Ron and the Paulbots celebrate a terrorist by raising $3.5 mil Update: Make that $3.8 $4.2 mil
posted at 8:34 am on November 6, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Remember, remember the 5th of November. That’s the day Ron Paul vaulted into serious political money.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours.
Paul, the Texas congressman with a Libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie “V for Vendetta.” Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: “Remember, remember the 5th of November.”
It’s kind of odd and kind of fitting that the Paulians chose Guy Fawkes Day. Fawkes was a terrorist who tried blowing up the king and Parliament to overthrow the government. The Paulians seem to think of themselves as insurgents against the more establishment candidates, but the fact is if Paul’s foreign and security policies were to be implemented, a whole lot of stuff is likely to get blown up. Even after 9-11, Paul thinks it’s outlandish that anyone could attack the US and if he were president he wouldn’t do anything about Iran’s nuclear program or the real terrorist threat from al Qaeda. Well, other than abolish pretty much every security measure that’s been set up and abandon the Middle East to the biggest thug on the block. Which is why things would tend to blow up if Paul were president.
As it turns out, Paul’s devoted were the only ones celebrating the Gunpowder plot’s 402nd anniversary. In Fawkes’ hometown of York, health and safety regulations have stifled pretty much everything that might be any fun.
No wet floors. No obstructions in the passageways. Many well-lighted emergency exits. But even with her respect for such policies — “You don’t want anyone to hurt themselves,” she said — Ms. Stapylton said it was a bit much that, apparently because of health and safety rules, York would not be sponsoring a traditional fireworks celebration for Guy Fawkes Night on Monday.
“Personally, I think it’s a bit silly,” she said.
York, along with many other municipalities, has often been the scene of huge events — fireworks, bonfires, the burning of creepy effigies of Fawkes — to commemorate the failure of Fawkes’s plan to blow up Parliament and the king in 1605, a shocking moment in British history. But in the face of increasingly onerous regulations, none are taking place in the city this year.
This paragraph pretty much sums up what’s become of England.
Among other things, the Slough authorities have argued that a bonfire would violate environmental laws, upset residents from foreign countries with no tradition of Guy Fawkes Day and kill animals that settle into the wood before it is set alight and are unable to escape.
“…upset residents from foreign countries with no tradition of Guy Fawkes Day…” Now who might that be?
Update: Huh?
Among those for whom a sustained Iraq occupation is not a make-or-break issue, Paul’s big day is going to win him a second look. But he has to lay off the gold standard schtick (at least for a while) and start speaking to conservatives again about the many issues he has in common with them. If he does, he might actually be able to make something of all this.
The gold standard stuff is not a “schtick.” Neither are the batty foreign policy or the associations with Alex Jones et al. That’s who Ron Paul is. It’s like that Denny Green interview — Paul is exactly who we think he is. Which means he’s a Bircheresque crank who happens to be running as a Republican, and who is allowing himself to be an empty vessel for whatever crankery isn’t otherwise represented by any of the other candidates. The Corner may be in need of a Buckleyesque intervention.
Update: Even with Paul’s Fawkes haul, he’s still way behind the top tier candidates in terms of funding. Open Secrets has him behind Thompson, Giuliani and Romney in ascending order. It took about five seconds of research to check up on where Ron really stands wrt the top tier candidates in fundraising.
Thanks to Slu for the Open Secrets linky.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
What the Fawk?
Who are these nuts supporting Paul. We have stupid signs all over this town with his .com. I can’t tell his supporters from Edwards supporters.
Fawk you Paul.
right2bright on November 6, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Might as well curl up and self-immolate, Euthanasia is Patriotic!
Neo on November 6, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Impressive money…but certainly well shy of the $10 million they were shooting for.
And yeah, from the Paulbots I talk to, the Guy Fawkes reference is meant to be symbolic of great government change. But of course it’s all still a little creepy.
JetBoy on November 6, 2007 at 8:51 AM
I continue to find it quite interesting and telling that this “Conservative” blog despises Paul’s libertarian beliefs of a small, unobtrusive, and Constitutionally bound government. I am not stupid; I am not a “nut root;” I have personally fought in this war; I don’t live in a cabin in the woods without electricity; I just happen to have reached my limit with our leviathan government.
