Paul: Obama’s the best choice on foreign policy
posted at 2:32 pm on May 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
CNN thought it was significant enough to flag. Is it? If I’d asked you before this which of the three his own speak-no-evil foreign policy was most in line with — Maverick, the Iron Maiden, or the guy whose idea of “aggressive” action towards Iran involves sitdowns at the White House — what would you have guessed? Mind you, this is a guy who, for reasons known only to himself, believes that Iran is “incapable” of attacking its neighbors, nuke program, missile program, and terrorist proxies be damned.
He’s careful to emphasize that this isn’t an endorsement but he also notes that Iraq is what drove him into the race in the first place. Exit question: Are there any circumstances in which Paul might back Obama publicly, one would-be messiah to another? Certainly not now, while he’s still angling for some kind of role at the convention, and probably not afterwards, with Bob Barr as an alternative and his disciples doubtless eager to know why he’d choose the liberal over the libertarian. But if Barr drops out, why not pull a Zell Miller and cross over? E.g., “It’s with a heavy heart that I’m forced to endorse someone with whom I disagree about so much, but stopping the imperial neocon military-industrial war machine is a matter of such urgency that yadda yadda yadda.” Remember, Paul’s first, last, and only task in politics at this point is accruing influence for the rEVOLution. If they’re frozen out by the GOP, the only way left is … left. Or a third-party run, natch.
If you’re one of the dwindling few still experiencing problems with RedLasso even after updating your Flash software, just follow the CNN link and watch the clip there.
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
Obama will have Wright as a VP before Paul. sorry loser.
RobCon on May 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I heard several Paul ads on the radio here in Raleigh, NC on WPTF recently, and he’s been attracted respectable crowds at Duke and U of NC. I can just see Michelle Obama telling our muslim overlords, “You know, these burkas aren’t helping my kids!”
SouthernGent on May 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Coming from a lunatic truther… its fitting that he supports Obama. He supported MoveOn.Org. This is no different. Paul is a NUTCASE.
ilitigant on May 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Ah yes, Ron Paul, that great foreign policy expert . . . why in hell would anybody listen to anything this dolt has to say?
rplat on May 3, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Well, of course–”small government Libertarians” always support Big Government Marxists. /sarc
What an assclown. Hiding under the bed and pretending the rest of the world doesn’t exist does not constitute a foreign policy.
ReubenJCogburn on May 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Well, I suppose if you look at all three of them Obama is the most non-interventionist.
But Paul would have a heart attack hearing some of the things Obama has said.
Keljeck on May 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Sure it does. See, if we leave everybody alone, they’ll just leave us alone. Because other countries only do bad stuff because we force them too (how that explains the actions of nations before the US came into existence is another matter).
See it really doesn’t matter that Iran dominates the Gulf or some other country replaces the US as the dominant power in the world.
Everything will be just swell and we’ll live happily ever after.
You’ll just have to ignore about 10,000 years of human nature and behavior. But let’s not sweat the details.
SteveMG on May 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Then let’s play them for him, shall we?
Aristotle on May 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Yeah, we’re talking about the same guy who said Iran doesn’t have an army, air force, or navy.
amerpundit on May 3, 2008 at 3:04 PM
If you go far enough to the right you meet the far left.
brak on May 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Six straight Obama posts?
e-pirate on May 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Mr. Paul, Hugo Chavez called. He wants his 15 minutes back.
What a maroon.
Merovign on May 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Well, except when he’s looking for an excuse to scream (shrilly, of course) “Gulf of Tonkin!!!” THEN they have a navy.
ReubenJCogburn on May 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
To repeat myself, the far left/right will destroy this country, from within.
His adherents, who are not libertarians, but simply nuts, if they stop to think, will send him to the moon for even thinking of Obama. Alas, as with all cults, they’re ‘happy’ followers. Lemmings!
Entelechy on May 3, 2008 at 3:16 PM
So, does this make Obamahammed the only “true conservative” in the race now?
Master Shake on May 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Another member of “Loons for Barack” comes forward!
To the delight of McCain.
