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
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
To answer your question of me, no. Read up on the Barbary pirates. We’ve been fighting jihad off and on for a couple of centuries now, and it’s been going on literally since Islam’s founding. Our policies didn’t start that, since the US didn’t exist at that time. As to your last statement about basing near China, you must have missed the events of 9-11. Al Qaeda trained the hijackers in Afghanistan and was based there. That’s why we invaded.
You obviously belong in Paul’s camp. Say hi to Alex Jones for me.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 12:11 PM
It’s not serious critique, just ridicule. And it’s often quite effective, but I wouldn’t take it too personally if in fact you are not a Trekkie who lives in Grandma’s basement, belongs to a secret militia, spends a lot of time on the Stormfront web site, and works as a freelance cable tv installer.
Good for Paul that he has struck such a powerful note among the disaffected libertarians of the right. But if this group will engage the political discussion, I suspect that many will come to rethink their “give me liberty or give me death by IslamoNazi terrorism” meme.
Jaibones on November 6, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Yes, I will use it as a trump card, because to me, it is a trump card. Paul believes in securing the border and enforcing immigration laws. If that is done by the federal government (a legitimate function I might add), then how do terrorists attack us? I don’t advocate anarchy or no security. Why is securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws not considered security in your book? Do you only believe that security involves going around the world and killing all of the terrorists and trying to establish democracies? We all already know that we won’t kill all of the terrorists. So how is it security by invading Iraq and establishing a democracy? I will certainly give you that we are sucking many jihadists into that fight and killing them there instead of here, but if you think that there isn’t hundereds of cells around the world who are actively trying to get into this country, you are crazy. Doing ANYTHING in Iraq isn’t going to change that.
I don’t support any TRUTHER argument, whether it comes from Ron Paul, Alex Jones, or anyone. But I don’t believe that Ron Paul believes or supports the belief that 9-11 was in inside job. What Paul does say is that he doesn’t blindly trust the government. Neither should any of you. Our government will and does lie in order to further its cause. How else do you explain why Pat Tillman got the Silver Star and was a war hero? I am not in any way saying that he was killed by the government, I am definitely saying that we know it was friendly fire from the instant it happened but lied to further a cause. Our government has run Social Security into the ground. Our government has printed more and more money and inflated our currency to almost no international value.
No, Paul has a healthy distrust of government.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Which, I think, illustrates well the inherent flaw of both liberal and Libertarian geopolitical thought. Not that US policies played no role in the evolution of the entities listed, as clearly they did. But somehow it’s believed that such evolutions are a matter of linear cause-and-effect, with the US always positioned as the cause.
Unfortunately, causes for geopolitical events are multiple, compound, and recursive, and while the withdrawal of any single element (from this perspective US intervention) would likely necessitate different results, it would in no way necessarily entail beneficial results. The United States is not some kind of global Prime Mover, an obvious fact which most isolations somehow fail to grasp.
Blacklake on November 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM
How dare you call Guy Fawkes a terrorist! The Gunpowder Plot was just blowback for American policies abroad!
ReubenJCogburn on November 6, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I call it completing the military objective with limited cost to American lives. A – the enemy, as the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child had there been an invasion. B – Uncle Joe got a demonstration of what was in store for mother Russia should he continue the red expansion.
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Paul is also against the war in Afghanistan.
bnelson44 on November 6, 2007 at 12:19 PM
and then liberal communist spies within our govt., gave our nuke secrets to the Soviets, forever changing the world.
jp on November 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Right, like when he says we’re at risk for another Gulf of Tonkin. Or when he appears on Alex Jones’ show.
Ha.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
There’s a difference between a healthy distrust of government and the implicit endorsement Paul gives the views of Alex Jones by repeatedly appearing on his show.
Do you believe Jones has a “healthy distrust” of government, as well?
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Bryan, I respect Hotair and the majority of the content here. I think its a great site. But I must disagree with you.
I have read about the Barbary pirates and I agree the world has been fighting agains Islam for a very long time. A quote from Adja to the continental congress in 1786 summed up Islams views on infidels pretty good “That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise”
I do agree radical islam is a threat to us. I do agree that we need to be vigilant in protecting our security.
However I do think that alot of our problems overseas are a result of our intervention.
The current situation in Iran is a direct result of CIA intervention. We overthrew their government in 1953. Of course we thought it was a good idea at the time but now look where that got us. Even the presidents office has admitted this was a mistake, in 2000 Secretary of State Albright called it a “setback for democratic government”
The US supported the taliban in their fight against the USSR from 1979 – 1989. We provided them with weapons, money and training. Of course we thought it was a good idea at the time but after the war, the taliban were now well funded and armed. This allowed them to setup the opressive regime in Afghanistan. Oh and we helped out a guy named Osama during that time too.
Like I said before I think we invaded Afghanistan primarly beause of sept 11th. But how can you honestly say that we did not give consideration to a permanent US base in that region? Do you really believe that had no factor in it at all?
I think we need to stop trying to police the world. We need to focus on our domestic issues and secure our borders.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM
I like how the establishment of England is just asking to get blown up – again – with all their rules and regulations…
PresidenToor on November 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
King, please just answer one question:
How do you explain/excuse Paul’s relationship with Alex Jones without being at the very least sympathetic to those views (Inside job, Bilderberg)?
BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Remember remember the 5th of November!
Did you actually see V for Vendetta? What a piece of crap.
John from OPFOR on November 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM
The same way most Republicans support Rudy even though in the past (before he was trying to get elected as president) he was for stricter gun control, he supported Cuomo for governor, and he was pro-choice.
We all look at the candidates for what they are and choose based on what we hold as important.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
Wow, almost every part of your post was an exaggeration or conspiracy theory inspired falsehood. Bravo- you fit right in with the Ronbot nuts.
Hollowpoint on November 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM
That was Adrian Peterson-worthy dodging and weaving, right there.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Uncle Joe had a massive network of spies. One day I’ll read Red Orchestra.
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
No, Jones has a distrust of Republican government. He has no issue with socialist government.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Show me one example of this.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Thus “ronbot”.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
And yet he embraces a Republican candidate, and is embraced in return.
Funny, that.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Who do you support slublog? Does that candidate believe the exact same things you believe? If not, then how do you justify your support of that candidate? Is that also considered football-like dodging and weaving?
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM
No just about 20 or million of them
RINO_Hunter on November 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM
No, Jones doesn’t embrace Paul or his ideas. He will advocate any candidate that will siphon votes from the Republicans (his true enemy) and elect his socialist hero – ANY DEMOCRAT.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
I’ll note that you have yet to answer the very direct question asked of you.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
correction
No just about 20 or so million of them
RINO_Hunter on November 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Which one? I will answer it. I thought that I had answered all of your direct questions. Send it again.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
So let me get this straight. Your small-government hero is willing to go on a show for the sole purpose of making it easier for that show’s host to get a big-government Democrat elected.
And Paul’s appearances on that show are presumably only to get his message out, right? Paul wouldn’t do anything like softly embrace the host’s trutherism.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM
The one asked of you by BadgerHawk on November 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I asked the direct questions, which were:
You guys wonder why we dislike Paul so strongly. The answer is in those questions.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Well, for starters the Taliban didn’t exist in 1979-1989.
Oh, and also the US didn’t support Osama Bin Laden either- it’s a conspiracy theory myth oft repeated by the left.
I won’t go further, since you fail so miserably at history.
Hollowpoint on November 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Complete bullshit. The Taliban didn’t come into existence until 1994.
Once again complete bullshit.
Mike Honcho on November 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM
44% of Ron Paul’s NH supporters identify themselves as Liberal:
http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/B9C20574-57F4-47E9-8207-42252C4FA767/11912/saintanselmcollegepoll102507data.pdf
bnelson44 on November 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
I don’t know what Paul is advocating there other than pointing out that neither democrats nor republicans are going to expose any sort of conspiracy with 9-11, because if it were done – it would expose both R and D as complicit. I don’t believe that there was any conspiracy with 9-11 and I don’t believe that Dr. Paul does either. If Paul believes that there was a conspiracy and that 9-11 was an inside job, I disagree with him. If I ever heard him say that he believed that 9-11 was an inside job, I would not support him for President. Although, unfortunately for you Republicans who hate Paul, it would not lead to my support for a Republican.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Gold standard, recent fondness for pork, ignorance of national security / global issues, votes consistently against free-trade agreements, votes consistently against progrees towards smaller government because a naive Utopian ideal is not met.
A plethora of reasons not to vote for the septuagenarian loon magnet from Texas. His, and his supporters, rationalization for his new fondness for pork is pathetic.
The only thing I have not determined regarding the septuagenarian loon magnet from Texas is if he is naive, ignorant or both.
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
That is my answer to the direct question. I support Paul because he is the candidate that most closely espouses the principles that I believe in.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
King of the Britons,
Your argument of safety vs liberty is tripe. If part of your argument is based on the Founding Fathers, then why does Jefferson write in the D.o.I., among other inalienable rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in that order? It seems more reasonable to say that since life is most primary, as you can’t have freedom if you are dead, then actions that preserve life have precedent over liberty. It is this same tenet that provides a lower threshold for the government to hold you (ie. liberty) but takes tremendous burden to end your life through a trial (ie life).
Also, in the Preamble to the Constitution, security (defence) comes before the securing of liberty. Bejamin Franklin, with whom you are probably basing your entire argument on, was a great contributor to the founding of our nation, but he wasn’t the only one.
QED
Weebork on November 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
he reminds me of Jimmy Carter
tomas on November 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Wrong again. Paul has advocated a whole new investigation of September 11, and he did so in response to a truther.
Why do that unless you believe there’s something there? Distrust of government is one thing, but even hinting that a truther’s ideas have merit is entirely another.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Good god history just is not your friend is it. Are you even aware that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was the last king in a 2500 year old monarchy? How about the fact that after Iranian Prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, violated the Iranian constitution and dissolved the Iranian parliament Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dismissed him and that Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in fact overthrew the lawful head of the Iranian government? How about the fact that the joint British CIA attempt to reinstate Mohammad Reza Pahlavi failed and it was in fact the Iranian people and military that reinstated Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
No to be quite honest I don’t think you have the slightest clue what you are blathering on about.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 1:11 PM
We did engage in purposely killing civilians many times during WWII. The reason we don’t now is because of PC, technology, and we aren’t fighting an entire nation. (as someone already pointed out)
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Well, I’ll be. you’re right.
And obviously the solution is economic collapse, coupled with a world war including Nuclear weapons. Nothing else could save America as well as a worldwide economic collapse
and war.
Which explains why Ron Paul is “the last hope”.
That or maybe his foreign policies are the problem here. Some people aren’t exactly as gung-ho about losing Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, etc. etc. while watching the world economy (and thus, the American economy) collapse from the end of trade.
Heck, the economic collapse will happen from trade issues long before the inflation/deflation issues of returning to the gold standard take it out.
So, why don’t I support Paul? I’ll answer your question with a question.
Can you name any other candidate running for President today with negatives that are worse than a foreign policy that is incredibly likely to set off a new World War?
Now, since I see that as a huge negative, I’m not going to support Ron Paul. Calling me a “bad Conservative” for this isn’t exactly a persuasive argument.
If you’d like to explain how removing all our soldiers from the Middle east won’t encourage a new war against Israel, and a “winner takes all” battle royale; do so.
If you believe that oil will still come from the Middle east in spite of it being embroiled in a large regional war, go ahead and state that.
If you believe that South Korea and Japan can hold against North Korea on their own, make that claim.
If you believe that either Taiwan should be overrun by China, or somehow Taiwan can hold against China without U.S. help; make one of those claims.
If you believe that ignoring the current situation in Darfur is the correct position; take it and defend it.
But if you believe none of the above; why would you support a candidate who is forcefully pushing the idea of setting off all of these (and other) hotspots all at once?
If you believe any of the above, support those arguments, or explain why those situations won’t occur, or why they’re acceptable…
Or be a standard Ron Paul supporter and devolve into name calling without reasoning.
gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM
sorry, mistyped that. US supported Afghans, which in turm became the taliban
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html
Again our policies, whether we intended for them to turn out this way or not. Did in fact help create the taliban and the radical form of government that took hold in Afghanistan.
The article goes on to state that the US did not directly fund Bin Laden or Jihad fighters. I guess this is true in a black and white sense. But the US did fund afghan citizens and the US did provide money to the ISI in Pakistan which in turn funded Bin Laden and pro-islam afghanis.
Again, in a roundabout way our money did reach pro-jihad radical islam elements in Afghanistan during the early 80’s.
Like I said, we need to stop trying to police the world. We end up creating more problems then we are trying to solve
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM
I disagree Weebork. In the DoI and in the Constitution, the Founders lay out the argument for freedom through limited federal government. The DoI builds the framework for our separation from Great Britain. They believed, as I do, that human beings are endowed by God with the inalienable rights listed. Because we believed that Great Britain and its oppressive government did not recognize these rights we wrote that Declaration. Then we set forth in the Constitution what we believed and wrote into our governing documents the things that a limited federal government can do in order to secure those inalienable rights. That life is listed is because of the basic libertarian principle that we have a right to life and that no actions of anyone else, be it government or individual, can legally take it from us. IT DOES NOT GRANT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY AND ALL POWERS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SECURITY. That would render the entire document worthless if it did. You call my argument tripe?! Are you serious?
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Look! A pretzel!
Either we did or we did not directly support bin Laden, and what do you know? Seems we didn’t. Thanks for undercutting your own arguments. It’s a real timesaver for the rest of us.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
You must have missed my point. We shouldnt have been involved in the first place. We caused more harm then good and even the Presidents office admitted that.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Again, if we stayed out of it in the first place, the money and weapons would not have reached them. You can nitpick all you want but the point remains.
Do you really think our Gov’t and CIA was naive enough to not realize that the money we gave to the ISI wasn’t going to radical elements? You honestly dont think we were watching closely what happened with it?
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:25 PM
I’ve got one question here.
How come the White Western power is always and only the posessor of freedom of thought, freedom of action, and responsibility for both; where the minorities in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, etc. are always and only forced or triggered based on western actions in these little “cause and effect” plays.
Never is American action seen as provoked, instigated, or triggered by any action in any other nation. Instead America is always the instigator and the driving force with free will, toppling the first domino.
So offroadaz, why is it that only White people in Western nations get free will in your stories?
gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Again you are so far off the mark it isn’t even funny. I suggest you do a little historical research on the region and find out just how off base you tin-foil conspiracy theories are.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 1:31 PM
So your own research destroyed your claim and you call it “nitpicking?”
We did not support them, as you and Ron Paul have claimed. Therefore it was not the fault of our policies.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 1:31 PM
My answer: I am not sure I agree with the premise of your question. First, the whole “likely to set off a new WW” part is purely your own amateur opinion. There is really only what we can see today with today’s current foreign policy – a constant state of war against “terrorism.”
And calling me a bad conservative because I support Ron Paul isn’t a persuasive argument either.
Israel is incapable of defending itself? Our security and survival is linked to Israel’s how again?
I believe that there is much more oil in the world beside the middle east. Our own government won’t let us explore, develop, obtain, or refine it due to regulations and environmentalists.
Yes, easily. NK is a nation on the verge of collapse. SK has been trained by the U.S. for years and has developed a powerful and competent military. I have seen it first hand. Have you?
I don’t, but I also don’t believe that China could survive or wants to survive without trade with the U.S.
I do. What national security threat does Darfur pose to the United States? What is the basis for our involvement? Why Darfur and not EVERY SINGLE humanitarian item in the world?
Not applicable.
If you believe any of the above, support those arguments, or explain why those situations won’t occur, or why they’re acceptable…
Or be a standard Ron Paul supporter and devolve into name calling without reasoning.
gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 1:32 PM
how did we not support them?
If you gave a gun to a kid and then that kid kills a friend, are you partially responsible? Would that kid have killed his friend if you didnt give him the gun?
Its the same thing. We provided money. Obviously we did not intend to have the money go to radical elements and we did not intend to create the taliban. But the fact remains this is what happened.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Please enlighten me then. I am willing to admit a mistake if the facts prove otherwise.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Oh I assure you I did not miss your point, you however clearly did miss mine. Why former US officials would make what is clearly a historically inaccurate admission is really quite simple. It’s called diplomacy, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh who overthrew the legitimate Iranian government was primarily backed by a small buy financially power group of Iranian clerics, thats right the same small group that are in power now.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Your argument is that our policies caused the current situation. It was not our policy to support them. You and Ron Paul have said it was, which is an untruth.
Your analogy is flawed. We did not provide the gun. It was stolen.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Sorry but quite honestly I think enlightening you would be a lot like trying to teach a pig to sing. All it would do is annoy you and waste my time. Talking to Paultards is like that.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM
How is Auschwitz our problem? Bełżec? Treblinka? Majdanek? How do those pose a national security risk to us?
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 1:45 PM
It is fitting because they chose someone who tried and failed!!!! Let me repeat that,… he FAILED!
4shoes on November 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM
King of the Britons,
You are making a terrible assumption regarding my point. You are making the inference that I authorize the government to take away freedom by fiat for safety. My point was only that the right to life is more important and takes precedence over the right to liberty and property. (On a side note, it is this right to life that I base the right to bear arms rather than the 2nd Amendment).
The D.o.I, a foundation document, also mentions the role of government down in the same paragraph where “inalienable rights” is found. After the people have overthrown a corrupt government and institutes another, it, the new government, is created for the “Safety” and Happiness” of the people. Again, the role of a government is to provide security.
I called your argument tripe because the tone you are taking with it is designed to illicit a reaction, rather than a discussion. The impression I was getting, for the most part of the thread, was that you came here simply to fight. Your first post was an over-generalization intended to goad us into an argument based on your opening premise that the vast majority of the conservatives here hypocritically Ron Paul’s Libertarian views. I reject your premise and I wish others had done the same.
Weebork on November 6, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Alright Slu,
How does the Taliban (kid) steal the gun from all the way around the world? Simple… we were waving it around over there, when it should have been bunkered behind some sandbags on the Mexican, Canadian, and sea borders. They can’t steal our guns if we don’t let them.
sleestak on November 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM
“hypocritically Ron Paul’s Libertarian views”
should read
“hypocritically attack Ron Paul’s Libertarian views”
dang nabit!
Weebork on November 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Nice to see that you resort to name calling instead of trying to help someone understand.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Um, the ones who are quite fond of blowing things up themselves…?!
4shoes on November 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Ah yes, Fortress America. That’s some true retrograde foreign policy right there.
Still doesn’t make the untruth of Paul’s statement any more true, does it? Did we support them or not? The evidence says no.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Can you please provide a source for your claims against Paul and afghanistan?
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Sure. And I quote:
The article goes on to state that the US did not directly fund Bin Laden or Jihad fighters. I guess this is true in a black and white sense.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Hot new flash for you Mr. King, I’ve already reached my limit, a long time ago.
So what happens next? Vote the Dems out? So how well is that working, so far?
Try to persuade the other side that their views are incorrect? So how well is that working out, so far? Have you ever tried to change the views of a bigot, or a fanatic? Did it work?
Ok, so talking doesn’t seem to be working out too well, what next, ‘direct action’? What kind of direct action do you have in mind? Protest marches, signs, speeches? I’m sure that will have a big impact [sarcasm].
rockhauler on November 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM
amuzing. Please link where Paul says this about Afghanistan.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Ron Paul: US Taxpayers send Billions to our enemies in Afghanistan.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 2:01 PM
I am not saying that the U.S. should NEVER get involved in what goes on in the world. That is a far cry from what our current foreign policy advocates, which is get involved in EVERY matter everywhere. I don’t know what the answer is, and I would lay money that most of those on this forum also do not know all of the answers. I support the candidate that will have the biggest influence over where we are headed, which is socialism, over-extended and hated in the world, and collapse from within. In my view, that candidate is Ron Paul. Could he get his policies enacted? Most likely in most cases – no. But he would at least stem the flow of the country towards the crap heap of socialized medicine, a worthless dollar, compulsary yet worthless government run education, the coming catastrophe of when the social security bill comes due, and the over reaching nanny-state. I don’t, for a minute, believe that Rudy, Fred, Mitt, or any other “front runner” is prepared or wants to curb the appetite of government. Calling me a nutroot, or a Paulbot, or whatever the neat saying of the day is because I won’t be held hostage by the pathetic, no-spine, disgusting Republican establishment makes you look absolutely no different than any liberal from the DKos or HuffPo. I am not going to elect Hillary, the worthless Republicans are going to elect Hillary.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 2:02 PM
I need someone to explain to me who it is that has this kind of money to throw away on a losing campaign like Ron Paul’s.
Or was P.T. Barnum completely correct?
$4.2 mil is a lot of money, even in today’s debased currency.
rockhauler on November 6, 2007 at 2:04 PM
What is your answer rockhauler – voting for Rudy? That makes a lot of sense.
Rudy, Obama, Mitt, or Hillary – it won’t make a big difference – all believe in the power of government to solve our problems, provide us a living, and keep us safe.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Fortress America indeed.
Breech it, I dare you. Britain? Spain? France? Japan? Any other takers? Russia? China?
Good luck.
Please don’t mistake National Protectionism for Isolationism. They are not the same. We needed to join WWII and fight back the forces of global tyrrany. Police Mogadishu, Darfur, and now Baghdad? Not so much.
sleestak on November 6, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Ok King, I’ll can set aside the guessing.
Foreign policy is speculation, and you can certainly hope that your “amateur opinion” is correct and mine (and the policy recommended by nearly every Government specialist for the past three decades) is wrong. It’s possible that you’re better at foreign policy speculation than I am..
Although If I’m wrong, we stay where we’re at… if you’re wrong, we end up in a World War where every side has Nuclear weapons. Which doesn’t encourage me much.
But lets say you’re right… and we can only get a Middle East war, and we have enough oil. And we drill the oil from Alaska, and pipe it down to Texas. then, once we’ve spent 6-8 years reworking our refineries to properly refine that oil instead of the “sweet light” variety that we can handle, we’ll be fine.
See, our current refineries cannot refine Alaskan oil (sulfur and other impurities not present in the oil we buy from the Middle East, or drill in Texas and the Gulf), which is why we sell it to Asia (mostly Japan). So that oil won’t help us when the ME war starts. Sorry, I’ve researched Oil and Natural Gas a lot for investment purposes; and what you’re calling for could certainly happen (presuming we actually have enough oil) with about 8-12 years lead time.
So, if you’re willing to give the industry 8-12 years before setting off the Middle East, that may work. That isn’t what I heard for a timeline in Ron Paul’s speeches. And setting it off, then realizing that we can’t use our own resources without several years of retooling (with no oil) seems a bad corner to be painted into.
But what do I know, I just check refinery numbers (we’re still skipping maintenance and running at about 102% capacity), storage numbers, drilling numbers, well counts, etc.
And I hope you’ve got a source of drilling rigs to start that drilling, if you’d like to buy a new one, the waiting list is about 30 months…
My amateur opinion on foreign policy might be wrong. My opinion on oil and natural gas production on the North American continent, and the drilling, transportation and refining of that resource … I think I’ve lost my amateur status there.
gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 2:07 PM
So now you’re saying the government is not supposed to provide for our national security?
Hopeless.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Yeah, but where’s your proof?
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Proof of…?
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Someone needs to invent a sarcasm tag. As long as it’s not another blink tag.
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Thanks. Seems like Paul and I use the same connect the dots logic to reach a conclusion. Maybe I should run for president in a few years too :)
We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today’s brutal Taliban government. In fact, the U.S. government admits to giving the groups at least 6 billion dollars in military aid and weaponry, a staggering sum that would be even larger in today’s dollars.
Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency’s military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments around the city of Khost. Tragically, those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network. Our heroic pilots are now busy bombing the same camps we paid to build, all the while threatened by the same Stinger missiles originally supplied by our CIA. Once again, the stark result of our foreign aid, however well-intentioned, was the arming and training of forces that later become our enemy.
I guess we will both disagree on this point. I believe that what Paul said is correct. The US did provide support to radical elements in afghanistan. I doubt that was our intention, but that was the result.
I believe our country needs to stop the practice of nation building. We do not need bases in every corner of the world. We should bring most of our troops home, focus on domestic issues. Fix immigration, fix socical security, fix healthcare. We need to focus on our own problems before we try to solve everyone elses.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Ah…heh.
Ah, the blinky tag, RIP.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Except we didn’t at first. The GOP, as was much of the country, was opposed to getting involved in WWII. It wasn’t our problem…until we got attacked.
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Because then everything will be peachy, and we won’t get attacked, right?
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 2:13 PM
What is there to disagree on? Paul is wrong. He’s spreading untruth. The CIA did not support bin Laden. Period.
If you believe Paul, then you’re also engaged in spreading untruth, which in my opinion is shameful.
Slublog on November 6, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I dont recall saying that?
Im just listening to someone who is much wiser then me
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Matt 7:3
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Dang – lemonade in the sinuses burns like a mother…
RyanOH on November 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM
What about the oil in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California? I am asking because I don’t know.
I see your point on the oil issues, but do you argue then, that this should be the reason to support Mitt or Rudy or Fred? I will argue that given to the market, eliminating the government and environmental barriers, we could produce much faster than the 8-12 years you give as the educated estimate.
We are only at 100% + capacity in the refineries because of failed government policy and regulation, I argue. The oil age will not end when we run out of oil. The oil age will end when there is financial incentive (I am not talking about government pressure or incentives either) to develop and switch to an alternative. That day will come. It is a fact. When it comes is the only question.
King of the Britons on November 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM
So, they’ll continue to try attacking us? Which is it? Will the efforts bring the attack attempts to an end, or will they continue, this time without us fighting back?
amerpundit on November 6, 2007 at 2:21 PM
offroadz,
Embrace whatever fantasy you wish. Then ask your doctor if Lithium is right for you.
The historical record does not support your (or Ron Paul’s)version of events.
Mike Honcho on November 6, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Yes AP, er…, ap,
As well we shouldn’t have gotten involved early on. None of us, especially not the government, have the foresight to see what will or will certainly not come to be.
“Oh look, the Germans invaded the Rhineland. We better mobilize for a mass assault or 6 million Jews will be exterminated (not to mention the countless other carnage.) Let’s go now.”
We just can’t afford to operate that way. We MUST hold a wait and see position. Now, wait until all our allies fall and we’re forced to fight alone – heck no. But we can’t go jumping in at the beginning of every scrap that flares up all around the world.
This is precisely why the Constitution requires that Congress alone authorize a war. It’s too serious a matter to be trusted to one man, especially the one man who is indeed most seperated from the populus (with the exception of the Supreme Court, but they don’t hunt in this neck of the woods.) Congress must DECLARE, and I think that’s Paul’s chief beef with Bush’s/Congress’s policy.
It’s like the freaking dink and dunk west coast offense: authorize “action” here and authorize “action” there. No Congress in 60 years has had the guts to go for the bomb, pun intended.
sleestak on November 6, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Would have been better off saying the US supported Ho Chi-Minh during the second world war. Then look what happened!
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Yeah I read that. The CNN article basically says the same thing as the state department article I linked earlier. The US claims to have not directly given money to Osama, however the group we sponsored (the ISI) did. We gave by proxy.
A recently declassified document shows a direct link between the ISI and Bin Laden. His camps in Zahawa were built using ISI money. The US gave money to the ISI.
source: http://www.saag.org/papers8/paper791.html
another source about the ISI:http://www.afsa.org/fsj/Dec01/schiff.cfm
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I believe the objective of the west-coast offense was to utilize the pass as a “long hand-off”. Hence the dink & dunk. I seem to recall some guys named Rice and Montana being very successful with the west-coast offense, even managing a few bombs.
jdkchem on November 6, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I dont know. I do believe that if we secury our borders and have a stronger national defense then no country or group will be able to do serious harm to us. I also believe that we create more problems then we solve by policing the world. I believe that our actions provide fuel for radical groups to hate us. It would seem that our inactions would take away that fuel.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM
offroadaz: You have made a number of statements about the US support for the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion and occupation that cannot be supported by the evidence we have available to us.
1) The Afghan’s that fought the Soviets did not become the Taliban. The Taliban weren’t even from Afghanistan. The leadership is from Pakistan. The funds were from Saudi Arabia transmitted through the Pakistani ISI. The Saudis and the Pakistani supported the Taliban. The US never supported the Taliban and it never funded it.
2) The US had agents on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan solely as a point of order and notation. We wanted to know what was going on. We passed intelligence to the ISI, we passed intelligence to some of the Afghan resistance fighters. We listened in on Soviet KGB agents. The stinger missiles were never outside the control of CIA agents and Special Forces. Each one that was fired was monitored live by an agent of the US government.
gabriel sutherland on November 6, 2007 at 2:33 PM
If we opened up Florida, we could get some more, that we likely could use. Probably not enough, but some.
California, I’ve not seen enough numbers. It’s been too long since anyone did the research to find out what was there.
And you’ll still have issue finding the drills. Our current drilling situation is that every drill today averages about half the output of a well 50 years ago. Although we can pull it faster, we’ve hit most of the larger spots where we’re looking.
It’d help, but we wouldn’t likely get 100% self-sufficent from it.
Ok lets say Ron Paul’s government will allow this to occur in half the time. So we should risk losing out energy source now, and be able to replace it in 4-6? Can you wait until I move within walking distance of work before you do this?
Rudy, Mitt, Fred, Hillary, Obama, Edwards. None of them are planning this risk with no net should it fail. Ron Paul simply won’t be in office long enough for the U.S. to become self-sufficient enough to handle the risk of his day 1 policies.
I’m not going to support a politician and hope that I’m correct that his main talking points could never get enacted. That’d be like a President signing a bill hoping the Supreme Court will find it Unconstitutional… (yes, a gratuitous swipe at Bush over McCain-Feingold) this dereliction of duty (hoping you don’t get what you ask for) isn’t a policy I can support.
So, I can’t see how Ron Paul’s world can survive; I’m not willing to hope that he gets elected and doesn’t enact the parts of his policy I find troublesome; and so I can’t support him as President.
The downside of enacting all of Ron Paul’s ideas is more than the downside from the other candidates. At least, with my understanding of Foreign Policy, Energy, Trade, and Politics.
Your mileage may differ, but he’s not even on my radar as a candidate I can support.
gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Again I have tried to be respectful of others views and the management at Hotair. I haven’t resorted to name calling or personal insults. If you disagree with me that is great. Please back up your claims as I have tried to do so.
offroadaz on November 6, 2007 at 2:33 PM
The problem with your thinking is that you’re living in the last century. In this one, our overwhelming national defense can be overcome either by 19 guys with box cutters, or a rogue state with a proxy army that has cells here right now and is developing nuclear weapons that it can hand off to that proxy army to attack us, all while maintaining its own innocence. The world is considerably more complex than you seem to think it is, and it’s certainly more complex than Paul’s foreign policy grasps.
Not that I expect what I’ve said to sink in. We’ve been having this national argument for more than 6 years now and if anything it’s just getting louder.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »