Video: Ron Paul’s tea party; Update: Tea party raises $6 million?
posted at 8:19 am on December 17, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Odd. He had the chance to toss either the UN or the Iraq war and he tossed the latter. And then the rEVOLutionary evidently had a very pressing engagement, because he was outta that tea party like a shot.
Update: Kooks with money. Ignore them at your peril, advertisers.
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:
Didn’t come off like a very decisive leader there. Kinda looked like he couldn’t read and that they needed to make the text bigger for him. Looked old and bumbling.
Kahuna on December 17, 2007 at 8:29 AM
First Paul, then Huckabee. Who’s next . . . Gumby. This is bleak!
rplat on December 17, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Yeeehaw, Dr Paul. That there Eeeerock war is the center of all our problems.
I wonder how many illegal aliens were standing by and watching?
Hening on December 17, 2007 at 8:37 AM
While I and many here disagree with his position on the Iraq War, that’s the issue that he’ll get the most votes from America on. It’s also the issue that he has the greatest chance of changing as president. By the time the next president gets in office we’ll have won anyway. Meh.
ThackerAgency on December 17, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Instead of those plastic barrels, they should have been big cans of Spam.
JetBoy on December 17, 2007 at 8:46 AM
ovbiously not the:
shot heard around the world
amend2 on December 17, 2007 at 8:48 AM
You are forgetting that he is not just wrong on the war in Iraq. But he is dangerously wrong on the entire war on terror.
Complete7 on December 17, 2007 at 9:03 AM
The man behind the money bombs
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I like him, except for the war….
I want him to be a Federalist, but that doesn’t mean we don’t kick ass. Even the Founding Fathers were willing to kick ass against the Barbary Pirates. Why he ignores that fact I don’t know.
Tim Burton on December 17, 2007 at 9:32 AM
I don’t think having a president in office that will veto every bill sent to him is a good idea.
I also don’t like Paul’s position on:
1) Iraq
2) The War on Terror
3) Afghanistan
4) CIA
5) FBI
6) Federal Reserve
7) Homeland security
8) civil rights
just to mention a few things…
It is nice that he has fans and they are sending him money, but people send Hillary money too, that in and of itself is meaningless.
bnelson44 on December 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Thanks for the link, bnelson44.
So the ONLY reason the ronulans are behind him is his stance on ending the Long War. And the guy raising all the money for him has never voted.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Insignificant and an embarrassment in historical context.
captivated_dem on December 17, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Because he’s a crank who doesn’t know American history?
Bryan on December 17, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Thomas Jefferson was a neocon.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 17, 2007 at 9:59 AM
Where’s the tea?
Step aside, please step aside.
Speakup on December 17, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Warmongering neocon. Don’t forget the adjective.
Bryan on December 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM
On the “Update”…I know how much publicity the “money bombs” get with the Paululans, and in the beginning it was a tad slow coming in, but these days the dough just seems to appear out of nowhere.
Are there some “Soros-like” donors to this campaign, or something else going on? Have we underestimated the actual numbers of Paul supporters?
meh…I really want to get the first primaries over with, so we can truly get a clear picture not only of Paul, but of Huck’s surge too.
JetBoy on December 17, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Fighting the same enemy we’re still fighting today, too.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 10:09 AM
You are right that Paul will win some votes from Americans who are unhappy with the staggeringly bad judgments of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz & Feith, who believed that we could do Iraq on the cheap.
The rise of Huck & Obama might be attributable to the country turning away from terror concerns and to economic worries. Paul’s message that being overextended is costing us hundreds of billions that we might spend domestically could resonate further if housing continues to slump and if the 2008 economic downturn leads to job loss.
Paul doesn’t have a shot at the nomination, but the other candidates need to figure out how to pick off his voters. Huck will likely tap into some of the unhappiness by not apologizing to Bush, but there are more votes to be had by someone who can speak forcefully against government spending and for Americans who run small businesses or work multiple jobs to get ahead, or lately just stay even.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 10:09 AM
This is in error. He knows history, he just reads the tea leaves of history differently then you or I.