PattyJ on May 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
If anyone bothered to watch the video you would realize that HA and CNN’s eye-catching headlines were misleading.
He essentially said that both Dems have the same rhetoric (Obama’s a little better) but all 3 candidates are basically the same with McCain at least being honest (and he was inferring the Dems are not.) He said the Dems always vote for more war spending and they load it with more money for their spending and such.
I disagree with him on McCain being “honest” about anything. After being nominated for POTUS, the man will confer with Kennedy and the like before doing anything.
nottakingsides on May 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Oh boy.
Confer with Kennedy before he does anything?
Howard Dean and Pelosi too.
Man. Sometimes you just have to wonder.
SteveMG on May 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Irrefutable evidence of Paul’s nitwitism and fraudulence. He is the biggest douchebag in politics.
Jaibones on May 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I object to the Red Lasso thing. It really sucks, man.
Baphomet on May 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I doubt he’ll do it, he’s so much better served to whine impotently on the sidelines and keep the largest number of Paulnuts supporting and boosting him.
doubleplusundead on May 3, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Paul would never be on a ticket with Obama, or endorse Obama. It’s pretty ignorant to say he’d even consider endorsing Obama.
He’s repeatedly said he couldn’t endorse Mccain because it goes against everything he’s fought for, for 30 years: Republican values.
Maybe you’re used to watching people without principles engage in politics. Sort of like why you thought he should give money back to the supremacists.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Like folks who are against earmarks except when they go for his district?
SteveMG on May 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Yes, because nothing exemplifies “principles” quite like getting in bed with white supremacists.
ReubenJCogburn on May 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Dude. You’re in denial. RedLasso really does suck. Use something else.
HYTEAndy on May 3, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Allahpundit, Redlasso has problems this time it worked fine for me, no stopping in the middle or anything..
I’m surprised for a video over 2 minutes, this must be a first time for Redlasso, some kind of record for them
Chakra Hammer on May 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM
LOL according to MB4 anyway.
funky chicken on May 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Awesome Paulbot parody. LOL yeah, it’s so principled to take money from Stormfront. Well, I suppose that depends upon where one’s principles lie, eh?
funky chicken on May 3, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Related, an interesting picture, in the style of “Demotivators”
Some of the comments on the thread in which that picture was posted are also chuckleworthy.
Patton on May 3, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Paul’s not against earmarks. He believes the congress should decide spending, not the executive branch. (Like the constitution says.)
He is against unconstitutional spending. The problem is, the income tax takes money from people in his district. The fed seems to think taking people’s money and then spending it for them is the best way to do things. Since people in his district have their money taken from them, he sends along their requests to congress. It’s called his job, to represent his district.
He votes against the spending because it’s unconstitutional, and has fought to get rid of the idea that government can take our money through the income tax and spend it for us.
PS. Getting rid of the earmarks won’t lower spending. It’ll just take the decision making out of congress’ hands.
You’re used to seeing politicians bought and sold by special interests. Hillary herself said she won’t take money from bad elements because of it’s implications… meaning she doesn’t want to appear to be bought by the wrong people.
Here’s another idea, a politician who’s not bought by anyone. Here’s how it should work.
A politician puts forth his views, and the people who support those views give him money. He/she doesn’t change his views based on who supports him.
It’s really none of Paul’s business if Stormfront gives him money. Giving the money back is a publicity stunt for the media and to appease opponents.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 5:19 PM
It is relevant because he used his newsletter, and it’s offensive racial sentiments, to expand his political base. It is his business. He made the bed.
Of all the offensive things about Paul, this isn’t one to me. I have no problems with someone how uses the system and still tries to change the system. This was, in fact, Lincoln’s counsel.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM
*how=who; pardon the typo.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Are you saying the only offensive group he should give money back to is the one his newsletter got way too close to on too many occasions?
People usually are of the opinion people should give money back to any famous offensive group the media can find in a long list of donors.
At least that makes a little more sense. But I personally don’t think he should. I still think it’d be political posturing.
Most people here don’t know anything about Paul. There’s no sign of any racism in anything he’s said. And there’s quite the opposite evidence. Like praising Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King on the house floor. Like suggesting a black man for his vice president choice.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Deos he ALWAYS have to look so grim and prissy?
jeanie on May 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Stormfront supports the racist Marxist candidate?
Truly he is now colorblind. Or he loves black racists more than normal people.
If only Obama would abolish all the big government programs Paul wants to.
Too bad that kind of freaky Obama/Paul mixture would likely abolish the military and expand everything else.
BKennedy on May 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
No. The whole issue of financial disclosure in campaigns is a thorny topic. In short, I’m anti-CFR and all other similar abridgments. I have little qualms about contributions except I would want the exclusion of all financial foreign influence. The point isn’t the money, in truth, it is representative of a larger issue that relates to Paul, and that is of an unsavory political alliance.
I can well believe that. Unfortunately, what he does have is almost equal to it in evil. He allowed racial sentiments to go out under his name, ostensibly written by someone in his inner circle who remains very close still to this day, in order to expand the political base of the libertarian party. It’s clear that something had to be done (from their eyes) to expand the power and therefore impact of the libertarian message and the choosing was not a Reagonian communication of ideas, but rather an appeal to discrimination. In other words, “our tent is big enough for you.” It is, undoubtedly, why the anchor of Paul’s campaign this time around has been anti-Iraq. That has been a hot topic and will get him more attention then more serious issues relating to our Constitution and the balance of powers.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 6:40 PM
No, dude. You’re in denial. It’s something with YOUR browser, flash player, computer, or internet connection. RedLasso works great on all three of my PCs and the Mac at work. And he can’t really use “something else”. RL is the only site I know of that archives clips from every major TV network within hours of the program airing. It’s probably one of the most innovative video sites on the net.
P.S. I don’t work for RedLasso.
malan89 on May 3, 2008 at 6:47 PM
What bothers (and amuses) me is that CNN even gives air time to that gnome.
Hilts on May 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM
I think Iraq was the anchor of Paul’s campaign is because he is a true isolationist–in every sense of the word. It’s obvious that achieving this goal is more important than his other principles (like smaller government). This was evident both in the way he handled the debates (if he had talked about his immigration and tax plans instead of foreign policy, he’d probably have a lot of friends in the GOP) and in today’s Obama statements.
malan89 on May 3, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Unfortunately, with the way they want to sabotage the convention…I think we’re gonna see a lot more of the PaulNut.
malan89 on May 3, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Make that the plural PaulNuts, as we’ll be seeing both the PaulNut himself and all his PaulNut buddies as they try to get their anti-Patriot Act and anti-GWoT proposals on the platform. They’ll fail, but they’ll get a lot of attention on the way and the media will use it as an excuse to change the narrative from McCain and his running mate to “PaulNuts Create Chaos at Convention, Party Unity Gone!”. Why don’t they just work on building up the LP, instead of messing with our (the few of us that aren’t McCain/Snowe/Grahmnesty style-”Republicans”) party.
malan89 on May 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I disagree. For example, to contrast, was isolationism a major pillar of his ’88 run? Iraq is just the item of the day. His immigration plan is also just to match this years mood. Evidenced by ’88.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 6:55 PM
You may be right, but if he was trying to win the REPUBLICAN primary it doesn’t make sense that being against Iraq would be the “expand the campaign’s tent of support” position. Unless he still plans on an independent run, which (using these statements as evidence) doesn’t seem likely.
malan89 on May 3, 2008 at 7:28 PM
The kiss of death?
Everyone to the Mothership!
profitsbeard on May 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Yes, I grant you that it isn’t a very Republican line to take. But it does make him stand out among the Republicans (which gave him free press by MSM). I don’t know if he was trying to win, so much as increase the power of his party. If he were serious about winning, which I don’t think he is or was, he wouldn’t hang out with 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
The power of his campaign, such as it was, was online oriented, and as best I can tell was comprised as an eclectic group of anti-war, anti-government, conspiracy oriented anti-American, anti-Israel, racial-oriented, pro-legalization voters mixed up with some honorable small-government types. Certainly not your normal Rep fare.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Paul fights for liberty, and believes the war on terror threatens liberty. It’s easy to see why he may think the WoT is the biggest threat to liberty currently.
He’s been against the Iraq war since 1998, he didn’t drum it up or exaggerate his feelings on the issue when he decided to run for president.
And he’s been speaking out about this kind of foreign policy since the early ’80s.
He’s not an isolationist.
In ’88 some libertarians didn’t like him because he thought a border was necessary. In this election, he opposed a physical fence, or at least didn’t advocate for it, despite the current mood.
Paul doesn’t pander.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Freedom allows for disgusting things. Free speech means people can say disgusting things. That doesn’t mean freedom is bad.
If you support freedom, of course disgusting groups are going to support you. They need freedom to be disgusting.
But freedom is obviously good too. Why you think Paul’s tainted because disgusting groups support him is beyond me.
I understand why some people can’t see past the newsletter, but that’s different than looking at different kook groups that support him. The kook groups get the most attention, but there certainly are more reasonable people who support him.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Really? How does the war on terror threaten liberty? He doesn’t claim that surely? I have heard him repeatedly claim that our being there is imperialist and expensive and occasionally unconstitutional, but how so liberty? If you say because he opposes the Patriot Act, then I say to you the Act and the war are not the same.
Of course he does. I heard him say in an interview that he believes that people should have free flow (an argument with some merit if you believe the right of the individual to be supreme above all else) but that it just wasn’t practical right now. That means, simply, it not an ideal, but he will accommodate the views of the populace on this issue.
No argument. I think censor can be most effectively done in social context. No one would make racial or sexist jokes if no one laughed at them. We need no abridgment of liberty to deal with those offenses.
I don’t. Their support is inconsequential. His appeal to their support by the newsletter is not inconsequential.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 8:23 PM
It’s a common idea that ‘war is the health of the state.’ Meaning liberties are always under threat during war time. And that the term “war on terror” is purposely used so that it doesn’t end with Iraq or Afghanistan.
It’s not pandering when you tell them how you really feel. The reason he could be against ‘free flow’ is because of the situation we currently have… such as giving away welfare to illegals which he is against. Not just populace opinion.
Most of his platform is considered radical, why would he suddenly appeal to the populace on this issue?
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I may need to change my handle here – so that nobody thinks I’d ever support an idiot like ron paul.
Right_of_Attila on May 3, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Common ideas have no weight because they are common. It does not make them either correct or intelligent. Again: why are liberties subject to violation under war? I argue that is an anti-thesis statement of our Revolution, and the Civil War, undeniably after a certain point, became in part of war of expanding liberty.
The preamble of our Constitution elaborates on the very reasons of the existence of our government. It is inane to claim on one hand that we need to follow the Constitution, and then on the other deride war – which is a function of “provide for the common defense”.
I don’t like the nomenclature either. Does war with Al Qaeda suit you better? That would though imply we will fight it wherever it is – and that is more places then Iraq and Afghanistan.
Good point. My answer would be for reasons of economics, but I certainly acknowledge you make a good point there.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Yep, he’s still the crazy uncle in the attic…But, you have to say that the guy has a big tent…I mean, from white supremicists supporters to his tacit endorsement of Obama. What tent girth…
Nozzle on May 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM
I was mentioning it was common because you seemed to doubt that he could really think such a thing. He does and many people do. I didn’t attempt to defend the position because that would take a lot of typing, and I’m wiped out.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM
And to further save myself typing, there is an interesting audiobook at audible.com discussing specifically liberties being lossed during war time, and how that relates to the war on terror.
There are four people on the panel including Michael Scheuer.
It’s called “The New Yorker Festival: Winning the War on Terror: The Ethical Dilemmas”
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 9:10 PM
Ah, I see. Well if he does believe it, I think he is wrong. War itself is an occasional necessity. Abdication of liberty for the prosecution of a war, or under the guise of war is something altogether. I would gauge his thinking sloppy if he didn’t distinguish between the two.
Regardless, thanks for the chat. Enjoy the balance of your evening.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 9:10 PM
…”altogether separate.” Dropped a word there.
Spirit of 1776 on May 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM
From the leftard school of logic – RP panders to white supremacists via a bigoted newsletter then refuses to return donations from a white supremacist because that would be pandering.
RP does a reverse-Kerry “I was against earmarks before I was for them.”
Then of course there are the “Letters of Marque and Reprisal.” RP gladly advocates using privateers (mercenaries). Rather then send in the Marines RP would prefer to use his doctoral skills to resurrect Francis Drake. The reason the rest of the House of Representatives ignored his introduction of the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (twice) is because saw it for what it was, authorizing piracy. RP’s logic on this one issue is baffling as Letters of Marque and Reprisal have been abolished by the rest of the civilized world since 1856.
jdkchem on May 3, 2008 at 10:14 PM
@ JDKCHEM
You shouldn’t argue, you’re not good at it.
Anyone who refers to me or Paul as a leftist is a tard.
RP was never against earmarks. Pretty dumb of you to say that. You should probably understand your opponents arguments.
Setting hundreds of thousands of christian troops in to a muslim holy land is much more reckless than “piracy.”
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Whew! Lots of misunderstandings in this thread. Where to start?
First of all, the best way to understand the political continuum is from no government to all government: Anarchy to libertarian to paleoconservative to conservative to neoconservative to third way to liberal to leftist to socialist to communist/fascist.
Secondly, Ron Paul may be a fruitcake – frankly I don’t know. But his particular approach to governance (libertarian) is consistent and in close keeping with the intentions of our Founding Fathers who designed our republic on a foundation of LIMITED government maximizing human liberty.
Our constitution calls for a declaration of war for innumerable good reasons. Both the Dhimmicrats and the big government Republicans have conveniently neglected this stricture to our nation’s great detriment. The idea of democratizing the Middle East is an utterly preposterous waste of time, money and lives. These issues should have at least been openly debated.
I know Ron Paul’s followers are truthers, but has he himself been so tainted? If so, this alone would negate all the good that he has attempted to bring about. Ron Paul’s an easy target because of his demeanor and the types he attracts but he does deserve a close hearing.
Third, we are at war with Islamic jihad – pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
Fourth, we cannot destroy the enemy for he is more than 1 billion people. We can only sequester and isolate the enemy, become energy dependent (through oil exploration and drilling, nuclear power, tax credits for alternative energy research and expansion of our use of our abundant coal and oil shale.
Fifth, there is no inconsistency between agreeing with the need to invade Iraq and achieve our narrowly defined MILITARY objectives and disagreeing the Bush’s nation building agenda which is neoconservative rubbish and would require a congressional declaration of war.
Me, I am a paleoconservative who believes in limited government as defined by our constitution. I believe in the accumulated wisdom of our culture and traditions. I believe that Western Civilization (not in its current multicultural incarnation) represents the pinnacle of human achievement. I believe we should be proud of our cultural achievements and make apologies to no one.
Charles Martel on May 3, 2008 at 11:05 PM
No I’m not. Few of us are. People who don’t like Paul like to pretend we all are, and that maybe Paul is too. Despite the fact that the reason they began disliking him is because he said… “They attack us because we’re over there.”
When he said ‘they’, do you really think he was talking about the Bush administration?
Rubbish. Muslims aren’t the enemy, radical Muslims are. They’re an extremely small group. The only reason they’re getting support from the moderate Muslims is because our presence is seen as an attack on their faith. It gives the radical Muslims credibility.
Read Michael Scheuer, or check out that audio book I listed earlier from the New Yorker. It’s good.
Jimmy Liberty on May 3, 2008 at 11:27 PM
If there was any doubt left in anyone’s mind, this is proof enough that Uncle Creepy is outta his mind.
SuperCool on May 4, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Hey neocons…
Look at the stats in the url below and see where your beloved Republican party, that used to stand for getting us out of wars and emphasized limited government with controlled spending, has taken America:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/quinn1.html
“Inflation? There’s no stinkin’ inflation!”
“We have a strong U.S. dollar policy!”
Now go ahead…say something that refutes the government’s own statistics.
You don’t stand a chance in hell of winning in December because you represent the same old B.S. we’ve had the last eight years. Unfortunately, neither do the frickin dems who won’t reverse the trend, but make things worse.
McCain knows squat about economics. Don’t pretend he does.
Good luck with that!
Fed Up
(now go ahead and say something intelligent about 9/11 truthers, white supremacists etc. etc. blah, blah, blah)
Fed Up on May 4, 2008 at 1:51 AM
Damn straight. After all, those Muslims parading in the streets after 9/11 when we wer nowhere near there were OUTARGED that America had been attacked.
Didn’t you see their signs? “Death to the Great Satan!”
… wait, do you think they might have been talking about us and not the Saudis who flew planes into our buildings, massacreing 3000+ people.
Funny, that.
BKennedy on May 4, 2008 at 3:28 AM
Ah, but freedom isn’t free, is it? And freedom doesn’t allow people to make false statments about someone either verbally or in print. You’d obviously know that being a libertarian and all, right?
Because it says something about the content and nature of of his message.
Lord knows why…
eanax on May 4, 2008 at 10:05 AM
The issue isn’t a newsletter, Jimmy-boy. The problem is the c-o-n-t-e-n-t of his newsletter(s).
eanax on May 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Ron Paul is the answer to a misleading question. He is the poster boy of poultroonish disloyalty.
He is an example of why term limits really would work.
He is a con artist posing as a statesman.
He is disgusting.
hunter on May 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Charles Mantel says Ron Paul’s views are “consistent with limited government…”
How’s that? The very author of the statement “That government is best, which governs least…” Thomas Jefferson launched the first War in our History against Islamo-Fascism in the early 1800s against the Barbary Pirates.
Secondly, how can Mr. Mantel equart the imposition of Sharia Law with “limited government,” for that’s what we all face, if we don’t fight back against the rising tide of Islamo-Fascism sweeping the planet. Look at what’s happening in Europe right now for gosh sakes.
Radical Islamists want to force your girlfriend to wear a burqa from head to toe, make you kneel down to Allah 5 times a day, ban pork products, censor newspapers, outlaw all pornography, gambling and booze, stone prostitutes in town squares, and jail your marijuana smoking buddy for life. How in the world is that consistent with “limited government.”
That’s the ultimate of authoritarian government, the complete opposite of liberty. And anyone who does not oppose Sharia and Islamo-Fascism like Ron Paul is NO LIBERTARIAN by any stretch of the meaning of the word.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
Advance Man/Travel Aide
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
ericdondero on May 4, 2008 at 11:38 AM
The fact that you think this is a good point… is enough to let me know that discussing your other “points” would be a laughable waste of time.
At least Spirit could process logic.
Jimmy Liberty on May 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM
And with your help, they just might get what they want.
Jimmy Liberty on May 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM
So that “small group” shuts down Denmark, NYT, CNN, most all of the MSM, riots in the streets (I guess you consider 10 of thousands small for a riot)…ever try reading Robert Spencer?
right2bright on May 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Proving once again that insipid tool is spelled R-O-N-P-A-U-L.
srhoades on May 5, 2008 at 9:56 AM
He will never endorse Obama. Obama’s stance on Iraq is not genuine, his foreign aid initiatives is in complete contradiction of Paul, Obama’s brand of multipolar internationalism is not in line with Paul, and neither is his domestic agenda. To think Paul agrees with Obama is nonsense, he is closer to Obama than McCain, but they are nowhere the same.
Of course the demonization of Paul is a perfect example of why the Republican Party will continue to drift towards their own version of nihilism, where their rhetoric is completely unbelievable considering their actions. Bash the small government guy, bash the guy whose foreign policy rhetoric is in line with the Conservative foreign policy rhetoric up to 2000. There were a lot of warnings about hornets nests. We also fought Clinton when he tried to loosen wiretapping regulations, now many of you think warrants are passe.
You will vote for amnesty and like it in November. That is what the water carriers have delivered, that is the kind of treatment you will continue to receive by listening to them.
LevStrauss on May 5, 2008 at 10:15 AM
@ right2bright
I’ll read Robert Spencer if you’ll read Michael Scheuer.
Jimmy Liberty on May 6, 2008 at 2:18 AM