justified in breaking its own laws, opposing its values and creeds and moral codes in order to prevent an aggression that is otherwise inevitable is a false argument.

    No such situation existed then, when the U.S. posed its aggression against Iran (1953), or when it invaded Iraq (1991), or when it launched aggression against Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Guatemala, El Salvador, Cambodia, Panama, and the list goes on.

    If this writer’s perspective rules the day, the U.S. can live on both sides of its double-talking mouth. It can claim to be a moral and upright nation of equal justice and freedom for all, and yet aggressively intervene in governments around the globe at its own discretion under the guise of “pre-empting” imagined attacks or aggression against the U.S.

    Such policies, if good for the U.S. are also good for other nations. Thus, any nation can claim the same rationale as the U.S. and formulate attacks against this nation as “pre-emptive” measures. The irony of it all is that those foreign nations that employ such a policy of prevention would have the historical evidence of U.S. aggression to point to as reason for fearing the radical rationale of so-called reasoned leaders.

    Thus, under such wild assertions by every leader in the world following the policies set in place by the U.S., there will be chaos and war in every sector fo the globe. No one need be attacked in order to launch an attack. One need only have fear … or, as is the case with the U.S., use fear as a reason to launch an attack even if no facts or evidence supports the rationale.

    Is this the world we want? If not, why is this argument being proffered in this forum?