Report: Ron Paul to make “important announcement” in Iowa tomorrow

posted at 6:25 pm on April 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

‘Tis the season.

The two-time presidential candidate is scheduled to make his announcement during a press conference in the state capital of Des Moines at 4:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, his political committee LibertyPAC said in a release.

The move signals that Paul is likely to make a formal move regarding his likely presidential campaign. On Monday, Paul said he expects to make the decision whether to run “within a month.”

So instead of getting 5-10 percent of the vote, now Gary Johnson will get one percent. Which makes me wonder: Did Paul, who once said he’d probably support Johnson if he didn’t run himself, give Johnson a heads-up about his intentions? Seems strange for GJ to bother running when he not only has no chance at a majority but now no chance at the libertarian vote either.

If you’re wondering why Ron would choose to run again when Rand has dropped hints about being interested, Politico’s write-up of the new Objectivist Camelot has a (probable) answer:

“He comes across as more mainstream, at least in appearance,” said Rep. Paul. “And I think he’ll be a better legislator – he’ll offer amendments, get bills passed. I’m not a good legislator.”…

Indeed, even if Ron does run again for the White House this year, it’s clear that Rand is already on his way down the same path– and could be a much more serious contender than his father ever was. He’s privately telling Republicans that he thinks Obama will be difficult to beat – a hint that he’ll hold off until 2016 when there is an open race and his dad is likely to have hung it up.

“Ron Paul is the pioneer but Rand Paul is the really the future,” said Dave Carney, a veteran GOP consultant who worked for George H.W. Bush and is now Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s top political adviser. “Rand Paul is a serious national figure and could be a big-time player.

So this will be a last hurrah for dad and then Rand, with six years’ experience, will tackle the Rubios and Christies in 2016 when, assuming Obama wins reelection, the field will be wide open on both sides. Meanwhile, here’s Ron on “The View” this morning joking that he doesn’t think a run by his son is likely to happen this year since “There’s a little bit of discipline in the family.” Stick with it halfway through for the obligatory passage about the military-industrial complex.

Tags: , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 … 3 4 5

The Disappearing Dollar
How much longer can it remain the world’s currency standard?
April 23

At Tufts University, Nancy Pelosi urged her “Republican friends” to “take back your party, so that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election — because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.”

The last line attracted a bit of attention, but the “shared values” — i.e., the fetid bromides of conventional wisdom — are worth decoding, too: “Education of our children” means more spending on an abusive and wasteful unionized educrat monopoly; “growth of our economy” means more spending on stimulus funding for community-organizer grant applications; “how we defend our country” means more spending on defense welfare for wealthy allies; “our security and civil liberties” means more spending on legions of crack TSA crotch fondlers; “how we respect our seniors” means more spending on entitlements for an ever more dependent citizenry whose sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make any sense.

Nancy Pelosi fleshed out the Obama plan: More spending. More more. Now and forever. That’s what S&P understands. The road to hell is paved with stimulus funding.

The world has started to listen to what Obama is telling us. In that respect, let me make a single prediction for 2023 — that by then the dollar will no longer be the global reserve currency. Forty years ago, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Connally told Europe that the dollar is “our currency but your problem.” The rest of the world is now inverting the proposition: The dollar is our problem but, in the end, it’s your currency, not ours. In Beijing, in Delhi, in Riyadh, in Rio, the rest of the planet is moving relentlessly toward a post-dollar regime.

What will America look like without the dollar as global currency? My old boss Conrad Black recently characterized what’s happened over the last half-century as a synchronized group devaluation by Western currencies. That’s a useful way of looking at it. What obscured it was the dollar’s global role. When the dollar’s role is ended, the reality of a comatose “superpower” living off a fifth of a billion in borrowed dollars every single hour of the day is harder to obscure.

In the absence of responsible American leadership, the most important decisions about your future will be made by foreigners for whom fatuous jingles about “shared values” have less resonance. If you don’t want the certainty of a poorer, more decrepit, more diseased, more violent America, you need to demand your politicians act now — or there won’t be a 2023.

Compounded Reality Check

On America: “Land of the Giants”

When Obama & Co talk about “investing in the future,” all they mean is more pointless excess of the kind that disfigures our highways — an excess of excess unknown to history.

This morning I had an e-mail from a reader who lives in Norway but does business in the US:

“What amazes me is how much more bureaucratic the US has become, as compared to what can only be described as socialist “home turf” here in Norway. Why? Well, Americans seem to have a knack for over-doing everything. Whether it is music, or sports, war or tree-hugging, the Americans simply over do it. So too with bureaucracy (and unions)… It’s a kind of “go big or go home” mentality which permeates American life at so many levels and in so many directions. Which, I suppose, is both good and bad. It has given us the Harley-Davidson motorcycle, jazz, and umpteen other icons. But it has also given us mind bogglingly stupid, bureaucratic decay.”

There’s an element of truth in that. Bigness is part of what it means to be American. When such a nation embarks on the European trajectory of suicide-by-statism, it will not merely be Big Government but Biggest Government.

That’s all “investing in the future” means: More. More of the more that got us into this mess. More signs, more paperwork, more bureaucrats.

I have a great respect for Paul Ryan, but, at a certain level, graduated reform over ten years is irrelevant to the situation America’s facing.
 …If interest rates were to return to the average for the years 1990–2010 (5.7 per cent), debt service alone could be sucking up just shy of a trillion bucks per annum within half a decade.

At that point, we won’t need to worry about an America “ten years out.”

Now go figure which politician’s platform deals with reality rather than political facade, and how that offends your sensibility that “the acceptable” is actually just more of the same corruption of “shared values”.

I’m all for the Constitution that has since its creation been the rally point for Americans, the unifying substantiation of our motto E Pluribus Unum. That is, until Woodrow Wilson’s elitists banned it from governance for inconveniencing global authoritarianism. America has for a century corrupted the integrity of our Founding Principles to the point of civil intolerance and utter rejection of “Equality under the Supreme Law of the Land”.

