What’s with the Nurse Ratched thing? I’m always reminded of the radio host from SNL’s Schwetty Balls sketch.

James on December 16, 2007 at 8:18 AM

Blame Fred Barnes.

Kaopectate or imodium.

What single question would you ask Ron Paul?

aunursa on December 14, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Why does Sheriff Taylor let you have only one bullet?

You can insult my God and my country, but DO NOT insult Iowa Public Television.
saint kansas on December 15, 2007 at 5:52 AM

sk, there’s still time to save you! Put down the remote and step away from the Pledge Drive!

If Iowa Public Television is so good then they should be able to survive when we defund that archaic institution.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

You can insult my God and my country, but DO NOT insult Iowa Public Television.

He has yet to really make a name for himself, and he has only himself to blame. Hunter may have the RIGHT ideas, but if you can’t muster enough people to rally behind your banner, don’t be surprised if the polls are unkind to you.

This, friends, is an example of intellectual honesty. ;-)

Thanks for this very interesting, informative, and civil exchange.

Outstanding.

Speaking of substantive debate:

“Paulnuts” or “Ronulans” — Which is it?

ScottMcC on December 14, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Neither. It’s “MoRons”.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=82541808

“The Ron Paul Party by Weapon shop”

I’d argue the free flow of Oil is a National Security issue as well, a blockade/embargo in the wintertime would shoot prices through the roof to a point it would shut down our economy and many, elderly especially, wouldn’t be able to heat their homes and likely die.

This is exactly the line of debate I would take with RP supporters. The questions that are relevant are: what do you see as national security issues and what are you willing to do to secure those interests? Then we have at least a baseline. I don’t have many conversations with RP supporters, and it’s hard to hear on HA b/c they get shouted down, but I expect they don’t perceive our national interests at stake in various theaters. Therefore, using your line as you mentioned, perhaps these topics could be connected to their values and perceptions.

I do think it is a conversation worth having for a couple of reasons. Namely if there is a shift in power at the executive branch from right to left, and the situation in Iraq necessitates a draw-down regardless due to the strain on the military, then we are looking at a more restricted foreign policy, dare I say (excepting a RP admin) perhaps even a more Rumsfeld-like immediate future. It would be good to know what the priority lists are.

I think I read it on the Corner a few months back, I know read it somewhere.

Yeah, it was clear that you made that statement in good faith, I suggest however that you might try to make it on better authority. That reads very much like the projection of intent by confusion of cause and effect. Certainly the effect of what Jefferson was significant in the manner in which you referenced, but I would be very surprised to see as a cause. If he was so motivated, I’ve not encountered it. The Corner likely made the connection thinking of the effect needed and drew the parallel without respect to cause.

gets into the ideological component, basically they(Paul, Rockwells, etc) think that military action abroad and “empire building” will automatically lead to bigger, more intrusive govt. at home. This is debunked by history as Goldberg points out well.

Look further back and place it in context. Adams build up the Navy and then it was dissembled after he left office. Guess who was responsible for that?

I know he dissembled the Army, not aware of the Navy. I know he modernized the Navy that Adams started, which he had to, so we could have a chance against the Barbary Pirates.

This is a direct action in American interests involving American trade and the American economy. Operating on the assumption the theory of interventionism is that you intervene in events that you are not of the two prime players: We were one of the players – we didn’t intervene so much as plan and execute a response.

If this is what they mean by “non-Interventionism”, then Iraq idoes not apply as they keep asserting. Paul continually labels himself the anti-war candidate though and talks about how much he like’s Ghandi, who defines being a pacifist. We had interest in Iraq, both economically and security related….plus saddam committed one act of war after another for over a decade, was a State sponsor of International islamic terror and the Oil interest/exports of the country are of great interest to all of the Industrialized world on a macro scale. I’d argue the free flow of Oil is a National Security issue as well, a blockade/embargo in the wintertime would shoot prices through the roof to a point it would shut down our economy and many, elderly especially, wouldn’t be able to heat their homes and likely die.

We do already have a “non-interventionist” strategy by that definition though with much of the world, Tibet, Darfur…..but as long as the Middle East, and in particular regimes like Saddam who wanted to be a modern day Saladin, operate there and promote Jihadism, seek Nukes/WMD’s and export Waahabism to the world along with their other main export, Oil, then US National Interest are very much at stake……..much like they were in the Barbary Wars.

same for the Communist Regimes of the past that were expanding Communism, we had interest at stake with them and were right to intervene.

If you have a reason to think that was Jefferson’s motive, I’ll be happy to check back later to see how you have derived that.

Spirit of 1776 on December 14, 2007 at 7:00 PM

I think I read it on the Corner a few months back, I know read it somewhere. Not bowing down and paying ransom to the Barbary Pirates and taking us to war over it while the rest of the world was paying the bribe, is also sending a message to the world and asserting american power. Something that also needed to be done after 9/11 and paid dividends quickly, see Gadafi turning over his WMD program…

Is everyone forgetting that it’s Hamas’ 20th birthday tomorrow?

BL@KBIRD on December 14, 2007 at 7:04 PM

So who has 20 sticks of dynamite candles they can donate?

And yet Saudi Arabia is our ally enemy.

I just want to know how Paul will defend this country.

AZCON on December 14, 2007 at 6:18 PM

I understand what you were aiming for, but I think your original question was too vague.