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 10:11 AM
The GOP is not going to get any of the ronulan voters (if indeed they really do vote after RP crashes). Most likely RP will go 3rd party, and honestly, I think that hurts the dems worse than the gop.
The ronulans scream about RP being a constitutionalist, but they have no idea what the Constitution actually stands for.
Just my opinion, of course.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Six million dollars raised in one day on the internet. Do the Dems know about this? This doesn’t fit in well with their pre-election tanking economy predictions.
Tons of people obviously have money to throw away.
fogw on December 17, 2007 at 10:20 AM
He knows about the Barbary Pirates. After 9/11 his solution was to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal on bin Ladin and al-Quaeda, just like the Founding Fathers did against the pirates.
My question is what the hell he’s going to do with all that money? He won’t get he R nomination because I’m convinced that less than half of his support is actually coming from Republicans, so how can he turn away from a 3rd party run with $17 million sitting in the bank?
Dudley Smith on December 17, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Yeah, this weekend I saw a young student (college? maybe high school? I’m too old to tell the difference) standing in the snow holding a Ron Paul sign. I imagine the kid might like Paul because he’s a little radical and challenges authority. I agree that he and various other Ronulans are not a great source of GOP voters in November.
However, I recall Reagan saying something like “Government isn’t the answer to the problem. It is the problem.” I know Ron Paul believes that, and I’m not voting for him. Unfortunately, I don’t know which of the other candidates, aside from Paul, passionately believes what Reagan and Goldwater believed.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Wow. How realistic. First, let’s put bright blue barrels with issue labels on them on a boat tied to a dock. Then it’s time to bring out Crazy Uncle Paul to choose one to throw over, proceeding to walk AQAP back to the pier.
Interesting that Mr. Sovereignty, Isolationism, and Strict Constitutionist would choose to throw over the Iraq War instead of the United Nations.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Unfortunately. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 10:30 AM
That’s why I’m backing Thompson. His beliefs and proposals are the closest to what I want in a President. And I believe he can win in the general, which is shaping up to be Adults vs the foot-stamping spoiled rotten children.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM
I like Paul’s stance on many domestic issues. But Ronald Reagan also wasn’t a isolationist looking to just deal internally. Part of his tough stance during the Cold War was that he was seen as a cowboy who would attack.
amerpundit on December 17, 2007 at 10:32 AM
You know, Ron Paul scares the crap out of me, because I was in MN when Jesse Ventura got elected.
IIRC, 25% of the geniuses that voted for him had never voted before, did not show up on anyone’s likely voter radar. All that money isn’t coming from nowhere, and I would hazard a guess those folks are going to vote.
TexasDan on December 17, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Yes. RR & RP couldn’t be more different on that issue. It seems to me that RP has the small government message all to himself though. Another GOP candidate who was hawkish on foreign policy could go after some of the small government vote more aggressively. I think Fred is best positioned to do it, and he does speak to it. He just needs a few more cups of coffee.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Excellent! Steve King is endorsing Fred Thompson!
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 10:51 AM
[fogw on December 17, 2007 at 10:20 AM]
Just to be clear, the one day thing is misleading. They have spent a month lining up folks to commit to giving on this day and a site wherein you signed up to commit to giving on that day.
It’s still a goodly amount of money, though.
Dusty on December 17, 2007 at 10:52 AM
News in headlines via Michelle’s site. I was really hoping that would happen. Hope it helps FDT. Roll on, big guy. Roll on.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Hadn’t heard that before. He was certainly a classical liberal. Undoubtedly, he was a revolutionary who rejected centuries of monarchic tradition and who might have been hung if the American Revolution had failed.
He differed from a conservative like Edmund Burke, by supporting the principles of the French Revolution and believing that “the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 10:59 AM
neither was Goldwater, who advocated nuking the North Vietnamese in the 1964 election. Or Robert Taft, who supported the Marshall Plan….or pretty much all conservatives of old.
He is much more like the farthest of Left fringes on the issue. The most important of all issues.
and I would add, it is a Civil Libertarian issue. National Security is a Civil Right, the very first one. and one in which the fring groups paul represents ignore.
jp on December 17, 2007 at 11:43 AM
If you doubt that Ron Paul raised $6 million, you know what that makes you?