Just as American governance has wronged American citizens, intention remaining beside the point of malleable policies altered arbitrarily in electoral cycles, when acting empirically in absolute contradiction with our Founders Principles, indeed the federally authoritarian US Government has wronged the sovereignty of other nations as well, having wronged the sovereignty of America itself sold to the UN and foreign communist investors.

This 2012 election marks the ultimate point. Either hold to the Constitution or forfeit Liberty to global authoritarian feudalism.

Asking for more of the same statist procession, comfortable with another like the other candidate so long as its wearing your label?

Only a moron would tell me that I, an American, deserve what pharmaceutically addicted nanny suckling “educated” fools demand, MORE corruption so long as it functions under the auspices of whichever political party is deemed politically expedient by authoritarian GOP elitists sharing “common values” with Pelosi.

maverick muse on April 26, 2011 at 10:05 AM

The only announcement of any importance would be for Paul to announce that he is not going to run. Anything else would just be his usual attention hog behavior.

Blake on April 26, 2011 at 10:13 AM

I was just on FB and ‘The Great One’ has a post up about the Ronulan. True-to-form, The Paulinistas are spamming it and calling Mark Levin a neocon.
*eyeroll*

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 9:04 AM

And you will never convince me that in no way, shape, or form that our actions don’t have consequences, unintended or otherwise.

He made a logical, common sense point. THIS IS NOT BAD-MOUTHING THE MILITARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fact remains that no matter how just we think our actions our, how pure our intentions are, in THEIR eyes, we’re propping up THEIR enemies and THEIR oppressors.

What do we have to show for it? Never mind the arrogance in believing that we have some divine right to tell other people halfway around the world how they ought to live. What do we have to show for it?

NOTHING good. That’s what.

An enormous loss of life. The lives of OUR servicemen and women. The innocent lives in that region who don’t deserve to die anymore than our servicemen and women don’t deserve to die. People with permanent, life-altering physical and mental disabilities as a result. Not to even mention yet the enormous financial burden we CANNOT afford for such expeditions.

This is why Paul gets the support he does from those of us on the right who are sick and damn tired of what our foreign policy decisions have led to. Paul IS the traditional conservative voice in Washington or not, whether you or anyone else here wants to accept that or not. We have spent YEARS bouncing all over the globe. First it was the cold war. That was one thing. At least where we were located in Europe, those nations and their people at least appreciated and wanted us there. At least with the fact we shared a nautical border with the Soviet Union, we had a legitimate claim to defense. We’ve gone from that to adventurism, offensive operations, and an unsustainable situation just in terms of financial burden.

WE MUST DIAL THIS BACK!!! If we don’t, and we don’t show some damn self-restraint, eventually our creditors will force our hands, and we won’t even have the ability to defend ourselves if/when we do realize another attack on our nation in the future.

“Return to normalcy!”

Badger State Dave on April 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Their debate is practically foolproof when you consider that they simply blame every woe on foriegn intervention.

That premise is a fabrication. Perhaps you should look beyond such self imposed limitations of sources that rationalize a false argument via convenient ignorance. But then, scholarly research requires effort and the willingness to consider what should be known, but deemed taboo by revisionist socialism.

Also, consider the subliminal mental transference from “blames every woe on foreign interventionism” to a fraudulent sense of innocence required to remain comfortable. As if there is no woe legitimately derived from foreign interventionism, and as if there is no wrong inflicted to the integrity of American foreign relations, intended or not, resulting from the constantly altered American Foreign Policy that is subject to abrupt and arbitrary change each election cycle.

First Principles. Use them or lose them.

maverick muse on April 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM

A Balrog of Morgoth on April 26, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Gee, I don’t know, maybe the fact that he’s for free markets and sound money?

His foreign policy is also a huge plus in my book. He also realizes that our military campaigns and our foreign policy are unsustainable from an economic standpoint. It’s mind boggling to me how anyone can defend such an aggressive foreign policy – one the US has adhered to since the end of WWII – when the consequences of said foreign policy are staring us right in the face: the Middle East, terrorism, etc. At the end of the day, US foreign policy has done more harm than good and the US, along with other Western nations, created the problems in the Middle East. Anyone who can’t see that is truly in denial.

One last thing, I’ve said numerous times here that I disagree with Paul on certain issues and I really do think he’s a kooky guy. And yet when I have one word of support for the guy I’m called a “Paul Nut,” which isn’t right. Here’s how I look at things: I’ll take a kooky guy who is for sound money, sound economics, small government, liberty, and humble foreign policy over any other GOP candidate any day of the week. If we keep electing the big government Republicans (read RINO), then we’ll be getting no where in keeping government and spending under control.

Sleeper on April 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM

I was just on FB and ‘The Great One’ has a post up about the Ronulan. True-to-form, The Paulinistas are spamming it and calling Mark Levin a neocon.
*eyeroll*

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Pots and kettles… I don’t mean the candidates either… just the supporters.

petunia on April 26, 2011 at 10:53 AM

There would never be a bigger or more abrupt foreign policy change than there would be if we elected Ron Paul. I have heard him say that we should bring ALL troops home immediately. While I very much want to wind down our military adventurism, trim our sails and end these wars, I firmly believe that the US needs to continue to project power overseas. Paul hates the fed, is frugal, and doesn’t want a nanny state federal goverment. All those things are great as far as they go. But let’s stop pretending that this guy is capable of being a responsible leader of the US. Quixotic and quirky are not the hallmarks of a leader, which may explain why at his advanced age Paul has never proven to be a leader or accomplished much of anything, yet he seeks the office that demands the the most responsibility and leadership qualities of any position in the world. get serious.

exceller on April 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Badger State Dave on April 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Why are you yelling at me?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Study the evolution of Stalinists via their cure-all, aka “neoconservatism”. No one said that intellectuals couldn’t argue well while ignoring what truth presents in favor of their own virtual reality.

As with Wilson before, neoconservatives found the US Constitution to be constricting, inefficient, archaic and hence irrelevant. Neoconservatives are revisionists that usurp language for propaganda.

Neoconservatives are the so-called “compassionate conservatives” revisionists that institute mundane group-think and ultimate authoritarian rule.

Neoconservatives promote biggest government and non-transparency. Neoconservatives created the DHS amongst many other federal authoritarian bureaucratic monstrosities “for our own good”.

Neoconservatism advances authoritarian elitist Idealism/socialism through “humanitarian warfare”, bribing masses with “democracy” while inflaming vanity, prejudice, bigotry and brutality.

Even Bill Kristol admitted that nation building, though a noble effort, was a failure. Hence, Palin and other neoconservatives including West have dropped the “nation building” meme from a self-righteous miserable policy of interventionist war campaigns that fail to deliver Liberty.

maverick muse on April 26, 2011 at 11:07 AM

First Principles. Use them or lose them.

maverick muse on April 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM

It’s precisely my principles that would dictate that I’ll never support Paul for anything other than what purpose he serves now.

I’m not sure what the point of your other links are. But I’ll just additionally say that you pidgeon-hole anyone who thinks there’s merit to being involved in the world as a Neo-Con. So, try not to lose a whole bunch of sleep when someone summarizes what they “generally” find problematic about Paul and his supporters.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Why are you yelling at me?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Because RON PAUL rEVOLushun! That’s why!!! DR. PAUL!!!!!! We must call him doctor because it makes him seem extra credible, even though we’re talking about him as a policymaker and not a gynecologist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Rep. Paul has the perfect platform and vehicle as a Congresscritter to look into the Federal Reserve.

He has pounded on this for years.

Where is the investigation?

Where are the hearings?

When are Geithner, Paulson and Bernanke going to tell what they did during the bank ‘crisis’ to mask the problems of Citi by spreading them around to all the banks?

When will the Federal Reserve be brought to account by Congress?

If Ron Paul cannot DO AS HE SAYS then to hell with him, as he will not back his words with actions. I do not trust such people, at all. And as such investigations would eat up all his free time, I would expect him to not run for President to do something much more important: remove this hideous creation of the big banks from our system and get it out from sucking at the neck of our government.

Results matter.

They can be measured.

I agree with him on this topic, and I want him to succeed at it because doing so is actually MORE IMPORTANT than winning the Presidency. Once this ever so handy tool to devalue our wealth and the worth of our time spent to earn money is eliminated from the hands of government, we will all be much, much better off.

So where is he?

I’ve seen Issa and King start to get their teeth into major subjects and its turning up results. If he can’t get this going then he doesn’t deserve a chance at anything better as his word is not good. And if he was doing this I would expect his supporters to be giving us UPDATES not TALKING POINTS so we could see the results the man can produce. I’ve seen lots of talking points… results look to be lacking.

ajacksonian on April 26, 2011 at 11:17 AM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Why are “you” yelling at me now?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Why are “you” yelling at me now?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM

He’s not yelling at you-he’s mocking Ronulans.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM

I find it so sad that liberals have brainwashed so many conservatives into believing big government, in any form, is a good thing.

How is big government and state intervention overseas any different than big government and state intervention at home? Forcing our values on other countries is no different than progressives forcing their values on us here. We need a strong defense, not an agressive offense. Bring our troops home now, replenish our military, and set them up so they can protect our borders. I’m not talking about just Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; I’m talking about all ~130 countries we have troops stationed in for whatever reason. Ron Paul would be well served to whip out some figures for how much money we spend on policing Europe, Japan, and South Korea in the debates.

And that’s not isolationism. Isolationism is cutting off trade and communication with everyone. As Thomas Jeffeson said: free trade with all and entangling military alignments with none.

And don’t even get me started on monetary policy. I know in your hearts you know big government controlling the money supply is no different than big government controlling fiscal policy. If you cut off the printing press, you’d be able to reign in spending because raising taxes dramatically is almost politically imbossible. Yet you’re afraid to back the one candidate that has the guts to go after the fed. I love Sarah Palin but do any of you seriously believe she’d even attempt to end the fed? No, not even she has the guts to announce that.

Yes he’s kooky, but he’s all we got right now. I’m so sick and tired of the government running our lives, I’ll take someone who’s not a slick talking salesman like Obama.

And for those saying Paul wouldn’t get anything done, at the very least he would be able to:

-End all czars
-Appoint judges who would recognize the only role of gov’t is to protect life, liberty, and property
-Veto any budget that is not balanced (I wouldn’t doubt for a second that Paul would shut down the government for a year if his veto wasn’t overridden and that’s what it took to balance the budget)
-Get troops out of Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc
-Veto any increase in the debt limit (I don’t believe any other GOP candidate would do this)
-Veto any new spending whatsoever

————–

Paul = Coolidge, Goldwater, Reagan, Buchanan = True Conservatives

Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Gingrich = Dole, Bush I and II, McCain, Nixon = Big Government progressive shills

Palin’s alright but she had a bit of big government up in Alaska and I don’t think she’ll run. I like Cain but his involvement with the Fed scares me.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Why are “you” yelling at me now?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Your sarcasm/joke meter really is broken.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Herrs Buchanan and Paul are nothing but worthless Israel-hating paleocons…as I presume…are you.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Paul = Coolidge, Goldwater, Reagan, Buchanan = True Conservatives

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Pat Buchanan is not a true conservative. He’s a Hitler-admiring, Jew-hating, isolationist, bitter old fool that was spurned by William F. Buckley(true conservative) for those very same reasons.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM

There would never be a bigger or more abrupt foreign policy change than there would be if we elected Ron Paul. I have heard him say that we should bring ALL troops home immediately. While I very much want to wind down our military adventurism, trim our sails and end these wars, I firmly believe that the US needs to continue to project power overseas. Paul hates the fed, is frugal, and doesn’t want a nanny state federal goverment. All those things are great as far as they go. But let’s stop pretending that this guy is capable of being a responsible leader of the US. Quixotic and quirky are not the hallmarks of a leader, which may explain why at his advanced age Paul has never proven to be a leader or accomplished much of anything, yet he seeks the office that demands the the most responsibility and leadership qualities of any position in the world. get serious.

exceller on April 26, 2011 at 11:02 AM

I don’t care how “quirky” or “quixotic” the President is if he shuts shit down and that’s what Paul would do. And we wouldn’t end military involvement immediately, he start by getting us out of places like France and Germany that can protect themselves and he’d work down from there.

And it’s not like the current clown in office has any leadership. Would you rather have someone like Romeny who has “leadership” and spends us into oblivion or someone like Paul who is more reserved and quiet, but doesn’t spend your money?

Again, I hate to sound like I’m obsessed with this guy but the sad thing is there are not really any other candidates out there who I actually believe will do what needs to be done.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Herrs Buchanan and Paul are nothing but worthless Israel-hating paleocons…as I presume…are you.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I don’t hate Isreal. I’m indifferent about Isreal and care as much about them as I do about Australia, Japan, Ukraine, Switzerland, Indonesia, Sweeden, Austria, Canada, Chile, and every other country out there.

America first. As long as they don’t attack us or directly harm us, they can do whatever they want. I’m sick of playing nanny-state for the rest of the world.

I don’t get the obsession conservatives have for Isreal. They have extremelly high taxes. Mandatory state service. Tons of social programs. Nationalized industries. Huge government involvement in society. Seems to be the progressives wet-dream.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM

ZZzzzz

Lawrence on April 26, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I don’t hate Isreal. I’m indifferent about Isreal…

Okay.

I don’t get the obsession conservatives have for Isreal. … Seems to be the progressives wet-dream.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Look at all that indifference about Israel.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM

I know. But he really hasn’t been terminally irritating as of late and I really couldn’t think of anything else to yank his chain about.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM

BTW if anyone listend to the radio this monrning, it appears Glenn Beck is on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

He’s not entirely convinced though. Yet. Glenn Beck is extremely wary of Islamic Fundamentalism. That’s why he defers to a hawk like West. You can still be constitutionally minded and not swallow the religion of peace nonsense. I’m wary of Islamic Fundamentalism as well, but don’t think we need to disregard the Constitution and waste hundreds of billions of dollars in a hopeless region separated by thousands of miles. Simply put, they can be contained, if we don’t meddle in their affairs.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Your sarcasm/joke meter really is broken.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Am I going to have to sarc tag every pun directed your way from now on?

I GOT IT!!!

See. Now you have me yelling.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

I’m just pointing out that the policies they have there are the antithesis of what conservatives want here. That’s fine though, they can have any kind of government they want. It’s not my country.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:50 AM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM

He said gynecologist. Heh-heh-heh.

fossten on April 26, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Again, I hate to sound like I’m obsessed with this guy but the sad thing is there are not really any other candidates out there who I actually believe will do what needs to be done.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Look, Paul isn’t running to be president, he knows he will never be the president, but he runs anyway in order to make his point about our monetary and fiscal policy. He could be doing a lot more with his committee chairmanship, he could be making big noise, but all I hear is that he’s planning on an investigation.

your goal of electing someone who will do what has to be done is very lofty. It would be great if that could happen. But the very first immediate goal is we must remove Obama from office, with whatever individual the process produces, and we know it won’t be Paul.

exceller on April 26, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I GOT IT!!!

See. Now you have me yelling.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Why are “you” yelling at me now?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I’m a Catholic who was born Jewish. Israel was born on the ashes of the 6 million.

Hitler would have murdered me too. Buchanan and Paul aren’t anti-Israel…they’re anti-Jew.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM

exceller on April 26, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Well who are your alternatives? What candidate do you think will actually attempt to end the fed? Balance the budget quickly, not over some 30 year time period? Stop providing military protection for France, Germany, and Italy on our dollar? Eliminate all the czars? End the TSA? Attempt to end the departments of education, commerce, labor, health and human services, etc?

Seriously, if you have any alternatives that are not as quirky and kooky as Paul, but just as solid on policy positions, I’m all for hearing it.

Palin’s probably the closest but she’s about as electable as Paul. I’d rather lose big with Paul than win with Romney or Daniels.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Why are “you” yelling at me now?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Because you’re an azz and probably using subliminal messages to actually try to get people to support Doctor Paul as you vociferously “seem” to rail against him.

We’re not stupid.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I’m a Catholic who was born Jewish. Israel was born on the ashes of the 6 million.

Hitler would have murdered me too. Buchanan and Paul aren’t anti-Israel…they’re anti-Jew.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM

What? I think you’re drawing too many conclusions. Anti-Israel does not equal anti-Jew just as being anti-Obama and anti-affirmative action does equal being anti-black?

I wouldn’t support Paul if I had any proof he’d descriminate amongst ANY religion. And I don’t have any proof. I have heard him say we shouldn’t treat Israel specially but that’s about it.

BTW I’m Catholic too but I don’t how that’s relevant…

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Gosh, I wonder what it could be?

mojo on April 26, 2011 at 12:08 PM

His foreign policy is also a huge plus in my book. He also realizes that our military campaigns and our foreign policy are unsustainable from an economic standpoint.
Sleeper on April 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM

We can sustain as many military campaigns as we wanted if we weren’t spending so much money on entitlements.

From an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns but how much we spend on entitlements.

That’s why Rand Paul is dead wrong when he argued that we should stop sending money to Israel and other countries as a way of reducing our national debt.

When it comes to foreign policy, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson completely wrong in their position of non-interventionism or isolationism.

Conservative Samizdat on April 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Because you’re an azz and probably using subliminal messages to actually try to get people to support Doctor Paul as you vociferously “seem” to rail against him.

We’re not stupid.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I’M JUST ASKING QUESTIONZ. WHY ARE YOU SO AGAINST QUESTIONZ?BERLDING SEVUHN@!!!!

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Great; every thread about any candidate or almost any subject is going to be spammed by the delusional and obsessed supporters of a no-chance candidate.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Ron Paul’s supporters might do it too.

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Great; every thread about any candidate or almost any subject is going to be spammed by the delusional and obsessed supporters of a no-chance candidate.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Ron Paul’s supporters might do it too.

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Ohhh! Don’t piss off the Huck schmucks!

gryphon202 on April 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Great; every thread about any candidate or almost any subject is going to be spammed by the delusional and obsessed supporters of a no-chance candidate.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Ron Paul’s supporters might do it too.

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 12:12 PM

FRED! 2012! SHUT UP!

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Ohhh! Don’t piss off the Huck schmucks!

gryphon202 on April 26, 2011 at 12:16 PM

psst… I wasn’t referring to the handful of Huckster supporters. I didn’t think it necessary to explicity name people like unseen for people to get the joke.

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Reagan talked a good talk with similar rhetoric as Paul, but unlike Paul he didn’t vote his rhetoric. Once he got in office he was big government.

Spathi on April 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM

FRED! 2012! SHUT UP!

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Heh. Don’t pretend that there weren’t more than a few obnoxious Romneybots around…

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Reagan talked a good talk with similar rhetoric as Paul, but unlike Paul he didn’t vote his rhetoric. Once he got in office he was big government.

Spathi on April 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM

And since Paul will never be in The Oval Office, you’ll be able to go about your fantasy that he was somehow more Conservative and better than President Reagan. Cus see, he won’t get the chance to be in office … to change and …

You know.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM

All across the country, pot dealers are weeping over the sudden prospect of their best customers spending their money on campaign contributions to Ron Paul instead of their product.

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM

OT: I’m sitting here in my hotel room waiting to go running. It’s raining cats and dogs. I do not remember on previous trips to Alabama (Ft. Rucker and such places) as being so dad burned rainy. What the he11 is this place, Seattle of the South?

Probably can’t fly tonight either.

Someone cue the Climate Change Thread.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:36 PM

He’s a Hitler-admiring, Jew-hating, isolationist, bitter old fool that was spurned by William F. Buckley

Hitler would have murdered me too. Buchanan and Paul aren’t anti-Israel…they’re anti-Jew.

Herrs Buchanan and Paul are nothing but worthless Israel-hating paleocons…as I presume…are you.

You know you’re arguing with a progressive when you encounter these types of arguments. When you can’t back up your argument up with facts, resort to name calling, race/religion baiting, and Hitler references.

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 12:47 PM

OT: I’m sitting here in my hotel room waiting to go running. It’s raining cats and dogs. I do not remember on previous trips to Alabama (Ft. Rucker and such places) as being so dad burned rainy. What the he11 is this place, Seattle of the South?

Probably can’t fly tonight either.

Someone cue the Climate Change Thread.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Only homos don’t go out when it rains.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Only homos don’t go out when it rains.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:47 PM

I guess real men like being struck by lightning too?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:52 PM

You know you’re arguing with a progressive when you encounter these types of arguments. When you can’t back up your argument up with facts…

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 12:47 PM

We sure as f**k can.

Antisemitism and Holocaust denial
Buchanan has written about the Holocaust and engaged in the defense of Nazi war criminals. For example, Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for 850,000 Jews to be killed by diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at Treblinka. When George Will challenged him about it on TV, Buchanan failed to reply. Buchanan’s long battle with Nazi-hunters is conspicuous. In 1983 he criticized the U.S. government for expressing regret over its postwar protection of Klaus Barbie. In 1985, Buchanan advocated restoring the citizenship of Arthur Rudolph, an ex-Nazi rocket scientist accused of employing slave labor at a V-2 plant. In 1987, Buchanan lobbied to stop deportation of Karl Linnas, accused of atrocities in Estonia. Buchanan could well be right that John Demjanjuk was wrongly accused of being Treblinka’s “Ivan the Terrible.” Soviet documents suggest he may have been merely a camp guard. But this respect for civil liberties is allegedly selective. Buchanan is accused of being a hardliner on all accused criminals except Nazis. Buchanan has called Hitler a “man of great courage and extraordinary gifts.” In 1990 William F. Buckley, Jr., Buchanan’s former mentor, wrote a 20,000 word essay on Buchanan that concluded: “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge” of anti-Semitism.

But I guess William F Buckley was a progressive, eh? Only a progressive could draw admiration of Hitler out of these words:

Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him.
But Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.

But I’m sure he’s quite objective about Hitler, especially when he’s writing articles arguing that Hitler didn’t want war, at the same time he’s condemning Israel for every single action they take to defend themselves.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM

I guess real men like being struck by lightning too?

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Rain + lightning = energy drink. Only homos don’t like energy drinks.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 12:55 PM

PPP: Don’t laugh at Paul

FOX: “In 2008, Rudy Guiliani, Romney and other Republicans scored points by beating up on Paul for his anti-entanglement foreign policy and other heterodox positions. But this time, libertarians are ascendant in the GOP…”

Politico: Ron Paul’s White House moment?

Ron Paul is not an enthusiast for continuing the occupation of Afghanistan. But this is not Bush’s war anymore. It is Obama’s Wilsonian effort. Polling shows conservatives and tea party activists are open to a different approach. A conversation on how America can best defend itself is a useful and important conversation to have within the Republican Party and the conservative movement [...]