My question to all of the “Conservatives” on this board - What will it take for you to reach your limit? Will it be when the government will not allow you to spank your children? Will it be when the government will not allow you to smoke in your own house? Will it be when the government forcibly takes your money to fund everyone’s retirement, spends any excess money collected, replacing it with IOUs and then claims that something must be done about the program which is going bankrupt? Will it be when the government stifles free speech within 90 days of elections? Will it be when the government forces your children to learn about and not condemn homosexuality in compulsory government run schools? Oh yeah, that’s right, all of this stuff has already happened. Is there ANYTHING that the government could do to make ANYONE on this blog finally reach his limit?
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 8:55 AM
We don’t despise Paul’s small-government beliefs. We despise Paul.
The message is not well-served by the messenger, nor by his supporters.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 8:57 AM
I’ve said it before, Paul definitely is a class A loon on foreign policy. From complete capitulation to “blowback” to the 9/11 we had it coming attitude to the Alex Jones thing.
BUT, I swear when he talks federalism and small government he’s a pleasure to listen too. You cant say he’s not principled. He’s just crazy on foreign policy. Bummer.
Dash on November 6, 2007 at 8:57 AM
Bryan, you’re right. The gold standard isn’t simply something he’s been thinking about lately: it’s a core part of his platform.
Paul is a 9/10 and/or 12/6 Libertarian. In his world, if we just leave everyone else alone, they’ll leave us alone. We’ve had that policy - we still get attacked. He’s apparently incapable of comprehending that people genuinely want to kill us and will continue to.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Also remember its “Death to America” day
Kinda coincidentual wouldnt you say ? Almost a CONSPIRACY !
William Amos on November 6, 2007 at 8:59 AM
That is just sad.
I think you can take any one of those
reasonsexcuses, or any combination of the three, and pretty much ban anything and everything.reaganaut on November 6, 2007 at 9:00 AM
So what, you are just waiting until the likeable candidate that espouses these beliefs to support someone other than the big-government establishment candidates?
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 9:01 AM
You’re basing your argument on the assumption that we’re opposed to Paul’s beliefs on small government. For me, it’s his stance on national security. One of even the original Republican stances was a strong national defense. He’s been more interested in reimplementing the gold standard than protecting the country.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 9:02 AM
I don’t care if a candidate is likeable or not. Paul is wrong on a number of issues I find important, and his policies would get a lot of Americans killed.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Paul is a nutjob who will never, ever get anything done. He has associated himself with grade A slimeballs. Ron Paul is a complete nobody, if you’re looking at him to get any of those things accomplished you are mistaken.
reaganaut on November 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Well King, I think most of the conservatives on this board will vote Republican, and in that way avoid the consequences you listed. A return to true conservatsm is needed, cut back spending, more personal liberty and responsibility and less government intrusion into our lives. Allowing the terrorist to Nuke New York because Ron Paul doens’t think that they pose a threat is not a viable option. Not only that, but only a minority of people support Paul, so he will not win the nomination. Instead of Pauls supportes thinking that everyone else is stupid and should just shut up and blindly follow the Paulmeister, perhaps the minority should look into why the majority thinks he is a joke.
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 9:05 AM
We don’t despise that at all. What I at least despise is that Paul will traffic with Truthers, and that he obviously doesn’t understand the current world at all. He says, with his serious face, that no one’s going to attack us. He says, with his serious face, that 9-11 was basically our fault. And he runs around on Alex Jones’ radio show, giving that lunatic an in to what’s becoming a serious presidential candidacy. If Paul stuck to the small government stuff he wouldn’t come off as a crank, but Paul doesn’t stick to the small government stuff. And folks like yourself ought to be honest about that.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Anyone else think that Dems are likely pumping money into Paul’s campaign simply because they see him as a spoiler on our side?
CP on November 6, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Well said.
TheSitRep on November 6, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Couldn’t they just throw an American Flag on the fire to make those folks feel right at home?
trubble on November 6, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Approx. 2/3rds of Paul supporters are leftist.
TheSitRep on November 6, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Even if *shudder* Ron Paul were to win the White House, exactly who in Congress would support anything he tried to do….Who would support closing the IRS and the CIA?
Small government is good…. No government, not so much.
JetBoy on November 6, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Someone should rewrite ‘Imagine’ into something Paulesque.
- The Cat
MirCat on November 6, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I don’t know…I’ve seen the leftie blogs diss Ron Paul sometimes more than us righties do. Wonkette in particular has run many hit pieces on Paul. What I have found is that Most who suport Paul have great disdain for Hillary…but they like Kucinich and Gravel.