A Ron Paul denier.
Ali-Bubba on December 17, 2007 at 11:45 AM
except they started a War with the Barbary City State sponsors. actually Jefferson was the first founder to advocate War with them, the one’s before just paid the bribes like the rest of the world.
we have a $30 Million dollar bounty on bin laden already, I vote we send the paultards after him and if they catch him they can use all that money to further fund paul’s campaign.
what scares me about the Far-Left like Paul, is they really beleive that if we just ‘catch bin laden’, then all will be well and we have ‘peace’. they are ignorant fools to be frank.
jp on December 17, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Who’s denying? I have no problem at all believing that a bunch of misguided people, whose only interest is in dangerously withdrawing from the world, are ponying up their lunch money to support RP.
Where to you see any denial here?
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Taft wasn’t all that into the Cold War and opposed NATO. Buckley & Goldwater broke with Taft on the level of intervention needed to deal with the Soviets.
Taft was very reluctant to agree to the Marshall plan and was consistent in believing that Europe should shoulder more of the security burden.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 11:53 AM
I should add, Jefferson’s answer to confronting the Barbary Pirates and City-State sponsors was to send Warships and Marines, abroad to foreign land, to fight a war they declared on us.
letter’s of marquee apply to ‘privateers’ or ‘head hunters’, not the Marines and Warships…
jp on December 17, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Good grief, this almost makes me want to vote for the feller with the drug problem.
/snark
Kini on December 17, 2007 at 12:34 PM
How in the world does he raise 6 million when he doesn’t even get 2% of the popular vote? HOW!
msipes on December 17, 2007 at 1:03 PM
I look at the blue barrels and all I can think is …Ron Dhalmer…
Paulocost denier?
BL@KBIRD on December 17, 2007 at 1:33 PM
The reasons I support Ron Paul for president and CANNOT support anyone else running under the GOP ticket:
In order of importance:
1) Gun Control – NO other GOP candidate is as anti-gun control as RP. He has stated EXACTLY what he wants repealed, unlike ALL of the other candidates, and he has stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that the government has NO right to regulate guns without a constitutional amendment.
2) Economy – He has stated EXACTLY what he wants to do on the economy, and he is again the ONLY candidate that speaks to the issue of REDUCING the size of the government AND REMOVING income tax. All other candidates simply want the sound byte of “lower taxes” so they can appease GOP voters
3) He has the MOST conservative record of ANY candidate, NEVER has he voted for anything which he thought was a violation of the constitution, NEVER has he voted to raise taxes, NEVER has he voted for ANY gun control, NEVER hsa he voted for an unbalanced budget, NEVER has he voted to increase congressional pay, NEVER has he taken a government paid junket, NEVER has he voted against regulating the internet, NEVER has he voted to increase the power of the executive branch, and he has returned a portion of the congressional budget for his office to the treasury EVERY YEAR he has served. YOU FIND ME ONE CANDIDATE WITH THESE CREDENTIALS OTHER THAN HIM.
4) He is the ONLY candidate which shows REAL concern about securing the borders other than Tancredo. No other candidate has spoken out about how STUPID our foreign policy is while maintaining a border that is WIDE OPEN. Its like having a massive army and sending them ALL to protect the front door of your house, as all of the windows and doors in the back of your house are wide open.
5) He is the ONLY candidate which talks about getting RID of departments instead of just THROWING money at problems. He is the ONLY candidate which understands that its not a money issue, but a broken bureaucracy issue.
6) He is the ONLY candidate which realizes that the US should NEVER go to war unless the CONGRESS votes to approve it. Every war we have started since WWII has been without a declaration of war from the congress, and we have lost every one of those wars. This also gives the congress room to distance themselves from the war whenever it is convenient. This is NOT how this country was suppossed to be run.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 2:17 PM
So you’ll be voting RP when he goes 3rd party then, correct?
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 2:52 PM
@ techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 2:52 PM
That depends. If the republicans nominate Thompson, i will have to think about it. If they nominate:
Giuliani
Huckabee
Romney
I will ABSOLUTELY support Ron Paul as a third party candidate. I am not voting for that completely worthless Huckabee, I am not voting for a cross dressing gun grabber in Giuliani, and I am not voting for that pretty boy Romney who wants to reinact the AWB and ban guns he doesnt like. How about yourself?
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 3:01 PM
I’m pulling for Thompson. He seems like the best mix for the situation we find ourselves in right now.
Tell me though, doesn’t RP’s isolationist stand bother you at all? Do you support just packing up and going home against the jihadists?
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 3:07 PM
@ techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 3:07 PM
First of all, RP isnt isolationist, he is non-interventionist. As for what I believe, I don’t think we have any business going over to other countries and telling them what to do. Its not our fault, but it has been our policy for the past 50 years, ever since we have been a super power. If ANY country did to us what we do to others, we would be in full out war mode. That said, i do not blame America for anything. The middle east is a completely irrational place. To think we can create a democracy there and have it last is madness. These people are not normal. I believe that we should pull out troops out of that region, and out of most regions of the world, and focus on what AMERICA needs, not what the middle east needs.
Please ask yourself how ALL of these other countries can live in relative peace, without GIGANTIC armies and gigantic sums of money going to the military. Instead of making out military efficient, we have simply thrown MASSIVE amounts of money at it. We are staged ALL over the world as if the Cold War still exists, and the Russians could attack at any minute. WHY?
Also, drawing the military out of the middle east doesnt mean we sit here and wait to be attacked and then respond. Protecting how people get in and out of this country should be the PRIMARY responsibility of the government, yet NO ONE wants to fix this. No one can attack us without getting into this country first. We have taken it as a freaking acceptable notion that anyone can sneak into this country, and I think that is BS.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 3:15 PM
LMAO!!!!!!
The Ugly American on December 17, 2007 at 3:41 PM
That’s the very definition of isolationist, my friend. The jihadists are at all out war with us, whether we want them to be or not.
Well I’ll agree that a big part of the reason is that we’re picking up their slack. I’m for adjusting where our resources are placed globally, but I definitely believe it is in America’s best interests to be widely deployed in strategic places. If we pull back great and dangerous evil will propagate and grow. Venezuela comes immediately to mind. Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending state-sponsored evil isn’t out there is a sure way to invite an attack. It’s weakness and weakness is provocative.
Because the Cold War never really ended, it seems. Looked at Russia lately? Putin’s aggressively moving back to the bad old days. China looms as a future major military adversary. Russia and China are not our allies and are actively working against our interests. Right now. Not to mention the growing threat from our islamist enemies.
I’ll definitely agree with you that we need to fix our borders and be a great deal more attentive to who we let into the country. But it’s going to take time to fix that problem and it’s and absolute fact that our borders are leakier than sieves. Anybody could easily get through and do us great harm. Personally, I think they’re already here among us, biding their time.
I’m counting on Thompson to do what it takes to secure our borders. Uphill battle with the dem-controlled congress he’ll have to work with, though.
We have enemies foriegn and domestic. That’s not going to change anytime soon.
Thanks for the exchange.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I was wondering the same thing.
Is America’s Savior going to refund his campaign contributors?
Or just have himself a nice retirement?
The world can’t wait…….to know. (Har har……..)
Hawkins1701 on December 17, 2007 at 3:58 PM
paul has a liberal record on the border
http://chip91.wordpress.com/immigration/
jp on December 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM
“Illegals are more american than americans” – Ron Paul
http://chip91.wordpress.com/category/immigration/
jp on December 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM
@ techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 3:46 PM
I agree with you that there are people who hate us and want to bring our destruction, but seriously, they are SMALL beans in the scheme of things. They caught us with our pants down once. If we seal the borders, completely dismantle and build back up our inteligence departments and stop focusing on policiing the world, it would be next to impossible to hurt us. Just look at the countries you are pointing to that are our enemies. Venezuela? Do they even have an army? If need be we could destroy these countries in a matter of minutes. Everyone acts like this is a fight we could possibly lose.
It is NOT isolationist to say we should bring back our military from foreign countries. Isolationist is where a country has NO interactions with any other nation. Non-intervention is where we still trade and diplomatically talk with ALL countries, but we stay out of their business with our military. We don’t install presidents, we dont attempt to build democracies in countries which have BARELY made it past the stone age, we don’t have our military sitting on standby all over the globe.
I am ALL for taking military action if there is a justifiable threat to our country, and the congress approves war. There just ISNT a justifiable threat to our country right now that can NEARLY justify the amount of money and resources we put towards our military. I think RP would agree with this as well. We are under NO threat of having our country destroyed. I am three times more likely to die of asbestos poisoning then a terrorist attack.
I am not saying to sit back and wait to be attacked, far from it. I am saying that the REASON we are being attacked is that we are so spread out and irritating these irrational people to do stupid things to justify their barbarism. Bringing troops back to the US, revamping the intelligence community, focusing on alternative fuels to get off of freaking OIL, these are the things that will help us be MUCH more liked in the world, and reduce the number of people WANTING to attack us, and INCREASE the probability of us STOPPING an attack on us.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 4:55 PM
@ jp on December 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM
That is a complete LIE.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm#2004-182
Voted FOR a fence
Voted FOR mandating hospitals report illegals
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 4:59 PM
@ jp on December 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Jesus, can you take ANYTHING in context? The “more american than some of us” line has to do with the “work ethic of SOME of the illegals”.
There are two options. Either you are TRYING to be dishonest about somene you dont support. OR, you are too ignorant to look past what some guy who has an agenda tells you to think.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Paul’s rhetoric is the same as the “establishment” in context as you say when he said they are ‘more american than americans’…….that is the same thing as saying they “Do the Jobs Americans won’t do”…the exact same actually.
jp on December 17, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Paul has an ACU rating of 82.3 lifetime and 76 last year, way down the Conservative index.
http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#TX
jp on December 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM
History did not begin on 9/11/2001. They’ve been catching us with our pants down for decades. All the way back to 1979, actually. The threat is very real, whether you choose to accept that fact or not. Pay a visit to MEMRI for yourself and see what our enemies regularly and openly say. There’s a reason it’s accurately called The Long War.
So you don’t see the alliances chavez is actively cultivating with iran and all the other countries openly hostile to the US? And sure we could destroy pretty much anybody we choose to. But waiting until they hit us and then indiscrimanently destroying is foolish foriegn policy, don’t you think?
You said that congress didn’t approve the war earlier too, and that’s simply not the case. The action in Iraq was most definitely authorized by congress.
Yes. Exactly the point I made in another thread about the dems as well. You don’t believe any of this will ever touch you personally. And you’re willing to accept a degree of loss from terrorist predators against us. I’m not.
I couldn’t disagree with you more on that. Islamists use the naming of teddy bears and cartoons as justification for violence in their gangster “prophet’s” name. We’re being attacked because we’re in the way of the creation of the global caliphate. You can blame America for all the ills of the world if you want, but I don’t. America is far and away a force for good in the world. Are we perfect. Not even close. But no other country does as much for others as we do.
I’m with you on the energy thing. We need a JFK moonshot program focused on 100% energy independence. But honestly, I could give a rat’s ass about being more friggin’ liked in this thoroughly screwed up world. I’m sick and tired of the condescending clucking tongues from the countries you would have us grovel before. Taken a good look at the UN lately? Completely and totally corrupt from top to bottom. And right now they’re focused like a laser on creating global socialism via the global warming hoax. And your guy chose to throw the ‘Iraq War’ barrel into the harbor instead of the ‘UN’ barrel.
I’m sorry muyoso. I just don’t respect the decisions and positions of your candidate. You’re entitled to support him. But I will never vote for him. Under any circumstances.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I think Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who has spoken of withdrawal for the United Nations. He has been very outspoken on areas where he sees the UN encroaching on American sovereignty.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM
re: the FAIR 100% immigration rating.
if you look that rating is for 2003. Here is the latest one, and its not 100% anymore. Tancredo and Hunter were however on their key issues. he is better than most libs though.