Ron Paul is the rarest of all creatures, an honest politician. His entry in the presidential race should help to promote a serious debate on the country’s foreign and military policy, the purpose and control of the Federal Reserve Board and the structure of the nation’s social welfare program. Serious people across the political spectrum should be happy to see Rep. Paul entering the Republican presidential race.

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 1:05 PM

-In Iowa Paul’s net favorability with GOP voters is +38 at 55/17. The only Republican more popular with the base than that in the state is Mike Huckabee. Paul’s numbers trump Tim Pawlenty (+32), Mitt Romney (+30), Sarah Palin (+29), and Newt Gingrich (+21) as well as a cadre of other less well known candidates. Paul has part of the same problem Palin showed in her polling earlier in the year- a disconnect between the extent to which people like him and their willingness to spend their vote on him- but those are still some pretty good numbers.

-On our ‘main’ ballot test in Iowa Paul gets 6%, tying Pawlenty and slightly edging Michele Bachmann’s 5%. In a field without Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin- something entirely plausible- Paul gets 16%, putting him in third place in the state.

-It’s a similar story for Paul in New Hampshire. His favorability there is +32 at 53/21, putting him behind only Romney. He does better than Pawlenty’s +20, Huckabee’s +12, Palin’s +12, and Gingrich’s +9,

-Paul gets 9% on our ‘main’ ballot test in New Hampshire, besting Palin’s 7%, Pawlenty’s 4%, and Bachmann’s 3%. Paul gets all the way up to 18% in a Huckabee/Palin/Trumpless field there, finishing second only to Romney.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/04/dont-laugh-at-paul.html

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I’m trying to decide what’s more likely- Ron Paul becoming President in 2013, or disguised reptillian aliens taking over and duping the public into believing that they’re friendly when they’re actually planning to steal our resources and harvest humans for food.

Anyone know where I can get some teflon coated bullets?

Hollowpoint on April 26, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Welcome to the official Ron Paul Spamming Thread. It’s filled up quicker than the ballot box at CPAC.

kingsjester on April 26, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Welcome to the official Ron Paul Spamming Thread. It’s filled up quicker than the ballot box at CPAC.

kingsjester on April 26, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Y’ever notice that they never actually interpret or analyze the information they post, resulting in any kind of real defense or promotion of their candidate? They just post articles and expect you to get something out of them. Almost like brainwashed drones with no real ability to think for themselves.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Yeah, I noticed. I think a lot of them become enamored with his domestic policy (because it sounds good) and complete ignore his whackjob foreign policy stance.

kingsjester on April 26, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Y’ever notice that they never actually interpret or analyze the information they post, resulting in any kind of real defense or promotion of their candidate? They just post articles and expect you to get something out of them. Almost like brainwashed drones with no real ability to think for themselves.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I’m sorry. Was there something you needed me to explain to you, since you’re incapable of getting anything out of the articles yourself?

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I’m sorry. Was there something you needed me to explain to you, since you’re incapable of getting anything out of the articles yourself?

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Are you here to win me over to Ron Paul’s side, or not? If not, why are you posting the articles other than just to spam a site you disagree with?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM

In all fairness, Rae is not Spathi. (Although at one time I did suspect most of them were sock-puppets of just one or two guys, I kid) I won’t ever agree that Paul is Presidential, but I still have respect for the way Rae comports himself.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I have no respect for the way you hide from rain. It’s laughing at you. As am I.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Are you here to win me over to Ron Paul’s side, or not? If not, why are you posting the articles other than just to spam a site you disagree with?
MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Like that’s ever gonna happen. And what makes you think I disagree with everything on this site? Also, posting links to on topic articles is not “spam.”

So, did you have any questions on any of the articles I linked to, since you’re incapable of getting anything out of the articles yourself? Or are you responding just to insult me some more?

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM
I have no respect for the way you hide from rain. It’s laughing at you. As am I.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Really? What did you do for PT today, slacker. I finally did mine.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Or are you responding just to insult me some more?

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Believe it or not. He does it more to folks that he likes.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:41 PM

To all the Israel supporters:

Israel has shown repeatedly that it is capable of defending itself without the American support which immensely complicates our roles in the region, and that while Israel is the largest single recipient of military aid in the region, the combined military aid to the Moslem nations e.g. Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. is still subtantially larger, thus contributing to an arms race in the region which does neither Israel, nor the USA any good at all. When one considers that the American support for Israel is then exploited by demagogues in Moslem countries to support (and funnel our weapons to) anti-American terrorists, the case for the founders’ (and Ron Paul’s) foreign policy of peace and friendly commerce with all, and entangling alliances with none, makes even more sense.

Israel can (and will) survive, and prosper better without our aid and meddling. Otherwise, what do they — and their supporters — think that they will do when a globalist foreign policy bankrupts us?

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Israel can (and will) survive, and prosper better without our aid and meddling. Otherwise, what do they — and their supporters — think that they will do when a globalist foreign policy bankrupts us?

Nelsen on April 26, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Wow, let me try that. Okay.

Continuing to support Israel will guarantee that one day, all people in the Middle East will coexist in peace. Without question.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:57 PM

But I’ll just additionally say that you pidgeon-hole anyone who thinks there’s merit to being involved in the world as a Neo-Con.
hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 11:11 AM

That’s certainly not true. I certainly supported the American/Poland alliance. You project falsely that I’d ever view all involvement being part within the world were “evil”. You’re fabricating again in order to protect your view, but at the expense of my record and our friendship to date.

hawkdriver, you should remember that I stood by GWBush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, giving that POTUS the benefit of my deep doubt. I’m not sure of your age, but my generation lived through Eisenhower’s departing address, JFK and Viet Nam via LBJ and Nixon (speak of the devil, Nixon with Kissinger embody neoconservatism).

I certainly remain standing by our enlisted men and women who serve our country in the Military to support and protect our US Constitution. It is you who fail to discern distinctions accurately, as well as considering the long term affects that result from tyrannical whimsy.

Tyranny is always whimsical, and that’s no laughing matter.

As Fred Thompson stated, POLICY MATTERS and America can neither afford the luxury of flip/flopping out of political convenience nor can America afford the insane degree of rampant international interventionism occurring. Never start a war that you can not or will not finish. Never impose politically correct rules of engagement and prosecute as Bush did. And “taking it to them so they don’t bring it here” hasn’t strengthened our Constitutional Governance at all; rather, quite the opposite.

Even the neoconservative Sec./Defense Robert Gates has issued warnings to this administration and congress to stop instigating wars according to whimsical gratuity.

Many members of Congress and the media weighed in with support of an air exclusion zone, suggesting it would help Libyan rebels without the need to directly involve the US in the fighting.

In the midst of this enthusiasm for air action, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee in early March he was disturbed by the “loose talk” about establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.

“If it’s ordered, we can do it,” Gates said. However, “let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can … fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down.” Gates went on to say that “it also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier. So it is a big operation in a big country.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, in budget testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee March 17, said a Libyan no-fly zone would involve fighters, bombers, tankers, airlift and intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance aircraft. The action would force “some trade-offs” with other operations; NAMELY, SOME ASSETS WOULD HAVE TO BE PULLED FROM THE FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN.

Schwartz said a no-fly zone “wold not be sufficient” to reverse Qaddafi’s ground gains against the rebels. He echoed the remarks of National Director of Intelligence James Clapper, who a week earlier had told Congress Qaddafi would probably “prevail” against the rebels, given his superior military forces.

Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, operations director for the Joint Staff, said that Libyan Cold War-era Soviet-made SA-2 and SA-5 fixed surface-to-air missiles were hit, but that initially the mobile SA-6s and SA-8s were not hit. He also warned that there are “quite a few” SA-7 man-portable SAMs in Libya that could be anywhere, and that coalition warplanes would rely on “speed and maneuver” to elude them under fire.

AIR FORCE Magazine
April 2011, page 8
Washington Watch
By John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor, March 21, 2011
March 19 dawns on Libya; Protecting our assets; Going offboard with the bomber. … No Flies on Libya

The reality of America’s impoverishment is not economically recognized by the Republican Leadership who, coincidentally, eschew the Tea Party. And the point is that without economic viability, America can not fight any war, whether it be internationally interventionist or the old fashioned national defense war within our own borders.

As regards Libya specifically, the strongman Gaddafi coincidentally took that country from the poorest to the richest, offering Libyans education, professional opportunities and modern cities. And unlike Egypt, in Gadaffi’s Libya you were not required to first become a member of the military before enjoying opportunity for an education and professional life.

Regarding Egypt, its civilization is MANY thousands of years established, during which endless time Egypt has never been a “democracy”.
Understanding Post-Mubarak Egypt
Daniel Pipes surmises from what analyst Cynthia Farahat reported in the Middle East Quarterly that of course, the Egyptian Military is not about to lose their political and economic control of Egypt. Besides, it isn’t as if Mubarak and his predecessors weren’t representing the Egyptian Military.

If you study the journalism reports from Michael Yon, how could you bitterly cling to the thought that anything good will come of our war in Afghanistan? Look into the eyes of Afghans as they experience the pain we in our righteous indignation persist inflicting upon them for being born Afghans.

That Americans are told to support al-Qaida or the Taliban, then revile and exterminate al-Qaida or the Taliban, then to ally with al-Qaida or the Taliban should make obvious the deceits perpetuating never ending wars even to a child.

“Winning the hearts and minds of our enemy”? Not happening. It only sounded good so long as no thoughtful investigations were pursued.

maverick muse on April 26, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Really? What did you do for PT today, slacker. I finally did mine.

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM

PT? I don’t understand the language of those who hate America’s Greatest Patriot And Obstetrician.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Reagan’s augmenting the CIA covert wars sponsored illegally without congressional authority was not conservative. It seems to pass into the neoconservative patriots for assassination realm instead.

Sadly, someone attempted that act against Reagan. Made vulnerable, Reagan was not conservative regarding the Bill of Rights that allow the private ownership of firearms. What did Reagan do to counteract the political movement for the Brady Bill?

Being critical of a president’s mistakes hardly makes that president all bad, no good.

No one’s perfect.

maverick muse on April 26, 2011 at 3:30 PM

hawkdriver on April 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Thanks, hawkdriver. For the record, I would never play sock puppet games, and I’m a woman.

As far as Israel goes, the NY Sun editorial I “spammed” agreed with Paul on aid, and they don’t believe he’s an anti-Semite, questioned these long expensive wars themselves, and gave him kudos for “unsheathing his constitutional sword” via his Letters of Marque and Reprisal Act(s).

Ilana Mercer grew up in war-torn Israel. She said something in one of her pieces shortly after the Iraq war began that all Americans should consider:

When a war is prosecuted in your backyard, you avoid it like the plague. Perhaps this is why Americans go to war so casually; they do it on someone else’s turf.
[...]
Low opportunity costs, folks: The average American doesn’t associate the war with prohibitive costs to himself. Few of us know anyone who is in harm’s way. Thanks to the armchair warriors’ propaganda, Americans will not associate loss of jobs, a weak dollar, unstable financial markets, taxes, and deficits with the war. On the surface, and for now, our lives remain unaltered. With few visible costs to foot, what’s the big deal?

That second part, and the blowback that our interventionism creates (which makes us less safe) is all Paul is trying to get across. It’s not blaming America first, or insane, or dangerous, nor is it just his. Hell, it used to be Republican foreign policy, as recently as GWB in 2000.

Ron Paul is not the enemy. The filthy collectivists are. Can’t we all just get along?

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 4:07 PM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Which establishment candidate is Madison bitterly clinging to these days?

Notorious GOP on April 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Which establishment candidate is Madison bitterly clinging to these days?

Notorious GOP on April 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Are you referring to me or the city? If me, I’m “bitterly clinging” to notable establishment figures Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rand Paul, and Allen West.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Rae

Ron Paul is NOT going to win. All your little libertarian blogs on the internet will not change that. When his campaign crashes and burns all you will be able to do is stamp your feet and cry tears of important rage.

Ron Paul is a failure. And so are those who follow him.

In your heart of hearts you know I’m right.

Machiavelli Hobbes on April 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM

For all you Ronulans out there, you’d be better off buying some silver than sending your money for another RP presidential boondoggle.

Yes, I’m being completely serious.

catmman on April 26, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Ron Paul: very good on fiscal and social issues; off the wall concerning foreign affairs, military matters and national security.

Phil Byler on April 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Are you referring to me or the city? If me, I’m “bitterly clinging” to notable establishment figures Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rand Paul, and Allen West.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2011 at 4:44 PM

In that order, right? That’s about where I’m at, at this point.

gryphon202 on April 26, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Machiavelli Hobbes on April 26, 2011 at 5:56 PM

What do “little libertarian blogs” have to do with anything? What are “important tears of rage?” Why don’t you know what “failure” means? Why does any mention of Ron Paul work you into such an acrimonious fit? Why are you always bothering me, and why do you always have to be such a rude, ill-mannered jerk? Didn’t your mother raise you right?

Rae on April 26, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Jeebus, man! Paul’s district is just south of here. With him in the race, driving into his district will be like sticking one’s finger into an ant bed.

madmonkphotog on April 26, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Hawk, it’s not that I’m “yelling” AT you. It’s just I keep seeing over and again a complete misunderstanding of what should be common sense.

Our foreign policy direction, which has been in place most of (if not all of) our lives has resulted in enormous cost we cannot afford. It’s resulted in the loss of millions of lives, both innocent civilians in the regions we impose our will, and most certainly in the loss of lives of our American brothers and sisters who put on our nation’s uniform as well. This just can’t go on.

To question the wisdom of continuing such policy does NOT mean we “hate the troops” or “hate America” or “hate Israel” or are “terrorist sympathizers.” To use an analogy as Paul did is NOT “a thinly-veiled attempt to blame America,” rather it’s done in an attempt to put a point usually not considered into relateable, and understandable context.

We should not have to send billions we DO NOT have to a sovereign nation half a world away just to prove we “don’t hate” them. That’s as idiotic as supporting affirmative action because we don’t want to be considered “racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted.” It’s as idiotic as saying we can’t oppose illegal immigration or it means we “hate Mexicans” or are otherwise “xenophobic.” If you oppose gay marriage, it’s because you hate homosexuals. Is that necessarily true? I doubt it. I’d bet it ain’t.

So, why does opposing what we’re doing mean all that bullshit (pardon my crude language, but damn it, I’m fed up with it) we with libertarian and/or traditional conservative points-of-view are ridiculously and constantly subjected to?

It’s having it both ways. And that ain’t right.

Badger State Dave on April 27, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Vote Ron Paul, the truther will set you free…

Gohawgs on April 27, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Paul’s determination to run depends upon Americans’ intellectual desire to change against Obama’s administration.

Congressman Ron Paul founded the Tea Party movement.

Readers should note well the Alinsky method to target opposition and demonize beyond reason.

Being a constitutional conservative is to support and defend the US Constitution.

When the US Constitution is attacked, the constitutional conservative arises in defense of our Founder’s legacy to America and humanity.

Obama is deceit personified. Taking his word on anything is a fool’s task. Ignoring Obama’s lack of documented credentials is neither wise nor the correct way to implement the Constitutional requirements. To attack constitutional conservatism as “radical, irrational, lunatic fringe without merit” is the task of neoconservatives in order to maintain possession of the GOP and usurp the Tea Party movement. “Birther?” is not at all an intellectually correct label, but exactly the ridicule tactic meant to cow the inquiring thought process back into the PC group think corral where the masses belong.

The 9/11 Commission Report was denounced by the 9/11 Commission Chairman and Members of the Commission. Why? Because the US Federal Government intimidated witnesses ordered to answer specific questions with falsehoods. It takes neoconservative revisionism to label the 9/11 Commission “Truthers” for having exposed the Federal cover-up of the 9/11 incidents’ management.

Whether or not Ron Paul runs again, it would be too great a task for neoconservatives to admit their own faults for having massively falsified, for reasons of statist “efficiency”, the constitutional foundation and processes of our government. As things stand, unless most voters realize the immediacy of our national peril, America won’t alter course, trusting erroneously that MORE “Bigger Is Better”.

maverick muse on April 27, 2011 at 7:37 AM

Rae on April 26, 2011

Everything I said is true. You’re just too locked into your fantasy world to accept it. I “bother” you because you are an idiot whose stupidity and lies ticks me off. An if you don’t like you are free skip off to infowars with your fellow Alex Jones listeners.

Machiavelli Hobbes on April 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM

<a href=”http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/charts/streamingAudioMaster.jsp?dispid=302&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD0xMDY2OQ==”>Ron Paul on Laura Ingraham show

Spathi on April 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Ron Paul on Ingraham show

Spathi on April 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Badger State Dave on April 27, 2011 at 1:29 AM

best HA post in months

snoopicus on April 27, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Ron Paul on Hannity tomorrow.

While the Republican Party was under siege at the conclusion of Bush’s administration, Hannity squealed repeatedly that he was a Libertarian, not a Republican. Just now Hannity admits, “I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a Repubican.”

pff

maverick muse on April 27, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 … 3 4 5