And they want to see BushCo impeached.
JetBoy on November 6, 2007 at 9:28 AM
I’ve said several times that I’d vote for Paul if he was only allowed to make domestic policy decisions. His foreign policy is dangerous, plain and simple.
BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Doc Paul’s isolationist views far, FAR outweigh any positives you listed.
I know you Paulites like googling stuff, so try googling the Neutrality Act of 1935 and it’s subsequent amendments. See where that got us as a nation.
mojowire on November 6, 2007 at 9:35 AM
OT: Crooks and Liars is catching up in the voting for Best Video Blog of the Year.
http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-video-blog-1.php
BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 9:35 AM
I thought Guy Fawkes day was an anti-Catholic celebration (which is why George Washington stopped it here). I think the movie confused people into thinking it celebrates the crazy terrorist.
frankj on November 6, 2007 at 9:36 AM
alot of Irony here, part of this fundraising effort was by NEO-NAZI’s(see Stormfront for starters), trying to get their “guy hawke” messiah elected.
the irony is, in the movie “V for Vendetta”, the ruling govt. were portrayed as Nazi’s, racist, bigots, Fascist and Christians……
this is also more proof, far left kooks are behind Paul. Last year, inspired by the movie, they wore Guy Fawkes mask on election day.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 9:36 AM
comment yesterday by Eric Dondero, Paul’s 12 year personal aide who had a falling out with him. He has a blog: Libertarian Republican
about what I expected, the key is this type of crankery be exposed to the rational, yet uninformed, voters out there.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 9:39 AM
As a Texan, I don’t understand the attraction of little Ronnie Paulie to his constituents, other than his domestic policies. He serves the 14th Dist. (southern Texas coast) but I promise, he has long been a laughing stock to the rest of the State.
That being said, its probably because he’s not a real Texan (thank GOD). He’s one of those “transplanted Texans”, being originally from PA.
SouthernPride on November 6, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Finally, I understand the last line of Lennon’s song “Remember”…
Halley on November 6, 2007 at 9:44 AM
btw, I thought I’d throw this in:
Ron Paul is said to be looking into Walter E. Williams, an African-American Economics prof. at George Mason U.
According to the Paul Patrol, it’s an attempt to put an end to the idea that Paul is “racist”…after his “fleet-footed” remark, et al.
JetBoy on November 6, 2007 at 9:47 AM
I am all for small gov’t. I especially like the idea of repealing the 16th and 17th Constitutional Amendments which were key to things getting really bad in this country IMO. I think the war on drugs is retarded and pointless and want to see recreational drugs legalized, regulated and taxed (I have no interest in using drugs personally, I just think it is obvious that prohibition doesn’t work and I really don’t care if someone o/d’s on heroin - the real tragedy is preventing people from self-removing from teh gene pool). I would love to see the Depts of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor eliminated, along with the IRS (which would be unneeded with the fair tax implemented). There are literally dozens of gov’t agencies which need to be eliminated. See http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/D.shtml for a listing of all federal gov’t agencies just to get a concept of how bloated our gov’t really is.
While I would love to see the above happen, among other gov’t shrinkage, I also don’t want to have gun battles with terrorists and illegal aliens in our streets. We figured out decades ago that projection of power allows us to fight enemies at places other than the continental US. While the founding fathers were right on about most things, there are significant changes in the world, especially with communication, travel speeds and weaponry that require an updating of their admonishments. Ron Paul doesn’t understand that fundamental point. If we are not engaged in the world, the world has the ability now to engage us, usually in some place and some way that is terribly inconvenient for our citizens, especially those who are being killed by the terrorists.
deepdiver on November 6, 2007 at 9:49 AM
I certainly understand everyone’s hating of Paul’s views on foreign policy. I also believe it to be wrong when people say that Pual has no idea of the world we live in today. He, despite all of your need it to be so, is not stupid or a lunatic. I will say this of Paul’s foreign policy - I don’t think we would be attacked very often if we did implement his foreign policy coupled with a zero tolerance of any attacks - meaning that if we were attacked by, say crazies flying airplanes into building, all countries known to be terrorist sponsors would get pulverized with no follow-up country building by us. Not too many would dare to allow us to be attacked if they knew that they would suffer as a result. For example - if we were attacked again, 9/11 style, and then we went and bombed every major city in Iran, Syria, and let’s say Somolia - when I say bomb I mean WWII carpet bomb style - and then just let them go, what country would not see it in their best interest to police themselves internally for the terrorist threat. I personally believe that this is the sort of foreign policy that Paul envisions and could work. This would require a robust foreign intelligence on our part. It also doesn’t mean isolationism. It means still interacting with and trading with everyone who wants to do so with us. It just means that we don’t ship arms to country A, or attack country B for attacking country C, or we don’t say that country D cannot do this or that because we don’t want them to.
But again, I ask those on this board - What will it take for your to get to your limit with our government?
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 9:52 AM
And if one or more of those countries had nukes in their own arsenals?
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Most of us are already at our limit, but we aren’t going to turn this country over to a kooky crank like RP so he can get us attacked on a daily basis because he only wants to react to direct threats against us.
The world has changed significantly since the framers set out to create the constitution. They never imagines a world where a country doesn’t have to dispatch troops to our shores to kill us, but rather can send nuclear tipped missiles from half way around the world. This is what RP ignores and just that fact alone proves the man is unstable and if he did get his domestic policies enacted, he would do it wrong and create a bigger mess than we have now.
We have reasonable candidates who want small limited government, but are strong on foreign policy. We don’t need a loon as president.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 9:56 AM
So Ron Paul didn’t accuse the U.S. of being in Afghanistan only for the oil? The relevant passage:
So the answer to your question is no. I do not believe that Paul would advocate an attack against those who attacked us, since he’s willing to engage in such ridiculous conspiracy-mongering.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 9:57 AM
They didn’t have nukes in the 18th century, and under a Ron Paul administration we would revert back to a much simplier time.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 9:58 AM
you are right bryan. as much as I love certain aspects of the message (and i really REALLY love certain aspects of the message) he really is nuts on foreign policy and the gold standard deal just makes him seem almost childish. its a shame, but hopefully, he makes the statement that he needs to make, that theres both money and an overactive voting block that’s just DYING to help a candidate with a libertarian “get the f*** out of my life” lean.
ernesto on November 6, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Hell, yeah.
Redhead Infidel on November 6, 2007 at 9:59 AM
That’s no good…they’d only use that as an excuse to further their jihad. The last thing we need is tit-for-tat, continuous retaliatory bombing.
All those cruise missles Clinton lobbed at Baghdad because Saddam was being a bad boy, didn’t solve anything…
JetBoy on November 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM
This country does not do that now because we live in a global community that the framers never envisioned. Allies of Iran, that might also trade with us, would, because they are not buying into isolationism, align themselves with Iran and deny us trade with them etc if we were to kill 250,000 civilians. On top of that, those in congress who don’t buy into that loons policies would be doing worse than what they are doing now. That being undermining this country. We don’t kill massive amounts of civilians now and the dems are destroying this country’s credibility. If they had the absolute moral authority to call RP a murderer, he would probably be impeached.
Paul is insane because he believes that just because HE wants to become isolated from the world that the 535 members of congress and the American people do too.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Again, Ron Paul style “stick you head in the sand until it’s too late” foreign policy.
I am also sure your carpet bombing strategy will go over well with the international community. You think they hate us now? Just wait.
Your “instant humanitarian crisis” retaliation policy is very amusing however. Thanks for the laugh!
mojowire on November 6, 2007 at 10:07 AM
My ex-wife’s birthday. Now I know what she did with the money she won in divorce court.
Texas Nick 77 on November 6, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I do not advocate the whole sale slaughter of 100 of thousands of inncocent civilains to “get back” at a few terrorist. if Pauil beleives that to be a sound stratagy then he, and anyone who agrees, is a small minded idiot, who should be riding around with Tom Cruise and saying “yeah, I’m a good driver, definatly a good driver”.
A terrorist group is not a government, they may be funded and supported by governments, but they are a self contained group. It would be like Carpet bombing New York because your wife was shot by a gang banger. Not only that, but it would alienate the rest of the world and would add fuel to the anti American sentimate in which terrorsim thrives. In addion to all that, where the hell would we get our fuel? Untill America is self sufficient and is generating its only power (I prefer nuclear energy and batteries) we can not utilaterally destory the infrastructure of any country that is basicly supplying us with the fuel we need to live.
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 10:10 AM
You’re right. KotB’s recipe would get us the perpetual war that the Ronulans decry now.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Ronulans. Lawls, that’s rich Bryan.
I need to get a list going. Paulites, Ronulans, Paulbearers, Guy Paul… What am I missing?
mojowire on November 6, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I think I see george soros’ fingerprints all over it.
Texas Nick 77 on November 6, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Ronulans. That’s a good one.
I would be more inclined to compare them to the Borg, however.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM
I wish our candidates would start campaigning against Paul and expose all this Michael Moore, fring lunatic crap. They aren’t because the polls have him as a sideshow, but what if the polls are wrong.
the key number in the early primary states is to look at the “newly registered” repubs. in those states. Mark Steyn has an interesting post at the Corner about New Hampshire and paul.
the sooner the political process exposes him the better.
and I have no doubt some Soros money is finding its way into Paul’s fundraising. Its what I’d do if I was him, for that matter Iranian linked money as well.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Is it too late to get the former UN dude, Bolton, on the Republican ticket? Now that is someone who would strike fear into the enemy!
SouthernPride on November 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM
The world has changed significantly since the framers set out to create the constitution. They never imagines a world where a country doesn’t have to dispatch troops to our shores to kill us, but rather can send nuclear tipped missiles from half way around the world. This is what RP ignores and just that fact alone proves the man is unstable and if he did get his domestic policies enacted, he would do it wrong and create a bigger mess than we have now.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 9:56 AM
That is a funny argument because it is the EXACT argument liberals use when they talk about domestic policy and the Constitution. Most “conservatives” only differ from liberals in HOW they would use the big hammer of government, not whether its use is authorized or justified.
Why was it justified to carpet bomb and kill millions of civilians during WWII but the folks on this board believe it to be morally repugnant and “small minded idio[cy]” to do anything approaching that now? If Iran knows that we won’t bomb them if they allow a cell of terrorists inside their country, why not allow them? What would it hurt Iran to allow terrorists by the thousand to train and operate within the borders of Iran? The answer is that until countries such as Iran, who currently do allow the training of terrorists inside of their country because they do hate the same America that the government of Iran hates, suffer because of that, then they will continue to do so.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I think that you have forgotten what a terrorist is, Bryan. A terrorist is someone who attacks civilians in an effort to achieve political objectives. Attacking the King and members of Parliament is not attacking civilians, but attacking the government directly. Fawkes was a rebel, for sure, but not a terrorist (just because someone uses explosives does not mean that the person is a terrorist).
Henry Bowman on November 6, 2007 at 10:37 AM
King, the reason most are against carpet bombing NOW is that we are not at war with a country, we are at war with groups of fanatics that have tenous links at best to other countries.
Also, take a look at the ideology of the people. Kill a terrorist and he goes to heaven. Kill 10,000 of the terrorists freinds and family then they are martyred and go to heaven. So how, pray tell, does threatening to send their fellow country men and women straight to heaven dissude the terrorist from slipping a nuke into a third party dummy corperation conatainer ship and detonate it at the Norfolk cargo terminal?
Killing indiscriminatly only works when you are planning on eradicating every single person that would oppsoe you. Is that what you are sugesting? In that case skip the carpet bomb, just nuke the middle east, Russia, China, N korea, and toss a few into Europe for good measure. If Pauls stratagy is a post emptive strike against innocent people then he might as well be efficient and get rid of everyone at the same time.
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Actually, a terrorist is someone who uses violence to achieve political goals. That violence may or may not be directed against civilians.
Under your definition, the men who hijacked AA Flight 77 weren’t terrorists, because they attacked a military, rather than civilian, target. Is that what you’re trying to say, or are you simply trying to downplay the fact that Ron Paul used the anniversary of a planned terrorist attack to fundraise?
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 10:47 AM
It seems clear to me that an awful lot of people want a major change to the status quo. That is why they voted the dems in, and once again the dems turned out to be worse than the Republicans. All the usual pun dents get caught up in the minutia between the frontrunners, but the many believe they are all about the same.
Like him or not, Ron Paul clearly is devoted to serious changes in government. I think the public knows that a president can only screw things up so far with our separation of powers, and some feel Ron Paul can at least use the bully pulpit to steer the debate back away from the usual suspects that want amnesty, Government medical, welfare, wild tax and spend, Political correctness, etc.
The primary responsibility of the President is national defense, and that is what he is about.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 10:58 AM
check out Brian Godawa’s(hollywood screenwriter) review of “V for Vendetta”
link, but need to scroll down a little
punch line:
yep, and Ron Paul is effectively an ally of the Global Jihadist movement.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Except Ron Paul has been Lying to his sheep, and saying that Congress makes foreign policy, and Bush ‘illegally’ went to war in iraq and its unconstitutional.
then turns around and says he will “immediately” end the war, which is the main source of his unhinged support.
this type of politics and stupidity is dangerous, paticularly in the age of the internet. It could cause a needless revolution of some sort and will empower the Jihadist.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Yes- he’s about neutering it.
Hollowpoint on November 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
We carpet bombed entire areas to ensure that we hit, for example, a single factory. Technology limitations during WWII demanded this. If we had cruise missiles that could fly right into the window of that factory during WWII, you can rest assured we would have used that instead.
The only vindictive carpet bombing I can think of during that war was of Dresden. That was British RAF anyways, not us.
Your lack of knowledge in history, warfare, technology, and even common sense is what gravitates you towards Paul who suffers from the same apparent deficiency.
mojowire on November 6, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Umm, what? So if the US Capitol gets blown to bits, it’s not a terrorist act…as long as no civilians are harmed? But kill all the elected and government officials, and all of a sudden it’s not a terrorist act?
Wow.
JetBoy on November 6, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Why does Hotair hate ron paul? I really dont understand why this site is so critical of him? The majority of the political candidate posts on this site are either smearing him or hillary. Does the staff here really think he his that big of a threat that they need to spend so much time on him?
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM
You’re being satirical, right?
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Because we’re conservatives. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, conservatives gotta engage in pure, cleansing hate.
The majority? Really?
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Offroadaz, mainly becasue Paul is a distraction. He is a person who, like it or not, has no hope of winning. About all he can do is siphone off votes from the conservative/libertarians. In the coming election every vote is incredibly important. The democrats don’t seem to have this issue. They can all get behind one candidate. If the conservatives get behind several candidates then the democrats will win, and a lot of what we all hold dear collapses.
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 11:15 AM
mojo - you continue to reinforce my belief that conservatives only differ from liberals by a shade. What do you call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What target were we trying to hit there? And many historians would absolutely disagree with your theory that if we could have hit factories without carpet bombing, we would have.
You love of government, arrogance, condescension, and over estimation of your own “knowledge in history, warfare, technology, and even common sense” are what gravitate you towards the Republican Party.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 11:15 AM
How much liberty are you willing to give up for your safety? The folks here apparently believe that security is the number one priority in life.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Another question: Will Ron Paul go third-party after he loses the GOP primaries?
CP on November 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM
That’s tiresome tripe. Check out the second half of the post above, in which I mock the UK’s excessive attention to safety regulations and the like.
Your boy is a conspiratorial Bircher who would cede the world to the jihadists, and that’s reason enough to oppose him.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Mojo - the bombing of countries that support or ignore terrorists training in their country is not designed to stop the terrorists. We all know that this is not possible. It is designed to let the governments of the countries that terrorists reside, arm, and train (they all have to be in some country, don’t they?) know that we won’t tolerate being attacked by terrorists who live in their country.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM
What is so really sad about all this is that it underscores how old and out of touch the GOP is. They never even came close to developing a way of raising money online nor did they ever even try. They are still acting like it is 1975
GogglesPisano on November 6, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Life. Interesting word. See, in today’s world, without safety there is none.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I would rather keep all of my constitutional freedoms and be less safe. Then safe and have no freedom.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Bryan continues to reinforce. If you believe that what I wrote is tiresome tripe, then you believe that the Founders believed tiresome tripe, established a government based on tiresome tripe, and they staked their lives, sacred honors, and their fortunes on tiresome tripe. That those here parade out the “the Founders couldn’t have envisioned” argument (the same argument used by liberals) is the tiresome tripe. The Founders built a Nation on principles. The principle I speak of is that liberty is preferred to security. That principle does not change because of technology. That also doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in any security. It means that when I weigh security versus liberty, liberty wins.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
What constitutional freedoms have been taken away from you, if I may ask?
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Read this and tell me how it’s any different from a liberal ranting on the same topic.
Here’s a taste:
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM
First Amendment: In September, a federal judge ruled that the FBI’s use of secret “national security letters” to obtain citizens’ personal data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations “violate[d] the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers.”
First Amendment, Fourth Amendment: In Aug. 2006, a federal district court in Detroit ruled that the Bush administration’ss NSA warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, violating the “separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.”
Those are just a few examples. They are slowly being taken away in the name or security.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM
3.5 mill, did anybody check E-bay? I bet there were some very choice Star Trek memorabilia that went on the block to raise that kind of money. Really I’m surprised they didn’t pull off the 10 mil they were going for, after all how much money can you really save up when you’re still at home living in mom’s basement?
RINO_Hunter on November 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM
You gave me two examples, both of which were struck down and stopped by courts, whose job it is to interpret the constitution.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Why do you insist on stereotyping paul supporters as unemployed and living in someones basement? I bet youre the same type of person who thinks every mexican is an illegal too
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM
This is not an apt analogy because New York, whether you are referring to the city or the state, does not fund, support and harbor “gang banger(s).”
Whereas many terrorist groups receive funding, support and safe harbor from various governments.
eanax on November 6, 2007 at 11:48 AM
So, again, which constitutional rights have you lost? Not that the executive tried to carry out, but the courts stopped it. Lost as in you no longer have.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 11:48 AM
2 examples that the president enacted and were being used until the courts stopped it. It just shows how our Gov’t is trying to take away our freedoms in the name of security. How do I know next time the courts wont stop it? How do I know the Gov’t wont ignore the courts order?
Like I said, I would rather be less safe and free, then safe and not free.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 11:48 AM
What liberty are we giving up Briton? Total “liberty” is anarchy. With liberty also comes responsibilty, the responsibility to use it properly.
You sound a bit like the libs screaming about how we are all sheep living in a fascist country. We still have all of our constitutional rights, and as far as I can tell the republicans are not talking about giving them up. The democrats are though, and supporting Ron Paul will only usher in a democratic presidency. At which point we may just loose our first and second amendment rights. In extension, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Hilary.
My question to you is, why do you support a Hilary presidency? Just looking at the microcosm which is this blog will show you that Ron Paul will never get the support he needs to win every single vote he would need to beat a democratic contender. Knowing this you would still rather see Hilary win instead of a person that is not Paul?
You can also bring out all the tired bromides you want about past wars, and right makes might etc. That will not change the fact that America is part of the world. Unlike a schoolyard bully we can not just beat up whomever we want with impunity, we will have to work with the international community to solve some of the worlds problems.
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM
FYI: The courts?
They’re part of the government. Just thought you’d want to know.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Yeah, well, liberty wins with me too. But I don’t want to make it easy for terrorists to blow up the town I live in. Liberty absent basic security is anarchy, which leads to tyranny. You Ronulans never seem to grasp that. It’s the basic arc of history, regardless of continent or culture. You folks also never seem to grasp the part of the Consitution that talks about providing for the common defense. You just run around shouting “liberty!” as if it’s a trump card.
You guys also don’t listen to your own candidate. Do you really think that we’re in Afghanistan to build oil pipelines? That Michael Moore nonsense was debunked in 2004. You just hear what you want to hear from Paul and disregard the inconvenient conspiracy mongering. Or do you like Paul’s association with the Truther arch bishop, Alex Jones? Answer that question directly, Paul supporters.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Small-minded idiocy would be thinking that carpet-bombing was used in WW2 to punish populations rather than eliminate strategic targets.
Similarly idiotic would be the notion that punishing the populations of nations necessarily entails punishing their governments, as many world governments (not surprisingly, those most likely to incur the wrath of the US) have no particular sentiment for the well-being of their populations whatsoever.
Similarly, the populations in question have no hand in selecting the policies of their governments. How would slaughtering them in retaliation for decisions they played no role in making constitute anything greater than idiocy?
A final bit of idiocy would be the assumption that the present US military would even be capable of carpet-bombing all the cities of a single small nation, let alone those of multiple moderately-sized ones. Even if one were to ignore the problems with the strategy in question, one is left with the fact that the United States’ entire heavy bomber fleet consists of 67 B-1B’s, 21 B-2A’s, and 94 B-52H’s (not all of which could ever be airborne at once due to maintenance requirements). Granting that these aircraft carry vastly greater payloads than their WW2 equivalents, one is still faced with the fact that the infamous firebombing of Dresden, for example, required no fewer than 796 Avro Lancasters (the 2nd-heaviest bomber of the war, its payload exceeded only by that of the B-29) dropping over 2.5 kilotons of explosives and incendiaries. (The largest raids of the war, meanwhile, employed over 1,000 bombers…)
Replicating such an effort against even a single city (let alone a nation, let alone multiple nations) would require a massive and unprecedented restructuring and re-equipping of America’s armed forces. Even if a “bomb truck” design were to be rushed into production, it would be at least a decade before the first plane would see service entry, let alone city-leveling squadrons of them.
Blacklake on November 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Just about to post the same thing.
Great response.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM
You are wrong. I am voting my beliefs in the primaries, and voting party line in the election. So no a vote for Paul is not a vote for hillary.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Bombing a country because it has a terrorist sect living within it’s borders will only lend credence to the terrorist’s claims of imperialism. Then, even if the state which was conveniently bombed didn’t sponsor terrorism, you can bet they will afterwards.
Also, thinking that say, Afghanistan was a true country reaffirms my remarks pertaining to yours (and Paul’s) apparent ignorance of foreign policy. The only reason AL Qaeda is in Afghanistan is due to it’s lack of “government”. Which city/civilian areas would you have suggested carpet bombing there, eh?
And remember: Security and Liberty go hand in hand. Ya know the “secure the blessings of liberty” part?
Wow, look at me waving around the Constitution like a die hard Ronulan. That actually felt good.
mojowire on November 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM
If you wrote out all of Paul’s domestic positions on a sheet of paper you’d find just about everyone here liking most of them. But we draw the line when it comes the nation’s border. And there is no way in getting around the fact that Paul’s foreign policy is dangerous.
Also, how can you explain his association with Alex Jones, a guy who claims that 9/11 was an inside job and that some secret group is planning to destroy 80% of the earth’s population? The only way to not dismiss Paul after his excessive courting of Jones and his followers is if you are at least sympathetic to those views.
You seem like a smart person, but I don’t see this conversation going anywhere productive. I’d like you to answer one question for me though: Who attacked us on 9/11?
BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM
So answer the questions I asked: Do you support Paul’s association with Alex Jones? Do you think the war in Afghanistan is really about oil pipelines?
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Bryan so you dont think our policy worldwide is the major contributing factor to the majority of wars and problems we have overseas now? You dont think we helped setup alot of the groups we are currently fighting with? Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Iran are all a direct results of US foreign policy. Almost all of these countries we have supported in the past, gave money too, trained and interfered with their people and government. We thought we were doing the right thing at the time and now we are facing the consequences.
As far as oil in afghanistan? I have no idea. I have not researched the subject. I do suspect, but this is based on nothing but opinion, that oil and a permanent US base near China and the mideast did play a factor in our decision to invade.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Your posts seriously require that anyone reading them question your intellectual honesty and or your intelligence. Technology is why carpet bombing has become morally objectionable. In WWII the technology didn’t exist to only bomb specific military centric targets.
In WWII if you wanted to shut down a manufacturing facility that was cranking out thousands of bombs a day you had to drop thousands of bombs on it because the bombs were incapable of accurately hitting their target.
The Geneva convention was created after WWI because of the moral objections to killing innocent civilians. Despite what a number of whack job historical revisionist have claimed to the contrary Nagasaki and Hiroshima were very important military targets. Hiroshima was Japan’s second largest naval port and Nagasaki was the Japanese military communication command center.
The decision to use nuclear weapons on them was made because of the bombs complete and total ability to destroy the chosen targets. Furthermore it would make incontrovertible clear to the Japanese government that the US had the ability to completely destroy all of their military assets and that it would be the Japanese dying in those attacks, not the Americans.
The reason we can today make the moral argument against carpet bombing is, that technology has made it possible to destroy military assets without destroying the entire city that houses those assets.
Like the military centric targets of WWII terrorists entangle and entrench themselves in innocent civilian
populations. Hence the exact same moral standards that make carpet bombing of a city unacceptable to eliminate military assets applies.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Oh, here we go, folks!
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM
No. Our policies are not responsible for other people’s ideologies.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Damn. There’s nothing like arguing with an ass load of facts and statistics to back you up.
Nicely done.
BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Dude.
Jaibones on November 6, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Dude, seriously, you have to be pretty damn stupid to believe that, stupid and ignorant of history.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
jp on November 6, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Show me how Im wrong.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 »