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/109th_HouseVotingRpt.pdf?docID=1221
that said, I’ve never heard of “FAIR”
jp on December 17, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Thanks dedalus. Didn’t know that. Good on him for that, but I still could never support him.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM
really over a 1000 years before that, but you later clarify that when mentioning the goal of a Global Caliphate.
To beleive the leaders of Jihad, who you rightly label “irrational” and not beleive the leaders of the United States, is so upside down and beyond the pale to even register for me.
a reader here a few months ago, said he drank the Lew Rockwell kool-aid about a year ago and got off it once he started reading Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch. I guess thats all we can do, disagree and direct them to History and the Quran.
jp on December 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM
he speaks of many things that aren’t the least be Politically possible, he speaks on them like they are possible and is misleading his supporters. That’s one big difference, most of the candidates do some form of this but not on the scale of paul.
though I would be amused, in theory, to see him as President and how his supporters would react when he couldn’t accomplish anything he talks about. It’s easy to be idealistic when you are 1 out of over 500 in congress, not so much when you are 1 of 1 as the Executive branch.
jp on December 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Let me ask you a few questions.
1) What is wrong with requiring the congress to declare war as mandated in the constitution?
2) Do you believe that we as a country face destruction from Islam, seriously?
3) Do you think that we can “win” in Iraq, what what would “winning” be?
4) What would America’s response be if China was doing what we are doing in Iraq?
Please answer these logically.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Yeah. I was referring to actions against the US. But really, it goes back to the Barbary Coast at our founding. Missed that.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 5:59 PM
@ jp on December 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM
You don’t think the president of the Unites States of America could get us out of the UN? Pull us out of Iraq?
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:09 PM
couldn’t*
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:10 PM
You’re not really going to listen, but here goes:
Nothing. We did that. Congress approved the current conflict.
I believe that islamic/sharia creeps steadily toward domination of Western Civilization as a whole. Slowly (although actually picking up steam as we see in Europe and will soon see much more of in Australia since they’ve elected a spineless lib for a leader recently). Read Mark Steyn’s ‘America Alone’ to get some insight into the problems. And as jp wisely suggests, definitely check out everything Robert Spencer has ever written, and Jihad Watch site. You can believe there’s no threat if you want to, but it’s wise to know your enemies.
I think what we’re seeing on the ground in Iraq right now could accurately be described as winning. Your defeatism reeks through those cute little quotes, and belies your liberal base nature. You’re not gop. You’re a lib who supports RP becauses he promises to surrender to our greatly weakened enemies, (and yes, that is exactly how the jihadists will play any sudden withdrawal from the ME… see ahmamadjihadi’s most recent proclamation that America has surrendered, based on that idiotic NIE report).
You think China isn’t involved with other countries? China exports weapons to all our enemies. Weapons with technologies that our own President Clenis gave them. It’s a spurious question. China’s not as innocent as you’re attempting to make it.
I’ve done nothing but. But you’re not going to change your mind and I’ve got much better things to do.
I was wondering when the ronulans would invade HotAir. Good luck to you in the coming elections, and may the best man win.
techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Yeah, a lot of the things are outside the realm of what is practical. I heard him the other day talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard and privatizing currency. None of those things will happen, regardless of who is elected. Still, the depth of his knowledge about monetary policy was impressive and I haven’t heard another GOP candidate talk as fluently about the banking system during this recent credit crisis.
I think a lot of Paul’s ideas, if implemented, would be disastrous. However, since he is usually reaching back to a very fundamental notion of how our government should operate, I find it interesting to trace through his logic and find where I might disagree on a given point.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 6:21 PM
The POTUS could get us out of Iraq as quickly as logistically possible. To get out of the UN, I think he’d need Senate approval since the Senate originally ratified the agreement Truman worked out at Dumbarton Oaks.
The POTUS has latitude in deciding what to bring to the UN. Ron Paul and Dick Cheney were both opposed to asking the UN about Iraq. Colin Powell convinced Bush to go to the UN.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 6:40 PM
The thought experiment I’ve been engaged in is what would happen if someone like him were elected. Completely forgetting WOT, o/c. But says Hill is elected we have left congress w/ socialist tendencies executive – we are full pedal to the metal. With a Rep it depends on how much they are a consensus builder and/or continue compassionate conservatism. With a libertarian, maybe grinds to a nice deadlock.
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 6:46 PM
@ techno_barbarian on December 17, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I am going to listen.
Wrong, Congress NEVER declared war on Iraq.
Didnt answer the question. I DO think there is a MASSIVE threat from the middle east, don’t misquote me. What I think though is that we are doing the wrong things to try and stop it. I think we are doing more to fan the flames than to make Islam at odds with the rest of the world.
First of all, I am not a liberal. Cute how you try and accuse me of being one though. Second of all, AGAIN you didnt answer the question. I asked how do we WIN. What is winning? Do we install a functioning democracy that lasts for ___ years? What do YOU consider a WIN in Iraq? We WON all the battles in Vietnam, but we LOST the war because the North took over the country. We LOST the Gulf War because Saddam was never removed from power. What is WINNING in this war?
You misunderstood my question. My question was, what would the US response be if China was occupying the USA and installing a communist form of government (something we have never had)? Would we allow that to happen?
I beg to differ. You answered NONE of my questions, but just gave talking points AROUND them. Please answer my questions directly as I have done to ALL of yours.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 6:47 PM
When Congress voted, they understood they were voting for the war. They don’t even attempt to deny it – they say rather they were fooled. It may not be proper, may not be constitutional, but after the War Powers Act of ‘72…I think it was ‘72…that’s the way it’s been.
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM
@ Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM
They voted for an authorization for use of force with certain stipulations. They did NOT vote to DECLARE war on Iraq. There is a GIANT difference. Declaring war means that a majority of the states agreed together to fight a war against a foreign enemy. An authorization for use of force is basically allowing the PRESIDENT to declare war. One is based in the constitution, and one is a modern invention of presidents that dont want to deal with actually selling their war to the people and the congress.
muyoso on December 17, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I mostly listen to him and wish that a couple of the GOP candidates would spice up their acceptance of big government with a pinch of RP’s libertarian energy. Part of Reagan’s appeal was that he believed individuals knew better than the government. The current crop of contenders could use a dose of that–maybe the “Fredralist” is the guy.
dedalus on December 17, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Muyoso, from your point of you, sure you are technical spot on. But you better tell them then because they are the ones that say they voted for war. It’s the same reason I think the Kucinich arguments of abuse of executive power are lame. There is something called checks and balances, don’t come complaining to me that you have less power because you legislated it. It’s like those who vote for PAct and condemn the PAct. They gave him a blank check and they knew it at the time.
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
point of view, typo there…
Spirit of 1776 on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM
its not just that, it would be politicized to no end and make it impossible.. Alot of Conservative things aren’t politically possible as long as the Dems/Libs control the National Dialogue and Media the way they do. They brand all republicans and careless, hateful bigots on any given issue. They’d love for nothing more than a guy like Paul(or David Duke in the 90’s) to rise so they can point to them as what a “republican” is.
just look at attempt to privatize a portion of Social Security 2 years ago, the AARP was out in front leading the “Republicans are going to take your money” message to old people(who tend to vote). The president couldn’t get his Repub. congress/senate to even vote on it….this is all the real source of “Big Govt.” Conservatism. Seeing the political realities of this, and try to take these programs we have and place capitalist fundamentals in them so they don’t ruin the country. the Prescription drug entitlement is an example, the Dems want that but want the Govt. to “negotiate” the price instead of market forces, Socialist princples instead.
jp on December 17, 2007 at 7:59 PM
see this on the “Declare War” issue, what they did is Constitutional and the President did more by going to congress for the AUMF than many presidents have done in many Wars going back to Jefferson in Barbary Wars. Or Reagan with Grenada, in which he did it on his own like Jefferson.
http://ronandthepaultards.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/declarations-of-war-and-thomas-jefferson/
that site is purposefully snarky but is about to change, I have a connection to it. that post is substantive
jp on December 17, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Comment pages: