Ron Paul has raised himself a nice little bundle of cash today, making a point to ‘remember the 5th of November.’ I wonder why? David Freddoso of National Review says this should make us take Paul more seriously, a statement……

Ron Paul has raised himself a nice little bundle of cash today, making a point to ‘remember the 5th of November.’ I wonder why? David Freddoso of National Review says this should make us take Paul more seriously, a statement……

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 6:42 PM

RP = Elmer Fudd

You wascaly wabbit!

The terrorists must sit around wringing their hands at the thought of a RP or dem presidency.

As usual, I see Ron Paul and now I can’t get the “Looney Tunes” theme song out of my head.

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Known as “The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down”?

My favorite lyrics…
Oh when they say I’m nutsy
It sure gives me a pain
Please pass the ketchup I think its going to rain

Oh you can’t bounce a meatball
Though try with all your might
Turn on the radio I want to fly a kite

I’d comment on the similarities in logical consistency, but I’m too nice for that. Or am I?

For anyone who doesn’t want to see a world with no oil from the Middle East and a large spreading war starting in Korea and Taiwan… find another “Last Hope”.

Edited out a longer description of the problems with his policies. Pardon me for hoping they’re self-evident.

Didn’t learn much from history I see, sad really. Figure this one out, before the US entrance into both WWI and WWI, were the conflicts getting bigger or smaller? What exactly was it that drew the US into both conflicts?

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 9:56 PM

I will answer what I think the question is rather than the one asked. The US government had no dog in the fight in WW I with the exception of the U-boat campaign of the Germans. The United States was never even part of the “Allied Forces”. Whether that conflict was growing or shrinking or stagnant leaves room for debate. But my question to you is “So the f@#k what?” WWI was absolutely a war that could have been left to Europe.

WWII was different. Then it ended. Then the cold war started. That was won. Our troops stayed to protect Europe from a defeated threat. The securiy treaty to guard against the now non existant threat grew. All on the backs on the US. We always hear that it is cheaper to keep the peace. That’s BS.
We have allowed other nations and people to sponge off this country’s labor and courage and we ask nothing in return.
It started in Europe and now it is spread to the Middle East

So what do we tell future generations? “Sorry we’re broke, but we had to finish WWI.”

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 8:55 PM

Didn’t learn much from history I see, sad really. Figure this one out, before the US entrance into both WWI and WWI, were the conflicts getting bigger or smaller? What exactly was it that drew the US into both conflicts?

We’re not so much the worlds policemen as we are the worlds firemen, we’re are not so much doing police work as we are putting out fires, fires that allowed to burn unchecked could very well burn down our house. This is the most significant lesson America learned from those two world wars.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM

That’s the lesson of two world wars? That’s the most significant lesson? Wow, of everything that needs to be learned you choose that the USA needs to send armies to defend citizens of other nations. Get the map out, with the exception of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the rest of the fighting was done to secure life and liberty of citizens of other nations.
BTW to lump WW I and WWII together shows a real lack of intellectual discipline. Were there similar causes? Are the results the same? No. From the perspective of this country, the only similarity is that our forefathers had to pay a price for the avarice of other nations.
In your opinion, do you think that the US citizen should subsidize generous welfare benefits in Europe?
Bottom line: If they are not men enough to defend their culture, their culture is not worth defending.
At this point the same holds true for Iraq.

the turn-of-the-19th-century Anarchists.

I absolutely supported it, but had I thought at the time that we would need to hold their hands until they could stand on their own I would have thought differently.

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 7:13 PM

Bush probably feels the same way, but he has too much hubris to admit it.

“I wouldn’t do that much about it”

When you “cut to the chase”, that is pretty much Bush’s position too.

How much longer do we have to use tax payers money to secure Europe?

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Until such a time as nothing that happens to, in or as a result of Europe(or any other part of the world)is in any way shape or form a threat to the people of or the security of the United States. Two world wars have pretty much taught us that.

We’re not so much the worlds policemen as we are the worlds firemen, we’re are not so much doing police work as we are putting out fires, fires that allowed to burn unchecked could very well burn down our house. This is the most significant lesson America learned from those two world wars.

Hollowpoint on November 2, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Your point is well taken, but don’t forget the reasons for going to war with Iraq in the first place. I absolutely supported it, but had I thought at the time that we would need to hold their hands until they could stand on their own I would have thought differently.

It’s the same with Iran. I support ending any threat to ourselves and allies. But after the threat is neutralized why is it always our responsibility to rebuild?

sweeper on November 2, 2007 at 6:43 PM

No one’s suggesting we invade and take over Iran; at least no one who’d influence the decision so far as I’m aware. An attack would almost certainly be limited to bombing. However, their nuke program is spread out over many sites, mostly hardened and/or underground- it’s not like Iraq or Syria where the Israelis were able to take out their nuke reactors with a few planes.

And yes- we’d all appreciate it if Europe would step up and take more of their fair share of the load, but they aren’t- even when it was in their own backyard in Bosnia it took US intervention (right or wrong) to get the ball rolling. What Paul is talking about goes far, far beyond protecting Europe.

Isolationism went out the window for good with the advent of missile technology and nukes
Harpazo on November 2, 2007 at 4:12 PM

I’m in a bad position here because I’ve said things that have defended Paul supporters in the past.

Although, Paul’s view on foreign policy is the reason I would never vote for him. (even against Hillary)

All that being said, isn’t there a large grey area being isolationism and where we are today? I agreed with GWB against Gore when he spoke against nation building.
Then 9/11 happened, and again I supported GWB’s foreign policy (and still do)

But what else do we need to do in Iraq? Are these diplomats, that C Rice is sending over, going to secure the country? Why the f are we doing rebuilding roads and cities?

If Iran indeed wants to build a nuclear reactor, wait a year and bomb the hell out of it. Don’t invade and try to win hearts and minds.

And, quite frankly, he is absolutely right about being the World’s policeman. How much longer do we have to use tax payers money to secure Europe?